Open Letter to the Authors of the Lugano Hot Cat Test (Peter Gluck)

The following open letter was posted by Peter Gluck on his Ego Out blog, and Vortex-l

Giuseppe Levi [email protected]
Evelyn Foschi: unknown, please convey
Tornbjorn Hartman: [email protected]
Roland Petterson: [email protected]
Bo Hoistadt: [email protected]
Lars Tegner: [email protected]
Hanno Essen: [email protected]

Dear Authors,

For the sake of Science and especially for the New Paradigm of the energy source called in present Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, it is necessary to get more essential scientific data regarding the very important experiment made by you.

This is possible only via a collegial and mutually respectful dialogue with you.

I have elaborated and described the principles for organizing such a dialogue here:

The impact of my proposition was minor and I have received too many thorny and Krivitized questions, unusable – therefore I have decided to write you in my own name and in the name of my Blog and to ask you the following questions:


1- Can you tell us more about the design of the Cell and the planning of the Test?

2- On which thermal and optical characteristics of the alumina used for the vessel, was the test based?

3- Can you give more data regarding the internal structure and the transport, transfer and transformation of matter and energy in the Cell?

4- What methods of stimulation (EM etc.) have you used to trigger the reactions?

5- In which extent the cell/process tolerates the presence of air and water?

Please remove any and all the doubts regarding the temperature of 1400C on the Cell ergo question 6 and 7:

6- How do you explain the survival (?) of Ni nanostructures in the close proximity of the melting temperature of nickel?

7- Is the device “calorimetrable” i.e. what is the effect of cooling, partial removal of excess heat?

8- Based on your two tests including the analyses of both fuel and ash what do you think about the reactions taking place?

9- Is there a complete set of analyses bound to the test- that can be used to work out understanding and theory/ies of the process?

10- -With whom from you can we discuss New Paradigm (theory)?

11- What your attitude toward replication of the test, new tests other actions in collaboration?

Please send the answers to the Blog (comments) or to [email protected]
Thank you in advance,

Peter Gluck

  • Dr. Mike


    Thanks for posting an excellent set of questions. To your list I would like to add my own
    questions that I had in my recent Post:

    1. Was the “Joule heating” in the Cu wires in Table 7 calculated the same as the
    dummy run Cu wire Joule heating on page 14? If so, does this mean that the measured
    currents during the active run that were more than twice (2.3 to 2.5 times) that of the dummy run? What type of Inconel were you using for your heater wire? Did you verify from the manufacturer’s spec on the Inconel that its temperature coefficient of resistance was very small, which means that the power delivered to the Inconel heater wires should have been nearly proportional to the square of the measured current for the entire temperature range of the experiment?

    2. How was the pulse generator electrically connected to the power controller and
    the Inconel heater wires? Shouldn’t the pulse generator be included it the Figure 4 wiring diagram?

    3. What was the estimated power input to the reactor from the pulse generator for
    the dummy run, for the ~800W active run, and for the ~920W active run?

    4. What was the procedure used to insure that the “fuel” was loaded uniformly
    within the reactor? Does the fine Ni powder stick to the alumina reactor walls, or does gravity cause the “fuel” to form a line at the lower portion of the reactor?

    5. What were the actual concentrations of the C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, and Mn in the “fuel”?

    6. Was it difficult to recover the “ash” from the reactor? Did Rossi help just because he was
    experienced in this task? Was the “ash” immediately given by Rossi to be tested by Bianchini?

    7. Who made the decision to raise the operating temperature to ~1400 oC? Was anyone concerned about random fluctuations in the temperatures of individual Ni particles causing localized melting? What did Rossi say about raising the temperature this high?

    Assuming that the authors of the Lugano report get a chance to read these comments, let me use this opportunity to thank them for their fine work.
    Dr. Mike

    • peter gluck

      Dear Mike,

      thank you your questions are both good and necessary, but not for the very fisrt ste of questions.I have expalined this in my previous writing- cited in this one. Plus if they receive too many questions at once they surely will not answer.
      my greetings,

  • GreenWin

    Peter, a good set of questions. However, I expect that several questions will go unanswered simply because these scientists are not privy to the proprietary details. You should not be surprised by this as it is likely should similar questions be put to Defkalion, (with whom you are closely acquainted) they would claim proprietary interests. The same goes for Dr. McKubre who is clearly aligned with Brillouin.

