Norway’s Aftenposten Newspaper: Independent Confimation Rossi’s 1MW Plant Working (Source with ‘Heavy Scientific Background’ has Inspected Plant)

We have already mentioned here that the Norwegian newspaper Aftenpost has covered in general terms the topic of cold fusion, and has reported that Bo Høistad has said that his team has successfully replicated the E-Cat.

Another article in Aftenposten by Per Kristian Bjørkeng (who wrote the article linked to above) has written a second article which focuses on the 1MW plant that Andrea Rossi has been talking about for many months now.

I the article titled “Power Already Produced from ‘Impossible Source'” Bjørkeng writes (Google translated):

Renowned physicists deny that it is possible. But the inventor Andrea Rossi claims he now produces one million watts using cold fusion for a commercial customer – in an ordinary shipping container. An independent source confirmed to Aftenposten that the power plant already is in operation in a secret US customer . . . This source has heavy scientific background in relevant subjects, has even been present and able to inspect the container. The reason that he does not want to be named, is that it is considered very dangerous for his career to embrace the highly controversial phenomenon of cold fusion.

Many readers here would not be too surprised to hear this news, since many of us trust that Rossi has not been spinning a yarn about his work — but this is something that the world in general really doesn’t know anything about. I think to have Norway’s largest newspaper reporting that it has received independent confirmation a commercial grade cold fusion reactor is at work in an industrial setting is quite an important step.

Bjørkeng seems to understand the implication of this, if it all turns out to be true:

If it turns out that cold fusion works, this could be a possible solution to the climate crisis. With cold fusion it will be possible to drive a car for months without refueling. The only “consumer” is a few grams of nickel and hydrogen, which is converted into other isotopes. This will happen without either harmful waste or radiation.

But despite Bjørkeng is being cautious in concluding that the confirmation he has received means that cold fusion is a reality. He says that Rossi has been saying that he is close to a breakthrough since 2011, but “What is new is that an independent source can confirm that the experiment actually exists and seems to work well. This must not be understood as a final confirmation that LENR can be a functioning energy.”

I think that’s a fair conclusion given the fact that the testing period is not over and results of the test have not been published. But I do think that the signs are good that the plant is performing well, and at some point it will be impossible to deny that the E-Cat works, and a new superior energy source has been discovered and is ready to be put to use in the world.

  • Daniel Maris

    Nice to see the article but doesn’t amount to a hill of beans unless you know who is confirming the plant’s existence and operational capability.

    • Buck

      I think this was the same problem Woodward & Bernstein had when they reported on Deep Throat’s information.

      I believe that is why they mixed it in with other reports, in the same fashion Aftenposten reported the Lugano Team’s successful replications of the E-Cat in conjunction with the report on the Pilot Plant.

      • GreenWin

        It’s a fair guess the “source” for pilot plant confirmation is Bo Hoistad. Or another Lugano author. The idea it does not exist is like saying, “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible.”

        • Fyodor

          Until we get some sort of verification from a named person or entity I’m not going to give it any weight. It also just says that he “inspected it.” He didn’t verify if it was working.

    • ecatworld

      Final proof will come in the form of having a working E-Cat plant verified by third parties, but speaking for myself, I already find the evidence overwhelming in favor of the E-Cat being real. That conviction is based on far more than a wish or a hope. See many reasons here: http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/

      • clovis ray

        well said, chief.

      • Kim

        Energy is the the control point.

        Elites (Media) are not willing to let go of the control at this time.

        Period.

        When or if they do, ALL free energy devices ever conceived of will be released.

        The E-cat will just be one many options among many.

        The real issue is when. ?

        Respect
        Kim

        • LCD

          My only comment at this point is if this is really the next greatest thing like we all expect/hope, it’s taking too damn long. It’s 2015! We’ve been at this since what 2011?

          Come on Rossi, step it up!

  • Uncle Bob

    I don’t think there is much doubt that the plant exists and is ‘working’.
    Many people saw demonstrations of smaller versions and even an earlier 1 megawatt plant.
    The doubt would be as to whether it has a COP greater than 1, and so far that has only been reported as possibly being positive or negative.
    I would be very surprised if a visitor could determine this from a visit regardless of how scientific he was. He could only go on what he was told.

    • Omega Z

      It’s been in operation long enough now that the customer would pull the plug if it weren’t promising as to COP. However, dependability will also be a major factor. Even if you had infinite COP, you can’t sell product if your machinery is down all the time.

      From Rossi’s statements, It sounds as if most of their time is spent just monitoring the pilot plant. They seem to have plenty of time for R&D on the Hot-cat. Rossi also doesn’t know if the fuel charge will last a year. A refill could still be in the cards. He also mentions having long spells where he is studying from books(Some mentioned by name/topic on JONP).

      (Half Way There- No refuel as of yet)

      • Daniel Maris

        Another key factor is how many people you need to monitor it. Modern plants are often eerily absent of humans…if the E Cat has a COP of 3 but requires 5 people (=20 on a shift system) to monitor it at all times at a cost of $2million per annum, then it is a non-starter.

        • ecatworld

          According to Andrea Rossi, you don’t need any dedicated staff to operate the plant. The control system should do that. But you do need someone on the staff certified by Industrial Heat for plant operation.

          • Daniel Maris

            Thanks for the info. I wasn’t aware of that.

