Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)

A reader has sent me a short document which I am posting in full text here which looks to be an analysis of isotopic changes in the Rossi fuel following the 1 year E-Cat plant test. The title to the document I received was: “ISOTOPIC COMP NATURAL VS ROSSI”. I do not know who wrote the document, or who did the analysis, so I cannot verify its authenticity, but in the current situation it might be interesting to readers. I did sent the text to Andrea Rossi and asked him if it was legitimate.

He gave me this response: “No comment.I did not publish any analysis and cannot give any imformation anout it. I want not to comment in positive or in negative.”

The entire full text of what I received was this:

The natural elements Ni and Li were found in the sample. Their isotope composition is given in the table together with the natural composition. The numbers refer to percent.

                      58Ni  60Ni    61Ni     62Ni      64Ni     6Li       7Li
Natural comp  68.1  26.2    1. 14    3.63       0.93     7.59     92.4
Rossi sample 14.2   6.3       0.3     78.5        0.7      86.5     13.5

If this is legitimate information, and the data is accurate, then very significant isotopic shifts took place during the one year test which would seem to be consistent with the measurements taken in the Lugano test. I must stress, however, that I don’t know the source of this information, so it must be considered at this point as unverified.

  • Engineer48

    Around the same shifts as Lugano.

    Ok folks time to go home. That is Game, Set & Match to Rossi who wins the “ECat Is Real” crown.

    BTW Frank received the document from me. My source has asked me to wait for a few more documents to be published before we know the source. My source is credible.
    .

    • Robert Dorr

      Thanks for this hopefully accurate information. If the numbers are correct, there is absolutely no denying that Rossi’s plant works. Even if there was no heat created with his plant, the fact that such isotropic shifts occurred is an unbelievable scientific discovery on its own.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Robert,

        Similar isotropic shifts were also seen in the Lugano reactor ash analysis.

        BTW for those shifts to occur, a lot of energy was released.

        • wpj

          But, unfortunately, “everyone” says that the Lugano reactor gave off no excess heat due to the emissivity errors (OK, one ex-British Gas person working at Imperial- I’ll go and question him, if you like, when I drop my son off there in October)

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Only those who have an agenda to deny Rossi have made those anti Lugano claims. The Lugano team have never recanted their results.

          • wpj

            Agreed but the “everyone” have latched on to this analysis to discredit the test.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            The other analysis has never been verified and the Lugano team has never recanted their results. They did claim to have very closely watched Rossi as he opened the reactor and removed a very small sample of the fuel ash in a very small spoon and then put it in the sample bag.

            Might ask IH what happened to the Lugano reactors as they were their property. I did ask that of Weaver and he told me he had no idea where they were. Amazing statement as those reactors held a lot more ash than the very small sample removed. If the ash analysis was contaminated by Rossi, would be simple for IH to publish their ash analysis, yet they never did.

            So I believe the contaminated ash statement are pure BS as IH could have easily proven any ash swap.

          • wpj

            No, I accept that ash analysis. It is just that others can say that there was an observed shift but no excess heat produced so this is meaningless.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Yes the no observed heat is BS.

          • bachcole

            And I see no reason to trust anyone other than those who were there at Lugano doing the test. They are perfectly reliable people. They are all real scientists. They have no reason to lie; in fact they have every reason to tell the truth.

        • Did you ever see my Lugano energy analysis, E48? The isotopic shifts can explain the energy production. The Ni62 nucleus is nature’s hungriest hippo with the deepest energy well for nucleons. Prying nucleons loose from other stuff and letting them fall into those deeper wells nets you just the right amount of energy.

          https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJjNVq_2euIwwmfOlVb4MK_UigkcoriisW5VsB7hu5c/edit#gid=0

        • Robert Dorr

          I realize a lot of energy has to be released for this to occur, I was just saying that an isotropic shift of these dimensions is a fantastic discovery on its own merit. What is also good about the one year test is that it was continuously monitored by several people and cameras so hopefully there wont be the slight of hand accusation that was suggested during the Lugano experiment.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Robert,

            I was told the Rossi never got near the reactor without being videoed. I do not believe the slight of hand claims that he swapped the post fuel.

        • wpj

          Is it possible to calculate the fuel charge in the reactors given the assumptions of temperatures and amount of water based on LENR G’s spreadsheet?

      • Ged

        I am hoping it is a before/after analysis, so I must reserve judgment till we know the specific methods and source materials.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Ged,

          I’m sure there are pre and post analysis. However maybe now is not the time to release the fuel recipe.

          • Ged

            Thank you for the piece of data though. I appreciate actual numbers, as the beginning of understanding, so thank you again for passing this on and thank your source too.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            He tells me there is more to come.

    • Gerald

      So if its the same as lugano is Rossi such a exact calculator or is this(end)composition the start of the effect. If 1 the reaction then must be at an axact rate or Rossi has total control. I know it sounds simple but I don’t like conicedence.

      • The percentages are not the same as Lugano, but the same net effect of shuttling neutrons from Lithium and other Nickel isotopes to Ni-62 is apparent.

        See my linked spreadsheet at the bottom for Lugano percentages.

      • wpj

        Almost totally Ni62 in the 30 day Lugano test

    • LookMoo

      Poor IH, this case (court) is just falling all over them, assuming that the ash analysis i verified before first court hearing.

    • Anon2012_2014

      “That is Game, Set & Match to Rossi who wins the “ECat Is Real” crown.”

      How about chain of custody. Same problems with the Lugano report. Heck — we don’t even know it this table is “authentic” in the words of Frank: “I cannot verify its authenticity”.

      If it really was produced by a working ECAT reactor, it is a good validation that something nuclear is occurring within the reactor.

      • HS61AF91

        I am beginning to think ‘nuclear’ is a catch phrase that represents lots that is unknown. Like he said, the more you know, the more you realize how little you do actually know. It is wonderful that experiments and postulations are leading to new horizons, and one of these fine days, a free energy society.

    • HS61AF91

      hallelujah

  • Again a massive shift to Ni62.

    If this is real then E48 is right. Game over. Be wary though, fellow ECW-ers, of people trying to humiliate us by seeing us fall easily for false information.

    We must be in distrust and verify mode, to intentionally mis-paraphrase Reagan.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Lenr,

      Have I ever tried to deceive or mislead anyone?

      I can tell you the information is from 16 March 2016.

      There will be more information released, so stay tuned.

      • Did you supply the info to Frank?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr,

          Yes.

          • Alright then the credibility factor just shot through the roof.

            What can you say about your source? Someone impartial?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            I trust him.

            This is just the 1st release of data, more to come.

          • Can you say it is *not* Rossi?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            My source is not Rossi.

  • Again a massive shift to Ni62.

    If this is real then E48 is right. Game over. Be wary though, fellow ECW-ers, of people trying to humiliate us by seeing us fall easily for false information.

    We must be in distrust and verify mode, to intentionally mis-paraphrase Reagan.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Lenr,

      Have I ever tried to deceive or mislead anyone?

      I can tell you the information is from 16 March 2016.

      There will be more information released, so stay tuned.

      • Did you supply the info to Frank?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr,

          Yes.

          • Alright then the credibility factor just shot through the roof.

            What can you say about your source? Someone impartial?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            I trust him.

            This is just the 1st release of data, more to come.

          • Can you say it is *not* Rossi?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            My source is not Rossi.

    • bachcole

      I prefer trust and verify. By trusting, I am willing to look closely at the data. But the data must also be verified. I am happy to withhold belief until verification.

  • Frank, what can you say about the reader that supplied such info? Someone you wouldn’t expect to mislead you/us?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Lenr,

      I supplied the info to Frank.

      He then contacted Andrea for his comments. After which Andrea gave him permission to post it on ECW but with the disclaimer.

      • Folks, unless E48 is well conceived and executed misinformation agent then I believe we are finally getting somewhere.

        Frank, E48 has has repeatedly said you know his identity. Can you verify that he is really an engineer representing a large energy concern?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr G,

          What would I have to gain by engaging in deception and supply of misinformation?

          The court will decide on the validity or not of the 1MW plant results. Nothing I can say will alter that outcome.

          Everybody here should know I’m engaged with Andrea to buy both 1MW ECat plants and QuarkX reactors for my Remote Area/ Disaster Relief plant.

          I don’t play games and tell it as I see it.

          • E48, don’t take it personally, I have no reason to distrust you at all and have detected no trace of deception in your posts.

            But this is huge information. I’m going to do what I can to verify it and that includes establishing your credibility. The Internet can be a very misleading place, so caution is warranted, especially with information that would decide the ballgame in our favor.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            The court will make that decision and not this or any other forum.

            There is more information let to be released.

            BTW as I always do, both Mats and Frank know who my source is. If Frank didn’t trust my source, he would not have posted his information. I was just a messenger.

          • Interesting. Is Mats writing up an article on this?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Unknown but he has commented to me about it.

            You see I don’t like to make unsupported claims and that is why 2 others do know my source.

            Seems I’m being used as a shield. Maybe because I have thick skin?

          • Like I said, you’re our hurricane buster flying into the eye of the storm.

            I’m gonna buy you a beer someday.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Sounds good.

          • wpj

            May be a marketing ploy to get you to buy the reactors (can’t do smileys here).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            My money is ready. Not asking Andrea for any favours or discounts. I don’t work that way.

            What is true is true.

          • HS61AF91

            buffalo hide

          • The Lugano report describes them taking a 10 mg sample of the fuel.

            Either they used a — what do you call that new-fangled high tech thing that just came out? — oh yeah, a scale, to send a fuel sample equal in mass to the ash sample out for testing…

            Or they normalized the fuel results to the same mass as the ash sample in order to facilitate direct comparison.

            I’m not sure which. It may be in the report but I’m not going to scour the whole thing just to more precisely correct your mistaken assumption.

          • INVENTOR INVENTED

            they might have used very sensitive nano tech instruments to measure the isotopic ratios but I doubt it.

          • They describe exactly the techniques used (by third party labs) to measure the isotopic ratios in the report.

            They are standard techniques.

        • Frank Acland

          All I know is his name and what he has told me, which is what he has posted on this site. I haven’t tried to verify his professional position.

          • Thanks. Less than I hoped for but at least you verify that he has provided his name.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            As I have stated, Frank and Mats knows the name of the person I received the info from. I’m nothing but a messenger who is willing to post what I was given and answer questions regarding information which did not come from me.

            My source will uncloak in time.

            But for now, I’m NOT the source. I did NOT create the data. Frank knows this to be true. I passed it on to Frank, who asked Andrea about it and received his permission to post it on ECW.

          • Then the crux of the matter becomes the credibility of the known (to 3 of you so far) source.

            You say you trust him. Good. That’s one data point.

            Uncloaked at some point is very good, then we can all judge for ourselves.

            Verified and cleared by Rossi is good and all, but leaves open the possibility that your source is in Rossi’s orbit, which would make the information a harder sell.

      • wpj

        Missed that second bit- was just about to say that it could affect your relationships with AR!

      • cashmemorz

        If Rossi noticed anything wrong with the data in question, Rossi would not have given permission, as that would have implicated Rossi in falsified data. Therefore accurate data. Logical and sensible on the part of Rossi.

        • Pweet

          That’s not right. Since Rossi specifically said he could not confirm or deny, that allows for the publication of anything at all because it was NOT confirmed by Mr Rossi. It’s a very common tactic used every day in relation to leaked information, otherwise by continual denial of presented false information, the truth can be arrived at as being the ‘last man standing’, by way of continual denial of untruth. The USA continually neither confirms nor denies the presence of nuclear armaments on it’s warships. It means nothing other than what the words say.

          • Omega Z

            That only applies to a certain class of warships. The Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines obviously carry Nukes.

          • cashmemorz

            And obviously Rossi himself, as reported by Engineer48, gave permission to use the leaked partial report. By giving permission it implies agreement with the partial report being accurate. If the leaked report was inaccurate, i don’t see Rossi agreeing to give permission to show data something that is a lie about Rossi’s work. I don’t see anyone agreeable to presenting false data about one’s work, leaked or otherwise.

  • Frank, what can you say about the reader that supplied such info? Someone you wouldn’t expect to mislead you/us?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Lenr,

      I supplied the info to Frank. He then contacted Andrea for his comments. After which Andrea gave him permission to post it on ECW but with the disclaimer.

      • Folks, unless E48 is well conceived and executed misinformation agent then I believe we are finally getting somewhere.

        Frank, E48 has has repeatedly said you know his identity. Can you verify that he is really an engineer representing a large energy concern?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr G,

          What would I have to gain by engaging in deception and supply of misinformation?

          The court will decide on the validity or not of the 1MW plant results. Nothing I can say will alter that outcome.

          Everybody here should know I’m engaged with Andrea to buy both 1MW ECat plants and QuarkX reactors for my Remote Area/ Disaster Relief plant.

          I don’t play games and tell it as I see it.

          • E48, don’t take it personally, I have no reason to distrust you at all and have detected no trace of deception in your posts.

            But this is huge information. I’m going to do what I can to verify it and that includes establishing your credibility. The Internet can be a very misleading place, so caution is warranted, especially with information that would decide the ballgame in our favor.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            The court will make that decision and not this or any other forum.

            There is more information let to be released.

            BTW as I always do, both Mats and Frank know who my source is. If Frank didn’t trust my source, he would not have posted his information. I was just a messenger.

          • Interesting. Is Mats writing up an article on this?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Unknown but he has commented to me about it.

            You see I don’t like to make unsupported claims and that is why 2 others do know my source.

            Seems I’m being used as a shield. Maybe because I have thick skin?

          • Like I said, you’re our hurricane buster flying into the eye of the storm.

            I’m gonna buy you a beer someday.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Sounds good.

          • wpj

            May be a marketing ploy to get you to buy the reactors (can’t do smileys here).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            My money is ready. Not asking Andrea for any favours or discounts. I don’t work that way.

            What is true is true.

          • HS61AF91

            buffalo hide

          • Bruce__H

            You sound just like Jed Rothwell now!

            You didn’t accept these sorts of explanations when he was making them though.

            Personally I think you are both making reasonable arguments given your information. .

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            I’m not the source. Both Mats and Frank know my source, which is not Rossi. I doubt Frank would have published the info based on just a post from me. As he knows my source, which he seems to trust, he published the data.

            This is not not Jed works, so please don’t compare him to me and how I work.

            I just take the shite storm from the inmfo release.

            BTW my source did not do the analysis, trusts his source and tells me there will be more info releases.

          • Pweet

            Sounds a bit like Mats Lewan, Yes?

          • Ged

            Jed gives No data at all, just pronouncements. Very unlike this which is only data. But we must not get too wrapped up in it till we get facts on methods and more data to give a context to frame this.

        • Frank Acland

          All I know is his name and what he has told me, which is what he has posted on this site. I haven’t tried to verify his professional position.

          • Thanks. Less than I hoped for but at least you verify that he has provided his name.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            As I have stated, Frank and Mats knows the name of the person I received the info from. I’m nothing but a messenger who is willing to post what I was given and answer questions regarding information which did not come from me.

            My source will uncloak in time.

            But for now, I’m NOT the source. I did NOT create the data. Frank knows this to be true. I passed it on to Frank, who asked Andrea about it and received his permission to post it on ECW.

          • Then the crux of the matter becomes the credibility of the known (to 3 of you so far) source.

            You say you trust him. Good. That’s one data point.

            Uncloaked at some point is very good, then we can all judge for ourselves.

            Verified and cleared by Rossi is good and all, but leaves open the possibility that your source is in Rossi’s orbit, which would make the information a harder sell.

      • wpj

        Missed that second bit- was just about to say that it could affect your relationships with AR!

      • cashmemorz

        If Rossi noticed anything wrong with the data in question, Rossi would not have given permission, as that would have implicated Rossi in falsified data. Therefore accurate data. Logical and sensible on the part of Rossi.

        • Pweet

          That’s not right. Since Rossi specifically said he could not confirm or deny, that allows for the publication of anything at all because it was NOT confirmed by Mr Rossi. It’s a very common tactic used every day in relation to leaked information, otherwise by continual denial of presented false information, the truth can be arrived at as being the ‘last man standing’, by way of continual denial of untruth. The USA continually neither confirms nor denies the presence of nuclear armaments on it’s warships. It means nothing other than what the words say.

          • Omega Z

            That only applies to a certain class of warships. The Fleet Ballistic Missile submarines obviously carry Nukes.

          • cashmemorz

            And obviously Rossi himself, as reported by Engineer48, gave permission to use the leaked partial report. By giving permission, edit: (Engineer 48 -below: “I passed it on to Frank, who asked Andrea about it and received his permission to post it on ECW”), it implies agreement with the partial report being accurate. If the leaked report was inaccurate, I don’t see Rossi agreeing to give permission to show data that is a lie about Rossi’s work. I don’t see anyone agreeable to presenting false data about one’s work, leaked or otherwise. Rossi cannot confirm or deny for the sake of the pending court trial. Giving permission does not imply that the data in question is the same data that could appear in court. There is a subtle but real difference between the two ways of looking at the same piece of data that Rossi is using in a way to show his cunning in his favour.

  • bachcole

    Now I really am holding my breath, metaphorically speaking of course.

  • Rene

    Very solid looking data, especially when compared with the Lugano report. Now let us hope the chain of custody is intact. Once that is verified, we can drop the “We believe that” prefix and just say “LENR is real”. What comes next is replicating LENR+, meaning sustained high COP reactions.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Rene,

      I sent the data to Frank because I knew he would trust my source as I do.

      • Can we assume that this information is included in the ERV report and that is where your source got it from?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr,

          I have no idea where my source got the information. I do however trust him to only pass on only credible info and that is why I shared with Mats and Frank who my source is.

          Frank would not have posted the data if he did not trust my source. I doubt Frank would have posted it with only me as the source.

  • Rene

    Very solid looking data, especially when compared with the Lugano report. Now let us hope the chain of custody is intact. Once that is verified, we can drop the “We believe that” prefix and just say “LENR is real”. What comes next is replicating LENR+, meaning sustained high COP reactions.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Rene,

      I sent the data to Frank because I knew he would trust my source as I do.

      • Can we assume that this information is included in the ERV report and that is where your source got it from?

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr,

          I have no idea where my source got the information. I do however trust him to only pass on only credible info and that is why I shared with Mats and Frank who my source is.

          Frank would not have posted the data if he did not trust my source. I doubt Frank would have posted it with only me as the source.

  • Mylan

    Nice. But does not seem to be a before and after comparison, unfortunately.

  • Mylan

    Nice. But does not seem to be a before and after comparison, unfortunately.

  • Oystein Lande

    But , what was the initial fuel composition?

    This does not tell the change during 1 year operation. Only difference to natural occuring isotopes. ..

    • Engineer48

      Hi Oystein,

      My source told me there is more info coming.

      • JDM

        Did your source say if it was Leonardo or IH that had the analysis done?

        • Engineer48

          Hi JDM,

          Source for the ash and who did the analysis is unknown to me.

          As there are reported to be dual padlocks on the 1MW plant, the fuel ash must have been procured prior to the lock down event.

          • wpj

            AR did say that the charges had been replaced and had clearly expected things to continue.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Well he never said that. What he said was he planned to change the fuel but he never posted he had actually changed the fuel as IH lawyers pounced and padlocked the plant along with Rossi’s lawyers.

            Plus all parties documented the ERV removing all his instruments and sending them back to their manufacturers for recertification. Which is what I would have expected him to do. Very professional action.

          • LuFong

            We don’t know what happened. This is what Rossi said (pay attention to the dates and times). I think if very strange that Rossi would shut down the 1MW plant 1 day before the test was over–unless he had no choice because the plant stopped working, which I doubt.

            Andrea Rossi
            February 16, 2016 at 10:10 AM
            Frank Acland:
            We are having a decrease, now the charges I think are losing efficiency. But it was expected.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

            Andrea Rossi
            February 17, 2016 at 7:44 AM
            Blanche:
            Wed Feb 17 2016, 07.43 a.m.
            1 MW E-Cat : charges substitution on course
            E-Cat X: in good standing, very promising
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

            Hurley
            February 17, 2016 at 11:29 AM
            Mr. Rossi,
            Have you seen the same amount of depletion on all 4 units? I don’t remember if they are all the same.
            Warm Regards
            Hurley
            Andrea Rossi
            February 17, 2016 at 10:16 PM
            Hurley:
            More or less yes.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.
            Andrea Rossi
            February 18, 2016 at 4:31 AM
            Gerard Mc Ek:
            The charge size has beene refined with the experience in thousands of experiments and, obviously, also on the base of theoretical considerations.
            Yes, the test of 350 days is finished, yesterday the ERV has completed his tests.
            Now it will take about a month to know the results from his report.
            No more information about the 1 MW E-Cat that made the tests from now until the publication of the results will be allowed.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            Rossi privately sent his invoiced to IH the day the clause 3.2c conditions were passed. 5 days later, as per the clause 3.2c payment conditions, he filed his complaint as he had not received the required clause 3.2c payment.

            As was his right as per the License Agreement.

          • LuFong

            I heard he actually filed suit before the 5 days were up (read it somewhere). Anyway this does seem relevant to fuel handing and ash analysis nor the timing of the test since it was the ERV that was running it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            I would suggest you personally check out the dates as someone may be feeding you that which mushrooms kept in the dark are fed from.

          • TVulgaris

            You use horse manure for commercial mushroom farming. Of this I am quite certain.- Mr. Poopypants

          • Pweet

            “pounced and padlocked the plant along with Rossi’s lawyers.”
            They padlocked Rossi’s lawyers? 🙂
            Ain’t english just grand !
            We can butcher it all we like but the message still gets through.
            Pardon my comment but it did make me laugh.

          • LuFong

            No he only said in process. The next day the test was over.

          • Pweet

            I wonder if the plan was to remove the reactor charge in all the reactors immediately prior to the end of the test so that it could not be analysed by anyone else? It seems a bit strange that it would need to be replaced if the test period was within days of ending.
            If Mr Rossi has all the spent fuel than that eliminates the possibility that anyone can dispute the composition of the spent charge.
            If that is the case, and note I said ‘ if ‘, the fuel composition can be made up to be anything anyone wants. We need to look at all possibilities here because in the case of the Lugano test, the ash sample was clearly very strange and unexpected. Even Mr Rossi said so. It strongly indicates the ash sample was ‘contaminated’, to use a euphemism so as not to offend people.

          • LuFong

            Rossi stated that the fuel exchange was in process before he reported the test as over.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            Sure but the never reported it had been achieved.

          • LuFong

            Yes. It still may be in the padlocked 1MW reactor. All of it. We don’t know. And if Rossi is the source then all bets are off. We also do not know the original composition of the fuel. Chain of custody is everything. Double blind would be even better.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            I have been shared with the chain of custody. It will be revealed.

            Maybe ask Weaver about the chain of custody of the Lugano ash? I mean IH did own the reactors, so where is their ash analysis?

          • LuFong

            For Lugano, because it was a scientific effort, the integrity of the experimenters provides the validation. Unfortunately Rossi had a hand in it so it was not possible to do a good analysis. There are also problems with the Lugano results, even Rossi has said so.

            As for IH, they said that they could not get anything to work which means that if they did do some kind of ash analysis on their own independent runs, they found nothing.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            With respect that is BS.

            IH NEVER published any ash analysis or rebuttal to the Lugano results.

            Ask yourself if you were IH would you send a HotCat Dog Bone reactor to the Lugano team knowing that the inhouse COP results showed would fail as IH have claimed?

            Sorry but this is just IH troll generated BS that has no scientific basis to be believed.

            You need to really look at your beliefs as I suggest you are being trolled.

          • LuFong

            What are you talking about? You are ‘fighting to the death’ your own strawman. Good luck!

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            Whatever……..

          • Obvious

            Procured?

    • LuFong

      Exactly. Also without chain of custody of original sample and ash, these results are meaningless.

      • Engineer48

        Hi LuFong,

        Well several knowledgeable people may not agree with you.

        I have been shared with the probable ash chain of custody.

        There is more info to be shared.

        • LuFong

          Take a look at what MFMP did when they had their sample analyzed.

          Well I would like to know who these “knowledgeable people” are.

          “Probable”? There is no chain of custody then.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            So we must agree to disagree.

          • LuFong

            Just trying to keep it real.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            Just trying to keep it real in what way?

            What real info do you have to share?

          • LuFong

            Read my posts (facts or statements from Rossi) and compare with yours eg. oxymoron ‘probable chain of custody.’

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            Please feel free to follow that ever trail of evidence you wish, while I and others follow another.

          • LuFong

            I’m hoping things make it to court. At least the evidence will be vetted.

  • Oystein Lande

    But , what was the initial fuel composition?

    This does not tell the change during 1 year operation. Only difference to natural occuring isotopes. ..

    • Engineer48

      Hi Oystein,

      My source told me there is more info coming.

      • JDM

        Did your source say if it was Leonardo or IH that had the analysis done?

        • Engineer48

          Hi JDM,

          Source for the ash and who did the analysis is unknown to me.

          As there are reported to be dual padlocks on the 1MW plant, the fuel ash must have been procured prior to the lock down event.

          • wpj

            AR did say that the charges had been replaced and had clearly expected things to continue.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Well he never said that. What he said was he planned to change the fuel but he never posted he had actually changed the fuel as IH lawyers pounced and padlocked the plant along with Rossi’s lawyers.

            Plus all parties documented the ERV removing all his instruments and sending them back to their manufacturers for recertification. Which is what I would have expected him to do. Very professional action.

          • Pweet

            “pounced and padlocked the plant along with Rossi’s lawyers.”
            They padlocked Rossi’s lawyers? 🙂
            Ain’t english just grand !
            We can butcher it all we like but the message still gets through.
            Pardon my comment but it did make me laugh.

          • Obvious

            Procured?

  • “Jag bara undrar?”

    Is this sample from the one year test in Sweden or USA (not lugano test)

    • MorganMck

      USA

      • Kalle Anka

        How could you know ? It,s two different test.. USA is a part of a big world….. How do you know it,s not sampel from the “District heating test in Sweden” ?

  • Bruce__H

    This information is welcome because it is simplifying. If Engineer48’s information about the isotope composition is accurate then there must have been some sort of nuclear process and an accompanying large heat discharge. If Jed Rothwell’s information is accurate then there cannot have been a large heat discharge. So, either someone is out and out lying in the Leonardo-to-Engineer48 stream or someone is out and out lying in the IH to Rothwell stream. The two cannot both be telling the truth.

    Interesting times.

    I would warn Engineer48, to be a bit circumspect, though, in saying this means that the Rossi version of lenr is real. It needs replication first, before we can say this — just as every fundamental result published in every scientific paper in the last century has required. I think many people reading articles on this site are not that familiar with basic research and so many not know that a large proportion of published results (20-50% depending of the field) end up not being replicated. I wish we could do better but that is the reality.

    • Yeah, but…

      If this is real, then COP 50 is probably real too and that’s not in measurement error territory. Rossi has replicated himself with different prototype devices over many years and others have replicated the general effect. This would be the second set of ash measurements that tell the same story.

      We are not in hey-slow-down-and-do-careful science-before-we-get-too-excited territory here.

      Maybe for developing a theory. But not for applications.

      You kind of said it yourself. It’s about which telephone chain is telling the truth.

      • Bruce__H

        I absolutely say it myself … it’s about which telephone chain is telling the truth now. I don;’t see a middle ground.

        Replication needs to be done by an independent group. There is no way around that. It’s been that way for as long as I have been doing research.

        • Ged

          So very agreed.

          If a commercial product is ever released, that should allow easy testing, but for a high cost, ala Orbo. It would be best for a free testing sample to go out to the likes of MFMP. Gotta keep pushing for that.

          • But then MFMP’s results would be immediately dismissed due to __________ fill in the blank.

            Only something like reactors distributed to the world’s ten most prestigious research universities would do it. It’d have to be well thought out and done at the right time. I would do something like that just before I was ready for market to minimize vulnerability. We’ll see what Leonardo and their partner have in mind.

          • Bruce__H

            Yes. Exactly.

            There are definite situations in which the Rossi phenomenon could be demonstrated to my satisfaction and I presume to others who are skeptical like me. This skepticism is reasonable, warranted, and can be answered effectively by some simple procedures independently replicated. I don’t see what is wrong with that. And yet people like Jed Rothwell and Mary Yugo who as far as I can see are acting in just this way are ridiculed and denounced.

          • He permitted the reactor to be tested for 6 months by a team of scientists. The results showed unambiguous nuclear activity. Now we (apparently) have further confirmation of those results, pending more details.

            The people you mention get what they want and then they still find ways to deny it all alleging outright fraud… Asserting conspiracy theories… Dismissing any positive evidence (both direct and circumstantial) with ad hominem attacks and willful ignorance.

          • Bruce__H

            Science progresses through independent replication. I await that for Rossi’s devices. I don’t understand why no one has tried to build the device he carefully described in his August 2015 US patent.

            Suspicions about Rossi’s honesty are, unfortunately, a justifiable concern here. You can’t get around it. In the famous Krivit video (the one of Rossi pulling a hose out of a wall and showing steam coming out), for instance, what Rossi says and what he shows just don’t match. Not by a little bit but by an order of magnitude. Look for yourself. This is the sort of behaviour that lays a groundwork of suspicion and justifies the concerns about fraud.

            If what Rossi has is real then he needs to work harder than most to allay skepticism. He hasn’t done that at all.

          • Chapman

            “If what Rossi has is real then he needs to work harder than most to allay skepticism.”

            Why? That is an honest question. Why does Rossi need to address your skepticism? THAT’S what I keep asking, but I never get a simple answer…

            Come on Bruce. I am asking nicely, and with extreme care. I am not bashing, just asking, cause I don’t understand. Why?

