Report: E-Cat Plant Isotope Analysis Data Came From Uppsala University

On the Yahoo group New Vortex, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax has posted a document that he says contains the original fuel analysis of the 1 year E-Cat that was posted on this site earlier this month (see this thread). Lomax writes:

I now have permission to upload the original file I received. The PDF shows the author as Bo Hoistad, one of the Lugano professors, who is at Uppsala University. The file title has that the sample was provided by Rossi, May 11, 2016, when he was apparently at Uppsala (along with Mats Lewan, who reports this on his blog).

The link to the document provided by Lomax is here (although I am not able to open the document here for some reason): https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/files/analysis_Rossi_fuel_sample_May_11.pdf

Engineer48 has sent me the document and it is available at this link: http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/analysis-Rossi-fuel-sample-May-111.pdf

The isotope measurements are the same as reported here earlier, but there is some additional information in this document which reads as follows:

“Isotope composition of a fuel sample obtained from Rossi May 11, 2016

“Preliminary results from a chemical analysis using the Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) method. The ICP-MS is an integrating method giving the average isotopic composition of the whole fuel/ash sample being analyzed. The analysis is made by Jean Pettersson, Inst of Chemistry-BMC, Analytical Chemistry, Uppsala
University”

We know from Mats Lewan that Andrea Rossi visited Sweden recently where he was reportedly looking at a factory building that could be bought for manufacturing E-Cats. It sounds like on this trip he could also have provided a fuel sample for analysis at Uppsala University.

  • nietsnie

    If it was a sample from the Florida test then the chain of custody is a long, cold, trail.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Unless the tester witnesses the test then extracts the sample themselves there is always a question mark hanging over the source of the sample.

      I suppose a better validation would be if the sample contains some balance not found in nature and not easily falsifiable. If there is such a thing.

      • Job001

        Disagree, perhaps a tiny question mark at worst. The sample shows such dramatic isotope change that the burden of proof falls upon the deniers now. Likewise the ash composition change during the original discovery of fission. This was also undeniable.

        • Yes, the scientific case has been made. The battle now falls to credibility and proving deception.

        • Warthog

          “The sample shows such dramatic isotope change that the burden of proof falls upon the deniers now.”

          Why should it?? The isotope data from both Mitsubishi and Toyota transmutation made not one iota of difference to the skeptopaths.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Warthog,

            Hard to get a person to accept that which their pay check demands is not acceptable.

      • Proof? No, you’re right it’s not.

        But it does force the deniers to allege another deception.

        • timycelyn

          The aggregate sum of deceptions that deniers are now de facto invoking for their view of Rossi and his technology to hold up, passed the “Utterly frikin’ ridiculous” event horizon sometime ago.

          They will continue to carp, and nit-pick individual events whilst never standing back to appreciate the massive totality of the huge body of evidence out there.

          I have long ago come to the conclusion that they would continue to deny the reality of a functioning hot cat (or quark X, I’m not fussy) even if a running one was forcefully inserted in to them….

      • nietsnie

        Exactly. Unless you can track the sample back to its origin, the result is meaningless. Not that it disproves anything – just that it doesn’t prove anything either. Its only value is in provoking endless discussion on LENR fan-boy sites.

        • Normal science does not require court of law type chain of custody documentation or proof. A scientist is usually taken at his word that a sample submitted for testing is a real sample.

          The standards applied here are abnormal for science and are only in play because the results are so unexpected.

          • nietsnie

            A scientist would normally publish a procedure to replicate the result. Rossi has not. That is the reason that everything is questioned. I get that there are potential good reasons, in this case, that he would not want to do that. But, that *is* the question: is Rossi for real or not? Prior to Lugano there was no evidence one way or the other – and yet some people absolutely believed and some absolutely denied. Now there’s some, at least, persuasive data. And we know that the Lugano sample was received at the time of the test by a neutral third party prior to analysis. That gives it a certain gravitas. This sample – we don’t know where it originated.

          • Agreed on most of that.

            Just don’t mistake Rossi for a scientist. He is an engineer, inventor, entrepreneur and industrialist. He does what he can with the science piece, but he is essentially an Edison that tried thousands of possible combinations until an affordable light bulb was possible.

            I totally understand why scientists are frustrated by all this. This is not good science so far. Not even close. But it’s still the story of the millennium… maybe.

          • nietsnie

            Really – the uproar is predictable. It is as if Rossi announced that he is in communication with Martians – with nothing tangible to back it up. Except that periodically he showed up with something: “This is one of their mittens – their sheep are just like ours; this is a Martian fork…”. Again, Lugano changes that. I see that he’s gotten something positive out of announcing prematurely. The publicity has made him some money and has made him famous – and synonymous with LENR. But, he must wish, periodically, that he hadn’t done it… yet. What a lot of hassle for him to have to live, year after year, under that scrutiny.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nietsnie,

            The Lugano team have stated Rossi obtained the sample from the Lugano reactor but was watched by all the members of the team. I suspect that reactor was not designed to have the fuel replaced and Rossi needed to cut into the reactor body to remove a sample and that was why Rossi needed to do the sample extraction as none of the team dared to break into the reactor.

            Here is how Parkhomov retrieved his latest samples. No way would the Lugano team break apart a reactor like that. Note the fuel/ash is no longer powder but is a mix of the melted Au and Li.

          • Mats002

            Au? I think Al.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            Fixed. thanks.

          • nietsnie

            I think you must misunderstand me, E48. I have no truck with the Lugano analysis. The neutral Lugano experimenters watched Rossi remove the sample and give it to them – and they took care of the analysis themselves. So, we know where it was the whole time. Whereas, this article is about an analysis of the ash from the Florida (1 year) test that was completed earlier this year. At least I think, as far as we know, this sample result arrived from Rossi out of the blue very recently. There were no (neutral) experimenters watching as it was extracted. So, what we have is the result of an analysis on some sample. We don’t know what the sample represents for sure – except that Rossi says it is from the Florida reactor.

            My point has been that since the primary question all along has been whether results Rossi says he gets are trustworthy or not, and since this particular (Florida) result seemingly requires trust in Rossi to be valuable in answering that question, then this result is pointless in getting to the bottom of it.

            Whereas the Lugano ash sample had a thorough chain of custody, this one disappears and then results for it re-appear later. Lugano added to the believability of Rossi’s results, and also to Rossi’s improved credibility, precisely because of that chain of custody through a neutral party. We can be pretty sure that nothing happened to the sample on its way to the lab.

            Conversely, given what we know about it so far, this one doesn’t add weight to either side of the balance because we have nothing but Rossi’s word that what was tested came from the Florida reactor – and the critical question is still, even with his improved post-Lugano credibility, whether we can trust Rossi or not.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nietsnie,

            Glad to see you understand all the Lugano team watched and videoed Rossi removing the sample. They knew now important that step was.

            What we do not know is if the same care was exercised in obtaining the sample from the 1 year reactor test. I suggest it is too early to make statements on that step until further data is revealed. Would add the analysis team and Rossi would realise the effect of a break in the ash sample chain on the overall credibility and so if there was a break, why even do the analysis and allow those involved to be publicly identified?

            As this leak was from Abd and how he spun it to imply Rossi obtained it without IH permission, says to me he knows the ash chain of custody is tight and he can not attack from that direction.
            .

          • nietsnie

            Yep. That’s what we know. The experiment ended. And then, months later, Rossi brought a sample to Uppsala for analysis. And, of course, we know the results of the test. What we don’t know is the origin of the sample.

            I don’t know Abd and so I guess I don’t have the same sense you do about what he must be thinking. To me, it would be nice to know where the sample was between the end of the experiment and May 8 – and who was watching it, who witnessed it’s extraction from the reactor, etc. I think that would potentially help Rossi’s credibility on it if he doesn’t say that it was stored in his sock drawer or something.

            Otherwise, it’s not bad information, but it doesn’t add to the general proof. The folks who are already sure Rossi always tells the truth will accept it; the ones who are already certain Rossi is lying won’t be any more convinced; and those of us in the middle awaiting compelling evidence will continue to be stuck here. Nothing will change.

            All that said – thanks for going out of your way to provide us with something new. I don’t relish being the guy who provides nothing but doubt. Good for you for bringing something positive.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Abd,

            Are my sources correct that you posted and outed the author of the analysis document, Bo Hoistad, but did not have his permission to do so?

            As Bo didn’t give you permission to post his document nor permission to expose him as the author, who did give you that permission and why Abd if that person was not Bo did you post the document?

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I do not plan to watch E-catworld, but Alan Smith, who also apparently received a copy of the file, as did Engineer48, mentioned this on lenr-forum.com in https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3479-Report-E-Cat-Plant-Isotope-Analysis-Data-Came-From-Uppsala-University/?postID=29595#post29595 . I have stated that I will give no information about how I obtained the document, and that I will not vouch for its authenticity.

            While some seem to be making inferences from that, they are not a part of the intended communication and could be counterfactual. I have not stated that Bo did not give permission.

            So, Engineer48, if you have information, how about you disclose your source? Did Bo give you permission to provide the contents of the document to Frank? Is Bo denying the authenticity of the document? Has Bo told you that I did not have his permission?

            However, one question I can answer. I posted the document because I expected that the actual document itself would be of interest. It apparently was. There seems to be some idea that there is something wrong with disclosing possibly confidential information (though nothing in the document says “confidential”), but nothing wrong with accusing people of lying and fraud without evidence, which happens routinely around here.

            I provided a document without any certification that what it contained was authentic. I simply passed on what was given to me. It is as if I found it in the street. Basically, if you want to know if it’s authentic, ask Bo! Or Pettersson. Or Rossi, but he’s already been asked, and his answer was evasive and misleading, obviously. Consider this a lesson in how to read Rossi. Watch out for implications that are not clear. He has not lied on this, AFAIK.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Abd,

            Thanks for the clarification that the person you claimed gave you permission to post the document and show it’s author was not the document’s author.

            The document I sent to Frank, which I removed the author, was not this document, nor did it have the same author. Even then Frank only posted the text from the document.

            Alan Smith’s comment to you on LENR-Forum is an interesting read:
            https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3479-Report-E-Cat-Plant-Isotope-Analysis-Data-Came-From-Uppsala-University/?postID=29604#post29604

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I have explicitly not stated that the person who gave me the document was not the author. I have given no information about who gave me the document, so “clarification” is weird.

            I wrote, you can see it above, “I have not stated that Bo did not give permission.” I’d think that would be clear.

            The document I posted appears to be an original document, the last modification is a few minutes after the creation. We already see here how people have edited original documents before passing them on, Engineer48 admits that, and if he is truthful, and if the document I put up is actually the original as immediately edited by the author, someone else also did this.

            I did not edit the document. I put it up as received.

          • LuFong

            You did say that the person who gave you the document received it anonymously. This pretty much implies that you’ve stated, although not explicitly, that the author did not give it to you.

            Thanks for doing so even though we still don’t really know what the results are for. There is too much connecting of dots with the Rossi story.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            Perhaps someone believes that every word is carefully thought out and fully corresponds with objective reality. That, however, is not objective reality. Hardly anyone is that careful. Perhaps someone is reading everything I wrote (which would be nice, actually). Frankly, I don’t care enough to look back and see what I wrote. I spent much of today looking into the history of Rossi’s Italian and German licensees, documented on newvortex. Much becomes obvious with study. Ciao.

          • nietsnie

            Here’s a question for you, E48. If Rossi and co. realize that chain of custody is important to being taken seriously, and therefore was careful to accomplish that at the end of the experiment (as he did at Lugano…) why not publish the Florida chain of custody at the same time he published the isotopic results? I think maybe we have to presume it doesn’t exist to be published.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nietsnie,

            I suggest, like Lugano, there is a solid chain of custody on the 1 year fuel sample.

            Plus by now the Swedish lab knows what used reactor fuel looks like and it is not the fine powder that it started out as.

            Here is what the fuel looks like after 1 month. A molten slag. No longer fine powder.
            .

          • nietsnie

            But – again E48: *if* chain of custody exists, and Rossi knows how critical it is to be taken seriously, why did he not publish it at the same time as the result?

            Why do you believe the appearance of the ash has anything to do with chain of custody?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nietsnie,

            We don’t know if the chain of custody for the Flordia test is in place or not, so lets not speculate. We do know it was intact for the Lugano test.

            I showed the ash results from the Parkhomov 1 month test to show the result is not ash, a fine powder, as some may think but instead a slag of molten metal.

          • nietsnie

            No, we don’t know if a convincing chain of custody exists or not. But, we do know that one wasn’t released with the Florida data – rendering it nearly useless. Since Rossi knows this, why would he release one without the other? I share your hope that one will be released – but do not share your enthusiasm for the possibility.

            Oh – I think I’m finally understanding why you keep bringing up the appearance of the sample. When I say ‘ash’ I don’t mean powder. Rather, I mean the spent end product of an energy-producing process.

            It doesn’t matter what state the sample was in prior to analysis. Powder or slag are easily converted to each other.

          • Yes, the ash came from the last test — the continuously powered one.

            You’d have to take up the second issue with the Lugano team. I don’t think anyone has paid much attention to that particular piece of analysis… or at least I haven’t.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Ophelia,

        There is more than just 62Ni involved.

        I suspect we have only seen the NI and Li changes and there are other changes not yet revealed.

        So I would suggest you hold fire until the entire per fuel and post fuel & ash analysis is available. And yes the post analysis is a mixture of the fuel and ash as the reactor was still producing excess energy prior to the fuel rod being withdrawn. BTW we can see the fuel rods in the reactor images.

    • Pweet

      Yes. I think we can have confidence in the composition of the sample being what Uppsala University said it was, but unfortunately, whether or not it was actually spent fuel from an ecat reactor of the 12 month test, is far more dubious.
      Of course it is always possible that it is, but it is also very possible that it isn’t, and that’s the problem. Twelve months locked away in a shipping container is more than enough time to bake up any recipe one would like, and made to look like it came from a reactor, particularly knowing what ingredients people might be looking for or expecting.
      I well recall how people were not expecting what the supposed ash sample of the Lugano test analysed as. I tend to think in that case the switch sample got switched once too often and we got a pure sample of one of the recipe ingredients rather than a sample of the final cake. That sort of thing can happen in a busy kitchen.
      Anyway, this long after the event, I don’t think there is any way around this uncertainty now which give any results the required level of surety necessary to establish proof of anything. Any sample produced will probably suffer from the same dubious provenance unless produced by a totally independent and un-involved party, and in this event, I don’t think such a person or party exists.
      It would still be interesting if IH could produce a sample which they had gathered very soon after the test and have it analysed though. I would probably have a bit more faith in that, so long as it has been in their custody all the time since being removed from a rector. Although I can well understand that all those on the Rossi side would have even less confidence in the validity of that, so still no proof of anything.
      So, all up, interesting from the point of view that it may be of some use if and when it can be compared with later samples from other reactors, but that’s all.

      • wpj

        If you can stand going through his diatribe (don’t know how he has the time to write so much), then he claims that this can’t be from the 1MW reactor as the fuel was never replaced as, when AR said that is was going to be done, the reactor was still operating and then it was padlocked.

        He doesn’t have anything nice to say about the people on this forum either. Read him once, but won’t bother again.

        • Warthog

          “……….he claims that this can’t be from the 1MW reactor as the fuel was never replaced as, when AR said that is was going to be done, the reactor was still operating and then it was padlocked.

          Since there were multiple reactors in use, as well as multiple spares on standby, switching one reactor out to off-load a fuel sample would have zero effect on continuing operation.

          • wpj

            I am not denying anything; he is!

            He quotes from this site where AR said something to the effect of “recharge in progress” and then extrapolates dates from that. Don’t believe it myself

          • Warthog

            “I am not denying anything; he is!”

            My comment was intended to be on Lomax’s assertion. Sorry for the confusion.

            But given the simple fact of the multiplicity of reactors working, Lomax’s comment is really, really stupid.

          • Pweet

            From the comments Mr Rossi made along the way, I don’t think a backup reactor was ever used. There were various times when a reactor was down but when asked (by Frank A. once I think) if the backups were used, the reply was in the negative. The only reason I remember this is because I thought it was really strange to have a whole 1MW of backup sitting there all ready to go, but when the time came to use some of it, it sat there unused. But then that was sort of consistent with all the other stuff which seems to happen totally contrary to expectations based on logical procedure.
            From what I can see, the only opportunity to take any spent fuel from a reactor would have been on the 16th Feb 2016 when Mr Rossi was supposedly about to change the fuel, but then the test ended the next day on the 17th Feb. So I suppose it is possible that he had actually started on one or two reactors and had some spent fuel from that. But I would have to say that even this scenario is strange because why would anyone be changing fuel in any reactors knowing the test was due to end in a day or two? All very strange, as is everything else ‘Rossi’.

          • Warthog

            Every implementation of the 1MW has always had spare reactors plumbed in and ready to go. Switching one reactor out and switching another in so as to get a sample is inherent in that arrangement, and could have been done at any time. The “two separate 1MW plants” were of the smaller and larger modules (10KW and 250KW).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Warthog,

            There were 4 slabs with 15 reactors in each slab.

            Should be simple to shut down 1 reactor and remove it’s fuel rod as there would still be 59 operational reactors.

            I believe we can see the fuel rod in this photo, which seems to have a securing collar. I assume you unscrew the securing collar and withdraw the fuel rod to the right?
            .

          • Mats002

            Could one of the two IH engineers take ash without AR knowing about it? Remember that AR spent 24/7 in the 1 MW plant.

            Except when he went to the concern Miami and [claimed by others] played tennis with his wife.

          • Mats002

            Edit: Concert in Miami.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            He did not sleep in the container. Said he had a room nearby to sleep in.

          • Mats002

            And noone of how many people got him???

            (And by the way I called you in this thread, look above)

  • nietsnie

    If it was a sample from the Florida test then the chain of custody is a long, cold, trail.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Unless the tester witnesses the test then extracts the sample themselves there is always a question mark hanging over the source of the sample.

      A quick search shows that you can easily buy 62Ni online.
      The samples are not a validation of the process.
      You must first accept the validity before the sample has any meaning.

      • Job001

        Disagree, perhaps a tiny question mark at worst. The sample shows such dramatic isotope change that the burden of proof falls upon the deniers now. Likewise the ash composition change during the original discovery of fission. This was also undeniable.

        • Yes, the scientific case has been made. The battle now falls to credibility and proving deception.

        • Bruce__H

          The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the extraordinary claim and that is clearly Rossi et al.

          Lomax makes the good point that the just released isotope percentages are very close to the Lugano results even though the 1 MW test ran for much longer than the Lugano test (so you would expect them to be different). Also, Dewey Weaver claims that samples taken from ecat experiments in Raleigh, when Rossi was not present, show zero change in isotopes. Zero! I think this suggests some fakery by Rossi.

          The 2 camps (IH and Rossi) are diverging more and more now and so it is crystal clear that someone is out and out lying. One is forced to decide who is credible. Life gets interesting!

          • One massive difference between the operating conditions of Lugano and the 1 MW plant was that the Lugano reactor was never run in self-sustain mode. It was driven the whole time. Meanwhile we can approximate that the 1 MW plant was in SSM the majority of the time.

            If the initial reaction causes the isotopic shifts then there would be more of it in the Lugano sample.

          • Bruce__H

            Hi LENR G:
            I don’t follow your reasoning here. If one adopts the point of view of the fuel charge, how does it know whether the rest of the system is in self-sustained mode or not? Perhaps I don’t understand what is meant by self- sustained mode.

