Swedish E-Cat Testers Issue Statement Defending their Work, Rossi

The following is a statement just released by five of the professors (all Swedish) who were involved in the 2012-2013 testing of the E-Cat, and who were listed as authors on the May 2013 report. This is an edited Google translation from the original Swedish which was published in Ny Teknik magazine today.

Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the E-Cat reactor, has been portrayed as a deceiver in a number of programs in science radio entitled The blind belief in cold fusion. Additionally blamed were Uppsala and KTH researchers for being accomplices to Rossi’s work with his E- Cat invention, which was claimed to be an outright scam because it does not have detailed knowledge of how it is designed and whether it works.

Incidentally the programs incorporated a variety of factual errors that reinforces the impression of an unserious party submission concerning Rossi as a person as well as the LENR field of study (cold fusion) . There is therefore reason to comment on the motives and the role we have had in the experiments with the E-Cat reactor and to clarify with what is an accurate description.

Already in 2011 during a visit to Bologna, where we monitored a test experiment with an E-Cat reactor, revealed indications that a significant heat development took place. It was considerably larger than one would expect from a purely chemical combustion.

This result was sensational and it gave reason to follow the further development of E-Cat reactor. In particular, as Rossi was in April 28, 2011 granted an Italian patent for his invention. For a couple of additional tests in Uppsala and Bologna emerged, however, no results from which any firm conclusions could be drawn. The test in Uppsala defaulted because of a ruptured chemical weld.

In the autumn of 2012 Professor Giuseppe Levi at Bologna University and his student Evelyn Foschi did a test experiment in Ferrara with a new development of the E-Cat . This experiment was conducted independently of Rossi in the sense that all measuring equipment belonged to Levi, and he himself did all the analysis of the measurement results.

These results again showed an anomalous heat production. This prompted us to work with Levi do a longer test under rigorous conditions, which was done in March 2013. Our obvious starting point is that it is only through careful experimental testing that it is possible to determine if the E-Cat reactor works or not.

The result of this longer test also showed a clear indication of anomalous heat production. The experiment and the results are described in the article ” Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device,” arXiv : 1305.3913 .

The main conclusion of this article is that the results indicate that an anomalous heat production has taken place in such quantities that it can not have chemical origin. In contrast, ​​in the article no speculation was made about the likely sources of heat production. In particular ​​no connections were made to cold fusion, which can not be done without knowledge of reactor fuel isotopic composition before and after combustion.

The conclusion is that new tests must be partly to clarify whether an anomalous heat production actually takes place and also investigate whether a change in the fuel’s overall isotopic composition takes place.

We assessed the results of Ferrara experiment to be interesting enough to continue testing experiments. Such tests have now been carried out and the results will be reported in a new scientific article.

Bo Höistad , Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Physics

Torbjörn Hartman , Radiation Protection Officer, Svedberg Laboratory

Roland Pettersson , retired lecturer in Physical and Analytical Chemistry

Lars Tegnér, physical chemist

all at Uppsala University

Hanno Essén , associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at KTH

  • Billy Jackson

    quick someone find a spelling mistake so we can say fake! /sacrasm off.

    i among with the others here, eagerly await the june report. I do caution that we stand ready to withstand an onslaught of negativity or disbelief from those who refuse to accept that anything outside the text books they read is just simply not possible.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      There are already many disgusting comments on that page. Meanwhile I doubt that this pathological skepticism is solely based on social and economical reasons. In addition, there appears to be a very strong psychological component: If you face something that you don’t understand – either kill it, or run as fast as you can. Today, people who would normally run like rabbits can easily try the first option, due to the possibility of anonymous posting in the internet.

      • Are we all going to have personal e-cats at home by 2020? I would very much like that.

        • bachcole

          That could be a stretch, but 2030 for sure.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I’m curious about the results of the isotopic analyses. Hopefully they will not only check the composition of the metal powder, but also look for helium and tritium. If they should not find nuclear reaction products in a quantity that could explain the amount of anomalous heat, then Randell Mills’ theory could perhaps be the winner. Although in this case CF/LENR would be demoted to side effects.

    • Alain Samoun

      “results of the isotopic analyses”
      Good point,but this also means that we will have some idea of the ingredients used by Rossi.

      • LuFong

        Not necessarily. We already know that NI is in the E-Cat. If they just show before and after percentages (and describe the methodology for measuring it etc.) we would have strong evidence the LENR is involved and that the E-Cat uses this.

      • Gerard McEk

        This statement is not much different from their test report. Probably the best way to counterattack the radio mud mill.

      • Ophelia Rump

        They may report the positive or negative results of such an analysis, I seriously doubt that they are permitted by NDA to reveal the actual composition, especially the catalyst.

      • Alain Samoun

        Actually she is vicious AND stupid AND recklessly lazy, plus some adjectives that are not permissible to write on this blog.

    • That is fantastic if they analyzed the nickel charge.

      Could provide some serious corroboration that would be hard to argue against.

    • Gerard McEk

      Would be a perfect if they were allowed to analyze the powder and the gasses before and after, but I do not think they were. I hope for it though and that the results are published.

    • Gordon Docherty

      It may also be down to Neutron formation and decay (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_EBqZPCZdw for an interesting discussion of “Neutronium”). Of course, if there is tritium then it may be that “Hydroton” (Metallic Hydrogen) is being created (as discussed by Dr. Edmund Storms – see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpdvwaQSnA ). As they say, a picture paints a thousand words.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I’m curious about the results of the isotopic analyses. Hopefully they will not only check the composition of the metal powder, but also look for helium and tritium. If they should not find nuclear reaction products in a quantity that could explain the amount of anomalous heat, then Randell Mills’ theory could perhaps be the winner. Although in this case CF/LENR would be demoted to side effects.

    • Alain Samoun

      “results of the isotopic analyses”
      Good point,but this also means that we will have some idea of the ingredients used by Rossi.

      • Lu

        Not necessarily. We already know that NI is used. If they show there is transmutation with NI composition before and after different (and the test is properly done and described) that would be strong evidence of LENR and the underlying mechanism for the E-Cat.

      • Ophelia Rump

        They may report the positive or negative results of such an analysis, I seriously doubt that they are permitted by NDA to reveal the actual composition, especially the catalyst.

    • That is fantastic if they analyzed the nickel charge.

      Could provide some serious corroboration that would be hard to argue against.

    • Gerard McEk

      Would be a perfect if they were allowed to analyze the powder and the gasses before and after, but I do not think they were. I hope for it though and that the results are published.

    • Gordon Docherty

      It may also be down to Neutron formation and decay (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_EBqZPCZdw for an interesting discussion of “Neutronium”). Of course, if there is tritium then it may be that “Hydroton” (Metallic Hydrogen) is being created (as discussed by Dr. Edmund Storms – see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpdvwaQSnA ). As they say, a picture paints a thousand words.

  • Lu

    From the Ny Teknik article mentioned above (Google translation) about the March 2013 test and report:

    “The main conclusion of this article is that the results indicate that
    an anomalous heat production has taken place in such quantities that it
    can not have chemical origin. In contrast, ​​in the article no
    speculation was made about the likely sources of heat production. In
    particular ​​no connections were made to cold fusion, which can not be
    done without knowledge of reactor fuel isotopic composition before and
    after combustion.

    The conclusion is that new tests must be partly to clarify whether an
    anomalous heat production actually takes place and also investigate
    whether a change in the fuel’s overall isotopic composition takes place.”

    They mention isotopic analysis in the context of the new test! This would be outstanding if they indeed did this whatever the results, positive or negative….

  • Bento

    It believe it’s not a coincidence they release this statement at this very moment, they must know about the positive results of the recent TPT.
    That’s my conclusion.

    • deleo77

      I would think that most or all of those who signed the letter know the complete results of the new test.

    • etburg

      Since they cited the need for additional testing, do we think a number of these individuals participated in the new tests? Do you think new members added to the team? What institutions are in Lugano Switzerland?

      • Boiler testers ?

        That would be the best choice… Good professional, recognized standards… no more , no less.

  • bitplayer

    “continue testing experiments. Such tests have now been carried out and the results will be reported in a new scientific article”.

    That’s the money line for me. We don’t know if the eCat is real, but we do know that the last report was real, and the people who wrote the last report are saying that there will be next report.

    • Was there doubt there was another report coming? Even among skeptics?

      • bitplayer

        “doubt” is a tricky concept. What is the maximum you would be willing to lose on a bet that there is another report coming? Let’s say 10 to 1 payoff if you win.

        • JedRothwell

          I do not understand why you would bet on this. Of course they will publish a report. Why would they do all that work and not publish it? That would be like writing a program, compiling it, but never running it.

          Whether the results are positive or negative, they will publish. That is what academic scientists do. That’s their job.

          The tone of this statement makes me suppose the results are positive. Also, the fact that it took so long makes me think that. In the past, when some groups tested Rossi devices, the devices did not work. The tests were wrapped up ahead of schedule. There is no point to spending months measuring no heat.

          • bitplayer

            So, put me down for $100.

          • JedRothwell

            This is like betting that a professor giving a lecture will not wave the pointer around and lose track of what he means to say. It is like betting that theorists will agree . . . about anything. You are betting against the fundamental forces of the universe. The primal nature of academia! I would not want to take your money.

          • bitplayer

            Ok, let’s back up. I am well within the zone of “belief” vs. “doubt” that there will be a report. However, let’s look at the actual cause and effect network of the situation, the fundamental forces of the universe, if you will.

