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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.)

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 🙂

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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…

  • 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!

  • 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.

  • 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.