New Photo of Rossi and 1MW Plant

I believe this photograph was grabbed from Mats Lewan’s webinar that he presented today at the Energy 2.0 Society webinar. Someone on the Italian cobraf.com has posted it there. I think I remember seeing it briefly, but didn’t think much of it at the time because some photos of the plant have been released, but on closer examination it’s a picture we haven’t seen before.

Behind Rossi on the left In the distance in the center look like the four large 250 kW reactors that have been powering the plant for most of the test, while the units behind Rossi on the right and left appear to be the smaller backup units that Rossi has mentioned are there standing by in case the main reactors go down.

Rossi has mentioned that there has been a loss of efficiency in the plant lately, and when asked if the smaller reactors could still be used to help power the plant through the test he responded:

Andrea Rossi

Greg Leonard:
Correct: that is another safety boat. In a military term: it is our “reserve” division.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Here’s the photo:

Rossimarch2016

 

  • Jonnyb

    Looks remarkably clean and tidy, if this is what they look like after several months of successful heat output then we are in for a treat. Expecting modifications and dodges everywhere so promising.

  • Jonnyb

    Looks remarkably clean and tidy, if this is what they look like after several months of successful heat output then we are in for a treat. Expecting modifications and dodges everywhere so promising.

  • Jonnyb
    • Andreas Moraitis

      Those who complain about the seemingly ‚slow’ progress of Rossi’s company should internalize the author’s following statement:

      “Scientific breakthroughs and inventions are very exciting, however commercializing inventions and turning them into revenue and eventually profits can take years or even a lifetime to accomplish.”

      MagneGas has (so far) shown how it goes. They are another example of how a country may benefit from the entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants.

  • I’ll bet on that chain is a sign “strictly no admittance”.

    • Omega Z

      I’ll bet on that chain is a sign “Caution- Very Hot”

      • Ivan Idso

        I actually think it illustrates opening the plant for visiters in March.

        • Omega Z

          Actually, I think it’s a good indicator that there are non technical’s that visit on occasion & this is meant to keep them from wandering into the container without escort of an authorized tech.

          It does look as tho a sign may be attached and likely says authorized personnel only…

    • Burlington

      The chain is a metaphor for his passion, persistence, or perhaps obsession with his invention.

  • I’ll bet on that chain is a sign “strictly no admittance”.

    • Omega Z

      I’ll bet on that chain is a sign “Caution- Very Hot”

      • Ivan Idso

        I actually think it illustrates opening the plant for visiters in March.

        • Omega Z

          Actually, I think it’s a good indicator that there are non technical’s that visit on occasion & this is meant to keep them from wandering into the container without escort of an authorized tech.

          It does look as tho a sign may be attached and likely says authorized personnel only…

    • Burlington

      The chain is a metaphor for his passion, persistence, or perhaps obsession with his invention.

  • Is it just me, or is Rossi looking very sick and tired? Emaciated and unhealthy?

    • Omega Z

      Well, He is 65 years old. And people also tend to let themselves get run down when they get engrossed in projects not eating properly of getting enough rest.

    • Anon2012_2014

      That’s just has he looks. He has the physique of a marathon runner as he was … a runner, i.e. skinny. I believe he works out frequently. I think he looks good for a 65 year old who is working near full time.

      • LilyLover

        Make that – double full-time for reference, for the benefit of new readers.

    • LarryJ

      Does anyone know the significance of the future date March 2016?

      • ecatworld

        Mats said today that he thought that would be when we might get the results of the 1 MW plant test.

  • Is it just me, or is Rossi looking very sick and tired? Emaciated and unhealthy? Look at his posture.

    Seems like he’s under heavy psychological pressure. And this since months.

    • Omega Z

      Well, He is 65 years old. And people also tend to let themselves get run down when they get engrossed in projects not eating properly of getting enough rest.

    • Anon2012_2014

      That’s just has he looks. He has the physique of a marathon runner as he was … a runner, i.e. skinny. I believe he works out frequently. I think he looks good for a 65 year old who is working near full time.

      • LilyLover

        Make that – double full-time for reference, for the benefit of new readers.

  • LarryJ

    Does anyone know the significance of the future date March 2016?

    • Frank Acland

      Mats said today that he thought that would be when we might get the results of the 1 MW plant test.

  • Facepalm

    I am pretty sure that you are wrong Frank. I believe that this picture http://andrea-rossi.com/1mw-plant/byg6039e12m52hudu255bzhz9htsx7 shows the 250 kW modules, but it is taken from the other side of the container, in the new picture you can see them in the background.

    • Ecat

      You are correct.

    • Frank Acland

      Yes I think you are right.