            Now, let’s filter that for the actual can-point-to-it, non-hearsay source of evidence that there will be a second report.

            Rossi says.

            Did I miss someone? (Which I may have).

            That’s why, in my original post, I was excited by the FACT that the good professors who were engaged in the first report were willing to put their reputations behind an assertion that “tests have now been carried out and the results will be reported.” That’s pretty strong language.

            And unless I’m mistaken, that increased the count of the POTENTIAL independent sources of assertion about an independent report by several hundred percent. I say potential because we don’t know what information they have about the new tests and report. But we do have the record of their prior performance and reputations, and the sense that they might have some information access with respect to the situation.

            LENR G asked whether there were doubts. Well, willingness to bet is a fairly effective measure of doubt.

            If there actually were a market for this bet, I’d say the professors assertion would have caused the payout odds to go down, but the total amount being wagered to go up.

            Of course there is a market. It consists of the R&D allocations of the TPTB’s hidden LENR labs. I actually have a stronger belief in their existence than I do in the forthcoming report. Just for the record, I would bet $200 on that.

          • Omega Z

            You lost me.
            Are you saying you’d bet $200 dollars their wont be a report published.
            Or that there will be. If betting there will be, then how would that work because LENR G would be betting there will be.
            Or Was there just a misunderstanding here.

          • bitplayer

            From “I Robot”: Dr. Calvin: “Are you being funny?” Detective Spooner: “Apparently not”.

            Sorry about the confusion. In the hypothetical situation that such bets could be made and honored, I was saying that I would bet $200 that there are hidden LENR labs among the TPTB (or say the Fortune 1000), and I would bet $100 that there will be a second report.

            Something could actually stop the second report from being published, heavens forbid.

            Nothing that I can realistically imagine can in my estimation stop the hidden LENR research.

          • JedRothwell

            You wrote: “Now, let’s filter that for the actual can-point-to-it, non-hearsay source of evidence that there will be a second report.

            Rossi says.

            Did I miss someone? (Which I may have).”

            What are you talking about? This statement was issued by the professors themselves, not Rossi. They say they will issue another report. Quote: “Such tests have now been carried out and the results will be reported in a new scientific article.” I know those people. I am sure they will publish a report. Why wouldn’t they? Why do you have any doubt about the matter?

            This conversation is surreal.

          • bitplayer

            The point of the original post was that before the professors statement, there was ONLY Rossi says.

            When you say you “know these people”, are you saying that you know the identity of the people who are doing the current report? I was not aware that that information had been revealed.

          • JedRothwell

            “The point of the original post was that BEFORE the professors statement, there was ONLY “Rossi says” (“Unless I missed someone”). That’s why the professors assertion of a second report is good news.”

            Well, before they published this statement, they published the first round or reports, as described in the statement.

            “When you say you ‘know these people’, are you saying that you know the identity of the people who are doing the current report?”

            The people who signed this statement are the ones doing the study. They are the authors of the first ELFORSK report. In that report they said they will do a longer, follow-up study. ELFORSK also said that, on their web site.

            When I said I know them, I mean that I have been in communication with them from time to time. I have not heard any details about the latest study.

            I urge you to read the first ELFORSK report. arXiv : 1305.3913

          • bitplayer

            I’m familiar with the existing report. This is not about my conviction with respect to the current tests and hopefully forthcoming report. It’s about evidence supporting the probability that the hopefully forthcoming report will be actually come forth.

            Without intending to question your assertions. could you please provide links to specific information showing that the professors listed above are participating in the testing that is currently in process? I was unaware that that had been established.

          • JedRothwell

            “. . . could you please provide links to specific information showing that the professors listed above are participating in the testing that is currently in process?”

            Let’s see now . . . They said so, right here and in the report. ELFORSK said so on their web site. I’ve talked to them and I say so.

            That isn’t specific enough for you? I can just imagine how your day begins. You hear thunder and look outside and see clouds and pouring rain. But you aren’t sure! You need proof. So you step outside and stand in the rain until you are soaking wet. BUT, but . . . is that really rain? You get a cup, collect some rain and taste it. Sure, it tastes like ordinary water, but BUT — and then again, but — maybe it isn’t water. Maybe it is some other substance. So you put a sample into a mass spectrometer . . .

            I advise you not to play games of chance, or bet for or against anything.

          • bitplayer

            From the blog above:
            “Such tests have now been carried out and the results will be reported in a new scientific article.”
            By whom?

            So, I take that to mean that you are not able to provide links that assert that the the CURRENT testing is being done by the same professors that did the March 2013 report.

        • If you are saying $10 for every $1 I bet on whether a report exists (vs released, which is different) I’d be in the ballpark of $1k. But I’m not betting so don’t take that as anything more than conjecture. And I think it depends a lot on personal financial situation; if I were a billionaire I probably wouldn’t think twice about dropping $10M on that bet.

          Re-framing your question, my confidence level that a test occurred and a test report written is north of 99%.

          Whether that report ever sees the light of day is a different question and I’d say that’s more like 90-95%.

      • Omega Z

        The skeptics are very aware, thus the need for a preemptive attack.

  • Gerard McEk

    This statement is not much different from their test report. Probably the best way to counterattack the radio mud mill.

  • jousterusa

    “because it does not have detailed knowledge…” should be “because scientists do not have…
    etc. No machine knows anything about its origins.

  • jousterusa

    “Incidentally the programs incorporated a variety of factual errors that reinforces” should be, “Incidentally, the programs incorporated a variety of factual errors that reinforce” etc. Today’s my day to be an editor!

  • jousterusa

    “Incidentally the programs incorporated a variety of factual errors that reinforces” should be, “Incidentally, the programs incorporated a variety of factual errors that reinforce” etc. Today’s my day to be an editor!

  • jousterusa

    Better translation: “Already in 2011 during a visit to Bologna, where we monitored a test experiment with an E-Cat reactor, revealed indications” should be , “Already in 2011, during a visit to Bologna, a test experiment with an E-Cat reactor we monitored revealed indications …”

  • jousterusa

    Better translation: “Already in 2011 during a visit to Bologna, where we monitored a test experiment with an E-Cat reactor, revealed indications” should be , “Already in 2011, during a visit to Bologna, a test experiment with an E-Cat reactor we monitored revealed indications …”

  • jousterusa

    Better translation: “In particular, as Rossi was in April 28, 2011 granted an Italian patent for his invention.” should be “This is so because, in particular, Rossi was granted a patent for his invention (of the E-Cat) on April 28,2011…”

  • jousterusa

    Better translation: “In particular, as Rossi was in April 28, 2011 granted an Italian patent for his invention.” should be “This is so because, in particular, Rossi was granted a patent for his invention (of the E-Cat) on April 28,2011…”

  • deleo77

    I would think that most or all of those who signed the letter know the complete results of the new test.

  • Barbierir
    • pelgrim108

      Part of Sylvie Coyaud response:

      The E-cat has been sold as a thermo-electric plant (Rossi dixit)
      while no electric output had ever been certified by independent or
      “third party” experts. That’ what I call a scam during the radio program
      and I did not blame you for it

      I think that this remark shows that she is either vicious or stupid or reclessly lazy.
      I would however still be interested in a reponse to her remarks and questions.

      • Paul

        response to her??? You have time to lose… Their articles, typically, are full of elementary errors, no science knolwedge at all… I reply only to my peers…

        • pelgrim108

          What I wanted to say is that if someone from the March test team were to answer her questions, then I would surely want to read that.
          I agree with you that she doesnt deserve a further response.

      • This kind of conflation (with Rossi’s earlier TEG in this case) is the stock in trade of those intent on spreading disinformation. The facts are easy to find, and it is very difficult to believe that Ms Coyaud’s ‘misunderstanding’ and half truths are anything other than entirely deliberate.

        We may well see quite a lot more like this as the time for publication of the 2nd report (and possibly more disclosure) approaches.

        • I’m really convinced all those skeptics are absolutely sincere, like those human bomb who sacrifice their life for a cause…
          They are nasty, evil, deluded, lying, distorting facts, illogical, abusing fallacies, but absolutely sincere.
          They know (ah ah) they are right, and thus they imagine they are untouchable, they will never be caught, and ever be thanked for their visionary advice and their whistle-blowing courage.

          If there was informed people, you would see market moves of gigantic kind (not the tiny reallocation of oil field and utilities stocks that we see).

          • That is possible – there is plenty of precedent in the CF story. It’s also possible though that there are parties that would want certain memes about CF to enter the ‘public mind’, and no shortage of mercenary ‘journalists’ who would have no qualms about helping to out them there. MSM reportage on certain topics seems to confirm this modus operandi on a daily basis.

          • yes, I really feel that some people sincerely are afraid that “bad ideas”, “meme” enter the public mind and undermine “good ideas”.

            In fact i am not so différent, and I have to be carefull not finishing like Cimpy or Mary to fall in love with my theory, and ignore evidence (thanks to Defkalion to have challenged my ego).

