Rossi Responds to Swedish Professors Critical of E-Cat Report

In the Swedish science and technology magazine Ny Teknik, four Swedish professors from the Universites of Uppsala and Lund (Sweden) authored an article titled “”Surprising that Elforsk is so uncritical” in which they expressed their surprise that the authors of the third party test could be so credulous about the things that they reported in their paper.

Below is a translated version of the Uppsala paper (original was in Swedish) that was posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, interspersed with Andrea Rossi’s comments in response to their points.

Elforsk AB is the Swedish electricity company research and development company. Thus, Elforsk a heavy role and a responsibility to conduct the important research on the current and future energy supply in a way that is both responsible and relying on good science and critical thinking.


On NyTekniks debate page on 9/10 states now Magnus Olofsson, CEO of Elforsk, it’s time for Elforsk to proceed with research on so-called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), and this is largely because of the “amazing results” that is now being published in a report written by researchers from Uppsala University. We find it surprising that just hours after the report is released, without waiting or asking for more critical comments on the reported material, is prepared to launch an entirely new area of ​​research.

We note that the new measurements have been carried out in southern Switzerland and that funding for the report comes from Elforsk, and that three of the authors are retired, formerly employed at Uppsala University. But as far as we know, this report has otherwise no connection to Uppsala University, financially or operationally.


Perhaps the most interesting thing about the E-Cat deal, which now has rolled in blogs and the media since 2011, it is perhaps that it is still “alive” and question why anyone still believes in it. Periodically test new variants of the E-Cat and criticisms of tests of previous E-Cat variants are never to be and answered. Instead investigated now even a new variant of “energy catalyst” and even more amazing results presented.


We agree that what is reported is amazing. But we believe that it is surprising is that the authors and Elforsk are so naive that they uncritically swallow something that would set the entire nuclear physics on its head; in a gram of “fuel”, consisting mainly of nickel, the proportion of the isotope Ni-62 in the “fuel” through some type of nuclear processes have increased from 4 percent to 99 percent. And this without any radiation emitted, either during operation or in the resulting “ash”. An equally spectacular nuclear transformation must have been of a proportion of lithium in the fuel powder. This goes against all the accumulated nuclear physics knowledge collected over the last 100 years. But rather than rewrite the textbooks, we believe that you first have to thoroughly investigate if there are other, simpler explanations.



For apparently thinking Elforsk not seriously if researchers simply may have been deceived by an inventor proposals. The drastic isotope enrichments that should have been accomplished during the operation of the E-Cat can be quickly purchased from several different companies. The inventor Rossi has what we can understand of the report dealt with the fuel itself both in terms of replenishment and withdrawal.


Already in 2011 there were two very professionally conducted fuel analyzes at the Natural History Museum.


The result of this time showed that the nickel contained in both the “fuel” and “ash” had the natural distribution of isotopes of nickel, that is, no isotope change of nickel which could be observed. It then alleged reaction product of copper occurred additionally in separate flakes of “ashes”, not mixed in nickel flakes which should have been the case if nuclear transformations occurred. Therefore, one can suspect that Rossi did not hesitate to provide the testing with researchers manipulated the material. Without a rigorous and documented inspection, one can not draw any conclusions regarding Ecatens function based on the fuel analyzes presented.



Stephan Pomp, Professor, Uppsala University
Göran Ericsson, Professor, Uppsala University
Peter Ekström, Professor Emeritus, University of Lund
Ane Håkansson, Professor, Uppsala University

This all brings to my mind the question — What should the professors have reported, if not what they observed in their own experiment? It appears that the testers did not have a foregone conclusion going into the test, and that they did their best to be as thorough and professional as possible in their protocol.

Yes, the results are astonishing, but thank goodness we have professionals with the integrity and humility to report what they measured, even though they explicitly stated in the report that they have no explanation as to what is going on, and the testers seem to be as surprised as the rest of us.

To me, critical thinking involves being open to new ideas and discoveries, even when they go against long-held beliefs and assumptions. I say congratulations to this testing team for their courage. They must have expected the kinds of responses we see in this article — but I think the testing team has done us a great service. Most serious observers are astonished at what was discovered, but I think if we are in the search for truth, we should take very seriously honestly-obtained facts carried out by qualified professionals, even if we cannot explain them. This is how we make progress in scientific endeavors.

  • Maybe we should als Rossi if he resp. IH would accept another test by exactly these guys. If he’s sure his device is working, it would be the best stroke Rossi could do. Convice hardcore-sceptics.

    • Curbina

      Barty, they won’t get involved. That’s exactly what gives their own incompetence away.

      • Yes, but Rossi could disgrace them if he makes this offer publicly. So they never have the right to say anything because they had the chance to make a test for themself and answer their questions.

        • Curbina

          Well, not sure about that, but perhaps a good idea.

        • pomp refused and was proud of it

          pomp clearly stated that he was happy that only retired researchers dare to stay in the test… proud to have terrorized those who have a job…

          this man is toxic to real science and proud of it, like huizenga.

          his only argument is theory. it is not an argument.

          at least goatguy used experimental argument, even if debunked.

          • Daniel Maris

            Good point about those in work being pressured not to get involved.

          • Mike the Engineer

            It is legitimate to pursue further tests and replication at this point. This is because as they stand the tests go beyond or perhaps contradict our current state of knowledge. But unless one thinks these tests are just outright fabrications then these tests ought to provoke intense curiosity. This is just what Elforsk is proposing. It is legitimate to pursue further research based on what we’re now seeing. Full steam ahead!

          • Daniel Maris

            Absolutely. No more and no less. If Elforsk independently debunk the whole idea of LENR, so be it.

            Let’s have more freedom of scientific thought – more inquiry and less ideology.

  • Christopher Calder

    So what do the always angry Internet critics say? Remember Mary Yugo, Steve something or other, Shut Down Rossi, etc?

  • jousterusa


    • Jonnyb

      True but we get the gist of it.

  • Andrew

    I’m confused. Where in the report do they state that Rossi handled the fuel? Or who supplied the reactors?

    • Daniel Maris

      Wasn’t it in Lewans’ description…not sure…so much info!

    • Mike the Engineer

      See the first complete paragraph on page 7 of the report. “Rossi … intervened [to] charge insertion … powder charge extraction.”

      • Andrew

        Ahh now why would they do this? Very disappointing. I’m not calling shinagans but they left the door open for others and they are in their right to call it.

        • Obvious

          Rossi may have been the only person there that is well-versed in the correct protocols for handling micro powders of nickel. It can be very toxic if mishandled.

  • Daniel Maris

    When they built the first transatlantic telegraph cable, they didn’t understand fully how electricity works – they bust the cable trying to pump more and more electricity in because they were getting a weak signal.

    I think a more open and creative approach is required now to develop understanding. If it proves that Rossi is a fraud, it’s not the end of the world. But if it is shown that Rossi is genuine, and that scientists have tried to suppress LENR for 30 years, that will be a generational tragedy. What does it cost the sceptical scientists to say – “OK, Mr Rossi, congratulations on this successful test. We look forward to seeing this device as a pilot installation somewhere, until we do we reserve the right to maintain some scepticism about whether this is a genuine phenomenon.” Why the urge to trash teh report and the reputations of those involved?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I don’t think this is to off the topic.
    When I google in “cold fusion times”, an add for “Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion is book of science history by Gary Taubes” pops up on the right side. They’re still targeting us with that thing. As a test, someone else should try it.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Oh God I hope IH just plants one somewhere for a public demonstration and turns an olympic swimming pool full of water into a jet of steam powered by a portable generator. That would be insanely awesome.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, that 20 cm long thing has generated more energy than any tokomak has ever or will ever generate. It’s time to celebrate.

    • Mike the Engineer

      It seems to me that Mr. Rossi’s answers were for the most part quite reasonable. Not quite clear on the statements for the samples from 2011. However, it doesn’t really matter. The success of this experiment is what matters.

      The success of this experiment should permit a second wave of fundraising (if more is needed. I think I read IH had raised an initial $11 million.) This experiment also provides formal justification for Elforsk to go forward.

      The critics remark upon the rapid response from Elforsk. But of course I’m sure they already knew the results of the report before it was published. No surprise there. And … if one can be confident these tests were impartially performed and the results are accurate, then there is no reason to delay. Note Elforsk said they were proceeding forward with more research. Why not?

      • Ophelia Rump

        Fundraising was never an issue after Darden.
        He controls the flow of Billions each year.

