Andrea Rossi Explains Why IH Won’t Help MFMP

On the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi was asked by David Kaiser, whether he might give a little help to the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project as a Christmas gift, adding that with the possibility of social breakdown and world war on the cards, that Industrial Heat may not have anyone to sell their E-Cats to.

Andrea Rossi replied:

David Kaiser:
Our team is making all the investments and R&D necessary to bring to the market this technology and the first 1 MW industrial plant already hit the market, thanks to our Team. Obviously the loss of Intellectual Property would stop any serious investment. Look at Microsoft’s business model ( from which we all have to learn) and learn how the Intellectual Property is at the essential base of any substantial investment that can bring to the common benefit a new technology. When our domestic small E-Cats will hit the market we will not have anymore a reverse engineering problem, as I already explained, because the economy scale will allow prices that will make competition not convenient. We are working on it. Requests of gifts as the one you are making are not generous attempts to give to the mankind a new technology, but attempts to get for free the fruits of 20 years of work, through what for you is an unimmaginable series of troubles, sacrifices and a good share of insults, blackmails, threats of any kind and also attempts to make me pass again through what I passed through 20 years ago, utilizing the same system and some of the same persons: the play did not succeed because what 20 years ago was enough to destroy me, today can’t even scratch me, due to the fact that such experiences either kill you or make you much stronger.
The First Principle of Thermodynamics should have teached to you that free meals do not exist. You can’t make the “Kaiser” with the Army of the others. Should I take seriously your request of Christmas gift, nobody could invest seriously in this technology and it would remain a social game. Quite a dangerous one.
I wish you a wonderful 2015, as well as, again, to all our Readers.
A.R.

Rossi here is covering themes that he has gone over before when readers have suggested that he reveal his secrets as a gift to mankind. He is of the firm belief that the traditional industrialist/capitalist business model where intellectual property is is the one that brings the greatest overall benefit to society, as it leads to the investment needed for mass production and proliferation of technology. Also that there should be some kind of compensation for the work and associated trials he has gone through. It’s interesting that he considers that giving away his secrets would be quite a dangerous social game.

Rossi has spoken recently again of the domestic E-Cats hitting the market — as if it is part of the plan — and that when they do, there will be no worries for Industrial Heat regarding reverse engineering, because he believes economies of scale will make their products so cheap that no one will bother trying to copy their tech.

He seems quite confident these days — possibly that’s because things are going well with the 1 MW plant. Having working E-Cats mass produced on the market would be a tremendous achievement. But we’re not there yet, and it seems like it will be later this year, at the earliest, before we get confirmation of all he has been saying regarding IH’s commercial plans.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Microsoft: the original technology robber baron jacking up the prices and limiting aggressive IP prosecution and illegal monopoly tying the availability of PCs running their ubiquitous (due to the networking effect) software. Microsoft represents what is wrong with the modern intellectual property regime.

    Sure, Bill Gates can give some of what he skimmed from humanity to vaccines, and Rossi can give to children with cancer, while the rest of us live with the inefficiency for 20+ years. I find nothing wrong with Rossi or Industrial Heat being rewarded for their investment, but it is a question of scale of the reward and the utility to the rest of society. PC technology was expensive for more than 20 years based on Microsoft’s defacto monopoly on the operating system, office productivity apps like Word and Excel, and corporate mail like Exchange. Businesses during the 1990s needed to spend $5K per employee to do business that incorporated the exchange of documents. Think of the drugs that were not discovered, students that were not taught, or the other engineering improvements in other areas that were not funded due to the economic rent on our civilization well in excess of any reasonable rate of return on investment. This era is fortunately ending.

    I hope that the patent regime and whatever Rossi/IH are doing results in a better more efficient use of the new LENR technology.

    And whatever Rossi is talking about from 20 years ago (i.e. Petroldragon, the Mafia) has nothing to do with this. Rossi has only been working on LENR as far as I can see since 2008. So what on earth is he talking about.

    • Observer

      No one was more qualified to run Microsoft than Bill Gates. No one is better qualified to bring LENR+ to the commercial market than Andrea Rossi.

      The choice is yours: Do you want a society where possession is based on the ability to make something or do you want a society where possession is based on the ability to take something?

      • georgehants

        Observer, are those the only two alternatives that you can think of?
        Interesting.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          To fake? A third option…

          • georgehants

            Pekka, please expand I find it difficult to interpret or reply to these one liners.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Sorry, it wasn’t of substance, just a little rhyme

          • Observer

            “Fake” is an error in the mind of the observer. It is not a property of the object itself.

            Plastic only gained respect when it stopped pretending to be wood. Yet, it had always been genuine plastic.

          • We complain about the scientific community dissing CF/LENR, but there is so much secrecy inside CF labs hoping to some day cash in. That’s there choice, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the universe rewards those who aren’t so motivated by $, a collective that generously exchanges their findings. It’s been a real thrill to watch the MFMP live videos. They have deep strength in their vulnerability in showing live vids where things don’t always work out as planned.

            Also Rossi has benefited by those who have gone before him.

        • Observer

          Look to nature for your societal models. The only sin we invented first was blasphemy. Only among more cognitively advanced organisms do you see the emergence of fair trade. Maybe some day we will come across one and we can ask them about it.

          • georgehants

            Observer, I take you are saying you are incapable of thinking of a fair system.
            I understand.

          • Observer

            Once we think we understand the system, we use that information to destroy it. (Think ENRON, derivative traders, and hackers.)

            This in itself is a “system”. I wonder if we fully understood it, if we could destroy it too.

          • georgehants

            Observer, I think you seem to have traveled to the Planet Pluto, I hope you find good things there.

          • Observer

            Thought experiment: It was a place without sin before I showed up. Being there, I found its inhospitable conditions immoral. When I left, it was again without sin.

          • georgehants

            Good one.
            Best

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Anon2012-2014, your comments are typical of those that do not understand cause and effect. Without Apple and Microsoft, the level of computers and related technology would be much lower. Development does not grow on trees, it comes from a committed personal effort, and that can’t come without investment and profit. It was Apple and Microsoft and eventually IBM that caused the computer revolution. You assume it would have occurred naturally, and those just grabbed the profit by the neck. There is nothing preventing new companies from coming out with new computers and software except the large lead the early starters had making it difficult to catch up. All of the special use software was made to be compatible with the existing systems (or it could not be used), but feel free to start from scratch, or just ask Apple and Microsoft to give you use of all patents and development to make it easy for you.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Leonard,

        I am not against capitalism or even patents. It is just the degree of monopoly granted. Microsoft did the heavy lifting in 1984-1988, and then stopped right when they were going to bring out a Unix based version of Dos-4. Everything from that point was about extending their monopoly by locking out all competition. This was the opposite from the early Apple-II the IBM-PC era, where anyone and everyone could build any hardware or software and didn’t need to worry about compatibility with the new monopoly standard.

        For Rossi, a perpetual monopoly (which is what he has publicly announced wants with the trade secret plants where the guts can never be seen) would be wrong. Healthy competition based on economy of scale would be right except for one issue: if he actually had a working reactor in 2012 (the original water cooled ECAT) or a hot cat in 2013; and if he had published his patent with sufficient information to replicate — we would have working ECATs right now in every home. 100 labs would have replicated and 100 engineering design firms would have built them and even paid a licensing fee to Rossi.

        But he doesn’t — he keeps his information bottled up, thereby slowing down the development cycle. Right now, patents last a lifetime, as does Rossi’s trade secret plans. We need to, as a civilization, move faster to realize our future.

        I’d start with reducing this type of patent to 10 years and make it difficult for someone to bypass the patent system with a trade secret implementation. The ROI will still make Rossi a multi-billionaire. That is enough reward for a garage inventor. What is the purpose of making him a trillionaire?

        • Warthog

          Uh, no. PATENTS do not “last a lifetime”. In they US, they last 25 years. COPYRIGHTS last a lifetime plus an added number of years. In the US, I believe that it is “the authors lifetime plus 75 years”. And with enough lawyers, virtually any patent can be gotten around….with either by a slight change in the patent-busting technology copy sold, or simply by tying the patent owner up in the courts until they run out of money, or die.

    • Omega Z

      Anon
      The use of Microsoft probably wasn’t the best reference scenario. They abused the system & tried for a total monopoly by any means necessary. It was actually a good Company before Bill Gates took it over.

      Rossi has been tinkering with LENR far longer then 2008. He started studing it shortly after the 89 Pons and Fleishman debut.

    • Joseh Felcman

      What are like the business leaders from the multi-billion enterprise with global reach and global experience selected, after long search, by Dr Andrea Rossi, for implementation of his 1 MW E-Cat?

      Here is one hour YouTube video where William McDonough (of the “Cradle-to-Cradle” site and fame) and Tom Darden, CEO of Industrial Heat and Cherokee Investments discus a particular approach to industrial process. It is a unique and very VALUABLE material. I hope that as many as possible readers will take notice… It also provides indirect look at some of Dr Rossi’s preferences.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQHvmYEOVI

  • Anon2012_2014

    Microsoft: the original technology robber baron jacking up the prices and limiting aggressive IP prosecution and illegal monopoly tying the availability of PCs running their ubiquitous (due to the networking effect) software. Microsoft represents what is wrong with the modern intellectual property regime.

    Sure, Bill Gates can give some of what he skimmed from humanity to vaccines, and Rossi can give to children with cancer, while the rest of us live with the inefficiency for 20+ years. I find nothing wrong with Rossi or Industrial Heat being rewarded for their investment, but it is a question of scale of the reward and the utility to the rest of society. PC technology was expensive for more than 20 years based on Microsoft’s defacto monopoly on the operating system, office productivity apps like Word and Excel, and corporate mail like Exchange. Businesses during the 1990s needed to spend $5K per employee to do business that incorporated the exchange of documents. Think of the drugs that were not discovered, students that were not taught, or the other engineering improvements in other areas that were not funded due to the economic rent on our civilization well in excess of any reasonable rate of return on investment. This era is fortunately ending.

    I hope that the patent regime and whatever Rossi/IH are doing results in a better more efficient use of the new LENR technology.

    And whatever Rossi is talking about from 20 years ago (i.e. Petroldragon, the Mafia) has nothing to do with this. Oil from waste and thermoelectric convertors have nothing to do with LENR. Rossi has only been working on LENR as far as I can see since 2008. So what on earth is he talking about.

    Thermodynamics: The fact is our civilization has a limited amount of Gibbs Free Energy stored in our earth to move to the next level. The thermodynamics of keeping 7.2+ billion people (and growing) with essentials and reasonably happy in their lives without a future catastrophe depends on an energy revolution in the next 50 years. There is no free lunch, but as we have invented solar which has a high energy return on investment, we are inventing LENR. We need a transition to LENR before the civilization is damaged by fossil fuel exhaustion as solar and wind cannot carry the entire burden, and fission based nuclear is to dirty and occasionally catastrophic for general acceptance and deployment. Unless of course the plasma guys get going while we are still alive.

    • Observer

      No one was more qualified to run Microsoft than Bill Gates. No one is better qualified to bring LENR+ to the commercial market than Andrea Rossi.

      The choice is yours: Do you want a society where possession is based on the ability to make something or do you want a society where possession is based on the ability to take something?

      • georgehants

        Observer, are those the only two alternatives that you can think of?
        Interesting.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          To fake? A third option…

          • georgehants

            Pekka, please expand I find it difficult to interpret or reply to these one liners.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Sorry, it wasn’t of substance, just a little rhyme

          • Observer

            “Fake” is an error in the mind of the observer. It is not a property of the object itself.

            Plastic only gained respect when it stopped pretending to be wood. Yet, it had always been genuine plastic.

        • Observer

          Look to nature for your societal models. The only sin we invented first was blasphemy. Only among more cognitively advanced organisms do you see the emergence of fair trade. Maybe some day we will come across one and we can ask them about it.

          • georgehants

            Observer, I take you are saying you are incapable of thinking of a fair system.
            I understand.

          • Observer

            Once we think we understand the system, we use that information to destroy it. (Think ENRON, derivative traders, and hackers.)

            This in itself is a “system”. I wonder if we fully understood it, if we could destroy it too.

          • georgehants

            Observer, I think you seem to have traveled to the Planet Pluto, I hope you find good things there.

          • Observer

            Thought experiment: It was a place without sin before I showed up. Being there, I found its inhospitable conditions immoral. When I left, it was again without sin.

          • georgehants

            Good one.
            Best

      • bachcole

        I could not agree more. Does anyone really think that 9 years ago (or whenever Rossi started) he would have pursued this goal of cold fusion if he KNEW (because of the nature of society) that he would have had it all taken away from him by a bunch of ungrateful losers and blood suckers no better than our worse bankers. (:->)

    • William D. fleming

      Gates is rich because he brought a highly needed product to the marketplace at a very low price compared to others. His being wealthy is not hurting anyone. No one is poor because of it–it’s just the opposite.

      I remember doing hours of tedious calculations using tables of logarithms. There were computers but they were way out of reach price-wise. No one dreamed that we’d ever have home computers. Thank you Bill Gates.

      In my opinion society is running along as it should. The free market, with some regulation, seems to be the model which works best. Idealistic schemes, spurred by envy and imposed by politicians at the point of a gun have failed miserably long term.

      It’s great to dream of a better world, but the realization of that better world begins within the heart of each individual in my opinion.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      Anon2012-2014, your comments are typical of those that do not understand cause and effect. Without Apple and Microsoft, the level of computers and related technology would be much lower. Development does not grow on trees, it comes from a committed personal effort, and that can’t come without investment and profit. It was Apple and Microsoft and eventually IBM that caused the computer revolution. You assume it would have occurred naturally, and those just grabbed the profit by the neck. There is nothing preventing new companies from coming out with new computers and software except the large lead the early starters had making it difficult to catch up. All of the special use software was made to be compatible with the existing systems (or it could not be used), but feel free to start from scratch, or just ask Apple and Microsoft to give you use of all patents and development to make it easy for you.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Leonard,

        I am not against capitalism or even patents. It is just the degree of monopoly granted. Microsoft did the heavy lifting in 1984-1988, and then stopped right when they were going to bring out a Unix based version of Dos-4. Everything from that point was about extending their monopoly by locking out all competition. This was the opposite from the early Apple-II the IBM-PC era, where anyone and everyone could build any hardware or software and didn’t need to worry about compatibility with the new monopoly standard.

        For Rossi, a perpetual monopoly (which is what he has publicly announced wants with the trade secret plants where the guts can never be seen) would be wrong. Healthy competition based on economy of scale would be right except for one issue: if he actually had a working reactor in 2012 (the original water cooled ECAT) or a hot cat in 2013; and if he had published his patent with sufficient information to replicate — we would have working ECATs right now in every home. 100 labs would have replicated and 100 engineering design firms would have built them and even paid a licensing fee to Rossi.

        But he doesn’t — he keeps his information bottled up, thereby slowing down the development cycle. Right now, patents last a lifetime, as does Rossi’s trade secret plans. We need to, as a civilization, move faster to realize our future.

        I’d start with reducing this type of patent to 10 years and make it difficult for someone to bypass the patent system with a trade secret implementation. The ROI will still make Rossi a multi-billionaire. That is enough reward for a garage inventor. What is the purpose of making him a trillionaire?

        • bachcole

          Hey, Anon2015, I think that a perpetual monopoly by Rossi/I.H. is the least of our problems. I would think that Rossi/I.H. not getting taken to the cleaners is much more likely. Once the secret is out, they are in serious trouble. Besides the heat source, there is NOTHING about LENR++ that hasn’t already been done, usually many times over.

        • Warthog

          Uh, no. PATENTS do not “last a lifetime”. In they US, they last 25 years. COPYRIGHTS last a lifetime plus an added number of years. In the US, I believe that it is “the authors lifetime plus 75 years”. And with enough lawyers, virtually any patent can be gotten around….with either by a slight change in the patent-busting technology copy sold, or simply by tying the patent owner up in the courts until they run out of money, or die.

    • Omega Z

      Anon
      The use of Microsoft probably wasn’t the best reference scenario. They abused the system & tried for a total monopoly by any means necessary. It was actually a good Company before Bill Gates took it over.

      Rossi has been tinkering with LENR far longer then 2008. He started studing it shortly after the 89 Pons and Fleishman debut.

      • bachcole

        Gates was at Microsoft from the very first day, from the inception, from before it was Microsoft. He helped steal the software and sell it to IBM before he paid for it.

    • Joseh Felcman

      What are like the business leaders from the multi-billion enterprise with global reach and global experience selected, after long search, by Dr Andrea Rossi, for implementation of his 1 MW E-Cat?

      Here is one hour YouTube video where William McDonough (of the “Cradle-to-Cradle” site and fame) and Tom Darden, CEO of Industrial Heat and Cherokee Investments discus a particular approach to industrial process. It is a unique and very VALUABLE material. I hope that as many as possible readers will take notice… It also provides indirect look at some of Dr Rossi’s preferences.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfQHvmYEOVI

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    not sure how anyone could be surprised by this. Rossi is a capitalist, IH is a Capitalist organization. And I dont mean that in a bad way. Most of the LENR researchers are all in this for the potential payoff down the road. The fact that humanity will benefit is not necessarily a primary concern. I personally do not see this as a negative thing. This is just the way things are, inventors/innovators take risks to bring products/services to market they deserve to get rewarded.

  • David Taylor-Fuller

    not sure how anyone could be surprised by this. Rossi is a capitalist, IH is a Capitalist organization. And I dont mean that in a bad way. Most of the LENR researchers are all in this for the potential payoff down the road. The fact that humanity will benefit is not necessarily a primary concern. I personally do not see this as a negative thing. This is just the way things are, inventors/innovators take risks to bring products/services to market they deserve to get rewarded.

    • bachcole

      It is rude, inconsiderate, and points society toward dis-incentivizing sacrifice like Rossi’s to even expect him to give it away. I want him to thrive. I want him to become filthy rich.

      • James Thomas

        Indeed, what person in their right mind would expect anyone to offer their God given talents solely for the betterment of others?

        • Observer

          If we are to be judged on how we use our God given talents, then the responsibility of deciding how they are to be used is ours and ours alone.

        • bachcole

          Some people work solely for the betterment of others. But it is not our place to nag others to do so; it is our place to do it ourselves or keep quite about it.

  • Mike Henderson

    Interesting read.

    I have seen true economics of scale at work. For example, Around 1980, Corning Inc figured out how to extrude and sinter highly intricate 400 cell per square inch ceramic honeycombs the size of a loaf of bread to be used as the substrate for catalytic converters … at a cost of roughly a buck. Corning Inc is still the dominant supplier 45 years later. I find it highly unlikely that IH has the capital and processing expertise to achieve that sort of barrier to entry.

  • Mike Henderson

    Interesting read.

    I have seen true economics of scale at work. For example, Around 1980, Corning Inc figured out how to extrude and sinter highly intricate 400 cell per square inch ceramic honeycombs the size of a loaf of bread to be used as the substrate for catalytic converters … at a cost of roughly a buck. Corning Inc is still the dominant supplier 45 years later. I find it highly unlikely that IH has the capital and processing expertise to achieve that sort of barrier to entry.

  • Ophelia Rump

    If there is someone who knows how to make it work other than Rossi it is the Russian Alexander Parkhomov.

    If the he is genuine, he might help in order to demonstrate the truth of his knowledge.
    If he is not, then of course nothing good could come of it. I wonder is MFMP looking to his work for guidance?

    Is Rossi seriously saying that if MFMP is successful then IH has no future? Surely this is exaggerated. I understand that they cannot give away their trade secrets, but they would do well to license them before the aftermarket walks away from them and takes a completely independent approach. Better they should subsidize MFMP and profit from the amateur market which will sprout up around its foundations, then lose the home market to a garage industry.

    The day may come this very year when LENR enters the home through the garage door and IH is left standing out in the cold.

    • kenko

      Parkhomov is claiming e-cat results in the hot-cat temperature range. E-cats went up to 400C, yet Parkhomov’s results are obtained well above that. In the hot-cat range. hmm…

      And Mr. Rossi dosen’t just want to sell you an e-cat. He’s gonna charge you for the btu’s it produces too! Like buying a car and having to pay extra for the miles you drive it.

      • Omega Z

        Kenko, Where do you get your info?
        Rossi’s Hot cat obtains 1400’C, not 400’C.

        And where do you get this?

        “Mr. Rossi doesn’t just want to sell you an e-cat. He’s gonna charge you for the btu’s it produces too!”

        Rossi has never said this.. Rossi will sell E-cats. Period. Or more then likely, they will license the right to manufacture to others.

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        I dont believe I have ever seen any article where Rossi has said he is also going to charge for the energy released. I only remember seeing that for Black light.

    • Omega Z

      Alexander Parkhomov could pass info to MFMP. If Rossi did, It could be claimed as non independent. In fact, I think Bob G. has said they avoid any contact with Rossi because of this.

    • Warthog

      “If Parkhomov’s data is validated by MFMP (or anybody else), they will have provided exactly the condition needed for Rossi to get his US patent allowed, because “someone knowledgeable in the art” has used his method to get similar results.

  • Ophelia Rump

    If there is someone who knows how to make it work other than Rossi it is the Russian Alexander Parkhomov.

    If he is genuine, he might help in order to demonstrate the truth of his knowledge.
    If he is not, then of course nothing good could come of it. I wonder is MFMP looking to his work for guidance?

    Is Rossi seriously saying that if MFMP is successful then IH has no future? Surely this is exaggerated. I understand that they cannot give away their trade secrets, but they would do well to license them before the aftermarket walks away from IH’s reach, taking a completely independent approach.

    Better that IH should subsidize MFMP and profit from the amateur market which will sprout up around its foundations, then lose the home market to a garage industry.
    By contractually obligating MFMP and anyone who uses their knowledge IH can take a percentage, and control aftermarket parts quality by withdrawal of license.

    The day may come this very year when LENR enters the home through the garage door and IH is left standing out in the cold. IH may enter the home market with ten thousand garage competitors already exploiting the market.

    • Guru

      Very smart analysis, I love it. Although it not calculate with some under radar competitors, who may be at end of process of 2 years of obligatory testing already functional marketable cheap product.