        • Omega Z

          Daniel
          As Frank posted below, Rossi says it will be self standing. The facility merely needs 1 person present trained to deal with it. In a 24/7 facility, that would require at least 4 people trained.

          Question:
          How many new employees will the business need to hire? ZERO
          This is what they do. They already have operators & maintenance/technicians on hand.

          When I was young, I worked in a plant that had over 30 Industrial furnaces running 24/7 & only 9 operators on any given shift. Everyone was cross trained on every furnace. There was no training classes. You learned as you went. They had a weekly rotation so everyone did every job over a period of time.

          I estimate they were pumping about 300K cubic foot of gas an hour. The gas lines were about 24 in diameter. With the exception of the atmospheric gas (6)furnaces, they were checked just once per shift. Other then that, each had about 100 different alarm systems to alert you of a problem which rarely were tripped & minor at that.

          Unless of course a storm knocked out the power. Then for about 10 minutes you became the “Flash”. 10 minutes was how long you had to line them out to vent & flared before things became very interesting. It’s that little thing about gas/air ratio goes boom.

          Compared to the above situation, The 1Mw E-cat is extremely safe. Worse case is you burn out a few components & maybe a couple reactors. Call the Maintenance department. They’ll have it up & running in a couple hours.

    • Gerrit

      I think it is safe to conclude that the “results can be positive or negative” refers to the commercial viability of the plant, the uptime/downtime, reliability and cost of ownership of the plant.
      The COP of an e-cat is already established as clearly positive, otherwise IH wouldn’t have started a 400 day trial.

      • Mike Ivanov

        Until the name of customer is public and he is willing to talk, there is no proof of anything so far. Yes, we saw the photos of some boxes, AR other people. And we read AR claims what everything is ok. So what?

        • Gerrit

          Knowing the name of the customer will not convince many skeptics, after all the customer could have made mistakes in their measurements, could have been misled by Rossi, could be in on the scheme, etc, etc.

          Those who have closed their minds to the possibility that this is true, will not change their opinion by knowing who the customer is. They will keep on disbelieving the story, that’s why they are called pathological disbelievers.

          Let’s see what will happen after the 400h test is completed. Hopefully we will we get more _reliable_ info.

        • Observer

          Over 99.9% of what is true has not been proven.

          A skeptic’s personal reality must be a very small place.

    • ecatworld

      This source could easily have talked to the customer or referee about performance.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Well, talking about industrial solutions – COP of 1Mw container plant was in specs with other information. So, if the customer real, he would complain about this. This is a real question, not cop.

      • georgehants

        Are you saying scientific Research is faith?

        • Omega Z

          “Exceptional claims require Exceptional proofs”

          Nonsensical Elitist Bull-feces from those trying to set the bar so high, no one can satisfy it thus protecting their Ivory Towered Domain. Who are these people because they don’t fit the mold of a real Scientist.

          Any intelligent person, Scientist or Not, knows that all is really needed is rational evidence. Nothing more. As to the Onus being on the 1 making the claim, Yes, but once rational evidence is presented, it requires a rational response. We aren’t going to look at the evidence is unscientific. Theories need defended & if they don’t stand up to scrutiny, they rightfully fail.

          That Theory trumps scientific results is trash. Those who subscribe to this are not Scientists & should have a required obligation to resign from scientific study.

          An Experiment that can’t be repeated 100% of the time Fails? Really?
          Reality should be a Theory that can’t stand up to scrutiny 100% of the time fails. There should never be a limit to the number of times a Theory can be questioned. Ever. That is not Science. Science is following the anomalies. That is where you learn.

          If certain entities don’t stop trying to pervert science, Then maybe it’s time to cut off the funding. Those in Science doing their job and doing real science should work to clean up their house. Before the tax payers start voting in those who will end funding.

          • BarneyP

            Well, easy.
            Give the Rossi system, as a sealed black box, to a engineering University different from Uppsala or Bologna, and allow a team of researchers -in which NO ONE from TPR1 and TPR2 is in- to put all the wires/pipes/thermocouples/gamma rays detectors/all the rest they want at the in and outs.

            Do a serious calorimetry, do not only rely on pyrometers or thermocameras.

            Allow researchers to test the system for one month, by continuously monitoring input power and output heat.
            Let Rossi not touch anything for the whole duration of the test (better if he is not entering the test site at all), and maybe ask Mr. Randi to attend the test.

            Let researcher collect IN/OUT data, and draw the conclusions.
            Since the black box has to remain sealed, I’m not even asking isotopic analysis at the end. If the system works, who cares (at least at the beginning)?

            MFMP did the same with their GlowStick experiments, and no excess heat has been confirmed so far.

            You may say they do not have Rossi system (which is true, of course), but this is THE point: no one except for Rossi and the TPR team has measured anything on that system.
            I am not asking Rossi to disclose anything on his Ecat, just to allow others to measure input and output.

            Am I crazy? Am I asking the Moon?

            Do you think a skilled researcher can draw conclusions on HOW the system works without knowing anything of it, by simply measuring temperatures and power?

          • clovis ray

            Hi Barney ,

            Although i’m busy , I will try and answer your points,
            First, off, want to name a engineering University that would take on the project, and who would pay, which would be a considerable sum.

            Want to name a serious calorimetric measuring instrument ,

            mr. Randi, ha, ha, ha, sorry. couldn’t help myself. you have got to be kidding, lol.
            end of debate.