      • bachcole

        Well slap my face and call me silly, Facepalm is right. (:->)

    • artefact

      Now for the first time I can see how the reactors in the plant are placed. I always wondered why the 250 KW reactors are not in line with the smaler cats and how all the reactors fit in one container.

  • georgehants

    If Mr. Rossi where really kind, he would time the released test report to coincide exactly with Admins countdown clock on the side of the page.

    • Mats002

      Not only kind, that would actually make him emotionally and honest intellectually in synchronization with a lot of people (thousands, maybe ten thousands) around the globe and that in turn will give him high credability. It would be a politically smart move, I hope IH/Rossi see it too George!

      • LarryJ

        Disbelievers will not believe this report any more than they believed Lugano. Products are the only thing they might believe. I also think it is safe to say that Rossi marches to the beat of a different drummer and being in sync with a lot of people for credibility’s sake is about as far as you can get from who he is. It’s because he is not in sync that we even have the ecat.

    • Omega Z

      It is not up to Darden or Rossi.
      It is the Independent Certification entity that will release the report.
      Likely, they will want several months to analyze the data before issuing an opinion.

      From Rossi’s statements, the referee’s data fits closely to there’s so we should keep a close eye out for any activity taking place after the test concludes. We likely wont hear anything official until the referee speaks, but if Leonardo corp is confident in the results, they will start taking actions before it’s official. They will not want to waste time.

      • LarryJ

        I think it is highly unlikely that the referee would release the report. It is my understanding that their task is to determine if IH met the terms of the contract between the customer and IH. They would also be under NDA and would only release the report if so requested by the contracting parties. That is also an unlikely event since it would serve no useful purpose. Until Leonardo has a product there is nothing to announce.

        I think you are correct about them taking action. A successful test conclusion will mark the start of the production phase.

        • Omega Z

          I think the Referee is also doing a safety analysis among other things. Or in short, the whole ball of wax.

    • LarryJ

      Don’t get your hopes too high for a released report. Why would he do that. He has nothing to prove. The proof will be in the pudding.

      • mike wolf

        Yea, Rossi already set up kicking the can down the road by stating diminishing returns in the ecat devices. Although he did say they resolved that problem, so we’ll see.

        • LarryJ

          He has been very open about the test from day 1. To imply that he is setting the stage for some delay is perhaps a tad unfair. He is simply keeping us informed and so far has always tesolved the issue and then let us know.

  • georgehants

    If Mr. Rossi where really kind, he would time the released test report to coincide exactly with Admin’s countdown clock on the side of the page.

    • Mats002

      Not only kind, that would actually make him emotionally and honest intellectually in synchronization with a lot of people (thousands, maybe ten thousands) around the globe and that in turn will give him high credability. It would be a politically smart move, I hope IH/Rossi see it too George!

      • bachcole

        Sort of like consensus science. We all agree that the washing of hands is useless, so we must be right.

      • LarryJ

        Disbelievers will not believe this report any more than they believed Lugano. Products are the only thing they might believe. I also think it is safe to say that Rossi marches to the beat of a different drummer and being in sync with a lot of people for credibility’s sake is about as far as you can get from who he is. It’s because he is not in sync that we even have the ecat.

    • bachcole

      LOL. Yes, but what would happen if there were two devoted sites with two different countdown clocks? The maryyugo.com site has a clock that never counts down. Rossi should show some compassion to the Mary Yugo crowd and never complete his project.

    • clovis ray

      That would be lying,dishonest, and unscientific,horrible idea, and one i feel Dr.R would have nothing to do with.

    • Omega Z

      It is not up to Darden or Rossi.
      It is the Independent Certification entity that will release the report.
      Likely, they will want several months to analyze the data before issuing an opinion.

      From Rossi’s statements, the referee’s data fits closely to there’s so we should keep a close eye out for any activity taking place after the test concludes. We likely wont hear anything official until the referee speaks, but if Leonardo corp is confident in the results, they will start taking actions before it’s official. They will not want to waste time.

      • LarryJ

        I think it is highly unlikely that the referee would release the report. It is my understanding that their task is to determine if IH met the terms of the contract between the customer and IH. They would also be under NDA and would only release the report if so requested by the contracting parties. That is also an unlikely event since it would serve no useful purpose. Until Leonardo has a product there is nothing to announce.

        I think you are correct about them taking action. A successful test conclusion will mark the start of the production phase.

        • Omega Z

          I think the Referee is also doing a safety analysis among other things. Or in short, the whole ball of wax.

    • LarryJ

      Don’t get your hopes too high for a released report. Why would he do that. He has nothing to prove. The proof will be in the pudding.

      • mike wolf

        Yea, Rossi already set up kicking the can down the road by stating diminishing returns in the ecat devices. Although he did say they resolved that problem, so we’ll see.

