Rossi: E-Cat Test for 'Very Important' New Customer in June (Update: New Details of Test Provided)

Andrea Rossi has posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics recently about an upcoming test that is scheduled to take place in June with someone he refers to as a ‘very important’ customer. Here are his posts on the topic and some follow up questions that I have posted on the JONP.

UPDATE#1 (April 28th, 2016)

There have been some more details provided by Andrea Rossi about the test and the customer (not named) in response to some questions. Gerard McEk posted these questions which I have attached Rossi’s responses to:

Andrea Rossi
April 23, 2016 at 7:02 AM
I am working with the “QuarkX” right now.
The preliminar R&D will be comleted by June, if she geos on as she did so far. I am positive about what I saw until now. We are designing a very small module to obtain any power just assembling and the design is robot-oriented.
In June there will be an extremely important meeting with due persons with a closed doors official test. The certification process has already been agreed upon and this time I think the certification, also thanks to the data obtained from the 1 year test, will be not as difficult as in the past. I hope.
The sun is rising.
Warm Regards,

FA: You wrote: “In June there will be an extremely important meeting with due persons with a closed doors official test.”
1. Is this going to be an extended test over days?
2. Will it be in connection with a) product sales, or b) certification?

Andrea Rossi
April 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM
Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- both (F8)
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
April 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM
Very well, very well.
In June we will have a very important test with a very important Customer. We are increasing the worktime to be ready for that with a mature QuarkX.
Warm Regards,

FA: You mention you have a test with a ‘very important customer’ in June. Is this the same, or different, customer that has already ordered the three E-Cat plants you have already announced?

Andrea Rossi
April 27, 2016 at 11:07 AM
Frank Acland:
Is a new one.
Warm Regards,

So despite the legal proceedings it sounds like Andrea Rossi is moving ahead with his plans for commercialization. My guess is that these new tests and customers will be in Europe since the license for the US is under dispute in the court case.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    If this is the ‚electric’ Quark, it should not be too difficult to evaluate the COP by using true RMS meters and monitoring possible HF (just in case).

    • Gerard McEk

      It would indeed be very interesting to know if also the electrical power generation and light (and thrust?) will be part of the test.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Maybe somebody wants to ask him. If he could show an electric COP > 1, heat and light would be beside the point, I think.

        • TVulgaris

          Unless this upcoming “certification” run actually IS for safety certification, a la UL- if he can tune to all-electric and light output, with no detectable external radiation, there are existing standards to test to, and this could actually result in an easily-distributed product (from a standpoint of legality and liability) in the market.
          Nearly no-one, however, has commented on how long certification agencies typically take to issue certification. Last thing I knew, it was months, not weeks or days.

      • Mike Henderson

        I can imagine it now. Andrea, Frank, JT, Mats and Tom are on a Webex conference call. Rossi is sharing his screen as he one-finger types out JONP comments in fractured English. “THRUST! Yeah, baby. Tell ’em it generates thrust!” and everybody convulses in fits of laughter.

  • Rip Kirbyian

    another secret customer I guess? Who is working on it except Andrea? Fulvio does not work there anymore it seems. Rossi universe.

  • Private Citizen

    Can someone ask Eng. Rossi, without being wished away into the cornfield, if the QuarkX can be demoed in self-looped configuration?

    Not talking about some runaway loop or SSM, but a loop thru an external control circuit.

    • Gerard McEk

      AR has said more than once that he does not want to do that because of safety issues. This means in my view that he needs power to switch it off. Untill now he has dismissed using batteries for that purpose. I am sure it can be done in that way (using a batteries), but maybe AR believes batteries are unreliable. Modern batteries (NiMH Eneloop or Li-ion should be suitable though).

  • Mike Henderson

    “In June there will be an extremely important meeting with due persons…”
    The italian word for two is “due”.

  • Snobben

    All this meetings, talk and then…nothing, Zzzzzzzzx

  • Gerrit

    is the new customer perhaps Rossi’s uncle Roger ? – Jokes aside, we’ll never know anything about the “new customer”. I fear that by next year Rossi will have had several “new customers” who all bought ecat-xyz from his robotized plants, but we’ll still have no tangible information. The joke’s on us.

    I am getting a bit fed up, I fear it is starting to show.

    • NT

      Yep, it is getting tougher straddling a fence for over five years, especially one that seems to be falling apart. Hoping I fall on the right side…

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      Well. I have to say that you are forgetting some important info.

      He brought us IH wich was not a secret investor and they set up a plant.

      It is a new technology so it is understandable that it has a slow development.

      The customer wanting to be secret is usual in this kind of scenario. But we got a working reactor. The report shows COP 50. It may be flawed but we have it.

      If you hear of another customer even knowing the name and another secret ones you would remain in the skeptic side anyways. There is no enough proof for you until you have an E-Cat in front of you and even so you would doubt about it anyway.

  • Argon

    Sorry I don’t want to sound blunt, but I think we should not support the story to jump to next subject. Fact is that he has promised many things during the years and now made major action by sending his case to court.

    In my opinion, it is now time stop right here and see first how court case evolves. We should ask, or simply wait, him first to walk E-cat to stage and put it under rigorous test, before jumping to wait again next glorious invention.

    Of course Frank does what he sees best, but personally I have zero interest fanboying any Qark-X before I see proper evidence that even some version of E-Cat produces extra heat.

    • roseland67

      It will be settled it if court,
      This will not come to trial

    • Mike Henderson

      Try to keep up. This is perhaps the most fascinating game of Three Card Monte ever seen!

      The game ends when the cards stop shifting and the money disappears. There is still way, way too much money on the little table for any of this to end.

      Watch the movie “The Sting” or “Oceans Eleven” (the George Clooney remake) then try to figure out who is really mad at whom, where the truth lies, are the cops really cops, and what is science and what is sleight of hand? The only thing that is certain is that there are trillions of dollars at risk, so tens of millions of dollars are small potatoes in this casino.

      Pass the popcorn.

      • Argon

        Hey, I have enjoyed every year I’ve been hanging here (since Rossis first demo 2011). I think even we would ‘stop and wait here’, we have enough material not just new ‘Oceans twelve’, but full series of ‘Dallas’ with Jr and everything.

        But seriously I’m bit worried do we do more damage to whole LENR case by supporting some next Quark-X stories, before we see previous ones. That risk could be avoided by waiting here without doing too much harm even some Qark-X would be real.

  • LuFong

    Rossi’s statements are beginning to outrun his credibility. I mean not too long ago by June we were set up for a demo and a big announcement, presumably about the new factory. Now we are back to mysterious customers and mysterious new version of the E-Cat. And this is all after promised visits to current 1MW plant, release of the ERV report, and a harmonious relationship with IH. Definitely a step back worth noting.

    • Ged

      To be fair, I think this is how most of us felt back in 2012 after the first 1 MW plant demos when suddenly there was a secret customer this and secret test that and promises of reports and test results.

      And then it turned out the secret customer was IH, and all that was true (and we did get to see some reports). But the original 1 MW plant kinda fell off the earth after it got shipped, and none of those open visits from our point of view occurred; though they did happen for the investors, just not us the Joe public.

      Just a bit of deja vu in that regard, but at least it was all true then, so perhaps the same again.

      • LuFong

        Ged, I don’t doubt that there is a new test coming, a new potential suitor/customer, and a new version of the E-Cat. And yes it’s very much like deja-vu. But we are now getting clarity on the first version and it’s not reflecting well on Rossi. I’ve always said that Rossi has something–the question is what exactly.

        I am now actually waiting on the IH Answer (reply to the civil suit) where we get to hear a good part of their side of the story. Perhaps, if it goes that far, this will hit around June as well although this could be delayed as well. Based on statements on Mats’s Blog I think we have a very good idea about what it will say, but I want to hear some more details about the 1MW test.

        I’m still fascinated by this story both from Rossi’s perspective and with the bigger LENR picture. I’ve given Rossi the benefit of the doubt but after 5 years of this and now the current revelations, I’m not so sure. Go MFMP!

        • psi2u2

          LENR G and Lufong,

          Very good comments. Despite the deja vu and the delays etc. I am still waiting to see what Rossi can do in the next 2-3 months. If we don’t get some really serious confirmation of a valid product from reputable third parties during that time frame then I will be through, or nearly through, with hoping that Rossi has a commerce-ready tech. For now I wait.

          • LuFong

            I still find the story very interesting. And there is also all the other
            LENR related activity, which to no small extent Rossi has helped bring
            to the forefront. But I agree with you regarding Rossi. 5 years is a
            long time!

          • psi2u2

            Agreed. Suppose we assume, for example, that Rossi does not have a tech that can be commercialized. He is, under this theory, an incorrigible exaggerator who fools himself and those around him. Maybe he has (sometimes) Cop 2 but not really beyond that — some form of LENR, but not LENR +.

            To me this seems more plausible than that he is consciously a scammer. Under this condition, we will find that he is unable to bring anything to market, or find any truly independent confirmation of what he says, despite his frequent claims of “in mercato veritas” (“in the market, truth”). He gradually fades from the scene and maybe there are multiple lawsuits in the denouement.

            Under these conditions, would we say that Rossi has harmed or aided LENR research? I think it could be argued either way. He has attracted immense interest to the field. I don’t get the feeling this is going to die away even if Rossi is completely discredited.

          • LuFong

            Good perspective. And all businessman exaggerate their products but is this a case of vaporware? Rossi with his claims has caused the tide to raise all boats. But now the tide is ebbing and the reverse will happen.

            Have we passed a tipping point? Is the potential for LENR realizable? We don’t know. My estimation of IH has not suffered in all of this–in fact it’s gone up (given what I’ve heard). While I will never write Rossi off completely (there are possible scenarios here that could vindicate him) my level of doubt will be so great I will no longer extend him the benefit of the doubt. Soon, one way or another, I hope.

          • TVulgaris

            ” But I agree with you regarding Rossi. 5 years is a long time!”- Can you say what standards you are basing this comment on?
            The last project in new technology I worked on (and I would have operated as an inventor, in this case) was my senior engineering project 30 years ago. After spending over 2000 hours in library research (that was over the course of 2 years), I spent several hundred hours in the lab (that got me in trouble on budgeting and resource allocation, but I really did manage to keep my materials budget minimal) to derive suggestive but inconclusive data. I can well imagine my not-terribly-important (in the theory and technical sense) project would have taken another 10 man-years to actually see through to product, and I couldn’t follow through (they just about had to stuff that degree in my robe and push me out the door to get rid of me).
            Now, I know what is possible by throwing enough money and manpower at a problem- but time sometimes winds up being the most important resource…and MFMP is doing REPLICATION work, not fundamental research (which is not to say I’m not totally in awe of those guys’ efforts and accomplishments), how much time and money have they thrown into this to get to the current (tentatively very promising) stage of their work? (Maybe you MFMP guys can give us a ballpark? I know you’ve posted your accounting of the crowdfunding, what about everything else?- why I ask for ballpark, nothing that would take more than a few minutes of your much more valuable time…)

          • LuFong

            I’m talking about Rossi statements then versus now. 5 years ago Rossi pronounced that the E-Cat is for sale. Have you seen one? Can you give me the name of a customer who has bought one? Only IH so far has had experience with E-Cats and they are saying it doesn’t work.

            I myself have predicted that it will take 5-10 years (from a year or two ago) before the E-Cat is commercially ready, when anybody can just buy one.

            The issue is what Ross says versus what Rossi has done.

          • TVulgaris

            ” But I agree with you regarding Rossi. 5 years is a long time!”- Can you say what standards you are basing this comment on?
            The last project in new technology I worked on (and I would have operated as an inventor, in this case) was my senior engineering project 30 years ago. After spending over 2000 hours in library research (that was over the course of 2 years), I spent several hundred hours in the lab (that got me in trouble on budgeting and resource allocation, but I really did manage to keep my materials budget minimal) to derive suggestive but inconclusive data. I can well imagine my not-terribly-important (in the theory and technical sense) project would have taken another 10 man-years to actually see through to product, and I couldn’t follow through (they just about had to stuff that degree in my robe and push me out the door to get rid of me).
            Now, I know what is possible by throwing enough money and manpower at a problem- but time sometimes winds up being the most important resource…and MFMP is doing REPLICATION work, not fundamental research (which is not to say I’m not totally in awe of those guys’ efforts and accomplishments), how much time and money have they thrown into this to get to the current (tentatively very promising) stage of their work? (Maybe you MFMP guys can give us a ballpark? I know you’ve posted your accounting of the crowdfunding, what about everything else?- why I ask for ballpark, nothing that would take more than a few minutes of your much more valuable time…)

      • History suggests that Rossi tells the truth about these kinds of things. Therefore I give him the benefit of the doubt here.

        He seems to imply that the new test is a certification event. Maybe someone like UL (dare we hope?). There was also talk earlier about his lamp post vision. Perhaps he found a town/developer willing to be a guinea pig.

        In any case, it looks like June will offer a lot more clues as to what the heck is going on.

        Another positive report from an additional customer or confirmation of the purchase of 3 plants would put IH on very thin ice.

    • It’s only a couple of months after the test finished up and only one month since Rossi confirmed his fear that IH wasn’t going to pay up.

      Since then he has moved aggressively and independently (from what we are told… standard caveats apply).
      * Suing IH, laying bare the agreement with IH and stating unequivocally spectacular E-Cat performance
      * Met with ABB to set up manufacturing
      * Re-upped with JM Products/shadow UK parent, recharging the plant and securing additional purchases
      * Drawn in another potential customer and/or set up immediate certification tests, with agreed upon protocols

      What else would you have him do?

      The crazy mad genius confidence man who never stops risking exposure or imprisonment, has a stable of co-conspirators on call, and settles for no amount of money (or at least 8 figures has proven insufficient so far), and basically lives mostly in a crate for a year just to keep up appearances is at it again… setting up his next con.

      Or sometimes things are as they appear. Rossi is the one acting most rationally according to what we think we know.

      • LuFong

        Occam’s Razor cuts both ways.

        • Truth is absolute.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            But perspective is not and what may seem the truth may end in being not.

          • Which makes Occam’s Razor a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands. Or I should say the weaker minds.

          • LuFong

            But our ability to interpret is subjective.

          • Yes, I know. Julio said the same.

          • LuFong

            Must be true then, and certainly makes life so interesting!

          • roseland67

            No it isn’t
            Depends on whose truth.
            Spiritual, political and religious truths bend to fit their argument.

  • Jarea

    Where is the massive production? When will this happen in this year? These are questions that Rossi should answer first. Talking about the new product is extend the same story again another year. I am tired of this word selling story. I want th promised products. I want a date for this year.

    • Michael W Wolf

      Well say you have a technology, the only problem you have is that it has to be baby sat by someone who knows how to keep it running.

      But the risk of IP theft is high. What do you do? Rossi can’t do it, because 1, he will be accused of faking, 2, he is only one man and can’t have too many customers. So you have an effect so hard that even the so called greatest minds couldn’t do it.

      Now you are on your own and have to scale it up, you have to find a way to get electricity from it, then engineer it, then, make it run by itself 100% of the time. People are acting like this is so easy. And yet the ones saying it should be here if it were real can’t even produce anomalous heat.

      And what he has done so far surpasses anything done in establishment science for the last 30 years at least. The skeptopaths aren’t fit to hold AR’s jockstrap.

      • Been there, Seen it

        I agree with you about the skeptics. However, it’s clear to me that Rossi is a prolific, somewhat paranoid, temperamental genius inventor. He is all the time always wanting to produce something even better.

        That is not the kind of person who is able to take a new technology from the lab bench to commercial sales. Years of step-wise scale-up and detailed product improvement (to achieve real world reliability, safety certification, etc, etc) is required. We have an impasse here.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          That’s why IH was not the right partner. Expertise in investment issues and maybe some brownfield remediation does not exactly fit the required profile. For such a project you would need the help of an experienced enterprise which has performed similar tasks for decades.

          • Been there, Seen it

            I absolutely agree. Scale up from proof of principle in a lab fume cupboard to large scale industrial production was my job for 35 years. It requires focus on all the details for 3 years or more…

        • Michael W Wolf

          No way. I won’t let them get away with one libel slur.


            To my understanding the quark X will have total power output of 100 watts. What is it- a scientific demo module for hobbyists and educators? Its not impressive as a practical energy source.

          • Rossi Fan

            Get lost with that statement! Give me 100 watts and I can power a household that is energy efficient. Less. there are houses that run on 1 kw per day. 100 watts is 2.4 kw.

            What Rossi should do is give e-catworld VIP’s a demo. At this point it’s not a secret it once was. Show them what he has under the kimono. Doesn’t need to give away the formula or top secret ingredient. If you stop to think about it there really is not much of a reason for him not to do this. He has already given away the store to the Chinese by means of the IH debacle.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            Yes. As far as I know, Mats had the privilege of seing the E-Cat working long time ago.

            It would be glad if Rossi invites him to see the Quark X functioning.
            I think that both them respect each other so an agreement on Mats side of non-disclosure. And Rossi allowing him to check the power input/output of the QuarkX would be much more than enough for me and I expect to almost everyone here.
            Yes, it would be critizied by the skeptics but that would happen even with some versions running at customer’s business.

            Someone could ask him if Rossi would agree with something like that. And in that scenario maybe Mats may get some fundamental info about the IH/Rossi issue.

          • jimbo92107

            No law against buying more than one. Folks around here call me a “skeptopath,” but this skeptopath would gladly fork over a thousand dollars for one Quark X, whether or not it works.

            Reasoning: If it works, it would be a huge collectable. If it doesn’t, it’s still a collectable, like obtaining a life ring from the Titanic.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have an electric thermal blanket which means on a cold winters night, I can augment the body heat in the bed we sleep in with 30W or 60W and not the whole room with 3kW.

            100W would do very nice for such applications – and there are a lot of people that need to sleep in cold places.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            In one phase AR mentioned 100W power for the quarkX, in another (I think later) phase 500W. “The situations are evolving.”

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            He told that the Quark X is scalable so he can build a system of any power output.

            Remember that it has a size of a packet of cigarrettes.

          • artefact

            A 20 KW Quark is supposed to be the size of a pack of cigarrettes. A 100 W Quark should be much smaler.

          • Jarea

            1 cigarette has 100W. You can pack 20 cigarettes in those dimensions

          • artefact

            When he first talked about the ecat-x it was 1 KW the size of a cigarette.
            Partly covered there:

          • DrD

            At one time he also said the Quark (100W) was the size of a pencil, then he also said a 1MW (consisting of 10k quarks) would fit in a 1 metre cube. I think all we should assume is that a quark (including controls and heat exchanger) is pretty small, after all, it is still under F8 (R&D) so he can’t have fixed it’s final size yet..
            What a thought, a pencil quark in your top pocket. Just hope he is right about the radiation or lack of it.

          • Ethel Mermaid

            In Mercatu Veritas.

          • Slad

            Caveat Emptor

          • Presumed to be JM Products and the real UK entity behind them.

            Mats Lewan has first hand or second hand info that they are pleased. Rossi claims they have recharged and are still using the plant and that three more are on order.

            This is hearsay and not proven, of course. They have not made any public statement and we don’t know who they are exactly.

