E-Cat Report Released: ‘Not a Conventional Source of Energy’ (Cold Fusion/LENR Confirmed)

A copy of the 3rd Party Report has been released and is now posted at the web site Sifferkol.se

Link: http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

Key findings: COP of COP of 3.2-3.6 over a 32 day period and isotopic change in nickel and lithium was found to have changed substantially after run.

The authors conclude, “Once again, even in the most conservative scenarios, we have values that allow us to conclude that the reactor studied here may not be considered a conventional source of energy.”

UPDATE: From Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

To all the Readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics:
The Report of the Independent Third Party has been published on
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
Warm Regards
Andrea Rossi

CORRECTION: I have heard from Mats Lewan who wanted to be clear that the report was NOT leaked. He explains on his An Impossible Invention site how publication came about:

The report has been uploaded to Arxiv.org which, however has put it on hold, without specifying any motive for this. It has also been sent to Journal of Physics D. I got the report sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be public, although not supposed to be published in any commercial journal until further notice from Journal of Physics D.

A picture of the new-style E-Cat. It looks very different from what we have seen previously:

new ecat

Here’s another with it placed on the testing rack. No unusual radiation was detected, but where is the shielding on this?

new ecat1

Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel by ecatworld

  • foobario2

    Very interesting report. A few observations:
    1. Definitely positive results.

    2. Not pie-in-the-sky COP levels but at the same time solid positive COP levels that were > 3 and very consistent throughout the test. The consistency is actually more important than that absolute COP level IMHO because it shows a controlled reaction that responds to input power in a predictable manner, which makes measurement error less likely. Interestingly, the report mentions that after about 10-12 days the experimenters increased input power by about 100 watts and got a 700 watt positive response in output. I would take that to mean that future improved versions of the E-cat most certainly should be able to operate at higher efficiency levels.

    3. Based on the chemical breakdown, it looks like the magical catalyst may turn out to be nice boring Lithium.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe both Lithium and the „specific electromagnetic pulses“ they are talking about are the secret.

      • John Littlemist

        “Our instruments consisted of two thermal
        imaging cameras to measure average surface temperatures, two power and harmonics analyzers for electrical
        consumption measurements, and three digital multimeters to measure any possible DC component in the
        power supply.” 😀 Gotta love this!

      • Ged

        Lithium has long been suspected to be the catalyst, so totally possible.

    • Gerrit

      back in the early days, the ecat needed hydrogen inside the reactor. Rossi would sell this a safety, because if the reactor would burst the reaction would stop due to lacking hydrogen.
      Then, I don’t remember when, Rossi explained that he found a way to have bound hydrogen in the system. I guess that is when the Lithium Aluminum Hydride was introduced.
      This is all long after Rossi had told us about the catalyst. So I guess the catalyst is the “specific electromagnetic pulses”

  • jaques

    Wow! Does anyone have any experience in ArXiv censoring papers before? From what I understand its not peer reviewed? So on what grounds could this happen?

  • jaques

    Wow! Does anyone have any experience in ArXiv censoring papers before? From what I understand its not peer reviewed? So on what grounds could this happen?

  • Joel C.

    It is truly cold fusion!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Agreed Andreas, the MFMP is has been working towards making a full assessment of any isotopic changes that may have resulted from our Celani wires, QSI nano Ni and Ahern Ni/Pd powders with an american analysis body. Isotopic change in the ash is the key to breaking the impasse of dogged rejection of this new technology, Mitsubishi and Technova showed the way and this is a great result.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Not necessarily, but in any case it’s nuclear.

  • Joel C.

    It is truly cold fusion!

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Not necessarily, but in any case it’s nuclear.

      • Joel C.

        It is cold fusion by its definition. Cold fusion is nuclear fusion at room temperatures. The isotopic changes are proof of this.

        • Joel C.

          After re-reading the report, I needed to rethink my stance. This nuclear reaction is of a completely new category above fission and fusion. The testers in this study are puzzled by the lack of known radiation emissions. This is the definition of a new discovery – so mainstream physicists, watch out!

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Not quite. LENR according to Widom-Larson (inverse beta decay with subsequent neutron capture etc.), Miley (fission of a “collective nucleus”) and others are not covered by the usual definition of “fusion”. Actually, it would make no difference if it was fusion or not, as long as it benefits society. On the other hand, “cold fusion” is a highly controversial term, and whether it is applicable or not will surely be relevant for public discussion. I prefer to refrain from judgment until the phenomenon is conclusively explained.

      • clovis ray

        not sure about that,

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Although is the COP is lower than expected (maybe it could have been higher with less conservative settings), the shifts in the isotopic composition of the fuel are impressive.
    Impossible to ignore, even for ‘hardcore’ skeptics.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Although is the COP is lower than expected (maybe it could have been higher with less conservative settings), the shifts in the isotopic composition of the fuel are impressive.
    Impossible to ignore, even for ‘hardcore’ skeptics.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Agreed Andreas, the MFMP is has been working towards making a full assessment of any isotopic changes that may have resulted from our Celani wires, QSI nano Ni and Ahern Ni/Pd powders with an american analysis body. Isotopic change in the ash is the key to breaking the impasse of dogged rejection of this new technology, Mitsubishi and Technova showed the way and this is a great result.

  • Gerrit

    COP of 3,2 – 3,6 because the researcher did not use “self-sustain” mode, which would have increased the COP dramatically. They did this to avoid getting very difficult calculations. At least that is what I make of the bottom of page 7.

  • Gerrit

    COP of 3,2 – 3,6 because the researcher did not use “self-sustain” mode, which would have increased the COP dramatically. They did this to avoid getting very difficult calculations. At least that is what I make of the bottom of page 7.

  • Looks like one of the early copies of the report. 😉

  • Nixter

    This is probably genuine but since it is from a back channel source, we should be cautious, let’s hope that it is not some kind of underhanded tactic to discredit Rossi. If true, then of course it is cause for celebration.

  • Nixter

    This is probably genuine but since it is from a back channel source, we should be cautious, let’s hope that it is not some kind of underhanded tactic to discredit Rossi. If true, then of course it is cause for celebration.

    • Freethinker

      I value Mats Lewan as a credible source in this, so it is apparently authentic. If it would be accepted to Journal of Physics D it would be a major breakthrough. This is thus merely the preprint.

      • So you think it is still possible to be published in JoP?
        Maybe this preprint publication makes a bit pressure to them 😉

  • It seems Mats Lewan was prepared for the release:

    http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/new-scientific-report-on-the-e-cat-shows-excess-heat-and-nuclear-process/

    So they submitted it to the Journal of Physics D but got yet no response and decided to publish it now.

    • Freethinker

      I value Mats Lewan as a credible source in this, so it is apparently authentic. If it would be accepted to Journal of Physics D it would be a major breakthrough. This is thus merely the preprint.

      • So you think it is still possible to be published in JoP?
        Maybe this preprint publication makes a bit pressure to them 😉

  • Freethinker

    There are positive and there are negatives in this leaked version. The upsides are that the efficiency (Pout/Pin) of the device is as advertised during a sustainable period. Also the ash analysis looks interesting.

    The downsides are that it is the same people involved – no new fresh meat in the core team, and there is not a sizeable list of peer reviewers stepping up publicly. There is also no hint if this will be published in any refereed journal.

    Would be good to get ARs input on the document.

    Let’s wait for the final cut, shall we.

  • Freethinker

    There are positive and there are negatives in this leaked version. The upsides are that the efficiency (Pout/Pin) of the device is as advertised during a sustainable period. Also the ash analysis looks interesting.

    The downsides are that it is the same people involved – no new fresh meat in the core team, and there is not a sizeable list of peer reviewers stepping up publicly. There is also no hint if this will be published in any refereed journal.

    Would be good to get ARs input on the document.

    Let’s wait for the final cut, shall we.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We would say it is genuine. The peer review would be off this and the raw data.

    This looks like a very good day for all of you who have stuck by this tech – now let’s see it change the geopolitical world.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We would say it is genuine. The peer review would be off this and the raw data.

    This looks like a very good day for all of you who have stuck by this tech – now let’s see it change the geopolitical world.

  • John Littlemist

    “Our instruments consisted of two thermal
    imaging cameras to measure average surface temperatures, two power and harmonics analyzers for electrical
    consumption measurements, and three digital multimeters to measure any possible DC component in the
    power supply.” 😀 Gotta love this!

  • Billy Jackson

    I would treat this as a preliminary report. we have no idea what version of the report this is, or if its even the final report. It very well may be the final report but we will not know that till its published. we could be looking at an earlier version that has incorrect numbers or uncorrected errors.

    • Ged

      I second you on this. Peer review may make them do additional experiments not represented here if it’s a submission version, unless this is the final version.

  • Billy Jackson

    I would treat this as a preliminary report. we have no idea what version of the report this is, or if its even the final report. It very well may be the final report but we will not know that till its published. we could be looking at an earlier version that has incorrect numbers or uncorrected errors.

    • llsurfer

      Rossi confirmed the publication of the report on his blog:

      “To all the Readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics:
      The Report of the Independent Third Party has been published on
      http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
      Warm Regards
      Andrea Rossi”

      Note the Mats Lewan just mentioned on his blog that the report was sent to “Journal of Physics D” for publication also.

    • Ged

      I second you on this. Peer review may make them do additional experiments not represented here if it’s a submission version, unless this is the final version.

  • HiggsField

    I would hope that this report clears the way for Universities and others to jump on this as an important energy technology. What is good about the E-cat is its relative simplicity. I’m sure other elemental combinations will be found that produce different energy gains, operating temperature ranges, etc. With global warming becoming an ever greater issue, time is of the essence. There are large opportunities here for entrepreneurs. But is this report enough to motivate the science community to investigate this phenomena and provide a theoretic basis for its operation?

    • clovis ray

      Agreed, i have always pointed the simplicity out over the years, only the reactor is somewhat complicated, and even it’s base construction is not complicated.

  • J

    I will start clearing a space in my basement. 🙂

  • Printenhart

    Guys, look at http://rossilivecat.com/. Rossie confirmed.

  • Finally. I’ll get to work.

    • Billy Jackson

      I would honestly hold off till we got confirmation this was the final report and not an earlier version. last thing we need is to be quoting the wrong data. use it for setting up what you need to for the final report.. but just be cautious.

      • This is the report submitted to arxiv.

        • Billy Jackson

          I don’t know.. i just don’t like the “surprise” nature of the release when its been stated the entire time that it was going to publication first.. had it been released along with the publication i would be right here with you just as excited.. maybe i am being over cautious, right now would not be a good time for us to stumble.

          • Gerrit

            They put it on a preprint server, before the actual publication in a journal. What’s wrong with that ?

      • Gerrit

        Mats Lewan got the same document sent directly to him by Essen:
        “The report has been uploaded to Arxiv.org
        which, however has put it on hold, without specifying any motive for
        this. It has also been sent to Journal of Physics D. I got the report
        sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be
        public, although not supposed to be published in any commercial journal
        until further notice from Journal of Physics D.”

        • Ged

          Well then!

  • Ged

    If it is to be in the journal of physics D, the issue for October 29th 2014 is still open for papers. Nothing in the others sound like it, so don’t think it’s likely that journal (not quite the right topics either).

    Interesting indeed. This looks like an earlier draft to my eyes, but will have to wait and see.

    • Andre Blum

      essen has published quite often in JoP D, I found.

      • Ged

        There’s still time for the last October issue too. But would not be surprised if it’s another journal or another journal of physics sub type (like C) that has a more nuclear focus.

        • Andrea Rossi
          October 8th, 2014 at 7:50 AM

          To all the Readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics:
          The Report of the Independent Third Party has been published on
          http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/

          Warm Regards
          Andrea Rossi

          So it’s genuine

          • Billy Jackson

            link forbidden when i click on it

          • Gerrit
          • Andre Blum

            Does this mean we will soon see an edit to the pending patent request, now giving details on the catalyst?

          • PD

            Worth reading or scanning the report. The report summary clearly supports LENR. Lets hope this helps Industrial Heat sort out the patents and intellectual property issues.

            ===============================================================
            In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding.

            ===============================================================

          • Andre Blum

            note that words like LENR, cold fusion, transmutation are carefully avoided. They talk about ‘isotopic changes’.

          • Giuliano Bettini

            Pag. 30 (example).

            “Such a change can only take place via nuclear reactions. It is thus
            clear that nuclear reactions have taken place in the burning process.”

            “The fuel generating the excessive heat was analyzed with several
            methods before and after the experimental run. It was found that the Lithium
            and Nickel content in the fuel had the natural isotopic composition before the
            run, but after the 32 days run the isotopic composition has changed
            dramatically both for Lithium and Nickel. Such a change can only take place via
            nuclear reactions. It is thus clear that nuclear reactions have taken place in
            the burning process. This is also what can be suspected from the excessive heat
            being generated in the process.”

          • ecatworld

            He’s probably getting a huge amount of traffic. See a copy in the post above which I uploaded to Scribd. A powerful site that can handle the traffic.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I feel a bit like a Stone Age man who went hungry for a long time and has now bagged together with his comrades a whole horde of mammoths. Sorry for being excessively subjective…

          • Ged

            Considering the comment flood, you aren’t the only one! A lot, like me, were laying low waiting for this for the past 6 months or so.

          • Billy Jackson

            agree with Ged on this. we knew the reactions would be coming and alot were just waiting as we debated rumor and conjecture to keep ourselves entertained. now that the report is here its gonna be a bit lively 🙂

          • Martin Lawrence

            I’m also in the lurking numbers, I have been checking for the report regularly but have not wished to often join in with the speculation. I will now read through this and hope that enough has been done to properly get the balls in motion.

          • Ged

            Really looking forward to our nuclear physicist and other such expert commentators coming in. Blogosphere peer review, like this, were everyone gets to look at and evaluate science, has been suggested by some lately to be a superior alternative to the current peer review model. That’s what we’re doing here and now.

            So, no holds barred! Hopefully if we need raw data it can be supplied to us.

          • Sanjeev

            A real peer review will need the raw data from the test (which Rossi called “millions of data”). The report has only the most essential numbers.
            I hope the release the raw data also, so we can play with it.

          • Ged

            Completely agreed. We should kindly ask the authors directly for the raw data, and see if it can be provided. There may be some restrictions due to submitting to JoP D, but hopefully they’ll be graciously forthcoming.

          • Foks0904 .

            What a gift. Fasten your seatbelts.

          • Sanjeev

            The link by Rossi has a missing filename. Its the same link (correctly) posted by Frank.

          • Ged

            So this is the confirmed submission to JoP D version, awesome. I wonder what JoP D is doing with it so far. The post peer reviewed version will be the “true” version in my eyes, but this may be what we get left with, as most journals don’t accept papers published anywhere else such as on the web like this. We’ll see!

            Let the blogsphere analysis begin, for the ultimate peer reviewing :)!

          • Jonnyb

            Does anyone know if Andrea is happy with the report, does he consider it ‘Positive’, I certainly do!!!

  • Ged

    If it is to be in the journal of physics D, the issue for October 29th 2014 is still open for papers. Nothing in the others sound like it, so don’t think it’s likely that journal (not quite the right topics either).

    Interesting indeed. This looks like an earlier draft to my eyes, but will have to wait and see.

    • Andre Blum

      essen has published quite often in JoP D, I found.

      • Ged

        There’s still time for the last October issue too. But would not be surprised if it’s another journal or another journal of physics sub type (like C) that has a more nuclear focus.

  • Jonnyb

    Fab thanks am reading it now.

  • mike

    According to Rossi, it is published not leaked.

  • ecatworld

    Regarding low COP the authors state:

    “The purpose of this longer measurement was to verify whether the production of heat is reproducible in a new improved test set-up, and can go on for a significant amount of time. In order to assure that the reactor would operate for a prolonged length of time, we chose to supply power to the E-Cat in such a way as to keep it working in a stable and controlled manner. For this reason, the performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was not an object of study here”

    • Billy Jackson

      My initial reaction was one of disappointment when i read the COP levels.. but after reading further down that they did it on purpose and that it was quite capable of going further.. relieved me of that disappointment.

    • Andre Blum

      I am struggling with the same. 1.5 MWh / (32 * 24h) = 1953 W, while the report claims that approximately 900 W was applied.

      • Billy Jackson

        the 900 W was not at the start but later in the test. (10 days later) .. so your initial math should be based on the lower number then the rest of the test (22 days) on the higher.

        It started at 810 W but slowly declined to 790 W which is when they turned it up to 900 W.

        • Andre Blum

          no, that argument does not work. Look at plots 7 and 8 in the paper.

      • foobario2

        Once again, the numbers in the graphs are *net* energy and *net* power output *after* subtracting out the input energy. You are re-using the net energy figures as if they are gross energy output figures, which leads to the discrepancy.

  • Frank Acland

    Regarding low COP the authors state:

    “The purpose of this longer measurement was to verify whether the production of heat is reproducible in a new improved test set-up, and can go on for a significant amount of time. In order to assure that the reactor would operate for a prolonged length of time, we chose to supply power to the E-Cat in such a way as to keep it working in a stable and controlled manner. For this reason, the performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was not an object of study here”

    • Billy Jackson

      My initial reaction was one of disappointment when i read the COP levels.. but after reading further down that they did it on purpose and that it was quite capable of going further.. relieved me of that disappointment.

      • Craig King

        Agreed Billy. This is proof of concept stuff and when the engineers get involved I expect to see leaps in output.

        Great days, but expect the usual attempts at deconstruction before we are sailing in clear water.

  • Justin Church

    Looks to be pretty legitimate to me. The positive results of “excess heat” does not surprise me, I also knew Cold Fusion was real : ) Neither does the isotopic shifts of Nickel. I’ve ran across some reports which also suggested isotopic shifts of Hydrogen is also seen within a basic electrolyzer when Lithium Carbonate is used as the electrolyte, producing Tritium and Deuterium. Two isotopes of Hydrogen that is going to be very useful moving forward in all of this. Congrats to the Cold Fusion advocates…I think we made it…

    • working temperature is surprising, as it is not far from Ni fusion… congratulation to material science engineers for the magic powder.
      COP is deceiving, but I imagine it is not pushed to the limits.

      • Justin Church

        For sure. No way this has been pushed to its limits. The tech is actually very simple. I’ve been working with the H-Cat in the same fashion recently. Powder structure seems to be key. No doubt to me anymore that the junkyard tech we are working with will lead us to the Rossi Effect lol. Amazing time to be alive on the planet…EVERYTHING is changing…

    • clovis ray

      hi, justin.

      i could only find this concerning deuterium, and the like,

      It is plausible that the fuel is mixed with the standard Lithium Aluminum Hydride, LiAl
      Further evidenceof that is obtained from the ICP-AES analysis which shows that the mass ratio between Li and Al iscompatible with a LiAl
      molecule. This compound can be used to produce free hydrogen by heating. Weremark in particular that hydrogen but no deuterium was seen by SIMS. The other methods are insensitive to both hydrogen and deuterium

  • Justin Church

    Looks to be pretty legitimate to me. The positive results of “excess heat” does not surprise me, I also knew Cold Fusion was real : ) Neither does the isotopic shifts of Nickel. I’ve ran across some reports which also suggested isotopic shifts of Hydrogen is also seen within a basic electrolyzer when Lithium Carbonate is used as the electrolyte, producing Tritium and Deuterium. Two isotopes of Hydrogen that is going to be very useful moving forward in all of this. Congrats to the Cold Fusion advocates…I think we made it…

    • working temperature is surprising, as it is not far from Ni fusion… congratulation to material science engineers for the magic powder.
      COP is deceiving, but I imagine it is not pushed to the limits.

      • Justin Church

        For sure. No way this has been pushed to its limits. The tech is actually very simple. I’ve been working with the H-Cat in the same fashion recently. Powder structure seems to be key. No doubt to me anymore that the junkyard tech we are working with will lead us to the Rossi Effect lol. Amazing time to be alive on the planet…EVERYTHING is changing…

    • clovis ray

      hi, justin.

      i could only find this concerning deuterium, and the like,

      It is plausible that the fuel is mixed with the standard Lithium Aluminum Hydride, LiAl
      Further evidenceof that is obtained from the ICP-AES analysis which shows that the mass ratio between Li and Al iscompatible with a LiAl
      molecule. This compound can be used to produce free hydrogen by heating. Weremark in particular that hydrogen but no deuterium was seen by SIMS. The other methods are insensitive to both hydrogen and deuterium

  • Gerrit

    according to the acknowledgments the work was partially sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. I guess they would like to get the paper published in a journal too.

    • Mark E Kitiman

      Gerrit, i am awaiting your comments on the ‘sciforums’, let them eat ‘Crow’

      • Gerrit

        I thought they “accidentally” deleted the whole LENR thread a while ago ?

        • Mark E Kitiman

          Yep, but you can still see most of the thread on Archive.org, scoop up some of the ‘Pathosceptic’ names and politely correct them.

  • Andrea Rossi
    October 8th, 2014 at 7:50 AM

    To all the Readers of the Journal of Nuclear Physics:
    The Report of the Independent Third Party has been published on
    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/

    Warm Regards
    Andrea Rossi

    So it’s genuine

  • Christopher Calder

    So, the test did not run the E-Cat in normal, commercial operation self-sustain mode, thus the COP was only between 3.2 and 3.6 times the input power. What is the COP when the reactor is run as it was designed to run for maximum COP? I am also disappointed that the test did not last for six full months as expected.

    • Andre Blum

      scientifically, at this point, the exact COP is not really interesting. That’s a matter of engineering now.

      • Sanjeev

        I agree. Its a matter of throwing a lot of money and good engineering at it and you will see the whole world quickly taking a huge leap forward in the area of clean and cheap energy.
        I wouldn’t worry even a bit about the COP or whether it looks good and shiny or matches with your curtains…..

        • wow, keep cool… we work on it!
          (ok not me)

    • Billy Jackson

      same. but that’s the danger of listening to rumor, sometimes we get it right other times we are left holding the bag.

    • clovis ray

      why, is 32 days not enought for you, that just silly.

    • GordonDocherty

      It was 32 days as the reactor was loaded with fuel for 35 (1g) – which, in itself, is a good indicator that Mr.Rossi is making good progress in engineering terms. The reason for this was to convert as much of the fuel as possible to ash to ease analysis. This experiment has been VERY WELL thought out 🙂

  • So, the test did not run the E-Cat in normal, commercial operation self-sustain mode, thus the COP was only between 3.2 and 3.6 times the input power. What is the COP when the reactor is run as it was designed to run for maximum COP? I am also disappointed that the test did not last for six full months as expected.

    • Andre Blum

      scientifically, at this point, the exact COP is not really interesting. That’s a matter of engineering now.

      • Sanjeev

        I agree. Its a matter of throwing a lot of money and good engineering at it and you will see the whole world quickly taking a huge leap forward in the area of clean and cheap energy.
        I wouldn’t worry even a bit about the COP or whether it looks good and shiny or matches with your curtains…..

        • wow, keep cool… we work on it!
          (ok not me)

      • TomR

        If they were to run it as it was designed to run, the COP would probably be 5.1. 3.2 + 3.6 = 6.8 / 2 = 3.4 / .66 = 5.1 Average COP divided by power on time (2/3) seems to come out with a COP of 5.1. This is with out the mouse.

    • Billy Jackson

      same. but that’s the danger of listening to rumor, sometimes we get it right other times we are left holding the bag.

    • clovis ray

      why, is 32 days not enought for you, that just silly.

    • GordonDocherty

      It was 32 days as the reactor was loaded with fuel for 35 (1g) – which, in itself, is a good indicator that Mr.Rossi is making good progress in engineering terms. The reason for this was to convert as much of the fuel as possible to ash to ease analysis. This experiment has been VERY WELL thought out 🙂

  • Zapece

    I’m not disappointed at all. that paper from what I have read so far is going to pretty hard to refute.

  • Sanjeev

    I guess its official now. Rather unusual way to release it.

    The report says not much new on the performance but the fuel and ash analysis is the most interesting part. We probably now know an important part of the fuel, which is Lithium Aluminum Hydride, LiAlH4. It may or may not be the catalyst, but its easy to do a replication now.

    Secondly, another very important finding is that this is indeed a nuclear reaction. Although I don’t see any appearance of new elements in the ash, (Still reading it), but the isotopic composition of both Ni and Li changes dramatically after the reaction.

    There are no new testers, which is a bit disappointing. I was hoping that there would be an intercontinental team with some big corporations participating. But the report seems very solid to me.

    • Ged

      Pekka may know more about the theoretical physics of what happens if you fuse hydrogen and nickle. I do remember some paper showing that breakdown into stable copper was possible with a gamma ray burst, but much less likely than reverting back to a heavier nickle isotope with a beta particle and heat (?). I don’t fully remember now as it was the early days if this site, years ago.

      • Sanjeev

        They have some speculations in the fuel analysis section of the report. But it seems they came out empty handed. Its not at all clear what happens inside the Ecat even a thorough fuel and ash analysis. This is a truly new discovery.
        No radiation, no new elements, no explosions or chain reactions. This is a new category of nuclear reactions.

    • RKTect

      With the isotopic analysis tracking the change in material, it should be possible to hypothesize the path to transformation. Granted the energy numbers won’t work but perhaps modeling the probable paths will lead to a more generally accepted theory that can be tested.

      • GordonDocherty

        In all likelihood, endothermic as well as exothermic reactions going on – what we see, then, is the balance

        • Veblin

          ExtremeTech
          Cold fusion reactor verified by third-party researchers, seems to have 1 million times the energy density of gasoline
          By Sebastian Anthony on October 9, 2014 at 10:53 am
          http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

          • Ged

            Oh man, I used to read those guys all the time till their site became ugly to navigate and ad ridden. Been so long, such nostalgia. But great to see them picking this up!

          • Donk970

            I was just over there – comments were being added faster than I could read them. Mostly from the skeptopaths

        • deleo77

          Interesting quote from Rossi today on Ni-62. It will be really interesting to see how these transmutation studies play out. If it can be replicated and peer reviewed then Rossi just won a future Nobel Prize:

          Andrea Rossi
          October 9th, 2014 at 10:45 AM
          H-G Branzell:
          You are right.
          The results of the analysis have been partially surprising also to me. I perfectly expected the depletion of 7Li ( I have a patent pending for this, filed much before the test), I knew that during the operation 62Ni is formed ( we found many times a shift toward 62Ni in our private tests) and its percentage grows, but not in that measure. We are studying this fact to try to understand.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Bit puzzling how he can make fuel for a specific amount of days and not know the precise composition of the ashes. I would have thought that much of the research they do is in that direction.

  • Sanjeev

    I guess its official now. Rather unusual way to release it.

    The report says not much new on the performance but the fuel and ash analysis is the most interesting part. We probably now know an important part of the fuel, which is Lithium Aluminum Hydride, LiAlH4. It may or may not be the catalyst, but its easy to do a replication now.

    Secondly, another very important finding is that this is indeed a nuclear reaction. Although I don’t see any appearance of new elements in the ash, (Still reading it), but the isotopic composition of both Ni and Li changes dramatically after the reaction.

    There are no new testers, which is a bit disappointing. I was hoping that there would be an intercontinental team with some big corporations participating. But the report seems very solid to me.

    • Ged

      Pekka may know more about the theoretical physics of what happens if you fuse hydrogen and nickle. I do remember some paper showing that breakdown into stable copper was possible with a gamma ray burst, but much less likely than reverting back to a heavier nickle isotope with a beta particle and heat (?). I don’t fully remember now as it was the early days if this site, years ago.

      • Sanjeev

        They have some speculations in the fuel analysis section of the report. But it seems they came out empty handed. Its not at all clear what happens inside the Ecat even a thorough fuel and ash analysis. This is a truly new discovery.
        No radiation, no new elements, no explosions or chain reactions. This is a new category of nuclear reactions.

        • Ged

          You are likely right. This is different from past theory expectations that I’ve been privvy to. Remarkable!

        • clovis ray

          I agree.

    • RKTect

      With the isotopic analysis tracking the change in material, it should be possible to hypothesize the path to transformation. Granted the energy numbers won’t work but perhaps modeling the probable paths will lead to a more generally accepted theory that can be tested.

      • GordonDocherty

        In all likelihood, endothermic as well as exothermic reactions going on – what we see, then, is the balance

  • Christopher Calder

    Looking at the pictures, it looks like there is no mouse either. Is that correct?

    • Jonnyb

      Yeh I could not see the mouse either so the low C.O.P. should not be a problem

      • Da Phys

        Neutron capture Ni58->Ni62+MEV catalyzed by Li7. Wow.

        • That’s widom-larsen theory?

          • it can also be Storms p+e+p+e+Ni+e+p+e+p as Storms interpret about Iwamura

            in equations p+e+p+ fusion looks like neutrons absorption.

            the key problem of WL is that the surface cannot host so much energy in chemistry environement. it have to be done, maybe as WL says, in a protected context.

            Storms noticed that this “even number of hydrogen nucleus” fused is only observed by Iwamura for stable results.

            maybe also is it one step at a time.

            maybe also there is Ni58->Ni60->Ni62

            but why and how does Ni61 disapear? why no Ni64 ?

            this is not simple neutron capture. some fusion/absorption happens and some don’t.

            good data for theorist!

  • Looking at the pictures, it looks like there is no mouse either. Is that correct?

    • Jonnyb

      Yeh I could not see the mouse either so the low C.O.P. should not be a problem

    • clovis ray

      yes, no mouse, because the input power is externally controlled, for purpose of experiment.

  • EM

    There are new people involved in this report. Look at Appendix 3 for the ash analysis. Different university as well.

  • SH

    Forget the JoP D version. Every scientist in the world can now give their two cents on this. I am sure there are going to be many critiques by “skeptics,” but the fact that the authors ruled out any DC power or any other power input will make it really hard for the “skeptics” to shoot this one down. Also the measurement of the powder is pretty much the smoking gun that something crazy is going on with this tech.

    The two weak points appear to be Rossi having any involvement at all, and not seeing the inside of the reactor tube. However, even if extra fuel was hiding in there, the authors pretty much ruled out any conventional processes because no battery or other conventional fuel could have produced these results given that the physical size of the reactor tube itself rules out conventional sources of energy and the thermal output was stable throughout.

    Hell if Rossi is faking it, then whatever process he is using to fake this is revolutionary in itself!

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I feel a bit like a Stone Age man who went hungry for a long time and has now bagged together with his comrades a whole horde of mammoths. Sorry for being excessively subjective…

    • Ged

      Considering the comment flood, you aren’t the only one! A lot, like me, were laying low waiting for this for the past 6 months or so.

      • Billy Jackson

        agree with Ged on this. we knew the reactions would be coming and alot were just waiting as we debated rumor and conjecture to keep ourselves entertained. now that the report is here its gonna be a bit lively 🙂

        • Martin Lawrence

          I’m also in the lurking numbers, I have been checking for the report regularly but have not wished to often join in with the speculation. I will now read through this and hope that enough has been done to properly get the balls in motion.

  • Ged

    Really looking forward to our nuclear physicist and other such expert commentators coming in. Blogosphere peer review, like this, were everyone gets to look at and evaluate science, has been suggested by some lately to be a superior alternative to the current peer review model. That’s what we’re doing here and now.

    So, no holds barred! Hopefully if we need raw data it can be supplied to us.

    • Sanjeev

      A real peer review will need the raw data from the test (which Rossi called “millions of data”). The report has only the most essential numbers.
      I hope the release the raw data also, so we can play with it.

      • Ged

        Completely agreed. We should kindly ask the authors directly for the raw data, and see if it can be provided. There may be some restrictions due to submitting to JoP D, but hopefully they’ll be graciously forthcoming.

  • Andre Blum

    Does this mean we will soon see an edit to the pending patent request, now giving details on the catalyst?

  • PD

    Worth reading or scanning the report. The report summary clearly supports LENR. Lets hope this helps Industrial Heat sort out the patents and intellectual property issues.

    ===============================================================
    In summary, the performance of the E-Cat reactor is remarkable. We have a device giving heat energy compatible with nuclear transformations, but it operates at low energy and gives neither nuclear radioactive waste nor emits radiation. From basic general knowledge in nuclear physics this should not be possible. Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations. It is certainly most unsatisfying that these results so far have no convincing theoretical explanation, but the experimental results cannot be dismissed or ignored just because of lack of theoretical understanding.

    ===============================================================

  • Foks0904 .

    What a gift. Fasten your seatbelts.

  • Andre Blum

    note that words like LENR, cold fusion, transmutation are carefully avoided. They talk about ‘isotopic changes’.

    • Giuliano Bettini

      Pag. 30 (example).

      “Such a change can only take place via nuclear reactions. It is thus
      clear that nuclear reactions have taken place in the burning process.”

      “The fuel generating the excessive heat was analyzed with several
      methods before and after the experimental run. It was found that the Lithium
      and Nickel content in the fuel had the natural isotopic composition before the
      run, but after the 32 days run the isotopic composition has changed
      dramatically both for Lithium and Nickel. Such a change can only take place via
      nuclear reactions. It is thus clear that nuclear reactions have taken place in
      the burning process. This is also what can be suspected from the excessive heat
      being generated in the process.”

      • clovis ray

        Yep, but where is the radiation, that a nuclear reactions cause, new physics .

  • Da Phys

    Neutron capture Ni58->Ni62+MEV catalyzed by Li7. Wow.

    • That’s widom-larsen theory?

      • Da Phys

        No.

      • it can also be Storms p+e+p+e+Ni+e+p+e+p as Storms interpret about Iwamura

        in equations p+e+p+ fusion looks like neutrons absorption.

        the key problem of WL is that the surface cannot host so much energy in chemistry environement. it have to be done, maybe as WL says, in a protected context.

        Storms noticed that this “even number of hydrogen nucleus” fused is only observed by Iwamura for stable results.

        maybe also is it one step at a time.

        maybe also there is Ni58->Ni60->Ni62

        but why and how does Ni61 disapear? why no Ni64 ?

        this is not simple neutron capture. some fusion/absorption happens and some don’t.

        good data for theorist!

  • Jonnyb

    From what I can see the Power Density is amazing, it appears to produce no dangerous radioactive bi-products and is safe when on. Think the report should prove LENR or whatever we call it beyond any reasonable doubt, it is just down to how useful it will be when engineered to it’s maximum potential. Self sustain or will it always need an input is the main question. So where do we go from here? Is this the end game or not?

    • Ged

      Now that we know the composition (i.e lithium) and design of the reactor, open science replications are in order. The MFMP folks or others will hopefully be able to test this Rossi style setup.

    • Donk970

      A device like this should never, ever be self sustaining. You want it to always need input power from outside to keep it going so that it is walk away safe in the event of some catastrophic event that prevents active control. As long as you have a high enough COP you will be able to use some of the generated electricity to keep the reactor going and therefor it is in fact self sustaining.

      • Jonnyb

        Cheers Don, this is kind of what I meant, enough gain to power itself after losses etc. the control circuits can easily look after the safety side. I think the Mouse/Cat arrangement should hopefully do the job so the device can be used as the sole source of power, even if it feed other devices.

  • GordonDocherty

    At last, EXPERIMENTAL values. Important points:

    1. testing was performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at [the testers’] disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA.

    http://www.officineghidoni.ch/en/

    Civil / Mechanical Engineering / Materials Science / Quality Control – strap-line “Quality, competence and flexibility are our prerogatives”.

    2. reactor makeup / size – alumina cylinder, 2 cm in diameter and 20 cm in length, ending on both sides with two cylindrical alumina blocks (4 cm in diameter, 4 cm in length),

    alumina, synthetically produced aluminum oxide, Al2O3,
    a white or nearly colourless crystalline substance that is used as a
    starting material for the smelting of aluminum metal. It also serves as
    the raw material for a broad range of advanced ceramic products and as
    an active agent in chemical processing.

    “Hidden energy inputs” checked and ruled out – including hidden wires, DC offset, magnetron, batteries, death ray (it would have to be)… all environmental measurements undertaken by testers experienced in their fields … at an independent site

    3. weight of active powder sample used : 1g (0.01 kg)

    4. To quote:

    “Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the E-Cat fluctuating at around 810 W. … After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W. Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.”

    also

    “We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, … (to avoid making) … calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of the acquired data difficult.”

    5. Initial dummy test run below 500W, followed by 32 day main Test run with continuous higher input power (800 – 900W, as above). e-Cat not run in pulsed mode (which would have increased COP but made calculations and experimental evidence gathering much, much more difficult)

    6. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh.

    7. Sample of fuel carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. From these combined analysis methods, significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to Ni were found in the fuel. Further, protium but no deuterium was seen by SIMS (so, non-radiative protium main hydrogen isotope)

    The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with a “natural composition” before the run, while after the run it was found to have been changed substantially.

    8. However, no radioactivity, alpha particles, fast neutrons or other high-energy ejecta detected, despite rigorous observations

    9. Remarkable change in ash as compared to initial fuel samples:

    Lithium content in unused fuel found to be in natural ratios : 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %.

    Nickel content in unused fuel also found to be in natural ratios: i.e. 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%).

    So, the fuel is indeed changed at the nuclear level. Call it what you will, this is definitely LENR!

    10. Performances obtain do not reflect the MAXIMUM potential of the reactor, even at this point in its development: the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ], the density of thermal energy (if referred to an internal charge weighing 1 g) was (5.8 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [MJ/kg], while the density of power was equal to (2.1 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [W/kg]. These values place the E-Cat TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (on a Ragone plot) beyond any known conventional energy source. Even if conservatively repeating the same calculations using the weight of the whole reactor (including the casing) rather just the powder, the results confirm the non-conventional nature of the form of energy generated by the E-Cat, namely (1.3 ∙ 104 ± 10%) [MJ/kg] for thermal energy density, and (4.7 ∙ 103 ± 10%) [W/kg] for power density.

    So, even with the “copy of the 3rd Party Report [that] has somehow been unofficially released”, the news is truly remarkable – and VERY positive.

