Dome Magazine on the ‘Miraculous Machine’ (The E-Cat)

Dome Magazine is a publication that covers topics connected with public policy and politics in the state of Michigan, and today has published an article by retired circuit court judge and former governor’s legal advisor Lawrence M. Glazer titled “The Miraculous Machine” which provides a fairly detailed overview of the history of cold fusion and recent development with the E-Cat.

Most of what Glazer writes is familiar territory to people who have been following the E-Cat story over the years, but he is writing not for the experts or the enthusiasts, but rather for people interested in policy issues and politics. Naturally, a technology like the E-Cat — once accepted as valid — will have enormous implications for almost every aspect of life, and Glazer recognizes its potential. He writes:

This story is not about politics. It’s about a little hand-made machine that is stirring attention – and controversy – in the world of energy physics, and why you’ve never heard of it.

In its most recent iteration, the machine produced enough energy to meet the electric power needs of an average U.S. household for 1-1/2 months, fueled by less than a teaspoonful of metallic powder. It accomplished this without emitting any nuclear radiation and left behind no radioactive waste.

Nobel prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson has said it “may well be the most important technological advance of the century.”

Dennis Bushnell, the highly respected chief scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, has called it “capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate issues.”

So why haven’t you heard of it?

To explain why we haven’t heard of it, Glazer reviews the story of cold fusion starting with Pons and Fleischmann and their fall from grace in the eyes of the media and science community. He explains that only a few people persevered with research in the area, and while for many researchers obtaining excess heat production through cold fusion process was sporadic and inconsistent, Andrea Rossi, working with Sergio Focardi, discovered a process that could consistently produce excess heat in large amounts.

Lawrence describes the results reported in the most recent Lugano E-Cat test, and concludes with the following:

Is it a fraud? Well, something produced 1.5 megawatts of energy and something changed the isotopic structure of the nuclei, all while under close and continuous observation.

But to the mainstream media this is just another attempt at “cold fusion”, a discredited “pathological science”, and it appears that this, as well as Rossi’s background, have kept them away from the story.

Which is why you read it here first.

Well, its not a first read for many readers here, but hopefully this could well be something new to readers in Michigan and beyond.

  • Oceans2014

    * The link is out @ – can someone contact them to give them a heads up.

  • Gerard McEk

    I have tried several times to offer papers and magazinsan similar article to be written by myself: An engineer who worked for more than 35 years in the nuclear sector. They do not eve take time to say NO, they simply ignore Cold Fusion. This is quite frustrating! The repulsion is higher than the Coulomb barrier…

    • bachcole

      Don’t be frustrated. Remember that old saying: “I don’t get angry; I get even.” The E-Cat is a grand Juggernaut to all intellects. People will either follow gleefully, get out of the way, or eventually their reputations will be crushed if they try to stop it or pretend like it is not there.

    • Sanjeev

      Convincing those who know too much (=nothing at all) is a waste of one’s precious time. You can utilize it best by setting up your own experiments in cold fusion or joining a team with similar goals. Everybody benefits from your experience and knowledge.

      • Gerard McEk

        That is exactly what I want to do: I have written and I am still writing books. If I make enough money with is I will immediately fund a LENR research project and will surely join that team, because I worked half my life in the research. If the earned money is not sufficient, I will donate to MFMP. But first I will need to sell books…millions of them.

    • Billy Jackson

      Probably one of the greatest frustrations is not educating someone on a subject they know nothing about. But educating someone on a subject they THINK they know about.

      • kdk

        Wish me luck.

    • psi2u2

      Keep trying. Your day is coming.

    • builditnow

      Do you have links to your articles so we can read them and forward them to others?

      • Gerard McEk

        They were in Dutch and were forwarded in Dutch circuits, but did probably not reach the people I hoped for. I send also Emails to the Dutch and European parliament. Some parties replied that they received it, but that is all.