        • Daniel Maris

          I agree Ophelia, I don’t think this was about funding. They don’t need even need billions to move to a pilot installation. They will be able to do that for millions and that is what will prove the technology works – the only real question after that is: “How much does it cost in real conditions.” So then you will see a kind of subsidised marketisation phase.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Very objective and scientific, throw out the facts if they do not match your preconceptions.
    I do not think they understand how very soon they are going to look so very unprofessional.

    • Billy Jackson

      What they need is a public relations manager.. cause right now they look like the proverbial monkey and football. With all the mistakes made with rumors for this and that, the fact that rossi handled anything to do with the test, the questions left unanswered. and just the doubt being thrown around due to the way things are being done.. this project is in serious need of a competent manager. they do not need to know a thing about LENR or even touch the device.. just know how to manage a project.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    I find this a striking and remarkable statement: “it is surprising is that the authors and Elforsk are so naive that they uncritically swallow something that would set the entire nuclear physics on its head”

    It seems bizarre to suggest that the authors and Elforsk approached this study “uncritically” without any evaluation of the specific methods and controls employed to ensure accuracy.

    These critics make not one argument about the specific means of testing, yet pretend to speak with authority as they guard the gates of their BS “accumulated nuclear physics knowledge collected over the last 100 years”. If the means of the test were sound, and the E-Cat turned Apples into Tunafish, then you find another way to improve the test, or you deal with the results. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

    There have literally been countless discoveries that rewrote established science. The whole freaking history of science is the history of discoveries that rewrote established science.

    So – until someone finds a specific fault with the testing methodologies OF THESE SCIENTISTS, IN THIS REPORT – the results stand on their own. History will tell whether Rossi is a fraud, but these critics are FOS.

    I know I am nobody in this fight, and my bluster adds no value, but FTBS.

    • Billy Jackson

      when you cant argue with the data you throw the competency of the testers into the equation at that point your arguing against how many combined years of experience in testing?? to me it borders on desperation that they are resulting to saying that this level of scientist do not know how to handle a basic input output reading,, and because they cant attack the data they will continue this method.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Is it established fact that Rossi handled anything?

        I don’t remember reading anything like that in the paper.

        • Mike the Engineer

          Yes, see top of page 7 of the report. Rossi put the charge in, and permitted a small charge extraction.

          • Ophelia Rump

            From that you might infer that Rossi had the opportunity to:

            A, Substitute an amazing new fuel source for the original amazing new fuel source.

            B, Substitute a bogus waste product for a genuine waste product of an amazing new fuel source.

            I am unimpressed by this revelation.

          • Curbina

            Mats Lewan told that the reactor had to be cut with a diamond saw to let the ash out in a tube and the researcher was allowed to take a 10 milligrams sample of the ash in the tube. He also conveyed that the restriction for the sampling was a pre arranged condition imposed by IH.

          • Ophelia Rump

            OK I need to change my B. Thanks.

          • Billy Jackson

            ” 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.”

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, perhaps they should place some Ni-62 into a tokomak.

          • Robyn Wyrick

            @Mike, that’s a really valid reply to my rant. (no sarcasm at all intended). Other people (including Rossi) have replied to why that is not the strongest challenge, but for me, it is something valid to raise.

            However, it doesn’t address the main issue at all: the heat. To my mind, if Rossi has invented something that produces a COP of 3+ at 1400 degrees for 32 days, I think that is news, whether is is nuclear in nature or not. If he had something with that much concentrated energy, but it was made of pixie dust, the point is that the power was measured.

            To my read, that wasn’t challenged.

          • Ophelia Rump

            To my perspective they have publicly stated that Rossi just set the physics world on it’s head. Very hard to put that genie back in the bottle.

    • deleo77

      Yeah, they are essentially saying that the results of the test are so impossible that they must have been manipulated – especially the ash. It is kind of funny that Rossi responds by saying that if he manipulated the ash he wouldn’t have done something as crazy as to put Ni 62 in it, because as of now he doesn’t even understand why Ni 62 is in there.

    • Ophelia Rump

      In a way it is superb that they presented the argument painting themselves in the classic role of the Inquisition vs Galileo.

      That was monumentally illuminating. I think they will come to regret their classical conditioning.

      • Brian

        It seems as if ‘they’, have taken up the ‘huizenga’ banner !!

    • Andrew

      Sorry but having Rossi add the charge and remove the charge was a big mistake.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Rossi adding the charge would only allow him to place an amazing new fuel source in the reactor.

        Nowhere in the report does it say Rossi removed the charge. Rossi did not cut the charge open and extract the ash.

        • Andrew

          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…..

          It still doesn’t explain the excess heat however having him involved in these “INDEPENDENT”tests was a mistake and personally find it disappointing in the least.

          • Ophelia Rump

            If you are suggesting that he switched out the ash charge wholesale before it was cut open. That seems a pointless thing to do, and would only muddle the analysis of the ash, not the test itself. The argument is pointless and reaching.

          • Andrew

            I dunno what happened. I wasn’t there so I’m not assuming anything however after following Rossis story since before Ecat world started and watching this website grow I find that a once again a test has gone by with some holes. I thought that they would have gotten it right by now.


          • Daniel Maris

            MIke, I have no idea fundamentally whether the E Cat is genuine, but – believe me – if you spend any time over at Independent E Cat News you will quickly realise that the skeps will NEVER accept any positive test results on the E Cat.

            Bascially, you can pick holes in any experiment. In fact people have picked holes in the world famous 1919 eclipse “confirmation” of Einstein’s theory (not to say the theory was wrong, just that the results of the experiment didn’t actually confirm it at the time).

            In science as in the rest of life there has to be a basic culture of trust, or else nothing can be achieved.

            Why can’t you simply accept that some very senior scientists from important insitutions have found positive results for the E Cat and await further developments? What’s the problem with that? Why be “disappointed” in the results. You might be disappointed in the ultimate outcome, but it doesn’t make sense to me to be disappointed with one

            relatively small piece of the jigsaw.

          • Andrew

            I’m probally to blame for my own disappointment as I expected too much. I have awaited test after test with anticipation and excitement for some validation in my belief because I like to give people the benifit of the doubt (as I can without investing nothing but my time). Those few words in the report and those small decisions made by the team and Rossi/IH has cast a big shadow on an otherwise iron clad report on some of the most compelling evidence. This being the last “scientific” test of the Ecat I think I’m entitled to a little disappointment . I guess I can alway hope that MFMP can replicate.

          • bachcole

            “In science as in the rest of life there has to be a basic culture of trust, or else nothing can be achieved.” I like it. But Daniel, part of what you are implying is that it is OK to be uncertain, and some people can’t seem to do that.

          • Bernie777

            Please, every test that has ever been made can be critizied, especially by skeptics who have already decided their view of science is the only right science. This reminds me of some religious dicussions I have had.

          • Daniel Maris

            That’s like saying you were disappointed to find Karl Benz involved in the early tests of the internal combustion engine.

          • Gerrit

            Why on earth did the Wright brothers fly the airplanes they designed themselves ?

          • BroKeeper

            I think you know – project confidence.

      • Daniel Maris

        If they’d had Rossi show the team how to insert and remove the charge the skeps would say that he duped them into doing what he wanted…

        If you approach it with extreme scepticism, you are going to dismiss the tests. The skeps will stop at nothing – they have already suggested that Levi is in on a fraud.

        So, either be a believer or a skep or – like me – await now a credible pilot installation to show if this technology is real.

  • deleo77

    This post from Jones Beene on Vortex today could turn out to be a bit of a stunner:


    Whether you know it or not, you may have put another nail in
    coffin of any faint hope that this report is valid, and not a fraud. What’s
    more, in answer to Ransom, it could be a deliberate fraud.

    Let me put it this way, if what you say is true – that the
    sample tested to 99.3% purity of Ni-62, then we have a major problem. Are
    you certain?

    That is because several months ago, I personally talked to
    the person who sold Rossi enriched Ni-62 in what was for all practical
    purposes that same purity. The coincidence is stunning.

    OK – for the benefit of true believers, let’s say that there
    is a small chance that Rossi did not arrange some kind of deceit here, and
    that although he purchased the same purity material, it also showed up in a
    properly tested sample as a matter of pure random coincidence … (Jon
    Stewart pause) … but please explain to me how any known nuclear reaction
    produces virtually pure isotope going all the way from Ni58 to Ni63 in one
    step with no intermediary products.

    If that can happen in this Universe, then ok maybe it is a
    coincidence that Rossi just happened to buy the same material that turned up
    in the tested sample.

    Thank you for speaking up, Robert Ellefson. I have not
    noticed you on this group before this story broke, but this information is
    very important, so please assure us that is true.


    From: Robert Ellefson


    I strongly disagree with the conclusions you have expressed
    regarding the ash sample isotope fraction.