    As to the Lithium angle, the effects of Lithium in a nuclear reaction have been overlooked once before:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjiWBkiBZQU&list=UUQnbHbBc8d_a_nFrGhVPe7w&index=4

    and, more factually:

    http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/07/they-just-cant-seem-to-get-lithium-7-right/

    What’s that I read – “But what if, as Richter suggested, lithium-7 has some peculiar
    properties of lattice assisted nuclear reactions, or “cold fusion”?” And that was back in the fifties…

    Pass the smelling salts, someone…

  • GordonDocherty

    At last, EXPERIMENTAL values. Important points:

    1. testing was performed in Barbengo (Lugano), Switzerland, in a laboratory placed at [the testers’] disposal by Officine Ghidoni SA.

    http://www.officineghidoni.ch/en/

    Civil / Mechanical Engineering / Materials Science / Quality Control – strap-line “Quality, competence and flexibility are our prerogatives”.

    2. reactor makeup / size – alumina cylinder, 2 cm in diameter and 20 cm in length, ending on both sides with two cylindrical alumina blocks (4 cm in diameter, 4 cm in length),

    alumina, synthetically produced aluminum oxide, Al2O3,
    a white or nearly colourless crystalline substance that is used as a
    starting material for the smelting of aluminum metal. It also serves as
    the raw material for a broad range of advanced ceramic products and as
    an active agent in chemical processing.

    “Hidden energy inputs” checked and ruled out – including hidden wires, DC offset, magnetron, batteries, death ray (it would have to be)… all environmental measurements undertaken by testers experienced in their fields … at an independent site

    3. weight of active powder sample used : 1g (0.01 kg)

    4. To quote:

    “Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the E-Cat fluctuating at around 810 W. … After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W. Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted.”

    also

    “We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, … (to avoid making) … calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of the acquired data difficult.”

    5. Initial dummy test run below 500W, followed by 32 day main Test run with continuous higher input power (800 – 900W, as above). e-Cat not run in pulsed mode (which would have increased COP but made calculations and experimental evidence gathering much, much more difficult)

    6. The measured energy balance between input and output heat yielded a COP factor of about 3.2 and 3.6 for the 1260 ºC and 1400 ºC runs, respectively. The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh.

    7. Sample of fuel carefully examined with respect to its isotopic composition before and after the run, using several standard methods: XPS, EDS, SIMS, ICP-MS and ICP-AES. From these combined analysis methods, significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to Ni were found in the fuel. Further, protium but no deuterium was seen by SIMS (so, non-radiative protium main hydrogen isotope)

    The isotope composition in Lithium and Nickel was found to agree with a “natural composition” before the run, while after the run it was found to have been changed substantially.

    8. However, no radioactivity, alpha particles, fast neutrons or other high-energy ejecta detected, despite rigorous observations

    9. Remarkable change in ash as compared to initial fuel samples:

    Lithium content in unused fuel found to be in natural ratios : 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %.

    Nickel content in unused fuel also found to be in natural ratios: i.e. 58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%).

    So, the fuel is indeed changed at the nuclear level. Call it what you will, this is definitely LENR!

    10. Performances obtain do not reflect the MAXIMUM potential of the reactor, even at this point in its development: the net production of the reactor after 32 days’ operation was (5825 ± 10%) [MJ], the density of thermal energy (if referred to an internal charge weighing 1 g) was (5.8 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [MJ/kg], while the density of power was equal to (2.1 ∙ 106 ± 10%) [W/kg]. These values place the E-Cat TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (on a Ragone plot) beyond any known conventional energy source. Even if conservatively repeating the same calculations using the weight of the whole reactor (including the casing) rather just the powder, the results confirm the non-conventional nature of the form of energy generated by the E-Cat, namely (1.3 ∙ 104 ± 10%) [MJ/kg] for thermal energy density, and (4.7 ∙ 103 ± 10%) [W/kg] for power density.

    So, even with the “copy of the 3rd Party Report [that] has somehow been unofficially released”, the news is truly remarkable – and VERY positive.

    As to the Lithium angle, the effects of Lithium in a nuclear reaction have been overlooked once before:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjiWBkiBZQU&list=UUQnbHbBc8d_a_nFrGhVPe7w&index=4

    and, more factually:

    http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/07/they-just-cant-seem-to-get-lithium-7-right/

    What’s that I read – “But what if, as Richter suggested, lithium-7 has some peculiar
    properties of lattice assisted nuclear reactions, or “cold fusion”?” And that was back in the fifties…

    Pass the smelling salts, someone…

  • GordonDocherty

    again, I repeat:

    As to the Lithium angle, the effects of Lithium in a nuclear reaction have been overlooked once before:

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

    and, more factually:

    http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/07/they-just-cant-seem-to-get-lithium-7-right/

    What’s that I read? – “But what if, as Richter suggested, lithium-7 has some peculiar
    properties of lattice assisted nuclear reactions, or “cold fusion”?”

    That suggestion was made way back in the fifties, and had rather dramatic consequences for the Castle Bravo test…

    Pass the smelling salts, someone…

    • GordonDocherty

      Fortunately, with the configuration used here, run-away causes melt-down causes the system to fail safe. So, no need to run for the shelter…

  • GordonDocherty

    again, I repeat:

    As to the Lithium angle, the effects of Lithium in a nuclear reaction have been overlooked once before:

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

    and, more factually:

    http://gizadeathstar.com/2012/07/they-just-cant-seem-to-get-lithium-7-right/

    What’s that I read? – “But what if, as Richter suggested, lithium-7 has some peculiar
    properties of lattice assisted nuclear reactions, or “cold fusion”?”

    That suggestion was made way back in the fifties, and had rather dramatic consequences for the Castle Bravo test…

    Pass the smelling salts, someone…

    • GordonDocherty

      Fortunately, with the configuration used here, run-away causes melt-down causes the system to fail safe. So, no need to run for the shelter…

  • My first experiences of the reaction of the sceptics:

    – no peer review
    – no journal
    – scientists conducting the test are Rossis “friends”

    -> worthless and not convincing

    • Ged

      Any true sceptic will want to play with the data and see for them self. The rest aren’t sceptics.

      • RD Canuck

        WOW! I cannot help but feel that history was made today.
        There will wailing and gnashing but in the end, this evidence is irrefutable. My predication is that the floodgates of research will eventually open and usher in a new era in the field of LENR. Historians will trace it back to this paper.

        • Ged

          Very good point. Seems to be a neutron donor. Depends on absolute quantities as well as relative abundance changes, to be able to devise new theory on this.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Not quite. LENR according to Widom-Larson (inverse beta decay with subsequent neutron capture etc.), Miley (fission of a “collective nucleus”) and others are not covered by the usual definition of “fusion”. Actually, it would make no difference if it was fusion or not, as long as it benefits society. On the other hand, “cold fusion” is a highly controversial term, and whether it is applicable or not will surely be relevant for public discussion. I prefer to refrain from judgment until the phenomenon is conclusively explained.

        • it is opening. wait a little. it takes time before it is visible.

        • Some LED opperates with a similar over unity as we’ll actually – this was however not mentioned at the Nobel Prize Award

    • Curbina

      I don’t spect anything different from the so called “skeptics” which are completely oblivious to the Fact that Dr. Essen is one of “them”. I already did the exercise of posting it to a FB “Skeptic” forum. One of the answers: ” I know enough basic physics to know it can’t work. I don’t feel any need to go on a free-energy wild goose chase.”

      • it is an old reply from 1989

        http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

        As Prof. H. Feshbach (MIT) put it in 1991: “I have had 50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s not. . . . I don’t want to see any more evidence! I think it’s a bunch of junk and I don’t want to have anything further to do with it.” [1]

      • Gerrit

        Like Seaborg advising George Bush sr in 1989 ” I decided to take my background as a nuclear scientist and really come to the sensible conclusion that this work was not right, that it was really cold. You couldn’t do it. So that’s what I told him at that time. I said, “You can’t just go out and say this is not valid. You’re going to have to create a high-level panel that will study it for six months, and then they’ll come out and tell you it’s not valid,” and that’s what he did.”

    • Gerrit

      I will become very convincing to scientists as soon as funding for further research is available.

    • Guru

      And where is this 6 months long test ???
      There is some different 32 days test.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I can confirm, this IS the official report

        • Herb Gillis

          Does anyone know if they quantified helium output from the device? That would obviously be an important piece of data for explaining the types of reactions taking place.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            So lets assume for a second that this report is the smoking gun needed to prove that Rossi’s invention is the real deal. Also lets assume you could only get a COP of 3.2 out of the device.
            Wouldnt you be able to get cheap electricity out of this thing by running them in series. By running them in series I would envision either a russian nesting doll setup where electricity provides the heat to the inner reactor, and the excess heat provides the heat energy to the outer reactor. If there are diminishing returns as a result of the diameter of each subsequent shell getting larger and larger. Then you could place the inner reactor into a container that has a high thermal conductivity along with the ability to maintain its solid state at high temperatures. This container could then be used as a heat pump of sorts to transfer heat into another reactor of the same size as the initial reactor.

            Now I am not certain this arrangement would necessarily work. But a design where the heat from one reactor feeds another should provide a mechanism to limit the amount of additional electrical energy needed to increase the overall systems temperature.

          • bachcole

            I thought that that was what the cat and mouse arrangement was.

          • LilyLover

            Jumping with joy!!
            Congratulations, Dr. Rossi and his supporters.
            Congratulations, Frank.
            … For celebrating the E-Cat Report and awareness spreading…
            Going out to get bagels and chocolate for the entire office of 250 people with a print out of this page. Hopefully 50 will check out!

          • EEStorFanFibb

            I would really like to see some kind of press release from Industrial Heat now.

          • Billy Jackson

            that may be planned.. remember this was leaked early.

          • Freethinker

            This is a double edged sword. Had they been able to present an accepted paper with Journal of Physics D, then it would be a sure thing, I think.

          • On the other hand, a Journal could improve it’s image drastically if it is in, let’s say 5 years, THE journal which pushed LENR back into the game?

          • Jonnyb

            So is the publication in the Journal of Physics D out of the question now?

          • Freethinker

            I have not heard any such news. I think they are deliberating, and there might be more issues outstanding with regard to comments made by referees. I think it is not over until they have finally refused it. As stated by admin above :

            ” I got the report
            sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be
            public, although not supposed to be published in any commercial journal
            until further notice from Journal of Physics D.”

            So they must still be in play.

          • Ged

            http://atom.iop.org/atom/help.nsf/LookupJournalSpecific/general-guidelines-for-authors~** there’s the guide to authors for publishing in the Journal of Physics.

            Two issues: must not be published elsewhere (so will this release count as a “previously published”?), and must meet the length requirements. As it is, I think it’s too long, so they would have had to submit a trimmed down version with most of the data in supplementary materials.

          • MLWerner

            The number one thing here that will open the flood gates and get scientists working on this is the change in isotopes of Nickle and Lithium. This is the piece that the rational skeptics have said couldn’t happen, but yet it does! Once you establish that the reaction can take place, the heat generation is an obvious result. If we can just get about 10% of the effort currently going into hot fusion into LENR things will start to move.

        • clovis ray

          Thanks buddy.

        • Ged

          Sorry to harp on it, but you guys and other replicators are the key now. If you can replicate it, then it’s real. If you can’t, that says something. But armed with the reveals here, I’m confident an accurate try can now be had for the first time. Not just the lithium form, but the nickel, reactor geometry, and such are all important, most likely.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We are analysing the report, will take guidance from all the scientists and contributors that engage and press ahead with validation of this important paper as best we can. We can do things immediately with insight from the report and plan for other work. We have a range of powders on hand, a little cash to play with and a whole lot of motivation.

  • My first experiences of the reaction of the sceptics:

    – no peer review
    – no journal
    – scientists conducting the test are Rossis “friends”

    -> worthless and not convincing

    • Ged

      Any true sceptic will want to play with the data and see for them self. The rest aren’t sceptics.

    • Curbina

      I don’t spect anything different from the so called “skeptics” which are completely oblivious to the Fact that Dr. Essen is one of “them”. I already did the exercise of posting it to a FB “Skeptic” forum. One of the answers: ” I know enough basic physics to know it can’t work. I don’t feel any need to go on a free-energy wild goose chase.”

      • it is an old reply from 1989

        http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

        As Prof. H. Feshbach (MIT) put it in 1991: “I have had 50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s not. . . . I don’t want to see any more evidence! I think it’s a bunch of junk and I don’t want to have anything further to do with it.” [1]

        • clovis ray

          LOL

      • Gerrit

        Like Seaborg advising George Bush sr in 1989 ” I decided to take my background as a nuclear scientist and really come to the sensible conclusion that this work was not right, that it was really cold. You couldn’t do it. So that’s what I told him at that time. I said, “You can’t just go out and say this is not valid. You’re going to have to create a high-level panel that will study it for six months, and then they’ll come out and tell you it’s not valid,” and that’s what he did.”

    • Gerrit

      I will become very convincing to scientists as soon as funding for further research is available.

    • Guru

      And where is this 6 months long test ???
      There is some different 32 days test.

    • bfast

      My understanding is that the certification of peer review, and publication in journals (looks like 2 to me) is forthcoming.

      Rossi’s “Friends”, yes. Skeptics will bite on that one. The flipside, however, is that these top scientists have proven their belief in this technology by abandoning all else to pursue it. See Matthew 13:45-46.

  • US_Citizen71

    With the isotopic change to Ni62 fusion is definitely involved. This begs the question of where did the sub-atomic particles that fused with the nickel come from. The depletion of Li7 needs a little more data as they didn’t give the values for the Li6 in the ash. It would be nice to know if the missing Li7 became Li6 or if it was fissioned completely and became the donor for the Nickel fusion. Very exciting!!!

    • MikeP

      The table at the end lists 6Ii, which I think is a typo for 6Li … 62 Ni goes up 6 Li goes up, so somehow neutrons are transferred from Li to Ni …

      • US_Citizen71

        I didn’t get the far before work, i’ll definitely go back and read all of appendices.

        Edit: The table data at the end does suggest that the Li7 is the neutron donor. I would bet it is the same reaction that caused Castle Bravo to be larger than expected as well. Hmmm, time to corner the Lithium market?

  • RD Canuck

    WOW! I cannot help but feel that history was made today.
    There will wailing and gnashing but in the end, this evidence is irrefutable. My predication is that the floodgates of research will eventually open and usher in a new era in the field of LENR. Historians will trace it back to this paper.

    • it is opening. wait a little. it takes time before it is visible.

    • Some LED opperates with a similar over unity as we’ll actually – this was however not mentioned at the Nobel Prize Award

  • US_Citizen71

    With the isotopic change to Ni62 fusion is definitely involved. This begs the question of where did the sub-atomic particles that fused with the nickel come from. The depletion of Li7 needs a little more data as they didn’t give the values for the Li6 in the ash. It would be nice to know if the missing Li7 became Li6 or if it was fissioned completely and became the donor for the Nickel fusion. Very exciting!!!

    • MikeP

      The table at the end lists 6Ii, which I think is a typo for 6Li … 62 Ni goes up 6 Li goes up, so somehow neutrons are transferred from Li to Ni …

      • US_Citizen71

        I didn’t get that far before work, i’ll definitely go back and read all of the appendices.

        Edit: The table data at the end does suggest that the Li7 is the neutron donor. I would bet it is the same reaction that caused Castle Bravo to be larger than expected as well. Hmmm, time to corner the Lithium market?

  • Fyodor

    I’m a little disappointed that the rumors about lots of new people, huge collaborative efforts, actual publication, etc did not materialize. Same people as before, most of whom have been E-cat supporters from the early on. I don’t have any reason to doubt their veracity, but it would have done a lot for the credibility of the report to have new/different people write it and publish it.

    • Joel C.

      This is the symptom of a world addicted on instant gratification.

      Complaining about this historic report helps what?

      • Fyodor

        What do anyone’s Internet comment threads do? Do you feel that you are helping the march of science by commenting here? This is a thread about people’s reactions to the report.

        I think that most people here believed that the e-cat worked,but were hoping that this report would move public acceptance forward. A report by different/more people that were not friends of the inventor, published in a real journal would have gone a long way. The report had been promoted as such, so it is disappointing.

    • yes, it is a good report, but not the Manhattan project that we imagined…

      • US_Citizen71

        The report/test seems to me to have been designed for patent protection and not for the the enrichment of academia or furthering the design specifications. There also maybe more reports in the wings with more authors.

        • Billy Jackson

          The more reports coming is what i am hoping also.. otherwise there are a lot of unanswered questions about what rossi claimed was happening vs what actually happened. above all.. this not being a 6 month test as claimed threw me a loop.. was their another test that failed? melted down? wheres the 6 month test that they claimed was going to happen after the last report.

          maybe we listened to rumor to often and let it cloud our expectations.

    • Sanjeev

      Its not too late. IH can still invite a press conference and formally announce the findings of the report. It will have a 1000 fold effect compared to a “mere report”. Money speaks.

      Actually I was hoping for such an announcement formally.

  • Gerrit

    I thought they “accidentally” deleted the whole LENR thread a while ago ?

  • dickyaesta

    Wow, a twenty cm long pipe with a diameter of 2 cm ending with 2 taps of 4 cm long and 4 cm diameter, with a concoction of some metals, vibrating at a secret pace, A Cop, very conservatively, of at least 3,5 and there you have it: ROSSI’S WONDER, Felicitations to him and to the rest of the world and the Nobel prize of physics 2014 goes to: ………………………… The inventors of the blue Led 😉

    • GordonDocherty

      “The Nobel prize of physics 2014 goes to: ………………………… The inventors of the blue Led ;-)”

      🙂

      • US_Citizen71

        It was an important discovery. Without blue leds we wouldn’t have the white ones that are starting to save energy and money in lighting today. Rossi will get his due, hopefully sooner than later.

        • Ged

          Nobel prizes take upwards of 20-30 years to get awarded, so we must not hold our breath 😉

          • GordonDocherty

            According to the web, Nobel’s last will specified that his fortune be used to create a series of prizes for those who confer the “greatest benefit on mankind” in physics, chemistry, peace, physiology or medicine, and literature. Just depends who think “mankind” is – all of us, or just the 1 per cent…

          • LilyLover

            He meant mankind, as in kindly to man or to kindly man;
            Not to Unkindman nor to Unmankind.
            So, I’m sure the intent is well known; action taken must be deliberately discordant.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Hopefully, it will not take 49 years, as it did in the case of Peter Higgs. Rossi would then be a 113-year-old man. However, I would give him credit for reaching that age…

        • dickyaesta

          Sure you are right, only I couldn’t resist this one.;-)

      • dickyaesta

        Thanks GD

    • dickyaesta

      Sorry for the extreme simplification, but I am looking for the ‘Mother of all Headlines’ for this extraordinary achievement, as we are living in a headline consuming age. we have to sum up this invention in a Headline, maybe some of you will help, a few words sometimes does the trick!

      • Billy Jackson

        well im pretty sure that a damp dark castle on the precipice of a vast chasm in the dark of night, radiating strange pulses of light during a thunderstorm, just may give image to a vibrant but slightly disturbed image of Rossi raising his hands to the heavens as lightning strikes shouting IT LIVES

        • dickyaesta

          But at least it might warm this dank, dark castle of yours, vibrating or no, living or not living 🙂 Very well said though

        • psi2u2

          Lol. What a scene, Billy!

  • dickyaesta

    Wow. Simply said: A twenty cm long pipe with a diameter of 2 cm ending with 2 taps of 4 cm long and 4 cm diameter, with a concoction of some metals, vibrating at a secret pace, Produces a Cop, very conservatively, of at least 3,5 and there you have it: ROSSI’S WONDER, Felicitations to him and to the rest of the world for gaining a way out of much misery with this invention.

    The Nobel prize of physics 2014 goes to: ………………………… The inventors of the blue Led 😉

    • jaques

      You don’t get rewarded for products but theories in the Nobel prize.

    • GordonDocherty

      “The Nobel prize of physics 2014 goes to: ……………….. The inventors of the blue Led ;-)”

      🙂

      • US_Citizen71

        It was an important discovery. Without blue leds we wouldn’t have the white ones that are starting to save energy and money in lighting today. Rossi will get his due, hopefully sooner than later.

        • Ged

          Nobel prizes take upwards of 20-30 years to get awarded, so we must not hold our breath 😉

          • GordonDocherty

            According to the web, Nobel’s last will specified that his fortune be used to create a series of prizes for those who confer the “greatest benefit on mankind” in physics, chemistry, peace, physiology or medicine, and literature. Just depends who you think “mankind” is – all of us, or just the 1 per cent…

          • LilyLover

            He meant mankind, as in kindly to man or to kindly man;
            Not to Unkindman nor to Unmankind.
            So, I’m sure the intent is well known; action taken must be deliberately discordant.

          • Bento

            grapheen.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Hopefully, it will not take 49 years, as it did in the case of Peter Higgs. Rossi would then be a 113-year-old man. However, I would give him credit for reaching that age…

        • dickyaesta

          Surely you are right, only I couldn’t resist on this one.;-)

      • dickyaesta

        Thanks GD

    • dickyaesta

      Sorry for the extreme simplification, but I am looking for the ‘Mother of all Headlines’ for this extraordinary achievement, as we are living in a headline grabbing age. we have to sum up this invention in a Headline, maybe some of you will help, a few words sometimes does the trick!

      • Billy Jackson

        well im pretty sure that a damp dark castle on the precipice of a vast chasm in the dark of night, radiating strange pulses of light during a thunderstorm, just may give image to a vibrant but slightly disturbed image of Rossi raising his hands to the heavens as lightning strikes shouting IT LIVES

        • dickyaesta

          But at least it might warm this dank, dark castle of yours, vibrating or no, living or not living 🙂 Very well said. I got the message though, but I am still searching for the right word for vibrating in this context

        • psi2u2

          Lol. What a scene, Billy!

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Congrats to everyone here!

    • Gerrit

      have fun over at eestor !

  • Congrats to everyone here!

    • Gerrit

      have fun over at eestor !

      • WaltC

        EEstor– wow, are they still around? They were “on the verge” forever when I finally stopped checking in.

  • Ged

    MFMP folks.

    I know you guys are here. With the hard data on design and fuel of this reactor, should it be possible to replicate it now? I am fully willing to donate what I can to make that happen.

    Rossi’s reactor is the pinnacle of LENR. He’s the one who revived this field and blew it wide open. His implementation is vastly superior to the others as claimed. I fully believe this will be the penultimate replication, and more important to establish than the rest at the present time.

    Just let us know guys, if plan to do so! You have the experience now from the rest of your replications, the equipment, and the know how to really give us amazing data and independent insight.

  • Bento

    I’m having a déja-vue.

    • Bento

      vu
      I wanna see Rossi’s head on the front page of my newspaper, so I can go to my friends and family and say:’ you see, this is what I was talking about for the last 3,5 years’.

  • Ged

    MFMP folks.

    I know you guys are here. With the hard data on design and fuel of this reactor, should it be possible to replicate it now? I am fully willing to donate what I can to make that happen.

    Rossi’s reactor is the pinnacle of LENR. He’s the one who revived this field and blew it wide open. His implementation is vastly superior to the others as claimed. I fully believe this will be the penultimate replication, and more important to establish than the rest at the present time.

    Just let us know guys, if plan to do so! You have the experience now from the rest of your replications, the equipment, and the know how to really give us amazing data and independent insight.

    • clovis ray

      Ged,
      I agree, if i had to choose someone to do the reproduction it would be (quantum heat,)
      these guys know what their doing, and have full faith in them

  • Bob Greenyer

    @disqus_WZ8AEr6Uwu:disqus

    Our next test of the powder cell was to include some form of Lithium Hydride, this has been planned since March. We have ordered some lithium aluminum hydride and are discussing right now with Jean Paul Biberian how best to incorporate this in the cell because of its potentially corrosive nature.

  • Christopher Calder

    My guess is that the real COP of the working reactor with Mouse attached in something like 8. Will Matt Drudge or CNN carry this story if we let them know about it?

    • Try it if you have contacts!

    • deleo77

      My guess is the MSM will shy away from this one simply because Levi is the top name on the report. Levi has too much history with Rossi and skeptics will just say the whole thing was fixed by Levi alone, so the report is not genuine.

      So much of the last test was about the 3rd wire and the claim that DC power ran through it. My guess on this test is that the interest will zero in on the ash analysis, because that is the smoking gun. How exactly was that process of transporting and testing the ash handled? Whose hands were on it? Those types of questions. Because the ash tells the story – it says fusion.

      • Sanjeev

        The report does mention the support from IH and Eleforsk…… so its not only Levi or Rossi’s friends. However pathoskeptics are known for cherry picking.

        If only the IH fellows could come out of the hiding and declare their technology. For some reason they are behaving awkward.

        • US_Citizen71

          NAVY contract?!?

          • Dods

            Rossi used to allude to navy connection in his talk about the Ecat a few years ago. I also have a vague memory of a cold fusion seminar of which there was a navy presence and at that time a high ranking naval official was boasting about the problems with naval shipping had now been resolved but he didn’t mention in detail what that solution was.

          • US_Citizen71

            The US NAVY most certainly has a new power source but what it is and who came up with it is the question. With the push to field battlefield lasers, rail-guns and underway aviation fuel production from CO2 and water the NAVY needs some form of new shipboard energy production. The fact that they have dates for fielding the toys that need the power states that they have the power plant figured out. Since they have not requested more nuclear reactors it’s not current nuclear fission. The NAVY has used steam power for close to 150 years so using Rossi’s ECat seems like a plausible energy source that would use their current ongoing knowledge and experience with steam.

      • artefact

        The reactor had a COP of 3,6 without self sustaining mode. Rossi said he can now run one third with electricity and two thirds without. That makes a COP of 10,8 in “business mode”

  • Bob Greenyer

    @disqus_WZ8AEr6Uwu:disqus

    Our next test of the powder cell was to include some form of Lithium Hydride, this has been planned since March. We have ordered some lithium aluminum hydride and are discussing right now with Jean Paul Biberian how best to incorporate this in the cell because of its potentially corrosive nature.

    • clovis ray

      don’t forget the iron, i feel it is very important, for some reason. smile

  • My guess is that the real COP of the working reactor with Mouse attached in something like 8. Will Matt Drudge or CNN carry this story if we let them know about it?

    • Try it if you have contacts!

    • deleo77

      My guess is the MSM will shy away from this one simply because Levi is the top name on the report. Levi has too much history with Rossi and skeptics will just say the whole thing was fixed by Levi alone, so the report is not genuine.

      So much of the last test was about the 3rd wire and the claim that DC power ran through it. My guess on this test is that the interest will zero in on the ash analysis, because that is the smoking gun. How exactly was that process of transporting and testing the ash handled? Whose hands were on it? Those types of questions. Because the ash tells the story – it says fusion.

      • Sanjeev

        The report does mention the support from IH and Eleforsk…… so its not only Levi or Rossi’s friends. However pathoskeptics are known for cherry picking.

        If only the IH fellows could come out of the hiding and declare their technology. For some reason they are behaving awkward.

        • US_Citizen71

          NAVY contract?!?

          • Dods

            Rossi used to allude to navy connection in his talk about the Ecat a few years ago. I also have a vague memory of a cold fusion seminar of which there was a navy presence and at that time a high ranking naval official was boasting about the problems with naval shipping had now been resolved but he didn’t mention in detail what that solution was.

          • US_Citizen71

            The US NAVY most certainly has a new power source but what it is and who came up with it is the question. With the push to field battlefield lasers, rail-guns and underway aviation fuel production from CO2 and water the NAVY needs some form of new shipboard energy production. The fact that they have dates for fielding the toys that need the power states that they have the power plant figured out. Since they have not requested more nuclear reactors it’s not current nuclear fission. The NAVY has used steam power for close to 150 years so using Rossi’s ECat seems like a plausible energy source that would use their current ongoing knowledge and experience with steam.

  • Donk970

    Considering that there are steam turbine power plants in operation at only 700c that are close to 50% efficient I’d say that even at a COP of 3 these devices will be usable. As has been pointed out though the experimental setup used an inefficient continuous stimulation for simplicity of measurement and the real COP in an operating device should be higher. Yay!!!

    • Billy Jackson

      something to look forward to most assuredly.

      Unfortunately a lot of work is still left undone before it can be commercialized. How does it work when scaled? something the thickness of a garden hose has limited uses due to the volume of steam it can put out for said turbines. does it work the same at 6 inches or a 6-12 foot “reactor chamber” for a ship.

      • US_Citizen71

        Then you simply put more bits of ‘garden hose’ in your boiler, problem solved. Really it is not that different than the multiple fuel rods in a fission reactor.

      • Donk970

        Indeed, as with anything like this there is a long and arduous path between demonstrating that it can work in principle and actually building a working device on an assembly line. The really important thing is that there is a relatively clear engineering path from here to there. These kinds of problems have already been solved in other applications so this is really just engineering at this point and there are loads of people out there who do this kind of work all the time.

      • Donk970

        Another point to make here is that the reaction is happening in a volume of powder but the heat is radiating through the surface of the reaction chamber. Since volume increases by cubes of the radius while surface area goes up by squares the smaller diameter the reaction chamber the better. I can imagine a production reactor design where you have lots of relatively small diameter pipes just big enough for one reactor element to fit into. The reactor element is inserted into the pipe from the end and water flow comes in the side and out the far end with a valve so that any chamber can be turned off and the reactor element replaced without shutting down the whole plant. The whole thing could be automated with a robotic fuel loader that replaces spent reactor elements as needed much like some of the CANDU reactors replace spent fuel rods.

  • Donk970

    Considering that there are steam turbine power plants in operation at only 700c that are close to 50% efficient I’d say that even at a COP of 3 these devices will be usable. As has been pointed out though the experimental setup used an inefficient continuous stimulation for simplicity of measurement and the real COP in an operating device should be higher. Yay!!!

    • Billy Jackson

      something to look forward to most assuredly.

      Unfortunately a lot of work is still left undone before it can be commercialized. How does it work when scaled? something the thickness of a garden hose has limited uses due to the volume of steam it can put out for said turbines. does it work the same at 6 inches or a 6-12 foot “reactor chamber” for a ship.

      • US_Citizen71

        Then you simply put more bits of ‘garden hose’ in your boiler, problem solved. Really it is not that different than the multiple fuel rods in a fission reactor.

        • clovis ray

          with the exception of radiation, whahooooo.

      • Donk970

        Indeed, as with anything like this there is a long and arduous path between demonstrating that it can work in principle and actually building a working device on an assembly line. The really important thing is that there is a relatively clear engineering path from here to there. These kinds of problems have already been solved in other applications so this is really just engineering at this point and there are loads of people out there who do this kind of work all the time.

      • clovis ray

        I believe the answer is yes.

      • Donk970

        Another point to make here is that the reaction is happening in a volume of powder but the heat is radiating through the surface of the reaction chamber. Since volume increases by cubes of the radius while surface area goes up by squares the smaller diameter the reaction chamber the better. I can imagine a production reactor design where you have lots of relatively small diameter pipes just big enough for one reactor element to fit into. The reactor element is inserted into the pipe from the end and water flow comes in the side and out the far end with a valve so that any chamber can be turned off and the reactor element replaced without shutting down the whole plant. The whole thing could be automated with a robotic fuel loader that replaces spent reactor elements as needed much like some of the CANDU reactors replace spent fuel rods.

  • Christian

    Oh my god. I am watching this story unfolding since 2011. Is this the moment we have ben waiting for. Prove at last? I think i will go outside for a walk and watch the sky dreaming of the stars. Thank you frank for this incredible website. It was hell of a ride till this 8.10.2014.

    • bfast

      Probably not. When a revolution is this big, skepticism runs very deep. I don’t believe that this will take off until there is a commercial product line available (not just one, but a manufacturing line.) That’s when skepticism will be forced to fall.

      • Josh G

        100% Right. Just like the Wright brothers.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    why do some of the pathoskeptic trolls think Rossi ran the test? is there some evidence that he was even there? see John Milstone’s post here http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ecatnews%2FAdFD+%28+%C2%BB+eCatNews+-+Rossi%E2%80%99s+Cold+Fusion+2.0%29

    • Billy Jackson

      it mentions in the report that he was there at the start

      ” The dummy reactor
      was s
      witched on at 12:20 PM of
      2
      4 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi
      who
      gradually
      brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi
      later
      intervened
      to
      switch off the dummy, and in the
      following
      subsequent operations
      on the E

      Cat: charge insertion, reactor start
      up, reactor
      shutdown
      and
      powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred;
      moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the
      collaboration
      .”

      • EEStorFanFibb

        ugh, these guys are always shooting themselves in the foot.

        • blanco69

          That’s despite saying that the test had nothing to do with him. Left the skeptic’s door wide open there.

      • deleo77

        You know what’s coming, Rossi slipped in some different powder on extraction. I hate to add fuel to their arguments, but the powder extraction is a huge deal. They are going to ask why Rossi had to do this? Who was in the room with him at the time. The spent fuel says fusion, and it says nuclear. So, we can go beyond the COP, and just look at the ash. It would be good if the testers detailed a specific protocol beyond what they already have for the handling of the ash.

        • Billy Jackson

          regardless of “anything added” its not going to give you a chemical reaction that lasts for 32 days at that level of energy output. But i do agree with you that at first glance they are giving skeptics more ammunition to use against them.

          Rossi should never have been anywhere near the testing site. let alone handling equipment. It leaves the door open to claims of tainted tests. I hate saying this.. but they may have botched it. We wanted and needed something near foolproof and letting Rossi participate even a little was a massive mistake.

          I am a fan of Rossi and his work. i believe the e-cat works. I am looking beyond what i believe and trying to see how others are going to discredit the findings.. and this is a huge one.

          • US_Citizen71

            One hopes they have video of the extraction, then that only leaves the chain of custody.

          • Billy Jackson

            we can hope.. and i pray your right. I would love to see them let the skeptics slam the tests for a few hours/days and then release the video of the extraction showing nothing of the sort.

          • SH

            Ditto. THey did say at least one person observed him during the process.

  • why do some of the pathoskeptic trolls think Rossi ran the test? is there some evidence that he was even there? see John Milstone’s post here http://ecatnews.com/?p=2669&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ecatnews%2FAdFD+%28+%C2%BB+eCatNews+-+Rossi%E2%80%99s+Cold+Fusion+2.0%29

    • Billy Jackson

      it mentions in the report that he was there at the start

      ” The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor start up, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.”

      • ugh, these guys are always shooting themselves in the foot.

      • Joniale

        This certainly doesn´t help to prove that there were no tricks. Why should Rossi be directly involved in a third party test?. Exactly in the critical phases. e.g. powder charge extraction. He should just leave instructions to the responsibles of the test.
        Rossi does his life more difficult by doing this.

        • crj11

          Where does it say in the paper that Rossi removed the charge? I read it that Rossi was only there on the first day, and they opened the reactor themselves after it was shut down.

          “About 32 days from startup, on the 29 March 2014, at 11:40, the E-Cat was shut down, after gradually reducing its input power. The shutdown date had already been decided when organizing the test, and had nothing to do with the potential of the reactor, which was running normally. Therefore, no assumption may be made on the life of the powder charge, nor, consequently, on the total energy density of the reactor charge ,which means that the values found are only indicative of lower limits.

          After cooling, the E-Cat was again opened by breaking one of the caps, and the powder was collected and put in a test tube. After Bianchini’s readings, performed in a matter similar to those in the first phase, the test
          tube was handed back to us for further analysis, the results of which will presented in paragraph 8.”

          • Mark Underwood

            Page 5:

            The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.

      • deleo77

        You know what’s coming, Rossi slipped in some different powder on extraction. I hate to add fuel to their arguments, but the powder extraction is a huge deal. They are going to ask why Rossi had to do this? Who was in the room with him at the time. The spent fuel says fusion, and it says nuclear. So, we can go beyond the COP, and just look at the ash. It would be good if the testers detailed a specific protocol beyond what they already have for the handling of the ash.

        • Billy Jackson

          regardless of “anything added” its not going to give you a chemical reaction (for the given volume) that lasts for 32 days at that level of energy output. But i do agree with you that at first glance they are giving skeptics more ammunition to use against them.

          Rossi should never have been anywhere near the testing site. let alone handling equipment. It leaves the door open to claims of tainted tests. I hate saying this.. but they may have botched it. We wanted and needed something near foolproof and letting Rossi participate even a little was a massive mistake.

          I am a fan of Rossi and his work. i believe the e-cat works. I am looking beyond what i believe and trying to see how others are going to discredit the findings.. and this is a huge one.

          • US_Citizen71

            One hopes they have video of the extraction, then that only leaves the chain of custody.

          • Billy Jackson

            we can hope.. and i pray your right. I would love to see them let the skeptics slam the tests for a few hours/days and then release the video of the extraction showing nothing of the sort.

          • Col

            There’s a video camera in the corner of the room, see photo…

          • SH

            Ditto. THey did say at least one person observed him during the process.

          • clovis ray

            billy.
            He did not give the ip away he smarter than that, and the only way he could do that was to insert the charge, and retrieve the fuel ,

          • Vio Phile

            Billy, I agree with your honest opinion. I expected more, but still I think that this is a positive development regardless of all the doubts.

        • bkrharold

          It does not matter who put the charge in, the results speak for themselves. The amount of energy is far greater than what could be produced in any chemical reaction. Furthermore the distribution of isotopes of Nickel also indicate some type of nuclear transformation. Let us not second guess what nonsense the pseudoskeptics come up with, or give them any ideas, they are perfectly capable of doing that themselves. This report was carefully compiled by several teams of professional academics and leaders in their fields. They have put their reputations on the line, with no hope of any compensation. What possible motive would all these people have to deceive? I am absolutely thrilled with this positive result, modest COP notwithstanding.
          Today is the beginning of a new energy paradigm, where fossil fuel takes a back seat to LENR. The world will be much safer peaceful and prosperous. May God bless Andrea Rossi

      • Joniale

        Andrea told us that he will have the report 3days before… however, we know this today.Besides, always he said the test was 6months long (no excuses that he was meaning 6months for test+writing), and it was evident that he knew that the test was only 32 days long. He was there. Why hiding this information?. Some clarification?
        This doesn´t help to gain acceptance and credibility of all this information.

        • Billy Jackson

          Its put a burr in my saddle too Jonaile. Unfortunately the fault is ours. Rossi has comfirmed very little and allowed us to assume certian aspects that lead us to expect certain things in the report. 6 month test was a huge expectation.. aka we expected the device to run for 6 months.. not 32 days. which will lead to questions asked if their was another test run that failed hence the 32 day test.