  • Gerrit

    “Andrea Rossi had experienced a checkered career. In the ’80s, he had invented a machine he claimed to transform waste into oil, but all it created was a toxic sludge. He was subsequently arrested in Italy for the allegedly false bankruptcy of his company, and apparently spent some time in jail, but was released without a conviction.”
    – retired circuit court judge and former governor’s legal advisor Lawrence M. Glazer

    • psi2u2

      This is not my understanding of the facts of the case.

      • C. Kirk

        I agree….. it’s not my understanding of the facts of the case either but trying to get a handle on what actually happened is not that easy…. According to rossi (Andrea Rossi’s (E-Cat Inventor) Petroldragon Story and Short Biography on NewEnergyTimes) oil was being produced and being sold for 30% under market prices….and During its period of activity, Petroldragon-Omar paid the state more
        than 2 billion Lire in production taxes, because their end product had
        always been considered a fuel,….. but then there are Italian newspaper articles that state no oil was produced…. I believe Rossi’s rendition of facts . Also trying to determine how long he was actually in jail vs house arrest is difficult….

        • C. Kirk

          Another error in the article..” In 2007, Rossi contacted Bologna University physics Professor Emeritus Sergio Focardi with an intriguing proposition: “I will give you a prize [Rossi has never disclosed the amount]”

          Rossi did disclose the amount (10,000. euros) in an interview with March 29, 2012

          Not that any of this matters, it’s great to see more articles, and the only thing that matters is how soon the 1MW plant is “finished” and ready for mass production…..

        • psi2u2

          This is my impression:

          1) The process worked;
          2) During a time of rapid oil price fluctuations, the profitability of the process was ruined due to a downturn in price;
          3) The Mafia may have been involved in trying to strong-arm a very independent inventor in ways that would be considered illegal in other countries;
          4) After doing him time, Rossi received a full pardon from a higher court.

          I do not know these things as facts, but I have read them and tend to believe that they are more accurate than what is written in this article. Certainly no one should be writing about Rossi without carefully investigating these claims to see if they can be substantiated.

          • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

            This is the sorry state of AFFAIRS in Italy: Mafia in Rome, 100 indicted, 39 arrested. The are all politicians, including the former Mayor.
            Every week there is a scandal of this proportion: do we really believe that the Italian legislation that changed AFTER Rossi had implemented his Patent was passed for the common good?

          • psi2u2

            Yes, excellent point of context. I would also note Rossi’s repeated public statements of his favor for the US as a research venue. This is not because he isn’t a proud Italian; its because he found the cultural and societal forces at play in Italy (the mafia, presumably) were not conducive to his research.

        • psi2u2

          Yes, that’s interesting that there are conflicting reports in the Italian media. That indicates how difficult it is to really form an objective assessment of what went down.

          But I concur that, at this point in time, I am more inclined to accept Rossi’s version of events than otherwise. That may seem naive to some, and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. But what I hope and expect is that the 1MW test will go public within the next few months, and then the issue of Rossi’s past will pale in comparison to what he is accomplishing in the present.

  • bachcole

    This is big, perhaps not huge, but big. It could spread the message to different sorts of people, like lawyers and such. It demonstrates that a perfectly intelligent person can see past the fixation of scientific protocol and see the truth.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I would not call it big, it is an early drop of water seeping through a crack in the dam.

      A very small thing, but not at in the least bit insignificant. Something of definite noteworthiness.

  • Piero
  • Can someone contact the author and say that he should change the link to the report to the elforsk page?

    • GreenWin


  • mcloki

    Is it a fraud? Well, something produced 1.5 megawatts of energy and something changed the isotopic structure of the nuclei, all while under close and continuous observation.

    That’s the line that should launch a thousand lab rats scurrying for their nickel powder.I find it incredible people supposedly interested in discovering the mysteries of nature aren’t interested in using the scientific method to discredit or support this.