          • Bruce__H

            I will reply by first telling you what I had in mid when I wrote this passage, then by answering more what I think you are trying to get at.

            Rossi faces skepticism from many people. More skepticism than most people face. He therefore has to work harder than others to overcome it. He has to work harder simply because, for whatever reason, there is more to overcome. That was my meaning when I wrote the passage.

            But I think you are asking WHY is the skepticism there. For me it is because of his past and present actions. Some things he has said in the past are complete puzzles. The disjunction between his remarks in the Krivit video and what one can see is an example. All the companies that supposedly had bought early ecats but are not longer mentioned is another. But also he just acts in a suspicious manner. Constantly! He always has plausible explanations … but why does he need them so often? He doesn’t want certain measurements made. People can’t enter a production facility. And on and on. People put this down to him being a cantankerous genius but this only cuts you so much slack. If he is suffering from this suspicion that he generates then he has only himself to blame.

          • Chapman

            An excellent reply, thank you!

            Let me clarify one small point. I am not questioning why the skepticism is there. TRUST ME! I get it. You have every right to be skeptical. The facts are ambiguous and evidence is sparse. My question was regarding what motivation or obligation does Rossi have to address that skepticism. I understand us asking him for info, because we are science nerds trying to follow an exciting development, but he has no debt to us that requires him to alleviate our confusion beyond his own generosity with his time and energy. If he was an academic researcher using taxpayer funds and working in a public institution, then I would agree he should participate in the established Peer Review system appropriate for those so involved. But Rossi is a private citizen, asking nothing FROM you, so why do you feel he owes you, or any of us, anything more than what pleases him to give for his own vanity’s sake?

            I guess my question is why you think we should have a right to DEMAND, instead of asking, and even begging, for his attention – if he so chooses…? It really comes down, in my opinion, to a clear expression of our generation’s entitlement mentality. Past generations worked hard, not just for luxury, but to simply survive. And they were damn grateful for every little thing in life. But the last 50 years we have seen our decadence turn into an expectation of satisfaction. “I want it, so someone owes it to me – based only on my desire” Everyone feels they have a “Right” to be given all that they desire. This is “Entitlement”. “I want it, therefore you MUST give it to me”. I find it deeply disturbing.

            So, in your mind, are you ASKING Rossi for a favor, or DEMANDING he fulfil an obligation??? Understanding that question will shape the nature of the attitude we direct to the issue of our skepticism.

          • Bruce__H

            Neither.

            If Rossi wants to overcome my skepticism he needs to be more transparent. That is just a fact. There is no favour involved. If I were a investor with lots of money and he and I had a contract then it would turn an obligation.

          • Chapman

            Got it. So, you are saying that should the day come when Rossi finds he DOES care about your skepticism, or you win the lottery and he wishes to approach you for an investment, then you are just giving Rossi a friendly heads up that he would need to come prepared to demonstrate a greater level of transparency at that time. Yes? But until that time, you have no grudge, and offer no criticism, regarding his continued secrecy, right? And you will not be displaying any unfounded indignation regarding his right to privacy, right?

            Good. I am sure he will give your skepticism its due consideration when the day comes that he feels he needs to address it.

          • Bruce__H

            I think that if what Rossi has is real then he has to work harder than most to allay skepticism. What’s so complicated?

      • Roger Roger

        “hey-slow-down-and-do-careful science-before-we-get-too-excited”: this is one stealthy and putrid meme 😀 glad to see it’s been noticed

    • MorganMck

      I would submit that the reactor does not necessarily need to be replicated, but must be at least tested as a black box by an independent and credible 3rd-party with impeccable setup, instrumentation, recording and analysis. This would include a before/after fuel/ash analysis. MFMP has offered to perform such a test for Rossi who has declined for whatever reason.

      • There aren’t going to be any such tests.

        What’s on tap next is commercialization and, if that doesn’t happen, court proceedings.

        Leonardo does not have any motivation as far as I can see to try to validate the tech for the scientific community in general. Maybe when they actually start to sell stuff beyond hand-picked customers they will see a need to crack that nut.

        • MorganMck

          I agree that the black box (BB) tests are not likely to happen. That would be fine if commercialization did actually happen which would, in essence, represent many BB tests from which to draw conclusions. Since the commercialization has not happened either (the one resulted in a law suit), one wonders if the aforementioned BB tests would not accelerate the commercialization. The big question is why Rossi is so opposed to the BB tests given all the issues he seems to be having with his commercial launch.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr,

          Rossi has NO INTEREST in doing peer review and teaching all those who can’t make it work how to make it work.

          Why would Rossi do that?

          Would Tesla, Edison, Westinghouse, Ford, the Wrights teach those who can not make their clones work, what they are doing wrong? No way!

          • MorganMck

            How would a black-box test teach anyone anything Rossi did not want them to know. If he’s willing to babysit a 1MW plant 24x7x365 he could certainly babysit a MFMP black-box test for a week.

      • Bruce__H

        I would say that replication must be from the ground up by an independent group. I can’t figure out why someone doesn’t just build the device described in Rossi’s US patent granted in August 2015.

    • Engineer48

      Bruce,

      It started here in 2007. In a Red bucket to boil water. Which progressively over 8 years in resulted in this. Can you not understand or accept the engineering between the Red Bucket and the 4 x 250kW slab reactors?

      • Bruce__H

        What has this got to do with whether or not it is real?

        If it is real then he is developing his technology. If it is fake then he is elaborating the con.

        Publish and wait for replication. This is how basic science works. And have no doubts … this is basic science.

        • Chapman

          Bruce, this is not basic science. This is engineering and production.

          I think you are confusing Rossi with someone from academia.

          I mean that sincerely, not as a jibe. Rossi is just a private citizen/inventor making a better mouse trap. His product is innovative, but so was the bicycle, the light bulb, and the I-phone. None of the inventors of these products went through peer review, or sought approval from Scientific High-Priests before releasing products to the marketplace.

          If these were research claims coming out of the High-Energy Physics lab at cal-tech, then I would agree that we will see what comes of the Peer review process, but that system simply does not apply to Rossi, or any other private citizen!

          I fully sympathize with your desire for confirmation. I really do! I would love to see Rossi work with a crowdfunding group, publically demonstrate his tech, have it publicly replicated and verified, and assemble funding via direct public investment. But he has chosen to work in solitude, and keep his secrets. That is his right. You can say you wish he would do otherwise, but you can’t fault him, or say he is breaking some rule or public trust. That’s the difference between us. We would both rejoice the same way if he did it, but you are fixated upon the idea that he was SUPPOSED TO have done it, and is somehow in violation… I don’t get that part of your mindset.

  • Yeah, but…

    If this is real, then COP 50 is probably real too and that’s not in measurement error territory. Rossi has replicated himself with different prototype devices over many years and others have replicated the general effect. This would be the second set of ash measurements that tell the same story.

    We are not in hey-slow-down-and-do-careful science-before-we-get-too-excited territory here.

    Maybe for developing a theory. But not for applications.

    You kind of said it yourself. It’s about which telephone chain is telling the truth.

    • Bruce__H

      I absolutely say it myself … it’s about which telephone chain is telling the truth now. I don;’t see a middle ground.

      Replication needs to be done by an independent group. There is no way around that. It’s been that way for as long as I have been doing research.

      • Ged

        So very agreed.

        If a commercial product is ever released, that should allow easy testing, but for a high cost, ala Orbo. It would be best for a free testing sample to go out to the likes of MFMP. Gotta keep pushing for that.

        • But then MFMP’s results would be immediately dismissed due to __________ fill in the blank.

          Only something like reactors distributed to the world’s ten most prestigious research universities would do it. It’d have to be well thought out and done at the right time. I would do something like that just before I was ready for market to minimize vulnerability. We’ll see what Leonardo and their partner have in mind.

  • Well this is fun! thanks E48!

  • Frank Acland

    Just a point of reference that might indicate that Leonardo had fuel analysis done: I asked AR on the JONP a week or so ago if there had been fuel/ash analysis done on the 1MW fuel, and he said yes, but the results were confidential so far.

    • Did you ask him because you were told of this document’s existence?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Lenr,

        Frank only learned of this document, from me, today.

        If he knew of the existence of this document before I sent it to him, I can’t comment as I don’t know.

        • Your source says there is more to come and that he will eventually uncloak.

          Do you believe he is in possession of this other information presently?

          Did he share any sense of a timeline with you for these upcoming events?

          Should I be hitting refresh 6 timer per minute like I am now?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Alan Smith on LENR-Forum just confirmed the data.

          • Going to be interesting to see how this news is received on LENR-Forum. You think I’m annoying… just wait to see what kind of second-guessing this information gets over there.

            Mary Yugo will claim the steam quality of your posts is not high enough.

            Jed will say you didn’t properly place your punctuation marks and your posts are pathetic — the worst posts he’s ever seen.

            Dewey will resurface and laugh in your face for believing anything coming from the same solar system as Planet Rossi.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            None will survive attacking me.

          • TOUSSAINT francois

            Well said

            Cheers !

  • Frank Acland

    Just a point of reference that might indicate that Leonardo had fuel analysis done: I asked AR on the JONP a week or so ago if there had been fuel/ash analysis done on the 1MW fuel, and he said yes, but the results were confidential so far.

    • Did you ask him because you were told of this document’s existence?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Lenr,

        Frank only learned of this document, from me, today.

        If he knew of the existence of this document before I sent it to him, I can’t comment as I don’t know.

        • Your source says there is more to come and that he will eventually uncloak.

          Do you believe he is in possession of this other information presently?

          Did he share any sense of a timeline with you for these upcoming events?

          Should I be hitting refresh 6 timer per minute like I am now?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Alan Smith on LENR-Forum just confirmed the data.

          • Going to be interesting to see how this news is received on LENR-Forum. You think I’m annoying… just wait to see what kind of second-guessing this information gets over there.

            Mary Yugo will claim the steam quality of your posts is not high enough.

            Jed will say you didn’t properly place your punctuation marks and your posts are pathetic — the worst posts he’s ever seen.

            Dewey will resurface and laugh in your face for believing anything coming from the same solar system as Planet Rossi.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            None will survive attacking me as I know now to fight.
            .

          • Wernerml

            E48; Need any additional engineering help with your efforts?

          • TOUSSAINT francois

            Well said

            Cheers !

  • There aren’t going to be any such tests.

    What’s on tap next is commercialization and, if that doesn’t happen, court proceedings.

    Leonardo does not have any motivation as far as I can see to try to validate the tech for the scientific community in general. Maybe when they actually start to sell stuff beyond hand-picked customers they will see a need to crack that nut.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Lenr,

      Rossi has NO INTEREST in doing peer review and teaching all those who can’t make it work how to make it work.

      Why would Rossi do that?

      Would Tesla, Edison, Westinghouse, Ford, the Wrights teach those who can not make their clones work, what they are doing wrong? No way!

  • Ged

    Jed gives No data at all, just pronouncements. Very unlike this which is only data. But we must not get too wrapped up in it till we get facts on methods and more data to give a context to frame this.

  • Engineer48

    Alan Smith on LENR forum confirms the data:

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3434-Document-Isotopic-Composition-of-Rossi-Fuel-Sample-Unverified/?postID=28020#post28020

    “There is independent confirmation of those figures btw.”

    • Can you say that Alan Smith is *not* your source?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Lenr,

        Alan Smith is NOT my source but I do believe he knows the source of my sources info.

        • Good. So it looks like information is starting to be disseminated and has reached the inner circle.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Yup.

  • Engineer48

    Alan Smith on LENR forum confirms the data:

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3434-Document-Isotopic-Composition-of-Rossi-Fuel-Sample-Unverified/?postID=28020#post28020

    “There is independent confirmation of those figures btw.”

    • Can you say that Alan Smith is *not* your source?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Lenr,

        Alan Smith is NOT my source but I do believe he knows the source of my sources info.

        • Good. So it looks like information is starting to be disseminated and has reached the inner circle.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Yup.

        • Chapman

          Can you say that “Jed” is *not* your source?

          PLEASE tell me Jed ain’t the leak…

    • Bruce__H

      You are not the focus of suspicions about false information. Nor is Jed Rothwell I think. The suspicions are further up the chain.

      Rossi’s basic problem is that it is he who has a history of saying and doing suspicious things in all of this. Go right back to the famous/infamous Krivit video of Rossi pulling a hose out of a wall and claiming it is demonstrating the anomalous heat output of one of his machines. I urge you to view the video and then do the math yourself comparing the flow of water Rossi quotes and the flow of steam you see. You will find that they are out of line with each other by an order of magnitude. Don’t trust me, view the thing yourself. Listen to Rossi yourself. Do the math yourself. What Rossi is saying just can’t be true. And that is a problem that infects everything he says and does.

  • Engineer48

    Here is what we all need to understand why I sent the document to Frank and Mats:

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”
    .

    • Pweet

      Eng48, I have to admire your tenacity at least, but I think you overestimate the effect of people’s negative impression of the results so far achieved.
      As I have said before, if Mr Rossi has what he says he has, anything we say here will make no difference at all to the acceptance or otherwise of his technology. The fact is, the thing he claims to have had for at least five years is urgently needed by the whole planet. If real, it will have a very rapid and unstoppable acceptance.
      It is not widely accepted as being real, entirely because of Mr Rossi either being incapable of proving even once that it is real, or for some almost insane reason, simply refuses to prove it is real. And he could do this so easily. It’s not a big job and it could be done in a week, if he so chose to do. And yet, he does not.
      .
      Five years ago he used to say he didn’t have to prove anything because the ‘market will decide’. But then in that five years he has steadfastly refused to put anything into the market on which a decision can be made. The closest we have come to this being achieved is by way of this last 12 month test, and even that has failed to prove anything. Why is that? Well, the very same entity which put up the time, money, equipment and facilities to prove the technology has concluded that it is all a sham when they state, the claims of Rossi cannot be substantiated.
      This is not an adverse assessment arrived at by some long term pathoskeptic.
      It’s the conclusion of someone who believed strongly enough in Mr Rossi that they put eleven million dollars on the table and then looked closely at it for two years at least, and made their decision on the basis of ‘hands on’ observations and experience. So it’s not a matter of ‘Good men doing nothing’. It’s a matter of good men spending a lot and doing a lot, but coming up with nothing.
      And it’s not that adverse comments on the internet are holding it back, it’s that consistent lack of provable performance does not justify it’s moving forward.
      If and when the performance and reality are conclusively proven, the acceptance and accolades will surely follow. But the proven performance must come first.

  • Engineer48

    Here is what we all need to understand about why I sent the document to Frank and Mats:

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”
    .

    • Pweet

      Eng48, I have to admire your tenacity at least, but I think you overestimate the effect of people’s negative impression of the results so far achieved.
      As I have said before, if Mr Rossi has what he says he has, anything we say here will make no difference at all to the acceptance or otherwise of his technology. The fact is, the thing he claims to have had for at least five years is urgently needed by the whole planet. If real, it will have a very rapid and unstoppable acceptance.
      It is not widely accepted as being real, entirely because of Mr Rossi either being incapable of proving even once that it is real, or for some almost insane reason, simply refuses to prove it is real. And he could do this so easily. It’s not a big job and it could be done in a week, if he so chose to do. And yet, he does not.
      .
      Five years ago he used to say he didn’t have to prove anything because the ‘market will decide’. But then in that five years he has steadfastly refused to put anything into the market on which a decision can be made. The closest we have come to this being achieved is by way of this last 12 month test, and even that has failed to prove anything. Why is that? Well, the very same entity which put up the time, money, equipment and facilities to prove the technology has concluded that it is all a sham when they state, the claims of Rossi cannot be substantiated.
      This is not an adverse assessment arrived at by some long term pathoskeptic.
      It’s the conclusion of someone who believed strongly enough in Mr Rossi that they put eleven million dollars on the table and then looked closely at it for two years at least, and made their decision on the basis of ‘hands on’ observations and experience. So it’s not a matter of ‘Good men doing nothing’. It’s a matter of good men spending a lot and doing a lot, but coming up with nothing.
      And it’s not that adverse comments on the internet are holding it back, it’s that consistent lack of provable performance does not justify it’s moving forward.
      If and when the performance and reality are conclusively proven, the acceptance and accolades will surely follow. But the proven performance must come first.

  • question is where come the sample from.
    If you trust, it reinforce your trust.
    if you don’t trust, it make it worse…

    this is even less tracable than Lugano…

    note that in Lugano the question was not salting by hand tricks, but simply that what was removed from the reactor was not necessarily the same as inserted..
    if there is Ni62/Li6 in the reactor and you insert natural Li and Ni , the ashes will be richer in Ni62/Li6

    this is information for supporters only, as usual…

    • Yeah we get that, Alain. It’s unverified. How about giving us a little credit.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Lenr,

        Well it is now verified by one of the LENR-Forum moderators.

        • Verified that’s what the document says. Not verified that the document reflects reality or what the origin of the document is.

          Let’s keep it real.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            This is very real.

            People are denying the truth. They will lose as this good man will NOT stand by as Evil tries to work it’s business.

            And yes this has become personal as I will fight for the truth.

          • I get that you’re jacked up, but framing this as good versus evil does not help your credibility.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            So what else is it?

          • So let’s say that the scenario where the USG is suppressing, delaying and otherwise mucking with LENR emergence is close to reality and IH is their vehicle for doing so at the moment.

            I could argue that maybe some of the best minds in the US have spent untold hours game planning the emergence of this technology. From a military and national security perspective. From an economic perspective. From an environmental perspective. From a human rights and poverty perspective. From every perspective they could think of. And (setting my cynicism aside for a moment) decided on a timeline that they though maximized the benefits and minimized the damage and dislocation.

            Who would be evil in that scenario?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            As an engineer with considerable experience in the power generation, transmission and distribution industry, I have long argued for rational approach to the utilisation of LENR technology.

            Every load point going off line would destroy the grid and destroy 100 trillion in invested capital, creating an almost total destruction for every retirement fund on the planet.

            No one wishes that to happen.

            Andrea has said many times LENR needs to be integrated with existing energy suppliers.

            I believe the initial approach is to replace ALL the fossil boilers on every thermal power plant worldwide with HotCat boilers as the replacement cost will be paid from reduced fossil fuel purchases.

            So NO one loses, well no one but the fossil fuel suppliers AND there is NO upward retail electricity price increase AND the CO2 emissions from thermal plants are eliminated at NO cost to the retail customer.

          • wpj

            I thought that you were in Australia; do you not sleep?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Yup it is almost 06:30am.

            But to engage you guys I gotta do the long hours. Besides it comes with the territory.

          • Pweet

            “A battle to the death”? Hardly.
            At the very worst either IH or Rossi will lose some money. I very much doubt anyone will even get locked up let alone executed.
            As to which party is lying through their teeth, it’s probably both.
            Does Mr Rossi have false teeth?
            Tom Dardens look genuine but it’s so hard to tell these days

    • Engineer48

      Alain,

      According to the Lugano team, the sample removal by Rossi was video recorder and watched by all the team.

      • LuFong

        Rossi (not IH) only allowed a very small sample to be taken (it’s in the report). And the results have problems–even Rossi has admitted that.

        • Engineer48

          Hi LuFong,

          Please link those reports?

          When I make claims I give the links, so please do likewise?

          • LuFong

            The Lugano Report. You haven’t read it?

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            And your point is?

            As an Aussie, I learned a long time ago to not piss into the wind as it comes back. Maybe you should consider that advice?

          • LuFong

            My point is fairly common knowledge which I’m surprised you are not aware of. If you want to dispute it you should provide references.

            And it looks like you never learned your lesson.

          • Engineer48
          • Karl Venter

            LU Fong – 1 Engineer48 – 0

            After that brilliant lesson learnt comment

  • question is where come the sample from.
    If you trust, it reinforce your trust.
    if you don’t trust, it make it worse…

    this is even less tracable than Lugano…

    note that in Lugano the question was not salting by hand tricks, but simply that what was removed from the reactor was not necessarily the same as inserted..
    if there is Ni62/Li6 in the reactor and you insert natural Li and Ni , the ashes will be richer in Ni62/Li6

    this is information for supporters only, as usual…

    • Yeah we get that, Alain. It’s unverified. How about giving us a little credit.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Lenr,

        Well it is now verified by one of the LENR-Forum moderators.

        • Verified that’s what the document says. Not verified that the document reflects reality or what the origin of the document is.

          Let’s keep it real.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            This is very real.

            People are denying the truth. They will lose as this good man will NOT stand by as Evil tries to work it’s business.

            And yes this has become personal as I will fight for the truth.

          • I get that you’re jacked up, but framing this as good versus evil does not help your credibility.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            So what else is it?

            Either one side or the other is lying through their teeth. There is no common ground here. This is a battle to the death.

          • So let’s say that the scenario where the USG is suppressing, delaying and otherwise mucking with LENR emergence is close to reality and IH is their vehicle for doing so at the moment.

            I could argue that maybe some of the best minds in the US have spent untold hours game planning the emergence of this technology. From a military and national security perspective. From an economic perspective. From an environmental perspective. From a human rights and poverty perspective. From every perspective they could think of. And (setting my cynicism aside for a moment) decided on a timeline that they though maximized the benefits and minimized the damage and dislocation.

            Who would be evil in that scenario?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            As an engineer with considerable experience in the power generation, transmission and distribution industry, I have long argued for rational approach to the utilisation of LENR technology.

            Every load point going off line would destroy the grid and destroy 100 trillion in invested capital, creating an almost total destruction for every retirement fund on the planet.

            No one wishes that to happen.

            Andrea has said many times LENR needs to be integrated with existing energy suppliers.

            I believe the initial approach is to replace ALL the fossil boilers on every thermal power plant worldwide with HotCat boilers as the replacement cost will be paid from reduced fossil fuel purchases.

            So NO one loses, well no one but the fossil fuel suppliers AND there is NO upward retail electricity price increase AND the CO2 emissions from thermal plants are eliminated at NO cost to the retail customer.

          • wpj

            I thought that you were in Australia; do you not sleep?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Wpj,

            Yup it is almost 06:30am.

            But to engage you guys I gotta do the long hours. Besides it comes with the territory.

          • Chapman

            Equal Justice under the Law means that the interests of the oil industry are JUST AS VALID as those of the Electrical industry. Neither industry should be sacrificed to protect investors in hedge funds, even if those investments are held in retirement portfolios! Taking risks is the nature of investing, and investors MUST be left to ride the market, or our free market system is really a “Free for our Buddies” market – where some nameless dumbass in DC picks the winners and losers. Sorry, but that is the truth. We do not need anymore “To big to Fail” crap. Not even Retirement Funds.

          • Chapman

            USG. Obviously.

            Was that meant to be a trick question? Seemed a little too obvious, so I am looking for the catch…

          • So “maximizing the benefits and minimizing the damage and dislocation” is evil in your book?

          • Chapman

            The idea that a few individuals who DECIDE they are the best and brightest among us then take active steps to run a covert campaign of public misinformation and legal harassment, all directed against a single individual and his attempt to lawfully bring to market a product, based on their assessment that its introduction will adversely affect the market leverage held by other agents more friendly TO that group doing the market control? Yes, that is evil.

            Simply making information public regarding such science and market trends would have allowed all market investors the chance to diversify and adjust, but instead we have a secret war going on, working to suppress the rollout in order to give insider associates the chance to capitalize on these inevitable social changes – to the detriment of everyone else, and especially that single individual who is the target of their terrorism. Now, you tell me that is not evil.

            We try, we silly broken humans, to justify every evil we do by such nonsense as “for the common good” or “prudent preventative measures”, but we only fool ourselves.

            The needs of the many NEVER outway the will, and rights, of the one. Down that road lies social chaos, endless war, and slavery.

          • Everybody has their own political philosophy. The fact is that we have a republic where we delegate important decisions to selective representatives, and those decisions include difficult ones involving national security, and yes weighing the needs of the many versus the needs of the few or the one (you’re going to be first on line for the new Star Trek aren’t you?).

            Would you choose to further destabilize the Middle East and Russia right now?

          • Chapman

            I would choose not to sentence the entire population to a continued servitude to the energy sector by declaring that connecting to, and financially supporting, a distribution grid is a civic duty because massive money has been invested in its creation and so many would suffer if we were all allowed to CHOOSE energy independance!

            If Monsanto came out with a revolutionary Hydroponics system that could be run in your basement and produce nutritious, delicious, and low cost edibles, would you support a government funded covert war be waged against them to prevent the agricultural job loss?

            If YOU came up with a cure for the common cold, would the government be justified in taking covert actions against you, for the sake of protecting the profits of the Pharmaceutical sector?

            These are the same issue!

            When a cop takes a bullet for the innocent, we call it Honor. When a soldier jumps on a grenade we call it Heroism. But when the village elders in a small island community in the pacific listen to the rantings of a delusional witch-doctor and throw someone’s virgin daughter in the volcano to save the village from the wrath of the Lava God – That is not noble, honorable, or ethical. It is EVIL!

            “Good” can never be achieved by evil deeds.

          • Don’t get me wrong. I want it out fast too. But I can appreciate that there is more at stake here than just energy independence.

          • Chapman

            Mr.G,

            I really do get what you mean, and I am not some citizen-militia libertarian screaming about my constitutional rights. That was not the point I was making. I understand that our elected officials must face making unsavory choices in pursuit of fulfilling the offices and duties we assign to them.

            My problem was with the idea “the attack on Rossi may not be just IH trying to rob Rossi, but a government operation to protect the markets and retirement portfolios, so that would be ok”.

            My mom used to tell me, “If you wouldn’t want jesus to see you doing it, you shouldn’t BE doing it!” If it is a proper government action it would not require being done covertly, through unsavory agents like Darden and Jed.

            When Government takes hostile actions against a law abiding citizen, it’s bad. When they do it covertly its criminal. When the victims fellow citizens condone the action and dismiss it, you get leather boots, secret police, and ovens that are too big for pizza’s if you follow my meaning…

          • Chapman

            pssst… It’s from Dickens, not Star Trek. 🙂

          • TVulgaris

            This, however, is CLEARLY the case of the needs of the MOST running concurrent with the interests of an individual (AR) being over-ruled by a relatively small group (even the entire governmental system is only a few million, and inevitably it’s only a few dozen directly involved, who would only be running technical scenarios were they (or, much more likely, their superiors) not suborned by corporate control- or, like Cheney, authors of it)- so you’re correct, but not for the reasons you think.

          • Pweet

            “A battle to the death”? Hardly.
            At the very worst either IH or Rossi will lose some money. I very much doubt anyone will even get locked up let alone executed.
            As to which party is lying through their teeth, it’s probably both.
            Does Mr Rossi have false teeth?
            Tom Dardens look genuine but it’s so hard to tell these days

          • bachcole

            It doesn’t hurt my faith in him whatsoever. Strident doubt in the face of evidence is evil.

          • Pweet

            Again, not a very convincing path for an argument. It’s suggesting that if someone finds the point trying to be made is unbelievable then they must be evil. To me that indicates the argument being put has so little credibility that it has to resort to the old religious tactic, along the lines that ‘if you can’t see what I’m saying is right then you must be evil, and a ‘poor lost soul’. That tactic has never worked on me and it only indicates the side making that argument has run out of logical evidence to support their point of view.

          • bachcole

            Certainly not. Someone refrains from looking at the very same evidence that convince other people and then castigates ad nauseum them for believing that the evidence, for them, is convincing.

          • Bruce__H

            I urge you to be more moderate and try to rise above the fray. Right now you are sounding like a 9/11 truther or the people who think that homeopathy is disbelieved because of a dark plot by the medical establishment. I don’t see how it adds to the discussion.

          • angry bird

            Dear Ing.4.8,
            The optical illusion avatar does not do justice to this statements.

    • Engineer48

      Alain,

      According to the Lugano team, the sample removal by Rossi was video recorder and watched by all the team.

      Then as the reactors are IH properly, where are they now? If the ash analysis was faulty, you think IH would not have made that public?

      BTW when I asked Weaver where are the Lugano reactors, he told he did not know? Amazing statement that as another ash sample analysis could have shut Rossi down. But it never happened. Ask yourself why?

  • clovis ray

    Hi, guys,
    Hey. Frank, do you have the very first analyses,of the ash, way back when, the first test was done.
    i would like to compare, just for fun.

  • From what I’ve read of Rossi, he usually wastes little time before coming out and saying that something is not real…if, indeed, is really is not real. Now he is resisting a yes or no answer. That makes me lean toward the idea that this is real.

  • JNM

    Did rossi once purchase some pure Ni62? So the loaded fuel could be enriched this way on purpose. Traceable fuel in fuel out analysis is needed. If transmutation has genuinely occurred then screw excess heat, this would be an earth shattering event in the world physics alone.

  • Tom59

    I am not a physicist but is it imaginable that another “impossible” reaction allows isotopic shift without large energy release? Mitsubishi and the Russian team claiming bacterial transmutation do not claim vast energy gains.

    • Depends what shifts where. Strongly exothermic and strongly endothermic are both possibilities, endothermic especially if there is some energy wasted in the stripping side of the reaction.

      • giovanniontheweb

        the average balance is the trust

        • I suspect that’s very deep, but I don’t understand it.

    • giovanniontheweb

      three points are clear by Rossi reaction, he does not deny the document, the document has been validated by him at certain point in time, revealing the document consistency now is no convenient for his business.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Giovanni,

        Yup, got it in one.

        Big truth asteroid just hit the Earth day for Snakes and Clowns. Bye……………..