    Keep in mind the Industrial Heat investors and Rossi and company have every reason to protect their intellectual property until such time as the USPTO gets honest enough to grant them a patent – or they continue to market under Trade Secret protection. Like LENR itself, it requires an input to obtain the amplified output.

    • peter gluck

      They will answer indirectly in the updates- see what says Rossi on his Blog.

  • I wish the testers also touch down on the processes where Andrea Rossi loaded and unloaded the device with the fuel.

    Accusations have been made regarding his involvement and the powder.

    Was Rossi left alone while this process took room?

    Did the cameras in the lab cover this process?

    Was there any scientist (how many) present while this was taking room?

    Did the testers trust Rossi with this process or where they hawking on him in order to make sure he was not fiddling with the samples?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I have already tried to point out why the assumption that Rossi could have manipulated the fuel is absurd. In Rossi’s patent applications it is claimed that the reaction produces copper. But no copper has been found in the ash. Rossi would certainly have added some copper if he had manipulated the fuel. The absence of copper is a huge problem for him with regard to his negotiations with the patent office.

      • Mr. Moho

        I think this is a weak argument. This story has been dragged on for so long that, assuming the deception scenario is true, a completely new and unexpected result at this stage could help Rossi buy more time so he could claim he needs it to understand what happened.

        Anyhow, now that the IP has been acquired by Industrial Heat I think the focus should be on its managers, not Rossi. Darden and Vaughn are the ones who should be answering questions and explain what’s really going on. They don’t seem to be distancing themselves from Rossi, rather the opposite instead.

        • Ophelia Rump

          What deception scenario is that Mr. Moho. Please be explicit.
          What did he do, why did he do it, what materials could have made that possible?

          • Mr. Moho

            With deception scenario I mean one where Rossi or possibly one or more accomplices could have somehow fooled the testers into thinking that they were doing measurements correctly. It was a hypothesis for the mere sake of argument, I was not implying that’s what actually happened.

            The point I’m making is that assuming it did, one can’t keep Industrial Heat out of the equation. It’s not just about Rossi anymore. It’s very unlikely that Darden and Vaughn still don’t know whether he is telling the truth about the E-Cat or not; they just have to know either way.

          • Ophelia Rump

            Yes I gathered from your wording it was not an accusation which you were making. Thank you for specifying.

          • LCD

            Wow mrs O let’s turn it down a notch

          • Thomas Clarke

            It is now clear one way how the testers could have been so fooled. That has some evidence from the Joule heating/power ratio anomaly. Luckily, detailed examination of the stored PCE-830 data during the startup phase of the active test should settle the matter (for this methods at least)..

          • Heath

            And it doesnt help that Jones Beene on vortex claims that Rossi bought the same purity of NI62 from a person Jones apparently knows personally. An unproven statement that serves little other purpose than to muddy the water of the tests validity even though he is a believer in LENR. I do agree that i would like know a bit more about the ash extraction process and how it was safe guarded.

      • Mike

        Yep, that is exactly what I was thinking. But I was also thinking that Rossi may know what is different in the reactor that they didn’t get any copper..

    • Ophelia Rump

      Please specify what magic powder Rossi may have substituted to falsify the existence of the first impossible magic powder?

      • Ophelia,

        I never claimed Cold Fusion(powder) does not produces excess energy.

        As stated – I claim to have known this to be a fact for several years

        Personally, I think the composition of the pow(d)er is a different topic of excess heat measurements.

        It was discussed in many forums the thesis that N62 would be the optimal Nickel Isotope for LENR, however, as to my understanding, it was discussed from the angle that the powder would initially consist of N62, not that during the operations other Nickel Isotopes would transmute to N62.

        Also – as to my understanding of the paper, only parts of the powder was analysed and because of that we have to consider that other parts of the powder could have given – for reasons we do not necessarily understand right now – other results.

        Was the powder collected, shaken – then a sample was taken for analysis or did Rossi scrape out a bit of powder from a part of the reactor that would have showed a completely different results than powder from other part of the device.

        • Ophelia Rump

          Thank you for clearing that up. My apologies for mistaking your objectives.

    • Obvious

      Most of the answers to these questions are in the report. I suggest reviewing pages 7 and 28, before questioning the professors. That way your questions can be more specific.