          • GreenWin

            “Barney” believes private sector science must obtain blessings from the priesthood huddled in universities. Ain’t gonna happen Barney. New science and entrepreneurs do not need approval of the ivory tower. So, the tower continues to crumble. Unhappily. 🙁

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Actually, near all science is based on an act of faith. You in 99% of cases are accepting past tense witness and testimony from some book. You were not present during such science experiments and discovery, and thus you are accepting such witness and testimony based on an act of faith on your part!

            I mean we had a 3rd party report in which some people run a hot-cat for one month – but it still going to be a act of faith on your part to accept such testimony. I dare say that near all science works this way. The fact some 1 group of people saw some fish one day, or 10 groups STILL requires you to make an act of faith to accept that testimony.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • psi2u2

            Rossi is going for direct industrialization. Therefore, as apt as your proposed methodology might be under other circumstances, it is irrelevant here, since Rossi is not interested in satisfying the need for third party belief beyond those persons necessary to advance commercialization of a product.

          • Omega Z

            Mr. Randi doesn’t need to attend the test. He has answered the question before it was asked. He has a mind like a steel trap weld shut. It can’t be opened.

            As to others, Those who have a predetermined mindset will find nothing of interest here. Those of an open mind will not be accepted. Skeps will always find a flaw in their methodology.

            MFMP have never done a good test as of yet. They jump before ready. The have a patience issue. I think they are beginning to understand this & will do better in the future. A couple of collaborating groups are nearly there. This doesn’t matter. Again, the skeps will not except anything.

            Providing Robert Duncan a black box would be an excellent choice in my view, but the skeps would also consider him biased.

            Also, such tests cost lots of cash & time that Rossi would be best advised to ignore & continue what he is doing. If his pilot plant proves positive, it will not matter. Besides. If the pilot plant works & dozens end up in industrial use, the skeps will still not except it.

  • Uncle Bob

    I don’t think there is much doubt that the plant exists and is ‘working’.
    Many people saw demonstrations of smaller versions and even an earlier 1 megawatt plant.
    The doubt would be as to whether it has a COP greater than 1, and so far that has only been reported as possibly being positive or negative.
    I would be very surprised if a visitor could determine this from a visit regardless of how scientific he was. He could only go on what he was told.

    • Omega Z

      It’s been in operation long enough now that the customer would pull the plug if it weren’t promising as to COP. However, dependability will also be a major factor. Even if you had infinite COP, you can’t sell product if your machinery is down all the time.

      From Rossi’s statements, It sounds as if most of their time is spent just monitoring the pilot plant. They seem to have plenty of time for R&D on the Hot-cat. Rossi also doesn’t know if the fuel charge will last a year. A refill could still be in the cards. He also mentions having long spells where he is studying from books(Some mentioned by name/topic on JONP).

      (Half Way There- No refuel as of yet)

    • Gerrit

      I think it is safe to conclude that the “results can be positive or negative” refers to the commercial viability of the plant, the uptime/downtime, reliability and cost of ownership of the plant.
      The COP of an e-cat is already established as clearly positive, otherwise IH wouldn’t have started a 400 day trial.

      • Mike Ivanov

        Until the name of customer is public and he is willing to talk, there is no proof of anything so far. Yes, we saw the photos of some boxes, AR other people. And we read AR claims what everything is ok. So what?

        • Gerrit

          Knowing the name of the customer will not convince many skeptics, after all the customer could have made mistakes in their measurements, could have been misled by Rossi, could be in on the scheme, etc, etc.

          Those who have closed their minds to the possibility that this is true, will not change their opinion by knowing who the customer is. They will keep on disbelieving the story, that’s why they are called pathological disbelievers.

          Let’s see what will happen after the 400h test is completed. Hopefully we will we get more _reliable_ info.

        • Observer

          Over 99.9% of what is true has not been proven.

          A skeptic’s personal reality must be a very small place.

    • Frank Acland

      This source could easily have talked to the customer or referee about performance.

    • Mike Ivanov

      Well, talking about industrial solutions – COP of 1Mw container plant was in specs with other information. So, if the customer real, he would complain about this. This is a real question, not cop.

  • Gísli Aðalsteinsson

    The later article in Aftenposten has been changed. In the original version the
    title said that Strøm wich means current is already being produced and now it
    says that energi=energy is being produced. Is it possible that the client is
    using the vapor to produce electricity?

  • Gísli Aðalsteinsson

    The article also states that the Norwegian Military is
    taking this seriously and has already asked for funds to study LENR.

  • BarneyP

    Well, there is also a Nobel Prize Winner who is at the moment studying the differences between normal water and Lourdes water in terms of physics.
    Needless to say this person is the same Nobel Prize who endorsed Rossi Cold Fusion couple of years ago…

    Until a PROOF is given, one can be as open minded as you want, but it’s still a matter of faith, not science.

    • georgehants

      Are you saying scientific Research is faith?

      • BarneyP

        No, I am saying that the whole E-Cat story is a matter of faith.

        – No evidence of a working setup, apart from what Rossi is saying AND the Thirdy Parts Reports -that are no-thirdy parts at all-.
        – No clue on how this system should work. Better: so many diverging and mutually exclusive explanations that the only which remains to be invoked is “magic”.
        – No names for the “secret” customer, no names for the “secret” source of the article linked above, everything is covered by a fog which leaves uncertainties (and of course hopes), and this is going on since 2011.

        Science is something different, as far as I know.