        • LarryJ

          He has been very open about the test from day 1. To imply that he is setting the stage for some delay is perhaps a tad unfair. He is simply keeping us informed and so far has always tesolved the issue and then let us know.

  • Gerrit

    [OT] Financial Times: Hope springs eternal for nuclear fusion breakthrough

    while the report deals mainly with hot fusion the comments on cold fusion are remarkably referencing Huw Price’s recent publication:

    “While there is considerable interaction between scientists working on hot fusion, cold fusion research takes place in a world of its own. Many mainstream scientists will not touch LENR which they see as tainted by the cold fusion fiasco of 1989, when Profs Fleischmann and Pons claimed to have achieved fusion on a lab bench — an experiment that others could not reproduce. However, after more than 25 years of experimentation, several research groups have built up evidence that real nuclear reactions lay behind the pair’s results. The problem according to Professor Huw Price, a philosopher of science at Cambridge university, is that cold fusion became a “reputation trap” which most researchers avoid because they know the scientific world will not take their work seriously.”

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fa1aa276-a41e-11e5-873f-68411a84f346.html

  • artefact

    The photo may indicate that Mats allready visited the plant.

  • Let me make clear that I have not visited the plant.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Hi Mats, thanks for being clear on this.

      However, perhaps you ASK Rossi for a visit/tour of the plant before your conference?

      Rossi might bite given your past track record. And the additional notes, quotes and pictures from such a visit would REALLY be a coup for your up-coming conference.

      Anyway, quick question:

      Do you have any more info on the “source” of the quoted 20-80 COP?

      I know that the COP rumor floated around at the last CCF conference, and as a result you were “comfortable” confirming that you also heard the same high COP claim of 20-80. You clearly were upholding the confidence of your source

      Are you able to revel the “source” of this claimed high COP?

      And if you not able to revel the source of the claim, do you think the claim of 20-80 is credible?

      A COP of say 6 might be nice or cool.

      However a COP of 20-80 is AMAZING and a revolution beyond imagination.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Albert, Rossi has been very clear – as a journalist they will not let me visit the plant while the test is ongoing. After that we will see.
        Yes, I trust the sources, though cannot give more information about them. However, I don’t think they were served conclusive proof for the high COP. That said, personally I think that the claim is possible. As Jed Rothwell often states – once you can control the reaction, COP should be irrelevant as it would be infinite, being a highly exothermal nuclear reaction.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Most fair. I thought perhaps that a “crack” or “some” opening in regards to a visit may be possible due to the test being over.

          And the COP – I quite hoping the COP is high!

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Omega Z

            We don’t know the conversion ratio nor has Rossi given exact info. Highly improbable the 20KW will be all electric.

            Presume it’s DC and a converter plus voltage will need conditioning to be usable.

          • jousterusa

            Dr. Rossi looks haggard, sleepless and hungry. I think he has lost a lot of weight I hope he will guard his health, get some rest and try for 8 hours of sleep so that his mind and body are refreshed.

        • Omega Z

          Mats, you post-

          “Rossi has been very clear – as a journalist they will not let me visit the plant while the test is ongoing. After that we will see.”

          Indicates that you have asked. Is that right?

          By the way, I think your a person that should you give your word not to report anything until after the results are given, You would keep your word.

          P.S.
          With said knowledge, I would imagine it would be really be hard to keep quite given some of the people(Skeptics) you have to deal with.

  • Let me make clear that I have not visited the plant.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Hi Mats, thanks for being clear on this.

      However, perhaps you ASK Rossi for a visit/tour of the plant before your conference?

      Rossi might bite given your past track record. And the additional notes, quotes and pictures from such a visit would REALLY be a coup for your up-coming conference.

      Anyway, quick question:

      Do you have any more info on the “source” of the quoted 20-80 COP?

      I know that the COP rumor floated around at the last CCF conference, and as a result you were “comfortable” confirming that you also heard the same high COP claim of 20-80. You clearly were upholding the confidence of your source

      Are you able to revel the “source” of this claimed high COP?

      And if you not able to revel the source of the claim, do you think the claim of 20-80 is credible?

      A COP of say 6 might be nice or cool.

      However a COP of 20-80 is AMAZING and a revolution beyond imagination.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Albert, Rossi has been very clear – as a journalist they will not let me visit the plant while the test is ongoing. After that we will see.
        Yes, I trust the sources, though cannot give more information about them. However, I don’t think they were served conclusive proof for the high COP. That said, personally I think that the claim is possible. As Jed Rothwell often states – once you can control the reaction, COP should be irrelevant as it would be infinite, being a highly exothermal nuclear reaction.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Most fair. I thought perhaps that a “crack” or “some” opening in regards to a visit may be possible due to the test being over.