          • Ah well, SSM is when Rossi has the reactor going at some sort of equilibrium where the reaction products are enough to keep the reaction itself going, so no energy input is needed beyond the electricity needed for the control system during that period.

            From what we understand the driver process itself has a low COP, like 1.2 and the trick is to use that reaction to trigger some other events that release additional energy and do not quench the reaction.

            The Lugano experimenters decided not to enter SSM at any time during their test (EDIT: they say so in their report), even though Rossi had explained how to them. So their ash represents what happens to the fuel when the driver is constantly on for a month — ~30 days.

            The 1 MW plant, if it had COP > 20, was probably in SSM almost all the time. The driver would have been active ~5% of the time, or ~17 days.

            So I hypothesize that the isotopic changes in the ash may primarily be the result of the driver process and there is much less of that during SSM. If so, the Lugano fuel being almost completely turned into Ni-62 and the 1 MW plant going along the same path but not quite as far along is coherent.

            If they took samples at various elapsed times we’d be able to do more serious analysis. There’s a rumor that they did so. I’d sure like to see those results.

          • Bruce__H

            In reading the Lugano report I realize that in the 2nd experiment reported the system was, supposedly, in self-sustained mode for about 2/3 of the time (see the duty cycle in plots 7 and 8). Do you know whether the Lugano samples analyzed for isotopes came from this experiment or from the first one which was continuously powered?

            By the way, the Lugano investigators spend some time in their analysis showing how the time course of temperature rise and fall deviates from that of an ideal resistor. They use this to argue there may be excess power being generated. But the temperature time course just looks to me like what I would expect from resistor attached to a capacitive heat load such as the casing of the ecat.

          • Frank Acland

            I don’t believe there was any self-sustain in the Lugano test. The testers said it would have added complexity to what they were doing, so they operated the reactor with a constant drive — if I recall correctly.

          • Bruce__H

            You are completely correct. On checking I’ve discovered I have been working from the Levi et al document describing the March 2013 ecat experiments and not the “Lugano” experiment 1 year later.

          • Yes, the ash came from the last test — the continuously powered one.

            You’d have to take up the second issue with the Lugano team. I don’t think anyone has paid much attention to that particular piece of analysis… or at least I haven’t.

          • Job001

            Science observations and claims are not extraordinary but part of the normal scientific process. Claims of scam however are extraordinary since these have zero science observation basis and are easily explained by cognitive bias science such as funding bias.

          • Bruce__H

            Extraordinary in the sense of departing from known science. I agree that empirical evidence trumps theory IF the evidence is sound. But the soundness of the observations is the very thing under discussion. It is becoming more and more clear that someone is not just mistaken, but is actively lying. And since Rossi has an unfortunate history of claims that don’t jibe with the facts, this colours everything.

          • bachcole

            Normal proof is sufficient for extraordinary claims, unless one is worried about what others have to say rather than trusting one’s own observations and deductions.

          • Bruce__H

            Don’t get me wrong. Extraordinary claims are valuable to science. The more unusual and differentiated from other claims they are, the more insight we get if they turn out to be true. But this also means that they have a greater ability to overturn all the ideas in a field, and this means they have to be checked out more thoroughly les consequential claims.

            I don’t understand the last part of what you have to say … the “unless” part. One is always worried about what others have to say. That is part of science.

          • This is incredibly interesting to me too. One side is clearly wrong and almost certainly knows it. And knows the other side knows it too. Yet the situation persists and the divergence grows.

            We have to ask ourselves which side could know it will eventually be exposed as liars but not really care… and why.

            I don’t really have an answer. Maybe delay on the IH side to buy time for their alternative tech or at the behest of the USG. Maybe some kind of deep psychological problems if it’s Planet Rossi.

          • Warthog

            Or, just possibly, it is Rossi’s way of delaying/disarming potential competitors, possibly even with IH’s collusion. Note that the above conjecture fits ALL of the aspects revealed to date.

            Note that I am not claiming the above to be the reality, but it certainly fits the data set better than any other hypothesis.

          • Yes, delay on Rossi’s part is also a possibility. Good catch.

          • Bruce__H

            It’s all getting a bit baroque though isn’t it?

          • Warthog

            Remember, Rossi is Italian…..”baroque” is their middle name.

          • TVulgaris

            I don’t think it fits better, just competes well.

          • Chapman

            I think one needs to consider the comparison of the repercussions to the lying party. Lying by Rossi would be self-defeating, transparently obvious upon examination, and would lead to potential criminal charges. While lying by IH results in nothing more than a means to delay a payment, and no adverse side effects. Which seems more likely?

          • Yeah that’s kind of my take on things too.

            Irrationality versus obfuscation.

            My dear friend, Alain, would argue that IH sabotaging its own interest in E-Cats is also irrational though.

            So maybe we have irrationality versus irrationality.

            Which leaves us all on the funny farm chasing shadows.

          • bachcole

            For Rossi, that leaves only that it works or he is crazy or demented.

          • Mats002

            And noone of how many people got him???

            (And by the way I called you in this thread, look above)

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            It was Rossi that initiated the legal claim and it was Rossi that terminated the IH / Rossi license agreement.

            Very bold things to do if you knew you had nothing.

            Bottom line is if Rossi loses the claim, IH will take him to the cleaners, he will lose all his money, Leonardo and Rossi will be bankrupt or worse and be shown to be a fraud to all the world.

            Just the fact that Rossi took those actions, knowing the consequences, says he has what he claims.

          • Yup…

            …unless he is irrational…

            …or they coordinate and put on a show for some reason.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Too much hate for this to be a show.

          • I agree but technically that could just be them trying to make it convincing.

          • TVulgaris

            Haven’t you been watching the Clinton/Trump war? There’re BILLIONS riding on this kabuki…and the hate may be real and still have nothing to do with events.

          • “Very bold things to do if you knew you had nothing.”

            imo you should replace “bold” with “incredibly stupid and insane”

          • cashmemorz

            For the uninitiated (long term reading ALL things pertaining to Rossi) and that is the vast majority of people looking at cold fusion, Industrial Heat just has to stand back and let things fall into place. That majority will not be able to make a decision of who is actually in the right and will err on the side of caution and be skeptical. And that majority turns out to be who controls the mass opinion on the subject of cold fusion/LENR. Similar to what is happening in climate change denial, various religions etc.

        • Warthog

          “The sample shows such dramatic isotope change that the burden of proof falls upon the deniers now.”

          Why should it?? The isotope data from both Mitsubishi and Toyota transmutation made not one iota of difference to the skeptopaths.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Warthog,

            Hard to get a person to accept that which their pay check demands is not acceptable.

      • Proof? No, you’re right it’s not.

        But it does force the deniers to allege another deception.

        • timycelyn

          The aggregate sum of deceptions that deniers are now de facto invoking for their view of Rossi and his technology to hold up, passed the “Utterly frikin’ ridiculous” event horizon sometime ago.

          They will continue to carp, and nit-pick individual events whilst never standing back to appreciate the massive totality of the huge body of evidence out there.

          I have long ago come to the conclusion that they would continue to deny the reality of a functioning hot cat (or quark X, I’m not fussy) even if a running one was forcefully inserted in to them….

          • clovis ray

            Yup

          • Bruce__H

            I think this is untrue. I am certainly among the Rossi skeptics and yet I can imagine situations which would change my mind. It’s just that I just don’t see them. In fact Rossi seems to go out of his way to avoid producing convincing demonstrations.

            I’m not asking for anything that I wouldn’t ask of any scientific claim. Replication for instance. I can’t figure out why no one has tried to replicate the device described in his August 2015 US patent. Rossi can’t have kept any essential process or material back in that patent or it would be invalidated.

          • Perhaps re-calibrate your expectations and view this as more of a business story than a science story. Science is only a part of what’s going on here.

            Everyone acknowledges that Rossi has not offered solid scientific proof of LENR+ in his reactors yet. He took some steps in that direction with Lugano and the tests that preceded it, but even if you take them at face value more replication would be required for scientific acceptance. His main goal is to commercialize though, not satisfy the scientific community.

          • TVulgaris

            NONE of the tests have been scientific work, they’ve all been engineering studies, and engineering doesn’t DEMAND full scientific justification a priori, nor even post priori- scientific acceptance does (at least post). The “scientific community” has been studiously rejecting ALL of the work in LENR for over 25 years now- it’s brave individuals (some scientists and engineers, even some engineering and science deans, and “amateurs” (some who are truly brilliant but simply not credentialed at the highest levels)) who’ve challenged that shibboleth. Most of them get squashed in response, and the only one’s that haven’t either have pursued commercialization, been entirely sidelined by other interests, or are comfortably ensconced at NASA or some other insulating position that probably effectively insulates them from working full-time in the field as well (I’m thinking about the administrative load of running a lab or university department).

      • nietsnie

        Exactly. Unless you can track the sample back to its origin, the result is meaningless. Not that it disproves anything – just that it doesn’t prove anything either. Its only value is in provoking endless discussion on LENR fan-boy sites.

        • Normal science does not require court of law type chain of custody documentation or proof. A scientist is usually taken at his word that a sample submitted for testing is a real sample.

          The standards applied here are abnormal for science and are only in play because the results are so unexpected.

          • nietsnie

            A scientist would normally publish a procedure to replicate the result. Rossi has not. That is the reason that everything is questioned. I get that there are potential good reasons, in this case, that he would not want to do that. But, that *is* the question: is Rossi for real or not? Prior to Lugano there was no evidence one way or the other – and yet some people absolutely believed and some absolutely denied. Now there’s some, at least, persuasive data. And we know that the Lugano sample was received at the time of the test by a neutral third party prior to analysis. That gives it a certain gravitas. This sample – we don’t know where it originated.

          • Agreed on most of that.

            Just don’t mistake Rossi for a scientist. He is an engineer, inventor, entrepreneur and industrialist. He does what he can with the science piece, but he is essentially an Edison that tried thousands of possible combinations until an affordable light bulb was possible.

            I totally understand why scientists are frustrated by all this. This is not good science so far. Not even close. But it’s still the story of the millennium… maybe.

          • nietsnie

            Really – the uproar is predictable. It is as if Rossi announced that he is in communication with Martians – with nothing tangible to back it up. Except that periodically he showed up with something: “This is one of their mittens – their sheep are just like ours; this is a Martian fork…”. Again, Lugano changes that. I see that he’s gotten something positive out of announcing prematurely. The publicity has made him some money and has made him famous – and synonymous with LENR. But, he must wish, periodically, that he hadn’t done it… yet. What a lot of hassle for him to have to live, year after year, under that scrutiny.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nietsnie,

            The Lugano team have stated Rossi obtained the sample from the Lugano reactor but was watched by all the members of the team. I suspect that reactor was not designed to have the fuel replaced and Rossi needed to cut into the reactor body to remove a sample and that was why Rossi needed to do the sample extraction as none of the team dared to break into the reactor.

            Here is how Parkhomov retrieved his latest samples. No way would the Lugano team break apart a reactor like that. Note the fuel/ash is no longer powder but is a mix of the melted Al and Li.

          • Mats002

            Au? I think Al.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            Fixed. thanks.

          • nietsnie

            I think you must misunderstand me, E48. I have no truck with the Lugano analysis. The neutral Lugano experimenters watched Rossi remove the sample and give it to them – and they took care of the analysis themselves. So, we know where it was the whole time. Whereas, this article is about an analysis of the ash from the Florida (1 year) test that was completed earlier this year. At least I think, as far as we know, this sample result arrived from Rossi out of the blue very recently. There were no (neutral) experimenters watching as it was extracted. So, what we have is the result of an analysis on some sample. We don’t know what the sample represents for sure – except that Rossi says it is from the Florida reactor.

            My point has been that since the primary question all along has been whether results Rossi says he gets are trustworthy or not, and since this particular (Florida) result seemingly requires trust in Rossi to be valuable in answering that question, then this result is pointless in getting to the bottom of it.

            Whereas the Lugano ash sample had a thorough chain of custody, this one disappears and then results for it re-appear later. Lugano added to the believability of Rossi’s results, and also to Rossi’s improved credibility, precisely because of that chain of custody through a neutral party. We can be pretty sure that nothing happened to the sample on its way to the lab.

            Conversely, given what we know about it so far, this one doesn’t add weight to either side of the balance because we have nothing but Rossi’s word that what was tested came from the Florida reactor – and the critical question is still, even with his improved post-Lugano credibility, whether we can trust Rossi or not.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nietsnie,

            Glad to see you understand all the Lugano team watched and videoed Rossi removing the sample. They knew now important that step was.

            What we do not know is if the same care was exercised in obtaining the sample from the 1 year reactor test. I suggest it is too early to make statements on that step until further data is revealed. Would add the analysis team and Rossi would realise the effect of a break in the ash sample chain on the overall credibility and so if there was a break, why even do the analysis and allow those involved to be publicly identified?

            As this leak was from Abd and how he spun it to imply Rossi obtained it without IH permission, says to me he knows the ash chain of custody is tight and he can not attack from that direction.
            .

          • nietsnie

            Yep. That’s what we know. The experiment ended. And then, months later, Rossi brought a sample to Uppsala for analysis. And, of course, we know the results of the test. What we don’t know is the origin of the sample.

            I don’t know Abd and so I guess I don’t have the same sense you do about what he must be thinking. To me, it would be nice to know where the sample was between the end of the experiment and May 8 – and who was watching it, who witnessed it’s extraction from the reactor, etc. I think that would potentially help Rossi’s credibility on it if he doesn’t say that it was stored in his sock drawer or something.

            Otherwise, it’s not bad information, but it doesn’t add to the general proof. The folks who are already sure Rossi always tells the truth will accept it; the ones who are already certain Rossi is lying won’t be any more convinced; and those of us in the middle awaiting compelling evidence will continue to be stuck here. Nothing will change.

            All that said – thanks for going out of your way to provide us with something new. I don’t relish being the guy who provides nothing but doubt. Good for you for bringing something positive.

          • nietsnie

            Here’s a question for you, E48. If Rossi and co. realize that chain of custody is important to being taken seriously, and therefore was careful to accomplish that at the end of the experiment (as he did at Lugano…) why not publish the Florida chain of custody at the same time he published the isotopic results? I think maybe we have to presume it doesn’t exist to be published.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nietsnie,

            I suggest, like Lugano, there is a solid chain of custody on the 1 year fuel sample.

            Plus by now the Swedish lab knows what used reactor fuel looks like and it is not the fine powder that it started out as.

            Here is what the fuel looks like after 1 month. A molten slag. No longer fine powder.
            .

          • nietsnie

            But – again E48: *if* chain of custody exists, and Rossi knows how critical it is to be taken seriously, why did he not publish it at the same time as the result?

            Why do you believe the appearance of the ash has anything to do with chain of custody?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Nietsnie,

            We don’t know if the chain of custody for the Flordia test is in place or not, so lets not speculate. We do know it was intact for the Lugano test.

            I showed the ash results from the Parkhomov 1 month test to show the result is not ash, a fine powder, as some may think but instead a slag of molten metal.

          • nietsnie

            No, we don’t know if a convincing chain of custody exists or not. But, we do know that one wasn’t released with the Florida data – rendering it nearly useless. Since Rossi knows this, why would he release one without the other? I share your hope that one will be released – but do not share your enthusiasm for the possibility.

            Oh – I think I’m finally understanding why you keep bringing up the appearance of the sample. When I say ‘ash’ I don’t mean powder. Rather, I mean the spent end product of an energy-producing process.

            It doesn’t matter what state the sample was in prior to analysis. Powder or slag are easily converted to each other.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Ophelia,

        There is more than just 62Ni involved.

        I suspect we have only seen the NI and Li changes and there are other changes not yet revealed.

        So I would suggest you hold fire until the entire per fuel and post fuel & ash analysis is available. And yes the post analysis is a mixture of the fuel and ash as the reactor was still producing excess energy prior to the fuel rod being withdrawn. BTW we can see the fuel rods in the reactor images.

    • Pweet

      Yes. I think we can have confidence in the composition of the sample being what Uppsala University said it was, but unfortunately, whether or not it was actually spent fuel from an ecat reactor of the 12 month test, is far more dubious.
      Of course it is always possible that it is, but it is also very possible that it isn’t, and that’s the problem. Twelve months locked away in a shipping container is more than enough time to bake up any recipe one would like, and made to look like it came from a reactor, particularly knowing what ingredients people might be looking for or expecting.
      I well recall how people were not expecting what the supposed ash sample of the Lugano test analysed as. I tend to think in that case the switch sample got switched once too often and we got a pure sample of one of the recipe ingredients rather than a sample of the final cake. That sort of thing can happen in a busy kitchen.
      Anyway, this long after the event, I don’t think there is any way around this uncertainty now which give any results the required level of surety necessary to establish proof of anything. Any sample produced will probably suffer from the same dubious provenance unless produced by a totally independent and un-involved party, and in this event, I don’t think such a person or party exists.
      It would still be interesting if IH could produce a sample which they had gathered very soon after the test and have it analysed though. I would probably have a bit more faith in that, so long as it has been in their custody all the time since being removed from a rector. Although I can well understand that all those on the Rossi side would have even less confidence in the validity of that, so still no proof of anything.
      So, all up, interesting from the point of view that it may be of some use if and when it can be compared with later samples from other reactors, but that’s all.

      • wpj

        If you can stand going through his diatribe (don’t know how he has the time to write so much), then he claims that this can’t be from the 1MW reactor as the fuel was never replaced as, when AR said that is was going to be done, the reactor was still operating and then it was padlocked.

        He doesn’t have anything nice to say about the people on this forum either. Read him once, but won’t bother again.

        • Warthog

          “……….he claims that this can’t be from the 1MW reactor as the fuel was never replaced as, when AR said that is was going to be done, the reactor was still operating and then it was padlocked.

          Since there were multiple reactors in use, as well as multiple spares on standby, switching one reactor out to off-load a fuel sample would have zero effect on continuing operation.

          • wpj

            I am not denying anything; he is!

            He quotes from this site where AR said something to the effect of “recharge in progress” and then extrapolates dates from that. Don’t believe it myself

            He also says results are identical to the Lugano report, which is clearly not the case.

          • Warthog

            “I am not denying anything; he is!”

            My comment was intended to be on Lomax’s assertion. Sorry for the confusion.

            But given the simple fact of the multiplicity of reactors working, Lomax’s comment is really, really stupid.

          • Pweet

            From the comments Mr Rossi made along the way, I don’t think a backup reactor was ever used. There were various times when a reactor was down but when asked (by Frank A. once I think) if the backups were used, the reply was in the negative. The only reason I remember this is because I thought it was really strange to have a whole 1MW of backup sitting there all ready to go, but when the time came to use some of it, it sat there unused. But then that was sort of consistent with all the other stuff which seems to happen totally contrary to expectations based on logical procedure.
            From what I can see, the only opportunity to take any spent fuel from a reactor would have been on the 16th Feb 2016 when Mr Rossi was supposedly about to change the fuel, but then the test ended the next day on the 17th Feb. So I suppose it is possible that he had actually started on one or two reactors and had some spent fuel from that. But I would have to say that even this scenario is strange because why would anyone be changing fuel in any reactors knowing the test was due to end in a day or two? All very strange, as is everything else ‘Rossi’.