          • Carl Wilson

            “… JM Products and the real UK entity behind them. Mats Lewan has first hand or second hand info that they are pleased.”
            I’ve been following Mats’ blog on this IH/AR matter (though not ultra closely) and have seen nothing to indicate there is such a customer except of course that it must remain a secret.


            “…multiple sources have told me that the test has been successful…”


            “Ok, so people I have talked to, who visited the plant, got a presentation from someone supposedly being the ‘Director of Engineering’ at JM Products Inc, that supposedly produced metal sponges for catalytic applications. The Director of Engineering told them that they were very satisfied since the yield per amount of electric energy consumed was significantly larger than in the company’s other production sites, maybe 10x or 20x (figure uncertain). Someone got a glimpse though a door and saw what seemed to be production activity. ”


          • Carl Wilson

            ” supposedly being the ‘Director of Engineering’ ”
            ” supposedly produced metal sponges ”
            “Someone got a glimpse”
            “what seemed to be”

          • Yes. Hearsay, as I said.

          • Carl Wilson

            My apologies, I missed the later paragraph where you said “hearsay”.

          • No worries. Welcome to the world of LENR where nothing ever comes easy.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Which technologies underpin your belief in the “possibility of LENR being real”?

            What tangible evidence from these technology claimants support your belief?

            NOTE: I am NOT talking about commercial viability – I am trying to understand where you take your guidance from.

          • Alex Fenrick

            I am not quite sure I understand the context of your question. While I do not trust certain figures in this whole circus such as Rossi or Levi…most of the other researchers, engineers and scientists that are working on LENR have not given me reason yet to distrust them. Quite the contrary as the reputable ones are not claiming extraordinary COP numbers….but meager yet promising numbers. I have seen what I consider many flaws and questionable maneuvers from both Rossi and Levi for example….which causes me to question them, I keep an open mind for as long as the logical portion allows me to…

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think that the first question could easily be answered immediately by any long term follower in this field, please answer.

            As a volunteer working to test the claims of others, I am very interested in what people consider as tangible evidence from claimants – I am therefore interested in understanding why you can say “I do believe LENR could be possible”

            The context is your post that I responded to.

          • Alex Fenrick

            I guess my confusion was in WHY you are asking as I did not see how it was relative to the topic at hand …but if you are asking for names….My interest in the field itself starts at the very core probably like most in here with my fascination of Michael Faraday, Tesla, and the likes as a foundation. I can only imagine how some of his theories and concepts would have been riduculed if the internet existed in the 1800s lol. I of course find interest in the work of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, Francesco Piantelli, the work going on within MFMP. To be completely honest….Rossi and Levi are the only two big players that have me mistrusting them.

          • sam

            I hope it does not go to trial for the sake of the sanity of the Jury.

    • Mike

      Exactly, a new design, new tests and so on. What became of the older designs. No production. Does it mean that the tests failed?

  • Mike Henderson

    Let’s get Rossi a customer who consumes lots of energy and doesn’t care about secrecy. In fact, they should come out a winner no matter how the test goes. My suggestion: an oil company. If LENR works, they have a head start on the next generation technology and can put it to work generating steam for hydrocracking or fracking or whatever. If LENR is a bust, they can wave that flag and put it to rest.

    • Been there, Seen it

      Impossible conflict of interest. Nobody would believe any press release by an oil company saying either: “Yes it works” or “No it’s useless.”
      Best independent evaluation of LENR will, I think, be achieved soon by the MFMP performing open science, with everything displayed on-line even while their experiment is running! Latest results are very encouraging, but their funds are limited. I suggest we help this obviously independent group of experts.
      If we wait for Rossi to share his secrets, we may have to wait for years…
      Replicators will catch up with Rossi fairly soon…

      • US_Citizen71

        I think the masses would be yes it works from an oil company. What motivation would they have to be lying, a big tax write off for the losses such an announcement would cost them?

  • psi2u2

    Yes, very balanced summary of possibilities including the dismal history. I don’t think it requires “shutting up,” but I am wary of both extremes in the discussion at this point.

  • Axil Axil

    With all these NDA customers, tests, certifications, and demos, past, present, and future, Rossi is the Johnny Appleseed of LENR who goes far and wide across the countryside planting the seeds of LENR into the hearts and minds of a multitude of new LENR believers willing to put in the work and money to make LENR real.

    Rossi worked his magic on defkalion but they failed, now it is IH, tomorrow it is the new customer. It goes on and on. Then their is the open source crew who are spreading LENR knowledge and Rossi replications. Rossi is doing LENR a world of good but it is alway better to have as many irons in the LENR fire as possible.

    • Roger Roger

      Maybe this is the first instance of alchemy (metaphysical entaglement with operator) + advanced technology assisting it
      Or the first public one

  • I don’t think there’s much question that Rossi holds his IP very cautiously no matter what’s in the contract he signed. You can easily make the case that he’s his own worst enemy, signing overly generous IP transfers (or licensing promises) to get big paydays and then weaseling out of it. Thus screwing up his biggest paydays.

    Still not the actions of a scammer though. More the actions of a wily businessman/inventor who can give as good as he gets. He lost round 1 in his life to vicious ‘businessmen’, now at least he fights to a draw.

    The game Rossi plays is to ensure he has enough money to continue development and moving toward market (not to get a haul from some sucker and then disappear). The trick is that he continues development and by the end of the agreement can move on with the new stuff and get more money from someone else even as the previous partner leaves in disgust.

    This points to working but immature technology.

    • Rene

      Let us not forget available at Home Depot.

      Anyway, I too think he may be on a path of discovery that may end up with something commercially tangible. Truly wish him the best. Until then, this is entertaining but following for the real news.

      • I’m rooting for MFMP big time.

        We’re sitting on a mountain of TNT. All it will take is one small repeatable spark to blow this up.

        We are so close.

        • Been there, Seen it

          And me too. The MFMP is closing in. True experts involved…

  • Axil Axil

    Being a Rossi partner is like having a pet black mamba and milking its ventum…he might be cute and profitable now but in time if you are not very careful and forever vigilant, you will be struck.

  • Interesting take.

    I recognize that some of Rossi’s statements have turned out to be misdirections or exaggerations, especially with regard to market readiness, but when he speaks of business partners and independent tests those thing have been borne out by events.

    So I don’t doubt new interest from another customer and a pending test with agreed to protocols.

    • Alex Fenrick

      Fair enough perspective…but don’t you feel even a tinge at the back of your neck over the announcement of yet another closed door test of another secret customer? I sure do…..

      • I offer Brilliant Light Power (nee Blacklight Power) as a cautionary tale.

        I honestly don’t know if they have anything… on a good day, I think they’re legit. But I do know that they have over-promised commercial products for many many years now. Therefore, they are dead to me. Whether they have anything or not is irrelevant if they never release it.

        The difference with Rossi is that his timeline started more or less in 2011 when he demonstrated that first plant. From that point until now there has been steady *apparent* progress toward market. Venture capital investment. Long running product tests. Beta customer(s). Talks with robot manufacturers. So we’re just about there for a normal R&D to product in market timeline. So although people are exasperated by the 5 years elapsed it’s actually kind of normal and things haven’t been stagnant.

        Now if Rossi for the *next* 5 years keep promising massive market penetration and nothing ever actually really happens that is verifiable (all secret customers and tests as you say), then Leonardo shall join the ranks of Brilliant Light Power as at best irrelevant and at worst, lapping up gullible investor money (and maybe having something interesting or not) but never producing anything useful.

        BLP can still change their story with a product release. Leonardo is now on the clock. Any further major delays will smell worse and worse.

        But like I said… all expected and normal timeline-wise IMO up to now for Rossi and Leonardo.

      • Rossi — at least for now — isn’t claiming this new customer will remain under a shroud of secrecy:
        “Jens Heisenberg:
        This Customer is not supposed to remain “secret”, once the product will be operative.”
        Then again I don’t know why he put ‘secret’ in quotes.

  • If only they could have an expert responsible for validation monitor the device for a year. Then…. THEN… we would believe he has something!

    Unless believing that ERV costs us $89M. Then maybe we will decide not to believe it.

  • Charlie tapp

    I wonder if the new customer also works for him. Mabee the janitor, it is getting deep

    • And maybe you work for APCO.

      See how easy that is?

  • Rene

    Frank, can you give the exact link since going through the JONP to find things is a lot like dumpster diving. His comments are tacked onto any of several articles.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Reading these comments I can see where everyone is impatient; including myself.

    But, the guy has been in a box for a year and just started butting heads with IH…who should be responsible for the quick and massive roll out. I think that is what we want now…the massive rollout…or at least a sizeable rollout.

    So, maybe the question to Rossi should be. If the meeting with the new client is positive, will this likely lead to a quick and massive roll out to said client? Because, the 3 more units to current client just isn’t doing it for us; haha.

    Thinking about recent stuff…maybe Rossi should take some lessons from the US oil industry. I mean…they massively rolled out new technology on drilling that brought the price of drilling down to 35$ a barrel (profitable) in short order…across the entire industry.

    Or, maybe Elon Musk. He is landing rockets and rolling out cheap electric cars oh..and building a giga-factory for batteries.

    but, maybe that is just my imagination on how fast they moved. Maybe it is just a sense of industry that we need. I’m not feeling an industrious bent here…just a lot of e-mails, lawyers, and tests.

    Ok, and I speak for all of us, maybe we are being a little unreasonable; but still.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Dottore Rossi has a competitor now with his most precious secret and more.

      He must take the market first. If he cannot go to full manufacture, he should open source the plans for the reactor and mass produce the fuel power chips. The world will be a better place for it and he will soon have all the funds he needs. He probably has the finances right now to carry that plan off easily.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I would settle for him to sell just one, two or three E-Cats to customers who will come forward and testify to the economic benefit of LENR; and maybe he has done just that.

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    I think you are wrong. He didnt say he found an investor. He found a new customer to sell him one of his E-Cats.
    It is a different thing.

  • Michael W Wolf

    I rest my case.

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    So, what about hot fusion. It was “discovered” a lot of years ago. It had always a COP 1.
    And if they do, but it has a low COP it would be a waste anyway.

    So, there are much more examples available there.

    • DrD

      Haaa, sorry, you already said it.

  • If Rossi agrees to tests that you can run (or at least have a professional 3rd party in there measuring on your behalf) and any money is in escrow, what’s the downside?

    And the upside is yuuuge.

    Any company with deep pockets should jump at the opportunity.

  • Frank Acland

    Jens Heisenberg

    April 27, 2016 at 12:18 PM

    Dear Andrea is it possible to tell us something about this new customer or does he/she/it also want to be a “secret customer”?

    Best regards


    Andrea Rossi

    April 27, 2016 at 2:30 PM

    Jens Heisenberg:
    This Customer is not supposed to remain “secret”, once the product will be operative.Warm Regards,


    • Alex Fenrick

      I know Rossi can sometimes have a bit of a translation issue…but ‘not supposed to remain “secret”‘ is a very odd way to answer that question in my opinion. Technically It really is not answering the question…and leaving him open to not being wrong either way…quite slick there. Also the “secret” in quotes is curious. Just a little odd….

      • Zeddicus23

        The “secret” in quotes is just a response to the questioner, who also put “secret” in quotes. I see nothing odd about it at all. I interpret “not supposed to remain secret” simply as that the customer has agreed not to remain secret once the product will be operative. So, in fact this is answering the question to the best of Rossi’s current ability (the customer could always decide at some later date that he/she wants to remain secret). As a side comment, while I find Rossi’s statements somewhat cryptic at times, I do not see any clear evidence that he is trying to mislead.

    • LuFong

      I would have been very happy to have someone whose integrity I trust vouch for the plant and its operation, something I thought we were going to see with the 1MW plant GP test.

      • If we get confirmation that JK Products or their UK owner bought 3 more plants, will that be significant to you?

        They only buy if they believe it works and saves them money, right?

        Unless they are part of the scam.

        • LuFong

          Absolutely, but all we really know right now is that that some shell company produced by Rossi and fronted by Rossi’s lawyer rented some space in Florida and the General Performance test occurred therein over the past year. We also know that IH seems to be disputing the results of this test. We also have various rumors about who the customer was, what they were doing, and what level of heat they required.

          Nobody is saying there is a scam (at least I’m not) but only the gullible believe without any skepticism that there is a real company doing 1MWh/h work and have bought three more plants based entirely on Rossi’s word. I’m waiting for more information and would love to see Rossi’s claims proven true.

          • We know a little more than that. We know that the owner of JM Products is a UK based entity in which Rossi, Leonardo and IH have no ownership (in filed legal docs).

            Therefore, a true 3rd party.

            So, yes the shell company was created for this purpose and Rossi’s lawyer is it’s top officer. But there’s a real company (or entity) across the sea that set this up. Now that too could go sideways if the UK entity turns out to be Hydrofusion or something else connected to Rossi and his $.

            But we wait and see. As you say it is wise to withhold judgment until the facts are in. But in the meantime we speculate and ponder and dig.

          • Alan Smith

            If it was Johnson Matthey (UK) who was the customer, it is worth noting that they have a factory in Savannah Ga. producing catalytic products for the oil industry. And the oil business uses a lot of nickel sponge.

        • LuFong

          Also when Rossi was asked whether the customer bought the heat or the plants, he answered first “energy” and then changed it to plants. Kind of a silly mistake, or is it?

          • Yeah I saw that too and like you it gave me pause.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Finally, maybe, Dr. Rossi has found an established industrial company able and willing to manufacture and sell Rossi E-Cats without trying to control the Rossi IP.

  • Was he all talk when he gave an E-Cat to the Lugano team, far away from him, to test any way they saw fit?

    Was he all talk when he agreed to a year plant test with an ERV and IH personnel on site daily, recorded 24/7?

    EDIT: Hint… the answer is no. No he was not all talk.

  • kdk

    I wonder how often his computers are hacked by people trying to find out about who he’s meeting with etc.

    • Mike Henderson

      I would be shocked if his computers have NOT been hacked. A LENR device would enable tiny devices that contain immense amounts of energy. There are vast implications for weaponry, aviation, utility power distribution, access to fresh water, carbon capture and sequestration, … and control of those is the entire basis for maintaining political power. World wars have been fought for lesser causes. Someone has snooped. Black hats for sure. Would you expect the CIA / NSA / KGB / GCHQ / PLA Unit 61398 and others have paid his hard drive a visit?

  • LuFong

    This is a possible theory no doubt and I wouldn’t rule it out. I’m more inclinded to believe this (that Rossi has something but is not inclined to give it up) then Sifferkol’s conspiracy theories (like the guy and has entertaining theories but he’s taking things way to personal, IMO) as well. But other quite plausible theories, such as Rossi doesn’t have what he is claiming, are also possible. To our benefit, as you point out, is that this is been tried a number of times. Also true is that Rossi is 65 and probably doesn’t have too many productive years left.

    P.S. This is a language issue, but “shut up” is a rather hostile/rude way of saying please be quiet. I know Jed used it on Mats blog and he would/should know better.

    • Guest

      Keep in mind that based on information in Mats’ blog that Sifferkoll appears to have a financial interest (i.e. investment) in Leonardo, HydroFusion, or some other Rossi affiliated company, so he has a vested interest in any drawing attention away from any story in which Rossi is wrong.

      • clovis ray

        So have you any proof of your accusations that Sifferkoll has a financial interest (i.e. investment) in Leonardo, HydroFusion, or some other Rossi affiliated company.

    • I don’t realize the strength of “shut up” in English (I only talk Globbish)…

      note that i speculate too, violating my own advice.

      I do many things I should not.. 8)

  • The importance of this new test will be if it results in further (verifiable) sales.

    Not if it ever reaches our eyeballs. It’s for their purposes, not ours.

    A second happy customer would be something, yes?

  • A risk for sure.

    The research that I’ve done (and it’s been a lot), leads me to believe that these circumstances are different. YMMV: it’s a very, very deep mystery with a lot of moving and conflicting parts and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

  • US_Citizen71

    The harder thing to wrap my head around is why you bother to come here at all since you do not seem to believe LENR is possible and seem to believe that Rossi is either insane or a fraud and the majority of the articles deal with him and his technology. What possible purpose does hanging around this microcosm of the internet serve for you? I’m sorry but like many here I do not need to be saved.

    • timycelyn

      Well said. Fenrick has begun to get on my nerves…

    • US_Citizen71, I suspect that Alex Fenrick may be from perhaps a socialist country where your welfare is his welfare, and he doesn’t want to see you squander your time or money …

  • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

    And even so i wont call hot fusion a scam as it may become true.
    It is a hope. But for me it is a TOO expensive hope.

    I would take 1/100 of the budget to try a LENR sollution wich whould be faster and cheaper and if it doesnt work it wont hurt the investigation on hot fusion.

  • timycelyn

    It would be nice for us. But exactly how does this benefit him, in his current situation, if one talks it at face value?

    • Pweet

      “How does this benefit him?” you ask.
      If Mr. Rossi had gone to the trouble of doing his demonstrations without such obvious errors ad then covered his work with patents for reproducible products, he would now have the whole world behind him cheering him on. IH would now be the undisputed villain in this present dispute and we would be confidently waiting here to see their ultimate demise.
      However, that is not the case.
      People excused his ambiguous testing procedures on the basis that they may have been used so as not to alert his ‘competition’, even though he didn’t have any. He still doesn’t.
      And yet we still don’t have any indisputable proof that he has what he says, when it would be so easy to provide.
      In fact, according to his all powerful partner, he hasn’t even been able to convince them he has what he says.
      So in answer to your question, If it does what he claims it would do him all the good in the world to break this long held secrecy and show the world exactly what he actually does have.
      Had he done this from the beginning he would now be the recipient of at least one Nobel prize and also be the richest man in the world. There would be every company in the world lining up to use his technology under license.
      But five years on, where is it at?
      A legal action by yet another one of a string of failed partnerships and licensee agreements.
      I know all sorts of reasons can be offered to explain how this can happen, but it seems to have been established as the continuing operational paradigm.

      • timycelyn

        IP and lawyers. IP and lawyers. If he just laid it all out there -almost any time since all this started, he might have got a Nobel prize, maybe even beatified in his own lifetime for all I know, and pretty much sod-all else!!

        Other than the satisfaction of seeing others, lots of others, take off with the technology he invented but got no significant financial credit for.

        Also, the trauma of seeing the unworthy mess with his baby – I’m sure there’s a big emotional element in there as well….

  • Ged

    Or, he has customers like any other business. Nothing sketchy about it what so ever, but supportive. Don’t go throwing words around to create baseless misdirections.

  • Rene

    Follow this instead: where you can watch the experiments in progress in the open. It may take longer but at least on can watch it progress.
    Rossi may have the turbocharged version of LENR, but it’s happening under secrecy, so nothing really substantive will be disclosed until it is ready – or not.

  • radvar

    Man portable lasers.

  • Alex Fenrick

    I find “when and if” VERY interesting in Rossi’s comment here today. I don’t think I have ever seen Rossi say something like “if QuarkX becomes a product”….

    Andrea Rossi
    April 27, 2016 at 4:38 PM
    Thank you for your appreciation.
    When and if the QuarkX will become a product you will be able to buy it.
    We cannot rent an R&D, for obvious reasons.
    Warm Regards,

    • You’re kidding right? We had F9 for like a year.