          And the COP – I quite hoping the COP is high!

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Omega Z

          Mats, you post-

          “Rossi has been very clear – as a journalist they will not let me visit the plant while the test is ongoing. After that we will see.”

          Indicates that you have asked. Is that right?

          By the way, I think your a person that should you give your word not to report anything until after the results are given, You would keep your word.

          P.S.
          With said knowledge, I would imagine it would be really be hard to keep quite given some of the people(Skeptics) you have to deal with.

  • clovis ray

    Hi, Guys,
    Darn, nice looking prototype, get some rest Dr R, your the captain, of this ship, we would be lost without your guidance, as we make our way into safe harbor. smile

  • BorderGuard

    Labeling a photo “March 2016?” in January 2016 makes people think FRAUD. Really stupid.

    • The photo is cut out from the slide here below from the webinar I held last Saturday, organised by the Energy 2.0 Society. I made a parallel between the motorised flight demo by Wilbur Wright in 1908 and a potentially convincing result from the ongoing one-year 1MW test, possibly presented in March 2016. Wright’s flight became the start of a prospering aircraft industry, and a conclusive result of the one-year test could mean the same.

      • Frank Acland

        Regarding the COP — I have no inside information, but I would expect the COP to vary a lot depending on whether the plant is in self sustain mode or not. I AR has said that when in ssm the COP the plant requires between 7 and 8 kW, while producing 1MW — which would give a COP of 125-143, but he has also said the plant is not always in ssm.

        He won’t say how much power the plant consumes when not in COP, nor the length of ssm periods.

        The important number is the overall COP number, taking into account the overall power in/power out for the extent of the test.

        • Yes, but the point is, once you manage to control the reaction well, it should be possible to remain steadily in ssm, and eventually also provide needed input energy from the output. Thus infinite COP. Of course I refer to a maturing technology, after a great deal of R&D.

          • Frank Acland

            Technically, if the high ssm he reports is correct I would think so, yes. But Rossi has said that it will always need an external power source, for safety and regulatory reasons. But he did make an interesting reply to this question recently:

            Sebastian
            January 17th, 2016 at 2:19 PM
            Dear Andrea,

            If there were no regulations issues, do you personally believe that a domestic e-cat could be run off-the-grid in a safe manner?

            Many thanks

            Andrea Rossi
            January 17th, 2016 at 2:20 PM
            Sebastian:
            Yes.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • timycelyn

            I’ve often wondered if a second e-cat could be regarded as an external power source for regulatory purposes. You could then have e-cat twins – or Siamese twins, I suppose – providing feeds to each other. The twins, if viewed as a single unit would then have infinite COP…

          • bachcole

            Unless their duty cycle both at the same time hit the period of time when they needed a boost. Then you would have a very large paper weight. (:->) Instead I suggest that each e-cat have an energy reservoir where it can store energy for the rainy period when it needs a boost.

      • fact police

        I made a parallel between the motorised flight demo by Wilbur Wright in 1908 and a potentially convincing result from the ongoing one-year 1MW test, possibly presented in March 2016.

        While the Wrights’ demo in 1908 did accelerate progress in aviation, it was *not* by that time (if ever) considered an impossible invention by mainstream science. There were some notable and vocal skeptics at the time (like Lord Kelvin), but the flight of birds made it obvious that powered flight was not impossible in principle. Moreover, 2 years earlier, the feat of Santos Dumont in 1906 was considered by many the first powered flight, even though it was far less impressive than the Wrights subsequent demo in 1908, and that it came after the Wrights more secretive and also more impressive flights in 1904 and 1905.

        Nature wrote in 1906 under the headline “The First “Manned” Flying Machine”: “In this his first successful flight with this machine, M Santos Dumont is to be sincerely congratulated….”

        After the Wrights’ 1908 demo, Nature wrote “We had heard reports of the Wright Brothers’ achievements in America in 1904 and 1905, but owing to the inventors’ efforts to avoid publicity, the feat of Santos Dumont on November 12, 1906 […] has been regarded by many people as the first … artificially propelled man-carrying machine…”

        And even before the Wrights’ first flights in 1903 – 5, powered flight was considered my many — and probably most — scientists, as inevitable, and moreover, quite imminent.

        Here’s what Nature published on October 23, 1902, referring to a second edition of Langley’s memoir “Experiments in Aerodynamics”, published by the Smithsonian Institution:

        “…the writer has demonstrated that mechanical flight is possible by actually performing it with steel flying machines nearly a thousand times heavier than air, driven by steam, and employing as a rule curved sustaining surfaces. …they have arisen and descended in safety, their flight being limited to distances of from a half a mile to three-quarters of a mile … (see Nature, vol.liv. p. 80, May 28, 1896). The ‘inchoate art’ of aerodynamics has since made a corresponding progress, and while leaving a great deal to be done, it is believed by the writer that the time is now very near when human beings will be transported at high velocities…”

        They’re quoting Langley of course, but the point is that such views were published and respected in the most prestigious scientific journals. And there are passages in the journals Science and Nature going back much further that indicate the respect with which aviation research was regarded, and that success was not considered impossible, or even implausible.