            The theory of “meme” is really interesting, and as a tech watcher some intuitive model of “meme” circulation, “meme” filtering…

            some push the concept of “memeplex” , a groupe of “meme”, of ideas, that cross-feed each others and circulate together, and I think it is an essential idea.

            the Malthusians/Luddites/Renewable/Green/fearmongering/AGW ideas are a mega-memeplex of great success…

            In fact Mary&al often are battling against that memeplex, agains anti-immunization, anti-darwin, who challenge good science…

            but they fall in love with their battle, like those who support cold fusion, then esoteric energy…

            sadly every company, every scientific claim, every moral battle, every claimed conspiracy, have to be evaluated individually…

            what snowden reveal does not support UFO conspiracies, and LENR fiasco does not prove alternative medicine reality…

            even the scientists have problem to check every claim one by one, so they trust their peer, they invent paradigm which is taught to students with a hammer.

            there is no other solution than having a varied planet, with various people, having various ideas, in numerous societies, which fight in the reality , celebrated by economic or materialist success…

            the problem is when there is no material success to hope (self-prophecy, like what push stupidity based organization http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x/ ), or not in a reasonable time (like claim of judgement day, 100year scaremongering) …

            Consensus should be avoided.
            Consensus is good if it is right, but imagine the fiasco when it is wrong!

          • Andreas Moraitis

            For that reason, we can be happy that there is no global government. Competition between local interests appears to be a precondition of progress. I agree that the ‘globalization’ of science is problematic from this point of view.

          • yes, we have to admit that a world with many stupid and below average ideas, arganizations, people, is probably better than a world with only what we think optimal organization, and this “optimal” maybe a huge error, and one of those “stupid” ideas may be the one that save us from extermination.

          • bachcole

            Whether they are sincere or not, the court of public opinion about them will not care if they were sincere or not. There will be consequences, and the insincere and the sincere will be dealt with exactly the same.

  • jousterusa

    Better translation: “For a couple of additional tests in Uppsala and Bologna emerged, however, no results from which any firm conclusions could be drawn.” should be “A couple of additional tests in Uppsala and Bologna produced no results from which firm conclusions could be drawn…”

  • jousterusa

    Better translation: “For a couple of additional tests in Uppsala and Bologna emerged, however, no results from which any firm conclusions could be drawn.” should be “A couple of additional tests in Uppsala and Bologna produced no results from which firm conclusions could be drawn…”

  • jousterusa

    Better translation” The conclusion is that new tests must be partly to clarify whether an anomalous heat production actually takes place and also investigate whether a change in the fuel’s overall isotopic composition takes place.” should be “Our conclusion was that new tests must be carried out, in part to clarify whether anomalous heat production actually takes place, and also to investigate whether a change in the fuel’s overall isotopic composition occurs.”

    • JedRothwell

      Your improved translations are helpful. Why don’t you gather them together, rewrite the whole thing, and post it here? Sorry to put you to the trouble but it would be helpful.

      I must say though, despite the problems you found, Google does a fabulous job translating Swedish to English. It does this much better than Japanese to English. (That is because Swedish is linguistically much closer to English.)

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Would these scientists write this rebuttal without the knowledge that the latest tests are very positive?

    • Freethinker

      Maybe. After the report, were it negative, such comments would be laughed at, as the words of the losers to excuse themselves. On the other hand, it can easily be seen as a position of strength, kind of clearing the scene of bad air and unwanted rhetoric, so the report can stand there in its splendour. 😉

      I guess, in any circumstance, regardless of the outcome of the report, the radio show demanded some kind of response from these people, as they were put in such a bad light.

  • Chris, Italy

    The second last paragraph mildly suggests that this time they might be authorized to access the powder, just before and just after the whole run. Perhaps Cherokee is trusting them enough to have an NDA with them.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I believe that Rossi has already said that they are investigating the nature of the reaction.
      This would as you indicate, require access to the entire device and an understanding of it’s composition.

    • Paolo

      The mentioned analysis should reveal, as side result, also the secret catalyst, so I doubt that so “dangerous” measures could be allowed to this team, or it would be a possible harakiri for IH.

      • Ophelia Rump

        It is no longer so dangerous as it was.
        Once the product hits the market in a meaningful way, there is no way to any longer protect that secret.

        A Non Disclosure Agreement would allow the scientists to do their work without revealing the catalyst.

  • GreenWin

    There is little need for these genuine scientists to defend their work against the attacks of yellow journalists with ulterior motives. The grade-school bias and orthodox pathology in the radio attack confirms it as little more than fundamentalist propaganda.

    • Paul

      I agree. It is enough to read the curriculum of the scientists involved… I think that if they receive a personal attack they should suit in law the journalist, an article is not enough.

    • Ophelia Rump

      For this special occasion, I took my relative value meter down from it’s shelf.
      After carefully opening the ancient and magnificently crafted protective case, and removing the delicate gold and glass instrument I placed the radio host’s credibility and expertise on one side, and the accumulated credibility and expertise of the scientists on the other side.

      The meter clearly showed the scientists to be without a doubt beyond the reproach of the radio host, just before the radio host’s side of the instrument burst into flame from a level of resistance which I have never seen the meter display before.

      I do hope it is reparable.

    • Freethinker

      As much as I agree with you – I often tend to do – I still think they kinda had to. It is the Swedish way. It’s decency. You stand up and explain yourself. Especially if it is what is expected of you.

      It is not a used car’s salesman of the shadier kind that dodge the complaints from an angry customer whose car break down as he drives out the lot. The salesman would perhaps dodge that customer. I know – a bad analogy. But, hey…. wait for it.

      They are scientists in the educational system of Sweden. It has a long tradition. It has integrity. Way much integrity. If you are faced down by a representative of the public service radio – the science program, no less – you shall stand up and respond. It is in a way part of your job. To inform the public. In a way, possibly self evident, by dodging, it would be seen as yielding to the critics from the public service radio show.

      There are likely other factors adding in triggering this, but I think this is an important one.

      So, yes. They had to.

      • kdk

        I would say that the program is more culpable than the report writers… unless it’s our responsibility to babysit willful idiots.

  • GreenWin

    There is little need for these genuine scientists to defend their work against the attacks of yellow journalists with ulterior motives. The grade-school bias and orthodox pathology in the radio attack confirms it as little more than fundamentalist propaganda.

    • Paul

      I agree. It is enough to read the curriculum of the scientists involved… I think that if they receive a personal attack they should suit in law the journalist, an article is not enough.

    • Ophelia Rump

      For this special occasion, I took my relative value meter down from it’s shelf.
      After carefully opening the ancient and magnificently crafted protective case, and removing the delicate gold and glass instrument I placed the radio host’s credibility and expertise on one side, and the accumulated credibility and expertise of the scientists on the other side.

      The meter clearly showed the scientists to be without a doubt beyond the reproach of the radio host, just before the radio host’s side of the instrument burst into flame from a level of resistance which I have never seen the meter display before.

      I do hope it is reparable.

    • Freethinker

      As much as I agree with you – I often tend to do – I still think they kinda had to. It is the Swedish way. It’s decency. You stand up and explain yourself. Especially if it is what is expected of you.

      It is not a used car’s salesman of the shadier kind that dodge the complaints from an angry customer whose car break down as he drives out the lot. The salesman would perhaps dodge that customer. I know – a bad analogy. But, hey…. wait for it.

      They are scientists in the educational system of Sweden. It has a long tradition. It has integrity. Way much integrity. If you are faced down by a representative of the public service radio – the science program, no less – you shall stand up and respond. It is in a way part of your job. To inform the public. In a way, possibly self evident, by dodging, it would be seen as yielding to the critics from the public service radio show.

      There are likely other factors adding in triggering this, but I think this is an important one.

      So, yes. They had to.

      • kdk

        I would say that the program is more culpable than the report writers… unless it’s our responsibility to babysit willful idiots.

  • Gerald

    I think it was Leonardo. A few people see things by them self, some people will see when you show them, a lot of people will never see even when you exactly point at what they can see… Or something like that. Be patient, its in our nature not to trust the unkown.

    • JedRothwell

      DiCaprio?

      • Gerald

        There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.

        Leonardo da Vinci
        I rememberd it probably in my own way. 😉

  • Foks0904 .

    This is an interesting comment for sure. It seems to point in a certain direction I’d say, but nothing is certain.

    • Ged

      If the results of the new test were negative, I don’t think they’d be defending themselves and Rossi so strongly. The fact they even did this defense definitely implies a good report is coming, but never know till it’s here.

      • Omega Z

        I had similar thoughts. If the test is negative, Just publish these results & be instantly vindicated of accusations. No Intelligent person would condemn you of checking this out. It is in fact, Just Good Science.

        The timing of the attack is also curious. As it appears they fear it will be positive.

  • Foks0904 .

    This is an interesting comment for sure. It seems to point in a certain direction I’d say, but nothing is certain.

    • Ged

      If the results of the new test were negative, I don’t think they’d be defending themselves and Rossi so strongly. The fact they even did this defense definitely implies a good report is coming, but never know till it’s here.

      • Omega Z

        I had similar thoughts. If the test is negative, Just publish these results & be instantly vindicated of accusations. No Intelligent person would condemn you of checking this out. It is in fact, Just Good Science.

        The timing of the attack is also curious. As it appears they fear it will be positive.

  • Andrew

    “The conclusion is that new tests must be partly to clarify whether an anomalous heat production actually takes place and also investigate whether a change in the fuel’s overall isotopic composition takes place.

    We assessed the results of Ferrara experiment to be interesting enough to continue testing experiments. Such tests have now been carried out and the results will be reported in a new scientific article.”

    Was a fuel analysis done? Could they report it in a way that doesn’t give away the secret sauce?

    • Obvious

      I think they could report the change in specific nickel isotopes without revealing the catalyst. That the Ni isotopes change is already “out there” anyways. It is proof of nuclear changes for sure, also. 6 months should be long enough that changes are much more measurable, whereas in the short term tests the relative changes in isotope ratios may be insignificant (compared to the overall accuracy of the measurement process).