    • kenko

      Parkhomov is claiming e-cat results in the hot-cat temperature range. E-cats went up to 400C, yet Parkhomov’s results are obtained well above that. In the hot-cat range. hmm…

      And Mr. Rossi dosen’t just want to sell you an e-cat. He’s gonna charge you for the btu’s it produces too! Like buying a car and having to pay extra for the miles you drive it.

      • Omega Z

        Kenko, Where do you get your info?
        Rossi’s Hot cat obtains 1400’C, not 400’C.

        And where do you get this?

        “Mr. Rossi doesn’t just want to sell you an e-cat. He’s gonna charge you for the btu’s it produces too!”

        Rossi has never said this.. Rossi will sell E-cats. Period. Or more then likely, they will license the right to manufacture to others.

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        I dont believe I have ever seen any article where Rossi has said he is also going to charge for the energy released. I only remember seeing that for Black light.

    • Omega Z

      Alexander Parkhomov could pass info to MFMP. If Rossi did, It could be claimed as non independent. In fact, I think Bob G. has said they avoid any contact with Rossi because of this.

    • Warthog

      “If Parkhomov’s data is validated by MFMP (or anybody else), they will have provided exactly the condition needed for Rossi to get his US patent allowed, because “someone knowledgeable in the art” has used his method to get similar results.

  • bachcole

    It never crossed my mind that Rossi would, should, or could give his industrial secrets away. And it strikes me that who ever suggests such a thing is being inconsiderate towards Rossi. I felt that Rossi in that message was talking with a slight edge of irritation, and I don’t blame him.

  • Ronzonni

    I am unclear on why Rossi does not get a US patent (and Europe, and so on). Yes, he would have to disclose how his ecats work. That’s required for a proper patent. But now that Rossi is supported by IH, how could any one succeed in stealing the IP? IH’s parent is a $2 billion corporation! That would seem enough in resources to defend any patent virtually anywhere.

    In fact, if MFMP discovers the Rossi principles and methods on their own, they might be able to establish their own patent as “prior art”. I’m no expert but that seems to be a risk that Rossi should consider.

    • Mats002

      Good question. From info elsewhere here at ECW, there are already patents from Piantelli and others, but primarily from him, that holds this IP. If it not hold the complete IP, at least holding the basics of it. I would like to here the Piantelli story.

    • Omega Z

      Cherokee is an investment company that manages about $2 Billion in investments. Tom Darden – is merely the Chief Executive Officer.

      Tom Darden & JT Vaughn along with about a dozen other entities created Industrial Heat to purchase Rossi’s technology. Other then the 11.5 million they raised for this purpose, we have no Idea what IH is worth or who is behind it other then Darden/Vaughn.

      As to MFMP being able to establish their own patent as prior art, That would entail them discovering it “PRIOR” to Rossi. Rossi has already filed for a U.S. patent & a European patent And has been Granted an Italian Patent.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Rossi is not wrong. I wouldn’t give anything to MFMP either. Parkhomov is the correct route. If Parkhomov, truly, got the LENR effect working then he should be able to get it working with MFMP. Maybe Rossi will be the Microsoft of the LENR age…it is an effective model. However, I think it would be more like Tesla and Elon Musk. That being said, I think that MFMP…with the aid of Parkhomov….may be the LINUX of LENR…which isn’t a bad thing.

    I also want to talk a little bit about the Microsoft comparison. There was a time 87-99ish that we were all in love with MS…how quickly we forget. Then once they got Titanic…and went from MS to M$…we turned on them. And for good reasons stated by Anon. I am as much ‘persona non grata’ to M$ these days as anyone…but remeber that happened AFTER they became a 600 billion dollar company. (they are so cute when they are young).

    I don’t think that Rossi can go the M$ route for intrinsic reasons. Source Code is a LOT easier to keep secret (and or prosecute if let lose in the wild) then a physical device. Brilliant move to jump into bed early with the Chinese…because they would have just stolen it anyways. Once the hot cat is truly out in the wild…I don’t think it will be super difficult to reverse engineer and pirate. ALSO, remember the ‘Rossi effect’ is based, purely, on experimental evidence. There is no sound theory for LENR. Lets say that in the future a sound theory of LENR is discovered…then everyone starts basing new patents off of the sound theory…that might undermine possible retroactive patents based on experimental evidence and hot cat market success. So, for these intrinsic reasons….I don’t think Rossi will ever be able to play ‘king of the hill’ the way M$ does. But I do think if they ‘get big fast’ then they can be a central player like say Tesla in electric cars. And then just give the patents away for free haha (they might not be worth much in the end)

  • MasterBlaster7

    Rossi is not wrong. I wouldn’t give anything to MFMP either. Parkhomov is the correct route. If Parkhomov, truly, got the LENR effect working then he should be able to get it working with MFMP. Maybe Rossi will be the Microsoft of the LENR age…it is an effective model. However, I think it would be more like Tesla and Elon Musk. That being said, I think that MFMP…with the aid of Parkhomov….may be the LINUX of LENR…which isn’t a bad thing.

    I also want to talk a little bit about the Microsoft comparison. There was a time 87-99ish that we were all in love with MS…how quickly we forget. Then once they got Titanic…and went from MS to M$…we turned on them. And for good reasons stated by Anon. I am as much ‘persona non grata’ to M$ these days as anyone…but remeber that happened AFTER they became a 600 billion dollar company. (they are so cute when they are young).

    I don’t think that Rossi can go the M$ route for intrinsic reasons. Source Code is a LOT easier to keep secret (and or prosecute if let lose in the wild) then a physical device. Brilliant move to jump into bed, early, with the Chinese…because they would have just stolen it anyways. Once the hot cat is truly out in the wild…I don’t think it will be super difficult to reverse engineer and pirate. ALSO, remember the ‘Rossi effect’ is based, purely, on experimental evidence. There is no sound theory for LENR. Lets say that in the future a sound theory of LENR is discovered…then everyone starts basing new patents off of the sound theory…that might undermine possible retroactive patents based on experimental evidence and hot cat market success. So, for these intrinsic reasons….I don’t think Rossi will ever be able to play ‘king of the hill’ the way M$ does. But I do think if they ‘get big fast’ then they can be a central player like say Tesla in electric cars. And then just give the patents away for free haha (they might not be worth much in the end)

  • Mats002

    Good question. From info elsewhere here at ECW, there are already patents from Piantelli and others, but primarily from him, that holds this IP. If it not hold the complete IP, at least holding the basics of it. I would like to here the Piantelli story.

  • georgehants

    Just a very small example below of the capitalistic system in action.
    I look forward to those comments that are so intellectually bankrupt that they contain no renegotiation of these crimes against humanity and no suggestions of how to correct the system to remove all such corruption.
    No recognition of changing a system proven to be unable to give the fairness and equality that must be the birthright of every individual born into this World and that many other caring people have and do strive to achieve against tremendous opposition from those that have the most.
    ———
    Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Drug Safety Myth
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/11/30/pharmaceutical-industry-institutional-corruption.aspx

    • Warthog

      Please give an example of ANY economic system which has produced better results than “capitalism” on a broad scale. You’ve ranted constantly here about the “evils of capitalism” and put forth not ONE example of any system that would be superior.

      • georgehants

        Warthog, as usual you are mistaken, I have many times given the example of taking the best of all systems, including new thinking and developing a system that is far Superior to the corrupt system I give proof of above.
        One that removes obscene wealth for the few and gives equal opertunity to the many.
        Will look forward to your ideas to improve the suffering of the many in this World, as I am sure that you care greatly for those less fortunate than us.
        I did above give my opinion of the type of person that would come back to me with negative reply’s.

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          So what your saying is, Mankind has yet to implement a system better than capitalism and should take the opportunity to not be forever content with it. As it may be possible to pull ideas from all the different systems to create a hybrid that better serves our needs.

          If what I have said is accurate. Then it seems like Warthog is right you have not given any examples of economic systems created by man to date that have worked as well as capitalism.

          Does that mean that capitalism is infallible, NO. But it does mean that one has to take a solid look in the mirror before condemning it in the ad hominem way a lot of people do.

          Now I do not believe Warthog and all the other pro capitalists on this site are against improving the system or coming up with something better. But just like how the Anti-Capitalists hate how Capitalists never speak of the failures of capitalism. The Capitalists hate how the Anti-Capitalists never speak of its successes.

          Personally I think the solution to the problem is to help MMFP secure continuous funding for their open research and find someone or a group of people to be the Linus of LENR. Open Source software is winning in a capitalist system because in capitalist economy things eventually become a commodity (no matter how hard companies fight to prevent that). So the trick is to speed up the process for LENR to become a commodity.

          • georgehants

            David, Yes I am saying society has to devise a system better than capitalism and I think you may agree that the millions suffering and dying in this World may agree with that thought.
            Even the most ardent capitalist may agree if it was their children that they where helplessly watching die in front of their eyes.
            Unfortunately the average hard capitalists vision seems to end with their own well-being.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            I agree, that capitalism cannot be considered the end of the road as far as humanities development of economic systems are concerned. I do however share the perspective that capitalism got a lot of things right. My problem is how does one begin to separate what is really a fundamental part of capitalism from what is merely a side effect of human nature. If I use Micro Economics and Macro Economics as taught in highschool and college as a guide. The excesses that are routinely complained about are not a fundamental part of the system.

            For example, when a firm produces a product that pollutes the environment in some form and the cost of remediation is not included in the price of the good/service. That is refered to as an externality. Now there is no blanket statement on what people should do with these externalities. Instead it is kinda left up to the people practicing the system to find a solution. Personally I think any externality that is created by the production of a good/service should have its remediation included in the price of that good/service. I understand that not all externalities can be detected at the beginning of production and I would not require a firm to have a complete list of the externalities before they can begin selling. They should however have to do some due dillegence. If an externality is found after the firm says it has completed its due dilligence and a court decrees the firm should have found this in their due dilligence then the firm should pay for its lack of attention to detail.

            I think alot of the issues we are complaining about today suffer from this problem. Theory does not completely specify what should be done. And basically leaves it up to the reader to come up with a solution. Where the underlying assumption is that we have this perfect market where all buyers have perfect information about the goods/services that are for sale. Now I dont know about anyone here but I do not know of one instance where all buyers in the market have perfect information about the goods/services being sold. Matter of fact companies go to great lengths to shape the information buyers have so that they are more likely to buy their product instead of their competitors.

            From a much more fundamental perspective. I believe Capitalism worked as well as it did and continues to do because it created a organic feed back system to let people know how much of something they could consume via prices. All without the intervention of an unnecessary third party. Its part of the reason I believe communism as practiced by the USSR will always failed. Where as the Chinese have recognized some of the positive aspects of Capitalism and have grafted it onto their own political system. Personally I think China will have a far longer period of positive effects from capitalism than any other country the US included. Mainly because instead of a cacophony of competing voices all arguing over how the parts of capitalism that are left open for interpretation should be implemented. You have one highly educated body/leader making that decision. It also gives them the capability to quickly react when an interpretation has a large undesired effect. Centralized systems tend to excel when they dont have to get bogged down with ever minor detail, which is where USSR styled communism failed (it also helps your not trying to fight a cold war). That said, if the communist party in china were to suddenly get dumbed down or they elect a bad leader. They will have a significant down turn.

            In the end, I really believe the real problem that any economic system has is human nature. While a firm may earn a monopoly over providing some good/service there is no need for that firm to act like ever monopoly that has come and gone. The problems we complain about have more to do with human nature than a lot of us are willing to conceded. Creating some new system, hybrid or otherwise, that ignores that part of the problem is doomed to failure eventually. The real question is how can you turn all of the negative traits of human nature into a net positive effect. Where the negatives are severely minimized.

          • georgehants

            David, many thanks, I think my continuing point, that our economists and society need to move in this 21st century, outside of the continuous brainwashing that we all need more and more while others have nothing, falsely encouraged by those most involved in the corruption and greed, fooling people into believing small-mindedly that capitalism is in any way the best system for today

            One only needs to open one’s eyes for one second to realize that it fails miserably in most areas.
            A new better system devised by ordinary people and not the rich and powerful.

          • Casey

            Capitalism is not the best , but so far, there is no better system. So we have to improve, what we already have.
            Most critics complain about the rich peoples. But it is them, who give employment and source of better living to millions of peoples.

          • georgehants

            Casey, I disagree it is them that in our society manage to manipulate and use other people for their own gain.
            As you say improve what we have, so that this kind of exploitation is ended and the worshiping of selfish interest is changed for a fair reward for those that are able to best organize many things.
            And those that actually do the necessary work are rewarded and appreciated far more than those wasting their lives pointlessly seeking nothing but self-gratification.

          • LilyLover

            It’s not yours to give, if you stole it in the first place, perhaps generations removed.

          • LilyLover

            Externalities of the parasites are faced by the autotrophes. The difference is minimal between capitalism or socialism or otherism than the real problem of the world – parasitism-idolism. The vampires feed off of coward producers. Eventually when the autotrophes are extinct – or all convert to rabid vampirism (no offence to you good vampires) – then there’s nothing to feed off of. Parasitism needs to be frowned upon not idolized.
            There begins the improvement.

          • LilyLover

            He has given multiple examples and so have I. Re-iterating those for your pleasure is beyond the reasonable scope.

            Irony it will be that the Chinese will be the cause for what you are hopin to turn LENR into.

        • bachcole

          I don’t recall any examples.

      • bachcole

        All of georgehants examples are constructed out of his wishful thinking, based upon the idea that people should be more caring. I could not agree more that if people were more caring that we would have a better system, but, unfortunately, we can’t make other people be more caring, no matter how much we want it and no matter how much we try. We can only make ourselves be more caring, and given the venom that we receive from georgehants when we disagree with him, it seems that he needs to work more on his own caring.

      • LilyLover

        My prison is better than your prison, so, let’s use my prison – is a wrong attitude.
        Let’s abolish the prisons, and let’s all be free – is the right attitude.
        Improvement is better than status-quo is something beyond the “don’t fix what’s not broken” type of people. Rocking the boat upsets the old money. 🙂
        As for the new systems, many have been offered, and ignored by the likes of you… it’ll be magic to make you look at it twice… but the time your grandchildren are old enough to vote, you’d see what the better systems were talked about.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      The only fairness and equity that is a birthright is that the laws are properly followed, and that your rights stop at the boundary of others boundary. You are not entitled to the product or effort of someone else. If a medicine is developed that could save your life, and the price is too high, you have the right to develop it yourself, not take it from the developer, as hard (and unlikely) as that seems. While that seems unfair, keep in mind the drugs did not pop up out of nothing, and were grabbed by the company.

      • georgehants

        Leonard, those drugs etc. where developed and made by ordinary people who are fed by other ordinary people who’s roads are swept by other ordinary people who are treated by doctors and nurses who are other ordinary people.
        Nobody needs rich people, nobody needs profits and wealth beyond all basic needs and fair luxuries in line with production and personal effort.

      • LilyLover

        More importantly, laws need to be properly made and proper laws need to be made. Codifying immorality is the tool in your chest to perpetuate initial advantage that will benefit only you.

  • georgehants

    Just a very small example below of the capitalistic system in action.
    I look forward to those comments that are so intellectually bankrupt that they contain no recognition of these crimes against humanity and no suggestions of how to correct the system to remove all such corruption.
    No recognition of changing a system proven to be unable to give the fairness and equality that must be the birthright of every individual born into this World and that many other caring people have and do strive to achieve against tremendous opposition from those that have the most.
    A rich man that has a billion and gives away a million proves nothing, much of that money has only been taken from the poor in the first place, a nurse that travels to help those unfortunate people with Ebola etc. and comes back to the UK infected and fighting for life is the hero.
    ———
    Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Drug Safety Myth
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/11/30/pharmaceutical-industry-institutional-corruption.aspx

    • Warthog

      Please give an example of ANY economic system which has produced better results than “capitalism” on a broad scale. You’ve ranted constantly here about the “evils of capitalism” and put forth not ONE example of any system that would be superior.

      • Stefenski

        IMHO Warthog , Capitalism only worked when no one had any money to speak of!
        Now that we do , it is shown to be a top heavy system that is toppling over.
        A relative few people who have almost all of the wealth.
        Competition? which doesn’t exist, (most areas are unspoken cartels). Continuing extortionate prices for fuel , housing, health etc..
        Broken Banking which relies on casino stock market gambling.
        Governments that cant govern.Politicians who are more interested in their own career, & behaving worse than infants.
        I doubt if it could even be labelled capitalism any-more.

        In the future there will be one ‘system’ , it will not be called a system. It will be service to others – instead of selfishness.
        Rossi will be richly rewarded in any event, just what form the reward takes is up to him.

        • georgehants

          stefenski, so agree, up to the 1950’s capitalism had a un-perfect but defendable position.
          Now only the sharing of the massive capabilities of production, that can easily supply all needs and many luxuries Worldwide and that can be achieved with everybody working only half a week and retiring at say 50 without the insane waste of capitalism is justified.
          Those that achieve more or a willing to work more must still be rewarded more, but no obscene rich of any-kind. etc. etc. etc.

          • Casey

            But it really strange things happen. When workers get higher salary in unionized companies, they are getting more lazy. Don’t want to work overtime when it is necessary for the good of the company.
            Those in management of the union, act like mafia.

          • georgehants

            Casey, in an equal and fair society, that agreed would mean a completely new education system from birth, it should be possible that all do their fair share for fair reward without the need for unions, if it is the people that are democratically making all the decisions.
            No need for politicians with ridiculous two or three party systems where everyone follows one doctrine or the other, only the best from all possible systems should be employed.

          • bachcole

            Everyone is equal in value: infinitely valuable. Not everyone is equal in ability. Necessities should be distributed according to value. Everything else people need to work for. I don’t need a big screen television to survive. I do need food to survive.

          • Warthog

            Lots of countries have tried that….the USSR, Communist China, Pol Pot, North Korea. None of them have worked. Yet they had exactly a “completely new education system from birth”.

          • LilyLover

            The people that claim “Lots of countries have tried that…” is the essential disease of the society. It assigns pre-supposed failure to another newer attempt which might be entirely different. This conjenctured categorization is immoral. By new systems, George really means, new systems, perhaps beyond your acceptable tolerance to kindness.

          • bachcole

            So you want to risk another hundred million dead just so that you can try out your “new” communist system? The system will track the (very gradual) change in human nature. Human nature will NOT track the change in system. If you want human nature to change, start with yourself.

          • LilyLover

            This is again beyond you – Communism is not the only alternative to Capitalism.
            It’s the “well meaning” stupid people that pull down humanity.
            Like they say – wise enemy – stupid friend.

            Just be good and stop communist propaganda…
            Bye.

        • Warthog

          LOL, The system that preceded capitalism was monarchy. Those at the top had plenty of money, and those at the bottom were more or less slaves.

          Capitalism appeared within monarchy and so increased the money/wealth supply that even those at the bottom had more than those at the bottom under monarchy. And it still does. The “poor” today have amenities that no Egyptian Pharaoh or Roman Emperor had access to.

          And competition most certainly does still exist (I own part of a small business, and absolutely do have competitors). The problems capitalism suffers from today are from a LACK of competition (too big to fail businesses). IMHO, if any business area begins to become “too big to fail”, it should be broken up into smaller companies.

          And the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking.

          • bachcole

            Sort of like Karl Marx. He was able to accurately describe the problem, but his solution left just about everything to be desired. He did not understand that the hatred index of a system was more important than the structure of the system.

            Perhaps when we all have 3D printers then we can all become capitalists.

          • LilyLover

            In a good monarchy, there exists accountability and is therefore superior to today’s “this-ism or that-ism”. The problem with monarchy is – eventually one bad apple destroys the credence of the “good” predecessors. And the bad apple, intensifies badness as it’s already labelled bad. Gone beyond control, revolts substitute the monarch.
            The monarchies learned from this and instituted a faceless bureaucracy. A little semblance of democracy, a little semblance of public choice etc and all become ignorant of the master behind the curtain. In this system bad things happen but there is no face to it. People are angry in general but there is no one to be angry ‘at’. This dissipates the anger and status-quo prevails producing people like you who think “things cannot be improved”. The masters rejoyce.
            “The “poor” today have amenities that no Egyptian Pharaoh or Roman Emperor had access to.”
            >>
            That’s what we-the-scientists do. We function under any “system” but our creativity translated into products would exist under any “ism”.
            Think Japan-electronics-monarchy.

            Point is – fallacious social systems are not the reasons that make science conducive. Tese system simply impose small or large impedence to growth. We don’t suceed because of you; we don’t need you to be successful; we succeed despite of you.

        • Ted-X

          One system WHICH WORKED was by made by reforming capitalism. They made terrible “mistakes”/horrible things in other areas, but not in their economy. The profits were simply limited to 6% and the large corporations were split, as far as I understand. They were against multi-national corporations. They recovered from depression twice as fast as the US. I am not promoting them, as they have done horrible things in other areas, but those other things are used as an excuse not to analyze their reformed capitalist economy. But their economy and the social benefits were excellent. I will be probably attacked for using them as an example.

          • Warthog

            So what was this example??? “Reformed capitalism” is more or less what I have in mind (assurance of honest dealings and of competition…as opposed to “crony capitalism”).

          • bachcole

            The Chinese (communists) have a way (that does not work perfectly) that insures “reformed capitalism” that does not drift into “crony capitalism”. That way is capital punishment (a fitting title) for bribery. I support this idea as a constitutional amendment.

      • georgehants

        Warthog, as usual you are mistaken, I have many times given the example of taking the best of all systems, including new thinking and developing a system that is far Superior to the corrupt system I give proof of above.
        One that removes obscene wealth for the few and gives equal opertunity to the many.
        Will look forward to your ideas to improve the suffering of the many in this World, as I am sure that you care greatly for those less fortunate than us.
        I did above give my opinion of the type of person that would come back to me with negative reply’s.

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          So what your saying is, Mankind has yet to implement a system better than capitalism and should take the opportunity to not be forever content with it. As it may be possible to pull ideas from all the different systems to create a hybrid that better serves our needs.

          If what I have said is accurate. Then it seems like Warthog is right you have not given any examples of economic systems created by man to date that have worked as well as capitalism.