        And to reply also to Gerrit, I AM open minded. Meaning I accept the evidence of a phenomenon, if it is tested in the right way. Or if it has credible basis explaining how it should work.

        As lot of people had already wrote: Exceptional claims require Exceptional proofs. In this case, we only have the claims. And -again- I’m waiting for exceptional proofs since 2011…

        • the first test report is more solid. If you remove the red herring desperate conspiracy theory on electricity that after checking is impossible (because testers checked), the calibration was good and it produced heat.

          failure of TPR2 calorimetry is caused by physicist so the device was supposed to work when given.

          physicist maybe have made an error, at least of letting doubt spread by not calibrating, but they are too varied and numerous to be a conspiracy group.

          TPR2 isotopic analysis is also a huge evidence, especially if you add the rest.

          for the rest it is not evidence, and you are right. claims of client are claim of client. It have more weight if Tom darden, who manage 2bn$ confirm.

          fascinating as people focus on the weakest evidence. We should stop defending weak evidence, and focus on solid one.

          we have huge literature on PdD LENR.
          TPR1 calorimetry and TPR2 isotopic evidence are huge.
          IH public commitment is huge evidence.

          what is evidence is Tom darden announce in a financial journal,
          TPR1, TPR2 isotopic results and Industrial heat giving E-cat to testers.

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Right on AlainCo! Jim

        • georgehants

          Barney, so sad in every way.

        • Omega Z

          “Exceptional claims require Exceptional proofs”

          Nonsensical Elitist Bull-feces from those trying to set the bar so high, no one can satisfy it thus protecting their Ivory Towered Domain. Who are these people because they don’t fit the mold of a real Scientist.

          Any intelligent person, Scientist or Not, knows that all is really needed is rational evidence. Nothing more. As to the Onus being on the 1 making the claim, Yes, but once rational evidence is presented, it requires a rational response. We aren’t going to look at the evidence is unscientific. Theories need defended & if they don’t stand up to scrutiny, they rightfully fail.

          That Theory trumps scientific results is trash. Those who subscribe to this are not Scientists & should have a required obligation to resign from scientific study.

          An Experiment that can’t be repeated 100% of the time Fails? Really?
          Reality should be a Theory that can’t stand up to scrutiny 100% of the time fails. There should never be a limit to the number of times a Theory can be questioned. Ever. That is not Science. Science is following the anomalies. That is where you learn.

          If certain entities don’t stop trying to pervert science, Then maybe it’s time to cut off the funding. Those in Science doing their job and doing real science should work to clean up their house. Before the tax payers start voting in those who will end funding.

          • clovis ray

            well said, Omega man

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Actually, science is not any different. You not done the experiments that that make up the vast body of science we have today.

          And yes – all we have right now are claims.

          I think there are two separate issues. Has the LENR effect been replicated around the world many times? I think a reasonable response to this question is yes. However, as such this issue is different then that of commercial grade power from LENR.

          In the case of Rossi, all we have right now is claims and statements by other parties – again not different then your act of faith used to accept the vast body of science today.

          A few more replications of the hot-cat would MOST certainly help. In other words we want/need MORE witness and testimony by others so your act of faith becomes more solid, but at the end of the day it is STILL an act of faith on your part.

          Rossi does not need or even likely want more replications, and it will be his commercial success that will ultimately “win” the day in convincing people this technology is useful.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Dave

            Albert, I don’t agree. Science isn’t based on faith because every piece of evidence and every test is subject to review and replication. Nobody accepts what’s in some science book on faith.

    • Gerrit

      Without an open mind to search for explanations of new phenomena, you will never ever produce any proof nor scientific advance.

    • Faith is not what should be used when you don’t have stone proof evidence.

      My position is more like a bet, a computation, a probability.
      However what make people think it is faith , is that when information are not total, the prejudice you have modify the evidence you perceive, prevent to make some computations, or promote some others.

      for example skeptic carefully ignore some huge evidence, like peer reviewed papers since decades, lack of any serious critic (in fact they analyse as serious theory papers or unfounded papers using inverted popper), like investment, because they reinterpret all the time as fraud, as delusion, carefully refusing to compute the improbability of their global hypotheiss (the thousands of fraudsters involved, the experts deluded in their domain, denounced by newcomers out of their domains who have only theory and hypothesis).
      on the opposite supporters know LENR is proven, and accept weaker evidences, trusts more investors and entrepreneurs… we know that at the end, LENR will work, but what is uncertain, and skeptic may be right on some point, is that some claim is wrong.

      for example, the critic of Lugano calorimetry is interesting. Andrea Calaon reanalysed like me the claims, and like me he conclude it seems correct except for the detail that calibration was matching Lugano testers hypothesis, not Thomas and MFMP hypothesis… my position is that the report is wrong, and nobody have a convincing result, not even negative.

      for Parkhomov and Songsheng results, they are both victims of measurement failure, by design for Parkhomov, by accident for Songsheng.

      My only evidence today , beside the PdD experimental bibliography, is the behavior of industrial Heat…
      this is where a skeptic will laugh, calling a conspiracy theory with a dozen more deluded and fraudsters… a dozen more among a thousand does not make the theory much less improbable.

      In a way i call also for huge delusion, but it is only delusion of 3-5 people who experimented, dozens of parrots, and billion of victims, under a groupthink supported by big funding.

      I cannot find that motive for people who ruin their career since 25years, or invest their own money, and not the money of taxpayers.

      finally both position seems “incommensurable” in the Kuhnian way, as logic is not the same in both world.