      Probably the catalyst could be detected during these tests, but with a suitably trustworthy group, it can remain secret, and there would be no need to publish it. That’s assuming it is an additional element at all.

      • Freethinker

        I think the focus of that Ni isotopic composition is a bit exaggerated.

        Note that Rossi himself has written that it is not likely that transmutation of Ni is a significant contributor to the energy. Likely the bulk of the heat producing energy is from thermalized gammas and x-rays from hydrogen based fusion and scatter processes on the resulting gammas, and possibly annihilation of electron/positrons from said fusion processes. Naturally these processes would be infrequent, but frequent enough to generate the heat anomaly.

        I believe it would be interesting in measuring the content of the reactor in terms of hydrogen fusion products. I recall the tests made in Sweden on the samples given to Kullander & Essén showed some trace amounts of Lithium in the used powder, which may be residues from the proton-burning process end.

        If the sample was not contaminated with it, then either it is a part of the catalyst or a product of the energy production, possibly the Lithium burning cycle believed to exist in brown dwarf stars. Maybe they should check for Beryllium as well, as it is a part of that cycle.

        Unless of course it is something completely different 😉

  • bachcole

    Let us look at the big and long story here. What we have here with this Swedish radio program castigating the E-Cat, Rossi, and everyone associated with it is just one pillow in a bunch of other pillows being held by people who brought their pillows to a gun fight. Those us with open but critical minds who have been following this story for years know that Rossi et. al. are carrying heat and steel, and the other guys got nothing but fluffy pillows. Eventually, we are going to find that we feel sorry for the people foolish enough to bring pillows to a gun fight.

  • Christina

    Happy Birthday, Dr. Rossi.

    I hope the test passes with flying colors.

  • Omega Z

    Sylvie Coyaud must be senile or something.
    The rebuttal to the Testers.

    http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2014/06/03/kall-fusion-iv-versione-inglese/

    “The E-cat has been sold as a thermo-electric plant” Thus a scam
    I’ve Never heard that. Closest you could come to that thought is statements to the effect, If you could produce high/stable temps, it may be possible to generate electricity with it.
    I’m quite sure that Industrial Heat is smart enough to know this.

    That they Couldn’t rule out a Chemical cause of the anomalous heat is ridiculous. They cut the Reactor core open & inspected it. Also simple math as to the mass couldn’t contain that much chemical energy. Chemical energy ruled out…

    That Rossi wouldn’t allow them to do a dummy test.
    They Did in fact do a dummy test as best they could. Without the Rossi effect, the electronic controls didn’t power on/off, thus only a continuous energy feed to a charge-less reactor core.(Note, They determined it didn’t produce excess energy)
    This would be hard to do precisely. Maybe a trigger device inline from the 1st H-cat could synchronize a second power supply to a dummy reactor for comparison. That way, both would receive the same amount of electricity for the exact periods of time.

    I would be inclined to think they Never even read the Report, but maybe received 2nd hand information from others who fudged a Lot.

    On the Radio broadcast, they mention e-mails between testers. Discussed was the so called discrepancies of test #1 & #2 & conciliating them(Implying things here about Levi). They seem oblivious to the facts.

    There were 3 tests. The 2nd melted down. Thus the 3rd(2nd to them) was done with a different reactor at much lower temps to avoid a similar melt down.

    Obviously, There is no reason for reconciling the difference in the Data Considering higher temps equate to higher COP. Two totally separate tests(Each reported separately). There’s No implication of improprieties here. Only that further study is required.

    Speaking of study, I note some psycho-skeptic’s are of the opinion that
    They don’t need to seek out valid information, And when directed to it, have no obligation to read or understand it’s implications.
    And My Opinion is that their Opinion’s carries little weight. If Any….

    • Omega Z

      Concluding from the radio broadcast & their rebuttals, It’s quite easy to conclude this was nothing but a hatchet job from the git-go.

    • AB

      Sylvie Coyaud is basically another incarnation of Krivit. Don’t expect fair coverage.

  • syl799

    Interesting news:

    http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-fuel-cell-for-the-home

    “A fuel cell for the home”
    June 3, 2014

    Production of the cell stacks at the Fraunhofer IKTS (credit: Fraunhofer IKTS)

    A simple fuel cell for home use has been developed by Fraunhofer Institute for Ceramic Technologies and Systems IKTS in Germany and heater manufacturer Vaillant.

    With an output of one kilowatt, they cover the average current consumption for a four-person household.

    Fuel cells convert natural gas directly into electrical energy. They
    are many times more efficient than are combustion engines, such as the
    car engine.

    The miniature power station for home use is based on a solid fuel
    cell (SOFC). SOFCs operate at a much higher temperature in comparison to
    competing approaches, such as the proton exchange membrane fuel cell
    (PEMFC), which is used in cars, for example.

    While PEMFCs only reach 80 degrees, SOFCs can reach up to 850
    degrees. “This allows the SOFCs to be built much more simply and
    cheaply,“ says Fraunhofer’s Matthias Jahn.

    They are as compact as classical gas heaters that only produce heat,
    and they can comfortably be mounted on the wall and easily be
    maintained.

    The fuel cell is being tested in European demonstration project.
    “Now, it’s all about decreasing production costs and increasing the
    lifetime of the equipment,” said Jahn.

    • enduser

      This is very old news. CFCL is in full production of gas to electricity fuel cells, has been for several years. http://www.cfcl.com.au/

    • Omega Z

      Those look very much like the Bloom Box fuel cell or 1 of several others.
      They all seem to fail in cost & reliability.
      Also, As Usual, I take issue with them and all the others who think a 1Kw device will supply an average home with all the electricity they will need. We don’t use energy in that manner. We Use a lot or a little in a variable fashion. Crank up that 1100wt Microwave. No. Toaster oven. No. 12-1800 watt blow dryer. Not going to happen.
      So in order for these to provide all your energy needs, You need a large battery rack.

      The 1Kw they use for reference, Only works when fed from a large Grid. The smaller the Grid, The higher capacity has to be. For individual home systems, It’s likely 1 would need a 15Kw system Minimum…

      • bachcole

        I am confused. I can’t see needing even 5kW. Some people might get by on 2kW. Rough and ready survivalists or people who love to meditate all day might get on with 1kW, but certainly not for most of us.

        • Omega Z

          It’s OK bachcole,
          Most people don’t have a clue as to how much energy they use at given times. The luxury of a modern society.
          Obviously, this varies per household # inhabitants, home size, Lifestyle etc..
          I’ll give a few examples: 1Kw=1000 watts.
          Most Microwaves are 1100watts. Likely, you have 1.
          Blow dryers: 1200 to 2000 watts. Tell wife & kids no more; Oh My.
          Average home size 2K+ sqft house-5Ton Ac/ 20,000 watts???
          1 Ton AC=12000 Btu’s. or 3,333 watts. Doesn’t include Blowers Etc..
          Absorption coolers would be no different. They still use huge amounts of energy.
          New Refrigerators are more energy efficient? Yes, But bigger with many extras. Allow 700-800 watts at start up.

          You can see my point. Also, many of these wont be in operation all at once, but must be allowed in the Peek demand. 1Kw is nothing. Your computer & your refrigerator maxes you out.

          10Kw H-cat will provide you 3/4 gal of hot water on demand.
          20 minutes to fill the tub or not so impressive trickle shower.
          10Kw H-cat=34,000+ Btu. I have a small home, but many times I would need 2 H-cats to keep it warm. Electric power requires more.
          Of Which I see many people here would be using the Energy twice over plus, plus.

          Reminds me of my Son. $2000 tax refund. Going to buy a 65″ Super HD TV, Build a $2000 Gaming computer, Rebuild the Engine in his Car, Etc, Etc. He’s not nearly as good at math as he thinks he is. 🙂

          To be fair. 1Kw fuel cell would suffice IF, You have a large expensive Battery rack. Of which at this time have short life-cycles. This destroys the economic advantages in short order. In fact, If you could cheaply/efficiently store this energy, it would be more then most would need. But, That is only electricity.

          • bachcole

            So, someone took the number of kilowatt hours per month, divided by 30.4, and then divided by 24, and said, 1 kW should be enough. (:->)

          • Omega Z

            No,
            I should also have add this bit of info.
            They Use Grid Feed Numbers In this way the number is somewhat valid tho very misleading.
            No one uses everything at once or at the same time as everyone else.
            As a reasonable example: Tho fictitious at this scale-
            I’m producing 20Kw and feeding it by Grid to 20 people. At any given time, 20Kw is being used. Spread among all according to demand at any given moment.
            Hence, I can say each person only requires 1Kw.

            The Grid in it’s own way is very efficient, Especially considering energy produced must be used. It doesn’t sit in the line as water does when you close the valve. It’s going to go somewhere, Weakest Link & damage something.

            Also, The Larger the Grid, The more efficient it is.(As in Total Capacity doesn’t have to be as Large) The U.S. has 3 main grids. Joining them would be more efficient, However more pron to problems when it doesn’t respond fast enough to change in demand. Which is the primary reason they haven’t been merged into 1.

            Bottom line is this. If Everyone has there own system, Total Output Capacity would have to be at least 10x what we have nationally today.