        I don’t mean to minimize the spectacular contribution that the Wrights made to science and technology, but this parallel is a little strained, because the ecat really *is* considered an impossible invention by most of mainstream science. If indeed Rossi succeeds in proving the ecat claims, he will tower over the Wright brothers in importance.

        The entire human race would be the beneficiaries if that were to happen.

        • GreenWin

          Here are some more facts about Langley as posted previously.

          While the Wright’s were designing their first manned aircraft, Professor
          Samuel Pierpont Langley, astrophysicist, professor U.S. Naval Academy /
          University Pittsburgh, Secretary Smithsonian Institution, Director Allegheny Observatory, President American Assoc. Advancement of Science,etc. – was doing the same.

          But Langley had been given tax payer funding by both the War Department and the Smithsonian Inst. equaling $83.5 million in today’s dollars. The Wright Brothers self-financed their aircraft with profits from their bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. As this link points out, Langley flew his manned “Aerodrome” on December 9, 1903 from a catapult on the Potomac River.

          The aircraft crashed on launch nearly drowning the Professor in the icy Potomac. Eight days later the Wrights flew at Kitty Hawk. Today, the irony is one of LENR’s early proponents Dr. Dennis Bushnell is Chief Scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center – named after Samuel P.

          CORRECTION: The last sentence in this article should read:

          “In spite of 18 years of well-funded and concerted effort by [Prof] Langley
          to achieve immortality, his singular contribution to the invention of the airplane was the pair of 30-mph aerodromes that flew in 1896. He died in 1906 after a series of strokes, a broken and disappointed man.”

          http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Langley/Langley.html

          • fact police

            Indeed… emphasizing that the mainstream did not consider aviation impossible.

          • Like all revolutionary new ideas, the subject has had to pass through three stages, which may be summed up by these reactions: (1) ‘It’s crazy – don’t waste my time.’ (2) ‘It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.’ (3) ‘I always said it was a good idea.’
            Arthur C. Clarke

            That said, obviously it was easier for a general public to imagine powered flight than it is to have ideas about LENR, since people can see birds fly but there’s no place to see something making you think of nuclear reactions at low temperatures with no radiation. And in that way it was probably easier to rewrite history regarding powered flight according to what Kuhn and Taleb have observed, as Alain points out.

          • fact police

            Like all revolutionary new ideas, the subject has had to pass through three stages, which may be summed up by these reactions: (1) ‘It’s crazy – don’t waste my time.’ (2) ‘It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.’ (3) ‘I always said it was a good idea.’

            Arthur C. Clarke

            Bohr’s model of the atom, Schrodinger’s wave equation, HTSC, dark energy, and countless other revolutionary ideas did not pass through those stages. Neither did aviation. At least, not in anything close to a parallel with cold fusion. Aviation was widely considered inevitable and imminent well before it was demonstrated. Cold fusion is still considered by the mainstream to be highly unlikely. The mainstream could be wrong, which is why if Rossi succeeds, it will represent a bigger surprise and revolution than powered flight was.

            That said, obviously it was easier for a general public to imagine powered flight than it is to have ideas about LENR, since people can see birds fly but there’s no place to see something making you think of nuclear reactions at low temperatures with no radiation.

            I was not talking about the general public though. Mainstream science considered aviation inevitable (the airplane was *not* an impossible invention), and mainstream science — which is quite well equipped to think of nuclear reactions — considers the ecat an impossible invention.

            And in that way it was probably easier to rewrite history regarding powered flight according to what Kuhn and Taleb have observed, as Alain points out.

            I quoted passages from Nature published in 1905, and there are many others in Science, Nature, and Scientific American from many years earlier. It’s a matter of record that aviation was considered with respect and entirely possible — even imminent — in the most prominent science journals of the time. This is not a rewriting of history.

          • fact police

            Like all revolutionary new ideas, the subject has had to pass through three stages, which may be summed up by these reactions: (1) ‘It’s crazy – don’t waste my time.’ (2) ‘It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.’ (3) ‘I always said it was a good idea.’

            Arthur C. Clarke

            Regardless of the universality of that statement (and I would argue it is not universal), it certainly does not mean that an idea that encounters the first reaction (“it’s crazy — don’t waste my time”) will necessarily meet the next two reactions.

