Rossi Knows the Results of the Replication Work of Lugano Authors

The authors of the Lugano report have been quiet for a number of years now regarding their report of the E-Cat that Industrial Heat sent them in 2014 for testing. A number of questions and critiques have been raised about the report, but no responses have been made publicly by the authors.

From what I have been able to learn, the authors of the Lugano report (or at least some of them) decided that in an attempt to confirm their first report, they would try to replicate the Lugano reactor themselves by building their own reactor.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi has confirmed this. He says he knows the results they have obtained, but cannot reveal those results until they decide to publish. Here is the question about it on the JONP, and his full comment.

October 11, 2017 at 5:33 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
Still about the replication made by the Professors of Uppsala: you said you can’t comment before they publish a report, but do you know the results of their trial to replicate the results of Lugano by themselves in a laboratory of the University of Uppsala?
Thank you if you can answer

Andrea Rossi
October 11, 2017 at 6:57 AM
Obviously I know the results, I have been informed about them by the Professors under NDA, but I cannot talk of them before they will publish a report, if ever, since they worked with the funding of a third party that wanted to know if the Rossi Effect exists beyond any doubt.
For this reason, they reproduced the reactor in the laboratories of the Uppsala University and followed the instructions contained in my patent. They wanted to avoid the complications generated by the infrared temperature measurement and measured the energy produced by simple calorimetry, by means of a heat exchanger and with liquid water.
I know the measurements have been very conservative, always considering only the lower values of the margin of error of the instrumentation.
I think I can say all this, because obvious.
I cannot absolutely add any further information. I will be able to comment the results only after such results will have been made public.
Warm Regards,

So at this point we don’t know when, or even if the Lugano authors will publish. I think they will want to make sure that before they do, they are absolutely certain of their results.

  • Paul Smith

    And what about Mats Lewan?
    Does he know something?

    • Gerrit

      I would be surprised to find out that he is unaware of the outcome.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    “…the measurements have been very conservative, always considering only the lower values of the margin of error of the instrumentation.”

    Means probably: COP was > 1, but not ‘industrial grade’.

    • Paul Smith

      I think the same (COP not much high), due to very conservative measurements and, more probable, to the lack of some ingredient and/or stimulation. that only Rossi knows.

    • Frank Acland

      I would agree. I recall that Rossi stated that the Lugano reactor design was not designed as an industrial unit.

  • Bruce__H

    This is good news if true!

    I don’t understand, though, how the Lugano authors could reproduce Rossi’s reactor using only the information in his patent. I don’t remember the patent as being very specific about the fuel. And Isn’t the “secret sauce” for the fuel what IH paid Rossi for? Isn’t that still under NDA? I thought that Rossi, Darden, and 2 of the lawyers were supposed to be the only ones in the world that know the secret.

    • Frank Acland

      Rossi said that the patent does not contain the “additional element”, but enough information to show the effect.

      This from my interview with him earlier this year:

      Q: In there [settlement agreement] it said there parts (a) and (b) for the fuel formula . (A) was hydrogen, lithium aluminum hydride, lithium and nickel (or other element in column 10 of the periodic table) — which are described in your Fluid Heater patent. And then there was b) which was an “Additional Element”, and there was no mention of this in the patent. So what does this mean for your patent if you do not include that Additional Element?

      A: “Because a patent is valid when an expert of the art is able to reproduce an effect with the information given in the patent. Now there are many people who are expert in the art who have reproduced the effect using information in the patent. So my patent is valid, it has been validated practically in all the world for this reason, because replications have been made. And some very important replication, I suppose, is going soon to be disclosed. But also very important replications have been made from people who have just read my patent and reproduced. Obviously, this Additional Element increases the efficiency. In fact, all the replications that have been made started from Lugano had a COP that is between 2 and 3. The Additional Element makes the efficiency much higher. So this is a difference between a patent and the know-how.”

      Q: So would you consider the Additional Element as a trade secret?

      A: “Yes. This is why we demanded that the settlement agreement had to be written so that all that must remain a secret.”

      • artefact

        And Fabiani helped them.

      • Bruce__H

        Just what I was wondering. Thanks!

        I wonder, though, if IH ever shared Rossi’s view that the recipe for achieving the basic effect is widely known. It seems to me that they were under the impression that they were paying for the rights to secret of the basic effect.