    First, as I explain in this (rather-long-winded) mail from
    yesterday, the ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting
    of 99.3% enriched Ni-62.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      lol… ugh…. i’m done with this crap. Someone let me know when 2 reputable companies (people have heard of) say they are happy customers of IH.

      Worst ecat validation exercise EVER.

      • Ophelia Rump


      • Daniel Maris

        Glad you’re going but I would say this is the best ever validation. At least you accept there have been previous validations. 🙂

    • Alan DeAngelis

      What other enriched isotopes of nickel did Rossi buy. He’d be a fool not to test all the individual isotopes. He’s doing research. Wouldn’t that be the best way to determine what reactions are taking place?

    • Mike the Engineer

      Analysis of fuel before it was consumed indicates 68% of 58Ni.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah I just don’t get it. It doesn’t mater that Rossi charged the cylinder. Being the good scientist that they are, they sampled it before the run.

    • Daniel Maris

      “That is because several months ago, I personally talked to
      the person who sold Rossi enriched Ni-62 in what was for all practical
      purposes that same purity. The coincidence is stunning.”

      Stunning indeed. Stunning that such a devious fraudster as Rossi who can

      fool profs from ancient seats of learning and controllers of billion dollar funds should forget to give a false name when ordering his dastardly enriched Ni-62.

      • Gerrit

        I actually know this person, he told me he sold higgs bosons to the Atlas team, shortly before they reported success.

    • Omega Z

      “ENTIRE ASH SAMPLE BULK was analyzed by ICP-MS as consisting of 99.3% enriched Ni-62”

      Amazing. Nobody reads stinking reports.
      This is amazing considering they were only given about 10mg of the 1 gram charge. Something like 3 randomly selected crystals. I believe the rest went back to Industrial Heat labs…

      • bachcole

        You guys, remember that Darden, Vaughn, and probably numerous other people can walk into Industrial Heat‘s laboratory any time that they want and look things over. Does anyone really believe the these people want to look like complete morons and throw away millions of dollars on something bogus?

  • Daniel Maris

    Pomp Up Da Volume of Abuse it would seem.

    He can’t be taken seriously if that is how he approaches experiments undertaken by his fellow professors: that they must be dupes of a fraudster, even before he looks at the evidence.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, they’re right. This is the way it should have been done.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Ignaz Semmelweiss got a lot of laughs when he told the doctors to wash their hands in bleach before they went to the delivery room.

    • Gerrit

      Well, of course, the honourable professors were absolutely right when they said that Semmelweiss’ claims were in contradiction with all medical knowledge accumulated in the 100s of years before.

  • mytakeis

    I put this in a mafia scenario[no offenses intended, this is for emphasis only]: “Hey ‘piesan!’ results, where’s-a mi results? you wanna mess with whya this and whata that, you gonna disappear reala fast. I no carea how you gotta the dough, I don’t needa to know, as longa asa youa givea mea the mula!” So after that back sided slur on the professionally acclaimed backward looking scientists with closed and fearful minds, the RESULTS speak for themselves. Now Academia, find out WHY!!!

  • Ophelia Rump

    The critics have spoken. By popular acclaim Rossi LENR E- Cat turns nuclear physics on it’s head!

    “We agree that what is reported is amazing. . . something that would set the entire nuclear physics on its head. This goes against all the accumulated nuclear physics knowledge collected over the last 100 years. . . rewrite the textbooks, we believe . . . thoroughly investigate.”

    Stephan Pomp, Professor, Uppsala University
    Göran Ericsson, Professor, Uppsala University
    Peter Ekström, Professor Emeritus, University of Lund
    Ane Håkansson, Professor, Uppsala University

    • Obvious

      Quoted like a professional reporter….

      • Ophelia Rump

        More like a theater promoter. But close enough, their own words in order true to the spirit of each fragment.

        • timycelyn

          Looks nice on the Nature News & Comment site, next to Brian Jospehson’s piece, linked in Ecat’s comment above.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I hope they appreciate the copy on Ny Teknik.

    • Stephan Pomp replied:

      The comment by Phaeton Rudegar requires some clarification since it
      might seem that my colleagues and I actually support the most recent
      claims by Levi et al. Quite the opposite is true.
      We note indeed that, if true, the findings would require a complete
      rewriting of nuclear physics textbooks but note that other and much more
      likely explanations for the drastic isotopic change findings are
      For a more detailed statement please read or our full
      article (and not just selected out of context lines) on NyTeknik: (in Swedish)

  • Ecat

    Brian•2014-10-08 09:21 PM

    The most important news of the year, perhaps, not just the last seven days? The results of a new investigation into the Rossi reactor (allegedly a high-power cold fusion reactor), involving running the reactor over a 32-day period, are now out. The report not only confirms output power far in excess of anything possible by chemical reaction, but also gives a clear indication that a nuclear reaction is occurring, on the basis of a substantial change in the isotopic proportions of Li and Ni over the period of the run. The report, entitled Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel may be seen at As before, I predict that pigs will fly before Nature makes any mention of the report, which has also been put on hold by the physics preprint archive (with an earlier report, a leaked email disclosed that the moderators were trying hard to find a reason to block the report but eventually gave in). Brian Josephson

  • timycelyn

    “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    According to Ghandi’s famous observation above (as I remember it!) we seem to have moved into phase three as illustrated by these outpourings from the Swedish Gang of Four…..

  • Ken


    All I can say to that Rossi is that…..If you strive to redefine physics as we know it, you must leave nothing to assumption. perhaps you should hire a QC specialist who’s job is detail and information quality control.

  • drjohngalan

    For last 25 years, the old chestnut of “without any radiation emitted” and “against all the accumulated nuclear physics knowledge collected over the last 100 years” has been trotted out.

    Ignore this test on the E-Cat.

    Many experiments, by many different people from many different laboratories over the past 25 years have shown excess heat, transmutation and, if any radiation, far below what “accumulated physics knowledge” predicts.

    Do these professors also dismiss all these experiments as fraudulent, mistaken or something else? I guess they do, and that case no number of tests will suffice. A working plant shown to provide a return to the company that installed it will be the only way forward.

    • Gerrit

      The deniers always cherry pick points they think show weaknesses in the setup and avoid to give explanations for anything else.
      For instance, they criticize the power balance of cells that produced excess heat, but ignore the power balance of other cells, which used the exact same power source, that didn’t produce excess heat and showed perfect balanced in/out power.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I agree that there has been enough evidence for LENR in the past. But there is a difference between previous studies and the tests of Rossi’s device, regarding the amounts of generated energy. We have here, possibly for the first time, a scientific study on LENR+ (LENR with constantly large amounts of output energy). That’s why I think it is not wrong to turn every stone, even if it looks like nitpicking. Not least of all, the discussion about the 2013 report has led to improved methods in the latest study, and the current discussion might contribute to further improvements. But as you say, a working plant is a must, since LENR+ is mostly relevant from an economic point of view.

      • Gerrit

        We need funding. Then we will find out the mechanisms behind the phenomenon. Worst case we’ll find out it was all a big mistake and can finally lay this topic to rest.

        The pseudo-skeptics however don’t want this research to be funded, because they believe they can know with certainty that this cannot be true.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          In principle I agree, but there is also a proverb “Too many cooks ruin the mash”. Imagine the quarrel about patent rights we would see if thousands of people had been into this during the last years. Rossi made his progress without public funding and only a modest amount of money from private investors. Development will take somewhat longer under these circumstances, but it might be easier to establish the product on the market.

          • TVulgaris

            It’s unfortunately far easier to completely eliminate it from the marketplace as well, along with the developer and early small backers.
            This is definitely an area for “many eyes” as the ultimate protection against disaster.

    • Ophelia Rump


  • llsurfer

    He referred to the troubles of getting the first May 2013 E-Cat report on This was only revealed now since has put the publication of the October 2014 report on hold.

  • artefact

    he talkes about the last report and he means Arxiv.

  • Omega Z

    An election coming up. If I vote, regardless which candidate wins. I have a right to complain if I don’t like what they do. If I stay home & don’t vote, I have No right to complain.

    I recall that 1 of the 4 scientists mentioned above claimed to have been invited to participate in the test, but declined. Can’t recall which at the moment, but they forfeit their right to complain.

    “Maybe Rossi did the same thing this time” Not according to the report & according to the report when Rossi was present someone was by his side at all times.

    I note someone complained about a box being between the meter & the mains. Skimmer alert. Had they actually paid attention, they would realize that was a switch box to turn the power on/off.

    Ultimately, Everyone overlooks the fact that Rossi sold this technology to Industrial heat. He’s already been paid. The only way Rossi benefits is with a working product on the market. If it don’t work. he doesn’t receive royalties. The test report has no bearing on this.