          Higher COP.. from reports of 6 to 18+ we got our hopes up.. seeing COP 3.x was a bit of a let down as we wanted something earthshaking.

          It honestly has left me sitting here thinking for the last hour about what we do know vs what we Thought we knew. the experience has left me wanting more while causing me to question everything..

    • Fyodor

      Because the report said that he was there and participated in the test.

      • blanco69

        That’s despite saying that the test had nothing to do with him. Left the skeptic’s door wide open there.

    • Dods

      What I don’t understand is how a pathoskeptic can take an insular assumption and run with that as proof that the whole thing is then a mockery. Its like there incapable of taking a step back to look at the big picture and able to see the truth for what it really is. There is just to many people involved now for this to be anything but a reality.

      • bachcole

        Their skeptopathology is a case of wanting to be right on steroids. They are not sane.

      • psi2u2

        Exactly.

  • wpj

    Where the iron fit in???? Page 44, particle 3 is Fe with no Ni!

  • J

    Did they, in fact, not use the posibility for pulses at all, as that would make for harder measurements, or did I misunderstand that? Could the COP increase significantly if pulses are used?

  • or as ashes, as sequence of hydrogen fusion may lead to Li…

  • Guru

    I am totally confused. Who wrote numerously that this is 6 months long test ?
    Rossi wrote this publicly. What is this a chaos ? Some Men in Black tortured these 7 Universities professors ? Totally different report was today published after threats from GeStaPo or what ?
    Rossi is maybe thinking it is joke, nevertheless no. In northern and central Europe such lies are simply lies, not joke.

    • bachcole

      I actually thought that it was a joke when I saw the new dumbbell shaped E-Cat.

  • Gerard McEk

    Finally, the third party E-cat report is there. Congratulations Andrea!
    (I am a bit disappointed about the COP, which is too low to produce electricity directly via a closed loop. I am also disappointed that the test ‘only’ took 32 days. Considering the time it took them between the test period and the publication, I forgive them). HOWEVER:
    1. It proves that science needs to do something with their theories. Obviously there are more things between heaven and Earth than they thought.
    2. We should stop all hot fusion work and put all effort on further developing CF/LENR/Tansmutation or whatever it is going to be called. 40 years of hot fusion did not bring us near to what has now been achieved by Andrea Rossi and his IH team.
    3. We should all try to make this public and focus the force of public opinion on Cold Fusion. That should convince politicians and make them aware that we have another choice in the world of energy. Today I will inform my followers about this and that this report is the starting point a new technological era and a paradigm change for the world.
    4. I am sure this report should convince science and I hope it will transmute their opinion of Cold Fusion being ‘pathetic science’ into being ‘primary science’ and surely worth a Nobel Price!
    5. I was pleased to read that they will continue to investigate this phenomenon.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      The COP was based over lengthy tests. As with any technology it is likely to improve quickly once they can provide proof of concept enough to allow mainstream to invest.

      This report is based entirely on the Rossi device which has previously had stability issues while running too hot, so it was likely amped down to repeat an ecat destruction as occurred in the first verification.

      This is a product that has had a few million dollars allocated to research. Imagine if the world steps behind LENR and we see a few Trillion dollars aimed at understanding and magnifying the processes.

    • blanco69

      I think the IH team have yet to reveal themselves. No new players have been introduced to the audience. I hope the IH team are working behind the scenes to secure the much sought after patent. I cant see what a patent office would view as new evidence in this report however. Maybe the fuel analysis.

  • Gerard McEk

    Finally, the third party E-cat report is there. Congratulations Andrea!
    (I am a bit disappointed about the COP, which is too low to produce electricity directly via a closed loop. I am also disappointed that the test ‘only’ took 32 days. Considering the time it took them between the test period and the publication, I forgive them). HOWEVER:
    1. It proves that science needs to do something with their theories. Obviously there are more things between heaven and Earth than they thought.
    2. We should stop all hot fusion work and put all effort on further developing CF/LENR/Tansmutation or whatever it is going to be called. 40 years of hot fusion did not bring us near to what has now been achieved by Andrea Rossi and his IH team.
    3. We should all try to make this public and focus the force of public opinion on Cold Fusion. That should convince politicians and make them aware that we have another choice in the world of energy. Today I will inform my followers about this and that this report is the starting point a new technological era and a paradigm change for the world.
    4. I am sure this report should convince science and I hope it will transmute their opinion of Cold Fusion being ‘pathetic science’ into being ‘primary science’ and surely worth a Nobel Price!
    5. I was pleased to read that they will continue to investigate this phenomenon.

    • Joel C.

      We shouldn’t be disappointed by the reported COP because it is besides the point in this publication. The authors did eventually point out that this device wasn’t in a self-sustaining mode and no mention of the adjoining mouse was discussed. Those two factors would have dramatically increased the COP.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      The COP was based over lengthy tests. As with any technology it is likely to improve quickly once they can provide proof of concept enough to allow mainstream to invest.

      This report is based entirely on the Rossi device which has previously had stability issues while running too hot, so it was likely amped down to repeat an ecat destruction as occurred in the first verification.

      This is a product that has had a few million dollars allocated to research. Imagine if the world steps behind LENR and we see a few Trillion dollars aimed at understanding and magnifying the processes.

    • blanco69

      I think the IH team have yet to reveal themselves. No new players have been introduced to the audience. I hope the IH team are working behind the scenes to secure the much sought after patent. I cant see what a patent office would view as new evidence in this report however. Maybe the fuel analysis.

    • bfast

      “I am a bit disappointed about the COP, which is too low to produce electricity directly via a closed loop.”

      Are you sure about this? I do not consider myself a thermodynamic expert in any way, but I understand that steam turbines are more than 60% efficient. As such they should be able to close the loop at a COP of 2. I have heard from numerous sources that a COP of 3 is magic, that it is comfortably enough to close the loop and then some.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I can confirm, this IS the official report

    • Herb Gillis

      Does anyone know if they quantified helium output from the device? That would obviously be an important piece of data for explaining the types of reactions taking place.

    • clovis ray

      Thanks buddy.

    • Ged

      Sorry to harp on it, but you guys and other replicators are the key now. If you can replicate it, then it’s real. If you can’t, that says something. But armed with the reveals here, I’m confident an accurate try can now be had for the first time. Not just the lithium form, but the nickel, reactor geometry, and such are all important, most likely.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We are analysing the report, will take guidance from all the scientists and contributors that engage and press ahead with validation of this important paper as best we can. We can do things immediately with insight from the report and plan for other work. We have a range of powders on hand, a little cash to play with and a whole lot of motivation.

        • Leo Kaas

          Best of luck to you and everyone else at MFMP. I hope this report gives you some new ideas.

  • artefact

    The reactor had a COP of 3,6 without self sustaining mode. Rossi said he can now run one third with electricity and two thirds without. That makes a COP of 10,8 in “business mode”

  • Fibber McGoulick

    I’m sending the following message to my friends and associates…

    Hi all:
    An invention that will dramatically change the world for the better has been proven in a 32-day operational test by respected scientists from three countries. It is a safe, relatively uncomplicated, room-temperature, nuclear device that will soon provide cheap, pollution-free, energy to the world. This fully-documented test is nothing less than proof of that old cold-fusion process (now often called Low Energy Nuclear Reaction–LENR). Pons and Fleishman’s ignored discovery has come back to haunt those in the scientific establishment that improperly investigated it (and/or disdained it) in 1989.

    The small reactors tested here are embryonic compared to what is to come. This marvellous breakthrough will be developed very rapidly throughout the world, now that the device has been proven beyond doubt. Many of us have been waiting for this report for a long time.

    This development will be likely compared to the Indusrial Revolution, but it’s much more. It will cause dislocation in some of the polluting industries and machines, but like the advent of electricity it will hugely benefit everyone in the longer term.
    But judge alll this for yourself.
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-leaked/
    Go down toward the end of the article to read some of the illuminating comments from knowledgeable followers of the phenomena.

    Congratulations to Andrea Rossi for his amazing invention and his long committment to its successful development against great odds.

    Best. Don.

    • bachcole

      The skeptopaths are going to attack the fact that the same testers were used as in 2013.

      • Matt S

        This was always going to be the case. I don’t fully understand why people (not you) are suprised by this aspect. At the time of the original report it was clear that the same ‘team’ wanted to get a longer test done and to clear up some of the skeptics questions and doubts. The skeptopaths are clearly digging if they use this as some kind of red flag.

  • Mark

    well chuffed to say the least. Tweeted to Elon Musk, and posted on NasaSpaceflight.com and congratulated Andrea, awaiting moderation. I see Vortex messageboard seem to be impressed with the possibilities regarding the transmutation

  • Mark

    well chuffed to say the least. Tweeted to Elon Musk, and posted on NasaSpaceflight.com and congratulated Andrea, awaiting moderation. I see Vortex messageboard seem to be impressed with the possibilities regarding the transmutation

  • pedro

    I have some questions about the Lithium and Nickel…
    1. the ash analysis shows that the Nickel composition has changed to 99% 62Ni and almost no other Nickel isotopes were left over… does that mean the reactor burned through it’s fuel in 32 days? (Rossi said it would run 6 months on 1 charge). I.e. did the reactor stop after 32 days or did they stop it after 32 days and could it have runned for the claimed period of 6 months?
    2. the Lithium in the ash was measured using 2 different methods. The SIMS method gave a Li7 content of 7.9% and the ICP-MS method gave 42.5%… huge difference! How trustworthy are these measurements?
    3. Rossi suggested that the Nickel could be re-processed and re-used, but that can not be true if the reaction needs the transmutation of the Nickel isotopes
    Any suggestions?

    • Billy Jackson

      they stated they shut down the reactor at a prearranged time decided upon before testing began.

    • artefact

      1. I think Rossi said the reactor uses NI62 as a fuel and generates it itself. That would mean there is plenty of fuel left.

      • maybe simply the Ni non 62 is transmuted by accident, and Ni62 is very stable…
        not consumed by cooked until it is stable.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Yes, it could be placed at the end of a chain of secondary reactions. No problem as long as the primary reaction continues.

    • Da Phys

      2. the counts of 569302 in Table 1 does not make sense and underestimate the relative abundance. I’m more inclined to believe in the 42% which is compatible with all others.

    • bachcole

      Only one suggestion: The authors said clearly and distinctly that the test was turned off voluntarily and had nothing to do with whether the test could have continued.

  • pedro

    I have some questions about the Lithium and Nickel…
    1. the ash analysis shows that the Nickel composition has changed to 99% 62Ni and almost no other Nickel isotopes were left over… does that mean the reactor burned through it’s fuel in 32 days? (Rossi said it would run 6 months on 1 charge). I.e. did the reactor stop after 32 days or did they stop it after 32 days and could it have runned for the claimed period of 6 months?
    2. the Lithium in the ash was measured using 2 different methods. The SIMS method gave a Li7 content of 7.9% and the ICP-MS method gave 42.5%… huge difference! How trustworthy are these measurements?
    3. Rossi suggested that the Nickel could be re-processed and re-used, but that can not be true if the reaction needs the transmutation of the Nickel isotopes
    Any suggestions?

    • Billy Jackson

      they stated they shut down the reactor at a prearranged time decided upon before testing began.

    • artefact

      1. I think Rossi said the reactor uses NI62 as a fuel and generates it itself. That would mean there is plenty of fuel left.

      • maybe simply the Ni non 62 is transmuted by accident, and Ni62 is very stable…
        not consumed by cooked until it is stable.

        • curious

          Perhaps the Ni 62 is just the end product -plausible since it is the isotope with lowest energy. Other elements burn until they become ni62. Other Ni isotopes burn quickly because they are similar to Ni62

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Yes, it could be placed at the end of a chain of secondary reactions. No problem as long as the primary reaction continues.

          • Hopeful

            Sounds like “Depleted Nickel” (DN) to me. May this term become commonly known in the near future!

    • Da Phys

      2. the counts of 569302 in Table 1 does not make sense and underestimate the relative abundance. I’m more inclined to believe in the 42% which is compatible with all others.

    • bachcole

      Only one suggestion: The authors said clearly and distinctly that the test was turned off voluntarily and had nothing to do with whether the test could have continued.

  • Anonymous

    Long time reader, occasional donator, first time poster. My suggestion is for a general audience, no mention be made of the past controversy over the Pons and Fleishman replications. It distracts from the importance of what this means to the world. That information can come later when people start looking at origins of the E-Cat. The important news now, is that there is a new, powerful, and validated energy source in the world that is compatible with existing energy delivery methods.

    • Gerald

      Agreed. I remember the news from 1989 like IT was yesterday. But when I mention this to others they all start looking vary weird. For me it is importend, most don’t care and stop to listen. Like mentioning tesla and wireless power. It is not possible, power comes from a cord.

  • So now that we know that the Paper was issued to Journal of Physics D, compared with the “I never saw so many reviewers”-comment of “Paul”, can we expect to see it in a highly accepted journal?

    • artefact

      Very maybe there will be more reports published? Rossi said this time others are invelved, too and we have not yet seen them I guess.

      • Look at the appendix chapters in the report above. This seems to be the “minor-reports” of the guys who made the spectrographic analysis.

    • bachcole

      This seems to discredit “Paul”.

      • Either this, or the peer reviewing at JoPD is still in course and Paul ment that many people are working on it there.

        • artefact

          Rossi said something about asian testers?

          • Dods

            Yes and also a toast to the late Sergio Focardi as I’m sure he played a big big part in all of this unfolding saga.

  • So now that we know from Mats Lewan that the Paper was also issued to Journal of Physics D, combined with the “I never saw so many reviewers“-comment of “Paul”, can we expect to see it in a highly accepted journal, too?

    • artefact

      Very maybe there will be more reports published? Rossi said this time others are invelved, too and we have not yet seen them I guess.

      • Look at the appendix chapters in the report above. This seems to be the “minor-reports” of the guys who made the spectrographic analysis.

    • bachcole

      This seems to discredit “Paul”.

      • Either this, or the peer reviewing at JoPD is still in course and Paul ment that many people are working on it there.

        • artefact

          Rossi said something about asian testers?

    • Leopardfish1

      Considering that “Paul” is not an official rep of the E-Cat or LENR or Rossi, who cares what he said anyway? Let’s go with what we have and see how much more we can get from credible people. What do you say?

    • Barbierir

      This seems the best explanation for that phrase, I hope so

  • Da Phys

    Pons and Fleishmann were the first to use Li as catalyst but it is only now that we understand how important it was. 1989-2014: that’s exactly a quarter of a century. Very long by today standards.

  • Barbierir

    how long could it take for the publication on the Journal of Physics D ? I see it is weekly
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/

  • Barbierir

    how long could it take for the publication on the Journal of Physics D ? I see it is weekly
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/

  • Billy Jackson

    Its put a burr in my saddle too Jonaile. Unfortunately the fault is ours. Rossi has comfirmed very little and allowed us to assume certian aspects that lead us to expect certain things in the report. 6 month test was a huge expectation.. aka we expected the device to run for 6 months.. not 32 days. which will lead to questions asked if their was another test run that failed hence the 32 day test.

    Higher COP.. from reports of 6 to 18+ we got our hopes up.. seeing COP 3.x was a bit of a let down as we wanted something earthshaking.

    It honestly has left me sitting here thinking for the last hour about what we do know vs what we Thought we knew. the experience has left me wanting more while causing me to question everything..

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Interesting comment on Vortex:

    “[…]Also, keep in mind that Rossi no doubt
    knew in advance that there would be an isotope analysis, and he may have
    tried to walk a line between setting up a demo that showed a clear signal,
    on one hand, and taking steps to avoid giving away all of his secrets, on
    the other.“

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg97979.html

    An additional possible explanation for the modest COP.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Interesting comment on Vortex:

    “[…]Also, keep in mind that Rossi no doubt
    knew in advance that there would be an isotope analysis, and he may have
    tried to walk a line between setting up a demo that showed a clear signal,
    on one hand, and taking steps to avoid giving away all of his secrets, on
    the other.“

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg97979.html

    An additional possible explanation for the modest COP.

  • Gerald

    Agreed. I remember the news from 1989 like IT was yesterday. But when I mention this to others they all start looking vary weird. For me it is importend, most don’t care and stop to listen. Like mentioning tesla and wireless power. It is not possible, power comes from a cord.

  • Tom More

    WOW!
    a real revolution. rossi makes history…..gratulations!

  • Tom More

    WOW!
    a real revolution. rossi makes history…..gratulations!

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    So lets assume for a second that this report is the smoking gun needed to prove that Rossi’s invention is the real deal. Also lets assume you could only get a COP of 3.2 out of the device.
    Wouldnt you be able to get cheap electricity out of this thing by running them in series. By running them in series I would envision either a russian nesting doll setup where electricity provides the heat to the inner reactor, and the excess heat provides the heat energy to the outer reactor. If there are diminishing returns as a result of the diameter of each subsequent shell getting larger and larger. Then you could place the inner reactor into a container that has a high thermal conductivity along with the ability to maintain its solid state at high temperatures. This container could then be used as a heat pump of sorts to transfer heat into another reactor of the same size as the initial reactor.

    Now I am not certain this arrangement would necessarily work. But a design where the heat from one reactor feeds another should provide a mechanism to limit the amount of additional electrical energy needed to increase the overall systems temperature.

    • bachcole

      I thought that that was what the cat and mouse arrangement was.

  • foobario2

    Some strange and not necessarily reassuring things on further inspection:
    1. At 1400C, the reactor is just shy of the melting point of Nickle. If you are relying on some special structure of the Nickle to make this work, then the Nickle at that temperature will likely lose the correct form even if it doesn’t fully liquefy.

    2. At 1400C, the reactor is *above* the boiling point of Lithium meaning you have lithium gas in that reaction chamber.

    3. They never mentioned how they handled the interior of the chamber: If there is free hydrogen + air (no mention of vacuum pumping) + lots of heat you are going to have a small combustion event. Not enough hydrogen present for a big boom, but it’s very unclear how they are handling the fact that there’s regular air in that chamber.

    These aren’t good signs and we could use an explanation or it raises the possibility that the temperature of the reactor was not as high as what is stated in the report.

    • Ged

      It’s lithium alloy with aluminum in a sealed chamber, it will likely stay liquid as in a moltan salt reactor.

      We cannot assume that the heat would harm any nickle structures, that’s a very poor assumption. We know it’s likely surface cavities and area that plays a role, and there should be a lot more of that at such temps, not less.

  • bachcole

    I found the test to be a little disappointing. It was just an improvement on and a refinement of the 2013 test. It PROVES that the E-Cat is real, but I already knew that. It does not show that the E-cat is ready to generate cash flow. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

    The ceramic alumina container is probably a big step forward, since it can take much higher temperatures. The shape is weird. It seems so small. I expected that the test would last for 6 months; it was 148 days short. I won’t be running around shouting “The New Age has arrived.” Please correct me if I am mistaken.

    • It’s bigger than that. The sucker is tiny and ran at very high temperature. The fuel analysis is the bombshell in this report along with tightening up some of the input energy measurements.

      Still, the testers left a Farrari in idle. I wanted more performance testing, whereas they were just trying to convince themselves that it was real (again) and then crack it open to see what the heck was happening.

      Even so, the characteristics of the reactor as reported, not pushed close to its limits, would revolutionize the energy industry.

      • cafish

        Congrats to Mr Rossi. This is a day to remember!

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The difference is that the new report shows clearly that there are nuclear reactions in play. For that reason alone, Rossi’s invention cannot be ignored any longer, independently of the measured COP. Even if the COP had been lower, the effect would be interesting enough to become a subject of studies in laboratories all over the world.

    • Billy Jackson

      I feel the same way. I want to say its self inflicted but damn i feel disappointed regardless

    • Christopher Calder

      I was unhappy until I found out that the unit was intentionally run a low power for more accurate testing and that the mouse was not attached. So the COP of the real commercial reactor run in self-sustain mode with mouse attached is probably 3 times higher.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I had much higher aspirations for it, but this report is still monumental. Who knows what they may follow up with. There may be more papers, it is difficult to imagine this is everything they will say.

      • Billy Jackson

        I hope so Lady O. the more i read this the more it feels they dropped the ball. don’t get me wrong.. great paper.. just not what we were told to expect.

        • US_Citizen71

          They also could be purposeful non-reactive contamination to throw off competitors. A pinch of this sends the competitors down a rabbit hole to nowhere?

    • bkrharold

      I think the main focus of this effort was to prove conclusively, beyond any doubt, the existence of anomalous energy due to LENR. I agree that most readers of ECW do not need any convincing, however the doubters have successfully blocked almost all progress with their ad hominem attacks on Andrea Rossi, and suggestions that this is a scam. It will be very difficult for them to poke holes in this latest study, as it was performed by groups led by professors from several universities, collaborating and cross checking their results. Hopefully this will trigger further studies, and more development to optimize LENR and make it widely available. Even if everyone ignores the report, IH will have a competitive advantage that others will ignore at their financial peril.

  • bachcole

    I found the test to be a little disappointing. It was just an improvement on and a refinement of the 2013 test. It PROVES that the E-Cat is real, but I already knew that. It does not show that the E-cat is ready to generate cash flow. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

    The ceramic alumina container is probably a big step forward, since it can take much higher temperatures. The shape is weird. It seems so small. I expected that the test would last for 6 months; it was 148 days short. I won’t be running around shouting “The New Age has arrived.” Please correct me if I am mistaken.

    • It’s bigger than that. The sucker is tiny and ran at very high temperature. The fuel analysis is the bombshell in this report along with tightening up some of the input energy measurements.

      Still, the testers left a Ferrari in idle. I wanted more performance testing, whereas they were just trying to convince themselves that it was real (again) and then crack it open to see what the heck was happening.

      Even so, the characteristics of the reactor as reported, not pushed close to its limits, would revolutionize the energy industry.

      • bachcole

        Yes, the temperatures were much higher than anything even dreamed of before the test.

        • Flo

          That is the most important aspect, not the duration in months of the fuel burn, therefore this is it. A new industrial age.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      The difference is that the new report shows clearly that there are nuclear reactions in play. For that reason alone, Rossi’s invention cannot be ignored any longer, independently of the measured COP. Even if the COP had been lower, the effect would be interesting enough to become a subject of studies in laboratories all over the world.

      • bachcole

        We still have the problem of credibility and job insecurity.

    • Billy Jackson

      I feel the same way. I want to say its self inflicted but damn i feel disappointed regardless

    • I was unhappy until I found out that the unit was intentionally run a low power for more accurate testing and that the mouse was not attached. So the COP of the real commercial reactor run in self-sustain mode with mouse attached is probably 3 times higher.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I had much higher aspirations for it, but this report is still monumental. Who knows what they may follow up with. There may be more papers, it is difficult to imagine this is everything they will say.

      • Billy Jackson

        I hope so Lady O. the more i read this the more it feels they dropped the ball. don’t get me wrong.. great paper.. just not what we were told to expect.

      • bachcole

        Remember that this was March 2014. Seven month have already gone by. I doubt if Rossi has been sitting back, drinking wine coolers, and reading “Runners World”. (:->)

        Would it not be possible to make those dumbbell much bigger? Possibly?

    • bkrharold

      I think the main focus of this effort was to prove conclusively, beyond any doubt, the existence of anomalous energy due to LENR. I agree that most readers of ECW do not need any convincing, however the doubters have successfully blocked almost all progress with their ad hominem attacks on Andrea Rossi, and suggestions that this is a scam. It will be very difficult for them to poke holes in this latest study, as it was performed by groups led by professors from several universities, collaborating and cross checking their results. Hopefully this will trigger further studies, and more development to optimize LENR and make it widely available. Even if everyone ignores the report, IH will have a competitive advantage that others will ignore at their financial peril.

  • MLWerner

    The number one thing here that will open the flood gates and get scientists working on this is the change in isotopes of Nickle and Lithium. This is the piece that the rational skeptics have said couldn’t happen, but yet it does! Once you establish that the reaction can take place, the heat generation is an obvious result. If we can just get about 10% of the effort currently going into hot fusion into LENR things will start to move.

    • bkrharold

      After spending over 1 $trillion, the hot fusion crowd are almost close to break even. They say for just another $trillion they will definitely have something in 20 years. 10% of what has been wasted on this wild goose chase would be more than enough.

  • Curbina

    From appendix 4:

    Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.

    • US_Citizen71

      Possibly melted to the inner wall of the reactor?

      • Alain Samoun

        I said before that the test produced as much energy that 50 gallons of gasoline for 1g of mixture These 50 gallons of gas would have also produced 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2)

      • Ophelia Rump

        They scraped something off the inner walls.
        They gave an after weight for the reactor but not a before weight, that is curious.
        I would love to know the weight difference, it seems to me that that would indicate the amount of fuel actually used.

        • Fortyniner

          I think only picograms of mass would be needed to produce the energy concerned (by m=e/c2) – probably beyond the ability to measure, especially taking into account the inevitable losses of H2 and probably lithium vapour through the ceramic.

          • GordonDocherty

            I’ve seen a couple of comments elsewhere containing complaints about the use of thermal imaging to assess power output. Thermal imaging, however, makes perfect sense, and here’s why:

            If you used any form of direct contact, it would immediately be claimed:

            1. the direct contact was used to pump energy into the system
            2. the direct contacts were measuring hotspots, and were not at all representative
            3. loose contacts were giving false readings or, if in direct contact, the characteristics of the measurement devices moved “out of band” as the high heat invalidated use of device
            4. results from the measurement system cannot be trusted, as the system’s characteristics change as the measurement system heats up
            5. the measurements were being fiddled anyway (for example, by hidden equipment somewhere along the wires)

            Likewise, if a liquid was used, and measured, it would immediately be claimed:

            1. all of the above for direct contact plus:
            2. the assumptions about flow rate are wrong
            3. not enough steam (remember that one!)
            4. the probes measuring the liquid (or steam) temperature were in the wrong place
            5. the liquid contained impurities
            6. to eliminate issues around latent heat, the e-Cat should have been run at very low temperatures (what???), raising the water temperature for water flowing over the unit from ambient to, say, 60 degrees – at the same time, of course, claiming the ambient temperature was incorrectly measured, the output was incorrectly measured, and the difference between (ambient) input and output temperatures was so small as to “prove nothing”

            Thermal imaging, while not “perfect” (nothing is):

            1. cannot be used to pump energy into the system
            2. provides a view across the whole piece (and, indeed, tends to underestimate, not overestimate), so avoiding the charge of measuring hotspots
            3. by (calibrating) and using more than one thermal camera, “single points of failure” in the measurement system are ruled out.
            4. cameras are physically decoupled from the system being measured, so impacting least on the system being measured
            5. with (known temperature) calibration points and one of the cameras being mobile, measurement error (uncertainty of measurements) can be much reduced, even when the background temperature fluctuates
            6. means the physical characteristics of the measuring equipment remains fairly constant (for example, it doesn’t get heated up, one of the advantages of decoupling) – not the case otherwise
            7. records raw data – that means any measurement adjustments made after the fact are transparent and well understood. Ultimately, there is always the raw data to go back to.

            So, thermal imaging was definitely THE BEST CHOICE for measuring the heat being put out by the system (running at 1400 degrees) – with a (very conservative) COP of 3.2 – 3.6, “rounding errors” can also safely be discounted.

            Please bear this in mind the next time you see complaints about the use of thermal imaging in this experiment…

          • Omega Z

            Thermal imaging is highly excepted with NASA, the Military & Industries that build high temp turbines. Claiming it isn’t good practice is bogus.

          • GreenWin

            Omega, the word you want is: ACCEPTED, sort of the opposite meaning. However you are correct – thermal imaging is far less troublesome and prone to error. Skeps are scrambling in a futile attempt to debunk the inevitable.

          • Omega Z

            Sometimes I suffer brain block. “Accepted”. Thanks

          • Fortyniner

            I agree, but I would have liked to have seen calorimetry based on forced air cooling, if only to demonstrate that significant heat can be removed from the system without killing the reaction process.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            I too have always wondered how the reactor handles under load. If you can only take a very limited amount of heat away from the reactor before the process halts, it’s efficiency is quite low. Seeing how the reactor can scale up 700C in six minutes, I have good hope it can be used with heavy workloads.

          • GreenWin

            We can certainly look to the various tests conducted in 2011, not the least of which is the 1MW shipping container plant. Even at half the intended power, each E-Cat module was boiling water. Enough in fact, to make an entire pot of hot tea!

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Making tea is of course the prime application for the e-cat 🙂

            I remember how it kept on boiling even after shutdown and the pressure also seemed quite high. That does give me some confidence in the reactor’s performance.

    • Ophelia Rump

      That makes one weird fuel mixture then.

  • LilyLover

    Jumping with joy!!
    Congratulations, Dr. Rossi and his supporters.
    Congratulations, Frank.
    … For celebrating the E-Cat Report and awareness spreading…
    Going out to get bagels and chocolate for the entire office of 250 people with a print out of this page. Hopefully 50 will check out!

  • Curbina

    From appendix 4:

    Sample 2 was the fuel used to charge the E-Cat. It’s in the form of a very fine powder. Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.

    • US_Citizen71

      Possibly melted to the inner wall of the reactor?

      • Ophelia Rump

        They scraped something off the inner walls.
        They gave an after weight for the reactor but not a before weight, that is curious.
        I would love to know the weight difference, it seems to me that that would indicate the amount of fuel actually used.

        • I think only picograms of mass would be needed to produce the energy concerned (by m=e/c2) – probably beyond the ability to measure, especially taking into account the inevitable losses of H2 and probably lithium vapour (BP: 1342°C) through the ceramic.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I am curious what it turns into all that. That is a weird mix of transmutation, if it is transmutation. Could it be weirder than transmutation?

    • bachcole

      Did the C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn transmutate into Ni62, just because . . . . . . Is this some form of . . . . . I can barely say it. Conformation. The “impurities” give off heat by becoming Ni62 powder, conforming to the “host” Ni62. That would be very different from anything that we have ever thought before.

      • US_Citizen71

        They also could be purposeful non-reactive contamination to throw off competitors. A pinch of this sends the competitors down a rabbit hole to nowhere?

    • bejammin075

      A simple explanation would be sleight of hand

  • Christina

    Congratulations, Dr. Rossi.

    Christina

    • Dods

      Yes and also a toast to the late Sergio Focardi as I’m sure he played a big big part in all of this unfolding saga.

    • psi2u2

      Yes, Dr. Rossi, congratulations, indeed. Keep up the great work. We have your back.

  • Christina

    People won’t hear of this until it’s on “60 Minutes.” So when will this be on there?

  • HarryD

    Many already mentioned that the 32 days period is in conflict with their understanding that the test would run 6 months continuously .
    The report states”About 32 days from startup, on the 29 March 2014, at 11:40, the E-Cat was shut down, after gradually reducing its input power.”
    Does this mean the stat-up was at 29 march?

    Does this mean this is an other test then the one we are all waiting for?
    Didn’t Rossi mention the reactor would run 6 months in test?

    Although this report “proves” eCat working and transmutation of the elements involved and thus a nuclear reaction, I have expected a complete different report….

    • HarryD

      Addition.
      REPORT mentions start and end date.

      “Between the 24/02/14 and the 29/03/14 in Lugano (CH) I performed the radiation field measurements for radiation protection purposes as per Andrea Rossi request on the 30/01/14.”
      Leaves still room to speculate that another test is run simultaneously.
      Thought 6 month test started in september…

  • ecatworld

    Rossi says cat and mouse are combined in the reactor shown. Response to a question from me on the JONP.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      So the “mouse” is possibly the EM pulse generator.

      • Fortyniner

        That does seem quite likely, and it fits the various hints Rossi has given out.

    • US_Citizen71

      What if the cat and the mouse are actually two different reactions instead of physical devices? Rossi has always been a bit cagey about specifics would anything he has said disprove that the cat and the mouse are something other than devices?

  • Frank Acland

    Rossi says cat and mouse are combined in the reactor shown. Response to a question from me on the JONP.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      So the “mouse” is possibly the EM pulse generator.

      • That does seem quite likely, and it fits the various hints Rossi has given out.

    • US_Citizen71

      What if the cat and the mouse are actually two different reactions instead of physical devices? Rossi has always been a bit cagey about specifics would anything he has said disprove that the cat and the mouse are something other than devices?

  • Buck

    My act of unreasoned hope for the day: I forwarded this report, LENRProof, and Gibb’s Forbes article to President Obama.

    Will I hear something . . . not very likely.

    However, from a reasonable perspective: I think it very important to point out that Elforsk is likely now aware of these results. Given how they have financially supported and discussed LENR in their own publications, today’s report can only propel them forward towards deeper investment in LENR sources of energy. Time will tell what that looks like.

    And, of course, there is the 1MW installation at a customer facility.

    What a day!!!

    • deleo77

      I would say that the report is probably enough ammunition for IH to go raise more money. If Darden can walk investors through the report, I think a good number of them will put up some $. Also, the Chinese will see the report as continued justification for the investments in their nickel based energy programs that were set up by Darden. A negative result would have stopped everything in its tracks. The biggest thing in this report is the ash analysis. It takes the scrutiny to another level. So I am not expecting a 60 Minutes story here, but this report will enable IH to keep chugging along.

      • Buck

        I like Rossi’s comment (with my emphasis):

        Andrea Rossi
        October 8th, 2014 at 12:25 PM

        Dima Redko:

        The important is not if it is a success or not, THE IMPORTANT IS THAT IT WORKED. Now an enormous amount of work Waits for us to develope the
        technology.

        Warm Regards,

        A.R.

    • yes elforsk, and thus all swedish utilitiesn thus most big corps will learn it too, even underground from CTO usher to CTO ear

      • Buck

        Absolutely ! ! !

        Without knowing more, it seems reasonable to think that if Elforsk wants to test run a 1MW installation, then IH & Rossi will say When and Where.

        IMHO, the same can be said for the Chinese. Or, NRG’s David Crane . . . . etc.

  • Buck

    My act of unreasoned hope for the day: I forwarded this report, LENRProof, and Gibb’s Forbes article to President Obama.

    Will I hear something . . . not very likely, the guy is swamped with too many pieces of information.

    However, from a reasonable perspective: I think it very important to keep in mind that Elforsk is likely now aware of these results. Given how they have financially supported and discussed LENR in their own publications, today’s report can only propel them forward towards deeper investment in LENR sources of energy. Time will tell what that looks like.

    And, of course, there is the 1MW installation at a customer facility.

    What a day!!!

    • deleo77

      I would say that the report is probably enough ammunition for IH to go raise more money. If Darden can walk investors through the report, I think a good number of them will put up some $. Also, the Chinese will see the report as continued justification for the investments in their nickel based energy programs that were set up by Darden. A negative result would have stopped everything in its tracks. The biggest thing in this report is the ash analysis. It takes the scrutiny to another level. So I am not expecting a 60 Minutes story here, but this report will enable IH to keep chugging along.

      • Christina

        Oh!

        Christina

      • bachcole

        Don’t be surprised if this reaction is NOT chemical and is NOT nuclear, but something altogether different, something completely unexpected. I see no neutrons or gamma rays, and the reaction seems to have done something like this: (impurities + Ni62) ==> Ni62. I await more data. (:->) Am I the only one with the cojones to think this far outside the box?

        • bkrharold

          All the theories I have seen so far involve a new type of reaction involving the weak nuclear force to explain the lack of radiation. (not that I understand any of them)

      • Buck

        We agree. Also, I like Rossi’s comment (with my emphasis):

        Andrea Rossi
        October 8th, 2014 at 12:25 PM

        Dima Redko:

        The important is not if it is a success or not, THE IMPORTANT IS THAT IT WORKED. Now an enormous amount of work Waits for us to develope the
        technology.

        Warm Regards,

        A.R.

    • yes elforsk, and thus all swedish utilitiesn thus most big corps will learn it too, even underground from CTO usher to CTO ear

      • Buck

        Absolutely ! ! !

        Without knowing more, it seems reasonable to think that if Elforsk wants to test run a 1MW installation, then IH & Rossi will say When and Where.

        IMHO, the same can be said for the Chinese. Or, NRG’s David Crane . . . . etc.

  • TomR

    Reading from Mats Lewan’s report, total energy was 1.5MWh, measurement performed during 32 days. I hope I have something wrong with my numbers but when I take 900W X 24hours X 32 days I get 691,200Wh. 1,500,000Wh divided by 691,200Wh, I get 2.17 COP. With 800Wh, I get 2.44 COP. I hope I am calculating wrong. Even if I am not it is still good.

    • Andre Blum

      I am struggling with the same. 1.5 MWh / (32 * 24h) = 1953 W, while the report claims that approximately 900 W was applied.

      • Billy Jackson

        the 900 W was not at the start but later in the test. (10 days later) .. so your initial math should be based on the lower number then the rest of the test (22 days) on the higher.

        It started at 810 W but slowly declined to 790 W which is when they turned it up to 900 W.

        • Andre Blum

          You are right, but that doesn’t change that fact that it does not compute. Look at plots 7 and 8 in the paper.

    • Da Phys

      (1.5+0.69)/0.69=3.2 COP. I presume the 1.5 value was the net energy.

    • Pedro

      If the 1.5MWh is the EXCESS energy, over and above the input energy, then you grt a COP of 3.17 instead of 2.17.

      • Andre Blum

        good catch. indeed the abstract says ‘net’ energy.

      • TomR

        Thanks Andreas, I think you are interpreting it right. I wish they would make it more clear. You made me feel a lot better because I didn’t think they could make that large of a mistake. Thanks again.

  • MMK

    The fuel analysis before and after testing
    You must understand how important that is.

  • clovis ray

    Agreed, i have always pointed the simplicity out over the years, only the reactor is somewhat complicated, and even it’s base construction is not complicated.

  • Matt S

    This was always going to be the case. I don’t fully understand why people (not you) are suprised by this aspect. At the time of the original report it was clear that the same ‘team’ wanted to get a longer test done and to clear up some of the skeptics questions and doubts. The skeptopaths are clearly digging if they use this as some kind of red flag.

  • MPBRUNELLI

    Next hurdle is main stream media(MSM).

