New Poll: How is Your Opinion of E-Cat Affected by the New Report?

Now we’ve had a couple of days to study the new E-Cat report, I thought it would be a good idea to put up a new poll to get an idea of the general reaction to the report. I have put up five options which I think should cover in a general way the possible responses, but please feel free to expand on your response in the comments below.

  • Chris the 2nd

    it really doesn’t, I was fairly sure it wasn’t a scam before, I still am (never 100% on anything). I just want to see a working commercial product. The tests are a side show to appease what seems like an unreasonable burdon of proof given the abundance of evidence of LENR.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      However, if this helps them get a patent, it will allow release of blueprints and we will se commercial products much sooner than otherwise.
      I think this is the most important aspect of this test

      • Chris the 2nd

        That is very true

  • PD

    Report was excellent, but thought the way it was released was very low key. I was hoping for publication in a major scientific journal, and for a parallel press conference by the report authors.
    My guess is that the report will be published in a physics journal in good time.

    Second disappointment is that there has been no press release by Industrial Heat on commercialization of the technology. I can’t help thinking that they are still struggling with the patent applications.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      I agree, this (or another shorter version of it) needs to be published in a peer reviewed journal. However, i think that they were simply keen to get it out there now that it’s done.

      I also would like to hear more from Industrial heat, although there was a comment on the Extremetech article:

      Industrial Heat Employee ->Broncobet • an hour ago
      Please stop mentioning Rossi as a con. The technology no longer belongs to him, he is now just our chief scientist. If you are going to say anyone is conning people use the company name or his superiors.

    • Billy Jackson

      Very much what PD said.

      The way this was released after the much hyped upon way it was going to published left me slightly disappointed. the rest of my disappointment has been the lack of press releases by Industrial Heat or just lack of responses period by them.

      I will admit that the rumored hype we have been listening to for the last several months clouded my disposition toward the e-cat’s actual report for a short time. But i have no one to blame for that but myself. I knew better to listen to rumor yet let it guide my expectations.

      At this point I would like a new group of scientists unconnected with the old. lets get a 2nd 32 day tests by a different independent group and see how the information stacks up against each other. (this is not to slight or call into question the old group. but more as a reference to use against each other)

    • Fortyniner

      I did predict a few threads back that this would be the case. IH will have had their reasons for permitting the test to go ahead, but were probably not too keen on publicising the results – hence the relatively obscure release on a blog, and lack of peer review. They don’t appear to need further investors, and have no need of public awareness or interest, so publicity at this time would probably not serve any purpose for them.

      IMO they will not be ready to disclose much until they have at least 6 months of good data from their pilot plant. There may well be other reasons for delay related to partnerships we are not aware of (such as potential manufacturers). Its possible they may even want to wait until they have product ready, and that couldn’t happen until they have been through at least one more cycle of field testing, incorporated lessons learned, and set up basic manufacturing operations.

      We are still in for a long wait without much in the way of further visible developments I think.

  • Jonnyb

    It just confirmed my belief that the 1st report was accurate and not manipulated. Like many on here I am a annoyed that not one main stream reporter or agency has had the nerve to run with this great discovery, in my view one of the greatest in mankind’s history, up there with fire, nuclear energies and radio transmissions.

  • LuFong

    The report really hasn’t changed my belief one way or the other. The report was generally quite positive but still suffers from much of the same issues as the earlier report: most notably Levi’s participation and not completely unfettered access/independence by the scientists involved. I believe Rossi has discovered an effect that is nuclear in nature that produces large amounts of energy. I believe Rossi is struggling to commercialize the effect and is operating for his own self-interests.

    • Fortyniner

      You seem to have missed the last year or so, during which the venture capital company Industrial Heat took over the project. Rossi is now their chief research scientist.

      Strange that you should single out Levi – do you have one jot of evidence that he is not entirely trustworthy? What about the rest of the team – are they all supposedly compromised in some way too? In either case, maybe you would care to explain why you are unable to accept the very clear findings of these scientists.

      Of course Rossi works for his own self interest – doesn’t everyone? That doesn’t preclude also working for the good of humanity.

      • LuFong

        And who do you think “owns” Industrial Heat. Well we don’t really know but my guess is that Rossi owns a big chunk of it. And I also believe Rossi is still in charge except when he doesn’t want to own up to it and then it’s IH. Yes he’s lost some control but if you have followed Rossi at all you know he’s still in charge.