      • Alex Fenrick

        LENR G….what does that have to do with it being odd that he said “IF QuarkX becomes a product”? Forgive me, but I am missing your point here….

        • F9 was his shorthand for whether the ECat test was positive or negative. He has also consistently said ECat X (and QX) only if R&D is successful (I think that became F8).

          He is constantly attaching caveats to his statements.

          So I don’t know why this one triggered any kind of heartburn.

          • Alex Fenrick

            LENR G….Oh I understand what F9 is…the reason I took notice is because of so much talk here lately of the QuarkX heading into homes. There seems to be a perception that Rossi has promised QuarkX as a home product…and I thought I had seen something to that effect from Rossi as well. If I am mistaken on Rossi mentioning or alluding to it…I do stand corrected.

          • Ah well, E-Cats in homes is certainly a goal of his. Maybe his highest priority.

            However, I think he and we all understand that deployment in homes will come last, after much experience in industrial settings.

            You know, since it’s presumed nuclear and we don’t exactly know how it works yet. Certification for home use is a ways away. Maybe a decade or more.

          • Carl Wilson

            “E-Cats in homes is certainly a goal of his.” Since my personal socio-political stance is strongly de-centralist, I fell into a rather pro-Rossi bias. My view now is that if Rossi indeed has a core to his claims, that core is being taken over by the centralists. While the decades long battle to bring “E-Cats in homes” is under way, home PV solar is already moving ahead strongly.

          • TVulgaris

            PV is subject to much of the same centralist agenda- they own ALL of the manufacturing base. So even if a competing technology (even one potentially with an overwhelming advantage like LENR) comes to market, it will also be owned by manufacturing companies, and most likely very large (rich) ones. The only hope for the homeowner in the world economic oligarchy is a competitive market wherein the big sharks are only chasing the other big sharks. There is absolutely no possibility of manufacturing of THIS kind of energy source to ever devolve to the consumer- unless we can buy (affordably) fab-quality printers, and that’s most likely 50 years off.
            Commercial PV has been around since the 1950’s (very inefficient and VERY expensive)- the E-Cat as a real device isn’t even 5 years old.

  • Steve Savage

    It is a great point, however it pays to be reminded that those early x-ray machines were killing quite a few people.

    • DrD

      True, comparisons like those couldn’t be more missleading. what does it imply about HOT fusion – It my be a waste of time and investment but I don’t think its a scam.

      • TVulgaris

        Not a waste, just slow and expensive on the R & D side, with orders of magnitude greater potential ROI than LENR can ever hope for- and LENR is sufficient to solve all planetary energy requirements when it proves out in the market. If Rossi doesn’t do it within a few years, one of the other players will within a decade, and then HF will a few decades later.
        HF has the power density to move a freakin’ planet, though…

  • US_Citizen71

    I did not insult you, I did not call you names, I did not put words in your mouth I stated an opinion, you are just as free to disagree with it as I am to post it. If you do not like my opinions and posts you are free to ignore them.

  • Michael W Wolf

    What???? The skeptopaths are all talk and no action. I rest my case.

  • Alex Fenrick

    HAHA I gotta agree with you there Clovis…

  • Zeddicus23

    Your question is a misquote of the actual question which was whether or not the certification of the QuarkX was for industrial or domestic certification. Rossi answered “both”. As I understand it, certification refers to safety, e.g. certifying it to be safe for sale. Rossi has previously indicated and on multiple occasions that the E-cat has been certified for industrial use but not for domestic use, because the latter would require a trained operator.

    • Bob

      Also, Rossi published his SGS certification. Many think it is a certification. It is not. Read it. I have.
      It states very clearly that it cannot be used for any commercial purpose on the document itself..
      I say with my point that one cannot get a certification if there is no standard. An LENR device is completely new and would need a new standard. This would not be a minor task!.
      It is also untrue that one HAS to have a certification to sell things. There are certain local building codes that require equipment to be certified. But not every where and they are not all the same. In many rural areas, there are no ordinances..
      It is true , that you sell something and it is not certified under some standard and it blows up, it would not be good in court. However, even if it was certified and it blows up, you still will be in court!
      To me, the only significance of “Certification” in this whole saga is that an agency such as UL or SGS would be involved and an approved testing standard would be applied. It would add or remove much credibility, depending on the results. It really has little to do with sales. There has to be a product available first!

      • Zeddicus23

        You have raised some good points. I agree that it would be a good to know more about the significance (if any) of the certification which Rossi keeps mentioning.

      • HS61AF91

        What would you think about the court differentiating between no standard and no standing? If it treats them as similar concepts, it can not say if a test is good or bad, with nothing to compare it to. I am glad Dr. Rossi specified jury trial, because people see what they see, and do not quibble over standings and standards. It is getting exciting.

  • Andrew

    It may not be a weapon in it self but you can bet the military is going to find a way to fuel their weapons with it. Land, sea and air vehicles that don’t need to refuel for long periods of time are very advantageous. Just think of a nuclear sub that doesn’t need all the extra weight of shielding for radiation.

  • Slad

    Remember who leaked the Lugano Report…?

  • Mike Henderson

    Andrea Rossi’s eCat exists in a linear superposition of the basis states |0> (incredible) and |1> (credible). Unlike Schrodinger’s cat anybody who attempts to observe its state find themselves lost in the same ambiguous condition: Lewan, Levi et al, Penon, … all are now stuck in an undefined condition until the time the truth becomes known. Quantum entanglement has got nuthin’ on this one.

    My recommendation: stop taking sides one way or the other and enjoy the spectacle.

    • No can do Mike.

      Mystery of the century with humongous consequences for all of us. I’m going to do my best to figure it out.

      • Carl Wilson

        “Mystery of the century with humongous consequences”
        I think I understand your viewpoint on this, though I see it a bit differently. I find I’ve become very sceptical about what Rossi says or circumstances he has had a major hand in arranging. Though it does seem to me that the AR/IH matter so far has a lot of mystery to it, I think LENR apart from Rossi is far more important. I am not part of the LENR community but am not nearly as sceptical on this wider subject as those in a community I might be said to be part of. In fact for those people I’ve never dared point them to this blog — but rather to MFMP and certain Naval-connected documents (which this blog brought to my awareness).

        • I created this page:

          Though it has not been updated in a while it may help give you a broader perspective on LENR and LENR+ and Rossi.

          • Carl Wilson

            Indeed, taking the test you proposed on that site shocked me — I thought of myself as a sceptic but according to that test I was a believer. The reason for my not promoting the blog is because it is steeped in climate-warming denial and “market fundamentalism”. (Not popular in “my community.) In addition to what I mentioned already, I’ve pointed people to what Darden has said prior to the more recent blow up.

          • Yeah I know what you mean. Just ignore that garbage.

          • psi2u2

            See “garbage” immediately above.

          • psi2u2

            Regarding “climate warming denial,” a popular buzz phrase that does sway public opinion, I recommend


            2) As yourself what is wrong with a picture in which those who predicted the values in red ( ) are calling those who say their predictions have been falsified “deniers”?
            But whatever you think about anthropogenic global warming theories or their critics, don’t base your judgements of LENR on it. There are many points of view about “climate warming” on this site, including quite a few posters who share your view.

          • Just don’t. There’s other places to talk about climate change.

            We have our plates full as it is.

          • psi2u2

            I was not the one who raised it. The poster used a highly inflammatory phrase, one that intentionally connects climate disputes with other forms of “denial.” It is a gross abuse of the English language, one worthy of Orwell’s “The Politics of the English Language.”

            I answered it. In my answer I made the key point not to connect the two issues. Don’t tell me what to say. That’s for Frank and his moderators to decide. Thanks. That’s the end of it as far as I am concerned.

          • Relax psi, I’m not telling you what to say.

            When people raise controversial topics tangential to LENR it detracts from the site. That’s my opinion. So I don’t like it when people bring up climate change, politics, economic systems, UFOs, a perverse hatred of scientists or other stuff that can devolve in to pages of back and forth where nothing gets solved.

          • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

            The report says it has COP 50. Wich one we trust? Words, a report, none of these?
            For me, IH is no a entity i should trust without proof. At this moment they are the ones that have what we call at spain “carga de la prueba”. They have to demonstrate that the report is wrong or false.
            Until they dont, they dont have credibility for me.
            It is easy to say, it doesnt work but without proof.

          • I rather advicse Judith Curry, an IPCC author, until she simply
            – realized that climategate mail was showing what she did herself to “save the cause”, and hide the uncertainties.
            – asked for believers and skeptic to talk together in an academic arena , or on her blog…

            she is still believing AGW is possible, but she question it like a scientist

          • LCD

            At this point I’m not sure people care as much. The scathing remarks of brian scanlan really also don’t paint Rossi in the best light.

            I don’t think Rossi has a controllable effect anymore. Saddening.

            My hope now is on MFMP

          • SG

            I don’t know Mr. Scanlan, but after having read his quote in the Infinite Energy article, it is quite clear to me why he and Mr. Rossi would have never meshed very well.

          • LCD

            Well the author also pointed out how everybody else had nothing but good experiences with Vaughn and darden. I think the author (who clearly is/was a Rossi supporter) is trying hard to give him the benefit of the doubt but having a difficult time.

            Don’t get me wrong I’d stop short of calling Rossi a fraud but I also think things would be different if Prof Focardi was still alive.

          • SG

            I agree that author clearly tilts toward IH. It is also revealing that she considers the lawsuit the worst case scenario (and describes it with very colorful language). I, for one, don’t think the lawsuit is the worst case scenario. It will help bring information to light. That is what the LENR community needs right now–some gold ol’ non-spun under-oath information.

          • cashmemorz

            Back then, 1976, the effect of ocean ability to mop up excess heat was not considered. Now that we know where all of the predicted heat went, no more mystery and the intent of the model stands successfully.

          • psi2u2

            As I said, my only purpose in this discussion was to challenge the use of the term “climate denier” or “climate change denier.” You can always discover ex post facto reasoning to explained failed projections. They are still failed projections. I respect the fact that you have a different opinion. Just don’t call me a “denier.” I am sick of the misuse of the word. Thank you for understanding.

          • Good read, but please put disqus to make comments !

          • I specifically didn’t on that page on purpose. I wanted the info to stand on its own without distraction for newcomers to the topic.

            Disqus is available elsewhere on the site (e.g., Assessing the Lugano Report) if you’d like to comment. The site gets very little traffic though, so maybe better to comment here where everybody hangs out.

  • SG

    I think the secrecy, misstatements, and odd maneuvers are plenty and abound, and apply at least as equally to IH.

  • Even minded skepticism is welcome here, at least to me.

    As long as you are willing to listen to all sides of an argument it’s all good. It may seem like we live in a bubble here on ECW, but believe me we get plenty of exposure to the criticisms that are floating around other corners of the Internet. Much of it is ultra-repetitive and unhelpful. FUD, if you will.

    This is the place for reasoned arguments. If you can back up your arguments with facts and reasonably sound logic then you’ll be treated with respect.

  • More verifiable facts emerge as time passes and we have been able to reach consensus on a great many things. The new wave of confusing info has thrown us all back a few pegs however.

    Whatever is happening, it’s extraordinary and deviates from facts and reasonable inferences we thought we had nailed down earlier.

    • Ged

      Supposedly we already do have someone purchasing hotcats. Have to see if we can find out the who, or if it is an oroborus.

      • Been there, Seen it

        The MFMP is a team of 6 real experts, I believe, not just Bob Greenyer. The team has to achieve consensus concerning their presentation. Bob is a fantastic communicator, but his colleagues have even better understanding of various issues, e.g. instrument imperfections, etc, etc. I am also waiting for an answer to several questions after I was sent a little snapshot of some recent data. Please be patient for another day or two. Let them quadruple check all their Glowstick 5.3 data and give them the time they need to assemble their agreed public presentation.

  • SG

    I don’t think he has dropped the older model e-cats. Those are what are currently for sale, on a limited basis, apparently. He stated that the Quark X is a separate effort and is still in R&D.

  • SG

    Calm down. When your input is constructive, and not repetitive, and delivered with respect, you won’t be moderated–even if it is of a skeptical tone. You strike me as an intelligent person who can comprehend this.

    • Alex Fenrick

      SG…if you were to see what I am talking about specifically you would have a different view…I honestly am not just whining. Obviously a moderator wanted to make a spectacle of me by posting my complaint..round and round we go.

      • Frank Acland

        If comments are removed, it’s usually because they don’t follow the Commenting Guidelines, see on the menu above, and here:
        Sometimes comments disappear for no apparent reason, caught by the autospammer.

        • Alex Fenrick

          Frank, I don’t want to make this detracting issue and I fully respect your site…but there is no doubt that the deletions were done by a moderator if you look in my history and see what was deleted and when. I will drop it at this point…but it is obivous to me what was going on.

  • psi2u2

    Sometimes posts don’t show up, and its not always because they have been deleted or moderated. Disqus has fits and moods sometimes.

  • psi2u2

    Ok you guys, not allowed to make fun of the Quark-X. 😉

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      Why not. Some smiles before this story reach a hopefully good ending.

      Anyway. I see an skeptopathyc with a QuarkX at home as a paper holder saying it doesnt work and all the people in the world with their own QuarkX working.

      • psi2u2

        Could be. I was being facetious, as I think Alex at least would have understood. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          Yes, I got your joke and added a new one. 😉

  • psi2u2

    I hope you are right, and I have been around here long enough for you to know that that is a really sincere hope and not a put on one. On the other hand, I don’t see the light……yet.

  • Zeddicus23

    OK. I couldn’t find that statement and so was referring to a somewhat different one. In any case, my impression is that when Rossi mentions “certification” he is referring to an agency such as UL or SGS and not “another ERV to state the COP was X”. Of course, I could be wrong. (F9).

  • Bob Greenyer

    To clarify, we have seen emissions of photon radiation in line with the claims made by Rossi in the past. We have also seen photon emissions that may explain the observation of Prof. Francesco Celani at Rossi’s first public demo.

    Whilst we are systematically removing doubt about the apparent excess heat observations in our Rossi patent fuel based reactors, the levels we have seemingly achieved are not anywhere close to that claimed by Rossi and therefore more easy to dismiss.

    We have a good idea of several aspects in reactor design, fuel arrangement, composition and stimulation that could account for the difference, if real, and with a lot more work, we will be able to determine if any of these directions will lead to a more defensible excess heat signature.

    • Bob, any hint of any unexpected gammas in GS5.3 in the data?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well the experiment is still on-going – though it is long past the point were we would have expected to see the larger signature. The data does support the argument that trace 7 bled into trace 8 in GS 5.2 – which due to the long integration times means that the signal comes out over a long period. This supports Dr. Edmund Storms observations that he reported in this 2012 paper, that the soft x-rays are emitted with a half life of 109 minutes.

        We have unexpected Neutrons (though there had been other reports and at least one theory predicting some) interestingly, thermal neutrons can be easily stopped by Lithium.

        Tests over the past few days have shown.

        1. that the Amptex 123 CdTe detector is sensitive to noise from the SCR controller
        2. that the UCS 30 Spectrum Techniques NaI scintillator is resilient to it

        this is good supporting evidence for the validity of the data from GS 5.2.

        Brian Albiston has seen increased counts in recent weeks.

        • Thanks. Exciting! I’m looking forward to the eventual report (and/or video performances).

    • Carl Wilson

      MFMP = “skilled in the art” hard won, a novel art

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      Hello Bob.

      Here is an idea that came to me a lot of time ago and I want to share it with you.

      Im not physicist so dont blame me if what I am going to say is absurd. I just used logical deduction based on what we know through real life.

      What I imagined about how lenr could work was thinking in big scale and then applied that reasoning to the small scale so it may be a complete absurd but here it goes.

      First time i heard about coulomb barrier and how e-cat could break it i thougth.
      Maybe it doesnt break it.
      What i thought was, coulomb force should be weakened and that could possibily happen if in any way the electrons and protons start to rotate in resonance like when you have water in a washing machine in spin-dry mode. It creates a hole in the middle wich could be passed without ever touching the water.
      So I thought maybe some kind of electromagnetism could make the electrons to rotate synchronized making the protons to rotate in the same way. That could cause that at some point they are distributed in a specific way in the nuclei of the atom (maybe all them in one side – like a cargo ship when a big wave hits the ship; or maybe all around the perimeter of the nuclei) creating this way a weak point wich could be used for the free electrons/neutrons or other particles (i dont know wich exact particle could be) to surpass the coloumb barrier without excesive energy needed as a hole would be there.
      Of course that moment would be a fraction of a second so the key would be to find the frecuency of the magnetic force to create it and then make possible the reaction.
      That also could explain the inconsistences in replicating as if the resonance is not properly found or the timing for the free electron/proton to try to reach the nuclei doesnt match it would fail.

      I just hope that this is not a stupidity and maybe even with my poor knowledge it could help you to get some new ideas.

      Kind regards.

      • Bob Greenyer

        There are several ways that the barrier can be mitigated, having ‘Electron Screening” of the nucleus (like the 500eV of screening of Li nucleus imparted when Li+H- is molten) and tunneling.

        Stoyan Sarg’s structural theory is hot on alignment as is Edmund Storms – but in a different way and with different components.

  • The June test in Europe is starting to sound like the last gate before the new fire is let out of its cage. From Rossi:
    “The test of June will not be public, but if positive the industrialization will accelerate exponentially. We are struggling for that.

    Warm Regards,


    “I hope I will be ready and we are working very hard to complete the preliminar R&D in time.
    It is extremely important.”


    • Carl Wilson

      I thought of the Lugano test as showing that the E-Cat could run long term but not showing commercial COP. I assumed there was another (later?) test that showed the reality of SSM which would provide commercial level COP. That left open the question of long-term with SSM. Hence the need for year long test. If we believe what we were told, then the year-long test was both success and failure. It could deliver the goods but required constant expert supervision. Again, accepting what we have been told, I believe that Rossi did not fully share his IP, possibly because it was not in a share-able state. Further I speculate that if the Quark version has a core of truth it was arrived at through Rossi’s continued efforts to crack the control problem — a problem that’s been there (un-admitted) all long. If all that is true then Rossi’s a hero indeed. (I’ve long thought that Rossi was operating “on a Wing & a Prayer”.) And lower levels of hero-hood are possible down to various levels of delusion and deceit.
      But very important — if this cage is empty — not to give up.

      • All reasonable.

        If Rossi flames out there’s still IH, Brillouin, Lenuco, Nichenergy, Clean Planet, the Russians and the Chinese (that’s a lot of scamming going on there!). Probably more we’re unaware of.

        And MFMP looms large, potentially.

    • psi2u2

      Well, godspeed Ing. Rossi! Let’s see some product and we will all (mostly) be cheering. But it is time to show us what’s in your bag for real this time.

  • Mark Underwood

    Rossi Fan and Inventor Invented : 100 watts of power over 24 hours is 2.4 kWh (kilowatt hours) of energy, not 2.4 kW of power.

    I like the size of 100 watts. Big enough to give unambiguous results (I wish!) for testing purposes, big enough to be useful in practical application, yet small enough to not be too dangerous or intimidating. And of course it would be scalable when enough of them are put together. Hey we can dream.