        • In 1905 SciAm position was nor far from yours on LENR, despite the public show.

          What is amazing, and well explained by thomas Kuhn and nassim Nicholas Taleb (Read AntiFragile “History being written by the losers”) is how the history is rewritten, bent, to hide the initial harsh oppositions by academic, if not to make them creation of the academic system.

          http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html
          “Scientific American
          Vol. XCIV
          No. 2
          January 13, 1905
          Page 40

          [Article verbatim and in full]

          The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance

          A Parisian automobile paper recently published a letter from the Wright brothers to Capt. Ferber of the French army, in which statements are made that certainly need some public substantiation from the Wright brothers. In the letter in question it is alleged that on September 26, the Wright motor-driven aeroplane covered a distance of 17.961 kilometers in 18 minutes and 9 seconds, and that its further progress was stopped by lack of gasoline. On September 29 a distance of 19.57 kilometers was covered in 19 minutes and 55 seconds, the gasoline supply again having been exhausted. On September 30 the machine traveled 16 kilometers in 17 minutes and 15 seconds; this time a hot bearing prevented further remarkable progress. Then came some eye-opening records. Here they are:

          October 3: 24.535 kilometers in 25 minutes and 5 seconds. (Cause of Stoppage, hot bearing.)

          October 4: 33.456 kilometers in 33 minutes and 17 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, hot bearing.)

          October 5: 38.956 kilometers in 33 minutes and 3 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, exhaustion of gasoline supply.)

          It seems that these alleged experiments were made at Dayton, Ohio, a fairly large town, and that the newspapers of the United States, alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice. When it is considered that Langley never even successfully launched his man-carrying machine, that Langley’s experimental model never flew more than a mile, and that Wright’s mysterious aeroplane covered a reputed distance of 38 kilometers at the rate of one kilometer a minute, we have the right to exact further information before we place reliance on these French reports. Unfortunately, the Wright brothers are hardly disposed to publish any substantiation or to make public experiments, for reasons best known to themselves.[emphasis added] If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face–even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so– would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago? Why particularly, as it is further alleged, should the Wrights desire to sell their invention to the French government for a “million” francs. Surely their own is the first to which they would be likely to apply.

          We certainly want more light on the subject.”

          I have the same debate on Quasicrystal inventor… that were quickly accepted…

          after being ashamed, insulted in public, and fired. LOL

          http://www.flogen.org/ShechtmanSymposium/

          http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview
          (funny when you know how rebel was Pauling)

          I have the same debate on HTSC, thate were quickly accepted too after 10 years of footnotes

          http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf

          Same with Barry Marshall…

          Wikipedia is full or rewritten history of that kind, refuted by historical documents which are minimized.

          • fact police

            In 1905 SciAm position was nor far from yours on LENR, despite the public show.

            SciAm was skeptical of the Wrights’ claims in 1905. So were Nature, and most European aviators. But the point is these skeptics were not skeptical of aviation itself. The quotations I provided from Nature show that they considered flight inevitable. SciAm likewise covered the Santos-Dumont achievements in 1906, and wrote respectfully of aviation research much earlier — the citations are easy to find. The airplane was *not* considered an impossible invention by the mainstream consensus in 1905 or 1900 or for a long time before. Cold fusion *is* considered an impossible invention. It’s a false parallel.

            I have the same debate on Quasicrystal inventor… that were quickly accepted…

            after being ashamed, insulted in public, and fired. LOL

            Shechtman met some skepticism, as did Blondlott with N-rays. But Shechtman was published from the beginning in the best physics journals, and he received awards for his work within a few years and eventually the Nobel prize. Because science rewards innovation. N-rays however, represented pathological science. It happens too.

            I have the same debate on HTSC, thate were quickly accepted too after 10 years of footnotes

            You made this mistake before. Your reference is about heavy fermion superconductivity, not high temperature superconductivity. The critical temperature in HFSC is typically below 1 K, and in no case above 2.3 K, so it is not HTSC. There was no suppression of HTSC evidence. It was awarded the Nobel prize in record time, in spite of the absence of a theory.

      • Brokeeper

        (Oh, never mind) 🙂

  • The photo is cut out from the slide here below from the webinar I held last Saturday, organised by the Energy 2.0 Society. I made a parallel between the motorised flight demo by Wilbur Wright in 1908 and a potentially convincing result from the ongoing one-year 1MW test, possibly presented in March 2016. Wright’s flight became the start of a prospering aircraft industry, and a conclusive result of the one-year test could mean the same.

    • ecatworld

      Regarding the COP — I have no inside information, but I would expect the COP to vary a lot depending on whether the plant is in self sustain mode or not. I AR has said that when in ssm the COP the plant requires between 7 and 8 kW, while producing 1MW — which would give a COP of 125-143, but he has also said the plant is not always in ssm.