        The issue is perception of independence and non-bias. Do you not agree that the report would have more stature if Levi and Rossi weren’t involved? Why are they involved at all?

        I’m not judging his motivation but I believe the E-Cat would have been much farther along in commercialization and understanding of the underlying science if a different development path was taken. Of course I recognize I have very little insight into what the actual situation is.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          In my opinion, from March 2013 to March 2014, the improvements made in the HotCat are rather impressive. The reactor is now much smaller and is made of low-cost material (alumina). The operating temperature is much higher, and it seems that even approaching the melting point of nickel is no longer a big issue. The obtained COP of 3.5, even without modulating the input power, is in principle already enough to allow self-sustained electricity production because the temperature is so high (although the turbines needed for doing so would be rather expensive I think). The running time of 32 days is already long enough for commercial purposes, especially taking into account the simple (room-temp, ambient atmosphere) operation for changing the powder. I do not know if another team could have achieved more within one year. Possibly, but I doubt it.

          • LuFong

            I’m also very excited to see the advancement of the technology. Clearly Rossi is working very hard and has made great progress. Still it is my belief that until there is a clear scientific theory (perhaps Rossi has it as he claims) advancement will be slow. Also it would not just be one team but many teams I’m sure all positively influencing each other. Rossi has also pointed out that some of the big problems arise in the interface between the E-Cat and the application. This is where multiple teams would have the largest impact.

            I’m not so sure about the commercialization. In the report there is a plot and it shows it takes two minutes for the temperature to begin to rise after additional power is applied and another 5 minutes for the temperature to approach 1400°. If this is the current state of the art in response time for the the control system then there could be problems with many applications. Also it’s not clear how the the E-Cat performs under (varying) load. The fact that we have not seen an actual commercial product in the 3 years and that Rossi is so hush-hush about the 1MW plant and it’s problems tells me that there are still serious issues.

          • Billy Jackson

            Fortunately for us. Engineering does not require scientific theory. A working product just has to work. As long as its doing its job the theory can come later.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Judging from that fact that Rossi is puzzled by the 99% Ni-62 finding, I don’t think his theory is very advanced yet. Or maybe they happened to analyse a nontypical grain. It’s crying for more experiments… I hope Rossi’s collaboration with Levi’s team would continue.

          • LuFong

            Yes, but I suspect there might be some measurement error here. Too bad Rossi/IH limited the sample size for the isotopic analysis (as stated in the report and elsewhere).

            I too would like to see more scientific experiments. It’s better than nothing. But alas, I suspect that the purpose of this test was for the patent and possibly investors and not really science (which is why Levi/Rossi participated) so we may not see anything else for quite a while in the science realm from Rossi.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Agreed, my concerns too.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I suspect you are off your medication.

          • Fortyniner

            I suspect that we are all wasting our time responding to obvious trolls – but very nicely put anyway. Getting a firm grip on an eel would be easy compared with dealing with this one.

          • LuFong

            From the report:

            “The grains differ in element composition, and we would certainly have liked to analyze several more grains with SIMS, but the limited amount of ash being available to us didn’t make that possible.”

            Also we know from other sources that IH/Rossi limited the sample size to be tested to 10mg.

          • US_Citizen71

            How long was the iPhone and iWatch in development again? and what about white LEDs?

          • Omega Z

            iPhone took over 6 years using existing technology. Tho improved by R&D.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I feel like I am about to whistle up the asshole of an aardvark but here goes.

            There is a factory currently in production using the Industrial Heat technology. I consider that a commercial product,

          • Omega Z

            LuFong . . . . Interesting info down below on temperature response.

            There is a big difference between a process that works & a product on the market. There is R&D at the present time with the pilot plant providing process heat. This is a logical 1st step & starting point. Much can be learned about how it functions when heat is drawn from it.

            This is History repeating itself. We boiled water then later harnessed it to generate electricity. Hopefully we will fast track it this time shortening the process by 1000’s of years.

            LENR & Fossil fuels have fundamental differences. To generate electricity, I would start with looking at Nuclear plant systems. Both work in a similar manner with the exception of no radiation & the necessary measures there of. LENR would be simpler & cheaper.