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      I know it is a bit off-topic

      Can I ask a question. I always get lost when talking about Watts and Watts/h.

      Could someone explain here the difference and how they are related to the power consumption.

      So I would be able to understand better my electricity home bill

      • Mark Underwood

        There is energy and there is power. Power is the rate at which energy is used. In other words, power equals energy divided by time. Conversely, energy equals power multiplied by time.

        Electric companies do not care if you put on a 1 KW blow drier for 6 minutes, or 100 Watt television for 60 minutes. It works out to the same amount of energy, in this case 100Wh or 100 Watt hours.

        1 Watt of power expended over 1 second is 1 Joule of energy.

        But good luck understanding your electricity bill. At least here in Ontario, Canada, about half of the money is for actual electricity used. The other half if for distribution costs and such. I’ve heard cases where people have have used zero electricity for a month and yet got a sizeable bill!

        • Obvious

          I worked in a large shop where we turned off the natural gas for the summer to avoid a bill for the pilot lights being on all the time, which seemed to be about $50 a month with included fees. Four months later, we got a $200 bill for turning it back on. A reactivaction fee for us turning on the gas!

          • TVulgaris

            You should have left a single pilot on. ANY usage at all must be billed, but can be legally overbilled…

          • cashmemorz

            If that is the game that power companies are playing then it may apply to a LENR device or anything else you might use to get you off grid. Say you turn on your LENR, then turn off your grid electricity. Then in a year or more you have to get a bit of grid power to augment your LENR power. So you turn on the grid power for however short time until you get your second LENR device to top up the power you need. As soon as you turn on the grid power they (grid power supplier) charge you for reactivating to the tune of however long you had the grid power turned off. This would negate any grid power savings you realized during the time you were off grid. This method could be used to discourage using personal power via LENR or any other method that gets you off grid. So before going off grid you might want to clarify this surcharge with the grid power provider before going off grid. A point to negotiate would be the maximum they can charge you if you decide to reactivate your access to the grid. If they insist on an open amount depending on how long you are off grid then it is abuse of monopoly power.

        • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

          Wow. Nice explanation. Thanks

  • SG

    Well, I must say, you came out swinging initially for IH, and over the course of a few days, I have noticed that your tone has moderated (at least a little) after having given due consideration to some of our observations here on ECW. I commend you for it. You come across to me more genuine now in wanting to understand the big picture. Whereas just a few days ago, you really did come across as a shill for IH.

    I agree that most here generally tilt toward Mr. Rossi, but that is because many here have followed the story in excruciating detail, and for several years. We know our LENR stuff. We sometimes tire of the LENR know-nothings that repeat the same old arguments (not accusing you, at least at the present moment). And when we see what appears to be BS from either Mr. Rossi or IH, it will be called out. It just so happens that IH looks shifty, inconsistent, and with a load of conflicts of interests–more so than Mr. Rossi–to many of us. I hope I’m wrong and that IH really is the upstanding enlightened organization that I once thought they were.

  • Mats002

    Where is my flash heat? Ouch! There it was!

  • Bob Greenyer

    The MFMP has made a concious decision to act independently and work from public claims and information.

    We are the researchers, whom you can follow in our regular postings and the crowd participants and collaborating independent researchers.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dr. Rossi has been consistent over the years about his vision for his E-Cat; to not allow Crony Capitalism (Wikipedia definition) to take control of his invention. IH screwed up. Dr. Ross repeats his philosophy in this answer to a recent question:

    Andrea Rossi

    April 27, 2016 at 6:57 AM


    It is true, we never had any contact with the British Government, as well as we did not have any contact with any Government of the world. Our industrial strategy is not connected with any political entity. Good industrialism must stay away from political involvements and from any funding that depends from political entities. If a product is good, it does not depend from any political intervention, so far it respects the laws. Products that depend on governmental funding are usually, with some exception, like carts with square wheels pulled by the taxpayer. Look at Microsoft’s model: politics always used computers, Microsoft never used politics. The same will happen with the E-Cats, so long I will be in a position to decide our strategy. F8.

    Warm Regards,


    • georgehants

      So Mr Rossi wants to become a multi, multi, billionaire with a monopoly on this life saving technology like Gates etc. and only sell products to the rich and then prance around giving away a little of his ridiculous wealth as if he and his wife are good people.
      If he meant any good then he would campaign to have all patents removed on drugs and build factory’s in poor countries, for them to produce their own drugs free of charge.
      A copy of student office costs £76 in South Africa, an amount completely out of the reach of millions of poor people.
      Is this the way Cold Fusion is going.
      It is a sad, sad World.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        So, download Evernote for free. Maybe you would rather not have a choice for your energy needs and let Crony Capitalists create a monopoly.

        • georgehants

          Bernie, your reply addresses none of my points and any point you are making is indecipherable, please try again.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            What can I say, georgehants, some people are so tied up in their own belief system they forgot how to listen.

      • psi2u2

        That is why Open Office exists. It is free.

    • TVulgaris

      Apparently Rossi is excluding his contract with the DoD in the early ’00’s as “contact with any Government”- but perhaps the original question was dealing strictly with his LENR work.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Given that we publish everything, we’d make pretty useless spy’s – who would want to hire us???

  • Omega Z

    There’s a method to Rossi’s madness.

    A single 10KW E-cat is 10KW always whether you need it or not. The 10KW reactor takes hours to power up thus operated 24/7 for quick energy access. A 1 year operational fuel charge needs replaced annually.

    100 watt modules can power up in minutes and used only as needed. A 1 year operational fuel charge could last for many years.

    The computer control can monitor the usage of each individual module using different modules at different times maintaining an average usage per module to assure that a fuel charge is maximized to last multiple years at a rated capacity.

    Better to have a 10KW E-cat made up of 100-> 100 watt modules that can be dialed up & down as needed from 100 watts to 10KW. Or whatever size of E-cat you require…

    • DrD

      Yes, but don’t forget he recently said that lifetime is diminshed if it’s turned off for long times. Could be a problem that. It was when some one asked about use as a winter only heater.
      I’m also curious to know his thinking on refueling. Will we return individual quarks for refurbishment, will we insert replacement fuel elements (like a battery) or do we return the entire unit or does a service engineer call. I’m talking domestic of course but I suppose it applies to industrial aswell.

  • Jarea

    Could anybody ask Rossi when does he think the massive production will be started?.
    How many 1MW plants will be produced?

    • cashmemorz

      Even if we got his say so of what that entails, how do we here get confirmation. We would need at least two trustworthy unbiased customers who have received and used their units to their satisfaction that the units either worked as promised or fell short in any way. First we would have to find those customers. Would a publicized appeal bring any of them to us?

  • Karl Venter

    12 000 000 data points captured and IH and Rossi cant agree what the COP is
    Must be the most useless test or interpreter of data ever – surely not such contradicting results as what we have got – cop 1 or 50 – surely for 89 million somebody with some say would have mentioned this after six months?
    I cant believe Woodford would do a 2.5 year due diligence and miss it- They cant be that gullible or stupid to have missed it and then dont mention it at all upon request. Surely you have a duty to investors to state that you blew 50 million of their investment monies or that one of your investments has gone belly up. – Not a word from them – strange – do they believe all is still OK – there is no way they invested the money without the rossi 1 mw test check. These guys (Woodford) have sensitive Bul***it meters built into their brains and they still invested after 2.5 years.
    How did this all go unchecked for a year
    Nobody asked rossi what the COP was ? for a year ?
    Nobody checked rossi data? for a year?
    Did IH see these data points and they still think it does not work?
    Did Rossi give them these data points?
    Surely they were allowed in the container – show investors ? let investors speak to Rossi?
    This must rate as the biggest financial stuff up in history of IH/Cherokee
    If Rossi is wrong – cherokee wins a moral victory and maybe 10 million back from rossi – which I doubt
    If cherokee is wrong they lose out on the biggest revolution the world has ever seen

    • Ciaranjay

      It is true that the investment story provides some of the very few facts that we have on this caper.
      However the conclusions we can draw are not safe.
      It has been reported that the 10 million invested by Darden was his own money, which suggests he did not trust the tech or trust Rossi enough to put in actual investors money.
      We can be sure that Woodford has input $50 million into IH, but that is not the same as saying Woodford has invested $50m in Rossi. IH are looking at other LENR projects.
      We can take it as factual that Woodford has seen and heard enough to convince him that it is worth investing the money into IH. However both he and IH have been cautious in their pronouncements suggesting the investment is speculative. So it is more like a venture capital play that might not come good or it might pay off big.
      Of course the fact that Woodford has seen something does not mean he knows something, only that he thinks he knows something. We have seen supposedly expert scientists look like fools when trying to evaluate LENR. Even a smart investor like Woodford can make mistakes.
      There are many times when investors get to lose their money. For instance the Orbo fiasco has so far attracted over 20 million euros of investors money.
      Unlike Rossi, Woodford cannot just blog opinion and speculation onto the Internet. He has many investments baking away and would be a fool to discuss them in a premature way. His professional duty is to his shareholders not to the Internet population.
      However I must say I am as curious as everyone else here to find out the truth. At the moment it does not make any sense.

      • Karl Venter

        2.5 year due diligence and your main product is bust
        Did Darden say to woodford – Rossi is not quite honest/got it – but invest in our other LENR projects – my bull meter will go into the red if I got a statement like that.
        He trusted the tech enough to Hoodwink Woodford to let go of 50 million

        You are right it does not make sense – father time will tell?

        • Stefenski

          Rossi doesn’t help much by his One syllable replies.

          If he has something he should be more forthright , not necessary revealing – but use a more honest language IMO

          I am really hoping he can get things going, but am as discouraged as the majority.

    • cashmemorz

      IH and AR are some very smart parties. One of them outsmarted the other, or there is another unseen agenda. Will the court case show any details to clear this up? Too many questions, I agree.

      • TVulgaris

        Perhaps enough public interest that this can’t be adequately buried, regardless which (or all) of the major players are silenced?

  • Alan Smith

    I have just had another look at Mats Lewan’s blog. I notice he has removed all the comments made for his most recent posts- over 750 of them.
    While never in favour of censorship, I am very pleased because the comments had descended to gutter level. Personal attacks are never called for, and IH Trolls nchawk and guest, and Cimpy (an Italian journalist with a long-standing grudge against Rossi in particular) were behaving like animals. Some ardent Rossi supporters were not much more restrained.
    Criticism is always -should always -be allowed, but there should no room in these spaces for the ‘ad hominem’ insults and smears that were being made. Thomas Clark might be a boring kind of critic, but at least he is a professional bore and not impolite (generally).
    I will point out that LENR is a bigger field than just Rossi, and way way bigger than IH/Darden for all it’s millions. I (nor lookingforheat) have no skin in the Rossi game, but a lot of time and a little money invested in LENR research and systems for knowledge’s own sake. So not a ‘fanboy’ as some might think, but someone dedicated to looking for a way out of the mess that we are making of our planet.
    I just think we will go further and learn more if we all play nicely together. If we see a repeat of the disgraceful behaviour here that was being displayed on Mats’ blog it will damage ECW considerably, and reflect badly on LENR research as a whole, so I will be the first to plead with Frank to do something about it. I hope that at least some of you would support me in that effort.

    • Frank Acland

      Mats wrote this:

      Hi everyone.
      This discussion has started to get too much out of the original scope, to search for and expose facts in a complex situation, and the amount of comments is also becoming larger than I can handle for a fair moderating, so I will close down the discussion, at least for now.
      Meanwhile, my advice to all readers who have not participated in the discussion, is to be careful to trust any claim that has been published in comments here, since the stakes are potentially high and it’s difficult to know the motives behind each individual, or pseudonym.
      However, some things have been learnt, both on what has happened, and also on the positions on some of those involved, and their identities. The continued story is going to be interesting.

    • psi2u2

      Very thoughtful analysis. I agree, Clarke is a valuable critic. I hope he is wrong about the emissivity question, but who am I to answer this question? So I appreciate his critical focus on factual and interpretative questions that are unresolved. By the same token, Alan, you are a great example of why the constant harping on Rossi “true believers” and the attacks on them by some posters on Mats’ blog is misplaced. As you say, you have no skin in the Rossi game, band in fact are from some respects a “competitor.”

      I guess my hope that being outed was making nckhawk/Weaver more reasonable was premature.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Clarke was right about the physics of emissivity as far as I see, but before concluding something one should know exactly how the Optris works and what numbers they entered in it. The dummy run they made also provided some independent confirmation of their procedure, although not fully because its temperature was less than in the real run.

        • Obvious

          I had a look at the dummy emissivity. There is no indication in the alumina emissivity plot they provided that they actually corrected the epsilon by using the special 0.95 emissivity dots below 450 C. The literature values seem to be the ones on the plot.

          Levi also just responded to Mats, suggesting substituting an epsilon of 1 for the emissivity, demonstrating his continued lack of understanding the problem in the report with selective emissivity and the Optris detection band.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, Alan. For more than 5 years I have tried to ensure that E-Cat World does not become a venue for trolling and gutter-level back and fort, and I will try to maintain that.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The comments are still there, Mats didn’t remove them. For some reason they are just not visible in the main blog, one has to go to the article itself to see them. (Maybe because the story and the comments were broken into two parts.)

    • Guest

      Hi Alan – I take offense to you calling me a troll and accusing me of personal attacks/behaving like an animal.

      I’m not sure which of my comments you believe were over the line, but I’ve actually tried really hard not to stoop to that level and stick to commenting on what I’ve learned or heard without final judgment. I agree with you that some of NCKhawk’s comments crossed the line into showing his anger, and I hope you’ll remember that I commented on that as well asking him to stop throwing around the “fraud” word even if that’s what he thought.

      Please let me know what you found offensive and I’ll try to be more careful going forward.

      And just FYI, I am also an LENR believer.

      • Alan Smith

        Well, let me apologise and say you are quite forgiven for whatever it was I imagine you said. Things were a little fast and furious last night, and it was way past my bedtime.

  • Andrew

    I have had some of my posts deleted, sometimes auto moderated. It just happens sometimes. There is no one conspiring against you.

  • I wrote a quick summar of the latest incosistencies of Weaver. Basically, he one month ago, before the complaint was filed, stated that they were optimistic all the way until October 2015, but lately he has been stating that they were very suspicious even before the MW test started (and that they didnt even want to do it). That is one huge change of strategy before/after I would say.

    • Mike Henderson

      Your post on Weaver’s 180 degree turnabout from “Rossi’s a hero” to “Rossi’s a fake” reminded me of how OTC boiler rooms operate pump-and-dump scams. What if big investors were signed on for a series of increasing tranches? (“Rossi’s a hero”) After the first tranche of funding is in hand, those operating the project might want those investors to walk away from further investments voluntarily, abandoning their initial investment. One way to achieve that would be to create chaos. (“Rossi’s a fake”) And Rossi’s actions might also cause a prudent investor to be unable to commit future funds … and feel relieved.

      The best confidence game is one where the mark walks away happy.

  • Frank Acland
    April 27, 2016 at 9:47 PM

    Dear Andrea,
    Can you explain why this test is so important, and why this customer is so important?

    Many thanks,


    Andrea Rossi
    April 28, 2016 at 6:26 AM

    Frank Acland:
    Because it is the first test after the preliminar R&D and because it is a partner that could help strongly to speed up the development process. F8.

    Warm Regards,

    • So here we go again. If the naysayers are to be believed, Rossi is setting up another test where a third party will attempt to validate the technology, he will fool them, and they will waste their money on him. Even you hardened skeptics must appreciate Rossi for the giant size of his nether parts.

      We’re not looking so much at a new customer then. This sounds like a new industrialization partner. Unless it is just a customer and Rossi is extrapolating what a massive inflow of cash would mean.

      • roseland67

        What development process?
        If it wasn’t yet developed, what have the “robitized” production lines been manufacturing? An undeveloped product?

        • E-Cat QX is still in the R&D phase.

          He needs help to finish the D and move on to the $. F8.

          • DrD

            Exactly correct!

          • Frank Acland

            I don’t believe the 1MW plant was a Hot Cat plant, it was a low temperature plant. Rossi has said that the Hot Cats have evolved in the the QuarkX reactors.

          • Ah ok. So the manufacturing on deck would be for the Cool-Cats.

          • US_Citizen71

            Read the second amendment to the contract, it changed the plant to a a variety described as a six pack of HotCats. So to me I think it was HotCats in the 1MW plant 1 year test. In my opinion the famous shot of the red hot HotCat was failure testing of the cores that went on to build the plant.

      • LuFong

        He’s calling it a development process, not industrialization. He currently is in preliminary R&D. Previously he’s said that industrialization will be rapid, on the order of months. See how this works?

        • Warm Cat being industrialized (rapidly).

          New E-Cat QX still in R&D. I think he hopes to rapidly industrialize these. If they pass muster in June, he’s implying it’ll happen fast.

  • This is business. Science is just along for the ride.

    • BadgerWI

      You got me there.

    • Private Citizen

      “This is business. Science is just along for the ride.”

      Sometimes it seems to border on faith, no? Some signs of a cult:

      1. Belief is a charismatic leader with supposed superior arcane or miraculous knowledge.

      2. Questioning, doubt, and
      dissent are discouraged, banned, or even punished; offenders excommunicated.

      3. Paranoid sense of persecution by hated outsiders (ie “skeptopaths”); us-vs-them.

      4. Belief cult is on a special mission to save humanity.

      5. Claim to have a special corner on the truth, something no other groups has.

      6. Showing great attention and love to a person in the group by others in the group, to help transfer emotional dependence to the group; love-bombing

      7. Avoidance of and/or denial of any facts that might contradict the group’s belief system.

      • 1. LENR all but proven. LENR+ Rossi, Brillouin, Lenuco, Clean Planet, Nichenergy. Russian, Chinese and other replication claims. Many scientific papers on excess heat and transmutation. $60M+ investment. MFMP gamma and neutron signals, apparent excess heat.

        2. I don’t moderate here, but I appreciate Frank’s filter. There is a lot of repetitive FUD out there that effectively annihilates and constructive dialog. We welcome reasoned skepticism here. Most of us simply seek the truth and the truth here is far from clear.

        3. The skeptopaths get on our nerves. They use tactics of ridicule, ad hominem attacks, endless repetition… well, basically every trolling tactic in the book.

        4. Humanity has some serious problems. Very inexpensive and green energy will solve a number of very important ones. But it won’t end wars or terrorism or greed or any number of other problem. No one disputes though that the impact of the technology would be enormous.

        5. We’re constantly analyzing things and reexamining our assumptions. In Are LENR Devices Real? ( I argue both sides and let the reader select importance and whether she believes more the point or the counterpoint.

        6. Eh. I don’t see much of that here.

        7. Nope. We want to take it ALL in. Give us every single fact and inference you’ve got and we’ll chew on it.

        • Private Citizen

          1. LENR all but proven = Not proven: miraculous secret ingredient for COP 50 still apparently still in hands of Rossi; otherwise still no cup of LENR tea openly replicated.

