Cold Fusion: The Cat is Finally out of the Box (French Article)

I missed this when it was published but today found a reference on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, a popular French language self-described liberal website covering news and current affairs has published an article titled “Cold Fusion: the cat (E-Cat) is finally out of the box” by Jean-Pierre Cousty.

The article is largely positive in the coverage it gives of the Lugano test, and the author is enthusiastic regarding the future role that LENR will play in energy production.

Cousty writes:

We now have official proof that the future of global energy will not perhaps in the near future by wind or solar but the implementation of this cold fusion even if it takes decades. Several companies, such as Brillouin, are ready to market devices and futuristic dreams are good train as a Swiss company speaks to run cars continuously for months with a Stirling engine types. For example, problems of sea water processing freshwater have an off and inexpensive for Africa and countries in the developing solution …

Life of cold fusion will be able to resume its course with the 19th Conference Annual (ICCF-19) to be held this year in Padua in Italy April 13 to 17, 2015 with 500 participants from planned . . .

It is obvious that OPEC, EDF, AREVA etc. must adapt to the new conditions of cold fusion could quickly become commonplace. The coming years should be exciting and promising hopes in world energy.

Speaking of OPEC adapting, I have noticed Brent Oil futures prices dropped below $81 dollars a barrel today. I doubt that this is E-Cat related, but there are clearly macroeconomic pressures on OPEC, with non OPEC nations like the United States and Canada producing oil at levels not seen for 30 years. If LENR really does come online in the near future, it will surely be a further blow to the power of OPEC nations.

  • Gerard McEk

    Excellent,quite positive. The ball is starting to roll!

  • Buck

    Wow . . . very positive and openly accepting that LENR will be impacting the world and humankind’s use of energy.

    It is a surprise as the French are very focused on the Nuclear Power (Fission) industry.

    Another hole in the armor that prevents the world from accepting and changing.

    • french people are anyway under anti-nuclear propaganda,, as much as on climate and anti-cold fusion propaganda…

      This site is anyway a liberal/libertarian/freemarket site and have heretic position on many subjects. it is that third extreme political direction in france, the most taboo and undefendable, beside right and left which are all conservative and statist and well synthesized today by FN which aggregates both conservatism.

      The article is quite positive, but the comments are quite … standards. ie some enthusiast and most comfortably negative with “it is visibly a scam”…

      • Buck

        Thank you for the clarification.

  • jousterusa

    My article about E-Cat at the APEC summit tells the same story, but in much better English! 🙂 http://www.american-reporter/5,098/1.html and on CNN.

    • Joniale

      Hi, nice article. However, i dont see so positive that Obama has all the control. I want this technology to be used by all, to be spread all over the world and to crate a distributed energy generation system. As you see it is Obama who say when and how.
      Not good to use this tecnology to have politic power.

      • jousterusa

        Especially if you’re Russian! Read my response to Bachcole for more on that.

  • – see picture

    Solar Hydrogen Trends is making headway as well, as they received an invitation to install a booth at the Defense Energy Summit and Innovation Showcase.

    I would guess that the Defense Department did a security check on the founders of Solar Hydrogen Trends and found, as Sterling Allan did with his own sleuthing, that they all have good to outstanding reputations. The Defense Department has their own intelligence organization plus can get information from the NSA, CIA, FBI, and the immigration department. They must have found no red flags. Solar Hydrogen Trends has a finance guy who is a Berkeley graduate. I doubt he would get involved in anything as quickly suicidal as a hoax. Their top scientist, as has been discussed earlier, is a star scientist, so unless they all have big gambling debts to the Russian mafia (a joke), they seem very serious and credible, with at least two verified independent tests already conducted.

    • bitplayer

      Unfortunately, I’m not seeing any indications that the Defense Energy Summit is in any way officially affiliated with the US Department of Defense (DOD). It looks like an industry group that is focused on selling energy technology to the DOD. Naturally people with DOD would attend. So there’s no indication of DOD vetting of SHT, so no basis to think that this lends any greater credibility to SHT. And nothing on the SHT website, or any SHT-related reference links, that provides any confidence about what they are doing.

      They really ought to change their name, too.

      • Alain Samoun

        I think that the name is right 😉

        • US_Citizen71

          Not to be confused with the grammar police, but the english rule is replace a with an when the following word begins with a vowel. I think it is the english way of getting back at the latin based languages for their masculine and feminine rules. : )

  • bitplayer

    X number of communications reach Y number of people, of whom Z are active detractors and W are willing to look further, potentially generating a larger audience that would draw more communications.

    Depending on the values in the equation, this could create a positive feedback loop in number of people reached.

    And all I can say is…thank you Frank!

  • Dods

    The science was there and when shown they chose not to see. Faked results and buried its validity. So with religious faith as you so well put it is what the scientific community have committed themselves. This sadly has put it in the situation it is today and its the best were going to get moving forward.

  • I would not invest in the company unless I did my own tests and knew how it works. I do not think anyone is going to give them serious money to start mass production unless they have their own exhaustive tests. So how are they going to scam anyone? They are not selling stock to the general public. They say they are willing and eager for others to test their device. It makes no sense to me as a scam. So, if it is not a scam, what is it? If it is real, oil will quickly become obsolete. The *too good to be true* factor weighs on my mind, but lots of things these days are too good to be true, like cheap giant screen televisions and computers built into glasses. We are use to them now. Maybe in the future we will take dirt cheap energy for granted.