    • Anon2012_2014

      “that should launch a thousand lab rats scurrying … ”

      We are scurrying because the piece of cheese is being snatched away from us at every test. Rossi and Levi et al are a pain in the behind — they leave out critical items like calibrating the camera at 1400 watts, or like showing the data files on current and voltage input into the Lugano ECAT. They leave out the formulation of the fuel so that someone could replicate the result. They purposefully leave open that a slight of hand (i.e. no chain of custody) could have substituted the fuel or ash with some other sample for analysis. The motive is there for Rossi to cheat, so why not help us close the gaps in the test. This whole missing datum requires a “trust us” attitude towards the experiment that is not needed in conventional science because conventional science has experiments that can be replicated.

      I would like the MFMP team to win this race because they are open and believable. Anything they do can be replicated in the open. Bravo.

      • US_Citizen71

        I’m sure icy south pole reception that Rossi/LENR/Cold Fusion has received from the lab rats over the last 25 years had nothing to do with! (/sarcasm)

        You get what you give, if you treat someone badly don’t expect them to layout everything your heart desires on a silver platter for you.

        • GreenWin

          In lab rat world, there are no trade secrets or proprietary processes. Industry, military, academic and government labs, ALL do unclassified, open work! It’s a wonderful world without ego, competition, free trade or commercialization. It is also run by happy little elves with pointy shoes and funny ears. I thought this was common knowledge. 🙂

          • Obvious

            I want what he’s having.

          • mcloki

            “ALL do unclassified, open work! It’s a wonderful world without ego, competition, free trade or commercialization.’

            Sure they do. It’s the reason you use your real name on this board.
            It’s a business. And when money is involved, altruism takes a back seat.

          • georgehants

            mcloki, I would prefer “altruism” which would you prefer?

          • mcloki

            Once you and I are rich, our families taken care of, and a generational estate created from our wise investments in LENR Companies, we’ll create annual scholarship grants. One for a physics and the other for responsible scientific journalism.

      • Obvious

        This is a common complaint, but other than the MFMP group, almost no one seems to be doing it themselves to then simply give away the knowledge required to repeat it.
        Most people seem to expect a free lunch, for some reason.

        This is not much different than only supplying the IRS with just the bare facts on a tax form, instead of sending in every single receipt and bank statement for them to go through themselves to make their own conclusions. This is not an audit. And certainly most folks would complain loudly or swear profusely when an audit is requested. Especially if some stranger decided they wanted to audit your finances.

      • hempenearth

        Its called “business”.

      • Omega Z

        “The motive is there for Rossi to cheat”

        And what would that motive be. He’s done sold the IP, so the only additional benefit would be royalties on Sold Working Devices. If you been paying attention, you would know that if it doesn’t work, the customer doesn’t pay up.

        Some take exception to this statement in the report.
        “Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy”
        How’s your comprehension. I take this as they asked Rossi to shut it off.

        “(i.e. no chain of custody)”. This is just Blog Blather.
        From the Report- “all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.”

        Slight of hand while handling a Toxic Substance. Quite a risk Rossi would be taking considering it could cause serious health issues even death to him/them. It’s quite probable this was all done in a glove box & at the very least, while wearing mask & gloves. Slight of hand would be quite a trick under these circumstances & I don’t believe Rossi is that nimble. One slip & the jig is up.

        As to conventional science being replicable, Mostly true, but it is also all about patent rights with Royalties due to all concerned Including the Universities themselves.

  • US_Citizen71
  • Anon2012_2014


    I think there is plenty of substance in the report, but also scientific negligence in not correcting certain errors or at least clarifying it. Defenders of Mr. Rossi are quick to add that Rossi is under no obligation to give any data. But then, why release the report at all? They had to have a reason.

    • US_Citizen71

      The report was for the little guy investors involved with Elforsk. Everyone forgets IH/Rossi did not commission the study or the report, Elforsk did. IH/Rossi simply allowed it to be done and provided the reactor and controls to be tested.