      • Champa

        I don’t think we should take Rossi’s claim of an additional element literally, in all situations. If you review everything that was shared by Rossi and Focardi (there are some fascinating quotes out there from him before his passing) the key efficiency magnifying “element” that boosts the COP and output in general was AT FIRST a “literal” element (on the periodic table) that helped split H2 to H1 (produce atomic hydrogen) more efficiently. In short, it was likely palladium as a reverse spillover catalyst, probably micronized in a nano powder or vacuum vapor deposited across the nickel to create reactive nano-islands that would crack the H2 at little energy cost allowing for hydrogen absorption to be maximized. As time went on, I think palladium stopped being used but this “element” continued to be added, but not literally. Instead, other methods of splitting H2 into H1 were utilized. For example, other reverse spillover catalysts (nano-nickel or copper added to the fuel mix), radio frequencies applied to the reactor to help dissociate a greater number of H2 molecules into H1 atoms, sources of plasma such as perhaps direct application of electricity through the fuel, and even utilizing harmonic frequencies of the resistor to produce more atomic hydrogen.

        In short, there are two critical “elements” that boost COP. First, the fuel has to be processed to accept hydrogen gas. This often probably has nothing to do with adding other elements such as copper or palladium. This is about cleaning the nickel surface, vacuum degassing the nickel, and treating the nickel to remove contaminants. If this is not done effectively, there will probably be little to no excess heat not matter what you do. Hydrogen must be capable of being taken in and out of the lattice in “anomalous” quantities. Secondly, you must add a source of atomic hydrogen. This is really the critical element that is missing in most people’s experiments. Having atomic hydrogen is so important because it sinks into the nickel like hot butter into bread rather than a cold hard slab of butter. If you only clean your nickel but don’t add atomic hydrogen, you’ll probably be stuck at a COP of 2-3 like in Focardi and Piantelli’s original experiments. Adding atomic hydrogen allows you to increase the COP and output to whatever level you want: even beyond what your reactor is capable of withstanding.

        What’s interesting about using LiAlH4 as a source of hydrogen is that for a brief period of time the hydrogen desorbed during decomposition is in the “atomic” state. This hydrogen will quickly recombine into molecular hydrogen again, but at least for a period of time (the length of which will probably depend on your heating ramp) you’ll have some atomic hydrogen in the atmosphere of the reactor. I do not know if this is an efficient way of utilizing atomic hydrogen. My guess is that it’s better than not using atomic hydrogen at all. Combining this with electromagnetic “frequencies” of the resistor probably helps produce additional atomic hydrogen.

        • Rene

          Yes, at this point he may be using the patent term ‘element’, which describes a specific aspect mentioned in a claim.
          But, the element Rossi refers to is not in his patent, so it remains to be patented, or, perhaps, it can’t be, or, he chooses to go the way of trade secret with it.

          • Omega Z

            I recently investigated trade secrets.
            Trade secrets are fast becoming a de facto patents without time constraints and becoming excepted world wide. As long as Rossi doesn’t reveal it and takes all reasonable steps to protect it, it becomes for all intents and purposes protected IP.

            With todays technology, one could probably copy the coca cola secret recipe very precisely, but you would be found guilty of misappropriation of intellectual property just as if you copied a patented product. The only way one might get by with copying coca colas secret formula is if you were on a deserted island and could prove you had never heard of coca cola. This holds as long as they take all the proper and reasonable steps to keep it secret. One guess as to who are behind and promoting this with government support. Knowledge is becoming the most valued product in the world.

    • roseland67


      “IF” the furl was not in the original patent
      and Lugano team somehow managed to develop COP>1 on their own, then, they,
      Lugano, could patent it.
      But this is not what happened

  • LION
    • Gerard McEk

      That des not seem to fit with Mills’ theory, or are their Baryons perhaps hydrino’s?

  • sumdum

    I would be very skeptical about this.

    Remember, if scientists at a university can confirm 100% that they achieved overunity results (COP>1), then that is the physics breakthrough of the century and a guaranteed Nobel Prize. This is the dream of every physicist on Earth.

    There is no way that any NDA with a third party is going to stop scientists from publishing results like this. 99.99% of scientists would choose to go to prison if it also meant they would be recognized as discoverying/confirming cold fusion, then winning the Nobel Prize, and then being a hero that helped save mankind with clean energy. This is all totally obvious.

    So, if the team DOES have the evidence, they are either taking more steps to confirm their replication before publishing, or their replication did not succeed. There is no way that any legal pieces of paper would stop publication. Even legitimate death threats would not stop most scientists from sharing something so important with humanity (for all of you conspiracy theorists out there).