    • bitplayer

      I would like to believe this is true. After all, chlorophyll works. So it seems likely that there are other combinations of techniques that will produce hydrogen from water. And maybe if they can snake the electrons efficiently into the right spots, it would not take too much input power.

      When SHT first came into view I believe there were some thoughts that they were converting oxygen to hydrogen, however, I can’t find anything anything that implies that. Their “independent reviews” don’t have enough information to be conclusive one way or the other. And such a claim would be a show stopper.

      One concern is that their principals, from a preliminary review, have a remarkably small internet footprint. Their investment manager is the only one that has much presence:

      I know startups like to be stealthy, however, this is very muddy picture for me.

  • Ophelia Rump

    If they can produce the volumes which they claim they need to start selling the gas at what amounts to below cost for competitors to produce the same gas, and in doing so win the market themselves, then they will both turn hefty profits and earn confidence in their technology if they can do that.

  • Axil Axil

    One of the sticking point that lodges deeply in the gullets of
    “real” science is that LENR is just too perfect to be
    believed. They are wrong. In point of fact, it is beyond too perfect,
    it is absolutely perfect. The corruption of the mind that is our
    legacy inherited from the mindless primitive from which we evolved
    rebels against the concept of such perfection. Such perfection cannot
    exist in this life. Such perfection can only exist and be truly
    enjoyed in the next. From the pride and prejudice born deep within
    that primordial dark place, mankind does not deserve to drink fully
    this sweet ambrosia of the immortals.

    LENR goes way beyond a great way to produce energy, it is a
    doorway to a new science whose implications when fully appreciated
    and developed will lift mankind up to trod upon brave new worlds
    spread like dust before eternity. A door for humankind will open to
    savor the power and the prerogatives of the gods. When man is wise
    enough to step through this doorway past the impossible that LENR
    lays open into timeless and unending existence, mankind will spread
    like a rising tide throughout the universe.

    This perfection of LENR is its own threat to its credibility and
    its science is here 1000 years before its proper time. What
    aborigines from the dawn of our past corruption would rightly
    understand the wonders of our present civilization without quaking
    with fear at the reality of such wonders? The science that LENR will
    reveal and the future that it portends it just too awesome to

    Carl Sagan explained the emotion behind our current science and
    cosmology when he wrote Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future
    in Space. Sagan played for high stakes in this attempt to “de-deify”
    our entire species. His beautiful, secular psalm dedicated to our
    demotion is unsurpassed. In Psalm 8, King David described us as only
    a little lower than the angels while in Pale Blue Dot, Sagan takes
    great pains to obliterate any sense of cosmic significance:

    Sagan says of that picture taken from by a spacecraft from a
    viewpoint far out in space: “We succeeded in taking that picture
    and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home.
    That’s us. On it everyone you know, everyone you love, everyone
    you’ve ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their
    lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of
    confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines. Every hunter
    and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of
    civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love,
    every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and
    explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every
    superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the
    history of our species, lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a

    With the help of LENR, this view claustrophobic view of human
    existence is about to change.

    • Billy Jackson

      This is the possibility that has me hooked on the technology. I understand the implications for cheaper energy, cars, heating, electric and so on.. but the possibilities of space flight via constant acceleration has me absolutely astounded that more scientists are not jumping on this.

    • NT


  • Paul Smith

    From that article:
    “…And China? They are not slow people. They saw the cold fusion device called the Energy Catalyzer coming, and as they have done with everything else you can possibly imagine, they have started manufacturing it under license from an American company callled Industrial Heat LLC of Raleigh, N.C….”

    So, it seems that China has already started manufacturing the E-Cats under license of IH.
    If true, this really is a great news.

    • hempenearth

      This has not been confirmed by a second source or preferably third source.

  • Mark E Kitiman

    Are you sure about that? Others have found it to be l/sqrt(3) of the time!

  • Alain Samoun

    Good article as was a previous article in 2012,but the online journal is kind of confidential for the french public.

  • Daniel Maris

    It’s not a matter of believing or knowing, it’s a matter of following with interest.

  • bitplayer

    “I’ll have what he’s having.” 🙂

  • pelgrim108

    Positive story about 2nd third party test on Hollands 4th biggest infotainment opinion website. Dated 10-13-14

    Translation to English by me:

    Cold Fusion via E-Cat probably still possible

    Unlimited renewable energy that hardly needs fuel. No waste. A nuclear reaction without radiation. Get a bottle of Spa Blue, fill it with fuel and it will fuel your car for the rest of your life. Too good to be true? Not according to Andrea Rossi, whose E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) shows a process of cold fusion is taking place, meeting all the above requirements.
    At least, thats what he says. He has been ridiculed for it for years by the scientific community. Cold fusion would mean that all our energy and environmental problems have been resolved and thus we enter the age of the Energy Revolution. So it is not true. Several critical blogs shot holes in research into Rossi’s Cold Fusion. Like this one from 2013.
    However recently a carefull scientific report (PDF) has been published which surely hints to the notion that Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat possibly is something very revolutionary. In any case, its something mysterious in terms of the ridiculous amount of energy generation.
    Ah well, think of it this way, Copernicus was also ridiculed for his statements at the time. Who knows, maybe Andrea Rossi has saved the planet. If it is true then we will experience it in the coming years.
    The fact remains that there is no need to worry about the environment or fossil fuels because there will eventually be a technological revolution which will again help humanity along. Will it be Rossi’s cold fusion, thats the question.
    Maybe the Swedish documentary provides something down here. Anyway, knowing humanity, we will always invent something.
    Everything will be fine.