          • Omega Z

            Note: Someone probably did it the way you show it as well. I’ve seen this kind of math used at 1 time for sewer drains Only to have TPTB wonder why they have flooding problems when it rains. The sewers were designed to handle rainfall average per month. Not all on a single day. 🙂

  • georgehants

    What a Wonderful True scientist Mr. Rossi is, A man who knows the vast difference between Fact and “opinion” and is willing to admit that difference.
    Unlike the vast majority of minor so called scientists who think that with a degree in lighting a Bunsen burner etc. they now are experts in everything.
    Expert bloody opinion has and is destroying a marvelous profession and by default making every scientist look a fool.
    ——–
    Andrea Rossi
    June 3rd, 2014 at 8:17 PM
    Herb Gillis:
    Thank you, I really appreciate your kind wishes.
    About your question: no, I did not. What inspired me to begin, to be
    honest and sincere, has been the work of Prof Fleishmann and Prof Pons
    when it has been announced the first time. This is a merit they deserve,
    even if the electrolysis concept was, and still is, wrong. The
    electrolysis brings nowhere. Obviously, this is only my opinion and, as
    such, can be wrong.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    What a Wonderful True scientist Mr. Rossi is, A man who knows the vast difference between Fact and “opinion” and is willing to admit that difference.
    Unlike the vast majority of minor so called scientists who think that with a degree etc. in lighting a Bunsen burner etc. they now are experts on everything.
    Expert bloody opinion has and is destroying a marvelous profession and by default making every scientist look a fool.
    Most need to learn the scientific basics, there is a thing called Evidence that overrides any Dumb opinion.
    ——–
    Andrea Rossi
    June 3rd, 2014 at 8:17 PM
    Herb Gillis:
    Thank you, I really appreciate your kind wishes.
    About your question: no, I did not. What inspired me to begin, to be
    honest and sincere, has been the work of Prof Fleishmann and Prof Pons
    when it has been announced the first time. This is a merit they deserve,
    even if the electrolysis concept was, and still is, wrong. The
    electrolysis brings nowhere. Obviously, this is only my opinion and, as
    such, can be wrong.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    Could somebody confirm for me that the woman who runs the radio program is a highly qualified scientist with a Doctorate in something or other.
    It is just that I still see many comments attacking journalists, but none attacking the dumb scientists that these people are following, or has everybody on page forgotten that 95% of “scientists” today still believe their religious masters and deny and debunk Cold Fusion.

    • Freethinker

      Ulrika Björkstén, the producer of the show and the one that call the shots, have a PhD in physical chemistry.

      • georgehants

        Freethinker, thank you.
        On the previous topic pages where the journalists are being blamed there are over 200 posts all just blaming them.

        On the topic page where Mats is blaming scientists there are 30 posts of which most are avoiding his points.
        Is my point fair or am I just a crackpot that unfairly attacks science?

        • Freethinker

          I think that a healthy skepticism is in order at everything that is said. One’s own mind must chew on it for a bit, and correlate, and find the level of reason in what is said. That goes in everything in life, I guess, as well as for what scientists are saying.

          The problem with science today is that it is often politicized and corporatized and journalists are equally exploited as a useful part in this where publications are encourage to go in certain direction depending on who owns them, forcing journalists (Do you want to have a salary or not?) to follow suite.

          To me they are all equally to be blamed when they steal the naivete of what should be a clean and honest process finding out the Truth based on the Evidence.

          • georgehants

            Freethinker, I am amazed to have a very rare reasoned and fair response to my factually based criticism of science etc. and I thank you for it.
            Journalist I think are not putting themselves in an elevated position of responsibility today as they once did, but scientists still like to believe that they are leaders in Truth and moral behaviour.
            These journalists are taking their lead from SCIENCE and they cannot be blamed for following the official line, sensationalism is their idea of reporting and must be rightly ignored.
            But Science, it is for them to put right their corruption, incompetence and clear faults. I think.
            Cold Fusion is a clear Factual subject that shows the horrific behaviour of not just a small % but the majority of scientists.
            One can tell by the constant dismissal and debunking of my clear Evidence of these faults, that something must be changed and it is my belief that it is the responsibility of those same scientists to rid their profession of these unscientific wasters.

  • georgehants

    Could somebody confirm for me that the woman who runs the radio program is a highly qualified scientist with a Doctorate in something or other.
    It is just that I still see many comments attacking journalists, but almost none attacking the dumb scientists that these people are following, or has everybody on page forgotten that 95% of “scientists” today still believe their religious masters and deny and debunk Cold Fusion.

    • Freethinker

      Ulrika Björkstén, the producer of the show and the one that call the shots, have a PhD in physical chemistry.

      • georgehants

        Freethinker, thank you.
        On the previous topic pages where the journalists are being blamed there are over 200 posts all just blaming them.
        On the topic page where Mats Lewan is blaming scientists there are 30 posts of which most are avoiding his points.
        Is my point fair or am I just a crackpot that unfairly attacks science?

        • CancunKurt

          I do believe you are a crackpot George, through Science, or rather, the people who hide behind it tend to behave as anyone else, regardless of the supposed neutrality of the scientific method. A scientist should not involve himself in trying to silence crackpot ideas at all, every stupid idea or scam could bring something new to the table etc etc.

          But academics are the priesthood of science and journalists want the big scoop, power corrupts and politicians lie. And monkeys throw poo. Nothing new there…

          It does not really matter at this point. Rossi has got his funding through IH, so if it was a scam he has already cashed in, and if it isn’t there is nothing they can do to stop it…

          • georgehants

            CancunKurt, thank you, being a crackpot is a compliment against being called a scientist these days and always in most cases, it is true, I think, that Cold Fusion will prevail beyond the attempts of 95% of scientists to debunk anything outside of their religious beliefs.
            One must now remember that there are many other scientific areas where the same corruption and incompetence is delaying the Research so necessary to bring forward the Truth of our reality.
            The overall quality of the average scientist has fallen to an intellectual level that the typical irrational response above to my fair Facts are now the norm.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            I will also call you a crackpot if it makes you feel all warm inside because I truly believe in and endorse that concept. I might even say “Nutter”.

          • georgehants

            friendly, you clearly project yourself as one of the incompetent and abusive scientists that I am working against.
            Will you ever reply to the points being made or is your only scientific capability, cheap abuse.

          • Obvious

            George, if it makes you feel any better, I am a crackpot scientist. I am also a reformed megalomaniac sociopath. I therefore feel that I am qualified to build a functioning CF-type device at some point.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, thank you, it would be Wonderful if all reply’s where of such good humored understanding.
            As you know we are talking about peoples lives and the corrupt and incompetent behaviour of science must be changed.
            Time for this silly game of protecting science from the Truth ends.

          • Obvious

            I see corrupt and inept behavior every day, everywhere. I often see examples of how a Degree or two fails to prove worth or usefulness, but instead are often examples of good parroting skills. These Qualified but inept people often lever anything they can to maintain their status, lest their true inadequacies are exposed. This is not a scientist problem, it is a problem anywhere there is a ladder of success to climb, and adequate rewards for climbing it and staying on top.

        • pelgrim108

          You might find this interesting.

          Dr. Gerald Pollack: Institute for Venture Science

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1FYjZ77eew

          • georgehants

            pelgrim, thank you, anything that gets scientists to look at and start to put right the problems that have become endemic in science must be a good thing.

        • Freethinker

          I think that a healthy skepticism is in order at everything that is said. One’s own mind must chew on it for a bit, and correlate, and find the level of reason in what is said. That goes in everything in life, I guess, as well as for what scientists are saying.

          The problem with science today is that it is often politicized and corporatized and journalists are equally exploited as a useful part in this where publications are encourage to go in certain direction depending on who owns them, forcing journalists (Do you want to have a salary or not?) to follow suite.

          To me they are all equally to be blamed when they steal the naivete of what should be a clean and honest process finding out the Truth based on the Evidence.

          • georgehants

            Freethinker, I am amazed to have a very rare reasoned and fair response to my factually based criticism of science etc. and I thank you for it.
            Journalists I think are not putting themselves in an elevated position of responsibility today as they once did, but scientists still like to believe that they are leaders in Truth and moral behaviour.
            These journalists are taking their lead from SCIENCE and they cannot be blamed for following the official line, sensationalism is their idea of reporting and must be rightly ignored.
            But Science, it is for them to put right their corruption, incompetence and clear faults. I think.
            Cold Fusion is a clear Factual subject that shows the horrific behaviour of not just a small % but the majority of scientists.
            One can tell by the constant dismissal and debunking of my clear Evidence of these faults, that something must be changed and it is my belief that it is the responsibility of those same scientists to rid their profession of these unscientific wasters.
            I am are not here talking about sensible and correct skepticism but incompetent ignorance.

        • bachcole

          I read and am interested in other areas. Recently I was reading about some exo-planet that was recently discovered. I asked a couple of useful questions in comment section, like by what means was the exo-planet discovered. Later, while in bed, I realized that those questions should have been asked by the person writing the story. Jounalists, reporters, editors are a sorry lot; they seem to be deliberately daft, or else they think that the rest of us are so STUPID that we wouldn’t understand things like red shift or wobbling. The scientists are wrong for being paradigm shifting cripples, and the journalists are wrong for being pathetically stupid. There is plenty of blame to spread around, and I am ready, willing, and able to spread it.

      • bachcole

        It just goes to show that intellect and education has NOTHING to do with paradigm shifting nibbleness. PSN can also be weak if one jumps to false conclusions, which true believing unicorn thinkers do.