    • Barbierir

      The replications could possibly have ended at the time Fabiani was listed as working at Uppsala university. This was a few months ago, usually it takes a lot of time and reviews from third parties before any proper paper is ready for submission. I mean many months, and especially in this case they must have been extremely careful to leave as little room as possible for errors (no room at all for skeptics is completely impossible in any case).
      What do you expect them to do? They will probably publish it on their own on arXiv once it’s ready. This could happen at the time of November presentation or soon after. The timing seems about right.

      And I must say you have a too rosy idea of how actual science works, especially in areas that are considered “fringe” from mainstream. No one is going to shout it from the rooftops as soon as possible, it doesn’t work except for being wrecked by other peers Moreover since the complete “secret” sauce is secret and the effect observed could be small, it’s entirely possible that no high graded scientific magazine will ever consider publishing it until there is a proper theory or it’s obviously confirmed by market products.

    • Warthog

      Sorry…wrong. No university scientist would violate an NDA agreement. If they did, they would be not only fired, but sued into poverty. And rightfully so.

    • Omega Z

      Being funded by a 3rd party, the Lugano professors have no claim to anything unless the 3rd party agrees. The Lugano professors are just employees. Besides, if it’s all based on Rossi’s patent, the credit all comes back to Rossi. In addition, some people have principles that’s more valuable then fame and fortune.

      Can’t be silenced. You think? One may not value his own life so much as to stay silent, but they would care about their families welfare. Money is not the only currency.

  • Obvious

    So… Is the Uppsala University patent version replication with water calorimetry a separate replication from the Lugano replication (thereby not replicating anything at all from Lugano), or are there two separate replications going on?

  • Steve Swatman

    During the Lugano experiments the “secret sauce” was tested was it not, before and after the experiment.

    “Sample of fuel carefully examined with respect to its isotopic
    composition before and after the run, using several standard methods:

    In which case the Guys in Uppsala would have the fuel (secret sauce) composition and, with the help of Fabiani, would probably have the methodology to properly create the “secret sauce” and control the e-cat.

    One might be inclined to think that the test was requested and paid for by Rossi’s future partner, to validate not only the Lugano test and the 365 day test, but also to remove any doubt or add credence to the upcoming Qx demonstration.

    If the reports/papers from this Uppsala replication are released just before or at the Qx demonstration, and are positive, I am quite sure it will take away much of the lingering doubt in the minds of the 40 or so interested parties at the Demonstration and will silence any parties whose idea is to critique the Qx by bringing up the past arguments against the E-cat.

  • Pietro F.
    • Omega Z

      Elforsk is my likely guess to be the entity behind the Lugano professors. This could all be done in their facilities or funds provided for the use of University personnel in University labs. The University would have no say over whether the data is revealed.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The apparatus they built was good.

    I wish they’d just publish the data they have already, whatever it may be.

    • Italo R.

      If you know something, could you tell us some more details without violating secrets?

      • Bob Greenyer

        I saw a picture of a Mass Flow Calorimeter they were building. It was very well made, if they saw excess heat, I would be inclined to consider the results valuable, this was long time ago though and I wonder why, if they have got positive data, it is taking so long to publish. Perhaps it is due to an overabundance of caution, which is forgivable, since the last time they published something, there were valid questions about the core data’s credibility.

        • Andreas Moraitis
          • Bob Greenyer

            No. I don’t.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I agree that caution is justified, especially in consideration of the ‘historic’ circumstances. Moreover – and this is probably the most difficult part – they have to ensure that the results are easily reproducible. Not to repeat P&F’s biggest mistake.

          • Bob Greenyer

            As frustrating as it may be, these scientists have a reputation… … to repair.

        • Eyedoc

          Unfortunately they are probably going private, as it seems anyone with positive result does now….it appears you are mankinds only hope 😉

          • Bob Greenyer


            Whenever someone gets what looks like success in this field, the usual crowd (you can guess who they are, since they always appear) pop up to ‘help’ – when they see that it is getting close, their will be a cut out organisation that will buy any IP or ‘invest’ – after a few rounds of investment, the inventor will not have control of his work and the ‘investor’ will call the shots on research pushing it in a likely known non-productive direction. Despair for the inventor will eventually ensue.

            either that or they’ll find a way of wrapping you in legal or financial knots

          • Toussaint françois

            Like Rossi did with Industreal Heat

          • LCD

            They would have to have a working unit and a theory at this point of they were going private. But I guess it could happen with some seed funding to explore.