        • Pweet

          I think maybe that ‘truth asteroid’ is a bit like Haley’s comet, only much more frequently. It seems to come past every few years.
          I remember it coming past a couple of times in 2011, around October I think.
          I remember it well because I saw videos of it a few weeks later.
          Then I remember it coming past for the Lugano test, when the amazing results were revealed.
          Then it made a distant pass a few months ago when it became visible in the Quark spectrum, but not a lot of information on that one so we’re still not sure.
          And also I remember it was due to come past at the end of the latest 1MW test, but apparently it was delayed when one party refused to pay the appearance fee. Apparently now though, we get a sneak preview from an anonymous sauce who has released an unverified ash analysis.
          That is not to say I’m disputing the analysis in any way because nothing is known about it. All still covered by secrecy due to upcoming events etc. However, if it turns out to be genuine, it will indeed be a significant indication that something nuclear was going on. But at this point an anonymous and unverified document purporting to be the ash analysis of the test hardly has the provenance required to prove a much. There has been far to long and too many opportunities for interested parties to insert whatever elements they want in any recipe they like to construct an ash to suit the strictest of requirements. But I await with much interest to see where this goes.

          • SG

            You strike me as an insider bluffing as an outsider.

          • Roland

            The ‘B’ team burned out after a brief flurry, he is a step up from the illiterates pounding this same drum…

          • Pweet

            I would need to be in the Antarctic to be any further outside of it.
            It’s probably because I am so far outside that it all looks so clear.
            From my experience I find the closer you get to something the more biased your opinion is. I am in the fortunate position here of having absolutely no money or scientific capital in this circus. If I did, I may well be tempted to clutch at some of the same straws that seem to be helping others defy the gravity of the increasingly massive load of increasing evidence that the ecat reality.
            For those who still believe, don’t be too upset. Focus on how good it will be when you can tell us there is an ecat warming half the houses on the planet, including mine. In fact, I could use one right now.

          • SG

            95% of posters here probably have no money or scientific capital in this affair. 5% likely do, and are most probably IH insiders. You write like other IH insiders. I assume that you probably are despite your denial.

          • Pweet

            Fat chance! As long as I have at least one brain cell still functioning, that will not happen. On the last count I had more than three so still at least a day away. ( I lost count at three so I had to stop counting. What comes after three? Is it potato?)

          • Alan Smith indicates that the chain of custody might not be solid enough to be useful in litigation.

            The only certainty we have, as usual, is that we never achieve certitude.

    • Ted-Z

      We can not exclude that the isotope shift is due to some, yet unknown mechanism, where the energy is negligibly small. The nuclear physics is still an uncharted water for sailing. This is just an “unknown unknown”, as opposed to the “known unknowns”.

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      And this is what the skeptics will use if the analysis gets confirmed as true.

      We would start to hear – The isotopic change could be due to endotermic reaction not exotermic or something simmilar.

      Of coruse, we heard from them long ago that the ashes would be a proof and used the “no ashes analysis” as a excuse to reinforce their claim that the technology doesnt work.
      Then when we get this confirmed (I wont say at this moment that it is confirmed because it isnt) they would find another excuse like the one i wrote before to dismiss the E-Cat.

      At this moment, for me, there is only one thing wich matters.
      Rossi, please start to deliver your 1MW plant to multiple customers. With the technology running there would be no more proofs needed.

      • Bob Greenyer

        A progression from 58 to 62 Nickel and from 64 to 62 Nickel by way of proton assimilation would all be net positive.

        proton and 7Li interaction depleting 7Li would be net positive.

        • He’s saying the chain of custody is flawed in some way such that the results may not be useful in court.

          I would guess that somebody who might not be considered impartial or professional had custody of the ash at some point.

          • Ged

            I think he is rightfully claiming that’ll be an issue to look at, but I don’t think he knows anything about the CoC, and is not claiming there is actually a problem, just the importance to look (he could always clarify though, if he is). I don’t see any CoC info in what we have. That should be part of the methods which we badly need to see before we can make conclusions on this data, and is supposedly part of the info yet to come.

        • Chapman

          Mr. Greenyer,

          As far as I can tell, this ash analysis would tend to eliminate most of the alternative LENR mechanism theories – all basically chasing Neutrons and some “Unique” form of hydrogen based Fusion – while your working theory, based on my understanding of your wonderful video presentations, has always tackled the problem from the other direction.

          Your theoretical model demands exactly these isotopic shifts as the clear fingerprint of the specific reaction chain, yes? It seems to me that this info not only validates Rossi’s Engineering, but also YOUR theoretical model of its underlying physics.

          Am I missing something? I have eagerly followed your presentations, and work, and I think I understand your model fairly well, but please correct me if I am off the mark. Are you indeed the second happiest guy in the world right now over these numbers – trailing only behind Rossi himself?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Firstly, I am not subscribed to any model/theory. What happened was, we visited Piantelli, when Rossi’s patent was rejected by USPTO on the grounds that there was no evidence in the literature of the source of protons in p + 7Li > 2 X 4He – I thought the examiner had not done his job well and set about a 3 week thought exercise assuming Piantelli theory.

            What I found was that not only did it seem to explain recent Rossi ash data – it also explained historical issued and even leaked data – also aspects relating to temperature of operation etc. This was all about the transmutation.

            This was further more correlated when the ‘signal’ was observed in GS 5.2 – this supported Piantelli’s claims of the emissions as well as Rossi’s.

            Of course, nothing is perfect, Robert Godes would argue that it could all be achievable with Neutrons – at the moment I have not seen the consistency to allow that.

            We are planning to make a test that may separate the wheat from the chaff.

            Re my videos, I am trying to work out a way to get some made that I have not had time / resources to do for a good while now. Look out for the next one though – it will be very important.

          • Don’t get me wrong. I want it out fast too. But I can appreciate that there is more at stake here than just energy independence.

    • Bob Greenyer

      From other bacteria in the family they use, that have been historically found in Nuclear fuel pools – there was previously no understanding of where they got their energy from – the implication being that they got their energy from biologically controlled elemental / isotopic transmutations.

  • Tom59

    I am not a physicist but is it imaginable that another “impossible” reaction allows isotopic shift without large energy release? Mitsubishi and the Russian team claiming bacterial transmutation do not claim vast energy gains.

    • Depends what shifts where. Strongly exothermic and strongly endothermic are both possibilities, endothermic especially if there is some energy wasted in the stripping side of the reaction.

      • giovanniontheweb

        the average balance is the trust

        • I suspect that’s very deep, but I don’t understand it.

    • Ted-Z

      We can not exclude that the isotope shift is due to some, yet unknown mechanism, where the energy is negligibly small. The nuclear physics is still an uncharted water for sailing. This is just an “unknown unknown”, as opposed to the “known unknowns”.

    • Julio Ruben Vazquez Turnes

      And this is what the skeptics will use if the analysis gets confirmed as true.

      We would start to hear – The isotopic change could be due to endotermic reaction not exotermic or something simmilar.

      Of coruse, we heard from them long ago that the ashes would be a proof and used the “no ashes analysis” as a excuse to reinforce their claim that the technology doesnt work.
      Then when we get this confirmed (I wont say at this moment that it is confirmed because it isnt) they would find another excuse like the one i wrote before to dismiss the E-Cat.

      At this moment, for me, there is only one thing wich matters.
      Rossi, please start to deliver your 1MW plant to multiple customers. With the technology running there would be no more proofs needed.

      • Bob Greenyer

        A progression from 58 to 62 Nickel and from 64 to 62 Nickel by way of proton assimilation would all be net positive.

        proton and 7Li interaction depleting 7Li would be net positive.

        • Chapman

          Mr. Greenyer,

          As far as I can tell, this ash analysis would tend to eliminate most of the alternative LENR mechanism theories – all basically chasing Neutrons and some “Unique” form of hydrogen based Fusion – while your working theory, based on my understanding of your wonderful video presentations, has always tackled the problem from the other direction.

          Your theoretical model demands exactly these isotopic shifts as the clear fingerprint of the specific reaction chain, yes? It seems to me that this info not only validates Rossi’s Engineering, but also YOUR theoretical model of its underlying physics.

          Am I missing something? I have eagerly followed your presentations, and work, and I think I understand your model fairly well, but please correct me if I am off the mark. Are you indeed the second happiest guy in the world right now over these numbers – trailing only behind Rossi himself?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Firstly, I am not subscribed to any model/theory. What happened was, we visited Piantelli, when Rossi’s patent was rejected by USPTO on the grounds that there was no evidence in the literature of the source of protons in p + 7Li > 2 X 4He – I thought the examiner had not done his job well and set about a 3 week thought exercise assuming Piantelli theory.

            What I found was that not only did it seem to explain recent Rossi ash data – it also explained historical issued and even leaked data – also aspects relating to temperature of operation etc. This was all about the transmutation.

            This was further more correlated when the ‘signal’ was observed in GS 5.2 – this supported Piantelli’s claims of the emissions as well as Rossi’s.

            Of course, nothing is perfect, Robert Godes would argue that it could all be achievable with Neutrons – at the moment I have not seen the consistency to allow that.

            We are planning to make a test that may separate the wheat from the chaff.

            Re my videos, I am trying to work out a way to get some made that I have not had time / resources to do for a good while now. Look out for the next one though – it will be very important.

          • Chapman

            I can not express how much I look forward to them!

            I follow many things, many experiments, and most of my time is spent trying to figure out what is NOT being said – but your presentations are a contradiction to that standard. I view them like TED talks, where the point is to convey knowledge for its own sake. Speaking of which, have you ever considered doing one??? What could you convey in 12 minutes? 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            That is very kind of you. It takes a lot of effort to become a TED fellow.

            Right now I have enough commitments already with the project to burn my time.

            Regarding what I could convey in 12 minutes – well – I think every day it becomes more clear – so I could convey more as time passes. The trick in to be succinct and I am working on that.

            Of course, BLP at the highest level have asked from the project to takedown my ‘Signal Part 2’ video – due to use of 2 slides that are available on their site which the MFMP youtube also linked too. It is unfortunate but their right. I will have to author some equivalent schematics and edit the video.

    • Bob Greenyer

      From other bacteria in the family they use, that have been historically found in Nuclear fuel pools – there was previously no understanding of where they got their energy from – the implication being that they got their energy from biologically controlled elemental / isotopic transmutations.

  • Engineer48

    Bruce,

    It started here in 2007. In a Red bucket to boil water. Which progressively over 8 years in resulted in this. Can you not understand or accept the engineering between the Red Bucket and the 4 x 250kW slab reactors?

  • Gerard McEk

    Obviously this data is only interesting when it reflects the analysis of the 1 MW 1 year test fuel. It is interesting that AR does not say it is rubbish. It seems to be been confirmed by others via Alan Smith. Therefore I am inclined to believe this, so what is the reason for leaking and who would have been leaking this data?
    It is clear that IH would not be the source, so it points to AR, unless some lab employee has done this. AR has been forbidden to do this and I am sure he would not do this to avoid bringing his case in danger. So the only conclusion is that somebody of a lab has leaked. Thanks, please go on!

    • Engineer48

      Hi Gerard,

      There are still Good Men that will not stand idly by as Evil does it’s work.

      • sam

        I think it could be both sides
        just not communicating and
        just mixed up ,not evil.
        But only an opinion.

      • Steve Savage

        One can hope… I vacillate between optimism and pessimism on this question.

      • Roland

        Which really does take us to the heart of the matter.

        APCO convinced three generations of regulatory agencies, politicians and smokers that nicotine isn’t addictive and that smoking tobacco won’t seriously alter life expectancy.

        Millions died ugly deaths.

        Evil is as evil does.

        One person stepped out of the ranks. A scientist with full access to the acquired data, because he was employed by a tobacco corporation, testified under oath.

        APCO’s carefully assembled edifice crumbled.

        APCO has another carefully assemble edifice at risk, and the stakes all around the table are much, much higher.

        The willingness to do banal evil is proportionate.

        This is, indeed, a very opportune moment for good men to step forward.

        • So “maximizing the benefits and minimizing the damage and dislocation” is evil in your book?

      • Gerard McEk

        I very much appriciate your effort to balance the pro and con Ecatters, Engineer. What is important though is to give AR a push to put his plants on the market and prove it works. You have told several times that you took steps to do that. Any progress?

  • Gerard McEk

    Obviously this data is only interesting when it reflects the analysis of the 1 MW 1 year test fuel. It is interesting that AR does not say it is rubbish. It seems to be been confirmed by others via Alan Smith. Therefore I am inclined to believe this, so what is the reason for leaking and who would have been leaking this data?
    It is clear that IH would not be the source, so it points to AR, unless some lab employee has done this. AR has been forbidden to do this and I am sure he would not do this to avoid bringing his case in danger. So the only conclusion is that somebody of a lab has leaked. Thanks, please go on!

    • Engineer48

      Hi Gerard,

      There are still Good Men that will not stand idly by as Evil does it’s work.

      • sam

        I think it could be both sides
        just not communicating and
        just mixed up ,not evil.
        But only an opinion.

        • Roger Roger

          True. But check out on lenr-forum the posts of Lomax, Mary Yugo, stephenrezz, and unfortunately Jed Rothwell: blanket denials, acid sarcasm, they even started to threaten people more or less subtly.
          They really do feel nefarious sometimes. Wonder who encourages them to do this.

          • sam

            Checked out Lenr-forum and found this.

            The question of who started a war is asked by people who have no clue how to stop wars. That question never, ever, stops a war. Wars are stopped when mutual benefit in stopping them is found. And there are people who help facilitate that, and people who don’t. The people who point to one side and blame them never help, unless they have enough power to overcome that side. The bloodiest wars are between matched opponents, where each side believes it is right.

          • sam

            Another comment from Lenr-forum

            There are eight counts in the Complaint. The first Count is for non-payment. When a customer does not pay, going to Court is far from the first thing to do. The first thing is to request payment when it has not appeared on time. The next thing is to negotiate. And, then, going to court with a request to resolve a dispute is one thing. That’s done all the time without the rancour. Normally, as well, an attorney will send a demand letter attempting to avoid filing an action. There is no sign that ordinary and customary business practice was followed. Instead, the suit was much more like a war, claiming bad faith, fraud, going after the officers and not just the corporation, going after Cherokee, which did not sign any agreement with Rossi and is apparently not an owner or investor in IH, all this was taking a dispute and turning it into a war. However, yes, it was based on IH not paying. So who started it? It looks like communication between Rossi and IH broke down before the GPT report was issued. However, we only have details reliably from one side, Rossi. IH has not Answered the complaint and has not provided new fact in their Motion to Dismiss, only legal arguments based on the Complaint. They hinted in a footnote at what they might allege later, that’s all.

          • SG

            My guess is Mr. Rossi acted quickly so that evidence could not be legally destroyed. Once you are on notice of the suit, beware of obstruction of justice.

        • Michael W Wolf

          The evil is the opposition to a possible world changing technology is the unbelievably ignorant people that Libel people with no evidence. They Libel them on hearsay, or in their mind the tech is impossible so they must be lying. They are the ones slowing down the public awareness, which is where great breakthroughs come from. So yea, evil.

      • Steve Savage

        One can hope… I vacillate between optimism and pessimism on this question.

      • Roland

        Which really does take us to the heart of the matter.

        APCO convinced three generations of regulatory agencies, politicians and smokers that nicotine isn’t addictive and that smoking tobacco won’t seriously alter life expectancy.

        Millions died ugly deaths.

        Evil is as evil does.

        One person stepped out of the ranks. A scientist with full access to the acquired data, because he was employed by a tobacco corporation, testified under oath.

        APCO’s carefully assembled edifice crumbled.

        APCO has another carefully assemble edifice at risk, and the stakes all around the table are much, much higher.

        The willingness to do banal evil is proportionate.

        This is, indeed, a very opportune moment for good men to step forward.

      • Gerard McEk

        I very much appriciate your effort to balance the pro and con Ecatters, Engineer. What is important though is to give AR a push to put his plants on the market and prove it works. You have told several times that you took steps to do that. Any progress?

  • giovanniontheweb

    three points are clear by Rossi reaction, he does not deny the document, the document has been validated by him at certain point in time, revealing the document consistency now is no convenient for his business.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Giovanni,

      Yup, got it in one.

      Big truth asteroid just hit the Earth day for Snakes and Clowns. Bye……………..

      • Pweet

        I think maybe that ‘truth asteroid’ is a bit like Haley’s comet, only much more frequently. It seems to come past every few years.
        I remember it coming past a couple of times in 2011, around October I think.
        I remember it well because I saw videos of it a few weeks later.
        Then I remember it coming past for the Lugano test, when the amazing results were revealed.
        Then it made a distant pass a few months ago when it became visible in the Quark spectrum, but not a lot of information on that one so we’re still not sure.
        And also I remember it was due to come past at the end of the latest 1MW test, but apparently it was delayed when one party refused to pay the appearance fee. Apparently now though, we get a sneak preview from an anonymous sauce who has released an unverified ash analysis.
        That is not to say I’m disputing the analysis in any way because nothing is known about it. All still covered by secrecy due to upcoming events etc. However, if it turns out to be genuine, it will indeed be a significant indication that something nuclear was going on. But at this point an anonymous and unverified document purporting to be the ash analysis of the test hardly has the provenance required to prove a much. There has been far to long and too many opportunities for interested parties to insert whatever elements they want in any recipe they like to construct an ash to suit the strictest of requirements. But I await with much interest to see where this goes.

        • SG

          You strike me as an insider bluffing as an outsider.

          • Roland

            The ‘B’ team burned out after a brief flurry, he is a step up from the illiterates pounding this same drum…

          • Pweet

            I would need to be in the Antarctic to be any further outside of it.
            It’s probably because I am so far outside that it all looks so clear.
            From my experience I find the closer you get to something the more biased your opinion is. I am in the fortunate position here of having absolutely no money or scientific capital in this circus. If I did, I may well be tempted to clutch at some of the same straws that seem to be helping others defy the gravity of the increasingly massive load of increasing evidence that the ecat reality.
            For those who still believe, don’t be too upset. Focus on how good it will be when you can tell us there is an ecat warming half the houses on the planet, including mine. In fact, I could use one right now.

          • SG

            95% of posters here probably have no money or scientific capital in this affair. 5% likely do, and are most probably IH insiders. You write like other IH insiders. I assume that you probably are despite your denial.

          • Pweet

            Fat chance! As long as I have at least one brain cell still functioning, that will not happen. On the last count I had more than three so still at least a day away. ( I lost count at three so I had to stop counting. What comes after three? Is it potato?)

          • Vinney

            And they say ECW’s have no sense of humor.

        • Alan Smith indicates that the chain of custody might not be solid enough to be useful in litigation.

          The only certainty we have, as usual, is that we never achieve certitude.

          • bachcole

            “The only certainty we have, as usual, is that we never achieve certitude.” Are you certain of that?

          • Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so.

            Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

          • bachcole

            If you are certain of certainty, then we have one certainty.

  • giovanniontheweb

    we cannot skip it anymore, the best optimisation will win

  • giovanniontheweb

    we cannot skip it anymore, the best optimisation will win

  • It’s intriguing but unclear. Is the reference to the natural isotope composition referring to the “before” measurements of the very same fuel used in the E-Cat or does it merely refer to text book isotope ratios. If this is a comparison of E-Cat fuel ‘before’ and ‘after’ then it is startling evidence of nuclear processes.

    • giovanniontheweb

      Parkhomov ICCF19 off stage presentation

  • It’s intriguing but unclear. Is the reference to the natural isotope composition referring to the “before” measurements of the very same fuel used in the E-Cat or does it merely refer to text book isotope ratios. If this is a comparison of E-Cat fuel ‘before’ and ‘after’ then it is startling evidence of nuclear processes. OOPs never mind there seems to be an image of a chart of numbers that says before/after… so I am leaning toward WOW!

    • giovanniontheweb

      Parkhomov ICCF19 off stage presentation

    • bachcole

      Some of the differences between the natural and the after are so great that it seems unlikely that the natural is too much different from the before.

  • LuFong

    Don’t forget Rossi at one point stated that he used 4 different formulations of the fuel based on what he learned from the Lugano report. He also stated they all performed more or less the same.

    It’s not clear to me if Rossi provided the fuel or IH (based on Rossi’s direction). Rossi has claimed that IH provided EVERYTHING for the 1MW plant test.

    • Engineer48

      Hi LuFong,

      When I questioned Weaver, he stated IH sent the reactors and fuel to Lugano. But after the test they had no idea where their reactors were.

      Bit strange to send leading edge reactors to a public test and then to not care where they are now?

      Or maybe they already knew what the post ash would reveal?

      Then again why not care there the reactors ended up?

      Very strange.

      • LuFong

        I’m talking about the 1MW plant test fuel.

        I agree that there are lots of questions about the Lugano test that should have been answered but haven’t been including an official fuel analysis from Rossi etc. IH has been very silent about a lot of matters and it appears that they were either negligent or passive with a lot of things. They seem to let Rossi take charge.

        My guess is that the Lugano test was for patent and marketing purposes only. My impression was that Rossi was in control of all things E-Cat regardless of IH’s involvement. For example, for the Lugano test if IH built the E-Cat why did the Chief Scientist (Rossi at the time) have to be there to load the fuel, start it up, and shut it down? This is in the job description of any Chief Scientist I know.

        The 1MW plant test fuel is another example of IH doing everything but Rossi having a hand in it everywhere as well. Really, did he have to baby sit the plant for a whole year starting from day 1? At best, he was probably guarding it which indicates to me that by late 2014 things had gone sour with Rossi and IH.

        • Engineer48

          Hi LuFong,

          I sense you are not an engineered and have no understanding of being their almost 24/7/365 for a very important beta test?

          I can assure you every small issue was recorded, investigated, fixed and noted how to eliminate in the next manufacturing run.

          What I see is an exceptional engineer, that dedicated 1 year of his life so no future customer would experience any of the issues that occured.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, the plant IS his baby.

          • TVulgaris

            I can remember spending 14 hrs./day on site as a JUNIOR engineer on a project 25 years ago- and my boss spent substantially more. No, it wasn’t a year-long project, but it wasn’t anything but straightforward mechanical and hydraulic work.

          • Engineer48

            Hi TV,

            Yup been there, done that. Comes with doing a good job for the client. Delivering more than they expect.

          • Ted-Z

            I think that you are mostly right. However, I think that the electricity in Quark-X goes between the core (1 mm hot nickel alloy), via hydrogen plasma to the tungsten outer shell. Rossi enigmatically mentioned that the tungsten shell is not only serving as a radiation protection. I believe that the tungsten shell is just one pole of the (pulsed) DC current. Meta-stable isotopes are likely to be the intermediates in the side-reactions, that is “aneutronic” isotope transmutations, which could also contribute some energy. The main reaction is most likely the way that you have described above (lithium-based).
            PROBLEM SOLVED. 🙂
            Let we call it the “Chapman-Ted Theory” (your contribution is bigger). 🙂

          • Ted-Z

            In my opinion, the principle of Quark-X is like in the sketch below:

          • Ted-Z

            Somehow, the sketch disappeared, so I am posting it again. Somehow, the sketch disappeared, so I am posting it again. I am not saying that it must be right.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          BTW, in the new move ‘ Independence Day: Resurgence’ they have “machine guns, military jet fighters, cold-fusion bombs, and other stuff like that…”
          http://variety.com/2016/film/columns/independence-day-resurgence-the-5-most-ridiculous-things-1201803467/

          • SG

            I also found the multiple references to “cold fusion bombs” amusing. We either have a harmless creative producer with a finger on the Zeitgeist, or perhaps worse, some subtle social engineering going on (i.e., cold fusion is scary and can be used to make bombs).

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, I had the same thought and maybe it worked. I started thinking about bombs after reading it (see below).

          • Omega Z

            Out of the Blue, Cold Fusion Bombs make it into a suspected to be blockbuster movie.

            ->”some subtle social engineering going on”

            That was my very 1st thought.

          • Omega Z

            Just add- This is reverse engineered Alien Tech.

            Wouldn’t you expect Antimatter or Dark matter bombs ???
            Where did Cold Fusion come from…

          • Curbina

            First movie To employ the term Cold Fusion bomb was star trek into the darkness, only in a rather silla way because It was used ti freeze a volcano.

          • Robyn Wyrick

            I thought it was hilarious. The whole point of cold fusion is that it’s “cold”. If they want “firepower” just use hot fusion bombs, like people did 60 years ago.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, and the E-Cat would surely get rid of their excuse to collect a carbon tax.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS
            Oh, and for the record, I would never question the sincerity of politicians because they love us so much.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Keep the carbon credits – it may be the fastest way to earn money from a working device – making say plastics from sequestering CO2 from sources

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hot Fusion is SO last century!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Even if true – we would still need to know the total fuel load.

          • Ged

            And which reactors in particular this analysis is from, or if pooled ash. And what the start ash looked like. This data alone as we see is not enough for conclusions.

        • Mats002

          Ja, fast en senare version av densamma, platsen var Dural, Florida.

        • Fabiani explained how Rossi controlled the magic powder, while he Fabiani was manufacturig the rest…
          by the way this mean nobody know else Rossi what was put inside the reactor.

          it is strange for a CS to load reactors, especially when you claim thirdparty test, but it is basic stage magic to controll access to the stage, to eliminate all attorneys with a thermal gun.

          it make me sad.

          would rossi have made really third party test, with a real client happy to make people visit, rossi would be rich and famous, as Darden, as Deway, and a billion would be invested in EU with why not part of it toward Rossi.

          but no.. it did not happen.

          • LuFong

            Yes there are so many really confusing things about this story each one possibly having an explanation but taken together makes me skeptical.

            I’m also sad because I believe Rossi does have something (but not what he is claiming) and until it is in the open or Rossi is rich progress will be delayed.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Because they had the complete knowledge needed to build more.
        Or could have built a dozen and tested two.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Eventually, to nail down the kinetics of these reactions, there must be more sampling of the reaction over time. Just for example start out with pure isotopes of lithium-7 and pure nickel-58 (instead of the natural elements). Could they be 2nd order reactions?

    Rate = k[Li-7][Ni-58]

    where [Li-7] is the concentration of lithium-7 and [Ni-58] is the concentration of nickel-58.

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

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Actually, it would not be this simple because there would be consecutive and concurrent reactions with the products taking place that would be consuming the lithium-7.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Eventually, to nail down the kinetics of these reactions, there must be more sampling of the reaction over time. Just for example start out with pure isotopes of lithium-7 and pure nickel-58 (instead of the natural elements). Could they be 2nd order reactions?

    Rate = k[Li-7][Ni-58]

    where [Li-7] is the concentration of lithium-7 and [Ni-58] is the concentration of nickel-58.

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

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Actually, it would not be this simple because there would be consecutive and concurrent reactions with the products taking place that would be consuming the lithium-7.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting statement from Peter Gluck’s blog;

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/jul-08-2016-lenr-rocket-nearing.html

    “7) Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/08/document-isotopic-composition-of-rossi-fuel-sample-unverified/

    This document is just a harbinger of other tens of isotopic analyses verifying Leonid’s Wise Distinction and saying Yes the Test was OK!

    Say about calorimetry what you wish!

    However the ERV ‘s Report is actually unassailable too- you will see.”

  • Engineer48

    Interesting statement from Peter Gluck’s blog;

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/jul-08-2016-lenr-rocket-nearing.html

    I call it
    LEONID’S WISE DISTINCTION

    “I think the main question regarding the Test is:

    Had been there observed/measured isotopic shifts in Li and Ni in the ash powder?

    If there are important isotopic shifts, then we can talk about
    Nuclear reactions if not, then there were no nuclear reactions
    (Prof Leonid Urutskoev, April 11, 2016- on EGO OUT)

    see please 7) at NEWS!”

    “7) Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/08/document-isotopic-composition-of-rossi-fuel-sample-unverified/

    This document is just a harbinger of other tens of isotopic analyses verifying Leonid’s Wise Distinction and saying Yes the Test was OK!

    Say about calorimetry what you wish!

    However the ERV ‘s Report is actually unassailable too- you will see.”

    Is there anybody who does not understand this?

    • roseland67

      Has it been replicated?
      And has anyone down the energy calculations for The isotope changes ?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Even if true – we would still need to know the total fuel load.

        • Ged

          And which reactors in particular this analysis is from, or if pooled ash. And what the start fuel looked like. This data alone as we see is not enough for conclusions.

    • “This document is just a harbinger of other tens of isotopic analyses verifying Leonid’s Wise Distinction and saying Yes the Test was OK!”

      tens?! neat.

  • Andy Kumar

    Anonymous reader, most likely, is planting misinformation.
    Conventional wisdom is that if it quacks, walks and looks like a duck, it is a duck.
    In RossiLand, it is more appropriate to say that if it does NOT quack like a duck, it is NOT a duck. Do you think events will unfold (quack) like this if the inventor were sitting on a LENR reactor.

    • Roland

      Yes Andy; this is precisely how asymmetrical conflict unfolds.

      If the enemy is weak and prone to anger provoke him.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    In his patent Rossi added lithium metal. Perhaps giving it a more even burn rate (by making second order reactions with nickel pseudo first order reactions).
    http://cbc.arizona.edu/~salzmanr/480a/480ants/pfo3oarr/pfo3oarr.html

  • Alan DeAngelis

    In his patent Rossi added lithium metal. Perhaps giving it a more even burn rate (by making second order reactions with nickel pseudo first order reactions).
    http://cbc.arizona.edu/~salzmanr/480a/480ants/pfo3oarr/pfo3oarr.html

  • Alan DeAngelis

    BTW, in the new move ‘ Independence Day: Resurgence’ they have “machine guns, military jet fighters, cold-fusion bombs, and other stuff like that…”
    http://variety.com/2016/film/columns/independence-day-resurgence-the-5-most-ridiculous-things-1201803467/

    • SG

      I also found the multiple references to “cold fusion bombs” amusing. We either have a harmless creative producer with a finger on the Zeitgeist, or perhaps worse, some subtle social engineering going on (i.e., cold fusion is scary and can be used to make bombs).