      Inverted or direct popper, groupthink or individual psychiatry, collective analysis of credibility or local analysis.
      Like newton talking to einstein.

      • kdk

        Whatever, man, You’re probably French or something.

    • Frank Acland

      Final proof will come in the form of having a working E-Cat plant verified by third parties, but speaking for myself, I already find the evidence overwhelming in favor of the E-Cat being real. That conviction is based on far more than a wish or a hope. See many reasons here: http://www.e-catworld.com/why-i-believe-in-the-e-cat/

      • clovis ray

        well said, chief.

    • clovis ray

      Barney, I’ll bite, want to name some scientific procedure that would give you proof, that would satisfy your open mind, that a dozen or more top notch professors, have not already preformed on this device.

      • BarneyP

        Well, easy.
        Give the Rossi system, as a sealed black box, to a engineering University different from Uppsala or Bologna, and allow a team of researchers -in which NO ONE from TPR1 and TPR2 is in- to put all the wires/pipes/thermocouples/gamma rays detectors/all the rest they want at the in and outs.

        Do a serious calorimetry, do not only rely on pyrometers or thermocameras.

        Allow researchers to test the system for one month, by continuously monitoring input power and output heat.
        Let Rossi not touch anything for the whole duration of the test (better if he is not entering the test site at all), and maybe ask Mr. Randi to attend the test.

        Let researcher collect IN/OUT data, and draw the conclusions.
        Since the black box has to remain sealed, I’m not even asking isotopic analysis at the end. If the system works, who cares (at least at the beginning)?

        MFMP did the same with their GlowStick experiments, and no excess heat has been confirmed so far.

        You may say they do not have Rossi system (which is true, of course), but this is THE point: no one except for Rossi and the TPR team has measured anything on that system.
        I am not asking Rossi to disclose anything on his Ecat, just to allow others to measure input and output.

        Am I crazy? Am I asking the Moon?

        Do you think a skilled researcher can draw conclusions on HOW the system works without knowing anything of it, by simply measuring temperatures and power?

        • clovis ray

          Hi Barney ,

          Although i’m busy , I will try and answer your points,
          First, off, want to name a engineering University that would take on the project, and who would pay, which would be a considerable sum.

          Want to name a serious calorimetric measuring instrument ,

          mr. Randi, ha, ha, ha, sorry. couldn’t help myself. you have got to be kidding, lol.
          end of debate.

        • GreenWin

          “Barney” believes private sector science must obtain blessings from the priesthood huddled in universities. Ain’t gonna happen Barney. New science and entrepreneurs do not need approval of the ivory tower. So, the tower continues to crumble. Unhappily. 🙁

          • BarneyP

            My last reply, “GreenWin”.
            It’s not me who asks for Universities endorsement, it’s Mr. Rossi. He organised the public show at Bologna University in 2011, with lots of researchers and professors (but no one was allowed to measure anything, Mr. Celani included), he asked for Third Party Reports (look at the authors: all from Bologna and Uppsala Universities. Why, if he do not need the professoral blessing?), he tries to describe the “physics” behind the device as if HE was a Professor. Better: he pretend to be a Professor 🙂
            It’s Mr. Rossi who need science on his side, in the end. Even if I agree with you: he is NOT a scientist, he is an entrepreneur. A good one, in the end.

          • Omega Z

            Rossi isn’t a professor, but he is educated & holds a PhD. His thesis was on some of Einstein works.

            Rossi no longer looks for outside validation from the academics. He has said the market will decide. If it works it will sell & if not it wont. You can’t be anymore definitive then that.

            Certain realms of Science are now off limits. Cold Fusion/LENR, Climate change etc. If there is a consensus, You are not allowed to question the Data. Ever. Your not to receive funding, Your career should be ended(Some have suggested death)& you should not be allowed a platform to express you views. This has been put into words by the Scientific community. Along with the idiocy that Theory trumps experiment.

            This is not Science. This is a travesty waiting to happen. And if someone who has questions can’t receive funding because the so-called science is settled, then there should be no public funding Period. Those who proclaim consensus are done. No more Job.

        • Pavlos Sirinides

          I agree that your protocol is how testing more or less should be done. But Rossi is in an interesting position. The physics world rejects or is unaware of his claims. However, he appears to have a buyer for his technology and doesn’t need recognition and verification. If the E-Cat is genuine, this works in his favor providing time to gain competitive advantage. Proof will ultimately come through commercial success or not. Unfortunately, this makes for a frustrating wait for enthusiasts such as my self. Life is unfair.

        • psi2u2

          Rossi is going for direct industrialization. Therefore, as apt as your proposed methodology might be under other circumstances, it is irrelevant here, since Rossi is not interested in satisfying the need for third party belief beyond those persons necessary to advance commercialization of a product.

          • hhiram

            If Rossi wants market demand, he will need to prove to the open market that the product works. Many potential customers would not even consider purchasing a product that was not verified by the scientific community.

          • psi2u2

            Rossi is proving right now that the product works. When he has the data his customers require, they will buy the product.

        • Omega Z

          Mr. Randi doesn’t need to attend the test. He has answered the question before it was asked. He has a mind like a steel trap weld shut. It can’t be opened.

          As to others, Those who have a predetermined mindset will find nothing of interest here. Those of an open mind will not be accepted. Skeps will always find a flaw in their methodology.