          Does that mean that capitalism is infallible, NO. But it does mean that one has to take a solid look in the mirror before condemning it in the ad hominem way a lot of people do.

          Now I do not believe Warthog and all the other pro capitalists on this site are against improving the system or coming up with something better. But just like how the Anti-Capitalists hate how Capitalists never speak of the failures of capitalism. The Capitalists hate how the Anti-Capitalists never speak of its successes.

          Personally I think the solution to the problem is to help MMFP secure continuous funding for their open research and find someone or a group of people to be the Linus of LENR. Open Source software is winning in a capitalist system because in capitalist economy things eventually become a commodity (no matter how hard companies fight to prevent that). So the trick is to speed up the process for LENR to become a commodity.

          • georgehants

            David, Yes I am saying society has to devise a system better than capitalism and I think you may agree that the millions suffering and dying in this World may agree with that thought.
            Even the most ardent capitalist may agree if it was their children that they where helplessly watching die in front of their eyes.
            Unfortunately the average hard capitalists vision seems to end with their own well-being.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            I agree, that capitalism cannot be considered the end of the road as far as humanities development of economic systems are concerned. I do however share the perspective that capitalism got a lot of things right. My problem is how does one begin to separate what is really a fundamental part of capitalism from what is merely a side effect of human nature. If I use Micro Economics and Macro Economics as taught in highschool and college as a guide. The excesses that are routinely complained about are not a fundamental part of the system.

            For example, when a firm produces a product that pollutes the environment in some form and the cost of remediation is not included in the price of the good/service. That is refered to as an externality. Now there is no blanket statement on what people should do with these externalities. Instead it is kinda left up to the people practicing the system to find a solution. Personally I think any externality that is created by the production of a good/service should have its remediation included in the price of that good/service. I understand that not all externalities can be detected at the beginning of production and I would not require a firm to have a complete list of the externalities before they can begin selling. They should however have to do some due dillegence. If an externality is found after the firm says it has completed its due dilligence and a court decrees the firm should have found this in their due dilligence then the firm should pay for its lack of attention to detail.

            I think alot of the issues we are complaining about today suffer from this problem. Theory does not completely specify what should be done. And basically leaves it up to the reader to come up with a solution. Where the underlying assumption is that we have this perfect market where all buyers have perfect information about the goods/services that are for sale. Now I dont know about anyone here but I do not know of one instance where all buyers in the market have perfect information about the goods/services being sold. Matter of fact companies go to great lengths to shape the information buyers have so that they are more likely to buy their product instead of their competitors.

            From a much more fundamental perspective. I believe Capitalism worked as well as it did and continues to do because it created a organic feed back system to let people know how much of something they could consume via prices. All without the intervention of an unnecessary third party. Its part of the reason I believe communism as practiced by the USSR will always failed. Where as the Chinese have recognized some of the positive aspects of Capitalism and have grafted it onto their own political system. Personally I think China will have a far longer period of positive effects from capitalism than any other country the US included. Mainly because instead of a cacophony of competing voices all arguing over how the parts of capitalism that are left open for interpretation should be implemented. You have one highly educated body/leader making that decision. It also gives them the capability to quickly react when an interpretation has a large undesired effect. Centralized systems tend to excel when they dont have to get bogged down with ever minor detail, which is where USSR styled communism failed (it also helps your not trying to fight a cold war). That said, if the communist party in china were to suddenly get dumbed down or they elect a bad leader. They will have a significant down turn.

            In the end, I really believe the real problem that any economic system has is human nature. While a firm may earn a monopoly over providing some good/service there is no need for that firm to act like ever monopoly that has come and gone. The problems we complain about have more to do with human nature than a lot of us are willing to conceded. Creating some new system, hybrid or otherwise, that ignores that part of the problem is doomed to failure eventually. The real question is how can you turn all of the negative traits of human nature into a net positive effect. Where the negatives are severely minimized.

          • georgehants

            David, many thanks, I think my continuing point, that our economists and society need to move in this 21st century, outside of the continuous brainwashing that we all need more and more while others have nothing, falsely encouraged by those most involved in the corruption and greed, fooling people into believing small-mindedly that capitalism is in any way the best system for today
            One only needs to open one’s eyes for one second to realize that it fails miserably in most areas.
            A new better system devised by ordinary people and not the rich and powerful.

          • Casey

            Capitalism is not the best , but so far, there is no better system. So we have to improve, what we already have.
            Most critics complain about the rich peoples. But it is them, who give employment and source of better living to millions of peoples.

          • georgehants

            Casey, I disagree it is “them” that in our society manage to manipulate and use other people for their own gain.
            As you say improve what we have, so that this kind of exploitation is ended and the worshiping of selfish interest is changed for a fair reward for those that are able to best organize many things.
            And those that actually do the necessary work are rewarded and appreciated far more than those wasting their lives pointlessly seeking nothing but self-gratification with little or no concern for others.

          • LilyLover

            It’s not yours to give, if you stole it in the first place, perhaps generations removed.

          • LilyLover

            Externalities of the parasites are faced by the autotrophes. The difference is minimal between capitalism or socialism or otherism than the real problem of the world – parasitism-idolism. The vampires feed off of coward producers. Eventually when the autotrophes are extinct – or all convert to rabid vampirism (no offence to you good vampires) – then there’s nothing to feed off of. Parasitism needs to be frowned upon not idolized.
            There begins the improvement.

          • LilyLover

            He has given multiple examples and so have I. Re-iterating those for your pleasure is beyond the reasonable scope.

            Irony it will be that the Chinese will be the cause for what you are hopin to turn LENR into.

        • bachcole

          I don’t recall any examples.

        • Warthog

          Admittedly, I haven’t read all your postings here (an impossible task, since I have real work to do in the real world), but I can’t recall ever having seen any such comments. Statistics say that by random selection I should have seen at least “some”…but I have not. So why not recoup the basics in answer to this post.

          Capitalism has, thus far, worked better than any other system ever tried or put forward at generating and spreading wealth broadly. My best idea to REDUCE (not “improve”) the suffering of the many…….implement more capitalism and private ownership. Those places that are poorest also have and have had the least “individual ownership (aka property) rights” (most notably, Africa and South America…..and once upon a time included much of the far East, and eastern Europe). However, that latter geographical set is making gigantic strides in generating and spreading wealth. How??? By implementing capitalism.

          I PERSONALLY work to reduce suffering as a business owner and technology innovator, by designing and selling superior problem-solving hardware and software to customers. In addition, I am a member of the Roman Catholic “Society of St. Vincent de Paul”, which DIRECTLY acts to aid those stricken by poverty from whatever cause…PERSONALLY going to their homes and delivering food and other assistance.

          All you seem to advocate is “let’s all play Robin Hood”, and “take from rich and give to the poor”.

          • LilyLover

            It’s better than not playing Robin Hood.
            BUT since your statistical sampling techniques are primitive, let me remind you – his important point is – “there is enough.” No need to steal from some to give the others. Let’s all be more thoughtful and more caring and stop dig-ditch and fill-ditch jobs and overall let’s all be rich.

            Your imagination stems from scarcity-based paradigms.
            One thing I admire though – is food charity – that you do.
            Property rights – what you earned by your deeds belongs to you everything else that is “passed down” to you is simply “dinosaur-contracts-unenforced” due to extinct language. In essence, if eagles had paper-based communications, would that make them land “owners”? Who knows for all we know you are a thief from the point of view of penguins or cats. It was their land, you came, you built a house on it. What it ranslates to in today’s world – is “me wanna be mini-monarch” … why? cause this paper proves that I “own” it.

          • Warthog

            My comments stem from a knowledge of history, and what has been shown in the real world to work.

            Socialism and centralized government control has failed miserably wherever tried, resulting in “the equality of poverty” (except, of course, for the “nomenclatura”). The recent institution of property rights in countries where they were weak or nonexistent has resulted in a rapid increase in the standard of living in those countries.

            Have they caught up with the “West” yet?? Some have (South Korea), or are coming close, while the rest are gaining rapidly.

            The one point that is correct in your post is “there is enough” (or will be, once it has been produced, by methods established by “evil capitalism”).

          • bachcole

            In 1921, in Ireland, when they became independent of Great Britain, I would have started off the country with a law that would have applied only at that moment of independence: If you live some place, you own it. After that, it’s every man or woman for themselves. They had the situation where landowners were British and lived in England. The Irish so-called independence was sort of bogus since the British landowners still owned the land, still had nothing but contempt for their renters, and still oppressed the Irish people.

          • LilyLover

            “My comments stem from a knowledge of history, and what has been shown in the real world to work.”
            >>
            Perhaps in the immoral and coward World. Bravery differential is manipulated to avoid parasites being wiped out. “Shown” !! You dream … tolerence of aggression by the weak is negative violence which you take it as “working” for that allows you to feel less parasitic.

            “Socialism and centralized government control has failed miserably wherever tried, resulting in “the equality of poverty” (except, of course, for the “nomenclatura”).”
            >>
            Perfectly agree. I neither propose socialism nor the centralized control.
            These are the antithesis of progress.

            “The recent institution of property rights in countries where they were weak or nonexistent has resulted in a rapid increase in the standard of living in those countries.”
            >>
            Scientific advancements, people waking up to the fiat currency and the people of that country showing “bravada” is the reason quality of life is increasing. Not the phony property rights.

            “Have they caught up with the “West” yet?? Some have (South Korea), or are coming close, while the rest are gaining rapidly.”
            >>
            This is not out of property rights – but parasite can only grow so much and then the autotrophes realize their folly of ways and then they catch-up.

            “The one point that is correct in your post is “there is enough” (or will
            be, once it has been produced, by methods established by “evil
            capitalism”).”
            >>
            Capitalism is not evil. Definitely not per me. If you think so, you are deluded. By methods produced by good scientists – despite of Socialism or despite of Capitalism or essentially despite parasitism and societal spite spewed upon scientists.

      • bachcole

        All of georgehants examples are constructed out of his wishful thinking, based upon the idea that people should be more caring. I could not agree more that if people were more caring that we would have a better system, but, unfortunately, we can’t make other people be more caring, no matter how much we want it and no matter how much we try. We can only make ourselves be more caring, and given the venom that we receive from georgehants when we disagree with him, it seems that he needs to work more on his own caring.

      • LilyLover

        My prison is better than your prison, so, let’s use my prison – is a wrong attitude.
        Let’s abolish the prisons, and let’s all be free – is the right attitude.
        Improvement is better than status-quo is something beyond the “don’t fix what’s not broken” type of people. Rocking the boat upsets the old money. 🙂
        As for the new systems, many have been offered, and ignored by the likes of you… it’ll be magic to make you look at it twice… but the time your grandchildren are old enough to vote, you’d see what the better systems were talked about.

    • Leonard Weinstein

      The only fairness and equity that is a birthright is that the laws are properly followed, and that your rights stop at the boundary of others boundary. You are not entitled to the product or effort of someone else. If a medicine is developed that could save your life, and the price is too high, you have the right to develop it yourself, not take it from the developer, as hard (and unlikely) as that seems. While that seems unfair, keep in mind the drugs did not pop up out of nothing, and were grabbed by the company.

      • georgehants

        Leonard, those drugs etc. where developed and made by ordinary people who are fed by other ordinary people who’s roads are swept by other ordinary people who are treated by doctors and nurses who are other ordinary people.
        Nobody needs rich people, nobody needs profits and wealth beyond all basic needs and fair luxuries in line with production and personal effort.

      • LilyLover

        More importantly, laws need to be properly made and proper laws need to be made. Codifying immorality is the tool in your chest to perpetuate initial advantage that will benefit only you.

  • Allan Shura

    If there is to be sustainable clean energy production with independence of the individual the
    knowledge and materials have to be available. I think this is much more likely with the open
    source movement. I agree on the point that the investor or scientist does need to have a return
    on the effort and all innovation comes with a risk on development cost. The question is how to achieve this in an agreeable way to the perceived effort. A typical venture capitalist might ask
    over 90% only for generic organization where an inventor could possibly see the technology
    as unique.
    Open source needs capital and organizational management. It comes from contributions of
    the participants who donate and share their knowledge and time. Even so open source
    people do need to sustain themselves to contribute a full effort. They are building blocks in
    self education. Each project needs management to come out of the lab and a project needs
    a plan for a saleable production product or one that can be assembled with results . The
    Keppe motor story is a model of co-operative organization. The basic handyman can build it,
    the organization sustains the originators, it is a saleable factory production product.

  • Allan Shura

    If there is to be sustainable clean energy production with independence of the individual the
    knowledge and materials have to be available. I think this is much more likely with the open
    source movement. I agree on the point that the investor or scientist does need to have a return
    on the effort and all innovation comes with a risk on development cost. The question is how to achieve this in an agreeable way to the perceived effort. A typical venture capitalist might ask
    over 90% only for generic organization where an inventor could possibly see the technology
    as unique.
    Open source needs capital and organizational management. It comes from contributions of
    the participants who donate and share their knowledge and time. Even so open source
    people do need to sustain themselves to contribute a full effort. They are building blocks in
    self education. Each project needs management to come out of the lab and a project needs
    a plan for a saleable production product or one that can be assembled with results . The
    Keppe motor story is a model of co-operative organization. The basic handyman can build it,
    the organization sustains the originators, it is a saleable factory production product.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The best way to benefit mankind is to feed the profits that the E-Cats (Hot-Cats) will make back into R&D (X-Cats) for the next generation of reactors. I’d like to see Rossi use his profits to come up with a direct cycle nuclear powered jet engine.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCw0s0BJKY see 0.20 min. (PS It looks like the whole video instead of just the link that I wanted to add is being added.)

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The best way to benefit mankind is to feed the profits that the E-Cats (Hot-Cats) will make back into R&D (X-Cats) for the next generation of reactors. I’d like to see Rossi use his profits to come up with a direct cycle nuclear powered jet engine.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCw0s0BJKY see 0.20 min. (PS It looks like the whole video instead of just the link that I wanted to add is being added.)

  • Mark Szl

    If he thinks economies of scale is what IH has over the hobby kit crowd then sure. But he is delusional if he is comparing IH and a multi-billion dollar shadow company having that compared at any big energy company once they backward engineer his tech.

    I seem IH and Rossi like a group moving into a market where there are no gourmet coffee shops. They have to run hard and fast to capture enough market share to get a decent return before a competitor like Starbucks moves in.

    Also, think of the “browser wars.” Netscape came first but Microsoft eventually dominated the market and later it was Google Chrome.

    However, one still would think IH needs a patent to slow the eventual competitors and there work arounds which he considers easy. So it must be easy to get around his approach … or what else????

  • Jonnyb

    The software industry is a good example of why you should not give any snips to your competition. If I remember the film I saw about the birth of mouse based personal computers and chance mention that the mouse was not controlled in hardware but in software led to the leading computer package being over taken by another, who’s cheaper version (possibly inferior?) ended up ruling the world for the next 20 or so years.

    • Mats002

      The winner in software often is (but not always) the one who wins the communication and not the best solution. And often most $ wins the communication. It is hard to be first/best and little. Not only in software that is.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The winner in most markets is the one that provides the best package of ideas that meet consumer needs in a price range.

      I have an Amiga 1200, I had a 500, a 3000, a 4000 and a 1200. In my time owning an Amiga – I used to love Aminet, it was a vibrant community of 10,000s of programmers sharing ideas and apps for free and code. Many of those tools took years to become available to PC and Mac users and even later to smart phone users – but many were forged in that era.

      I am living in Czech right now, a country that likes a wood burning stove, I am very glad I am not forced to buy one model – there is a very wide choice of look and capabilities. No one owns the basic IP on a wood burning stove, many companies make a good business from it.

  • Sanjeev

    In a way its good for mfmp if Rossi does not intervene or help. Otherwise we may hear the accusations like mfmp is now part of the scam or Rossi did some magic etc.
    If mfmp succeeds without Rossi’s help, it will be good for all, including Rossi, because there will remain no room for accusations or irrational skepticism. MFMP is very close to their goal now, with Piantelli, Ahren and Parkhomov all supporting them personally. Its a matter of few months, lets stop begging Rossi/IH for free lunch, he has already given a lot via Lugano report. Let him take the free market capitalist route, he has very less control on it anyway.

    • georgehants

      Mr.Rossi’s pathetic excuses for not helping MFMP have dropped him morally in my humble estimation a great deal.
      But never his strength and energy to fight against the stupidity of science etc, etc.
      The man will still (when a fully proven working device is openly demonstrated) deserve five Nobel Prizes.

  • Sanjeev

    In a way its good for mfmp if Rossi does not intervene or help. Otherwise we may hear the accusations like mfmp is now part of the scam or Rossi did some magic etc.
    If mfmp succeeds without Rossi’s help, it will be good for all, including Rossi, because there will remain no room for accusations or irrational skepticism. MFMP is very close to their goal now, with Piantelli, Ahren and Parkhomov all supporting them personally. Its a matter of few months, lets stop begging Rossi/IH for free lunch, he has already given a lot via Lugano report. Let him take the free market capitalist route, he has very less control on it anyway.

    • georgehants

      I am very disappointed in Mr. Rossi not not helping MFMP.
      I hope that his decision is calculated to give the most benefit to the needy of the World
      Time will tell all.
      But never his strength and energy to fight against the stupidity of science etc, etc.
      The man will still (when a fully proven working device is openly demonstrated) deserve five Nobel Prizes.

  • Edac

    Rossi say the loss of Intellectual Property would stop any serious investment. Why then has he given away so much information with the publication of the third party report? He and IH didn’t have to have a third party report at all. They have all the funding they need. They could have got on quietly with their research, and, when they had a commercial product available, release it to the market.

    They seem to have a split personality; on one hand, they tell everyone what they are doing, and on the other, they hope that no one will replicate their research. I am a bit baffled as to what their real intensions are. Nevertheless, whatever their intensions, I wish them well.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      Actually I think there is a thread here where the OP said that the paper that was submitted to arxiv was supposed to be shorter. Without a lot of the information that is potentially enabling theses other replication efforts. I suspect Its because arxiv didnt accept the shorter paper why the longer version was made public.

  • Edac

    Rossi say the loss of Intellectual Property would stop any serious investment. Why then has he given away so much information with the publication of the third party report? He and IH didn’t have to have a third party report at all. They have all the funding they need. They could have got on quietly with their research, and, when they had a commercial product available, release it to the market.

    They seem to have a split personality; on one hand, they tell everyone what they are doing, and on the other, they hope that no one will replicate their research. I am a bit baffled as to what their real intensions are. Nevertheless, whatever their intensions, I wish them well.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      Actually I think there is a thread here where the OP said that the paper that was submitted to arxiv was supposed to be shorter. Without a lot of the information that is potentially enabling theses other replication efforts. I suspect Its because arxiv didnt accept the shorter paper why the longer version was made public.

    • Henk

      IH needs the patent, and the main reason for the Lugano test was to beef-up the claims. I think they did not expect that so much info, especially on the isotopic shift would be published.

  • Omega Z

    Cherokee is an investment company that manages about $2 Billion in investments. Tom Darden – is merely the Chief Executive Officer.

    Tom Darden & JT Vaughn along with about a dozen other entities created Industrial Heat to purchase Rossi’s technology. Other then the 11.5 million they raised for this purpose, we have no Idea what IH is worth or who is behind it other then Darden/Vaughn.

    As to MFMP being able to establish their own patent as prior art, That would entail them discovering it “PRIOR” to Rossi. Rossi has already filed for a U.S. patent & a European patent And has been Granted an Italian Patent.

  • Private Citizen

    If Rossi is truly interested in investment he would give a sealed, black-box, version of iCat to MFMP for independent testing. All they have to do is prove COP beyond possible chemical energy. This time make sure the input power is tested impeccably and independently. The world would have proof of efficacy in days and $trillions in capital would flow into IH.

    Make MFMP sign every non-disclosure agreement on the books and keep the icat on open web cam 24/7 for security purposes. All you will do here, Andrea, is bolster your patent claim and proof of prior art against competitors.

    In fact, if there are shareholders in IH, it arguably is the fiduciary duty of Tom Darden to take this measure.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      That wouldnt work. I love the work MFMP is doing but that is because there is a whole lot more transparency. If they just shoved a black box on web cam that would not prove anything. Even if the thing ran for years. First off it could be legitimately argued that the video was edited. Secondly how would you measure output? From everything I have seen there seems to be a lot of things that went into the lugano test. So simply wrapping it into a box and putting that into a calorimeter does strike me as something that would work. Rossi could expose some measurement interfaces. But the audience that your hoping to convince would simply argue that the interfaces are feeding false information.

      The sad unfortunate truth of it all. This is how science has to work. True scientists are excessive skeptics. By which I mean if their are two possible ways for something to happen they should not assume that the one favorable to your theory is the one you choose. You have to at least make a significant effort to eliminate the other possibility from contention. That means all the work MFMP is doing is necessary. They have to have these sort of failures. As for the Russian replication, while I accept that he isnt trying to scam anyone. If he did do the replication the first time he attempted. It would be obvious to me that he has much more experience with working with these sort of materials than MFMP. Which is fine. Personally I think there is beauty in the failures but then again I appreciate the journey more than the goal.

      • Private Citizen

        Let 100 different independent cameras be trained on the eCat. Why not? If the skeptics finally have to resort to even more massive fraud regarding every video, then they have lost their last leg.

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          you miss the point, it is not about whether or not anyone else can see the thing operate. Even though there are a few people who say they would like to in in order to believe such a thing exists.

          In the end it is about having enough information available to be able to replicate the discovery if they were to put the time/effort and financial resources into duplicating it. That is what is important. That is what MFMP is doing that for the most part outside of a handful of LENR researchers no other researcher is doing. Otherwise, an unscrupulous person could simply stick a fission reactor or RTG (minus thermocouples) into the LEAD lined black box and claim they have a working LENR reactor.

          Please note I am not saying that Rossi IS unscrupulous. I am however saying that anyone without scrupuls could fool the test your asking for because it is depending on the observers trusting the demonstrators. The Scientific method attempts to remove the need for the trust in the first place. Not because there are unscrupulous people around but because nature is such a fantastical thing that our senses are no where capable of capturing its true form.