          2. I appreciate Frank’s filter. = love bomb key member of the pecking order while reinforcing belief in censorship and excommunication

          3. The skeptopaths get on our nerves. = us vs. them (what do you mean “our” nerves? )

          4. Actually, there is very little discussion of the military applications of possible LENR. It could be a 2-edged sword, making warfare cheaper and easier, especially as it won’t end wars or terrorism or greed

          5. We’re constantly analyzing things and reexamining our assumptions. = When not censoring (uh, “filtering”) those who disagree

          6. Eh. I don’t see much of that here. = love bombs and up-votes aplenty for those who agree; nothing wrong with loving one another. Ironically, your post was up-voted, but up-votes aren’t love-bombs are they?

          7. Nope. We want to take it ALL in. = except those we “filter”

          • 1. The point was the body of evidence available has got our attention, not blind faith in an individual, Rossi, whose words are sometimes borne out by events and sometimes not.

            2. Again you miss the point. The filtering is necessary for the functioning of the site as intended. If you think we are not exposed to all the arguments you are mistaken. We don’t just visit this site. It sounds like you feel moderation has no role in message boards. Most would disagree there.

            3. OK, “my” nerves. But I suspect I speak for others too.

            4. Agreed. But we already have plenty of ways to kill each other so I don’t see LENR making much of a difference there. It’ll just be a part of the never ending tug of war between offense and defense played out on an evolving technological foundation.

            5. We see it all. PC, even if it all doesn’t show up here on this site.

            6. Oh yes I LIVE for the UPVOTES. UPVOTES make me feel powerful and loved.

            7. Again we get our information from all over. If you think the filter here is too strict take it up with Frank. I’m OK with anybody at all posting as long as they don’t troll and are willing to have a discussion based on facts and reason.

          • Frank Acland

            Regarding moderation. The guiding philosophy of this site is posted above (see Commenting Guidelines: ), along with guidelines for commenting, and what kinds of comments may be moderated.

            The site was founded on the assumption that the E-Cat is real and not a fake/hoax/scam, and that assumption still stands from my perspective based on the evidence I have examined. There are other sites where that assumption is not in place and I would recommend people visit all and any sites on the topic and comment according to the policies those sites have.

          • clovis ray

            Hi, Frank
            agreed, if someone is suspected of misusing your forum. can you demand their real identity, or is that a bit much,

          • Warthog

            “LENR all but proven = Not proven: miraculous secret ingredient for COP
            50 apparently still in hands of Rossi; otherwise still no cup of LENR
            tea openly replicated with indisputable calorimetry.

            Only true if limited to Rossi. The vast weight of evidence is that LENR is real, beginning with replications as early as 1990. Good book……”Excess Heat”…author Charles Beaudette. I suggest you read it.

          • TVulgaris

            This upvote based purely on your correction of a BLATANT false equivalency of Rossi with LENR physics and engineering. Beaudette is a fundamental reference.

            Private Citizen dismisses the 20 years of prior work (to Rossi)- and then thinks rejecting trolls is too harsh.

          • psi2u2

            Let me send you a “love bomb” to both you and Warthog for clarifying that essential point of fact. In my opinion, when Rossi’s critics say things like that they discredit themselves.

  • We agree!!.

    Solid public test, no more faith, this is science or not.

    • If your primary concern is the science you are better off watching MFMP (

      You’ll never get clear science out of Rossi.

      • Rossi have something. But is not stable or ready to production. That is the real true behind all this.

        Then the solution, is bring more people to work, to solve the problems. The IH is the way to go: get together several inventors, try they to fix each other, then we will have a product.

        While the inventors and public, dont work together, we will not have a real product for the masses.

        • To deliver a real product there must be lots of R&D, extensive testing, and finally a manufacturing capability (plus marketing, sales, logistics, etc).

          All that takes time and money, but if you’ve been following the Rossi saga you know that we seem to be at the point where real manufacturing is about to take place. Public participation not required.

          We’ll see what happens next.

          • if “Public participation not required.”

            ¿Then why you are writing here?
            You don´t have any more usefull thing to do?

            This is marketing, all products need marketing.
            We need supporters, first users, etc. Everyone is needed. also you.

          • I think I’m doing my part.

        • Alan Smith

          Elisha. Inventors are not some remote and magic class of people that need wonks like IH to bring them together. Money doesn’t grow trees, money cuts them down. (I just thought of that -might use it again :-))

          Inventors -thanks to the freedom and fertile soil of the internet can do it for themselves.

          Stop thinking of yourself as a passive recipient of the thought and skill of others, and play your part in the (potential) revolution that LENR will bring us. We should not wait for Wallwart to package it up and sell it to use on their own terms, but make it and take it for ourselves.

      • Lux Terrea

        I’m happy MFMP is working on LENR. They really need more substantial results though. They have yet to prove anything and my patience, very good since 2011, had finally worn through.

        • Ged

          Thermal neutrons prove a lot, along with the x-ray/gamma spikes, and the remarkable reproducibility of the system. The excess heat is weak–yes, just a bit above a COP of 1–and there is room for a lot of improvement (and they have plenty of ideas), but MFMP has already obtained substantial results.

        • SG

          MFMP is a volunteer open source effort. I’d suggest focusing your frustration (which is understandable) into something actionable such as making a donation to the effort. The donation process is simple through their website.

        • Agreed but if you’ve been following their most recent work they appear to have very interesting substantive results: repeatable excess heat, a gamma signal, and thermal neutrons.

          The problems are magnitude, replication and replication, respectively. More work to do for them, but they appear to have taken the first steps toward proving nuclear events.

  • That would be great. They’d be one of the primary beneficiaries. Still haven’t seen much bubble to the top yet though.

  • Hmm. What I expect and what I hope for are two different things. I hope that will happen.

    What I expect is that the three newly ordered 1 MW HotCat plants will be delivered within 2016 to JM Products/UK parent and that we will receive back channel reports of success, probably from Mats. I don’t think there’ll be any more than that. Probably nothing that meets the spirit of ‘publicly.’

    I expect Leonardo’s attention to turn almost completely to the E-Cat QX, which if it works makes spending a lot of effort on HotCats after June kind of pointless.

    And so we won’t be in a much different place than we are now. For supporters it’ll feel like progress. For detractors it’ll feel like unverified BS and the next rung on Rossi’s monster scam.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    It sounds a possible and at least to some extent plausible theory.

  • Thomas Baccei

    I have followed LENR and Andreas Rossi for years. It is hard to say this, but Mr. Rossi is very probably simply a narcissist, and the attention he gets keeps him at it. I do still feel it highly likely that LENR is genuine, and sooner rather than later, some repeatable formula will induce some thorough research leading to a viable energy system.

    But, as to Mr. Rossi. How can anyone, or better to ask, WHY would anyone spend so much time blogging endlessly about everything under the sun regarding his “invention”? In the midst of inventing, engineering, business negotiations, legal wrangling and babysitting the 1 MW plant, he answers endless and pointless questions with the skill of a novelist. If we all simply stopped giving him the attention he craves it would end soon enough. But that will never happen – all too many of us are hooked on our end of the deal and will never leave the story behind. It will end in some ambiguous way too, I predict. You know, he dies, taking the secret to his grave, or loses in court and stubbornly maintains his silence to spite the world. I’ll bet he reads this and a few of the other LENR fan sites very regularly for an ego jolt. Hi Andrea and warm regards!

    • This is possible, but as a mundane explanation he has said many times that he gets value out of his dialog with the public, getting links to new info, ideas and whatnot.

      Also consider, does spending 16 hours per day in a shipping crate comport with the behavior of a narcissist? We can pretty safely conclude at this point that if he’s scamming it’s not for the money — it’d have to be due to some personality disorder.

      But then again the scam theory must necessarily involve others like Penon and Levi. But they would be doing it for the money, no?

    • SG

      It takes all types to make the world go ’round. And it takes a type like Mr. Rossi to (possibly) bring LENR+ to the world.

      • cashmemorz

        Yours is the clearest and shortest description of what is actually going on here. Existentialist par excellence.

    • Snobben

      Jepp…Andrea i s just a Pathological liar among others…

    • DrD

      Clearly, the endless list of questioners don’t agree that their
      questions are pointless, nor do I, far from it. Personally I am grateful
      that he spares the time to answer us.

      • Thomas Baccei

        I agree that the questions are sincere. No one is home at Rossi’s house, and it’s pointless to ask him any serious question when the answers are fabrications.

  • Lux Terrea

    Careful what you say. The moderators here don’t like negative talk. I regularly get deleted. I’m glad someone else is saying this.

    • Ged

      The moderators here have nothing against negative talk, as even a brief glance at these threads show. But the moderators rightly demand your comments stick to logos and not devolve into complete pathos. If you were deleted, that is because you fell into the latter, and no one wants useless pathos comments around.

      • psi2u2


  • radvar

    State of the doubt: Everything about Rossi seemed plausible up until the snafu with IH. The snafu with IH seems plausible. Therefore, no change in doubt, EXCEPT:

    High expectations dashed, leading to disappointment. Looking for someone to blame, leading to Rossi. Focusing on Rossi, leading to Rossi’s idiosyncratic behavior. Rossi’s idiosyncratic behavior leading to marginal increases in doubt.

    Compensation: Rossi has put it all on the line with the IH lawsuit. If he blows up now, at least it will be spectacular. And he’s still the best show on the LENR channel.

    Net: Stay tuned for the further adventures!

    • cashmemorz

      Not really. Your skewing it too one sided so therefore you are trying too hard and obviously to be negative and I don’t even have to ask why you do that.

      • radvar

        I’ve been here since 2012. Time tempers enthusiasm.

  • Ged

    But Rossi was right, so who was fooled? Your comment appears irrational, unless you meant to post to someone else?

    • Alex Fenrick

      That was a bit tongue in cheek which is why I didn’t actually post any real info…a bit lazy on my part there. I was just speaking specifically to the point that there is now a definitely feeling that this is the second time around that Rossi has given the feeling that we would get some real information…but again all we get is more secrecy and promises into the future. I am not saying I know if Rossi is lying about these new customers and tests…but it sure feels like groundhog day….I guess ground hog day would have been a MUCH better choice…

      • Ged

        But last time we Did get real information, so you are wrong there.

        My point was that when we were back before the information reveal, when all we had was Rossi saying similar things as now, we felt the same as now, except with no history backing us up. If history repeats, we will get real information, once again.

        • Alex Fenrick

          I guess you and I just have very different views on what “real” information from Rossi is. There was a time I may have agreed with you…but that time has passed for me…and it seems a multitude of others as of late….this is no longer a situation of the “pathoskeptics” attacks as you like to call us…but I think people are really taking a different perspective now of the situation and starting to really question Rossi as they should. This could very well be just my perception…but I doubt it….

          • Ged

            It really is just you. I also don’t call people pathoskeptics, so that was yet another leap in logic based on nothing made as a ploy to control the assumptions of the dicussion. You are unfortunately heavy on the “begs the question” logical fallacy.

            So go ahead, define what “real” information is and let us see if your reasoning stands up to scrutany and evidence.

  • Ged

    That is sketchy, perhaps, but was not the topic or point of my post (how he can get money without new investors). My point stands, your view here is unrelated.

  • Gerard McEk

    April 28, 2016 at 9:19 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    You have indicated that you are preparing for a QuarX test with a European customer in June. You have also indicated that it will have a variety in output power and that it will produce electricity.

    I hope you will be able to answer the following questions for us:

    1. What will be the duration of that test?

    2. Is it right to assume that it will be a multiple QuarX?

    3. What will be the maximum power level?

    4. Will also the heat production be measured, or just the electrical COP?

    5. Will the results be published?

    6. Will the customer also help you with sales and/or production if the tests are a success?

    Many thanks,

    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi

    April 28, 2016 at 10:08 AM

    Gerard McEk:

    1- several days

    2- yes

    3- we’ll see

    4- all the energy produced will be measured

    5- no, it will be an internal test, not a public test, but if the apparatus will become a product, the characteristics of it will be obviously published

    6- yes

    Warm Regards,


    • Confirmed: Rossi sees next tester as industrialization partner taking the place of Industrial Heat.

      This upcoming test is analogous to the initial acceptance test done by Penon for IH that enabled signing that agreement.

      PLEA TO NEW INDUSTRIALIZATION PARTNER: please do this right. No Rossi access. No Penon. No Levi. No anybody less than 6 degrees of separation from Rossi. Measure everything. Study up on all the supposed fraud pathways and eliminate them. Quadruple check everything. Use different techniques to measure energy to cross-check (both input and output). Put the money in escrow until you can test them again alone with your experts and a couple of skeptical Professors for good measure. Trust no one.

      • Ged

        Make it a double blind test, that would eliminate a great deal of worries and bias.

        • Good advice. Consult with scientists to set up the best test protocol possible.

      • DNI

        And then there will probably be no deal. I don’t think Rossi will accept those terms.

        • That would be very telling. But they should insist.

          • DNI

            As I understand from reading Mats Lewan, this is the way it works with Rossi. It’s his way or no way.

          • I get that, but if you look at the IH/Leonardo agreement it’s actually heavily weighted to IH in terms of IP transfer and usage and validation of the technology. A 1 year test with IH personnel given complete access and an ERV of mutual consent before transfer of the bulk of the money. Doesn’t seem like Rossi put one past IH as far as that agreement goes. Maybe the other way around.

            I think the only loophole was giving Rossi full access.

          • DNI

            I agree about the agreement . But I’m not sure Rossi fulfilled his side. Maybe we find out in the future.

          • Ged

            There is actually some language in the IH agreement that gives IH an enormous boost over Rossi, such as the rights to any improvements on the E-cat technology made by Rossi, but no reciprocal rights for any improvements made by IH on the technology. Likewise, IH could sublease at their will, but Rossi was bound to working only with IH except in territories where Rossi had previous partners lined up (but he could not make any new licensing partners according to the agreement with IH).

            This is simply shocking language, and it’s amazing Rossi let it get slipped in (probably too excited for the funding to read so much fine print; or didn’t think about the long term consequences as the E-cat X wasn’t yet a thing; or IH’s lawyers just outmaneuvered his altogether), as it all but hands control of the E-cat to IH and very heavily favors them while limiting Rossi. So it seems the idea that it’s Rossi’s “way or no way” is simply not true–at least not in the case of IH.

          • DNI

            My comment “Rossis way or no way” concerned the terms for testing.

            A possible reason for Rossi to accept the unfavorable agreement could be if he knew it didn’t work. One could even argue that Rossi would never have agreed too such a lousy agreement if he knew the E-Cat worked. But that would be speculative 🙂

          • Ged

            Not really, as then he is doomed as that is criminal fraud; and directly proveable as such if that is the case.

            And we know from the agreement that IH has a say in all testing protocols. Additionally, Lugano was decided by neither Rossi nor IH. It just doesn’t seem like there is evidence backing you up, at the moment.

    • georgehants

      So absolutely no publication of the results again.

      • Ged

        Again? Last time I think we had an unpublished test (huge caveat: that we knew about) was the original 1MW low temp reactor back in 2012 or what not. I could easily have missed something along the way though.

        • georgehants

          Ged, semantics, all previous tests up to the unpublished test involving IH are possibly flawed.

          • Ged

            Not really semantics. Flawed is completely different than unpublished, were you can’t know anything about it let alone if flawed or not.

            The flawed claim will take us down a very different argument hole. But, there were tests before IH showed up and started doing them, but I don’t know of any unpublished ones that we knew about.

          • georgehants

            Ged, there has never been a published test from Rossi that clearly to any fair-minded person eliminates all doubt of the commercial practicability of Cold Fusion.
            If there had been we would not be worried about Mr. Rossi, as we could be sure that it will soon be replicated in many other places while he does things his way.

          • Ged

            Again, that is a different argument (which I don’t agree with as currently framed). But what I am asking is what -other- tests have been unpublished? Having a test in hand to disagree with is a very good thing, but what tests did we never get to see the results of that I may have missed and prompted your “again” comment?

          • georgehants

            I cannot be clearer of the Facts, I said —–
            “Ged, semantics, all previous tests up to the unpublished test involving IH are possibly flawed.”
            I did not use the word “again”
            Now I say AGAIN we are not to receive conformation from Rossi regarding this latest hypothetical test until maybe it is connected to a rocket heading for Mars.

          • Ged

            George, let me re-post your first post again: “So absolutely no publication of the results again.”

          • georgehants

            Ged, I understand, you where combining my original comment with yours and I apologise for confusion,
            I will rephrase, again it seems there will be be no indisputable Evidence published from Mr. Rossi to end this crazy situation of never clearly knowing if we have commercially viable Cold Fusion or not.
            Hope that is better.

          • Ged

            Yes, that makes a lot more sense, thank you George.

      • cashmemorz

        There will be but only as specifications for a product ready for market. AR will not specify those specs as part of the current customers device to prevent any possible link to this customer.

        • georgehants

          It seems always a good reason for not simply giving clear Evidence of a possible commercial Cold Fusion breakthrough.

          • Anon2012_2014

            “It seems always a good reason for not simply giving clear Evidence of a possible commercial Cold Fusion breakthrough.”

            I disagree. Never was there a good reason. For the past year it was that “IH” wanted it secret for competitive reasons. Each “reason” for not releasing proof is just an excuse for us to speculate why we don’t have proof. I want the proof.

      • Steve Swatman

        “but if the apparatus will become a product, the characteristics of it will be obviously published”

      • Gerard McEk

        I agree George. How long do we have to wait untill some indisputable body can do this? Let us hope the test satisfies the ‘customer’ and production will start. Then at least the properties will be clear. After that you can buy one and do the test yourself indisputably (for yourself 😉 ).

        • Anon2012_2014

          I expect to wait about two years for the trial of the century where we will get indisputable legal evidence from an independent third party expert witness chosen by the judge. This is a trial of fact and it will be public unless both Rossi and IH settle out of court.

          • Ged

            I apologize for hoping in you being wrong, but I sure would like it to happen sooner than two years from now 🙁

          • Anon2012_2014

            “but I sure would like it to happen sooner than two years from now :(”

            Me too. I watched IBM/SCO from Groklaw. It took I believe 5 years to resolve. These court cases are thorough and plodding.

          • Gerard McEk

            Then I hope it will be finally clear if AR is right or not. 2 Years is a long time though.

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks LG — and thanks to Gerard for the good questions. I have added them to the post above.

      • Gerard McEk

        To me the big question is again: Who it the customer? Now European intelligence must start and try to find out. I would not be surprised if it is Hydro Fusion, but who knows.
        Hopefully AR will tell us if the results were good and if the ‘customer’ or partner(?) is happy.
        I would love to join in and help testing the new multi QuarkX. Hey ‘customer’ do you need a good, very experienced and not expensive engineer? Gerard McEk ing CEng EurEng can help!

        • Frank Acland

          In a comment above above I *speculate* it is ABB

          • Gerard McEk

            I jus saw.

          • cashmemorz

            Yes. ABB would have to have ALL the physical details of what their robots were building if they were to hope to build the units completely. Also would have to be sure that what ABB build will work, otherwise they would be doing pointless work or helping a scam. After these two points are covered into the positive realm then ABB must know that what they will be building actually works as expected. After this point ABB would themselves beg to be in on the profits. To share the profits they would also beg to be a partner. If I knew these positive points I would do everything in my power and more to become a partner.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, not really. Because we going to purchase some Dell computers, does that mean Dell needs all the details of what I plan to do with those computers?