            Theory: Is ultimately nothing more then Opinion. All may be revised with time as we learn more. Far to many people have become stuck on theory. Experimental results trump theory every time. I would not throw out a working product just because theory says it can’t work. On the other hand, I wouldn’t hesitate to change or throw out theory if it doesn’t fit the experimental results. I don’t know why people get stuck on this. This has probably held up more progress then anything else. I think we may need to fix the education system.
            This gets interesting!
            As to the temperature response time. You overlook 1 aspect here.
            Btu’s, Gas or Electric are Btu’s. Exact Btu input will provide the same temperature response time.
            NOTE:100 watts=341 Btu/hr

            They increased the E-cat input by about 100 watts.
            Increase the Gas burner tube input by 341 Btu/hr
            The temperature response time will be the same.

            Whoops. Wait. In this case, It Will Not be the same. This does not work…Why?
            The E-cat increased output by 700 watts. That’s 2380 Btu/hr.
            To get the same temperature response time you would need to Increase the Gas burner tube input by 2380 Btu/hr.

            Without the additional 2038 Btu’s Gas input, It wouldn’t respond as fast or reach similar temperatures.

          • Gerard McEk

            I fully agree with your observation. Just a question: Rossi carefully adjusted the ‘fuel’ to suit the test period of 32 days, resulting in only one gram of the fuel. Do you believe that with more fuel the COP would rise? To my feeling it would because I think that more fuel effects heating of more particles, they influence each other and therefore generate more heat. I would think it works the cat&mouse principle often discussed on this site.

          • Billy Jackson

            could you refer to the page where Rossi adjusted the fuel please? i missed that. I only caught the part where he installed, then removed the fuel and turned off the dummy device. i didn’t read anything about adjustments?

          • Gerard McEk

            I found it on Rossi’s blog reader, which is also on the internet. Rossi made the remark himself:

          • Ophelia Rump

            IR sensors do not measure either surfaces or cross sections. Please refer to the manufacturer for assistance if you have difficulty using a thermometer.

            Please write the publisher’s reviewers if you do not like the accepted form of a paper.
            No doubt when they see your credentials heads will roll.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I don’t think more fuel would increase the COP. Making the cooling rate more strongly dependent on temperature might raise the COP, for example by adding bimetallic cooling fins which raise when temperature exceeds some threshold.

          • Fortyniner

            Or ‘memory metal’ – nitinol.

          • US_Citizen71

            I think the Mouse is the Lithium reaction and the Cat is the Nickel reaction. Rossi never claimed they were devices, we only assumed so. I also think the Alumina body was a one off for use in the test alone. The alumina makes it hard to have the whole thing meltdown in case of runaway and it isn’t a sample of what they intend to produce commercially(my opinion), so no risk of IP loss. I’m not an expert on Alumina so I wonder if the cement used to close the test reactor would survive and stay sealed if submerged in water and/or exposed to high temperature.

          • Omega Z

            Some are just plan mean & nasty.
            I know how I’d like to respond to them, But
            I loaned my EM pulse device to Rossi,
            So I guess that rules that out. 🙂

          • Ophelia Rump

            Just gently remind them that like eyeballs, IR sensors do not transmit touchy feely beams. They measure the light which reaches the sensor after having exited the surface of the material being measured. If they have difficulty using a thermometer whether IR or Basal they should contact the manufacturer for assistance with proper placement and use.

            The laser is just to help them point.

        • Fortyniner

          Industrial Heat LLC owns the rights to e-cat, and is a subsidiary of Cherokee – an investment management concern, founded by JT Vaughn and Tom Darden. The ultimate owner of the technology is therefore Cherokee, although undoubtedly Rossi has retained some interest beyond his current employment. In short, your laboured insinuations are nonsense.

          Levi is simply continuing the work he began with earlier testing, and Rossi’s involvement was minimal. Perhaps you should actually read the report, which describes this. I notice you do not respond to my question regarding the rest of the team.

          This issue is not one of perception, but of fact. The results described in the paper show conclusively that the e-cat in the current configuration works, and that new science is involved. If you can’t accept that, I don’t think that this is likely to affect the outcome either way.

          • LuFong

            You have no clue on how investments work.

          • psi2u2

            Oops, here come the ad hominems.

        • US_Citizen71
          • LuFong

            Sorry, but there is nothing in there that would lead you to conclude that.

          • US_Citizen71

            Really?!? Direct quote from the beginning of the article –

            “Cherokee Investment Partners CEO Tom Darden could save the world.

            Or at least have a hand in paying for a rescue, if a controversial nuclear technology device lives up to its inventor’s hype.

            The startup he helped create – Industrial Heat – acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi’s controversial Italian low energy nuclear reaction technology in January.