    • Alain Samoun

      Pelgrim you’re sure an optimist! I don’t think that the coming years are going to be so rosy,but if you are looking at the long term I hope that you are right!

      • pelgrim108

        Geenstijl wrote the article. Its hollands biggest infotainment website. Only three regular mainstream press websites are bigger in Holland.
        Now for my own opinion:
        – avoid the installation of a totalitarian world government by the super-elite / bankowners
        – avoid being hit by an asteroid
        – avoid being damaged to much by a solar flare
        – avoid being propagandized into supporting another war against people that are not that much different from us, while the real reason is that the leadership will not join the globalist robber bankerclub.
        Then humanity will be fine.

        • Alain Samoun

          Your opinion seems more reasonable 😉

  • US_Citizen71

    Do you believe the measurement from the wall to the control box was incorrect?

    If not then your “IL/sqrt(3) factor should have used instead of IL/2” issue is nothing but minutiae.

    If you believe it was incorrect why do you believe it was incorrect?

    Let’s start there.

    • I don’t understand the debate…

      The power-meter measure the real power transmitted… from the wall socket, and a second power-meter to the reactor…

      sqrt(3) is only valid with sinusoidal if balanced… the power-meter have it right facing any of those rules of thumbs….

      as said on other comments, it seems clear that :

      – the current is pulsed sinusoidal from triac switch

      – the policy of switching is unknown

      – tric can switch on anytime, but have to switch off at zero current/voltage

      – it seems temperature stabilized by a feedback loop

      – some data available seems to show two pais of pulses, and not 3 as expected if the switch was switching in balanced mode

      – the paragraph on current estimation for loses let think that I3 is twice I1=I2… not knowing what they mean by twice, or by average current..

      the most probable is (taken from someone else comment and checked myself) is that the controller inject one pulse (until U1=U3) from C1 to C3 , 60 degrees later one from C2 to C3 wait 120 degrees, then negative pulse from C1 to C3, then 60 degrees later negative from C2 to C3, then 120 degrees silence and again…

      the average current discussed that respect I1=I2=I3/2 is the average absolute value. the power is twice . the effective current I3rms = sqrt(2)I1rms=sqrt(2)I2rms

      remains the evidence that the resistance of the reactor seems divided by 3 after kelvin temperature double from 720K to 1520K… it is not at all classical classic alloys netagive temperature coefficient , but as said Rossi, it is a proprietary alloy, doped metal, having proprietary properties.

      I have seen reports of such resistance excursion in some metal alloys with much less temperature change, when the lattice order change.
      Since we have LENR reactor and since Rossi discussed of a “Mouse” LENR excitator, and since we have here as only excitator this doped alloy, I can propose that the doped alloy is the mouse, and this it is thus not a heating coil but a LENR device.

      Since Type II superconduction, electromigration, proton conduction, resistance change, have been observed in LENR experiments, there is a logical equivalence to assert that LENR is impossible and that the Mouse doped alloy cannot have changed so much of resistivity.

      • US_Citizen71

        “Figure 5.The PCE display downstream from the control unit. On the left, one can see the current’s waveshape (identical in both PCEs), on the right its harmonics analysis.” –

        I believe what is being shown is the plot of 1 cycle of one phase. The wave form is being clipped in the center (peak) and possibly at the slope up and slop down ends of each half cycle, so what is plotted in a portion of the rise and a portion of the fall of the power waveform on each half cycle.

      • US_Citizen71

        I think that if all three phases were plotted together the clipping would result in a signal that essentially is six times the frequency of the power in. As one positive pulse would zero as a negative pulse from another phase would begin to increase.

  • Obvious

    The reactor can use ~50 A, and produce 3000 W of heat from electricity.
    But if it is only on 30% of the time, (duty cycle), then the measured W/h is only 900.

  • jousterusa

    A few quick replies, and my thanks for your questions:

    1. One of the scientists who validated the E-Cat was chair of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences Chemistry Committee, which decides who will win the Nobel Prize. Another was on one of the two committees, Chemistry and Physics. The Nobel committees want to be sure they don’t get duped as MIT duped us into believing Fleischmann and Pons were frauds, so I believe that in their partial funding of the study, the Royal Swedish Academy was preparing the way for a Nobel Prize for Rossi, perhaps shared with the heirs of Pons and Fleischmann, knowing that only by doing so can the science of cold fusion be lifted beyond the reach of the powerful controversies and indefatigable skeptics.