            ABB is a company that supplies industrial Robots. The people who purchase such machines are the ones that configure and setup the robots.

            ABB can certainly aid and help, but their involvement need not be much more than say when Caterpillar supplies some heavy equipment to a mining company. In other words, such companies will certainly makes efforts to supply the right kind of machinery for the right kind of job. And sure they can help in setting up such machines at the customer site.

            However, it not like Intel has to spill the beans to ABB when they purchase a robot arm to lift some chips out of an oven?

            And it’s not like ABB going to design a new robot say over the next 3-5 years for JUST one customer? (who going to wait that long?).

            ABB simply sells machines that “repeat” actions over and over. The nitty gritty of how those robots are used and setup occurs at the customer site, and by the customer. The programing of the robots occurs at the customer site.

            Now it possible that ABB wants to partner with Rossi, and thus Rossi can obtain production facilities without having much up-front money, but to do so you THEN must give away “points” or a percentage of the profits produced to ABB.

            I mean, in the early days of the internet I knew some people walking around to business and offering to setup a shopping cart in which the provider of the shopping cart would take say 30% of the price for everything sold. For many a business, they thought, ok – I mean, I not selling anything on the internet and the interne seems like some fad! And who cares if some young pimple faced kid wearing glasses starts to sell more of my product – that’s simply extra gravy and

            Of course a few years later, MANY a business wound up in court as they attempted to wiggle out of these shopping cart deals – especially when say half or more of their sales started occurring on-line.

            So it not quite clear what is being partnered here, but if Rossi willing to give up profits because I set up a web site and Rossi uses my on-line shopping cart so when you purchase a ecat, then I get a share of that sale. And same goes for ABB and a company using their Robots – we have to use much caution here.

            Perhaps Dell computers should “pitch” to business that when you purchase a dell computer, they get a share of your business profits?

            I sure a penny mining company is THRILLED to state they entered into a strategic partnership with caterpillar to provide them mining equipment. So “strategic” partnership has many semantic meanings here. It not at all clear if such strategic partner ships means supplying equipment and know how, or some kind of profit sharing is to occur as a result of that partnership.

            However, when you desperate for credibility, then the use of the term strategic partnership really does sound good to the uninformed public. (or anyone who’s never created a business).

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • UK is aware of LENR.
          they follow Nukey .
          In LENRG Oxford … there was important people not present, beside some present.

          BTW read

          this is just reputation trap that prevent UK gov to talk of that.

          • Gerard McEk

            Hi Alain, long time not seen in comments here. Coincidence: I have been in that area (Chester) for 5 years. Quite nice. I did not see any reference to alternative solutions on that site reference you gave, only: invest in nuclear (fusion/fission).

          • page 29 Intelligent Energy Systems Demonstrator

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Page 19. Yes indeed, there sits “LENR” neatly in the list, an item among items. Not subordinated under R&D, but a player among players. Integrated, sort of. “All energy sources must be integrated.” Good find. Alain always finds good things.

          • Gerard McEk

            Ah, thanks Pekka. Indeed well found by Alain; a hint that somebody of a not well known university has heard of LENR.

          • there was more at LENRG conferences.
            they were present, and presenting.

  • Ciaranjay

    Here is the paradox.
    If Rossi has a commercial ready LENR product then IH would be idiots not to pay him the money and move things along speedily.
    If Rossi does not have a commercial product then it does not matter whether he partners with IH or new customers or whoever because he has nothing to sell.
    the other possibilities are;
    1. The relationship beween IH and Rossi has broken down and there is no trust. Which I think is quite likely.
    2. IH are sharks making a grab for the technology and Rossi says No! IMHO far fetched but possible.
    3. IH are working with the agents of chaos and big money to stop Rossi and LENR, which I don’t believe because it is conspiracy theorist nonsense and they don’t seem be be very effective at it.

    • sam

      You get the feeling that A.R and T.D
      need a strong wise Fatherly figure
      that they both trust to set down with them.And say boys lets get this mess
      sorted out.

    • vokzzi V

      If IH had not received instructions from Rossi for e -Cat with the COP > 6 and then figured out the COP > 50 on their own. I do not think they would hesitate to discredit Rossi and then come up with their own ” IH -cat ” with COP >50 and the rights to sell it in all markets in the world.

  • Frank Acland

    This is just a guess based on no special information, but I wonder if this new customer/partner that the tests will be done for could be ABB.

    It is a company that Rossi says he has been in discussion with regarding manufacturing, and he has stated today that the customer could become a potential production partner. They are based in Europe, which puts them safely outside of IH license territory, and Rossi said the tests would take place in Europe. If they are going to become a partner they might want to be assured that all works as Rossi says it does.

    • Ged

      And they would probably need to see what a final product looks like and how it functions, for both production and quality control necessities.

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, that’s indeed a very real probability. Pity, they have got many good engineers. Maybe I have not a chance help testing, but I am more affordable, I am sure.

      • Ged

        I would certainly love to get some ECW agents, like yourself, on the inside ;).

        • Gerard McEk

          BTW I realize, I have forgotten to ask where the test will be done, but I am sure it will be in the US. I guess it’s difficult to ‘smuggle’ an E-cat from the US to Europe. The powder content will be ‘suspicious’ and will immediately be very throughly analyzed…. 😉

          • Frank Acland

            He said Europe.

          • Ged

            The point was you claimed it was “sketchy” that Rossi was getting more money yet had said he was not getting new investors. I pointers out how that was a silly view, since all businesses must get their money ultimately from customers, so that could be the case here which is Supportive of Rossi’s case (as customers always are for a business).

            You have gone off on an unrelated tangent to that point, misdirecting the conversation to make fallacious insinuations. I was trying to keep you on point.

            So, let me make the main point again: There is nothing sketchy about Rossi getting more money but not through investors. Quite the opposite.

          • Alex Fenrick

            Wrong Ged. The original point which I was speaking to directly was…and I quote…. “I find it hard to believe that Rossi has attracted a new investor WHILE suing his previous investor”. WHILE suing his previous investor (especially with no products of which you speak “other customers”) is the operative part that you completely missed.
            Since you have changed the point…I will actually agree with YOUR new point. I NEVER mentioned nor implied that Rossi getting money not but not through investors is shady…in fact I even elaborated on that point in another post. I think we can let this one go as you are playing with semantics at this point.

          • Ged

            I showed how your point was meaningless as he could attract customers, and “customer” not “investor” is the word he is using, which makes your argument based on… nothing (note customer is also the topic of this entire thread). He does have products, according to him, as three 1MW plants were supposedly purchased by the current (not the new one under duscussion) customer. So again, your entire assumption base is wrong.

            So again, nothing sketchy. You created a false reality (fabled new investors), and I deconstructed it.

            Now, worst for you, him getting new investors would not be sketchy while suing his current corporate partner (again, you make a false assumption, IH are not mere investors in Rossi). That sadly happens often in business, and is a pretty standard turn of events. But that isn’t even a discussion we need have as your original premise was faulty.

        • Omega Z

          ECW Agents would immediately be signed to a NDA,
          Good try tho…

    • Brokeeper

      I’m feeling the advantages are mutual:

      Brokeeper deleo77 • a month ago

      I’m sure ABB has envisioned the advantages partnering with the E-Cat X developers. It may lead to the next generation of robots from dual arms to dual arms and legs (or wheels) for mobility, perhaps evolving to domestic iRobots. 🙂

      • clovis ray

        I’m beginning to warm up to that line of thought, and that’s, a brilliant deduction. —smile, there is a new sun rising.

    • Ivan Idso

      I could be wrong, but I understood (no reference but I think its in the patent) that the Quark-X would be manufactured via semiconductor processes… Then perhaps assembled into a product via robots. I speculate that a semiconductor manufacturer could also be the customer.

      • HS61AF91

        Infineon … ?

        • Ivan Idso

          Or Phillips… A few years ago Siemens name was being thrown around as a potential customer.
          From Rossi’s patent on JONP:
          “Among the other embodiments are those in which the fuel wafer includes a multi-layer structure having a layer of the fuel mixture in thermal communication with a layer containing the electrical resistor”
          This statement referring to a wafer and the pic indicate to me the use of semi-conductor manufacturing.

      • Alex Fenrick

        I also recall mention of semiconductor manufacture….does anyone have a link?

    • Karl Venter

      Hi Frank
      I think your guess is spot on
      ABB is a major player in the energy market

      • SG

        Hmmm. That might be a problem as far as potential conflicts of interest. I worry about those. But, I’m willing to give ABB the benefit of the doubt that they can look beyond the current paradigm (assuming, of course, that they are the new partner).

    • wizkid

      I also think ABB is most likely to step up to the plate this time. I also think they have contacts in high places for certification of products made by their robots. Perhaps they increased Rossi’s team strength from 4 up to 33 people too, as a prelude to this test. That would be “the best possible scenario” that I can imagine …

    • Josh G

      IIRC Weaver made a comment over at Mats’ blog that implied ABB was unhappy with Rossi. You should be able to find it by searching for ABB on that first long “let’s find the truth together thread.” If it’s not there it might be at the sifferkol blog

  • Frank Acland

    Correct, Alex. I never said you comments were auto-moderated, just that sometimes that happens.

  • Karl Venter

    One good thing about this is that Rossi cant afford to bugger it up this time his credibility will be shot even from us faithfuls here


    Rossi, as the inventor, is worrying a lot about IP protection. I think his approach is mistaken. He should let an independent scientific organization like the Martin Fleishman Memorial Project or SRI test his reactors. His refusal to do that makes it look like there’s a con job going on here.

    • Omega Z

      Perhaps Rossi just doesn’t want to end up like Tesla.
      Broken and destitute.

      History tells the tale. There is no good Idea that others aren’t willing to steal.

      • SG

        American Genius on Netflix includes some of the most interesting and unbelievable stories of invention, greed, IP theft, triumph, and failure in the history of the United States. As indie programming goes, I highly recommend it.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Please see our latest FB post for photos

    Bob Higgins provides optical microscope image of our 62Ni samples.

    This is now on its way to Alan to be deployed in an up and coming experiment.

    In Bob’s own words

    “Recently, I opened the vial of 62Ni purchased from Trace Sciences by MFMP, to extract a tiny sample for microscopy. Note that Trace Sciences has supplied 62Ni to Rossi in the past. Trace Sciences enriches nickel as a nickel tetracarbonyl vapor in a centrifuge. Then, after enrichment, the nickel tetracarbonyl is reduced to precipitate the nickel metal as a powder. However, the morphology of the resulting 62Ni powder will depend a lot on the conditions during the reduction of the nickel tetracarbonyl (temperature, pressure, time), so the morphology of the 62Ni powder was unknown. Even Trace Sciences could not say what the powder morphology would turn out to be. Well, examination under the optical microscope showed that the particles were “chunks” that were from 10 microns diameter to ~700 microns diameter. The average particle size was probably about 400-500 microns in diameter. There were no spiky or flowery features to the powder particle surface visible under the optical microscope.

    To me, the Trace Science 62Ni particles in the sample purchased by MFMP bear a strong resemblance to the “Particle 1″ in the Lugano ash (see Appendix 3, page 45 of the Lugano report), which proved to be 62Ni from the ToF-SIMS analysis on page 50. I am including the photo I took of the Trace Science 62Ni sample so you can judge for yourself.”

    It looked to me that the Trace Science 62Ni particles were in the ash and had their outsides coated with Li.”

    • Axil Axil

      On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the E-Cat

      Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi

      At the temperature of operation of the ECat

      used in the Lugano test, the Lithium

      contained in the LiAlH4 is vaporized, and

      consequently was distributed evenly within

      the volume of the E-Cat. In contrast, the

      Nickel fuel remained in a solid or liquid state.

      At the time of sampling after one month of

      operation, Nickel was found to be encrusted

      on the internal surface of the reactor, from

      which a 2 mg sample of “ash” was obtained

      near to the center of the charge. Starting with

      an initial charge of approximately 1 gram, it

      cannot be said that the 2 mg sample was

      necessarily representative of the entire Nickel

      charge, but it remains to be explained how the

      isotopic ratios in the 2 mg sample show

      predominantly 62 28Ni34.

      The comparison of the two nickel particles may just show how nickel particles looks after they may have been melted.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Axil, was this paper on Arxiv for the past year (it has an April 2015 date in the pdf), or was it just posted?

        • Axil Axil

          This paper has been available for a while now, I not familiar about the release dates.

        • US_Citizen71

          Last-Modified: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 00:04:46 GMT according to the meta data on the page.

      • US_Citizen71

        Very interesting, a nice read.

        So it is Li7 * p > Be8 > 2 He4 + 17MeV after all.

        How do you excite Li7 to the correct state, while ionizing H and accelerating it at the same time with only a resistive heater for input?

        • Axil Axil

          Andrea Rossi

          December 13th, 2014 at 9:03 PM

          Herb Gills:

          The issue is much more complex than you say; isotopic shifts are caused by reactions and themselves cause further reactions, about which, obviously, I cannot give information, as I wrote many times.

          The role of hydrogen is foundamental. All I meant is just that the main nuclear reactions are not necessarily fusion.

          Warm Regards,


          Andrea Rossi

          December 13th, 2014 at 7:28 AM

          Frank Acland, Wladimir Guglinski:

          I forgot to answer to the question 4 of the Frank Acland’s comment, sorry: I answer in seconds while working…

          Answer: as you have read on the Report of the ITP after the Lugano test, energy comes substantially from isotopical shifts, which is not a fusion, at least for what concerns the final results.

          Warm Regards,


        • Bob Greenyer

          You know, one of the cheapest ways to conduct a test of

          (Group 1 alkaline metal) + Proton fusion

          is to get a chicken, Starve it of Calcium, see its shells go soft – then give it some potassium

          Of course you would have to ensure no potassium in the diet in the middle phase

          See here:

          • Timar

            I’m against LENR animal experiments. I hope MFMP won’t engage in such cruelty 😉

          • Bob Greenyer

            Unless it’s bacteria right – I mean, bacteria is hard to get all emotional about right?

          • Timar

            The question for me is: should evolution really have found a way to make use of LENR, why does it still rely on horrible inefficient photosynthesis for all its energy production all the way through the food chain? And why didn’t the chicken in Kervran’s experiments turn into broilers while transmuting enough potassium into calcium to produce copious eggshells from it?

            PS. I always feel guilty brushing my teeth – knowing about the bacterial mass exodus I am comitting 😉

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is not just about the bacteria on your teeth, think of all the progeny of the bacteria on you food that can never be because you cooked it!

            Think of the children!

            Celani discovered 2 forms of bacteria living in Nuclear fuel pools, they were also observed by another party at a similar time. Bacteria is being looked at as one approach to speeding up the transmutation of nuclear waste.

    • Ged

      Be interesting if small, seed, amounts of 62Ni were part of the “catalyst” action of the fuel. I am excited to see how this and your H source separated from reaction site ideas play out in experiments!

    • Axil Axil

      The Lugano test was an IH enterprize and was designed to support the patent that IH latter filed supporting their IP claim. Rissi was forsed to support this demo. Why would Rossi who has no interest in this test, salt the fuel with totally unexpected and unbelievable ash sample. It serves none of Rossi’s interests.

      • LuFong

        Tom Darden says he was initially convinced by transmutation data. “I think particularly the transmutation data is very compelling.” They sure got it, didn’t they?

        • Ged

          More than just nickel was different. I think most here were well aware of sampling bias. Nickel was never the most interesting part (and there was more than just 62Ni changes!), the lithium isotope change was, and the lithium was well mixed.

          Besides, this is based on an EM picture, and we well know particles look similar; but high temps Will change the form and shape of particles, so this is matching unmelted nickel with melted nickel–no way the same, so not much in the way of evidence for anything.

          Still interesting. I like the idea there were seeds of 62Ni in the fuel, as that would support certain reaction mechanisms.

          Still, this is not good evidence and I am aware of this.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Could it have something to do with his jet engine?

          • US_Citizen71

            Could be. Making that work would be a great demonstration as well. A force gauge is basic enough for most people to understand. So just a static test a full power.

          • Stephen

            I think it could be super cool with this one:



            Alan Bond is also one of my favorite engineers who has also managed to push his technology forward against initial opposition but is now well recognized. I always wonder what a synergy of his technology with LENR would be like and what he and Andrea Rossi would come up with if they worked together on this.

          • Charles

            I am always reading about space travel and settling in other planets.

            The nearest earth-like planet is ~6 lights years away. That is 6 as in 6 and light years as in light years. Traveling at the speed of light it would take 6 years to get there. My engineering (electronics) brain cannot cope with the physics of that except though Star-Trek.

            Presumably Sir Alan will use Rossi’s invention to power his space machine at the “speed of light”. Rossi – see Bond.

          • Stephen

            Maybe it will not reach these kinds of speeds yet but who knows in the future with synergies between all these different technologies like this and Pekka Janhunens e-sail, recent micro satellite light sail proposals and maybe even one day some kind of Shawyer EM drive.

            It could be an amazing future. I would love to be able to see the first pictures of planets from a probe to the stars. Even if does takes at least 12 years to see those pictures plus time to manufacture and launch the space probes that to make them.

      • SG

        Also, the 62Ni salting hypothesis is not definitive. The Lugano detractors must also explain the Li isotope changes. Try salting the ash with Li-6 right before the eyes of the Lugano scientists while they were scraping the ash from the internal surface of the reactor. Is anything possible? I suppose it is. But just seems very unlikely.

        • Ged

          Worst, isotopes don’t determin the appearance of a metal, but the processing history. People are reading -way- too much into this. Way too much. Even me.

          Convergence happens, particularly when looking at the same material. Still, it would be really cool if 62Ni was important in small doses as some theorists hypothesis.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think that the most interesting thing is that Rossi bought from same supplier, the 62Ni in Lugano ash is very similar in shape and size to the 62Ni sample we got from same supplier. Pure 62Ni was not found in Fuel.

        Given that they only took the reactor to 600ºC in calibrations – was this to avoid damaging 62 Ni in the reactor?

        Then there is the question – if IH really made the reactor, they must know about 62Ni.

        Then there is all the history from Vitorio Violante then Piantelli/Focardi then lastly Rossi saying or demonstrating that it is important.

        • Axil Axil

          The fact that a large chunk of nickel melted in the core of the Lugano reactor has critical implications, The most important is that slating of the ash with Ni62 could not have been done,

          The temperature of the Lugano reactor must also have been greater than the melting point of nickel. This means that the external temperature readings just reflect the efficiency of the surface heat fins at dissipating heat and not the failure of the surface temperature measurements process.

          • Bob Greenyer

            For me, if we accept that 62Ni is the result of the reaction and was naturally in the ash – given that the reaction was showing no signs of collapse in output, 62Ni is at least as effective as other Nickel isotopes – and as an endpoint, implies that neutron stripping in the Gullstrom theory is not likely to be the mechanism. Of course there is still Neutron stripping as per the very different Stoyan Sarg theory.