        • LCD

          But they published that was the valuable part, people got to see the results and learn, good or bad. Their conclusions were not ” it’s here the world has changed”. It was “hey looks promising more testing needed”.

          People get bent backwards over this stuff. As long as they are honest about the work and results nobody should judge them. This is standard scientific method stuff.

          • Bob Greenyer


      • Bob Greenyer

        Mostly, I wish they would publish data, either way, for the sake of Peter Gluck.

        • georgehants

          Morning Bob, Peter Gluck, P&F and the billions in this World suffering from a lack of cheap energy.

          • Bob Greenyer


          • Bruce Williams

            George, your continuous boring bleating on this Blog has finally prompted me to ask you to desist : it is very boring, please be quiet or offer positive contributions , if possible.

          • Jonnyb

            Hi George, energy is cheap it is the profit and tax elements that make it so expensive. I believe a better statement would be ‘an affordable, clean and environmentally friendly energy for the World’

          • georgehants

            Jonnyb, thank you but the meaning is the same, cheap affordable energy is needed for those most in need, (with or without Cold Fusion) so that the many may better their lives and nothing for the rich, in today’s system the opposite is True, the poor live in poverty and cannot escape because prices are kept high on all necessities, solely to give profit to the rich.
            I have suggested that a more sensible, appropriate system could remove these injustices.

          • Jonnyb

            That’s a matter of opinion. You did not mention the environment, and you could be naive in thinking that Cold Fusion will be cheap, as I have said many years ago, Governments will need to replace revenue from Carbon based fuels with revenue from LENR or any other energy supply that disrupts the Status Quo. My opinion, there will always be injustice, greed and manipulation, whenever there is a chance, LENR will unfortunately be no different, however I hope I am wrong.

          • georgehants

            Jonnyb, first please do not reply to me with insults, I am not in any way “naive” but fully aware of the situation.
            It is not a “matter of opinion” millions are suffering through the inability to afford to better their lives.
            Your reply is based entirely on as you put it “the status quo” I clearly above am saying that the only way to bring the poor and suffering of this World to a better place is to change the “status quo”
            You either agree or disagree but my thinking is pure logic and sense in present circumstances, if you can think of a working alternative to solve the problem please state it.

          • Jonnyb

            Hi George, a bit touchy hey, calm down? It is not an insult just an observation, however you are free to take other peoples comments how you like. I admire your faith in mankind, but I feel it is probably misplaced (my opinion and not another Insult). Logic? not really just look at the past history of the World, and the position we are in now with Fossil Fuels, why, oh why would LENR be any different? I am not saying you have not supplied a solution, but just that it is not very probable that it will ever occur, if not entirely impossible.. There are many Billionaires now, who if they wanted, could invest their well earned money (this is part Tongue in cheek) into saving the poor from Fuel and Food Poverty, and I am sure some already do. If there is a buck to be made though it may not happen. In saying this I am not saying that it should not happen, but don’t mix should with will. Coming up with solutions is the easy part, getting them implemented can often be more tricky.

          • georgehants

            Jonnyb, many thanks as you seem to be agreeing with me that the only way is to change things.
            History as in many cases shows the complete failure of the present system to adapt to solve the problem I am talking about and that concerns me and others greatly.
            Where we differ is that you seem to take the opinion that nothing or little can be done to solve said problem, I respect your view and just state the obvious and logical, until the will is there to change, then nothing will change.
            So as with everyone you and I are free to choose to work for improvement or not, but it is clearly defeatist to suggest that it cannot be changed in this lifetime or the next.

          • Jonnyb

            Hi George, yeah you sound like one of my best friends, who I agree with on his intentions, but I am less optimistic than him that things will ever change. Yes it may take a catastrophe to change things, I was rather hoping that Mankind would slowly evolve into a kinder more caring and sharing species. The more I see of the World my hopes ever diminish. It would take someone great to invest all his/her money into this to provide the World with almost free energy, and Governments would have to change their expectations on Taxation etc. The World could be great for everyone even now but it just will not be allowed to happen. I hope you are correct because my view is very depressing. Just to say no offense was intended, sorry.

          • georgehants

            Jonnyb, many thanks for your explanation, I fully understand and agree with your points and that of course can be very depressing, just mention that there are far more volunteers etc.then some people think, working very hard all around us to make life better for everybody, I just in my maybe delusional optimism and knowledge of what these people do archive, will always keep singing that crazy old song, “always look on the bright side of life”, many experts have said that Cold Fusion is impossible (and they could still be right) but should we not do all we can to make it happen for everybody’s benefit, if that fails then on to plan B etc. ha.