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, I had the same thought and maybe it worked. I started thinking about bombs after reading it (see below).

      • Omega Z

        Out of the Blue, Cold Fusion Bombs make it into a suspected to be blockbuster movie.

        ->”some subtle social engineering going on”

        That was my very 1st thought.

        • Omega Z

          Just add- This is reverse engineered Alien Tech.

          Wouldn’t you expect Antimatter or Dark matter bombs ???
          Where did Cold Fusion come from…

        • Curbina

          First movie To employ the term Cold Fusion bomb was star trek into the darkness, only in a rather silla way because It was used ti freeze a volcano.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      I thought it was hilarious. The whole point of cold fusion is that it’s “cold”. If they want “firepower” just use hot fusion bombs, like people did 60 years ago.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, and the E-Cat would surely get rid of their excuse to collect a carbon tax.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          PS
          Oh, and for the record, I would never question the sincerity of politicians because they love us so much.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Keep the carbon credits – it may be the fastest way to earn money from a working device – making say plastics from sequestering CO2 from sources

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hot Fusion is SO last century!

    • The USA army works now on HOW to use the Rossi energy source in whole the military field.
      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/637-LENRIA-Release-Congress-6-14-16-pdf/

  • LuFong

    Does anyone know whether in the Lugano report there were shifts of elemental composition versus isotopic shifts? We know the Lugano report indicated isotopic shifts in Li and in Ni but were there any indications that say the abundance of Ni and Li actually changed (fuel versus ash)? Thanks.

    • Yes there were. Big ones.


      From Appendix 4 (ICP-MS and ICP-AES)
      Element % Fuel Fuel Mass (kg) % Ash Ash Mass (kg)
      Nickel 55.4 1.18E-06 95.9 2.04E-06
      Lithium 1.17 2.49E-08 0.03 6.39E-10
      Aluminum 4.39 9.35E-08 0.05 1.07E-09
      Iron (fuel=ash) 34.88260001 7.43E-07 0 0
      Total 2.04E-06 2.04E-06

    • Yes there were. Big ones.

      • Gerard McEk

        Maybe the quantitative percentages of the ash samples were not sufficient to allow a conclusion on this. I am not sure what the Lugano report said about that.

        • It was a small sample and so there could have been sample bias.

          The fun thing to think about is that after these rather shocking results, somebody (Industrual Heat? Rossi?) remained in possession of the rest of the ash and surely had a larger sample tested.

          Right? RIGHT?

          Why isn’t that info public? Who is hiding what?

          • Gerard McEk

            Rossi took the ash samples, but the reactor was of IH. I assume they are hiding further details so I am sure IH knows a lot more than they reveal. Obviously AR will also know all this. Conclusion: both.

          • Which stands to reason but is also bizarre, right? They both know the reality of whether the E-Cats work or not, in all likelihood, yet one refuses to pay and the other goes straight to court.

      • LuFong

        Thanks. I did look for it but missed it.

  • Aldopho A

    I have preliminary documents which clearly refute the documents that E48 has put forth here. I can’t say from where I got them (yet), but my source is very reliable. In fact I can’t imagine any scenario where my source would not recognize the data from E48 as inaccurate propaganda. I am going to send them to Frank in the next month or so, but am awaiting more data.

    FYI, there was not one “ash analysis” in the 1 year Florida test. As several astute comments have noted, that would be completely incompetent since what is of greater importance is the nuclear shifts and how they change in time. The samples were in fact taken regularly, and sent to external labs for analysis. The results have been slow coming back, with a sizable backlog despite much protest. They are trickling in, and statistical confidence intervals are converging. It is frustrating, but that is the nature of the beast in developmental research.

    It is well recorded that the “Great Wall of China” was largely ineffective because it was easy to bribe the guards along the wall to allow safe access. Remember that when something is supposed to be secret.

    Adolpho

    • Thanks for sharing that. How do you have access to this information?

      This is getting very frustrating, with one side screaming white and the other screaming black and nobody can prove anything or reveal their information sources.

      • Ged

        Yes, it has become unacceptable. Time to start raising the bar.

    • Ged

      Why wait? If what you say is true and you have something, release it. We have two independent people on opposite sides of the debate backing up what has been presented here, so if you have solid data to counter it, release it. Otherwise you are adding noise and trouble with no proof you are anything but fake in what you say.

      We don’t need the “more data” if what you already have is enough to reach the conclusions you claim. Do everyone a favor.

      • peacelovewoodstock

        Really, this comes across (on both sides) like Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 50s with his “I have in my pocket a list of 200 State Department employees who were known members of the Communist Party.” He repeated variations on this claim numerous times, but in the end, never came up with one single name.

        • orsobubu

          In the mean time, Karl Popper elaborated his attack against marxism, using false arguments (later debunked), with the clear task of damage dialectical materialism, used (equally in a wrong way) by soviets as their ideology during the cold war. This ideological support to mccarthysm, in the end, came up instead to be a real heavy burden for science and epistemology that lasts till today, above all in american culture.

          • Roger Roger

            What’s the deal with falsifiability, how did a natural a common sense approach transform into a castrating cult?

    • Bob K

      So reactors were shut down on a regular basis to remove the spent fuel? What then? Reactors reinstalled? With or without new fuel? How is this procedure done?

    • Roger Roger

      Get a load of this fool

    • MorganMck

      Do people here know who Aldopho is? Has he posted here before or is this a one hit (and run) wonder? Could this just be an empty counter point to E48’s data post illustrating how easy it is to make claims from anonymous sources (and promising more right around the corner). Me thinks we may be getting played here. Does anyone else smell anything?

      • My first thought was APCO.

        But perhaps Aldopho A will choose to substantiate his assertions.

        There is no posting history so it could be anybody and he could have no knowledge or in depth knowledge. We have no idea.

        Current credibility rating is 0/100. No history; no way to verify any of the E-Cat related statements.

        • SG

          It is probably Dewey. Similar writing style.

        • Ged

          I hope he can substantiate, the more data the better.

          Seems we are getting rolling reports continuing to add to and support this thread’s data. Still we can’t make conclusions until we have the before and methods, but hopefully that’ll be soon!

      • Omega Z

        Just a hit and run making a poor counter point.
        This is blatantly clear…

    • cashmemorz

      First we get a partial ERV report showing the elemental analysis of the core ingredients from a source approved by Rossi. Then a second report (presumably of the same elemental analysis) but with numbers that refute the first partial report. Who is the second report sanctioned by? My guess would be Industrial Heat. Comparison of the numbers on the two partial reports is in order. Too bad there are so many loose cannons. Industrial Heat and Rossi will have to live with that and possibly carry any consequences. The peanut gallery on this site has a seemingly partial involvement in the whole play by play. What is recorded in our remarks has had an effect. The second party that is seemingly leaking a partial report has taken note of the first partial report as witnessed on this site.

      • Omega Z

        I would only say that what ever the peanut gallery says, does or thinks will have ZERO impact to anything involving LENR, Rossi or Industrial heat/Tom Darden..
        If E-cat works it works and if it doesn’t it doesn’t. If it works people will buy it regardless what anyone else has to say about it.

        • Roland

          How bizarrely obtuse.

          Are we reading the same blog?

          A peanut…

          • Omega Z

            ->”bizarrely obtuse”

            No. I am not the only one who’s opined this fact. But likely in the minority of the discussion. However, should people step back and look at this with a wider view, it would be the majority opinion. What we think really doesn’t matter.

            Also just another peanut…

      • Chapman

        “Peanut Gallery”?

        Awe, come on, cash… I thought we were bonding? Why you gotta be so MEAN???

        Can’t you tell Adolph is a fake? Don’t believe any Press release or leaked info from ANYONE unless it comes through Engineer! You should have already learned this…

        I would like to point out that we should both reflect back on how kind and patient Engineer was watching all the speculation, lying and general nonsense, when he had been sitting on proof for months – but he never got overbearing and pompous, or played the old “You’ll see, and then you will remember I Told You So”. He just kept on trying delicately to steer us in the right course. Looking back at the posts, I am truly amazed he never lost it and just went ape-shit and spilled the beans. Could YOU have kept quiet and not used it to glorify yourself??? I am just confessing here that I suspect I would have lorded it over everyone else and been a real douche. You would have all been saying, “What happened to Chapman? He used to be such a kind, generous and courteous fellow!” But not Engineer! He is twice the man I am, and five or six of you, easy! (that was for the Peanut wise crack!) 🙂

    • Axil Axil

      Let Frank see the documents in real time as soon as they become available, so we can all see the data develop. Why do we need to wait to see the data unless the data serves a propaganda purpose and not a quest for truth.

      What do we want to see…data
      When do we want to see it…now.

    • Omega Z

      All I Can Say Is, WOW…

      No, I can say more. I used to work with, manage and employ a high pressure sales team.

      Tell you what I’ll do. Having evaluated your resume, I’ll keep it in my special crosscut resume encryptor I keep conveniently located next to my desk. We shall call you should we ever need someone with your special abilities.

      Seriously, Is this the best you got?

    • Engineer48

      Hi Adolpho,

      So how was ash periodically removed from operational reactors?

      Here is how Parkhomov does it. Not so easy taking a sample from the resultant slag?

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f52b51e7c8771acefb43e4a44794e6dd0fce11d1382c3a3cfb7d660e7556e3e8.png

      Would be interesting as to how samples were taken from running reactors? Surly the whole 250kW slab reactor would need to be taken off line, the fuel rod removed, the fuel rod opened, a very small sample taken, the fuel rod resealed, reinserted back into the reactor and the reactor restarted. Surely Rossi would never risk doing that and having it cause a uptime or reliability problem with that reactor.

      Maybe ask Weaver how this magic was done?

  • Roland

    Yes Andy; this is precisely how asymmetrical conflict unfolds.

    If the enemy is weak and prone to anger provoke him.

  • One question to the juridically-skilled guys:

    When all the 1 year tests documents will be “leak by unknown persons”, how does it affect the curt case? Then it’s not offically released by IH or Leonardo. Will it affect the curt case?

    • peacelovewoodstock

      Should have no impact, other than remote possibility that news reports about content of leaked documents could somehow taint potential jurors, but that seems quite far fetched at this point.

  • One question to the juridically-skilled guys:

    When all the 1 year tests documents will be “leak by unknown persons”, how does it affect the curt case? Then it’s not offically released by IH or Leonardo. Will it affect the curt case?

    • peacelovewoodstock

      Should have no impact, other than remote possibility that news reports about content of leaked documents could somehow taint potential jurors, but that seems quite far fetched at this point.

  • He permitted the reactor to be tested for 6 months by a team of scientists. The results showed unambiguous nuclear activity. Now we (apparently) have further confirmation of those results, pending more details.

    The people you mention get what they want and then they still find ways to deny it all alleging outright fraud… Asserting conspiracy theories… Dismissing any positive evidence (both direct and circumstantial) with ad hominem attacks and willful ignorance.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Probably from the steel fuel enclosure

  • Alan Smith on LENR-Forum:

    The problem with this is not the source or the credentials of the source as some have suggested. There are no liars involved here. Their identity will become clear when they wish it to, and hopefully not before. The only question mark/problem that I see the litigants having with this is the one of ‘chain of custody’ of the sample between collection and analysis.

  • Alan Smith on LENR-Forum:

    The problem with this is not the source or the credentials of the source as some have suggested. There are no liars involved here. Their identity will become clear when they wish it to, and hopefully not before. The only question mark/problem that I see the litigants having with this is the one of ‘chain of custody’ of the sample between collection and analysis.

    • bachcole

      I woke up this morning thinking exactly the same thing.

    • Bruce__H

      “The only question mark/problem that I see the litigants having with this is the one of ‘chain of custody’ of the sample between collection and analysis.”

      I don’t get it. Is Alan Smith trying to say that there is no concern that the fuel sample was somehow tampered with before or during collection? Or are these the concerns he is naming?

      • He’s saying the chain of custody is flawed in some way such that the results may not be useful in court.

        I would guess that somebody who might not be considered impartial or professional had custody of the ash at some point.

        • Ged

          I think he is rightfully claiming that’ll be an issue to look at, but I don’t think he knows anything about the CoC, and is not claiming there is actually a problem, just the importance to look (he could always clarify though, if he is). I don’t see any CoC info in what we have. That should be part of the methods which we badly need to see before we can make conclusions on this data, and is supposedly part of the info yet to come.

    • Omega Z

      Interesting, I notice on page 5.

      Using Johnson Matthey wire.

      Wasn’t that the 1 of the suspect Rossi customer for the 1MW pilot plant.

  • Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so.

    – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

    • bachcole

      If you are certain of certainty, then we have one certainty.

  • Thanks for sharing that. How do you have access to this information?

    This is getting very frustrating, with one side screaming white and the other screaming black and nobody can prove anything or reveal their information sources.

    • Ged

      Yes, it has become unacceptable. Time to start raising the bar.

  • Ged

    Why wait? If what you say is true and you have something, release it. We have two independent people on opposite sides of the debate backing up what has been presented here, so if you have solid data to counter it, release it.

    • peacelovewoodstock

      Really, this comes across (on both sides) like Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 50s with his “I have in my pocket a list of 200 State Department employees who were known members of the Communist Party.” He repeated variations on this claim numerous times, but in the end, never came up with one single name.

  • “Jag bara undrar?”
    • Mats002

      Ja, fast en senare version av densamma, platsen var Dural, Florida.

  • Oystein Lande

    The Lugano analysed sample mentioned below was Only 0,2 wt% of total ash. I believe it’s very unlikely a typical sample. Rossi also said he thought some separation of isotopes took place. .

  • Oystein Lande

    The Lugano analysed sample mentioned below was Only 0,2 wt% of total ash. I believe it’s very unlikely a typical sample. Rossi also said he thought some separation of isotopes took place. .

  • Timar

    As Frank knows the source, it has to be someone whose name has become more or less public in connection with Rossi. I would put my bet on either Penon, Fabiani or Prof. Cook. I also think Rossi approved this leak.

    • Penon wouldn’t; that would be very unethical in his position as ERV.
      Fabiani would not have received such info, given his position.
      Perhaps Cook, if Rossi provided him a copy, but Cook has not been involved before in this pie fight.

      I would look instead to the stakeholders. Ampenergo were also signatories on the agreement. And the IPH thing that was set up has a whole bunch of folks that might be persuaded or motivated to leak info.

      • Timar

        You are probably right about Penon, but then – what would be unethical if IH are lying through their teeth about the test and let Jed Rothwell discredit Penon as a “certified idiot”?

        I recall, though, that Eng48 mentioned that the source will be unveiled in the future. That obviously excludes Penon.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Timar,

      Additionally Frank has told me he has been told by another trusted person who also saw the same data and this trusted persons source was not my source.

      You should also read all of Alan Smiths comments about this on LENR-Forum.

      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3434-Document-Isotopic-Composition-of-Rossi-Fuel-Sample-Unverified/?pageNo=1

      • Timar

        I did and I’m anxious to see more leaked data coming…

        By the way, thank you for your courageous contributions, Eng48!

    • Timar

      ..or maybe it was Bill Gates? 😉

  • Timar

    As Frank knows the source, it has to be someone whose name has become more or less public in connection with Rossi. I would put my bet on either Penon, Fabiani or Prof. Cook. I also think Rossi approved this leak.

    • bachcole

      I vote for Fabiani.

    • Penon wouldn’t; that would be very unethical in his position as ERV.
      Fabiani would not have received such info, given his position.
      Perhaps Cook, if Rossi provided him a copy, but Cook has not been involved before in this pie fight.

      I would look instead to the stakeholders. Ampenergo were also signatories on the agreement. And the IPH thing that was set up has a whole bunch of folks that might be persuaded or motivated to leak info.

      • Timar

        You are probably right about Penon, but then – what would be unethical if IH are lying through their teeth about the test and let Jed Rothwell libel Penon as a “certified idiot”?

        I recall, though, that Eng48 mentioned that the source will be unveiled in the future. That obviously excludes Penon.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Timar,

      Additionally Frank has told me he has been told by another trusted person who also saw the same data and this trusted persons source was not my source.

      You should also read all of Alan Smiths comments about this on LENR-Forum.

      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3434-Document-Isotopic-Composition-of-Rossi-Fuel-Sample-Unverified/?pageNo=1

      • Timar

        I did and I’m anxious to see more leaked data coming…

        By the way, thank you for your courageous contributions, Eng48!

        • bachcole

          Yes, thank you Eng48, for your contributions.

    • Timar

      ..or maybe it was Bill Gates? 😉

  • Chapman

    My friends, listen.

    We have before us a set of data. That data comes to us via one of our most trusted and respected members. We do not know HIS source, but we certainly know the level of intelligence and technical expertise of the party that presented it.

    At this point, you can go on and on beating him up and questioning the validity of the report, but to what end? If you have no evidence to prove it’s authenticity, then you equally have no evidence to prove it false. Arguing, speculating, and getting into a massive bitch-smacking session over it is pointless. PLEASE… Think about it!

    Either it is real, or not. OK?

    Now, if it is not, then it changes nothing, and you can go back to arguing about muons and polaritons. No harm, no foul – but also no point in lingering HERE and cluttering the space with denialism and arguments solely for arguments sake.

    On the other hand, if we accept the likelihood of it being real, which experience and an intuition regarding human nature tells me it is, then we can focus HERE on discussions as to the implication of the isotopic shift data itself, and the LENR mechanism it suggests. Or, we might also discuss the ramifications this data has on the ERV validity and the impact it has on the LEGAL footing of the lawsuit.

    We might also discuss how AWESOME Engineer is!!! Also a valid topic – one maybe deserving it’s own dedicated thread!

    But can we, please, discuss “new insights and potentials”, and explore where this new data takes us, rather than the constant flow of excrement and negativity? If you are convinced that the data is false, then such a discussion would not be a reasonable place for you to be attempting to participate! I am sure Frank would be willing to open a “Rossi is a Jerk, and a Fraud, and I will not EVER believe ANYTHING he says – EVER” thread. Then you can all go over there and bash Rossi, and pat each other on the backs for each new clever insult you think up. FINE. More power to you. And you know what? I bet Engineer and Lenr and GED and Roland will not even crash your hate party and try to step on your ridiculous arguments.

    I really do not CARE right now about the data source. For me, that source is Engineer, and that is enough to move forward, considering its implications.

    Am I alone?

    • Axil Axil

      “But can we, please, discuss “new insights and potentials”, and explore where this new data takes us, rather than the constant flow of excrement and negativity?”

      OK…The puzzle is:

      How can neutrons increase and decrease in these various nuclei types and yet not be seen in the reaction. The LENR reaction is completely without FREE neutrons seen in the space outside of the nucleus.

      Is there movement of neutrons through space taking place in an invisible dimension? Is there a beta decay occurring inside the nucleus both to add and remove neutrons? What could be causing this beta decay gone amuck? This strange Neutron behavior seems to only occur inside the nucleus.

      Whatever is happening is stopping at Ni62 the most stable of all nuclei. The unexplained LENR reaction just seems to not be able to get over the Ni62 energy barrier. Adding neutrons to nickel to get to Ni62 cost a ton of energy. Where is that energy coming from. how is that energy passed around?

      Please explain this situation based on your favorite LENR theory.

      • I wouldn’t assume it stops at Ni-62. Perhaps the neutrons are just more statistically likely to fall into and then stay trapped in the Ni-62 nuclei, given it has the deepest nucleon energy well. Then whenever the reaction is stopped we see much more Ni-62, but that doesn’t mean it was a unidirectional thing. There could also be neutrons liberated from Ni-62, just not as many.

        • Axil Axil

          There are vigorous neutron release from Ni64, so much so, that Ni64 seems to nearly vanish from the fuel. All roads upon which neutrons travel, either increase or decrease, seem to stop at Ni62,

          • Yeah. Whatever is happening it seems to be enabling nucleons to seek their lowest energy wells.

            I can’t get the image of one of those vibrating football table games out of my head. Everything is getting ample energy supply and that is enabling nature to reconfigure to minimal energy states (releasing energy in the process).

          • Axil Axil

            Yeah, it seems like what is being passed around is energy. When the energy arrives inside the nucleus, it condenses into a neutron. Ni 58 keeps on receiving energy until it hits the NI62 limit.

            As far as energy is concerned, all the energy is shared between all the atoms. It seems like there is a common energy blanket covering the fuel.

            This sounds like a Bose condinsate is involved, whereby all the fuel atoms share energy among themselves.

            The particle mindset does not seem to fit this situation in the least.

            But many will say that a BEC cannot exist at 1500C, even though the transmutation results imply that the BEC must exist at extreme temperatures.

          • Axil Axil

            Let Frank see the documents in real time as soon as they become available, so we can all see the data develop. Why do we need to wait to see the data unless the data serves a propaganda purpose and not a quest for truth.

            What do we want to see…data
            When do we want to see it…now.

        • Chapman

          I enjoyed the following “Numberphile” episode regarding Benford’s Law ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXjlR2OK1kM ) because it is a great example of how nature often seems to defy probability, until a deeper understanding of all the contributing factors are fully understood.

          This is not about LENR. Do not get me wrong. It is just a good example of why we must examine individual phenomena as unique issues, rather than attempt to just hold up a “Standard Model” filter and hastily declare things impossible…

          It is also just a very enjoyable presentation for anyone with a physics/math addiction!

          • That was cool. Thanks.

          • sam

            This video is interesting also.
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IixqvhxQMNs
            A.R. should take note how the Gravity Probe B project took 35
            years to complete with top Scientists, Engineers etc involved.
            Because if he has what he thinks
            he has he will need a team like that or he won’t live to see the
            fruits of his labour.

          • sam

            Or maybe A.R. can find Scientists like this who figure
            out how do research on the
            cheap and still get the job done.
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LW4NsxCglp4

      • Engineer48

        A thought on taking fuel samples during the 1 year test from working reactors.

        Would be interesting to know as to how the claimed samples were taken from running reactors? Surely the whole 250kW slab reactor would need to be taken off line, the fuel rod removed, the fuel rod opened, a very small sample taken, the fuel rod resealed, reinserted back into the reactor and the reactor restarted.

        Surely Rossi would never risk doing that and having it cause a uptime or reliability problem with that reactor.

        As far as we understand the fuel process, doing this sample and make the fuel rod work reliability again is not something I or other LENR experimenters would risk.

        • Engineer48

          This is how Alexander Parkhomov takes a fuel sample.

          Note the state of the fuel. No longer powder. How to sample & then return to working condition?

      • Ted-X

        Axil-Axil, some neutrons (and even some protons) can go outside of the nucleus and form a ring circling around the center . This is well known as meta-stable atoms (some of them can be stable over years). Perhaps a collision of two atoms with those “external” neutrons (or protons) could result in en exchange reaction according to some rules (which we do not know yet); I would expect that the rules would dictate certain intermediate stages and certain “permitted” and “forbidden” transmutations/exchanges, proceeding at a path of “minimum energy”, analogous to a chemical reaction. Nuclear resonance (magnetic, acoustic, quadrupole etc.) is also worth of considering, perhaps in combination with the meta-stable nuclei.
        It may be of interest here, that the meta-stable to stable transition typically generates gamma radiation (observed by Rossi and MFMP).

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        Axil, you are familiar with the hypothesis Ratis of neuronal and dineutron? Read the article about the discovery tetraneutron?

  • Chapman

    My friends, listen.

    We have before us a set of data. That data comes to us via one of our most trusted and respected members. We do not know HIS source, but we certainly know the level of intelligence and technical expertise of the party that presented it.

    At this point, you can go on and on beating him up and questioning the validity of the report, but to what end? If you have no evidence to prove it’s authenticity, then you equally have no evidence to prove it false. Arguing, speculating, and getting into a massive bitch-smacking session over it is pointless. PLEASE… Think about it!

    Either it is real, or not. OK?

    Now, if it is not, then it changes nothing, and you can go back to arguing about muons and polaritons. No harm, no foul – but also no point in lingering HERE and cluttering the space with denialism and arguments solely for arguments sake.

    On the other hand, if we accept the likelihood of it being real, which experience and an intuition regarding human nature tells me it is, then we can focus HERE on discussions as to the implication of the isotopic shift data itself, and the LENR mechanism it suggests. Or, we might also discuss the ramifications this data has on the ERV validity and the impact it has on the LEGAL footing of the lawsuit.

    We might also discuss how AWESOME Engineer is!!! Also a valid topic – one maybe deserving it’s own dedicated thread!

    But can we, please, discuss “new insights and potentials”, and explore where this new data takes us, rather than the constant flow of excrement and negativity? If you are convinced that the data is false, then such a discussion would not be a reasonable place for you to be attempting to participate! I am sure Frank would be willing to open a “Rossi is a Jerk, and a Fraud, and I will not EVER believe ANYTHING he says – EVER” thread. Then you can all go over there and bash Rossi, and pat each other on the backs for each new clever insult you think up. FINE. More power to you. And you know what? I bet Engineer and Lenr and GED and Roland will not even crash your hate party and try to step on your ridiculous arguments.

    I really do not CARE right now about the data source. For me, that source is Engineer, and that is enough to move forward, considering its implications.

    Am I alone?

    • orsobubu

      >which experience and an intuition regarding human nature tells me it is

      I very much agree

      >open a “Rossi is a Jerk, and a Fraud, and I will not EVER believe ANYTHING he says – EVER” thread

      hahhaaha 🙂

      • sam

        Frank is to Classy to open such a thread.
        My intuition tells me he is not.

        • Timar

          No need for Frank to open such a thread. That’s what E-Cat-News is for, after all…

    • bthprimo

      Well put.

    • Bruce__H

      Most of the comments I see on this thread are serious contributions to a discussion.

      I just wish we could have looked to you for equally serious contributions when Jed Rothwell was discussing information he received from his sources (on the thread “Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”). You should look back to your comments on that thread and I hope you will hang your head in shame because it was 95% name calling and ridicule. What was the point of all that?

      • Roland

        The discussions about the librarian are still incomplete.

        I view him as a sentinel long prepositioned at a strategic crossroads then subsequently called openly into the fray, thereby exposing his deeper affiliations.

        There is still a case to be made that he is a ‘useful idiot’ but that’s getting a bit thin.

        Perhaps, in some future attack of remorse, he’ll recant and spill the beans…

        • Bruce__H

          Paranoid speculation does not further the debate here.

          • Chapman

            Constantly declaring Rossi is wrong does not constitute debate. So, you worrying about THAT is just baseless fear – which I believe is the definition of paranoia…

          • Bruce__H

            I disagree. I have tried to make sure that the points I make are germane to the debate.

            On this thread I pointed out early on that Engineer’s information simplifies our concept of what is going on here because it is so contrary to information coming from IH (via Jed Rothman and others). Someone on one side or the other is almost certainly being intentionally misleading. I suspect you agree with me on this. I don’t think it is Jed Rothwell or Engineer … I think it is someone further back up the chain.

            With this in mind it is important that Rossi has a record of saying things that are misleading or just wrong. Primary evidence is the Krivit video in which Rossi holds a hose out of which any viewer may measure the velocity of the emerging steam. Later Rossi states a water flow that is completely (by an order of magnitude) incompatible with the paltry steam actually seen to be produced. So what was going on there? And why has this same problem re-emerged now with the 1 MW test? There isn’t as much steam as there should be in the 1 MW test. And this means there isn’t much heat. And if there isn’t much heat then how do you account for the dramatic changes in the fuel composition? I think these are primary questions to answer before you begin deciding on mechanisms to account for effects that may not exist.

            I again invite you to do the calculations for the Krivit video.

          • Chapman

            Bruce… Nicely put. I disagree, but I credit you for a very reasonable (read that as “not intentionally insulting or obtuse”) argument, even though you are wrong. 🙂

            I would ask permission to call an expert witness to the stand!

            ENGINEER! Hello? What can you tell us about the steam level, and character, displayed in the Kravits film? Please tell us what YOU see!

          • Bruce__H

            I am totally on board with this. I would ask anyone who is interested to look at the video for themselves and try to match the steam that they see with Rossi’s claimed flow of water. I have suggested it to Engineer already if I recall correctly. If my calculations are wrong I would like to know about it!

            I have recently done a very similar calculation for the 1 MV test facility in Florida. I find that to accommodate Rossi’s claimed flow rate and outlet steam pressure there should be an outlet pipe almost 1 metre in diameter connecting the Ecat and the customer’s production facility. I welcome anyone who would care to make their own calculations and also could tell me if they know of the actual size of that pipe (I think it must be in some pictures).

          • Chapman

            Fair enough. That is a reasonable observation. It will be interesting to see if we can get it addressed. Hopefully someone will weigh in with some insights and lay some facts on us, without any bias OR bashing on the issue.

          • Roland

            Pray do tell why I’m to accept that APCO’s involvement with ‘cold fusion’ begins with the filing of a civil action against IH by Leonardo?

            Let me guess; the almost instantaneous appearance of a PR firm and a law firm from the very top of the global food chain at a minor contractual dispute is mere happenstance…

    • Michael W Wolf

      No, you are not alone. I am locked and loaded, right behind you brother. Somebody had to say it.

    • Axil Axil

      “But can we, please, discuss “new insights and potentials”, and explore where this new data takes us, rather than the constant flow of excrement and negativity?”