  • Omega Z

    Arxiv . org has put the report on hold. No Explanation. I think this is Brian Josephson applying pressure on them by bringing awareness to it..

  • Omega Z

    Don’t forget, The policy to the customer is if it doesn’t work as advertized, The customer doesn’t pay.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Gerrit

    This is the kind of skepticism I like. What should also be taken into consideration is who, if this is all fake, is Rossi trying to fool now that Industrial Heat has already bought the invention. Next step, according to Darden, is a working plant at a customer. Good luck with keeping up the illusion in the actual application.

  • theBuckWheat

    We have come a long way from quirky lab experiments where nothing happened for weeks but where the researcher returns from a long weekend to find the glassware had mysteriously shattered. We are obviously observing a phenomena that current models cannot yet explain. We must rigorously apply scientific discipline and relentlessly work to understand the underlying physics.

    My *only* concern is that until the phenomena is fully understood that these devices might mysteriously stop working in the future, or worse, the operator might stumble into some previously unexplored region that results in a runaway or dangerous ionizing radiation. This means that many devices must be tested for a many of hours under a variety of conditions.

    The beneficial implications for humanity are too important to not proceed with caution.

  • Okay, now where the first euphory has laid, what do you think we will hear next?

    Rossi said that IH is now fully focused on the industrial plant at the customer. But what do they do there? If they have to stay with their full staff at every customers site for a year they will never take off.

    What will we hear next from Rossi? I hope it’s not quiet for a year now .
    I had hope that IH will go public. But nothing changed, we just have an unreviewed report with a lot of questions…

    • GordonDocherty

      We have now reached the stage where Pathoskeptics are denying copious quantities of analyzed, documented experimental results that all show something “different” – and nuclear – is going on. In science, empirical evidence trumps all. This is also what the Pathoskeptics used to say. Now that it is there, however, those same Pathoskeptics now deny the evidence and instead make wild accusations of incompetence or, worse yet, criminal behaviour on a truly industrial scale. If the theory does not fit the observed facts then, quite simply, the theory is not (entirely) correct. This new evidence should not be see in a negative light, but rather as an OPPORTUNITY for more research – after all, what else has been overlooked or ruled out by theories now shown to be wanting – Hydrinos, for example. As to those who say this is not a “nuclear process”, anything that changes one isotope into another or one element into another IS NUCLEAR, by definition. Changing the nucleus is EXACTLY what “nuclear” means…

      • Fortyniner

        The nature of the objections of the trolls long ago crossed the point where valid skepticism turns into unreasonable denial and ad hominem attack. As each of their accusations in turn has been shown to be false, so the trolls have had to retreat to ever more unreasonable and unsupportable quibbles, and are now forced to completely ignore reality and attempt to create a fantasy world in which ever increasing numbers of respectable businessmen and scientists are being drawn into some kind of huge multinational fraud orchestrated by an evil Italian genius bent on.. well who knows what.

        Others blame ‘pathological skeptics’ – those who are so fixed in their ideas that they froth at the mouth whenever LENR/CF is mentioned – for the onslaught we are currently seeing (in an apparent response to the release of the second report, but it is difficult to imagine that so many irrational and deranged people exist, let alone find it necessary to rant and shriek online at very mention of Rossi’s work.

        It seems altogether more reasonable to assume that there are parties who for their own reasons wish to hold back any public knowledge of this technology, and who are using paid shills for this purpose. In particular, I find the uniformity of the troll attacks quite revealing – as if they are all reading from the same song sheet.

        If this is the case, then the one thing we can be absolutely sure of is that there can never be any level of evidence that will satisfy the ‘skeptics’, and the attacks will continue at least to the point at which a working prototype is revealed and verified by further third parties, and probably beyond even that. We can’t stop the deluge of troll comments that appear online, including on this blog recently, and no amount of rational counter-argument will temper the attacks. The income of many amoral shills depends on it.

        At best all that can be done is to explain in each case what tactic is being used, how it contradicts the facts, and why the comment is being made, so that those who are new to the subject are not swayed by such nonsense.

    • psi2u2

      I must say, that in my reading of this transcript (for which, many thanks, and as a stranger let us give it welcome….) this leaped out at me:


      This is a subtle but powerful point in logic. If Rossi had tampered with the samples, why would he have intentionally produced inexplicable results — results that neither he nor his critics can explain? This is an important point (as if we really needed more – but still, let us keep pace with these brash arguments and the revived mudslinging about Rossi’s service in jail, as they come) in Rossi’s favor.

      • Daniel Maris

        It is a powerful point – not a winning point (because there is a remote possibility that Rossi could be a very subtle fraudster who creates such narratives) but a powerful one.

        I just can’t see why skeps don’t simply ask for yet another test closing off any new loopholes they’ve been thinking and leave it at that. Trying to trash the test and the reputation of the scientists involved doesn’t appear very scientific to me (though if you have read your history of science it’s not that unusual).

  • Zapece

    Its simple, if there is no radiation, then publicly acknowledge its not a nuclear process and start selling the things from which I am sure there would be a large market.

    I’m sure regulations for selling a specialized form of glowstick (which is essentially what skeptics seem to be telling us this is) are well established and perfectly legal.

    Then continue to work on the underlying science but get a home product on the market that will force a reaction, meanwhile I’ll have to continue to use the wood burner to power the underfloor heating.

  • HiggsField

    After the initial feeling of excitement it is becoming clear to me that this report is invalid, and that the whole Rossi enterprise may well be a complete fraud. If the latest revelation is true that Rossi was present at the extraction of the ash and that the sample tested was 99.6% Ni-62, and that he Rossi had recently purchased a quantity of Ni-62, then this smells awful. When you couple this with the issues raised by GoatGuy about the input and output power measurements, then you really have nothing to hang your hat on here, and I think you have to throw this report into the garbage bin. Unbelievably bad science and shame on all those so called scientists involved that allowed themselves to be manipulated by Rossi.

  • BroKeeper

    The E-Cat may have a cat and mouse but Andrea is a lion. Be very careful Skeptos.

  • Jonnyb

    Hi Neanderthal any idea when your report is due for publication, maybe this will put an end to all this. Nice to hear from you again.

  • Ecat

    EXCELLENT COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • fritz194

    (…) too much fun.
    The scientific middle-ages of pathologic scepticism will come to an end.
    They believe in their theories and distrust reality. wtf.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I’m getting so tired of scientists saying LENR is impossible because it goes against the known physical laws for hot-fusion. What they don’t seem to get is that their hot fusion laws don’t apply for this new process that is NOT fusion as we know it.

    After two very well conducted and written reports, I can only conclude that there is something seriously wrong with the scientific community. I normally am not one for vengeance, but after LENR is finally accepted (and I have no doubt it will), I would like there to be a recogning. One that leads to a thorough examination of the current scientific process (including the patent office and the way peer reviewing works) seeing that the current process is too costly in terms of the time it takes to get this discovery recognized, accepted and brought to market. This is simply much too costly for humankind. Imagine LENR was accepted in 1989? We wouldn’t have the current environmental problems and quite possibly have a settlement on Mars already.

    Bottom line, this failure of science must not be without consequences.

    • Tom59

      If AR/IH would give up on the patent and collaborate witMcKubre and Storms, that would be feasible and helpful. The competition in the Lenr field has it’s downside at this point.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        He could be sued for patent breaches of his own invention if he didn’t fight for the patents. The system is totally corrupt.

    • Yes, at the moment we have “moon-landig-lie”-leves of sceptism. Every proof is not enough.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Basically, you need a working reactor of the shelves at Walmart to convince these skeptics. Nothing else will do.

        • MFMP could do it also. One replication, and this described in scientific detail so other could replicate it, too. That’s the target.

          • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

            Agreed. When MFMP can replicate and provide detailed instructions for others to repeat the experiment it could also do the job. I just hope they can do it.

          • Maybe they can do it in a way so that we in our private workshop could built it as well. Who will then need a domestic ecat? 😉

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Good observation. Possibly a long run without self-sustain alters the ashes more than Rossi anticipated.

  • Andrew

    Well the Ni62 purchase is hearsay. We have a report in front of us saying one thing and people are skeptical of what it says saying “we need more proof” and then someone on vortex says they know a guy that says Rossi bought some stuff and that’s taken as fact. @ $20k a gram I’m sure there are POs and receipts for evidence. Rossi purchased this personally? I’d figure that by now with a team of people working with him his time would be better spent working not gathering materials. This was also a post on vortex from someone that has never posted there before and most likely someone trying to spread false information.

    • Yes, but I think the will not go to market as long as they have no patent.