    2. It was President Obama’s Executive Order in October 2013 on the cogeneration of heat and power that laid the foundation for bringing a successful E-Cat technology quickly into government acceptance, particularly by the DOE, which has been adamant in opposing it. As with all other such appointments, the director of the US Patent Office serves at the President’s pleasure. Mr. Obama can do anything he likes, at least compared to the rest of us, and as you have probably noted, he does. Now he’s got the world by the testicles – he can order a patent granted, he can deliver discretionary finds for development, he can conclude international treaties to ensure the propagation of this humanity-serving technology. He will do all that in good time.

    3. What has Robert Godes ever produced or demonstrated besides press releases? I believe he is full of crap, and a man just hoping to take financial advantage of new interest in cold fusion generated in reality exclusively by Rossi’s work. He memorized the TIP and started regurgitating it with his spin everywhere he could to get big money to back him. It’s a sucker’s play.

    • ivanc

      I am waiting for an updated report, and you already declaring the ecat as real?
      The report has been challenged. the professors needs to answer the raised questions.

  • BroKeeper

    The oil markets are further exacerbated by LENR’s endorsements today. No upturns have yet occurred during significant postings since ITPR initial release on Oct 8th. Yes, along with lower global demand, an increase in US oil production while OPEC unchanged theirs continues to force Brent Oil prices down but the news today was followed by a sharper drop of about 2.0 points to 79.84. The argument for coincidence is fading when the data suggests otherwise and the majority of the collected announcements have been consolidated quickly at one source – the ECW. (Don’t fight it Frank, enjoy it.)

    I still stand behind my prediction of last January 19th: “2015 will begin commercial awakening of its industrial application and prematurely force companies change their “Five-year-plans”. New energy stocks will begin to rise and petroleum/coal/utility stocks begin to fall. Gas prices may fall below $3.00 per gallon. Electricity bills will level off and perhaps drop some.”

    You will begin seeing within the next year corporation’s juxtaposition of their long term plans and profit forecasts alongside the realization of these new energy sources.

    Today’s Yahoo News:
    “Gas to average under $3 in 2015, government says”.
    Although LENR is not mentioned here, its underlining psychic influence it has cannot be under estimated.–finance.html

    • Alain Samoun

      Don’t you think that the lower price of oil of today is because the low outlook of the economy?
      This type of drop, in the past, was a warning of an economic crisis, like in 2008.

      • BroKeeper

        Alain, I agree with you. I am only pointing out the short term and the long term. Surely in the short term, the three current influences mentioned above has the greatest effect on oil’s price but if you follow the charts associated with LENR announcements one can see the distinct deltas when comparing it against those without announcements.

        In the long term LENR will have lasting psychological effect knowing oil’s relatively short leash of sustained profitability per investment interests and buffer any major gains. The effects may actually decrease in time as price of oil becomes more affordable thus decelerating the urgency to sell off – always follows the money (profit).

        • Alain Samoun

          When you say:

          “the news today was followed by a sharper drop of about 2.0 points to 79.84”

          Which news are you referring to?

          • BroKeeper
          • Alain Samoun

            I see,it’s the crude oil price,I though that you were talking about an LENR news,like the endorsement of Elforsk. I still believe that LENR is still not on the radar of oil companies and investors – How many of them know what we know in your opinion? Not like us, their elites are not that well informed. They are probably more worry about the effect of Tesla Motors and the Elon Musk’s batteries in a relative near futur.

          • BroKeeper

            Just google “LENR” and a major oil company like “Shell” or “BP” and you’ll come up with enough leads. It is oil futures investor’s job to know.

          • US_Citizen71

            More than likely a large oil company would have a small team of techs constantly scanning the internet for mentioned of words like energy. Searching through articles for an informational edge is part of business. At some point enough articles containing something like LENR, ECat, Rossi, etc and energy would trigger a flag in a report causing a low level tech to review the list of articles. The tech has feeling that what he read might be important so he sends it up the chain. It makes it to a vice-president that throws some resources into more research and report is passed on up. Rinse and repeat across the energy companies.

          • LCD

            Well the single point reason underlying the current oil price is OPEC. In the past they would have closed the spigots and forced the price back up.

            So the question is why are they not.

            Their answer is that they are going after market share not price. The US and Canada interpret that as we’re going to lower the price so that your expensive methods of extracting it won’t work anymore.

            But the flip side to that is why? If demand continues for another fifty years to rise why not get the best price for the barrel.

            So there is something more. It’s almost as if they don’t believe the market is going to continue to grow. So why is that? Last time I checked more cars and more people are being made at a higher rate every year.

            If course the counter to that is battery capacities can grow and replace oil with e.g. coal/hydrogen/electrical.

            But it’s that the only reason, it’s hard to imagine.

          • Alain Samoun

            “So there is something more”
            What about an economic crisis in the near future?

          • LCD


          • Alain Samoun

            Economic: Stock market bubble,Global finance collapse,debt,unemployment…
            Politic: Ukraine,Middle East,European disintegration…

            Your choice …

          • LCD

            Oh you mean the same thing it’s been for the last fifty years.

          • Alain Samoun

            Yeep! 2008 is the last finance collapse,be ready for the next one,among other things…

          • Alain Samoun

            More or less + now climate change + 7 billions people + end of resources + robotization of economy ….