          • Private Citizen

            If you witness the Wright Brothers plane in flight, you would not need replication to prove it really flies. If MFMP shows excess heat in an open, honest demonstration then the eCat flies.

    • deleo77

      I have to go back to BLP who is proud of their validation reports. They work with scientists at multiple universities to help verify their science. Just my 2 cents as a bystander, but I think Darden and Vaughn are doing this wrong. Where is the IH website? Where is the assistance for helping others like MFMP to replicate?

      I am starting to sense the possibility that Darden and Vaughn don’t have complete confidence in what they have invested in, almost like if this all doesn’t work out they don’t want to be left with egg on their faces. But if you truly feel that you have world changing technology you have to go all in. People have always scoffed that BLP has raised $80MM + from investors, but they did that because they have transparent validation studies, they have had demonstrations of their device with Q&A, and they have a published theory. IH has done none of this. Perhaps their IP lawyers are telling them to go stealth, but in doing this they may end up watching others pass them by.

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        It is entirely likely that your characterization of IH is accurate. However, I would argue that the third party replication tests were done because IH wanted to have independent validation reports. The problem your ignoring is how MFMP is going about what they do.

        MFMP wants to do open source replication. which means any reader could follow thier live stream and documentation and replicate the result without talking to the researcher who devised the process originally, in this case it is Rossi. BLP would never allow that. I have read the validation reports from BLP they do not disclose enough information for anyone to attempt to replicate the effect without reaching out to BLP for details short of brute force. The BLP validation reports are pretty much a statement by the validation team that they ran the device or analyzed the powder and it does what Mills says it does. Now that is not necessarily a bad thing. Mills is aiming to prove his theory in the market. He is not interested at this time with winning scientific honors. I have no clue why Mills has this preference, though I would speculate that going commercial is being perceived to be orders of magnitude easier than going for scientific recognition.

        However, comparing what BLP is doing to what IH is doing by merely IH’s perceived lack of openness is wrong. Because BLP is just as tight lipped. Just because you have a website doesnt mean you actually have a product. All websites are merely marketing. So faulting IH for not having one is also not a valid complaint. In the end who is better can really only be determined by who gets to public market first. Even if MFMP successfully replicates the lugano report.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We cannot replicate Lugano.

          Back in April 2014, based on historical research and Piantelli’s new paper addendum discussing the importance of Lithium, we were internally discussing building an Alumina based reactor tube heated and magnetised by a high current coil with fuel based on nickel powders and Lithium (and other Alkali metal) hydrides.

          When the Lugano report suggested LiAlH4 – it was no surprise.

          We have ONLY been able to replicate Celani, but the results are too small to be incontrovertible – Also, his wire is effectively a black box.

          With the assistance of Alexander Parkhamov, we actually have our first real opportunity to replicate a claim that could be incontrovertible. Is it the same as IH reactor, no, is it the same fuel – don’t know.

          Anyone in the world can attempt to do a Parkhamov experiment, should the MFMP be the only ones not to?

          If we vindicate Parkhamov, I seriously doubt that would be the end of LENR just because that specific variant of the technology is open, I fully expect it would finally lead to what is needed – the rush to a 1000s variations of this potentially world changing technology. Perhaps IH have already got a patent application for this? Who knows?

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            In that case is it fair to characterize the Dog bone efforts as an attempt to replicate Lugano? If not what would it be a more accurate characterization?

          • Bob Greenyer

            []=Project Dog Bone=[] Phase 1 has a clearly stated goal – to test the validity of the Lugano authors approach to evaluating the Lugano reactors thermal output. We cannot replicate the reactor or its effects, we can test this though.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            Ok… So I think I am a bit confused then about the goals. If Phase 1 is about testing the validity of the measurement chosen by the Lugano researchers. Then why are we running tests with live fuel? Seems to be you would want to be running tests with a known heat source emitting a known output. Which would lead me to ask; are the last two tests that were live streamed part of the Phase 1 milestones? If not which Phase would they be apart of what what is its goals?

          • Bob Greenyer

            The organisation that runs the MFMP is a Community Interest Company. We are additionally funded in a large part by the community. We cannot complete Phase 1 until we have the Optris Pi160, which will be made by the 19th January we are told. We have run preliminary tests in early December 2012 that indicated that the Lugano authors thermal assessment was valid but no firm conclusion can be drawn until after the tests with the Optris.

            We have had LiAlH4 since a few days after Lugano, it was purchased because the suggestion by the Lugano reports authors as to its importance was consistent with our own long term research plans and so it made sense to just get some.

            When Dr. Parkhamov published his report, there was overwhelming community interest in investigating his claims. Since we felt we had everything in place to do so and we could not complete Phase 1 immediately and team members were willing to volunteer some time, we ran the tests we have.

            We are very glad we have, because it has shown us that if Phase 1 proves positive and we want to go on to testing “fuels”, then we have to devise a reliable method to make some sealed reactor cores. The quick and dirty tests we have done have given us all we need to know in order to start a little research program, which is underway, to those sealing methods. Therefore, we should be ready to go on to phase 2 if Phase 1 proves resolutely positive for the Lugano report.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            Thanks for clarifying that for me. Where do you guys normally publish live stream times and links?

          • Bob Greenyer

            On our website, quantumheat.org and on our FaceBook

            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

          • Omega Z

            I don’t have a problem with the Lugano team not responding to questions. You can bat flies forever & no answers will satisfy those who don’t want to be satisfied. Some can find flaws even with a perfect test.

            I do wonder why they included some information in certain respects when none would have been better. Don’t give me some details of certain aspects if you’re contractually not allowed to provide all the data. You just open a can of worms.

            Ultimately, the only people they are obliged to give all the information(100%) to is those who paid for the test. Primarily Elforsk, Industrial Heat, and possibly 1 or 2 others. We in the blogs are just along for the ride. They owe us nothing.

            Rossi could have easily just went dark after selling his technology to Industrial Heat. WOW, Just imagine the conspiracy theories then. It’s been bought up & buried. We’ll never hear of it again.

            We need to make a distinction between what Rossi claims & blogger imaginations. Rossi claims to have a Low-temp 10Kw reactor with COP>6 probably just lacking sufficient longevity & safety data. Possibly higher COP. Everything else is still R&D. The Blogger fans are already producing Electricity & COP>100 with temps exceeding the melting point of Nickel.

            There is a disconnect from reality. 10Kw is impressive, yet very little. Controlling 1 reactor is simple compared to controlling 100 in concert. Rossi has conveyed this yet no one hears. They think the Reactor is simple. Rossi thinks it is complex. While Rossi has become more pragmatic & cautious in his statements, the bloggers have went the other way to the extent of resisting Rossi’s restrained statements. It has taken on a life of it’s own.

          • Mike Ivanov

            I think it is too late to bury this technology, and this is a good news.

            Even 10kWt single generator is huge. I do not think it is so difficult to run a battery of these generators, considering modern controllers and algorithms . Stability and reliability are two real key factors for commercialization.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            There are have been lots of signs that Rossi doesn’t have “stability and reliability.” Lugano seems to contradict that, which is one reason why the MFMP calibration of Lugano could be important.

            However, in the end, Lugano is not “science,” it’s business and publicity. Lugano cannot be replicated, as such. To replicate, you need the devices, or information on how to build them, which is missing. MFMP may or may not independently find what works, following up on clues from Lugano. I strongly prefer that, when it comes to testing fuels, they start, not with Lugano, but with Parkhomov, and use the Parkhomov reactor design. Even if I think that Parkhomov’s results may be artifact. The method was brilliant.

          • Omega Z

            How do you compare incremental improvements in an existing science & an existing market to a product that never before existed.

            You are working with base elements of which much existing knowledge is already known & learning to formulate them into new products. You are building upon knowledge of a vast number of others before you.

            In LENR, The base elements of the technology are still being discovered & identified. In a science that is supposed to be impossible with very little existing knowledge base available from others & no excepted theory to guide them.

            And lets not forget, as a new technology, there are many unknowns & Rossi going to the UL Certifiers & stating it’s intrinsically safe isn’t going to cut it. They want real operational safety data. Thus we find a pilot plant in an industrial setting where qualified personnel are present during all operations 24/7.

            I’m certain once certified & in the market, we will see incremental improvements on about a 4 year cycle.

          • attaboy

            “How do you compare incremental improvements in an existing science & an existing market to a product that never before existed.”

            I don’t think this applies to any extent here. My work was hardly existing science where much of what we did would be better classed as alchemy and poorly understood.

            While Rossi’s technology is certainly brilliant and of genius status, despite the fact that we don’t know enough to replicate it, it can’t be that difficult.

            I don’t buy your arguments and your motivation is , frankly, suspect.

            We need this technology so badly that it should have been jumped on by any right minded authority, pushed through, and been in commercialization long ago. But in our corporate controlled academic, military, political system, commercialization will be a long time coming.

          • clovis ray

            it can’t be that hard, right, why don’t you whip us up a working reactor or two, while you thinking about it, i surly would like to know how it works, my motivations are the truth, not theory, trust but verify,, here is the truth, IH will announce the e-cat , as soon as their test is complete, then game over.

          • attaboy

            Just looking at the picture of that last Rossi test will tell you it can’t be that difficult. The device couldn’t be much simpler. Sorry if you feel I stepped on your integrity, but its hard for me to imagine a person claiming the experience you have, to feel the pace of progress is acceptable. I’m sure you’re not (or at least hope you’re not) a shill for the powerful corporate blood suckers, but it wouldn’t be hard to believe that based on your statements.

          • bachcole

            Dang! Busted! I am also patient, so I guess I am another shill for the powerful corporate blood suckers. I do so wish that they would pay me for my patience. It just doesn’t seem fair, them sucking all that blood-money and me worried about staying in our budget. (:->)

          • Mike Ivanov

            I haven’t seen any “signs” of Rossi stability problems. I think it is a smoke to cover real progress as long as possible and go to market as a surprise, without any competitors ready to answer. Any businessman with already secured investment could do something like this.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Stability or reliability problems have been the major problem with cold fusion from the beginning. It’s the most obvious reason for long-term shortfall in promised delivery. A reliability problem can be tantalizing, it seems like “there are just a few kinks to work out.” The first “independent professor test” had one reactor melt down. Rossi has never predicted the actual heat that will be observed. With a reliable, stable design, he could easily do that. None of this is proof. All could be a smokescreen. However, I consider it likely.

          • Kevin O

            I don’t have a problem with the Lugano team not responding to questions.

            ***I do. They should be defending their report with vigor. They should have had a website set up ahead of time for answering such questions. They should be revising their report due to the questions within weeks. They claim to be advancing science but they are holding it back. They’re too concerned with how it looks than with the raw data, which should be speaking for itself. And they should have contracted with Rossi to have followup tests done for covering what they failed to observe.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I strongly suspect they are under an agreement to not individually answer questions. The practice of stonewalling criticism goes way back. Essen, to my knowledge, never responded to criticism of his idea that steam quality could be measured with a humidity meter, nor to the lack of checking for overflow water from that early demonstration. Overflow water would be, in fact, expected from the Rossi design. Otherwise the reactor would overheat and run away. Rossi, in the Krivit video, obviously empties water from the outlet hose, so that Levi can show Krivit the steam. Which is obviously far less steam than expected from the claimed power. This has gone on and on for years.

            It’s obvious to me: Rossi does not want a definitive demonstration. He’s proven brilliant at setting up what tantalizes but does not clearly establish that he’s got a product anywhere near ready for market. There are always major lacunae in what is reported, such as the lack of calibration of the Lugano calorimetry.

            I don’t think we can count on Rossi for *anything.*

          • Mike Ivanov

            Bologna and Lugano are tests of “black box” provided by Rossi. There is no way to replicate it and there is no point. The point is to do proper reverse engineering, as Parkhomov did.

          • attaboy

            See my comments above to Omega Z. Information on how to quickly go about the construction of new physical devices and methods of getting to performance expectations has been worked out ad nausea within the mechanical engineering discipline among other sources. Sorry, but the e-cat is long overdue.

      • Omega Z

        I believe Industrial Heat is just waiting to work out the kinks & have a product actually ready to start production.

        It does no good to toot your horn until that time. All you do is invite endless disruptions for yourself & anyone your involved with. How many times has Rossi been repeatedly asked the same question many times a day for weeks until he finally says, I have answered this question many times. Additional posts of this question will be spammed.

        Incidentally, Having a working E-cat is not the same as having a working E-cat pilot plant doing work. There could still be issues to resolve.

        • Mike Ivanov

          Yep. Not only “to have working e-cat”, but also be able to promote, sell and support these devices with huge demand from customers. This is a huge amount of work and have nothing to do with skeptics and enthusiasts.

    • Casey

      Private citizen. What is sense for Rossi to give somebody else his design of e-cats.
      He don’t have to prove it is working, because it was already done.
      Now he is doing what he supposed to do..
      Testing and improving already working in real life product, so it will be ready for mass production without problems of mass recall because of small defects as it is in car industries happening.
      MFMP can do its work to develop something, not just copy what already is developed.

      • Private Citizen

        SEALED BLACK-BOX TEST with Non-disclosure, only to prove efficacy. The point is he doesn’t have to divulge the design, although to a large degree he already has.

        • Observer

          If we are to be judged on how we use our God given talents, then the responsibility of deciding how they are to be used is ours and ours alone.

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          Amen

          • bachcole

            For me, 2013 Levi and the 2014 Lugano reports were perfectly definitive.

          • Mark Szl

            So definitive that unaccounted for anomolies in the data still left open the good possibility of a COP of 1. For something as remarkable as Rossi claims it is unremarkable the Lugano report was rejected from publication. Maybe someone needs to be mentored by a good experimentalist in a related field to understand what a solid ezperiment is really like.

          • Warthog

            All such anomalies have been pointed out and confirmed not to have happened. See Mats Lewan and other posts. The only people still beating this dead horse are the pathological skeptics.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Agreed. One fact is that recognising kilowatts of excess heat is fundamentally easy to a group of physicists. Another fact is that doing the analysis and writing the paper in a way which satisfies “everyone” is difficult.

          • Omega Z

            “Difficult” Definition in this topic. Can’t be Done!

        • Mike Ivanov

          How do you know what “investors” are not convinced? I think what they actually are convinced. They just do not tell you 🙂

    • mcloki

      No he would not. This secret recipe is the same as KFC’s secret recipe. Why give it out? When you can go down to the store you can go buy one. Here’s a better suggestion for you Private Citizen. Build a power station that will house an e-cat and hook it up to the grid That can be your “gift” to mankind. It doesn’t have to work just house the e-cat. Post after you have built your gift.

      • Private Citizen

        A careful reading would see that i recommend a sealed black box test, not a giveaway of the recipe, along with that strict non-disclosure of any recipe details in any event. If you believe MFMP are dishonorable enough to commit larceny even in the face of strict repercussions, you are most cynical.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We proposed a black box test to Rossi, in person, in Switzerland when he gave his conference to the “licensees”. He said – not possible because of safety certificate.

      The MFMP is interested in ANY genuine demonstration of excess heat that is incontrovertible.

      Proving this tech works may actually be counter productive if one wants to maintain advantage.

      • Private Citizen

        Who hands out “safety certificates” for lab testing of somewhat hot nickle? OSHA? Never heard of such a thing. On what basis are they granted or denied, if they exist?

  • Private Citizen

    If Rossi is truly interested in investment he would give a sealed, black-box, version of eCat to MFMP for independent testing. All they have to do is prove COP beyond possible chemical energy. This time make sure the input power is tested impeccably and independently. The world would have proof of efficacy in days and $trillions in capital would flow into IH.

    Make MFMP sign every non-disclosure agreement on the books and keep the eCat on open web cam 24/7 for security purposes. All you will do here, Andrea, is bolster your patent claim and proof of prior art against competitors.

    In fact, if there are shareholders in IH, it arguably is the fiduciary duty of Tom Darden to take this measure.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      That wouldnt work. I love the work MFMP is doing but that is because there is a whole lot more transparency. If they just shoved a black box on web cam that would not prove anything. Even if the thing ran for years. First off it could be legitimately argued that the video was edited. Secondly how would you measure output? From everything I have seen there seems to be a lot of things that went into the lugano test. So simply wrapping it into a box and putting that into a calorimeter does strike me as something that would work. Rossi could expose some measurement interfaces. But the audience that your hoping to convince would simply argue that the interfaces are feeding false information.

      The sad unfortunate truth of it all. This is how science has to work. True scientists are excessive skeptics. By which I mean if their are two possible ways for something to happen they should not assume that the one favorable to your theory is the one you choose. You have to at least make a significant effort to eliminate the other possibility from contention. That means all the work MFMP is doing is necessary. They have to have these sort of failures. As for the Russian replication, while I accept that he isnt trying to scam anyone. If he did do the replication the first time he attempted. It would be obvious to me that he has much more experience with working with these sort of materials than MFMP. Which is fine. Personally I think there is beauty in the failures but then again I appreciate the journey more than the goal.

      • Private Citizen

        Let 100 different independent cameras be trained on the eCat. Why not? If the skeptics finally have to resort to even more massive fraud regarding every video, then they have lost their last leg.

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          you miss the point, it is not about whether or not anyone else can see the thing operate. Even though there are a few people who say they would like to in in order to believe such a thing exists.

          In the end it is about having enough information available to be able to replicate the discovery if they were to put the time/effort and financial resources into duplicating it. That is what is important. That is what MFMP is doing that for the most part outside of a handful of LENR researchers no other researcher is doing. Otherwise, an unscrupulous person could simply stick a fission reactor or RTG (minus thermocouples) into the LEAD lined black box and claim they have a working LENR reactor.

          Please note I am not saying that Rossi IS unscrupulous. I am however saying that anyone without scrupuls could fool the test your asking for because it is depending on the observers trusting the demonstrators. The Scientific method attempts to remove the need for the trust in the first place. Not because there are unscrupulous people around but because nature is such a fantastical thing that our senses are no where capable of capturing its true form.

          • Private Citizen

            If you witness the Wright Brothers plane in flight, you would not need replication to prove it really flies. If MFMP shows excess heat in an open, honest demonstration then the eCat flies.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            I believe you have your analogies crossed…
            I agree if the wright brothers invited me (assume some time machine invitation) to view their first flight. They would have proven to me that their plane flies.

            However if MFMP’s current experiments show excess heat that does not mean that Rossi is correct. Why? because MFMP’s dogbone experiments are attempting to reverse engineer based on the information available. So the most one could say is it is highly likely Rossi has a functional reactor. Personally the difference doesnt matter to me because someone still has to bring something functional to market.

            If MFMP was to be gifted a black box rossi reactor and it shows excess heat. it only shows that Rossi has a black box that shows excess heat (Assuming MFMP has absolute control over all measurement interfaces). If the black box ran for a very very long time it could be said that the black box is most likely non chemical assuming it is not possible for rossi to have packed the black box with enough chemical reactant to run as long as the experiment ran for. However, that wouldn’t prove that LENR is real. Which is what the MFMP folks are attempting to do to the best of my knowledge. Why? because the report they would have written up could not describe what is in the black box. These distinctions might seem trivial to you. But they are important distinctions to keep in ones mind because the goals of what Rossi is trying to do and what MFMP is trying to do are not entirely the same. They are similar but not the same so these distinctions matter a whole hell of a lot.

            Now personally I am eagerly awaiting the report from Rossi explaining the results of his customer test. Because I think that is really the next milestone for Rossi/IH shortly followed by either putting a product on market or beginning the solicitation of licensee’s. It will be important who they license this stuff to because I suspect that if they attempt to interest an organization of the stature of a GE for example GE may want more validations like what BLP did with their tech. The only question is will that GE like entity choose to do it themselves or will they enlist an outside entity that allows I/H to herald the results of that validation.

            As for MFMP, once they have repeatable experiments that show incontrovertible excess heat I have heard they plan on building and selling replication kits. This will speed up the Scientific acceptance and probably begin a very interesting gold rush.

          • bachcole

            Not quite. A LOT of people saw the Wright Brothers flying around Dayton, Ohio and still insisted that it was just a trick, along with Scientific American, et. al. So, given that an E-Cat replication is going to be much more difficult to confirm, I think that it will take much more than just MFMP replicating. But every little bit helps.

    • deleo77

      I have to go back to BLP who is proud of their validation reports. They work with scientists at multiple universities to help verify their science. Just my 2 cents as a bystander, but I think Darden and Vaughn are doing this wrong. Where is the IH website? Where is the assistance for helping others like MFMP to replicate?

      I am starting to sense the possibility that Darden and Vaughn don’t have complete confidence in what they have invested in, almost like if this all doesn’t work out they don’t want to be left with egg on their faces. But if you truly feel that you have world changing technology you have to go all in. People have always scoffed that BLP has raised $80MM + from investors, but they did that because they have transparent validation studies, they have had demonstrations of their device with Q&A, and they have a published theory. IH has done none of this. Perhaps their IP lawyers are telling them to go stealth, but in doing this they may end up watching others pass them by.

      http://www.blacklightpower.com/technology/validation-reports/

      • David Taylor-Fuller

        It is entirely likely that your characterization of IH is accurate. However, I would argue that the third party replication tests were done because IH wanted to have independent validation reports. The problem your ignoring is how MFMP is going about what they do.

        MFMP wants to do open source replication. which means any reader could follow thier live stream and documentation and replicate the result without talking to the researcher who devised the process originally, in this case it is Rossi. BLP would never allow that. I have read the validation reports from BLP they do not disclose enough information for anyone to attempt to replicate the effect without reaching out to BLP for details short of brute force. The BLP validation reports are pretty much a statement by the validation team that they ran the device or analyzed the powder and it does what Mills says it does. Now that is not necessarily a bad thing. Mills is aiming to prove his theory in the market. He is not interested at this time with winning scientific honors. I have no clue why Mills has this preference, though I would speculate that going commercial is being perceived to be orders of magnitude easier than going for scientific recognition.

        However, comparing what BLP is doing to what IH is doing by merely IH’s perceived lack of openness is wrong. Because BLP is just as tight lipped. Just because you have a website doesnt mean you actually have a product. All websites are merely marketing. So faulting IH for not having one is also not a valid complaint. In the end who is better can really only be determined by who gets to public market first. Even if MFMP successfully replicates the lugano report.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We cannot replicate Lugano.