    • Omega Z

      We agree, I “skimmed” that discussion on Vortex & it appears that Bob discussed the percentages with another who said well I Know somebody That bla bla bla. So this is total hear say garbage.

  • Dick Hertz

    It seems the critics (Pomp et al) Are resting their case on the fact that Rossi controlled the fuel and ash samples prior to the analysis and could have manipulated them.

    It is clear that if the fuel has change in such a radical way, then that is it, the world has changed.

    And the validity of the report rests on this statement, “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”

    It would be nice to get some clarification on what charge insertion and extraction involves, and how this was monitored by the independent testers.

  • Pseudoneanderthal

    Unfortunately I am not neanderthal 🙁 I have the impression he has to keep a right lip

  • Christopher Calder

    Steven B. Krivit

    “Rossi Handles Samples in Alleged Independent Test of His Device”

    Steven just will not give up. To assume Rossi is cheating is to also assume that everyone at Industrial Heat LLC and Tom Darden are lying as well. It makes no logical sense whatsoever . I am sure Rossi was supervised when loading and unloading the fuel, which is a delicate operation. Darden stated “I’m serious — it’s about air pollution and coal . . . Our company is called Industrial Heat. Our job is to make industrial heat and industrial heat is made by coal… We don’t think any energy should be made by coal, so that’s why I’m doing this. This could be a way to eliminate the use of coal.”

    How is Darden going to eliminate coal with a product that does not work? The reactor was constructed by Industrial Heat, LLC, not by Rossi.

    • deleo77

      As has been stated elsewhere, we are beyond a scientific debate about whether LENR occurred in this last test. The transmutation to Ni 62 without radiation is physical evidence of it. Mats Lewan said he spoke with the test team and when the ash was extracted Rossi, a technician, and a member of the test team were in the room. This extraction surely didn’t last long. So there are only three possible scenarios remaining:

      1. All three people in the room were in on a scam and switched the powder knowingly. This is very unlikely IMO. I just don’t see group fraud like this as a realistic event. Perhaps someone could argue otherwise, but good luck doing so.

      2. Rossi performed a sleight of hand and switched the ash without the other two people seeing it. This is actually the more argued scenario currently being put forth by the skeptics. This IMO is highly unlikely as well. So Rossi is the new David Copperfield? Probably not. Also, a poster who seems to have some spectroscopy experience on vortex said the ash that was sampled was not likely supplied in a switch. It had all of the characteristics of spent fuel.

      3. The ash with Ni 62 was genuine. Barring any evidence to the contrary, this does appear to be the right answer.

      • Omega Z

        #1 IMHO, If it were Group Fraud, They would have never admitted that Rossi was even present for this extraction. At Most, He stood by as an Observer…

        #2 Again IMO, It was likely the technician that did the extraction while Rossi & a test team member observed. I’m sure Rossi has become an observer in most of the work these days. Actually I think this started becoming evident before IH/Rossi. Recall, a couple of Rossi’s old team complaining. When doing tests, then bring the results to Rossi, He had changed the design. This is a thinker/observer.

        #3 as pointed out by someone on Vortex, faking this ash would be quite complex if not impossible, And as Rossi has said, If I were going to fake the ash, wouldn’t I have done it in a manner that could be reconciled.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I really expecting him to say it proves WLT.
      Ni(58) + n > Ni(59)
      Ni(59) + n > Ni(60)
      Ni(60) + n > Ni(61)
      Ni(61) + n > Ni(62)

  • Bernie777

    Does anyone know if Dr. Rossi has analized ash prior to this test? If yes, did he get the same unusual Ni62 results?

    • Omega Z

      On many occasions Rossi has indicated ash analyzed. Clear back to when Focardi was working with him.
      This test was different then the norm Run 2/7 @32 days. Most of his R&D would have been working in SSM, So these results were probably new to him as well.

      IMO, This unexpected result is a Big Positive for R&D. New findings always are. They help in our understanding which lead to improvements in the path/next step to be taken.
      It’s all Good…

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    As other have already mentioned, all that they have is that Rossi (under supervision of the team)
    controlled the fuel and ash samples and must have manipulated them. That’s basically all they have. The report itself is quite solid.

    Still it is clear that MSM won’t touch it until some publication in a big science magazine. In a way I can understand that. The claim is so extraordinary, that it should end up in a big magazine. Since it doesn’t, there can’t be a story. They do of course forget the whole Cold Fusion history and that no “self-respecting” (irony intended) magazine will burn their fingers on it. So in the end I don’t think the report will be published in any big magazine. Rossi was right from the beginning. He needs a product on the market before his e-cat will be accepted by science. Maddening!

    • Daniel Maris

      I’m wondering if there has ever been a parallel case of a machine or other product that appeared to defy current scientific knowledge and was resisted by the scientific establishment. I am not sure there has been. Normally you get the new theory first and then the machines follow.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Let me try to think of the resistance issue from a working scientist’s viewpoint. When he hears about the E-cat test, he gets excited (without showing it), and excitement calls for action. However, it’s difficult for him to act in the “right” way. If he’s an experimentalist, he would like to replicate the experiment, but he can’t because it’s not openly documented. If he’s a theorist, he doesn’t know where to start. The easiest thing that fulfils his instinctive need for action (which arises from the need to overcome frustration and avoid the negative feeling of professional incompetence) is to try to convince himself that the idea is impossible.

        Of course, the “right” way to act would be to discuss with colleagues, taking the above-mentioned difficulties as a collective challenge.

        • Omega Z

          I believe all the necessary information to replicate the E-cat is already public. Some details are missing that would require some trial & error efforts such as determining exact frequencies & such. But all the basics pretty much available.

          Problem is: It is scattered over about 4 years of blog data.
          You need about 100 experienced researchers to pull it all together.
          Also, they need to be capable of deciphering Rossi speak. 🙂
          On JONP, Rossi said the mouse/cat use the same charge. The mouse only works when the SSM is active.

          • Fortyniner

            Just a thought – the resistance heating coils (which may also be the source of an oscillating EM field) are made of ‘inconel’ (nichrome alloy) – the same stuff that the Celani wire was derived from. Is there any possibility that the wire itself, which may conceivably have been pre-treated in some way, also takes some other part in the operation of the overall system (‘mouse’ – COP=1.1?), or is the ‘Celani effect’ too small to be significant?

          • Omega Z

            I have no doubt the E-cat will be MORE then competitive. It will also work rain/shine, day/night, nor need battery storage. It will power trains plains & rocket ships & vast cargo ships. And it will likely span 40 or 50 years before replacement.

          • Omega Z

            If you should happen back here,
            I’m having some issues about exactly what the mouse is.
            It could possibly be the wires hence the COP=1.1?, However Rossi said that the mouse wasn’t activated in the test. It only functions in SSM
            From the report, we know SSM was not used in their statement- Off/On switching wasn’t used.
            I believe it also stated the the EM pulse also wasn’t in use.
            The continual evolution doesn’t help. When you think you got it. Here’s the new model.

            This reminds me, if you recall, The statement from the 2 people working with Rossi in Italy would come to Rossi & say here are the latest test results, And Rossi would respond, That’s great, Now Here’s the New device.

            I’m beginning to understand how they may have felt.

          • Fortyniner

            I have reply notification set up!

            Yes, this mouse thing is confusing. Rossi has said that the unit tested is the complete cat/mouse type, but as neither the switching pattern nor embedded frequency modulation were applied, I suppose that the ‘mouse’ part wasn’t functioning during the test, even though present.

            As to what exactly it is, the choices seem limited, unless there is some part of the test reactor that simply wasn’t disclosed.

            Unfortunately for my theory above, which Hank Mills also came up with, as others have pointed out, the operating temperature – especially the later, higher one – is well above the tolerance of Inconel wire. It seems likely therefore that the heating wires themselves must be made of tungsten, and only the busbars feeding them are made of Inconel.

            So the ‘heaters are the mouse’ theory is either dead in the water, and there is a hidden part of the reactor, OR, Rossi has found that tungsten wire (treated in some way?) is active in a LENR, and the theory is right.

            It seems very likely that much of the delay in settling on a design and going for production could well be a result of Rossi’s continual stream of new ideas. This may give rise to some tension with IH, who would probably like to roll out more ‘pilot plants’ but also don’t want to go with what rapidly become obsolete designs. They should probably just go with an easily upgradeable design and replace the reactors each time a significantly better design becomes available. Hopefully their ‘customer’ (more likely an IH-owned company I think) will see the intermittent downtime as a price worth paying.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi said point blank on JONP to a question that the Mouse wasn’t activated & only works during SSM. Combined with the report, I consider that pretty absolute.

