One Week after the E-Cat Report, the Story Awaits Final Resolution

It’s been over a week now since the publication of the Lugano E-Cat report, and we’ve had lots of discussion and analysis here and elsewhere about the results that have been reported.

If people were expecting the world in general to finally open its eyes and accept that LENR/Cold Fusion is a new and superior energy source, I expect they have been disappointed. We have seen that there has been at best a muted reception to the report by the world’s media, and most critics of the E-Cat are still in the same camp, even after this new report, raising various objections.

I think there has been some new interest in LENR generated by the report, and it seems that many people, according to the poll running here on ECW, have an increased level of confidence in the validity of the E-Cat. Traffic stats here at E-Cat World show that there are at least twice as many users visiting the site as before the release of the report — but that traffic is variable, and could drop off over time. But I think the audience of people paying attention to this story is still relatively small.

What will it take for a general acceptance of LENR’s reality? I think Andrea Rossi is right. He has always said that only a product working in the market will change the views of critics, and cause widespread attention. Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Rossi repeated his position:

The 1 MW plant in the factory of the Customer should be the first stone of the commercial breakthrough, and a commercial breakthrough resolves all the discussions: in the late seventies the “experts” used to say that the idea to produce computers for “housewifes” was ridiculous and technologically impossible. Whatever they are saying now is totally insignificant, as well as what they said in the past.
The Sword will annichilate them.

It sounds like we will have another wait ahead of us when it comes to seeing this plant. Rossi is talking about at least a year, so E-Cat watchers will be back in a familiar holding pattern of waiting.

One thing that I think could get some more attention would be if someone were to carry out a successful replication of something similar to the E-Cat. I know there are some efforts underway in this area — Elforsk says they will begin research into LENR, and the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project are discussing a replication effort — and perhaps some that we are not aware of. There are more clues to work with following the release of this report, but still no straightforward instruction. But smart persistent people with curious minds (and time and money), could make a breakthrough here.

So the story continues without a full conclusion. My own response to the test is that it is another piece of evidence in favor of the E-Cat, but I cannot hold it forward as ‘proof’ that the technology works, even if I am personally convinced that it does. In some ways I am glad that there will not be yet another public third party E-Cat report (according to what Rossi has said). The wait is always tedious, and there is always plenty to debate over. And once the test is done, it’s done. The way these tests are set up, there’s no way for the testers to go back to the lab and re-check something, since they are reliant upon Rossi/Industrial Heat for the reactors.

I hope the next E-Cat that will be revealed will be the one operating in the factory of Rossi’s customer.

  • Ophelia Rump

    “The Sword will annichilate them.’

    Oopsey!

    You said you cannot hold the test as proof that LENR works. Why not?
    They tested twice, what in your opinion invalidates or potentially invalidates the test?
    What could possibly have caused them to measure accurately the dummy load and failed by 300% on the test load?

    If you cannot justify disqualification of the testing, you are obliged to accept the test as a reasonable preliminary proof of concept. If this is not the standard, then nothing can ever be proven, and we should abandon science as a pointless exercise.

    Most of science hangs upon a standard in fractions of percents validation. 300% is an extreme proof.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      I think just about everyone here agrees that LENR works (even the naysayers) but I don’t think it’s ready for mass production and sales. Apparently IH doesn’t believe it’s ready for prime-time either. Once it’s proven failsafe, trouble-free, and affordable it’ll be katy-bar-the-door.

      • Ophelia Rump

        You are a very reasonable person Iggy Dalrymple.

        • Who Iggy??? (just kidding Ig.)

          • Ophelia Rump

            Sh, I was taunting him.

      • clovis ray

        katy-bar-the-door
        😉

      • kenko

        Maybe IH and Rossi are being too careful/perfectionists. There will always be problems to overcome. It might be ready now in certain applications..

    • bachcole

      There is no absolute proof of physical things. Mathematics can be proven.

      • Ophelia Rump

        You are correct, absolutely!

        • bachcole

          Yeah, but you can’t prove it. (:->)

    • Sanjeev

      Agreed, this test is a reasonable proof for me at least. If you try to be perfectionist, its 99.9% true that ECat works and its a nuclear energy source.

      If you compare to other scientific discoveries the confidence value for Ecat will touch sky. E.g. the Higgs boson shows up in only a few out of billions of data points ! Compare that with excess energy table in the report, all COP readings are above 3….continously for 32 days, millions of data points. Yet Higgs is a fact and Ecat is not proved… well….psychological biases at work here, not scientific method.

      Anyway this report was not for proving to public or scientific community the truth of ECat or lenr, its most probably to get a patent and convince the investors (or Chinese gov). It is certainly not an attempt to convince the msm reporters or abusive internet users, so who cares if they are not convinced. They will be the most bitter lot after all.

      For next milestones, I’m looking forward to a formal announcement by IH, some big corp jumping in and announcing a Ecat based power plant, the customer and a visit for selected people or something totally unexpected good news.

      • people should also note that E-cat is not extraordinary.
        it is an LENr reactor, and LENR is proven science, according to the scientific method.
        that consensus oppose have no value, it is proven…

        this does not mean E-ca is real.
        the two independent test with testers having full control of the reactor while the running, installing the instruments, show that there is no fraud… because it would be too risky.
        and it was done 2 times… that is a replication of non fraud.

        the calorimetry could be discussed both time, but not the same way. first calorimetry was better, but the doubt about fraud accused the power in. now that we know E-cat is honest, we can trust the TPR1 on the calorimetry… it worked.

        the second reactor is different, and the calibration was not at the good temperature, at 450C instead of 1250-1400C… logic since you would need to inject 3000W of electricity in a device designed for 1kW…
        anyway the testers should have calibrated after the test with a new dummy, (but would it be a dummy?)…

        I propose a way to solve the problem.

        proof ad absurdum.

        assume E-cat is COP1.
        assume dummy is a manipulation, drop the test.

        start with the react at 1250C/800W say it is the real calibration… since the COP is 1 it is one.

        then increase by +100W(12%) and see the temperature. it should increase by less than 45C (3% because Pout=xT^4+yT)…

        note that between 1200 and 1500 the emissivity of alumina don’t change much

        it increased by 150C (+10%), showing there is excess heat. QED

        another point is that if you compute the effective emissivity assuming the COP is1, you get a ridiculous emissivity of 10%, which have to go down to explain the step…

        anyway too bad the testers did not calibrate well…

        deniers cannot make computation of that kind, since they don’t want to find the reality…

        • Sanjeev

          Actually this happened during testing, they got a proof of non-linearity when the input was increased by approx 100W the output jumped by approx 700W.
          See Table 7. Row 5 and 6.

          Unfortunately we do not have the power on data and heat after death data. It would have made it totally clear. I hope they provide it. Someone should ask them if possible on that “ask a question thread” on your forum.

      • bachcole

        Sanjeev, I love your comparison. When discussing Higgs boson (something I look forward to whenever I wake up with extremely keen anticipation {sarcasm}), we can always say, “Hey, it is less likely than cold fusion.” (:->)

        • Sanjeev

          Quoting from this link :

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-find-a-higgs-boson/

          “the total cost of finding the Higgs boson ran about $13.25 billion.”

          So after more than a decade and $13 billion, they found something so airy-fairy that no one knows what it is and why it is. Not to mention that it did not benefit even one ant on the whole Earth. There is no hope that anyone else will replicate it in near or far future, and its existence must be based on total faith in a handful of tiny noisy peaks on a graph of billions of random data peaks.

          • bachcole

            Very nice perspective balancing. Artful, masterful!!!

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “Annichilate” is when a chef uses a blade to rapidly chop stuff into ittybitty pieces.

      • bachcole

        Nice to see you, Iggy.

      • Ophelia Rump

        It turns out to be a correct spelling, in Italian.

  • Daniel Maris

    Well, yes, Rossi is right that only marketisation will resolve this issue. From a personal view I am pleased we are leaving behind the era of testing and moving into a new era.

    That said, the fact Rossi has given himself a year before there is any chance of seeing the 1MW in operation, will raise suspicions. This is why I say it would be good to hear more than a snippet from IH e.g. some assurances from Darden that he has seen the 1MW in operation and that the customer is to some extent satisfied.

    In terms of the test, as expected, it’s come under some very hard pounding. But it’s still there. Why Arvix or some medium status science journal won’t give it house room seems to me an indication that there is an attempt at suppression. Please don’t mention replication – the idea that you can realistically attempt a replication from most scientific papers is pure fantasy. There has probably been a special attempt to keep it out of publication, because of the connection with the patent application.

    And Rossi remains unprosecuted and out of jail…despite I am sure some formal complaints to bodies with oversight.

    • Sanjeev

      If its an attempt at suppression, its a very weak attempt.
      Arxiv.org is no authority, in fact it hosts a lot of junk. At most it looks like a cowardly attempt to stay away from any controversy. Some old man there decided that its best to protect his job rather than host a potentially false report.
      It will be nearly impossible to suppress Ecat or lenr now.

  • bob-v

    Sorry, but what did we expect from A.R.’s words during the last year:

    New members in the test team
    7 Profs from 3 continents
    Peer review by other 7 profs.
    Reputable magazine to publish the report
    New implications of the usability of the HOT-cat
    Presentation of the report on a high level with Tom Darden involved.
    Any perspective for the commercial use of HOT-cat tec

    What did we see then:

    Levi and band again,
    no word about proof, but only observation
    no peer review again
    no publication in any reputable form
    no word about the future of the HOT-cat
    A.R. saying “I will put my complete team for 12-14 month into my only project”, because he has to bring the old LOWTEMP-cat to efficiency.

    Sorry, but inspite off my personal believe in the e-cat, I can fully understan, that MSM skips this test as the last, as long as the real player TOM DARDEN will have his coming-out in a loud and proud statement. What he told to the local press was a bunch of nothing!

    • psi2u2

      “What he told to the local press was a bunch of nothing!”

      Do you think its possible that he wanted it that way?

      • Omega Z

        I agree.
        Even if the MSM were to take interest, they would be asking questions that would not be answered.

        How does the E-cat it Work? We can not discuss what happens of the internal workings of E-cat.

        When do you expect to begin full production? We can not give that information until we have consolidated the data from the 1 year of operation of the 1Mw Pilot Plant.

        Where is this pilot plant? We can not disclose that information. Our customer does not want to be interrupted. He wants to work in piece.
        End of Interview.

        Rossi/IH are no where near ready for this discussion & the headaches that would come with it. It would be very disruptive to the development of the technology at this time. They would find themselves surrounded by Paparazzi.

        I’m not sure the MSM will ever give it that much attention myself. I think this may just evolve quietly from a public point of view. Corporations will have the big interest. But, Rossi/IH have to take the above scenario into serious consideration. It would be problematic.

    • MarcIrvin

      Thank you for your candor. I have been a staunch supporter. I feel as you do. That the recent events are a let down. That nature of the report is nothing like what we were lead to expect. That is a fact. I have lost all credibility with my friends and wife even. Its not about me, however, so I and the rest of are now forced to wait. The report could have easily been a resounding success. The three main facts that critics have used to stifle and ultimately scuttle this report were: 1) Rossi handled the critical fuel. 2) Testers were Rossi collaborators 3) it lacked a bona fide peer review. For months and months I got the impression that the testers would anticipate the critics and the obvious slurs mitigated. Not! I am up for another round of waiting, and from the overall lack of any criticism so are we all. .