      • Anon2012_2014


        Let’s say I think your hypothesis is reasonable but not verified: “Everyone forgets IH/Rossi did not commission the study or the report, Elforsk did. IH/Rossi simply allowed it to be done and provided the reactor and controls to be tested.”

        Can you show me some public evidence that the test was all Elforsk and that IH “simply allowed it to be done”. I.e., where should I Google or look for this from first or even second hand sources?

        • Omega Z

          In the Lugano test report. Page 31

          This paper was partially sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Elforsk AB.
          We would also like to thank Officine Ghidoni SA for putting their laboratory at our disposal and allowing use of their AC power.
          Lastly, our thanks to Industrial Heat LLC (USA) for providing financial support for the measurements performed for radiation protection purposes.

  • mcloki

    Why would he look for criticism from the internet or anywhere for that matter. People have told him this is impossible, It can’t be happening by all the things they know now. When Columbus went to sail to America I’m sure there was a peanut gallery of “flat earthers” on the dock telling him he was going to sail off the edge of the world. Why try and placate them.

    • GreenWin

      Good point. Flat earthers strut and fret at the dock, reassuring each other Columbus and other explorers will never return. And the price of oil will soar again!

      • bachcole


        So here is the epistemology of Columbus’ discovery:

        There were little to no flat Earthers in power in Europe. Almost everyone thought that that the Earth was about 25,000 miles around. Columbus, either as a ploy to get funding (where have we heard that before) or because he actually believed it (which I believe was the truth), said that the world was 17,000 miles in diameter. He used so different measurement units to “prove it”.

        The establishment said that the Ocean Sea was way to freaking wide for anyone to cross by ship. Columbus said hey we can do it; the Earth is 8,000 miles less in circumference than the establishment believes.

        The theory of the establishment was correct. The theory of Columbus was incorrect.

        There is an important lesson here.

  • GreenWin

    Nice. Three FUDsters in a row! Happily, it’s simply too late for these ploys.

    • ivanc

      And one green_Pathobeliever_win 🙂

      • GreenWin

        How late?

        “First, a $40 fall in the price of oil represents a shift of roughly
        $1.3tn (close to 2 per cent of world gross output) from producers to
        consumers annually.”
        Financial Times, Dec 2, 2014

        What humanitarian would not be happy with a transfer of power to “the little people?”

        • Obvious

          The humanitarian that gets significant altruistic project funding from Big Oil when they make lots of money?

          Or was that a rhetorical question….

          • GreenWin

            I see. The Financial Times and geo-politics have conspired with “Big Oil” to… er, destroy “Big Oil.” Not really obvious, but worthy of conspiratorial skeptonoia. 🙁

          • Obvious

            Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
            Big discussion in Alberta now about where the gov’t will get its revenue since oil profits are way down, so oil royaties are declining as well. And they have feeding at the oil trough so long, alternate revenue streams really haven’t been examined closely. Nor can they easily slap more taxes on everything else to make up for it. (although they might have to).

          • Omega Z

            Interesting thing about taxes. They have a tipping point where it provides dwindling or negative returns.

            Kind of like dipping into the seed corn to feed a few more people this year. But due to reduced seed corn, grows a smaller crop next year. It becomes a down hill slide. To bad Politicians don’t understand the concept.

          • Fortyniner

            The UK’s chancellor of the exchequer is just discovering that when you spend 5 years grinding down people’s income and making vast numbers unemployed that – amazingly – welfare bills go up while tax receipts fall off a cliff. Now he wants the country to vote for 5 more years of the same ‘medicine’. Reminds me of the quote ascribed to Einstein: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

          • Obvious

            That makes me the sanest person alive. Whah ha ha ha…..ROFLMAO

          • Omega Z

            “But America was in his way” Yeah, It’s always Americas fault. 🙂
            Of course, I guess this time it really was.