    • GreenWin

      A clear analysis Bro. And I agree, our sim is diminishing the LENR effect on oil pricing. However, it is fascinating to follow the calculated release of LENR info. At once frustrating because the data & conclusions are immediate and clear, but they must be “salted” into consciousness to avoid panic. Axil made an interesting comment that this technology is a thousand years early. I think not. If we consider the planet a “student” – when the student is ready the teacher arrives. Isn’t it mysterious the “teacher” is viewed a lowly buffoon by the high priests of science?

      • BroKeeper

        A little salt goes a long way – hides the bitter taste of panic. 🙂

  • US_Citizen71

    You didn’t answer my question.

  • Gerrit

    Ivanc, if science would take this seriously they could simply start with replicating the numerous reports of successful experiments showing excess heat and transmutations and work their way towards fully understanding the phenomenon which would enable increased output energies.

    There are plenty of opportunities for science to apply the scientific method of trial and error, skepticism and test in the field of LENR. There is absolutely no reason for an entrepreneur / inventor to supply science with his knowledge so that science has something to work on.

    You are barking up the wrong tree.

  • georgehants

    A lot of Truth on this page, that future generations will read regarding the the crimes of science on Cold Fusion and many other important subjects.
    We are forgetting to give the Russians due credit for being the first peer reviewed premier journal to cover the TPIR.
    I hope this is not childish sour grapes.

  • US_Citizen71

    So obviously you agree that there it no problem with the power measurement by the PCE-830 on the power in from the wall. The minutiae you continue to ramble on about can’t be proved for the circuit under discussion as there are to many missing values and unknowns about the circuit. You are correct discussion is over as one sided ramblings are not a discussion.

  • US_Citizen71

    see my reply to you same exact post below.

  • BroKeeper

    I couldn’t have said it any better. In tribute to your humanitarian prose I just fed the birds. Thank you Roger.

  • Obvious

    I repeat my answer here, since the other one is buried in pages of posts.

    Rxy=(ra+rb)rc /(ra+rb+rc)
    You measure the resistance between two delta corners (x,y), so Rxy
    Ignore C2 cables for now.
    One resistor is directly across the two corners (rc).
    Two resistors are across the one resistor, connected to the same corners. These are in series (ra+rb), and both are in parallel with the one resistor.(Draw the delta with one flat side up, this is the resistor side we are working with).
    Since all r’s are equal then
    Rxy = (r+r)r/r+r+r
    Rxy = (2r)r/3r
    Rxy = 2r/3
    3(Rxy) = 2r
    r =3(Rxy)/2

    I repeat: If you insist on doing the math using the square root of three, you are only calculating one phase at a time. If this is the case, you must choose a fraction of the 479 W, for one phase, and then the remainder of that fraction that makes the total 479 W for the other phase. (The third phase is the inverse of the other two phases that reduces the circuit to zero.) The results of the two phases are still in parallel with each other, so in order to calculate the whole they must be combined using parallel circuit rules. If you insist on using the entire 479 W in one equation, then you are solving the entire equation at once, then the result is neither multiplied nor divided by any factor. It is the answer for the total circuit.
    So then:
    Rxy = W/I^2
    Rxy = 479/388.09
    Rxy = 1.234
    r = 3Rxy/2
    r = (3)1.234/2
    r = 1.851
    But that doesn’t matter, unless you want to build a reactor or do even more unnecessarily complex math. Rxy is good enough to work out the entire reactor circuit as a whole, which is much simpler than vector math. If we are attempting to decipher the “Joule heat problem”, we only need the entire reactor values.
    I have already solved the entire circuit. The solution is so simple I can’t believe we spent all this time fretting over it.

    • Obvious

      Now, once we have our heads wrapped around that, lets divide the equilateral delta circuit into two isosceles triangles. We can consider the C2 cables to be a separate delta, (minus the reactor resistors), and deal with that later.
      Lets call the delta corners respectively x, y, z.
      Total power and current are at one corner, x.
      Each 1/2 current goes down each of the xy and xz resistors.
      We have a problem now: We cannot simply split the third resistor in half. What to do? (**If you are a quick study you can see that there is actually no problem. I’ll bring this up in a moment).
      The best solution is to solve for the current value of the third resistor as if it were part of each branch. Current from one branch, say xy, will now flow into both the y corner and the z corner. This current is spit in half when this happens (equal sides, remember). So now we have 1/4 the current arriving at y, and 1/4 the current arriving at z.
      The same thing happens with the xz side, so that 1/4 of the current in that side splits into 1/4 each at the z and y corners.
      BUT, the current flowing from zy and yz from each side are in opposite directions. So they cancel. The net current is zero.
      (**If you know your V = IR and P rules well, you would have noticed that the voltage across the zy resistor would be zero, since the currents are equal on both the xy and xz sides, and the V is the same in each branch because P= (V^2)I so no current flows anyways. If the currents were unbalanced, the zy resistor would flow the excess from one side to the other (as when the current is split unevenly between xy and xz). This is in fact why deltas are used in the first place: to balance the loads).
      1 x I goes in one corner, and comes out 1/2 I at each other corner. One resistor across the two 1/2 I corners does not participate.
      Now: The C2 cables. They are a larger delta, connected so that two C2 cables are on each side (2(C2) each). The C1 cables become the corners of the delta. Note from the example above, that two of those series-ed C2 cables (on the zy side) will not participate in the current. So the resistance of the C2 cables are 2 x C2 resistance on each side.
      BUT the sums of the 1/4 currents from each side still show up at z and y. So they have 1/2 each of the total input current. The current in each of the two series-ed C2 cables (one from each side) is 1/2 I.
      But don’t get carried away. The two sets of two C2 series cables are in parallel with each other. If you want to run all the I current through them at once:
      then their total effective resistance is (2(C2)) * (2(C2)/((C2)) + (2(C2)).
      This goes for the reactor resistors also.
      Thank you for your time.