      • Sanjeev

        Welcome to the real world. Here things do not always happen as planned.
        We can only be grateful to the reporters for whatever little we know.

        Why do you think they even mentioned that Rossi handled the ash if they are partners in crime ? It would make more sense to simply omit that part from the report so that no one suspects.

        I do not understand the skeptic’s reasoning, perhaps they are not skeptics.

  • Sean

    Lockheed Martin Fusion appearing as big news in the U.K. Sound like they want to beat the rest and supply the utilities. Only Ecat can be the solution for true energy freedom for the individual. I am prepared to wait for a year Re. 1MW. But hey, lets get some small units made up. Can anyone else duplicate or experiment with this technology?. There are a lot of smart people on this board.

  • Sean

    Lockheed Martin Fusion appearing as big news in the U.K. Sound like they want to beat the rest and supply the utilities. Only Ecat can be the solution for true energy freedom for the individual. I am prepared to wait for a year Re. 1MW. But hey, lets get some small units made up. Can anyone else duplicate or experiment with this technology?. There are a lot of smart people on this board.

  • Christina

    I hope that in a year IH has reactors working in more than one factory if this test was to prove to investors that the e-cat works.

    I understand from what was written here that starting a new factory with a new technology is a herculean task, but once the nitty-gritty of e-cat/factory intertwining is understood, can’t they move on to other factories within the coming year because by now many people tat IH must know as much or will soon know as much as Mr. Rossi? So can’t IH move it’s operations to more factories?

    I realize that they also must do R&D, patent research, and they probably have a lot of other concerns they must address, but can’t they multiply the use of the e-cat in order to comply with the reg that says a new tech must be in production a while before home systems of that tech are sold so that, by 2020 at the latest, those of us with enough money can buy home e-cats?

    Just wondering!

    Have a great day and may God bless you!

    Christina

  • Hank Mills

    Replication is all that matters now. If a third party group is not able to produce a self sustaining, high temperature E-Cat, we will be waiting for years for more information from Industrial Heat. Once there is a successful replication and the plans are posted, a flood of replications will result. This must be the top priority of the Cold Fusion community.

    • jousterusa

      I hope SRI and Michael McKubre, or Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz at MIT, will take up the challenge!

    • morse

      How is replication possible if Rossi is not giving his sauce (catalyst) to the public?
      Or am I missing something here?

      • There are almost certainly many ways to skin this ‘cat’. Just the knowledge that cold fusion is real will probably be enough. It is no longer a question of ‘If’ but of ‘How’ – and there are plenty of clues.

      • bachcole

        There are lots and lots of somethings that you are missing, but none of them discount your point. Rossi does not want to reveal his catalyst because he wants/needs a patent for the purposes of making a profit. But the patent office won’t give him a patent because the New Fire is not real to them and he won’t reveal his catalyst so that other people can replicate it. It is sort of a catch-22, except that Rossi is just going for commercialization and to hell with the academics and the Patent Office.

  • Herb Gillis

    I think Rossi, or one of his competitors who observed isotope ratio changes (ie. Brilloin), should file for a patent on a low cost method of synthesizing 62Ni. That would be easy to prove now based on the latest report, and I suspect easy to replicate as many times as necessary. If the Patent Office continues to take the position that the invention is not operative then the applicant would have strong basis to sue for the claim in Federal court. Once the synthesis claim is granted then the door has been blown open to other LENR claims.

  • Freethinker

    We now have two reports, both positive, both indicating >3 times more energy out than what goes in. Energy density orders of magnitude larger than conventional sources, clearly indicating a nuclear process. This time we had the isotopic distribution of the ash as extra confirmation.

    It is my very distinct conclusion that this is confirmed. I have yet to see an argument that cannot be readily explained or atleast does not significantly dent the claims.

    As I find no counter claims that will nullify the claims there made, I conclude it not nullified, ergo enough evidence.

    It is time for reproduction, and right now MFMP is the best bet for an open and transparent process, where everyone can watch, and perhaps even contribute.

    It would ofcourse be a good thing also to get a clear definition on what ELFORSK really ment by supporting LENR research. Maybe there lurk some reproduction activity in the plans there, already now. Maybe it will be more transparent? But who, where and how?

    • Ophelia Rump

      An ELFORSK funded replication seems like a grand idea. I wonder if IH would provide full disclosure?

      I also have to wonder how the report “must” be handled by the Patent Office.
      Surely they will treat the report and the patent application as they are required and not one bit more. Perhaps someone here knows.

    • clovis ray

      Very well put, i agree, freethinker

    • Sanjeev

      When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
      – Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four

      Vattenfall is another good choice for replication. They are enthusiastic about it and can employ the Ecat plants in their grid after an agreement with IH.

      • bachcole

        And there is an excellent chance that Elforsk or Vattenfall (and the Chinese) already know everything that there is to know about the E-Cat.

  • jousterusa

    “The Sword will annichilate (sic) them” is a reference to the very obscure works of a 16th Century writer named Thomas Lodge (1523 – ?), incorporated by reference by Dante Aligheri, a great Italian poet. It suggests that Rossi has ab education of greater depth than most have suspected.
    And operhaps the same flair for the dramatic! There are also abundant Biblical parallels, to which I suspect both Lodge and Dante are indebted..

    See:
    “http://books.google.com/books?id=qFEeAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=The+Sword+will+annichilate+them.&source=bl&ots=BNQOS2LnrF&sig=1ZVmsZpPQd0tyXlWoOlAairkZGM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tkJAVOqiBc_GggTFpIK4BQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20Sword%20will%20annichilate%20them.&f=false”

    • psi2u2

      I have always detected in Rossi’s statements a significance knowledge of literature and philosophy, so this is no surprise.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi in his statement “The Sword will annihilate them” came about in responding to a comment from “orsobubu” who referred to the Alumina Hot cat appears similar to the Jedi Lightsaber’s handle.

  • jousterusa

    “The Sword will annichilate (sic) them” is a reference to the very obscure works of a 16th Century writer named Thomas Lodge (1523 – ?), incorporated by reference by Dante Aligheri, a great Italian poet. It suggests that Rossi has ab education of greater depth than most have suspected.
    And operhaps the same flair for the dramatic! There are also abundant Biblical parallels, to which I suspect both Lodge and Dante are indebted..

    See:
    “http://books.google.com/books?id=qFEeAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=The+Sword+will+annichilate+them.&source=bl&ots=BNQOS2LnrF&sig=1ZVmsZpPQd0tyXlWoOlAairkZGM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tkJAVOqiBc_GggTFpIK4BQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=The%20Sword%20will%20annichilate%20them.&f=false”

    • psi2u2

      I have always detected in Rossi’s statements a significant knowledge of literature and philosophy, so this is no surprise.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi in his statement “The Sword will annihilate them” came about in responding to a comment from “orsobubu” who referred to the Alumina Hot cat appears similar to the Jedi Lightsaber’s handle.

  • psi2u2

    “What he told to the local press was a bunch of nothing!”

    Do you think its possible that he wanted it that way?

    • Omega Z

      I agree.
      Even if the MSM were to take interest, they would be asking questions that would not be answered.

      How does the E-cat it Work? We can not discuss what happens of the internal workings of E-cat.

      When do you expect to begin full production? We can not give that information until we have consolidated the data from the 1 year of operation of the 1Mw Pilot Plant.

      Where is this pilot plant? We can not disclose that information. Our customer does not want to be interrupted. He wants to work in piece.
      End of Interview.

      Rossi/IH are no where near ready for this discussion & the headaches that would come with it. It would be very disruptive to the development of the technology at this time. They would find themselves surrounded by Paparazzi.

      I’m not sure the MSM will ever give it that much attention myself. I think this may just evolve quietly from a public point of view. Corporations will have the big interest. But, Rossi/IH have to take the above scenario into serious consideration. It would be problematic.

  • LuFong

    The fastest way for Rossi to get acceptance of his technology would be for him to disclose the basic details of the E-Cat and his theory. In theory a patent would be sufficient. It would not take long thereafter for the world to accept the E-Cat as there would be a mad rush to replicate it. Of course, Rossi would then lose his competitive advantage in the race to commercialize his discovery so it’s perfectly understandable that he would not do this (despite him on record as saying otherwise).

    It’s interesting to see the response to the report. One group is focused purely on the tests themselves and looking at the results and they are going over everything very carefully. Still others are looking at the device itself and trying to understand from the sketchy details in the report how such a device might or might not work.

    I would like to see the E-Cat’s secrets exposed so I support all the replication efforts. But I have a very low expectation of success. If the E-Cat is a scam then of course no one will be able to replicate its performance. If not then Rossi efforts including what we can glean from the reports is the best indication that it is not so simple of a machine. As Rossi has stated, “As I said many times, the E-Cat is a machine much, much more complex
    than it appears to be. Somebody really thinks that I am a stupid guy,
    and that the E-Cat is fallen on my head casually from a fig tree, while I
    was eating a banana, with problems in managing how to peel it ( and
    jetting the peel on the flowers too);”

    So I think it will take a while for someone to replicate this thing although there are many clever and determined individuals out there so who knows what will happen.

    • Omega Z

      I would agree, that this is not so simple. If it were & given the state that Rossi has reached, He should have this wrapped up & start mass production within weeks. RIGHT?

      Unless of course, Rossi is stupid, but then if he were, he wouldn’t have achieved what he has to this point. The argument settles itself. It is far more complex then many believe.

      As to replicating the E-cat. Obtaining the effect may be possible if you aren’t aiming for full replication. And Tho I greatly appreciate MFMP’s efforts, Should they achieve the Rossi Effect, It would likely only get mileage from the blogs. To have a big impact, they would have to turn it over to an Entity with a name that Really catches the attention. Elforsk or some major research entity.

      I mean no disrespect to MFMP. It’s just the way the world works. In the World of things, MFMP is a small fish. People only pay attention when Jaws shows up off the beach.

      • LuFong

        The point is that if MFMP replicated the E-Cat they would also disclose what they did. Then others would replicate it and so on and in very short order the E-Cat would be proved.

        • bachcole

          I think that it is obvious and axiomatic that the E-Cat has already been proven to Darden and his friends and associates. That is what counts. And it is proven to many of us, which doesn’t really count. (:->)

          • LuFong

            My guess is Darden etc are trying to sell manufacturing licenses and/or technology licenses. In terms of money that’s what really counts and for that they will need much more proof. Sure Darden and others have *risked* some money on this but that does not imply the E-Cat has been *proven* to Darden in the sense you are implying. For me, this is just an interesting saga…

          • Gerrit

            Rossi doesn’t need financing, where did you get that idea?

            The invention is owned by Industrial Heat, they seem to have all the resources they need to get this to market.

            I have no reason not to believe that they actually have a 1MW plant consisting of several ecats in parallel up and running, or close to up and running at an undisclosed customer location.

            I see no reason for Industrial Heat to take any further steps now in starting a media campaign in this phase.

            When the first reactor has been running fine for a year and the customer wants several more. Then will be the right time to show the world this device is really working.

          • Enrique Ferreyra

            That report lacks a lot of needed attributes for a serius journel, been the most important that its not peer reviewed and there is no chance for some independent group to even try to replicate.

          • psi2u2

            Actually, if you follow the news, replication is already underway by Pons and Fleischmann memorial project group.

          • morse

            How is replication possible if Rossi is not giving his sauce (catalyst) to the public?
            Or am I missing something here?