    • Alan Smith

      This weekend Lookingforheat is publishing a translation from Russian of a very comprehensive overview by Aleksander Parkhomov and colleagues of transmutation data from an AP reactor, an E-cat, Glowstick 3 (MFMP) and the recent Chinese reactor. First published via a conference in Dec 2015, the data presents a rather confusing picture of very different outcomes at first sight- been too busy working on the translation with my colleague to get to grips with it myself – but it will certainly provide us experimenters with food for thought.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Alan, if this is the Sochi paper, Bob Higgins already translated it.

        Also.. Lens and Co lab research

        • Alan Smith

          Similar to the paper translated by Bob – much of the same data for sure, but a different presentation..

          • Bob Greenyer

            Oh – great… look forward to seeing if there are any new insights

    • Ged

      Just for everyone’s reference, here is the ash from page 45 of the Lugano Report:

      And the facebook picture of the 62Ni:

      And then the fuel from the Lugano report, pg 44:


      All look similar to me within the bounds of diversity (particularly in the fuel), other than size (sintering of the ash) and a bit of the geometry. The fuel has the smallest grains by scale bars (in the selected view), the 62Ni has the next size up in grains and is larger than the fuel’s (in the selected view), and the ash sample is quite bigger than the 62Ni source (in the selected view; note that caveat applies to all pictures since one can just search around for different sized particles to snap a picture of, and this is not average particle size). Surface is also different, of course, since the lithium has coated the ash; but both the fuel and ash have a more planar face geometry, while the 62Ni appears far more pyramidal.

      I apologize, but I think this may just be seeing faces on Mars. Still, it is still a cool idea that pure 62Ni may have been used and may be important in the reaction as some theory posits.

      • Obvious

        The particle “of mostly oxygen” is probably a lithium oxide, like Li2O2 (lithium peroxide).

  • TVulgaris

    Except for all of the IP they’ve (IH) already licensed out.

  • TVulgaris

    Not anomalous- merely requiring special and very stringent conditions.
    Martin Fleischman stated quite unequivocally very high D loading was absolutely required. Other conditions were also requisite, but that single mandate was sufficient to explain ALL positive wet-cell results since, and quite a few of the failures.
    All those who rejected that requirement, but demand “proof”, will continue to contest reality.

  • Ged

    It’s starting to sound like you (or your connections) are claiming Rossi pushed for everything (since you keep using that same argument over and over)? Knowing business, that is undoubtedly false. Particularly since IH made the reactor and fuel, and it was important to them.

    On the other hand, I see no evidence that IH pushed for it and pulled Rossi along, either, so I think Axil is also wrong. While the test wasn’t in the contract, as far as I can see (maybe I missed it, but it seems only the 24 hour ones and the 1 year test were in there), it was very much in IH’s interests more so than Rossi’s, but it seems an amiably negotiated event and not one where either side was pushed along. It’s one issue neither side has had any contention over so far.

    • it seems Proia was quite unhappy of that move, and agreed just to get rid of that unreliable partner.

      they get just their money back plus few % (10%?) which is probably not accounting for the efforst and the running cost of a company.

      Maybe that is what IH will do.

      the best to do with an unreliable partner, is to pay a limited fine… and get free.
      a bit like a happy divorce.

  • Ged

    Actually, I was thinking about Prometeon today, so it’s cool seeing you bring it up. I know Rossi paid them back, so they lost nothing, but I was musing on when it happened–was it due to the agreement with IH? If so, it would have had to happen around that time that Rossi and IH signed their agreement, but I don’t recall.

    • Omega Z

      Yes, It happened after Industrial heat came on the scene.
      There were those who said Rossi sold the kitchen sink.

  • Brokeeper

    I can hear an ABB salesperson ending his/her pitch to a large manufacturing company: “…and we will even through in the cost to power the robots”, to seal the deal.

    • US_Citizen71

      ABB Lego factory. Robots, conveyors, etc. premounted in containers assemble as needed, batteries included.

  • greggoble

    The 2015 NASA NARI LENR presentation provides an analysis of LENR thermal and turbo machinery performance.

    “Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft” 2015 NARI (pdf) or (slides)

    Principal Investigator: Doug Wells: NASA Langley Research Center

    Co Investigators (GRC): Jim Felder, Roger Lepsh, John Martin, Mark Moor, Chris Snyder, Joe Sawodny

    Slide 22 – NASA LENR thermal turbo machinery performance analysis

    Turbomachinery (performance) is constant regardless of how heat is added

    Google “LENR NRNF Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Non Radioactive Nuclear Flight US and EU Applied Engineering” for further reading and links.

    • clovis ray

      very nice, list of important finding concerning this field,
      THANKS Greg.

  • Nigel Appleton

    Let’s just hope that influential people at the “important customer ” have read this site and other LENR information resources and ensure that all input and output measurements are as near unimpeachable as it’s possible to make them.
    The last thing anyone needs is another episode of dubious science brought about by Rossi behaving like a prima donna and refusing reasonable checks and controls – as has been reported in the past

  • georgehants

    For new readers I think it must be continually pointed out that there is no need and never has been to have to wait for the result of said trial.
    Mr. Rossi can send a basic unit to MFMP at any time of his choice and I believe they are perfectly capable of determining if it produces a Cop above 1.
    The only question of importance seems to be, Why he has and does absolutely refuse to take the opertunity to have his (possible) discoveries openly verified.
    He has stated that his units are now near impossible to back engineer so that is not a problem and if he has not patented with full disclosure his method, then he has no protection when another replication is achieved by MFMP or anybody.
    He is like Galvani and Volta discovering electricity and refusing to show others how to replicate.
    Five years and counting.

    • Bob Greenyer

      With a FDA (Full Disclosure Agreement) the MFMP would be very happy to test a black box.

      The MFMP has always had this option on the table.

      • Engineer48

        Maybe instead contact IH and ask to test one of the Lugano HotCats inc fuel they manufactured for the Lugano tests? Also ask them what happened to the Lugano ash and the reactors once the tests were completed?

        • Bob Greenyer

          We would like to double blind test the balance of the Lugano Ash – where is it I wonder?

          • Engineer48

            Weaver (nckhawk) said on Mat’s Blog that he didn’t know where the ash was. Amazing statement that as the Lugano ash is probably worth more than the test results.

            As I understand it, the reactors were IH property and loaned to the team at Lugano. So they and the ash should be at IH.

            Maybe ask the Lugano team members what happened to the reactors and the ash?

          • Ged

            This is a great line of inquiry. If it pans out, it would be tremendously useful. MFMP has plenty of other fuel/ash samples to take part in a double blind test as well, with known results to calibrate against.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Considering they were allowed only a limited amount of the ash – one must assume that the rest of the reactor was taken away.

          • Omega Z

            I believe they were given 2mg of the 1 gram fuel charge or the ash that was left..

            The ash sample was actually samples taken from 2 or 3 clumps. The ash wasn’t all made of clumps. This would not be an accurate representation of the ash. Rossi has said as much and indicated that they have done additional analysis of the remaining ash. Of course, indicating such and stating such aren’t the same.

            There was also an analysis of the fuel charge pretest. It was shown not to be isotopically different then would be expected. No sign of Ni62 enhancement.
            Something that may be of interest.

            I recently read they discovered that Alumina emissivity is higher then previously thought. Sadly, I don’t have a link, but it involved turbine research. I also didn’t take note of the error factor and usually these types of errors can take years to be corrected in the literature.

            Grooves in the Alumina is also an emissivity enhancer as is nickel. Perhaps, the Lugano test data is more accurate then thought???

          • Obvious

            If you really want to know the Lugano emissivity, buy a can of Durapot(TM) 810 and heat it up.

            It is explicitly mentioned in the now infamous patent application. Thanks IH!

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Another good question is what is the Lugano test team doing now? I think if MFMP could get a replica of the Lugano device, they could use thermal output measurement instead of IR radiation to quantify the energy output.

          • Engineer48

            Think I read they were building their own reactor. Do seem to remember seeing a few photos.

          • Obvious

            Ahhh, this old chestnut?

          • Obvious

            I wonder what he thinks he can plug that into while in his office.

            Check out the size of those heater wires.

          • SG

            What is your patent number?

          • Thomas Kaminski

            You could use the same setup that is used to test Solar Thermal Collectors (Air only) per ASHRAE-93-2003 as shown below.

      • adriano

        Do you think you would be able to make one of Rossi’s device working at COP>1 without knowing Rossi’s secret fuel composition?

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am not very good at speculation or opinion when it comes to science, I prefer to raise hypothesis based on data and if verified present a experimentally derived conclusions.

          • psi2u2

            I’m sure the rest of us can make up for your lack of speculation, Bob!


        Can you give me an FDA to show MFMP my patent? Its important. George Miley has signed an NDA and read it. Why dont you?

        • Bob Greenyer

          The beauty of a full disclosure agreement is we don’t need to sign anything – if you want us to read it, then just publish the patent (do you mean an application or awarded patent?). If we read something under FDA we share it, but you can save us the trouble, by publishing it.

          We are a volunteer organisation with limited resources, we can’t research everything at once.

          • Brent Buckner

            And so it would have been better if you had opened with “I have applied for a patent” (or “I have a patent pending”) not with “I have a patent”. The implications are different.

    • Alan Smith

      Rossi will not part up with a unit or even a fuel sample. For anyone.

      • Engineer48

        That is not totally correct. He has IP security issues, which are entirely justified and understandable.

        This has not stopped our discussions to buy 2.3GWt of HotCats for my potential client.

        • Alan Smith

          I am sure you are correct. No argument he wants to engage with commercial customers, what I meant was that Rossi/Leonardo will not give out samples for testing to entities (like MFMP or Lookingforheat) over which he has no control. As far as he is concerned further small-scale tests are of no interest or benefit to him or the project at this particular time..

          • Engineer48

            Was told 10MWt is smallest order. Not an issue for my potential clients but they need 600C steam, which is not yet available.

            While waiting for 600C steam, they are investigating how to evaluate 105C steam.

            Rossi has been very understanding & supportative during this process.

          • DrD

            That’s an interesting challenge.
            It ought to be possible to extract the steam directly by making use of the high temperature of the reactor.
            However, it would definitely be possible even if you’re forced to rely on an additional stage (electric) to give the final temp boost. Obvously that part of the cycle has extra conversion losses and we don’t yet know how much the COP is reduced for high % electric output.
            Here’s wishing you a very early success!

          • Engineer48

            To run a subcritical steam turbine at 550C requires very high pressure. Probably way too high for the reactor.

            Solution is to run a high temp heat exchanger oil / fluid in the primary HotCat circuit, then to a steam generator (heat exchanger) to gen the high temp & high pressure steam in the secondary circuit needed to drive 550C steam turbines.

          • DrD

            Hi Engineer48, you have me interested.
            Yes, i understand what your saying.
            Could another way be to add energy (boosting pressure and temp) via a final stage (electric)?
            I think I can guess why not but I suppose you aren’t at liberty to divulge the nature of your clients business.
            Nevertheless, if their output is electric power then what I suggested is not sensible for an obvious efficiency reason.
            If using electric (from an e-Catx) to provide the “boost” is possible then it seems obvious that it’s better to omit entirely the turbine stage. I believe AR has implied that this is possible and more efficient than existing techniques but due to his F8 we do not know this quantitatively (COP unknown for high % electric).

          • Engineer48

            My potential clients desire to eliminate the burning of brown coal as the quality and quality of the coal they are receiving continues to decline (becoming wetter and dirtier).

            I suggest it will be a LONG time until QuarkX can generate mains power at the 750MWe level. Besides then the investment is large as it is all new plant. With 600C HotCats, the existing heavy investment in the turbines & generators is preserved and the coal burning boilers flume towers are eliminated.

            Plus the long term fuel costs are almost nothing compared to the price of the coal and the energy intensive brown coal processing that is needed before it can be burnt.

          • DrD

            As always, technology, is only a small part of the equation.
            He just said it will take only minutes to manufacture each quark (100W) so it depends how many production lines he has and how soon he is ready to go. 750MWe is a lot of quarks (minutes) so your right, not only the timescale but capital outlay may be an issue as the existing plant will have to be written off, an accountants nightmare if it’s no where near fully depreciated.
            All the best and hope you make progress, that brown coals not nice stuff.

          • DrD

            Note his recent comment, steam @ 550 deg C.

          • DrD

            He was recently asked that and said MFMP could have one. I need to check the exact wording but I think that’s accurate. My take is that he was only saying that when they are on sale to the PUBLIC, he will sell (or donate) one to MFMP.
            As you say, it’s of no benefit to him, quite the opposite i guess.
            I think a very well equiped research lab is needed to reverse engineer, prize the “secret(s)” out of it much more then is already known.

          • Alan Smith

            Yes…that is a ‘one day my ship will come’ statement. With a looming court-case the hatches are firmly battened down Which one assumes is why the Swedish team have gone quiet.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Actually, not aware anyone here is waiting for the end or even start of some trial. Rossi stated he’s going ahead with manufacturing of his technology. AS FAST AS POSSBILE!

      > Rossi can send a basic unit to MFMP at any time of his choice

      That is the problem. HI wants to build and manufacture. However we heard that HI can’t build anything that works based on Rossi instructions. And that’s why HI DID NOT WANT to build
      the 1MW plant test. They asked Rossi to provide anything that works, even a 100
      watt model that they can test.

      So any point about “releasing” some technology to save children of the world certainly does not fall on Rossi until such time he demonstrates a working device.

      On the other hand, governments JUST handed out several billion dollars as a result of commitments of the Paris global warming summit.

      You have explain why you feel that the recent billions of dollars pledged to the UN and the Paris
      climate summit should not be going towards LENR?

      However, some lone guy holed up in a shipping container that has not taken your tax dollars, not
      fleecing your pockets and as of yet has NOT independent proved his technology is
      somehow responsible for those starting children?

      Quite sure the “many” billions pledged to the Paris climate summit would EASY feed children of the world for MANY years! (many years!).

      After all, it was YOUR socialist driven government institutions that threw Pons & Fleishman under
      the bus. And it was YOUR socialist government institutions that refused cold fusion
      patients for nearly 30 years.

      And YOUR socialist driven institutions BELIEVE that global warming is the MOST THREATING and WORST problem of our day. So with the BILLIONS of dollars pledged to the UN which in
      turn will re-distribute this money, then WHY NONE of your government people are
      promoting LENR and funding LENR? For what reason, after all, they have billions
      at their disposal (as compared to one lone guy holed up in a shipping

      So your socialist governments are spending BILLIONS on global warming, and yet they spend no money on a technology that does not product CO2, and thus would save the planet? (and save the need to fund the UN and spend those billions by the way!!!)

      So if governments and UN funds LENR, then they can’t spend billions on global warming, and pelage billions to the UN when then in turn will re-distribute this money, can they?

      MOST IMPORTANT here is who exactly is selling us out? Some guy holed up in a container, or NASA, DARPAA and the billions of your tax dollars being spent on global warming,
      which can be solved by LENR? (and all of these institutions are aware of LENR).

      I mean, you selling out your socialist foe here! They have all the money, all the power, and tell
      us global warming is the worst problem of the day. (that last part about global warming being the HUGE problem means they have a moral duty to fund LENR, don’t they?).

      It would REALLY help if you could explain how governments spending billions on global warming
      don’t fund or support LENR are not responsible for holding back LENR?

      However, one guy holed up in some meatal shipping box has any kind of responsibility here for
      holding back LENR? In in fact that person has NEVER backed up his claims by allowing
      independent testing of his devices (so we don’t’ even know if he has anything
      of value yet).

      So Rossi who does not have billions, has not stated that global warming is some huge issue, and
      is not asking you for your money – this person is responsible here? Please!

      Out of the 100+ billon pledged at the Paris climate summit, you think they could spare 100 million and solve the global warming issue, and then not have to spend + pledge the other 99 billion because LENR solves the global warming issue – do ya think so?

      Of course, you have to convince these socialist UN people to give up the 99 billion that they will
      now not need if LENR works.

      Any serious funding of LENR by major governments would crack and solve the LENR issue in about a year with proper funding.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • sam

    A sharp janitor can find out a lot.

    • MLTC

      He’s not a janitor and he’s not sharp.

  • timycelyn

    Arthur, you make a very good case, and logically you are correct. I have been brooding over the contradictions of this situation over the past few days, and what I am starting to focus on is Rossi’s psychology.

    I may try and expand on it in a more organised way in the near future, but basically he seems to have a mix of:

    1. Incredible possessiveness for his technology
    2. A 100% track record – through life – of having his partner companies – in HIS eyes – shaft him, every single time.
    3. Some sort of compulsion – I have seen it in his attitude years ago – that he (in the sense of Leonardo or whatever) has to do the lot. An unshakeable belief in his core that if he lets someone else run with it as well they will f**k it up in short measure.

    Ths has really affected his psyche in my opinion, and is the darker side of the genius he undoubtedly is. It leads to partner relationships that have the seeds of destruction in them even before the ink is dry on the contract, His suspicion of his partner companies becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    The howling mob of shills, pathotard tw*ts and pseudoskeps will not be helping the siege mentality in his mind – and to be honest he is probably right to feel that way.

    I find this worrying, as you are correct in the dispassionate pont you make. Unless he takes many disparate groups with him, in some sort of more controlled sharing, this technology, if not stillborn, will be still delayed and may take many more years to reach its full potential.

    Years that – because I am one of those who is convinced, very convinced, by the evidence for AGW, we do not have.

  • SG

    What COP have you observed with your reactor?

  • Karl Venter


    and now english?

    • OrwellsCat001

      use google translate !

  • Bob Greenyer

    Some people do not know why an egg boils hard but they eat them all the same.

    If there was a choice between incontrovertibly testing a black box or not (because we couldn’t know the process inside) – I’d take the testing opportunity

    • adriano

      Yes but the idea in the original comment was to have someone that can be trusted by Rossi and can be above every suspect to test and define the real capabilities of Rossi’s devices in order to give us answers. To have someone to test it just for his own pleasure or scientific interest it would be the same pattern reapeated again.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We would only test it if the full details of the test could be disclosed – moreover, we would want to test it live.

        If the test agreement would not allow internal inspection, that is commonplace and not a cause for concern if the output is shown to be way in excess of input – far beyond what the physical form of the device could sustain via chemical or energy harvesting process.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sounds interesting – please share details.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hello Robert, long time no see – How is your research going?

    We cannot publish work that we did not do or that was not done as an MFMP funded project, to do so would be acting as an industrial spy and would basically break all trust between the group and the scientists and other bodies that assist us. We are often told of work by third parties that we strive to get permission to publish and often times get that permission however.

    Given that it takes a very long time to publish work we have done as we are volunteers, it is amazing we have published as much as we have (some other organisations spend far longer with paid research teams). I am personally sitting on a lot of videos and material from GS 5.3 – it will take me several weeks to get through it all. I am very fortunate that my partner is very understanding and demands little so that I can continue to give so much life to a field that most of the world couldn’t care less about and where people that should be your friends act in very much in the opposite manner. Right now I am having a few days with my family owing to being basically in a garage running an experiment for weeks in California – an experiment where we shared more data real-time than in any other LENR experiment in history.

    Sometimes we have had to work really hard over months to get some information published – for instance – it took a very long time to get agreement to publish our findings that showed that systematic errors that we identified in Celani’s NI-Week 2012 and ICCF-17 experiment meant the excess appeared higher than we had observed evidence of and that he had seen before those events. But we did get that information out.