      • Thank you,

        Reviewing these pages states: Its says the powder was inserted with one member of the team present – but it also states:

        “Considering that we do not know the internal structure of the reactor, and therefore cannot completely rule out that there were other charges inside it besides the one weighed and inserted by us”

        I guess I should edit my post to make it more specific

        • Obvious

          I note that there does not seem to be a reported measurement of the mass of the “ash”, which might suggest whether more or less material came out of the reactor than went in as fuel.

        • Obvious

          Regarding your last question (above), whether there is anything to indicate the analyses would be different if all the material were tested:

          “The sample was taken by us at random from the fuel and ash, observing utmost care to avoid any contamination.”


          “An arbitrary sample of different granules is chosen for the analysis, but the same samples are used for both EDS and SIMS. The fuel contains natural nickel powder with a grain size of a few microns. The existence of natural Nickel content is confirmed by all four analyzing methods being used.”
          Therefore the random sampling of fuel particles seems to be effective for the fuel, so a similar random sampling should be at least indicative of the ash content. It would seem unlikely that the professors picked only super-enriched samples of ash by a fluke. However, that does not mean that it wasn’t a fluke. Pouring the sample into a test tube, then pouring some out for selection should homogenize the material reasonably well. It is feasible that larger particles were formed by Ni62 agglomeration, but the normal Ni was such fine powder that it was not, or could not easily be selected… but if separation of nickel isotopes were that simple, they would be much cheaper.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I downloaded the report again from the elforsk site and noticed that the file has changed (different number of bytes than the old file which I had saved). However I don’t find any differences by comparing text line endings on each page. Maybe there are no factual changes but someone just generated the pdf afresh for some reason.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I have recently compared the Sifferkoll version with the first version released by Elforsk. They had only added the date and corrected two typos. The size of the current file from Elforsk is identical with the size of my original file, thus I think that there have been no further modifications.

    • Obvious

      The version presently available (10/10/2014) was edited from the original, dated 05/10/2014.
      Minor spelling errors have been fixed, but I saw no significant changes otherwise.

  • David Lunt

    I would like to believe that the E-Cat really produces a lot of excess heat energy, but I ran across what seems to be a serious objection to the radiated power thermography calculation.

    The authors of the new paper used the basic Boltzmann formula for radiated power in watts per square meter, which is a function of the emissivity of the radiator and the temperature. The measured temperature value used for the Boltzmann formula was apparently indirectly calculated by the camera electronics using operator input values, in particular the emissivity of the radiator.

    The authors used the temperature calculated by the IR camera after having entered the emissivity of alumina into the camera, assuming that the entire heat radiating body of the E-Cat was alumina. Then the total power output was computed for the paper, mainly using the area of the alumina tube and tube ends.

    The problem claimed with this is that alumina is apparently partially transparent to the thermal radiation of the inconel resistors. If this is true, what was really picked up by the IR camera was IR radiation partially coming directly from the Inconel resistors. The Inconel resistors have a much higher emissivity and smaller area than the surrounding alumina tube. This error would make the IR camera temperature measurement and corresponding total E-Cat power output calculated from it given in the paper much higher than its actual value, with no actual net excess heat output.

    I couldn’t find any data on the thermal radiation transparency of the alumina used for the tube, but I did discover that another form of special sintered powdered alumina has been proposed for use in the IR domes of Sidewinder missiles. For this use it of course would have to be quite transparent to IR.

    I’m not an expert in the science, and would be open to an answer to this objection. Is this objection invalid, and if so why?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I’m as well not an expert, but this question has already been addressed. In the spectral range that the cameras can detect, the alumina is opaque. Therefore, the measured output should even be somewhat lower than the total amount of emitted energy. Brian Ahern has spoken with a top-notch expert in thermography who confirmed that the setup was appropriate. Therefore, I think that there is no reason to be overly concerned with regard to this.

      • LCD

        This is correct. The alumina is roughly 80% transmissive between 200nm & 7microns, everywhere else that matters its opaque, whereas the ir camera only sees between 7.4 microns and 13microns. So you see that shouldn’t be a problem. As far as the side winder raydome you mention IR but don’t specify swir, nir or fir, so it could be true that the raydome can see ir and that the test is correct since nir, swir, and other ir light is in the 1 to 7micron band.

  • Freethinker


    I agree in so far that the full data from the active run, as the reactor heats up will give some more information, but I still maintain my position on what is currently available. You cannot deduce anything from comparing the non active with the active by evaluating the Joule heat data.