          MFMP have never done a good test as of yet. They jump before ready. The have a patience issue. I think they are beginning to understand this & will do better in the future. A couple of collaborating groups are nearly there. This doesn’t matter. Again, the skeps will not except anything.

          Providing Robert Duncan a black box would be an excellent choice in my view, but the skeps would also consider him biased.

          Also, such tests cost lots of cash & time that Rossi would be best advised to ignore & continue what he is doing. If his pilot plant proves positive, it will not matter. Besides. If the pilot plant works & dozens end up in industrial use, the skeps will still not except it.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Actually, near all science is based on an act of faith. You in 99% of cases are accepting past tense witness and testimony from some book. You were not present during such science experiments and discovery, and thus you are accepting such witness and testimony based on an act of faith on your part!

      I mean we had a 3rd party report in which some people run a hot-cat for one month – but it still going to be a act of faith on your part to accept such testimony. I dare say that near all science works this way. The fact some 1 group of people saw some fish one day, or 10 groups STILL requires you to make an act of faith to accept that testimony.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • fact police

        It is true that faith and trust are integral to the progress of science. But when a report provides enough information for others to replicate, then, in principle, others can test the claims, and do not have to rely on trust. The Lugano report does not fully disclose the methods, and so, in that case, even in principle, trust is required.

        The reported imitations of Lugano by Parkhomov and the Chinese are more fully disclosed, but as yet, remain equivocal for various reasons such as photoshopped data and uncertainty about faulty thermocouples.

        The predicted rapid and widespread replication of Parkhomov has not happened.

        And neither Lugano, nor any of its imitations has cleared the rather modest hurdle of peer review in a bona fide journal.

  • Gerrit

    Without an open mind to search for explanations of new phenomena, you will never ever produce any proof nor scientific advance.

  • Fyodor

    Until we get some sort of verification from a named person or entity I’m not going to give it any weight. It also just says that he “inspected it.” He didn’t verify if it was working.

  • Faith is not what should be used when you don’t have stone proof evidence.

    My position is more like a bet, a computation, a probability.
    However what make people think it is faith , is that when information are not total, the prejudice you have modify the evidence you perceive, prevent to make some computations, or promote some others.

    for example skeptic carefully ignore some huge evidence, like peer reviewed papers since decades, lack of any serious critic (in fact they analyse as serious theory papers or unfounded papers using inverted popper), like investment, because they reinterpret all the time as fraud, as delusion, carefully refusing to compute the improbability of their global hypotheiss (the thousands of fraudsters involved, the experts deluded in their domain, denounced by newcomers out of their domains who have only theory and hypothesis).
    on the opposite supporters know LENR is proven, and accept weaker evidences, trusts more investors and entrepreneurs… we know that at the end, LENR will work, but what is uncertain, and skeptic may be right on some point, is that some claim is wrong.

    for example, the critic of Lugano calorimetry is interesting. Andrea Calaon reanalysed like me the claims, and like me he conclude it seems correct except for the detail that calibration was matching Lugano testers hypothesis, not Thomas and MFMP hypothesis… my position is that the report is wrong, and nobody have a convincing result, not even negative.

    for Parkhomov and Songsheng results, they are both victims of measurement failure, by design for Parkhomov, by accident for Songsheng.

    My only evidence today , beside the PdD experimental bibliography, is the behavior of industrial Heat…
    this is where a skeptic will laugh, calling a conspiracy theory with a dozen more deluded and fraudsters… a dozen more among a thousand does not make the theory much less improbable.

    In a way i call also for huge delusion, but it is only delusion of 3-5 people who experimented, dozens of parrots, and billion of victims, under a groupthink supported by big funding.

    I cannot find that motive for people who ruin their career since 25years, or invest their own money, and not the money of taxpayers.

    finally both position seems “incommensurable” in the Kuhnian way, as logic is not the same in both world.

    Inverted or direct popper, groupthink or individual psychiatry, collective analysis of credibility or local analysis.
    Like newton talking to einstein.

    • kdk

      Whatever, man, You’re probably French or something.

  • the first test report is more solid. If you remove the red herring desperate conspiracy theory on electricity that after checking is impossible (because testers checked), the calibration was good and it produced heat.

    failure of TPR2 calorimetry is caused by physicist so the device was supposed to work when given.

    physicist maybe have made an error, at least of letting doubt spread by not calibrating, but they are too varied and numerous to be a conspiracy group.

    TPR2 isotopic analysis is also a huge evidence, especially if you add the rest.

    for the rest it is not evidence, and you are right. claims of client are claim of client. It have more weight if Tom darden, who manage 2bn$ confirm.

    fascinating as people focus on the weakest evidence. We should stop defending weak evidence, and focus on solid one.

    we have huge literature on PdD LENR.
    TPR1 calorimetry and TPR2 isotopic evidence are huge.
    IH public commitment is huge evidence.

    what is evidence is Tom darden announce in a financial journal,
    TPR1, TPR2 isotopic results and Industrial heat giving E-cat to testers.

  • georgehants

    Barney, so sad in every way.

  • clovis ray

    Hi, guys.

    I love the last two lines, of your post, Frank, ( a new superior energy source has been discovered and is ready to be put to use in the world). I am amused by the critic’s , they just can’t comprehend
    that I/H or Rossi could give a shi_, if they believe it or not, they could care less, They have always been polite, about it, but critic’s just don’t get it,

  • f sedei

    This whole situation is a professional gambler’s dream come true. I wonder how many of the naysayers would accept an even bet that Rossi does have a working LENR factory. Step right up, gents!

