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)

  • 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

  • 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??

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • @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?

  • 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.

  • 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

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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….

  • 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.