          • bachcole

            Or us “little people” can now be more charitable, or we could just go on being just as selfish as we usually are.

          • Obvious

            Choice A is the best answer.
            Choice B…. well sometimes you have to be able to help yourself, before you can be an effective help to others, I suppose. Although one could argue that isn’t exactly selfish, just self-maintenance.
            Another takeaway might be that it is mostly people that can afford fuel in the first place will notice any changes. Possibly products can be moved cheaper, but I seriously doubt many prices will lower due to cheaper shipping.

        • georgehants

          Morning GreenWin, first step remove capitalism in it’s present form and move to a new system based entirely on production and fair distribution of that production.
          Result, half the population out of work to share the necessary work and then have leisure time to enjoy life etc.

  • US_Citizen71

    For someone who claims to speak english as a second language you certainly are very unforgiving in the word usage of someone else who speaks english as a second language.

    Alloy – ‘An alloy is a material composed of two or more metals or a metal and a nonmetal.’ –

    Silicon – ‘Silicon is a chemical element with symbol Si and atomic number 14. It is a tetravalent metalloid, less reactive than its chemical analog carbon, the nonmetal directly above it in the periodic table, but more reactive thangermanium, the metalloid directly below it in the table.’ –

    Sure sounds like SiC could fall under the definition of alloy to me.

  • Obvious

    56.72 A total delivered to delta, which is average 28.376 A in two lines, (return, 56.72 A for both coming back down the third line), at 32.852 V (phase and line both), with each reactor resistor at 1.737 Ohms for a series-parallel delta resistance of 1.158 ohms incl Joule cable loss:
    28.376 A *32.852 V = 932.21 W (incl Joule heat cables)
    or 32.852 V*(28.376/sqrt(3)) = 538.21 total vector sum W coming from each of two “in” lines.
    [28.376 A /sqrt(3) = 16.383 = Ip]

    so 538.21* 3/sqrt(3) = 932.21 W

    or 932.21/Sqrt(3) = 538.21 W then 538.21 W /32.852 V = 16.383 A

    16.383^2 A*1.158 ohms = 310.81 W = “in-going” W in each phase, from one line.

    310.81 W *3 = 932.43 incl Jh …difference of 0.2W from rounding…

    32.852 V ^2/1.158 = 931.99 W..difference of 0.2W from rounding…

    This was all from one current in one line so 932.21 W * 2 = 1864.42 W

    56.72 A ^2*1.158 = 3725.469 W (using I^2*R)

    3725.469 W /2 = 1862.735 ….hmm…1.7 W difference from rounding

    Looky there, twice the power of two lines on paper, by doing nothing.

    Of course, the other 1862 or 1864 W is the return power, with inverse sign, to complete the full circle (circuit) to zero. Darn vectors and their signs…..that’s what you get for working with triangles.

    • ivanc

      🙂 you turning me nuts with your calculations! where 56.72 amps came from?

      • Obvious

        The same place your 50 A came from I guess…. what’s 6.72 Amps between friends?

        I used some choice, maybe recognizable numbers just for fun.
        I had some of them laying around in an older spreadsheet, then just went with the flow to see where it went once I started with it.

  • JC

    I agree.

    I have followed this slowly evolving story for, oh about 15 years or so.. Back then it was continental-drift slow. These days it’s just plain slow.

  • GreenWin

    ivanc, have you considered “continuing education?” It’s amazing what some new ideas some have failed to learn.