  • MPBRUNELLI

    Next hurdle is main stream media(MSM).

    • Google News show nothing so far….

    • bachcole

      Don’t hold your breath. This won’t go to MSM until we have creeping companies saving bundles of money on their energy bill.

  • Gerard McEk

    Did I read it well? They used only 1 gram for the charge and that generated 5.8 GJ! For a tube of 20 cm and 2 cm in diameter that seems extremely little and still it heated the tube over the full length.

    • Andre Blum

      Not that that is much less impressive, but let’s not forget that besides the 1 gram, they also put in 1.7 GJ of energy.

      • Andre Blum

        correction. the 5.8 GJ is net energy.

        • GreenWin

          Which looks like a power density of 2.1GW/kg

          • Gerard McEk

            It’s about 2.1 kW per gram or 2.1 MW/kg, still impressive!

  • GreenWin

    Just wonderful! It’s apparent the authors requested the run end after 32 days. The device showed no signs of wear or of wearing out. COP has been established in previous test using the industrial self-sustain control mode. So this runs give new data on catalyst composition and isotopic change confirming nuclear reactions took place.
    I also find the sponsorship of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences along with Elforsk AB to be representative of mainstream science and energy industry in Scandinavia. Bravo! to the authors, Dr. Rossi, and institutions providing support.

  • Gerard McEk

    Did I read it well? They used only 1 gram for the charge and that generated 5.8 GJ! For a tube of 20 cm and 2 cm in diameter that seems extremely little and still it heated the tube over the full length.

    • Andre Blum

      Not that that is much less impressive, but let’s not forget that besides the 1 gram, they also put in 1.7 GJ of energy.

      • Andre Blum

        correction. the 5.8 GJ is net energy.

        • GreenWin

          Which looks like a power density of 2.1GW/kg

          • Gerard McEk

            It’s about 2.1 kW per gram or 2.1 MW/kg, still impressive!

    • bkrharold

      There was also an unspecified amount of another substance, Lithium Aluminium Hydride, as a source of Hydrogen.

      • It would seem that the lithium is also an essential part of the reaction. Rossi probably serendipitously discovered this while he was experimenting with light metal hydrides as a way to dispense with pressurised hydrogen, which could not have been certified for domestic use.

  • GreenWin

    Just wonderful! It’s apparent the authors requested the run end after 32 days. The device showed no signs of wear or of wearing out. COP has been established in previous test using the industrial self-sustain control mode. So this runs give new data on catalyst composition and isotopic change confirming nuclear reactions took place.
    I also find the sponsorship of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences along with Elforsk AB to be representative of mainstream science and energy industry in Scandinavia. Bravo! to the authors, Dr. Rossi, and institutions providing support.

    • SH

      I thought the report said that the end date was set before they started the test.

      • Yes, and AR has separately confirmed it. It seems that they have accumulated sufficient data to be able to design a charge to match such a requirement quite precisely, presumably with a modest reserve as it wasn’t known how hard the testers would drive the reactor during that time period.

    • From the assay of the “ash” it seems to me the fuel was nearly completely consumed. Of course, that’s still might good for a one gram charge!

  • Christopher Calder

    It is interesting to note that in the Hot-Cat design the electricity going into the heating coils is articulated (pulsed or whatever) in such a way that the coils are used as an antenna to produce electromagnetic stimulation for the LENR effect. I believe previous designs used separate attached devices to create the needed stimulation (shocks, whatever). The Hot-Cat can thus run at higher temperatures because there are no added devices attached that can be damaged by higher heat.

    • Fortyniner

      “..separate attached devices..” – such as the seemingly redundant external band heater fitted to the original ‘plumbing fittings’ prototype perhaps.

  • It is interesting to note that in the Hot-Cat design the electricity going into the heating coils is articulated (pulsed or whatever) in such a way that the coils are used as an antenna to produce electromagnetic stimulation for the LENR effect. I believe previous designs used separate attached devices to create the needed stimulation (shocks, whatever). The Hot-Cat can thus run at higher temperatures because there are no added devices attached that can be damaged by higher heat.

    • “..separate attached devices..” – such as the seemingly redundant external band heater fitted to the original ‘plumbing fittings’ prototype perhaps.

  • PappyYokum

    I have been reading skeptical comments over at ECAT NEWS. They make some valid points.
    1) Rossi said he was not involved in the testing and he was. So he lied.
    2) The reactor test did not produce more power than was available from the supply input source. So the claim of excess energy is dubious.
    3) Rossi extracted the fuel charge from the reactor at the end when he should not have been involved.
    The possibility the ash was switched is not out of the question.
    4) The test only lasted 32 days when Rossi, who was there at the beginning and the end of the test, has indicated it lasted longer. So he lied again.
    Any comments expected from Industrial Heat LLC?

    • Joniale

      I totally agree with your points. This is smell bad for the reputation of a report. It is dirty.

      • it is exaggerated to the point of ridicule.
        the condition are much enough for an honest skeptical industrial.
        1- the inventor was not controlling all continuously, and was just present for operation that need some spcific competence and experience…
        2- the heat was measured with enough precision to be sure
        3- the powder is only part of the story, and if you assume the heat is real, why manipulate. if the heat is not rea… who cares
        4- the 1mont is not what we believed, but it is much enough to ruleout chemistry

        more than the swapping of powder, the weight of the added powder is the only quantity of chemical that could react…

        the report is solid.

        only point is that Levis , despite his good credential, is not appreciated by skeptic…
        why ?
        because he have observed LENr is real.

        the pathoskeptic reasoning is this one:
        1- LENr is not real
        2- levi have claimed he observed LENR
        3- thus levi is not honest
        4- no evidence from levi, or any one who have seen LENR , proving lenr can be trusted
        5- since there is no lenr evidences from people who never claimed lenr evidence, sure lenr does not exist and 1 is confirmed.

        • US_Citizen71

          Circular logic for sure. : )

        • PappyYokum

          1) If the inventor supplied the cables from which the input energy was measured, whether he was there continuously is not relevant, if they were rigged to register a deficit then the COP claimed is invalid.
          2) The output heat measurement is not the issue. The issue is the input energy measurement.
          3) The powder is an important part of the story. The bonus energy claimed has to come from somewhere and the change in the atomic structure of powder is evidence something out of the ordinary is taking place; This being the so-far unexplained source of excess heat. The chain of custody of the powder is important for that reason. If there was, in reality, no change in atomic weight of the nickel and lithium and this was entirely due to a switch taking place, then that takes up back to 2); The measured amount of energy going in was only a fraction of the true figure.
          4) We can rule out chemistry, but it doesn’t rule out a mis-measurement of the energy input.

          I keep hearing LENR is real. It may well be, but I am getting old waiting for some practical application of the technology to appear. Several groups say they have a product, but I have yet to see a working proto-type. I thought Rossi had one, but now I am not so sure.

    • artefact

      PappyYokum
      MaryYugo

      • US_Citizen71

        I knew it wouldn’t take long for the roaches to come out of hiding. : )

        • PappyYokum

          🙂

      • Freethinker

        Nice catch. 😀

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Yes, its the same style. Well spotted.

    • Gerrit

      why would you believe that the pseudo skeptics make valid points ?

      1) There was a post by Rossi where he said that he was present a few times. Thus he did not lie about that. Why do you believe the pseudo skeptics ?
      2) The measurents clearly indicate how much energy went into the device. Why do you think the pseudo skeptics make a solid point ?
      3) Yes I think it was unfortunate that Rossi removed the powder, but he was supervised while doing it.
      4) I am not sure when Rossi claimed that the test would take 6 months. We all expected it that’s for sure. But the scientists have decided that 1 month is sufficient to assess the nature of the fuel. Why would you believe the pseudo skeptics that this invalidates the report ?

      • PappyYokum

        I want to believe this is a valid experiment as much as anyone. However, it will have to be verified by other labs before I start dreaming about a free energy future.
        1) Being present and actively participating in the experiment are two different things. For it to be an independent test, he should not have been present.
        2) Of course, they did, but were the measurements accurate? Who supplied the wiring for the input power? The point is, regardless of the measuring devices, the fact remains the energy measured as output was not greater than the input available.
        3) I agree, but that doesn’t preclude some sleight of hand from occurring.
        4) This is a minor point. I don’t know whether the report is invalidated or not. It simply raises questions that would need to be answered when the experiment is replicated by others.
        This was not the verification of the E-Cat I was expecting.

        • Gerrit

          I don’t care what you need before you start dreaming.

          • GreenWin

            Maybe Pappy suffers from some kind of cognitive dissonance. Disruptive discovery often does this to some.

        • Omega Z

          A skeptic would find issue with Rossi supplying the device, PERIOD.

        • Omega Z

          This is a stupd statement.
          “energy measured as output was not greater than the input available.”
          With this statement it becomes obvious that there would never be an acceptable test by their standards.

        • bachcole

          Hey, PappyYokum, tell me, are you saying that the testers are completely stupid or are they lying?

    • Donk970

      2)??? Is the claim that the report lied about how much input power was applied? All the criticisms boil down to “Rossi is a con artist”. If that’s what you believe then no amount of testing/reporting will be believed because the source is assumed to be fraudulent.

      • Billy Jackson

        1. Rossi was involved in a very small portion, Supervised while doing so and the camera’s recording. I admit its unfortunate that he was involved at all. That still does not say he did anything unwarranted

        2. YOU see the numbers just as well as i do. that’s simple math. and regardless of personal opinion math doesn’t lie. if you see a problem with the math or the way its being used.. post it.. otherwise accept it as given unless you can prove differently.

        3. I agree with you. but will add as long as its on tape what he was doing at the time i am fully okay with it. if its rossi in a closed room no supervision then i have issue.

        4. Rossi was not the deciding factor on the testing parameters that was the testers decision not his.

        All of your questions come down to a SEVERE distrust of Rossi which smacks of personal agenda and self justification for slander. Ill give you one aspect.. say rossi did slip something into the reactor… what do you know that’s that size and can run for 32 days as a chemical reaction, doesn’t put off radiation, nor slowly lower its output as its consumed? key answer.. NOTHING.

    • bachcole

      We want the skeptopaths to continue fooling themselves so that when the E-Cat becomes undeniable they will learn what social, epistemological, and moral retards they are. We want to break the back of Sciencism, the worship of the scientific elite.

    • Ged

      All your points are invalid and definitely not good. Now, Rossi did say he was there to start, but it’s easy to get confused by Rossi comments. However, your point 2 destroys all your credibility as a rational observer who knows anything on the topic. The device is clearly shown to generate 3.2x more energy than goes in, that’s a major finding of the paper. You are talking out of your arse due to providing no evidence to counter the paper’s results, and so you have likely not even read the paper it seems.

      Such a enormous failure in commentary invalidates all your other points and all your arguments. You are most welcome to join the discussion when you have your information straight and can argue your points based on data and fact.

    • bkrharold

      1) Loading the powder and taking it out do not constitute testing.
      2) Unless you think all the testers deliberately falsified their measurements of energy input, it does not matter how much energy was available from the source. They have much more to lose than gain from such a deception.
      3) See 1.
      4) Rossi was referring to the total length of time for the test, including emails between all participants, and compiling the final report.

      I am sure the trolls will soon be busily at work spreading their Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, their usual tactics.

    • Omega Z

      Why would anyone believe what is posted at (ECN) ECAT NEWS?
      Oh Right. Because it’s a Place for factual news. ROFLPMP

      • Omega Z

        PMP-pi$$ my pants

  • Pedro

    If the 1.5MWh is the EXCESS energy, over and above the input energy, then you grt a COP of 3.17 instead of 2.17.

    • Andre Blum

      good catch. indeed the abstract says ‘net’ energy.

    • TomR

      Thanks Andreas, I think you are interpreting it right. I wish they would make it more clear. You made me feel a lot better because I didn’t think they could make that large of a mistake. Thanks again.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    A little drop of bitterness is the lack of a gas analysis. I assume that this was impossible for technical reasons. However, it would be interesting to know if there has been deuterium, tritium, or helium in the ash – or at least reaction products with the corresponding mass numbers. Any attempt to explain the effect theoretically would be dependent on this information.

    • Gerard McEk

      The last analysis at page 48 shows that the instrument measures also masses from 1 onward, mass 4 does not show a peak. I do not know the instrument is suitable for these light gases.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Thank you, very useful observation. I guess the instruments were suitable at least to a certain extent, since there are peaks at m/z 1, which would indicate H+. Some gaseous substances could have been escaped, though.

    • Omega Z

      Hydrogen. No deuterium to speak of.
      This is mentioned in the report.

      • Omega Z

        Why would anyone believe what is posted at (ECN) ECAT NEWS?
        Oh Right. Because it’s a Place for factual news. ROFLPMP

        • Omega Z

          PMP-pi$$ my pants

  • Andreas Moraitis

    A little drop of bitterness is the lack of a gas analysis. I assume that this was impossible for technical reasons. However, it would be interesting to know if there has been deuterium, tritium, or helium in the ash – or at least reaction products with the corresponding mass numbers. Any attempt to explain the effect theoretically would be dependent on this information.

    • Achi

      My understanding is that the core was not vacuum sealed. When they took out the powder initially to weigh it and analyze it, any gas would have escaped. But I could have misunderstood the report.

    • Gerard McEk

      The last analysis at page 48 shows that the instrument measures also masses from 1 onward, mass 4 does not show a peak. I do not know the instrument is suitable for these light gases.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Thank you, very useful observation. I guess the instruments were suitable at least to a certain extent, since there are peaks at m/z 1, which would indicate H+. Some gaseous substances could have been escaped, though.

    • Omega Z

      Hydrogen. No deuterium to speak of.
      This is mentioned in the report.

  • Christina

    I also want to say that Rossi, IH and friends HOPEFULLY have every building they’re in and every critical scientist protected from the possibility that the terrorist don’t intend to let lenr go forward if they can help it because the oil is supplying their efforts–at least mainly.

    Christina

    P.S.: May God protect Dr. Rossi, IH, and everyone else involved lenr research.

    • Donk970

      Terrorists? Not so much. The existing, coal, oil, gas and fission nuclear industries that have literally trillions in profits to protect? Whole different can of worms.

  • Christina

    I also want to say that Rossi, IH and friends HOPEFULLY have every building they’re in and every critical scientist protected from the possibility that the terrorist don’t intend to let lenr go forward if they can help it because the oil is supplying their efforts–at least mainly.

    Christina

    P.S.: May God protect Dr. Rossi, IH, and everyone else involved lenr research.

    • Donk970

      Terrorists? Not so much. The existing, coal, oil, gas and fission nuclear industries that have literally trillions in profits to protect? Whole different can of worms.

      • Broncobet

        To protect from who?

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    It just dont feel positive.
    Really, no news here, it dont show much evolution from the first report.
    Its doomed to be mostly ignored.

    That the report had to be done by a full group of different people was a unavoidable requirement.

    • psi2u2

      As Greenwin says below:

      “The device showed no signs of wear or of wearing out. COP has been established in previous test using the industrial self-sustain control mode. So this runs give new data on catalyst composition and isotopic change confirming nuclear reactions took place. I also find the sponsorship of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences along with Elforsk AB to be representative of mainstream science and energy industry in Scandinavia. Bravo! to the authors, Dr. Rossi, and institutions providing support.”

      • Billy Jackson

        I think its the emphasis that has been put on the 6 month report that lead to expectations being very high. now that we have it. it really isn’t anything new except for the analysis of the fuel. the rumor mill had us all jumping left and right at the possibilities. unfortunately we get what we deserve for listening to unconfirmed rumors and allowing it to shape our perspective. I know this has been a major factor in my thinking and i am trying hard to overcome it and see the positive in the report..

      • Daniel Maris

        It’s excellent news and very credible. It will no doubt get torn to shreds by the skeps, but that is to be expected.

        The only issue is whether this is a springboard or a diving board.

        I hope the first.

        I hope we hear from IH very soon.

        And I hope we have good evidence of a credible pilot installation v. soon.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    It just dont feel positive.
    Really, no news here, it dont show much evolution from the first report.
    Its doomed to be mostly ignored.

    That the report had to be done by a full group of different people was a unavoidable requirement.

    • psi2u2

      As Greenwin says below:

      “The device showed no signs of wear or of wearing out. COP has been established in previous test using the industrial self-sustain control mode. So this runs give new data on catalyst composition and isotopic change confirming nuclear reactions took place. I also find the sponsorship of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences along with Elforsk AB to be representative of mainstream science and energy industry in Scandinavia. Bravo! to the authors, Dr. Rossi, and institutions providing support.”

      • Billy Jackson

        I think its the emphasis that has been put on the 6 month report that lead to expectations being very high. now that we have it. it really isn’t anything new except for the analysis of the fuel. the rumor mill had us all jumping left and right at the possibilities. unfortunately we get what we deserve for listening to unconfirmed rumors and allowing it to shape our perspective. I know this has been a major factor in my thinking and i am trying hard to overcome it and see the positive in the report..

        • bachcole

          If we set aside our expectations (no matter the source), and compare this test with the 2013 test, I’d say that there was real progress. Remember that all that we have heard is temperatures of 1000 C., but that was all words. Here we have a real 1400 C in a much smaller enclosure. I’d call that real progress. But it is not time to run up and down the street and shout, “The New Age has arrived.”

          • Billy Jackson

            I know.. i had all my signs made and everything ready to run the streets!.. you should have seen the costume i was going to wear… see through spandex!!

          • James Thomas

            You were going to wear your everyday cloths then.

          • Billy Jackson

            pretty close.. after all this whole this is about reaction? 🙂

          • Omega Z
        • Enrique Ferreyra

          Yes. look at the title of the post: “Cold Fusion/LENR Confirmed”, really ?

          Lets say that if in the future, the e-cat is a revolution for mankind, this is going to be a very important paper, but this paper alone, now, does not make the e-cat or LENR a mankind revolution, its just more noise in the inners of followers.

        • Ivan

          it really isn’t anything new except for the analysis of the fuel….
          It just proved that transmutation occurred and that a nuclear reaction is possible at 1400 degrees C that gave a COP greater than 1, none of which has been possible up to this point and it will change the world as we know it. Oh well… a new iphone would have been much more exciting and would have made the news!
          Congratulations Dr. Rossi!!!!

    • bachcole

      I am beginning to turn from that perspective. I agree with the part of a completely different group of people. This report will not crash the damn dam of incredulity. It will probably garner them more money

      But it is our expectations that are disappointing us. It is entirely possible that Rossi and friends realized that the cylindrical steel E-Cat just wasn’t going to cut it and that they needed something else, ceramic alumina, in order to be able to raise the temperature to astonishing levels, and 1400 C (2552 F) is very hot. That is the temperature that boilers love. Remember when we were so happy with anything over 130 C.

      We expected more, perhaps because of things that Rossi said. But it is our responsibility what we expect, and we are incredibly ignorant of what the whole picture is. A switch from a steel cylinder to a much smaller ceramic alumina barbell is a big step, apparently. It is possible that this was discussed with investors and they said, hey, we need much higher temperatures and a smaller size. There is no reason to assume that the investors are not as smart as we are. Rossi may be excited because he more than satisfied some investor’s requirement for more money.

      • John Littlemist

        Us, we, we, we?!?!? Roger please speak only for yourself!

        • Billy Jackson

          I will accept his use of We as its intended for general use. you only have to read the rest of this discussion to see that despite the positive of this report. there are those of us that expected something more, thus the feeling of disappointment which is only our fault for believing rumors.

        • bachcole

          BUSTED!! I thought about that when I wrote that, but then again I thought that I might get it past everyone. (:->)

      • françois

        Yes you are right from copper to steel and now ceramic it feels like big money is poring in the development of the hotcat

  • Dfrent

    So this is one thing I’ve never completely understood. What is the efficiency of the E-Cat? It it giving more power than what was put in?

    the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh.
    obtained

  • Gerald

    Why didn’t I buy the Focardi and Rossi T-shirt with Rossi showing his finger to everyone? 😉

  • Stephen Taylor

    Bravo Levi et al, bravo! Especially for “our work will continue” bravo, bravo and best wishes going forward.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Bravo Levi et al, bravo! Especially for “our work will continue” bravo, bravo and best wishes going forward.

  • Joniale

    I totally agree with your points. This is smell bad for the reputation of a report. It is dirty.

    • it is exaggerated to the point of ridicule.
      the condition are much enough for an honest skeptical industrial.
      1- the inventor was not controlling all continuously, and was just present for operation that need some spcific competence and experience…
      2- the heat was measured with enough precision to be sure
      3- the powder is only part of the story, and if you assume the heat is real, why manipulate. if the heat is not rea… who cares
      4- the 1mont is not what we believed, but it is much enough to ruleout chemistry

      more than the swapping of powder, the weight of the added powder is the only quantity of chemical that could react…

      the report is solid.

      only point is that Levis , despite his good credential, is not appreciated by skeptic…
      why ?
      because he have observed LENr is real.

      the pathoskeptic reasoning is this one:
      1- LENr is not real
      2- levi have claimed he observed LENR
      3- thus levi is not honest
      4- no evidence from levi, or any one who have seen LENR , proving lenr can be trusted
      5- since there is no lenr evidences from people who never claimed lenr evidence, sure lenr does not exist and 1 is confirmed.

      • US_Citizen71

        Circular logic for sure. : )

  • foobario2

    As for the power-consumption, I sincerely hope that the lab would pass on the electric bill for this test to whomever was paying for the lab space… If the electric bill is about inline with what was consumed + lights and other ancillary equipment, then it’s OK. If the electric bill is about 1.5 Megawatt-hours too high… then we have an issue.

    • Joniale

      I want to see also this electric bill XD.

      Now i am trying to see how this could be manipulated.
      1) The electric input power is somehow creating all this heat, can this be done? is it possible to avoid the measurements done by the DC sensors (3 cables).
      2) Second step would be to justify the nuclear reaction. For that, Rossi would need to replace the powder with the correct ashes composition.

      When i write this, then i really think this is non sense.
      I really think this is very difficult if the tester team is not involved in this. That would be a bigger conspiracy and for me is a sign that is not true. Therefore, i really believe that, in fact, the device of Rossi has something. I think, now there should be more investment in LENR and study these effects.

      I hope there are more scientist that are willing to do further research on LENR now.
      If this is true, as others already said, a new era start. But let´s don´t anticipate until the devices are not in the market. Thank you all for this great web.

  • psi2u2

    Yes, Dr. Rossi, congratulations, indeed. Keep up the great work. We have your back.

  • Matt Sevrens

    Mashable claimed cold fusion was debunked only THREE DAYS ago:

    http://mashable.com/2014/10/05/bose-cold-fusion/

    Let’s all push them to submit to their article considering the recent news. You can contact them here:

    http://mashable.com/submit/

    • they just said erroneously that Bose have debunked it, while they just failed precisely.

  • artefact

    PappyYokum
    MaryYugo

    • US_Citizen71

      I knew it wouldn’t take long for the roaches to come out of hiding. : )

    • Freethinker

      Nice catch. 😀

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Yes, its the same style. Well spotted.

      • Sanjeev

        I can see a cctv camera on the wall in the picture on page 4.
        Perhaps many skeptos would like to see the footage of Rossi changing the powder secretly and hooking up his coffee maker to produce all those megawatts.
        😉

        Even if he replaced the ash, nothing explains the amount of excess heat that was produced for a month. Man, I want that fake powder so badly.

        • Freethinker

          🙂 Actually, if they have the video, they should make it available on youtube, for all to see, that AR is not there alone and unsupervised, and that he does not flip out a bag of prepared ash from his sleeve, or whatever, etc …

          • Sanjeev

            That would immediately force the skeptos to invent another more absurd “proof”, such as Rossi sent a ghost to change the ash, which was obviously not recorded by the camera. Science text books tell us that cameras do not see ghosts ! Thats the proof there.

        • LENR For the Win
          Comparing Energy Sources
          http://lenrftw.net/comparing_energy_sources.html

          has been updated with the 2014 Lugano test report information.

          Includes an updated Ragone chart.

        • pg

          I attach 2 sentences from Andrea Rossi that I think sum up where we are now:

          AR: “The opposition will continue to say the E-Cat does not work. At this point they are irrelevant, though. The era of this kind of tests is finished, now the focus is exclusively on the plants we sell to Customers and the R&D is focused only on the Customers’ needs.”

          AR: “Roberto Curto, Thank you, but to reach the highest international recognition I still have to give evidence of a commercial breakthrough. A huge work has still to be done.”

          • Daniel Maris

            Well I am pleased to see these statements from Rossi. Excellent. Let’s hope it’s backed up by something tangible from Industrial Heat.

          • Donk970

            That’s what they did in an earlier test but they were accused of not making proper measurements and putting chemicals in the water that was making the heat and all sorts of other things.

  • Gerrit

    why would you believe that the pseudo skeptics make valid points ?

    1) There was a post by Rossi where he said that he was present a few times. Thus he did not lie about that. Why do you believe the pseudo skeptics ?
    2) The measurents clearly indicate how much energy went into the device. Why do you think the pseudo skeptics make a solid point ?
    3) Yes I think it was unfortunate that Rossi removed the powder, but he was supervised while doing it.
    4) I am not sure when Rossi claimed that the test would take 6 months. We all expected it that’s for sure. But the scientists have decided that 1 month is sufficient to assess the nature of the fuel. Why would you believe the pseudo skeptics that this invalidates the report ?

    • PappyYokum

      I want to believe this is a valid experiment as much as anyone. However, it will have to be verified by other labs before I start dreaming about a free energy future.
      1) Being present and actively participating in the experiment are two different things. For it to be an independent test, he should not have been present.
      2) Of course, they did, but were the measurements accurate? Who supplied the wiring for the input power? The point is, regardless of the measuring devices, the fact remains the energy measured as output was not greater than the input available.
      3) I agree, but that doesn’t preclude some sleight of hand from occurring.
      4) This is a minor point. I don’t know whether the report is invalidated or not. It simply raises questions that would need to be answered when the experiment is replicated by others.
      This was not the verification of the E-Cat I was expecting.

      • Gerrit

        I don’t care what you need before you start dreaming.

        • GreenWin

          Maybe Pappy suffers from some kind of cognitive dissonance. Disruptive discovery often does this to some.

      • Omega Z

        A skeptic would find issue with Rossi supplying the device, PERIOD.

      • Omega Z

        This is a stupd statement.
        “energy measured as output was not greater than the input available.”
        With this statement it becomes obvious that there would never be an acceptable test by their standards.

  • psi2u2

    Exactly.

  • cafish

    Congrats to Mr Rossi. This is a day to remember!

  • Donk970

    2)??? Is the claim that the report lied about how much input power was applied? All the criticisms boil down to “Rossi is a con artist”. If that’s what you believe then no amount of testing/reporting will be believed because the source is assumed to be fraudulent.

    • Billy Jackson

      1. Rossi was involved in a very small portion, Supervised while doing so and the camera’s recording. I admit its unfortunate that he was involved at all. That still does not say he did anything unwarranted

      2. YOU see the numbers just as well as i do. that’s simple math. and regardless of personal opinion math doesn’t lie. if you see a problem with the math or the way its being used.. post it.. otherwise accept it as given unless you can prove differently.

      3. I agree with you. but will add as long as its on tape what he was doing at the time i am fully okay with it. if its rossi in a closed room no supervision then i have issue.

      4. Rossi was not the deciding factor on the testing parameters that was the testers decision not his.

      All of your questions come down to a SEVERE distrust of Rossi which smacks of personal agenda and self justification for slander. Ill give you one aspect.. say rossi did slip something into the reactor… what do you know that’s that size and can run for 32 days as a chemical reaction, doesn’t put off radiation, nor slowly lower its output as its consumed? key answer.. NOTHING.

  • bachcole

    We want the skeptopaths to continue fooling themselves so that when the E-Cat becomes undeniable they will learn what social, epistemological, and moral retards they are. We want to break the back of Sciencism, the worship of the scientific elite.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    This is quite a nice paper. It does however leave out room for skeptics to maintain that it is one man job and the rest just followed through via a wave of a magicians magic stick, which is bullshit. All other people in the report must have been very careful considering that they know what is written around the last report. Scientifically it is however pretty clear it is a victory, a nuclear process that is tamed and can probably be even more so in the future. Nothing in the last report was considered a true flake, just some holes in the theoretical meta argument around the result. We can assume that there was no DC, no magic cheesy cables, no miss connected instrument (they did a control run) and with many eye balls that watch and watch while they try to find a reason what the heck is going on. The funniest and most stupid skeptics maintain that it was not independent and that he fooled the samples, WTF, I don’t care if it was santa himself that started and refuled the Cat, it’s the maintaining COP X for 30 day’s ruling out a chemical reaction that matters, if skeptics can’t find a good reason of a trick there we _must_ assume that there is a cat burried and act as if this thing is working, anything else is believing in unicorns.

    • Gerrit

      and turning up the input power by about 100W while measuring a resulting gain in output power of 700W. Let’s see if the pseudo skeptics will take that point too.

      • Fortyniner

        Paid trolls will continue to litter the web with their ad hominem tripe as usual, and the sad denizens of sites like ECN have so much sneering invested in Rossi being a fraud that they can never admit to any other possibility – no matter what evidence is presented. Similar pathological psychology will also ensure that only a tiny minority of established academics and researchers will even look at the paper.

        Business as usual then, but now with a larger than usual additional nail in the coffin of the mental dinosaurs.

        The fact is that these people were never going to play any part in the emergence and adoption of cold fusion (the term seems quite appropriate now) and are simply irrelevant. The moves towards divestment and investment behind the scenes will continue at an ever increasing rate as knowledge of this paper spreads through the energy cartels.

        • psi2u2

          Or, to put this another way, the conventional scoffing physics is as dead as a dinosaur, but like any recently dead dinosaur, the news has not reached the ganglia in the tail, so it will be thrashing around, seemingly alive, for months and years to come.

          • Broncobet

            Well I checked and Next Big Future did report this which is good, they were the only ones and in all the news of the world or of all the places on the web there was zero reaction or even mention, which is bad. Perhaps there will be mention or reaction later. I didn’t understand at first that although we were told that this was a different set of scientists in fact it was the same group! That can not help the cause. So no peer review, not published, not replicable, no theory. But let’s not give up hope. What do I know? Not much. There’s still time for this to turn around and head in a positive direction, I know IH certainly hopes so for the sake of their upcoming campaign for more investment.

          • Omega Z

            I doubt that MSM will mention it unless/until it is published in Journal of Physics D. Even then is questionable…

        • nobody is paid. me neither. frank neither. MY neither.

          • Billy Jackson

            well frank hasn’t paid me a dime for the few things i wrote.. but he did threaten to smash my keyboard if i didn’t learn punctuation! 😛 Its an incentive and a reward! (I get to keep the keyboard!)

          • Fortyniner

            Me neither, but then I’m not a troll. The ECN crowd are just a bunch of rather strange people who get their kicks by bashing stereotypical ‘believers’, and are so buried in the groupthink you often refer to that they are no longer able to rationally process new information.

            MY/Milstone/Pretenza is the exception there, as he regularly trolls a number of sites. My guess is that he’s just rather loosely wrapped and that trying to guess at his reasons for doing what he does would be both futile and pointless.

          • the best to understand those deniers is to see the original authors like Huizenga, Morrison, Taubes… opposite personalities.

            Huizenga is a believer in the perfection of physics, he cannot imagine it is missing something, and thus conclude that a conspiracy by evil chemist corrupted virgins and science… facing evidence he refused to look as it could only be wrong, and he even was saying it not seeing it was absurd. by the way he have a job that supported that interest.

            Morrison was an enthusiast who could not replicate. as a supremacist he could not accept that failure accused not white enough countries to have defrauded or done loose science… facing facts he rationalized like any conspiracy theorist.

            Taubes just wanted to write theater for broadway, but find a way to make money. he tweaked the data to accuse an intern of fraud, did a magnificent storytelling convinced by eminent skeptics, avoiding dissenting voices… it is a fraudster…

            mario massa comment is typically a clone of huizenga.

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/680-The-Third-Independent-Party-Report-is-Out/?postID=1319#post1319

      • by not believing in it!

        is there a problem?

        The books by F. Close [2] and J. Huizenga [3] are mainly devoted to proving that cold fusion violates theory and is therefore impossible. Huizenga, who was the head of the DoE ERAB panel that dismissed cold fusion in 1989, concluded his book with a 6-point summation. Point number six states that we know a priori that all positive cold fusion excess heat results must be wrong:

        “Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

        http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

        • Omega Z

          I had a thought occur to me. Ouch! Makes my head hurt. 🙂

          If these people such as Huizenga & others are so certain CF is not real, why have they spent so much time trying to debunk it, wright books Etc.. trying to stop others from investigating it.

          It would be akin to someone trying to flap their arms to Fly. I know it can’t be done, but I’m not going to expend years of my time bothering them about it. It is of no consequence to me.

          My only conclusion is that Huizenga & company fear that CF is actually real.

          • Gerrit

            Huizenga headed the ERAB panel that was appointed by George Bush to prove cold fusion didn’t exist.

            Dr. Seaborg: “I was called to Washington on April 14, 1989, to brief George Bush on cold fusion. I don’t know whether you know what cold fusion is, but it was the idea that you could fuse nuclei very easily and get a lot of energy just by passing electric current through heavy water, whereas, of course, physicists had built huge machines and worked for decades trying to do this, spending billions of dollars. The chemists thought they’d really stolen a march on them. The idea swept the country and I was called to Washington to brief President Bush on it. It was a real dilemma. What should I do? I decided to take my background as a nuclear scientist and really come to the sensible conclusion that this work was not right, that it was really cold. You couldn’t do it. So that’s what I told him at that time. I said, “You can’t just go out and say this is not valid. You’re going to have to create a high-level panel that will study it for six months, and then they’ll come out and tell you it’s not valid,” and that’s what he did.”

          • you ask an interesting question.

            I don’t think they are afraid as a conspiracy (like some say about oil, or tokamak)

            Huizenga was very respected for his assassination of cold fusion. it started by a sincere observation of cold fusion deficiency in April-May 1989, in a context of intimate dogmatism and belief in his school books… he have nothing brilliant in his scientific career , it is just a good parrot of school books.

            Groupthink start by a sincere and justified position.

            then the evidence came and there is many reason that Huizenga is , not afraid of cold fusion, but afraid to be wrong :

            – he was recognized as the debunker… he would lose his position of respected reference, of book author

            – more than that he would have been spotted as a denier, an blind guy, a shameful insulter, an accusator without evidence… a man that deserved only disdain…. many people prefer to kill innocents than be treated that way by their peers.

            people in groupthink don’t really know they are bandit, they know where there can be evidence of their fraud, and carefully turn their head away, even if thi mean killing the messenger.

            look at the story of Enron boss

            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf

          • hempenearth

            If you are referring to Catherine (and daughters) by Clean Planet, well they are not exactly forthcoming with information!

    • Broncobet

      Yes ,we get it you don’t care, but there are people that do care what the condition for this test were and whether we can attach any meaning to it. Wouldn’t it be cool that after a few days, some scientist ,with a good reputation, not connected to this group, anounced that after careful examination, he’d come up with a useful theory and that the whole thing was legit?? Anything is possible but the odds are there will be nothing useful from this tech.(but I could be wrong!!)

      • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

        The ash analysis is a good contribution. what I mean to say is that hitting on that fact as a skeptic is stupid and only looks like a strategy to attack the weakest point e.g. possibility that rossi did some magic. But that fact is moot. Why fake the ash when it has run for 30 days in the nuclear regime. But as you say, if you can value that there is something in this, the ash is a godsend addition and really useful to get e.g. true replications and theoretical understanding.

        • bkrharold

          I’m not even sure it would be so easy to fake a sample of Nickel isotopes with the same ratios as those in the ash.

    • Omega Z

      Santa.
      I wouldn’t go so far as to trust Santa.
      How can you trust someone who sneaks into your house at night by way of the Chimney. Sounds like a burglar to me.
      🙂

      • timycelyn

        A few points I have picked up from the torrent of information, and a question or two.

        Firstly, I must shamefully admit I’ve not read the report end to end yet, so I may have missed this, but:

        1. There is a lot of information on the make up of the non-volatile ash, and fascinating it is. However, was there any determination of the volatile content? One might expect He…..

        2. There an intersting exchange on Rossi’s blog relating to the size of the fuel charge in the reactor:

        Rodney Nicholson
        October 8th, 2014 at 5:05 PM
        Dear Mr. Rossi:

        Many questions have been answered in the paper. But more arise:

        1) Was it originally intended that the paper be released on sifferkoll? Or might
        this be some kind of unintentional leak? And if it was unintended, from what you know is the information contained in the report accurate?

        2) It seems that in the ITP test the content of 58Ni was reduced almost to zero after one month of operation. That leads to a conclusion that maybe some route of conversion of 58Ni to 62Ni may be a significant source of the energy relaeased. But if the E-cat can function for as much as six times longer than the 32 days of the ITP test, then that cannot be right because there would not be any 58Ni available for the next five months.

        3) I had previously thought I had understood that hydrogen was supplied in gaseous form under pressure. But I do not see mention of that in the paper. It seems that it is available only in the form of AlLiH4. Is that correct?

        Rossi’s reply to question 2 interests me…

        Andrea Rossi
        October 8th, 2014 at 11:57 PM
        Rodney Nicholson:
        1- I do not know why the Professors of the ITP decided that way to publish. They, as I always said, are totally independent from us. If they did so, means they had a reason for it. The report has been written by them, obviously; today I have contacted their spokesman, who confirmed that the report published is the original version, uncut; the version that will be published in a scientific magazine will have to be reduced within 15 pages. They told me it was necessary a publication with all the 54 pages, because every page has a specific importance.
        2- the charge had been made for a 35 days test. This is the test duration agreed upon when the experiment has been started
        3- I cannot enter in this particular
        Thank you for your attention,
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        Whe we look at the ash we see that a couple of the common isotopes of nickel and lithium are just about exhausted, and replaced by some much less common ones. Is this indicative of the depth of the practical understanding they now have? That they can say “35 day test, that will need 1 gram of fuel, that should just about consume the fuel isotopes.”

        One can see why they did it, of course. If there is a way of maximising the impact on the patent examiner, this it it!