          • Fortyniner

            Just the knowledge that cold fusion is real will probably be enough. It is no longer a question of ‘If’ but of ‘How’ – and there are plenty of clues.

          • bachcole

            There are lots and lots of somethings that you are missing, but none of them discount your point. Rossi does not want to reveal his catalyst because he wants/needs a patent for the purposes of making a profit. But the patent office won’t give him a patent because the New Fire is not real to them and he won’t reveal his catalyst so that other people can replicate it. It is sort of a catch-22, except that Rossi is just going for commercialization and to hell with the academics and the Patent Office.

  • Jimr

    My opinion, a single ecat can be made to operate ,however it takes constant readjustment ( triac voltage and possible freq.) per the latest test, under computer control. Since there is such a variance between devices it would require separate sensor inputs and multiple outputs to each 10kw ecat which would require an exotic multiplexer to control each of the 100 ecats individually, therefore the problems they are having when they try to ship a 1mw unit. This may end up to be not cost effective. We may have to wait until 100kw, 1mw , etc. individual units are developed. The bright side may be that a reliable 10kw unit could be ideal for the a singe home unit at some point in the future.

    • Omega Z

      I agree that controlling 100 reactors could be daunting as it’s a new technology, but it’s a matter of time & engineering. It is doable.

      This kind of control is done on a daily bases. The fact few people are aware shows it can be done silently in the background. Might I mention the Internet, The flying Wing, Drones, Space X reusable rockets, Etc..

      They all manage 10’s of thousands of inputs & deal with it quite easily. The computer board to control a 1Mw plant will eventually be quite small & inexpensive, The human interface on the other hand will be larger with it’s LCD screens & manual control switches & higher price tag.

      No doubt, these are the major issue’s Rossi is dealing with in the 1Mw pilot plant. Initially with multiple problems & gradually working it down to a near zero event over long periods of time.
      Note, This scenario will repeat when IH/Rossi start the 1st Plant to produce Electricity. However, experience with just providing process heat will be of high value.

      As to home units, They will be used for base load heating initially supplemented by conventional heating for peek demand periods. The E-cat has great potential for many uses, but, it has certain inherent issue’s to be overcome before it becomes truly practical for all things in the home. The Biggest issue is, required 24/7 operation, because it takes hours to start up. It has a similar shut down period, but that’s not of much concern.

      The test report shows it is well suited to ramp up as comparable to conventional heating purposes, however, there is the question if the economics suffer. It’s most efficient at peek power. What happens if that peek is only needed for short spells & most of the time it operates at half power.

      Note: This will vary by your geographic location, but in Illinois, you will need 1- 10Kw e-cat for every 500 sq. ft. of floor space for winter heating. Many variables here depending on temp & whether this is peek or base load. Base load would be about 1 per 1K sq. ft.

      PS, 100Kw or bigger E-cats are many years of R&D away.

  • Jimr

    My opinion, a single ecat can be made to operate ,however it takes constant readjustment ( triac voltage and possible freq.) per the latest test, under computer control. Since there is such a variance between devices it would require separate sensor inputs and multiple outputs to each 10kw ecat which would require an exotic multiplexer to control each of the 100 ecats individually, therefore the problems they are having when they try to ship a 1mw unit. This may end up to be not cost effective. We may have to wait until 100kw, 1mw , etc. individual units are developed. The bright side may be that a reliable 10kw unit could be ideal for the a singe home unit at some point in the future.

    • Omega Z

      I agree that controlling 100 reactors could be daunting as it’s a new technology, but it’s a matter of time & engineering. It is doable.

      This kind of control is done on a daily bases. The fact few people are aware shows it can be done silently in the background. Might I mention the Internet, The flying Wing, Drones, Space X reusable rockets, Etc..

      They all manage 10’s of thousands of inputs & deal with it quite easily. The computer board to control a 1Mw plant will eventually be quite small & inexpensive, The human interface on the other hand will be larger with it’s LCD screens & manual control switches & higher price tag.

      No doubt, these are the major issue’s Rossi is dealing with in the 1Mw pilot plant. Initially with multiple problems & gradually working it down to a near zero event over long periods of time.
      Note, This scenario will repeat when IH/Rossi start the 1st Plant to produce Electricity. However, experience with just providing process heat will be of high value.

      As to home units, They will be used for base load heating initially supplemented by conventional heating for peek demand periods. The E-cat has great potential for many uses, but, it has certain inherent issue’s to be overcome before it becomes truly practical for all things in the home. The Biggest issue is, required 24/7 operation, because it takes hours to start up. It has a similar shut down period, but that’s not of much concern.

      The test report shows it is well suited to ramp up as comparable to conventional heating purposes, however, there is the question if the economics suffer. It’s most efficient at peek power. What happens if that peek is only needed for short spells & most of the time it operates at half power.

      Note: This will vary by your geographic location, but in Illinois, you will need 1- 10Kw e-cat for every 500 sq. ft. of floor space for winter heating. Many variables here depending on temp & whether this is peek or base load. Base load would be about 1 per 1K sq. ft.

      PS, 100Kw or bigger E-cats are many years of R&D away.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    The “parallels” to the computer industry in the 1970’s is
    rather remarkable. While some companies were producing a home brew computers
    like Heath Kit, the REAL race was to get a useable and working computer in the
    hands of the public. Thus out of near nothing billion dollar companies like
    Apple were born in a garage.

    LENR is exactly he same thing. You have lots of small
    groups tinkering and playing with LENR. Make NO MISTAKE, this is an opportunity
    of a life time. You cook up a working device that is “consumer” friendly as
    opposed to lab coat friendly and you will create the next BILLION dollar
    company.

    It is RARE that such opportunities come along in our
    lifetimes. The race for LENR is not if it works, but WHO can get a working
    device into the hands of the public or industry.

    Worrying about some replication of LENR is LONG PAST. The
    REAL issue and magic frontier is producing a WORKING product for the consumer
    or industry.

    It looks like Rossi and IH will be the first – as a result
    they will create the next Apple. On the other hand, just like the Auto industry,
    or computer industry, history is littered with failed startups. And while some like
    Atari or Commodore are well known history antidotes (and so is Packard for autos),
    they were eventually “muscled” out by other players like IBM and Apple.

    So really, at the end of the day talk about replication,
    or sharing some trade secrets to spread LENR is really moot and PAST history.

    On the heals of Rossi is others like Brillouin and more
    that will SURLY follow.

    We are witness to the birth of a new industry. And like the
    exploding computer industry or the rail road bonanza, these “revolutions” were
    NOT based on sharing the theory of the steam engine, or the fact of low cost
    off the self WHOLE COMPUTERS existed on a SINGLE chip.
    Apple, PET, Commodore did not did not build or create the 6502 processor, but simply realized that those tiny computer on a chip were ONLY worth something when placed in a
    working package that anyone could flick on the power switch.

    We are now in the state of WHO gets to market first and the replication and theory is a purely a waste of time except for the academic community.

    The SHIP of LENR is about to sail out of the harbor – it just
    a question of who gets their boat out first!

    So really, I see little worry here – the advent of a LENR
    box with an “on button” will fix any issue as to how to spread this amazing new
    energy source.

    Regards,
    Albert Kallal

    • TomR

      Thanks for the post Albert. If MFMP can replicate and offer a kit to the public it will break this wide open. Even if the kit puts out only 100 degree C temps I know a lot of people that would buy one or two.

    • psi2u2

      Sir,

      I have just been reading some of your past posts. Welcome to e-cat world! Your articulately framed optimism and solid knowledge, especially of the history of innovation to draw comparisons, are clearly appreciated.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    The “parallels” to the computer industry in the 1970’s is
    rather remarkable. While some companies were producing a home brew computers
    like Heath Kit, the REAL race was to get a useable and working computer in the
    hands of the public. Thus out of near nothing billion dollar companies like
    Apple were born in a garage.

    LENR is exactly he same thing. You have lots of small
    groups tinkering and playing with LENR. Make NO MISTAKE, this is an opportunity
    of a life time. You cook up a working device that is “consumer” friendly as
    opposed to lab coat friendly and you will create the next BILLION dollar
    company.

    It is RARE that such opportunities come along in our
    lifetimes. The race for LENR is not if it works, but WHO can get a working
    device into the hands of the public or industry.

    Worrying about some replication of LENR is LONG PAST. The
    REAL issue and magic frontier is producing a WORKING product for the consumer
    or industry.

    It looks like Rossi and IH will be the first – as a result
    they will create the next Apple. On the other hand, just like the Auto industry,
    or computer industry, history is littered with failed startups. And while some like
    Atari or Commodore are well known history antidotes (and so is Packard for autos),
    they were eventually “muscled” out by other players like IBM and Apple.

    So really, at the end of the day talk about replication,
    or sharing some trade secrets to spread LENR is really moot and PAST history.

    On the heals of Rossi is others like Brillouin and more
    that will SURLY follow.

    We are witness to the birth of a new industry. And like the
    exploding computer industry or the rail road bonanza, these “revolutions” were
    NOT based on sharing the theory of the steam engine, or the fact of low cost
    off the self WHOLE COMPUTERS existed on a SINGLE chip.
    Apple, PET, Commodore did not did not build or create the 6502 processor, but simply realized that those tiny computer on a chip were ONLY worth something when placed in a
    working package that anyone could flick on the power switch.

    We are now in the state of WHO gets to market first and the replication and theory is a purely a waste of time except for the academic community.

    The SHIP of LENR is about to sail out of the harbor – it just
    a question of who gets their boat out first!

    So really, I see little worry here – the advent of a LENR
    box with an “on button” will fix any issue as to how to spread this amazing new
    energy source.

    Regards,
    Albert Kallal

    • mike

      You can erase most of these pessimistic whining posts. It is posts like this that not only reflects my sentiments, but brings me back to sites like this excitingly. Thanks for the great post.

    • TomR

      Thanks for the post Albert. If MFMP can replicate and offer a kit to the public it will break this wide open. Even if the kit puts out only 100 degree C temps I know a lot of people that would buy one or two.

    • psi2u2

      Sir,

      I have just been reading some of your past posts. Welcome to e-cat world! Your articulately framed optimism and solid knowledge, especially of the history of innovation to draw comparisons, are clearly appreciated.

  • Mark

    With all of this talk of a working E-Cat in the possession of a real customer being the most important thing, perhaps it makes sense to point out, as I have in the past, that, in late 2012, I believe, when everyone was focused on the first report, (speculating about when it was going to drop) Sven Kullander dropped a bombshell claiming that the first E-Cat customer, from back in late 2011, was The Naval Research Lab in The United States – at least, this was reported on the now-defunct ecatreport.com, as best I can remember. I have been somewhat frustrated at, as best I can tell, the lack of attempts to try to verify this from most people in the cold fusion community. I would think, for a community that, at one point, was so obsessed with figuring out who the first customer is that some were analyzing handwriting for clues, that the cold fusion community would have been all over this. Did I miss something? Is this story really not as big as I thought it was, for some reason? Was this story debunked and I missed it? Am I just dense? Well, I can answer that last question; yes, I am dense, at times, at least, but does that explain what is going on, here? What’s going on?

    • annon

      Yes, I remember that too. Rossi was required NOT to reveal the customer in that case. So the customer took possession of the apparatus and left everyone else to speculate.

    • Given the nature of the supposed buyer and IH’s tight-lipped approach, the story is unlikely to be either confirmed or ‘debunked’. Who cares – this is ancient history, and if a prototype unit was purchased as stated (as seems possible – at least one 1MW unit disappeared at some point) it would have been for research purposes and would not affect ongoing commercial development.