  • Obvious

    50 A probably calculated from other goofy calculations, sure.
    But they measured a peak of 923.71 W.
    Although the 40-50 A comment in the report is a good catch. I have wondered about that. At this point I just roll my eyes…

    I’m thinking we may have to re-vist the Dummy run resistance and power. *19.7 A in all three lines, average*.
    And only 485 W output.
    1/2 power in, 1/2 power out. So actually 29.55 A is amps in? ….seems like I calculated that number before somewhere…. there it is highlighted….when I was trying to figure out where 17.061 A Ip came from when doing something else
    Hmmm. 17.061 A is the vector sum of two 11.37 A, 120° separated phase currents, or 1/2 of three algebraically summed 11.37 A phase currents. Makes sense. And 29.55/sqrt(3) = 17.061.
    So then 17.061 A is the contribution from each of two lines, from which the rest of the power equations for the dummy run can be correctly calculated.

    ugh….re-do the mega spread sheet again….. all new dummy input current, all new dummy Joule heat, all new extrapolation of active run current, all new values for the works…. should be fun.

    This is probably where the whole works gets messed up in the report.
    Notice the 2*sqrt(3) creep in?

    • Obvious

      19.7 A total in phase for dummy
      COP for the dummy of 0.96
      All the COPs match the report.
      34.1 to 46.6 A total Line current.
      Insignificant difference using Ip for C2 instead of IL in the end result.
      Joule heat ratio anomaly gone.

      • Mark Szl

        Which means what? More numerology or do you have a valid explanation? If so then let’s hear it bc many would like this device to be real but are also cautious that is all some mistake. Where is the beef?

        • Obvious

          19.7 A measured at three lines.
          3*19.7 = 59.1
          59.1/2 = 29.55 A….this is the total RMS current going in, if it went in only one Line (but it isn’t). The other 29.55 A from the division by two is the current going out.
          Now remember Blondel’s Theorem (or look it up).
          You can fight with the single equivalent line current, but that adds some interesting complexities in the rest of the circuit, for Joule heat, resistors, etc. I think it can be done, I haven’t tried it that way yet. I’ll have to do it to back check the results of the other way, described below.
          The other way is to split the 29.55 A into the vectors for two lines, as forward current vectors. Then use the Two Wattmeter Method, extract values of interest, and recombine the W at the end.

        • bitplayer

          I guess it means that your continuously running bluster reveals that your re-assertion of previously hashed over points is just a trollish ploy.

          Perhaps if you would dial down the ego noise and provide citations you could disguise your intentions better.

          • Obvious

            bp, you are insulting one of the very few people that are actually paying attention to what I am saying on this topic. Nearly everyone else seems to have bailed; and I certainly am not getting much help defending the results of the report mathematically, or at least finding the real error(s). I’d rather deal with detractors with legitimate complaints than silence. They are better proofreaders than yes-men.

      • Mark Szl

        Why would you use Ip instead. What happened? They screwed up and use the wrong current. Why has no one noticed (i.e. ivanc, Dr. Mike, Thomas, etc.)?

        • Obvious

          Well, I misinterpreted that, so I’m back to line current.
          Sorry, I edited after you replied I think.
          Nobody seems to have noticed something very obvious. I had the right answer a couple of times, but thought it was a wrong answer, so I tried something else….
          If all three lines read 19.7 A, then clearly there is more than 19.7 A going into the dummy at any one time. It is not 2x 19.7, 3x 19.7, etc.
          So the resistance derived from dividing the dummy W by 19.7 is also wrong.
          Then this current is also a poor choice to A: derive the Joule heat for the dummy (report writers and readers) and B:multiply any Joule heat factor by to get the operating W or current from.
          So the report Joule heat is no good for any run.
          And all previous extrapolations are no good.
          All the electricians seemed to have forgotten that the circuit needs both in and out current, exactly the same amount in both directions.

        • bitplayer

          So, your answer is?

  • theotheone

    You say you’ve lost your faith
    But that’s not where it’s at
    You have no faith to lose and you know it

  • theotherone

    So, you could demonstrate your sincerity of belief by just going away.

    Or is it that your real drive is to try to fill the emptiness that you feel inside yourself, caused by never believing in anything, by trying to make other people feel the same way?