  • georgehants

    For those scientists who refuse to read my honest comments or scream he’s a crackpot, you running away and hiding in cupboards etc. will not change the Truth.
    As every scientist who has denied, debunked and abused those Wonderful scientists working on Cold Fusion are shortly going to find out.

    • Ophelia Rump

      That post is a little bit of a rant. You might want to reword that to look a little less edgy.

      • georgehants

        Ophelia, your post is just a rant trying to cover up my point and dismiss me in the same way as calling me a crackpot.
        Perhaps you would now like to try and answer the point I made in the comment rather than running away.

        • Ophelia Rump

          No, god no. I rant enough myself. It is just a little honest feedback. Deep cleansing breath, a little rewording and you will feel better about yourself tomorrow. Trust me!

          • georgehants

            Ophelia Thank you for confirming you are a typical scientist of today, unable to talk about honest criticism of a profession that is falling apart.
            Your running away is not helping the image of the average scientist.
            Perhaps you would like to reply to my comments below or are you just as unable to reply honestly to them, without the usual cheap dismissal that is a scientists only defense of their inability to see their own shortcomings.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Georgehants, is that alcohol on your breath?

            I most certainly will not try to defend that radio troll!

          • georgehants

            Ophelia, another cheap attempt to dismiss the Facts.
            I will reply no more to your childish behaviour.
            I am sure many other scientists will applaud your inept attempt to divert the conversation away from my point.
            By radio Troll do you mean the highly qualified scientist?

  • georgehants

    For those scientists who refuse to read my honest comments below or scream he’s a crackpot, you running away and hiding in cupboards etc. will not change the Truth.
    As every scientist who has denied, debunked and abused those Wonderful scientists working on Cold Fusion are shortly going to find out.

    • Ophelia Rump

      That post is a little bit of a rant. You might want to reword that to look a little less edgy.

      • georgehants

        Ophelia, your post is just a rant trying to cover up my point and dismiss me in the same way as calling me a crackpot.
        Perhaps you would now like to try and answer the point I made in the comment rather than running away.

        • Ophelia Rump

          No, god no. I rant enough myself. It is just a little honest feedback. Deep cleansing breath, a little rewording and you will feel better about yourself tomorrow. Trust me!

          • bachcole

            george, you tend to go on and on with the same note all of the while asumming that most of us don’t agree with you 100%

  • georgehants

    Below by Ophelia Rump is the typical response by scientists of today when faced by anybody putting forward Facts on subjects such as Cold Fusion.
    It should be educational for non-scientists to read the pathetic way that those following the Evidence for Cold Fusion and many other scientific subjects and the faults of science and scientists are treated.
    I think my case has been proven in this instance.

    • AB

      Do you have problems controlling yourself, or do you just not care?

      • georgehants

        AB, now you have given the usual scientists abuse would you like to give your view on my comment.

  • georgehants

    Below by Ophelia Rump is the typical response by scientists of today when faced by anybody putting forward Facts on subjects such as Cold Fusion.
    It should be educational for non-scientists to read the pathetic way that those following the Evidence for Cold Fusion and many other scientific subjects and the faults of science and scientists are treated.
    I think my case has been well proven in this instance.

    • AB

      Do you have problems controlling yourself, or do you just not care?

      • georgehants

        AB, now you have given the usual scientists abuse would you like to give your view on my comment.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.”

    Julian Schwinger

    • georgehants
    • Ophelia Rump

      There were forces suppressing science before Copernicus.

      I think it is a control of nature. It may even play a vital role in regulating life on a planetary scale. When the majority of a population are too ignorant to progress in understanding, they should not have access to the knowledge. In it’s own way, science extends that balance by keeping the majority ignorant, in favor of an informed few.

      The radio lady is only doing what nature has created her for. Like a canary in a coal mine when she falls off her perch, then everyone will know that there is something in the air.

      • georgehants

        Ophelia I would like to be able to challenge your view with scientific Evidence but it does not exist, but following common sense immediately tells you that your attitude and view would excuse every evil that is, has, or will be committed on this Earth.
        Science I think is there to teach, not to make out it is superior to the Wonderful working people of this World.

        • humblemechanic

          I can’t fault your concise summing up of Ophelia’s statements and my actions are in accordance with it. However I can’t fully dismiss her
          fatalistic notions; I think it is a thread that serious, contemplative thinkers
          play with and examine.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.”

    Julian Schwinger

    • georgehants
    • Ophelia Rump

      There were forces suppressing science before Copernicus.

      I think it is a control of nature. It may even play a vital role in regulating life on a planetary scale. When the majority of a population are too ignorant to progress in understanding, they should not have access to the knowledge. In it’s own way, science extends that balance by keeping the majority ignorant, in favor of an informed few.

      The radio lady is only doing what nature has created her for. Like a canary in a coal mine when she falls off her perch, then everyone will know that there is something in the air.

      • georgehants

        Ophelia I would like to be able to challenge your view with scientific Evidence but it does not exist, but following common sense immediately tells you that your attitude and view would excuse every evil that is, has, or will be committed on this Earth.
        Science I think is there to teach and help, not to make out it is superior to the Wonderful working people of this World.

        • humblemechanic

          I can’t fault your concise summing up of Ophelia’s statements and my actions are in accordance with it. However I can’t fully dismiss her
          fatalistic notions; I think it is a thread that serious, contemplative thinkers
          play with and examine.

  • georgehants

    pelgrim, thank you, anything that gets scientists to look at and start to put right the problems that have become endemic in science must be a good thing.

  • georgehants

    CancunKurt, thank you, it is true, I think, that Cold Fusion will prevail beyond the attempts of 95% of scientists to debunk anything outside of their religious beliefs.
    One must now remember that there are many other scientific areas where the same corruption and incompetence is delaying the Research so necessary to bring forward the Truth of our reality.
    The overall quality of the average scientist has fallen to an intellectual level that the typical irrational response above to my fair Facts are now the norm.

    • Obvious

      George, if it makes you feel any better, I am a crackpot scientist. I am also a reformed megalomaniac sociopath. I therefore feel that I am qualified to build a functioning CF-type device at some point.

      • georgehants

        Obvious, thank you, it would be Wonderful if all reply’s where of such good humored understanding.
        As you know we are talking about peoples lives and the corrupt and incompetent behaviour of science must be changed.
        Time for this silly game of protecting science from the Truth ends.

        • Obvious

          I see corrupt and inept behavior every day, everywhere. I often see examples of how a Degree or two fails to prove worth or usefulness, but instead are often examples of good parroting skills. These Qualified but inept people often lever anything they can to maintain their status, lest their true inadequacies are exposed. This is not a scientist problem, it is a problem anywhere there is a ladder of success to climb, and adequate rewards for climbing it and staying on top.

  • On the subject of scepticism.

    No one said that people should stop being scientifically sceptical of the subject of LENR but in order to be so, you have to conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope.

    If you have not read the paper and its criticisms then you are engaged in religion not science.

    On the subject of the Current Third Party tests, the sceptical radio presenter has not seen the paper yet as it has not yet been published and presented by those doing the work so there is no validity in their argument on that paper as they have not seen any data on which to weigh up the evidence

    On the matter of previous evidence presented in the paper of the Third Party tests:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

    And discussed in the main stream media here:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says

    If a reporter has read the paper then that is fine, otherwise they are not engaged in Scientific Scepticism they are engaged in Religion.

    If Ulrika Björkstén has read the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and has a critique of the paper then she is allowed to state those scientific criticism but making use of ad hominem attacks, is for religion not science.

    To then demand that no further tests be done so that the matter of such criticisms can be laid to rest, one way or the other, is also evidence of someone engaged in religion not science. In fact it breaks the the primary rules of scientific method that:

    To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

    The experiment is king.

    After weighing up all the evidence I come to the opinion that Ulrika Björkstén appears to be engaged in religion not science.

    Kind Regards walker

  • On the subject of scepticism.

    No one said that people should stop being scientifically sceptical of the subject of LENR but in order to be so, you have to conform to the Galileo Test and put your eye to the telescope.

    If you have not read the paper and its criticisms then you are engaged in religion not science.

    On the subject of the Current Third Party tests, the sceptical radio presenter has not seen the paper yet; as it has not yet been published and presented, by those doing the work, so there is no validity in their argument on that paper, as they have not seen any data on which to weigh up the evidence.

    So the pseudo sceptical radio reporter apears to be engaged in religion not science.

    On the matter of previous evidence presented in the paper of the Third Party tests:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

    And discussed in the main stream media here:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says

    If a reporter has read the scientific paper then that is fine, otherwise they are not engaged in Scientific Scepticism they are engaged in Religion.

    If Ulrika Björkstén has read the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 and has a critique of the paper then she is allowed to state those scientific criticism but making use of ad hominem attacks, is for religion not science.

    To then demand that no further tests be done so that the matter of such criticisms can be laid to rest, one way or the other, is also evidence of someone engaged in religion not science. In fact it breaks the the primary rules of scientific method that:

    To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

    The experiment is king.

    After weighing up all the evidence I come to the opinion that Ulrika Björkstén appears to be engaged in religion not science.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Ophelia Rump

      Or you could have read the last report, and cut to the chase.

  • Private Citizen
    • Ophelia Rump

      At 90% efficiency at converting light to electricity, that would be the solution to global warming. Not by producing low carbon power, but by directly sucking up the sun’s heat and converting it to electricity. It would literally cool the earth if there were enough of them.

      I hope he is successful.