      • Mark

        I care – LOL! I’m also trying to figure out why other people don’t care as much. There was so much intense speculation for a period of time, and, then, when no one could figure it out, everyone just seemed to move on. It didn’t matter to them when the bombshell was dropped, because they had already moved on. As far as whether or not this story is unlikely to be confirmed or debunked…well, even if you’re right, you’ll never know if you don’t try. Unlikely stuff happens, occasionally. Let’s just suppose, for a minute, that Kullander was right, and that the first customer really is The Naval Research Lab in The United States. Imagine if there was an effort, in the cold fusion community, to try to find someone who was influential enough and/or had connections to someone who was high enough up in the US government. Imagine if that person could be convinced to partially declassify and release a press release confirming, if not the location and what the excess heat was used for, at least that The Naval Research Lab did buy an E-Cat and that it is working according to the specifications. I think that this would be hugely significant. Even if unlikely that something like this would ever happen, it might be worth a shot. It’s looking like we might not have a whole lot better to do in the coming year, or so.

        By the way, I’m not really clear on how you know that the first plant would have been used for research purposes. I mean, it might have been used for that, but maybe not. Do you know something that we don’t?

  • Astralprojectee

    The e-cat story is the next big black swan event.

  • Omega Z

    I believe that if ELFORSK or MFMP were to replicate the E-cat results, you will see the same fuss about the results as with the ITP reports. Cheers from the supporters gallery & sneers & jeers from the clowns & snakes gallery.

    Only after several working plants have been installed will the MSM pay attention And it will likely be presented something like this.

    The Main News will be an update on the continued advances of ISIS & the spread of Ebola and the news will end with a side note.

    While everyone was sleeping, a new energy source has been quietly replacing our current system. Instead of fossil fuels, it burns nickel. This should result in a decline in your home energy bills over time. End of News Report. Nothing will ever come of the suppression of this technology & those behind it. Very little back story.

    People will nonchalantly go about their daily lives. There is nothing NOVEL about Energy. If it becomes cheaper great. Other wise the General population aren’t concerned about the mechanics or the technology that provides it.

    The only people that will pay attention to this are those who are already involved. The numbers may vary up/down to a certain degree, but this is it. If your expecting a ground swell of support, you’ll probably be disappointed.

    Ultimately, The support will come Not from the masses, but from the Corporate Board Rooms. I strongly suspect that there are a great many of them watching with great interest at this very moment.

    If, A year from now, Rossi comes out and says, In regards to the 1Mw plant in the customers concern. All is consolidated & the results are fantastic, the Flood Gates will open in the Corporate world.

    I would suspect Tom Darden will need to appoint someone to take care of his duties at Cherokee, He will be much to busy with business concerns of Industrial Heat. If you wish to consult with him, Make your appointments early. You will be many months on the waiting list. Bzz Bzz Bzz. busy busy busy.

  • Omega Z

    I believe that if ELFORSK or MFMP were to replicate the E-cat results, you will see the same fuss about the results as with the ITP reports. Cheers from the supporters gallery & sneers & jeers from the clowns & snakes gallery.

    Only after several working plants have been installed will the MSM pay attention And it will likely be presented something like this.

    The Main News will be an update on the continued advances of ISIS & the spread of Ebola and the news will end with a side note.

    While everyone was sleeping, a new energy source has been quietly replacing our current system. Instead of fossil fuels, it burns nickel. This should result in a decline in your home energy bills over time. End of News Report. Nothing will ever come of the suppression of this technology & those behind it. Very little back story.

    People will nonchalantly go about their daily lives. There is nothing NOVEL about Energy. If it becomes cheaper great. Other wise the General population aren’t concerned about the mechanics or the technology that provides it.

    The only people that will pay attention to this are those who are already involved. The numbers may vary up/down to a certain degree, but this is it. If your expecting a ground swell of support, you’ll probably be disappointed.

    Ultimately, The support will come Not from the masses, but from the Corporate Board Rooms. I strongly suspect that there are a great many of them watching with great interest at this very moment.

    If, A year from now, Rossi comes out and says, In regards to the 1Mw plant in the customers concern. All is consolidated & the results are fantastic, the Flood Gates will open in the Corporate world.

    I would suspect Tom Darden will need to appoint someone to take care of his duties at Cherokee, He will be much to busy with business concerns of Industrial Heat. If you wish to consult with him, Make your appointments early. You will be many months on the waiting list. Bzz Bzz Bzz. busy busy busy.

    • Ranmn7

      I really think you underestimate people worldwide.
      This technology, if it is deliverable in a working line of commercial products, will change everything, and impact everyone in many ways. And they will absolutely notice.

      I became aware of this technology 3 days ago, when I read the pre-released report, and have been investigating.

      My question is, if there is an actual product that has been in use, why isn’t Rossi disclosing this and screaming it to the world, as evidence that it works? Why would he keep it secret, I can’t figure out any reason to justify keeping it secret. It would open up financing, if he’s running low on funds, it would absolutely get many people interested.

      That’s the one thing that raises a huge question in my mind, and I simply can’t figure it out.

      • Gerrit

        Rossi doesn’t need financing, where did you get that idea?

        The invention is owned by Industrial Heat, they seem to have all the resources they need to get this to market.

        I have no reason not to believe that they actually have a 1MW plant consisting of several ecats in parallel up and running, or close to up and running at an undisclosed customer location.

        I see no reason for Industrial Heat to take any further steps now in starting a media campaign in this phase.

        When the first reactor has been running fine for a year and the customer wants several more. Then will be the right time to show the world this device is really working.

      • Donk970

        Think about the hysteria that surrounds nuclear energy. What happens when a community discovers that a local company is running a nuclear reactor right next door. Revealing who the customer is could set off a political shit storm that would stop the E-Cat in it’s tracks forever.

        • clovis ray

          not proven nuclear, nuclear in nasty,. that your busness not ours, just because you keep repeating your self about how wonderful it is does not make it so. the rossi effect is green, clean, safe, and renewable, unlike your nasty ,killing byproducts, that never goes away, no one wants it, it is only used because there is nothing else, Except fossil fuels, and of course our new E-CAT, whooohooo.

          • Donk970

            So, given the choice of coal or a light water fission power plant to generate electricity the fission power plant is the best choice. Do a bit of research and find out how much radioactive waste a coal power plant releases into the environment per GWh of energy compared to what a lw fission power plant does. Do I like light water fission? NO, light water fission is an inherently dangerous sixty year old technology that was never intended for civilian use. Light water fission power plants are horribly inefficient in their use of fuel; 95% of the waste is unburned fuel. And that is my point, the public is badly misinformed about nuclear energy in general.

            To anyone who is informed, LENR type fusion is by far the best alternative if it can be made to work. But there are alternatives to dangerous light water fission that would also be a big step in the right direction. There are molten salt reactor designs that would actually consume spent fuel rods from lw reactors for fuel – ton of spent fuel rods in with a 100 pounds of waste with a half life of a few hundred years out sounds like a big plus to me. Another molten salt design would use thorium as the initial fuel with only small amounts of waste produced.

            My point being that not all nuclear is created equal and as long as the public at large doesn’t really know the difference between fission and fusion, the mere mention of nuclear is going to be a problem for acceptance of the E-Cat.

      • clovis ray

        they have enought money, not a problem, next question?

  • Redford

    No publication in a peer reviewed journal. Again. If that doesn’t happen within the next months my interest will actually drop. It was pretty specifically announced this time again. Why no bloody publication ?

    • bfast

      Because arxiv is a bunch of political goons. The hot fusion boys are holding it back. Arxiv needs to understand that their reputation is on the line. When e-cat is validated in the market, their lack of integrity will be noted. I hope they fall off the planet.

      If they get off their politically motivated duff, chat with the team of peer reviewers, the publish, they will be seen as leaders. Then let ’em thrive.

    • Warthog

      Perhaps you missed the part where they submitted it to arkiv (sp), which then stonewalled it. This is just another in a continuing series of “denials of publication” by the entrenched academics. The same thing has happened to virtually all work in LENR.

    • mike

      Who gives a shit. Support the people trying to get this to market and put those dinosaurs out of work. 🙂

      • bachcole

        Come on, Mike. Don’t hold back. Tell us what you and a lot of us feel.

    • Sanjeev

      Probably this link will demonstrate that a published paper means nothing really. Its only a means to add “credibility” and does not automatically make anything “True”.

      Studies show only 10% of published science articles are reproducible.

      http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening

      Then there are papers written by bots that were published by “reputed” journals. And there is a prophecy by a Nobel laureate that it will take airborne pigs to get a cold fusion paper published. But I won’t go there , its all very messy.

      • bachcole

        The Für Elise version of righteous indignition and clarity of perspective.

    • bachcole

      “Why no bloody publication?” Because very few people believe it. Because the test was not run with the intent of being pristine pure scientific protocol. Because people are afraid to look foolish.

      I and many others predicted this. Instead of your interest dropping, your anger should be rising.

      • Ranmn7

        I was reading an article which was an analysis of this pre-released report, and the author had some very good questions.

        About 1 gram of fuel is used? umm what is that why didn’t they get very specific, its very easy to get accurate measurements.

        Random sampling of the ash, but no explanation of what exactly they did to select the sample to be tested.

        There are some other questions raised as well.

        But the author also said the report raises questions, and due to the results warrants further investigation, and further testing.

        “Is there evidence of nuclear transformation? Yes, very clearly, but questions remain to be answered (or, in some cases, asked).” Michael C.H. McKubre

        http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html

        • But why focus on these small quibbles? The report confirms that there is now a major new clean power source that will transform the world. Isn’t that something to celebrate, rather than picking at minor details?

        • clovis ray

          I personal think it is new science, and nuclear has nothing to do with it,
          Dr, Rossi is the authority on this device, all of the other eggs are only guessing, Dr. rossi is still searching for the answers, to this very new physics, i will wait until his conclusions are reviled, this is his baby not Mc Kubre ‘s, if they are all so dam smart where is their working prototype, they have none , because they don’t have a clue.

    • Ranmn7

      This report you’re seeing is a pre-release, it has not been published yet. I’m assuming that it will be published, if they can get a journal to accept it.

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      That report lacks a lot of needed attributes for a serius journel, been the most important that its not peer reviewed and there is no chance for some independent group to even try to replicate.

      • psi2u2

        Actually, if you follow the news, replication is already underway by Pons and Fleischmann Memorial Project group. “Serious” is spelled with an “o.”

        • Enrique Ferreyra

          Hi, sorry im not a english speaker and i learn without a teacher so i usually mess up my posts.

          If what MFMP is trying is qualified as replication should be a long and interesting discussion, however if they succed, given his open nature, should be a more important thing that the fact if its a replication or a new different experiment.

    • clovis ray

      n/a

  • If Rossi won’t reveal the customer now, what makes you think he will reveal it in a year? Don’t get me wrong, want to see this materialize. But if I recall he has mentioned “customers” in the past, none of whom have ever come to light. Right?

    • Freethinker

      I get you exactly right. 😉

      Why does it matter?

      The customers may have wanted to be anonymous, as anybody even touching “cold fusion” with a pincer would be declared idiots in the main stream of life as “everybody” knows that “cold fusion” does not work and is pathological science.

      The bold consumer will understand that exposing themselves will help set LENR and ECAT free, and will do it.