    In addition, there is work that we have yet to published, but have committed to with regard to making Celani wire, we took a decision to put that on hold whilst Celani was fighting to save his lab – we did not want to kill off his career given that it was his courage that enabled the project to start. The material will still take time to roll out.

    We have also a raft of other stuff to publish and a lot of that comes down to me, for instance, with respect to our Piantelli visit last year, there is still much more to roll out – but until GS 5.2 there was little justification to do so as it was mostly just another theory, one of many. Now it has clarity due to the results of our work – and much of the stuff shared is now in his awarded patent, more can be explained.

    Of course, there is nothing that says any member has to do anything – I am constantly amazed and thankful that they do anything – from time to time, the need to earn money to live or just spend time with our families, have a baby, deal with a suffering loved one gets in the way of our desire volunteer all our time – this has happened to all members from time to time and we make no apologies for being human.

    Perhaps I should rephrase that “given that we *intend* to publish everything…”

    If you have a specific allegation to make, rather than a poisonous blanket insinuation – please share it so that it can be addressed.

    If you do not have a specific allegation to make, please retract your defamatory comment.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have read and discussed his work at length.

    I regularly mention it.

    In theory – we are trying to achieve part of the effect inside our reactors.

    In an up and coming reactor design video – I will draw upon lapsed and active awarded patents that guide reactor design – in part to create this effect.

  • SG

    Yes, it is your prerogative to request non-publication in the U.S., as long as you have no plans to file a foreign or international application. Bear in mind, saying “I have a patent” on something is quite different from having a patent application filed with patent pending status. But kudos to you for making an investment in your IP and I do wish you the best.

  • Bob Greenyer

    You will have to ask Nicolas Chauvin about the S&G, it was his project which he led on his own terms, really, on his own terms, we supported with loans of equipment and our precious relationship with Celani. Nicolas Chauvin has not actively participated in research in the project in any other way for years since the conclusion of the main test, in part because he developed commercial interests, which are well known and are not compatible with the structure and modus operandi of the project.

    The last post we made on the reactors was on April 12th 2015 and can be found complete with photos here:

    For brevity, this is what was said.

    “S&G Cells: Running again!

    Nicolas Chauvin in Switzerland has re-built and re-built the Steel and Glasscells improving with each iteration.

    Over the past several weeks, he has been calibrating them live on HugNet and preparing them for a live run.

    This week he received new-generation Celani wires as will be discussed at ICCF19 and installed them. Thanks once again to Francesco for his generosity.

    Loading has gone well, Nicolas says

    “For the loading phase, it is 180 minutes at 18W input on each wire (36W total, internal temp ~ 285°C), then a relax period of 60 minutes at 3W to cool the wires down (6W total, cooling down to ~ 100°C).

    This cycle of 180/60 min goes on for 24 hours (6 cycles).”

    He reports around 20% change in resistance.
    He is now stepping up the power.

    For information regarding the Logbook, the live data and many images, head over to our main site.


    Nicolas last post was on the 20th April 2015 on the officially classified “Dormant” experiment is here:!20150408_194608

    As I said before, no one can force people to run their experiments. He did have the experiment running live on HUGNet last year during ICCF-19 Padua in its new configuration in wine coolers as shown in the post above. It was again showing that the null required 8-10% more energy to maintain the water at an equivalent temperature. I was, with Alan and Mathieu – focussed on the Padua *GlowStick* and had no time or energy to support the communication of that data and experimental set-up beyond the basics and Nicolas did not provide any information that would allow more communication.

    Nicolas had great difficulty finding the time to correct the errors that caused the initial testing of the reactor to fail.

    So, as I say, please contact Nicolas Chauvin for any questions you have about the current state of the S&G cells and their history.

    As regards your new insinuations about your time trying to put together an MFMP affiliated US charity, It was unfortunate that following our engagement with you, we had to spend a very considerable effort re-building hard won relationships with scientists in the field and to this day, some of them have yet to been repaired. Several individuals that were part of that process took the opportunity to approach active MFMP members, during ICCF-19 to patch things up, which was nice. Most importantly we were able to fix and build our relationship with Alan Goldwater who has been an immense asset to the project for which I think the wider community is indebted.

    You showed great passion to build the US charity, but to date, in the entire history of the MFMP, we have not yet received donations sufficient to cover the first year salary you wished for yourself to act as officer of the planned US Charity. Perhaps with you being located in the worlds fantasy zone (SF, Bay area / Silicon Valley) would have allowed you to raise all the funds necessary – but you will have to forgive those, some of which also lived in the area, for not seeing it as realistic.

    We are currently trying to raise funds at the moment for an initial 1 year full-time lab based research program, including support of researchers, in the Scotts Valley area near you that would cost a small fraction of the property lease alone that you put forward for the planned US Charity. We have had an affiliated US Charity for more than 1 year now and it has cost little more than the accounting fees, I am not an officer but I do help try to fund raise for it. Perhaps you could get involved with fund raising for the Scotts Valley project through the US charity, given your proximate (relatively) location – that would be a greatly appreciated positive action.

    The reality is that everyone knew that the first attempt at a US charity, as proposed, was unworkable and an affront to the sacrifices made by project volunteers and donors to get the project to where it was at that time. It is a great shame that compromise could not be reached. So much effort was expended that sadly yielded nothing tangible and it took many months for people to recover. It is never easy to try and build something, so thank you for at least trying.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have seen the video.

    Project members have studied, reported on and integrated the knowledge from Ikegami into our thinking.

  • luca

    Se poco poco ti informi dei precedenti di rossi e del suo modus operandi, è meglio che classifichi il tutto come “seri-tv” drammatica-fantascienza (per non dire altro). Il breaking bad dei poveri delle energie alternative (senza arrosto però). Come al solito noi italiani sappiamo farci riconoscere…

    • tuder

      “Sappiamo farci riconoscere” also because you are posting in Italian on a forum where everybody uses English – including many Italians. Just go to a damn evening English course.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Well, since IH apparently constructed the reactor and supplied the fuel, one would expect it to have returned to them. What tests did they conduct on it?


      where are they headquartered?

  • Bob Greenyer


  • Brent Buckner

    Above you wrote: “I have a patent on a low energy nuclear fusion reactor based on research by H. Ikegami.”

  • Been there, Seen it

    Bob G went home for a few days. Gave a lecture in Brno. Got stuck on the way back by German airport strike. He’s back now though. If you want to see what is just around the corner (having been re-produced in 5.3 experiment) go to the GS 5.2 results and find the article entitled: “Iceberg in the Glowstick 5.2 Data” written by Bob Higgins on Feburary 23, 2016. Bremsstrahlung radiation seen again!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Look at the public financial records. Nicolas paid back the money forwarded to him by the project to support the S&G for good reason and the matter is closed. He ran the S&G project thread completely as he saw fit, in a small part against the expressed wishes of the rest of the project members, for this reason there has been no further financial support, we did work with Celani to arrange for fresh wires to be sent to him at the end of 2014 however, so his further efforts would have a chance of delivering, I stand by that collective decision as the right thing to do. The first time the cells did not leak and fail, they were publicly run live under the projects banner and they produced valuable supportive data for the other types of Celani cells we ran. They also ran last year publicly at ICCF-19 with the those wires arranged for him at the end of 2014. As I said before, you must direct questions on the S&G to Nicolas, I have sent him a note.

    I sense a deep sense of ongoing bitterness with you Robert – precisely because of the failed attempt to build a charity that traded off the extreme effort put in by project members and volunteers up to that point. As I said before it is unfortunate that charity did not work out – however, it became clear to others you had a huge personal agenda and were prepared to be authoritarian and vindictive to achieve it, scientists and volunteers walked away from a potentially beautiful organisation for a range of reasons long before you ordered others to resign because they were not willing to accept your demand that you could spend $10,000s on a regular basis without board approval. You withdrew participation precisely because you could not get agreement on this executive spending power you demanded for yourself, on reflection it was the best outcome given the governance risks and potential personal liability to board members. The failure of that charity is in the past and yet you choose to make insinuations and impugn my character and that of the guiding principles of the project out of spite and jealousy.

    We have a functioning charity now that is incredibly efficient, only requiring annual accounting.

    I challenge you to find one other organisation in the history of LENR that has shared more details on precisely how to (and how no to!) conduct research in this field than the MFMP. Of course we would like to do more, quicker and faster – but you cannot force a volunteer, we do it because we want to and hopefully with the support of our families / loved ones.

    We will continue to do our best, I will be working hard this coming week to produce videos and other material – I hope Nicholas will be able to address your concerns in due course.

  • Eyedoc

    This whole idea of a patent ap being unpublished (hidden) is very concerning to me. Brings out my paranoia,. Has this always been the case??….. It points to a rigged system where a powerful entity(government or industrial/military) can have the USPTO just declare “oh well that idea was already in a unpublished pending ap by XYZ” , sorry little guy (Rossi et al)…..not saying this would happen often, just once or twice a decade on some Black Swan

    • SG

      In general, most patent applications are eventually published, and this general rule applies throughout the world. The U.S. has a special option to request non-publication, but only if you have no plans of filing in another country. The other exception to the general rule that most patent application are published is that of a secrecy order–if that gets slapped on a patent application, it may not be published for decades, if ever.

      • Eyedoc

        Thanks SG, ( but makes me understand AR’s production efforts better) ….because in my above paranoid scenario ……. it gets arranged that the aforementioned XYZ patent gets a predated ‘secrecy’ order attached, so no one knows what it is; and when someone (AR) actually develops it separately, they still cant use it because ‘sorry its “already secretly patent pending”‘. ….Black Swan down

        • SG

          The secrecy order scenario is a real threat to ubiquitous LENR. The thing is, you’ll never know it happened. The patent applicant is also required by law not to reveal it or publish the information separately. It can really put the brakes on. Fortunately, LENR patent applications have been published, including some of Mr. Rossi’s, meaning that the secrecy review process was cleared at least for those. And Mr. Rossi has said that his current tech is essentially based on his granted patent.

          • Eyedoc

            Yes SG, I see what you mean. Sure hope this plays out OK then

  • NT

    Hmmm. for a minute there I thought my Brower had malfunctioned to a European or some other website…

  • Bob Greenyer

    Robert, I have asked Nicolas to address the matter. I hope he does, so your personal vendetta towards me can end.

    Your characterisation of me is libelous and plain wrong, your jealousy and bitterness is impairing your judgement. You have tried to knock me down ever since you walked away from your charity project because you could not secure rights to spend very large sums of money with no oversight. In fact, what the New Fire charity board considered large sums were agreed, but that was not sufficient for you, you made a point of demanding very large sums which were unconscionable.

    I stood by you as top LENR scientists and thought leaders walked away from your well meaning project because they could not handle your poisonous attitude and unfunded plans for which they may have found themselves financially on the hook for. You are exhibiting the same attitude here. There was nothing to stop you forming a charity on your own under the terms you sought, but you know that would not have worked because all of the good will the project had built up had been decimated in a few weeks by your uncompromising approach. I would urge you, if you really think you could deliver all the things you state above, do it, it would be great to have a well-funded open organisation fighting for the common good.

    You could have been a valuable contributor to the common goals of the MFMP and are very technically competent – but your actions lead to extreme stress levels within the project which took a good while to recover from. The whole attempt to build that charity was a monumental waste of project members time. Your accusations and defamation are a continuation of the deleterious net effect you have had on the projects aims and I am starting to wonder whose interests you really have at heart?

    If experience is to count for anything, I do not expect you to give an inch, however, you need to understand that the project has grown through every difficulty and challenge to its existence, it has had to battle hard to avoid very devious attempts to crush or compromise it over the past 5-6 months particularly and it has prevailed. It will prevail over your threats and insinuations also.

    What doesn’t kill one, makes one stronger.

  • Eyedoc

    What ‘unpublished work’ are you speaking of Robert ?

    • Robert Ellefson

      Eyedoc: I am limited in what further details I can discuss, thanks to an ill-gotten promise of confidentiality that was required of me when I officially joined the MFMP. The long and short of the matter is that a secret agreement was made by the MFMP to perform work for a third party, and the existence and outcome of the work was kept secret. Prior to becoming a full member of the MFMP, I had been unknowingly contributing to this project, and by default continued contributing to the project for a period after joining, since that was the primary focus of work at the time. If I had known anything about this arrangement prior to joining, I certainly would not have promised secrecy, and I most likely would not have joined the group. This agreement was entirely antithetical to the loudly-proclaimed policy of transparency that Bob continually peddles as a fundamental character trait of the MFMP, then and now. Since leaving the group in late 2013, I have no further knowledge of other secret activities occurring, but that one incident was enough to leave me with a continuing visceral reaction when I read Bob’s false proclamations of transparency. He likes to call this reaction bitterness, but I perceive it clearly as revulsion and disgust.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are looking to test Piantelli proton ejection theory safely by using the safe isotope 18O, which if a proton interacts with it becomes 18F – this is a positron emitter with a half life of 109 minutes and so we would see positron + electron annhilation peak + Energy. The 18F returns to 18O fully after about 14 hours so will not contaminate the experimental apparatus or lab.

    18O / 18F is so safe that it is routinely injected into humans whist conducting Positron Emission Tomography scans.

    If we do see the signature – it will be extremely strong evidence that Piantelli is correct that Protons are released.

    We will also look for the decay peaks from the reaction 27Al + Thermal Neutron going to 28Al, which decays rapidly (2.2414 mins half life) to stable 28Si – 100% by beta with a distinctive and detectable energies. 4.6MeV beta and 1.8MeV gamma. Since we observed Si in ‘Bang!’ ash and it was observed in Lugano, then this could be part of the reason for the ‘Signal’ observation.[email protected]/Fig-53-Decay-scheme-of-the-28-Al-nucleus.png

    These experiments will help determine facts sorely lacking in the debate and establish LENR as real with repeatable experiments

  • Nigel Appleton

    Rossi claims on his blog that the QuarkX can produce steam @ 550 deg C

    So even if its direct electricity production is not very efficient for any reason, he’s right there in Turbine Territory

    I’m sure that the 640MW CCGT down the road (one of the most efficient in the UK) would quite happily add more steam turbines powered by a few barrel-loads of QuarksX

    • DrD

      I’m a little curious why he draws the line at 550 deg C, not that 550 isn’t a great achievement.

      • Engineer48

        This might help to understand why ~600C HotCat operation is important:


        The main advantage and the reason for a higher pressure operation is the increase in the thermodynamic efficiency of the Rankine cycle.

        1) Large Subcritical thermal power plants with 170 bar and 540 / 540 ° C (SH / RH) operate at an efficiency of 38 %.

        2) Supercritical units operating at 250 bar and 600 / 615 ° C can have efficiencies in the range of 42 %.

        3) Ultra supercritical units at 300 bar and 615 / 630 °C will still increase the efficiency up to 44 %.”

        • Stephen

          Hi Engineer48 could we have steam at this temperature (550 degrees C) at near or just over air pressure?

          I wonder how that low pressure (lower density) but high temperature steam would act if it was released in to the atmosphere is suppose it would cool and condense in near to the point of release?

          Also what I wonder the flow rate would be at this high temperature and and normal pressure.

          Could that high temperature steam then heat a higher pressure circuit as you describe through a heat exchanger?

        • DrD

          In that case AR really does need to get a move on (as said
          so often). I have to admit it’s a bit disappointing that he said from the time he decides to go-ahead he will have a mass production factory running in 2 months (I think that’s about right from memory) and since then he says that it will be even faster because IH was a brake. The advent of the E-CatX has been a significant breakthrough but short term has slowed mass production as it isn’t ready and I can see his reluctance to go all out on the old hot/cool Cats.
          Yes, I can imagine the Cat can’t take 170 bar, it’s an interesting engineering challenge you have there.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Why shouldn’t it be possible to encapsulate the reactor in a steel tube that can stand the pressure?

          • DrD

            Not sure without doing a bit of searching but my guess is that at the temperatures of the E-Catx, stainless steal will not withstand even the 170 bar (and that’s the minimum). I think Engineer may know?
            On reflection I suppose you mean the chamber will only see the steam temperature which isn’t so high but even that is 600 deg C or higher.
            Edit: maybe if it’s thick enough it might?

          • Engineer48

            There are many heat transfer fluids that are much more efficient in transferring heat from point A to point B than water or steam. So they are fine for the primary circuit that runs through the reactors and to the primary side of the steam boiler (heat exchanger) and back to the reactor.

            Then the primary side 600C heat transfer fluid warmed heat exchanger can process the heat into 600C steam at the volume & pressure required by the input of the turbines, in the secondary or output side of the steam boiler (heat exchanger).

            That way each side of the heat exchanger works under optimal conditions and at the lowest pressure it can.

          • Robert Ellefson

            What particular fluids do you have in mind for 600C transfer? I’ve had difficulty identifying practical solutions beyond about 400C. Going to molten metals or salts is not a simple matter, unlike the typical heat transfer fluids.

          • DrD

            I suppose CO2 would work (as in the AGR) but i’m sure there are better choices available.

          • Engineer48

            It may not be needed as this design suggest direct 600C steam generation from a HotCat embedded inside each stainless enclosure that would stick through the walls of the steam boiler. Maybe could be installed in an existing coal boiler?

          • Robert Ellefson

            I have been planning for inert gases as the primary loop fluid, because of the presence of refractory metals within the thermal chamber that need to be protected from oxidation. Helium appears to offer the best performance, but is rather expensive for frequent experiment cycling, unless you can arrange to re-capture it prior to opening the chamber/primary loop, and it loves to leak. Nitrogen is inexpensive and offers adequate thermal performance (~same as air) but is reactive for some materials. Argon is a relatively poor performer, but is inexpensive and non-reactive. I’d be curious to know what other practical alternatives anybody else is familiar with. I expect CO2 would present oxidation issues at these temperatures, but I’m not familiar with the actual chemical characteristics in this domain. This reference seem to indicate that there would be sufficient dissociation to cause issues within the 1200C-1400C reactor-body range that I’m targeting:

          • Engineer48

            My potential clients say the issue is a non issue. Can’t say more.

        • Karl Venter

          Hi Engineer

          Normally your pressure is determined by your feed pumps
          its not just going to be a simple heat exchanger
          750Mw of heat exchanger is normally (in coal) a 70m high boiler with a considerable surface area for heat transfer?
          You need to transfer the heat
          eg 800MWe boiler needs 100m x16mx 26m) high furnace with tubed walls plus 30m x 16 x 26m of tubes inside the furnace to transfer the heat

  • Bob Greenyer

    Your particular attitude to me and your attempt to defame me at nearly every opportunity is inextricably linked to your bitterness at the abject failure of the forming of the charity. It is precisely relevant to explain your insinuations in context. No other person engaged in that attempted charity building process acts in any similar way, indeed, I work / communicate regularly, cordially and productively with many of those that were involved and as I said before, others have approached me to explain why they had to pull back. You should know, if you don’t, that I have said nothing that is not true about that very stressful and difficult episode.

    What exactly have you added to the common pool in the past 18 months? Any research done and shared? Any value added or good done? Who are you working for? What are you aims?

    Robert, I have asked Nicolas to address the matter. I hope he does, so your misplaced and unjust personal vendetta towards me can end.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.