        Tim

        • Jonnyb

          I was more interested in the reply to 3) If he did inject hydrogen then this needed to be in the calculations so he did not. Maybe whatever he used was the catalyst.

      • Fortyniner

        Krivit and the other Rossi detractors seem a little irrelevant now. Maybe if their associates can come up with an LENR device that can compare with Rossi’s, then people may begin listening to them again – but not before then.

        • Gerrit

          We can disregard the ramblings of pseudo skeptics.

          What is much more important is that many scientist will read this paper and start to wonder how this could be true. The publication in the Journal of Physics D will certainly increase the visibility of the paper.

          The measurements of the energy balance are solid and it is clear that the heat produced cannot stem from chemistry. Together with the fuel/ash analysis it shows that something is happening that warrants further investigation. I can only hope that funding will become available for further research so that labs around the world will look into this.

          I fear we will not hear much from Rossi and Industrial Heat until the plant at the customer has been running for many months.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Issue 47/43 of Journal of Physics D, to be published on October 29, is already closed. So we will have to wait at least a week longer. More likely it will take several weeks, since they have a lot of articles in the pipeline.

            A list of the accepted, forthcoming papers can be found here:

            http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/page/Forthcoming%20articles

          • GreenWin

            This now represents a fascinating test of just how valid the entire scientific publishing enterprise is. Will journal editors throughout the west heed their conscience, or their puppet masters?? HERE is the Editorial Board of PhysD:

            http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/page/Editorial%20Board
            It will be interesting to see what excuse or reasoning they engage to refuse publication. LENR supporters can email the Editor in Chief: giorgio.margaritondo@epfl.ch

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    This is quite a nice paper. It does however leave out room for skeptics to maintain that it is one man job and the rest just followed through via a wave of a magicians magic stick, which is bullshit. All other people in the report must have been very careful considering that they know what is written around the last report. Scientifically it is however pretty clear it is a victory, a nuclear process that is tamed and can probably be even more so in the future. Nothing in the last report was considered a true flake, just some holes in the theoretical meta argument around the result. We can assume that there was no DC, no magic cheesy cables, no miss connected instrument (they did a control run) and with many eye balls that watch and watch while they try to find a reason what the heck is going on. The funniest and most stupid skeptics maintain that it was not independent and that he fooled the samples, WTF, I don’t care if it was santa himself that started and refuled the Cat, it’s the maintaining COP X for 30 day’s ruling out a chemical reaction that matters, if skeptics can’t find a good reason of a trick there we _must_ assume that there is a cat burried and act as if this thing is working, anything else is believing in unicorns.

    • Gerrit

      and turning up the input power by about 100W while measuring a resulting gain in output power of 700W. Let’s see if the pseudo skeptics will take that point too.

      • Paid trolls will continue to litter the web with their ad hominem tripe as usual, and the sad denizens of sites like ECN have so much sneering invested in Rossi being a fraud that they can never admit to any other possibility – no matter what evidence is presented. Similar pathological psychology will also ensure that only a tiny minority of established academics and researchers will even look at the paper.

        Business as usual then, but now with a larger than usual additional nail in the coffin of the mental dinosaurs.

        The fact is that these people were never going to play any part in the emergence and adoption of cold fusion (the term seems quite appropriate now) and are simply irrelevant. The moves towards divestment and investment behind the scenes will continue at an ever increasing rate as knowledge of this paper spreads through the energy cartels.

        • psi2u2

          Or, to put this another way, the conventional scoffing physics is as dead as a dinosaur, but like any recently dead dinosaur, the news has not reached the ganglia in the tail, so it will be thrashing around, seemingly alive, for months and years to come.

          • Broncobet

            Remember that the dinosaurs did not all die out as was previously thought, those wonderful animals, the birds are their direct decendants.

          • bkrharold

            I think the flat earth society still exists, so the skeptics will probably be around forever.

          • Obvious

            “…nothing feels better than a spray of clean water and the whistling wind on a calm summer night but you’d better believe that down in their quarters the men are holding on for their dear lives. The flat earth society is somewhere far away, with their candlesticks and compasses, and the bright ship humana is well on its way with grave determination… and no destination…”
            – Brett Gurewitz

        • nobody is paid. me neither. frank neither. MY neither.

          • Billy Jackson

            well frank hasn’t paid me a dime for the few things i wrote.. but he did threaten to smash my keyboard if i didn’t learn punctuation! 😛 Its an incentive and a reward! (I get to keep the keyboard!)

          • Broncobet

            No matter the subject or the situation, AlainCo has integrity. I hope you are not too disappointed by this report and reaction to it.

          • Me neither, but then I’m not a troll. The ECN ‘skeptic’ crowd are just a bunch of rather strange people who get their kicks by bashing stereotypical ‘believers’, and are so mired in the groupthink you often refer to that they are no longer able to rationally process new information.

            MY/Milstone/Pretenza is the exception there, as he regularly trolls a number of sites where LENR is discussed or mentioned. My guess is that he’s just rather loosely wrapped and that trying to guess at his reasons for doing what he does would be both futile and pointless.

          • the best to understand those deniers is to see the original authors like Huizenga, Morrison, Taubes… opposite personalities.

            Huizenga is a believer in the perfection of physics, he cannot imagine it is missing something, and thus conclude that a conspiracy by evil chemist corrupted virgins and science… facing evidence he refused to look as it could only be wrong, and he even was saying it not seeing it was absurd. by the way he have a job that supported that interest.

            Morrison was an enthusiast who could not replicate. as a supremacist he could not accept that failure accused not white enough countries to have defrauded or done loose science… facing facts he rationalized like any conspiracy theorist.

            Taubes just wanted to write theater for broadway, but find a way to make money. he tweaked the data to accuse an intern of fraud, did a magnificent storytelling convinced by eminent skeptics, avoiding dissenting voices… it is a fraudster…

            mario massa comment is typically a clone of huizenga.

            http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/680-The-Third-Independent-Party-Report-is-Out/?postID=1319#post1319

      • by not believing in it!

        is there a problem?

        The books by F. Close [2] and J. Huizenga [3] are mainly devoted to proving that cold fusion violates theory and is therefore impossible. Huizenga, who was the head of the DoE ERAB panel that dismissed cold fusion in 1989, concluded his book with a 6-point summation. Point number six states that we know a priori that all positive cold fusion excess heat results must be wrong:

        “Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

        http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

        • bkrharold

          That was a shameful chapter in American science. Those entrusted with objectively reproducing the Pons Fleischmann experiment were not looking for excess heat, but for the nuclear radiation which they assumed must be present in a nuclear reaction.

        • Omega Z

          I had a thought occur to me. Ouch! Makes my head hurt. 🙂

          If these people such as Huizenga & others are so certain CF is not real, why have they spent so much time trying to debunk it, wright books Etc.. trying to stop others from investigating it.

          It would be akin to someone trying to flap their arms to Fly. I know it can’t be done, but I’m not going to expend years of my time bothering them about it. It is of no consequence to me.

          My only conclusion is that Huizenga & company fear that CF is actually real.

          • Gerrit

            Huizenga headed the ERAB panel that was appointed by George Bush to prove cold fusion didn’t exist.

            Dr. Seaborg: “I was called to Washington on April 14, 1989, to brief George Bush on cold fusion. I don’t know whether you know what cold fusion is, but it was the idea that you could fuse nuclei very easily and get a lot of energy just by passing electric current through heavy water, whereas, of course, physicists had built huge machines and worked for decades trying to do this, spending billions of dollars. The chemists thought they’d really stolen a march on them. The idea swept the country and I was called to Washington to brief President Bush on it. It was a real dilemma. What should I do? I decided to take my background as a nuclear scientist and really come to the sensible conclusion that this work was not right, that it was really cold. You couldn’t do it. So that’s what I told him at that time. I said, “You can’t just go out and say this is not valid. You’re going to have to create a high-level panel that will study it for six months, and then they’ll come out and tell you it’s not valid,” and that’s what he did.”

          • you ask an interesting question.

            I don’t think they are afraid as a conspiracy (like some say about oil, or tokamak)

            Huizenga was very respected for his assassination of cold fusion. it started by a sincere observation of cold fusion deficiency in April-May 1989, in a context of intimate dogmatism and belief in his school books… he have nothing brilliant in his scientific career , it is just a good parrot of school books.

            Groupthink start by a sincere and justified position.

            then the evidence came and there is many reason that Huizenga is , not afraid of cold fusion, but afraid to be wrong :

            – he was recognized as the debunker… he would lose his position of respected reference, of book author

            – more than that he would have been spotted as a denier, an blind guy, a shameful insulter, an accusator without evidence… a man that deserved only disdain…. many people prefer to kill innocents than be treated that way by their peers.

            people in groupthink don’t really know they are bandit, they know where there can be evidence of their fraud, and carefully turn their head away, even if thi mean killing the messenger.

            look at the story of Enron boss

            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf

      • bachcole

        Skeptopaths are emotionally ill, but intellectually sound. They are just looking for an excuse to harm you emotionally because they don’t have the cojones to think for themselves. I urge you to NOT read their posts. It is better for your peace of mind to NOT even read what they have to say.

    • Broncobet

      Yes ,we get it you don’t care, but there are people that do care what the condition for this test were and whether we can attach any meaning to it. Wouldn’t it be cool that after a few days, some scientist ,with a good reputation, not connected to this group, anounced that after careful examination, he’d come up with a useful theory and that the whole thing was legit?? Anything is possible but the odds are there will be nothing useful from this tech.(but I could be wrong!!)

      • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

        The ash analysis is a good contribution. what I mean to say is that hitting on that fact as a skeptic is stupid and only looks like a strategy to attack the weakest point e.g. possibility that rossi did some magic. But that fact is moot. Why fake the ash when it has run for 30 days in the nuclear regime. But as you say, if you can value that there is something in this, the ash is a godsend addition and really useful to get e.g. true replications and theoretical understanding.

        • bkrharold

          I’m not even sure it would be so easy to fake a sample of Nickel isotopes with the same ratios as those in the ash.

    • Omega Z

      Santa.
      I wouldn’t go so far as to trust Santa.
      How can you trust someone who sneaks into your house at night by way of the Chimney. Sounds like a burglar to me.
      🙂

  • HarryD

    Addition.
    REPORT mentions start and end date.

    “Between the 24/02/14 and the 29/03/14 in Lugano (CH) I performed the radiation field measurements for radiation protection purposes as per Andrea Rossi request on the 30/01/14.”
    Leaves still room to speculate that another test is run simultaneously.
    Thought 6 month test started in september…

  • Chris I

    Well, the first thing I’ll say: no new authors.

    Second thing: ArXiv having put it on hold does not look promissing as for reception.

    I’ll take a look at it now, but for the moment I don’t expect folks to be overwhelmingly convinced by it.

    • Billy Jackson

      could ArXiv be suffering from political hangups due to the drama the first report caused?

      • Freethinker

        I believe the previous report suffered the same treatment.

        • Freethinker

          Stephan Pomp declares the “cat dead”… Whatta surprise.

          http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html

          “Levi et al. draw the conclusion that “nuclear reactions have
          taken place” and that one “can speculate about the nature of such reactions.”
          However, they “refrain from such discussions.” While the latter seems wise it
          is totally inexplicable to me, how the authors cannot see the most obvious and
          by far most likely conclusion of the fuel analysis; that they simply have been
          fooled.”

          He is shooting at the ash, and simply imply that it is impossible, hence the authors has been fooled.

          Well, well…

          • Mats002

            His brain just fell out.

          • Freethinker

            sure did 😀

          • Sanjeev

            A treasure of quotes on irrational skepticism. Resistance to anything new and revolutionary is not recent and surely not only against cold fusion.

            http://amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html

            (Thanks to P. Gluck for the link).

          • Dods

            Well Stephen all I can say is “These arn’t the droids your looking for, move along”

          • deleo77

            It’s really interesting how the line is being drawn in the ash. Pomp is saying that the change in composition of the ash without emission of radiation is either impossible or worthy of a nobel prize.

            People can argue all day long about the infrared cameras and heat measurement, but in this test they literally saw the ash change composition before and after the test. As Pomp says:

            “Practically all Li-7 has turned into Li-6 and all the 4 other naturally occurring nickel isotopes have practically vanished and turned into Ni-62. The latter has a natural abundance of 3.6 % but in the “ash” the abundance is about 99 %! Yes, you have read correctly. This is what is claimed. Nobel prize? If true: definitely. Imagine: You run the E-Cat and all the Ni-58 (68 % natural abundance), Ni-60 (26 %), Ni-61 (1 %) and Ni-64 (1 %) nuclei have turned into Ni-62.”

            If the post reaction ash analysis is accurate, then the real choice is Nobel Prize, or outright fraud by Rossi – meaning Rossi, or perhaps Levi, literally put a different kind of ash into the bag for analysis without any of the other testers noticing. What other possibility could it be?

          • Sanjeev

            Page 7 :
            “Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred;
            moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.”

            So if he did it, everyone saw him doing it and still decided to publish this report and ruin their reputations, jobs and families.

            I can feel ground sliding below the feet of Pomp and likes.

          • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

            As typically, Stephan orates over improbable result assuming everything is glaring mistakes just as what happend with the previous report and everything is low quality bad and so on. But this should be taken as a kind of show and there need to be counter arguments. Sooo, the power is maintained as I understand as a cycle where the reactor runs away, the get stopped and cooled and then continue as is. This means that although there is less fuel in the end, the raise of the runaway can be so dramatic that it really masks that there is less fuel, think of it as at the beginning there is 2MegaPower potential, then in the end it has 1 MegaPower potential, but to not melt the process is caped at 1KPower. Basically you would not see a detoriation of power output. This possibility is missed by Pomp. Also the Ash result in the paper shows suspicious large converted material, something that is glaring according to Pomp. But As I understood, the data is from the surface of the powder and the result varies from particle to particle. He does however point at weak points in the article and hopefully, the authors will learn, just as Rossi seams to do, and take advantage of Pomp and improve their paper even further.

      • as josephson explained the moderators of Arxiv looked for excuse to reject it the first time, and they could not find any and were upset of that.

        maybe they worked hard and found a bad reason.

      • by the way you all guys, please make a shame of arxiv. it is not for e-cat, but for others dissenting discoveries like EmDrive…
        they have to know that blocking a discovery is more dangerous fro their reputation and their payroll than supporting a failed experiment.

        • Billy Jackson

          agreed. while i wont shame them as that’s not part of my personality. but should the behavior continue ill look else where for information besides them. reputation is everything, your word is your bond and all that. go out of your way to repress, ridicule or deride something and it may be you that suffer not your target.

          • It is not personal, it is for things to change. it is econometric.
            the incentive today are making this kind of bureaucrats afraid to support improbable blackswan options, and they prefer to save harbour of “don’t touch at it”.

            you just have to frighten them more than the terrorist of APS and Nature. give hope to the dissenters and fear to the groupthinked. there will be some people who will suffer like F&P, Miles, Bockris, his intern, but it will stop the crime against science that is becoming academic science.

            being nasty is our job. too much academic blood have been wasted.

            when I say nasty is to repeat everywhere, not only that LENr is real, but that Arxiv is laughable.

            the job of business guys is to be nice, not our. of course be kind with those who repent… they will all repent!

            truth and reconciliation otherwise!

      • Chris I

        Let’s say that folks are being veeeeeeeeery veeeeeeeeery cautious…

        …and of course the skeptopaths are gonna say these folks the Rossi’s usual cronies, they can’t be believed, Rossi’s cloak had to be in the wardrobe etc.

        But Magnus Oloffsson of Elfork is great news. Much better news than the report itself.

    • Ged

      Don’t read too much into the “on hold” with ArXiv. It’s likely due to the submission to JoP D, or data archiving rights. There’s a lot of rules depending on journal about publishing in multiple places.

    • Omega Z

      Brian Josephson has stated previously that 2 people tried to block the 1st E-cat test published on ArXiv.

      I commented a a previous thread that I wouldn’t be surprised if this was attempted again. Especially as they’ve had a heads up to plan accordingly this time…

  • Chris, Italy

    Well, the first thing I’ll say: no new authors.

    Second thing: ArXiv having put it on hold does not look promissing as for reception.

    I’ll take a look at it now, but for the moment I don’t expect folks to be overwhelmingly convinced by it.

    • Billy Jackson

      could ArXiv be suffering from political hangups due to the drama the first report caused?

      • Freethinker

        I believe the previous report suffered the same treatment.

      • as josephson explained the moderators of Arxiv looked for excuse to reject it the first time, and they could not find any and were upset of that.

        maybe they worked hard and found a bad reason.

      • by the way you all guys, please make a shame of arxiv. it is not for e-cat, but for others dissenting discoveries like EmDrive…
        they have to know that blocking a discovery is more dangerous fro their reputation and their payroll than supporting a failed experiment.

        • Billy Jackson

          agreed. while i wont shame them as that’s not part of my personality. but should the behavior continue ill look else where for information besides them. reputation is everything, your word is your bond and all that. go out of your way to repress, ridicule or deride something and it may be you that suffer not your target.

          • It is not personal, it is for things to change. it is econometric.
            the incentive today are making this kind of bureaucrats afraid to support improbable blackswan options, and they prefer to save harbour of “don’t touch at it”.

            you just have to frighten them more than the terrorist of APS and Nature. give hope to the dissenters and fear to the groupthinked. there will be some people who will suffer like F&P, Miles, Bockris, his intern, but it will stop the crime against science that is becoming academic science.

            being nasty is our job. too much academic blood have been wasted.

            when I say nasty is to repeat everywhere, not only that LENr is real, but that Arxiv is laughable.

            the job of business guys is to be nice, not our. of course be kind with those who repent… they will all repent!

            truth and reconciliation otherwise!

      • bachcole

        I don’t mind if ArXiv doesn’t want to publish. If they don’t, they are only hanging themselves with a rope that they weaved.

      • Chris, Italy

        Let’s say that folks are being veeeeeeeeery veeeeeeeeery cautious…

        …and of course the skeptopaths are gonna say these folks the Rossi’s usual cronies, they can’t be believed, Rossi’s cloak had to be in the wardrobe etc.

        But Magnus Oloffsson of Elfork is great news. Much better news than the report itself.

        • bachcole

          Although I am really happy with 32 days straight, and although I am positively ecstatic about 1400 Celsius, and although I think that analysing the dust is very sexy, I agree that the CEO of Elforsk Magnus Oloffsson coming out and giving the E-Cat a big thumbs up is much more important.

    • Goax

      For me, this report is a bomb: the isotopic analysis is incontrovertible: these are nuclear reactions at low temperature. A new field of research must be supported by governments now.

      • dbg

        This is my take too. From the summary…

        “Nevertheless we have to relate to the fact that the experimental results from our test show heat production beyond chemical burning, and that the E-Cat fuel undergoes nuclear transformations.”

        Nuclear transformations observed and confirmed. That’s it right there.

        • Chris, Italy

          Uhm, that’s it right there, except the skeptopaths are not gonna believe it. They’re not gonna believe anybody, let alone the same folks as the first report, some of whom were already Rossi’s buddies, and of course Ethan Siegel is gonna give’em another F and… you name it.

          • bachcole

            Chris I, I hope that this does not upset you. The more that they resist, the more satisfactual will be the triumph. (:->) They basically can’t win. We just have to be patient. They will be assimilated; their egos will be crushed.

      • this report is not the bomb agains the skeptics.
        it will help the rational guys in corps to get money for their project.
        if is a key help for theoretician as it is the first isotopic analysis of NiH reaction at this quantity.

        nearly full conversion of one isotope is very rare even in classic nuclear physics and chemistry

    • Ged

      Don’t read too much into the “on hold” with ArXiv. It’s likely due to the submission to JoP D, or data archiving rights. There’s a lot of rules depending on journal about publishing in multiple places.

    • bachcole

      I don’t expect that it will change a whole bunch of minds. Perhaps some investors or other interested parties were watching the professors while they were testing. Their minds will be changed. Only companies adopting cold fusion in order to get an edge up on the competition will convince most people.

      But I love the results of the test.

    • Omega Z

      Brian Josephson has stated previously that 2 people tried to block the 1st E-cat test published on ArXiv.

      I commented a a previous thread that I wouldn’t be surprised if this was attempted again. Especially as they’ve had a heads up to plan accordingly this time…

      • bachcole

        Resistance is not only futile but will result in crushed egos and reputations.

  • ronzonni

    This is cautiously encouraging. It would have been better had it been an entirely different team and if it had not involved Dr. Rossi and Dr. Levi. Running the dummy hot cat was a very good idea. But I am not sure all possibilities for the test being rigged have been totally ruled out.

    Hopefully now, IH can and will sell and deliver (!) some ecat-based thermal generators to private customers so that the tests can be truly independent of Dr. Rossi and so that the public and the press can participate. That would nail the coffin lid on all skeptics.

  • John Littlemist

    Us, we, we, we?!?!? Roger please speak only for yourself!

    • Billy Jackson

      I will accept his use of We as its intended for general use. you only have to read the rest of this discussion to see that despite the positive of this report. there are those of us that expected something more, thus the feeling of disappointment which is only our fault for believing rumors.

  • ronzonni

    This is cautiously encouraging. It would have been better had it been an entirely different team and if it had not involved Dr. Rossi and Dr. Levi. Running the dummy hot cat was a very good idea. But I am not sure all possibilities for the test being rigged have been totally ruled out.

    Hopefully now, IH can and will sell and deliver (!) some ecat-based thermal generators to private customers so that the tests can be truly independent of Dr. Rossi and so that the public and the press can participate. That would nail the coffin lid on all skeptics.

  • Broncobet

    Thank you for announcing only three days from my prediction, does everyone acknowledge that I win the contest for closest prediction of report? Good.The report looks good,with graphs and pictures, footnotes ect. The most ardent true believers have some very troubled reaction which is only to be expected.The first thing I want to see is if or when Next Big Future prints this as they have always closely followed this space. Does this mean anything to the people that bet at the book? Remember they put up odds recently ,I’m guessing that if you bet on LENR being real that this does not result in you being paid on the other hand if you “laid” 9 to one it was not real ,wouldn’t you be nervous?This is all interesting and entertaining. Did I read correctly that even though it was supposed to be an independent test,that to start the test that Rossi himself was at the controls starting it up,if this is so obviously these reports have no value whatsoever as it was supposed to be independent, but pehaps I misunderstood, as that sounds awfully clumsy.Like everyone else,I would think it cool if these results produced some interest from others ie Patent office or Dept of Energy, or well regarded scientists, we will wait and see . Deep down I imagine that the only results of these reports will be to obtain more money for IH, but it would be easy for that to be untrue and there to be “some ” interest from scientists in this field. We will see!

    • don’t exaggerate.
      that rossi startup, fill, under supervision, his machine does not remove the status of independent, as the scientist had control on their instruments afterward.
      one have to be dishonest to use that argument. sure this argument is used as grouthink make people dishonest, and sure it will not convince them…
      so what….

      the report can only convince… serious honest overcautious skeptics guys who read it.
      less cautious are already convinced since the first.

      I agree that this is not the bomb to eradicate stupidity on earth, as I expected…
      it is a solid industrial report. which confirm known facts.

    • GreenWin

      Wow. You write exactly like MY!

  • Mark Szl

    Given the criticism and skepticism over the first report then I doubt this same group would risk their reputations and try a “fast one.” In fact it would be just the opposite. They would be extra cautious. Rossi being there is really irrelevant and another thing to keep in mind is that this report is something more for the patent office. Part of the strategy crafted by patent attorneys working for IH / Rossi.

  • Mark Szl

    Given the criticism and skepticism over the first report then I doubt this same group would risk their reputations and try a “fast one.” In fact it would be just the opposite. They would be extra cautious. Rossi being there is really irrelevant and another thing to keep in mind is that this report is something more for the patent office. Part of the strategy crafted by patent attorneys working for IH / Rossi.

  • Bernie777

    What happened to “other” scientists involved? Boils down to no guts, intimidation or both. Just like we have been saying, the only proof will be a customer saving a lot of energy dollars. More waiting.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Search: Bexell, Bianchini, Bonetti, Hall, Passi. In addition, some uninvolved colleagues might have read the manuscript.

      • Freethinker

        I find these peaople in the paper:

        Main Authors:

        Levi, Giuseppe
        Foschi, Evelyn
        Höistad, Bo
        Pettersson, Roland
        Tegnér, Lars
        Essén, Hanno

        Unofficial peer reviewers:

        Passi, Alessandro
        Bonetti, Ennio

        Particpants in external investigations:

        Bianchini, David
        Bonnetti, Ennio
        Bexell, Ulf
        Hall, Josefin
        Pettersson, Jean

        13 people directly involved one way or another in this.

        • Sanjeev
        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Yes, I saw that too. This is a work in progress. They will go on and at a certain point they will also do some performance testing on an E-Cat. But mostly they are interested in the scientific part of the process, which is why the report is a bit disappointing at first.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    What happened to “other” scientists involved? Boils down to no guts, intimidation or both. Just like we have been saying, the only proof will be a customer saving a lot of energy dollars. More waiting.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Search: Bexell, Bianchini, Bonetti, Hall, Passi. In addition, some uninvolved colleagues might have read the manuscript.

      • Freethinker

        I find these people in the paper:

        Main Authors:

        Levi, Giuseppe
        Foschi, Evelyn
        Höistad, Bo
        Pettersson, Roland
        Tegnér, Lars
        Essén, Hanno

        Unofficial peer reviewers:

        Passi, Alessandro
        Bonetti, Ennio

        Particpants in external investigations:

        Bianchini, David
        Bonnetti, Ennio
        Bexell, Ulf
        Hall, Josefin
        Pettersson, Jean

        13 people directly involved one way or another in this.

        • Enrique Ferreyra

          Most of “extra” people cant be taked as endorsers, a guy received ashes and analysed, he doesnt know how the ashes where produced.
          Just an example.

  • Daniel Maris

    Wouldn’t it help if you quoted from the report or gave citations when you make allegations of this type.

    • Freethinker

      Don’t waste to much time on this one…

      1) Rossi has stated that he has not participated, he has also stated that he has visited. Again, the motley crew of the dark side sceptics read into every word Rossi writes, sometimes not knowing the context, weighing it for the potential lie it may contain. They are obsessed with lies.

      2) has the completely bs statement that we cannot trust the excess energy measured.

      3) He visited, and he has stated he did partake momentarily in those visits. To start and stop. Mr Hody thinks that he was allowed to do this unsupervised, which ofcourse is pure bs.

      4) Rossi has talked about long tests, I wonder if he explicitly has stated that the TIP test was to run for 6 months? No doubt there are other tests running, and there are customer trials. Also, it may have been the initial intention of the TIP to do that, but as AR was not allowed to be involved – likely unless specifically so requested to by the TIP team – he might not have known for how long the test actually were intended to go on really, until he was called in. I agree that I myself was under the impression that this test had a duration for 6 months, so much so that I have communicated that frequently and with emphasis in many places. So yes, I find this as a small setback. But again the dark side sceptics are all about lies and fraud, and every word AR says is evaluated as a truth or a lie.

      Just ignore, as neither of those points put any shadow on the result in the report.

  • Josh G

    100% Right. Just like the Wright brothers.

    • Billy Jackson

      I know.. i had all my signs made and everything ready to run the streets!.. you should have seen the costume i was going to wear… see through spandex!!

    • Nixter

      I was reading up on how technological disruptions were handled in the past, so far things are playing out exactly as predicted. This is a common pattern often seen when a new and difficult to identify advanced technology first appears. The larger the entity the more difficult it becomes for them to identify and then take advantage of emerging, game changing technologies like the E-Cat. Part of the pattern seen in the past is that the emerging technology is first embraced by smaller investment type corporations emerging markets and offshore companies. It’s almost impossible to spot these when they first pop up, and surprisingly one of the problems is how the larger companies customers are not interested in anything new and unproven in the beginning, no matter how promising they may seem at first. Knowing this it will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the next year or so, if things play out in the same manner that they have in the past, it will be quite a while before the big players realize what is happening and are able to capitalize on the new developments. The way that the pathological skeptics are continuing their march of ignorance could actually help to keep the bigger players out of the picture for a while and this will probably benefit the spread of this new and exciting technological breakthrough.

      • Donk970

        It seems to me that new technologies fall into two groups. First are technologies that are really new like computers that created an entirely new market. The other is technologies that pop up in existing markets. The ecat is of the latter type. Technologies that create new markets are easily embraced because they don’t compete with established companies. New technologies in old markets are a lot tougher because the existing market tends to reject anything that would take profits away from existing players in the market. Cold fusion is especially problematic for existing energy companies because there is no intrinsic part of it that can be controlled. The technology while still secret is obviously simple and the fuel components are literally as common as dirt.

        • Fortyniner

          Actually I think that Rossi’s discovery falls into both of your categories. As soon as the underlying processes are better understood, many non-energy applications will emerge to create new markets – in particular the use of controlled transmutation to create useful elemental isotopes (such as 62Ni in the first instance), and to reprocess radioactive waste.

          Regarding opposition, the report will undoubtedly focus minds, and we may see clear moves towards corraling CF very soon.

  • catfish

    The E-Cat discussion at Nasaspaceflight.com has been deleted without warning or explanation. I suspect there will be more of this. That’s a shame. It was a good forum.

  • don’t exaggerate.
    that rossi startup, fill, under supervision, his machine does not remove the status of independent, as the scientist had control on their instruments afterward.
    one have to be dishonest to use that argument. sure this argument is used as grouthink make people dishonest, and sure it will not convince them…
    so what….

    the report can only convince… serious honest overcautious skeptics guys who read it.
    less cautious are already convinced since the first.

    I agree that this is not the bomb to eradicate stupidity on earth, as I expected…
    it is a solid industrial report. which confirm known facts.

  • Broncobet

    Well I checked and Next Big Future did report this which is good, they were the only ones and in all the news of the world or of all the places on the web there was zero reaction or even mention, which is bad. Perhaps there will be mention or reaction later. I didn’t understand at first that although we were told that this was a different set of scientists in fact it was the same group! That can not help the cause. So no peer review, not published, not replicable, no theory. But let’s not give up hope. What do I know? Not much. There’s still time for this to turn around and head in a positive direction, I know IH certainly hopes so for the sake of their upcoming campaign for more investment.

    • Omega Z

      I doubt that MSM will mention it unless/until it is published in Journal of Physics D. Even then is questionable…

    • bachcole

      I strongly suspect that this was not the only test. There are too many things that are different from what Rossi said.

  • Ged

    All your points are invalid and definitely not good. Now, Rossi did say he was there to start, but it’s easy to get confused by Rossi comments. However, your point 2 destroys all your credibility as a rational observer who knows anything on the topic. The device is clearly shown to generate 3.2x more energy than goes in, that’s a major finding of the paper. You are talking out of your arse due to providing no evidence to counter the paper’s results, and so you have likely not even read the paper it seems.

    Such a enormous failure in commentary invalidates all your other points and all your arguments. You are most welcome to join the discussion when you have your information straight and can argue your points based on data and fact.

  • Sanjeev

    I can see a cctv camera on the wall in the picture on page 4.
    Perhaps many skeptos would like to see the footage of Rossi changing the powder secretly and hooking up his coffee maker to produce all those megawatts.
    😉

    Even if he replaced the ash, nothing explains the amount of excess heat that was produced for a month. Man, I want that fake powder so badly.

    • Freethinker

      🙂 Actually, if they have the video, they should make it available on youtube, for all to see, that AR is not there alone and unsupervised, and that he does not flip out a bag of prepared ash from his sleeve, or whatever, etc …

      • Sanjeev

        That would immediately force the skeptos to invent another more absurd “proof”, such as Rossi sent a ghost to change the ash, which was obviously not recorded by the camera. Science text books tell us that cameras do not see ghosts ! Thats the proof there.

    • Gerald

      I’m affraid that footage is gone. In my country its legal to have footage in store for a month. Privacy. Hope they saved it or made film or a movie so I can enjoy it in the future on discovery with Morgan Freemans voice explaining things.

  • Christina

    Frank,

    Please ask Dr. Rossi when we’ll get to see inside the factory of Industrial Heat’s customer to see the working LENR device.

    Thank you,

    Christina

    • Omega Z

      About a year & then only for potential customers & a select few Individuals.

  • Sanjeev

    The greatest strength of this report (and the older one) is that there are no serious skeptics here, no serious objections. I only find a bunch of unknown faceless people calling each other liars.

    It would have been a big trouble if reputed institutions and people had something negative to say about the whole affair. I see no one, the case is exactly opposite. Many reputed and respected people are saying it works !

    All this makes me completely ignore the skeptics, but I do enjoy an occasional moronic argument, such as Rossi changed the ash when no one was looking.

  • Sanjeev

    The greatest strength of this report (and the older one) is that there are no serious skeptics here, no serious objections. I only find a bunch of unknown faceless people calling each other liars.

    It would have been a big trouble if reputed institutions and people had something negative to say about the whole affair. I see no one, the case is exactly opposite. Many reputed and respected people are saying it works !

    All this makes me completely ignore the skeptics, but I do enjoy an occasional moronic argument, such as Rossi changed the ash when no one was looking.

    • WantOffTheGrid

      Yes they are claiming sleight of hand trick like David Copperfield. Laughed and almost spit out my coffee 🙂

  • Jonnyb

    We need the industrial plant open for demonstrations now, any idea how long the wait for this will be?

  • Jonnyb

    We need the industrial plant open for demonstrations now, any idea how long the wait for this will be?

  • pettegolo

    And now after 3 long years I’m going to laughing. ..

  • e-dog

    Greetings Everyone.
    Thought I would just add my 372 cents worth and see if we can make a record number of posts on this thread… 🙂 Just reading through the comments after browsing the report…all seems very interesting as was the last report and the whole E-cat/LENR saga that is unfolding BUT I wish I could just skip through a few chapters and get to the really interesting stuff when the technology is out in the market to prove itself useful or not. IH and Rossi need to suck up their patent pushing and get others TOTALLY independently building these devices from scratch, its the only way.
    On another topic… Ebola is coming and another breakthrough that could have saved thousands/millions of lives is being ignored and not funded unlike the e-cat. Its the DRACO antiviral developed in 2011…. Ive been waiting for serious news about this tech just as much as real news about the e-cat! (And please keep up the great work on presenting that news in an easy to find place!! Thanks Frank!)
    Cheerios!
    E-Dog

  • Jonnyb

    Anyone know what happened to all the Peer reviews Paul was talking about?

    • Freethinker

      Well,

      maybe Paul – if real – referred to the actual paper being sent to Journal of Physics Dand that he caught a glimpse of that correspondence between the authors and the journal. Even if referees may be anonymous (not sure in this case) it will likely be clear how *many* they are anyway. Of course I speculate, but I want to point out that the information need not be totally bogus.

      • Jonnyb

        Thanks Freethinker

      • Bob Greenyer

        This is the paper sent to Journal of Physics D

    • Fortyniner

      The authors of the present paper only had approx. 10mg of ‘ash’ to play with, and their analysis was necessarily superficial. That leaves around 990mg unaccounted for, so it seems entirely possible that a second group may have carried out a more detailed analysis, and ventured more deeply into theoretical discussion. Maybe we haven’t seen the full picture quite yet.

      • GreenWin

        That’s what came to mind for me. This is a valid a stand alone report but I have a feeling there is more that’s being held back. This report may have been completed by end of June, the remaining 90 days could be waiting for journal referee comments. VERY interesting arXiv is refusing to publish this time.

  • Jonnyb

    Anyone know what happened to all the Peer reviews Paul was talking about?

    • Freethinker

      Well,

      maybe Paul – if real – referred to the actual paper being sent to Journal of Physics D and that he caught a glimpse of that correspondence between the authors and the journal. Even if referees may be anonymous (not sure in this case) it will likely be clear how *many* they are anyway. Of course I speculate, but I want to point out that the information need not be totally bogus.

      • Jonnyb

        Thanks Freethinker

      • Bob Greenyer

        This is the paper sent to Journal of Physics D

    • Broncobet

      He was just messing with you, it’s immature but people act that way.

    • The authors of the present paper only had approx. 10mg of ‘ash’ to play with, and their analysis was necessarily superficial. That leaves around 990mg unaccounted for, so it seems entirely possible that a second group may have carried out a more detailed analysis and microscopic examination, and perhaps ventured more deeply into theoretical discussion. Maybe we haven’t seen the full picture quite yet.

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        how do you know that they only had 10mg of ash to play with? also how do you know .9g was unaccounted for?

        • The paper said they sampled 10 mg for each assay. That leaves 0.98g. The paper didn’t say why they used such a small sample. For some things, like the surface tests, it was plenty.

      • GreenWin

        That’s what came to mind for me. This is a valid a stand alone report but I have a feeling there is more that’s being held back. This report may have been completed by end of June, the remaining 90 days could be waiting for journal referee comments. VERY interesting arXiv is refusing to publish this time.

    • Peer reviewers are generally not identified. I don’t know if the journal has a different policy.

  • I would really like to see some kind of press release from Industrial Heat now.

    • Billy Jackson

      that may be planned.. remember this was leaked early.

      • Freethinker

        This is a double edged sword. Had they been able to present an accepted paper with Journal of Physics D, then it would be a sure thing, I think. Maybe they wait a while.

        • On the other hand, a Journal could improve it’s image drastically if it is in, let’s say 5 years, THE journal which pushed LENR back into the game?

        • Jonnyb

          So is the publication in the Journal of Physics D out of the question now?

          • Freethinker

            I have not heard any such news. I think they are deliberating, and there might be more issues outstanding with regard to comments made by referees. I think it is not over until they have finally refused it. As stated by admin above (Mats Lewan’s words):

            ” I got the report
            sent to me by Hanno Essén who said that he now considers it to be
            public, although not supposed to be published in any commercial journal
            until further notice from Journal of Physics D.”

            So they must still be in play.

          • Ged

            http://atom.iop.org/atom/help.nsf/LookupJournalSpecific/general-guidelines-for-authors~** there’s the guide to authors for publishing in the Journal of Physics.

            Two issues: must not be published elsewhere (so will this release count as a “previously published”?), and must meet the length requirements. As it is, I think it’s too long, so they may have had to submit a trimmed down version with some of the data in supplementary materials; and the fact it’s been released like this my make it ineligible for the journal. Not sure though, up to the editor.