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, Ross’s past does not help, but in a STRANGE way his past actually has given him much freedom and time since so few believe him!

      There are a number of “good” oil and energy sites that flat outright state that Rossi is a fraud.

      So more time is required. However, having followed this story close for 5 years, I can say we are closer then ever for this story to break out into the mainstream.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Kim

    Energy is the the control point.

    Elites (Media) are not willing to let go of the control at this time.

    Period.

    When or if they do, ALL free energy devices ever conceived of will be released.

    The E-cat will just be one many options among many.

    The real issue is when. ?

    Respect
    Kim

    • Andy Kumar

      Kim, with the internet empowering the masses, elites can not keep us under their thumb forever. A simple work around is:
      .
      Rossi emails encrypted instructions for the design of e-cat to two of his friends.
      The recipients email to two of their friends.
      In about 33 steps the whole world will know the empowering secret.
      .
      Because the communications are encrypted, the elites and NSA won’t know what hit them until it is too late. Good encryption software is a Google search away.
      .
      The catch-22 is if Rossi is willing to get the ball rolling or if the elites have already recruited him!

      • clovis ray

        Andy, you can forget, Dr. Rossi or I/H just giving their secret away . they have to much money,and work involved just to give it away, you have been told this how many times now, you still don’t get it.

        • Andy Kumar

          Clovis,
          All I was saying is that elites are NOT stopping Rossi. With Cherokee $B behind him, Rossi is part of the elites!

    • clovis ray

      Hi, Kim.
      You said,When or if they do, ALL free energy devices ever conceived of will be released.
      want to name some other free energy devices that work. or ever have in history. we know Dr. Rossi has one, but no one else that I know of has one., lots of people have said they have free energy devices , but they just can’t demo them for proof, I can say I have one as well, I just can’t prove it.

    • BillH

      I dislike the term “Free Energy”, it’s not free and never will be free. It requires plant and it requires fuel, and it require maintenance. Free Energy is a discredited term associated with perpetual motion machines and pseudo-science.

      • Stefenski

        We should call it ‘Available Energy’ instead.. 😉

        Myself, I really dislike the term ‘pseudo-science’
        IMO There is no such thing as pseudo-science.
        There are plenty of pseudo scientists though.. ( they are the ones who use the term ‘pseudo-science’) & will not even look at Rossi’s work.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Well, Ross’s past does not help, but in a STRANGE way his past actually has given him much freedom and time since so few believe him!

    There are a number of “good” oil and energy sites that flat outright state that Rossi is a fraud.

    So more time is required. However, having followed this story close for 5 years, I can say we are closer then ever for this story to break out into the mainstream.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually, science is not any different. You not done the experiments that that make up the vast body of science we have today.

    And yes – all we have right now are claims.

    I think there are two separate issues. Has the LENR effect been replicated around the world many times? I think a reasonable response to this question is yes. However, as such this issue is different then that of commercial grade power from LENR.

    In the case of Rossi, all we have right now is claims and statements by other parties – again not different then your act of faith used to accept the vast body of science today.

    A few more replications of the hot-cat would MOST certainly help. In other words we want/need MORE witness and testimony by others so your act of faith becomes more solid, but at the end of the day it is STILL an act of faith on your part.

    Rossi does not need or even likely want more replications, and it will be his commercial success that will ultimately “win” the day in convincing people this technology is useful.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Masterlock2020

    I’d really like for Rossi’s technology to be true. But as it stands now, what we get is more of the same–anonymous “customers,” reports of tests, etc. The day a REAL, credible, verifiable customer actually comes out and admits to using this technology, the day this technology is for sale in Home Depot, that is the day I will believe it’s for real.

    • clovis ray

      Hi, masterlock.
      WHO IS IT YOU THINK CARES WHAT YOU THINK.
      of course we do, but not H/I.

  • psi2u2

    Fabulous news.

  • Andy Kumar

    Clovis,
    All I was saying is that elites are NOT stopping Rossi. With Cherokee $B behind him, Rossi is part of the elites!

  • Robyn Wyrick

    So I found this article on Science Daily and thought you might find it interesting, I certainly did.

    Single-catalyst water splitter produces clean-burning hydrogen 24/7
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150623113836.htm

    The takeaway for me is how many of the same materials and functions sound like LENR research. I am no chemist, but this just seems like an interesting parallel.

    ‘Our water splitter is unique, because we only use one catalyst,
    nickel-iron oxide, for both electrodes,’ said graduate student Haotian
    Wang, lead author of the study. ‘This bifunctional catalyst can split
    water continuously for more than a week with a steady input of just 1.5
    volts of electricity. That’s an unprecedented water-splitting efficiency
    of 82 percent at room temperature.’

    In conventional water splitters, the hydrogen and oxygen catalysts
    often require different electrolytes with different pH — one acidic,
    one alkaline — to remain stable and active. ‘For practical water
    splitting, an expensive barrier is needed to separate the two
    electrolytes, adding to the cost of the device,’ Wang said. ‘But our
    single-catalyst water splitter operates efficiently in one electrolyte
    with a uniform pH.’

    Wang and his colleagues discovered that nickel-iron oxide, which is
    cheap and easy to produce, is actually more stable than some commercial
    catalysts made of precious metals.