      OK…The puzzle is:

      How can neutrons increase and decrease in these various nuclei types and yet not be seen in the reaction. The LENR reaction is completely without FREE neutrons seen in the space outside of the nucleus.

      Is there movement of neutrons through space taking place in an invisible dimension? Is there a beta decay occurring inside the nucleus both to add and remove neutrons? What could be causing this beta decay gone amuck? This strange Neutron behavior seems to only occur inside the nucleus.

      Whatever is happening is stopping at Ni62 the most stable of all nuclei. The unexplained LENR reaction just seems to not be able to get over the Ni62 energy barrier. Adding neutrons to nickel to get to Ni62 cost a ton of energy. Where is that energy coming from. how is that energy passed around?

      Please explain this situation based on your favorite LENR theory.

      • I wouldn’t assume it stops at Ni-62. Perhaps the neutrons are just more statistically likely to fall into and then stay trapped in the Ni-62 nuclei, given it has the deepest nucleon energy well. Then whenever the reaction is stopped we see much more Ni-62, but that doesn’t mean it was a unidirectional thing. There could also be neutrons liberated from Ni-62, just not as many.

        • Axil Axil

          There are vigorous neutron release from Ni64, so much so, that Ni64 seems to nearly vanish from the fuel. All roads upon which neutrons travel, either increase or decrease, seem to stop at Ni62,

          • Yeah. Whatever is happening it seems to be enabling nucleons to seek their lowest energy wells.

            I can’t get the image of one of those vibrating football table games out of my head. Everything is getting ample energy supply and that is enabling nature to reconfigure to minimal energy states (releasing energy in the process).

          • Axil Axil

            Yeah, it seems like what is being passed around is energy. When the energy arrives inside the nucleus, it condenses into a neutron. Ni 58 keeps on receiving energy until it hits the NI62 limit.

            As far as energy is concerned, all the energy is shared between all the atoms. It seems like there is a common energy blanket covering the fuel.

            This sounds like a Bose condinsate is involved, whereby all the fuel atoms share energy among themselves.

            The particle mindset does not seem to fit this situation in the least.

            But many will say that a BEC cannot exist at 1500C, even though the transmutation results imply that the BEC must exist at extreme temperatures.

          • Chapman

            “Yeah, it seems like what is being passed around is energy. When the energy arrives inside the nucleus, it condenses into a neutron.”

            I’m sorry. I don’t understand you, or you don’t understand nucleons. Energy does not condense to form neutrons. Where did you get that?

            “But many will say that a BEC cannot exist at 1500C, even though the transmutation results imply that the BEC must exist at extreme temperatures.”

            Yes – I, and Einstein – the “E” in “BEC” – would wholeheartedly argue the case, just as you say.

            Now, I will grant you, that I am hopelessly stuck on a “particle mindset”. Perhaps that is why we see things so differently. I like my physics to be, well, physical! I like tangible particles that have mechanical properties and predictable responses. I do not believe in superposition, or entanglement, or anything else that proposes that the quantum level, as a scale, represents a transition where reality breaks down. The same was said of Elements, then it was said of atoms, then it was said of Protons… and yet we find quarks. Quarks are also real, tangible, and occupy a real location in space. They are “There” when they are there. And in time, we will learn what is inside a Quark also.

            The closest thing to a breakdown point in Physical Reality that I can determine is down at the level of a Plank’s length. Something seems to happen at that scale that does shift reality, but Quarks and Protons and Electrons are MASSIVE in comparison, and so far up-scale that they are just another layer of particles interacting at discrete levels, and manifesting imaginary forces that are visible, as forces, only within a frame of reference restricted to their scale and above.

            Still, I love discussing the other side! I am not trashing your science Kung-Fu! 🙂 I am only pointing out why my clock goes “Tick” while yours goes “Tock”.

            I assure you, Axil – I am open to ANY good ideas that are well expressed and have some grounding in reasonable science.

            All that being said, can you clear up the first comment about energy condensing into a neutron? That one, admittedly, leaves me scratching my head!

          • Chapman

            I think you hit on the key point.

            The achieved final states are the prefered states for all involved. It is not that artificial states are being forced, but that an artificial environment is enabling natural forces to act at an advanced rate. I think – and yes, I am only expressing an opinion – that we are too distracted about neutrons, attributing to them a magic power unique to them, while a better understanding of PROTONS is what is needed.

            Cracking LENR is going to require a deep understanding of QCD. We have to have an intuitive insight into what makes a proton tick, how it responds, and the responses it triggers in larger assemblies. This is the root that supports the tree that produces the fruit we are reaching for…

          • Protons and neutrons and the internal structure and behavior of nuclei I would say. Currently we have a number of models of nucleus structure that serve various purposes well, but we need as accurate an understanding of nuclei states as we have of atomic states and electron orbitals.

            You see Rossi reaching for that with Cook… maybe that’s the right direction, maybe not.

            Seems like maybe we’re getting something akin to overlapping nucleon orbitals between atoms in (very) excited states (perhaps triggered by initial generation of energetic Helium by fusion events).

          • Chapman

            Dead On!!!

            We have to dig deeper down, not further abroad…

        • Chapman

          I enjoyed the following “Numberphile” episode regarding Benford’s Law ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXjlR2OK1kM ) because it is a great example of how nature often seems to defy probability, until a deeper understanding of all the contributing factors are fully understood.

          This is not about LENR. Do not get me wrong. It is just a good example of why we must examine individual phenomena as unique issues, rather than attempt to just hold up a “Standard Model” filter and hastily declare things impossible…

          It is also just a very enjoyable presentation for anyone with a physics/math addiction!

          • That was cool. Thanks.

          • sam

            This video is interesting also.
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IixqvhxQMNs
            A.R. should take note how the Gravity Probe B project took 35
            years to complete with top Scientists, Engineers etc involved.
            Because if he has what he thinks
            he has he will need a team like that or he won’t live to see the
            fruits of his labour.

          • sam

            Or maybe A.R. can find Scientists like this who figure
            out how do research on the
            cheap and still get the job done.
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LW4NsxCglp4

      • bachcole

        My theory (like I know $hite from Shinola) is the our view of the atom comes from experiments (and explosions) using extremely fasting moving particles (close to the speed of light), and what is happening inside of successful LENR chambers are much slower moving particles and the fast moving particles models just aren’t true from the perspective of slow moving particles.

        • Chapman

          This is a point I have been going on about for years!

          With passive devices like bubble and cloud chambers, we observe the passing of particles in their “natural state” in the ambient environment. Nice. Simple. Straight forward. We can deduce mass, charge and velocity easy enough. GOOD SCIENCE.

          Particle Accelerators are NOT what many believe them to be. There is a massive public misrepresentation as to their function and utility. The entire process is based on particles driven to extreme conditions, and exhibiting characteristics that do not necessarily relate to what actually happens around us. In addition – Cern never witnessess a single event! It is basically an accelerator surrounded by a large number of solid-state bubble chambers. The experimental result recorded are only detections of the debri from collisions as they pass through the surrounding detectors, and that information is so overwhelming that it must be reduced and processed by massive algorithms that sort the data and try to reconstruct what happened far outside the range of the detectors. The quality of the results is dependant upon the accuracy and robustness of the model being utilized by the programmer to create the algorithm, and the whole thing winds up highly susceptible to “filter for confirmation” problems. We ALL know what kind of bad science can come from overzealous idiots declaring false realities due to faulty modeling of complex systems!!! Question… How do you model the functions of a complex system you do not understand, to such a precise degree that you can then observe how that system works, when the point of the research is to try to figure out how the system works so you can model it??? Modelling is only useful for predicting future states of already well understood systems, like 5 day weather forecasts. You can also create a model to test the feasibility of a theory, but that only serves to validate the potential of a theory, not whether it is true.

          That being said, I do not disparage CERN’s work, but they are just a source of additional useful insight, not authoritative first hand witnesses to the mysteries of the universe! I will remind all readers that the WEB was created to support universal access to that huge pile of collision data, and many universities partook in the analysis. But then they made the choice to prevent outside interpretation of that data because it often conflicted with the internally generated opinion and assessments reported by their internal research teams, so they pulled the plug and took it offline. No one is allowed to see the raw data now. No outside validation or independent analysis is allowed or tolerated. It has become a black-box from which we periodically get announcements regarding how THEY interpret certain collision debri track data. In some ways, it has become like consulting an Oracle, or an old hag with chicken bones.

          In space around us now, or in exotic environments like those created inside these LENR test reactors, there are LIKELY a vast number of interaction pathways that have never, and will never, be observed in a particle collider. Trying to restrict the universe to only those states deduced from CERN collisions is absurd. Reality is more complex, and more dynamic, than their experimental envelope could ever cover.

          • Roland

            Though ultimately enigmatic, in result, the simple apparatus of the two slit experiment was thought to be reasonably well understood at every point of progress right up to the moment when some bright light posed the next question.

            (Brief recap) The two slit experiment was intend to answer a simple question; are photons particles or waves. The basic apparatus is dead simple; a photon source, a screen and a photographic plate. The initial tested variable is also dead simple; the screen has either one or two slits.

            With the one slit screen photons act like particles, with two slits photons acts like waves resulting in the predicted interference pattern on the photographic plate. First conundrum; the answer to the initial question depends on the apparatus.

            New question; which of the two slits does a, singular, photon go through. Add photon detectors behind the two slits. Answer; the, singular, photon passes through both slits. Fresh conundrum.

            New question; what if you alter a property of a photon on the way to the two slit screen. Polarize the photon on the way to the screen. Answer; the photon acts like a particle. Fresh conundrum.

            New question; what if you reverse the initial polarization of the photon on its way to the screen. Polarize a photon on the way to the screen, then polarize it again to reverse the first polarization. Answer; the photon acts like a wave and passes through both slits. Fresh conundrum.

            New question; how does a, singular, photon ‘know’ that the apparatus has been altered. Answer; we don’t know but it’s a very interesting, and I suspect important, question.

            New question; given that this very simple apparatus coughs up different answers depending on the proposition being tested how, exactly, do we parse the experimental results from CERN. Answer; that’s a very good question.

          • Chapman

            Damn! I never thought of THAT comparison!

            That sums it up perfectly. THANKS!

        • f sedei

          Rossi, through LENR, has generated a new interest in the possibilities of manipulating the properties of atoms that has the potential of over turning, advancing and modernizing scientific principles and reasoning.” We are about to enter a whole new world in a new light” Appreciate that we are a part of the beginning of the adventure.

      • Ted-X

        Axil-Axil, some neutrons (and even some protons) can go outside of the nucleus and form a ring circling around the center . This is well known as meta-stable atoms (some of them can be stable over years). Perhaps a collision of two atoms with those “external” neutrons (or protons) could result in en exchange reaction according to some rules (which we do not know yet); I would expect that the rules would dictate certain intermediate stages and certain “permitted” and “forbidden” transmutations/exchanges, proceeding at a path of “minimum energy”, analogous to a chemical reaction. Nuclear resonance (magnetic, acoustic, quadrupole etc.) is also worth of considering, perhaps in combination with the meta-stable nuclei.
        It may be of interest here, that the meta-stable to stable transition typically generates gamma radiation (observed by Rossi and MFMP).

        • bachcole

          Just exactly like I said, only with more and better details. The atom looks different when the particles are going much slower.

      • Chapman

        An excellent point. That is what I was speaking with Roland about regarding Mills’ theories. LENR or not, he (Mills) is addressing the question of the underlying mechanisms that control an electron’s behavior below the Ground State threshold. I believe this is key to understanding everything that happens downstream, so to speak.

        I think we have fooled ourselves into believing that the Standard Model is Faultless and Complete. I believe it is just a good start…

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        Axil, you are familiar with the hypothesis Ratis of neuronal and dineutron? Read the article about the discovery tetraneutron?

  • LuFong

    How would someone access the ash on an ongoing basis from an active reactor?

    Very good post regardless of whether true or not.

  • Everybody has their own political philosophy. The fact is that we have a republic where we delegate important decisions to selective representatives, and those decisions include difficult ones involving national security, and yes weighing the needs of the many versus the needs of the few or the one (you’re going to be first on line for the new Star Trek aren’t you?).

    Would you choose to further destabilize the Middle East and Russia right now?

    • Chapman

      pssst… It’s from Dickens, not Star Trek. 🙂

  • LuFong

    Alain Smith on Lenr-forum:

    “The test was done independently and not performed while AR was anywhere near.”

    Very interesting. If true my only concern is the initial fuel loaded into the reactor. Chain of custody would have to extend to the intial fuel sample as loaded into the reactor.

    • SG

      There is little doubt in my mind that the chain of custody has been carefully preserved, probably with video and other means.

      • LuFong

        That would be very good but I would be surprised if it had. We’ll see hopefully with court evidence.

  • cashmemorz

    First we get a partial ERV report showing the elemental analysis of the core ingredients from a source approved by Rossi. Then a second report (presumably of the same elemental analysis) but with numbers that refute the first partial report. Who is the second report sanctioned by? My guess would be Industrial Heat. Comparison of the numbers on the two partial reports is in order. Too bad there are so many loose cannons. Industrial Heat and Rossi will have to live with that and possibly carry any consequences. The peanut gallery on this site has a seemingly partial involvement in the whole play by play. What is recorded in our remarks has had an effect. The second party that is seemingly leaking a partial report has taken note of the first partial report as witnessed on this site.

    • Omega Z

      I would only say that what ever the peanut gallery says, does or thinks will have ZERO impact to anything involving LENR, Rossi or Industrial heat/Tom Darden..
      If E-cat works it works and if it doesn’t it doesn’t. If it works people will buy it regardless what anyone else has to say about it.

      • Roland

        How bizarrely obtuse.

        Are we reading the same blog?

        A peanut…

        • Omega Z

          ->”bizarrely obtuse”

          No. I am not the only one who’s opined this fact. But likely in the minority of the discussion. However, should people step back and look at this with a wider view, it would be the majority opinion. What we think really doesn’t matter.

          Also just another peanut…

  • sam

    Checked out Lenr-forum and found this.

    The question of who started a war is asked by people who have no clue how to stop wars. That question never, ever, stops a war. Wars are stopped when mutual benefit in stopping them is found. And there are people who help facilitate that, and people who don’t. The people who point to one side and blame them never help, unless they have enough power to overcome that side. The bloodiest wars are between matched opponents, where each side believes it is right.

    • sam

      Another comment from Lenr-forum

      There are eight counts in the Complaint. The first Count is for non-payment. When a customer does not pay, going to Court is far from the first thing to do. The first thing is to request payment when it has not appeared on time. The next thing is to negotiate. And, then, going to court with a request to resolve a dispute is one thing. That’s done all the time without the rancour. Normally, as well, an attorney will send a demand letter attempting to avoid filing an action. There is no sign that ordinary and customary business practice was followed. Instead, the suit was much more like a war, claiming bad faith, fraud, going after the officers and not just the corporation, going after Cherokee, which did not sign any agreement with Rossi and is apparently not an owner or investor in IH, all this was taking a dispute and turning it into a war. However, yes, it was based on IH not paying. So who started it? It looks like communication between Rossi and IH broke down before the GPT report was issued. However, we only have details reliably from one side, Rossi. IH has not Answered the complaint and has not provided new fact in their Motion to Dismiss, only legal arguments based on the Complaint. They hinted in a footnote at what they might allege later, that’s all.

      • SG

        My guess is Mr. Rossi acted quickly so that evidence could not be legally destroyed. Once you are on notice of the suit, beware of obstruction of justice.

  • sam

    Frank is to Classy to open such a thread.
    My intuition tells me he is not.

    • Timar

      No need for Frank to open such a thread. That’s what E-Cat-News is for, after all…

  • Engineer48

    A thought on taking fuel samples during the 1 year test from working reactors.

    Would be interesting to know as to how the claimed samples were taken from running reactors? Surely the whole 250kW slab reactor would need to be taken off line, the fuel rod removed, the fuel rod opened, a very small sample taken, the fuel rod resealed, reinserted back into the reactor and the reactor restarted.

    Surely Rossi would never risk doing that and having it cause a uptime or reliability problem with that reactor.

    As far as we understand the fuel process, doing this sample and then to make the fuel rod work reliability again is not something I or other LENR experimenters would risk.

    • Engineer48

      This is how Alexander Parkhomov takes a fuel sample.

      Note the state of the fuel. No longer powder. How to sample & then return to working condition?

  • Andy Kumar

    Further down, LENR G says, “Yes there were. Big ones. [element composition changes]”
    .
    It seems that fuel with 55%Ni turned to almost 100% Ni ash. Wow! Now can one of the experts here tell me how did the lab managed to take EXACTLY 2.04 mg sample from BOTH the fuel and the ash at two separate times (to an accuracy of 1 in 1000)? You say, you don’t see a problem, you have FAITH on your side?
    .
    Sorry for bad copy and paste below.

    • The Lugano report describes them taking a 10 mg sample of the fuel.

      Either they used a — what do you call that new-fangled high tech thing that just came out? — oh yeah, a scale, to send a fuel sample equal in mass to the ash sample out for testing…

      Or they normalized the fuel results to the same mass as the ash sample in order to facilitate direct comparison.

      I’m not sure which. It may be in the report but I’m not going to scour the whole thing just to more precisely correct your mistaken assumption.

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        they might have used very sensitive nano tech instruments to measure the isotopic ratios but I doubt it.

        • They describe exactly the techniques used (by third party labs) to measure the isotopic ratios in the report.

          They are standard techniques.

    • Obvious

      My version of the report says 2.13 mg.

      The masses being the same is weird, but I don’t know how weird. For a very good comparison, mass matching would be a good idea. Maybe they balance them and then weigh only one. Or balance them to a known mass known to work with the equipment well.

      • Regarding 2.13 mg versus 2.04 mg:

        About 4% of the ash is neither nickel nor fuel (the report states that iron was not found in the ash). This ~4% is assumed to not take part in any of the nuclear reactions. This accounts for the backbones of the iron and aluminum particles found in the fuel. The ash spectroscopy shows these particles stripped of iron and aluminum, with only carbon, oxygen and some silicon remaining.

        Assessing the Lugano E-Cat Report

        • Obvious

          Thanks for the explanation. I don’t agree with much of it, but I understand where the 2.04 comes from.

          If you are going to ignore the other elements, then perhaps normalizing to either Li or Ni might make more sense.
          Parkhomov’s fuel-ash data makes more sense when the elements are normalized relative to Ni.

          • Well, it’s all order-of-magnitude type analysis anyway; no use getting worked up over that assumption.

            Order-of-magnitude-wise, the nucleon shifts are shown to be a prime suspect for the reported energy release. Not just in the same ballpark… both in the infield.

    • Axil Axil

      The Lugano testers had one big 1000 micron ash particle to work with. So they must have matched the weight of that particle with an equal weight of nickel fuel particles to make the weight comparison valid. They must have prorated the fuel percentages against the target weight of the ash that they had.

      This method does not inspire confidence in the mass comparisons as a nuclear based process.

    • Robert Dorr

      I don’t see anywhere were it is stated they did an analysis on identical masses of fuel and ash. A guess would be that the ash sample weighed 2.04 mg and they stated the isotropic composition of an equivalent amount of fuel to make it easy to compare the results. Nothing fishy there. I don’t understand why you are being critical of a standard technique used in analysis i.e.: mass equivalence as long as it is stated as such in the report. I haven’t seen the full report, so if they didn’t mention their comparison method, that was a mistake..

  • LCD

    The other thing we forget to mention is that there was no detected expected radiation and no intermediate isotopes.

    On the positive side that bounds the problem and possible reactions.

    On the negative side, we know of nothing to date that does that systematically in theory, and it is a mystery.

    • Axil Axil

      Ovidiu Herlea
      July 8, 2016 at 3:59 PM
      Dear Dr. Rossi,

      It seems that a commercial development of the QuarkX for lighting will be closer than for electricity.
      Can you tell your followers if you made progress in selecting a phosphor, like a YAG working at high temperatures,
      to convert the mostly blue light to broadband light?

      Also, if have considered the use of a high precision 3D printer to experiment with different shapes for the QuarkX “core”?

      Best Regards,
      Ovidiu Herlea

      —————————————–
      Andrea Rossi
      July 8, 2016 at 4:07 PM
      Ovidiou Herlea:
      Thank you for your suggestion. The blue halo has nothing to do with the illumination produced by the QuarkX. Besides: light, electricity will be produced at the same time, without particular privilege.
      F8.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.
      ——————————————-
      The cause of the Quark light emission and the blue light emission are two separate mechanisms.

      This Rossi reveal implies to me that the blue light is coming from a halo the surrounds the Quark and is caused by some sort of charged particle emission that is energizing nitrogen atoms in the air.

      The sub atomic particle cannot be neutrons, so electrons are the most probable way that nitrogen can become excited enough to fluoresce in blue light. This is aurora like light,

      High energy electrons are coming off the Quark in such high numbers that the air is glowing blue. The metal cover of the core collectes these electrons. This may be where the practical production of the Quark comes from.

  • LCD

    The other thing we forget to mention is that there was no detected expected radiation and no intermediate isotopes.

    On the positive side that bounds the problem and possible reactions.

    On the negative side, we know of nothing to date that does that systematically in theory, and it is a mystery.

    • Axil Axil

      Ovidiu Herlea
      July 8, 2016 at 3:59 PM
      Dear Dr. Rossi,

      It seems that a commercial development of the QuarkX for lighting will be closer than for electricity.
      Can you tell your followers if you made progress in selecting a phosphor, like a YAG working at high temperatures,
      to convert the mostly blue light to broadband light?

      Also, if have considered the use of a high precision 3D printer to experiment with different shapes for the QuarkX “core”?

      Best Regards,
      Ovidiu Herlea

      —————————————–
      Andrea Rossi
      July 8, 2016 at 4:07 PM
      Ovidiou Herlea:
      Thank you for your suggestion. The blue halo has nothing to do with the illumination produced by the QuarkX. Besides: light, electricity will be produced at the same time, without particular privilege.
      F8.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.
      ——————————————-
      The cause of the Quark light emission and the blue light emission are two separate mechanisms.

      This Rossi reveal implies to me that the blue light is coming from a halo the surrounds the Quark and is caused by some sort of charged particle emission that is energizing nitrogen atoms in the air.

      The sub atomic particle cannot be neutrons, so electrons are the most probable way that nitrogen can become excited enough to fluoresce in blue light. This is aurora like light.

      High energy electrons are coming off the Quark in such high numbers that the air is glowing blue. The metal cover of the core collectes these electrons. This may be where the practical production of the Quark comes from.

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      if it emits radiation it might be useful for detecting uranium and plutonium in dirty bombs or bombs or weapons, that are going through customs.

  • LCD

    The question was, why is the ecat essentially not yet recognized.

    “Andrea Rossi
    July 8, 2016 at 7:31 AM
    Pietro F.:
    That is because our product is not yet ready for a massive market, needs more R&D to arrive to that level. Our industrial 1 MW plants are still destined to the so called “pioneer customers”, which means customers that are aware that the product could have problems and are open to tolerate any unforeseen problem that could emerge.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R”

    The product could have problems? At this rate without a theory he has no hope of being first to market or at least getting there anytime soon.

    most people don’t even believe it works.

    This is the bad side of commercial development, nobody shares info to the detriment of everybody else.

    Same thing is happening with autonomous vehicle technology development. Nobody really is sharing data for fear they will lose out in the market.

    • Omega Z

      I’ve made posts about this before.

      The 1st products will be slow to market. This has nothing to do with theory and everything about engineering issues. I would recommend to Rossi to study nuclear power plants to resolve engineering issues. It is the only existing technology comparable to LENR.

      I really don’t understand the infatuation about the need for theory to make a product. Experiment trumps theory always. In fact, without experimentation, theory is useless unproven ideas about what “may??” be taking place. An opinion. Nothing else.

      They’ve been working on a theory for decades. If you want to wait a few more, so be it. I prefer Rossi countinue his R&D. Experiments work much faster.

      • Roland

        How about if we start with a fresh metaphor.

        The current metaphor parallels human experience with uranium and plutonium fission.

        Humans make a truly massive effort (WWII) to find and define the threshold conditions that will allow the fission reaction to begin; and when it finally does start it wants to keep right on going till it melts down the apparatus, then we figure out how to make it stop.

        When a fission reactor threatens to go exponential ya gotta soak up neutrons in a hurry, or run.

        The crew that watched a 300 lb. stainless steel Dewar flask turn into a puddle on the floor all by itself (loaded with LENR fuel but no stimulus applied yet) hastily exited the lab. In a decision that still confounds me, given the sacrifices others have been willing to make in pursuit of knowledge, they didn’t go ‘that was incredible, lets figure out what just happened and make it happen again’, fear prevailed and they stopped in their tracks

        The majority of successful replicators since P & F have experienced a melt down or two, some of which have been completely inexplicable.

        So, on the surface of things there appear to be excellent reasons to apply the fission metaphor to hydrogen in metal lattice LENR reactions.

        There is, however, another fission reactor design that may make for a more useful metaphor when considering the peculiarities of the Quark.

        A thorium reactor remains relatively inert no matter how much thorium you physically assemble, there is no mass threshold, such as with plutonium, where simply crossing the mass threshold will result in a nuclear explosion. A thorium reactor is driven by an external source of neutrons; neutrons ‘on’ the reactor starts, neutrons ‘off’ the reactor stops, feed it more neutrons it goes ‘faster’.

        Failsafe; good engineering…

        The driver, Rossi’s term, is external to the Quark; turn on the driver the Quark starts in seconds, turn off the driver the Quark stops in seconds, turn ‘up’ the driver and the Quark runs ‘faster’. Failsafe.

        This being LENR, things then immediately become more complex; the driver consumes .5w as long as the Quark is on.

        No matter whether the output is 100w or 10w the average input power remains the same while it’s the COP that goes up and down.

        The Quark’s output can be tuned to produce two distinct modalities; infrared photons, visible photons, possibly more energetic photons and electrons. The driver can modulate the Quark’s output between various percentages of energetic photons and electrons without altering the average input power of the driver.

        Thorium reactors respond linearly to input power, Quarks respond non-linearly to input power.

        Thorium reactors are driven by something dead simple.

        Quarks are driven by ‘something’ subtle and complex.

        P.S. I agree that Rossi is making excellent experimental progress by allowing the emergent phenomena to speak first.

        • Pweet

          Again, not a very convincing path for an argument. It’s suggesting that if someone finds the point trying to be made is unbelievable then they must be evil. To me that indicates the argument being put has so little credibility that it has to resort to the old religious tactic, along the lines that ‘if you can’t see what I’m saying is right then you must be evil, and a ‘poor lost soul’. That tactic has never worked on me and it only indicates the side making that argument has run out of logical evidence to support their point of view.

          • Protons and neutrons and the internal structure and behavior of nuclei I would say. Currently we have a number of models of nucleus structure that serve various purposes well, but we need as accurate an understanding of nuclei states as we have of atomic states and electron orbitals.

            You see Rossi reaching for that with Cook… maybe that’s the right direction, maybe not.

            Seems like maybe we’re getting something akin to overlapping nucleon orbitals between atoms in (very) excited states (perhaps triggered by initial generation of energetic Helium by fusion events).

          • Chapman

            Dead On!!!

            We have to dig deeper down, not further abroad…

          • bachcole

            Certainly not. Someone refrains from looking at the very same evidence that convince other people and then castigates ad nauseum them for believing that the evidence, for them, is convincing.

      • akupaku

        A proper theory might suggest border case scenarios where the LENR reaction might run out of control (reactor meltdown or even explosion) or close down unexpectedly. It is conceivable that some such scenarios will escape empirical trials. Runaway reactor would probably be dangerous in all usage scenarios and an unexpected close down is dangerous in some scenarios like in powering an airplane.

        Certification might require a working theory.

        Another usage for a working theory would be in improving and optimizing the technology. Computer simulations could be used to find improvements for example. For example real world nuclear explosions are not so necessary anymore because the experiments can be simulated in a super computer.

        • Omega Z

          A theory can be a useful tool kept in perspective, but experiment always trumps theory.

          That’s a good thing. Keep in mind if the situation was reversed.
          Mainstream Science says LENR is theoretically impossible.

          We would have 1989. End of Story…

      • LCD

        Right but the point is he hasn’t made a product yet and my reference to theory was that although he doesn’t need it he sure as heck would go faster if he knew the theory. But he doesn’t and is going slow and at this rate without a theory it seems it will take a long long time.

        • Bruce__H

          I think that if what Rossi has is real then he has to work harder than most to allay skepticism. What’s so complicated?

  • LCD

    The question was, why is the ecat essentially not yet recognized.

    “Andrea Rossi
    July 8, 2016 at 7:31 AM
    Pietro F.:
    That is because our product is not yet ready for a massive market, needs more R&D to arrive to that level. Our industrial 1 MW plants are still destined to the so called “pioneer customers”, which means customers that are aware that the product could have problems and are open to tolerate any unforeseen problem that could emerge.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R”

    The product could have problems? At this rate without a theory he has no hope of being first to market or at least getting there anytime soon.

    most people don’t even believe it works.

    This is the bad side of commercial development, nobody shares info to the detriment of everybody else.

    Same thing is happening with autonomous vehicle technology development. Nobody really is sharing data for fear they will lose out in the market.

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      Why doesn’t he believe that with all the publicity, that he wont be ripped off if a government agency is given a module to test? In the United States government employee can get up to a year imprisonment if they divulge secrets given to them by people or corporations with confidential agreements. There’s something fishy about Rossi’s refusing to show his technology to government scientists.for a technical review. I’ve signed confidential agreements and divulged ideas to the DOE and DOD and the NSF and the NIH. I’m always confident that they are scared stiff of being put into jail.