  • Warthog

    Correct. Universities (and professors) enter into NDA’s all the time. but any NDA that would hinder the university will have been signed-off on by the U’s legal staff. Has anyone even bothered to ask??? Or even bothered to ask directly about the delay?? Frank??

    But people have been so severely castigated for “premature disclosure”, I can understand a reluctance to talk about results.

    • Frank Acland

      As far as I know there has never been a publication scheduled announced nor any promise of publication. There is actually no official announcement from anyone involved that the research is going on. This statement from Rossi is the most “official” statement that I know of.

      Rossi states here that this team “they worked with the funding of a third party that wanted to know if the Rossi Effect exists beyond any doubt.” This 3rd party with whom they have entered into NDA may not be the university, even though it sounds like they are using Uppsala University facilities.

  • Warthog

    And I’m an industry scientist, and understand NDA agreements. Your fantasy about what would happen is ludicrous. You WOULD be fired, sued, and never work in science again. Far from getting a Nobel Prize, you would be lucky to avoid jail. And rightfully so.

    • sumdum

      We’re not talking about industry, we’re talking about a public university team. Public universities serve the public first. Always. Doesn’t matter who their partners are. NDAs are barely enforceable under the best of circumstances anyway. In many US states, they are basically a joke when it comes to actual prosecution.

      I’m not so familiar with working in industry, but regardless your willingness to put your own career above *the entire world* is absolutely disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

      Maybe other folks in industry are as selfish as you, but I hope not. Among university scientists, I can guarantee you my department would have no problem hiring a Nobel laureate who broke an NDA with a corporation in order to *save the world*. No problem. At. All.

      This would be a pure case of whistle-blowing and/or eminent domain anyway, given that the stakes are literally world-changing. This isn’t an IP fight over a new headache medicine we’re talking about. Tens of millions of lives *at least* are at stake. The courts would laugh at prosecuting an IP claim against someone who broke an NDA on ethical grounds in such an extreme situation.

      • Warthog

        Public universities also obey the law and require their employees to do the same. Businesses work with universities, both with the university itself and directly with individual researchers all the time. ALL such work requires legal documents/agreements, of which NDA’s are one sort.

        You are VERY naive if you think that NDA’s aren’t enforced. They are. I am aware of several cases that have been prosecuted successfully. You consider it “whistle-blowing”, the legal system considers it theft. The IP doesn’t belong to you… belongs to the inventors. “World-changing” or run of the mill invention matters not at all. Legally, it isn’t a decision you get to make.

        And in addition to being theft, it is also a violation of science ethics.

        • sumdum

          Sorry, but this is all just nonsense and you clearly didn’t read or understand my post.

          NDAs are like any contract – they are only as good as their enforcement. Here is a link to a Google search about NDA enforcibility:

          You will notice that all the top links go to pages where lawyers talk about how difficult it is to actually enforce an NDA.

          And this is for *ordinary* situations, where the only damages are financial. Once life is on the line, the enforcability is VASTLY lower. In our hypothetical cold fusion case, we are talking about MILLIONS of lives. The idea that an ordinary NDA would be enforceable in that case is laughable. It is preposterous to even imagine it.

          You seem to think the law is absolute, and never trumped by context or circumstance. That is also laughable.

          What do you think a judge or jury would have said if Jonas Salk had developed a polio vaccine for a company, and then the company wanted to bury the vaccine so he violated his NDA and released it to the public? They would have laughed at the company for trying to enforce their NDA.

          Perhaps you haven’t been reading the news about Martin Shkreli. His firm owned the IP for an insulin medication, and he tried to use that to price-gouge customers. He became “the most hated man in America”, and prosecutors came out of the woodwork, dug into his entire private life, unearthed other bad behavior of his and trumped up charges, and then sent him to court where he was quickly convicted and imprisoned. He was imprisoned not for his *actual* crime against society, but for other things the court could hang on him. Just like Al Capone was convicted and imprisoned for mail fraud.

          Seriously, you need to completely rethink your understanding of how ethics, laws, and the judicial system actual work, and why. They are to serve society, not the other way around. In exceptional cases, common sense and common ethics blow technicalities clear out of the water. And this would obviously happen the in the case of LENR as well. If you honestly can’t understand this, and are confused as to why theft is a smaller crime than condemning tens of millions of people to needless death, thenI suspect there is something wrong with your mind.