          • Warthog

            Every implementation of the 1MW has always had spare reactors plumbed in and ready to go. Switching one reactor out and switching another in so as to get a sample is inherent in that arrangement, and could have been done at any time. The “two separate 1MW plants” were of the smaller and larger modules (10KW and 250KW).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Warthog,

            There were 4 slabs with 15 reactors in each slab.

            Should be simple to shut down 1 reactor and remove it’s fuel rod as there would still be 59 operational reactors.

            I believe we can see the fuel rod in this photo, which seems to have a securing collar. I assume you unscrew the securing collar and withdraw the fuel rod to the right?
            .

          • Mats002

            Could one of the two IH engineers take ash without AR knowing about it? Remember that AR spent 24/7 in the 1 MW plant.

            Except when he went to the concern Miami and [claimed by others] played tennis with his wife.

          • Mats002

            Edit: Concert in Miami.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            He did not sleep in the container. Said he had a room nearby to sleep in.

  • Dr. Mike

    It would be interesting to compare this ICP-MS data to a surface analysis such as the ToF-SIMS analysis done in the Lugano report. A higher rate of conversion of the Ni to the Ni62 isotope at the surface of the Ni particles as compared to the interior of the Ni particles would indicate that the nuclear reactions are occurring primarily at the surface of the Ni particles. This knowledge would be helpful in understanding the LENR process in Ni-H-Li reactors.

    • Rene

      All the indications suggest it is a surface effect, or rather, a myriad micro cavity effect. But, yes, it would be great to have had a surface separation and then a bulk mass test. At this point, because the CoC is a tad shaky, details like that have to tried later on. At best, we can say some interesting shifts have occurred, but the how it got that way needs one more round of test/verify.

  • Rene

    newvortex is a moderated group and the moderator decided to suppress the PDF report, something about copyright, though more like control freak issues. You should be able to read the comments here:

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/topics/782

    • Engineer48

      Hi Rene,

      I believe you need to be a member of NewVortex to download the document. So I joined, downloaded and uploaded it to another server where anybody can download it:

      http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=02747932063906224836

    • Mats002

      According to Abd, Rossi is a fraudster and if I understand Abd right he says that the fuel/ash sample claimed to be from 1MW year test is the same as claimed from Lugano test. In this scenario Rossi mixed the powder himself but I wonder if he got it from somewhere, from where could it be? Any process known to enrich to Ni62?

      • Engineer48

        Hi Mats002,

        Only problem is that Abd has no proof of what he claims against Rossi.

        He has also declared he is in the business of facilitating LENR research. Wonder where he gets the facilitation capital from?

        • Monty

          I think sifferkoll posted something about a connection from Abd to IH.
          I am also very curious where his financing is coming from…

          • Engineer48

            Hi Monty,

            http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/did-abd-ul-rahman-lomax-admit-being-an-ih-operative-with-a-mission-to-induce-fud/#comment-30629

            “http://ecatnews.com/?p=2683&cpage=1

            Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
            December 30, 2015 at 4:01 pm

            “And, by the way, I’ve been funded, because I do what I do, write. There were no strings attached, I can write for or against or neutrally, whatever, and it was neutral writing that attracted the funding.”

          • Engineer48

            Wonder who “we” refers to?

            http://ecatnews.com/?p=2683&replytocom=132386#respond

            “Somewhere above Popeye asked me about my going to the DoE. That’s not happening yet. We will not go to the DoE again until we are completely ready, the 2004 review was badly handled. Basically by amateurs. (Scientists are not politicians and lawyers.) There is far too much at stake to allow that again. In any case, I’ve been funded to do the work I do. And I get to say what that is. Which is nice.”

          • Why is somebody funding him to do what he does anyway?

            Why isn’t anybody funding me for my posts? C’mon funders, show me some love!

          • Mats002

            LOVE!

          • LOL. Gotta upvote love.

          • Barbierir

            Ok I’ve been reading back and forth here and on Lenr-forum and I still don’t understand the most important question: can such ash sample be fabricated in lab? If so is that relatively easy and cheap or does it require million dollars equipment?

          • Job001

            It is ridiculous to assume fraud occurring independently with hundreds of excellent scientists world wide. That would require thousands of science false observations and reports, plus huge investments done for illogical reasons.

            The motivation for denial is typically financial(funding bias) by investors in old technology(FF Fossil fuels, RF Research Funding)) threatened to become obsolete or by scientists employed thereby. It is common place wealth behavior, see Tobacco, climate denial, hot fusion fiasco, military boondoggles, neglect of nuclear research, big Pharma bad research, bridges to nowhere).

            Specifically, nuclear ash has been found repeatedly by independent esteemed scientists and it would be prohibitively expensive to fake.

            Cold fusion(CF) is very real and is being engineered for applications. CF is light years ahead of hot fusion with breakeven achieved in less than half the time. HF cannot even compete with RE 5 or 10 years out but HF has great monopoly power(Expensive investment, heavy regulation).

            CF will remain under attack however, because CF has low monopoly power that threatens profitable monopolies and investments. CF is potentially low investment, cheap fuel, low regulation costs, local owners and investors, absolutely a huge threat to monopoly investors.

            Consequently denial is a consequence of financial corruption at this point, the science should be assumed to be good until actual science observations and proof show otherwise.

          • Barbierir

            I agree with your general points but I’m asking a specific question about this case because, by reading some comments, it seems Rossi could have fabricated such ash composition as easily as kneading dough for a cake. I don’t know much about it in order to make my own judgement.

          • Job001

            No, it is not easy, exceptionally expensive, and isotopes that are unavailable. Also, it would be a huge threat to any scientist’s reputation that they will not risk.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Job,

            Just like the Lugano team that all watched and video recorded Rossi as he obtained a sample of the fuel slag after 1 month. They knew what was on the line & preserved the chain of custody.

            It is simple for anyone to make a claim Rossi swapped the sample but in reality that would take every member of the team to have deliberately closed their eyes or looked away and to have switched off the 24/7 video recorder for that to have happened, which did not happen.

            In my opinion the Lugano reactor was not designed to be refueled but instead replaced as a complete module. Here is how Rossi would have needed to obtain a sample and what the once fine power had become. A molten slag of melted Al, Li and once fine powder Ni. Look at the photo for the reality.
            .

          • Gerard McEk

            It is true as Job001 says. To make the ash composition, you first need enriched 6Li and 62Ni and probably other enriched/depleted Ni isotopes. That alone is exceptionally expensive. Then it must be carefully mixed in a specialized lab by knowledgeable people to get a homogeneous mix. It is probably not impossible, but rather unlikely that the ‘ash’ is made in an other way then in a E-cat.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Gerard.

            Plus it is a melted slag and not the fine powder it was at the start.

            I think too many believe it remains a fine powder that can simple be sampled with a small spoon.

            More like drill into it and obtain a sample from the drill shavings.

            The Parkhomov fuel/ash is an excellent example. To call it ash is maybe technically correct but it is in no way ASH. It is a molten slag.
            .

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes, that is what I expect it to look like, but I did not read about it, nor see these Uppsala sample.

          • Pweet

            Given that there has been some years available to construct an ash sample, I don’t think any of the obstacles mentioned would have proven insurmountable to someone with sufficient motivation to complete the task. For someone practiced in the art of mixing up Nickel fuel components and secret sauces, the whole process would be a doddle. Specially if they had a ready supply of electrical heaters and alumina tubes to cook it with. It could even be a left over sample from a batch made up for an earlier test. You never know when you might need to produce an ash sample in a hurry.
            There are just too many possibilities to make any case hardened declaration as to how and where this sample originated from. Just a whole lot of Maybes.
            People will interpret all this to suit whatever argument they are trying to make, but as said already, because of the lack of control over who took the sample and how, coupled with the very loose chain of custody, it has interest value only and cannot be taken as proof of anything.

          • Obvious

            In figure 4, appendix 3, of the Lugano report there is an image of a Ni ash particle. It does not look like slag drilled into shavings. It is in fact nearly identical in appearance to a particle of brand new Ni62 imaged by Bob Higgins.

          • TVulgaris

            It would not be millions of dollars to fake a few-gram sample (much better to try in a small mat-lab inductive furnace with controlled atmosphere), and it would be very reasonable to assume Rossi SHOULD have acquired one over the past 15 years to tinker with the fuel charge composition and processing (and possibly necessary for reasonably early onset of excess heat in some iterations according to MFMP)- so probably it would cost a few thousand for the raw ingredients, compounding powders is straightforward, heat treatment and atmosphere completely controllable etc.- but the real question is whether surface features at micro- and nano- levels after LENR are distinguishable from more conventional reaction environments. Ed Storms is not the only one to verify for quite a few years that they are- coupled with the spectrograms for surface and interior of particles fingerprints whether it’s nuclear or some other kind of processing.
            I don’t see how this could be faked using a fission reactor (still not millions, but the price tag escalates rapidly)- but ultimately there is still no incontrovertible proof THIS sample came from one of the MW test reactors.
            Then again, there is no incontrovertible proof I exist, or any of the rest of yinz….

          • bachcole

            I have been asking that for days. There are nuclear power plants that could make it, I think. And centrifuges using nickel hexafluoride or some such thing that I have no idea about. But both of those possibilities are simply not really very likely. The nuclear option would mean that the sample would be radioactive; highly unlikely, like fo-get about it. The centrifuges would create a lot of racket and draw a lot of unwanted attention for the authorities. So that is a “fo-get about it”. Are there any other options, besides cold fusion?

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            For the separation of isotopes of nickel calutron generally used working on the principle of mass spectrograph

          • Obvious

            3.6:1

          • timycelyn

            Methinks he’s morally as bent as a corkscrew…

      • Job001

        Obviously funded by FF(Oil) to obstruct RE(Renewable energy) a CC(Common corruption).

    • Engineer48

      Hi Rene,

      Abd said he received permission to share it.

      Now here as well:
      http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/analysis-Rossi-fuel-sample-May-111.pdf

  • Rene

    newvortex is a moderated group and the moderator decided to suppress the PDF report, something about copyright, though more like control freak issues. You should be able to read the comments here:

    https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/topics/782

  • bachcole

    Since I refuse to give out my credit card number, I was not able to see anything and I could not get into what Frank complained he also could not see.

    • Ged

      That’s weird, it didn’t ask for anything from me. The actually download button is the file name itself I think, the rest is just advertising meant to trick people into clicking. Very annoying when sites are like this, but definitely no giving out cc numbers…

      • Chapman

        Yep. Just click the filename, not the download button. It comes down no problem, but not worth the effort. It is exactly as posted by Engineer below. One brief page. No details. No other data.

    • Engineer48
  • 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.

    • Bruce__H

      I don’t believe anyone here ever thought you made up any of these results. Did someone say that they did?

  • Another death blow to the measurement error canard.

    This information is consistent with two scenarios only:

    * The E-Cat is a nuclear device and works as advertised

    * Rossi is the head of a massively complex fraud spanning multiple years involving several co-conspirators that uses fabricated ash samples as part of its deception.

    • Oh, let me think…

      • Rene

        There is the magic pixie dust scenario, but then magic and tech converge when at the borderlands of new science.

        • TVulgaris

          Or, they would, if the morphic field generated by the main-stream didn’t mitigate strongly against it, preventing substantial attention and funding (money is the REAL pixie dust) from gravitating there…

      • timycelyn

        Gosh,that’s a hard one to work out, isn’t it….

        🙂

      • sam

        Mats
        Do you know anything about report.
        The person who did the anylises.
        Anymore about the Factory in Sweden.ETC.
        Thanks

        • Mats002

          I think Mats knows much more than he agreed to tell in public.

          I am not him, I am 002 😉

          • sam

            I hope he is not on vacation
            and doin his investigation.

      • Barbierir

        Mats, is there any news about the third party evaluation of the Lugano report that you wrote about in last blog post?

    • Bruce__H

      I think that people who deny the second option outright are a bit naive about the influence of a charismatic personality on those who surround them.

      • bachcole

        I will admit that that may be true. Except that charismatic personalities are generally not a pain-in-the-ass, as is Rossi.

        • Bruce__H

          Charismatic personalities are almost always a pain in the ass. I am thinking of people whose personalities are dominated by attention seeking, control, and manipulation. Look up narcissistic personality disorder or psychopathy.

      • I don’t deny it outright. That’s why it’s on the list of possible scenarios.

        • Bruce__H

          Yup. I realize. I wasn’t thinking of you.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Bruce,

        Sorry mate but for engineers it doesn’t work like that.

        When you have in front of you a working machine, it is impossible to deceive engineers into seeing data that does not correlate with what they are seeing.

        Rossi was very open that my potential client’s very experienced steam engineers were welcome to visit a working 1 ME reactor to execute their due diligence process. If you really think that an operational reactor can fool experienced engineers, when dealing with 1MWt of energy generation from 20kWh/hr of electrical energy input, well mate that is just fairy tale stuff.

        • Bruce__H

          This isn’t really an issue of engineering competence, it’s about human nature. It doesn’t make sense to you that someone would offer to let you see a facility if it is fake, but it is fully within the range of some people.

          You probably won’t believe that. But that is because you are in an honourable profession and are used to dealing in a straighforward way with people and with facts.
          .

    • bachcole

      or
      * Rossi has access to a secret and very difficult process that allows him to distort the isotope balance of various metals.

      • Tangent of the fraud scenario.

        • bachcole

          But that would make Rossi exceptionally clever to be able to create an isotope mix that was sort of very, very difficult to create without some sort of nuclear reaction. (:->)

          • And perhaps he’s an alien from Planet Rossi gently introducing a technology to the human race to help us avoid catastrophe.

            Or maybe he’s a Russian spy, sent to mess with our heads.

            Or Rossi is pioneering a new kind of Internet entertainment and we’re just the first to get hooked on a new kind of reality fiction.

            Or he’s actually a fossil fuel executive on a secret FUD mission.

            I mean we can get as creative as we want to, but most times things are what they seem to be… and we’ve been watching him for 5 years now.

          • TVulgaris

            Great show, isn’t it? I’ve been doing more engineering and scientific work (on paper and gedenksexperimenten)

            in the past 5 years than the previous 20.

      • Pweet

        That’s about as believable as saying Rossi has access to a secret and very difficult process that allows him to extract kilowatts of energy from a small sample of Nickel and a dash of secret sauce.
        Until some definite proof comes along, and it hasn’t yet, I find both highly unlikely. I’ve been waiting now five years so I don’t think that can be called ‘jumping to a hasty conclusion’. Others may disagree.

        • bachcole

          It seems like you may be contradicting yourself or else admitting to a studied and certain uncertainty. It is highly unlikely that he has a way of producing said isotope mixture. It is also highly unlikely that he is squeezing kilowatts of energy out of couple of grams of nickel powder. But he has the isotope mixture and so many people claim that they have witnessed the kilowatts. So I am of the opinion that he has what he says he has.

    • sam

      The Rossi Ecat Riddle

    • Private Citizen

      two scenarios only:

      * Some as yet unexplained and seemingly miraculous physics accounts for the final isotopic ratios

      * It only took one actor, with motive and opportunity, to purchase some Ni62 and spike ash samples before testing

      • The skeptic’s brain exposed.

        Surround that “one actor” with all of the necessary support he would have had to receive from others, explain his willingness to expose his reactor to outside testing and court examination, acknowledge the similar claims by other organizations and scientists and convincingly argue why he’s still in the game instead of walking away with $11 M…

        Do all that and I’ll credit you with intellectual honesty.

        • Billy Jackson

          there will always be those who’s demands you can never satisfy. I have yet to see a logical argument that does not turn into a convoluted conspiracy theory by any skeptic worthy of arguing with.

          Goatguy over on nextbigfuture was the only one worth debating with as at least he attempted to base his arguments on facts and science and math. in the end even he stopped claiming it wouldn’t work and took the stance of something interesting is going on.. he’s not supporting.. but he’s no longer in abject denial either.

        • Bruce__H

          There was a Rossi health scare a while back and a disturbing thing I heard was the worry that if Rossi died everything would go up in the air because only he know the “secret sauce” for fuel preparation. IThis is the sort of thing that worries me. I think that Rossi has kept his hands on certain key aspects of this thing and excluded anyone else (think also about the mysterious customer side of the Florida facility). Such behaviour, combined with a dominant personality, gives him room to perpetrate a fraud while having lots of true believers around who see only part of the whole.

          I haven’t heard of Rossi exposing his system to outside testing if by outside you mean that he never touches it.

          I’ve got no reasonable explanation as to why Rossi didn’t just disappear with the 11 million. My guess is that he thinks he can get more. That doesn’t seems incredibly rational to me but then humans aren’t all that rational.

          • Billy Jackson

            IH has made an e-cat with a COP of 11 without rossi there. (the one they filed the patent on) .. now it may not be up to par with the later versions of the tech.. but others beside Rossi now know the secret.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Billy,

            Yup.

            Amazing how folks skip over that inconvenient fact.

          • Rossi’s behavior is strange… granted. Don’t think the whole technology will perish without him thing is a real concern. He has said there are provisions in place for that possibility and once it does happen then many truths will be revealed.

            I wanted to say something about the outside testing comment though. So I want to understand what it is about Rossi having fleeting access to the devices that invalidates the rest of the time that scientists have unsupervised access to it. Rossi dropped off his reactor with the Lugano scientists, got it started for them and went to another continent for the duration of the test.

            What was that exactly in your mind? Just stupid confidence that the scientists were idiots and would come up with the measurements he wanted to further his scam? Doesn’t it count in his favor at all that he surrendered his reactor to outside testing for a long period of time?

          • Mats002

            That is another good one after the two one year IH engineers.

            My meter points very much to Rossi when all adding ups are made…

            I know there are a lot of energy scams out there and AR had a ‘rumor’ before IH entered the scene. Of course they thought of all they could but AR outsmarted them during at least six months.

            Agatha Christie where are you?

          • wpj

            She is currently featuring in egoout

          • Bruce__H

            Yes it does count that Rossi left his reactor with others. But in my recollection the outstanding aspect of the Lugano test was the shift seen in isotope concentrations and this is exactly the part that Rossi was around to influence.

            I don’t think that the claims of excess heat have survived have they? Am I wrong?

          • The excess heat claim is now mostly unsupported, IMO, but they have not retracted their report. It’s ambiguous though whether less excess heat means no excess heat. I’ve seen analyses both ways and the math is difficult and the assumptions required are error inducing.

            Yes the isotopic shifts were a huge deal. But the fact that supposed master scammer Rossi left his reactor with a team of scientists for a long period of time to do as they pleased with, should also be a huge deal to anyone paying attention.

            It’s not Rossi’s fault that the scientists may have botched the temperature measurement or that he is accused of magic tricks when extracting the ash in front of witnesses after the fact.

          • Bruce__H

            Rossi didn’t drop off the ecat on premises controlled by Levi et al. My understanding is that the Lugano experiments took place in a building of a Rossi-associated company. The investigators had nothing to do with preparing the setup. I would be happier if the investigators set up everything in their own lab. And I don’t see why this wouldn’t be possible since the ecat itself, unencumbered as it was in this case by steam generation devices, seems very portable

            Whatever may or may not be Rossi’s “fault”, this just doesn’t seem all that independent.

          • Oh please. There’s reasonable expectations and then there’s demanding perfection far beyond what’s expected of normal scientific experiments.