    Also,I think you are to limited in your reasoning about the impedance of the the coils in the active reactor environment. By arguing from an NTC perspective and temperature alone you – as much as you may be correct in the assertions you make – you can not be certain that e.g. magnetic field situation does not contribute in some way that will cause the current to be lower. You do not have all the information about the innards of the reactor – and the innards of the reactor does have a direct relation to the IP.

    I do find your last statement puzzling. Could you perhaps elaborate on “LENR process interact with current is not relevant – the current runs inside the heating wires”.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    If you calculate the power on the basis of voltage and current, the relationship is linear. Only if you take the resistance as a basis value you have to use I^2.

  • Freethinker

    True, albeit this is a but more tangible.

  • LCD

    We can make some qualitative assumptions from the pictures of the turned off ecat sitting on the scale. It’s not transparent to the naked eye which is in the visible where it is most transparent. From that alone we can deduce its likely very opaque at above 7 um.

    But I agree that info would have been nice.


    • Thomas Clarke

      That could be an opaque tape underneath a translucent Al2O3 outer skin?

      • LCD

        Don’t you think it would melt

  • LCD

    What picture are you looking at?

  • Freethinker


    you still argue that something will nullify the claims of the report while at the same time conceding you do not have enough information to do so. “Perhaps” other measuring errors will, apart from the irrelevant inverted clamp problem.

    What good is then your reasoning? You can prove nothing. You can only cast shadows.

    There is no certainty Rossi’s COP is real?

    When it comes to the test team and IH’s claims of the COP, they have a much stronger position than you have with your line of reasoning. They point at relevant information that is presented, you point at things for which you have no relevant information, only conjecture.

    Could it be “redone more carefully”? There is no paper, no report that has ever been presented that has not made someone complain about it. It is inevitable. It is also part of the process. Also, you should perceive of this report as a preprint, as they have submitted this to Journal of Physics D. Maybe you should consider these things before expressing words as “innocent or deliberate” as though the team were gullible or corrupt individuals when in fact they are credible scientists and engineers. It exposes your thinking much more than you perhaps intended.

    But by all means, press for more data, preferably ALL raw data. I would like to have it too. But right now, they are right and you are wrong.

  • Freethinker

    Except that there is no hole to plug, as you cannot build a viable argument that is coherent and consistent. You point out what *could* be problems that *could* cause the COP to be 1, but any such model can be build any way because for all you know e.g. there is an array of IR laser heating the back side to the reactor, and all data you look at is meaningless anyway. But that is of course not the case.

    Your cool and leveled reasoning aside, you are building your case on things that outside the scope of the test , and in the same cool manor of reasoning you are belittling the test team.

    There are two main observables that you should be concerned with, and that is the in-power and the temperature of the reactor. The authors then have a more elaborate model to describe all energy so it becomes thus more complex, but the core situation is – two observables. Not how the Joule heating can be so and so, or if the Inconel has this or that property. Things for which you have no information, or no relevant or coherent information.

    “The test COP could be invalid. That seems very likely, based on internal inconsistency, but I cannot prove it”
    “I have proof that the tests prove nothing. That nullifies them as far as their purpose..” and of course “I have no evidence of their wrongdoing.”

    So you have no proof the COP is invalid, or any wrong doing, but you do have proof that the test prove nothing. And on top of that you have the nerve to point out the obvious “Science requires tests to be proven valid.”. Why don’t you start by understanding the scope of the test?

    You, yourself, may be convinced, but you do not have proof for “that the tests prove nothing”. Why? Because you extend your judgment beyond the black box, and base your conclusion on the lack of information. And as you cannot judge, you claim the test false. But it is rather you who are in error as the test you evaluate is not the right one.

    So I wonder. Why is it necessary for you to belittle the team, insinuating they are not independent, and in the extension that they are dishonest, to claim that you can prove that the report cannot carry the claims therein? Is it perhaps so that you “know” this cannot work? You know. The same thing you accuse me of being guilty of? I wonder. What is your take on LENR as a whole?

    The core of your argument is the claimed inverted clamp, and the non relevant comparison between joule heating in the dummy and the active reactor. There is nothing for you there. You lack the logical support to say that the authors conclusions are false or that they have been unsuccessful in leading in evidence the reasonable conclusions they presented in their report.