  • Omega Z

    I have a question. Why does IH/Rossi or the Lugano testers have to provide anymore information then they already have? I can think of none…

    They have “ALL THE DATA” from 2 separate 3rd party tests for anyone they choose to share it with. If there are any additional tests, they would likely be only for a select few & we would never even be aware of it. Providing any more data as done by the 3rd party tests would only serve the interests of competitors. You can be sure the competitors have been gleaning every detail.

    When you have the former U.S. Energy Secretary “Chu” meeting with Godes of Brillouin Energy, You can bet he is also aware of Rossi’s E-cat and that anyone of importance is also aware.They have all the awareness they need & may be more concerned about to much attention at this point as it can be disruptive.

  • Omega Z

    What Rossi did wasn’t even new. It was done decades before.
    All Rossi did was find a way to make it economical. And your right, It is being done by by many today.

    Where Rossi’s legal problems came from was a change in the LAW, ex post facto. Permits were suddenly required & his applications to obtain them were declined. His business associates distanced themselves in self preservation. They Knew what was up.

    “ex post facto” Presently Illegal in the U.S., But it’s citizens should pay heed. There are those who are slowly chipping away at what it covers. They have found loop holes.

  • What’s your position on the ash clearly indicating nuclear events?

    I assume it’s that Rossi swapped in fake ash. So rather than just acknowledging that the investigators are in the process of analyzing questions that have been raised, you conclude that Rossi is a fraud, the investigators are incompetent (TWICE!), and Rossi was so confident he could fool the investigators he’s let them poke at the thing multiple times over the course of months free to measure anything they liked.

    Moreover you conclude Industrial Heat are a bunch of buffoons (or worse), failed to conduct due diligence despite tens of millions of dollars at stake, and were also fooled by an ultra-brash Rossi and continue to be fooled on a daily basis.

    Your version of events is laughable. And your version is based on your assumption that you understand more about the experiment data than the investigators despite the fact that they have full access and you don’t and have analyzed it for months. It’s Internet troll versus legitimate scientists and business concerns. It’s a basement blogger versus billion dollar environmental project managers and accomplished European professors. It’s the bark of a soon to be slain hellhound from the bottom of the pit as the fellowship peers over the ridge to assess the enemy.

  • There appears to be something of an alliteration contest emerging.

    Impossible Invention
    Miraculous Machine

    Hmm, what else?

    Divine Device
    Enigmatic E-Cat
    Remarkable Rod
    Heavenly Heater

    • pg

      Iter’s iceberg…

  • When embarking on an exponential ride, the beginning always seems boring and flat. But then things get hairy and eventually you look back and say “well that escalated quickly.”

    There have been studies that show that people are very bad at predicting the future… the ‘what’ to some degree, but especially the ‘when.’ We routinely both underestimate and overestimate the time things will take. The reason is that technology adoption tends to be exponential with a slow percolating phase as the technological and economic pieces fall into place, followed by a period of rapid adoption, followed by a new normal. The mistake we make is to think that just because something is possible means that it’ll happen in short order. The truth is that there is a lot of work to go from possible to product. A huge amount really, and it always takes longer than you’d like.

    To me it looks like we’re about a year away from the point where the curve starts to trend noticeably upward. The first crude commercial products will emerge and a new market will be born.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    That was certainly obvious for many readers. But whether this lawyer remembers what he has learned about physics at school is not the decisive question here, so there is no reason to construct an ‘argument’ from it.

  • Obvious

    I’m having some, fun, but not making fun of you.
    There is some serious stuff to consider, and I think better in a good mood, but work harder when I disagree with something that I can sense the answer to, but don’t know enough of the story to solve it.
    Your comments inspire me to examine the story for more unusual routes to solving the problem. Using unusual routes to solve or find something is one of my powers.
    Sometimes throwing ideas at a problem until something sticks works too, though.

  • Obvious

    Add interpreting dummy run current by report readers to that list.

  • psi2u2

    What is your source for that account? Mats Lewan’s revisions to his new book ten to support my own view, as indicated elsewhere in this thread.