      So don’t worry.

      • Donk970

        The bold customer may also find themselves in some really deep shit with the local community when they find out that the “bold customer” is using a nuclear reactor.

        • Freethinker

          You may be right, but it is a bridge that must be crossed eventually, even if the MaryYugo’s of the world will be standing road side and generously sharing their “insightful” opinions.

          No doubt will this be new territory in which to be pedagogic and explaining this to the community.

          And somehow, would that not be just an extension on the divine comedy and joke on LENR, if when it reached fruition it will again be viewed with suspicious eyes, this time for being “nuclear”.

          That bold customer will have to stand up. And likely they will understand that they have to, if this is to progress. If they don’t understand, maybe IH can fix that with some monetary incentive.

    • Donk970

      The customer is using a nuclear reactor to generate heat. Maybe they are worried that despite Industrial Heat getting a certification they may still get in trouble for using a nuclear reactor. I think everyone is on very shaky ground here and the customer may be very reluctant to reveal themselves for fear of some blowback from government regulatory agencies or from the local public. Think about the news headlines if the local micro brewery installed an E-Cat to generate steam to boil wort more cost effectively. I can just see it now. “Joe’s Brewery Caught Using Nuclear Reactor to Make Beer”. Can you imagine the public outcry?

      • Donk, anybody can build a miniature nuclear reactor in their garage. Look on YouTube and you will find high school students building them (i.e. Taylor Wilson). No laws against it.

        • bachcole

          But, of course, they don’t actually go over unity. They are merely entertainment for pre-teen lads.

        • psi2u2

          I think you are missing the point, which to a reasonable person thinking about how the real world of industry operates, seems incontestable. Talking about kids building reactors in their garage is utterly beside the point, as anyone who thinks carefully about it will notice.

          • People will continue seeking out information that confirms their beliefs and ignore that which provides valid reason to discard those beliefs.

    • clovis ray

      PT, and what would you think will happen, if the customer is reviled, to answer my own question, they would be harassed, to the point that Dr. Rossi work would be impacted,

  • Mike the Engineer

    After reviewing comments over at NextBigFuture, there seem to be a couple of points that need to be considered.
    1) Simplest point is that if Ecat had a surface temperature of 1400 deg C, and melting point of Nickel is 1455 C, and since interior would have to be hotter in order for heat to flow to outside, then it seems the nickel should have been close to melting. Why wasn’t the nickel at least partially melted or fused? Report says afterwards fuel & ash was a powder.
    2) If we know temp of ecat with reasonable accuracy, then I have no issue with calculation of radiant and convective heat loss. Equations well established. However, it was pointed out at nextbigfuture that the ecat appears to be translucent. This could affect assumed emissivity. If so, then we may not have the actual skin temperature. In which case the calorimetry calcs may not be correct. I have no experience with this determination of surface temp, but the criticism seems plausible. Perhaps someone can explain.
    In any case, a working system in an industrial setting would settle things one way or another. Which is what is underway right now, anyway.

    • mike

      Look it is NEW science and the old way of thinking through the old science may not apply. If they say it is fake, they have to shoehorn their thinking to somehow deny or find flaws or else they admit their theory is obsolete in a lot of ways. Don’t buy into it. Would you listen to these objections if you had a unit running and none of it was melting like they say it has to? No you would bravely tell them to rework their numbers because you know they are wrong. Well brother, be brave, take those two objections and delete them. We will know in due time.

    • Sanjeev

      1] It did melt or at least sintered. The report mentions that the fuel was a fine powder but ash was granular. SEM images also show different structure. Now this is enough to throw off the theories that need a specific kind of nano-structure for lenr. Anyway, nothing is certain at this time.

      2] I’m no expert on Alumina, but Ahern (who I guess was a skeptic till now) has confirmed that there are no problems with calorimetry. See this link:

      http://pesn.com/2014/10/13/9602546_Hell-Freezes-Over–Brian-Aherns_Doubts_on_E-Cat_Test_Resolved/

      • dbg

        On the alumina, I challenged that dude Barry Kort about his comments on the ExtremeTech article. He claims that because the reactor rod is glowing in the pictures, that means it is transparent; especially so because the researchers claimed that the shadows on the outside of the casing were the resistor coils being ‘outshone’ by the glowing reactor rod. In Barry’s mind that means the “budget model” calculations were incorrect, therefore the report is flawed at a fundamental level. QED.

        While Barry may be correct, I pointed out a couple of things. Though it’s possible to manufacture transparent ceramics using nanotechnology, the reactor rod in the latest test was analysed and found to be… pure alumina, within the margins of error etc. Alumina is well known to be opaque to IR cameras, so Barry’s argument seems to be an example of shifting goalposts and confirmation bias, and I told him so.

        One thing I didn’t argue with Barry was that his eyes and thermal imaging cameras might work in different ways. Just because you can see a certain slice of the EM spectrum doesn’t mean you share that slice with IR cameras. The clue is in the name of the camera…

        Anyhoo.

        • Freethinker

          Ok,

          Note that the reactor is powered by a control system. There is a k-probe feedback to the control box, measuring the temperature of the charge.

          Inconel X750 has melting point 1393 – 1427C, Ni has 1455C. In no way will the control system allow the global core temp to be higher than 1455C, taking intot account some safety, and temp distribution and the fact that the Inconel cable may be damaged, that is likely also accounted for.

          LENR is a highly localized phenomenon. There will be sintering and melts on the small scale, because there is where the NAEs are. There will be local intense heat that will change the characteristics of the powder.

          I believe there are ways to explain that the radiative temperature of the reactor surface being hotter than the core. If the core has a mean to sporadically burst energy that will be absorbed by the reactor tube inner wall, it may pump the energy deposited in the reactor shell. If the outer surface convection is not able to readily conduct away that energy, and it is equally inefficient inward it will cause a higher radiative emission to compensate, and an thermal equilibrium will be found. As it is this radiative cooling, in a way, that we measure with the thermal camera, the radiative surface temperature could be higher than the average temperature of the innards of the reactor. If anybody has a different take on this, I’d appreciate knowing.

          The IR cameras used in the test operates in 7.5-13 microns. In this interval the alumina is opaque. You will not see through it. The alumina will behave like a black body. To calibrate the camera the emssivity is set, but this is done for the dummy at lower temperatures. This is OK, because the emissivity in the range of 7.5-13 microns does not vary (or very little) with the temperature, see Morrel 1987. A small systematic error may be attributed to the higher temperatures, making them be slightly overestimated. Morell 1987 : Morrel, R. (1987) Handbook of properties of technical and engineering ceramics.

          The transparency (transmission) window for the alumina is 0.150 – 7 microns. Looking at the Planck curves, the black body radiation, for the interval 0.15 to 7 microns give at hand that red is 2-3 orders of magnitude stronger than blue. Add to that the fact that the alumina is not crystal clear, and there will be all kind of refractive scattering going on, then you should expect to see an orange/amber diffuse light in the visual. This is what is seen in the visual images in fig 12 page 25 in the report. In this case, we of course are under the assumption that the thing radiating on the inner side of the reactor itself behave like a black body, but likely it is close enough.

          So. basically, no real problems here.

          • dbg

            Thanks Freethinker for providing the technical side of the argument I was enjoying with Barry Kort. I was focusing on his poor logic rather than tackling him on the technical side of things, although I did get drawn into the transparency argument because it was clear that Barry couldn’t possibly see in infrared…

            I am looking forward to seeing how the latest claims about inverted clamps (or “inverted clams” as I now prefer to think of them) are addressed.

          • David Lunt

            Thanks for the explanation, Freethinker. Unfortunately I am still puzzled. Essentially you are saying that the lower color temperature of the alumina tube is because the bright yellow glowing resistor (and presumably the fuel charge) have a diffuse orange-amber tint in the visible range when viewed by transmission through the alumina tube walls. The problem with this explanation seems to be that in the thermography calculation of radiated power the alumina tube is claimed to be a black body radiating at about the 1400 C of the resistor wire, with the glow of the tube coming intrinsically from its own alumina material. If this was the case it seems to me the color temperature of the alumina tube should have been about the same as the bright yellow glowing resistor wire. If the tube is at 1400 C it should glow bright yellow in the visible range. Is there a fundamental error in this reasoning?

        • Warthog

          alumina can take many different forms with different transparencies. See “sapphire”. Artificial sapphire is about as transparent (in the visible wavelength region) as it gets. But other forms are opaque. The key point the skeptopaths are ignoring is that the reactor temperature was determined WITHOUT THE CHARGE using the same optical methods (i.e. as a “blank”). So the data already shows that the “E-cat with charge” is much hotter than the “E-Cat without charge”. Any errors because the cameras were “not calibrated at the higher temperature” are talking about minor errors, not enough to invalidate the results. Also recall that there was a “calibration spot” affixed to the support rods, which has to be COOLER than the reactor.

          • dbg

            Yes, and thanks, that was the point I was making about shifting goalposts. Despite the alumina analysis in the report, photos of the rod glowing orange in the visible spectrum (see Freethinker’s point below) and the description by the professors, Barry Kort and his cheerleaders were arguing that because ceramics can be transparent (as you describe), therefore the E-Cat must be transparent and invalidated measurements made in the infrared. I just couldn’t follow his logic.

            I thought it was confirmation bias too, because Barry selected a specific point of contention that ignored all the other evidence, like the dummy run and calibration spots and COP etc.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Sh, I was taunting him.

    • robyn wyrick

      Admin,

      I would like to ask for a post (possibly a guest post by someone). I am not a nuclear scientist, and cannot read the new report with a trained eye.

      So I would love a primmer. I see the large points, >3COP, 32 days, etc. However, I would *really* love a layman’s synopsis –

      And then, I would love a list of the major, (reasonable) critiques of the report. I understand that the “ash” may have been handled by Rossi, and that raises concerns about the NI62 result. But I have not read any actual criticism of the testing environment, the measurement, or the analysis of the outcome. That would suggest to me that the >3COP is uncontested, and so is generally considered valid (if silently so) by the critics.

      But again, not being able to evaluate the scientific validity of the critiques, I can’t tell if someone is talking from an informed position or just throwing dirt. I read that someone claimed that “Rossi bought NI62 from him, ergo, Rossi is a fraud.” That is hearsay, and not evidence – and more importantly, even if true is out of context, and may mean nothing.

      So, the short of this is that I don’t know how to read either the report or the critics — and I am looking for a summary.

      Any thoughts? Many thanks, Robyn

      • pelgrim108

        It would be helpfull if there was a place where the main critics and there possible refutations where collected together with their layman translations. Off course the testers will also answer some questions, those can be added to this place. I think a forum-post would be most suited where the first post will summarise and order all new pieces and bits contributed by subsequent posters to that forum post.

  • Ophelia Rump

    You are correct, absolutely!

  • Warthog

    Perhaps you missed the part where they submitted it to arkiv (sp), which then stonewalled it. This is just another in a continuing series of “denials of publication” by the entrenched academics. The same thing has happened to virtually all work in LENR.

  • Sanjeev

    Probably this link will demonstrate that a published paper means nothing really. Its only a means to add “credibility” and does not automatically make anything “True”.

    Studies show only 10% of published science articles are reproducible.

    http://www.jove.com/blog/2012/05/03/studies-show-only-10-of-published-science-articles-are-reproducible-what-is-happening

    Then there are papers written by bots that were published by “reputed” journals. And there is a prophecy by a Nobel laureate that it will take airborne pigs to get a cold fusion paper published. But I won’t go there , its all very messy.