          • Bruce__H

            I’ve discovered that I have been working from the Levi et al paper that described experiments in Dec 2012 and March 2013. The paper called the “Lugano” report is based on an experiment conducted by the same group a year later in March 2014. This takes care of some of my concerns. In their 2014 paper the authors explain that they are situating the new experiments in a neutral building and undertaking other improvements because of some of the same concerns I expressed.

            I am a researcher. I referee papers and in the past have served as an editor so I understand what is required in scientific publications. I don’t think I have asked for anything extraordinary..

          • Ah. Fair enough.

            So is videotaped and observed by the scientific team good enough for the ash extraction for you or are you in the sleight of hand camp?

          • Bruce__H

            I’m in the sleight of hand camp. It needs to be excluded. I think this is necessary considering Rossi’s background.

            I’ve found in the past that assertions like “videotaped and observed by the scientific team”, while sounding very secure and complete, can sometimes actually allow lots of room for tomfoolery. It’s all in the details though … there are circumstances where I would be satisfied that nothing untoward is going on. I just don’t know where the videotape etc that you mention fit.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            IH built and shipped 3 empty DogBone HotCat reactors & fuel to Lugano. Weaver has stated IH has a chain of custody for this. Weaver also stated IH had no idea what happened to the reactors after the test was completed. Additionally Weaver has stated IH had personal at the Lugano test.

            Under the vision and video of the entire Lugano team, Rossi loaded the fuel and sealed the test reactor. Likewise under video and the vision of the entire Lugano team, Rossi broke into the reactor and obtained a fuel sample for analysis.

            Please provide your proof that the building the Lugano test occurred was Rossi-associated owned and why would that matter?

            Until the Lugano retract their finding, they stand. So far no one has proved their assertions the emissivity reading were incorrect. Likewise the Lugano team assert Rossi was vidoed and watched by all the team during both the fuel loading and unloading.

          • Bruce__H

            I’ve discovered I have been working from the wrong paper by Levi et al. This paper describes experiments conducted a year before the “Lugano” test and took place in a Rossi-associated building.

          • Obvious

            Re: emissivity.
            In the MFMP image, box 7 has the ε changed to 0.7 from 0.95 .

            The other plot is centered at the spectral sensitivity range of the Optris, and has three lines at various emissivities and their respective temperatures, that are of the same equivalent radiance. Temperatures are in Kelvin, so subtract 273.3 for °C.

          • Bruce__H

            What other continent did Rossi travel to while the Lugano test was in progress? How do you know where he was?

          • Bruce__H

            Do you have no information for me as to which continent Rossi traveled to while the Lugano test was ongoing? How do you know he traveled to another continent at this time?

          • I don’t know how we got back to this 8 month old comment. But whatever.

            Here you go:

            The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually
            brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the
            following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and
            powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred;
            moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.

            I don’t know where Rossi was physically located for the duration of the test. Nor does he know where I was during that time.

          • Bruce__H

            OK. You said “Rossi dropped off his reactor with the Lugano scientists, got it started for them and went to another continent for the duration of the test”

            That seemed to be so definite that I thought you must have some definite information. I believed you and It stayed with me. It coloured my opinion of the Lugano situation.

            BAsed on an analysis of Rossi’s blog postings I believe Rossi was in Europe at the entire time.

          • If I ever make any statements based on inside information I will let you know. Otherwise you can assume I’m just trying to connect the dots like you and most others in these parts.

          • Bruce__H

            LENR G said

            “I wanted to say something about the outside testing comment though. So I want to understand what it is about Rossi having fleeting access to the devices that invalidates the rest of the time that scientists have unsupervised access to it. Rossi dropped off his reactor with the Lugano scientists, got it started for them and went to another continent for the duration of the test.”

            I thought I had better reproduce the entire paragraph to refresh your memory about what you said.

            In future, let people know when you are speculating..

          • Michael W Wolf

            Bull crap!

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            The 2 x 1MW reactors were IH property, manufactured by them, assembled inside the container in Raleigh by them, fuel loaded by them, shipped to Doral by them.

            The Rossi made 1MW reactor was 1st tested in Italy for 24 hours, then shipped to Raleigh in 2013.

            For from 2013 to the end of the 1 year test in early 2016, there was a Rossi made and tested by IH 1MW reactor, which resulted in the $11.5m payment sitting in Raleigh.

            Would seem 3 years is more than enough time for IH to discover the 1st 24 hour test was in error and to ask Rossi for their $11.5m back.

            But that never happened. In fact they manufactured the DogBone reactor and shipped it to Lugano and then built the backup and prime 1MW reactors for the 1 year trial. Do you really thing they would have build all those reactors if they KNEW they did not work as expected?

            The 1st time IH claimed they could not substantiate was when the $89m invoice hit the IH accounts payable inbox.

            So please stop the crazy speculation. IH had the 2013 1MW test reactor in Raleigh for 3 years and never called foul.

          • This is mostly why I call BS on IH’s “unable to substantiate”. Good summary E48. Thanks.

      • Mats002

        I wonder how this one actor made two experienced engineers believe in his scam being with him, troubleshoot and operate the 1 MW plant for one year.

        Whoaa! THAT is something!

        And that is just the beginning of a long list of professionals he deluded. Genious indeed.

        • Billy Jackson

          I think rossi should just go ahead and ship buckets of sand with every report so the skeptics dont feel left out..

        • Bruce__H

          I think that fooling experienced engineers is exactly what Rossi has done. If you find this surprising then I suspect it is because you know more about engineering than scams.

          People interested in natural phenomena tend to be trusting. I think that is great. I wish the whole world was that way. But it leaves those people pretty open to cynical scammers who will purposely target them.

          • Michael W Wolf

            “People interested in natural phenomena tend to be trusting”. Cept Rossi? lol

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            So your are an engineer and know we are easily fooled when the hardware is operation right in front of us? Please give some respect to what engineers are trained and experienced to do.

            To me as an experienced engineer, your statement just may show a bias.

        • Private Citizen

          And yet not a single engineer is able to replicate the patent, nor teams of IH engineers reportedly able to see any net energy gain or isotopic shift from the very reactor design they constructed for Lugano.

          There is apparent conspiracy going on on one side or the other, to be sure. We can contrive excuses to believe one or the other at this point.

          Supporters can’t be fooled by or participate in a con? How many employees did Defkalion or Steron have? Go read PESwiki archives for 1,000 other examples.

          There will always be those whose need to believe colors their rationality. Faith in the miraculous and utopian is as old as mankind.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            If that is true, why did IH file a patent claiming they produced a result? Did they delude themselves?

          • Private Citizen

            “why did IH file a patent?”

            Will have to leave it to an IH apologist to give you the party line on that one. Am fairly certain an excuse already has been proffered, but can’t cite a link.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Also, since IH funded he Lugano researchers, they have “demonstrated” isotopic shift. The term “teams of IH engineers ” implies that you are aware of those teams. I have not seen a list of those engineers, except for those reported by Rossi. Do you have such a list and are willing to publish it?

          • Private Citizen

            IH apologists on LENR forum frequently reference teams if IH engineers performing do diligence and also constructing the reactors for IH.

            If you think a $100 million deal would go down without teams of engineers independently testing, or that no engineers were needed to build the reactors, well okay.

            Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy goes something like “whatever has not been proven true must be false.” no list = no engineers, clearly

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Sorry, I don’t buy that. If IH had “teams of engineers”, they would have uncovered the supposed scam early on. I suspect that they are cash short and really are bluffing.

            From Rossi, I have seen photos, heard from people who have visited, seen some collaborative research results from other like MFMP. From IH, I see nothing.

          • Private Citizen

            “From IH, I see nothing.”

            Whatever has not been proven true must be false.

            Guess we’ll have to see what kind of nothing they produce at the trial. For now, IH is saying they found no excess energy.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            I can wait…

          • Mats002

            Hi PC,

            I think we can agree neither of us know which way this will go. I for one is a follower and not an insider, but I try to help find the truth, but so far the mystery is still alive.

            I am enjoying the ride and lessons learned, hope you are too!

          • bachcole

            “Whatever has not been proven true must be false.” That is utter hogwash. That is the motto of those who never make progress or who never want to make progress. If something is false then why bother examining it.

            Better: “Whatever has not been proven true is uncertain.” This way it is actually honest and leaves open the possibility of progress.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Ih didn’t sue/ Then they try to have the case dismissed. They are doing everything they can to keep it out of the courts. They don’t seem to WANT to prove anything. They are stalling, period.

          • Engineer48

            Hi PC,

            IH never said they found no excess energy. You are quoting Dewey and Jed. IH said they could not substantiate but never defined what they were stating.

          • Michael W Wolf

            IH has very good reason to recant what they claimed they did. The power they were able to generate was much more than they expected. Rendering their mother company crippled as they are invested heavily into fossil fuels, that the device they built would obsolete.

          • Ged

            To my knowledge, no one has tried to replicate Rossi’s patent.

          • Private Citizen

            Gosh, why didn’t it occur to MFMP to simply replicate Rosssi’s patent? It is so clear and repeatable by a practitioner of the art as a valid patent must be: no-brainer, right?

            Yeah, not a single engineer is able to replicate the patent.

            Nevertheless, MFMP relied heavily on Rossi’s patent description of the fuel mixture;
            their tube furnace is a knockoff of Rossi’s selfsame. They were indeed
            trying to replicate what Rossi patented, as was Parkhomov and several others.

          • Engineer48

            Hi PC,

            Replicating the IH DogBone design seems simpler but I suggest it is not the pathway to follow.

            Better to replicate the Black HotCat, where almost all the construction details are known.

          • Mats002

            Ehhh?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            Google it.

          • Ged

            The patent is clear, stop dramatising needlessly. No one simply has tried yet, as the wafer design is not as easy as a tube. It will take a lot more resourse, skill, and energy to craft that, so the tube tests are far more appealing. Even the tube tests so far are not actual replications of the hotcat tubes we saw pictures of, as those where a hollow centered double shelled design and much harder to fabricate than a fuel pellet core.

            The fuel mixes are working out so far, with a ton more work to go. This isn’t easy, so stop being dramatic and join the crew to get it done.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Ged,

            This is close.

            Follows the Black HotCat and the patent to a high degree. This is what MFMP should be building.

          • Engineer48

            Hi PC,

            I believe you are incorrect. Please review:

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/25/summary-of-zhang-hangs-may-2016-lenr-experiment-songsheng-jiang/

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/05/24/zhang-hang-report-on-lenr-experiment-translated-by-mfmp-cop-1-23/

            The fuel mix and reactor design using heavy thermal insulation and multiple metal layers is very close to the Rossi patent.

      • TVulgaris

        That spiking would have to extend to micro- if not nanographic levels to be convincing to even an amateur. See my comment above.

  • One massive difference between the operating conditions of Lugano and the 1 MW plant was that the Lugano reactor was never run in self-sustain mode. It was driven the whole time. Meanwhile we can approximate that the 1 MW plant was in SSM the majority of the time.

    If the initial reaction causes the isotopic shifts then there would be more of it in the Lugano sample.

    • Bruce__H

      Hi LENR G:
      I don’t follow your reasoning here. If one adopts the point of view of the fuel charge, how does it know whether the rest of the system is in self-sustained mode or not? Perhaps I don’t understand what is meant by self- sustained mode.

      • Ah well, SSM is when Rossi has the reactor going at some sort of equilibrium where the reaction products are enough to keep the reaction itself going, so no energy input is needed beyond the electricity needed for the control system during that period.

        From what we understand the driver process itself has a low COP, like 1.2 and the trick is to use that reaction to trigger some other events that release additional energy and do not quench the reaction.

        The Lugano experimenters decided not to enter SSM at any time during their test, even though Rossi had explained how to them. So their ash represents what happens to the fuel when the driver is constantly on for a month — ~30 days.

        The 1 MW plant, if it had COP > 20, was probably in SSM almost all the time. The driver would have been active ~5% of the time, or ~17 days.

        So I hypothesize that the isotopic changes in the ash may primarily be the result of the driver process and there is much less of that during SSM. If so, the Lugano fuel being almost completely turned into Ni-62 and the 1 MW plant going along the same path but not quite as far along is coherent.

        If they took samples at various elapsed times we’d be able to do more serious analysis. There’s a rumor that they did so. I’d sure like to see those results.

  • AbyssUK

    Hi all long time watcher first time poster, as now I may be able to help. I am an engineer and analytical chemist although not an expert in ICP-MS I can quickly get upto speed on it.

    Sadly without knowing how the sample was prepared etc its impossible to know if these figures are good or not.
    Firstly as the “report” is lacking any detail at all I actually doubt it came from any university resource, it should have with it a basic procedure and some sample preperation info as a bare minimum.. ICP-MS is quite touchy and looking it up getting accurate Ni isotope analysis requires some semi-decent sample preparation as there are many polyatomic interferences that can occur for Ni58-64. (Common NaCl being an example)

    If you trust the source you assume that the sample was washed with a nitric acid solution beforehand to remove a lot of these interferences, but its not stated in the “report”.

    Sadly not a “death blow” to the measurement error, as a real signed off report with sample prep and basic procedure is required at the very least. Science is always in the detail.

    • And how do you assess the ICP-MS and other tests performed on the Lugano test ash?

      See Appendix 4 (and also 3):
      https://www.scribd.com/document/242284200/Observation-of-abundant-heat-production-from-a-reactor-device-and-of-isotopic-changes-in-the-fuel

      • Mats002

        Hi AbyssUK,

        After LENRG:s inquiry you might want to contribute to this ongoing work:

        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/523-padua-cell-did-we-bake-a-cake

        This is the MFMP open science project.

        • AbyssUK

          Hi LENR G, having had a good look at the doc and appendixes the testing has seemingly been done to a very high degree. Both ToF-SIMS and ICP-MS /AES confirm shifts in isotope levels between the samples. However, not a lot of testing was actually done and not on a good representation of ash sample as also stated in the report. But the huge shifts seen by both techniques, and into percentages way off from the natural mean it would be difficult to “accidentally” create such results from selecting good samples.

          The samples were sent away for analysis without being directly sampled into tamper proof containers, signed off by a third party etc.. so questions still remain if they are valid. There are simple procedures that can be used for the transfer of materials between labs to ensure they are not tampered with, these have not been followed. As always more testing is required 🙂

          As for the MFMP, its quite simple I cannot help here, I think you know already you need ICP-MS / AES for confirmation, as using ToF-SIMS is basically not stable enough and too easily misinterpretated for this. Sadly I don’t have access to ICP-MS in my curent role. Indeed ICP-MS with a collison cell or CRI might be the best method as I reckon the “ash” will be full of oxidated materials, perhaps screwing with the signals.

    • LilyLover

      When “our” lab did the analysis, the provider of the samples KNEW the protocols of the lab and the lab is instructed of any special conditions if applicable. This was not a ‘paper to be published’, therefore no ‘analysis of methodology’ was expectable. For a typical test, it would be moronic to expect the end consumer to re-read the lab-practice / test procedures. Hence nobody bothers to include.
      A drop-down menu for the equipment / test reservation system also spells out all the relevant details of the tests including their limitations. BTW One equipment can handle even 12 variations of the same test.
      So, no, unproven non-inclusion of methodology is NOT a valid assumption for less than perfect capabilities of the institution or the test conducted.
      “Science is always in the detail.”
      The results are in a summary, any problem??

  • AbyssUK

    Hi all long time watcher first time poster, as now I may be able to help. I am an engineer and analytical chemist although not an expert in ICP-MS I can quickly get upto speed on it.

    Sadly without knowing how the sample was prepared etc its impossible to know if these figures are good or not.
    Firstly as the “report” is lacking any detail at all I actually doubt it came from any university resource, it should have with it a basic procedure and some sample preperation info as a bare minimum.. ICP-MS is quite touchy and looking it up getting accurate Ni isotope analysis requires some semi-decent sample preparation as there are many polyatomic interferences that can occur for Ni58-64. (Common NaCl being an example)

    If you trust the source you assume that the sample was washed with a nitric acid solution beforehand to remove a lot of these interferences, but its not stated in the “report”.

    Sadly not a “death blow” to the measurement error, as a real signed off report with sample prep and basic procedure is required at the very least. Science is always in the detail.

    • And how do you assess the ICP-MS and other tests performed on the Lugano test ash?

      See Appendix 4 (and also 3):
      https://www.scribd.com/document/242284200/Observation-of-abundant-heat-production-from-a-reactor-device-and-of-isotopic-changes-in-the-fuel

      (Edit: Note that Jean Pettersson did the Lugano analysis and also this new preliminary analysis of the 1 MW plant ash. We can assume he used the same or better procedures).

      • Mats002

        Hi AbyssUK,

        After LENRG:s inquiry you might want to contribute to this ongoing work:

        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/523-padua-cell-did-we-bake-a-cake

        This is the MFMP open science project.

        • AbyssUK

          Hi LENR G, having had a good look at the doc and appendixes the testing has seemingly been done to a very high degree. Both ToF-SIMS and ICP-MS /AES confirm shifts in isotope levels between the samples. However, not a lot of testing was actually done and not on a good representation of ash sample as also stated in the report. But the huge shifts seen by both techniques, and into percentages way off from the natural mean it would be difficult to “accidentally” create such results from selecting good samples.

          The samples were sent away for analysis without being directly sampled into tamper proof containers, signed off by a third party etc.. so questions still remain if they are valid. There are simple procedures that can be used for the transfer of materials between labs to ensure they are not tampered with, these have not been followed. As always more testing is required 🙂

          As for the MFMP, its quite simple I cannot help here, I think you know already you need ICP-MS / AES for confirmation, as using ToF-SIMS is basically not stable enough and too easily misinterpretated for this. Sadly I don’t have access to ICP-MS in my curent role. Indeed ICP-MS with a collison cell or CRI might be the best method as I reckon the “ash” will be full of oxidated materials, perhaps screwing with the signals.

    • LilyLover

      When “our” lab did the analysis, the provider of the samples KNEW the protocols of the lab and the lab is instructed of any special conditions if applicable. This was not a ‘paper to be published’, therefore no ‘analysis of methodology’ was expectable. For a typical test, it would be moronic to expect the end consumer to re-read the lab-practice / test procedures. Hence nobody bothers to include.
      A drop-down menu for the equipment / test reservation system also spells out all the relevant details of the tests including their limitations. BTW One equipment can handle even 12 variations of the same test.
      So, no, unproven non-inclusion of methodology is NOT a valid assumption for less than perfect capabilities of the institution or the test conducted.
      “Science is always in the detail.”
      The results are in a summary, any problem??

      • AbyssUK

        Hi LilyLover, it’s a question of trace-ability imagine in 3 years time the end user hands you this report and says please repeat these tests… you simply cannot with the info contained in this report, you’d struggle to even find the raw data perhaps. For your own professional safety I would advise you always have some sort of reference in any reporting of results and to counter your point about it being silly to repeat yourself so much if a standard procedure has been used and already reported to the end user then it is trivial to be referenced in any additional reports. “ICP-MS was used as per report xxx”

  • Gerard McEk

    Hi Engineer48, door have shares in this Tiny Upload thing or can you share just the PDF file in an open way, without these gimmicks? I do not share my creditcard number with them.