  • theotherone

    I’m sure that will have a lot of impact on the hundreds of people that will read his article and be influenced to be more open minded about LENR.

  • bitplayer

    98% full = half empty

  • bachcole

    Ya’ know, Einstein altered Newton’s formula for gravity slightly, so as to account for the procession of the orbit of Mercury. I just can’t remember exactly what that alteration was or what it’s mathematical justification was. It was to square something (Newton) to raise it to the power of 2.0002 (Einstein) or something like that. Ever since I forgot this detail and exactly why, I have noticed that I have been having trouble keeping myself grounded. I seem to lift off of the Earth slightly and I have to pull myself back down.

  • bachcole

    EVERYTHING that we know in physics is hearsay evidence, or social evidence, UNLESS we did the experiments ourselves. I have not done any nuclear physics experiments, so, to me it is all hearsay. I didn’t even take high school physics, so to me the acceleration of gravity being 16 feet per second squared is hearsay.

    The trick is to figure out which hearsay evidence is reliable and which isn’t.

  • Obvious

    You must deal with currents from two phases at least. Using one is wrong when there are three. How do you get 19.7 A in three lines at the same time to make only 19.7 A total? Where do the other ones go? If they were all the same current, then there would only need to be two wires. And then there can be no delta. You already complained about open deltas being not what is measured when three lines show the same thing, and the delta is balanced.
    19.7 A going in one side, and 19.7 A coming out two other sides at the same is not balanced.
    19.7 A going in three lines to nowhere is not balanced.
    19.7 A going in two lines at the same time, and only 19.7 A coming out the third line is not balanced.
    19.7 A flowing out of nowhere and out three lines is not balanced.
    We know what they read with the clamps, for one measurement.
    We know what they calculated for Joule heat for one calculation.
    We do not know they used the same calculation for all the other runs. It is simpler to think that they did. But that is not a reason to say they did.
    In fact, it is obvious they did not.
    Or the wrong answer would be wrong the same way, every time. And probably nobody would notice.

  • Obvious

    RMS is so you can measure something that changes polarity 50 or 60 times a second.
    It does not change the laws of physics, or straighten a triangle.
    The sum of the three 19.7A feed lines into the delta is still zero.

  • Obvious

    What I am saying is that information from one clamp cannot alone be used to measure the delta currents, powers, etc. Otherwise there would be no discussion of inverted clamps, etc. There would only be one clamp required (and critics would go nuts over that idea).

    If the currents are the same, and it is a balanced delta, there are some shortcuts available, since the results of whatever operation that is done with one measurement for a line will be the same as for another.

    The RMS method does not undo the vectors in the delta. It just makes it so that we don’t have to stop time at some random moment, and know what every single measurement is at all places in the circuit at the same time. When you use RMS, you must decide properly where to split the circuit in half, so you know where “in” and “out” is. On a simple circuit this isn’t too bad to do. For a delta, this is much more tricky. One reason is that the delta never sees zero voltage at the resistors. This is why the delta load uses more power than a wye load with the same resistors.

    For some unknown reason, the professors used only one line for Joule heat calculations in the dummy (wrong), and three lines for the active run calculations (also wrong, and also different from the dummy). This is why the whole thing is so maddening.

  • Obvious

    Ummm. Mental block getting lifted…..
    I think I have the part that is driving you crazy typing to me sorted out.

  • Obvious

    You are right about the RMS. I finally got that worked out in my head how that works.
    My apologies.

    Scratch 90% of what I said earlier. I had the error in my sights, but still there was always one more adjustable parameter more than should have been needed.
    NOW I have it figured out. The error is so stupid I can’t believe no one caught it.
    The real Joule heat calculation is a bit less intuitive, but I have proved it too.
    I’ll write up a simple as possible explanation tonight, with some uncomplicated examples.
    The half in, half out thing was only half right. The power still flows out through the wires, so it doesn’t work. And the RMS does mess it up too.