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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 !

  • 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

    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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.”

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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? 😉

  • 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?

  • 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…

  • 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 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 🙂

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.