      • Obvious

        So what does all the above mean?
        It means that from the perspective of a current split equally from one corner of a delta, the reactor resistors act as though they are two parallel resistors.
        So the correct resistance of r in this case is r*r/r or just r.
        So the effective resistance of the whole reactor circuit is 1.234 ohms.
        The resistance of the C2 cables in the entire circuit is (using 0.002811 Ohms for each C2 length) is (0.005622)(0.005622)/0.005622+0.005622
        = 0.002811 (!!)
        And the C1 (0.004375 Ohms) circuit is C1+((C1*C1)/(C1+C1)) = .

        …..still working…..

        • Obvious

          Now for the factor of dummy run Joule heat to active run Joule heat.

          You could re-calculate the active run Joule heat using the above values. They are so close to half, that for a first approximation 1/2 is close enough.
          Joule heat is reported at 37.77 W, so a (nearly) corrected 1/2 is 18.9 Watts and is close enough (I am using 20.42~, but we can get to that later for the rest of the values. Because of I^2, the difference is a factor of 0.96 times R in this case).

          Lets use the first row of values for the reactor in the report.

          If we multiply the reported Joule heat for row one, 37.77 W, by the new value for the dummy run of 3.64 W, we get 137.4828. Divide this by the old value of 6.73 W and we get 20.43 W. In this way we arrive at a corrected active run Joule heat.

          Divide the active run Joule value by the dummy run. This gives us a factor of the increase in Watts to the dummy run. Using 20.43 divided by 3.64, we get a factor of 5.61. This is a Watt factor, so by using the square root, we obtain a current factor for calculating the active run. (SqrRt(5.61) = 2.3690. (You may get a slightly different number, since my spreadsheet retains all the many decimal places that I have rounded here).

          2.37 is the factor to multiply the dummy run current of 19.7 A with. This gives us 46.6694 A. [Ivan, you will agree this is pretty darn close to your value for this row].
          46.6694 A , squared, times 1.23 Ohms gives us the active run Watts using W = I^R.
          This gives us an active run Watts of 2678.98 Watts.

          [Ivan, you had 2688.21 W for this value. Certainly close enough. Nicely done. Note that my factoring is different, but essentially the same values came out. My different total Watt value is due to the dummy run Joule heat adjustment, which (as can be seen) is insignificant in terms of total power developed. This also means we are both on the right path at this point in our journey.]

          ……still working……

          • Obvious

            So why does the calculated active run power deviate so much from the reported value in the report? Our active run calculations must be close to reality. We have arrived at essentially the same power, which is still three times higher than in the Lugano report.
            The answer, my friend, is that the report values are Joules. That is, Watts per second.
            And if the reactor was turned off for 70% of the time, then the average Joules are then 70% less, but the circuit Watts are the same (or zero).
            We cannot calculate the circuit when power = zero and current = zero.
            But the clock counts mercilessly forwards, reactor on or off, and we divide the active power over time.
            Thanks again everyone, for your attention..

          • Obvious

            And… I think (mercifully) that I can explain the OL and goofy waveform on the Lugano report PCE-830 photo in probably two or three sentences.

  • US_Citizen71

    No it is not impossible for only one phase to be active at a time that is the purpose of the control box. Have you looked at the wiring diagram on the report?

  • Obvious

    The power of a three phase circuit is the sum of the power of (any) two phases at any given time if the delta is balanced.
    The total power summed for all three phases is zero.
    The inverse circuit of two phases flowing current through two resistors (power) to a single return phase is a single phase supplying all the power complimentarily distributed between two phases.
    Current cannot flow through the wires in two directions at once.
    When you measure the average power in a three phase circuit with only one clamp, you are reading the inverse power delivered by the other two phases (towards the one clamp). The division of power between those two phases towards the one clamp at any one time are unknown in an unbalanced system, but must be 1/2, on average, in a balanced system.

    • Mark Szl

      Can yourself, ivanc, thomas kaminski, freethinker etc come together and review this whole thing in one place. Separate what is in the scope of the report from what is just speculation on what the applied waveforms could been that are be consistent with the findings. As you said, this is scattered all over the place and one cannot follow this stuff. Maybe if it is clear enough then the admin/Frank can put up a page … with a circuit diagram.

      • Obvious

        That is a good idea.
        The other wiring discussions ended up getting buried under on-topic posts…..