      • sam

        Maybe it would be good if some Goverment Officials
        went to jail and studied Cold Fusion like AR did when
        he was in prison.
        When they get out they might be more inclined to put funds into researching LENR.

        • INVENTOR INVENTED

          I know. My company submitted a joint LENR proposal with a world class plasma physics lab to the ARPAe program. Despite the excellent credentials of the principle investigator and the lab they refused two funding applications with no explanation. I’m sure they had no understanding of chemonuclear fusion.

    • Omega Z

      I’ve made posts about this before.

      The 1st products will be slow to market. This has nothing to do with theory and everything about engineering issues. I would recommend to Rossi to study nuclear power plants to resolve engineering issues. It is the only existing technology comparable to LENR.

      I really don’t understand the infatuation about the need for theory to make a product. Experiment trumps theory always. In fact, without experimentation, theory is useless unproven ideas about what “may??” be taking place. An opinion. Nothing else.

      They’ve been working on a theory for decades. If you want to wait a few more, so be it. I prefer Rossi countinue his R&D. Experiments work much faster.

      • Roland

        How about if we start with a fresh metaphor.

        The current metaphor parallels human experience with uranium and plutonium fission.

        Humans make a truly massive effort (WWII) to find and define the threshold conditions that will allow the fission reaction to begin; and when it finally does start it wants to keep right on going till it melts down the apparatus, then we figure out how to make it stop.

        When a fission reactor threatens to go exponential ya gotta soak up neutrons in a hurry, or run.

        The crew that watched a 300 lb. stainless steel Dewar flask turn into a puddle on the floor all by itself (loaded with LENR fuel but no stimulus applied yet) hastily exited the lab. In a decision that still confounds me, given the sacrifices others have been willing to make in pursuit of knowledge, they didn’t go ‘that was incredible, lets figure out what just happened and make it happen again’, fear prevailed and they stopped in their tracks

        The majority of successful replicators since P & F have experienced a melt down or two, some of which have been completely inexplicable.

        So, on the surface of things there appear to be excellent reasons to apply the fission metaphor to hydrogen in metal lattice LENR reactions.

        There is, however, another fission reactor design that may make for a more useful metaphor when considering the peculiarities of the Quark.

        A thorium reactor remains relatively inert no matter how much thorium you physically assemble, there is no mass threshold, such as with plutonium, where simply crossing the mass threshold will result in a nuclear explosion. A thorium reactor is driven by an external source of neutrons; neutrons ‘on’ the reactor starts, neutrons ‘off’ the reactor stops, feed it more neutrons it goes ‘faster’.

        Failsafe; good engineering…

        The driver, Rossi’s term, is external to the Quark; turn on the driver the Quark starts in seconds, turn off the driver the Quark stops in seconds, turn ‘up’ the driver and the Quark runs ‘faster’. Failsafe.

        This being LENR, things then immediately become more complex; the driver consumes .5w as long as the Quark is on.

        No matter whether the output is 100w or 10w the average input power remains the same while it’s the COP that goes up and down.

        The Quark’s output can be tuned to produce two distinct modalities; infrared photons, visible photons, possibly more energetic photons and electrons. The driver can modulate the Quark’s output between various percentages of energetic photons and electrons without altering the average input power of the driver.

        Thorium reactors respond linearly to input power, Quarks respond non-linearly to input power.

        Thorium reactors are driven by something dead simple.

        Quarks are driven by ‘something’ subtle and complex.

        P.S. I agree that Rossi is making excellent experimental progress by allowing the emergent phenomena to speak first.

      • akupaku

        A proper theory might suggest border case scenarios where the LENR reaction might run out of control (reactor meltdown or even explosion) or close down unexpectedly. It is conceivable that some such scenarios will escape empirical trials. Runaway reactor would probably be dangerous in all usage scenarios and an unexpected close down is dangerous in some scenarios like in powering an airplane.

        Certification might require a working theory.

        Another usage for a working theory would be in improving and optimizing the technology. Computer simulations could be used to find improvements for example. For example real world nuclear explosions are not so necessary anymore because the experiments can be simulated in a super computer.

        • Omega Z

          A theory can be a useful tool kept in perspective, but experiment always trumps theory.

          That’s a good thing. Keep in mind if the situation was reversed.
          Mainstream Science says LENR is theoretically impossible.

          We would have 1989. End of Story…

      • LCD

        Right but the point is he hasn’t made a product yet and my reference to theory was that although he doesn’t need it he sure as heck would go faster if he knew the theory. But he doesn’t and is going slow and at this rate without a theory it seems it will take a long long time.

  • Timar

    Frank: why is this post filed under “Bill Gates”? Either it is a mistake or Rossi has a new partner having no trouble to come up with 90 million $. I hope for the latter but strongly suspect the former 😉

    • SG

      I doubt Frank would make such a “mistake.” It is a hint, probably. We know Bill Gates has recently demonstrated interest in the field. It would not surprise me if he is now involved in some way.

      • Alain Samoun

        That would be BIG news if it was confirmed but I doubt it…

    • Hmm. Strangely quiet. A no comment rather than an oops, my bad would not be nothing.

      • Frank Acland

        Sorry, it was simply a mistake. This has nothing to do with BG.

      • f sedei

        Rossi, through LENR, has generated a new interest in the possibilities of manipulating the properties of atoms that has the potential of over turning, advancing and modernizing scientific principles and reasoning.” We are about to enter a whole new world in a new light” Appreciate that we are a part of the beginning of the adventure.

  • Timar

    Frank: why is this post filed under “Bill Gates”? Either it is a mistake or Rossi has a new partner having no trouble to come up with 90 million $. I hope for the latter but strongly suspect the former 😉

    • SG

      I doubt Frank would make such a “mistake.” It is a hint, probably. We know Bill Gates has recently demonstrated interest in the field. It would not surprise me if he is now involved in some way.

      • bachcole

        I sure hope so. I remember in 2007 just before the crash he invested $100 million in some algae energy company. So $89 in LENR would probably not be too big of a deal for him.

      • Alain Samoun

        That would be BIG news if it was confirmed but I doubt it…

      • FRAN 34

        Sorry, but Bill Gates has never do anything like that.

    • Hmm. Strangely quiet. A no comment rather than an oops, my bad would not be nothing.

      • Frank Acland

        Sorry, it was simply a mistake. This has nothing to do with BG.

  • adriano

    Is ecatnews.net offline?

    • FRAN 34

      The Troll Dungeon has fallen? Now the beacons of light like ECW can shine more brightly.

      • adriano

        What kind of reply is this? Sorry but my english is already bad so maybe you can answer my question without figure of speech. I asked about ecatnews because a was used to check it out quite often and now is already a lot of days that they doesnt post anymore on it. Can someone tell me if is offline permanently?

        • They did decide to close. I thought they were going to stay online for awhile though, just shut down additions to the comment section… so maybe this is just a technical glitch.

          • Frank Acland

            The site is still live: http://ecatnews.com/

          • Omega Z

            adriano used .net instead of .com

  • Omega Z

    All I Can Say Is, WOW…

    No, I can say more. I used to work with, manage and employ a high pressure sales team.

    Tell you what I’ll do. Having evaluated your resume, I’ll keep it in my special crosscut resume encryptor I keep conveniently located next to my desk. We shall call you should we ever need someone with your special abilities.

    Seriously, Is this the best you got?

  • Omega Z

    Just a hit and run making a poor counter point.
    This is blatantly clear…

  • Obvious

    My version of the report says 2.13 mg.

    The masses being the same is weird, but I don’t know how weird. For a very good comparison, mass matching would be a good idea. Maybe they balance them and then weigh only one. Or balance them to a known mass known to work with the equipment well.

    • Regarding 2.13 mg versus 2.04 mg:

      About 4% of the ash is neither nickel nor fuel (the report states that iron was not found in the ash). This ~4% is assumed to not take part in any of the nuclear reactions. This accounts for the backbones of the iron and aluminum particles found in the fuel. The ash spectroscopy shows these particles stripped of iron and aluminum, with only carbon, oxygen and some silicon remaining.

      Assessing the Lugano E-Cat Report

      • Bruce__H

        Paranoid speculation does not further the debate here.

        • Roland

          Pray do tell why I’m to accept that APCO’s involvement with ‘cold fusion’ begins with the filing of a civil action against IH by Leonardo?

          Let me guess; the almost instantaneous appearance of a PR firm and a law firm from the very top of the global food chain at a minor contractual dispute is mere happenstance…

        • Engineer48

          At least everybody now knows the original ash info I shared with Frank was real and not something I or my source made up..

          • bachcole

            I never thought that. I was perfectly comfortable being in uncertainty to find it necessary to invent stories so that I didn’t have to endure the so-called cognitive dissonance so many seem to have to deal with when there aren’t easy explanations for things.

      • You have got to be joking.

      • Obvious

        Thanks for the explanation. I don’t agree with much of it, but I understand where the 2.04 comes from.

        If you are going to ignore the other elements, then perhaps normalizing to either Li or Ni might make more sense.
        Parkhomov’s fuel-ash data makes more sense when the elements are normalized relative to Ni.

        • Well, it’s all order-of-magnitude type analysis anyway; no use getting worked up over that assumption.

          Order-of-magnitude-wise, the nucleon shifts are shown to be a prime suspect for the reported energy release. Not just in the same ballpark… both in the infield.

  • Andy Kumar

    In response to LENR G,

    The simplest explanation is that the numbers in the report are “cooked”, no measurement was performed. I am amazed how stubbornly some people will twist the facts to fit their preconceived notions.
    .
    //Either they used a — what do you call that new-fangled high tech thing that just came out? — oh yeah, a scale, to send a fuel sample equal in mass to the ash sample out for testing…//
    .
    Try chipping away at a granular material to balance the mass of two samples, you will find out it is impossible to do. Fluids may be do-able. It is easy to test with grains of salt, sugar or sand.
    .
    //Or they normalized the fuel results to the same mass as the ash sample in order to facilitate direct comparison.//
    .
    Normalize mass.., that is ridiculous. You calculate percentage for comparison. If you want to normalize, you do it to a nice round number like 10 or 100 mg. This is my pet peeve with the believer crowd. If you don’t know how science is done, leave it to the scientists or at least give their opinion about scientific matters due respect.
    .
    // I’m not sure which. It may be in the report but I’m not going to scour the whole thing just to more precisely correct your mistaken assumption.//
    .
    My mistaken assumption … Ha! One of your buddies calls it pigeon chess. About to lose, mess up the chess board with pigeon sh*t, fly back to your flock to claim victory!
    .
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
    .

    • You have got to be joking.

      • Andy Kumar

        No, I am not joking. I am raising some serious doubts about the quality of work that passes as “research” in LENR world. Address them if you or others can.

        • Your initial assertion was that the scientists could not have taken exactly equal masses of fuel and ash at separate times. I pointed out that the report stated that they took 10 mg of fuel and about 2 mg of ash, so your assumption was wrong.

          Then I explained why the mass used for both fuel and ash was the same in Appendix 4 (to simplify comparison) and speculated that the researchers could have carefully measured out the mass of the samples sent for analysis or they could have normalized the fuel results to the mass of the ash sample. FWIW the Lugano report only gives percentages in Appendix 4… I’m the one who used those percentages to derive actual mass values, which I needed for my analysis.

          Bizarrely, you then attacked the notion that masses can be accurately measured or that normalization to the mass of the ash was feasible.

          I can only conclude that you’re trolling me, trying to to get me worked up for some reason. So I am going to ignore you.

          If you get support that somehow I have made some errors or the Lugano team has made some giant mistake in their Appendix 4 report then I’ll re-engage. Until then, have a nice weekend.

          • Andy Kumar

            So you are saying the report only gives percentages without giving raw data. Others have shredded the report to pieces for various other methodological reasons. Could you give me a link to the report, I would like to take a whack at it.
            .
            Anyway do you realize, your knee jerk rationalization about balancing sample masses and normalization was wrong. And why is the mass given in 10E-6 kg, isn’t mg more appropriate, or is it to appear more scientific than it really is. Who does chemistry in kg. Also your percentages are wrong if total mass is 2.04 mg, it needs to be larger as others have pointed out.

          • wpj

            I do chemistry in kg practically everyday.

          • cashmemorz

            Andy Kumar is using sophistry. Ie. kg is a take on bad methodolog re scale of units.He also “asks” who does that. Seems he doesn’t know who does it. Bad attempt at drawing attention to needless details. Using Kg or mlgm units doesn’t disprove how something works.

          • People who are curious might want to research MKS and the International System of Units (SI) — the language spoken by most scientists and engineers around the world.

            Young and prospective engineers out there… you can spare yourself many units errors if you adopt MKS/SI immediately.

          • Andy Kumar

            MKS is all fine. But you don’t use m^3 for volume, kg for mass ALL the time. To define a mole, you use number of molecules in x gram of material (not x kg). To define pH, you use moles in a liter (not m^3). For lab scale chemistry, using kg just shows that someone is talking in a foreign dialect. Our inventor is known to say kWh/h (not kW), always puzzled me.

          • cashmemorz

            Rossi most likely used Kg during his Petroldragon days when Kg would be more convenient to express large quantities of plastic refuse in Kg. Then, having become used to this scale of expression then he just continued to use what became second narture for him. A simple way of assuming why he did this.Not that I asked him about this point.

          • Gerald

            Yes, like my uncle telling me to cut a wooden pole at 1200. I watched at him 1200??? Yes he said 1200. Then it hit me, he was giving me the length in mm because he has always worked with steel in his day job. Voor me 1 meter and 20 cm was normal. The way Rossi(or someone else) writes down the numbers like E-05 is if your used to it a very fast way of comparing numbers.

          • Bruce__H

            Using kg.instead of mg means nothing. This is not a valid criticism.

    • Observer

      The simplest explanation is it is all a dream. (Descartes)

      http://existentialcomics.com/comic/81

    • Pweet

      From one who takes a lot of convincing about anything ‘Rossi’, I actually don’t have much trouble with the total mass of the ash sample being exactly the same mass as the original fuel sample. I think the most logical explanation is that the mass of the ash sample was very much different to the fuel sample, but after the analysis was done, the results were scaled either up or down, (normalized) to make the total mass identical to the mass of the fuel sample. By doing that it makes it immediately apparent what the magnitude of the claimed transitions are, without having to scale each individual result up or down.
      However, that does not mean I have any faith that the published results are a proof that any transitions actually occurred inside the 1MW plant, due to a complete lack of provenance of the supposed ash material.
      If there is any skulduggery going on here, and to be consistent with all previous tests, I believe there is, then the provenance is the thing everyone should be looking at; not the other minor curiosities which may well have logical explanations. To make too big an argument about the trivia may well allow the most critical ball to fly past the keeper, and that ball is the origin and then proven chain of custody of the sample. (provenance)
      I am fully expecting at some point in the chain, a person who has a very big interest in proving this all works, has had custody of the sample and thus whatever information is obtained from it is severely compromised.
      To mean anything, the ash material would have to have originated from, direct from a working reactor, and then maintained by a totally reliable and independent source who had no financial interest in the results one way or the other, and in relation to this last test, I don’t think such a person exists.
      However, the results are still interesting, but definitely meaningless.
      .
      Why is it interesting? Because comparing the analysis of the ash samples of previous tests, it show a moving feast of modes of operation from the original ecat, the Lugano ecat and now the 1MW plant ecat, which was supposedly the same reactor technology as the original ecat, and yet the ash analysis is totally different. For instance, where is all the copper in the ash? Where is all the lithium in the original ecat ash?
      Now, it is reasonable that the theory of operation can change, but the actual mode of operation should not change, otherwise there would be lenr everywhere. Therefore the ash sample should be remarkably consistent, but it is not. That is a problem here. Has Mr Rossi invented a series of different low energy nuclear reactions, all producing kilowatts of excess energy, when nobody else can produce any? Not to mention that he has now produced even one more with the QuackEcat. (Yes, I know, I’ve just mentioned it). I think I can reliably assume the ash sample will again be totally different.

  • Axil Axil

    The Lugano testers had one big 1000 micron ash particle to work with. So they must have matched the weight of that particle with an equal weight of nickel fuel particles to make the weight comparison valid. They must have prorated the fuel percentages against the target weight of the ash that they had.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Adolpho,

    So how was ash periodically removed from operational reactors?

    Here is how Parkhomov does it. Not so easy taking a sample from the resultant slag?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f52b51e7c8771acefb43e4a44794e6dd0fce11d1382c3a3cfb7d660e7556e3e8.png

    Would be interesting as to how samples were taken from running reactors? Surly the whole 250kW slab reactor would need to be taken off line, the fuel rod removed, the fuel rod opened, a very small sample taken, the fuel rod resealed, reinserted back into the reactor and the reactor restarted. Surely Rossi would never risk doing that and having it cause a uptime or reliability problem with that reactor.

    Maybe ask Weaver how this magic was done?

  • bachcole

    Verification is in the eye of the beholder. A total stranger, probably won’t trust him/her. Someone we know and already trust, I’ll probably trust him/her. It is all about trust. And the trust given when one wants to influence another person, like when my future mother-in-law said that she trusted me with her daughter, does not count. And the trust given when one is hoping for a desired outcome, does not count.

    In this matter, I will trust Frank and Mats Lewan and others. A total stranger, probably not.

    • FRAN 34

      You mean you know Frank and Mats? That’s surprising.

      • ‘Know’ does not have to mean in the flesh. bachcole has read their posts and communicated with both of them for quite awhile and knows them in that sense. Like if he talked with them on the telephone every day, he would know them, right?

        • cashmemorz

          If it was more than hi, no I don’t want any, and bye, as with a telemarketer. Having the conversation I just out lined does not qualify as getting to know someone, except that it was a telemarketer and even then it could have been someone impersonating a telemarketer. This is getting me paranoid. How do you confirm something? That word: “substantiate”; I have to let it go and do something completely different.

  • Observer

    The simplest explanation is it is all a dream. (Descartes)

    http://existentialcomics.com/comic/81

  • You initial assertion was that the scientists could not have taken exactly equal masses of fuel and ash at separate times. I pointed out that the report stated that they took 10 mg of fuel and about 2 mg of ash, so your assumption was wrong.

    Then I explained why the mass used for both fuel and ash was the same in Appendix 4 (to simplify comparison) and speculated that the researchers could have carefully measured out the mass of the samples sent for analysis or they could have normalized the fuel results to the mass of the ash sample. FWIW the Lugano report only gives percentages in Appendix 4… I’m the one who used those percentages to derive actual mass values, which I needed for my analysis.

    Bizarrely, you then attacked the notion that masses can be accurately measured or that normalization to the mass of the ash was feasible.

    I can only conclude that you’re trolling me, trying to to get me worked up for some reason. So I am going to ignore you.

    If you get support that somehow I have made some errors or the Lugano team has made some giant mistake in their Appendix 4 report then I’ll re-engage. Until then, have a nice weekend.

    • Andy Kumar

      So you are saying the report only gives percentages without giving raw data. Others have shredded the report to pieces for various other methodological reasons. Could you give me a link to the report, I would like to take a whack at it.
      .
      Anyway do you realize, your knee jerk rationalization about balancing sample masses and normalization was wrong. And why is the mass given in 10E-6 kg, isn’t mg more appropriate, or is it to appear more scientific than it really is. Who does chemistry in kg. Also your percentages are wrong if total mass is 2.04 mg, it needs to be larger as others have pointed out.

      • wpj

        I do chemistry in kg practically everyday.

        • cashmemorz

          Andy Kumar is using sophistry. Ie. kg is a take on bad methodolog re scale of units.He also “asks” who does that. Seems he doesn’t know who does it. Bad attempt at drawing attention to needles details. Using Kg or mlgm units doesn’t disprove how something works.

          • People who are curious might want to research MKS and the International System of Units (SI) — the language spoken by most scientists and engineers around the world.

            Young and prospective engineers out there… you can spare yourself many units errors if you adopt MKS/SI immediately.

          • Andy Kumar

            MKS is all fine. But you don’t use m^3 for volume, kg for mass ALL the time. To define a mole, you use number of molecules in x gram of material (not x kg). To define pH, you use moles in a liter (not m^3). For lab scale chemistry, using kg just shows that someone is talking in a foreign dialect. Our inventor is known to say kWh/h (not kW), always puzzled me.

          • cashmemorz

            Rossi most likely used Kg during his Petroldragon days when Kg would be more convenient to express large quantities of plastic refuse in Kg. Then, having become used to this scale of expression then he just continued to use what became second narture for him. A simple way of assuming why he did this.Not that I asked him about this point.

          • Gerald

            Yes, like my uncle telling me to cut a wooden pole at 1200. I watched at him 1200??? Yes he said 1200. Then it hit me, he was giving me the length in mm because he has always worked with steel in his day job. Voor me 1 meter and 20 cm was normal. The way Rossi(or someone else) writes down the numbers like E-05 is if your used to it a very fast way of comparing numbers.

          • They did decide to close. I thought they were going to stay online for awhile though, just shut down additions to the comment section… so maybe this is just a technical glitch.

          • Frank Acland

            The site is still live: http://ecatnews.com/

          • Omega Z

            adriano used .net instead of .com

          • Roland

            Though ultimately enigmatic, in result, the simple apparatus of the two slit experiment was thought to be reasonably well understood at every point of progress right up to the moment when some bright light posed the next question.

            (Brief recap) The two slit experiment was intend to answer a simple question; are photons particles or waves. The basic apparatus is dead simple; a photon source, a screen and a photographic plate. The initial tested variable is also dead simple; the screen has either one or two slits.

            With the one slit screen photons act like particles, with two slits photons acts like waves resulting in the predicted interference pattern on the photographic plate. First conundrum; the answer to the initial question depends on the apparatus.

            New question; which of the two slits does a, singular, photon go through. Add photon detectors behind the two slits. Answer; the, singular, photon passes through both slits. Fresh conundrum.

            New question; what if you alter a property of a photon on the way to the two slit screen. Polarize the photon on the way to the screen. Answer; the photon acts like a particle. Fresh conundrum.

            New question; what if you reverse the initial polarization of the photon on its way to the screen. Polarize a photon on the way to the screen, then polarize it again to reverse the first polarization. Answer; the photon acts like a wave and passes through both slits. Fresh conundrum.

            New question; how does a, singular, photon ‘know’ that the apparatus has been altered. Answer; we don’t know but it’s a very interesting, and I suspect important, question.

            New question; given that this very simple apparatus coughs up different answers depending on the proposition being tested how, exactly, do we parse the experimental results from CERN. Answer; that’s a very good question.

          • Robert Dorr

            I don’t see anywhere were it is stated they did an analysis on identical masses of fuel and ash. A guess would be that the ash sample weighed 2.04 mg and they stated the isotropic composition of an equivalent amount of fuel to make it easy to compare the results. Nothing fishy there. I don’t understand why you are being critical of a standard technique used in analysis i.e.: mass equivalence.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            You said, “If that will make money interests rich, not a big problem for me. In a few years, the technology will be free to use, and our grandchildren will not have to worry”, and how will that happen if Exxon owns the IP?

          • Gunnar Lindberg

            Suppose Rossi continue his present strategy, a few secret customers will use LENR in their secret factories. Nothing else will happen. However, if he partner with a big player, not necessarily Exxon, give them access to the Rossi Effect, LENR will start to replace fossile fuel and after twenty years the technology will be free to use.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I suggest you give Rossi a name of a company he can partner with, who will not reveal or steal his IP, in one way or another. Not only does Rossi get screwed but we get screwed by higher prices for 20 years.

  • sam

    Maybe it would be good if some Goverment Officials
    went to jail and studied Cold Fusion like AR did when
    he was in prison.
    When they get out they might be more inclined to put funds into researching LENR.

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      its really possible he’s conning us

      • Roland

        “There’s something going on, folks, yup there’s something going on”.

        Works great on the ‘uneducated’, why not here…

        • INVENTOR INVENTED

          have you heard of Roland Peterson?

  • FRAN 34

    You mean you know Frank and Mats? That’s surprising.

    • ‘Know’ does not have to mean in the flesh. bachcole has read their posts and communicated with both of them for quite awhile and knows them in that sense. Like if he talked with them on the telephone every day, he would know them, right?

      • cashmemorz

        If it was more than hi, no I don’t want any, and bye, as with a telemarketer. Having the conversation I just out lined does not qualify as getting to know someone, except that it was a telemarketer and even then it could have been someone impersonating a telemarketer. This is getting me paranoid. How do you confirm something? That word: “substantiate”; I have to let it go and do something completely different.

        • wpj

          I thought that MFMP were specifically looking for neutrons (and claim to have found them).

          Also what about the huge detection spike in one of the early tests by an observer (can’t remember the name) – what was this?

          • Roland

            Hi wpj,

            A singular brief gamma spike was observed by the instruments set up by Focardi during a test of a very early iteration of the reactor. As there are no reports subsequent to this with the E-cat series it may have been an artifact of that particular setup that was addressed in later designs.

            In these early experiments the thinking was that the reaction produced gamma radiation that was thermalized into heat within the reactor and the reactors were encased in lead as a precautionary measure.

            There were also statements given by Rossi in 2010-11 that a transmutation of Ni to Cu had been observed though there was no mention, that I’ve found, of an isotopic analysis of the Cu.

            Trying to analyze the significance of these early observations leads in multiple directions:

            Were the observations mistaken?

            Were the observations correct but particular to the specific apparatuses?

            Are there multiple pathways that the LENR reaction can take with similar fuel compositions depending on other initial conditions giving rise to anomalous results?

            The MFMP endeavour, and particularly Me 356, will probably shed some light on these issues and MFMP experimentors are the only ones likely to share all the data they acquire.

            If the current generation of E-cats and Quarks still produce high energy radiation that’s detectable outside the devices this hasn’t reached our ears.

            No external radiation was detected during the Lugano run, nor was there any residual radiation detected in either the used fuel or the apparatus immediately after the end of the run.

  • clovis ray

    hi, guys,
    I know Alan S, if he says something, you can take it to the Bank, I was surprised he said as much as he did, Alan knows many things and many important and influential people around the world,
    I have known him, for at least a decade, but only as lenrG explained below, alan is a great friend,

  • Engineer48

    I now know more about where the data originated from, via another trusted source that is not my original source.

    I agree with Alan, the data has a very credible source and should be respected.

    • Rene

      I very much believe in transparency. Will wait it out until the seekrits are disclosed.

      • bachcole

        I very much believe in confirmation. Will wait it out until the seekrits are disclosed. (:->) Pretty much the same think.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bachcole,

          I could drop a few names & I suspect your doubts would be gone. But I can’t, not just yet. It is their right to release the full report. Not mine. I mean they did the work.

          While I only saw the partial ash analysis, as I sent to Frank, it is my understanding there is a fully comprensive fuel & ash analysis report in limited circulation.

          • wpj

            “I mean they did the work”

            Interesting; are we talking about the analysis of the samples or other work? (Sure you are not at liberty to divulge and this is just for speculation).

          • DrD

            To my mind, one of the biggest theoretical questions is “is there proof of fusion?”.
            To answer that, it’s essential to know the “before & after” changes in actual masses of Li, Ni, H and all other elements. Was that much detail really not measured or just not “leaked”?

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrD,

            All I have seen is what you have seen.

            However I understand the shared data is a small portion of a detailed Before & After analytical report.

            Was told there is more to be released.

          • bachcole

            But, Engineer48, that would mean that I had to believe you, and I don’t hardly know you from Adam except that I know that Adam couldn’t type. Everything that you have said since you have been here has value only if you and your information prove to be true. Otherwise, it could all be bogus. So far, AFAIK, nothing that you have said has been validated. This does not mean that it might not be validity. This does not mean that it can’t be validated or won’t be validated. It only means that, for me, everything that you have typed is very hopeful words but nothing more. When all is revealed, then we will know, and hopefully we will say, Engineer48 was exactly right on.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bachcole,

            This is NOT my data. Frank & others know my source. I doubt Frank would have published just from me sending him a word doc. Frank is not a fool and did due diligence checking.

            Alan Smith has also stated the data is real as he knows the original source as I also now do.

            I also know how & why my source received the data & sent it to me and others.

          • bachcole

            I feel left out. Nobody loves me. Everyone hates me. I going to go eat a can of worms.

            (:->)

            Seriously, that helps a lot. But does Frank and Alan Smith confirm this? If so, please show me, or perhaps Frank and/or Alan Smith can confirm this. I know, I either forget or weren’t paying attention. But, please, indulge me, por favor.

          • Engineer48
          • bachcole

            So Alan Smith says it is real. Did you get your information from the same source or from Alan Smith?

            I’ll save some back and forth and say that if you got it from Alan Smith, then we are dependent upon Alan Smith. If you got is from his source, then we are dependent upon the mysterious source.

            If Frank got it from the mysterious source, then you three are dependent upon the mysterious source. If so, do you three vouch for the integrity of this mysterious source? And if so, has anyone else been vouchsafed this information from the mysterious source?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bachcole,

            Frank’s source is me.

            My source is not Alan or Alan’s source. I believe Alan & Alan’s source is higher up the feeding chain than my source.

          • And we can assume that the fuel approximates the fuel in the Lugano test?

            And that there were significant isotopic shifts from fuel to ash?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            What I have seen is what you have seen.

            Was told there is a full report and that there will be further releases.

            I believe I now know now and why the data travelled from the analysis lab to various others, to my source, to me and then Frank.

            Have no doubt the data is real and is a portion of the ash analysis of the 1 year test.