  • Gerard McEk

    Hi Engineer48, door have shares in this Tiny Upload thing or can you share just the PDF file in an open way, without these gimmicks? I do not share my creditcard number with them.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Good grief. So much written about so little. Of course the analysis is not 100% proof.
    Either it is a five year scam with dozens of participants or it is real. In which case something can be learned for the figures. I believe Rossi is correct that nothing will persuade the pathological skeptics short of the sale of working commercial reactors. We should know which in about six months.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Good grief. So much written about so little. Of course the analysis is not 100% proof.
    Either it is a five year scam with dozens of participants or it is real. In which case something can be learned from the figures. I believe Rossi is correct that nothing will persuade the pathological skeptics short of the sale of working commercial reactors. We should know which in about six months.

    • That won’t convince pathoskeptics, either. They will just believe that the whole world has gone crazy…oh, well. The silver lining is that a lot more might shut up about it for fear of looking bad.

      • AdrianAshfield

        That’s quite possible too.
        The skeptical commenters have no idea of how long it takes to bring a new technology to commercialization.
        Looking at how far Rossi has progressed from 2011 through the first 1 MW plant to the second one with four 250 kW reactors and now the QuarkX, progress has been as fast as could be expected.
        Rossi has had to struggle against academia’s strongly expressed doubts, the policy of the Patent Office not to grant patents for cold fusion and UL’s fear of the unknown to license such a new “nuclear” device.
        He could have walked away with a million in his pocket several times but has chosen to work 16 hour days. He could have requested a deposit from those pre-ordering a domestic E-Cat but he has only taken money from those that could afford it and understood the risk. It doesn’t look like a fraud to me.

    • Bruce__H

      Rossi claimed that a commercial product was imminent 5 years ago too. It is a repeating motif. It puts off critics while allowing him to recruit investors.

      My prediction is that a year from now there will still not be any such product and that Rossi will still be saying that his claims can’t be judged except by the ultimate success of sales. And the same will be true 5 years from now if Rossi is still on the scene. So you have stepped into the middle of an ongoing process.

      I am interested in whether people have an internal timeline for this sort of stuff or whether they are willing make a call at some point.

      • I do have an internal timeline. It is not much longer. If we get to 2018 and real things haven’t happened yet then I will have to re-examine my analysis and assumptions.

        Three years of the delay can be attributed to Industrial Heat. Reaching agreement in October 2012, Rossi expected massive commercialization in the following year (read his posts from that period). Instead he got a lot of foot dragging as IH primarily pursued an IP strategy and started playing with Rossi’s competition (Darden even said in an interview that they would move cautiously and try to solidify their IP position before moving into the market).

        Rossi is just breaking free of that relationship now.

        • Pweet

          I think when you get to 2018 with nothing resolved, there will be some really good reason why that date will be extended to 2020, and then 2021, 22, 23, and so on. That has been the procedure so far. Every year, another good reason to hang on for another year or two. I believe that has been the purpose of the QuackEcat; something really great to wait for after it becomes apparent the the 1MW plant is going nowhere, all tied up with the IH fiasco, waiting on court proceedings, waiting for IP ownership resolution, waiting on anything except production.
          .
          Frank posted something interesting to the Rossiblog today.;-

          Frank Acland
          July 19, 2016 at 1:49 PM
          Dear Andrea,

          For 2016 to be the year of the E-Cat, I think we would need:

          1. E-Cat plants working in the real world (not under NDA)

          2. Customers happy to openly report about successful operations and significant cost savings (again not under NDA).

          3. Some video of your plants in operation.

          Which of the above do you hope to achieve in 2016?

          Thank you,
          Frank Acland

          ———–
          Andrea Rossi
          July 19, 2016 at 2:52 PM
          Frank Acland:

          I hope all of them.
          Warm Regards,
          A.R.
          ———
          I can confidently predict in relation to
          questions 1 and 2, ;- No hope.
          question 3, ;- Maybe in his workshop, otherwise, no hope.

          And this is on the background of the supposed sale of three X 1MW plants sold to the ‘secret’ customer and due for delivery in another two months if the delivery times on the web site can be relied upon.
          Do I think they can be? Well, not really, but that’s what the words say. We shall see.
          Feel free to quote this back to me if it turns out to be different.
          I’m old, so maybe in six months I will have forgotten I wrote this, so I will need reminding. Gosh, maybe I will have forgotten by next week even.

          • I can think of a couple of situations where I might allow some leeway.

            One would be court ordered something-or-other that prevents Rossi and team from advancing. I don’t know what that would be exactly but I think it’s possible.

            Another would be some clear indication that the effort has gone black. There has been some movement in the shadows around LENR+ and we know the government is involved. If there’s verifiable info that Rossi is working with say, DARPA, then I would cut him some slack.

            Other than that not much could do it. The R&D has run its course. There’s time enough to sort out the business arrangements. There are others in the field that should be able to prove something if Leonardo fails to (IH, Lenuco, Brillouin, Clean Planet, Nichenergy, MFMP, me356, etc).

            So it’s put up or shut up time, Pweet. The road to get here has been strange but explainable. It is not a typical scam story in many ways. There has been real engineering taking place, plain for all to see. Millions of dollars have changed hands. An IP war has been launched. There has been unfettered access by scientists and apparent proof of nuclear activity. The supposed scammer has gone to court.

            So let’s see where it goes from here with the commercialization, the trial and the competition. The next year and a half should give us a definitive answer both about Rossi and about LENR+ in general.

          • Pweet

            And yet for the last two years, many here said that although they didn’t trust Mr Rossi, specially after the publishing of the Aldo Proia letter, the fact that IH were involved gave them hope that all was well. Due diligence and all that, investing millions of dollars etc. And it was also said that if IH bailed out they would take that as an indication that the ecat saga was a sham. But here we are two years down the track and IH have bailed out claiming no verification of the Rossi results, they are constantly being sledged by Mr Rossi on his blog, and about be dragged before the court to have their gullibility aired in public, much to their embarrassment and shame I’m sure.
            So, why is it that those who were relying on the involvement of IH to justify their belief have now abandoned that supposed firm foundation for nothing more than a hope that something good might eventuate some time over the next two years?
            When investing in a project, either by way of cash or intellectual capital, it is useless setting milestones to be achieved if they are just ignored as they are passed by without achieving them. This is not the first milestone passed by with a zero result. It is just one more in a long list. So far, not one milestone has been achieved, all being abandoned along the way as soon as the next one has been announced. So now we await the imminent massive production of the QuackEcat X, this year he hopes. And the delivery of three new 1MW plants to a real customer who might be happy to report on it, he hopes.
            Not true. HE says, and WE hope.
            So as far as the ‘time to put up or shut up’ mentioned above, I think that more aptly applies to the person making all the proclamations and promises. I am just the casual observer stating what by now is blindingly obvious.
            But you’re probably right insofar as having said it so many times now, I should give it a rest.
            Carry on, and best of luck.

          • nietsnie

            Steorn seems to have pioneered a new business model in which a company can survive indefinitely on other people’s hope alone. Ten years ago I would have said that wasn’t possible – yet here we are.

  • Ged

    That’s weird, it didn’t ask for anything from me. The actually download button is the file name itself, the rest is just advertising meant to trick people into clicking.

  • This is incredibly interesting to me too. One side is clearly wrong and almost certainly knows it. And knows the other side knows it too. Yet the situation persists and the divergence grows.

    We have to ask ourselves which side could know it will eventually be exposed as liars but not really care… and why.

    I don’t really have an answer. Maybe delay on the IH side to buy time for their alternative tech or at the behest of the USG. Maybe some kind of deep psychological problems if it’s Planet Rossi.

    • Warthog

      Or, just possibly, it is Rossi’s way of delaying/disarming potential competitors, possibly even with IH’s collusion. Note that the above conjecture fits ALL of the aspects revealed to date.

      Note that I am not claiming the above to be the reality, but it certainly fits the data set better than any other hypothesis.

      • Yes, delay on Rossi’s part is also a possibility. Good catch.

      • Yeah that’s kind of my take on things too.

        Irrationality versus obfuscation.

        My dear friend, Alain, would argue that IH sabotaging it’s own interest in E-Cats is also irrational though.

        So maybe we have irrationality versus irrationality.

        Which leaves us all on the funny farm chasing shadows.

      • TVulgaris

        I don’t think it fits better, just competes well.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Lenr,

      It was Rossi that initiated the legal claim and it was Rossi that terminated the IH / Rossi license agreement.

      Very bold things to do if you knew you had nothing.

      Bottom line is if Rossi loses the claim, IH will take him to the cleaners, he will lose all his money, Leonardo and Rossi will be bankrupt or worse and be shown to be a fraud to all the world.

      Just the fact that Rossi took those actions, knowing the consequences, says he has what he claims.

      • Yup…

        …unless he is irrational…

        …or they coordinate and put on a show for some reason.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr,

          Too much hate for this to be a show.

          • I agree but technically that could just be them trying to make it convincing.

          • TVulgaris

            Haven’t you been watching the Clinton/Trump war? There’re BILLIONS riding on this kabuki…and the hate may be real and still have nothing to do with events.

          • Axil Axil

            July 20, 2016 at 8:35 AM
            Dear Andrea,
            I have just a simple question: I know that the standard E-cat plant can produce steam just over 100 C, but can you indicate to what maximum temperature steam can be produced if the steam system would be suitable for it? Obviously I am not talking about the EcatX or the QuarkX.
            Thanks for answering our questions.
            Kind regards, Gerard

            Andrea Rossi
            July 20, 2016 at 8:45 AM
            Gerard McEk:
            The E-Cat of the type that has been operated during the 1 year test is designed for low temperature steam. To get higher temperatures it is necessary the design used in the high temperature reactors.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

            A low temperature reactor does not run hot enough to use lithium. It must therefore use potassium. Any ash sample that has lithium in it comes from a high temperature reactor. The ash that is analyzed by Uppsala University came from a high temperature reactor because it contained lithium and not the one year test reactor.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            I think you are drawing a very long bow there as Li melts at 180.5C.

            Would suggest the reactor temp limit is based on the materials of the case and other components and not the core temp of the reactor.

            We know the 1st flattened cubish ECat reactor core ran at least 400C and delivered superheated steam at above 100C.

            I believe the Swedes did a post fuel run for the above ECat and found both NI and Li changes.

          • Axil Axil

            That post fuel run was fro the Lugano reactor which is a high temperature reactor(E-CatX).

            The assumption is that the Swedes were analyzing the ash from the one year reactor test.

            This one year test reactor is a low temperature reactor whose maximum core temperature cannot vaporize lithium.

            That is why Rossi said he had nothing to do with that ash sample. That sample cam from a Lugano type reactor, which is a high temperature reactor.

          • Engineer48

            Axil,

            The 2012 ECat was also 100C low temp steam yet the reactor temp was 400C and liquefied the surrounding lead core.

            Li melts at 180.5C. You need at least double that to quickly superheat the steam.

            Where is any association that the reactor temp was below 180C because the steam was 100C?

          • Axil Axil

            It has been established that the Rossi low temperature reactor did not use lithium.

            It is not the melting point that matters, it is the boiling point that matters.

            The boiling point of potassium is 759 °C. and for lithium 1330C.

            I will try to find the reference for the claim that Rossi did not use lithium in his early reactors.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Even if that is so, the 1 year test reactor is not the 2012 flattened cubish reactor and it could have easily used Li to get the COP increase.

            Or are you suggesting COP > 50 is available without Li?

          • Axil Axil

            In my original post, Rossi told Gerard McEk: “The E-Cat of the type that has been operated during the 1 year test is designed for low temperature steam. To get higher temperatures it is necessary the design used in the high temperature reactors.”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Rossi is referring to the entire reactor design that can handle circulating 600C fluid that would destroy a low temp reactor design.

            So yes a HotCat or HotCat X reactor is a very different design. I don’t believe a 600C reactor will directly circulate water & produce steam. It will probably circulate a high temp liquid salt to a heat exchanged that can deliver the steam temp & pressure needed to drive a sub or super critical turbine.

            That said there is nothing prohibiting the 1 year reactors from operating differently from the 2012 reactors and utilise Li to achieve the COP > 50 result.

            Or do you suggest COP > 50 can be achieved using a 2012 fuel mix without Li?

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi has his high temperature reactor design covered under his current patent. It covers Lugano, E-catX and the Quark.

            He does not have the low temperature reactor design covered by patent yet, He is now working on it.

            Ask Rossi if he is working on the low temperature reactor patent he used in the one year test.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Rossi has stated the 1 year test reactor core is as per the patent. It is afterall a patent for a “Water Heater”.

            Rossi also stated the QuarkX is covered by the patent.

            Here is the issue you need to resolve, if as you claim, the fuel in the 1 year test reactors had no Li, how was COP > 50 and very long term SSM achieved?

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi said that he had to constantly adjust(optimize) the reactor to get a cop of 50.

            The Quark can produce a cop of 200. Cop 50 is not that much in comparison.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            The real COP was around 65 and that was for a real working plant running 24/7. The QuarkX was 200 but in a lab. Rossi did say the production QuarkX COP would be lower.

            Still the point is Li is needed to achieve COP 50 and so the recently analyser fuel is from the 1 year reactor.

            My big question is why would Lomax publish the document and reveal the author? I mean why would he help the Rossi cause as he is clearly anti Rossi. Something smells a bit off.

          • Axil Axil

            you have to beleive Rossi when he said that he had nothing to do with the ash that went to sweden. That ash might well have come from IH from a Lugano like reactor.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil, who wrote:
            “you have to beleive Rossi when he said that he had nothing to do with the ash that went to sweden.”

            That is not what he said.

            Please reread what he said very carefully.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Try this

          • Axil Axil

            OK I’ll parse it…

            I never made those analysis

            The guys in Sweden did.

            those analysis have not been made or controlled by me

            The guys in Sweden controlled the analysis.

            and for me they simply do not exist.

            Rossi must be talking about IH ash that he did not help in producing.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            What I read is Rossi being very careful what he says. Never saying he supplied the fuel, nor arranged for nor paid for the analysis.

            However there is no way to get COP 50 without Li nor is there any way the 1 year test “Water Heater” can oblige the patent, which Rossi claims it did.

            Point being Li can be in the fuel for a low temperature “Water Heater” as per the patent and thus the fuel analysis done by the Swedes, with the Li, can be for the 1 year “Water Heater” test.

          • Alan Smith

            You are right about the cost, but wrong about the noise. I have worked (and worked on building) differential gradient ultra-centrifuges many years ago. Since they generally run inside evacuated containments they are no more noisy individually than a vacuum cleaner, even at 100k+ rpm.

          • Alan Smith

            Lomax did not have the permission of the original author to publish. The person who gave him ‘permission’ had no authority to make public the origin of the document either. This is a breach of trust by someone.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I missed this. I do not know how Alan Smith gets his information that I did not have permission. I have neither claimed permission from the author nor no permission. I cannot provide more details. I did originally request clarification from my source, and it was clarified that, as far as my source was concerned, I could publish.

            My only agreement of confidentiality is with my source, and I have not stated who that is, and thus it could be anyone with access to the file, and that obviously could include Bo Hoistad, and many others could be possible as well, it is just that the only relative certainty — if the file is authentic! — is that Bo was involved. And then we can expand the circle out. With whom would he share it?

            Who had an obligation of confidentiality here? I’ll give on hint: I had no obligation of confidentiality except with regard to my source. I do not know about any others, beyond what is obvious: under the Agreement, if the sample came from the 1 MW test, that ash was IH property and Rossi might have been violating confidentiality by providing it to Hoistad. But I do not know that he did not have permission, beyond rumor. I do not know that Hoistad had an obligation of confidentiality, beyond speculation. All I know and will disclose is that the person who gave me the file gave me permission to publish it as-received. For all I know it is a total crock. But people can ask Bo if they want to *actually know.*

            Oh, wait. Those are the Lugano professors. They don’t talk. Unless they leak files, perhaps.

          • Alan Smith

            Hi Axil. For evidence that Lithium was not used in early work just go back and check out the first Rossi patent application – the Italian filing. But your assumption that Potassium was used instead (at any time) is, I am sure, way off target.

          • Axil Axil

            Way are you so sure?

          • Alan Smith

            Because it doesn’t appear to work.

          • Axil Axil

            It works for Holmlid and DGT.

          • Alan Smith

            Hey come off it Axil. You know DGT never had anything but hope. Holmid is a possible though- but there are differences between Rossi and him.

          • Axil Axil

            So sorry, please forgive me but I trust Dr. Kim more than you and the people that influence you.

            Just like P&F, there are some people that you trust more than anybody else.

          • Obvious

            The Krivit SIMs data has lithium in it.

  • Karl Venter

    Not sure this is the correct thread but here goes anyway

    Is there some sort of group that is promoting the implementation of the Rossi phenomena?
    What I am getting as is that Rossi is going to make a unit that produces for example heat

    This unit with dimension X x Y x Z in size must then be put into a functional system like a geyser for hot water or whatever to make heat for a cabinet etc etc

    Rossi can not do the specific implementation of his system into all the various call it “Machines”
    I know he is focusing on the industrial systems and still here you have a lot of scope to install his system – take for example what ENG 48 is doing in the other threads

    Who is going to make the “machines”?

    • Ged

      Any company that wants to make a buck. All those myriad of existing machines that use heat could be retrofitted. Basically, your imagination is the limit, there are no major technical issues for the machine side of things.

      LENR cars want to put the ecat as the power source for your car. LENR cities is interested in making the ecat a distributed power system for cities among other things. Power plant operators in Australia are interested in replacing their conventional fired boilers with the ecat. It’s one of those “build it and they will come” senarios.

  • Karl Venter

    Not sure this is the correct thread but here goes anyway

    Is there some sort of group that is promoting the implementation of the Rossi phenomena?
    What I am getting as is that Rossi is going to make a unit that produces for example heat

    This unit with dimension X x Y x Z in size must then be put into a functional system like a geyser for hot water or whatever to make heat for a cabinet etc etc

    Rossi can not do the specific implementation of his system into all the various call it “Machines”
    I know he is focusing on the industrial systems and still here you have a lot of scope to install his system – take for example what ENG 48 is doing in the other threads

    Who is going to make the “machines”?

    • Ged

      Any company that wants to make a buck. All those myriad of existing machines that use heat could be retrofitted. Basically, your imagination is the limit, there are no major technical issues for the machine side of things.

      LENR cars want to put the ecat as the power source for your car. LENR cities is interested in making the ecat a distributed power system for cities among other things. Power plant operators in Australia are interested in replacing their conventional fired boilers with the ecat. It’s one of those “build it and they will come” senarios.

  • @Alan Taylor and @Engineer48, what is your confidence level these days in terms of “chain of command” of the isotopic sample cause it sounds like Rossi brought the sample from Miami to Sweden.

    @Frank, have you reached out to the Swedish professor yet? Any comments coming?

  • @Alan Taylor and @Engineer48, what is your confidence level these days in terms of “chain of command” of the isotopic sample cause it sounds like Rossi brought the sample from Miami to Sweden.

    @Frank, have you reached out to the Swedish professor yet? Any comments coming?

    • MorganMck

      I think you mean Chain-of-Custody (CoC). Since Rossi was part of the CoC (USA -> Sweden) there will be no credibility behind the sample to any skeptic. I think most would believe Bo Hoistad and Jean Pettersson are honorable guys. So (as usual) it all comes down to Rossi and he really does not seem to care about convincing anyone with anything but an commercially applied eCat. I actually think this is too bad as I think a properly performed Black Box test could accelerate the commercialization process a great deal.

      • yes, chain of custody. I’ve been watching Season one of the Wire …. can you tell?