  • Obvious

    RMS means that the circuit has equivalent values to a DC circuit.
    But a DC circuit cannot have current flowing from three “positive” leads at the same time to a non-existent “negative”. No current would flow.
    You must either split the power from one lead, and return it via two leads, effectively connected together at far end of the circuit at some “negative” place.
    Or you must use two “positive” leads that arrive at one “negative” lead.
    If you split the power unequally between two leads, then these must be complimentarily proportioned so that the sum of power measured at their “negative” ends is equal to the input power.

  • US_Citizen71

    I believe he is accusing them of crimes against humanity because the suppression of the technology prevented improvements in the status quo. Which likely lead to needless suffering and death. I think he means it more in a philosophical sense than a legal one. But I could be wrong.

  • US_Citizen71

    Eat, sleep and reproduce. Beyond that anything they want. If energy becomes a non-issue as well as food, materials, etc… man will have time to explore philosophy and the arts. I’m not convinced that an AI will necessarily have that creative spark. Creativity is partially the result of misfires of nerve cells connecting random unrelated things. There is a reason that some of the most creative people on the world are semi to completely unstable. I’m not sure how you program logic to duplicate that effectively. Man will likely still give creative input he just might not be the one finishing the project.

  • GreenWin

    As Algore would say (about electric measurements) “The debate is over.” Trying to poke holes in the Lugano Report with Ohm’s Law is futile. We’ve moved far beyond doubt to action.

    • ivanc

      Who has moved? You? Rossi? Levi? , the 1mw reactor?, the customer? , is all rhetoric an hopes. and speculation. the hard evidence is the report, and I am challenging it. We waiting an update from Levi, the report if full of inconsistent data, we need the voltage readings to confirm the observation.

      • GreenWin

        Well, good luck with that ivan. For the rest of the planet, “The debate is over.”

  • Obvious

    Good day, Ivan. I’m back at this again. Lets see if we can put this to bed today.
    I had dreams of P R V etc floating around all night….
    I’m just going over your newer comments.
    For the sake of both our sanity, I won’t re-edit my earlier comments.

  • Obvious

    For (b) I had 3 (bold) because the equivalent resistor in a delta is 3 times one in an equivalent wye. This is just the equation for one r of the delta so far. Obviously the r doesn’t really change, but this is the larger impedance that the total circuit sees because the current increases due to increased V in the sides of the delta relative to a wye. Three times the r, times three again for each phase ends up with 9 times the power from which to derive the resistance value from.
    Where my brain is stalling for some reason is when I try to force the r to stay constant, what happens to power. It seems to end up as divided by 9 for the complete circuit, which should work out OK since the 9 times (3^2) cancels the 9 times power in the r calculations. Somehow.

  • Obvious

    The power in a delta is higher than an equivalent wye. This is why there is delta-wye starters for some motors. You start the motor on wye so they don’t burn out at low starting speeds, but low speed torque is sacrificed. Current is 1/3 of a delta in a wye. (Electric motor torque is maximum at 0 rpm, but so is current. Dropping the current by a third keeps the windings cooler on start, as long it can still start turning.)

    The wye has less line voltage by V/sqrt(3), but 3 times the effective resistance (total impedance) comparable to a delta.
    The delta has line voltage, and 1/3 the effective resistance compared to a wye.
    If I can remember correctly, the total effective power difference (line V being the same) for a delta is about 1.4(?) times higher than a wye.

  • Obvious


    Lets quickly go back to step one: basic assumptions and first principles.

    The line current divided by square root of three for one phase is a vector sum of the currents coming from the other phases. The line current in a delta is composed of two
    currents that are out of phase by 120 degrees. This is where sqrt(3) comes from.
    The vector sum of the two phase current components is the square root of
    three times the current in any phase.
    So if you know one vector current in one phase, the other two phases must total to sqrt(3) times the current in the one phase. But since a third phase can’t also conduct through a wire at the same time as two others are conducting in one phase (it would short out), the current multiplied by the sqrt(3) is only in one other phase at a time. In this way power stays constant in the equation.

    • Obvious

      The math above is a bit whacked.
      19.7*sqrt(3) = 34.081 (two remaining delta sides, if one has 11.37 A)
      19.7/sqrt(3) = 11.37 (one delta side, C2 cable)
      total………….= 45.451
      All the above values are magnitudes, not respecting their sign (+/-). Their signs are assigned using the correct vector polarity, which is relative to an arbitrary choice of frame of reference.
      If you choose the start vector point at one corner of a delta (say x) leading to another (y), then the magnitudes of the values between xz and zy will resolve to relative vector quantities with appropriate sign compared to the reference point.
      If both C2 cables coming from a C1 have each 11.37 A, (total 22.74 A) then the last side has -22.74 to make the total zero.