          Back in April 2014, based on historical research and Piantelli’s new paper addendum discussing the importance of Lithium, we were internally discussing building an Alumina based reactor tube heated and magnetised by a high current coil with fuel based on nickel powders and Lithium (and other Alkali metal) hydrides.

          When the Lugano report suggested LiAlH4 – it was no surprise.

          We have ONLY been able to replicate Celani, but the results are too small to be incontrovertible – Also, his wire is effectively a black box.

          With the assistance of Alexander Parkhamov, we actually have our first real opportunity to replicate a claim that could be incontrovertible. Is it the same as IH reactor, no, is it the same fuel – don’t know.

          Anyone in the world can attempt to do a Parkhamov experiment, should the MFMP be the only ones not to?

          If we vindicate Parkhamov, I seriously doubt that would be the end of LENR just because that specific variant of the technology is open, I fully expect it would finally lead to what is needed – the rush to a 1000s variations of this potentially world changing technology. Perhaps IH have already got a patent application for this? Who knows?

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            In that case is it fair to characterize the Dog bone efforts as an attempt to replicate Lugano? If not what would it be a more accurate characterization?

          • Bob Greenyer

            []=Project Dog Bone=[] Phase 1 has a clearly stated goal – to test the validity of the Lugano authors approach to evaluating the Lugano reactors thermal output. We cannot replicate the reactor or its effects, we can test this though.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            Ok… So I think I am a bit confused then about the goals. If Phase 1 is about testing the validity of the measurement chosen by the Lugano researchers. Then why are we running tests with live fuel? Seems to be you would want to be running tests with a known heat source emitting a known output. Which would lead me to ask; are the last two tests that were live streamed part of the Phase 1 milestones? If not which Phase would they be apart of what what is its goals?

          • TomR

            David, you need to do more research, on this site and the MFMP Facebook page and website. They are waiting for a camera to come to finish phase 1, the Parkamov experiment happened at a time when MFMP could spend a little time on it.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            Well I knew about the camera from the some comments on the live stream they did. However, from everything I read here on E-Cat I had the impression that the end goal of Dog-Bone was to replicate Lugano. When Bob said that wasn’t the case (because in the strictest sense their isn’t enough information in the published materials to do an actual replication). I decided to make sure that I didn’t have any other unfounded assumptions or in accurate interpretations.

            Last thing I want to do is tell people that MFMP is replicating Lugano when that isn’t what they are doing.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The organisation that runs the MFMP is a Community Interest Company. We are additionally funded in a large part by the community. We cannot complete Phase 1 until we have the Optris Pi160, which will be made by the 19th January we are told. We have run preliminary tests in early December 2012 that indicated that the Lugano authors thermal assessment was valid but no firm conclusion can be drawn until after the tests with the Optris.

            We have had LiAlH4 since a few days after Lugano, it was purchased because the suggestion by the Lugano reports authors as to its importance was consistent with our own long term research plans and so it made sense to just get some.

            When Dr. Parkhamov published his report, there was overwhelming community interest in investigating his claims. Since we felt we had everything in place to do so and we could not complete Phase 1 immediately and team members were willing to volunteer some time, we ran the tests we have.

            We are very glad we have, because it has shown us that if Phase 1 proves positive and we want to go on to testing “fuels”, then we have to devise a reliable method to make some sealed reactor cores. The quick and dirty tests we have done have given us all we need to know in order to start a little research program, which is underway, to those sealing methods. Therefore, we should be ready to go on to phase 2 if Phase 1 proves resolutely positive for the Lugano report.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            Thanks for clarifying that for me. Where do you guys normally publish live stream times and links?

          • Bob Greenyer

            On our website, quantumheat.org and on our FaceBook

            https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

          • Mike Ivanov

            Bologna and Lugano are tests of “black box” provided by Rossi. There is no way to replicate it and there is no point. The point is to do proper reverse engineering, as Parkhomov did.

      • Omega Z

        I believe Industrial Heat is just waiting to work out the kinks & have a product actually ready to start production.

        It does no good to toot your horn until that time. All you do is invite endless disruptions for yourself & anyone your involved with. How many times has Rossi been repeatedly asked the same question many times a day for weeks until he finally says, I have answered this question many times. Additional posts of this question will be spammed.

        Incidentally, Having a working E-cat is not the same as having a working E-cat pilot plant doing work. There could still be issues to resolve.

        • Mike Ivanov

          Yep. Not only “to have working e-cat”, but also be able to promote, sell and support these devices with huge demand from customers. This is a huge amount of work and have nothing to do with skeptics and enthusiasts.

    • Casey

      Private citizen. What is sense for Rossi to give somebody else his design of e-cats.
      He don’t have to prove it is working, because it was already done.
      Now he is doing what he supposed to do..
      Testing and improving already working in real life product, so it will be ready for mass production without problems of mass recall because of small defects as it is in car industries happening.
      MFMP can do its work to develop something, not just copy what already is developed.

      • Private Citizen

        SEALED BLACK-BOX TEST with Non-disclosure, only to prove efficacy. If you think he’s already proven it, then let him do it again and again until all doubt is dispelled. Clearly the MSM is not convinced. Investors are not convinced. I am not yet convinced. Maybe you are. Maybe you don’t want MFMP to test the eCat, but most of us do. The point is he doesn’t have to divulge the design, although to a large degree he already has.

        • Mike Ivanov

          How do you know what “investors” are not convinced? I think what they actually are convinced. They just do not tell you 🙂

    • mcloki

      No he would not. This secret recipe is the same as KFC’s secret recipe. Why give it out? When you can go down to the store you can go buy one. Here’s a better suggestion for you Private Citizen. Build a power station that will house an e-cat and hook it up to the grid That can be your “gift” to mankind. It doesn’t have to work just house the e-cat. Post after you have built your gift.

      • Private Citizen

        A careful reading would see that i recommend a sealed black box test, not a giveaway of the recipe, along with that strict non-disclosure of any recipe details in any event. If you or any skeptopath believes MFMP are dishonorable enough to commit larceny even in the face of strict repercussions, you are most cynical indeed.

    • bachcole

      Asking, begging, cajoling, whining, demanding a gift makes the gift no gift at all. It makes the asker, begger, cajoler, whiner, demander a pain in the a$$ and possibly a thief.

      • Private Citizen

        No begging, simply expecting IH to act in the best interest of the shareholders, if they have the goods and really want investors and patent rights, before the competition. Arguing otherwise makes the apologist look irrational–and a little less like Groucho than his earlier pic 🙂 Most here are big fans of MFMP and readily see the rationale and benefit of them doing the testing openly.

      • Antonio Ruggeri Dr. Ing.

        with regard to the LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Release)with all these pretended explanations no one came through the real fact that LENR is the way the Universal reality works since any transformation-degradation taking place under our eyes is a release from a more pristine status of existence Ether/ESF of the matter-substance to the next degraded one, along an open cycle (taking place in conditions of conservation) leading to dissipation of substance inside the Ether/ESF since absorbed by it.
        Until these facts will be recognized, how can be talk about Science? Modern scientists can be assimilate into a range giong from toymakers to highly skilled technicians…..
        For what regards the request made to Ing. Rossi from the MFMP, ah..ah..ah..ha!…..(intending the verse of the hyenas) no argument will be able to change my mind.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We proposed a black box test to Rossi, in person, in Switzerland when he gave his conference to the “licensees”. He said – not possible because of safety certificate.

      The MFMP is interested in ANY genuine demonstration of excess heat that is incontrovertible.

      Proving this tech works may actually be counter productive if one wants to maintain advantage.

      • Private Citizen

        Who hands out “safety certificates” for lab testing of somewhat hot nickle? OSHA? Never heard of such a thing. On what basis are they granted or denied, if they exist?

        >Proving this tech works may actually be counter productive if one wants to maintain advantage.

        I’ve heard that argument before, but it was not Rossi’s stated argument for denying help. Nor was it his practice with the various demos so far. For me the rope-a-dope argument doesn’t wash: proof of efficacy will bring investors and unbelievable sums of money, while rope-a-dope leaves you behind, mistrusted and lets the competition soak up all the investor dollars when they present real proof.

  • Mike Henderson

    It seems the recipe is too simple. Heat nickel powder and LiAlH3 in a sealed container and, voila, excess heat is observed. I guarantee you that someone at Inco, DuPont, Alcoa, Sandia, Stanford, or any of thousands of other industrial / academic / military laboratories has tried this over the last century. Nobody else reported this phenomenon.

    If LENRs occur, there must be some other undisclosed ingredient or condition applied.

    And that’s why Rossi won’t help.

    • Casey

      I wonder if the recipe used in the ITP test, is really the same Rossi is using in his 1MW plant in work.:)

      • Omega Z

        Rossi stated that the Lt 1Mw plant uses a different fuel formula. It can not obtain high temps.

  • Mike Henderson

    It seems the recipe is too simple. Heat nickel powder and LiAlH3 in a sealed container and, voila, excess heat is observed. I guarantee you that someone at Inco, DuPont, Alcoa, Sandia, Stanford, or any of thousands of other industrial / academic / military laboratories has tried this over the last century. Nobody else reported this phenomenon.

    If LENRs occur, there must be some other undisclosed ingredient or condition applied.

    And that’s why Rossi won’t help.

    • bachcole

      Let us be clear here. Are you saying that Alexander Parkhomov is lying or is incompetent. Those are your only two choices. You don’t know for a fact that someone has already tried it; that is merely an idea in your head; it is not a fact.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        That someone has tried Nickel and LiAlH4 in a small enclosed space at over 1000 C and thus very high pressure is by no means so likely as to be able to confidently assert it.

        I have been reviewing the Parkhomov data in detail and it’s likely that Parkhomov has run into a steam calorimetry artifact, they exist, and he has not provided enough data to rule this out. I’ve come to this idea because the thermometry that he does provide indicates there is little or no XP, beyond that thermal arrest, which remains — possibly — unexplained. [incorrect comment about the thermal arrest edited out.]

        I want to encourage MFMP to

        (1) Calibrate Lugano, the original plan. Do not waste time and money on attempting to replicate Lugano at this time. Do not attempt to take the external temperature to 1400 C, that was likely error. Do show the behavior of the dogbone at power inputs up to 910 C or so. Essentially, calibrate the camera.

        (2) Replicate Parkhomov, with particular attention to collecting much better and more complete data than we have, as yet, from Parkhomov. Think of this as exploring the behavior of the “Parkhomov system.” How does a Parkhomov device with a gram of nickel in it, but no LiAlH, behave? Then with the LiAlH4.Single-control experiments. Science.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Abd

          (1) We will do that at end January as permitted by the availability of the Optris PI160 (and a lot more besides)

          (2) This is now a real possibility given that he is now in direct communication.

          Did you see the latest information he provided us on his calorimetry approach?

          https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Well, I saw it now. He did not answer the question clearly, though he has given more information. He filled to a level, and he has not said how that could be seen. In water that is boiling. What is the temperature of the added water? (I would add boiling-hot water, ideally) One of the things I notice is that the lost weights are in multiples of 0.2 Kg, being 1, 4, and 6 “units.” This does not inspire confidence in precision!

            I encourage close replication of the experimental device, and replicating his calorimetry is *separately useful.* Evaporation calorimetry has some known hazards, and he has not provided the data that would allow ruling these out, only his personal conclusions about it. To be definitive, calibration should be under exactly the same conditions, including a box heated as irregularly as the metal box might be heated. He has not provided calibration details. He wrote before that he calibrated with a reactor with no fuel in it, but also that he calibrated up to 1000 W input. That is probably not correct. (I.e, he must have done something other than what he wrote.)

            The most likely artifact is water lost without evaporation, which has bitten many researchers. The temperature record shows additional evidence as to what is happening, and it’s amazing to see, charted.

            Parkhomov is a *new experiment*, not a Lugano replication, though it was inspired by Lugano. What’s cool about Parkhomov is that it should be replicable, whereas Lugano is much more difficult to replicate, without knowing details that Rossi does not want you to know. You can come up with a reasonable calibration, i.e., what a Dogbone does when heated at various power levels. That is extremely useful. If you get a formula working with actual XP, spectacular, but … don’t hold your breath! Take it easy, one step at a time. The future is watching.

            Be careful. If you keep the reactor seal, the pressure goes very high. I don’t want any of you to lose an eye or any other part of your anatomy. Remember Murphy’s Law, and remember Andrew Riley. Even experts make mistakes. Learn from them.

          • Bob Greenyer

            He saw a 10% error using exact same method but with a plain resistive heater at 1000ºC. Presumably this was from entrained water.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Bob, I’ve seen again and again around this and other issues that people say this or that, but don’t say how they know it. If you have direct communication from Parkhomov that says what you just wrote, please quote it exactly, if possible. If you are relying on what was quoted here, it doesn’t say what you wrote.

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/30/alexander-parkhomov-on-calibration-in-his-test/

            It says he used ” the electro heater which isn’t containing fuel at the power up to 1000 W.”

            Notice: “exact same method” contradicts “1000 W.” From the thermometry of the device in the experiment, 1000 W would melt the heater, easily, it’s ridiculous, I get about 2500 C or so. However, sure, a resistor could be placed in the box and heated, but it may distribute power differently. So, then, what we are really interested in is a calibration with a *device,* as he actually said he used, and with *all conditions* the same — other than the fuel. For reasons that escape me, single-variable controls are not considered important. Instead people make all kinds of assumptions about what is not important. And it might be very important. The whole concept of control experiments is to reduce possible artifact and confusion. With a single control calibration, here, and the heat record from that calibration with no fuel, there would be *two* measures of heat. The lost water *and* the temperature behavior. With this additional information, Parkhomov would be *bulletproof*, and pseudoskeptics could only play the fraud card. (For that play there is no answer but *independent replication.* That is how science avoids being so open-minded that its brains fall out. Trust *and* verify.)

            And, of course, one could then substitute those resistors, run them with 500 W and verify that performance matches the empty reactor performance, and then crank it up to whatever power is to be checked. It’s not difficult. Boiling and steam quality will depend on the conditions in the boiler. It can be counter-intuitive.

            If Lugano had included a dummy test at 910 W., it would be all over except for, then, some independent confirmations. (Which are actually impossible for “secrets.”) Without that dummy test, we have people shouting at each other over what is ambiguous.

        • Anon2012_2014

          I just want to see a lab that “I believe in” replicate the excess heat seen by Parkhomov and/or Lugano repeatedly and to then apply the calibration until all other hypotheses can be ruled out. Parkhomov is interesting, but I can’t believe in it unless someone can replicate it completely openly with every attempt made to disprove the LENR heat generation hypothesis.

          Finally, I will trust more calibration made on the actual live running experiment than any after the fact calibration made by MFMP on Lugano. If MFMP can create an excess heat Dogbone — I believe we have credible proof; as they will show anyone else how to duplicate their results. No unreproducible results.

          • bachcole

            Yeah, who can trust those foreigners and their labs?

            Hey, Anon2012_2014, I have been blinded by very similar stereotypes, many times I am sure. When I heard that my father-in-law had a black belt in karate, I couldn’t at first believe it because I thought how could he get a black belt in karate when he doesn’t have any money. (Fortunately I never challenged him on the matter.)

            Now that we are in 2015, isn’t it time that you changed your handle. I suggest something shorter, like Anon2015 or Fred2015 or AnonGoose. (:->)

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Believing in any report is a dangerous business. However, the common-law standard is that testimony is to be presumed true unless controverted. The first step with Parkhomov is to look at his testimony, the evidence he observed which he reported. Then, do his conclusions follow from his evidence? The problem is that he relies mostly on the evaporative calorimetry, the calculations of XP are only made from that. He presents, however, reactor temperature data. That data does not support the hypothesis of COP 2.58. So Parkhomov presents evidence that appears contradictory.

            It’s essential in this field to dump the “LENR heat generation hypothesis” — because it has no established theoretical basis — and just study the heat, and reaction products, where possible. Attempts to prove or disprove a vague hypothesis are doomed to likely failure. However, Parkhomov’s results suggest a hypothesis, that a gram of nickel powder that is 10% (by weight) LiAlH4, sealed in an alumina cylinder and heated to 1200 C., will produce massive anomalous heat. I don’t see anything “nuclear” in that. Sure, we may then want to look for the source of the heat, and use the famous diagrams in an attempt to “prove” that it must be nuclear because it couldn’t be anything else, which is a circumstantial argument that will not fly. Cold fusion was massively distracted and damaged by attempts to “prove” and “disprove” nuclear *until the nuclear product was known and correlated clearly with heat,* by many, many experiments.

            Lugano presents an opportunity, but Lugano really isn’t science. Where is the data for a reproducible experiment? Parkhomov may be mistaken, or not, but what is described is clearly testable. There are difficulties, to be sure, and they could have been anticipated. Those difficulties will be overcome.

            Imagining what proof will be adequately credible before it exists is an exercise for people who don’t mind wasting their time. If MFMP calibrates the IR camera method, it will tell us much more about the test than we currently know. Nothing that is not independently verifiable will serve in this field, because of the huge implications. We have no decisions to make based on Lugano. If someone invests money based on what is known, well, a fool and his money are soon parted. He might get lucky, you never know. Rossi is not offering shares for sale. He has backers, and I think it’s likely they are not deceived, I do not think Rossi is a fool.

            I know people, long involved with cold fusion, who think that the only thing that will change the general scientific attitude toward cold fusion is a commercial device that anyone can buy. I call that Plan A. Plan A gives most of us absolutely nothing to do but watch helplessly. So I’ve developed Plan B, facilitate basic research, do what both U.S. DoE reviews recommended. It’s amazing how little that has been done.

            MFMP has the opportunity here to do basic research, investigating a material that, under clearly specific conditions, might generate anomalous heat. While the occasion for this is Rossi and, now, Parkhomov, MFMP could waste a lot of time in dead ends if the goal is just focused on those two. What does Ni + LiAlH4 do at 1200 C and a pressure that may be over 100 atmospheres? Inquiring minds want to know. And it is surprisingly easy to find out. That is what I find amazing about Parkhomov. He showed a way, face-palm simple.

            He may also be a novice at evaporative calorimetry! So what?

      • Mike Henderson

        False dichotomy.

        • bachcole

          And what would the other choice(s) be?

    • Casey

      I wonder if the recipe used in the ITP test, is really the same Rossi is using in his 1MW plant in work.:)

      • Edac

        The ITP test used the Hot-Cat. The 1MW pant uses an updated version of the low temperature E-Cat. So it is more than likely that the recipe is different.

      • Omega Z

        Rossi stated that the Lt 1Mw plant uses a different fuel formula. It can not obtain high temps.

    • Quixote

      Rossi may not have anything…

      • Mike Ivanov

        After Bologna, Lugano, Parkhomov tests, Piantelli patents – I think the chances what Rossi has nothing are quite low…

  • Zephir

    Rossi cannot expose his IP, because he has none. Piantelli already owns the patents, which contain all working variants nickel fusion (including lithium, hydrides and electric/mechanical vibration stimulation) and Parkhomov experiment demonstrated, that the COP ~ 3 is achievable without any other secret ingredients. It’s a simple, as it is.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Rossi claims he has working 1Mw generator. Piantelli and others have nothing to show.

  • georgehants

    Would it be fair to say that in a World without money or finance where everybody is well looked after for their efforts for society and only working half the time they now do, the first computer codes devised and freely released to all and further Research immediately shared would have gradually been improved in short time consistent with the technology, to at least equal and probably exceed the latest windows program.
    All other competing efforts would have been pointless and all the effort wasted on them would have been saved.
    And of course the computers and programs would be free to every person in the World at a “cost” of only the manpower involved in manufacture and distribution etc. shared like everything else over all the World.
    This argument applies to thousands of other repetitive efforts that do not lead to a better product as a combined and sharing effort would refine the original, or be automatically replaced with a superior system.
    The same example can clearly be used regarding Cold Fusion.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      That depends what are your underlying assumptions about human behavior, in such a system and what happens when their are outliers. I think the best way to think about any potential system is to model the cleverness with which humanity wields its “weaknesses” (i.e. greed, vanity, glutony, etc) as a virus, with the ability to randomly mutate.

      • Guru

        Once on Uni We tested Pure Communist Systém as proposed by Georgehants and it result in very funny disfunctional society: All folks want be Beach Lifeguard and instructors in Yachting training and similar jobs. No one want be Coal Miner etc. (our Uni is in Coal Mining City). So for Georgehants: Communism not worked – I lived 25 years in communism and only 11% of our population voted for communism.

        • Casey

          I like to see what Georgehants would say. if living in communist system he have to spend 1/3 of his monthly salary to buy shirt or pants. Stand in line for hours to buy one or two rolls of toilet paper or others every day use things.:))

      • bachcole

        The outliers are sent to rehabilitation camps, feed cockroaches, and branded traitors until they straighten up and fly right. Of course, we can never trust them, so they are left there in the cold without shoes.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      Also, how does one trade without money? I know we had a barter system before we developed money but there are good reasons the barter system was replaced by the monetary one. Plus there were rich people when we only had the barter system before. You just needed to be one of the few people who controlled vast swaths of land, and able to convince enough people to work that land for its wealth of resources…

      Do not see this as an attack on your ideal. It should be seen as questions that need to be answered when proposing alternatives. I am not against alternatives, but if all we do is tear down the old system without learning from its faults AND solving the problems that lead to its creation we will only create a new system with new problems that spiral out of control over time and become just as bad as the old system it replaced.

      • georgehants

        David, many thanks, I have made my sincere points on these pages many times and although we have thought out answers to many of the problems associated with a new fairer equal system, if any others agree then I feel it is up to them to start coming forward with answers to those same problems.
        I am in a position of just mainly swatting unthinking flies, so convinced they are correct with the most flimsy, inappropriate or simply no Evidence.
        I will now retire from seemingly trying to force others to care about our brothers and sisters, be they next-door or half a World away.
        Peace
        ——-
        Just to change the angle of unthinking denial, Is this link worth a few people taking a serious interest, or is it just more unacceptable Evidence of a (to most) frightening reality.
        ——–
        New Research Suggests Autistic Savants May Have Enhanced Telepathic Abilities
        http://www.dailygrail.com/Mind-Mysteries/2014/8/New-Research-Suggests-Autistic-Savants-May-Have-Enhanced-Telepathic-Abilities

      • bachcole

        Don’t be such a dunce, David! Of course unicorn droppings would become legal tender. This is perfect since the sweeter and kinder people would be surrounded by more unicorns than the rest of us meanie head grinches who drive the unicorns away with our disbelief and our grinchiness. Consequently, only sweet and kind people would be rich, and the rest of us grinch types would be poor. Sort of poetic, don’t you think?