            I don’t doubt the test results. I have many questions about the device. I doubt I’m alone in this.

            I need to double check JONP. Rossi said something to the effect,
            mouse & cat fuel are the same. Same as in one & the same?
            Or just of the same composition?
            In another post, Only the ash from the Cat was analyzed?

            Also Rossi wouldn’t let the professors study the internals of the reactor. it holds secrets. Makes me feel like a cat chasing it’s tail…

            Are we sure those striations are wires. Or just swirls in the slip used to make the reactor body. We know the professors thought they were wires, but then they weren’t allowed to see the internals. The photos were taken by cell phone from what I understand so it is hard to determine. I have some experience with ceramics & have seen striations similar to those in the photo’s. But still, They could be wires.

            I’m very curious of the bulbous ends. Nothing to see there. 🙁
            Much could be hidden. I also note, Steel cat: 3 Wires. We now have 6. 3 on each end. How many if any go from end to end!

          • Fortyniner

            OZ – replied, but the reply seems to have gone for some reason. Maybe it’ll reappear at some point.

          • Omega Z

            Yep, That’s about it.
            Now, Quit picking on me, Or the Great OZ will send the flying monkeys to pay you a visit. :-))
            And quit trying to peek behind the curtain. I may be standing there in my nothings. Shhh!

        • Zavod

          Yes, but their cooperative action would suggest that they don’t know it all, which is counter to the belief system of too many of the skeptics. They are not out to investigate honestly but to find some reason, any reason, to declare the tests bogus. Most “scientists” are not scientists so much as they are priests.

  • LENR For the Win
    Fuel/Ash analysis update

    My thinking on the fuel/ash has evolved now that I’ve had a chance to analyze Appendix 4 (mass fractions) in more detail. The surface only analysis was leading me in some wrong directions. The section is updated accordingly.

    Mind currently = blown, but the analysis is still tentative and in progress.

    Here’s a portion of it:

    As impossible as it seems, the E-Cat, according to the data presented, seems to generate Nickel-62 using non-Nickel-62, iron, aluminum and other metals as feed stock. In the ash the iron and aluminum fuel particles have been completely strip-mined, leaving only their carbon, oxygen and silicon metalloid cores. The original nickel isotopes (mainly Ni-58 and Ni-60) almost disappear completely, indicating that while some fuel nickel particles may serve as nucleation points (and hence some of the original isotopes survive in their interior), most are consumed as part of the reaction itself. Smaller amounts of manganese and magnesium meet the same fate.

  • Bernie777

    To all the old E-Cat followers here, I find this new test and all the criticism very ironic, remember the first tests, “cold steam”, ” batteries under t I’mhe cement floor”, “the ground wire is providing power”, for some it has become a religion to deny LENR. Dr Rossi, please bring on the customers as fast as you can!

    • And then? The customers is then a long year friend and also involved in this fraud. We need scientific replication in the masses!

    • Preston

      This latest test clearly targeted all the criticism of the test last year:

      1. Last year the test was done at Rossi’s location leading to all kinds of speculation about possible hidden power sources including Lasers, RF sources, hidden wires.. This test was done off site eliminating the chance of anything like that.

      2. Last year the AC waveform on the input may have been manipulated to fool the input power measurement. They checked for that during this test.

      3. Last year there was no dummy sample to show a null result but this time there was – this eliminates all kinds of potential equipment issues.

      4. Last year no analysis of the fuel or ash was provided. This time they provided a complete analysis.

      They clearly addressed all the questions in the previous test. It’s still not enough for some.

  • Private Citizen

    Where are we now?

    Strikes me the latest test, while exciting to this small circle, made less of a splash in the wider media than the first. Even ArXiv didn’t publish (to their enduring shame).

    We have a lot more intriguing evidence to ponder and debate, but no promise of a next move until the 1MW plant is revealed in upwards of 1 year.

    What really frustrates me is that in the year that it took to go from one basic test to another, Elon Musk has designed and commercialized several awesomely advanced rockets, a new manned space craft, new cutting edge electric vehicles, outlined plans for Mars colonization and designed publicly a hyper-speed commuter train.

    Darden, unlike Musk, doesn’t appear to be acting like either a good pitch man for his technology nor a good CEO of a company desiring rapid growth and media buzz. My challenge to Darden is to step up and put this technology on the front pages, immediately. Follow in the great tradition of Jobs and Musk, don’t settle for coy half-secret half-measures and slow toddling obscurity.

    Apologists doubtlessly will scold that i have no right to demand expedience, that all is right on track, secrecy is brilliant, vital and strategic. Very well, then. Still i remain impatient and critical of the PR moves thus far.

    • Fortyniner

      I understand and share your impatience, but…

      What is the purpose of commercial publicity? There seem to be only two possibilities; (a) to make a ‘pitch’ designed to attract investment, particularly from the public or small investment institutions and/or to attract potential business partners, or (b) to create a buzz around a product you are offering (in other words, marketing).

      But it is reasonable to assume that (a) IH already have all the investment they need from various backers and partners, and that (b) prototypes are still being developed and no product is available for sale. Therefore publicity would serve no purpose for IH, and in fact would be potentially disadvantageous as it might attract unwanted attention, and alert parties whose interests would be adversely affected.

      Tom Darden’s recent comments seem intended to downplay the importance of Rossi’s device as far as possible, and to muddy the water with equally weighted comments about solar power etc. – as if CF is just one of several avenues they are exploring, and of no particular importance. This might be expected if the third party test had been necessary for patent reasons, or was a contractual obligation to Rossi, but he would really prefer that the whole thing was now quietly forgotten for the time being.

  • GordonDocherty

    Here’s an idea for all genuine skeptics out there. Insist a patent be awarded for the device. There is now enough evidence for the patent to be awarded. This then allows for more disclosure. If you believe it (secretly) to be true, then you will have an answer. If, on the other hand, you believe it (secretly) to be false, you will also have an answer.

    • Tom59

      I hope the patent authorities will be impressed by this (non) publication, but i have my doubts…

  • Daniel Maris

    So you’re saying the test should have been carried out without any involvement by Rossi whatsoever? Of course we know if that happened what you would next say – there should be no involvement of Rossi’s associates. And if that condition was met, you would say the machine has to be built with no involvement of Rossi or his associates. And if that condition was met you would say that the catalyst would have to be made by someone else…and so it goes on.

  • Christopher Calder

    In the Mats Lewan interview, Mats stated that most breakthrough inventions usually come to life in multiple places around the globe, no doubt because the collective human knowledge of science grows and new ideas become obvious to more and more people. Waiting for more Rossi news stories sounds like a long haul bore, but remember that more shocking news stories will be coming long before the installed 1 megawatt E-Cat reactor is certified as ready for mass production. I expect big news to be coming from Canada, Southern California, and Europe very soon.

  • bitplayer

    What is real?

    A framework for considering skeptical comments:
    > We only know reality through mental models, or metaphors (saints and similars excepted, of course)
    > The most effective metaphors (in terms of everyday human values) are based on a foundational metaphor, namely that reality can be most reliably and effectively described as network of causes and effects (which are also just metaphors for our cumulative experience of billiard balls, etc.)
    > These causes and effects can be subdivided into smaller causes and effects and added together into larger causes and effects.
    > This network of causes and effects hypothetically explains everything between the Big Bang and quantum foam.
    > Our best possible knowledge of reality consists of knowing the entire such network of causes and effects.
    > Physics is a set of metaphors that sits on top of the metaphor of a network of causes and effects.
    > Physics is incomplete; it does not explain everything that it observed in the network of causes and effects (Big Bang, consciousness, dark energy, dark matter, insufficient cosmological Li7, etc)

    ==> Our belief about whether a phenomena is real is largely determined by:
    a) the reality that we assign the causes and effects directly associated with that phenomena
    b) the degree to which the phenomena fits within the overall network of causes and effects
    c) certain “shorthand” techniques including tending to believe something is real based on the reputation and motives of people who assert that it is real
    d) how important the reality of a phenomena is to us personally at the moment

    So, regarding skeptical comments.

    ==> Skeptical comments either assert or infer the reality of a phenomena. The existence of this phenomena is further asserted or inferred to contradict the target of the skepticism
    ==> The following tests can be applied to all such comments.
    Test 1: Any phenomena that is claimed or inferred to exist that cannot be sub-divided into smaller causes and effects has to be questioned as to whether is it real
    Test 2: Any phenomena that is claimed or inferred to be real that cannot be reconciled with the associated sub-area of the network of causes and effects has to be questioned as to whether it is real.

    > If the skeptically asserted phenomena fails either or both of these tests then it cannot be considered “strongly real” in the sense of being the basis for reasoned doubt.