            His partner in the venture, Cherokee’s J.T. Vaughn, said at the time that it was about creating a new, cleaner energy source, a technology to “raise the standard of living in developing countries.””

          • Ophelia Rump

            It is a fund, which is to say it is owned by the investors. Managed by the Fund Managers.

            Rossi is neither. He will be rewarded greatly for having relinquished control.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Several things really bother me about this argument.

      The measurement is not of the surface or the cross section but of the radiation reaching the instrument, that radiation having passed beyond the realm of the source material. If a material is translucent to that energy it simply passes that energy more freely without converting it to another form or reabsorbing the energy and then re-releasing it on the surface.

      Assuming the speed of light is constant and reasonably quick. In any given measurement you are measuring new radiation, not the new surface plus the energy in the old cross-section which you already measured a moment ago.

      The Emissivity of alumina can be adjusted for.
      There is nothing new or novel about using an infrared thermometer on alumina.
      Material(Non-Metals) Temp degF(degC) Emissivity
      Alumina on Inconel 800-2000 (427-1093) .69-.45

      If you are simply echoing someone else’s commentary, you should consider that they may have played a horrible practical joke on you.

      Has some bad boy made you the goat of their humor?

  • catfish

    I already was pretty convinced after the last test, but this longer test did exactly what it was supposed to do, and news of the isotopic changes was fascinating. We know for sure now that something unknown is going on, and that in itself is really interesting if nothing else.

  • deleo77

    This report made me more convinced because of the isotopic ash analysis. That goes beyond heat measurements and experimental setup. Transmutation without radiation equals cold fusion. That is what the physical evidence showed in this last test. There is nothing to debate about that. One could only argue outright fraud in that another sample of ash consisting of Ni 62 was swapped into the reactor after the reactor was shut-down, but the conditions for that to happen without it being noticed are far-fetched to say the least.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    1) agreed, 2) grad(T)=5e3 K/m [at operating temp], delta-T=15 K [assuming shell thickness 3 mm], so alumina shell is nearly isothermal, does it help?

    • Buck


      to me, your response indicates you are comfortable in dismissing the “emissivity” issue as materially (qualitatively & quantitatively) unimportant to the objective of measuring the net energy output. Yes?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Yes, until shown otherwise.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The report is already having a profound effect. It removes the mantle of science from those who would suppress this new energy source and puts them in the unsavory position of being Conspiracy Theorists. This is a critical change in the balance.

    Everyone should be mindful of this. Conspiracy theorists have no credibility in science circles and should be called out publicly for maintaining such unprofessional positions.

  • Ged

    That’s not how radiating energy works, actually. There is no double contribution, and the power is always underestimated unless we have a perfect black body, which we don’t. You cannot overestimate the power out with this analysis, unless you mess up the boltzmann black body equation, which directly turns the heat you see into corresponding power given a perfect black body and that the only energy loss is by emission.

    This is because only the surface can radiate due to thermal equilibrium, and let me show you how.

    Consider the Earth. Our planet only loses energy by Top of the Atmosphere emissions of infrared. It is the only way. By looking at the emission from the top of the atmosphere, and Only the top of the atmosphere, we can know the power radiated by the Earth. Knowing what the sun sends in, we get our energy budget, and this is how we quantify and measure the greenhouse effect, which slows down ToA emissions to space and makes our planet habitable. Now, the atmosphere is pretty transparent, wouldn’t you say? Doesn’t matter, only the ToA has any baring in the Earth’s power out, as that’s the only place energy leaves the system.

    Same goes for the E-cat. So you ate thankfully mistaken completely in your critisisms about thermal imaging for power out (as our satellites do for Earth). Again, we I underestimate power out usually, by taking conservative assumptions, like assuming a perfect black body, and ignoring convection.

  • Omega Z

    I kind of enjoy the pathoskeps amazing mindset.

    Rossi is NOT smart enough to create such a technology.
    Yet, He is smart enough to fool the best & brightest who are willing to do the due diligence & actually test the E-cat. They all leave marveled at the device.

    • Ophelia Rump

      They only wish to bait you into arguing “Rossi” instead of Industrial Heat so they can do character assassination.

  • Sanjeev

    Great to see that about 87% are convinced of Ecat’s validity. A major achievement.
    Only about 5% are unconvinced. No use wasting your time on these, nothing will convince them.

    Of course the figures would be reversed approximately, if you post the same poll on mainstream, such as extremetech or popsci. But the majority of voters there will be ignorant with wikipedia and TV as their only source of “reliable info”.