    • bachcole

      The Für Elise version of righteous indignition and clarity of perspective.

    • Daniel Maris

      Thanks for that – intuitively I had already made that point… The E Cat is being held to much higher standards than most science papers for a reason – an ideological reason.

  • robyn wyrick

    Admin,

    I would like to ask for a post (possibly a guest post by someone). I am not a nuclear scientist, and cannot read the new report with a trained eye.

    So I would love a primmer. I see the large points, >3COP, 32 days, etc. However, I would *really* love a layman’s synopsis –

    And then, I would love a list of the major, (reasonable) critiques of the report. I understand that the “ash” may have been handled by Rossi, and that raises concerns about the NI62 result. But I have not read any actual criticism of the testing environment, the measurement, or the analysis of the outcome. That would suggest to me that the >3COP is uncontested, and so is generally considered valid (if silently so) by the critics.

    But again, not being able to evaluate the scientific validity of the critiques, I can’t tell if someone is talking from an informed position or just throwing dirt. I read that someone claimed that “Rossi bought NI62 from him, ergo, Rossi is a fraud.” That is hearsay, and not evidence – and more importantly, even if true is out of context, and may mean nothing.

    So, the short of this is that I don’t know how to read either the report or the critics — and I am looking for a summary.

    Any thoughts? Many thanks, Robyn

    • pelgrim108

      It would be helpfull if there was a place where the main critics and there possible refutations where collected together with their layman translations. Off course the testers will also answer some questions, those can be added to this place. I think a forum-post would be most suited where the first post will summarise and order all new pieces and bits contributed by subsequent posters to that forum post.

    • Ranmn7

      Uh keep searching I read a very detailed analysis, that was critical of many steps taken in the report, and raised a lot of questions. But the main thing was he acknowledged that something nuclear was going on. The author of the article is Michael C.H. McKubre

      http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html

      I found his analysis very informative, and the fact that he says the report shows that this technology needs more testing and verification.

      I’ve been looking for further articles detailing analysis by experts, especially experts who are critical of Cold Fusion.

  • bachcole

    Come on, Mike. Don’t hold back. Tell us what you and a lot of us feel.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • pedro

    Over on Vortex a guy named Ian Walker published a story that is absolutely priceless. It refers to the “Galileo test”, the refusal by his opponents to look through the telescope to see the moons of Jupiter by themselves because they “knew” there were no moons.
    See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98900.html

  • pedro

    Over on Vortex a guy named Ian Walker published a story that is absolutely priceless. It refers to the “Galileo test”, the refusal by his opponents to look through the telescope to see the moons of Jupiter by themselves because they “knew” there were no moons.
    See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg98900.html

  • Rene

    I do not believe the goal of this last round of testing was meant solely for a peer reviewed article. Had that happened it would have been a bonus, but the purpose of all this testing was probably part of the due diligence process any investors would insist must take place before they release further funding. This, I believe is far most important because with a successful conservative run of tests, it turns on the capitalization taps to go full out on manufacturing. No one in mainstream is going to believe this phenomena is real until the cat’s out of the bag and power is flowing.
    I personally want to see rapid deployment to establish a sufficient database that can then make it possible to achieve domestic power production.

    • Fortyniner

      The manner of the publication and IH’s relative silence (and Darden’s apparent downplaying of their interest) strongly indicate that you are correct – the test was required by a sponsor, but IH would now like the whole thing to fade away quietly for the time being.

      Even when the pilot plant is unveiled, the pathoskeps will continue to bang on about hidden wires, power measurement failure and so on. I would guess that only when units are offered and purchased in the open market, will the world finally wake up to what is happening. in mercatu…

      • Donk970

        I agree completely with one difference. I think IH will build these things in China and it may well be that the report was for the benefit of the Chinese government to convince them to put the resources into a crash program to develop an E-Cat manufacturing base.

  • Rene

    I do not believe the goal of this last round of testing was meant solely for a peer reviewed article. Had that happened it would have been a bonus, but the purpose of all this testing was probably part of the due diligence process any investors would insist must take place before they release further funding. This, I believe is far most important because with a successful conservative run of tests, it turns on the capitalization taps to go full out on manufacturing. No one in mainstream is going to believe this phenomena is real until the cat’s out of the bag and power is flowing.
    I personally want to see rapid deployment to establish a sufficient database that can then make it possible to achieve domestic power production.

    • The manner of the publication and IH’s silence (and Darden’s apparent downplaying of their interest) strongly indicate that you are correct – the test was required by a sponsor, the authors wanted to publish their work somewhere, but IH would now like the whole thing to fade away quietly for the time being, while they progress their plans.

      Even when the pilot plant is unveiled, the pathoskeps will continue to bang on about hidden wires, power measurement error, experts being ‘fooled’, connivance in fraud and so on. Rossi is right – only when cold fusion heaters are being offered and purchased in the open market, will the world finally wake up to what is happening.

      in mercatu…

      • Donk970

        I agree completely with one difference. I think IH will build these things in China and it may well be that the report was for the benefit of the Chinese government to convince them to put the resources into a crash program to develop an E-Cat manufacturing base.

        • clovis ray

          screw, the Chinese, if any of our friends get the tech, it will be japan, and the Chinese can buy their e-cats from them,

  • Freethinker

    Ok,

    Note that the reactor is powered by a control system. There are a k-probe feedback to the control box, measuring the temperature of the charge.

    Inconel X750 has melting point 1393 – 1427C, Ni has 1455C. In no way will the control system allow the global core temp to be higher than 1455C, taking intot account some safety, and temp distribution and the fact that the Inconel cable may be damaged, that is likely also accounted for.

    LENR is a highly localized phenomenon. There will be sintering and melts on the small scale, because there is where the NAEs are. There will be local intense heat that will change the characteristics of the powder.

    I believe there are ways to explain that the radiative temperature of the reactor surface being hotter than the core. If the core has a mean to sporadically burst energy that will be absorbed by the reactor tube inner wall, it may pump the energy deposited in the reactor shell. If the outer surface convection is not able to readily conduct away that energy, and it is equally inefficient inward it will cause a higher radiative emission to compensate, and an thermal equilibrium will be found. As it is this radiative cooling, in a way, that we measure with the thermal camera, the thermal temperature could be higher than the average temperature of the innards of the reactor. If anybody has a different take on this, I’d appreciate knowing.

    The IR cameras used in the test operates in 7.5-13 microns. In this interval the alumina is opaque. You will not see through it. The alumina will behave like a black body. To calibrate the camera the emssivity is set, but this is done for the dummy at lower temperatures. This is OK, because the emissivity in the range of 7.5-13 microns does not vary (or very little) with the temperature, see Morrel 1987. A small systematic error may be attributed to the higher temperatures, making them be slightly overestimated. Morell 1987 : Morrel, R. (1987) Handbook of properties of technical and engineering ceramics.

    The transparency (transmission) window for the alumina is 0.150 – 7 microns. Looking at the Planck curves, the black body radiation, for the interval 0.15 to 7 microns give at hand that red is 2-3 orders of magnitude stronger than blue. Add to that the fact that the alumina is not crystal clear, and there will be all kind of refractive scattering going on, then you should expect to see an orange/amber diffuse light in the visual. This is what is seen in the visual images in fig 12 page 25 in the report. In this case, we of course are under the assumption that the thing radiating on the inner side of the reactor itself behave like a black body, but likely it is close enough.

    So. basically, no real problems here.

  • Mats Hilmersson

    Within a few months the US patent office have to decide if to trust the reports or make a final rejection of the patent application.
    If the patent is granted, IH may start selling manufacture licenses and since the IP has some protection they might go for maximum publicity by revealing enough for replication. This will increase the price for licenses.
    If the patent is denied, I guess they will either start all over again with new patent applications and more reports or just release the whole thing as open source.

    • Donk970

      I would guess that IH is going through the motions of getting a US patent but probably isn’t counting on getting one. My guess is that IH will partner with the Chinese and build thousands of these things in China.

  • Oceans2014

    The Chinese do not have time for the US Patent office, their cities are polluted at unacceptable levels, they will buy several billion dollars worth of commercial eCats – then what – Cold Fusion is here now humanity waits.

    • Donk970

      They will buy the rights to build E-Cats in China and then go on a crash program to replace all of their coal plants in the next decade. If Darden is smart he will require that all rights and information derived from putting these things into production remain the property of IH so that IH can put these things into production elsewhere. Of course the Chinese will ramp up capacity to deal with their own internal energy problems but they won’t stop there. They will also start to export E-Cats to the rest of the world and IH may well loose the ability to control their IP.

      • Omega Z

        I doubt China would export any for 40 or 50 years.
        They will take care of their own needs first.

        Flip side is they could reek havoc on the fossil energy markets by reducing their own demand..

        • bachcole

          They will do whatever provides a profit for any individual business person. I doubt that the government is going to change it’s hands-off policy. And even if the government steps in and slaps export restrictions of the E-Cat children, it wouldn’t be that difficult to smuggle a unit and design out of the country.

  • Facepalm
  • Warthog

    alumina can take many different forms with different transparencies. See “sapphire”. Artificial sapphire is about as transparent (in the visible wavelength region) as it gets. But other forms are opaque. The key point the skeptopaths are ignoring is that the reactor temperature was determined WITHOUT THE CHARGE using the same optical methods (i.e. as a “blank”). So the data already shows that the “E-cat with charge” is much hotter than the “E-Cat without charge”. Any errors because the cameras were “not calibrated at the higher temperature” are talking about minor errors, not enough to invalidate the results. Also recall that there was a “calibration spot” affixed to the support rods, which has to be COOLER than the reactor.

    • dbg

      Yes, and thanks, that was the point I was making about shifting goalposts. Despite the alumina analysis in the report, photos of the rod glowing orange in the visible spectrum (see Freethinker’s point below) and the description by the professors, Barry Kort and his cheerleaders were arguing that because ceramics can be transparent (as you describe), therefore the E-Cat must be transparent and invalidated measurements made in the infrared. I just couldn’t follow his logic.

      I thought it was confirmation bias too, because Barry selected a specific point of contention that ignored all the other evidence, like the dummy run and calibration spots and COP etc.

  • Donk970

    I would guess that IH is going through the motions of getting a US patent but probably isn’t counting on getting one. My guess is that IH will partner with the Chinese and build thousands of these things in China.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    I am growing more paranoid (suspicious) by the day. I cannot find a single major media outlet mentioning the new test – and yet find unending coverage of LM’s claim of a “Compact Fusion Device in 5 to 10 years”.

    One story is that a real-world, working Cold Fusion device has been repeatedly tested by credentialed scientists, in the context of numerous, similar reports of similar successes by other parties (P&F, Celani, Toyota… )

    The other story is that the Hot Fusion research industry has nothing working, nothing at all. But like for the past 50 years, they ++think++ they will have something working in the near future, and would like more government money.

    Oh, and the other angle on this story is that one of the parties has been criminally indicted, proven corrupt, lying, false, and inaccurate; and the other party is Andrea Rossi. (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/14/world/us-fines-lockheed-13-million-in-china-satellite-case.html)

    Sorry, that was a misstatement: Rossi is not actually part of this story – because he didn’t write the damn report. It’s really a choice between a company that violated the US Arms Export Control Act, and a group of independent scientists.