    > Skeptical assertion (“Rossi handled the samples, therefore Rossi could have manipulated the samples) Inference (“Because Rossi could have manipulated the samples, the entire experiment is illegitimate”).
    Test 1: (“How exactly did Rossi manipulate the samples? What is a cause and effect pathway by which any such manipulation could have affected the basic outcome of the experiment?”
    Test 2: (“Can the idea that Rossi manipulated the samples in some way that was sufficient to change the basic experimental outcomes be reconciled with the conviction and reputations of the investigators and of the principals of IH and of all known information about LENR and Rossi?”)

    > Skeptical assertion (“Transmutation in the ash cannot be real because it does not follow known Physics”)

    Test 1 (“What is the relationship between ‘known physics’ and the phenomena observed in the experiment, beyond sociological?”)

    Test 2 (“What makes ‘known physics’ a basis for eliminating phenomena from being real, when ‘known physics; cannot explain all phenomena?”

    It finally gets down to element d: “how important the reality of a phenomena is to us personally at the moment”. We are easily swayed by our emotions. However, Tests 1 and 2 are ALWAYS available to run on ANY phenomena. In the final analysis, it’s not whether something is real or not. It’s whether there really is one more beer in the fridge when we think there it.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    On Vortex, Jed raised the question why the alumina rod does not glow white in report picture ([email protected]/msg98514.html). Maybe the reason is that alumina is white (reflective in optical), in other words, it couples weakly to optical wavelengths, which by Kirchhoff’s law (spectral emissivity=spectral absorptivity) means that it also emits weakly in optical. A spectral emissivity curve at 880 K (, Figure 2) which shows that emissivity at optical is indeed much less than at some infrared.

    • Freethinker

      Related to this there have been a discussion of the transparency of the generator and the cable rods in some fora (in sweden). I don’t know if that is unheard of here, already debunked or what, but I tried to check it oout myself. The transmission curves I found on Al2O3 has a distinct cut-off around 6 micron to 0 transmission (That I suspect depends on the sintering and the particle size) and it went on to 10 micron. I don’t know what is to be expected further out. The IR cameras, both are stated to work at 7.5-13 microns spectral range, so my take on that is that both the rods and the reactor chamber are opaque in the range where the IR cams operates. Any thoughts on that?

  • Arnie

    The authors first mention that a bushing is to be removed to insert fuel and remove ash. But later on they write that the cap is opened in both cases.
    I think this is important. Why?
    The main lesson of this test is that an extraordinary amount of energy was produced.
    That is the message the world should ponder upon, but the critical voices are focusing on the ash analysis, which is understandable, since they have no way of explaining the mysterious energy.
    If I was Rossi, I would try to confuse my competitors in all the ways I could figure out. One would be misleading them with false information on what happens inside the reactor. Tampering with the ash would be one way to do this. This would show the world that I really have something, but without diclosing how!
    I think doing this in the presence of the professors would be really difficult, or at least it would be a huge risk. What would happend if I was caught in the act? It would be the end of everything. Definitely not worth it.
    So I would fill the reactor in advance with some fake ash. Nothing will happen when they do the dummy test, but when the fuel is inserted the reaction will start as usual.
    When the reactor is emptied, there is a good chance that the fake ash is analyzed. If some real ash is analyzed, so be it, but that will not risk my reputation, only some advantage for my competitors.
    Did this happen?
    If the reactor cap was removed before the test, they would have seen the fake ash. If only the 4 mm hole for the bushing was opened, they probably would not.
    So the answer to the ash riddle is hidden in the answer to the question: was the whole cap or only the 4 mm bushing hole opened. The report does not really say

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      This will lead nowhere.

      Why not just accept that the test was genuine and the report solid?

      • Arnie

        This is really frustrating. Did you really read my post? How can you get the idea I am one of the trolls? I am NOT questioning the report. And I am for the record pro Rossi and have been so since the first tests, for reasons that I try to base upon logic reasoning.
        I do not like blind belief in any side of life. Too many persons are blind beliers, whether they are against or pro. But on the against side there seems to be almost only blind believers, perhaps out of pride and stubbornness refusing to listen to logic.
        So what I tried to do in my post was to present a way of reasoning that , depending on the answer to the question, either smashes the criticism of the analysis into pieces, or provides a more logical explanation than that of persons like professor Pomp

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          Hi Arnie,

          Well, here we go then; the points from your original post:

          About the 4mm bushing hole from the report:
          “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. ”

          This is a scientific report. They don’t say cap when they mean a 4mm bushing hole. Could well be the e-cat was destroyed through that action.

          Then you go on about the misleading Rossi should do in your opinion and this is where it leads to nowhere:

          “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.”

          “All phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration”
          Already it is clear Rossi could not have cheated since ALL phases of he test were monitored.

          From the report about the fueled test run:
          “After 23 hours’ operation, the dummy reactor was switched off and disconnected from the power cables, to allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted. The powder had been previously
          placed in a small envelope, weighed (about 1 g), and then transferred to a test tube so that Bianchini could perform radioactivity measurements on it, after placing it in a low background lead well. Lastly, the contents of the test tube were poured inside the reactor, in the presence of a member of the experimental team. The leads were reconnected and the cap sealed with a mixture of water and alumina powder cement. The E-Cat was placed once again on its metal frame, and power was fed to it, the voltage being increased in progressive steps.”

          “Lastly, the contents of the test tube were poured inside the reactor, in the presence of a member of the experimental team.”
          Rossi couldn’t mess with the powder in any what. It says so explicitly in the report.

          You then state that there is a good chance that fake ash is analyzed and you question if that happened.

          First: the report should make it clear to you that Rossi didn’t cheat with the fuel. He could have given them less potent fuel to begin with, but I seriously doubt that. Wouldn’t matter for the report anyway; nuclear isotopes were found.

          Second: Cheating theories have been done to death and are contrary to the test reports. Reports done by some very skeptical professors.

          Third: Trying to scam those professors would, if detected, lead to an instant failure of the test and that would probably lead to Rossi not getting his patent. The risk for Rossi is much to big. I’m will use a simple version of Occams Razor: Simple is usually right. In this case: Rossi didn’t cheat with the ashes.

          Lastly: Nowhere did I make you out as a troll, neither do I think you are. I just don’t think this is a healthy conversation.

          I would rather we discuss the facts of the report and not possible fake scenario’s. It leads to nowhere.

    • Omega Z

      There is “NO” Cap. All you need is a little Logic.
      What you & others may find questionable has reason behind it.
      I’ll try & make a post about some of this on the replicate E-cat page where persons like you may see it rather on a thread that will soon be forgotten… Watch for it.

      • Arnie

        “Persons like me”?
        What kind of a person am I? I have followed Rossi since soon four years.(I am Swedish and read about it in Ny Teknik) I have read almost every post on jonp since then. I have sometimes commented, but I have regretted it every time, because there have been people like you there, attacking persons instead of reasoning. Especially unnecessary in this case, as we are on the same side…

        • Freethinker

          Same side?

          You spend 323 words on pointing out different ways Rossi may have scammed the testers by manipulating the ash or fuel.

          “The report does not really say”

          Sure, we are on the same side… Not.

          • Arnie

            You still did not read my comment. See my answer to zed below.

          • Arnie

            Obviously, the testers opened the cap. That is what the report says. That means there is no way there could be a scam. IF they did not, no one can prove there was anything in the reactor before the test started. If someone still argues for that, I could say that “I don’t think he did, but so what if? it would have been a smart thing to do, if he did not want to disclose sensitive information.” The main point of the report is anyway that anomalous energy is produced. Don’t let them move focus from that!

          • Andreas Moraitis

            To me, the isotopic analysis appears to be the most important part. There could still be some error regarding the measurement of energy, but the shifts in the isotopic composition are indisputable. That’s why some people came up quickly with the sleight of hand ‘argument’. If any trick could be ruled out, the skeptics would have lost the battle. Your considerations might be helpful with respect to this.

          • Omega Z

            The E-cat has No Cap.
            The fuel was poured through the thermocouple bushing & cemented shut.
            To remove the ash, they cut the e-cat open with a diamond saw to extract the ash for analysis.
            This particular version of e-cat appears to be disposable rather then reusable.

            “People like you” that didn’t read the report or skimmed it missing a portion of the info given. What I posted above was in the report.

    • bfast

      Your suggestion that Rossi should cheat in a scientific test is ridiculous. It would be reasonable for him to have declared the ash “off limits” for “trade secret” reasons. But if he tampered with the ash it is wrong, it is destructive to his own efforts.