    • e-dog

      That would be honorableness on Industrial Heats behalf wouldnt it??? Are they aware the report is online? Press conference please? Has anyone in the press read this yet? I really do wonder about how the human world works/doesnt work sometimes!

    • e-dog

      Anyone Local who can ring them and ask if they have anything to say? 🙂

      Industrial Heat, LLC operates in
      the energy sector. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in
      Raleigh, North Carolina.

      111 East Hargett Street
      Suite 300
      Raleigh, NC 27601
      United States
      Founded in 2012
      Phone:
      919-743-5727

  • Christina

    Did anyone hear, “Ho, ho, ho, Merry Christmas” because we now have cold fusion, a gift from God.

    • Mats002

      I did. Merry Future Christina, Dr Rossi, Peanut Gallery and to my self!

  • BroKeeper

    Frank, I can’t keep up with the comments…..Boom!

    • Billy Jackson

      hah.. except to go to the bathroom i haven’t left this chair since about 10am O.o

    • artefact

      It gets worse when drinking Prossecco ….

      • Fortyniner

        I’m drinking a cheap but acceptable champagne that has been sitting in my fridge since shortly after the first report. I just re-read the paper but for some reason couldn’t understand some parts that had seemed perfectly clear earlier on…

        • Billy Jackson

          must be something in the glass…

        • artefact

          Cheers Peter!

          George? The revolution does not wait for you.

          • Fortyniner

            Cheers! Prosit! Skol! Proost! Salute!, Artifact. I hope you have some suitable beverage to hand!

          • artefact

            12 bottles extra brut prossecco imported from Italy 🙂

        • Freethinker

          Well… I uncorked my Bollinger. So Cheers everybody! 😀

          • Billy Jackson

            well at 42 i can claim Ive never had alcohol in my life… yet my stock in Diete Mt Dew is going up by the hour the way I’m sitting here drinking and reading 🙂

          • Freethinker

            And a toast to the absent heroes,

            Martin Fleischmann,
            Sergio Focardi,
            Sven Kullander,
            Eugene Mallove,
            and many many more …

        • timycelyn

          Peter, Im going to join you in a celebratory glass or three! I’ll be taking time off on dock tomorrow (yes, we are pulling her to pieces again…) to update the rest of the gang who I have already indoctrinated….

          • Fortyniner

            Belated cheers, Tim. My wife didn’t really understand why I was celebrating, and doesn’t like ‘sparkly’ anyway, so I ended up going to bed rather earlier than usual!

            It’s getting a bit cold and windy for working outside – I hope you have some cover.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Thanks for the idea. I took the liberty to submit it to JONP. Interesting to see what he answers.

          • Freethinker

            Ehhrr .. you guys …. He need lot of those cats to make anything substantial. If it were unobtanium, well then ….

            In edit.: Ofourse if it pays $10,000 per gram, well then ….

          • Pekka Janhunen

            This 2 kWth reactor produced 1 gram of Ni-62 in 1 month. A 1 MW device would then produce 6 kg of the stuff in 1 year. If the price is really of the order of $100-200k per 10 grams as the above Vortex link speculated, then it would be serious money ($60-120M). Of course, the isotope marked is niche market and is easily saturated. But still…

          • Ged

            Fascinating alternative side business opportunity.

          • Freethinker

            Ok. I yield 🙂

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Courtesy of MaryYugo:

            http://www.buyisotope.com/nickel_isotopes_58_60_61_62_64.php?gclid=CjwKEAjwwdOhBRCG0fPrlfO1gGUSJAC1FmHXxewQ1amA3tOSZGaRlH_rmftOT1L-v0Z-Ja0UoKL6YxoCPJDw_wcB

            He/She/It claims Ni-62 sells for $20K a gram.

            That would make spent fuel ashes quite the product to have.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Ashes to cashes, $10M per month from 1 MW plant. (Until market saturates.)

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            You win 🙂

        • Demokratinifara

          Cheeeeers everybody!!

    • US_Citizen71

      I would love to see what his Google Analytics Real Time Overview looks like right now! : )

  • Brokeeper

    Frank, I can’t keep up with the comments…..Boom!

    • Billy Jackson

      hah.. except to go to the bathroom i haven’t left this chair since about 10am O.o

    • artefact

      It gets worse when drinking Prossecco ….

      • I’m drinking a cheap but acceptable champagne that has been sitting in my fridge since shortly after the first report. I just re-read the paper but for some reason couldn’t understand some parts that had seemed perfectly clear earlier on…

        • Billy Jackson

          must be something in the glass…

        • artefact

          Cheers Peter!

          George? The revolution does not wait for you.

          • Cheers! Prosit! Skol! Proost! Salute!, Artefact. I hope you have some suitable beverage to hand!

          • artefact

            12 bottles extra brut prossecco imported from Italy 🙂

        • Freethinker

          Well… I uncorked my Bollinger. So Cheers everybody! 😀

          • Billy Jackson

            well at 42 i can claim Ive never had alcohol in my life… yet my stock in Diete Mt Dew is going up by the hour the way I’m sitting here drinking and reading 🙂

          • Freethinker

            And a toast to the absent heroes,

            Martin Fleischmann,
            Sergio Focardi,
            Sven Kullander,
            Eugene Mallove,
            and many many more …

        • timycelyn

          Peter, Im going to join you in a celebratory glass or three! I’ll be taking time off on dock tomorrow (yes, we are pulling her to pieces again…) to update the rest of the gang who I have already indoctrinated….

          • Belated cheers, Tim. My wife didn’t really understand why I was celebrating, and doesn’t like ‘sparkly’ anyway, so I ended up going to bed rather earlier than usual!

            It’s getting a bit wet, cold and windy for working outside – I hope you have some cover.

        • Demokratinifara

          Cheeeeers everybody!!

        • NAC

          I’ve got some nice Manuka Honey whiskey that I’m sipping on over here in New Zealand

          • winebuff67

            98 Argyle sparkler from oregon:)

    • US_Citizen71

      I would love to see what his Google Analytics Real Time Overview looks like right now! : )

  • jrainearwills

    Is Industrial Heat going to step into the lime light with their new product?

  • this report is not the bomb agains the skeptics.
    it will help the rational guys in corps to get money for their project.
    if is a key help for theoretician as it is the first isotopic analysis of NiH reaction at this quantity.

    nearly full conversion of one isotope is very rare even in classic nuclear physics and chemistry

  • Nixter

    I have already seen a first reaction on a forum and just as predicted, the first responses was, “where is the working generator?” The first denial comes in the form of an ever increasing standard of proof which can never be met. While we now have the satisfaction of getting satisfactory proof, Dr. Rossi was correct when he said the world will be convinced when the public and the commercial sector, see an E-Cat running in a commercial setting.

    • Billy Jackson

      also remember that a lot of people are incapable of reading something like this and understanding the math or even the concepts of what this paper is talking about. You would be amazed at how many have completed high school or college yet are completely ignorant with any thing outside their experience.

      as such. a working reactor is something they can understand.. hey.. they turned that thing on and the lights come on.. its working.. math and debate be damned.

  • Nixter

    I have already seen a first reaction on a forum and just as predicted, the first responses was, “where is the working generator?” The first denial comes in the form of an ever increasing standard of proof which can never be met. While we now have the pleasure of getting satisfactory proof, Dr. Rossi was correct when he said the world will be convinced when the public and the commercial sector, see an E-Cat running in a commercial setting.

    • Barbierir
    • Billy Jackson

      also remember that a lot of people are incapable of reading something like this and understanding the math or even the concepts of what this paper is talking about. You would be amazed at how many have completed high school or college yet are completely ignorant with any thing outside their experience.

      as such. a working reactor is something they can understand.. hey.. they turned that thing on and the lights come on.. its working.. math and debate be damned.

  • pettegolo

    And now after 3 long years I can laughing

  • bachcole

    I can’t keep up. My email count is increasing while I am reading comments as fast as I can. And Disqus had decided to lock me out and nothing seems to work to allow me to login in and unsubscribe. So my email inbox is getting filled up faster than I can empty it.

  • Alain Samoun

    So for 32 days this 1 GRAM of mixture has produced about 6000 MJ or the same energy of
    50 GALLONS Of GAS (1 Gallon of gasoline = 120MJ).
    Not bad for a beginning…

    • Billy Jackson

      in the words of the great Eddie Murphy “Now that’s a fire!”

  • Alain Samoun

    So for 32 days this 1 GRAM of mixture has produced about 6000 MJ or the same energy of
    50 GALLONS Of GAS (1 Gallon of gasoline = 120MJ).
    Not bad for a beginning…

  • etburg

    I would agree with those stating that the skeptics will point to Levi’s name at the top of the list and say “Friend of Rossi” and go no further. Having said that, I think this is a very significant step towards winning over reasonable people and I would not be at all surprised if the findings released today haven’t been pored over behind closed doors by a lot of people in a position to make a difference. The tide will turn eventually and this is very big wave. Thank you Frank for all your hard work and likewise to all the faithful who follow this and have contributed. It is a great day!

  • LilyLover

    Mass Emailing – First time in my life.

    I’m sending out following simple email to many many people.

    Feel free to use it & Please suggest some improvements in the content.

    Today is the day I’ll send it out – all out – like crazy!

    *****

    Sub: Celebrating The E-Cat Report: Physics & Chemistry – Moment of Truth – What We Know

    Dear Folks,
    Today I would like to celebrate an important milestone in humanity’s first step towards abundance-based economy. You might have been unaware of this so far, but I think you’d enjoy this report.

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

    Celebrating The E-Cat Report: Physics & Chemistry – Moment of Truth – What
    We Know E-Cat Report Released: ‘Not a Conventional Source of Energy’ (Cold Fusion/LENR
    Confirmed)

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-released/

    What does this mean?

    Energy -> next to free;
    Large scale desalination and ambient humidity to drinking water conversion feasible;
    End of nuclear fission & fusion;
    End of coal burning;
    Foray into space travel;
    Metallic transmutation (read – gold diminished in value; all
    radioactive waste produced thus far convertible to harmless recyclables)
    Solar panels, the best available green tech as of now, to
    become obsolete;
    +++
    …The list goes on.
    All the above achieved with zero pollutants. =>
    Eventual clean-up of everything leading to the totally clean Earth.
    Will take time – few years – but –
    … It has begun.
    Have a good day.
    Take care.
    `LilyLover

  • LilyLover

    Mass Emailing – First time in my life.

    I’m sending out following simple email to many many people.

    Feel free to use it & Please suggest some improvements in the content.

    Today is the day I’ll send it out – all out – like crazy!

    *****

    Sub: Celebrating The E-Cat Report: Physics & Chemistry – Moment of Truth – What We Know

    Dear Folks,
    Today I would like to celebrate an important milestone in humanity’s first step towards abundance-based economy. You might have been unaware of this so far, but I think you’d enjoy this report.

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

    Celebrating The E-Cat Report: Physics & Chemistry – Moment of Truth – What
    We Know E-Cat Report Released: ‘Not a Conventional Source of Energy’ (Cold Fusion/LENR
    Confirmed)

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/08/e-cat-report-released/

    What does this mean?

    Energy -> next to free;
    Large scale desalination and ambient humidity to drinking water conversion feasible;
    End of nuclear fission & fusion;
    End of coal burning;
    Foray into space travel;
    Metallic transmutation (read – gold diminished in value; all
    radioactive waste produced thus far convertible to harmless recyclables)
    Solar panels, the best available green tech as of now, to
    become obsolete;
    +++
    …The list goes on.
    All the above achieved with zero pollutants. =>
    Eventual clean-up of everything leading to the totally clean Earth.
    Will take time – few years – but –
    … It has begun.
    Have a good day.
    Take care.
    `LilyLover

  • Nixter

    I was reading up on how technological disruptions were handled in the past, so far things are playing out exactly as predicted. This is a common pattern often seen when a new and difficult to identify advanced technology first appears. The larger the entity the more difficult it becomes for them to identify and then take advantage of emerging, game changing technologies like the E-Cat. Part of the pattern seen in the past is that the emerging technology is first embraced by smaller investment type corporations emerging markets and offshore companies. It’s almost impossible to spot these when they first pop up, and surprisingly one of the problems is how the larger companies customers are not interested in anything new and unproven in the beginning, no matter how promising they may seem at first. Knowing this it will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the next year or so, if things follow in a similar manner as they have in the past, it will be quite a while before the big players realize what is happening and are able to capitalize on the new developments. The way that the pathological skeptics are continuing their march of ignorance could actually help to keep the bigger players out of the picture for a while longer and this will probably benefit the spread of this new and exciting technological breakthrough.

    • Donk970

      It seems to me that new technologies fall into two groups. First are technologies that are really new like computers that created an entirely new market. The other is technologies that pop up in existing markets. The ecat is of the latter type. Technologies that create new markets are easily embraced because they don’t compete with established companies. New technologies in old markets are a lot tougher because the existing market tends to reject anything that would take profits away from existing players in the market. Cold fusion is especially problematic for existing energy companies because there is no intrinsic part of it that can be controlled. The technology while still secret is obviously simple and the fuel components are literally as common as dirt.

      • Actually I think that Rossi’s discovery falls into both of your categories. As soon as the underlying processes are better understood, many non-energy applications will emerge to create new markets – in particular the use of controlled transmutation to create useful elemental isotopes (such as 62Ni in the first instance), and to reprocess radioactive waste and perhaps, chemical toxins in industrial waste.

        Regarding opposition, the report will undoubtedly focus minds, and we may see clear moves towards corraling CF very soon.

  • Demokratinifara

    Told ya!! 🙂

    To really really smear the results into the faces of all the self proclaimed pseduscience besserwissers. This is whats it all about in the end:

    “The main result from our sample is nevertheless clear, that the isotopic composition deviates
    dramatically from the natural composition for both Li and Ni.
    The Lithium content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6Li 7 % and 7Li 93 %.
    However at the end of the run a depletion of 7Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %.This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place. ”

    You all have to know that the world changed today!! Observe the non size of the hotcat, and you dont have to be much of an engineer or Einstein to realize the numerous applications available when you can run the hotcat at theese temperatures. We have to thank everybody. Andrea Rossi first of all but even the team that made the test despite all the green political interest and pressure NOT to find a real alternative in competition with the non-alternative enviroment and bird killing energy vindfarms solar panels.. Instead of expensive useless dark age pseudo green corrupted ideology energy we know have a new real alternative!!But the global green antiscientific establishment will fight this discovery to their bitter end.

    To find the truth and the future we have the internet. If we want lies and no future -… we rely mainstream media!! Love to all of you brave folks and … (four letters starts with an F) the mob that switched thier mind to bullying and idiocracy!!

    • Freethinker

      cheers

  • Billy Jackson

    pretty close.. after all this whole this is about reaction? 🙂

  • Gerard McEk

    Today I sent to all my email addresses a message of this report and giving a view in a new bright future. I included also the minister of finance in the Netherlands. Tomorrow I send it to journals and papers. I also took a nip of my best whiskey.

  • Gerard McEk

    Today I sent to all my email addresses a message of this report and giving a view in a new bright future. I included also the minister of finance in the Netherlands. Tomorrow I send it to journals and papers. I also took a nip of my best whiskey.

    • Neil Taylor

      Me too – congratulations to Rossi etal…

  • bitplayer

    One photo of an ash particle looks a great deal like the micro-photos of Celani’s wires.

    From TPR-2 Page 43: “Figure 2. SEI of two different types of particles from the ash material.”

    Celani’s photos, at the link below, page 19:

    http://api.ning.com/files/nUXlPB*1h67V1BPi3tthvrTC0zN7pMZXgClN9TMtH45QXV3FFP7wNtM9QIyT8MxLE0M0Q7hC7sMoDwO1FGaXS5xnOdG1wdcg/www.iscmns.org_work10_Celani.pdf

    • Ged

      Intriguingly, you’re right. These SEM pictures are very helpful. Could be those craigs are forming the “active site” for the reaction. The nickle matrix survives well, even at these extreme temps, but gets even more cracked and apparently “active” compared to the pre-burned fuel. This agrees well with other groups who have worked on different types of LENR devices, as well as empirical theory on how it works on a mechanistic scale.

      Seems like there is definitely a connection between the nanostructures in both devices, despite the different matrix design.

  • Freethinker

    cheers

  • Alain Samoun

    I said before that the test produced as much energy that 50 gallons of gasoline for 1g of mixture These 50 gallons of gas would have also produced 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2)
    Bonus: No radiation…

  • bitplayer

    Google (in quotes) “Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device”
    10/08/14 2:06 pm PDT
    82 results

    • Ged

      94 results now for me. Made it onto reddit, cool.

    • Gerrit

      If you want to know how many results google has really found, you must select the last page of results and see the reported number there. It will be considerably less than what is estimated on the first page of results.

  • Freethinker

    Stephan Pomp declares the “cat dead”… Whatta surprise.

    http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/the-cat-is-dead.html

    “Levi et al. draw the conclusion that “nuclear reactions have
    taken place” and that one “can speculate about the nature of such reactions.”
    However, they “refrain from such discussions.” While the latter seems wise it
    is totally inexplicable to me, how the authors cannot see the most obvious and
    by far most likely conclusion of the fuel analysis; that they simply have been
    fooled.”

    He is shooting at the ash, and simply imply that it is impossible, hence the authors has been fooled.

    Well, well…

    • Mats002

      His brain just fell out.

      • Freethinker

        sure did 😀

    • Dods

      Well Stephen all I can say is “These arn’t the droids your looking for, move along”

    • dbg

      I think Pomp’s blog is fascinating for the simple reason that he gets how significant this discovery is, because of the isotopic changes.

      “Nobelprize? If true: definitely.”

      However Pomp chooses to believe that Rossi has tricked the professors again. This assumption is surely easily falsifiable, given the presence of observers, video capture, and other small matters such as the excess heat produced, far greater than from any known chemical source.

    • deleo77

      It’s really interesting how the line is being drawn in the ash. Pomp is saying that the change in composition of the ash without emission of radiation is either impossible or worthy of a nobel prize.

      People can argue all day long about the infrared cameras and heat measurement, but in this test they literally saw the ash change composition before and after the test. As Pomp says:

      “Practically all Li-7 has turned into Li-6 and all the 4 other naturally occurring nickel isotopes have practically vanished and turned into Ni-62. The latter has a natural abundance of 3.6 % but in the “ash” the abundance is about 99 %! Yes, you have read correctly. This is what is claimed. Nobel prize? If true: definitely. Imagine: You run the E-Cat and all the Ni-58 (68 % natural abundance), Ni-60 (26 %), Ni-61 (1 %) and Ni-64 (1 %) nuclei have turned into Ni-62.”

      If the post reaction ash analysis is accurate, then the real choice is Nobel Prize, or outright fraud by Rossi – meaning Rossi, or perhaps Levi, literally put a different kind of ash into the bag for analysis without any of the other testers noticing. What other possibility could it be?

      • Sanjeev

        Page 7 :
        “Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred;
        moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.”

        So if he did it, everyone saw him doing it and still decided to publish this report and ruin their reputations, jobs and families.

        I can feel ground sliding below the feet of Pomp and likes.

    • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

      As typically, Stephan orates over improbable result assuming everything is glaring mistakes just as what happend with the previous report and everything is low quality bad and so on. But this should be taken as a kind of show and there need to be counter arguments. Sooo, the power is maintained as I understand as a cycle where the reactor runs away, the get stopped and cooled and then continue as is. This means that although there is less fuel in the end, the raise of the runaway can be so dramatic that it really masks that there is less fuel, think of it as at the beginning there is 2MegaPower potential, then in the end it has 1 MegaPower potential, but to not melt the process is caped at 1KPower. Basically you would not see a detoriation of power output. This possibility is missed by Pomp. Also the Ash result in the paper shows suspicious large converted material, something that is glaring according to Pomp. But As I understood, the data is from the surface of the powder and the result varies from particle to particle. He does however point at weak points in the article and hopefully, the authors will learn, just as Rossi seams to do, and take advantage of Pomp and improve their paper even further.

  • artefact

    “We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, despite the fact that we had been informed that the reactor was capable of operating under such conditions for as long a time as necessary.”

    as long a time as necessary… nice 🙂

  • artefact

    “We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, despite the fact that we had been informed that the reactor was capable of operating under such conditions for as long a time as necessary.”

    as long a time as necessary… nice 🙂

  • MMK

    Many labs will rush to replicate the Ecat with the key ingredients now given in the report.
    There will be successful replication, even at the basic level. Global effort will take place , I hpoe

  • LENR For the Win
    Assessing the “Lugano” E-Cat Report
    http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html

    More to follow but the first pass is done.

    • Andre Blum

      excellent piece of work! thanks LENR G

  • LENR For the Win
    Assessing the “Lugano” E-Cat Report
    http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html

    More to follow but the first pass is done.

    • Andre Blum

      excellent piece of work! thanks LENR G

  • Donk970

    The skeptics use the argument that “it must be fraud because it can’t possibly be true and it can’t possibly be true because it’s fraud”. There’s also the “physics says that fusion couldn’t possibly be happening so it can’t be true” argument that assumes that we know everything there is to know about particle physics. It’s amazing how much physics that we accept as being gospel today was treated the same way when it was first suggested. A hundred years from now all the skeptics will be the butt of jokes the way the “computers will never amount to anything” skeptics are today.

    • Billy Jackson

      fusion cant be happening so it cant possibly be true??!! *points at the sun*

      (i do agree with your overall arguement.. closed minded individuals will refuse evidence that disputes their world view. i wrote about it last month here at ECW.. they call it the backfire effect.

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/26/the-backfire-effect-guest-post/

      • Ophelia Rump

        Please do not try to point out that old haggard excuse. We all know these stories of a great burning mass in space are absurd, anyone can clearly see there is a tiny ball of light orbiting closely around the Earth, nothing more.

        • Billy Jackson

          but.. but… okay fine you win. God Wills it!

          • Ophelia Rump

            The Inquisition wills it, and do not forget that young man.

        • BroKeeper

          Also rain and star light fall through a brass dome full of holes.

        • Fortyniner

          As coal is the only substance that could burn for so long to give off the light, it is therefore scientifically evident that the sun is made of coal. The only mystery remaining to be explained by science – a minor matter – is why it doesn’t seem to leave a trail of smoke in its wake.

    • Ophelia Rump

      So it’s not physics. It is long over due to bring back wizardry.

      Let the physics departments twiddle with their lesser technologies if they prefer, to be left behind. These professors in too many ways have had to break off already. They can be welcomed back with honor, or continue to go their own way, this time well funded.

      • winebuff67

        98 Argyle sparkler from oregon:)

      • Christopher Calder

        REQUEST:

        Could someone with Wikipedia skills please update the entry on the E-Cat.

        • timycelyn

          And then I wonder how long it will be (minutes?) before whichever idiot skp or schill that monitors that entry re-edits it, probably along the lines of “This result is disputed as it was produced by the same discredited team….. yada yada yada..”

        • dickyaesta

          I don’t understand what you mean, but because you gave me an upvote I let it pass.

    • Gerrit

      Another beautiful example: “I will only believe LENR when it gets reproduced by a reputable source” – “Anyone who claims a successful LENR replication is not reputable”

      • Fortyniner

        Yes, and AR has separately confirmed it. It seems that they have accumulated sufficient data to be able to design a charge to match such a requirement quite precisely, presumably with a modest reserve as it wasn’t known how hard the testers would drive the reactor during that time period.

        • MasterBlaster7

          Does anyone have any links to Rossi’s physical involvement with this second report? I was under the impression that Rossi never came near the test device. I have some skeptics on my neck in another forum and I don’t have time to research this.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Page 7, second paragraph (“The dummy reactor…”)

          • Gerrit

            Rossi has mentioned on his blog that he had been present on a few occasions at the test site. So the pseudo skeptics pushing the point that Rossi lied about that are wrong.

          • Chris I

            Indeed, I read some of it and I immediately guessed the skeptopaths would leap onto the fact that, unfortunately, it seems the thing still needs Rossi’s cloak to be hanging in the wardrobe in order to work properly. Let’s only hope now that Elforsk will get over these hitches and make some improvements; it could be the start of some serious competition.

  • Donk970

    The skeptics use the argument that “it must be fraud because it can’t possibly be true and it can’t possibly be true because it’s fraud”. There’s also the “physics says that fusion couldn’t possibly be happening so it can’t be true” argument that assumes that we know everything there is to know about particle physics. It’s amazing how much physics that we accept as being gospel today was treated the same way when it was first suggested. A hundred years from now all the skeptics will be the butt of jokes the way the “computers will never amount to anything” skeptics are today.

    • Billy Jackson

      fusion cant be happening so it cant possibly be true??!! *points at the sun*

      (i do agree with your overall arguement.. closed minded individuals will refuse evidence that disputes their world view. i wrote about it last month here at ECW.. they call it the backfire effect.

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/08/26/the-backfire-effect-guest-post/

      • Ophelia Rump

        Please do not try to point out that old haggard excuse. We all know these stories of a great burning mass in space are absurd, anyone can clearly see there is a tiny ball of light orbiting closely around the Earth, nothing more.

        • Billy Jackson

          but.. but… okay fine you win. God Wills it!

          • Ophelia Rump

            The Inquisition wills it, and do not forget that young man.

        • Brokeeper

          Also rain and star light fall through a brass dome full of holes.

        • As coal is the only substance that could burn for so long to give off the light, it can therefore be logically deduced that the sun is made of coal. The only mystery remaining to be explained by science – a minor matter – is why it doesn’t seem to leave a trail of smoke in its wake.

    • Ophelia Rump

      So it’s not physics. It is long over due to bring back wizardry.

      Let the physics departments twiddle with their lesser technologies if they prefer, to be left behind. These professors in too many ways have had to break off already. They can be welcomed back with honor, or continue to go their own way, this time well funded.

    • Gerrit

      Another beautiful example: “I will only believe LENR when it gets reproduced by a reputable source” – “Anyone who claims a successful LENR replication is not reputable”

  • SiriusMan

    Does anyone else get the impression that this report was not intended to convince the naysayers, but rather to support the patent application?

    Until the various patents are granted, Industrial Heat doesn’t want (or need) to convince a large audience of the technology’s viability since it would merely trigger new competition to appear.

    By focusing so much on the elemental composition of the ash (and simultaneously neglecting any theory of physical mechanism) the report confirms two things: 1. excess heat 2. nuclear in origin -but little else…. and are these not the key points needed to convince the patent office?

    In any case, I am very grateful for any info after such a long drought 🙂

    • Heath

      I think this is exactly what it was for–we know Rossi asked the patent office to hold off cancelling his application until they received this report.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Yah!

    • Ophelia Rump

      I think the report was with the sole intent of proving a new energy source exists.
      For more details, send money.

      They are not giving away any free samples when it comes to selling their insights.
      Good for them.

      • Billy Jackson

        hey.. since this is gonna be steam based at least now we can justify the cost of a bottle of water

        • Ophelia Rump

          With technology like this maybe we can afford to bring back spring water.

    • Omega Z

      Sirius
      I recently commented that this test was Very important. That Rossi hadn’t expressed just how important.
      I had contended that it was always for patent purposes & Business interests. There will always be skeptics & a waste of time to try convincing them. They are worthless. Convince a business & you have sales.

    • deleo77

      It is a machine that creates Ni62. Just show the patent office the ash without Ni62 before the reaction, and with it after the reaction. They could patent a transmutation machine that happens to create energy as a small side effect.

      • GreenWin

        Interesting to note the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS were done at KTH Materials Science and Engineering, Sweden’s Royal Inst. Technology. The ICP-MS, and ICP-AES sample tests were conducted at Uppsala University, Institute of Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry. Two world class institutions not previously involved directly. The analysis of the alumina comprising the reactor body was conducted at University Bologna, Department Physics and Astronomy.
        These well established and globally recognized institutions along with Swedish Elforsk (representative R&D arm of all Swedish power companies) and the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences – may be far more important to academic recognition of the E-Cat effect than even a 6 month burn-in. For institutions to lend their name and support to a new, extraordinary nuclear reaction significantly raises the bar on for academia. Again, congratulations to all are in order!

        • Ophelia Rump

          Well said.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          That’s a very good point I didn’t consider before, GW. I agree that might be very important for academic recognition.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Or ignore the heat altogether.

        • deleo77

          As some have pointed out Ni62 is currently selling for $20k per milligram. Would IH ever consider making it and selling it? They would make millions in their first year doing this. Perhaps if they flooded the market with it, the price would come down dramatically.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Probably.

      Not sure if it’s enough to convince the patent office. Without the correct theory which does not exist since the standard model seems to have holes in it, they will most likely consider it impossible. Add to that the fact that AR doesn’t really wants to part with his catalyst and the patent office has enough grounds to refuse the patent. Here’s hoping I’m wrong 🙂

      • US_Citizen71

        I think what you claim it does is more important than explaining why it does it for a patent. The basic claim is that it makes heat from a mixture of Ni and H along with proprietary ingredients. It is also claimed that the device does so with a gain in energy above input from the wall. Additionally it is claimed that the device can do so for extended period on a small load of fuel. If the report is believed by the the patent office to be authentic and authoritative they should grant the patent.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          I really hope you are right, but as I remember Cold Fusion was placed on the perpetual mobile list and therefore not possible. The PO now has to be convinced that Rossi’s invention is not a perpetual mobile and the theory to support Rossi doesn’t exist.
          To me it’s obvious the e-cat isn’t a perpetual mobile. Power goes in, fuel gets used and more heat than power goes out through the use of a catalyst. The fuel explains the difference between input and output. However, if the PO is not convinced or if the PO is not impartial Rossi has a problem. I suspect the PO is neither convinced nor impartial.

        • Albert Dasslock

          The current measurement is clearly wrong. Check page 14 in the report. For a three-phase delta (delta is mentioned on page 5) I2 = I1 / sqrt(3). Not I1/2. Thus Rossi is playing a simple trick with currents, and all “abundant heat” can be attributed to that. I can’t believe the authors of the report fell for such an easy trick.

  • SiriusMan

    Does anyone else get the impression that this report was not intended to convince the naysayers, but rather to support the patent application?

    Until the various patents are granted, Industrial Heat doesn’t want (or need) to convince a large audience of the technology’s viability since it would merely trigger new competition to appear.

    By focusing so much on the elemental composition of the ash (and simultaneously neglecting any theory of physical mechanism) the report confirms two things: 1. excess heat 2. nuclear in origin -but little else…. and are these not the key points needed to convince the patent office?

    In any case, I am very grateful for any info after such a long drought 🙂

    • Heath

      I think this is exactly what it was for–we know Rossi asked the patent office to hold off cancelling his application until they received this report.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Yah!

        • bachcole

          Ms. Rump, you should know that I have never (Internet) met another person in two different subjects, except you. That would be a first for me, after almost 18 years of cruzin’ the net. I have met, like AlainCo, in different subjects, like “Energy” and “Cold Fusion”. But never anything like “Cold Fusion” and “Ebola”.

          Hey, you guys, don’t be insulted, but I erased about 200 email notices because I couldn’t keep up. So if anyone insulted me or gave me an “atta boy”, sorry but I missed it. (:->)

          • Obvious

            I read the report very quickly this morning, then went out to work. Of course there were hundreds of posts (over 500) when I looked back here after work. I’ll probably read them all eventually.
            I’ll have to read the again report, properly.
            But certainly a great day, historic even with the lack of acknowledgment of the report on Google News. Soon to come, no doubt.
            Last but not least: Congratulations, Mr. Rossi. Good work professors, et al.

    • Mark Szl

      I think Rossi already said this or i remember that being posted here not to long ago. The patent is their main concern.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I think the report was with the sole intent of proving a new energy source exists.
      For more details, send money.

      They are not giving away any free samples when it comes to selling their insights.
      Good for them.

      • Billy Jackson

        hey.. since this is gonna be steam based at least now we can justify the cost of a bottle of water

        • Ophelia Rump

          With technology like this maybe we can afford to bring back spring water.

    • Omega Z

      Sirius
      I recently commented that this test was Very important. That Rossi hadn’t expressed just how important.
      I had contended that it was always for patent purposes & Business interests. There will always be skeptics & a waste of time to try convincing them. They are worthless. Convince a business & you have sales.

      • Welcome to the party. Mobile phone chips do IMPOSSIBLE things using quantum physics but do Orange or EE care ?

    • deleo77

      It is a machine that creates Ni62. Just show the patent office the ash without Ni62 before the reaction, and with it after the reaction. They could patent a transmutation machine that happens to create energy as a small side effect.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Or ignore the heat altogether.

        • deleo77

          As some have pointed out Ni62 is currently selling for $20k per milligram. Would IH ever consider making it and selling it? They would make millions in their first year doing this. Perhaps if they flooded the market with it, the price would come down dramatically.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Probably.

      Not sure if it’s enough to convince the patent office. Without the correct theory which does not exist since the standard model seems to have holes in it, they will most likely consider it impossible. Add to that the fact that AR doesn’t really wants to part with his catalyst and the patent office has enough grounds to refuse the patent. Here’s hoping I’m wrong 🙂

      • US_Citizen71

        I think what you claim it does is more important than explaining why it does it for a patent. The basic claim is that it makes heat from a mixture of Ni and H along with proprietary ingredients. It is also claimed that the device does so with a gain in energy above input from the wall. Additionally it is claimed that the device can do so for extended period on a small load of fuel. If the report is believed by the the patent office to be authentic and authoritative they should grant the patent.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          I really hope you are right, but as I remember Cold Fusion was placed on the perpetual mobile list and therefore not possible. The PO now has to be convinced that Rossi’s invention is not a perpetual mobile and the theory to support Rossi doesn’t exist.
          To me it’s obvious the e-cat isn’t a perpetual mobile. Power goes in, fuel gets used and more heat than power goes out through the use of a catalyst. The fuel explains the difference between input and output. However, if the PO is not convinced or if the PO is not impartial Rossi has a problem. I suspect the PO is neither convinced nor impartial.

  • Heath

    I really like the phrase in the summary at the end (p53) –“For this reason, the performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was not an object of study here.”

  • Heath

    I really like the phrase in the summary at the end (p53) –“For this reason, the performances obtained do not reflect the maximum potential of the reactor, which was not an object of study here.”

  • Buck

    I thought the last line of the report was interesting.

    Further investigations are required to guide the interpretational work, and one needs in particular as a first step detailed knowledge of all parameters affecting the E-Cat operation. Our work will continue in that direction.

    I wonder if this is how Rossi plans to introduce the technology to the scientific community. He will give ongoing access to the professors that have helped him and who he trusts. He will allow them to share their findings with the world as they please and that will allow them to lead the research effort outside of IH and will give Rossi influence over the world research effort. Rossi can then rest easy knowing that he has friends dealing with the not so friendly scientific community who can then get on with their work and figure out how it works.

    This may not make the front page but it will have to capture the imagination of more than a few young researchers. I think the blacklist era reached its end today.

    Charles

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Yes, I saw that too. This is a work in progress. They will go on and at a certain point they will also do some performance testing on an E-Cat. But mostly they are interested in the scientific part of the process, which is why the report is a bit disappointing at first.

    • GreenWin

      Very good points Buck. Looks like IH’s academic approach is as you outline – a continuing series of proof of operation offered to unbiased institutions. Meanwhile in parallel is the commercial development featuring a pilot installation producing heat long term. The commercial applications will outrun academic acceptance as most of academia considers such a discover an embarrassment to their standard models.
      The latter is exemplified in the sandbagging at arXiv and PhysD.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        “as most of academia considers such a discover an embarrassment to their standard models.”

        There you have the rigidity of the academic circles. I like the way you worded that, GW. If it doesn’t fit their standard models it cant be true. There’s a big gaping hole in the standard theory but like Galileo, new concepts come after great sacrifices. I cannot think of an invention or discovery if you will, that is more relevant to human survival and development than LENR, but reality shows us a world that simply denies the new paradigm. Humanity likes status quo and sometimes I ask myself if this is what we deserve. In the end though, the answer is no; we deserve much more and we should start with a redefinition of science to the benefit of mankind, not money or other causes.

        I’m gonna stop now and open a bottle of wine because it’s late and I sound strange already. Better to get drunk and have a good alibi in the morning 🙂

        • The Tolstoy quotation posted by Ken above seems to sum up the academic reaction to controversial data beautifully.

        • “Water flows around obstacles”

  • Bob

    Has any one heard or read any posts from Steve Krivit?

    • Krivit and the other Rossi detractors seem a little irrelevant now. Maybe if their associates can come up with an LENR device that can compare with Rossi’s, then people may begin listening to them again – but not before then.

  • Mats002

    I did. Merry Future Christina, Dr Rossi, Peanut Gallery and to my self!

    • LCD

      This test is all about the ash, nothing else really matters.
      If the isotopic results hold up game over.

      • Billy Jackson

        Yea…. but is it the good Ash or Bad Ash and who’s holding the gun?

        • John Littlemist
          • John Littlemist
          • John Littlemist

            “The Lithium content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6 Li 7 % and 7 Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7 Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7 Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %. This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place. It is notable, but maybe only a coincidence, that also in Astrophysics a 7 Li depletion is observed [see e.g. 17].”

            Regarding this universal lithium anomaly, Rossi has hinted about it in JONP, as far as I remember.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          If there are no gamma rays or neutrons I think that the chemistry would set it up for the following nuclear reactions. Nickel hydride absorbs its protons to become zinc in an excited state. Zinc in an excited state fissions into nickel and helium.
          NiH2 >Zn*> Ni + He

          2H(1) + Ni(64) > Zn(66)* Step1

          Zn(66)* > Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2
          ________________________
          Over all
          2 H(1) + Ni(64) > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV

          You would see isotopic shifts in nickel and helium creation.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Would that not require to see at least some form of Zn in the ashes? I thought no Zn was found at all.