    To simply ignore this test, you have to believe that *all the measurements were wrong*, or that the *entire group of testers* (an everyone at IH, and Elforsk) were in on Rossi’s scam.

    It’s simply incredible – in the most literal sense of the word.

    • important people know that and prepare.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    I am growing more paranoid (suspicious) by the day. I cannot find a single major media outlet mentioning the new test – and yet find unending coverage of LM’s claim of a “Compact Fusion Device in 5 to 10 years”.

    One story is that a real-world, working Cold Fusion device has been repeatedly tested by credentialed scientists, in the context of numerous, similar reports of similar successes by other parties (P&F, Celani, Toyota… )

    The other story is that the Hot Fusion research industry has nothing working, nothing at all. But like for the past 50 years, they ++think++ they will have something working in the near future, and would like more government money.

    Oh, and the other angle on this story is that one of the parties has been criminally indicted, proven corrupt, lying, false, and inaccurate; and the other party is Andrea Rossi. (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/14/world/us-fines-lockheed-13-million-in-china-satellite-case.html)

    Sorry, that was a misstatement: Rossi is not actually part of this story – because he didn’t write the damn report. It’s really a choice between a company that violated the US Arms Export Control Act, and a group of independent scientists.

    To simply ignore this test, you have to believe that *all the measurements were wrong*, or that the *entire group of testers* (an everyone at IH, and Elforsk) were in on Rossi’s scam.

    It’s simply incredible – in the most literal sense of the word.

    • important people know that and prepare.

  • Fortyniner

    But why focus on these small quibbles? The report confirms that there is now a major new clean power source that will transform the world. Isn’t that something to celebrate rather than pick at?

  • Fortyniner

    Given the nature of the supposed buyer, and IH’s close-lipped approach, the story is unlikely to be either confirmed or denied. Who cares – this is ancient history, and if a prototype unit was purchased as stated (as seems possible – at least one 1MW unit disappeared at some point) it would have been for research purposes and would not affect ongoing commercial development.

    • Mark

      I care – LOL! I’m also trying to figure out why other people don’t care as much. There was so much intense speculation for a period of time, and, then, when no one could figure it out, everyone just seemed to move on. It didn’t matter to them when the bombshell was dropped, because they had already moved on. As far as whether or not this story is unlikely to be confirmed or debunked…well, even if you’re right, you’ll never know if you don’t try. Unlikely stuff happens, occasionally. Let’s just suppose, for a minute, that Kullander was right, and that the first customer really is The Naval Research Lab in The United States. Imagine if there was an effort, in the cold fusion community, to try to find someone who was influential enough and/or had connections to someone who was high enough up in the US government. Imagine if that person could be convinced to partially declassify and release a press release confirming, if not the location and what the excess heat was used for, at least that The Naval Research Lab did buy an E-Cat and that it is working according to the specifications. I think that this would be hugely significant. Even if unlikely that something like this would ever happen, it might be worth a shot. It’s looking like we might not have a whole lot better to do in the coming year, or so.

      By the way, I’m not really clear on how you know that the first plant would have been used for research purposes. I mean, it might have been used for that, but maybe not. Do you know something that we don’t?

  • MarcIrvin

    Just repeat the test in a way that diffuses the naysayers arguments. Waiting another year is silly. The science was irrefutable so their last straws efforts were 1) Rossi goons did the tests, 2) Rossi handled the reactants, and 3) no scientific peers signed off on the results. Those are fixable too, just like the science issues were predominately fixed. Come on.
    Why was this test so far beneath what was promised anyway. It is hard to get over that.
    Someone at a bona-fide lab step up and volunteer already. MIT, CALTECH, United Technologies, CERN whatever. Rossi supposedly has nothing to lose because all the components have been revealed. I am sure that there are others who feel that another year of doubt is more than we can take. It sucks away at our mental health.

    • Freethinker

      Those test will come, but likely on replicated reactors.

      Rossi and IH does not seem very perky on the subject of redoing this very soon, and likely there are preconditions (due to this being a product, there are IP considerations, and NDAs etc) other labs might object to.

      With an open project, a public and freelance project like MFMP or at some accredited and open minded universities, can more readily be repeated again with less or no constraints.

      Then, with papers published, MIT, CALTECH and the others might feel the pressure to look at it, and maybe this time they will be able to get the loading right ….

      No offense intended against Hagelstein and Schwartz, connected to MIT, but those guys are apparently quite lone on that big MIT campus…

      • clovis ray

        yep, I call these MIT fraudsters, the great suppressors, and in need of prosecution to full extent of the law,

  • Joniale

    It seems there is an error in the ECAT report.

    Could somebody confirm this?

    Please, see the comments of Mats in the following article

    http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/interview-on-radio-show-free-energy-quest-tonight/#comment-3604

    They are discussing about an inverted clam that can cause the COP 3.
    Please i need to know if this is destroying the report.
    🙁

    • You seem very determined to highlight what you are calling an ‘error’ (two identical posts plus one similar over the space of 4 hours). Is there some reason for that?

      • Joniale

        Yes my mistake. And i just want this issue to be clarified.

    • Do mean this one?

      Mats Lewan @ Abbe: “Unless you accuse the whole group of fraud I don’t understand your point.If you didn’t switch probes on both instruments, someone would have noticed during the 32 days that they were showing completely different values. I don’t believe that one of the instruments was in overload all the time, and that everyone thought this was ok.”

      Or this one?

      Mats Lewan @ Andrea S.: “There’s also this thing to consider: After two weeks, the input power was increased by about 100 watts, which would correspond to about 300 watts in reality, if we believe in the hypothesis of a reversed clamp. But the output radiated power was increased by 700 watts. More than twice as much. This could mean that COP rises very fast, from roughly one to two, when increasing the temperature a few hundred degrees.”

  • Joniale

    It seems there is an error in the ECAT report.

    Could somebody confirm this?

    Please, see the comments of Mats in the following article

    http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/interview-on-radio-show-free-energy-quest-tonight/#comment-3604

    They are discussing about an inverted clam that can cause the COP 3.
    Please i need to know if this is destroying the report.
    🙁

    • the symptom of inverting a clamp cannot be discrete. it is clear as some power get negative or pure reactive… the waveforme are illogical…

      they cannot be corrected.

      the only problem that I notices from McKubre, is that the calibration is done at 450C, and thus it is extrapolation ond model.

      anyway the 800->900W 1250-1400C excursion is the evidence of COP>1, even if all models and assumption are wrong.

      • Freethinker

        “the only problem that I notices from McKubre, is that the calibration is done at 450C, and thus it is extrapolation ond model.”

        McKubre also states that he is not familiar with the methodology of thermal cameras. ” I have little direct hands-on experience” he says.

        I have looked into it. Even though I am not a practitioner of thermal camera measurements in my daily life, I am not ignorant of this kind of instrumentation, the physics around it, and the properties of them.

        I wrote an extended comments below on my take on the temperature measurements etc, this is the snippet about the calibration:

        “The IR cameras used in the test operates in 7.5-13 microns. In this interval the alumina is opaque. You will not see through it. The alumina will behave like a black body. To calibrate the camera the emssivity is set, but this is done for the dummy at lower temperatures. This is OK,
        because the emissivity in the range of 7.5-13 microns does not vary (or very little) with the temperature, see Morrel 1987. A small systematic error may be attributed to the higher temperatures, making them be slightly overestimated. Morell 1987 : Morrel, R. (1987) Handbook of properties of technical and engineering ceramics.”

        If you find anything wrong in my reasoning, please let me know.

  • Joniale

    It seems there is an error in the ECAT report.

    Could somebody confirm this?

    Please, see the comments of Mats in the following article

    http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/interview-on-radio-show-free-energy-quest-tonight/#comment-3604

    They are discussing about an inverted clam that can cause the COP 3.
    Please i need to know if this is destroying the report.
    🙁

    • the symptom of inverting a clamp cannot be discrete. it is clear as some power get negative or pure reactive… the waveforme are illogical…

      they cannot be corrected.

      the only problem that I notices from McKubre, is that the calibration is done at 450C, and thus it is extrapolation ond model.

      anyway the 800->900W 1250-1400C excursion is the evidence of COP>1, even if all models and assumption are wrong.

      • Freethinker

        “the only problem that I notices from McKubre, is that the calibration is done at 450C, and thus it is extrapolation ond model.”

        McKubre also states that he is not familiar with the methodology of thermal cameras. ” I have little direct hands-on experience” he says.

        I have looked into it. Even though I am not a practitioner of thermal camera measurements in my daily life, I am not ignorant of this kind of instrumentation, the physics around it, and the properties of them.

        I wrote an extended comments below on my take on the temperature measurements etc, this is the snippet about the calibration:

        “The IR cameras used in the test operates in 7.5-13 microns. In this interval the alumina is opaque. You will not see through it. The alumina will behave like a black body. To calibrate the camera the emssivity is set, but this is done for the dummy at lower temperatures. This is OK,
        because the emissivity in the range of 7.5-13 microns does not vary (or very little) with the temperature, see Morrel 1987. A small systematic error may be attributed to the higher temperatures, making them be slightly overestimated. Morell 1987 : Morrel, R. (1987) Handbook of properties of technical and engineering ceramics.”

        If you find anything wrong in my reasoning, please let me know.

    • Joniale

      Hi again,

      Here a detailed explanation of the problem. If somebody with the knowledge can explain.

      http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123566844_1.pdf

      Thanks

  • Donk970

    The customer is using a nuclear reactor to generate heat. Maybe they are worried that despite Industrial Heat getting a certification they may still get in trouble for using a nuclear reactor. I think everyone is on very shaky ground here and the customer may be very reluctant to reveal themselves for fear of some blowback from government regulatory agencies or from the local public. Think about the news headlines if the local micro brewery installed an E-Cat to generate steam to boil wort more cost effectively. I can just see it now. “Joe’s Brewery Caught Using Nuclear Reactor to Make Beer”. Can you imagine the public outcry?

  • Donk970

    It occurred to me as I was reading other comments that people are missing one important thing. The public, in general, has a very negative view of anything nuclear. Think about the hysteria that surrounds light water fission reactors. They are much safer and cleaner than coal but just try explaining that to Joe Sixpack. Think about the political shitstorm that would ensue in whatever community Industrial Heat’s customer has installed this heat plant if people find out. It will be impossible to explain to anybody that it’s a different kind of nuclear reactor and isn’t dangerous because everyone will have stopped listening at “nuclear”. This is the kind of thing that could stop the E-Cat in it’s tracks. Imagine a coal company getting hold of this information. They would spin it as “dangerous, untested nuclear reactor being used in urban community”. This is probably the best reason I can think of for IH to build these things in China.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      Sorry, but I can’t let this simply go without comment: Fission Reactors are a serious failure every day of their existence. The production of high-level radioactive waste is not a hypothetical disaster, it is a disaster already – we don’t have a way to clean it up, and and we’re making thousands of tons of it every year. That on top of millions of acres of now-unusable land in the US alone. That on top of contamination of drinking water and other water systems.

      And that doesn’t count for the Fukushima meltdown, which is not under control by any reasonable measure. It doesn’t count the risk of a terrorist attack (that the 911 planes could have flown into Indian Point Nuclear Plant, or Limerick with 8 million people in a 50 mile radius).

      You say, “Think about the hysteria that surrounds light water fission reactors”, but if the reaction of “Joe Sixpack” isn’t credible for you, how about the actuaries at America’s private insurance companies. Because they won’t touch Nuclear Fission plants without a gigantic federal bailout (Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act).