      • Private Citizen

        That electricity eventually quickly would become heat, so the earth wouldn’t cool.

        But global warming isn’t nearly the boogie man it’s made out to be, anyway.

        i too hope he is successful.

        • Omega Z

          “his flat-panel trap……..could collect sunlight at high enough temperatures”

          It’s not totally clear, but seems to indicate capture of light & heat as Thermal. Then storing this high temp heat for generating electricity when the sun don’t shine.
          This would be similar to the large mirror fields we’ve read about using the heat/steam generators. This is just more efficient using a much smaller collection field.

          The Interesting part is his second patent. A new thermal electric concept. “likely able to transform heat into electricity with nearly 100 percent efficiency”.. “20-fold that of comparable devices in the clean-as-you-can-get field of thermoelectric’s.

          He states that “Carnot” does not apply the same way to this as with other heat engines. There are Zero moving materials.
          Normal TEC’s, lose heat in the process. He apparently has discovered a way to continuously cycle the heat thru the device.

          Several Experts have studied his designs & his math looking for the key that makes it fall apart. They haven’t found any.

          Problem: Both are on paper. Nothing has been physically built. Also, his patents wont be publicly visible for another 9 months.
          This would be something to look at if one had the funds to tinker with it.

          Just imagine a device of this sort mated to a H-cat. A 1Mw E-cat could replace 1Mw power plants verses needing 3x E-cats at present.

          Okay, To Good??? However, if it was only 30% efficient, it would be Big. Zero moving parts & Silent. Possibly even working at lower temps then the H-Cat. This could quickly move into Homes & basic transportation such as Electric cars.
          There is no harm in checking it out.

        • Ophelia Rump

          I disagree with the concept that even a majority of electric energy will become heat. Losses to friction become heat, the energy in a computer is ultimately lost as heat, but there is much work which is not resistance.
          If you lift a brick the energy does not go into heat, it goes into the change in potential energy of the brick, it moves the brick against gravity, the brick does not become tremendously hot as a result of lifting it because you put all that energy into moving it.

  • Private Citizen
    • Ophelia Rump

      At 90% efficiency at converting light to electricity, that would be the solution to global warming. Not by producing low carbon power, but by directly sucking up the sun’s heat and converting it to electricity. It would literally cool the earth if there were enough of them.

      I hope he is successful.

      • Private Citizen

        That electricity eventually would become heat, so the earth wouldn’t cool.

        But global warming isn’t nearly the boogie man it’s made out to be, anyway.

        i too hope he is successful.

        • Omega Z

          “his flat-panel trap……..could collect sunlight at high enough temperatures”

          It’s not totally clear, but seems to indicate capture of light & heat as Thermal. Then storing this high temp heat for generating electricity when the sun don’t shine.
          This would be similar to the large mirror fields we’ve read about using the heat/steam generators. This is just more efficient using a much smaller collection field.

          The Interesting part is his second patent. A new thermal electric concept. “likely able to transform heat into electricity with nearly 100 percent efficiency”.. “20-fold that of comparable devices in the clean-as-you-can-get field of thermoelectric’s.

          He states that “Carnot” does not apply the same way to this as with other heat engines. There are Zero moving materials.
          Normal TEC’s, lose heat in the process. He apparently has discovered a way to continuously cycle the heat thru the device.

          Several Experts have studied his designs & his math looking for the key that makes it fall apart. They haven’t found any.

          Problem: Both are on paper. Nothing has been physically built. Also, his patents wont be publicly visible for another 9 months.
          This would be something to look at if one had the funds to tinker with it.

          Just imagine a device of this sort mated to a H-cat. A 1Mw E-cat could replace 1Mw power plants verses needing 3x E-cats at present.

          Okay, To Good??? However, if it was only 30% efficient, it would be Big. Zero moving parts & Silent. Possibly even working at lower temps then the H-Cat. This could quickly move into Homes & basic transportation such as Electric cars.
          There is no harm in checking it out.

        • Ophelia Rump

          There are too many people on this planet. We need to be forced to control our numbers, one negative force is as good as another, and we seem to invite them all.

    • Ringer of Notre Dame

      Ding.. Dong.. Warning bells are ringing!

      1:No prototype, Nothing to show

      “Ace’s problem is that neither of his inventions has been validated in
      customary ways, such as in published, peer-reviewed papers or by
      constructing prototypes, for which he needs financing”

      This will have problems with the demands of patentability.
      To be able to get a patent it has to be:

      Useful (in U.S. patent law) or be susceptible of industrial application (in European patent law[1])

      2.Lone inventor in a shed? in a rural area

      3.Invention have fantastic properties

      4.Physical laws not applicable to THIS perticular invention

      “it seems to defy the second law of thermodynamics,”

      5. Website focuses on getting money from investors

      6.”Ronald Ace lacks hefty academic credentials ”

      combined with:

      “who as a young man worked for more than a decade in the University of Maryland’s molecular physics laboratory”

      and

      He is 73 today..

      What did he do there? And what has he done the last 50 years?

      Let’s hope he saves the world….

      Ding.. Dong.. Ding Dong…

      • Omega Z

        Your Right, RED FLAGS

        But it doesn’t hurt to look into something like this.
        His 1st patent isn’t so far fetched considering that places such as MIT are studying just such a possibility.

        His second patent, Not Limited by Carnot, Has some legitimacy as it depends on Zero mechanics. Nothing moves or bends in any manner. Little heat is lost/wasted as he supposedly has a way to continuously recirculate it in his process.

        As to his background, This means nothing. 80% of new breakthroughs come from the commons. The guy who tinkers in his garage or whatever.

        Young man graduates high-school & wanders off into the wilderness & lives off the land for 40 years. Comes out 1 day & says, “You know what, I bet if you could produce spider-silk in large quantities & braid & weave it just right, it would be lightweight & have the ability to stop Thorns from penetrating your cloths.(Or a bullet proof vest)

        Had I told you 80 years ago that a few layers of thread could stop a bullet from killing you, you would have laughed.

        Be Skeptical, but open to study. That’s good science.
        New knowledge usually comes from the unexpected & farfetched.
        NOTE: His patents will be publicly visible in about 9 months. Supposedly nothing withheld.

  • Boiler testers ?

    That would be the best choice… Good professional, recognized standards… no more , no less.

  • First we should separate science from academic community, or even scientific community at larger.

    Science have discovered cold fusion in 1989 and confirmed Cold fusion since 1991, then have improved reliability and identified key factors.

    Academic society as a whole behaved like priest of the truth, as Thomas Kuhn explain about “Normal Science”…
    This anti-innovation structure is good at developing extension of known science, improving inch by inch known knowledge.

    I don’t ask for the disapearance of Academic conservatism, which like religion, UFOist, have a mission in our social system…
    The question is that no such structure should be dominant.

    Nature, Science, are monsters like are the rating agencies (S&P, Moody’s, Fitch), the box office…
    they are to be avoided like consanguinity, like monoculture, like groupthink, like monopolies…

  • georgehants

    friendly, your reply is so irrelevant to the points being made that I will leave you in your own little World.
    I have said to you before that trying to justify horrific crimes by putting forward good things happening elsewhere is irrational.
    Your pathetic accusations of me hating science show again your desperate attempts to cover up your own incompetence to keep to the points made.

  • Hector McNuget

    georgehants is makes the good points. Is sciences champion not makes the defends? Where is good peoples of Sweden to defy illegal radio shows? Why is blame of crimes past made on the Rossi?
    World is hurt: check.
    World needs help: check.
    Ecat is opportunity: check.
    Science makes steal opportunity: check.
    World is sad: check.
    Hector McNuget is sad: check.

  • Hector McNuget

    why is makes the comments not the shows?

  • Ophelia Rump

    Or you could have read the last report, and cut to the chase.

  • Allan Shura

    New electric car drives 1600 km without recharging and uses water and air. Aluminum air battery
    developed by Phinergy and Alcoa weighs 5 times less than the comparable power in a new Tesla.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/electric-car-with-massive-range-in-demo-by-phinergy-alcoa-1.2664653

  • Allan Shura

    New electric car drives 1600 km without recharging and uses water and air. Aluminum air battery
    developed by Phinergy and Alcoa weighs 5 times less than the comparable power in a new Tesla.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/electric-car-with-massive-range-in-demo-by-phinergy-alcoa-1.2664653

    • Ringer of Notre Dame

      Or you could use an internal combustion engine as a range extender as BMW does.
      I wonder which is worse, mining aluminium and making a battery or making an engine potentially burning carbon neutral bio-fuels.

      Or why not just wait for the machine that is the main topic of this site and get rid of them both 🙂

  • Omega Z

    Those look very much like the Bloom Box fuel cell or 1 of several others.
    They all seem to fail in cost & reliability.
    Also, As Usual, I take issue with them and all the others who think a 1Kw device will supply an average home with all the electricity they will need. We don’t use energy in that manner. We Use a lot or a little in a variable fashion. Crank up that 1100wt Microwave. No. Toaster oven. No. 12-1800 watt blow dryer. Not going to happen.
    So in order for these to provide all your energy needs, You need a large battery rack.

    The 1Kw they use for reference, Only works when fed from a large Grid. The smaller the Grid, The higher capacity has to be. For individual home systems, It’s likely 1 would need a 15Kw system Minimum…

  • Fortyniner

    This kind of conflation (with Rossi’s earlier TEG in this case) is the stock in trade of those intent on spreading disinformation. The facts are easy to find, and it is very difficult to believe that Ms Coyaud’s ‘misunderstanding’ and half truths are anything other than entirely deliberate.