      • roseland67

        Morgan,

        Who cares about convincing skeptics?

        Sometimes It appears to me that this is imperative so the believers can say,
        “See, I told you so” to vindicate their fanatical zealous belief in Rossi and the Ecat.

        It doesn’t matter, it never did,
        The only thing that matters is
        Energy out>Energy in &
        Replication

        Screw the skeptics,

  • Warthog

    Remember, Rossi is Italian…..”baroque” is their middle name.

  • Billy Jackson

    IH has made an e-cat with a COP of 11 without rossi there. (the one they filed the patent on) .. now it may not be up to par with the later versions of the tech.. but others beside Rossi now know the secret.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Billy,

      Yup.

      Amazing how folks skip over that inconvenient fact.

  • Rossi’s behavior is strange… granted. Don’t think the whole technology will perish without him thing is a real concern. He has said there are provisions in place for that possibility and once it does happen then many truths will be revealed.

    I wanted to say something about the outside testing comment though. So I want to understand what it is about Rossi having fleeting access to the devices that invalidates the rest of the time that scientists have unsupervised access to it. Rossi dropped off his reactor with the Lugano scientists, got it started for them and went to another continent for the duration of the test.

    What was that exactly in your mind? Just stupid confidence that the scientists were idiots and would come up with the measurements he wanted to further his scam? Doesn’t it count in his favor at all that he surrendered his reactor to outside testing for a long period of time?

    • Mats002

      That is another good one after the two one year IH engineers.

      My meter points very much to Rossi when all adding ups are made…

      I know there are a lot of energy scams out there and AR had a ‘rumor’ before IH entered the scene. Of course they thought of all they could but AR outsmarted them during at least six months.

      Agatha Christie where are you?

      • wpj

        She is currently featuring in egoout

    • Bruce__H

      Yes it does count that Rossi left his reactor with others. But in my recollection the outstanding aspect of the Lugano test was the shift seen in isotope concentrations and this is exactly the part that Rossi was around to influence.

      I don’t think that the claims of excess heat have survived have they? Am I wrong?

      • The excess heat claim is now mostly unsupported, IMO, but they have not retracted their report. It’s ambiguous though whether less excess heat means no excess heat. I’ve seen analyses both ways and the math is difficult and the assumptions required are error inducing.

        Yes the isotopic shifts were a huge deal. But the fact that supposed master scammer Rossi left his reactor with a team of scientists for a long period of time to do as they pleased with, should also be a huge deal to anyone paying attention.

        It’s not Rossi’s fault that the scientists may have botched the temperature measurement or that he is accused of magic tricks when extracting the ash in front of witnesses after the fact.

        • Bruce__H

          Rossi didn’t drop off the ecat on premises controlled by Levi et al. My understanding is that the Lugano experiments took place in a building of a Rossi-associated company. The investigators had nothing to do with preparing the setup. I would be happier if the investigators set up everything in their own lab. And I don’t see why this wouldn’t be possible since the ecat itself, unencumbered as it was in this case by steam generation devices, seems very portable

          Whatever may or may not be Rossi’s “fault”, this just doesn’t seem all that independent.

          • Frank Acland

            I don’t believe there was any self-sustain in the Lugano test. The testers said it would have added complexity to what they were doing, so they operated the reactor with a constant drive — if I recall correctly.

          • Oh please. There’s reasonable expectations and then there’s demanding perfection far beyond what’s expected of normal scientific experiments.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            IH built and shipped 3 empty DogBone HotCat reactors & fuel to Lugano. Weaver has stated IH has a chain of custody for this. Weaver also stated IH had no idea what happened to the reactors after the test was completed. Additionally Weaver has stated IH had personal at the Lugano test.

            Under the vision and video of the entire Lugano team, Rossi loaded the fuel and sealed the test reactor. Likewise under video and the vision of the entire Lugano team, Rossi broke into the reactor and obtained a fuel sample for analysis.

            Please provide your proof that the building the Lugano test occurred was Rossi-associated owned and why would that matter?

            Until the Lugano retract their finding, they stand. So far no one has proved their assertions the emissivity reading were incorrect. Likewise the Lugano team assert Rossi was vidoed and watched by all the team during both the fuel loading and unloading.

          • Obvious

            Re: emissivity.
            In the MFMP image, box 7 has the ε changed to 0.7 from 0.95 .

            The other plot is centered at the spectral sensitivity range of the Optris, and has three lines at various emissivities and their respective temperatures, that are of the same equivalent radiance.

  • cashmemorz

    For the uninitiated (long term reading ALL things pertaining to Rossi) and that is the vast majority of people looking at cold fusion, Industrial Heat just has to stand back and let things fall into place. That majority will not be able to make a decision of who is actually in the right and will err on the side of caution and be skeptical. And that majority turns out to be who controls the mass opinion on the subject of cold fusion/LENR. Similar to what is happening in climate change denial, various religions etc.

  • Perhaps re-calibrate your expectations and view this as more of a business story than a science story. Science is only a part of what’s going on here.

    Everyone acknowledges that Rossi has not offered solid scientific proof of LENR+ in his reactors yet. He took some steps in that direction with Lugano and the tests that preceded it, but even if you take them at face value more replication would be required for scientific acceptance. His main goal is to commercialize though, not satisfy the scientific community.

    • TVulgaris

      NONE of the tests have been scientific work, they’ve all been engineering studies, and engineering doesn’t DEMAND full scientific justification a priori, nor even post priori- scientific acceptance does (at least post). The “scientific community” has been studiously rejecting ALL of the work in LENR for over 25 years now- it’s brave individuals (some scientists and engineers, even some engineering and science deans, and “amateurs” (some who are truly brilliant but simply not credentialed at the highest levels)) who’ve challenged that shibboleth. Most of them get squashed in response, and the only one’s that haven’t either have pursued commercialization, been entirely sidelined by other interests, or are comfortably ensconced at NASA or some other insulating position that probably effectively insulates them from working full-time in the field as well (I’m thinking about the administrative load of running a lab or university department).

  • I do have an internal timeline. It is not much longer. If we get to 2018 and real things haven’t happened yet then I will have to re-examine my analysis and assumptions.

    Three years of the delay can be attributed to Industrial Heat. Reaching agreement in October 2012, Rossi expected massive commercialization in the following year (read his posts from that period). Instead he got a lot of foot dragging as IH primarily pursued an IP strategy and started playing with Rossi’s competition (Darden even said in an interview that they would move cautiously and try to solidify their IP position before moving into the market).

    Rossi is just breaking free of that relationship now.

    • Pweet

      I think when you get to 2018 with nothing resolved, there will be some really good reason why that date will be extended to 2020, and then 2021, 22, 23, and so on. That has been the procedure so far. Every year, another good reason to hang on for another year or two. I believe that has been the purpose of the QuackEcat; something really great to wait for after it becomes apparent the the 1MW plant is going nowhere, all tied up with the IH fiasco, waiting on court proceedings, waiting for IP ownership resolution, waiting on anything except production.
      .
      Frank posted something interesting to the Rossiblog today.;-

      Frank Acland
      July 19, 2016 at 1:49 PM
      Dear Andrea,

      For 2016 to be the year of the E-Cat, I think we would need:

      1. E-Cat plants working in the real world (not under NDA)

      2. Customers happy to openly report about successful operations and significant cost savings (again not under NDA).

      3. Some video of your plants in operation.

      Which of the above do you hope to achieve in 2016?

      Thank you,
      Frank Acland

      ———–
      Andrea Rossi
      July 19, 2016 at 2:52 PM
      Frank Acland:

      I hope all of them.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.
      ———
      I can confidently predict in relation to
      questions 1 and 2, ;- No hope.
      question 3, ;- Maybe in his workshop, otherwise, no hope.

      And this is on the background of the supposed sale of three X 1MW plants sold to the ‘secret’ customer and due for delivery in another two months if the delivery times on the web site can be relied upon.
      Do I think they can be? Well, not really, but that’s what the words say. We shall see.
      Feel free to quote this back to me if it turns out to be different.
      I’m old, so maybe in six months I will have forgotten I wrote this, so I will need reminding. Gosh, maybe I will have forgotten by next week even.

      • I can think of a couple of situations where I might allow some leeway.

        One would be court ordered something-or-other that prevents Rossi and team from advancing. I don’t know what that would be exactly but I think it’s possible.

        Another would be some clear indication that the effort has gone black. There has been some movement in the shadows around LENR+ and we know the government is involved. If there’s verifiable info that Rossi is working with say, DARPA, then I would cut him some slack.

        Other than that not much could do it. The R&D has run its course. There’s time enough to sort out the business arrangements. There are others in the field that should be able to prove something if Leonardo fails to (IH, Lenuco, Brillouin, Clean Planet, Nichenergy, MFMP, me356, etc).

        So it’s put up or shut up time, Pweet. The road to get here has been strange but explainable. It is not a typical scam story in many ways. There has been real engineering taking place, plain for all to see. Millions of dollars have changed hands. An IP war has been launched. There has been unfettered access by scientists and apparent proof of nuclear activity. The supposed scammer has gone to court.

        So let’s see where it goes from here with the commercialization, the trial and the competition. The next year and a half should give us a definitive answer both about Rossi and about LENR+ in general.

        • Pweet

          And yet for the last two years, many here said that although they didn’t trust Mr Rossi, specially after the publishing of the Aldo Proia letter, the fact that IH were involved gave them hope that all was well. Due diligence and all that, investing millions of dollars etc. And it was also said that if IH bailed out they would take that as an indication that the ecat saga was a sham. But here we are two years down the track and IH have bailed out claiming no verification of the Rossi results, they are constantly being sledged by Mr Rossi on his blog, and about be dragged before the court to have their gullibility aired in public, much to their embarrassment and shame I’m sure.
          So, why is it that those who were relying on the involvement of IH to justify their belief have now abandoned that supposed firm foundation for nothing more than a hope that something good might eventuate some time over the next two years?
          When investing in a project, either by way of cash or intellectual capital, it is useless setting milestones to be achieved if they are just ignored as they are passed by without achieving them. This is not the first milestone passed by with a zero result. It is just one more in a long list. So far, not one milestone has been achieved, all being abandoned along the way as soon as the next one has been announced. So now we await the imminent massive production of the QuackEcat X, this year he hopes. And the delivery of three new 1MW plants to a real customer who might be happy to report on it, he hopes.
          Not true. HE says, and WE hope.
          So as far as the ‘time to put up or shut up’ mentioned above, I think that more aptly applies to the person making all the proclamations and promises. I am just the casual observer stating what by now is blindingly obvious.
          But you’re probably right insofar as having said it so many times now, I should give it a rest.
          Carry on, and best of luck.

      • nietsnie

        Steorn seems to have pioneered a new business model in which a company can survive indefinitely on other people’s hope alone. Ten years ago I would have said that wasn’t possible – yet here we are.

  • yes, chain of custody. I’ve been watching Season one of the Wire …. can you tell?

  • JDM

    Rossi denies any knowledge of the report.
    Didn’t Darden or Vaughn also go to Sweden after the 1 year test, supposedly to try to convince profs of flawed Lugano report? But what if…

    • Observer

      Rudolph
      July 19, 2016 at 2:00 AM
      Dr Andrea Rossi:
      Do you have comments about the analysis of the fuel published on Ecat World ?
      They seem to be very interesting, don’t they ?
      Rudolph

      Andrea Rossi
      July 19, 2016 at 9:43 AM
      Rudolph:
      I never made those analysis, those analysis have not been made or controlled by me and for me they simply do not exist.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • Mats002

        Dang! We know there where at least two other engineers in control of the 1 MW plant.

        Or AR lies… “

        • Observer

          Is not Abd ul-Rahman Lomax an IH confidant?

          Does “fuel sample obtained from Rossi” mean it was obtained directly form Rossi or does it mean that it was obtained from Rossi’s reactor?

          If Rossi was not part of the chain of custody for this sample, does that not increase the credibility of the original analysis in the Lugano report?

          • Mats002

            You say that the Lugano sample made another lap around the world and ended up in another Uppsala analysis?

          • Observer

            Who said this analysis and the Lugano analysis was on the same sample?

            On the surface, this appears to be an IH provided sample.

          • Mats002

            IH says nothing, Rossi says.

            Can you say anything to/about multibillion trademarks like Cherokee/Woodford/ABB/JM without an official denial?

            If this is a scam, Rossi thrives on being able to referencing and associate to large trademarks like NASA without anyone high enough takes notice.

          • Observer

            What are you talking about?

            The frame of reference for your last two comments escapes me.

          • Mats002

            I take the other side for a moment. Working with multiple scenarios is what I do for a living.

            (And I had some wine)

          • Observer

            All I am saying is that if Rossi did not have the analysis done, who did?

            And why did Abd ul-Rahman Lomax have a copy of the analysis results?

          • Mats002

            Alan Smith and Engineer48 also had it if my memory still works for me.

            Obviously there is an inner circle of CF:s but they are not the DDL:s around Rossi nucleus. I think DDL:s are bound by NDA:s or by trust and hope for a future reward are silent about current facts.

          • Observer

            There is nothing negative to Rossi in the analysis results. The only reason Rossi would have for denying giving the sample to Bo Hoistad is because he didn’t do it. If he didn’t do it, who did?

          • Mats002

            I can see at least one reason for Rossi to deny the sample and that is if he entered an NDA with IH about their endevour. If so – even if the tech works – he would look bad in front of the jury.

          • Observer

            That is what “no comment” is for.

            Not “I never made those analysis, those analysis have not been made or controlled by me and for me they simply do not exist.”

          • Mats002

            I call Bachcole for this analysis.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            An NDA can’t be used to hide the truth when one partner says it did not work and the other partner says it did work.

          • Mats002

            Ho Eng,

            Can you verify that claim of yours with a reference to legislation or practice?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            Been there. Done that.

          • Mars002

            You where the partner that said it worked?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mars002,

            Lets say I know from personal legal experience someone trying to cheat you can’t hid data showing that they did cheat you behind a NDA.

          • Robert Dorr

            I don’t think the NDA would stop Rossi from having an analysis done of the fuel ash, it would just stop him from divulging the results. As long as someone besides Rossi let the cat out of the bag, Rossi would not be in violation of the NDA.

          • Mats002

            Yes Robert, as long as he denies it.

          • Engineer48
          • AdrianAshfield

            That’s quite possible too.
            The skeptical commenters have no idea of how long it takes to bring a new technology to commercialization.
            Looking at how far Rossi has progressed from 2011 through the first 1 MW plant to the second one with four 250 kW reactors and now the QuarkX, progress has been as fast as could be expected.
            Rossi has had to struggle against academia’s strongly expressed doubts, the policy of the Patent Office not to grant patents for cold fusion and UL’s fear of the unknown to license such a new “nuclear” device.
            He could have walked away with a million in his pocket several times but has chosen to work 16 hour days. He could have requested a deposit from those pre-ordering a domestic E-Cat but he has only taken money from those that could afford it and understood the risk. It doesn’t look like a fraud to me.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Robert,

            Yup.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Observer,

            My info is the latest fuel/ash analysis is correct in that Rossi provided the sample.

          • Observer

            But did he provide the sample for the purpose of this analysis?

            Was Rossi aware the analysis was being done?

            Did he get a copy of the results?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Observer,

            I don’t speak words for Rossi.

          • Obvious

            Why would anyone have the results, if the intent was to not have someone leak them? It was only a matter of time before someone released the full version. Seems like quite enough people were able to see the whole page. Select people. Influencers, one might even say.

          • Bruce__H

            Dewey Weaver denies that any sample at all has been taken from the 1 year test reactor. He thinks that the fuel loads are still locked, untouched, in the ecat shipping container.

            I get the feeling that having the container opened and having the fuel tested in a completely secure (perhaps court-supervised) chain of custody is part of IH’s plan for showing up Rossi.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            From the visual evidence, the fuel rods are secured in the reactor by a screwed collar. Would suggest someone experienced could swap an old for new fuel rod in a short time.

            Especially if that person knew what was going to happen in a few days with the complaint and that it was highly likely he would he denied assess to the fuel rods / future analysis data that could back up the ERV COP > 50 claim.
            .

          • this is the opposite.
            keeping the reactors safe maitain the chain of custory, but smuggling evidences, destroy the confidence you can have in them.

            this rather looks like destroying annoying evidence, like when Rossi claimed the reactor was refilled day before it was stopped and padlocked.

            if you find no transmutation in the padlocked reactor, there would be the excuse “we changed the fuel just before”.

            it stink.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Alain,

            I suggest it is not smuggling if IH are trying to avoid post 1 year trial fuel analysis from showing their claims are false.

          • Ged

            That would be some clever, underhanded shenanigans to try to undermine Rossi if so.

          • Mats002

            ^^

    • That’s a really interesting point. Maybe it went like:

      D/V: We think Rossi’s a fake.
      Uppsala: What do you mean? We found excess heat and the ash was a jackpot!
      D/V: We think the ERV report is BS, full of errors. We can’t verify the customer is real and when we went on the roof we didn’t see any big heat with our IR cameras.
      Uppsala: Holy… Well, how about slipping us some ash from the 1 MW plant and we’ll take a look at it. That way we’ll know for sure.
      D/V: Good idea. Consider it done.

      Fast forward:
      Uppsala: The 1 MW ash shows isotopic shifts just like Lugano.
      D/V: Holy…

      • The timing of it suggests Rossi brought it with him to Sweden, though.
        https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/

        So he denies it was from him… but it almost certainly was… we don’t know if it came from the 1 MW plant or not and even if it is, when exactly it was taken. Seems it could not have been extracted after the premises was padlocked… he wouldn’t take that kind of legal risk (I think).

        So, it was probably extracted during the test at some point. There was a point just after the test when he said a recharge was underway. So he would have gotten it all out then, perhaps. But wouldn’t IH own that ash? Maybe that’s why he denies.

        But if he feels he’s being wronged he might want to get that over to Uppsala anyway.

        Drama!

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr,

          Please read very carefully what Rossi has said in relation to this data.

          • OK I’ll parse it…

            I never made those analysis

            Eh… nobody thinks he did.

            those analysis have not been made or controlled by me

            First half is same as above, second half, asserts independence of test. OK.

            and for me they simply do not exist.

            Not really sure where he’s going with that one.

            But I guess he never said he didn’t supply the ash so, there’s that. I assume that was your point?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Yup, well done Watson.

  • JDM

    Rossi denies any knowledge of the report.
    Didn’t Darden or Vaughn also go to Sweden after the 1 year test, supposedly to try to convince profs of flawed Lugano report? But what if…

    • Observer

      Rudolph
      July 19, 2016 at 2:00 AM
      Dr Andrea Rossi:
      Do you have comments about the analysis of the fuel published on Ecat World ?
      They seem to be very interesting, don’t they ?
      Rudolph

      Andrea Rossi
      July 19, 2016 at 9:43 AM
      Rudolph:
      I never made those analysis, those analysis have not been made or controlled by me and for me they simply do not exist.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • Mats002

        Dang! We know there where at least two other engineers in control of the 1 MW plant.

        Or AR lies… “

        • Observer

          Is not Abd ul-Rahman Lomax an IH confidant?

          Does “fuel sample obtained from Rossi” mean it was obtained directly form Rossi or does it mean that it was obtained from Rossi’s reactor?

          If Rossi was not part of the chain of custody for this sample, does that not increase the credibility of the original analysis in the Lugano report?