    • Guru

      For Communism lovers: During communist era in our country, highest rank communist on some assembly decided to “not develope semiconductors industry, because comrades we must wait until fullconductors will emerge”. It is true story from real communísm. Which Georgehants never lived in communism. For such linatics I may recommend some praxis in North Korea – its no matter they use money. It is the same as if they not use money

      • guest2

        Communism does not work.
        Capitalism with a “compassionate ” safety net for the poor, unfortunate, sick, weak is more acceptable but it is still limited by population growth as it’s only sustainable to a certain limit. Break through technology like LENR will prolong this.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Intelligently regulated Capitalism with free markets is the best system. The recent US law that allows $700,000 individual campaign contributions is not intelligent regulation!!

          • Mike Ivanov

            It depends :). People who paid for this law had their reason to see it as intelligent way :). As well as people who did derivative based house market crash, when organized bailouts for themselves, etc, etc…

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Right, if you let the capitalists run wild, we will end up with anarchy.

          • bachcole

            Capitalism left to run wild is what libertarians believe in. This is one of the main reasons I like libertarians but would NEVER vote for one. I like them now because we have too many laws and regulations, and regulations are merely “laws” spelled differently enacted by those who are constitutionally not supposed to enact laws: the executive branch. I would not vote for them because they are extremists. Capitalism needs externally enforced order. But this opens up the possibility of large corporations influencing the government. This is why I and the Chinese (communist) government advocate capital punishment for bribery.

          • Mike Ivanov

            And if you try to regulate capitalism by government – you got a worst edition of socialism, then almost everything is monopolized by corrupted corporations. Canada or Germany are “good” examples of that. Of medical system in US.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            We have created the US economy by a delicate corporate/government process of creating regulation. The trick is to not let one or the other (corporations or government) become too strong. The “New Deal” of Franklin Roosevelt probably went too far on government creating regulation. Now the pendulum has swung with a couple of strong measurements corporate profits and income distribution indicating too much capitalist control of regulation or no regulation. I think we are already hearing the grumblings of the pendulum starting to head back again.

          • bachcole

            I think what you are seeing with the income redistribution, affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, and school integration is that about 12% of our population are the descendants of the worst crime in human history that lasted from 1619 up to 1865, then to a lesser extent to 1965, and then decreasing to whatever it is now. So I fully understand, from my white chair in the right wing, the desire for these kinds of adjustments.

            Do we (or they) still need these adjustments? I am unsure. And were these adjustments the pure individualism that our Founders envisioned? Clearly not, but slavery was not the pure individualism that our Founders envisioned. Since 1965, we have merely been covering the check that the Founders wrote to the human race.

          • bachcole

            I think what you are seeing with the income redistribution, affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, and school integration is that about 12% of our population are the descendants of the worst crime in human history that lasted from 1619 up to 1865, then to a lesser extent to 1965, and then decreasing to whatever it is now. So I fully understand, from my white chair in the right wing, the desire for these kinds of adjustments.

            Do we (or they) still need these adjustments? I am unsure. And were these adjustments the pure individualism that our Founders envisioned? Clearly not, but slavery was not the pure individualism that our Founders envisioned. Since 1965, we have merely been covering the check that the Founders wrote to the human race.

          • Mike Ivanov

            The problem is in the real life it could be a combination of multiple pendulums with different time periods and result can end up the story of US, like romans, etc.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            We have created the US economy by a delicate corporate/government process of creating regulation. The trick is to not let one or the other (corporations or government) become too strong. The “New Deal” of Franklin Roosevelt probably went too far on government creating regulation. Now the pendulum has swung with a couple of strong measurements corporate profits and income distribution indicating too much capitalist control of regulation or no regulation. I think we are already hearing the grumblings of the pendulum starting to head back again.

        • Mike Ivanov

          There is a common mistake here: Soviet Union and other countries marked as “communists countries” by mistake, never reach actual communist state as it is defined. They all been “countries of socialism”. Which is actually government based capitalism with safety net for the poor :). Real communism requires extremely high development of industries, probably fully robotized and managed by A.I., then people can just have everything they need for free. Capitalism can reach this state as well 🙂

    • William D. Fleming

      You are too late with your ideas–they have been tried various times by different people. Pol Pot in Cambodia is probably the best example.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      The Best Enemies Money Can Buy

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVWXmZB1wc

  • Chris, Italy

    Oh my gosh, not again, noooo; another furious debate between deaf ears and peppered with groundless statements. Ford and Bill Gates vs. Marx and John Lennon, non virtus in medio stat.

    • bachcole

      non virtus in medio stat = not at the center of power

      • Chris, Italy

        Naaaaah take a course in Latin. 😛

    • Alain Samoun

      Status quo is not virtue.

      • bachcole

        Human nature changes very, very slowly, and it can only change from within. Trying to force it to change from the outside results is catastrophes like North Korea, Pol Pot, the Gulag Archipelago, the Red Guards and their Great Leap Forward, etc.

        Funny that once China tried to work with current human nature they started kicking a$$ and taking names economically.

        • Mike Ivanov

          Rossi claims he has working 1Mw generator. Piantelli and others have nothing to show.

          • Omega Z

            I actually agree with Bill’s pragmatic thinking. You need today’s technology to get you through to tomorrows. To shut everything old down would be a disaster.

            I recall years ago, people protesting a Nuclear power plant north of Chicago. They wanted it shut down immediately. I always wondered what they would have done had the authorities bowed to their demands. Going home to Chicago only to find all their appliances non working. No lights, nothing. I can hear them Now. How could the Government allow this to happen. Silly people.

            In the Video, they say Gates has a Billion invested in Exxon. That size of investment equates to having influence in certain matters. They may not react to what he has to say, but, They have to listen.

  • Chris, Italy

    Oh my gosh, not again, noooo; another furious debate between deaf ears and peppered with groundless statements. Ford and Bill Gates vs. Marx and John Lennon, non virtus in medio stat.

    • bachcole

      non virtus in medio stat = not at the center of power

      • Chris, Italy

        Naaaaah take a course in Latin. 😛

    • Alain Samoun

      Status quo is not virtue.

      • bachcole

        Human nature changes very, very slowly, and it can only change from within. Trying to force it to change from the outside results is catastrophes like North Korea, Pol Pot, the Gulag Archipelago, the Red Guards and their Great Leap Forward, etc.

        Funny that once China tried to work with current human nature they started kicking a$$ and taking names economically.

  • Warthog

    LOL, The system that preceded capitalism was monarchy. Those at the top had plenty of money, and those at the bottom were more or less slaves.

    Capitalism appeared within monarchy and so increased the money/wealth supply that even those at the bottom had more than those at the bottom under monarchy. And it still does. The “poor” today have amenities that no Egyptian Pharaoh or Roman Emperor had access to.

    And competition most certainly does still exist (I own part of a small business, and absolutely do have competitors). The problems capitalism suffers from today are from a LACK of competition (too big to fail businesses). IMHO, if any business area begins to become “too big to fail”, it should be broken up into smaller companies.

    And the rest of your comment is simply wishful thinking.

    • LilyLover

      In a good monarchy, there exists accountability and is therefore superior to today’s “this-ism or that-ism”. The problem with monarchy is – eventually one bad apple destroys the credence of the “good” predecessors. And the bad apple, intensifies badness as it’s already labelled bad. Gone beyond control, revolts substitute the monarch.
      The monarchies learned from this and instituted a faceless bureaucracy. A little semblance of democracy, a little semblance of public choice etc and all become ignorant of the master behind the curtain. In this system bad things happen but there is no face to it. People are angry in general but there is no one to be angry ‘at’. This dissipates the anger and status-quo prevails producing people like you who think “things cannot be improved”. The masters rejoyce.
      “The “poor” today have amenities that no Egyptian Pharaoh or Roman Emperor had access to.”
      >>
      That’s what we-the-scientists do. We function under any “system” but our creativity translated into products would exist under any “ism”.
      Think Japan-electronics-monarchy.

      Point is – fallacious social systems are not the reasons that make science conducive. Tese system simply impose small or large impedence to growth. We don’t suceed because of you; we don’t need you to be successful; we succeed despite of you.

      • Warthog

        Sorry, but no. I’ve worked with instrumentation at and near 1400C and the emissions were nowhere near “brightly incandescent” (graphite chips under an inert atmosphere in fused silica tube heated in an RF furnace). “Warm yellow” best describes it.

  • Private Citizen

    No begging, simply expecting IH to act in the best interest of the shareholders, if they have the goods and really want investors and patent rights, before the competition. Arguing otherwise make the apologist look irrational–and a little less like Groucho than his earlier pic 🙂

  • Eugene, Russia

    Сколько можно пудрить мозги ХЯСом?
    ну нет у вас там никакого LERN, обычное атомно-молекулярное “горение” водорода на поверхности катализатора.
    Нет ни одного нормального физика?

    • Alex MacKaroff

      А какое количество энергии может по мнению нормального физика выделиться при ‘обычном атомно-молекулярном горении водорода’ из 100 мГ литияалюмогидрида (в эксперименте Пархомова) ?

      • Евгений Максимов

        В идеале – бесконечное.
        Если исключить спекание катализатора, утечку водорода и т.д.
        Количество циклов диссоциации/рекуперации бесконечно.
        Проблема температуры и спекания это и есть главная проблема Росси, которую он не решил на данный момент. Никель – вот тот потолок, в который он уперся.
        А ХЯС это только прикрытие от повторения конкурентами.

        • RyuMaster Gorskov

          Пархомов наблюдал смену изотопного состояния вещества. Как это пояснить?

          • Евгений Максимов

            Насколько понятно из его слов на видео, Пархомов не наблюдал изменения изотопного состава никеля. Это он комментирует данные Росси при проверке после 3-месячного прогона реактора.
            К слову. Росси в первых опытах получал из никеля медь, но в последнем прогоне никакой меди эксперты не обнаружили.

            ХЯС в природе есть.
            У меня есть данные и над именно это проблемой я и работаю.
            Но в установке Росси, холодного ядерного синтеза нет.
            Вернее сказать – не ХЯС первопричина аномально высокого выделения энергии.

          • RyuMaster Gorskov

            Да, скорее всего вы правы, если бы Пархомов наблюда смену изотопного состава, упомянул бы в отчёте. Возможно это попытка Росси увести конкурентов на ложный путь.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Пархомов не упоминал про тестирование изотопного состава вообще, возможно его не делалось или еще не готовы результаты.

          • RyuMaster Gorskov

            Спасибо, понятно.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Росси мог и набрехать про медь, он сильно озабочен сохранением секрета. Я бы особо не доверял его высказываниям. Луганский тест никакой меди не показал, радиации тоже не было.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Mike: I think Rossi later admitted that copper in the early experiments was a wrong call, contamination from plumbing or something

          • Mike Ivanov

            My point was what Rossi’s claims and results must be verified by possible ways: 1) Independent experiments, like one done by Parkhomov. 2) start of sales of commercial product by Rossi. Everything else just do not matter.

          • clovis ray

            How, many independent experiments do you want they have did 3, by some of the world top scientist, one ran for 32 days, and IH have already captured first to market, Your trolling

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            It is impossible to run an independent experiment on a device that is not available. As far as I can tell, there have been no truly independent tests. MFMP has begun to test *a similar configuration,* but could not definitively show no XP, because they don’t have the formula or other possible necessary details. Therefore they cannot disconfirm XP. They can only show failure to replicate. They *can* develop useful information that *might* impeach the Lugano results.

            Parkhomov is another story. Parkhomov presents his work as a Lugano confirmation, but we don’t know how close his formula is to the Lugano fuel. However, Parkhomov appears, on the face, to be replicable. The Parkhomov experiment uses a single measure, and is lacking, as to what has been released, confirmation. The data in the Parkhomov report, analyzed, shows clear signs that there was no XP. However, then, that creates a conflict with the evaporative loss results. There are, again, signs in the data that this is artifact, but in the absence of more information, no definitive conclusion is possible.

            One should be aware in LENR studies of the “file-drawer effect.” It is possible that there have been many attempts to replicate Lugano that have been failed, but they have not been published. Thus what might be an occasional artifact may be seen as “confirmed results.” Pseudoskeptics overstate the file drawer effect, because there are research groups that have published all their work (in a particular investigation), plus there is, with palladium deuteride reactions, a confirmed and correlated nuclear product, helium.

            Nevertheless, the possibility must be kept in mind. Trust and verify.

            The proof of Rossi’s claims will very likely not come from any controlled demonstration, Rossi has made his intention clear. The proof will come from an available commercial product.

            I estimate the value to society of functioning LENR to be on the order of a trillion dollars per year. Therefore delay is costing us that. Therefore we cannot rely upon what we cannot control, at all, the success of a private entrepreneur. If he’s successful, great! Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. The history of LENR is littered with companies that made optimistic announcements of products “available this year or soon.” Often, they simply disappear, sometimes we know what happened. Consider Defkalion. It *looked like* they were ahead of Rossi. They had, in appearance, direct control of the reaction (through spark stimulation). What happened? Their CTO, John Hadjjichristos, left their employ, his Linked-In resume says, in October, 2014. Neither he nor anyone else from Defkalion has explained the situation from their point of view. Was all their XP based on the same artifact? Or was there other evidence? We don’t know. Vanished like a dream, so far, anyway.

            They were not taken down by “pathoskeptics.” They were taken down by their own hubris. There was much debate among LENR scientists about Defkalion. No survey was taken, but many did not trust them, and some did. The same is the case for Rossi.

            When they do not have data, scientists are just as dumb as everyone else. Some however, will recognize that they don’t have data. Some will look carefully at the data that exists. Watch.

            MFMP is serving this effort.

          • clovis ray

            guys hardly any one here , reads or speaks Russian, please use google translate, then all, will understand what you are saying.,,,,, please.

        • Mike Ivanov

          Извиняюсь, а как насчет закона сохранения энергии? Откуда эта “бесконечная” энергия берется и рисует COP 3 на графике?

          • Евгений Максимов

            Никакого нарушения закона сохранения энергии в данном случае нет.
            Если очень упрощенно и простыми словами:
            1. затраченная энергия только на разрушение химической связи молекулы водорода Н2.
            2. выделившаяся энергия – это та же самая энергия химической связи при слиянии атомов водорода 2Н только с обратным знаком + кинетическая энергия атомов в момент слияния на поверхности металла.
            3. Выделившаяся энергия превышает затраченную.
            4. Дельта энергии ( в данном случае она превышает в разы и десятки раз исходную электрическую) – это работа катализатора. Это никель выполняет “халявную” работу по разложению молекулы водорода на атомы. Как сила тяготения выполняет роль халявной энергии на гидроэлектростанциях создавая поток воды. Ведь тоже своеобразный “вечный” двигатель, но никто не удивляется этому?;)

            Еще к слову.
            Атомно-молекулярное диссоциация/рекомбинация водорода самая энергетически выгодная реакция в природе. По выделившейся энергии в 4 раза превосходит горение водорода в кислороде.
            На заре ракетной техники считалась лучшим топливом, но технические проблемы получения водорода в атомарном состоянии не позволили водороду занять главное место среди топлив.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Я извиняюсь, но это вообще-то бред, насчет “халявной энергии” катализатора :). Даже моих институтских знаний по физике для этого достаточно.

          • bachcole

            I am not even going to bother translating these Russian language comments anymore. Google Translate is much too lame and what I have translated with GT the comments are about as interesting as so many English language comments.

          • Евгений Максимов

            Ask to do translation turns out perfectly for it.
            RyuMaster Gorskov

          • Евгений Максимов

            Майк, ну ты жжошь:)
            Никому больше не говори.
            Шутка:)
            Пример из школьного уровня химии.
            Азот с водородом даже при диких давлениях и температуре не образует аммиак на выходе во вменяемых количествах. Это сугубо равновесная реакция.
            Но стоит только внести железный катализатор, как реакция сваливается в сторону образования аммиака. При этом снижается и температура и давление в реакции получения аммиака.
            Немецкие промышленники на этом озолотились, а Габер получил Нобелевку.
            Вопрос – почему применение железного катализатора уменьшило энергию на проведение реакции? Какая роль катализатора вообще?
            катализатор всегда выполняет работу ( в физическом аспекте).
            Потому он и катализатор. так природой задумано:)

          • Mike Ivanov

            То есть катализатор может взять энергию ниоткуда в замкнутой системе? Я правильно понял вашу школьную химию? 🙂

          • Евгений Максимов

            А кто сказал, что система замкнута?:)
            Замкнутая система всегда приходит в равновесие.
            В случае получения аммиака, удаляется продукт реакции, потому нет равновесия.
            В случае с е-катом Росси, отводится энергия в виде тепла.
            Если не отводить тепло и замкнуть систему в абсолютном теплоизоляторе, то и реактор Росси работать перестанет.
            Катализатор просто расплавится и перестанет адсорбировать водород.
            Кстати, критичным параметром температуры внутри реактора и объясняется цикличность его работы.

            По поводу внутренней энергии катализатора. Это просто свойство материи, в данном случае свойство кристаллической решетки никеля.
            Никель, палладий, медь хорошо адсорбируют водород.
            Железо практически никак. Вот так природа распорядилась:)
            А вот откуда эта энергия – физического вакуума, эфира или еще чего-то это неразрешима задача теоретиков.

            Сила тяготения тоже вечна по своей сути.
            Но что является переносчиком этой энергии и чем она обусловлена – пока так и загадка.

          • Frank Acland

            This is a reply not only to you, but to anyone else posting not in English.

            As a courtesy to other readers here, if you post in a non-English language, please also include an English translation (computer translation is fine)

            Many thanks.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Ok, no more questions :).

  • Bob Greenyer

    Abd

    (1) We will do that at end January as permitted by the availability of the Optris PI160 (and a lot more besides)

    (2) This is now a real possibility given that he is now in direct communication.

    Did you see the latest information he provided us on his calorimetry approach?

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

  • Евгений Максимов

    Sorry for bad English

    in the reactor of Rossi it is not LENR, principle of work the атомно-молекулярное burning of hydrogen.

    I know how to do it is better.

  • Евгений Максимов

    Sorry for bad English

    in the reactor of Rossi it is not LENR, principle of work the атомно-молекулярное burning of hydrogen.

    I know how to do it is better.

  • We complain about the scientific community dissing CF/LENR, but there is so much secrecy inside CF labs hoping to some day cash in. That’s their choice, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the universe rewards those who aren’t so motivated by $, a collective that generously exchanges their findings. It’s been a real thrill to watch the MFMP live videos. They have deep strength in their vulnerability in showing live vids where things don’t always work out as planned.

    Also Rossi has benefited by those who have gone before him.

  • Bob Greenyer

    He saw a 10% error using exact same method but with a plain resistive heater at 1000ºC. Presumably this was from entrained water.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    As to the topic here, I’m a bit surprised. Rossi clearly doesn’t care what anyone thinks, that’s been obvious for years. He has no motive for a truly definitive demonstration, and suffers no harm if the Lugano researchers end up with egg all over their faces.

    However, I’d have thought that a smart businessman would have made a gesture of support for MFMP, even if insincere, and not such a pissy statement. MFMP didn’t ask him for money, someone else suggested it, someone who probably imagines Rossi wants to support science. Someone who has not been paying attention since early 2011, as many of us have. Rossi has been confidently promising a demonstration of a 1 MW reactor since 2011, when he didn’t deliver, I think it was promised for October. Pseudoskeptics assume that Rossi must have nothing (“Impossible!”), and that he is a complete con. They trot out his supposed fraud convictions, which weren’t.

    Cold fusion is real, that’s the science of it now, certainly as to the most-established effect, anomalous heat and helium from palladium deuteride, but that does not mean that Rossi has anything. More likely, however, he has *something.* And is having a devil of a time making it reliable and sustainable. In other words, the same problem as everyone else. Given that, he does what inventors have done for a very long time, making promises and optimistic projections. It’s part of the trade-craft. Many forget that someone like Rossi has no professional obligation to be truthful. It’s not illegal to fool everyone with a demonstration, as long as you don’t take money from them based on it. Anyone here lose money sending it to Rossi? I haven’t heard of any reports.

    One thing Rossi has been spectacularly good at: demonstrating that experts can be idiots like the rest of us. Honestly, I don’t know how Essen shows his face without embarassment. But he does. Since 2011, experts have been making pronouncements that turned out to be spectacularly incorrect. Using a humidity meter to measure steam quality, which might have made some difference, if steam quality had actually been measured, while completely ignoring the possibility and not checking for the 800 watt — or greater — gorilla: water overflow? Essen, to my knowledge, has never acknowledged the problems with the Essen and Kullander report.

    I know and work with real, engaged scientists, and when they make a mistake, what they say is “Oops! Sorry!” They *retract* erroneous reports or issue corrections. Not retracting a known error is almost as harmful as knowingly making a primary deceptive claim. I.e., lying.

    My guess is that the Lugano team is contractually obligated not to speak individually to us. Why would we expect them to be open and forthright? Such agreements, by the way, often provide that the existence of the agreement may not be disclosed either. *This is routine.*

    Science and business are not the same field, they do not have the same rules.

    • David Taylor-Fuller

      Amen

      • bachcole

        For me, 2013 Levi and the 2014 Lugano reports were perfectly definitive.

        • Mark Szl

          So definitive that unaccounted for anomolies in the data still left open the good possibility of a COP of 1. For something as remarkable as Rossi claims it is unremarkable the Lugano report was rejected from publication. Maybe someone needs to be mentored by a good experimentalist in a related field to understand what a solid ezperiment is really like.