    We may well see quite a lot more like this as the time for publication of the 2nd report (and possibly more disclosure) approaches.

    • I’m really convinced all those skeptics are absolutely sincere, like those human bomb who sacrifice their life for a cause…
      They are nasty, evil, deluded, lying, distorting facts, illogical, abusing fallacies, but absolutely sincere.
      They know (ah ah) they are right, and thus they imagine they are untouchable, they will never be caught, and ever be thanked for their visionary advice and their whistle-blowing courage.

      If there was informed people, you would see market moves of gigantic kind (not the tiny reallocation of oil field and utilities stocks that we see).

      • Fortyniner

        That is possible – there is plenty of precedent in the CF story. It’s also possible though that there are parties that would want certain memes about CF to enter the ‘public mind’, and no shortage of mercenary ‘journalists’ who would have no qualms about helping to out them there. MSM reportage on certain topics seems to confirm this modus operandi on a daily basis.

        • yes, I really feel that some people sincerely are afraid that “bad ideas”, “meme” enter the public mind and undermine “good ideas”.

          In fact i am not so différent, and I have to be carefull not finishing like Cimpy or Mary to fall in love with my theory, and ignore evidence (thanks to Defkalion to have challenged my ego).

          The theory of “meme” is really interesting, and as a tech watcher some intuitive model of “meme” circulation, “meme” filtering…

          some push the concept of “memeplex” , a groupe of “meme”, of ideas, that cross-feed each others and circulate together, and I think it is an essential idea.

          the Malthusians/Luddites/Renewable/Green/fearmongering/AGW ideas are a mega-memeplex of great success…

          In fact Mary&al often are battling against that memeplex, agains anti-immunization, anti-darwin, who challenge good science…

          but they fall in love with their battle, like those who support cold fusion, then esoteric energy…

          sadly every company, every scientific claim, every moral battle, every claimed conspiracy, have to be evaluated individually…

          what snowden reveal does not support UFO conspiracies, and LENR fiasco does not prove alternative medicine reality…

          even the scientists have problem to check every claim one by one, so they trust their peer, they invent paradigm which is taught to students with a hammer.

          there is no other solution than having a varied planet, with various people, having various ideas, in numerous societies, which fight in the reality , celebrated by economic or materialist success…

          the problem is when there is no material success to hope (self-prophecy, like what push stupidity based organization http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01072.x/ ), or not in a reasonable time (like claim of judgement day, 100year scaremongering) …

          Consensus should be avoided.
          Consensus is good if it is right, but imagine the fiasco when it is wrong!

          • Andreas Moraitis

            For that reason, we can be happy that there is no global government. Competition between local interests appears to be a precondition of progress. I agree that the ‘globalization’ of science is problematic from this point of view.

          • yes, we have to admit that a world with many stupid and below average ideas, arganizations, people, is probably better than a world with only what we think optimal organization, and this “optimal” maybe a huge error, and one of those “stupid” ideas may be the one that save us from extermination.

  • Gordon Docherty

    When I read articles from those in a rush to bury, with great enthusiasm, anything LENR, I’m always reminded of General Turgidson:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxLe8MWdWe0

    I suggest their time and energies would be better spent encouraging and building up research into these very real effects, rather than pouring out vitriol on anyone who is, in their opinion, not the perfect scientist (whoever that may be). A degree of open-minded skepticism is good for looking at ways to improve on something, but before setting out on a course of patho-skeptic denial, is it such a good idea to do so without think about alternative courses of action – like using what influence they believe they have to encourage into pouring money into research and exploitation of known LENR effects. Yes, we know about wind, wave and solar. We know our climate is changing (whether AGW is involved or not). We know CO2 levels are rising ever faster. We know fossil fuels are depleting at an alarming rate. We also know that when resources start running scarce, rats in a sack will start fighting. So, why the negativity? Have those with a negative outlook failed to understand that without a cheap, clean, safe, secure, abundant new energy source being found, there will be plenty of nuclear energy being released:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyPsIOxMmqY
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUIMgbXOmJg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnnpJA1aiQ8

    Will this happen? Yes, unless the nay-sayers wake up and smell the coffee – and don’t believe we don’t have the will to use these weapons:

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

    So, instead of pouring negative energy into why LENR research is a waste of time, why not turn that same energy to the good and encourage more research and development, especially if those with a negative outlook believe only that current efforts are all fraudulent – remember, LENR effects are real, so to dismiss LENR just to score points is, frankly, verging on the criminally insane, the very accusation these same nay-sayers like to level at those doing their level best to research and develop LENR. After all, as Rossi himself says, in the market is the truth – so long as the market survives, that is.

    As an example of what I mean about positive research, in addition to looking at various forms of transmutation and fusion (for example, if tritium is being produced then it may be that “Hydroton” (Metallic Hydrogen) is being
    created, as discussed by Dr. Edmund Storms – see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?… ), it may also be worth thinking about Neutron formation and decay – as https://www.youtube.com/watch?…
    shows, a lot of energy can be released from the production of free Neutrons – and who says something small can’t produce a lot of energy!

  • Omega Z

    It’s OK bachcole,
    Most people don’t have a clue as to how much energy they use at given times. The luxury of a modern society.
    Obviously, this varies per household # inhabitants, home size, Lifestyle etc..
    I’ll give a few examples: 1Kw=1000 watts.
    Most Microwaves are 1100watts. Likely, you have 1.
    Blow dryers: 1200 to 2000 watts. Tell wife & kids no more; Oh My.
    Average home size 2K+ sqft house-5Ton Ac/ 20,000 watts???
    1 Ton AC=12000 Btu’s. or 3,333 watts. Doesn’t include Blowers Etc..
    Absorption coolers would be no different. They still use huge amounts of energy.
    New Refrigerators are more energy efficient? Yes, But bigger with many extras. Allow 700-800 watts at start up.

    You can see my point. Also, many of these wont be in operation all at once, but must be allowed in the Peek demand. 1Kw is nothing. Your computer & your refrigerator maxes you out.

    10Kw H-cat will provide you 3/4 gal of hot water on demand.
    20 minutes to fill the tub or not so impressive trickle shower.
    10Kw H-cat=34,000+ Btu. I have a small home, but many times I would need 2 H-cats to keep it warm. Electric power requires more.
    Of Which I see many people here would be using the Energy twice over plus, plus.

    Reminds me of my Son. $2000 tax refund. Going to buy a 65″ Super HD TV, Build a $2000 Gaming computer, Rebuild the Engine in his Car, Etc, Etc. He’s not nearly as good at math as he thinks he is. 🙂

    To be fair. 1Kw fuel cell would suffice IF, You have a large expensive Battery rack. Of which at this time have short life-cycles. This destroys the economic advantages in short order. In fact, If you could cheaply/efficiently store this energy, it would be more then most would need. But, That is only electricity.

    • bachcole

      So, someone took the number of kilowatt hours per month, divided by 30.4, and then divided by 24, and said, 1 kW should be enough. (:->)

      • Omega Z

        No,
        I should also have add this bit of info.
        They Use Grid Feed Numbers In this way the number is somewhat valid tho very misleading.
        No one uses everything at once or at the same time as everyone else.
        As a reasonable example: Tho fictitious at this scale-
        I’m producing 20Kw and feeding it by Grid to 20 people. At any given time, 20Kw is being used. Spread among all according to demand at any given moment.
        Hence, I can say each person only requires 1Kw.

        The Grid in it’s own way is very efficient, Especially considering energy produced must be used. It doesn’t sit in the line as water does when you close the valve. It’s going to go somewhere, Weakest Link & damage something.

        Also, The Larger the Grid, The more efficient it is.(As in Total Capacity doesn’t have to be as Large) The U.S. has 3 main grids. Joining them would be more efficient, However more pron to problems when it doesn’t respond fast enough to change in demand. Which is the primary reason they haven’t been merged into 1.

        Bottom line is this. If Everyone has there own system, Total Output Capacity would have to be at least 10x what we have nationally today.

        • Omega Z

          Note: Someone probably did it the way you show it as well. I’ve seen this kind of math used at 1 time for sewer drains Only to have TPTB wonder why they have flooding problems when it rains. The sewers were designed to handle rainfall average per month. Not all on a single day. 🙂

  • Omega Z

    Your Right, RED FLAGS

    But it doesn’t hurt to look into something like this.
    His 1st patent isn’t so far fetched considering that places such as MIT are studying just such a possibility.

    His second patent, Not Limited by Carnot, Has some legitimacy as it depends on Zero mechanics. Nothing moves or bends in any manner. Little heat is lost/wasted as he supposedly has a way to continuously recirculate it in his process.

    As to his background, This means nothing. 80% of new breakthroughs come from the commons. The guy who tinkers in his garage or whatever.

    Young man graduates high-school & wanders off into the wilderness & lives off the land for 40 years. Comes out 1 day & says, “You know what, I bet if you could produce spider-silk in large quantities & braid & weave it just right, it would be lightweight & have the ability to stop Thorns from penetrating your cloths.(Or a bullet proof vest)

    Had I told you 80 years ago that a few layers of thread could stop a bullet from killing you, you would have laughed.

    Be Skeptical, but open to study. That’s good science.
    New knowledge usually comes from the unexpected & farfetched.
    NOTE: His patents will be publicly visible in about 9 months. Supposedly nothing withheld.