    ‘We built a conventional water splitter with two benchmark catalysts,
    one platinum and one iridium,’ Wang said. ‘At first the device only
    needed 1.56 volts of electricity to split water, but within 30 hours we
    had to increase the voltage nearly 40 percent. That’s a significant loss
    of efficiency.’

    Marriage of batteries and catalysis

    To find catalytic material suitable for both electrodes, the Stanford
    team borrowed a technique used in battery research called
    lithium-induced electrochemical tuning. The idea is to use lithium ions
    to chemically break the metal oxide catalyst into smaller and smaller
    pieces.

    ‘Breaking down metal oxide into tiny particles increases its surface
    area and exposes lots of ultra-small, interconnected grain boundaries
    that become active sites for the water-splitting catalytic reaction,’
    Cui said. ‘This process creates tiny particles that are strongly
    connected, so the catalyst has very good electrical conductivity and
    stability.’

  • Robyn Wyrick

    So I found this article on Science Daily and thought you might find it interesting, I certainly did.

    Single-catalyst water splitter produces clean-burning hydrogen 24/7
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150623113836.htm

    The takeaway for me is how many of the same materials and functions sound like LENR research. I am no chemist, but this just seems like an interesting parallel.

    ‘Our water splitter is unique, because we only use one catalyst,
    nickel-iron oxide, for both electrodes,’ said graduate student Haotian
    Wang, lead author of the study. ‘This bifunctional catalyst can split
    water continuously for more than a week with a steady input of just 1.5
    volts of electricity. That’s an unprecedented water-splitting efficiency
    of 82 percent at room temperature.’

    In conventional water splitters, the hydrogen and oxygen catalysts
    often require different electrolytes with different pH — one acidic,
    one alkaline — to remain stable and active. ‘For practical water
    splitting, an expensive barrier is needed to separate the two
    electrolytes, adding to the cost of the device,’ Wang said. ‘But our
    single-catalyst water splitter operates efficiently in one electrolyte
    with a uniform pH.’

    Wang and his colleagues discovered that nickel-iron oxide, which is
    cheap and easy to produce, is actually more stable than some commercial
    catalysts made of precious metals.

    ‘We built a conventional water splitter with two benchmark catalysts,
    one platinum and one iridium,’ Wang said. ‘At first the device only
    needed 1.56 volts of electricity to split water, but within 30 hours we
    had to increase the voltage nearly 40 percent. That’s a significant loss
    of efficiency.’

    Marriage of batteries and catalysis

    To find catalytic material suitable for both electrodes, the Stanford
    team borrowed a technique used in battery research called
    lithium-induced electrochemical tuning. The idea is to use lithium ions
    to chemically break the metal oxide catalyst into smaller and smaller
    pieces.

    ‘Breaking down metal oxide into tiny particles increases its surface
    area and exposes lots of ultra-small, interconnected grain boundaries
    that become active sites for the water-splitting catalytic reaction,’
    Cui said. ‘This process creates tiny particles that are strongly
    connected, so the catalyst has very good electrical conductivity and
    stability.’

    • hhiram

      Hydrogen is problematic as an energy carrier on many levels. It’s obviously not a *source* of energy, so even in this new technology it is only 82% efficient at storing energy from some other source like solar. Hydrogen is very difficult to store – it easily leaks (only protons), and requires high pressure and/or low temperatures. It is also “corrosive” in a way because it causes metal embrittlement. Together, that means it requires extremely expensive plumbing and other equipment to store, transfer, etc. And finally, we have no hydrogen infrastructure. To run vehicles would require millions of hydrogen stations – all needing very expensive equipment – at a cost of at least several trillion dollars for the United States alone.

      If you want to use a chemical substance as a storage medium, it makes far more practical sense to manufacture methane than hydrogen. Methane has FAR better properties for storage and transmission, we already have proven CNG engine technology, and we have a massive methane (natural gas) pipeline infrastructure already in place. And if necessary, you can use methane in fuel cells to generate electricity.

      Hydrogen really does not have any advantages over other conventional options.

  • Omega Z

    Rossi isn’t a professor, but he is educated & holds a PhD. His thesis was on some of Einstein works.

    Rossi no longer looks for outside validation from the academics. He has said the market will decide. If it works it will sell & if not it wont. You can’t be anymore definitive then that.

    Certain realms of Science are now off limits. Cold Fusion/LENR, Climate change etc. If there is a consensus, You are not allowed to question the Data. Ever. Your not to receive funding, Your career should be ended(Some have suggested death)& you should not be allowed a platform to express you views. This has been put into words by the Scientific community. Along with the idiocy that Theory trumps experiment.

    This is not Science. This is a travesty waiting to happen. And if someone who has questions can’t receive funding because the so-called science is settled, then there should be no public funding Period. Those who proclaim consensus are done. No more Job.

  • LCD

    My only comment at this point is if this is really the next greatest thing like we all expect/hope, it’s taking too damn long. It’s 2015! We’ve been at this since what 2011?

    Come on Rossi, step it up!

    • Butter

      Agreed, It seems the breakthrough is always just one year away.
      I am beginning to have my doubts concerning Rossi, maybe he is a scammer after all.
      I sure hope he is the real deal, but If this thing does not go public very soon, it may disappear, real or fraud, because something is fishy and more people smell it.

  • psi2u2

    Rossi is proving right now that the product works. When he has the data his customers require, they will buy the product.