          • Mats002

            You say that the Lugano sample made another lap around the world and ended up in another Uppsala analysis?

          • Observer

            Who said this analysis and the Lugano analysis was on the same sample?

            On the surface, this appears to be an IH provided sample.

          • Mats002

            IH says nothing, Rossi says.

            Can you say anything to/about multibillion trademarks like Cherokee/Woodford/ABB/JM without an official denial?

            If this is a scam, Rossi thrives on being able to referencing and associate to large trademarks like NASA without anyone high enough takes notice.

          • Observer

            What are you talking about?

            The frame of reference for your last two comments escapes me.

          • Mats002

            I take the other side for a moment. Working with multiple scenarios is what I do for a living.

            (And I had some wine)

          • Observer

            All I am saying is that if Rossi did not have the analysis done, who did?

            And why did Abd ul-Rahman Lomax have a copy of the analysis results?

          • Mats002

            Alan Smith and Engineer48 also had it if my memory still works for me.

            Obviously there is an inner circle of CF:s but they are not the DDL:s around Rossi nucleus. I think DDL:s are bound by NDA:s or by trust and hope for a future reward are silent about current facts.

          • Observer

            There is nothing negative to Rossi in the analysis results. The only reason Rossi would have for denying giving the sample to Bo Hoistad is because he didn’t do it. If he didn’t do it, who did?

          • Mats002

            I can see at least one reason for Rossi to deny the sample and that is if he entered an NDA with IH about their endevour. If so – even if the tech works – he would look bad in front of the jury.

          • Observer

            That is what “no comment” is for.

            Not “I never made those analysis, those analysis have not been made or controlled by me and for me they simply do not exist.”

          • Mats002

            I call Bachcole for this analysis.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            An NDA can’t be used to hide the truth when one partner says it did not work and the other partner says it did work.

          • Mats002

            Ho Eng,

            Can you verify that claim of yours with a reference to legislation or practice?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            Been there. Done that.

          • Mars002

            You where the partner that said it worked?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mars002,

            Lets say I know from personal legal experience someone trying to cheat you can’t hid data showing that they did cheat you behind a NDA.

          • Robert Dorr

            I don’t think the NDA would stop Rossi from having an analysis done of the fuel ash, it would just stop him from divulging the results. As long as someone besides Rossi let the cat out of the bag, Rossi would not be in violation of the NDA.

          • Mats002

            Yes Robert, as long as he denies it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Robert,

            Yup.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Observer,

            My info is the latest fuel/ash analysis is correct in that Rossi provided the sample.

          • Observer

            But did he provide the sample for the purpose of this analysis?

            Was Rossi aware the analysis was being done?

            Did he get a copy of the results?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Observer,

            I don’t speak words for Rossi.

          • Obvious

            Why would anyone have the results, if the intent was to not have someone leak them? It was only a matter of time before someone released the full version. Seems like quite enough people were able to see the whole page before Abd was “allowed” to show the whole thing. Select people. Influencers, one might even say.

          • Bruce__H

            Dewey Weaver denies that any sample at all has been taken from the 1 year test reactor. He thinks that the fuel loads are still locked, untouched, in the ecat shipping container.

            I get the feeling that having the container opened and having the fuel tested in a completely secure (perhaps court-supervised) chain of custody is part of IH’s plan for showing up Rossi.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Bruce,

            From the visual evidence, the fuel rods are secured in the reactor by a screwed collar. Would suggest someone experienced could swap an old for new fuel rod in a short time.

            Especially if that person knew what was going to happen in a few days with the complaint and that it was highly likely he would he denied assess to the fuel rods / future analysis data that could back up the ERV COP > 50 claim.
            .

          • Bruce__H

            Yes, I have wondered about this.

          • this is the opposite.
            keeping the reactors safe maitain the chain of custory, but smuggling evidences, destroy the confidence you can have in them.

            this rather looks like destroying annoying evidence, like when Rossi claimed the reactor was refilled day before it was stopped and padlocked.

            if you find no transmutation in the padlocked reactor, there would be the excuse “we changed the fuel just before”.

            it stink.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Alain,

            I suggest it is not smuggling if IH are trying to avoid post 1 year trial fuel analysis from showing their claims are false.

          • Ged

            That would be some clever, underhanded shenanigans to try to undermine Rossi if so.

          • Mats002

            ^^

    • That’s a really interesting point. Maybe it went like:

      D/V: We think Rossi’s a fake.
      Uppsala: What do you mean? We found excess heat and the ash was a jackpot!
      D/V: We think the ERV report is BS, full of errors. We can’t verify the customer is real and when we went on the roof we didn’t see any big heat with our IR cameras.
      Uppsala: Holy… Well, how about slipping us some ash from the 1 MW plant and we’ll take a look at it. That way we’ll know for sure.
      D/V: Good idea. Consider it done.

      Fast forward:
      Uppsala: The 1 MW ash shows isotopic shifts just like Lugano.
      D/V: Holy…

      • The timing of it suggests Rossi brought it with him to Sweden, though.
        https://animpossibleinvention.com/blog/
        (EDIT: report says 11 May and provided by Rossi… Rossi was in Sweden at that time)

        So he denies it was from him… but it almost certainly was… we don’t know if it came from the 1 MW plant or not and even if it is, when exactly it was taken. Seems it could not have been extracted after the premises was padlocked… he wouldn’t take that kind of legal risk (I think).

        So, it was probably extracted during the test at some point. There was a point just after the test when he said a recharge was underway. So he would have gotten it all out then, perhaps. But wouldn’t IH own that ash? Maybe that’s why he denies.

        But if he feels he’s being wronged he might want to get that over to Uppsala anyway.

        Drama!

        • Engineer48

          Hi Lenr,

          Please read very carefully what Rossi has said in relation to this data.

          • OK I’ll parse it…

            I never made those analysis

            Eh… nobody thinks he did.

            those analysis have not been made or controlled by me

            First half is same as above, second half, asserts independence of test. OK.

            and for me they simply do not exist.

            Not really sure where he’s going with that one.

            But I guess he never said he didn’t supply the ash so, there’s that. I assume that was your point?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Lenr,

            Yup, well done Watson.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    I just tried the download. Works perfect. No extra nothing.

    Will ask Frank to host the file.

  • Engineer48
    • sam

      Can anyone tell me what these
      numbers mean.

      • Mats002

        An impossible invention.

      • Assuming it is an actual sample and with some other uncontroversial assumptions, it is proof of nuclear activity (specifically of isotopic changes, that is, changes in the number of neutrons held by nuclei) in the 1 MW plant, consistent with the activity found by analyzing the ash from the Lugano test.

        Or as Mats#1 and Mats002 put it, “An Impossible Invention.”

  • Engineer48
    • sam

      Can anyone tell me what these
      numbers mean.

      • Mats002

        An impossible invention.

      • Assuming it is an actual sample and with some other uncontroversial assumptions, it is proof of nuclear activity (specifically of isotopic changes, that is, changes in the number of neutrons held by nuclei) in the 1 MW plant, consistent with the activity found by analyzing the ash from the Lugano test.

        Or as Mats#1 and Mats002 put it, “An Impossible Invention.”

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bruce,

    The 2 x 1MW reactors were IH property, manufactured by them, assembled inside the container in Raleigh by them, fuel loaded by them, shipped to Doral by them.

    The Rossi made 1MW reactor was 1st tested in Italy for 24 hours, then shipped to Raleigh in 2013.

    For from 2013 to the end of the 1 year test in early 2016, there was a Rossi made and tested by IH 1MW reactor, which resulted in the $11.5m payment sitting in Raleigh.

    Would seem 3 years is more than enough time for IH to discover the 1st 24 hour test was in error and to ask Rossi for their $11.5m back.

    But that never happened. In fact they manufactured the DogBone reactor and shipped it to Lugano and then built the backup and prime 1MW reactors for the 1 year trial. Do you really thing they would have build all those reactors if they KNEW they did not work as expected?

    The 1st time IH claimed they could not substantiate was when the $89m invoice hit the IH accounts payable inbox.

    So please stop the crazy speculation. IH had the 2013 1MW test reactor in Raleigh for 3 years and never called foul.

  • Engineer48
  • Alan DeAngelis

    Run the reaction with lithium-7, nickel-58 and LAH made from lithium-7 instead of natural lithium http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/05/elforsk-publishes-article-isotop-changes-indicate-cold-nuclear-reaction/#comment-1682226325 and follow the shift to Li-6 and Ni-62.

    • Chapman

      How does Ni facilitate the neutron emission from the Li? I have read your previous postings, and it is clear you have a deep understanding of nucleon exchanges and various decay modes, so I am not dismissing your insights. I am honestly interested in the mechanism you propose.

      How does 7Li contribute a single neutron to a Ni atom and degrade to 6Li? 7Li is highly stable, and not subject to any spontaneous neutron emission as far as I know – but I am always looking for “what I don’t know”, which is a huge topic!

      • Alan DeAngelis

        I really do not know (just hand waving as usual) but although lithium-7 is not considered to be a “halo nucleus”, maybe the lithium-7 nucleus with its odd number of neutrons may have some halo nucleus characteristics where as lithium-6’s nucleons are all paired up. Maybe that odd neutron in lithium-7 is more loosely bound than we think it is?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_nucleus

        • Alan DeAngelis

          PS
          Another crazy thought.
          Maybe it’s a concerted reaction were two lithium (2nd order with respect to lithium-7) simultaneously give up two neutrons to an empty shell of a nickel nucleus.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Run the reaction with lithium-7, nickel-58 and LAH made from lithium-7 instead of natural lithium http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/05/elforsk-publishes-article-isotop-changes-indicate-cold-nuclear-reaction/#comment-1682226325 and follow the shift to Li-6 and Ni-62.

    • Chapman

      How does Ni facilitate the neutron emission from the Li? I have read your previous postings, and it is clear you have a deep understanding of nucleon exchanges and various decay modes, so I am not dismissing your insights. I am honestly interested in the mechanism you propose.

      How does 7Li contribute a single neutron to a Ni atom and degrade to 6Li? 7Li is highly stable, and not subject to any spontaneous neutron emission as far as I know – but I am always looking for “what I don’t know”, which is a huge topic!

      • Alan DeAngelis

        I really do not know (just hand waving as usual) but although lithium-7 is not considered to be a “halo nucleus”, maybe the lithium-7 nucleus with its odd number of neutrons may have some halo nucleus characteristics where as lithium-6’s nucleons are all paired up. Maybe that odd neutron in lithium-7 is more loosely bound than we think it is?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_nucleus

        • Alan DeAngelis

          PS
          Another crazy thought.
          Maybe it’s a concerted reaction were two lithium (2nd order with respect to lithium-7) simultaneously give up two neutrons to an empty shell of a nickel nucleus.

          • Chapman

            Ah. Thank you. You had me worried I had missed a MAJOR fundamental mechanism!

            So, you are simply making a perfectly reasonable assumption that there IS such a mechanism, based on the observation that isotopic shifts occur in the reports that result in an increase of 6Li in respect to 7Li. Again, perfectly reasonable, as there is no arguing that if it IS happening right before your eyes it is a pretty good bet it IS possible, and that there IS a mechanism that facilitates it. Right? That’s not just logical, it is axiomatic!

            So, now we need that Ni vs Li ratio data! Either the total Li population remains constant, and only isotopic shifts are occurring dropping 7Li to 6Li , and we need to find that mechanism, or the total Li ratio to Ni is being reduced, resulting in an increase in remaining 6Li vs the depleted 7Li count, as the 7Li is being consumed in Alpha production.

            I really enjoyed reviewing your previous postings. Seriously. It is obvious you spent a lot of time thinking these things through. Nicely done.

          • Mats002

            Hi Chapman,

            Have you considered the Gullstrom theory? It come from Uppsala based upon the Lugano fuel/ash sample.

            http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/13/gamma-free-nuclear-transition-through-de-exitation-of-spin-0-strong-force-exited-states/

            I don’t know if Gullstrom have more data to make his theory from. What do you think? The Li6 > Li7 idea is not present in Gullstrom theory from what I can see.

          • Chapman

            Interesting.

            So, the idea, if you will forgive the simplifications, are that in excited states, and close proximity, Ni can “leech” a neutron from 7Li. This is not an issue of an excited state of the Li causing it to undergo a mysterious and never-before-seen spontaneous neutron emission independently, but rather an active process that is triggered external to the Li nucleus – dependant only on the spin state of the Li nucleons. And most significantly, the transfer is achieved with minimum disruption to the nucleon state, so there is no signature radiation emission to point at and say “Ah HA!” The transfer is clean, but the result then proceeds to trigger the secondary reaction chains which we see in LENR experiments and Reactors.

            Am I following it ok? Please fill in any obvious gaps, or correct any errors. It is a complicated presentation with minor language translation issues – not that I am criticising grammar, but where there is a language barrier there is also the chance of inversions and other semantic errors that confuse or distort the basic concept being described. Rossi is a perfect example! He is internally translating, and still gets things twisted up pretty bad.

          • Mats002

            I am only a layman so the paper is over my head, I can not follow it better than you. The paper might have some extra value knowing that Bo Hoistad – one of the Uppsala professors that did the Lugano test – is the professor for Gullstrom. The paper comes from the inner circle so to speak.

          • Chapman

            Very interesting idea. Of course, it may be a perfectly valid idea, and happen in some conditions, and yet not be related to LENR or E-Cats, so even if it is not what we are looking for regarding Rossi, it still has validity and should not be dismissed out of hand. I will look into it further, just for science sake, and see what I find. Thank you for the heads-up! (I love logic problems and digging into research notes. I’m twisted that way!)

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I thought I was the first to think about this neutron transfer thing http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/10/e-cat-test-news-page-at-peswiki/ but HOLY SMOKES apparently Robin van Spaandonk https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg98050.html worked it out the instant the data was released!
            But I did pull out some of my old infrared symmetrical stretching of nickel hydride bonds, p~Ni~p BS to come up with an exothermic mechanism for nickel-64 going to nickel-62 (if in fact it actually does).

  • bachcole

    I am no nuclear physicists. But am I the only one who thinks that having in one’s possession an isotope mix such as Rossi had is so unusual that it would require some sort of nuclear reaction or a whole bunch of powerful centrifuges?

    Please, correct me if I am wrong.

    And such powerful centrifuges would cost a lot of money and make a lot of noise.

    ???

    • Bruce__H
      • bachcole

        Your link destroyed my argument. Faking it would be easy.

        • Obvious

          Take 1 part natural nickel powder, add 3.6 parts Ni62, with 0.55% Ni64 in it, and 0.1% Ni58 and Ni60 in it (impurities, because getting 100% Ni62 is basically impossible, and Ni64 is on the preferred heavy isotope end of the processing where the Ni62 will accumulate in the centrifuge). Shake well in a small vial. Within analytical error, there you have the reported results.

          Be sure to mark the sample as fuel, rather than ash, on the analysis report….

    • Alan Smith

      You are right about the cost, but wrong about the noise. I have worked (and worked on building) differential gradient ultra-centrifuges many years ago. Since they generally run inside evacuated containments they are no more noisy individually than a vacuum cleaner, even at 100k+ rpm.

  • Barbierir

    Ok I’ve been reading back and forth here and on Lenr-forum and I still don’t understand the most important question: can such ash sample be fabricated in lab? If so is that relatively easy and cheap or does it require million dollars equipment?

    • Job001

      It is ridiculous to assume fraud occurring independently with hundreds of excellent scientists world wide. That would require thousands of science false observations and reports, plus huge investments done for illogical reasons.

      The motivation for denial is typically financial(funding bias) by investors in old technology(FF Fossil fuels, RF Research Funding)) threatened to become obsolete or by scientists employed thereby. It is common place wealth behavior, see Tobacco, climate denial, hot fusion fiasco, military boondoggles, neglect of nuclear research, big Pharma bad research, bridges to nowhere).

      Specifically, nuclear ash has been found repeatedly by independent esteemed scientists and it would be prohibitively expensive to fake.

      Cold fusion(CF) is very real and is being engineered for applications. CF is light years ahead of hot fusion with breakeven achieved in less than half the time. HF cannot even compete with RE 5 or 10 years out but HF has great monopoly power(Expensive investment, heavy regulation).

      CF will remain under attack however, because CF has low monopoly power that threatens profitable monopolies and investments. CF is potentially low investment, cheap fuel, low regulation costs, local owners and investors, absolutely a huge threat to monopoly investors.

      Consequently denial is a consequence of financial corruption at this point, the science should be assumed to be good until actual science observations and proof show otherwise.

      • Barbierir

        I agree with your general points but I’m asking a specific question about this case because, by reading some comments, it seems Rossi could have fabricated such ash composition as easily as kneading dough for a cake. I don’t know much about it in order to make my own judgement.

        • Job001

          No, it is not easy, exceptionally expensive, and isotopes that are unavailable. Also, it would be a huge threat to any scientist’s reputation that they will not risk.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Job,

            Just like the Lugano team that all watched and video recorded Rossi as he obtained a sample of the fuel slag after 1 month. They knew what was on the line & preserved the chain of custody.

            It is simple for anyone to make a claim Rossi swapped the sample but in reality that would take every member of the team to have deliberately closed their eyes or looked away and to have switched off the 24/7 video recorder for that to have happened, which did not happen.

            In my opinion the Lugano reactor was not designed to be refueled but instead replaced as a complete module. Here is how Rossi would have needed to obtain a sample and what the once fine power had become. A molten slag of melted Al, Li and once fine powder Ni. Look at the photo for the reality.
            .

        • Gerard McEk

          It is true as Job001 says. To make the ash composition, you first need enriched 6Li and 62Ni and probably other enriched/depleted Ni isotopes. That alone is exceptionally expensive. Then it must be carefully mixed in a specialized lab by knowledgeable people to get a homogeneous mix. It is probably not impossible, but rather unlikely that the ‘ash’ is made in an other way then in a E-cat.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Gerard.

            Plus it is a melted slag and not the fine powder it was at the start.

            I think too many believe it remains a fine powder that can simple be sampled with a small spoon.

            More like drill into it and obtain a sample from the drill shavings.

            The Parkhomov fuel/ash is an excellent example. To call it ash is maybe technically correct but it is in no way ASH. It is a molten slag.
            .

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes, that is what I expect it to look like, but I did not read about it, nor see these Uppsala sample.

          • Pweet

            Given that there has been some years available to construct an ash sample, I don’t think any of the obstacles mentioned would have proven insurmountable to someone with sufficient motivation to complete the task. For someone practiced in the art of mixing up Nickel fuel components and secret sauces, the whole process would be a doddle. Specially if they had a ready supply of electrical heaters and alumina tubes to cook it with. It could even be a left over sample from a batch made up for an earlier test. You never know when you might need to produce an ash sample in a hurry.
            There are just too many possibilities to make any case hardened declaration as to how and where this sample originated from. Just a whole lot of Maybes.
            People will interpret all this to suit whatever argument they are trying to make, but as said already, because of the lack of control over who took the sample and how, coupled with the very loose chain of custody, it has interest value only and cannot be taken as proof of anything.

          • Obvious

            In figure 4, appendix 3, of the Lugano report there is an image of a Ni ash particle. It does not look like slag drilled into shavings. It is in fact nearly identical in appearance to a particle of brand new Ni62 imaged by Bob Higgins.