      He won’t say how much power the plant consumes when not in COP, nor the length of ssm periods.

      The important number is the overall COP number, taking into account the overall power in/power out for the extent of the test.

      • Yes, but the point is, once you manage to control the reaction well, it should be possible to remain steadily in ssm, and eventually also provide needed input energy from the output. Thus infinite COP. Of course I refer to a maturing technology, after a great deal of R&D.

        • ecatworld

          Technically, if the high ssm he reports is correct I would think so, yes. But Rossi has said that it will always need an external power source, for safety and regulatory reasons. But he did make an interesting reply to this question recently:

          Sebastian
          January 17th, 2016 at 2:19 PM
          Dear Andrea,

          If there were no regulations issues, do you personally believe that a domestic e-cat could be run off-the-grid in a safe manner?

          Many thanks

          Andrea Rossi
          January 17th, 2016 at 2:20 PM
          Sebastian:
          Yes.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.

          • timycelyn

            I’ve often wondered if a second e-cat could be regarded as an external power source for regulatory purposes. You could then have e-cat twins – or Siamese twins, I suppose – providing feeds to each other. The twins, if viewed as a single unit would then have infinite COP…

    • Brokeeper

      Mats, had I mentioned my childhood neighbor, Ivonette Wright
      Miller, was the first American child to fly with her uncle Orville over those
      cars? (now where did I leave my teeth?)

  • GreenWin

    Here are some more facts about Langley as posted previously.

    While the Wright’s were designing their first manned aircraft, Professor
    Samuel Pierpont Langley, astrophysicist, professor U.S. Naval Academy /
    University Pittsburgh, Secretary Smithsonian Institution, Director Allegheny Observatory, President American Assoc. Advancement of Science,etc. – was doing the same.

    But Langley had been given tax payer funding by both the War Department and the Smithsonian Inst. equaling $83.5 million in today’s dollars. The Wright Brothers self-financed their aircraft with profits from their bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. As this link points out, Langley flew his manned “Aerodrome” on December 9, 1903 from a catapult on the Potomac River.

    The aircraft crashed on launch nearly drowning the Professor in the icy Potomac. Eight days later the Wrights flew at Kitty Hawk. Today, the irony is one of LENR’s early proponents Dr. Dennis Bushnell is Chief Scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center – named after Samuel P.

    CORRECTION: The last sentence in this article should read:

    “In spite of 18 years of well-funded and concerted effort by [Prof] Langley
    to achieve immortality, his singular contribution to the invention of the airplane was the pair of 30-mph aerodromes that flew in 1896. He died in 1906 after a series of strokes, a broken and disappointed man.”

    http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/i/Langley/Langley.html

    • fact police

      Indeed… emphasizing that the mainstream did not consider aviation impossible.

      • Like all revolutionary new ideas, the subject has had to pass through three stages, which may be summed up by these reactions: (1) ‘It’s crazy – don’t waste my time.’ (2) ‘It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.’ (3) ‘I always said it was a good idea.’
        Arthur C. Clarke

        That said, obviously it was easier for a general public to imagine powered flight than it is to have ideas about LENR, since people can see birds fly but there’s no place to see something making you think of nuclear reactions at low temperatures with no radiation. And in that way it was probably easier to rewrite history regarding powered flight according to what Kuhn and Taleb have observed, as Alain points out.

        • fact police

          Like all revolutionary new ideas, the subject has had to pass through three stages, which may be summed up by these reactions: (1) ‘It’s crazy – don’t waste my time.’ (2) ‘It’s possible, but it’s not worth doing.’ (3) ‘I always said it was a good idea.’

          Arthur C. Clarke

          Regardless of the universality of that statement (and I would argue it is not universal), it certainly does not mean that an idea that encounters the first reaction (“it’s crazy — don’t waste my time”) will necessarily meet the next two reactions.

    • Slad

      Rog me ole beaut’. It seems that some imposter is impersonating you over at Gluckie’s. I personally think this is a terrible turn of events… Choady appears most upset, and seems to be in the midst of some kind of meltdown. I wonder where it will all end?

  • In 1905 SciAm position was nor far from yours on LENR, despite the public show.