      • Obvious

        The “short” version is this: If you use sqrt(3), you are using a vector quantity. The average RMS is integrated over time. Time cannot be ignored, but can be “halted” at an instant in time in order to simply things. But we must hold the time constant consistently in one location, using one description that describes what is happening at that one instant.
        So at the instant you freeze time at a point when one delta side sees 11.37 amps, then the rest of the equation must follow the consequences of that “measurement” at this instant. The average RMS values of the other sides are averages of time-integrated values. So they cannot be used when compared to a frozen instant of time in another side of the equation.
        Moving the frozen viewpoint of time to the C1 cable at RMS 19.7 A means that measured (or arbitrarily calculated RMS) values cannot be used for any other of the following parts of the circuit. You must use whatever math is appropriate based on only one RMS measurement per averaged factor (V and I). Resistance is not a time-sensitive RMS value, so it remains independent (time invariant). It is already “frozen in time” for the purposes of the relevant equations.
        We must also freeze P at some point. It must be tied to the same time frame as the other factors. Since P is a function of V and I, this follows that P is frozen in time with these two functions, and must be frozen from the same viewpoint.
        Since V is unknown, we must hold it constant, leaving only I as the variant to be held still from the viewpoint of any math applied to the circuit.

        • Obvious

          Just before I head out:
          The problem we keep tripping over in this power story is time. When measured in seconds, and t=1 in the denominator or as a factor, or both, and gets cancelled somewhere, then it is ignored for convenience sake and then we forget that it is still part of the original equations from which later calculations are made.

    • US_Citizen71

      What do you think about option 2 in the below PDF being inside of the control box? Wouldn’t that solve the problem as well?

      • Obvious

        Yep. I thought that switching to a wye and delta, or vice versa with the control might throw wrench in the works, and add a new dimension of electrical ugliness for discussion. But it seems that the delta uses the most power anyways. If the box ran it wye for dummy, then delta for the run, then the proportion of Joule heating between active and dummy might be non-linear or at least have a sudden “phase change”. lol

  • Obvious

    The equivalence of the Y to a delta allows the delta to be converted to a circuit that is intuitively easier to imagine as a DC circuit. It opens the delta up, eliminating the “cross-current” or “cancelling current” section across one side (from the viewpoint of one corner of the delta) that I described earlier, by turning it into a parallel branch.

  • Obvious

    The sqrt(3) is the vector angle descriptor. When used to factor I, it describes the relative length of the base of an Isosceles triangle to its sides. The Isosceles triangle with a 120° angle point represents one phase of three phases of power. Connecting three of these triangles at the 120° point makes a set of three phases describing the inside of a circle so that all 360° are accounted for. This is the basis of all 3 phase-related mathematics.

    • Obvious

      You will like this. Bisect the triangle so that the base is divided in exactly 1/2, starting the line at the 120° corner (center of the circle).

      You will have two Right Angle triangles. Using Pythagoras’ Theorem:

      For one of these smaller triangles, the 90° angle’s side is sqrt(3) long, if the opposite side is 2 long and the base is 1 long. These ratios are forced since the angles of the triangle are 90, 60 and 30.
      Dividing 19.7 by the length of the sides by gives sides of 11.37, 9.85, and 19.7 .
      Very familiar numbers.

  • US_Citizen71

    After a long conversation with a power systems engineer I will concede the current wouldn’t be half, but the power would be.

  • Obvious

    Hold the correct constants.
    Wye has a higher V, Delta has a higher I. Holding P and R means that due to R in the denominator for P/1=V^2/R and as a factor in P/1=I^2R/1 that
    V and I are complimentary fractions of R.

  • US_Citizen71

    On average yes 1/3 of the total power is dissipated in each resistor. But during any instant along a full cycle each of the the resistors will be dissipating a different amount of power. Also the circuit would need to be powered by a wye configuration with a floating neutral likely from a secondary on a transformer. This explains the increase of current and drop in voltage when compared with the line in from the main. So effectively only one phrase is being dissipated by each resistor. They simplified the math and the situation which does induce an error but this error reduces the calculated COP not increases it. So other than being the electrical equivalent of the grammar police you are pointing out that the reported COP in reality would be slightly higher.

  • Obvious

    Let me first apologize for the torture I have put you through.
    You are very patient, and for that I thank you.
    I have figured out what no textbook or website seems to be able to explain clearly.
    I hope that we can agree on this, and then move forward.
    The square root of three times line current is the vector sum of two 120° separated current flows for one phase.
    In other words, it already incorporates the vector math, and is the final result. (that is why it is so much smaller) than line current.
    The reason that sqrt(3) is the side of a triangle is due to: that for product of the vector of two equal length sides, the short cut to the same point is described by an a triangle with a sqrt(3)times the length sides.
    So, indeed, sqrt(3) is a vector, but is a completed vector operation for two of three equal vectors, (the third of which would return the vector solution to the origin).

    • Obvious

      And I’m not sure what this means, but I worked it out so I may as well save it for posterity.

      Using IL as the base of each equal 120° triangle formed inside a circle, and a using a line that exactly dissects one of these 120° triangles so that the line continues, superimposed on the common line for the other two triangles (same one as the circle radius), then the sum of the square of one complete base length plus the square one half of another (the one that is dissected) = Power
      (The three bases of the 120° triangles make an equilateral triangle within the circle, so the line dissects the equilateral triangle, and so we are using 1/2 an equilateral triangle).

      IE: 19.7^2 + 9.85^2 = 485.1125

      This means P = IL^2 + (1/2IL)^2

  • Obvious

    We are very complicatedly figuring out the resistance of the reactor resistor coils. This is needed to work out the correct current in the active run.