          • Ged

            Certainly don’t see any mention of Zn when I just looked through the paper, but doesn’t seem like they scanned every possible element that could be there? Let me look yet again…

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Got the relevant part:

            Evidently, there is also an isotope shift in Nickel. There is a depletion of the 58Ni and 60Ni isotopes and a buildup of the 62Ni isotopes in the burning process. We note that 62Ni is the nucleus with the largest binding energy per nucleon. The origin of this shift cannot be understood from single nuclear reactions involving protons. With alpha particles colliding with Ni one can in principle raise the atomic mass number by 4 via exciting 58Ni to 62Zn, which then via positron emission decays back to 62Cu and 62Ni, but that is hardly believable to occur due to an enormous Coulomb barrier to merge 4He and Ni. Besides, with this reaction one can also go to stable Zn isotopes, which are not found in the ash.

            Last sentence: “which are not found in the ash”

          • Ged

            Ah hah. Excellent info. I also couldn’t see Zn in the spectrum lines in the analysis. Hm. So it’s something more complicated, but could very well be a similar mechanism, so we mustn’t shelve this idea.

          • GreenWin

            Wow. You write exactly like MY!

          • Alan DeAngelis

            The zinc would be in an excited state (big MeV build up) and would have to lose it by some nuclear pathway. So, I think it would be alpha (helium) decay.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Wouldn’t you now have the problem of a big coulomb barrier whatever nuclear pathway you choose?

            Honestly, this is where the big hole in the standard theory is. We have no idea what is happening. So you could well be right. I myself simply have no idea.

          • Ged

            We know some exotic particles such as muons can basically collapse the coulomb barrier and catalyze fusion that wouldn’t otherwise happen. But I think the most parsimonious theory was the one of a quantum scale bose-einstine condensate forming during the reaction, and that being the method to eliminate the coulomb barrier. Consider experiments involving crystillization of light that use a “super atom” which is a collection of atoms that are super cooled until they act as if they were a single atom. A bose-einstine consensate at the site of the reaction could allow to atoms to act as one and approach eachother. There is a nice paper published by that one professor from Purdue about this theory to explain LENR, and I have always favored it. The evidence seems to support it the most, though people (like me even) forget about that method quite a lot. It also has interesting implications for the byproducts of the reaction, such as a lack of radiation depending on the pathway and atomic players.

            Will have to find that paper again.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Yes, you are right. This is certainly not fusion as we know it. I think we have to go the exotic way to explain the problem of the coulomb barrier. My instincts tell me something is going on on a quantum level, such as a bose-einstein condensate in your example; probably something that is more common than we realize but hard to spot because of the quantum level nature. I would not be surprised at all once we understand the theory, that these reactions could occur at even much lower temperatures. It may not be temperature dependent at all. Quantum stuff gives me headaches though 😉

            I would be interested in that paper should you be able to find it.

          • Ged

            http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/Ref-14.pdf Here’s the paper! I think there was a newer version too, but this is the one I found so far. I think we can look at this theory and evaluate if there is any support or refutation from this new E-cat test. It’s detailed enough we should get some insights.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Thanks Ged!

            It’s quite late here. I will take a look at it tomorrow.

          • Ged

            Better yet, here’s Dr. Yeong Kim’s faculty page http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.html . If you go to the bottom and to his selected publication list, he has a ton of LENR related theory publications.

            The latest one on bose-einstein condensates appears to be: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/O-fusion.pdf from May 2014

            Seems there’s other groups keeping a low profile and doing a lot of LENR work, and especially on the theory side. Very interesting.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Also interesting info. Thanks!

            “Seems there’s other groups keeping a low profile and doing a lot of LENR
            work, and especially on the theory side. Very interesting.”

            Big discoveries are usually done when the level of knowledge about a certain topic in the world reaches a certain threshold. Therefore you would typically see the same discovery by different parties occur in a relative short time period. I think with LENR this is one of those times.

          • dickyaesta

            Copy image to hard disk and then expand image with windows photo viewer or similar

          • Bob Greenyer

            According to Stoyan Sargs theory – “Basic Structures of matter – super gravitational theory” the coulomb barrier is far smaller per unit area (cross section is larger) as the actual size of the nucleus of atoms is 5 orders of magnitude larger than that proposed by quantum theory.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Something like that must be happening. The coulomb barrier exists, but it’s not necessarily as formidable as it’s thought to be. Apparently when the correct circumstances come together it is quite possible to overcome. Together with oscillations, as Alan mentions and I think are essential (I see oscillations as a macro AND micro event), and a couple of other parameters, we can overcome that supposedly huge coulomb barrier. So now we have:
            – Suspicion of quantum level events
            – Fuel where reactions should occur in NAE cracks in the 5-20nm range
            – RF oscillations
            – Possible exotic particles
            – Li participation in the process
            – Ni62 production
            Rossi figured it out or stumbled upon it. I hope MFMP can do so too. You guys do great work! I hope someday you will get the recognition you deserve.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, but I think it might be the infrared (heat) stretching (oscillations) of the metal hydride bonds that bring the nuclei close enough to react. (See my PS above to the link where I when nuts).

            Wow! This old man’s been waiting a quarter of a century for this long exciting day. Finally coming down. Goodnight, see you guys tomorrow.

          • Ged

            Any time, it’s always good to raise concerns and draw atrention to make sure everything is right, especially on something this big; and such questions help us all to have more confidence.

          • Ged

            Very cool. Explains the observation of mass Ni(62) production. Question is where does the lithium changes fit in? Byproducts? Or perhaps dampening radiation production by bypassing reaction pathways that was said to be produced during the early days of the e-cat testing, and by other LENR set ups (low energy gamma rays)? Hm.

          • Alan DeAngelis
          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS
            I had some crazy thoughts last year about palladium-deuterium systems that could be applied to nickel-hydrogen systems. I really when nuts.
            http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/

      • not true for scientists… heat is the strongest evidence for scientist.
        but for physicist and other priests, they don’t understand heat… they want evidence they can measure themselves… that is all the story of cold fusion denial.

        chemis found heat,
        physicist did not found the ashes.
        physicist said the chemist were wrong and decided that they were more important than chemist

        • Ophelia Rump

          Who gets to say which department gets to own this new science?

          I don’t think physics deserves it.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            That may be a big fight once they realize something new is up for grabs 🙂 (“New” meaning funding of course). Totally agree with you on the physics dept not deserving this one.

            Btw: Like your postings, man. Always interesting or funny.

          • US_Citizen71

            If you go by the degrees of those involved in bringing the ECat to life the philosphy department deserves some credit as it did help shape the young Rossi.

          • Omega Z

            It was1/3rd of the time, but Rossi restated that to be 1/4 in one of the comments about a year ago. Also, the magnetic pulse was not used.

        • Fortyniner

          AlainCo’s ‘groupthink’ comes into play as well I imagine. The ‘skeps’ appear to be a relatively small (but vociferous) group, which hangs out primarily on ECN and moletrap.co.uk, where they can indulge in some mutual grooming to bolster their flagging spirits.

          They are so heavily invested in the ‘fact’ that Rossi is a scammer that they have apparently failed to notice that investment group IH is now running the show, and that serious groups such as Elforsk are becoming involved.

          Their repertoire of FUD has been severely diminished by reality, and they seem now to be reduced to repeating old lies, half truths and innuendo, long since debunked, in the hope that someone, somewhere will be taken in by them.

        • LCD

          Alain mite often than not I agree with you but here I can’t.

          The isotopic shifts at these temperatures and pressures over that short of a time is the mind blowing extraordinary evidence we’ve all been looking for.

          Now we know that somewhere on the planet we can replicate that at will. Even if most of us don’t know how yet.

          That is basically a CCE. Civilization Changing Event.

  • Sanjeev
  • DocSiders

    Wow…I wasn’t expecting the VERY CLEAR CUT ash analysis findings. These ash analysis findings are not at the fringe of sensitivity. The signal is so far above the noise here that no serious reviewer of the analysis can deny that widespread intensive investigation of this reaction is called for. The Nobel committee is a bunch of fools (remember Obama), but they cannot hide from this discovery.

  • LCD

    This test is all about the ash, nothing else really matters.
    If the isotopic results hold up game over.

    • Billy Jackson

      Yea…. but is it the good Ash or Bad Ash and who’s holding the gun?

    • not true for scientists… heat is the strongest evidence for scientist.
      but for physicist and other priests, they don’t understand heat… they want evidence they can measure themselves… that is all the story of cold fusion denial.

      chemis found heat,
      physicist did not found the ashes.
      physicist said the chemist were wrong and decided that they were more important than chemist

      • Ophelia Rump

        Who gets to say which department gets to own this new science?

        I don’t think physics deserves it.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          That may be a big fight once they realize something new is up for grabs 🙂 (“New” meaning funding of course). Totally agree with you on the physics dept not deserving this one.

          Btw: Like your postings, man. Always interesting or funny.

        • US_Citizen71

          If you go by the degrees of those involved in bringing the ECat to life the philosphy department deserves some credit as it did help shape the young Rossi.

      • Ken

        Education in general segregates and creates boxes of thinking. This is a flaw in our system that needs addressed. Just like mankind’s tendency to segregate races, genders, and religion; this primitive nature has infested our education systems.
        A system of education that teaches “Thinking” and produces generalists that specialize only in adaptation will yield scientists that can focus on all areas of science that they may need to accomplish any particular task they set out to master. Adaptive Learning is the key.

      • LCD

        Alain mite often than not I agree with you but here I can’t.

        The isotopic shifts at these temperatures and pressures over that short of a time is the mind blowing extraordinary evidence we’ve all been looking for.

        Now we know that somewhere on the planet we can replicate that at will. Even if most of us don’t know how yet.

        That is basically a CCE. Civilization Changing Event.

    • bfast

      The ash tests are A BIG DEAL! If the ash holds up, this will compel scientists. Heat is wonderful too. If the ash somehow doesn’t “hold up”, the heat is a great backstop.

      I tend to disagree with AlainCo, “not true for scientists… heat is the strongest evidence for scientist.” I think the isotope changes will be seen as more compelling to the physics community than the apparent (not actual) destruction of the second law, and the coulomb barrier. One reality is that it is easy enough to fake heat, it is really really hard to get a vastly skewed isotope sample.

  • Sanjeev

    A treasure of quotes on irrational skepticism. Resistance to anything new and revolutionary is not recent and surely not only against cold fusion.

    http://amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html

    (Thanks to P. Gluck for the link).

    • Ken

      My favorite at a quick glance that summarizes any highly achieved scientist…..

      “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
      greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
      obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
      conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
      they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
      thread, into the fabric of their lives.” -Tolstoy

  • llsurfer

    Everybody is wondering that no radiation was measured during the long term test. Couldn’t it have been shielded by the reactor housing as long as no hard gamma radiation or neutrons were generated? This would also be in the interest of Rossi and his team in order to protect their intellectual property, since those readings would give quite a clue on which reactions are taking place inside the E-Cat.

  • BroKeeper

    Oil stocks were down this morning after opening. Later in the day jumps with the DOW after Fed signals continued low interest rates.

    Found this interesting older July article:

    “Editorial in Oil Industry Trade Magazine Focuses on LENR Threat”
    by Steve Jacobs: “I am from the petroleum industry and LENR
    is now being watched closely. An article was just published in the July Journal
    of Petroleum Technology. I authored it. LENR is definitely on the radar.”….

    http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/2012/07/editorial-in-oil-industry-trade.html

    • US_Citizen71

      Now that begs the question of how seriously did those who read the trade magazine take the article and who read it.

    • Barney Holmes

      Why would it be a “threat” if LENR can be used for the many heating/energy requirements of the oil sector ? Oil not going to ge replaced over night. Try replacing all those petrol engines for example, unless LENR can make possible production of some kind of alternative liquid fuel.

      • BroKeeper

        Agreed, however the market always reacts to the future and rumors which all I was referring to. Once the huge energy savings is realized (in about a year) then the negative effect on petroleum will be exponentially.
        Who doesn’t want to cut their energy costs at least by half? I suspect it will be much more savings than half once competition sets in.

  • Brokeeper

    Oil stocks were down this morning after opening. Later in the day jumps with the DOW after Fed signals continued low interest rates.

    Found this interesting older July article:

    “Editorial in Oil Industry Trade Magazine Focuses on LENR Threat”
    by Steve Jacobs: “I am from the petroleum industry and LENR
    is now being watched closely. An article was just published in the July Journal
    of Petroleum Technology. I authored it. LENR is definitely on the radar.”….

    http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/2012/07/editorial-in-oil-industry-trade.html

    • Josh G

      Any word from our ace-in-the-hole on the Chicago trading floor on developments today?

      • Brokeeper

        I searched for bthprimo but he has not yet commented today. Yes, he is the market guru here.

    • US_Citizen71

      Now that begs the question of how seriously did those who read the trade magazine take the article and who read it.

    • Why would it be a “threat” if LENR can be used for the many heating/energy requirements of the oil sector ? Oil not going to ge replaced over night. Try replacing all those petrol engines for example, unless LENR can make possible production of some kind of alternative liquid fuel.

      • Brokeeper

        Agreed, however the market always reacts to the future and rumors which all I was referring to. Once the huge energy savings is realized (in about a year) then the negative effect on petroleum will be exponentially.
        Who doesn’t want to cut their energy costs at least by half? I suspect it will be much more savings than half once competition sets in.

  • T Hex

    Pretty exciting news!
    Another article up at http://revolution-green.com/e-cat-lenr-test-results-released/

  • V.p.S.

    Can we now say that the bottom line is that the report is good, but not what we all expected? At least with regard to the E-Cat acceptance in the public. The poll has it that with everything happened up to now a working E-Cat plant would be by far more successful as a tipping point in this story.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      I still believe that a working, publicly available working E-Cat plant is the best thing for public recognition, but the report isn’t that bad at all. Initially it seems that way, but once you look at all the nuggets of information contained in the report, there is no more excuse for the scientific community to not get involved. Hopefully the research into LENR will get accelerated by means of the report.

  • V.p.S.

    Can we now say that the bottom line is that the report is good, but not what we all expected? At least with regard to the E-Cat acceptance in the public. The poll has it that with everything happened up to now a working E-Cat plant would be by far more successful as a tipping point in this story.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      I still believe that a working, publicly available working E-Cat plant is the best thing for public recognition, but the report isn’t that bad at all. Initially it seems that way, but once you look at all the nuggets of information contained in the report, there is no more excuse for the scientific community to not get involved. Hopefully the research into LENR will get accelerated by means of the report.

  • dbg

    Is there a possibility that this report focuses on just one phase of the testing? Is the early release of the report (based on a 32 day test) to support the patent application? After this phase was completed, did the team fire up the device again, in self-sustain mode, and the results of that phase are still unreleased? Wishful thinking?

  • GreenWin

    Interesting to note the SEM/EDS and ToF-SIMS were done at KTH Materials Science and Engineering, Sweden’s Royal Inst. Technology. The ICP-MS, and ICP-AES sample tests were conducted at Uppsala University, Institute of Chemistry, Analytical Chemistry. Two world class institutions not previously involved directly. The analysis of the alumina comprising the reactor body was conducted at University Bologna, Department Physics and Astronomy.
    These well established and globally recognized institutions along with Swedish Elforsk (representative R&D arm of all Swedish power companies) and the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences – may be far more important to academic recognition of the E-Cat effect than even a 6 month burn-in. For institutions to lend their name and support to a new, extraordinary nuclear reaction significantly raises the bar on for academia. Again, congratulations to all are in order!

    • Ophelia Rump

      Well said.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      That’s a very good point I didn’t consider before, GW. I agree that might be very important for academic recognition.

  • LilyLover

    Today we’ll know the speed with which information reaches to the top of financial pyramid and to the ivory towers. I guess, 2 days and 2 months? We’ll find out! Fun to see how the very people that invented internet (working part of ivory tower), are left behind in the applied information by the business interests.
    Either way today it will be decided that the tide has turned.
    Resistance is futile!

    • Donk970

      I remember reading recently that the Rockefeller’s recently dumped oil stocks. At the time I wondered if they had seen an advance copy of this report.

  • LilyLover

    Today we’ll know the speed with which information reaches to the top of financial pyramid and to the ivory towers. I guess, 2 days and 2 months? We’ll find out! Fun to see how the very people that invented internet (working part of ivory tower), are left behind in the applied information by the business interests.
    Either way today it will be decided that the tide has turned.
    Resistance is futile!

    • Donk970

      I remember reading recently that the Rockefeller’s recently dumped oil stocks. At the time I wondered if they had seen an advance copy of this report.

      • bachcole

        I still doubt it. They dumped oil stocks because they want to be hip, with it, by protecting the environment.

  • John Littlemist
    • John Littlemist
      • John Littlemist

        “The Lithium content in the fuel is found to have the natural composition, i.e. 6 Li 7 % and 7 Li 93 %. However at the end of the run a depletion of 7 Li in the ash was revealed by both the SIMS and the ICP-MS methods. In the SIMS analysis the 7 Li content was only 7.9% and in the ICP-MS analysis it was 42.5 %. This result is remarkable since it shows that the burning process in E-Cat indeed changes the fuel at the nuclear level, i.e. nuclear reactions have taken place. It is notable, but maybe only a coincidence, that also in Astrophysics a 7 Li depletion is observed [see e.g. 17].”

        Regarding this universal lithium anomaly, Rossi has hinted about it in JONP, as far as I remember.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I was a little disappointed with the COP at first, but that was before reading the report. Now I’m starting to get enthusiastic because the report did a couple of things for me:

    1) I now understand that an optimized COP was not the target of the test. The mouse wasn’t even used (that would be a big COP improvement I think), but also self sustaining mode was not used. If one considers that the measurements were of course very conservative, it’s probable
    that the real COP of the test would be more in the region of 4 to 4.5 (I’m guessing here). With mouse and SS mode that would probably climb into the 6.0 to 10 range (again guessing).

    2) I had no idea the e-Cat could be run at 1400C stable and according to the report is capable of reaching even higher temperatures. I don’t know how that’s possible in regards to the melting point of Nickel, but the fact it can run these and higher temperatures bodes very well for electricity production. It bodes well for all kinds of things really.

    3) We have confirmation of a new, not understood, coulomb barrier overcoming phenomenon at low temperature that is of an unknown origin. The analysis of the ashes are proof some kind of nuclear reactions are involved. Wow! That is very exiting 🙂

    4) The report states that previous iterations of the e-cat were not very stable, but this version was totally stable. Obviously Rossi an IH have made huge progress. I was very impressed how easily the reactor went from 1260C to 1400 C in just 6 minutes. That’s fast! I even remember Michael McKubre saying he believed Rossi’s biggest problem was control. That issue may well have been solved.

    5) The design of the e-cat was also a big surprise to me. Obviously there is a lot of development still going on. The fact that the reactor works with just one gram is also quite astonishing.

    6) We still don’t know what the catalyst is, but at least we now know Li is an important aspect of the fuel.

    All in all this report *should* be enough to really shake up the scientific world. It really ought to be more than enough to convince real scientists to overcome the idea that the “impossible” isn’t really impossible in this case. The experimental results simply undeniable even though it means the standard model for physics has holes in it. I personally think that’s great, as we seem to have overlooked something fundamental in physics. Who knows what other new science awaits us when we understand what’s been missing.

    As others have said, I would like to see MFMP be the ones to replicate the test. Hopefully they have enough leads now to do a successful replication.

    I do not believe this report will appear in Nature or Science. Since the report does not give a valid theory, those editors will stick to their impossible mantra.

    Lastly, I congratulate Rossi and IH for their achievements. They have changed the world.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I was a little disappointed with the COP at first, but that was before reading the report. Now I’m starting to get enthusiastic because the report did a couple of things for me:

    1) I now understand that an optimized COP was not the target of the test. The mouse wasn’t even used (that would be a big COP improvement I think), but also self sustaining mode was not used. If one considers that the measurements were of course very conservative, it’s probable
    that the real COP of the test would be more in the region of 4 to 4.5 (I’m guessing here). With mouse and SS mode that would probably climb into the 6.0 to 10 range (again guessing).

    2) I had no idea the e-Cat could be run at 1400C stable and according to the report is capable of reaching even higher temperatures. I don’t know how that’s possible in regards to the melting point of Nickel, but the fact it can run these and higher temperatures bodes very well for electricity production. It bodes well for all kinds of things really.

    3) We have confirmation of a new, not understood, coulomb barrier overcoming phenomenon at low temperature that is of an unknown origin. The analysis of the ashes are proof some kind of nuclear reactions are involved. Wow! That is very exiting 🙂

    4) The report states that previous iterations of the e-cat were not very stable, but this version was totally stable. Obviously Rossi an IH have made huge progress. I was very impressed how easily the reactor went from 1260C to 1400 C in just 6 minutes. That’s fast! I even remember Michael McKubre saying he believed Rossi’s biggest problem was control. That issue may well have been solved.

    5) The design of the e-cat was also a big surprise to me. Obviously there is a lot of development still going on. The fact that the reactor works with just one gram is also quite astonishing.

    6) We still don’t know what the catalyst is, but at least we now know Li is an important aspect of the fuel.

    All in all this report *should* be enough to really shake up the scientific world. It really ought to be more than enough to convince real scientists to overcome the idea that the “impossible” isn’t really impossible in this case. The experimental results simply undeniable even though it means the standard model for physics has holes in it. I personally think that’s great, as we seem to have overlooked something fundamental in physics. Who knows what other new science awaits us when we understand what’s been missing.

    As others have said, I would like to see MFMP be the ones to replicate the test. Hopefully they have enough leads now to do a successful replication.

    I do not believe this report will appear in Nature or Science. Since the report does not give a valid theory, those editors will stick to their impossible mantra.

    Lastly, I congratulate Rossi and IH for their achievements. They have changed the world.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    If there are no gamma rays or neutrons I think that the chemistry would set it up for the following nuclear reactions. Nickel hydride absorbs its protons to become zinc in an excited state. Zinc in an excited state fissions into nickel and helium.
    NiH2 >Zn*> Ni + He

    2H(1) + Ni(64) > Zn(66)* Step1

    Zn(66)* > Ni(62) + He(4) Step 2
    ________________________
    Over all
    2 H(1) + Ni(64) > Ni(62) + He(4) 11.8 MeV

    You would see isotopic shifts in nickel and helium creation.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Would that not require to see at least some form of Zn in the ashes? I thought no Zn was found at all.

      • Ged

        Certainly don’t see any mention of Zn when I just looked through the paper, but doesn’t seem like they scanned every possible element that could be there? Let me look yet again…

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Got the relevant part:

          Evidently, there is also an isotope shift in Nickel. There is a depletion of the 58Ni and 60Ni isotopes and a buildup of the 62Ni isotopes in the burning process. We note that 62Ni is the nucleus with the largest binding energy per nucleon. The origin of this shift cannot be understood from single nuclear reactions involving protons. With alpha particles colliding with Ni one can in principle raise the atomic mass number by 4 via exciting 58Ni to 62Zn, which then via positron emission decays back to 62Cu and 62Ni, but that is hardly believable to occur due to an enormous Coulomb barrier to merge 4He and Ni. Besides, with this reaction one can also go to stable Zn isotopes, which are not found in the ash.

          Last sentence: “which are not found in the ash”

          • Ged

            Ah hah. Excellent info. I also couldn’t see Zn in the spectrum lines in the analysis. Hm. So it’s something more complicated, but could very well be a similar mechanism, so we mustn’t shelve this idea.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        The zinc would be in an excited state (big MeV build up) and would have to lose it by some nuclear pathway. So, I think it would be alpha (helium) decay.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Wouldn’t you now have the problem of a big coulomb barrier whatever nuclear pathway you choose?

          Honestly, this is where the big hole in the standard theory is. We have no idea what is happening. So you could well be right. I myself simply have no idea.

          • Ged

            We know some exotic particles such as muons can basically collapse the coulomb barrier and catalyze fusion that wouldn’t otherwise happen. But I think the most parsimonious theory was the one of a quantum scale bose-einstine condensate forming during the reaction, and that being the method to eliminate the coulomb barrier. Consider experiments involving crystillization of light that use a “super atom” which is a collection of atoms that are super cooled until they act as if they were a single atom. That super cooling is necessary to handle such a macro scale; but on a quantum two or three body scale heat may actually be useful. A bose-einstine consensate at the site of the reaction could allow to atoms to act as one and approach eachother. There is a nice paper published by that one professor from Purdue about this theory to explain LENR, and I have always favored it. The evidence seems to support it the most, though people (like me even) forget about that method quite a lot. It also has interesting implications for the byproducts of the reaction, such as a lack of radiation depending on the pathway and atomic players.

            Will have to find that paper again.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Yes, you are right. This is certainly not fusion as we know it. I think we have to go the exotic way to explain the problem of the coulomb barrier. My instincts tell me something is going on on a quantum level, such as a bose-einstein condensate in your example; probably something that is more common than we realize but hard to spot because of the quantum level nature. I would not be surprised at all once we understand the theory, that these reactions could occur at even much lower temperatures. It may not be temperature dependent at all. Quantum stuff gives me headaches though 😉

            I would be interested in that paper should you be able to find it.

          • Ged

            http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/Ref-14.pdf Here’s the paper! I think there was a newer version too, but this is the one I found so far. I think we can look at this theory and evaluate if there is any support or refutation from this new E-cat test. It’s detailed enough we should get some insights.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Thanks Ged!

            It’s quite late here. I will take a look at it tomorrow.

          • Ged

            Better yet, here’s Dr. Yeong Kim’s faculty page http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim.html . If you go to the bottom and to his selected publication list, he has a ton of LENR related theory publications.

            The latest one on bose-einstein condensates appears to be: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/publications/yekim/O-fusion.pdf from May 2014

            Seems there’s other groups keeping a low profile and doing a lot of LENR work, and especially on the theory side. Very interesting.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Also interesting info. Thanks!

            “Seems there’s other groups keeping a low profile and doing a lot of LENR
            work, and especially on the theory side. Very interesting.”

            Big discoveries are usually done when the level of knowledge about a certain topic in the world reaches a certain threshold. Therefore you would typically see the same discovery by different parties occur in a relative short time period. I think with LENR this is one of those times.

          • Bob Greenyer

            According to Stoyan Sargs theory – “Basic Structures of matter – super gravitational theory” the coulomb barrier is far smaller per unit area (cross section is larger) as the actual size of the nucleus of atoms is 5 orders of magnitude larger than that proposed by quantum theory.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Something like that must be happening. The coulomb barrier exists, but it’s not necessarily as formidable as it’s thought to be. Apparently when the correct circumstances come together it is quite possible to overcome. Together with oscillations, as Alan mentions and I think are essential (I see oscillations as a macro AND micro event), and a couple of other parameters, we can overcome that supposedly huge coulomb barrier. So now we have:
            – Suspicion of quantum level events
            – Fuel where reactions should occur in NAE cracks in the 5-20nm range
            – RF oscillations
            – Possible exotic particles
            – Li participation in the process
            – Ni62 production
            Rossi figured it out or stumbled upon it. I hope MFMP can do so too. You guys do great work! I hope someday you will get the recognition you deserve.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, but I think it might be the infrared (heat) stretching (oscillations) of the metal hydride bonds that bring the nuclei close enough to react. (See my PS above to the link where I when nuts).

            Wow! This old man’s been waiting a quarter of a century for this long exciting day. Finally coming down. Goodnight, see you guys tomorrow.

    • Ged

      Very cool. Explains the observation of mass Ni(62) production. Question is where does the lithium changes fit in? Byproducts? Or perhaps dampening radiation production by bypassing reaction pathways that was said to be produced during the early days of the e-cat testing, and by other LENR set ups (low energy gamma rays)? Hm.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      I had some crazy thoughts last year about palladium-deuterium systems that could be applied to nickel-hydrogen systems. I really when nuts.
      http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/

  • Daniel Maris

    Looks like the tests delivered more than the skeps hoped for and less than the supporters hoped for…

    I am only interested now in a credible pilot installation. Any further testing should be put on hold as the law of diminishing returns will definitely set in, given that for any test set up one can always claim fraud.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      I also had hoped for more, at least initially. Big COP and more theory would have made a fine report, but it’s basically the previous report XXL. I still feel this is a solid report in what it delivers and it may be able to accelerate research into LENR, but I don’t think it will rock the world. It may do so in hindsight.

      I feel this whole situation is pinned on the Patent Office. Without it, or with a more sensible administration/application by the Patent Office we would not be in such a mess.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        This is certainly wonderful news. In a way it SLAMS the door
        shut on the naysayers.

        I think MOST interesting and what will drive curiosity in
        the physics community is why no radiation and gamma? In fact answering this
        question likely will win one the Nobel Prize.

        I don’t know how big of a wake up call this will be to
        the physics community, but it certainly is a wonderful and joyful day. This is
        a great leap in promoting LENR as not only a real effect, but one that will
        clearly have commercial use.

        Regards,
        Albert k

        • LCD

          http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html#.VDYbhmCCOSN

          Good review

          Well said Albert. Great day for physics. Essentially the dawn of a golden age.

          Personally this will consume my spare time for years to come because what else does the underlying theory imply. Just endless possibilities for new research.

          • Blackrock/Barcleys are paying attention. Within minutes after publishing the report it was downloaded by ip owned by Barcleys/Blackrock. Minutes after that oil futures became volatile… Look here: http://sifferkoll.se

          • timycelyn

            Fascinating! However, as has been discussed here in the past, oil is less likely to take a hit from the E-cat than some of the other forms of energy. So, my question is:

            Are there any similar trends in coal or natural gas futures, or in the wind turbine/green energy sector? They are the ones with a bullseye on their backsides at the moment…

            Of course, these reaction are partly emotional, and oil has a sensitivity to subtle changes the others may not have, so the e-cat response might be damped, even if truly these other foms are the ones at risk….

          • Jonnyb

            Any major media organisation looking at it? If not can anything be done to get this reported to the world. I put it on my Facebook and not one comment, shows how interested the World really is in new science that could change the world. Someone else posted an offshore wind farm article this had lots of comments, typical!!!

          • Omega Z

            Just post something about your favorite realty show or Gaga, You Know, About something important..

            You’ll receive all kinds of comments. I Guarantee…

          • Fortyniner

            Perhaps it not just the banks who are paying attention:

            “Glasgow University has become the first in the UK to announce that it will sell off the shares it holds in companies that produce fossil fuels.”

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29547137

          • Jonnyb

            It’s over the next 10 years though, so no rush by them.

          • Fortyniner

            No-one is going to want to start a rush to divest – punters have to be found to buy the shares, and no-one wants the bottom to fall out while they are still holding equity. Don’t startle the horses.

          • jonnyb

            Maybe we all need to comment on the story to point out to the BBC the possible true reason for the sale of all stocks and shares of Fossile fuels by the University, it is only Ethical.

          • Jonnyb

            I don’t have a twitter account, if anyone else does maybe they could tweet the author, Rodger, with a link to the report.

          • timycelyn

            Morning Peter. Hangover?

          • Fortyniner

            Nah – bubbly doesn’t seem to do that, at least not for me. Maybe I should drink the stuff all the time, rather than the usual mix of beer and cider (not in the same glass, I hasten to add).

          • Omega Z

            If the report has any effect, it will only be a temporary situation.

            Once things settle in, people will realize it will be some time in the future before it effects actual fossil demands. In the mean time, we are still at the mercy of continued supply & demand.

          • Of course. But the theory of future demands is a really important part of pricing oil futures.

          • Bernie777

            Are we going to find out how much those fossil fuel reserves are really worth?

  • GreenWin

    Only a slight indication of net awareness: Google search string “E-Cat test” – returns 111M results.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Really? 21 minutes later:
      About 179,000,000 results
      (0.28 seconds)

      • Gerrit

        The number of results that Google reports on the first page is just an estimation. You must select the last page and then look at the reported number.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Thanks. I stand corrected. That shows some totally different results.

  • GreenWin

    Only a slight indication of net awareness: Google search string “E-Cat test” – returns 111M results.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Really? 21 minutes later:
      About 179,000,000 results
      (0.28 seconds)

      • Gerrit

        The number of results that Google reports on the first page is just an estimation. You must select the last page and then look at the reported number.

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Thanks. I stand corrected. That shows some totally different results.

    • Agnostic

      Pakistanis have already stolen the ECAT (Engineering College Admission Test)
      Indication of Net Awareness? Surely, you must be joking. When are we going to get past “indications.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECAT_Pakistan

  • Albert D. Kallal

    This is certainly wonderful news. In a way it SLAMS the door
    shut on the naysayers.

    I think MOST interesting and what will drive curiosity in
    the physics community is why no radiation and gamma? In fact answering this
    question likely will win one the Nobel Prize.

    I don’t know how big of a wake up call this will be to
    the physics community, but it certainly is a wonderful and joyful day. This is
    a great leap in promoting LENR as not only a real effect, but one that will
    clearly have commercial use.

    Regards,
    Albert k

    • LCD

      http://lenrftw.net/assessing_ecat_report.html#.VDYbhmCCOSN

      Good review

      Well said Albert. Great day for physics. Essentially the dawn of a golden age.

      Personally this will consume my spare time for years to come because what else does the underlying theory imply. Just endless possibilities for new research.

  • BroKeeper

    I searched for bthprimo but he did not comment yet today. Yes, he is the market guru here.

  • GreenWin

    Very good points Buck. Looks like IH’s academic approach is as you outline – a continuing series of proof of operation offered to unbiased institutions. Meanwhile in parallel is the commercial development featuring a pilot installation producing heat long term. The commercial applications will outrun academic acceptance as most of academia considers such a discover an embarrassment to their standard models.
    The latter is exemplified in the sandbagging at arXiv and PhysD.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      “as most of academia considers such a discover an embarrassment to their standard models.”

      There you have the rigidity of the academic circles. I like the way you worded that, GW. If it doesn’t fit their standard models it cant be true. There’s a big gaping hole in the standard theory but like Galileo, new concepts come after great sacrifices. I cannot think of an invention or discovery if you will, that is more relevant to human survival and development than LENR, but reality shows us a world that simply denies the new paradigm. Humanity likes status quo and sometimes I ask myself if this is what we deserve. In the end though, the answer is no; we deserve much more and we should start with a redefinition of science to the benefit of mankind, not money or other causes.

      I’m gonna stop now and open a bottle of wine because it’s late and I sound strange already. Better to get drunk and have a good alibi in the morning 🙂

      • Fortyniner

        The Tolstoy quotation posted by Ken above seems to sum up the academic reaction to controversial data beautifully.

      • Ged

        Nice, testable hypothesis! Once there is a working community replication, that could definitely be tried. However, the greater atomic mass of potassium may inhibit reactions.

      • Omega Z

        Actual J, Your question can be answered by you.
        What could Rossi fill the E-cat with that could possibly run your car for a 1000 miles in such a small quantity. 1 Gram & still running up until they turned it off. Net output 1,500Kwh…
        No trick or scheme could do this. Your question becomes ridiculous & invites negative feed back.

  • Mark

    I thought that this would be a good response to the pseudoskeptics:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cih0btgJw8s

  • bachcole

    Perhaps I am just depressed from things that are happening at home, but I don’t see anything here so very new and so very certain that it proves the E-Cat any more than the 2013 test. For sure there is some very exciting developments. But 1400 C does not prove the E-Cat any more than whatever the temperature was in 2013. And a change in the size and shape of the device doesn’t prove anything. 32 days straight is very nice; it proves that it is stable. But it doesn’t prove that the E-Cat is real. Believers should feel heartened. Disbelievers have no more reason to believe than they did after the 2013 test. The testers are the same people; that doesn’t help any.

    Now, if I.H. or Elforsk or some other big institution should come forward and say that it is true, that would mean a lot. But until that happens or we get some in-factory demos in a private company, I won’t be calling my local newspaper and telling them about the same level of proof that I had a year ago.

  • Achi

    They are now saying that the results are invalid or up for debate due to the use of thermal imaging vs the more acceptable practice of calorimetric analysis.

  • Obvious

    I read the report very quickly this morning, then went out to work. Of course there were hundreds of posts (over 500) when I looked back here after work. I’ll probably read them all eventually.
    I’ll have to read the again report, properly.
    But certainly a great day, historic even with the lack of acknowledgment of the report on Google News. Soon to come, no doubt.
    Last but not least: Congratulations, Mr. Rossi. Good work professors, et al.

  • Omega Z

    About a year & then only for potential customers & a select few Individuals.

  • Obvious

    “…nothing feels better than a spray of clean water and the whistling wind on a calm summer night but you’d better believe that down in their quarters the men are holding on for their dear lives, the flat earth society is somewhere far away, with their candlesticks and compasses, and the bright ship humana is well on its way with grave determination… and no destination…”
    – Brett Gurewitz

  • REQUEST:

    Could someone with Wikipedia skills please update the entry on the E-Cat.

    • Barbierir

      Look at the talk, they will not allow it until it is published on Arxiv or better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer

    • timycelyn

      And then I wonder how long it will be (minutes?) before whichever idiot skep or schill that monitors that entry re-edits it, probably along the lines of “This result is disputed as it was produced by the same discredited team….. yada yada yada..”

  • Agnostic

    Without peer review, it is hard to judge the report’s value. A suggestion for admin to run a poll for the readers.
    A. Did the report meet your expectations? scale 1-5
    B. Your education level. (high school physics with B- or better/ one year college physics/ no physics)

  • Larry

    This is obviously a great and exciting report, but it isn’t quite like it was expected. If I remember correctly, Rossi himself has described the upcoming report to be at least
    – based on 6 months of observation
    – being conducted by researchers from three continents (http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/17/rossi-on-upcoming-report-academics-from-3-continents/
    – that Rossi’s theory of the phenomenon would be published with the results (http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/08/rossi-to-publish-about-theory-minus-certain-information-within-several-months/)

    So what has happened? Will there be publication of a theory and another longer study made by three-continent-group?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    About the question what is the net reaction.

    If the mass of lithium is 0.011 grams in the fuel which totals 1 gram (page 29, line 7), then for each nickel atom there are about 0.1 lithium atoms in the mix. If the hydrogen to lithium ratio is consistent with LiAlH4 (page 28 middle), then for each nickel atom there are 0.4 protons. Initially the natural nickel was a mixture of 5 isotopes (58, 60, 61, 62, 64), the most abundant of which was Ni58 (natural nickel’s average mass is 58.7). In the ash they found only Ni62 isotope.