    What is amazing, and well explained by thomas Kuhn and nassim Nicholas Taleb (Read AntiFragile “History being written by the losers”) is how the history is rewritten, bent, to hide the initial harsh oppositions by academic, if not to make them creation of the academic system.

    http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html
    “Scientific American
    Vol. XCIV
    No. 2
    January 13, 1905
    Page 40

    [Article verbatim and in full]

    The Wright Aeroplane and its Fabled Performance

    A Parisian automobile paper recently published a letter from the Wright brothers to Capt. Ferber of the French army, in which statements are made that certainly need some public substantiation from the Wright brothers. In the letter in question it is alleged that on September 26, the Wright motor-driven aeroplane covered a distance of 17.961 kilometers in 18 minutes and 9 seconds, and that its further progress was stopped by lack of gasoline. On September 29 a distance of 19.57 kilometers was covered in 19 minutes and 55 seconds, the gasoline supply again having been exhausted. On September 30 the machine traveled 16 kilometers in 17 minutes and 15 seconds; this time a hot bearing prevented further remarkable progress. Then came some eye-opening records. Here they are:

    October 3: 24.535 kilometers in 25 minutes and 5 seconds. (Cause of Stoppage, hot bearing.)

    October 4: 33.456 kilometers in 33 minutes and 17 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, hot bearing.)

    October 5: 38.956 kilometers in 33 minutes and 3 seconds. (Cause of stoppage, exhaustion of gasoline supply.)

    It seems that these alleged experiments were made at Dayton, Ohio, a fairly large town, and that the newspapers of the United States, alert as they are, allowed these sensational performances to escape their notice. When it is considered that Langley never even successfully launched his man-carrying machine, that Langley’s experimental model never flew more than a mile, and that Wright’s mysterious aeroplane covered a reputed distance of 38 kilometers at the rate of one kilometer a minute, we have the right to exact further information before we place reliance on these French reports. Unfortunately, the Wright brothers are hardly disposed to publish any substantiation or to make public experiments, for reasons best known to themselves.[emphasis added] If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face–even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so– would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago? Why particularly, as it is further alleged, should the Wrights desire to sell their invention to the French government for a “million” francs. Surely their own is the first to which they would be likely to apply.

    We certainly want more light on the subject.”

    I have the same debate on Quasicrystal inventor… that were quickly accepted…

    after being ashamed, insulted in public, and fired. LOL

    http://www.flogen.org/ShechtmanSymposium/

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview
    (funny when you know how rebel was Pauling)

    I have the same debate on HTSC, thate were quickly accepted too after 10 years of footnotes

    http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf

    Same with Barry Marshall…

    Wikipedia is full or rewritten history of that kind, refuted by historical documents which are minimized.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Jeffry January 19th, 2016 at 7:19 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    You wrote here that you have pending and in preparation about 200 patents after the US patent that has been allowed to you. How is the situation of these patents?
    Thank you,
    A.R.

    Andrea Rossi January 19th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    Jeffry:
    Yes, we have now 220 patents between pending and in preparation; I am optimistic and think about 140 will be allowed, while 80 will be rejected; nevertheless, we’ll go on with the ones we do not think will be allowed, because in any case they are useful to make experience.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Jeffry January 19th, 2016 at 7:19 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    You wrote here that you have pending and in preparation about 200 patents after the US patent that has been allowed to you. How is the situation of these patents?
    Thank you,
    A.R.

    Andrea Rossi January 19th, 2016 at 10:12 AM
    Jeffry:
    Yes, we have now 220 patents between pending and in preparation; I am optimistic and think about 140 will be allowed, while 80 will be rejected; nevertheless, we’ll go on with the ones we do not think will be allowed, because in any case they are useful to make experience.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

  • Roger Barker

    Guys, I have an audience at moletrap! My beloved, Mary Yugo, has been copying and pasting my posts from e-catworld over there. She’s great isn’t she?! Any ways I am so excited by this pic! Just my thoughts below:

    Is that a cool pic of Rossi or what?! Man, he looks the biz here. So cool, calm and collected. What are
    your thoughts on the control panels on both walls of the container? Why are there two units? I’m a dumb
    ass and don’t know much about this stuff! 🙁 Are there sets of eCats that operate independently? I’m
    hurting to know! This is quite the photo and reveals so much of the genius of Rossi. I am in total awe
    from what I see. To think it’s only a couple of months before the reality of the eCat will be realized! In
    my wildest dreams never did I think such wonders would come our way. It’s not long before we raise our
    fists in the air and proclaim victory!

  • Karl Venter

    I was wondering if the 20kW ecat x would be able to only generate electricity ie all 20kW is electrical . Is it correct to presume its DC or not?

    • Omega Z

      We don’t know the conversion ratio nor has Rossi given exact info. Highly improbable the 20KW will be all electric.

      Presume it’s DC and a converter plus voltage will need conditioning to be usable.

  • jousterusa

    Dr. Rossi looks haggard, sleepless and hungry. I think he has lost a lot of weight I hope he will guard his health, get some rest and try for 8 hours of sleep so that his mind and body are refreshed.

  • PhotoShopper
  • PhotoShopper