          • Rene

            The chain of custody that needs to be determiend:

            LENR reactor located in ________
            -> fuel handler removes ash sample ________ **
            -> delivered to lab ________ **
            -> analysis performed by ________ *
            -> reports delivered to ________ *
            -> E48’s source of report ________ *
            -> E48 RL ident is ________
            -> Frank Acland ________
            -> e-catworld.com WEB site (whois -> hostmonster.com , privacy registrar)

            Let’s fill in the blanks, shall we? The starred ones(*) are important to know because then the report Frank has can be verified with them (asking “is this report which we have the same or partial report you have”). The double starred ones are important for the uber-skeptics who will want to challenge sleight of hand issues.

          • LuFong

            You forgot:

            ->Fuel sample(s) removed from fuel inserted into reactor ________*
            ->Fuel samples(s) retained by 3rd party _________*
            ->Reactors monitored/prevented from tampering during operation _______*

            Without this this, garbage in, garbage out….

      • Zeddicus23

        Have you looked at the license agreement between IH and Leonardo? It’s very one-sided, e.g. pro-IH. Have you considered the possibility that Rossi wanted to get out from this agreement, which was unfair? Also, you may have noticed that he is suing for the additional $89 mill (not 100 mill) and claims he has evidence demonstrating that the 1-year test was successful. (Which leaves him open to proving that he has a working reactor and otherwise facing possible charges of fraud.) Based on IH’s interpretation of the license agreement, they still have the IP without giving him the $89 mill. So why not just declare the test a failure (even if it succeeded) and keep the 89 mill? This satisfies three possible objectives, delaying the roll-out of LENR to a more suitable time for their other investments, allowing them to claim total control of “other” independently obtained technology that they may develop when and if they want, and saving 89mill. You may have noticed that IH is not a manufacturing company and so it’s not at all clear that they really intended to produce LENR devices. Of course, the opposite is also possible, e.g. IH is as pure as the driven snow and is only motivated by the highest intentions (OK perhaps that’s an exaggeration) and Rossi is/was a fraud or due to other reasons was unable/unwilling to transfer his IP to IH. Given all of the contradictory info in both directions, as well as the large amount of missing information, it’s hard to draw a definitive conclusion. However, I must admit that if one tends to be skeptical, and wonders why after 5 years his reactor still hasn’t been clearly validated then it would seem to be more likely that either there is no working reactor or at the very least he has still significant problems with reproducibility etc. (On the other hand IH was supposed to have conducted several validation tests before they handed him the $10 mill, so you might want to question their competence as well.)

    • DrD

      You seem to have completely overlooked the explanation held by most of us. I wonder how that’s possible.

  • Engineer48

    I now know more about where the data originated from, via another trusted source that is not my original source.

    I agree with Alan, the data has a very credible source and should be respected.

    • Great. You are easily my favourite poster on ECW and now that you’re in dEEp (as we eestorians like to say) you can help shed even more light (and anti FUD spray) on this story.

    • Rene

      I very much believe in transparency. Will wait it out until the seekrits are disclosed.

      • bachcole

        I very much believe in confirmation. Will wait it out until the seekrits are disclosed. (:->) Pretty much the same think.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bachcole,

          I could drop a few names & I suspect your doubts would be gone. But I can’t, not just yet. It is their right to release the full report. Not mine. I mean they did the work.

          While I only saw the partial ash analysis, as I sent to Frank, it is my understanding there is a fully comprensive fuel & ash analysis report in limited circulation.

          • wpj

            “I mean they did the work”

            Interesting; are we talking about the analysis of the samples or other work? (Sure you are not at liberty to divulge and this is just for speculation).

          • DrD

            To my mind, one of the biggest theoretical questions is “is there proof of fusion?”.
            To answer that, it’s essential to know the “before & after” changes in actual masses of Li, Ni, H and all other elements. Was that much detail not measured or just not “leaked”?
            Edit: I appreciate it’s probably in the detailed report, maybe you know?

          • Engineer48

            Hi DrD,

            All I have seen is what you have seen.

            However I understand the shared data is a small portion of a detailed Before & After analytical report.

            Was told there is more to be released.

          • bachcole

            But, Engineer48, that would mean that I had to believe you, and I don’t hardly know you from Adam except that I know that Adam couldn’t type. Everything that you have said since you have been here has value only if you and your information prove to be true. Otherwise, it could all be bogus. So far, AFAIK, nothing that you have said has been validated. This does not mean that it might not be validity. This does not mean that it can’t be validated or won’t be validated. It only means that, for me, everything that you have typed is very hopeful words but nothing more. When all is revealed, then we will know, and hopefully we will say, Engineer48 was exactly right on.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bachcole,

            This is NOT my data. Frank & others know my source. I doubt Frank would have published just from me sending him a word doc. Frank is not a fool and did due diligence checking.

            Alan Smith has also stated the data is real as he knows the original source as I also now do.

            I also know how & why my source received the data & sent it to me and others.

          • bachcole

            I feel left out. Nobody loves me. Everyone hates me. I going to go eat a can of worms.

            (:->)

            Seriously, that helps a lot. But does Frank and Alan Smith confirm this? If so, please show me, or perhaps Frank and/or Alan Smith can confirm this. I know, I either forget or weren’t paying attention. But, please, indulge me, por favor.

          • Engineer48
          • bachcole

            So Alan Smith says it is real. Did you get your information from the same source or from Alan Smith?

            I’ll save some back and forth and say that if you got it from Alan Smith, then we are dependent upon Alan Smith. If you got is from his source, then we are dependent upon the mysterious source.

            If Frank got it from the mysterious source, then you three are dependent upon the mysterious source. If so, do you three vouch for the integrity of this mysterious source? And if so, has anyone else been vouchsafed this information from the mysterious source?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bachcole,

            Frank’s source is me.

            My source is not Alan or Alan’s source. I believe Alan & Alan’s source is higher up the feeding chain than my source.

          • bachcole

            I’m still confused:
            Alan’s source –> Alan.
            Eng48’s source –> Eng48 — Frank.

            Is that it?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bachcole,

            I believe it happened like this::

            Alan’s source –> Alan.
            V
            May be more levels.
            V
            Eng48’s source –> Eng48 –> Frank.

          • bachcole

            Interesting. Thank you.

          • And we can assume that the fuel approximates the fuel in the Lugano test?

            And that there were significant isotopic shifts from fuel to ash?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            What I have seen is what you have seen.

            Was told there is a full report and that there will be further releases.

            I believe I now know now and why the data travelled from the analysis lab to various others, to my source, to me and then Frank.

            Have no doubt the data is real and is a portion of the ash analysis of the 1 year test.

          • Rene

            The chain of custody that needs to be determiend:

            LENR reactor located in ________
            -> fuel handler removes ash sample ________ **
            -> delivered to lab ________ **
            -> analysis performed by ________ *
            -> reports delivered to ________ *
            -> E48’s source of report ________ *
            -> E48 RL ident is ________
            -> Frank Acland ________
            -> e-catworld.com WEB site (whois -> hostmonster.com , privacy registrar)

            Let’s fill in the blanks, shall we? The starred ones(*) are important to know because then the report Frank has can be verified with them (asking “is this report which we have the same or partial report you have”). The double starred ones are important for the uber-skeptics who will want to challenge sleight of hand issues.

  • Pweet

    From one who takes a lot of convincing about anything ‘Rossi’, I actually don’t have much trouble with the total mass of the ash sample being exactly the same mass as the original fuel sample. I think the most logical explanation is that the mass of the ash sample was very much different to the fuel sample, but after the analysis was done, the results were scaled either up or down, (normalized) to make the total mass identical to the mass of the fuel sample. By doing that it makes it immediately apparent what the magnitude of the claimed transitions are, without having to scale each individual result up or down.
    However, that does not mean I have any faith that the published results are a proof that any transitions actually occurred inside the 1MW plant, due to a complete lack of provenance of the supposed ash material.
    If there is any skulduggery going on here, and to be consistent with all previous tests, I believe there is, then the provenance is the thing everyone should be looking at; not the other minor curiosities which may well have logical explanations. To make too big an argument about the trivia may well allow the most critical ball to fly past the keeper, and that ball is the origin and then proven chain of custody of the sample. (provenance)
    I am fully expecting at some point in the chain, a person who has a very big interest in proving this all works, has had custody of the sample and thus whatever information is obtained from it is severely compromised.
    To mean anything, the ash material would have to have originated from, direct from a working reactor, and then maintained by a totally reliable and independent source who had no financial interest in the results one way or the other, and in relation to this last test, I don’t think such a person exists.
    However, the results are still interesting, but definitely meaningless.
    .
    Why is it interesting? Because comparing the analysis of the ash samples of previous tests, it show a moving feast of modes of operation from the original ecat, the Lugano ecat and now the 1MW plant ecat, which was supposedly the same reactor technology as the original ecat, and yet the ash analysis is totally different. For instance, where is all the copper in the ash? Where is all the lithium in the original ecat ash?
    Now, it is reasonable that the theory of operation can change, but the actual mode of operation should not change, otherwise there would be lenr everywhere. Therefore the ash sample should be remarkably consistent, but it is not. That is a problem here. Has Mr Rossi invented a series of different low energy nuclear reactions, all producing kilowatts of excess energy, when nobody else can produce any? Not to mention that he has now produced even one more with the QuackEcat. (Yes, I know, I’ve just mentioned it). I think I can reliably assume the ash sample will again be totally different.

  • Bob Greenyer

    That is very kind of you. It takes a lot of effort to become a TED fellow.

    Right now I have enough commitments already with the project to burn my time.

    Regarding what I could convey in 12 minutes – well – I think every day it becomes more clear – so I could convey more as time passes. The trick in to be succinct and I am working on that.

    Of course, BLP at the highest level have asked from the project to takedown my ‘Signal Part 2’ video – due to use of 2 slides that are available on their site which the MFMP youtube also linked too. It is unfortunate but their right. I will have to author some equivalent schematics and edit the video.

  • CatInHat

    This post is somewhat off topic. The conundrum is, Rossi had every incentive to get IH to be able to replicate his reactor results. But either he was unable to communicate the secret sauce, or there is no working reactor, or he willfully decided to avoid teaching them the process because he is crazy.

    I discount the last option, because it is so clearly not in his best interest. He seemed genuinely positive about his partnership with IH for a long period of time. They showed him the money with the 10 mill.
    Keeping IH positive and successfully concluding his 1 yr test would mean an additional 100mill.
    Thus he had every reason to help them duplicate.

    The first option also seems unlikely, which leaves the possibility that there is no working reactor.

    • Chapman

      If I may suggest, you have have missed the obvious option: “He Did”.

      He showed them, they built them, they tested them, they know it works. So, they are lying, and claiming ignorance to justify dumping him, now that they have his IP.

      Occam’s razor, my friend.

      • Gunnar Lindberg

        One thing that puzzles me is why did Rossi transfer his IP to IH for peanuts when the value is more than all the US automobile industry? He could easily got a much better agreement with another investor given the true value of his invention.

        • SG

          My take is that he was in need of money at that time to continue his pursuits with the e-Cat. Investors usually have significant negotiating power over the inventor. And he had just come off of a very bad experience with the Greeks, and needed to find redemption. All of these likely played into the fact that Mr. Rossi basically got the short end of the stick with this deal. And IH is now twisting the knife.

          • Gunnar Lindberg

            It looks as if Rossi is caught in a vicious circle. He ally with incompetents who only want to enrich themselves. The cause is his failed strategy to bring the E-Cat to the market by himself. Rissi is an inventor, not an industrialist. He needs to accept help from one of the big players, a company in the energy sector with unlimited resources.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Right, but who might that be? Who can he trust, remember his goal is to have a free market E-Cat, not one controlled by the money interests who are only interested in how much money they can make.

          • Gunnar Lindberg

            There is no such free market you suggest. General Electric or a similar player can pay Rossi billions, it would be pocket money, and the E-Cat would be on the market. Asking help from small guys like Defkalion and IH is nothing but wasting time.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Right, will be “on the market” for how much?One cent under current market price, the balance of “savings” go right into the pockets of “money interests”, Trillions of dollars.

          • Gunnar Lindberg

            Yes, the first who use the e-cat tecnology will make lots of money. However, as we know, there is no other way to introduce LENR, to save the planet from overheating. A few secret Rossi customers will make no difference.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Turning it over to the oil companies will have the same result. It is my opinion they have been delaying research into LENR for 25 years. Rossi wants to develop an industry apart from these “money interests”, I tend to agree with his plan.

          • Gunnar Lindberg

            Rossi industrialist is an impossible dream. He has failed every time he tried. Any big player in the energy sector would be happy to make money from LENR as soon they know it is true. The first to use the Rossi technology will be the next Rockefeller and we will se the end of climat disaster.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            I agree and I have told Rossi so, he needs to partner with an industrial partner who will agree to build his E-Cat without trying to steal it. Rossi agrees but he has tried two companies and they both tried to steal his IP. Why do you think it fair the “money interests” should become “Rockefeller” rich using Rossi IP? Handing it over to the “Rockefeller” rich will mean LENR will cost the average Joe 10 times more than it should, why do you want this?

          • Gunnar Lindberg

            Did I say it was fair the “money interests” should become Rockefeller rich? I do not remember. However, a change from fossil fuel to LENR has the number one priority. If that will make money interests rich, not a big problem for me. In a few years, the technology will be free to use, and our grandchildren will not have to worry about green house effect.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Rossi was looking for the “right” partner and Darden was making all the right noises, Rossi then realized he had been deceived.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Or, along with their partners they want to deliberately delay LENR.

        • Chapman

          and that… 🙂

    • Zeddicus23

      Have you looked at the license agreement between IH and Leonardo? It’s very one-sided, e.g. pro-IH. Have you considered the possibility that Rossi wanted to get out from this agreement, which was unfair? Also, you may have noticed that he is suing for the additional $89 mill (not 100 mill) and claims he has evidence demonstrating that the 1-year test was successful. (Which leaves him open to proving that he has a working reactor and otherwise facing possible charges of fraud.) Based on IH’s interpretation of the license agreement, they still have the IP without giving him the $89 mill. So why not just declare the test a failure (even if it succeeded) and keep the 89 mill? This satisfies three possible objectives, delaying the roll-out of LENR to a more suitable time for their other investments, allowing them to claim total control of “other” independently obtained technology that they may develop when and if they want, and saving 89mill. You may have noticed that IH is not a manufacturing company and so it’s not at all clear that they really intended to produce LENR devices. Of course, the opposite is also possible, e.g. IH is as pure as the driven snow and is only motivated by the highest intentions (OK perhaps that’s an exaggeration) and Rossi is/was a fraud or due to other reasons was unable/unwilling to transfer his IP to IH. Given all of the contradictory info in both directions, as well as the large amount of missing information, it’s hard to draw a definitive conclusion. However, I must admit that if one tends to be skeptical, and wonders why after 5 years his reactor still hasn’t been clearly validated then it would seem to be more likely that either there is no working reactor or at the very least he has still significant problems with reproducibility etc. (On the other hand IH was supposed to have conducted several validation tests before they handed him the $10 mill, so you might want to question their competence as well.)

    • DrD

      You seem to have completely overlooked the explanation held by most of us. I wonder how that’s possible.

  • Chapman

    “If what Rossi has is real then he needs to work harder than most to allay skepticism.”

    Why? That is an honest question. Why does Rossi need to address your skepticism? THAT’S what I keep asking, but I never get a simple answer…

    Come on Bruce. I am asking nicely, and with extreme care. I am not bashing, just asking, cause I don’t understand. Why?

    • Bruce__H

      I will reply by first telling you what I had in mid when I wrote this passage, then by answering more what I think you are trying to get at.

      Rossi faces skepticism from many people. More skepticism than most people face. He therefore has to work harder than others to overcome it. He has to work harder simply because, for whatever reason, there is more to overcome. That was my meaning when I wrote the passage.

      But I think you are asking WHY is the skepticism there. For me it is because of his past and present actions. Some things he has said in the past are complete puzzles. The disjunction between his remarks in the Krivit video and what one can see is an example. All the companies that supposedly had bought early ecats but are not longer mentioned is another. But also he just acts in a suspicious manner. Constantly! He always has plausible explanations … but why does he need them so often? He doesn’t want certain measurements made. People can’t enter a production facility. And on and on. People put this down to him being a cantankerous genius but this only cuts you so much slack. If he is suffering from this suspicion that he generates then he has only himself to blame.

  • Bruce__H

    I am totally on board with this. I would ask anyone who is interested to look at the video for themselves and try to match the steam that they see with Rossi’s claimed flow of water. I have suggested it to Engineer already if I recall correctly. If my calculations are wrong I would like to know about it!

    I have recently done a very similar calculation for the 1 MV test facility in Florida. I find that to accommodate Rossi’s claimed flow rate and outlet steam pressure there should be an outlet pipe almost 1 metre in diameter connecting the Ecat and the customer’s production facility. I welcome anyone who would care to make their own calculations and also could tell me if they know of the actual size of that pipe (I think it must be in some pictures).

  • DrD

    I’m puzzled. I thought we knew that Rossi didn’t use naturally occuring Li/Ni Istopes? If so the data would be useless. I suppose I must have miss-remembered that. Can any one confirm that with confidence?
    The other thing that puzzles me is the lack of actual mass data. Individual Li/Ni % say nothing about fusion whereas actual mass of each would seem to be invaluable to the cold fusion argument and to AR’s explanation when we see it. So, I wonder, was there fusion or not?

    • Engineer48

      Hi DrD,

      The patent doesn’t mention the use of non naturally occuring Li/Ni isotopes.

      • DrD

        Hi Engineer48
        Thanks for that.
        I’m not sure it proves it one way or the other but I agree, he probably did use naturally occuring forms based on the Lugano report as mentioned by Roland above. I think I may have been remembering the discussions Roland refers to in the MFMP threads.

        • TVulgaris

          This, however, is CLEARLY the case of the needs of the MOST running concurrent with the interests of an individual (AR) being over-ruled by a relatively small group (even the entire governmental system is only a few million, and inevitably it’s only a few dozen directly involved, who would only be running technical scenarios were they (or, much more likely, their superiors) not suborned by corporate control- or, like Cheney, authors of it)- so you’re correct, but not for the reasons you think.

    • Roland

      There was speculation regarding the impact of using specific isotopes, primarily nickel 62, as a leg up in getting the old style dogbone reactors fired up.

      There was speculation that part of the Hot-Cat iteration’s improved performance was due to running them with ‘pretreated’ fuel partially ‘consumed’ in a prior LENR run.

      What is known from the Lugano Report is that the initial isotope distributions for Ni & Li in the unused fuel taken prior to the run were of the natural distribution on the planet. The sample taken after the run had a non-natural distribution.

      Rossi’s reaction was interesting and suggests that the idea to check the isotope distribution, before and after, didn’t originate with him.

      Rossi was surprised to learn that the isotope distribution of Ni & Li had changed during the run and stated that this new fact had altered his thinking on what was transpiring during the reaction. Prior to these concrete new facts the main focus had been on the role of hydrogen in the reaction.

      There are a number of papers describing describing transmutation of elements, Mitsubishi et al, but I can’t recall any specific references to isotopic transmutations prior to the Lugano Report.

      There has been subsequent discussion, mainly on MFMP threads, examining whether there was any advantage to be gained by adding isotope ratios as yet another variable to their experiments, Bob Greenyer would be your best bet to learn if it’s been tried yet.

      The data we’ve been presented is a limited sub-set of a larger body of data, but it does indicate that the unused fuel contains Ni & Li in the natural isotope distribution.

      I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a plethora of fuel related data, including precise mass balances across various fuel compositions, gathered during the first opportunity to acquire data from a multi reactor plant running more or less continuously for a year; obviously we only have a limited window to peer through so far. I ballparked the neutron count to see if there were enough to go around…

      The direct discussions of fusion, as in ‘cold fusion’, arises from the very early apparatuses that did, according to the instrumentation, fuse deuterium into helium. The COP of these apparatuses were extremely modest and they relied upon relatively expensive materials.

      The ‘Italian School’, centred at the University of Bologna, had already been experimenting with Ni & H apparatuses when Rossi showed up there and demonstrated a primitive device with a significantly higher COP than the first generation designs; most of the LENR field tacked in the new direction.

      I’m not aware of any reports, or even rumours, that any of the E-cat iterations transmute hydrogen to helium. The term ‘cold fusion’ is rarely used now and we’re on to ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reactions’ and a few similar rubrics.

      So as to your question of whether or not there is fusion in the classical sense of that word; Rossi has more data than anyone on the planet and is still quite busy adapting to a growing body of phenomena.

      If you read up on Quarks, the ‘particles’, you might, or might not, gain insight into his current predispositions on the matter.

      • DrD

        Hi Roland,
        Thanks for that very detailed summary. It’s not easy to keep track especially as things change (and my grey matter ages), many different approaches (eg Mills etc) and theories evolving. We may be dealing with more than one “unknown” source for the excess energy. There might be a common mechanism with diffferent theoretical interpretations but I think I bend towards the former.
        Much appreciated.

        • Roland

          We were in multiple pathways almost straight out of the gate and we haven’t even included entire alternate modalities such as cavitation in this list.

          There have been proposals that postulate that the observable universe in all its subtleties is an emergent property of an underlying continuum from which perspective our continuum is unified in all its aspects.

          Nobel Laureate David Bohm likened our situation to holography; we inhabit the emergent properties of an ‘explicate’ order equivalent to the protected holographic image when you apply the correct LASER to a holographic plate; the holographic plate itself is a wholly non-representational medium storing the projectable image as unreadable moire patterns.

          Bohm labeled this the ‘implicate’ order.

          This is, at one level, just another appeal to ‘the’ technical metaphor of the age, and at another level it has, relatively recently, spurred on groups of researchers very determined to keep doing science with creative tools that will cope with phenomena even if the phenomena lie outside the previous paradigms.

          Rossi is, in my estimation, such a person.

      • wpj

        Early reports from Rossi suggested that the nickel was being converted to copper, but it now appears that was an erroneous result.

        He has mentioned measuring helium before now, but I don’t know if it has ever been done.

        I believed that he was aware of the isotope changes, but he was surprised at the extent of the transformation in the Lugano test (though it was just that small particle which may not have been representative of the bulk). Maybe I was mistaken.

        What most of us were unaware of was that lithium was also being used in the mixture rather than just nickel and LAH.

        • Roland

          Please do note that I’m largely drawing on memory and, in the case of Rossi’s surprise at the isotope distribution, openly speculating. Do feel free to address any errors and omissions on my part.

          The Lugano Report mentions the presence of trace He in the body of the text but stops short of attributing that to the reaction as there were insufficient controls in place to positively identify the source. This implies that there may be other analytical data that wasn’t included in the report regarding various identified trace elements (more speculation on my part).

          There are simulations of both the Lugano and the current Ni & Li isotopic distributions at the link below that are in good agreement with the data; this suggests that another useful data point would be the elapsed run time, of the recent reaction, at which the sample was pulled.

          http://heliorite.com/LENR/LENT_simulations_nickel_E-Cat.pdf

    • Rene

      Nowadaysthere is no naturally occurring Li isotope ratios since the superpowers sucked the Li6 out of the earth for fusion bombs. It is also why there is so much cheap lithium grease available 🙂

  • DrD

    I’m puzzled. I thought we knew that Rossi didn’t use naturally occuring Li/Ni Istopes? If so the data would be useless. I suppose I must have miss-remembered that. Can any one confirm that with confidence?
    The other thing that puzzles me is the lack of actual mass data. Individual Li/Ni % say nothing about fusion whereas actual mass of each would seem to be invaluable to the cold fusion argument and to AR’s explanation when we see it. So, I wonder, was there fusion or not?

    • Engineer48

      Hi DrD,

      The patent doesn’t mention the use of non naturally occuring Li/Ni isotopes.

      • Gunnar Lindberg

        The patent doesn’t mention any nuclear reaction, only chemical reactions is described. The source of the huge energy released is a mystery.

      • DrD

        Hi Engineer48
        Thanks for that.
        I’m not sure it proves it one way or the other but I agree, he probably did use naturally occuring forms based on the Lugano report as mentioned by Roland above. I think I may have been remembering the discussions Roland refers to in the MFMP threads.

    • Roland

      There was speculation regarding the impact of using specific isotopes, primarily nickel 62, as a leg up in getting the old style dogbone reactors fired up.

      There was speculation that part of the Hot-Cat iteration’s improved performance was due to running them with ‘pretreated’ fuel partially ‘consumed’ in a prior LENR run.

      What is known from the Lugano Report is that the initial isotope distributions for Ni & Li in the unused fuel taken prior to the run were of the natural distribution on the planet. The sample taken after the run had a non-natural distribution.

      Rossi’s reaction was interesting and suggests that the idea to check the isotope distribution, before and after, didn’t originate with him.

      Rossi was surprised to learn that the isotope distribution of Ni & Li had changed during the run and stated that this new fact had altered his thinking on what was transpiring during the reaction. Prior to these concrete new facts the main focus had been on the role of hydrogen in the reaction.

      There are a number of papers describing describing transmutation of elements, Mitsubishi et al, but I can’t recall any specific references to isotopic transmutations prior to the Lugano Report.

      There has been subsequent discussion, mainly on MFMP threads, examining whether there was any advantage to be gained by adding isotope ratios as yet another variable to their experiments, Bob Greenyer would be your best bet to learn if it’s been tried yet.

      The data we’ve been presented is a limited sub-set of a larger body of data, but it does indicate that the unused fuel contains Ni & Li in the natural isotope distribution.

      I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a plethora of fuel related data, including precise mass balances across various fuel compositions, gathered during the first opportunity to acquire data from a multi reactor plant running more or less continuously for a year; obviously we only have a limited window to peer through so far. I ballparked the neutron count to see if there were enough to go around…

      The direct discussions of fusion, as in ‘cold fusion’, arises from the very early apparatuses that did, according to the instrumentation, fuse deuterium into helium. The COP of these apparatuses were extremely modest and they relied upon relatively expensive materials.

      The ‘Italian School’, centred at the University of Bologna, had already been experimenting with Ni & H apparatuses when Rossi showed up there and demonstrated a primitive device with a significantly higher COP than the first generation designs; most of the LENR field tacked in the new direction.

      I’m not aware of any reports, or even rumours, that any of the E-cat iterations transmute hydrogen to helium. The term ‘cold fusion’ is rarely used now and we’re on to ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reactions’ and a few similar rubrics.

      So as to your question of whether or not there is fusion in the classical sense of that word; Rossi has more data than anyone on the planet and is still quite busy adapting to a growing body of phenomena.

      If you read up on Quarks, the ‘particles’, you might, or might not, gain insight into his current predispositions on the matter.

      • DrD

        Hi Roland,
        Thanks for that very detailed summary. It’s not easy to keep track especially as things change (and my grey matter ages), many different approaches (eg Mills etc) and theories evolving (Sapogin et al). We may be dealing with more than one “unknown” source for the excess energy. There might be a common mechanism with diffferent theoretical interpretations but I think I bend towards the former.
        Much appreciated.
        Edit: yes, I appreciate “cold fusion” gave way to LENR but there’s a little part of me would like to see proof that it occurs not that it really matters.
        I didn’t realise his explanation links to Quarks (the particle).

        • Roland

          We were in multiple pathways almost straight out of the gate and we haven’t even included entire alternate modalities such as cavitation in this list.

          There have been proposals that postulate that the observable universe in all its subtleties is an emergent property of an underlying continuum from which perspective our continuum is unified in all its aspects.

          Nobel Laureate David Bohm likened our situation to holography; we inhabit the emergent properties of an ‘explicate’ order equivalent to the protected holographic image when you apply the correct LASER to a holographic plate; the holographic plate itself is a wholly non-representational medium storing the projectable image as unreadable moire patterns.

          Bohm labeled this the ‘implicate’ order.

          This is, at one level, just another appeal to ‘the’ technical metaphor of the age, and at another level it has, relatively recently, spurred on groups of researchers very determined to keep doing science with creative tools that will cope with phenomena even if the phenomena lie outside the previous paradigms.

          Rossi is, in my estimation, such a person.

      • wpj

        Early reports from Rossi suggested that the nickel was being converted to copper, but it now appears that was an erroneous result.

        He has mentioned measuring helium before now, but I don’t know if it has ever been done.

        I believed that he was aware of the isotope changes, but he was surprised at the extent of the transformation in the Lugano test (though it was just that small particle which may not have been representative of the bulk). Maybe I was mistaken.

        What most of us were unaware of was that lithium was also being used in the mixture rather than just nickel and LAH.

        • Roland

          Please do note that I’m largely drawing on memory and, in the case of Rossi’s surprise at the isotope distribution, openly speculating. Do feel free to address any errors and omissions on my part.

          The Lugano Report mentions the presence of trace He in the body of the text but stops short of attributing that to the reaction as there were insufficient controls in place to positively identify the source. This implies that there may be other analytical data that wasn’t included in the report regarding various identified trace elements (more speculation on my part).

          There are simulations of both the Lugano and the current Ni & Li isotopic distributions at the link below that are in good agreement with the data; this suggests that another useful data point would be the elapsed run time, of the recent reaction, at which the sample was pulled.

          http://heliorite.com/LENR/LENT_simulations_nickel_E-Cat.pdf

      • Chapman

        I would like to see the mole ratio of nickel vs lithium in the samples. All we have are isotopic distributions within each element. There is no indication of overall Lithium depletion rates.

        The isotopic shifts described in this report, if true, lead to one conclusion.