          • TVulgaris

            It would not be millions of dollars to fake a few-gram sample (much better to try in a small mat-lab inductive furnace with controlled atmosphere), and it would be very reasonable to assume Rossi SHOULD have acquired one over the past 15 years to tinker with the fuel charge composition and processing (and possibly necessary for reasonably early onset of excess heat in some iterations according to MFMP)- so probably it would cost a few thousand for the raw ingredients, compounding powders is straightforward, heat treatment and atmosphere completely controllable etc.- but the real question is whether surface features at micro- and nano- levels after LENR are distinguishable from more conventional reaction environments. Ed Storms is not the only one to verify for quite a few years that they are- coupled with the spectrograms for surface and interior of particles fingerprints whether it’s nuclear or some other kind of processing.
            I don’t see how this could be faked using a fission reactor (still not millions, but the price tag escalates rapidly)- but ultimately there is still no incontrovertible proof THIS sample came from one of the MW test reactors.
            Then again, there is no incontrovertible proof I exist, or any of the rest of yinz….

        • Bruce__H

          I don’t know much about isotopes either. But Mr Google turns out to be an informative companion.

          http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/aldrich/634026?lang=en&region=US

    • bachcole

      I have been asking that for days. There are nuclear power plants that could make it, I think. And centrifuges using nickel hexafluoride or some such thing that I have no idea about. But both of those possibilities are simply not really very likely. The nuclear option would mean that the sample would be radioactive; highly unlikely, like fo-get about it. The centrifuges would create a lot of racket and draw a lot of unwanted attention for the authorities. So that is a “fo-get about it”. Are there any other options, besides cold fusion?

      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        For the separation of isotopes of nickel calutron generally used working on the principle of mass spectrograph

    • Obvious

      3.6:1

  • Gerard McEk

    So here we have this analysis which is presumably be supplied by AR to the Uppsala university. The isotope shifts are undeniable, if we assume that was started from a natural isotope composition. Making such a composition of isotopes is very difficult and expensive if somebody needs to compose it. Therefore it seems to me a genuine LENR ash composition.
    The BIG question is: Why is it leaked? I do not see any advantage for IH to leak this in the light of the court case. But would it be an advantage for AR?
    My guess is that AR was not allowed to have the ash analyzed, but if he would have it analyzed, it would strongly and positively contribute to the court case for him, so he had it analysed.
    I think that it should not have been leaked and that the Uppsala University or Höistad will have received an angry telephone of AR. After all, leaking this will be a disadvantage for AR, because IH can prepare for it. That may mitigate the AR’s advantage compared to if it would pop-up during the court case.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      Perhaps the publication of the results of the analysis harm commercially Mr. Rossi Trade isotope Ni62.

  • Gerard McEk

    So here we have this analysis which is presumably be supplied by AR to the Uppsala university. The isotope shifts are undeniable, if we assume that was started from a natural isotope composition. Making such a composition of isotopes is very difficult and expensive if somebody needs to compose it. Therefore it seems to me a genuine LENR ash composition.
    The BIG question is: Why is it leaked? I do not see any advantage for IH to leak this in the light of the court case. But would it be an advantage for AR?
    My guess is that AR was not allowed to have the ash analyzed, but if he would have it analyzed, it would strongly and positively contribute to the court case for him, so he had it analysed.
    I think that it should not have been leaked and that the Uppsala University or Höistad will have received an angry telephone of AR. After all, leaking this will be a disadvantage for AR, because IH can prepare for it. That may mitigate the AR’s advantage compared to if it would pop-up during the court case.

    • Chapman

      If I may suggest something purely based on guesswork, and considering Rossi’s denial that he authorized the analysis, please consider the following:

      At the end of the test period, Rossi was already preparing his suit, which means he already had legal council giving him direction as to his actions.

      Rossi has repeatedly emphasized that he records everything.

      Rossi has been burned and betrayed repeatedly, so he would have been cautious.

      I therefore suspect Rossi removed a sample at the final fuel replenishment that he reported, videotaped it’s extraction and it being sealed, probably witnessed by persons on the video, and most likely having them sign or marking a parcel seal. His lawyer would have explained the need for a certified provenance. He would have documented everything.

      He then delivered, or had delivered, the sample to Uppsala to be held until further instructions. They were a known, and reputable, entity to which he could entrust a sample as an insurance policy against the plant being tampered with and corrupted.

      In the event that IH destroyed or otherwise compromised the reactor or it’s fuel charges, being able to refer the court to a certified sample being held by a respectable third party would catch the bastards in their attempted fraud. I have little doubt his lawyers would have recommended this course of action, but it had to be performed before the agreement to seal the reactor.

      I do not know why the University went ahead and tested the sample, but Rossi says he did not make such a request, and is probably put out about it, regardless of its result.

      Take note, that the document being circulated is not a lab report. It is a memo from someone in the lab to some unknown party regarding the results, but it is not a prepared report. It is a leak.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      Perhaps the publication of the results of the analysis harm commercially Mr. Rossi Trade isotope Ni62.

  • Mats002

    Hi Chapman,

    Have you considered the Gullstrom theory? It come from Uppsala based upon the Lugano fuel/ash sample.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/10/13/gamma-free-nuclear-transition-through-de-exitation-of-spin-0-strong-force-exited-states/

    I don’t know if Gullstrom have more data to make his theory from. What do you think? The Li6 > Li7 idea is not present in Gullstrom theory from what I can see.

  • adriano

    If in 2026 there will be no ecat on the market and Rossi will still say “mass production close, F8” will this mean the ecat is a lie?

    • roseland67

      Adriano,

      Not to some people

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I thought I was the first to think about this neutron transfer thing http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/10/e-cat-test-news-page-at-peswiki/ but HOLY SMOKES apparently Robin van Spaandonk https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg98050.html worked it out the instant the data was released!
    But I did pull out some of my old infrared symmetrical stretching of nickel hydride bonds, p~Ni~p BS to come up with an exothermic mechanism for nickel-64 going to nickel-62 (if in fact it actually does).

  • Axil Axil

    July 20, 2016 at 8:35 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    I have just a simple question: I know that the standard E-cat plant can produce steam just over 100 C, but can you indicate to what maximum temperature steam can be produced if the steam system would be suitable for it? Obviously I am not talking about the EcatX or the QuarkX.
    Thanks for answering our questions.
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    July 20, 2016 at 8:45 AM
    Gerard McEk:
    The E-Cat of the type that has been operated during the 1 year test is designed for low temperature steam. To get higher temperatures it is necessary the design used in the high temperature reactors.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    A low temperature reactor does not run hot enough to use lithium. It must therefore use potassium. Any ash sample that has lithium in it comes from a high temperature reactor. The ash that is analyzed by Uppsala University came from a high temperature reactor because it contained lithium and not the one year test reactor.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Axil,

      I think you are drawing a very long bow there as Li melts at 180.5C.

      Would suggest the reactor temp limit is based on the materials of the case and other components and not the core temp of the reactor.

      We know the 1st flattened cubish ECat reactor core ran at least 400C and delivered superheated steam at above 100C.

      I believe the Swedes did a post fuel run for the above ECat and found both NI and Li changes.

      • Axil Axil

        That post fuel run was fro the Lugano reactor which is a high temperature reactor(E-CatX).

        The assumption is that the Swedes were analyzing the ash from the one year reactor test.

        This one year test reactor is a low temperature reactor whose maximum core temperature cannot vaporize lithium.

        That is why Rossi said he had nothing to do with that ash sample. That sample cam from a Lugano type reactor, which is a high temperature reactor.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Axil, who wrote;
          “That post fuel run was fro the Lugano reactor which is a high temperature reactor(E-CatX).”

          Are you stating that as a known fact or your opinion? If your opinion, maybe reflect that.

          The 2012 ECat was also 100C low temp steam yet the reactor temp was 400C and liquefied the surrounding lead core.

          Li melts at 180.5C. You need at least double that to quickly superheat the steam.

          Where is any association that the reactor temp was below 180C because the steam was 100C?

          • Axil Axil

            It has been established that the Rossi low temperature reactor did not use lithium.

            It is not the melting point that matters, it is the boiling point that matters.

            The boiling point of potassium is 759 °C. and for lithium 1330C.

            I will try to find the reference for the claim that Rossi did not use lithium in his early reactors.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Even if that is so, the 1 year test reactor is not the 2012 flattened cubish reactor and it could have easily used Li to get the COP increase.

            Or are you suggesting COP > 50 is available without Li?

          • Axil Axil

            In my original post, Rossi told Gerard McEk: “The E-Cat of the type that has been operated during the 1 year test is designed for low temperature steam. To get higher temperatures it is necessary the design used in the high temperature reactors.”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Rossi is referring to the entire reactor design that can handle circulating 600C fluid that would destroy a low temp reactor design.

            So yes a HotCat or HotCat X reactor is a very different design. I don’t believe a 600C reactor will directly circulate water & produce steam. It will probably circulate a high temp liquid salt to a heat exchanged that can deliver the steam temp & pressure needed to drive a sub or super critical turbine.

            That said there is nothing prohibiting the 1 year reactors from operating differently from the 2012 reactors and utilise Li to achieve the COP > 50 result.

            Or do you suggest COP > 50 can be achieved using a 2012 fuel mix without Li?

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi has his high temperature reactor design covered under his current patent. It covers Lugano, E-catX and the Quark.

            He does not have the low temperature reactor design covered by patent yet, He is now working on it.

            Ask Rossi if he is working on the low temperature reactor patent he used in the one year test.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Rossi has stated the 1 year test reactor core is as per the patent. It is afterall a patent for a “Water Heater”.

            Rossi also stated the QuarkX is covered by the patent.

            Here is the issue you need to resolve, if as you claim, the fuel in the 1 year test reactors had no Li, how was COP > 50 and very long term SSM achieved?

          • Axil Axil

            Rossi said that he had to constantly adjust(optimize) the reactor to get a cop of 50.

            The Quark can produce a cop of 200. Cop 50 is not that much in comparison.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            The real COP was around 65 and that was for a real working plant running 24/7. The QuarkX was 200 but in a lab. Rossi did say the production QuarkX COP would be lower.

            Still the point is Li is needed to achieve COP 50 and so the recently analyser fuel is from the 1 year reactor.

            My big question is why would Lomax publish the document and reveal the author? I mean why would he help the Rossi cause as he is clearly anti Rossi. Something smells a bit off.

          • Axil Axil

            you have to beleive Rossi when he said that he had nothing to do with the ash that went to sweden. That ash might well have come from IH from a Lugano like reactor.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil, who wrote:
            “you have to beleive Rossi when he said that he had nothing to do with the ash that went to sweden.”

            That is not what he said.

            Please reread what he said very carefully.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Try this

          • Axil Axil

            OK I’ll parse it…

            I never made those analysis

            The guys in Sweden did.

            those analysis have not been made or controlled by me

            The guys in Sweden controlled the analysis.

            and for me they simply do not exist.

            Rossi must be talking about IH ash that he did not help in producing.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            What I read is Rossi being very careful what he says. Never saying he supplied the fuel, nor arranged for nor paid for the analysis.

            However there is no way to get COP 50 without Li nor is there any way the 1 year test “Water Heater” can oblige the patent, which Rossi claims it did.

            Point being Li can be in the fuel for a low temperature “Water Heater” as per the patent and thus the fuel analysis done by the Swedes, with the Li, can be for the 1 year “Water Heater” test.

          • Alan Smith

            Lomax did not have the permission of the original author to publish. The person who gave him ‘permission’ had no authority to make public the origin of the document either. This is a breach of trust by someone.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            I missed this. I do not know how Alan Smith gets his information that I did not have permission. I have neither claimed permission from the author nor no permission. I cannot provide more details. I did originally request clarification from my source, and it was clarified that, as far as my source was concerned, I could publish.

            My only agreement of confidentiality is with my source, and I have not stated who that is, and thus it could be anyone with access to the file, and that obviously could include Bo Hoistad, and many others could be possible as well, it is just that the only relative certainty — if the file is authentic! — is that Bo was involved. And then we can expand the circle out. With whom would he share it?

            Who had an obligation of confidentiality here? I’ll give on hint: I had no obligation of confidentiality except with regard to my source. I do not know about any others, beyond what is obvious: under the Agreement, if the sample came from the 1 MW test, that ash was IH property and Rossi might have been violating confidentiality by providing it to Hoistad. But I do not know that he did not have permission, beyond rumor. I do not know that Hoistad had an obligation of confidentiality, beyond speculation. All I know and will disclose is that the person who gave me the file gave me permission to publish it as-received. For all I know it is a total crock. But people can ask Bo if they want to *actually know.*

            Oh, wait. Those are the Lugano professors. They don’t talk. Unless they leak files, perhaps.

          • Chapman

            Sir, don’t we have synthetic motor oils now that could handle the heat transfer without degrading? Wouldn’t a hydraulic circuit be easier to build and maintain? I know it sounds like de-evolution, going back to old technology, but simpler-is-better, yes?

          • Alan Smith

            Hi Axil. For evidence that Lithium was not used in early work just go back and check out the first Rossi patent application – the Italian filing. But your assumption that Potassium was used instead (at any time) is, I am sure, way off target.

          • Axil Axil

            Way are you so sure?

          • Alan Smith

            Because it doesn’t appear to work.

          • Axil Axil

            It works for Holmlid and DGT.

          • Alan Smith

            Hey come off it Axil. You know DGT never had anything but hope. Holmid is a possible though- but there are differences between Rossi and him.

          • Axil Axil

            So sorry, please forgive me but I trust Dr. Kim more than you and the people that influence you.

            Just like P&F, there are some people that you trust more than anybody else.

          • Obvious

            The Krivit SIMs data has lithium in it.

    • Chapman

      “A low temperature reactor does not run hot enough to use lithium. It must therefore use potassium. Any ash sample that has lithium in it comes from a high temperature reactor. The ash that is analyzed by Uppsala University came from a high temperature reactor because it contained lithium and not the one year test reactor.”

      Please clarify that the last paragraph was a separate assumption you were expressing for this post, and was not part of the correspondence cited in the first part. The way you present it makes it appear that it was a statement BY Rossi as part of his reply, and I am sure that is not the case, and equally sure you did not intend for it to read that way. Correct?

    • Chapman

      Forgive me. I must ask. Why does the 1 year test reactor “not run hot enough to use lithium”???

      What is the role you believe the lithium plays? How is that action facilitated? What do you believe to be the threshold temperature for that action? And, finally, how would potassium serve as a substitute?

      I ask, because I suspect the answer will be fascinating… 🙂

  • Chapman

    Frank,

    Forgive the presumption on my part, but I think this exchange from JONP is significant:

    Abbey Endicott
    July 19, 2016 at 3:05 PM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    The effect you get with the QuarkX is explicable with the Standard Model ?
    Thanks,
    Abbey

    Andrea Rossi
    July 19, 2016 at 3:37 PM
    Abbey Endicott:
    Yes, it is.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Mats002

    I am only a layman so the paper is over my head, I can not follow it better than you. The paper might have some extra value knowing that Bo Hoistad – one of the Uppsala professors that did the Lugano test – is the professor for Gullstrom. The paper comes from the inner circle so to speak.

    • Chapman

      Very interesting idea. Of course, it may be a perfectly valid idea, and happen in some conditions, and yet not be related to LENR or E-Cats, so even if it is not what we are looking for regarding Rossi, it still has validity and should not be dismissed out of hand. I will look into it further, just for science sake, and see what I find. Thank you for the heads-up! (I love logic problems and digging into research notes. I’m twisted that way!)

  • Ah. Fair enough.

    So is videotaped and observed by the scientific team good enough for the ash extraction for you or are you in the sleight of hand camp?

  • Obvious

    Take 1 part natural nickel powder, add 3.6 parts Ni62, with 0.55% Ni64 in it, and 0.1% Ni58 and Ni60 in it (impurities, because getting 100% Ni62 is basically impossible, and Ni64 is on the preferred heavy isotope end of the processing where the Ni62 will accumulate in the centrifuge). Shake well in a small vial. Within analytical error, there you have the reported results.

    Be sure to mark the sample as fuel, rather than ash, on the analysis report….

  • Engineer48

    Hi Abd,

    Are my sources correct that you posted and outed the author of the analysis document, Bo Hoistad, but did not have his permission to do so?

    As Bo didn’t give you permission to post his document nor permission to expose him as the author, who did give you that permission and why Abd if that person was not Bo did you post the document?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      I do not plan to watch E-catworld, but Alan Smith, who also apparently received a copy of the file, as did Engineer48, mentioned this on lenr-forum.com in https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3479-Report-E-Cat-Plant-Isotope-Analysis-Data-Came-From-Uppsala-University/?postID=29595#post29595 . I have stated that I will give no information about how I obtained the document, and that I will not vouch for its authenticity.

      While some seem to be making inferences from that, they are not a part of the intended communication and could be counterfactual. I have not stated that Bo did not give permission.

      So, Engineer48, if you have information, how about you disclose your source? Did Bo give you permission to provide the contents of the document to Frank? Is Bo denying the authenticity of the document? Has Bo told you that I did not have his permission?

      However, one question I can answer. I posted the document because I expected that the actual document itself would be of interest. It apparently was. There seems to be some idea that there is something wrong with disclosing possibly confidential information (though nothing in the document says “confidential”), but nothing wrong with accusing people of lying and fraud without evidence, which happens routinely around here.

      I provided a document without any certification that what it contained was authentic. I simply passed on what was given to me. It is as if I found it in the street. Basically, if you want to know if it’s authentic, ask Bo! Or Pettersson. Or Rossi, but he’s already been asked, and his answer was evasive and misleading, obviously. Consider this a lesson in how to read Rossi. Watch out for implications that are not clear. He has not lied on this, AFAIK.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Abd,

        Thanks for the clarification that the person you claimed gave you permission to post the document and show it’s author was not the document’s author.

        The document I sent to Frank, which I removed the author, was not this document, nor did it have the same author. Even then Frank only posted the text from the document.

        Alan Smith’s comment to you on LENR-Forum is an interesting read:
        https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3479-Report-E-Cat-Plant-Isotope-Analysis-Data-Came-From-Uppsala-University/?postID=29604#post29604

        • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

          I have explicitly not stated that the person who gave me the document was not the author. I have given no information about who gave me the document, so “clarification” is weird.

          I wrote, you can see it above, “I have not stated that Bo did not give permission.” I’d think that would be clear.

          The document I posted appears to be an original document, the last modification is a few minutes after the creation. We already see here how people have edited original documents before passing them on, Engineer48 admits that, and if he is truthful, and if the document I put up is actually the original as immediately edited by the author, someone else also did this.

          I did not edit the document. I put it up as received.

    • After reading posts by this Lomax fella here, the lenr forum and new vortex my conclusion is he’s rather unsavoury.

  • I don’t know how we got back to this 8 month old comment. But whatever.

    Here you go:

    The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually
    brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the
    following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and
    powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred;
    moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration.

    I don’t know where Rossi was physically located for the duration of the test. Nor does he know where I was during that time.

    • Bruce__H

      OK. You said “Rossi dropped off his reactor with the Lugano scientists, got it started for them and went to another continent for the duration of the test”

      That seemed to be so definite that I thought you must have some definite information. I believed you and It stayed with me. It coloured my opinion of the Lugano situation.

      BAsed on an analysis of Rossi’s blog postings I believe Rossi was in Europe at the entire time.

      • If I ever make any statements based on inside information I will let you know. Otherwise you can assume I’m just trying to connect the dots like you and most others in these parts.