    To turn Ni58.7 to Ni62, one must add 3.3 neutrons (or nucleons, if weak interaction can take place). But for every nickel atom there were only 0.1 lithium atoms (thus about 0.7 nucleons) and 0.4 protons (0.4 nucleons) in the mix, thus altogether 1.1 nucleons. Where did all the extra nucleons come from to explain the observed nickel transmutation? Perhaps the mass fraction of lithium (0.011) was measured inaccurately, or there was extra source of hydrogen or lithium somewhere in the reactor, or maybe aluminium or oxygen from the chamber walls participates in the reaction, or possibly there was yet some other material inside the reactor.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Interesting considerations. As you say, one possibility is that other elements than Ni, H and Li participate in the reaction. Besides Al and O they found also C and Fe in the fuel. There have been speculations about C and especially Fe (not so far from nickel) in the past.
      Another option is that parts of the fuel might have sublimated and condensed at the reactor walls. Theoretically, these sediments could have a different isotopic composition than the remaining powder; however, I don’t know if this is a realistic assumption. Maybe they should scratch off a bit from the walls and make an additional analysis.

      • Fortyniner

        That would seem to be a very good idea. The fuel was apparently in direct contact with the porous alumina core, and interactions between the two seem entirely possible.

    • Ged

      Very interesting, Pekka. I’m assuming there must be hydrogen absorbed directly onto the nickle (at >90% capacity I think which has been found to be the magic hydrogen absorption amount for LENR) as other LENR devices do, since hydrogen is the key consumed fuel component. The isotopes suggest nickle plays a similar fuel role. Still, most hydrogen may be bound and preloaded to the nickle, with only some associated with lithium for maybe stabilizing the reaction with a moderating side reaction involving lithium? Or maybe the lithium hydrogen somehow midigates the need for such super high absorption ratios of hydrogen into the nickle matrix. We mustn’t forget all we previously learned, even though I’m so out of practice from all this waiting heh!

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        In Italy or what? You’re kidding me, right?!

      • Fortyniner

        “maybe the lithium hydrogen somehow mitigates the need for such super high absorption ratios of hydrogen into the nickle matrix”

        When hydrides decompose they release atomic (‘nascent’) hydrogen, which normally combines with other H+ ions to form H2 molecules within a few milliseconds. However, with the hydride particles in close contact with nickel particles, newly released H+ would be as likely to encounter a nickel surface as another H+ ion, and this might considerably increase the absorption rate.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    About the question what is the net reaction.

    If the mass of lithium is 0.011 grams in the fuel which totals 1 gram (page 29, line 7), then for each nickel atom there are about 0.1 lithium atoms in the mix. If the hydrogen to lithium ratio is consistent with LiAlH4 (page 28 middle), then for each nickel atom there are 0.4 protons. Initially the natural nickel was a mixture of 5 isotopes (58, 60, 61, 62, 64), the most abundant of which was Ni58 (natural nickel’s average mass is 58.7). In the ash they found only Ni62 isotope.

    To turn Ni58.7 to Ni62, one must add 3.3 neutrons (or nucleons, if weak interaction can take place). But for every nickel atom there were only 0.1 lithium atoms (thus about 0.7 nucleons) and 0.4 protons (0.4 nucleons) in the mix, thus altogether 1.1 nucleons. Where did all the extra nucleons come from to explain the observed nickel transmutation? Perhaps the mass fraction of lithium (0.011) was measured inaccurately, or there was extra source of hydrogen or lithium somewhere in the reactor, or maybe aluminium or oxygen from the chamber walls participates in the reaction, or possibly there was yet some other material inside the reactor.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Interesting considerations. As you say, one possibility is that other elements than Ni, H and Li participate in the reaction. Besides Al and O they found also C and Fe in the fuel. There have been speculations about C and especially Fe (not so far from nickel) in the past.
      Another option is that parts of the fuel might have sublimated and condensed at the reactor walls. Theoretically, these sediments could have a different isotopic composition than the remaining powder; however, I don’t know if this is a realistic assumption. Maybe they should scratch off a bit from the walls and make an additional analysis.

      • That would seem to be a very good idea. The fuel was apparently in direct contact with the porous alumina core, and interactions between the two seem entirely possible.

      • Josh G

        Isn’t part of the theory about Protium capturing electrons, becoming neutrons and absorbed into nuclei, basically doing an end-run around the Coulomb barrier? If so, then the extra nucleons come from the Hydrogen, no?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          If I understood Pekka correctly, his calculation includes the available amount of hydrogen. Since Rossi’s latest reactors don’t have an external hydrogen supply, the amount should depend only on the LiAlH4 charge – provided that there aren’t some very ‘exotic’ reactions in play.

    • Guru

      “Where did all the extra nucleons come from to explain the observed nickel transmutation?”

      Two possibilities:
      a) From missing C, Ca, Cl, etc. mass
      b) I have hypothesis that this category of reactions is in fact PRODUCING mass.
      Yes, totally heretic, and my own.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        “The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible”

        I like option b.

        • Ged

          I really think it’s probably just boring old hydrogen bound in the nickle matrix like all other similar LENR devices, and the early e-cat. But, my manta: experiment examine experiment. Tis the only way to find the truth! And usually the truth is a lot of half parts of ideas are all going on at once at different contribution levels.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            That’s the magic of new science. One just doesn’t know all the possibilities and can play with the wildest ideas. Agree fully with your mantra 🙂

    • Ged

      Very interesting, Pekka. I’m assuming there must be hydrogen absorbed directly onto the nickle (at >90% capacity I think which has been found to be the magic hydrogen absorption amount for LENR) as other LENR devices do, since hydrogen is the key consumed fuel component. The isotopes suggest nickle plays a similar fuel role. Still, most hydrogen may be bound and preloaded to the nickle, with only some associated with lithium for maybe stabilizing the reaction with a moderating side reaction involving lithium? Or maybe the lithium hydrogen somehow mitigates the need for such super high absorption ratios of hydrogen into the nickle matrix. We mustn’t forget all we previously learned, even though I’m so out of practice from all this waiting heh!

      • “maybe the lithium hydrogen somehow mitigates the need for such super high absorption ratios of hydrogen into the nickle matrix”

        When hydrides decompose they release atomic (‘nascent’) hydrogen, which normally combines with other H+ ions to form H2 molecules within a few milliseconds. However, with the hydride particles in close contact with nickel particles, newly released H+ would be as likely to encounter a nickel surface as another H+ ion, and this might considerably increase the absorption rate.

  • Blackrock/Barcleys are paying attention. Within minutes after publishing the report it was downloaded by ip owned by Barcleys/Blackrock. Minutes after that oil futures became volatile… Look here: http://sifferkoll.se

    • timycelyn

      Fascinating! However, as has been discussed here in the past, oil is less likely to take a hit from the E-cat than some of the other forms of energy. So, my question is:

      Are there any similar trends in coal or natural gas futures, or in the wind turbine/green energy sector? They are the ones with a bullseye on their backsides at the moment…

      Of course, these reaction are partly emotional, and oil has a sensitivity to subtle changes the others may not have, so the e-cat response might be damped, even if truly these other foms are the ones at risk….

      • Timar

        I don’t think that the green energy sector will be the one most affected. First of all, LENR+ produces heat, just like the burning of fossil fuels, whereas wind turbines and solar cells produce electricity without heat and – most importatly – CO2 emissions. Moreover, renewables are becoming less expensive while fossil fuels are becoming more expensive over time. I think that the base load producing coal, natural gas and fission plants will be the first energy sources replaced by LENR+. Renewables will either become competitive or displaced to niche applications in the long term.

        • Rossi has always said that it will take all technologies to solve climate change and I agree. The ecat does consume fuel, albeit minute quantities, so someone will have to manufacture, sell, support the equipment and fuel; in addition you can be assured the our governments will figure out a way to tax the fuel to replace the lost revenues from carbon fuels.

          My point is that our planet is a huge place with over 7 billion people to provide heating, cooling, electricity, and transportation. So while the ecat is magnificant opportunity, we need an “All of the above” solution.

          • Omega Z

            Only for about 40 years. The likely transition period.

      • It could likely boost the oil industry in the short term. Think of the major heating of raw oil that has to go on in tankers and storage tanks to keep it liquid … a major application for the ecat.

    • Jonnyb

      Any major media organisation looking at it? If not can anything be done to get this reported to the world. I put it on my Facebook and not one comment, shows how interested the World really is in new science that could change the world. Someone else posted an offshore wind farm article this had lots of comments, typical!!!

      • Omega Z

        Just post something about your favorite realty show or Gaga, You Know, About something important..

        You’ll receive all kinds of comments. I Guarantee…

    • Perhaps it not just the banks who are paying attention:

      This less than 24 hours after the report is made public – “Glasgow University has become the first in the UK to announce that it will sell off the shares it holds in companies that produce fossil fuels.”

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29547137

      • Jonnyb

        It’s over the next 10 years though, so no rush by them.

        • No-one is going to want to start a rush to divest – punters have to be found to buy the shares, and no-one wants the bottom to fall out while they are still holding equity. Don’t startle the horses.

          • jonnyb

            Maybe we all need to comment on the story to point out to the BBC the possible true reason for the sale of all stocks and shares of Fossile fuels by the University, it is only Ethical.

          • Jonnyb

            I don’t have a twitter account, if anyone else does maybe they could tweet the author, Rodger, with a link to the report.

      • timycelyn

        Morning Peter. Hangover?

        • Nah – bubbly doesn’t seem to do that, at least not for me. Maybe I should drink the stuff all the time, rather than the usual mix of beer and cider (not in the same glass, I hasten to add).

    • Omega Z

      If the report has any effect, it will only be a temporary situation.

      Once things settle in, people will realize it will be some time in the future before it effects actual fossil demands. In the mean time, we are still at the mercy of continued supply & demand.

      • Of course. But the theory of future demands is a really important part of pricing oil futures.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Are we going to find out how much those fossil fuel reserves are really worth?

    • Most interesting comment I’ve seen so far. Those guys just worry about their oil futures. Some guy see’s this report and thinks … “well thats +1 to the ecat”, and sells some of his stock in X, buys some in Y.

  • timycelyn

    A few points I have picked up from the torrent of information, and a question or two.

    Firstly, I must shamefully admit I’ve not read the report end to end yet, so I may have missed this, but:

    1. There is a lot of information on the make up of the non-volatile ash, and fascinating it is. However, was there any determination of the volatile content? One might expect He…..

    2. There an intersting exchange on Rossi’s blog relating to the size of the fuel charge in the reactor:

    Rodney Nicholson
    October 8th, 2014 at 5:05 PM
    Dear Mr. Rossi:

    Many questions have been answered in the paper. But more arise:

    1) Was it originally intended that the paper be released on sifferkoll? Or might
    this be some kind of unintentional leak? And if it was unintended, from what you know is the information contained in the report accurate?

    2) It seems that in the ITP test the content of 58Ni was reduced almost to zero after one month of operation. That leads to a conclusion that maybe some route of conversion of 58Ni to 62Ni may be a significant source of the energy relaeased. But if the E-cat can function for as much as six times longer than the 32 days of the ITP test, then that cannot be right because there would not be any 58Ni available for the next five months.

    3) I had previously thought I had understood that hydrogen was supplied in gaseous form under pressure. But I do not see mention of that in the paper. It seems that it is available only in the form of AlLiH4. Is that correct?

    Rossi’s reply to question 2 interests me…

    Andrea Rossi
    October 8th, 2014 at 11:57 PM
    Rodney Nicholson:
    1- I do not know why the Professors of the ITP decided that way to publish. They, as I always said, are totally independent from us. If they did so, means they had a reason for it. The report has been written by them, obviously; today I have contacted their spokesman, who confirmed that the report published is the original version, uncut; the version that will be published in a scientific magazine will have to be reduced within 15 pages. They told me it was necessary a publication with all the 54 pages, because every page has a specific importance.
    2- the charge had been made for a 35 days test. This is the test duration agreed upon when the experiment has been started
    3- I cannot enter in this particular
    Thank you for your attention,
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    Whe we look at the ash we see that a couple of the common isotopes of nickel and lithium are just about exhausted, and replaced by some much less common ones. Is this indicative of the depth of the practical understanding they now have? That they can say “35 day test, that will need 1 gram of fuel, that should just about consume the fuel isotopes.”

    One can see why they did it, of course. If there is a way of maximising the impact on the patent examiner, this it it!

    Tim

    • Jonnyb

      I was more interested in the reply to 3) If he did inject hydrogen then this needed to be in the calculations so he did not. Maybe whatever he used was the catalyst. The words Hydrogen Loaded may answer this.

  • Esko Lyytinen

    If the energy comes from the isotopic changes of Li and Ni, and not from much else, then the studied ash is indicative of the fuel being consumed to almost end. But however the COP was still slowly increasing (with some fluctuations) practically to the end of the test.

    Maybe the ash sample was from a “hot region” where the reactions were more fast than typical.

    This makes me to think, that it could be interesting to get to know if the outside different temperature patterns were changing during the test or practically not. This could probably be observed in their videos and images during the test.

    • Omega Z

      Read the report
      They speculate about this a little. Li/Ni doesn’t account for all the excess heat. Ni isotope mutations would also have to come into play.

  • Valeriy Tarasov (VYT)

    I have written on this forum earlier that a decay of 7Li to alpha particles (they are absorbed, and this produces the thermal effect and no radioactivity outside) resulting from interaction with protons can be the reason for thermal Rossi effect. Now, since in the paper there is data pointing to a decrease of 7Li amount in the ash, I am quite sure about this. And more :), a similar effect should be detected if Lithium will be replaced by Potassium.
    Best wishes,
    Valeriy Tarasov

    • Ged

      Nice, testable hypothesis! Once there is a working community replication, that could definitely be tried. However, the greater atomic mass of potassium may inhibit reactions.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      But then one should also explain the observed nickel transmutation to Ni-62.

      • Bob Greenyer

        It could be that all the other isotopes fuse with other reactants and then fission to light elements and only Ni-62 with its high bond strength survives and because it cannot take part in MeV yielding reactions condenses (because the reaction runs at below Ni melting point) out to form pure(ish) crystals as per the single crystal analysed that has got so many people sidetracked in thinking that ALL the Ni isotopes had transmuted to Ni62 when that may be a wrong conclusion.

        It could also be that the reported Ni62 purity is just on the SURFACE of the grain analysed and the bulk is more natural composition.

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        Yes, I am absolutely agree with Bob Greenyer (I have written about this at Rossi forum for lithium). In the paper there is only isotopes ratio. For this, they tested only small particles. For 62Ni, its relative amount (as well as for 6Li) can be increased if there is a decay of other Ni isotopes, mainly 58Ni (7Li for lithium). It means for 58Ni, that its interaction with alpha particles should result in unknown decay. In case of 7Li it is more obvious, since its decay, after interaction with protons, to alpha particles is known. To demonstrate such a 58Ni decay the whole amount of Ni should measured before and after usage.

    • Potassium carbonate has of course been used an an electrolyte in some ‘wet’ cold fusion devices, e.g.,

      http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf

      One for budding nuclear physicists who like to scare the cr*p out of their parents: Doktor Bob’s instructions for constructing a tungsten-potassium cold fusion plasma reactor, using items obtained from high street stores:

      http://www.drboblog.com/how-to-make-a-cold-fusion-reactor/

  • Gerrit

    We can disregard the ramblings of pseudo skeptics.

    What is much more important is that many scientist will read this paper and start to wonder how this could be true. The publication in the Journal of Physics D will certainly increase the visibility of the paper.

    The measurements of the energy balance are solid and it is clear that the heat produced cannot stem from chemistry. Together with the fuel/ash analysis it shows that something is happening that warrants further investigation. I can only hope that funding will become available for further research so that labs around the world will look into this.

    I fear we will not hear much from Rossi and Industrial Heat until the plant at the customer has been running for many months.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Issue 47/43 of Journal of Physics D, to be published on October 29, is already closed. So we will have to wait at least a week longer. More likely it will take several weeks, since they have a lot of articles in the pipeline.

      A list of the accepted, forthcoming papers can be found here:

      http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/page/Forthcoming%20articles

      • GreenWin

        This now represents a fascinating test of just how valid the entire scientific publishing enterprise is. Will journal editors throughout the west heed their conscience, or their puppet masters?? HERE is the Editorial Board of PhysD:

        http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/page/Editorial%20Board
        It will be interesting to see what excuse or reasoning they engage to refuse publication. LENR supporters can email the Editor in Chief: giorgio.margaritondo@epfl.ch

        • bachcole

          There is at least one other explanation why these publishers don’t want to publish pro-LENR articles. They don’t believe it, yet. Let us not make people out to be bad guys too prematurely.

  • CEO of Elforsk states: We will continue our reasearch within LENR

    http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece

    • Gerrit

      from Elforsk homepage (http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/)

      Measurements on LENR reactor reported – energy release and isotopes

      Yesterday, astounding results from month-long measurements on a so-called “energy catalyser” were reported. The report, written by researchers from Uppsala University, KTH and the University of Bologna, describes a release of heat that cannot be explained by chemical reactions alone. Isotope changes in the analysed fuel instead indicate that nuclear reactions might have occurred at low temperatures. It implies that we may be facing a new way to extract nuclear energy possibly without ionizing radiation and radioactive waste. The discovery could potentially become very important for the world’s energy supply.

      The central part of the reactor is a narrow cylinder that is two decimetre long. In the experiments, the reactor operated at temperaturesup to about 1 400 degrees Celsius. A net energy release of 1 500 kWh was observed. The thermal energy output was three to four times the electrical energy input. The reactor was filled with 1 gram hydrogen-loaded nickel powder and some additives.

      In recent years, Elforsk has followed the development of what has come to be called LENR – Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Elforsk has published an overview summary of LENR. Elforsk has co-funded the work described in the report in addition to earlier measurements that showed an anomalous excess of energy.

      If it is possible to safely operate and control these reactions that are now believed to be nuclear reactions, we may see a fundamental transformation of our energy system. Electricity and heat could then be produced with relatively simple components, facilitating a decentralization of energy supply that could be both inexpensive and part of a solution for global climate change.

      More research is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in trying to validate and then explain how it works.

      Magnus Olofsson, CEO Elforsk

    • Andre Blum

      Hi sifferkoll, thanks for all your info. Can you perhaps elaborate on who you are and what your relationship with Rossi or the researchers is? In other words: how and from who did you get this report so early, and what is your involvement?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Elforsk should be able to gain a lot of attention from industry, academic institutions, politics, and media. Their consequent support might be worth much more than a journal paper, even if it was in Science or Nature. This is also a chance for Europe to avoid falling behind the USA and China with regard to the development of LENR technology.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I think that this statement is very presentable to the media – it is unapologetic and profoundly positive – coming from the CEO of an organisation such as ELFORSK, this is news worthy on a wider scale.

      • GreenWin

        Bob, this then becomes a highly visible test of freedom of press. Will ANY Western nation publish the new paper or this statement from a major electric utility consortium??

        • Bob Greenyer

          Probably not – because they sponsored the tests.

          If we (or another party) can get something much more significant than the 2-12.5% we have seen across our range of experiments to date as a result of the learning from this report, then that would be really positive. If we can, in double blind tests, see similar transmutations – that would be awesome.

          With very large percentage gains and definite transmutations, we would be fully independent and that would fulfil our primary objective and we can move on to shipping kits for wider replication that we can believe in.

          However, Rossi could just start selling units (really) and we’d have a lot more time for our families!

          • Ged

            But hey, where’s the fun in that ;D?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Let’s face it, we all wanna go off grid and forget energy resource wars and the politics that evolves from the need for energy.

            In India where I have spent much of the last ten years – people would really appreciate potable water.

          • Ged

            If LENR systems could be used simply for their heat in desilanation, that would revolutionize quality of life for the vast majority of people, living in developing countries. Never mind cooking and sanitation uses. It’s huge, to say the least. But the needs outstrip capacity to make due to lack of acceptance and trust in the technology that only replications can fix; even if Rossi started selling them dirt cheap.

            And who knows, maybe you’ll discover something fundamental and improve on Rossi’s design. Many minds and ingenius hands have that effect.

          • Bob Greenyer

            we can only do our best – right now we are moving our various powder samples around the world and getting ready what might be another collaborate exercise – where you can all finesse our plans before we commit our resources.

          • Ged

            Your best is more than good enough. This sounds fantastic. Shall donate to this project in particular first chance.

          • GreenWin

            Bob, are we then to assume ANY institution sponsored study or test is invalid without multiple replications? What does this say about highly touted press releases from MIT, CERN, Planck, or national DOEs? If sponsorship by the Swedish Academy of Sciences is viewed as somehow invalidating the evidence – the global science community is far sicker than imagined.
            No. I am afraid we will find mainstream journals refuse to publish this data because they are under orders to do so.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Omega Z, it is a sad state of affairs that this has not got the press attention it deserves to date, ghosts of LENR past probably – the press is aware and following the story – I have personally been interviewed by major financial and public broadcasting organisations from UK and Germany over the past year so that those organisations have their story and back story ready, caution is what is at play and having a not commercially connected party replicate will hopefully help them to be more confident to move forward with their evolving articles.

  • CEO of Elforsk states: We will continue our reasearch within LENR

    .. will coordinate and fund swedish research within the LENR engaging more scientist to explain the processes involved … Sweden has a unique opportunity to be leaders in the research and development of the field …

    http://www.nyteknik.se/asikter/debatt/article3854541.ece

    • Gerrit

      from Elforsk homepage http://www.elforsk.se/LENR-Matrapport-publicerad/

      Measurements on LENR reactor reported – energy release and isotopes

      Yesterday, astounding results from month-long measurements on a so-called “energy catalyser” were reported. The report, written by researchers from Uppsala University, KTH and the University of Bologna, describes a release of heat that cannot be explained by chemical reactions alone. Isotope changes in the analysed fuel instead indicate that nuclear reactions might have occurred at low temperatures. It implies that we may be facing a new way to extract nuclear energy possibly without ionizing radiation and radioactive waste. The discovery could potentially become very important for the world’s energy supply.

      The central part of the reactor is a narrow cylinder that is two decimetre long. In the experiments, the reactor operated at temperaturesup to about 1 400 degrees Celsius. A net energy release of 1 500 kWh was observed. The thermal energy output was three to four times the electrical energy input. The reactor was filled with 1 gram hydrogen-loaded nickel powder and some additives.

      In recent years, Elforsk has followed the development of what has come to be called LENR – Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Elforsk has published an overview summary of LENR. Elforsk has co-funded the work described in the report in addition to earlier measurements that showed an anomalous excess of energy.

      If it is possible to safely operate and control these reactions that are now believed to be nuclear reactions, we may see a fundamental transformation of our energy system. Electricity and heat could then be produced with relatively simple components, facilitating a decentralization of energy supply that could be both inexpensive and part of a solution for global climate change.

      More research is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in trying to validate and then explain how it works.

      Magnus Olofsson, CEO Elforsk

      • bachcole

        Let us get some perspective. Elforsk was already very interested in the E-Cat. NO other large concern was. Now Elforsk is even more interested. But those other large concerns aren’t going to rush ahead of themselves and say things like Elforsk has just said today. They are going to perhaps say, “interesting”, and quietly look much more seriously at LENR+ and the E-Cat. But I doubt that we are going to see them fall all over themselves to develop their own LENR+. They will be watching and waiting and perhaps doing some research, but not research in their own labs. They will be looking around to see if this was for real or if it was bogus.

        Given this reluctance on their part, I believe that Elforsk is way ahead of the pack. And I would not be surprised if there isn’t industrial spying aimed at Elforsk by other companies to see if Elforsk’s interest is real and warranted. Of course, we will never see that spying.

    • Andre Blum

      Hi sifferkoll, thanks for all your info. Can you perhaps elaborate on who you are and what your relationship with Rossi or the researchers is? In other words: how and from who did you get this report so early, and what is your involvement?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Elforsk should be able to gain a lot of attention from industry, academic institutions, politics, and media. Their consequent support might be worth much more than a journal paper, even if it was in Science or Nature. This is also a chance for Europe to avoid falling behind the USA and China with regard to the development of LENR technology.

    • toussaint

      I like this part:

      Elforsk takes now the initiative to build a comprehensive Swedish research initiative. More knowledge is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in searching coat phenomenon and then explain how it works.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I think that this statement is very presentable to the media – it is unapologetic and profoundly positive – coming from the CEO of an organisation such as ELFORSK, this is news worthy on a wider scale.

      • GreenWin

        Bob, this then becomes a highly visible test of freedom of press. Will ANY Western nation publish the new paper or this statement from a major electric utility consortium??

        • Bob Greenyer

          Probably not – because they sponsored the tests.

          If we (or another party) can get something much more significant than the 2-12.5% we have seen across our range of experiments to date as a result of the learning from this report, then that would be really positive. If we can, in double blind tests, see similar transmutations – that would be awesome.

          With very large percentage gains and definite transmutations, we would be fully independent and that would fulfil our primary objective and we can move on to shipping kits for wider replication that we can believe in.

          However, Rossi could just start selling units (really) and we’d have a lot more time for our families!

          • Ged

            But hey, where’s the fun in that ;D?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Let’s face it, we all wanna go off grid and forget energy resource wars and the politics that evolves from the need for energy.

            In India where I have spent much of the last ten years – people would really appreciate potable water.

          • Ged

            If LENR systems could be used simply for their heat in desilanation, that would revolutionize quality of life for the vast majority of people, living in developing countries. Never mind cooking and sanitation uses. It’s huge, to say the least. But the needs outstrip capacity to make due to lack of acceptance and trust in the technology that only replications can fix; even if Rossi started selling them dirt cheap.

            And who knows, maybe you’ll discover something fundamental and improve on Rossi’s design. Many minds and ingenius hands have that effect.

          • Bob Greenyer

            we can only do our best – right now we are moving our various powder samples around the world and getting ready what might be another collaborate exercise – where you can all finesse our plans before we commit our resources.

          • Ged

            Your best is more than good enough. This sounds fantastic. Shall donate to this project in particular first chance.

          • GreenWin

            Bob, are we then to assume ANY institution sponsored study or test is invalid without multiple replications? What does this say about highly touted press releases from MIT, CERN, Planck, or national DOEs? If sponsorship by the Swedish Academy of Sciences is viewed as somehow invalidating the evidence – the global science community is far sicker than imagined.
            No. I am afraid we will find mainstream journals refuse to publish this data because they are under orders to do so.

          • bachcole

            Keep in mind that in the back of the mind of many people is the worry/concern of what someone else might think. I am retired. I don’t give a flying forward f#seekay what anyone else says. All I care about is the evidence. So, to address both of your paragraphs, I think that it is all about cowardice and wanting to be loved and to stay afloat financially. I see no one giving orders. There is no need to include conspiracies when simple human nature will suffice.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Omega Z, it is a sad state of affairs that this has not got the press attention it deserves to date, ghosts of LENR past probably – the press is aware and following the story – I have personally been interviewed by major financial and public broadcasting organisations from UK and Germany over the past year so that those organisations have their story and back story ready, caution is what is at play and having a not commercially connected party replicate will hopefully help them to be more confident to move forward with their evolving articles.

    • Mark E Kitiman
  • Mats Hilmersson

    According to sources within NyTeknik, more articles will be published during the day.

    • GreenWin

      Thank you Mats. Sweden continues to lead in bringing LENR to the world.

  • Mats Hilmersson

    Elforsk statement in english:
    Measurements on LENR reactor reported – energy release and isotopes

    Yesterday, astounding results from month-long measurements on a so-called “energy catalyser” were reported. The report, written by researchers from Uppsala University, KTH and the University of Bologna, describes a release of heat that cannot be explained by chemical reactions alone. Isotope changes in the analysed fuel instead indicate that nuclear reactions might have occurred at low temperatures. It implies that we may be facing a new way to extract nuclear energy possibly without ionizing radiation and radioactive waste. The discovery could potentially become very important for the world’s energy supply.

    The central part of the reactor is a narrow cylinder that is two decimetre long. In the experiments, the reactor operated at temperatures up to about 1 400 degrees Celsius. A net energy release of 1 500 kWh was observed. The thermal energy output was three to four times the electrical energy input. The reactor was filled with 1 gram hydrogen-loaded nickel powder and some additives.

    In recent years, Elforsk has followed the development of what has come to be called LENR – Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Elforsk has published an overview summary of LENR. Elforsk has co-funded the work described in the report in addition to earlier measurements that showed an anomalous excess of energy.

    If it is possible to safely operate and control these reactions that are now believed to be nuclear reactions, we may see a fundamental transformation of our energy system. Electricity and heat could then be produced with relatively simple components, facilitating a decentralization of energy supply that could be both inexpensive and part of a solution for global climate change.

    More research is needed to understand and explain. Let us engage more researchers in trying to validate and then explain how it works.

    Magnus Olofsson, CEO Elforsk

  • Fortyniner

    It would seem that the lithium is also an essential part of the reaction. Rossi probably serendipitously discovered this while he was experimenting with light metal hydrides as a way to dispense with pressurised hydrogen, which could not have been certified for domestic use.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Does anyone have any links to Rossi’s physical involvement with this second report? I was under the impression that Rossi never came near the test device. I have some skeptics on my neck in another forum and I don’t have time to research this.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Page 7, second paragraph (“The dummy reactor…”)

    • Gerrit

      Rossi has mentioned on his blog that he had been present on a few occasions at the test site. So the pseudo skeptics pushing the point that Rossi lied about that are wrong.

    • bachcole

      If they are on your neck, then they are skeptopaths. And I recommend that you do not read their posts nor respond to them. This strategy will preserve your peace of mind. (:->)

      • I think it’s probably a good idea to challenge the lies and innuendo, even though I would put the task on a mental par with having to pick up my dog’s mess in a public park. Otherwise it can be read by those who are new to the whole LENR scene, and may be accepted as fact. If we each do a bit, we can spread the load.

    • Chris, Italy

      Indeed, I read some of it and I immediately guessed the skeptopaths would leap onto the fact that, unfortunately, it seems the thing still needs Rossi’s cloak to be hanging in the wardrobe in order to work properly. Let’s only hope now that Elforsk will get over these hitches and make some improvements; it could be the start of some serious competition.

  • GordonDocherty

    I’ve seen a couple of comments elsewhere containing complaints about the use of thermal imaging to assess power output. Thermal imaging, however, makes perfect sense, and here’s why:

    If you used any form of direct contact, it would immediately be claimed:

    1. the direct contact was used to pump energy into the system
    2. the direct contacts were measuring hotspots, and were not at all representative
    3. loose contacts were giving false readings or, if in direct contact, the characteristics of the measurement devices moved “out of band” as the high heat invalidated use of device
    4. results from the measurement system cannot be trusted, as the system’s characteristics change as the measurement system heats up
    5. the measurements were being fiddled anyway (for example, by hidden equipment somewhere along the wires)

    Likewise, if a liquid was used, and measured, it would immediately be claimed:

    1. all of the above for direct contact plus:
    2. the assumptions about flow rate are wrong
    3. not enough steam (remember that one!)
    4. the probes measuring the liquid (or steam) temperature were in the wrong place
    5. the liquid contained impurities
    6. to eliminate issues around latent heat, the e-Cat should have been run at very low temperatures (what???), raising the water temperature for water flowing over the unit from ambient to, say, 60 degrees – at the same time, of course, claiming the ambient temperature was incorrectly measured, the output was incorrectly measured, and the difference between (ambient) input and output temperatures was so small as to “prove nothing”

    Thermal imaging, while not “perfect” (nothing is):

    1. cannot be used to pump energy into the system
    2. provides a view across the whole piece (and, indeed, tends to underestimate, not overestimate), so avoiding the charge of measuring hotspots
    3. by (calibrating) and using more than one thermal camera, “single points of failure” in the measurement system are ruled out.
    4. cameras are physically decoupled from the system being measured, so impacting least on the system being measured
    5. with (known temperature) calibration points and one of the cameras being mobile, measurement error (uncertainty of measurements) can be much reduced, even when the background temperature fluctuates
    6. means the physical characteristics of the measuring equipment remains fairly constant (for example, it doesn’t get heated up, one of the advantages of decoupling) – not the case otherwise
    7. can be run continuously – no discontinuities in recording
    8. records raw data – that means any measurement adjustments made after the fact are transparent and well understood. Ultimately, there is always the raw data to go back to.

    So, thermal imaging was definitely THE BEST CHOICE for measuring the heat being put out by the system (running at 1400 degrees) – with a (very conservative) COP of 3.2 – 3.6, “rounding errors” can also safely be discounted.

    Please bear this in mind the next time you see complaints about the use of thermal imaging in this experiment…

    • Omega Z

      Thermal imaging is highly excepted with NASA, the Military & Industries that build high temp turbines. Claiming it isn’t good practice is bogus.

      • GreenWin

        Omega, the word you want is: ACCEPTED, sort of the opposite meaning. However you are correct – thermal imaging is far less troublesome and prone to error. Skeps are scrambling in a futile attempt to debunk the inevitable.

        • bachcole

          Greenie, are you implying that skeptopaths are driven not by the evidence but rather by some psychologically pathological need or by economics (greed) or both? This would be very unscientific of them.

          • That is a possibility that should be considered, no matter how unlikely it seems.

          • bachcole

            (:->)

        • Omega Z

          Sometimes I suffer brain block. “Accepted”. Thanks

    • I agree, but I would still have liked to have seen calorimetry based on forced air cooling, if only to demonstrate that significant heat can be removed from the current system without killing the reaction process.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I too have always wondered how the reactor handles under load. If you can only take a very limited amount of heat away from the reactor before the process halts, it’s efficiency is quite low. Seeing how the reactor can scale up 700C in six minutes, I have good hope it can be used with heavy workloads.

        • GreenWin

          We can certainly look to the various tests conducted in 2011, not the least of which is the 1MW shipping container plant. Even at half the intended power, each E-Cat module was boiling water. Enough in fact, to make an entire pot of hot tea!

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Making tea is of course the prime application for the e-cat 🙂

            I remember how it kept on boiling even after shutdown and the pressure also seemed quite high. That does give me some confidence in the reactor’s performance.

  • jim

    What happened to JREF? I like to see their discussion from time to time, but they seem to have hidden it last month. I tried to register, but the process reminded me of doing taxes (and it’s broken). Anybody know what they’re saying, or how to get to their long thread about LENR and the e-cat?

  • jim

    What happened to JREF? I like to see their discussion from time to time, but they seem to have hidden it last month. I tried to register, but the process reminded me of doing taxes (and it’s broken). Anybody know what they’re saying, or how to get to their long thread about LENR and the e-cat?

  • J

    Is it potentially worrying that Rossi was there pouring the powder (-s) in and out of the device? Why did they choose that set-up, and not do this themselves, under instruction from Rossi? How difficult could that really be?

    • Fortyniner

      Rossi has no interest in attempting to persuade ‘skeptics’ such as yourself, who purport to see possible fraud in every corner. He knows that if one avenue is closed off (as many have been since the first test), those determined to spread doubt will find some other aspect of the procedure to question, no matter how unlikely the new accusations may be.

      • GreenWin

        It is a wonder that these species continue to embarrass themselves, albeit under pseudonym, by making claims that some kind of voodoo magic was used to alter the empirical function of the entire test suite. Yet somehow the Swedish Academy of Sciences and Elforsk are both sponsors and Elforsk has now confirmed they will move forward with well-funded R&D – ideally to replace the vastly failed nuclear fission industry.

        • Fortyniner

          Yes – now becoming a delaying tactic at best as the cold fusion juggernaut slowly gains unstoppable impetus. We seem to be seeing reactions in the fossil fuel world – I wonder how long before cracks begin to become obvious in the nuclear edifice?

          • GreenWin

            Clearly your PM has bet his political future on the strange belief Hinckley will not follow the well documented model of runaway budgets, delays, mishaps, and the continuing failure of the fission industry to deal with its toxic waste issues. It is fission’s last stand. Oil continues its market fall today (Always Open thread.)

    • GreenWin

      Okay, let’s try to grok this for once. Even IF, in the depths of the misanthropic paranoid minds of pathological skeptics, Dr. Rossi somehow added a gram of powdered unicorn horn while being watched by the team of scientists – how does that in any way dispel the net results of the test??
      Rossi’s minimal interaction, was clearly supervised and intended to protect the proprietary construction of the E-Cat interior. Skeptics have little so to whine about – they now enter the supernatural realm of, “Rossi is using black magic and it’s unfair to US!”

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      I refer to Clarke’s third law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Apparently Rossi’s powder switching technique is so advanced, it seems like magic to us. That must be worthy of a Nobel Prize…

  • J

    Is it potentially worrying that Rossi was there pouring the powder (-s) in and out of the device? Why did they choose that set-up, and not do this themselves, under instruction from Rossi? How difficult could that really be?

    • Rossi has no interest in attempting to persuade ‘skeptics’ such as yourself, who purport to see possible fraud in every corner. He knows that if one avenue is closed off (as many have been since the first test), those determined to spread doubt will find some other aspect of the procedure to question, no matter how unlikely the new accusations may be.

      • SH

        This is definitely true. But you have to admit there could have been much more convincing tests done in the last few years right?

        On the other hand these skeptics are effing crazy sometimes. I definitely believe in some far out things, but this is just nuts. I guess when you start from the premise that something is definitely irrefutably impossible and nothing could ever change that because we know all there is to know about what is possible in the universe, completely outlandish speculation becomes reasonable. I love the Rossi switched out the powder hypothesis.

      • GreenWin

        It is a wonder that these species continue to embarrass themselves, albeit under pseudonym, by making claims that some kind of voodoo magic was used to alter the empirical function of the entire test suite. Yet somehow the Swedish Academy of Sciences and Elforsk are both sponsors and Elforsk has now confirmed they will move forward with well-funded R&D – ideally to replace the vastly failed nuclear fission industry.

        • Yes – now becoming a delaying tactic at best as the cold fusion juggernaut slowly gains unstoppable impetus. We seem to be seeing reactions in the fossil fuel world – I wonder how long before cracks begin to become obvious in the nuclear edifice?

          If I had any shares in Areva/EDF, I think now would be a good time to be moving them on. Of course Cameron’s stitched-up deal to make consumers rather than investors carry the load, now endorsed by a thoroughly compromised EU commission, might yet save their a*ses.

          • GreenWin </