        Proton enrichment of the L7 to B8, which decays to two Alphas at over 90keV. These penetrate the nickel nuclei causing up-shifts from 58 and 60 to 62. Alpha absorption by Nickel 58, for instance, transmutes to Zinc 62, which decays with a 9 hour half life to Copper 62, with a half life of only 9 minutes, decaying to nickel 62. The protons in the absorbed Alpha absorb electrons, emit positrons, and just become two additional neutrons in the Nickel nucleus. This is all well understood, but that’s a lot of heat being dumped into the nickel! Trace quantities of the transitional Zinc and Copper would have been detected, but at such a low count as to be easily attributed to contamination from the reactor vessel itself.

        And those cast off Positrons, well – they are gonna collide with orbiting or conduction band free electrons, and that’s even more heat, and pretty light show… Think about it.

        Anyway, the specific percentages of Nickel vs Lithium relative to sample size is not given, only percentages of isotopic distributions for each discrete element. I suspect the total population of lithium was greatly reduced, but that data is not displayed here. There should have been an additional reduction of L6 as it is lifted to B7 which decays after an hour to L7, but again, all we have is final relative percentages. What we need to know is the total DECREASE of Lithium, then we can do the math…

        Realizing that this is all proton-mitigated, please consider the electrical and magnetic effects. We do not get to see the effects of Protons as majority current carriers in solid-state electronics. There is little to go on! Aside from high energy plasma physics you don’t get to witness free protons playing around in an artificial conduction band.

        I strongly suspect that Rossi is harvesting electrical power not by using the Quark as an “electron-fountain” as Axil theorizes – basically decomposing nucleons down to electrons and casting off the rest of the nucleon mass as waste heat – but rather he is tapping POWER. EMF. That is, he is harvesting Voltage, not current. The participation of Protons in the carrier pool might be resulting in an asymmetrical Impedance. That is, the counter-EMF created by each electron in the heater/stimulator (tickler) coil may be greater than the initial EMF, probably due to the 2000 greater mass of the proton over the electron, and the fact that those protons are being bounced against the coulomb barrier of those super hot nickel atoms. The rebound imparts additional energy to the protons, and a magnified counter-EMF results. Again, those free protons running amok and playing in the conduction band as free majority carriers is a rather unique situation. Who knows what other amazing things we might find.

        So, if what I am thinking is true, Rossi must have found that a scope on his tickler was showing two things – a slight deformation of the original sine wave, probably flattened at the top and pointed at the bottom extent, but more importantly the ground reference seems to be off. The distortion causes a negative sweep much greater than the positive. This will never show on a meter, as you are averaging peak-to-peak. A simple gating rectifier setup to port the negative half of the input to a dummy load, and direct the negative backstroke from the tickler through an isolation transformer would easily isolate and harvest that EMF gain. But the output wave would be 180 degrees out of phase to the tickler’s control signal, so maybe that is why Rossi says it can not self-stimulate. Also, it may explain the cryptic answers Rossi was giving Engineer as to AC or DC. The output is a pulsing DC half wave going in to the primary of the of the isolation transformer, but the secondary’s output is AC, but that could easily be regulated to a clean DC.

        But what is really impressive is that it requires no mod to the E-Cat. He is just mucking around with the control circuitry and harvesting a voltage amplification via a self-induction kickback.

        Clamping the tickler with a Tuned Tank Circuit could have some dramatic effects. I can’t wait to see!

        • Roland

          I’m still processing the post as a whole, and doing some reading.

          I do have a couple of early observations.

          The exact mass balances of all the detectable elements and isotopes would be very revealing which makes it unlikely that we’ll see them via Rossi himself, so if this information arrives at our table at some future date the likelihood that Rossi completely approves of this action seems low.

          An isotopic analysis of trace Zn and Cu that demonstrated that Zn 62 and, especially, Cu 62 were present would be a very strong indication that your proposed mechanism is correct as there could be no other explanation for their presence.

          In so far as the Lugano Report speculates on this reaction path, with significant provisos, these tests may already have been done. This information would probably also be seen as proprietary for similar reasons given for the lack of mass balance information.

          I’m in complete agreement with your speculation that the major gains in performance of E-cats and the Quark revolve around the control circuitry with a major breakthrough occurring with the development of the ‘driver’ for the Quark.

          As you probably know I’m enamoured of the thought that the threshold requirements for the reaction are being lower by the application of EMF resonance effects.

          The other niggling thought is that its probably not physically possible to heat a Quark up to operational temperature and have it start in a couple of seconds without melting something more than the fuel; a plot of the input energy at start up would be another very useful data point we probably won’t be seeing any time soon.

          I’ll have to puzzle over the ‘floating’ protons and may get nowhere…

          • Chapman

            Yeah, you and me both. The thought of accurately modelling a conducting environment which includes two separate mobile carriers with opposite charges AND disparate masses makes my frontal lobes throb. Then, trying to visualize the Magnetic field effects FROM that complex current – that requires a few aspirin and a shot of something over 90 proof.

            Also, don’t fixate on the specific isotopic sequence I quoted. It is just one example. My point there was that ALL the shifts (all those shown in the report, and all those NOT shown, but a logical result of the proposed mechanism) are completely within expected norms, and fit existing models. There are no new discoveries required to account for what is happening with regards to the isotopic shifts and transmutation. LENR, and the E-Cat, present no Brave New World of transmutation and Magic. It’s all well understood – hell, almost mundane.

            Oh, one last thought: On the heating topic, check the Curie temp of nickel! There is a little effect there that may help… I hope I “Induce” good thoughts. 🙂

          • Chapman

            Roland,

            Any luck looking at the Nickel Curie temp? It is a topic I was considering a while back, when I was actually focused on trying to follow the most likely series of experiments Rossi must have followed to get to this point – and what we know he would have discovered, and incorporated, from each trial. My question then was, “Was he playing with frequency for one reason (guess), and discovered a surprising effect that that EMF/RF stimulation had in a totally different context(AHAAA!!!)???”

        • Ted-Z

          I think that you are mostly right. However, I think that the electricity in Quark-X goes between the core (1 mm hot nickel alloy), via hydrogen plasma to the tungsten outer shell. Rossi enigmatically mentioned that the tungsten shell is not only serving as a radiation protection. I believe that the tungsten shell is just one pole of the (pulsed) DC current. Meta-stable isotopes are likely to be the intermediates in the side-reactions, that is “aneutronic” isotope transmutations, which could also contribute some energy. The main reaction is most likely the way that you have described above (lithium-based).
          PROBLEM SOLVED. 🙂
          Let we call it the “Chapman-Ted Theory” (your contribution is bigger). 🙂

          • Chapman

            You may well be right! All I am trying to do is narrow the speculations to the range of things supported by the facts and existing observations. As Engineer would Say – KISS. (that’s real wisdom, right there! and is separate from, and rarer than, “book learnin’ “. Thank you Engineer!)

            If I thought I had the answer nailed down and all the problems solved, well, I wouldn’t be here throwing it all out for free!!! 🙂 I am only proposing ideas to steer the conversation back on the path laid out by the evidence, nothing more. I am just a landscaper – what do I know about physics!

          • Ted-Z

            In my opinion, the principle of Quark-X is like in the sketch below:

          • Ted-Z

            Somehow, the sketch disappeared, so I am posting it again. Somehow, the sketch disappeared, so I am posting it again. I am not saying that it must be right.

          • Chapman

            Interesting. I applaud you for taking the time to sketch it out! Talk is cheap, show me a graphic!!!

            So… Are the liberated electrons that create the supplemental current strictly those stripped from the hydrogen? How many electrons are there in 1 Ampere of current? How much hydrogen, by volume, would be needed to produce the 20 percent total power output that is electrical, over a year’s continuous use? That might give us a minimum unit size, simply as a matter of the required hydrogen to be stored in the initial charge.

            We should do some math and see if it is feasible. But either way, you rock for having stepped up with a reasonable proposal, rather than just passively sit back and attack the insights of others. I look forward to crunching some numbers with you and see what we discover.

          • Ted-Z

            Chapman, Some of my number crunching:
            * Are the liberated electrons that create the supplemental current strictly those stripped from the hydrogen?
            — No, I think that the electrons result from ionization by more energetic particles (alpha?).
            * How many electrons are there in 1 Ampere of current?
            — 1 Amere = 1 mol of electrons/95000 = 6.6x10E18
            at 10 V potential, 1A will give 10 W power
            * How much hydrogen, by volume, would be needed to produce the 20 percent total power output that is electrical, over a year’s continuous use?
            — 6.6x10E18 electrons corresponds to 0.4 cm3 H2 at 1 bar (based on the molar volume of gases), assuming that each molecule of H2 contributes one electron;
            I think that the electrons are recycled, with the driving force being emission from the hot core (1mm dia x 30 mm length) with an additional driving force being the difference in the temperatures (core vs. tungsten shell) and some other mechanism. That additional mechanism is not clear to me, but possibly it is the back EMF/induced EMF – please note that the partly ionized H2 is a conductor and that it will get some induced current due to the external coil.
            The calculation corresponds (as to the order of magnitude) to the “specifications” of Quark-X.
            * We should do some math and see if it is feasible.
            ———————————
            * I look forward to crunching some numbers with you and see what we discover.
            — The mechanism of generation of a potential between the core and the tungsten shell might be of interest… perhaps this could be related to some unexplained behaviors of the sun’s corona…and the magnetic disturbances on the sun? Or the alpha particles are stimulated by the electric field to a preferential direction after breaking away from the nucleus?
            —————————————————
            I do not have everything nailed down and I do not have any capacity (read:$$$) to do it myself, so I am throwing these ideas “pro publico bono” (for the good of all).

          • Chapman

            Doing great so far!

            Now we know a few key things… 1 amp of current, sourced via electrons stripped from hydrogen atoms, requires roughly 1/2 cubic centimeter of hydrogen gas. That’s PER SECOND! 30 cubic cm per minute, 1800 cubic cm per hour, 43,200 cubic centimeters per day = means just shy of 16 million cubic centimeters of hydrogen has – in a quark 1mm in diameter? That exceeds even the miraculous storage capacity nickel has for hydrogen by orders of magnitude. Also, we must consider that the hydrogen we have to work with comes bound in a LiAlH molecule, out of which the hydrogen mass contribution is only a few percent the total, and we quickly see that path is a dead end. But we PROVED it with math and reason, not arbitrary disagreement. We discovered an answer by cooperative analysis!

            So we have eliminated the fuel as an electron source for additional output current. That is good. I can see no way to pack that much hydrogen into the physical device. I am glad that is not the path you were going down! I just had a similar discussion with someone else who had an idea to “generate” electrons… doesn’t work that way.

            We can be sure of few things, but here is one we can count on: A current of Electrons pass through the Quark via a complete circuit, with an input and an output, and they are picking up additional energy as an increase in voltage BEHIND the unaltered current rate. This is important, because it restricts the CAUSE to a field of force, rather than any direct particle interaction. Remember, every elimination of a possibility in a logic puzzle like this is nearly as key as actually observing a single provable fact. We narrow the list of suspects, and eventually we will catch the bastard!

    • Rene

      Nowadaysthere is no naturally occurring Li isotope ratios since the superpowers sucked the Li6 out of the earth for fusion bombs. It is also why there is so much cheap lithium grease available 🙂

  • SG

    My take is that he was in need of money at that time to continue his pursuits with the e-Cat. Investors usually have significant negotiating power over the inventor. And he had just come off of a very bad experience with the Greeks, and needed to find redemption. All of these likely played into the fact that Mr. Rossi basically got the short end of the stick with this deal. And IH is now twisting the knife.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bachcole,

    I believe it happened like this::

    Alan’s source –> Alan.
    V
    ????
    V
    Eng48’s source –> Eng48 –> Frank.

  • Observer

    Just because a master craftsman shows his apprentice how something is done does not mean that the apprentice can immediately do the task as well as the master craftsman.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting new analysis:
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3434-Document-Isotopic-Composition-of-Rossi-Fuel-Sample-Unverified/?postID=28555#post28555

    “Birger
    @Erik Walker
    I have prepared a brief summary with some simulated data:

    http://heliorite.com/LENR/LENT_simulations_nickel_E-Cat.pdf .

    The result is interesting but prove nothing. You are welcome to discuss it but without my participation. The E-Cat-related discussions tend to be negative, emotional and time-consuming.”

    • Rene

      It suggests that a simulation where a few neutrons (or protons) are added yields isotope ratios similar to the Lugano ash. Assuming good CoC on the ah, I guess this says that the the fuel mix and composition is for the most part externally aneutronic.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Rene,

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

        Rossi did mention propulsion:
        http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/tarditi_aneutronic_fusion.html

        Looks like there is now no need for the lasers to excite the reaction:
        https://youtu.be/Dy0kHQASsX8

        Engage?

        • Thomas Kaminski

          I question the use of “fusion” since the reaction produces 3-helium from 1-Boron plus a proton. Is this not “fission”?

          It is clearly without neutrons.

        • LuFong

          Frank: what makes you say that this ” looks to be an analysis of isotopic changes in the Rossi fuel following the 1 year E-Cat plant test.” Could it be a redo of the analysis of the Lugano ash or do you have specific information indicating that this is 1MW plant test ash? Thanks.

          • Engineer48

            Hi LuFong,

            The data came from me.

            From further shared info, I certain the ash was from the 1MW 1 year reactor. Alan Smith on LENR-Forum has also stated this.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Sorry, you are not making sense, that is what the suit is about Rossi’s “partner” forgot to pay him, and also forgot to keep his IP confidential. Why should any partner of Rossi be entitled to more than a modest profit for manufacturing the E-Cat? Why do you want a partner like GE or IH to make huge amounts of money charging us, the average citizen, large amounts for LENR?

      • Gerard McEk

        Can you explain why this points to an anutronic reaction, René?

        • Rene

          I wrote “…for the most part externally aneutronic”. There can be protons or neutrons in the lattice undergoing capture. They are just not getting out. The before/after ash analysis suggests that is happening, e.g., Ni getting up converted to lower energy Ni62. And, given no copious neutrons have been detected, externally (outside the reactor capsule) no neutron flux. I don’t consider one or two neutrons in hours as a flux.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting new analysis:
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3434-Document-Isotopic-Composition-of-Rossi-Fuel-Sample-Unverified/?postID=28555#post28555

    “Birger
    @Erik Walker
    I have prepared a brief summary with some simulated data:

    http://heliorite.com/LENR/LENT_simulations_nickel_E-Cat.pdf .

    The result is interesting but prove nothing. You are welcome to discuss it but without my participation. The E-Cat-related discussions tend to be negative, emotional and time-consuming.”

    http://www.heliorite.com

    • Rene

      It suggests that a simulation where a few neutrons (or protons) are added yields isotope ratios similar to the Lugano ash. Assuming good CoC on the ash, I guess this says that the the fuel mix and composition is for the most part externally aneutronic.

      • Chapman

        The process is clearly aneutronic. You are right.

        If you think about it, everything “E-Cat” we have seen is regarding an electrically stimulated and electrically controlled reaction. There is a fixation on neutrons going around that does not fit the operating conditions being described. Neutrons are, well, neutral! They are not subject to electromagnetic deflection or control. You cannot regulate a fission reactor with an electrical or magnetic input. You have to use a physical dampening agent, like carbon, and basically put something in the neutron’s path to stop or absorb it. Fission reactors are machines, with mechanical actuations. An E-Cat is solid-state. No moving parts. Entirely electrically and magnetically manipulated. That means the active elements causing the observed phenomena must, by simple deduction, be sensitive to electrical fields, which means they themselves must BE electrically charged. It is a simple 1 2 3 logical deduction. Those active elements may be electrons, protons, or charged pions and muons, but they are definitely NOT neutrons. I do not understand why everyone does not grasp this fact in a matter of moments. The logic is inescapable.

        And to date, there is no indication of significant neutron emissions. That is actually one of the reasons the device is labeled a fraud, because “fusion” could not be taking place without some heavy neutron action, and a lot of incidental neutronic leakage. But there is none – so fusion is not taking place.

        In the actual e-cat we have an aneutronic reaction chain, where the only time neutrons are needed they are internally generated by the nuclei, and stay there.

        • wpj

          I thought that MFMP were specifically looking for neutrons (and claim to have found them).

          Also what about the huge detection spike in one of the early tests by an observer (can’t remember the name) – what was this?

          • Chapman

            A spike at the point of “ignition” may be nothing more than burning out debri, so to speak. I would also expect a small, and fairly low energy, release of neutrons simply from the natural occurrence of deuterium contaminating the hydrogen, but they pose no problems to us, or the reaction. They are just hitchhikers, waiting to be let off at the next exit. They are inert and harmless and that level.

            The spike is just like the big puff of smoke my truck coughs out when it kicks over. But once its running its all smooth power. But the change from AT-Rest to Operational-Equilibrium can be a rough transition.

            The point is that aside from those in the Alpha particles, any observed neutrons are just an ash. A pollution. They are not the direct result of, nor do they contribute to, the main sequence of reactions in the E-Cat model.

          • wpj

            So where does this leave MFMP and their insights?

          • Roland

            Well behind Rossi as they’re still hoping for COPs he attained almost a decade ago (excepting Me 356 who is peripheral to MFMP and has gone private).

            None the less the effort they’re making is definitely worthwhile and may well lead to insights that have not occurred to others; it’s very early in the game.

          • Chapman

            Quite well! This is right along the path Bob Greenyer has been presenting on.

            Piantelli proposed the Hydrogen Ion Capture hypothesis, but whether the hydrogen gets collapsed to a neutron, or ripped apart and becoming an energetic proton source is the question.

            Evidence is mounting pointing to the later. But MFMP research is key to understanding it. Have you seen Bob’s “Heavy” presentation? Give it a look…

          • Chapman

            Allowing the observation of a few detectable neutrons being emitted to lead one to the conclusion that LENR must be a neutron-centric reaction sequence is like concluding that the Bovine species has a Methane based metabolism, based on an analysis of Cow Farts.

            Such illogic would be udderly ridiculous. 🙂

          • Roland

            And burps, don’t forget the burps…

          • Chapman

            Pardon me…

          • Roland

            Hi wpj,

            A singular brief gamma spike was observed by the instruments set up by Focardi during a test of a very early iteration of the reactor. As there are no reports subsequent to this with the E-cat series it may have been an artifact of that particular setup that was addressed in later designs.

            In these early experiments the thinking was that the reaction produced gamma radiation that was thermalized into heat within the reactor and the reactors were encased in lead as a precautionary measure.

            There were also statements given by Rossi in 2010-11 that a transmutation of Ni to Cu had been observed though there was no mention, that I’ve found, of an isotopic analysis of the Cu.

            Trying to analyze the significance of these early observations leads in multiple directions:

            Were the observations mistaken?

            Were the observations correct but particular to the specific apparatuses?

            Are there multiple pathways that the LENR reaction can take with similar fuel compositions depending on other initial conditions giving rise to anomalous results?

            The MFMP endeavour, and particularly Me 356, will probably shed some light on these issues and MFMP experimentors are the only ones likely to share all the data they acquire.

            If the current generation of E-cats and Quarks still produce high energy radiation that’s detectable outside the devices this hasn’t reached our ears.

            No external radiation was detected during the Lugano run, nor was there any residual radiation detected in either the used fuel or the apparatus immediately after the end of the run.

        • Ted-Z

          Perhaps meta stable nuclei (external ring of neutrons near the nuclei) exchanging neutrons on collisions? Why nobody here is noticing a possibility of the meta-stable nuclei being the mechanism for the isotope transmutation reactions without radiation? The blue light is consistent with this assumption (you can call it Ted’d theory). 🙂
          The meta-stability of nucleus is a new finding, but it is now well established in the standard/orthodox nuclear physics.

          • tED-z

            Neutron-neutral isotope transmutations are a strong indication of the meta-stable nuclei as THE LENR MECHANISM.
            Perhaps Frank Ackland could make it into a new thread.
            I THINK THAT THE FINDING THAT LENR TRANSMUTATIONS ARE “ANEUTRONIC” IS THE KEY TO EXPLAINING THE MECHANISM OF LENR.

          • Chapman

            Not to nitpick, but just to keep things in perspective…

            The transmutation model report cited by Engineer does not PROVE the reactions are aneutronic, but rather show that the transmutation sequence from neutron action results in identical isotopic shifts as those resulting from proton action.

            It means that we do not need to have a kneejerk reaction of declaring “it must be neutrons at work” when we observe isotopic shifts and transmutations. Proton bombardment, and a cascade of secondary reactions resulting from such, are equally plausible. The only determining evidence will be the presence, or absence, of significant neutron emissions/leakage. Without those emissions you should cash in those savings bonds and bet on proton and alpha bombardment.

          • Chapman

            I understand the idea of energy produced from the decay of metastable nuclei from the excited state to ground state, but where does the energy come from to pump the nuclei into the excited metastable state come from? Unless you are proposing that metastable nuclei are being introduced already in an excited state via the initial fuel mix, then any shifting of nuclei states from ground, to excitation, and back to ground are entirely within the energy budget already residing in the reactor environment, so no net energy gain could be derived.

            What am I missing? I am sure I am dropping the ball here. Help me out?

          • Chapman

            OK Ted, I think I have a better understanding of what you were saying now – I hope!

            So, are you suggesting simply that metastable nuclei transitions may be happening in the reactor that serve as intermediate energy conversion steps? And that they do not produce energy as a net gain, but rather couple two separate reactions by converting the final energy product of one reaction to an energy form required to trigger a separate reaction?

            So, is your proposal basically that the excitation and subsequent decay of metastable nuclei may serve in the reactor sequence a role identical to Argon and other gases in a gas Laser system, absorbing broad spectrum photons and re-emitting the energy as a single frequency product? Is that it? They are PASSIVE in terms of energy gain, but critical to the mechanics of the overall energy conversion sequence?

            I am working hard to think this through and give it due consideration. It is an interesting idea. I am just an apprentice pastry chef, but I try to follow current science developments. Give me time to further process your idea. In the meantime, keep working on that math problem regarding Hydrogen volume requirements…

      • Engineer48

        Hi Rene,

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneutronic_fusion

        Rossi did mention propulsion:
        http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/tarditi_aneutronic_fusion.html

        Looks like there is now no need for the lasers to excite the reaction plus you get electricity production & thrust:
        https://youtu.be/Dy0kHQASsX8

        Engage?

        • Thomas Kaminski

          I question the use of “fusion” since the reaction produces 3-helium from 1-Boron plus a proton. Is this not “fission”?

          It is clearly without neutrons.

      • Gerard McEk

        Can you explain why this points to an anutronic reaction, René?

        • Rene

          I wrote “…for the most part externally aneutronic”. There can be protons or neutrons in the lattice undergoing capture. They are just not getting out. The before/after ash analysis suggests that is happening, e.g., Ni getting up converted to lower energy Ni62. And, given no copious neutrons have been detected, externally (outside the reactor capsule) no neutron flux. I don’t consider one or two neutrons in hours as a flux.

    • Chapman

      HOT DAMN! There you go… See?

  • Roland

    I’m still processing the post as a whole, and doing some reading.

    I do have a couple of early observations.

    The exact mass balances of all the detectable elements and isotopes would be very revealing which makes it unlikely that we’ll see them via Rossi himself, so if this information arrives at our table at some future date the likelihood that Rossi completely approves of this action seems low.

    An isotopic analysis of trace Zn and Cu that demonstrated that Zn 62 and, especially, Cu 62 were present would be a very strong indication that your proposed mechanism is correct as there could be no other explanation for their presence.

    In so far as the Lugano Report speculates on this reaction path, with significant provisos, these tests may already have been done. This information would probably also be seen as proprietary for similar reasons given for the lack of mass balance information.

    I’m in complete agreement with your speculation that the major gains in performance of E-cats and the Quark revolve around the control circuitry with a major breakthrough occurring with the development of the ‘driver’ for the Quark.

    As you probably know I’m enamoured of the thought that the threshold requirements for the reaction are being lower by the application of EMF resonance effects.

    The other niggling thought is that its probably not physically possible to heat a Quark up to operational temperature and have it start in a couple of seconds without melting something more than the fuel; a plot of the input energy at start up would be another very useful data point we probably won’t be seeing any time soon.

    I’ll have to puzzle over the ‘floating’ protons and may get nowhere…

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Or, along with their partners they want to deliberately delay LENR.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Rossi was looking for the “right” partner and Darden was making all the right noises, Rossi then realized he had been deceived.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Right, but who might that be? Who can he trust, remember his goal is to have a free market E-Cat, not one controlled by the money interests who are only interested in how much money they can make.

  • Ted-Z

    Perhaps meta stable nuclei (external ring of neutrons near the nuclei) exchanging neutrons on collisions? Why nobody here is noticing a possibility of the meta-stable nuclei being the mechanism for the isotope transmutation reactions without radiation? The blue light is consistent with this assumption (you can call it Ted’d theory). 🙂
    The meta-stability of nucleus is a new finding, but it is now well established in the standard/orthodox nuclear physics.

    • tED-z

      Neutron-neutral isotope transmutations are a strong indication of the meta-stable nuclei as THE LENR MECHANISM.
      Perhaps Frank Ackland could make it into a new thread.
      I THINK THAT THE FINDING THAT LENR TRANSMUTATIONS ARE “ANEUTRONIC” IS THE KEY TO EXPLAINING THE MECHANISM OF LENR.

    • Engineer48

      Interesting information confirming ash analysis has been done:

      “Sebastian
      July 14, 2016 at 5:57 AM
      Dear Andrea,

      I suppose you have obtained results from isotopic analysis of the ash from the 1MW plant.

      Do they coincide with the latest version of the theory you are developing?

      Many thanks
      S

      Andrea Rossi
      July 14, 2016 at 7:42 AM
      Sebastian:
      Yes.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.”

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        I agree and I have told Rossi so, he needs to partner with an industrial partner who will agree to build his E-Cat without trying to steal it. Rossi agrees but he has tried two companies and they both tried to steal his IP. Why do you think it fair the “money interests” should become “Rockefeller” rich using Rossi IP? Handing it over to the “Rockefeller” rich will mean LENR will cost the average Joe 10 times more than it should, why do you want this?

  • Engineer48

    Interesting information confirming ash analysis has been done:

    “Sebastian
    July 14, 2016 at 5:57 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    I suppose you have obtained results from isotopic analysis of the ash from the 1MW plant.

    Do they coincide with the latest version of the theory you are developing?

    Many thanks
    S

    Andrea Rossi
    July 14, 2016 at 7:42 AM
    Sebastian:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

  • wpj

    So where does this leave MFMP and their insights?

    • Roland

      Well behind Rossi as they’re still hoping for COPs he attained almost a decade ago (excepting Me 356 who is peripheral to MFMP and has gone private).

      None the less the effort they’re making is definitely worthwhile and may well lead to insights that have not occurred to others; it’s very early in the game.

  • Roland

    And burps, don’t forget the burps…

  • Ted-Z

    Chapman, Some of my number crunching:
    * Are the liberated electrons that create the supplemental current strictly those stripped from the hydrogen?
    — No, I think that the electrons result from ionization by more energetic particles (alpha?).
    * How many electrons are there in 1 Ampere of current?
    — 1 Amere = 1 mol of electrons/95000 = 6.6x10E18
    at 10 V potential, 1A will give 10 W power
    * How much hydrogen, by volume, would be needed to produce the 20 percent total power output that is electrical, over a year’s continuous use?
    — 6.6x10E18 electrons corresponds to 0.4 cm3 H2 at 1 bar (based on the molar volume of gases), assuming that each molecule of H2 contributes one electron;
    I think that the electrons are recycled, with the driving force being emission from the hot core (1mm dia x 30 mm length) with an additional driving force being the difference in the temperatures (core vs. tungsten shell) and some other mechanism. That additional mechanism is not clear to me, but possibly it is the back EMF/induced EMF – please note that the partly ionized H2 is a conductor and that it will get some induced current due to the external coil.
    The calculation corresponds (as to the order of magnitude) to the “specifications” of Quark-X.
    * We should do some math and see if it is feasible.
    ———————————
    * I look forward to crunching some numbers with you and see what we discover.
    — The mechanism of generation of a potential between the core and the tungsten shell might be of interest… perhaps this could be related to some unexplained behaviors of the sun’s corona…and the magnetic disturbances on the sun? Or the alpha particles are stimulated by the electric field to a preferential direction after breaking away from the nucleus?
    —————————————————
    I do not have everything nailed down and I do not have any capacity (read:$$$) to do it myself, so I am throwing these ideas “pro publico bono” (for the good of all).

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Right, will be “on the market” for how much?One cent under current market price, the balance of “savings” go right into the pockets of “money interests”, Trillions of dollars.

    • Gunnar Lindberg

      Yes, the first who use the e-cat tecnology will make lots of money. However, as we know, there is no other way to introduce LENR, to save the planet from overheating. A few secret Rossi customers will make no difference.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Turning it over to the oil companies will have the same result. It is my opinion they have been delaying research into LENR for 25 years. Rossi wants to develop an industry apart from these “money interests”, I tend to agree with his plan.

  • Engineer48

    A new post 1 year test ash analysis document has surfaced on NewVortex, showing the author is Bo Höistad.

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/messages/790

    File download here:
    http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?file_id=02747932063906224836&t=0274793206390622483690244

  • Engineer48

    At least everybody now knows the original ash info I shared with Frank was real and not something I or my source made up..

    • bachcole

      I never thought that. I was perfectly comfortable being in uncertainty to find it necessary to invent stories so that I didn’t have to endure the so-called cognitive dissonance so many seem to have to deal with when there aren’t easy explanations for things.