      PS: as someone who has watched this industry for 35 years, and doesn’t drink, I think your little, BS, “Joe Sixpack” derision is insulting and would appreciate it if you would have a little more respectful tone.

      • Fortyniner

        I agree with everything you have said about the ongoing disaster of nuclear fission. and think that Donk970 is seriously misguided when he repeats the nuclear industry’s shallow and disingenuous ‘safer and cleaner’ propaganda.

        However this doesn’t invalidate his argument that cold fusion could become entangled with fission in the minds of the less well educated because of the ‘n’ word. IMHO, the term ‘low energy nuclear reaction’ was a mistake from the outset for this reason, and is handing the opposition a convenient club to beat the technology with.

        It may be too late at this point but I would really like (but don’t expect) to see the term LENR dropped in favour of ‘cold fusion’ or a newly invented term as quickly as possible – certainly before the pilot plant or similar devices from other parties are rolled out in public.

        • bachcole

          I am confused. Why would the nuclear industry be saying “safer and cleaner” when they refuse to consider any new technology and their technology is the same ol’ same ol’ for the past 50 years? Is it because it is easier to lie than to consider radical and hopeful new technology.

          • Fortyniner

            Basically, yes. Not only are many hundreds of billions of dollars invested in fission reactors plus fuel supply infrastructure such as mines and processing plants, most of which would become both redundant and unwelcome overnight, but they would also be left with trillions of dollars in liabilities, including decommissioning their white elephants and having to find some way to tackle the huge legacy of high level waste and ground contamination.

            There is also the factor of the world’s nuclear arsenal, much of the cost of which has been hidden in and offset by the civil nuclear program. Without this ‘cover’ or the reactors they need to produce plutonium for their bombs, the militaries of all large powers would be left high and dry – something all politicians in the countries affected will fight tooth and nail to prevent (q.v., Cameron in the UK).

            Politicians will also be aware that should the nuclear industry collapse, the financial institutions that are the ultimate owners will quickly hive off their nuclear interests and make these subsidiaries bankrupt, passing the cost of dealing with decommissioning and waste on to their governments (i.e., the public- not exactly a vote winner).

  • Donk970

    It occurred to me as I was reading other comments that people are missing one important thing. The public, in general, has a very negative view of anything nuclear. Think about the hysteria that surrounds light water fission reactors. They are much safer and cleaner than coal but just try explaining that to Joe Sixpack. Think about the political shitstorm that would ensue in whatever community Industrial Heat’s customer has installed this heat plant if people find out. It will be impossible to explain to anybody that it’s a different kind of nuclear reactor and isn’t dangerous because everyone will have stopped listening at “nuclear”. This is the kind of thing that could stop the E-Cat in it’s tracks. Imagine a coal company getting hold of this information. They would spin it as “dangerous, untested nuclear reactor being used in urban community”. This is probably the best reason I can think of for IH to build these things in China.

    The other thing that could happen is that the DOE which hopefully will continue believing it’s a hoax could shut E-Cat development down cold and the state department could prevent Industrial Heat from taking it out of the country which would effectively kill it dead. All the skepticism in the broader scientific community is a very good thing for now because as McKubre said it keeps the evil eye of the DOE off of the E-Cat. Hopefully by the time anyone important figures out that Rossi is building a nuclear reactor it will be safely in production in China and nobody will be able to do anything about it.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      Sorry, but I can’t let this simply go without comment: Fission Reactors are a serious failure every day of their existence. The production of high-level radioactive waste is not a hypothetical disaster, it is a disaster already – we don’t have a way to clean it up, and and we’re making thousands of tons of it every year. That on top of millions of acres of now-unusable land in the US alone. That on top of contamination of drinking water and other water systems.

      And that doesn’t count for the Fukushima meltdown, which is not under control by any reasonable measure. It doesn’t count the risk of a terrorist attack (that the 911 planes could have flown into Indian Point Nuclear Plant, or Limerick with 8 million people in a 50 mile radius).

      You say, “Think about the hysteria that surrounds light water fission reactors”, but if the reaction of “Joe Sixpack” isn’t credible for you, how about the actuaries at America’s private insurance companies. Because they won’t touch Nuclear Fission plants without a gigantic federal bailout (Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act).

      PS: as someone who has watched this industry for 35 years, and doesn’t drink, I think your little, BS, “Joe Sixpack” derision is insulting and would appreciate it if you would have a little more respectful tone.

      • I agree with everything you have said about the ongoing disaster of nuclear fission. and think that Donk970 is seriously misguided when he repeats the nuclear industry’s shallow and disingenuous ‘safer and cleaner’ propaganda.

        However this doesn’t invalidate his argument that cold fusion could become entangled with fission in the minds of the less well educated because of the ‘n’ word. IMHO, the term ‘low energy nuclear reaction’ was a mistake from the outset for this reason, and is handing the opposition a convenient club to beat the technology with.

        It may be too late at this point but I would really like (but don’t expect) to see the term LENR dropped in favour of ‘cold fusion’ or a newly invented term as quickly as possible – certainly before the pilot plant or similar devices from other parties are rolled out in public.

        • bachcole

          I am confused. Why would the nuclear industry be saying “safer and cleaner” when they refuse to consider any new technology and their technology is the same ol’ same ol’ for the past 50 years? Is it because it is easier to lie than to consider radical and hopeful new technology.

          • Of course. Not only are many hundreds of billions of dollars invested in fission reactors plus fuel supply infrastructure such as uranium mines and processing plants, most of which would become both redundant and unwelcome virtually overnight, but they would also be left holding an estimated 2 trillion dollars or more in liabilities, including decommissioning their white elephants and more expensively, having to find some way to tackle the huge legacy of nuclear waste and ground contamination.

            The way in which the international nuclear industry (and in particular General Electric, who built the reactors) has shrugged off all responsibility for the cost of the ongoing Fukushima disaster to the Japanese people and the rest of the world, or even for attempting to help control the massive ongoing nuclear contamination of the Pacific Ocean, provides some indication of the moral standards adopted by this industry. Much the same kind of irresponsible behaviour can be anticipated worldwide when profits cease to flow from their operations.

            There is also the factor of the world’s nuclear arsenal, much of the cost of which has been hidden in and offset by the civil nuclear program. Without this ‘cover’ or the reactors they need to produce plutonium for their bombs, the militaries of all large powers would be left high and dry – something all politicians in the countries affected will fight tooth and nail to prevent (q.v., Cameron in the UK attempting to build a ‘new generation’ of huge but primitive boiling water reactors (BWR) on the basis of faked information put before the UK parliament: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/31/ministers-misled-nuclear-power-stations ).

            Politicians will also be aware that should the nuclear industry collapse, the financial institutions that are the ultimate owners will quickly hive off their nuclear interests and make these subsidiaries bankrupt, passing the cost of dealing with decommissioning and waste on to national governments (i.e., the public- not exactly a vote winner).

      • Donk970

        Just to be clear, I’m no fan of fission. I really don’t like our current, 50 year old, light water fission technology that was never intended for civilian use, is inherently dangerous and hugely wasteful of expensive fuel. In addition to that it really chaps my ass that research into cold fusion wasn’t pursued with the same vigor for the last 25 years as hot fusion. It particularly irritates me because cold fusion was basically killed because our “for profit” scientific and academic communities were looking out for their economic and political self interest instead of pursuing science.

        But, having said that…. The practical reality is that coal is killing us right now. Coal fired power plants dump not only vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere but also huge amounts of radioactive waste into the environment which makes them far worse than fission nuclear right now. Coal has all the radioactive waste of a fission power plant with none of the advantages.

        Luckily I don’t believe that adoption of the E-Cat or any other type of LENR device will be dependent on US public opinion. More practical nations like the Chinese or India will pursue and commercialize these technologies and eventually export them back to us. I also tend to think that the DOD, DOE and other agencies are well aware that LENR and the E-Cat are real but also know that they haven’t got a prayer of shutting it down at this point. They are, at best, fighting a rear guard action to protect oil, coal and existing nuclear interests for the short term so that there is a smooth transition to the new technology.

        Long term? The E-Cat or some other LENR device will become the energy staple of the world so rejoice.

  • Freethinker

    You may be right, but it is a bridge that must be crossed eventually, even if the MaryYugo’s of the world will be standing road side and generously sharing their “insightful” opinions.

    No doubt will this be new territory in which to be pedagogic and explaining this to the community.

    And somehow, would that not be just an extension on the divine comedy and joke on LENR, if when it reached fruition it will again be viewed with suspicious eyes, this time for being “nuclear”.

    That bold customer will have to stand up. And likely they will understand that they have to, if this is to progress. If they don’t understand, maybe IH can fix that with some monetary incentive.

  • Freethinker

    Those test will come, but likely on replicated reactors.

    Rossi and IH does not seem very perky on the subject of redoing this very soon, and likely there are preconditions (due to this being a product, there are IP considerations, and NDAs etc) other labs might object to.

    With an open project, a public and freelance project like MFMP or at some accredited and open minded universities, can more readily be repeated again with less or no constraints.

    Then, with papers published, MIT, CALTECH and the others might feel the pressure to look at it, and maybe this time they will be able to get the loading right ….

    No offense intended against Hagelstein and Schwartz, connected to MIT, but those guys are apparently quite lone on that big MIT campus…

  • Mr. Moho

    Well, that’s a twisted logic there.

  • Fortyniner

    You seem very determined to highlight this ‘error’ (two identical posts plus one similar over the space of 4 hours). Is there some reason for that?

    • Joniale

      Yes my mistake. And i just want this issue to be clarified.

  • Fortyniner

    Do mean this one?

    “Mats Lewan: Unless you accuse the whole group of fraud I don’t understand your point.If you didn’t switch probes on both instruments, someone would have noticed during the 32 days that they were showing completely different values. I don’t believe that one of the instruments was in overload all the time, and that everyone thought this was ok.”

  • clovis ray

    PT, and what would you think will happen, if the customer is reviled, to answer my own question, they would be harassed, to the point that Dr. Rossi work would be impacted,

  • psi2u2

    I think you are missing the point, which to a reasonable person thinking about how the real world of industry operates, seems incontestable. Talking about kids building reactors in their garage is utterly beside the point, as anyone who thinks carefully about it will notice.

  • Donk970

    So, given the choice of coal or a light water fission power plant to generate electricity the fission power plant is the best choice. Do a bit of research and find out how much radioactive waste a coal power plant releases into the environment per GWh of energy compared to what a lw fission power plant does. Do I like light water fission? NO, light water fission is an inherently dangerous sixty year old technology that was never intended for civilian use. Light water fission power plants are horribly inefficient in their use of fuel; 95% of the waste is unburned fuel. And that is my point, the public is badly misinformed about nuclear energy in general.

    To anyone who is informed, LENR type fusion is by far the best alternative if it can be made to work. But there are alternatives to dangerous light water fission that would also be a big step in the right direction. There are molten salt reactor designs that would actually consume spent fuel rods from lw reactors for fuel – ton of spent fuel rods in with a 100 pounds of waste with a half life of a few hundred years out sounds like a big plus to me. Another molten salt design would use thorium as the initial fuel with only small amounts of waste produced.

    My point being that not all nuclear is created equal and as long as the public at large doesn’t really know the difference between fission and fusion, the mere mention of nuclear is going to be a problem for acceptance of the E-Cat.