      The problem that exists is that in the past some very weird “ash” results were reported. That report is best explained by “spiking”. This brings suspicion on Rossi. It causes the observer to believe that he is so determined to see evidence in the ash that he is willing to make it happen.

      I am terribly disappointed, especially in light of the above suspicion, that the experimenters allowed Rossi to add the fuel, or extract the ash. I am sure that Rossi has the real thing. I do not know how he could have faked the heat. I reject all armchair quarterbacks’ conjectures of error in the heat analysis. However, I think that the ash analysis must be taken with suspicion.

  • LuFong

    Reminds me of another company…

    >Andrea Rossi
    >October 11th, 2014 at 8:48 PM
    >Daniel G.Zavela:
    >As a matter of fact, we already have a plant of 1 MW made for a
    >Customer. For all the next 12-14 months my only and sole focus will be
    >on it: it is the milestone that signals the first commercial product
    >based on LENR ( or QUAR, as my friend Renato Estri likes to say) in the
    >free market.

    >The success of this plant goes beyond anything else, and nothing will
    >take a single hour of my work but it from now through the end of 2015.
    >Also my activity of R&D will be focused on it. All my great team is
    >focused on it.
    >Warm Regards,

    Not even a single hour! Sounds like things aren’t going well and Rossi’s had enough. And you thought the wait for the “6 month” report was bad. Let’s hope someone replicates this thing so we can get to the bottom of what’s going on because it won’t be from Rossi (commercial product, theory of E-Cat, visitable plants, mass market production, yada yada yada).

    • I bet a group or two has already started on some replication however we can not necessarily expect them all to be very open about it.

      • bachcole

        We also can’t expect them to successful. Remember the last time that we expected replication?

      • LuFong

        Well the MFMP has indicated they might try and they are the epitome of openness. I have more hope now that the E-Cat will be definitively publicly validated in the near term through some outside party than through Rossi. But I’m not very hopeful because even if the E-Cat works as claimed, Rossi’s efforts and words show that the engineering and operation is not so trivial. If it were he’d have succeeded in demonstrating the system by now and have commercial products, IMO. Here’s to MFMP and anyone else who is willing to try!

        • Daniel Maris

          Lu Pong speak with forked tongue.

    • Omega Z

      Your being overly critical for something that is a normal everyday process.

      Apple develops a new iPhone, produces many prototype or pilot versions distributed among employees & technicians. For 6 to 12 months or so, they use them to fix gllches/bugs before any become available to the consumer.

      AND GLORY BE, Look at the issues that pop up after all that.
      Updates over & over after it goes to market. On any given day, 10 million vehicles are on the recall list. Both products that have years or decades of history for guidance…

      And You rant about Rossi spending a year focusing on a technology that has No History. Something that mainstream wont even look at.

      Hot Fusion: Hundreds of Billion$ & 50+ years & maybe after many billions$ more & another 20 years or more, Maybe, Just Maybe they will make breakeven. Now This is something worth Ranting about.

      Speaking of time, Do you realize it took over 6 years from the lab to market for the 1st Iphone. All based on existing technology. And the concept & study started several years before it made it to the lab. In comparison, Rossi is moving quite quickly. Give it a break…

    • Daniel Maris

      Lu Wrong –

      1. I suspect you’re not Italian.

      2. Darden can read you know.

      3. Rossi is not the whole of IH.

      • LuFong

        Why the personal attack?

        • Fortyniner

          I wonder if the same accusation might apply to you.

  • Omega Z

    Actually, The test is quite good. It is the attacks that got worse.
    I at least expected this. You could see this coming over the last several weeks. They were preparing their positions for attacks. What would have been shocking is if they hadn’t launched the attacks.

    A Different Perspective-
    A lack of attacks would have meant
    They had given up. Not Likely.
    Or the test was so obviously bad or failed it wasn’t necessary to attack.

    IMHO, The viciousness of the attacks bodes well for this test.
    I see it as proof the test has a lot of merit requiring the opposition to take action & attack it from every angle. Smell the Fear.

  • LuFong

    I’ve been following the E-Cat saga very closely for over three years now and am very aware of all of Rossi’s statements. In some regard he is no different than many entrepreneurs who have over promised and under-delivered, even the successful ones. What one has to do is adjust one expectations based on what is said and what is done. As I’ve said previously Rossi *probably* has discovered some kind of LENR effect. He is now trying to commercialize and capitalize ($$$) on it and has not yet managed to do it. Given his recent performance I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon. Maybe in 5-10 years. Maybe not at all.

    • Fortyniner

      Ah – so a new clean energy source exists, is under active development and has been verified under stringent test conditions, but this is of so little importance that the device ‘may’ amount to something in a decade or so, or ‘may’ just slip unnoticed into obscurity. Do you really expect anyone to take such disingenuous nonsense seriously?

    • Freethinker

      “What one has to do is adjust one’s expectations based on what is said and what is done.”

      Is that what one has to do? Really?
      I would think not. There has been done plenty.

      What we have here now is an invention, with two scientific reports (they are scientific by virtue of it being established and renowned scientists performing and leading the tests and authoring the reports), showing clearly a positive result.

      It does not matter how much muck pathological skeptics try to throw at it, because there is yet no skeptic that has manage to put forth a complaint that nullify the results. And there have been plenty of ideas what was made wrong, I’m sure you know.

      So what is it with this pessimistic outlook of yours? He has already capitalized. He will continue to capitalize, as he develops the ECAT further. His work has also prompted ELFORSK to initiate LENR research in Sweden.

      This is moving along.

  • Daniel Maris

    NTAK’s posts are like mosquitoes that don’t bite. Irrelevant.

  • LuFong

    By my count 3. The first probably to the US Navy. Probably got paid and it’s sitting in a warehouse somewhere. It’s not unusual for the US DOD to fund advanced technology (moonshots) like this only to mothball them. The second shipped to Virginia and from there who knows. My guess to IH or some customer and is probably sitting around somewhere never paid for since it probably didn’t work as required. It may have gotten Rossi his IH deal though. The third is the current one and probably to the same location as the second one was intended. IH has not been paid for this as well and is the one Rossi is counting on to establish commercial credibility.

    This is all based on my reading of what Rossi has said in public or revealed by posters on blogs such as this.

  • Fortyniner

    Where we are right now is… independent tests funded by major institutions have now proved beyond doubt that the e-cat works and has incredible potential – just as Rossi has been saying.

    As – yet again – what he has been saying has proven to be true, why would anyone other than a forum troll suggest that this will not be the case for the industrialisation process that Rossi has been describing, within the commercial limitations placed on him?

  • curious

    There are people arguing that the test results are impossible because the inconel wires would have melted inside the reactor.

    The question is: nobody had checked if the internal resistors are inconel. It could make sense to use other material -graphite perhaps-, and inconel for the electrical leads. And any engineer working on the design would realize they could not use inconel at those temperatures.

    • There’s lots of different Inconel cable alloys having different properties including different temperature sensitivities. It’d be useful to know which one is used in the reactor.

  • Donk970

    I’ve been following this for awhile now and I have to say that there is a distinct note of desperation in this paper written by the Swedish professors as well as responses from other skeptics. One has to wonder why these people are so desperate to show that the E-Cat is a hoax.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Because Rossi had neither the pedigree nor the multibillion dollar funding that the physics establishment had for the path 60 years and succeeded were they FAILED.

      But no, they aren’t overwrought with envy.

      They’re just being “responsible”.

      Their jealousy is palpable.

      Can they just face that fact and get over it?

      • Alan DeAngelis

        I provided them with a typo they can ruminate over.

        PAST 60 years

  • Curbina

    Dr. Brian Ahern had deep doubts about the chose of instruments for calorimetry in the report. He queried an expert, and the expert answer is probably going to be a huge relief for many of us here: the choice was perfect.[email protected]/msg98594.html

  • Fortyniner

    This is a valid query, and a robust conclusion. The obvious material for hight temperature resistance windings is probably tungsten – melting point: 3,422 °C.

  • Fortyniner

    It’s fascinating how trolls seek to construct an alternative reality from small quibbles, while ignoring obvious reality. The recent test was designed to establish whether or not Rossi’s reactor produces excess heat, and this is exactly what the results demonstrated.

    The fact that analysis of a tiny sample of ‘ash’ produced a result that even Rossi has said is anomolous doesn’t affect the main finding of the experiment one iota. There is no ‘smoking gun’, there is only an as-yet unexplained isotopic analysis that could be a result of unequal distribution of elements in the ash, or some entirely new physics. The story about a purchase of Ni-62 is simply unverified tittle tattle from a known pathological skeptic and enemy of Rossi, now repeated by yet another troll in an attempt to introduce uncertainty and doubt.