          • Warthog

            All such anomalies have been pointed out and confirmed not to have happened. See Mats Lewan and other posts. The only people still beating this dead horse are the pathological skeptics.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            No. Most experts in the field keep their mouth shut in public. I suggest reading McKubre on the Lugano report. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html

            McKubre is about as sober as they come. He terms the Lugano report “positive,” but one needs to understand the scientific context. Positive does not mean definitively demonstrated. The Lugano report is “evidence.” Never confuse evidence with proof. McKubre writes about Lugano, after quoting the confidently assertive conclusion of the Lugano authors:

            “Is this confidence justified by the words in the
            report?

            “Is there evidence of excess heat? My impression is “Yes” (but
            see below). Is this evidence unambiguous? Not as presented. Is there
            evidence of nuclear transformation? Yes, very clearly, but questions
            remain to be answered (or, in some cases, asked). Do the heat and
            nuclear production correlate quantitatively? Yes, possibly. Is the
            report perfect? No, no report is perfect, but this one is imperfect in
            little ways and large. There is curious inattention to
            detail—surprising for a document as delayed, anticipated and important
            as this.”

            “Curious inattention to detail.” Such as a real calibration, absolutely essential. McKubre says:

            “Of primary concern is the complete absence of relevant pre- or
            post-test calibration. The mathematical description of heat losses from
            a structure with multiple parts and awkward geometry is not difficult
            but contains many terms and several assumptions. Perhaps with more
            direct experience I could trust the equations and assumptions to do
            their job, but I do not have that experience. Neither do the authors,
            nor does most of the “audience.” The only way to handle such
            uncertainty is via relevant calibration, ideally under identical
            conditions at and surrounding the operating point. The calibration that
            was performed was at a single point well below the points of ultimate
            operation. This is bad and bad. We need to determine the shape of the
            performance manifold empirically, ideally bracketing all points of
            operation. This was not done.”

            My own concern about Lugano is that the output power calculation depends entirely on the unconfirmed value of 1400 C. for *external temperature.* I am not coming from a position that LENR is impossible, I know that it’s possible. However, that does not mean that power was generated in *this device*. We have some major problems with the hypothesis of major XP.

            First of all, at 1400 C external, the internal temperature would be far higher, enough to melt nickel, enough to melt the heating elements, enough to destroy the internal control thermocouple (from which no data was provided, another lacuna in the Lugano report). Secondly, a 1400 C external temperature would be brightly incandescent, and there is no sign that the device was so. Rather, the images we have are consistent with a *much* lower temperature.

            Hence the importance of the MFMP dogbone work. If a dogbone is fed 910 W of power, through electrical heating elements, what does it look like? Further, when the camera is available, what images are seen? Essentially, MFMP can provide a rough calibration of the Lugano measurements.

            There are similar problems with the Parkhomov experiment. We have only the roughest data, so far, on a “calibration” of the evaporative calorimetry. We have heat data from the attached thermocouple that, on examination, seems to negate major XP, pointing then, to a possible artifact in the steam calorimetry. It is possible that additional data from Parkhomov will resolve this, and, in the meantime, the Parkhomov experiment looks readily replicable. It’s very simple, with no apparent secrets.

            I recommend that MFMP not attempt to replicate Lugano with imaginary fuel combinations, but only calibrate Lugano. And, in parallel, that it create conditions for rapid study of materials as to behavior when heated and under high pressure, using the Parkhomov approach. Basic rule in confirmational work: first replicate, *then* try to improve. So MFMP should at first stay very close to Parkhomov, certainly as far as anything that might affect the reaction. Measuring pressure, as they are talking about doing, very bad idea. There is no way to do that without compromising the experiment.

            In this field it is necessary to largely ignore two groups in the peanut gallery: pseudoskeptics and believers. From both groups, ideas may come, on occasion. But those who are paying for and doing the experimental work must call the shots, as advised, and they decide what advice to consider.

          • Warthog

            Sorry, but no. I’ve worked with instrumentation at and near 1400C and the emissions were nowhere near “brightly incandescent” (graphite chips under an inert atmosphere in fused silica tube heated in an RF furnace). “Warm yellow” best describes it.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Okay, suppose it is warm yellow. The photos show the device as dark, mostly, with what looks like dull red illumination from the interior. Basically, we have contradictory conclusions from two different approaches. Look at the Lugano image, on the left you can see a short piece of bright yellow. That’s hot, and that is the excitation heat. It might be as hot as 1400 C. or so, I surely cannot tell for sure. Color temperature would indicate a lower temperature. But it is much brighter than the exterior of the device, and the calorimetry was based on an exterior temperature of 1400 C. This is why calibration of their thermometry is so important. What does the device look like, in visible light or in IR, at 910 W input without fuel?

            MFMP wants to go ahead and attempt to calibrate at an actual temperature of 1400 C, thus facing a slew of problems. If the calibration at 910 W input shows that there was major XP, then, yes, facing those problems would be useful. However, at this point, that looks unlikely to me. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Science is built based on single-variable controls. Sometimes engineering barges ahead, impatient. That’s not *wrong.* But modern technology has advanced as rapidly as it has because science came along and cleaned up and analyzed and developed, often, clear explanatory theory that allowed better prediction. It is not necessary to try everything. Science, however, when it is thought of as a body of unchallengeable theory, and therefore a result must be wrong if it upsets theory, has left science and become a kind of religion.

            I commend anyone who is willing to test controversial experimental results, or even uncontroversial ones. This experimentation is crucial to maintaining the honesty of science.

          • Mark Szl

            Wrong! That is why Lewan also wants the raw data disclosed.

          • Warthog

            I’m sure he does (as do we all).

            You need to take your gripe up with Arkiv and the folks who refuse to publish the work. In one of the earlier tests, the initial Arkiv submission was corrected to account for “errors” pointed out by critics. YOU are assuming that no such corrections have been submitted to Arkiv. A higher probability is that (as usual) “the fix is in” and Arkiv is simply refusing to publish a corrected version.

            I’ve followed the “criticisms”, and the vast majority of them are simply BS, quibbling about effects that might cause a few percent of error. The classic one is all the hoopla about the IR camera(s) “not being accurate due to emissivity differences”…totally ignoring the stated facts that a calibration tag from the manufacturer of the camera was affixed to one end of the E-Cat alumina shell, AND that the researchers also obtained a sample of the same alumina comprising the shell specifically in order to determine the emissivity. AND ignoring the fact that there was parallel data from thermocouples…a technique that cannot possibly have an “emissivity error”. AND ignoring the fact that even if there were an un-accounted-for “emissivity error”, it would STILL be corrected by the data from the “control run”.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The nonpublication by arXiv is irrelevant. We would not know more if they published. Nonpublication by arXiv is also no proof of a poor paper. They’ve rejected good results before. My criticism of Lugano is based entirely on the Lugano report. And it’s possible that MFMP will develop data that validates Lugano. It’s also possible that they definitively demonstrate artifact.

            This is real science: we don’t know the results until we have the results. Interpretations of results can err, etc. This is why we want, for anything of major significance, multiple independent confirmations.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            The nonpublication by arXiv is irrelevant. We would not know more if they published. Nonpublication by arXiv is also no proof of a poor paper. They’ve rejected good results before. My criticism of Lugano is based entirely on the Lugano report. And it’s possible that MFMP will develop data that validates Lugano. It’s also possible that they definitively demonstrate artifact.

            This is real science: we don’t know the results until we have the results. Interpretations of results can err, etc. This is why we want, for anything of major significance, multiple independent confirmations.

          • bachcole

            The skeptopath is a certified grinch. He does NOT WANT cold fusion or any other hopeful thing to be true. He is not interested in any evidence other than to slam it. I have had great success with turmeric/curcumin, but the grinch/skeptopath will find some reason to put it down. He is not interested in evidence; he is only interested in crushing people’s hopes, even when the evidence is overwhelming that it works.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Why we should care about people like him???

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Agreed. One fact is that recognising kilowatts of excess heat is fundamentally easy to a group of physicists. Another fact is that doing the analysis and writing the paper in a way which satisfies “everyone” is difficult.

          • Omega Z

            “Difficult” Definition in this topic. Can’t be Done!

          • bachcole

            Pekka, I could go through all of your comments and up-click them all without reading them and my conscience wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. (:->)

            “Another fact is that doing the analysis and writing the paper in a way which satisfies “everyone” is difficult.” Especially those with the mental disease of skeptopathology.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          That says much more about bachcole than about the reports. Experts don’t think the reports were definitive. The norm is that people believe what they want to believe. Science attempts to step outside that, the method is to attempt, with full energy, to prove self wrong. The pseudoskeptical error is to forget about self and attempt to prove others wrong.

          Rossi is not science at all, he’s an inventor and entrepreneur. The business conditions suggest that anyone with close access to a Rossi device be under an NDA, which may restrict what can be disclosed. Under those conditions, scientists working with demonstrations cannot be fully trusted unless full independence is established. Questions about Lugano are not being answered by Lugano authors. And that is completely to be expected, my sense is that they may have an agreement not to discuss the report in public.

          Consider the Gamberale report on the 2013 Defkalion demo, which looked really positive. It was over nine months before we learned about the water meter artifact (which blows that demo out of the water, making it entirely possible there was no XP at all, or much less than claimed). Why? Because Gamberale was under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, which he respected, until he decided the public interest required disclosure. He took a risk of being sued for that.

          Do not confuse business with science. They are distinct fields, each with its own rules.

          • clovis ray

            wrong, Dr. Rossi, is a great scientist and has been most of his life, he is also a business man, he does things, he don’t set around and dream day dreams, he will go down in history , as one of the worlds best scientist, for what he and Dr. focardi alone discovered, I think he should get the noble prize, and in a few months, he will have a few loose ends tied up, concerning their safety certificates, and patents and assembly lines, and then things will go into full swing. and some of us will get to visit their customer plant and see the cat in action, he has the real deal, and no one else does. one of his cats has ran for a month , and AR does not lie, I have been following him for years I find him to be very honest, and God fearing.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Clovis, you confuse inventor and engineer with “scientist.” For an example of an inventor and businessman, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison

            Rossi specifically rejected the scientific method, which is one reason his demonstrations have not been widely accepted scientifically. He was asked about control experiments — essential in science — and he said something like “I don’t need them, I know what will happen — nothing.” The problem is that “nothing” is not an experimental result. Rather, always, something happens, and it is measured. The biggest problem with the Lugano test is that there was no control, they did not run the “dummy” at full input power. So there was, then, no calibration or confirmation of the complex thermometry. MFMP intends to remedy that.

    • Mark Szl

      Thank you and amen again!!!!

    • Omega Z

      I don’t have a problem with the Lugano team not responding to questions. You can bat flies forever & no answers will satisfy those who don’t want to be satisfied. Some can find flaws even with a perfect test.

      I do wonder why they included some information in certain respects when none would have been better. Don’t give me some details of certain aspects if you’re contractually not allowed to provide all the data. You just open a can of worms.

      Ultimately, the only people they are obliged to give all the information(100%) to is those who paid for the test. Primarily Elforsk, Industrial Heat, and possibly 1 or 2 others. We in the blogs are just along for the ride. They owe us nothing.

      Rossi could have easily just went dark after selling his technology to Industrial Heat. WOW, Just imagine the conspiracy theories then. It’s been bought up & buried. We’ll never hear of it again.

      We need to make a distinction between what Rossi claims & blogger imaginations. Rossi claims to have a Low-temp 10Kw reactor with COP>6 probably just lacking sufficient longevity & safety data. Possibly higher COP. Everything else is still R&D. The Blogger fans are already producing Electricity & COP>100 with temps exceeding the melting point of Nickel.

      There is a disconnect from reality. 10Kw is impressive, yet very little. Controlling 1 reactor is simple compared to controlling 100 in concert. Rossi has conveyed this yet no one hears. They think the Reactor is simple. Rossi thinks it is complex. While Rossi has become more pragmatic & cautious in his statements, the bloggers have went the other way to the extent of resisting Rossi’s restrained statements. It has taken on a life of it’s own.

      • Mike Ivanov

        I think it is too late to bury this technology, and this is a good news.

        Even 10kWt single generator is huge. I do not think it is so difficult to run a battery of these generators, considering modern controllers and algorithms . Stability and reliability are two real key factors for commercialization.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          There are have been lots of signs that Rossi doesn’t have “stability and reliability.” Lugano seems to contradict that, which is one reason why the MFMP calibration of Lugano could be important.

          However, in the end, Lugano is not “science,” it’s business and publicity. Lugano cannot be replicated, as such. To replicate, you need the devices, or information on how to build them, which is missing. MFMP may or may not independently find what works, following up on clues from Lugano. I strongly prefer that, when it comes to testing fuels, they start, not with Lugano, but with Parkhomov, and use the Parkhomov reactor design. Even if I think that Parkhomov’s results may be artifact. The method was brilliant.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          There are have been lots of signs that Rossi doesn’t have “stability and reliability.” Lugano seems to contradict that, which is one reason why the MFMP calibration of Lugano could be important.

          However, in the end, Lugano is not “science,” it’s business and publicity. Lugano cannot be replicated, as such. To replicate, you need the devices, or information on how to build them, which is missing. MFMP may or may not independently find what works, following up on clues from Lugano. I strongly prefer that, when it comes to testing fuels, they start, not with Lugano, but with Parkhomov, and use the Parkhomov reactor design. Even if I think that Parkhomov’s results may be artifact. The method was brilliant.

          • Mike Ivanov

            I haven’t seen any “signs” of Rossi stability problems. I think it is a smoke to cover real progress as long as possible and go to market as a surprise, without any competitors ready to answer. Any businessman with already secured investment could do something like this.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Stability or reliability problems have been the major problem with cold fusion from the beginning. It’s the most obvious reason for long-term shortfall in promised delivery. A reliability problem can be tantalizing, it seems like “there are just a few kinks to work out.” The first “independent professor test” had one reactor melt down. Rossi has never predicted the actual heat that will be observed. With a reliable, stable design, he could easily do that. None of this is proof. All could be a smokescreen. However, I consider it likely.

      • Kevin O

        I don’t have a problem with the Lugano team not responding to questions.

        ***I do. They should be defending their report with vigor. They should have had a website set up ahead of time for answering such questions. They should be revising their report due to the questions within weeks. They claim to be advancing science but they are holding it back. They’re too concerned with how it looks than with the raw data, which should be speaking for itself. And they should have contracted with Rossi to have followup tests done for covering what they failed to observe.

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          I strongly suspect they are under an agreement to not individually answer questions. The practice of stonewalling criticism goes way back. Essen, to my knowledge, never responded to criticism of his idea that steam quality could be measured with a humidity meter, nor to the lack of checking for overflow water from that early demonstration. Overflow water would be, in fact, expected from the Rossi design. Otherwise the reactor would overheat and run away. Rossi, in the Krivit video, obviously empties water from the outlet hose, so that Levi can show Krivit the steam. Which is obviously far less steam than expected from the claimed power. This has gone on and on for years.

          It’s obvious to me: Rossi does not want a definitive demonstration. He’s proven brilliant at setting up what tantalizes but does not clearly establish that he’s got a product anywhere near ready for market. There are always major lacunae in what is reported, such as the lack of calibration of the Lugano calorimetry.

          I don’t think we can count on Rossi for *anything.*

  • Alain Samoun

    Too bad that Rossi doesn’t see that sharing information with MFMP could be beneficial for him and IH too…

    • bachcole

      Yeah, too bad.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Honestly, I do not see any benefit for him. He is not a scientist, he is an entrepreneur. He wants to make commercial product and get a profit from this.

      • Alain Samoun

        Beneficial in many ways:
        – Scientifically as, so far, nobody has proved the theory behind CF that would make its use clearly easier: Knowing how the E-Cat works will help the theorists, – – Technically as it seems to me that Rossi needs help to control the CF reaction and develop a commercial product for heat and electricity: More minds could find the answers.
        – Commercially as patent will have to be released if replications are overwhelming.
        And finally,not the least, free energy future society, will render the competition obsolete and will be replaced by true cooperation between humans.

        • Mike Ivanov

          why do you think what future society will render the competition obsolete? I remember same things been said about electricity more then hundred years ago, but of course it did not work that way. Social structures are changing but for different reasons.

          • Alain Samoun

            Electricity is a form of transfer of energy not a source of energy by itself Chemical transformations (burning fossil fuels for example) or nuclear fission (breaking atoms) and CF (Some atoms/nuclear reaction not yet determined). All those are sources of energy.
            Besides Electricity brought a lot of changes – Think only the way we are talking on this blog – but CF’s impact will bring a lot more profound changes on human society because it will be a decentralized form of energy. At least that is my opinion at this point of time…

          • Mike Ivanov

            I am positive what LENR will generate enormous number of changes, just like invention of fire :). I am just not so sure about ” will render the competition obsolete and will be replaced by true cooperation between humans.” Yes, free energy will open new ways for people – you can build nice warm habitat somewhere in Greenland or so. Oil will become a regular commodity like iron ore – when was a last time you paid attention to iron ore price fluctuations?. It will be a huge kick to all energy-depended industries. Which basically mean all industries. And it means big money. Competition, not cooperation 🙂

          • Alain Samoun

            Mike,you still reasoning in a market economy:

            Competition happens if the resource is limited,that the business model of capitalism when it works. If there is no limit for a resource,like for example the air we breathe,then there is no competition, therefore no capitalism.

            Actually competition (ie capitalism) is becoming a brake for new scientific/technology advances. It’s what we see right now for photovoltaic solar panels adoption in the US see:

            http://www.alternet.org/environment/koch-and-wal-marts-attempt-kill-solar-panels?akid=12653.259685.muq4go&rd=1&src=newsletter1029806&t=3

            Don’t make any mistake,CF products when they will be available, will have the same problems as the solar panels . It’s why in my opinion competition should be and probably will be replaced by cooperation.

          • Mike Ivanov

            I think, e-cat or other CF devices will create huge difference, nothing like solar panels. For solar panels you still need grid, for e-cat you probably will quickly end up with zero consumption from grid, including electricity, heating oil or gas, may be will include gas for car, if you will switch to electric car. So, this will effectively kill many of large industries. Probably will kill all solar and wind energy as well. Of course it will take a lot of time, but trends are going to be visible very quickly after the first device appeared on the market. And of course we will see many battles, much worse than these for solar batteries.

          • bachcole

            In the US state of Michigan (the home of GM, Ford, & Chrysler), the automobile dealers got together and induced their legislators to pass a law making it illegal to sell Teslas in the state of Michigan. This is scummy beyond imagining, completely unAmerican, and demonstrates how corrupt we have become. If I lived in Michigan, I would make it a point to let all of the dealers know that when it was time for me to buy a new car that I would NOT be buying it in Michigan.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Well, what can I say? Too bad for America. Honestly the auto dealers are very archaic businesses already and they will go for good one day, with all their dirty tricks and scams.

          • clovis ray

            well ivan, i don;t know what country your from but i would bet it don’t have the same amount of autos as america, why, you know why, capitalism is the best system in the world, and we will take care of the scams , and all will be made right with the system, we have the largest auto market in the world, why, capitalism, some times scamers try and take advantage and get prison time for their trouble, don’t worry keep what money you have in your pocket, because it not enough to buy a new car anyways, unless you live in America. the best country on earth.

          • jousterusa

            I suspect what you are saying is not true, bachcole. It sounds like an Internet rumor. I urge you to check this with Tesla.

          • EEStorFanFibb
        • clovis ray

          Hi, Alan, AR has the resources to enlist as much help as needed, and I believe he knows what he is doing, It just takes time to do things right, this is too important, and must be done in a structured manner ,

    • attaboy

      If he’s light years ahead of MFMP, which could easily be the case, why share info?? What would be in it for IH or himself?

      • Alain Samoun

        Beneficial in many ways:

        See my answer below…

  • Alain Samoun

    Too bad that Rossi doesn’t see that sharing information with MFMP could be beneficial for him and IH too…

    • bachcole

      Yeah, too bad.

    • How is it beneficial for him?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        At least the following benefits: Any kind of replication would increase E-cat’s credibility, and garage replication might break the current logjam of homecat safety certification.

        • Mike Ivanov

          Garage replication will brake nothing. Only realistic path as I see it now is a)make industrial generator, possibly in location with not-too strict regulation. b)start generate cash flow from this pilot setup c) start licensing for different countries for same generators d) develop, certify and distribute home appliances, via partnership with some large company who have experience in domestic heating devices. No space for community, garage made devices 🙂

        • Omega Z

          There are reports of neutrons among other risks under certain circumstances. If just 1, of these garage replications cause injury, what are the odds of these ever being installed in the home. The fact that such risks can easily be designed out of the product wont matter. It would be game over.

          And note, it wouldn’t have to be Government regulators that stop it, but a public outcry that prevents them from being allowed.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Prohibition (of alcohol) was tried in USA, Finland and other countries, and it didn’t work. I think that if faced with proliferation of homebrewn devices or a strong technical possibility of such scenario, most governments would come to the conclusion that it’s a lesser evil to allow the selling of industrial-made E-cats.

          • Mats002

            Then the system-company would be a suitable name, owned by the government.

          • clovis ray

            Hey, guys, question, if you cut a record and someone in another country copies your song, and starts selling it, would it be legal , I think not, only black market machines would appear. and not as hard to keep track of that way, sure a few will be homemade, but not many.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            The E-cat is not patented (to my knowledge), if so, then copying it is not illegal in any country

          • clovis ray

            hi,pekka, i believe patents are pending, as soon as test are finished,
            anyone trying to sale, replicated e-cats will have to jump through the same hoops, as IH. this invention belongs to IH. no one in human histroy has built such a device, now someone comes along, and says hey look i have developed the same thing, well good luck with that.

          • Omega Z

            Aside from several patents applied for, Rossi does have an Italian patent that was granted.. I don’t know what it’s standing would be in the international arena, but he has one.

          • Alain Samoun

            Except that there are many nations who will develop CF whatever some governments try to stop it, so your fear has no basis.

        • clovis ray

          yep, or cause a log jam. huh.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Honestly, I do not see any benefit for him. He is not a scientist, he is an entrepreneur. He wants to make commercial product and get a profit from this.

      • Alain Samoun

        Beneficial in many ways:
        – Scientifically as, so far, nobody has proved the theory behind CF that would make its use clearly easier: Knowing how the E-Cat works will help the theorists, – – Technically as it seems to me that Rossi needs help to control the CF reaction and develop a commercial product for heat and electricity: More minds could find the answers.
        – Commercially as patent will have to be released if replications are overwhelming.
        And finally,not the least, free energy future society, will render the competition obsolete and will be replaced by true cooperation between humans.

        • Mike Ivanov

          why do you think what future society will render the competition obsolete? I remember same things been said about electricity more then hundred years ago, but of course it did not work that way. Social structures are changing but for different reasons.

          • Alain Samoun

            Electricity is a form of transfer of energy not a source of energy by itself Chemical transformations (burning fossil fuels for example) or nuclear fission (breaking atoms) and CF (Some atoms/nuclear reaction not yet determined). All those are sources of energy.
            Besides Electricity brought a lot of changes – Think only the way we are talking on this blog – but CF’s impact will bring a lot more profound changes on human society because it will be a decentralized form of energy. At least that is my opinion at this point of time…

          • Mike Ivanov

            I am positive what LENR will generate enormous number of changes, just like invention of fire :). I am just not so sure about ” will render the competition obsolete and will be replaced by true cooperation between humans.” Yes, free energy will open new ways for people – you can build nice warm habitat somewhere in Greenland or so. Oil will become a regular commodity like iron ore – when was a last time you paid attention to iron ore price fluctuations?. It will be a huge kick to all energy-depended industries. Which basically mean all industries. And it means big money. Competition, not cooperation 🙂

          • Alain Samoun

            Mike,you still reasoning in a market economy:

            Competition happens if the resource is limited,that the business model of capitalism when it works. If there is no limit for a resource,like for example the air we breathe,then there is no competition, therefore no capitalism.

            Actually competition (ie capitalism) is becoming a brake for new scientific/technology advances. It’s what we see right now for photovoltaic solar panels adoption in the US see:

            http://www.alternet.org/environment/koch-and-wal-marts-attempt-kill-solar-panels?akid=12653.259685.muq4go&rd=1&src=newsletter1029806&t=3

            Don’t make any mistake,CF products when they will be available, will have the same problems as the solar panels . It’s why in my opinion competition should be and probably will be replaced by cooperation.

          • Mike Ivanov

            I think, e-cat or other CF devices will create huge difference, nothing like solar panels. For solar panels you still need grid, for e-cat you probably will quickly end up with zero consumption from grid, including electricity, heating oil or gas, may be will include gas for car, if you will switch to electric car. So, this will effectively kill many of large industries. Probably will kill all solar and wind energy as well. Of course it will take a lot of time, but trends are going to be visible very quickly after the first device appeared on the market. And of course we will see many battles, much worse than these for solar batteries.

          • bachcole

            In the US state of Michigan (the home of GM, Ford, & Chrysler), the automobile dealers got together and induced their legislators to pass a law making it illegal to sell Teslas in the state of Michigan. This is scummy beyond imagining, completely unAmerican, and demonstrates how corrupt we have become. If I lived in Michigan, I would make it a point to let all of the dealers know that when it was time for me to buy a new car that I would NOT be buying it in Michigan.

          • Mike Ivanov

            Well, what can I say? Too bad for America. Honestly the auto dealers are very archaic businesses already and they will go for good one day, with all their dirty tricks and scams.

          • clovis ray

            well ivan, i don;t know what country your from but i would bet it don’t have the same amount of autos as america, why, you know why, capitalism is the best system in the world, and we will take care of the scams , and all will be made right with the system, we have the largest auto market in the world, why, capitalism, some times scamers try and take advantage and get prison time for their trouble, don’t worry keep what money you have in your pocket, because it not enough to buy a new car anyways, unless you live in America. the best country on earth.

          • jousterusa

            I suspect what you are saying is not true, bachcole. It sounds like an Internet rumor. I urge you to check this with Tesla.

          • bachcole

            Joe, I appreciate your caution and understand completely. This is just too scummy for America. Here is a source that I believe: http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2014/10/17/michigan-verge-banning-tesla-stores/17386251/

            There is a lot of BS flying around the Internet. Critical thinking and checking sources is a must.

          • attaboy

            I’m familiar with that source and it has a good reputation for reliability.

        • clovis ray

          Hi, Alan, AR has the resources to enlist as much help as needed, and I believe he knows what he is doing, It just takes time to do things right, this is too important, and must be done in a structured manner ,

    • Fisher

      Well, once it’s out on the market, the Cat is out of the bag, right? Everyone with the knowledge and determination will be reverse engineering it and building their own for whatever purpose.

      • Omega Z

        There is no doubt that competitors will reverse engineer Rossi’s technology & devise a technique of their own that can be patented & marketed.

        I highly doubt garage mechanics will build their own unless it is just a hobbyist who likes to tinker. There are many things in the market that we can replicate, but don’t. It’s so much easier & cheaper to buy them. Guaranteed, certified & all.

        • clovis ray

          agreed,

      • clovis ray

        Hi, Fisher, AR and industrial heat, are not so worried about our group having an E-CAT, or even our friends or humanitarian gestures toward 3 world country’s
        but the moment you start to market them, then they will want their cut, and that is more than right, mind you this is just my opinion.

    • attaboy

      If he’s light years ahead of MFMP, which could easily be the case, why share info?? What would be in it for IH or himself?

      • Alain Samoun

        Beneficial in many ways:

        See my answer below…

        • attaboy

          And the ways are???

  • Bernie777

    Intelligently regulated Capitalism with free markets is the best system

    • Mike Ivanov

      It depends :). People who paid for this law had their reason to see it as intelligent way :). As well as people who did derivative based house market crash, when organized bailouts for themselves, etc, etc…

      • Bernie777

        Right, if you let the capitalists run wild, we will end up with anarchy.

        • Mike Ivanov

          And if you try to regulate capitalism by government – you got a worst edition of socialism, then almost everything is monopolized by corrupted corporations. Canada or Germany are “good” examples of that. Of medical system in US.

          • Bernie777

            We have created the US economy by a delicate corporate/government process of creating regulation. The trick is to not let one or the other (corporations or government) become too strong. The “New Deal” of Franklin Roosevelt probably went too far on government creating regulation. Now the pendulum has swung with a couple of strong measurements corporate profits and income distribution indicating too much capitalist control of regulation or no regulation. I think we are already hearing the grumblings of the pendulum starting to head back again.

          • Mike Ivanov

            The problem is in the real life it could be a combination of multiple pendulums with different time periods and result can end up the story of US, like romans, etc.

  • Anon2012_2014

    I just want to see a lab that “I believe in” replicate the excess heat seen by Parkhomov and/or Lugano repeatedly and to then apply the calibration until all other hypotheses can be ruled out. Parkhomov is interesting, but I can’t believe in it unless someone can replicate it completely openly with every attempt made to disprove the LENR heat generation hypothesis.

    Finally, I will trust more calibration made on the actual live running experiment than any after the fact calibration made by MFMP on Lugano. If MFMP can create an excess heat Dogbone — I believe we have credible proof; as they will show anyone else how to duplicate their results. No unreproducible results.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    He is one smart cookie that Rossi is & a very adroit & tenacious researcher, much too be admired, No? He has too many scars to stand down!

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    He is one smart cookie that Rossi is & a very adroit & tenacious researcher, much too be admired, No? He has too many scars to stand down!

    • attaboy

      I agree!! But still, we should have had commercialization by now.

      • clovis ray

        Me too, attaboy, I really like what I heard from AR. this is very interesting,

        When our domestic small E-Cats will hit the market we will not have anymore a reverse engineering problem, as I already explained, because the economy scale will allow prices that will make competition not convenient. We are working on it.

        what he is referring to is robot assembly lines, if I were a betting man, I would say by the time the customer factory test is complete, which shouldn’t be too long, their , home units will come next, and if assembly lines are complete, then we might see a product soon, something that will be safe and reliable for all everywhere, not just some third world country, he is producing a product the right way, even though it’s at break neck speed and in such a way that everyone can have one not just a privileged few.

        • Omega Z

          For a new technology, this is moving at break neck speed. For us watching, it just doesn’t seem like it.
          It’s like waiting for water to boil. Pun intended.

          • attaboy

            Have either you or clovis ray actually been involved in the process of developing industrial products from discovery all the way thru to participation in the marketing of the product? Because it doesn’t look that way to me. As an R&D chemist working for companies developing products for metal cleaning and rust protection, and other uses as well, I went thru this involvement many times. Each time I was developing new technology. I believe this qualifies me to know the difference between break neck speed and snail’s pace. Despite a sense of urgency or importance considerably less than that of the E-cat, movement toward commercialization was blazing fast compared to the less than snail’s pace commercialization of the E-cat. And I believe I know the main reason for this snail pace movement.

          • clovis ray

            HI, Attaboy, to answer your question yes, yes i have developed and marketed turbine natural gas compressors, and they worked well i might add, most ideas are just that ideas for a period, then they take shape on paper, and then the hard part, is constructing the physical device, and getting it to perform to expectations. i am sure your chemical mixtures surly went faster, not quite the same thing though, most ideas are kept secret, until their unveiling, this makes them look fast, when in truth it has been a long time in development. and here we have the e-cat a truly unique device.

          • attaboy

            See my comments above to Omega Z. Information on how to quickly go about the construction of new physical devices and methods of getting to performance expectations has been worked out ad nausea within the mechanical engineering discipline among other sources. Sorry, but the e-cat is long overdue.

          • Omega Z

            How do you compare incremental improvements in an existing science & an existing market to a product that never before existed.

            You are working with base elements of which much existing knowledge is already known & learning to formulate them into new products. You are building upon knowledge of a vast number of others before you.

            In LENR, The base elements of the technology are still being discovered & identified. In a science that is supposed to be impossible with very little existing knowledge base available from others & no excepted theory to guide them.

            And lets not forget, as a new technology, there are many unknowns & Rossi going to the UL Certifiers & stating it’s intrinsically safe isn’t going to cut it. They want real operational safety data. Thus we find a pilot plant in an industrial setting where qualified personnel are present during all operations 24/7.

            I’m certain once certified & in the market, we will see incremental improvements on about a 4 year cycle.

          • attaboy

            “How do you compare incremental improvements in an existing science & an existing market to a product that never before existed.”

            I don’t think this applies to any extent here. My work was hardly existing science where much of what we did would be better classed as alchemy and poorly understood.

            While Rossi’s technology is certainly brilliant and of genius status, despite the fact that we don’t know enough to replicate it, it can’t be that difficult.

            I don’t buy your arguments and your motivation is , frankly, suspect.

            We need this technology so badly that it should have been jumped on by any right minded authority, pushed through, and been in commercialization long ago. But in our corporate controlled academic, military, political system, commercialization will be a long time coming.

          • clovis ray

            it can’t be that hard, right, why don’t you whip us up a working reactor or two, while you thinking about it, i surly would like to know how it works, my motivations are the truth, not theory, trust but verify,, here is the truth, IH will announce the e-cat , as soon as their test is complete, then game over.

          • attaboy

            Just looking at the picture of that last Rossi test will tell you it can’t be that difficult. The device couldn’t be much simpler. Sorry if you feel I stepped on your integrity, but its hard for me to imagine a person claiming the experience you have, to feel the pace of progress is acceptable. I’m sure you’re not (or at least hope you’re not) a shill for the powerful corporate blood suckers, but it wouldn’t be hard to believe that based on your statements.

          • bachcole

            Dang! Busted! I am also patient, so I guess I am another shill for the powerful corporate blood suckers. I do so wish that they would pay me for my patience. It just doesn’t seem fair, them sucking all that blood-money and me worried about staying in our budget. (:->)

          • attaboy

            Very cute reply there, backcole. That it is very silly, and lacks substance, speaks volumes.

            Patience eh?? You, clovis et al have got to be among the most patient persons known to man. Lenr from Ni, H via Rossi was first made known around 2007. Then came the first resistance from the establishment when he sought a patent thru the european patent office. Then, leading up to October of 2011 it had been announced that a major commercialization was to occur. This date came and went with nothing happening. I’m sure Rossi is on to something very big (just as M&P were before him.) But similar forces that crushed M&P back in the day, are most certainly at work retarding the introduction of e-cat technology. And the position taken by you and others is very suspicious. In any right minded world we would have been using this technology by a long time ago.

  • Mike Henderson

    False dichotomy.

  • Mike Ivanov

    Извиняюсь, а как насчет закона сохранения энергии? Откуда эта “бесконечная” энергия берется и рисует COP 3 на графике?

    • Евгений Максимов

      Никакого нарушения закона сохранения энергии в данном случае нет.
      Если очень упрощенно и простыми словами:
      1. затраченная энергия только на разрушение химической связи молекулы водорода Н2.
      2. выделившаяся энергия – это та же самая энергия химической связи при слиянии атомов водорода 2Н только с обратным знаком + кинетическая энергия атомов в момент слияния на поверхности металла.
      3. Выделившаяся энергия превышает затраченную.
      4. Дельта энергии ( в данном случае она превышает в разы и десятки раз исходную электрическую) – это работа катализатора. Это никель выполняет “халявную” работу по разложению молекулы водорода на атомы. Как сила тяготения выполняет роль халявной энергии на гидроэлектростанциях создавая поток воды. Ведь тоже своеобразный “вечный” двигатель, но никто не удивляется этому?;)

      Еще к слову.
      Атомно-молекулярное диссоциация/рекомбинация водорода самая энергетически выгодная реакция в природе. По выделившейся энергии в 4 раза превосходит горение водорода в кислороде.
      На заре ракетной техники считалась лучшим топливом, но технические проблемы получения водорода в атомарном состоянии не позволили водороду занять главное место среди топлив.

      • Mike Ivanov

        Я извиняюсь, но это вообще-то бред, насчет “халявной энергии” катализатора :). Даже моих институтских знаний по физике для этого достаточно.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    At least the following benefits: Any kind of replication would increase E-cat’s credibility, and garage replication might break the current logjam of homecat safety certification.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Garage replication will brake nothing. Only realistic path as I see it now is a)make industrial generator, possibly in location with not-too strict regulation. b)start generate cash flow from this c) start licensing for different countries for same generators d) develop, certify and distribute home appliances, via partnership with some large company who have experience in domestic heating devices. No space for community, garage made devices 🙂

    • Omega Z

      There are reports of neutrons among other risks under certain circumstances. If just 1, of these garage replications cause injury, what are the odds of these ever being installed in the home. The fact that such risks can easily be designed out of the product wont matter. It would be game over.

      And note, it wouldn’t have to be Government regulators that stop it, but a public outcry that prevents them from being allowed.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Prohibition (of alcohol) was tried in USA, Finland and other countries, and it didn’t work. I think that if faced with proliferation of homebrewn devices or a strong technical possibility of such scenario, most governments would come to the conclusion that it’s a lesser evil to allow the selling of industrial-made E-cats.

        • Mats002

          Then the system-company would be a suitable name, owned by the government.

          • Omega Z

            For a new technology, this is moving at break neck speed. For us watching, it just doesn’t seem like it.
            It’s like waiting for water to boil. Pun intended.

      • Alain Samoun

        Except that there are many nations who will develop CF whatever some government try to stop it, so your fear has no basis.

  • Omega Z

    There is no doubt that competitors will reverse engineer Rossi’s technology & devise a technique of their own that can be patented & marketed.

    I highly doubt garage mechanics will build their own unless it is just a hobbyist who likes to tinker. There are many things in the market that we can replicate, but don’t. It’s so much easier & cheaper to buy them. Guaranteed, certified & all.

    • clovis ray

      agreed,

  • Mike Ivanov

    Пархомов не упоминал про тестирование изотопного состава вообще, возможно его не делалось или еще не готовы результаты.

  • Alain Samoun

    Is that your blog Ocean?

  • Alain Samoun

    These cats are hot!

  • clovis ray

    Hi, Fisher, AR and industrial heat, are not so worried about our group having an E-CAT, or even our friends or humanitarian gestures toward 3 world country’s
    but the moment you start to market them, then they will want their cut, and that is more than right, mind you this is just my opinion.

  • Webscience

    20 years of hard work compared to billions of years invested by our Universe and our dear Mother Earth to make our human life possible…

  • Mike Ivanov

    То есть катализатор может взять энергию ниоткуда в замкнутой системе? Я правильно понял вашу школьную химию? 🙂

    • Евгений Максимов

      А кто сказал, что система замкнута?:)
      Замкнутая система всегда приходит в равновесие.
      В случае получения аммиака, удаляется продукт реакции, потому нет равновесия.
      В случае с е-катом Росси, отводится энергия в виде тепла.
      Если не отводить тепло и замкнуть систему в абсолютном теплоизоляторе, то и реактор Росси работать перестанет.
      Катализатор просто расплавится и перестанет адсорбировать водород.
      Кстати, критичным параметром температуры внутри реактора и объясняется цикличность его работы.

      По поводу внутренней энергии катализатора. Это просто свойство материи, в данном случае свойство кристаллической решетки никеля.
      Никель, палладий, медь хорошо адсорбируют водород.
      Железо практически никак. Вот так природа распорядилась:)
      А вот откуда эта энергия – физического вакуума, эфира или еще чего-то это неразрешима задача теоретиков.

      Сила тяготения тоже вечна по своей сути.
      Но что является переносчиком этой энергии и чем она обусловлена – пока так и загадка.

      • ecatworld

        This is a reply not only to you, but to anyone else posting not in English.

        As a courtesy to other readers here, if you post in a non-English language, please also include an English translation (computer translation is fine)

        Many thanks.

      • Mike Ivanov

        Ok, no more questions :).

  • Mike Ivanov

    There is a common mistake here: Soviet Union and other countries marked as “communists countries” by mistake, never reach actual communist state as it is defined. They all been “countries of socialism”. Which is actually government based capitalism with safety net for the poor :). Real communism requires extremely high development of industries, probably fully robotized and managed by A.I., then people can just have everything they need for free. Capitalism can reach this state as well 🙂

  • Mike Ivanov

    After Bologna, Lugano, Parkhomov tests, Piantelli patents – I think the chances what Rossi has nothing are quite low…

  • Warthog

    I’m sure he does (as do we all).

    You need to take your gripe up with Arkiv and the folks who refuse to publish the work. In one of the earlier tests, the initial Arkiv submission was corrected to account for “errors” pointed out by critics. YOU are assuming that no such corrections have been submitted to Arkiv. A higher probability is that (as usual) “the fix is in” and Arkiv is simply refusing to publish a corrected version.

    I’ve followed the “criticisms”, and the vast majority of them are simply BS, quibbling about effects that might cause a few percent of error. The classic one is all the hoopla about the IR camera(s) “not being accurate due to emissivity differences”…totally ignoring the stated facts that a calibration tag from the manufacturer of the camera was affixed to one end of the E-Cat alumina shell, AND that the researchers also obtained a sample of the same alumina comprising the shell specifically in order to determine the emissivity. AND ignoring the fact that there was parallel data from thermocouples…a technique that cannot possibly have an “emissivity error”. AND ignoring the fact that even if there were an un-accounted-for “emissivity error”, it would STILL be corrected by the data from the “control run”.

  • LilyLover

    This is again beyond you – Communism is not the only alternative to Capitalism.
    It’s the “well meaning” stupid people that pull down humanity.
    Like they say – wise enemy – stupid friend.

    Just be good and stop communist propaganda…
    Bye.

  • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

    It is impossible to run an independent experiment on a device that is not available. As far as I can tell, there have been no truly independent tests. MFMP has begun to test *a similar configuration,* but could not definitively show no XP, because they don’t have the formula or other possible necessary details. Therefore they cannot disconfirm XP. They can only show failure to replicate. They *can* develop useful information that *might* impeach the Lugano results.

    Parkhomov is another story. Parkhomov presents his work as a Lugano confirmation, but we don’t know how close his formula is to the Lugano fuel. However, Parkhomov appears, on the face, to be replicable. The Parkhomov experiment uses a single measure, and is lacking, as to what has been released, confirmation. The data in the Parkhomov report, analyzed, shows clear signs that there was no XP. However, then, that creates a conflict with the evaporative loss results. There are, again, signs in the data that this is artifact, but in the absence of more information, no definitive conclusion is possible.

    One should be aware in LENR studies of the “file-drawer effect.” It is possible that there have been many attempts to replicate Lugano that have been failed, but they have not been published. Thus what might be an occasional artifact may be seen as “confirmed results.” Pseudoskeptics overstate the file drawer effect, because there are research groups that have published all their work (in a particular investigation), plus there is, with palladium deuteride reactions, a confirmed and correlated nuclear product, helium.

    Nevertheless, the possibility must be kept in mind. Trust and verify.

    The proof of Rossi’s claims will very likely not come from any controlled demonstration, Rossi has made his intention clear. The proof will come from an available commercial product.

    I estimate the value to society of functioning LENR to be on the order of a trillion dollars per year. Therefore delay is costing us that. Therefore we cannot rely upon what we cannot control, at all, the success of a private entrepreneur. If he’s successful, great! Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. The history of LENR is littered with companies that made optimistic announcements of products “available this year or soon.” Often, they simply disappear, sometimes we know what happened. Consider Defkalion. It *looked like* they were ahead of Rossi. They had, in appearance, direct control of the reaction (through spark stimulation). What happened? Their CTO, John Hadjjichristos, left their employ, his Linked-In resume says, in October, 2014. Neither he nor anyone else from Defkalion has explained the situation from their point of view. Was all their XP based on the same artifact? Or was there other evidence? We don’t know. Vanished like a dream, so far, anyway.

    They were not taken down by “pathoskeptics.” They were taken down by their own hubris. There was much debate among LENR scientists about Defkalion. No survey was taken, but many did not trust them, and some did. The same is the case for Rossi.

    When they do not have data, scientists are just as dumb as everyone else. Some however, will recognize that they don’t have data. Some will look carefully at the data that exists. Watch.

    MFMP is serving this effort.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The E-cat is not patented (to my knowledge), if so, then copying it is not illegal in any country

    • Omega Z

      Aside from several patents applied for, Rossi does have an Italian patent that was granted.. I don’t know what it’s standing would be in the international arena, but he has one.