      • psi2u2

        The personal character of this attack is unfortunate.

  • Omega Z

    One may not value his own life so much as to stay silent, but they would care about their families welfare. Money is not the only currency.
    Example. You receive an envelope in the mail with just a picture. Of your daughter getting on the school bus. Is that message enough.

    • Warthog

      You are couching this as “evil industry suppressing invention”, when the actual legal position is that the violator of an NDA has committed a theft of the invention owner’s intellectual property (IP).

      • Omega Z

        Yeah got a little sidetracked there.
        I believe sumdum comes with a socialist view and that everything belongs to everyone without regard to the individual. Arguments ultimately ends in you being ridiculous and don’t understand.

    • sumdum

      I have a family. If I could literally save *tens of millions* of lives by revealing this technology to the world, my family would never forgive me for not disclosing it. Even if it was a risk to them. And I would be very proud. I did not raise my children to believe that they are more important than the lives of tens of millions of other people. They are not psychopaths.

      • Omega Z

        So you’ve raise your children to believe it is honorable to steal.

  • Omega Z

    Universities, Governmental or not do work for outside corporations all the time and neither the University or Government entity have say so about the rights or release of info to that work.

    In the U.S., the University gets 10% of any private funds provided to do private R&D projects. Also, We have no idea if this work was even done on University property. The professors may have done this freelance in the private entities lab. Perhaps it was done for a power company authority. Such a company paid for most of the Lugano test.

  • Zeddicus23

    It’s now October. What’s happening with Lion’s October test? Also, he stated that “all will be revealed by Christmas”. Is there still something to reveal?

    • Murphy

      Good question. There were many promises made by MFMP. For what they are waiting with NOVA? They have reactor and analysis with pure Carbon can be made instantly. Where are experiments with Nickel 62? Where is their recipe that was not possible to replicate even by them? Even all samples from ME365 were not analysed if Im not wrong and it is half year??!! Whats going on? I doubt it is lack of funding as there are many donors.
      Instead Mr. Greenyer is attending presentations to bash inventors.

      • Bob Greenyer

        NOVA: Was waiting for the MW Leakage to be acceptable, for the reactors to have sufficient cooling so that it could run long enough and for the plasma to be stable. All of these things have been achieved, the engineers doing the work have families and full time jobs. Dr. Egely has got severe sleep deprivation getting the reactors ready. The Univesity for the past few week and until Wednesday next week was re-wiring the labs so we could not get access.

        We are all meeting in Brno next week 3 engineers from Hungary, 1 from UK and hopefully 1 from Germany to perform live testing. In case the university does not have the apparatus ready, I have been seeking out a backup plan which I have apparently secured for Friday afternoon at another facility.

        I hope to fully describe the test in next days. We want to record end to end in one camera move, and will have a separate camera man to do that. Hopefully we can broadcast all live, the challenge is the reactors will have to be outside under a shelter we will build and the apparatus is inside were there is no wifi and 4G does not work, the plan is to have a mifi on the window sill.

        62Ni experiments are on hold since I cannot go to US until I have published everything, and it takes a long time to do the research.

        The me356 samples have all been on the EDX, I have published one as part of ‘CAB Story’ and prepared media and discussed internally the W + H, I need to finalise a presentation on publish on that. the other data is less inspiring. Since taking the samples I have made several exhausting, time consuming and frustrating trips which took a lot of preparation.

        I went to Graz to meet Francesco Celani, who was listed as a presenter there since it was not to far from me and I managed to negotiate a discount for just two days. Also there was the potential for me to present. In the end Francesco could not attend due to family health reasons. What I saw was a ‘Free Energy’ meeting that was at least twice as large as any LENR conference I had attended – and none of them knew much about LENR and none knew of the MFMP.

        At the conference I was thanked profusely by many people who didn’t have the guts to ask the obvious questions. Scores of people came up to me to find out more about the MFMP. At that conference I actually met someone who was a regular and had invested and lost all and was wary of further investment – that guy had got orders lined up for the product and marketing plans in place, his investment… E-Cat, yes, I met a person who lost his shirt – though not directly, he put his money into a pool fund that invested in Rossi – and for whatever reason, he did not get his money back from that pool and he was clearly stressed enough about it that he did not want to go into the details.

        Then there was the guy that proudly told me that he had pre-ordered a Magmov 3000 – then I saw the presentation, I could see the guy in front of me as the farce progressed. I did not set out to ‘bash’ inventors, I did not call anyone a fraud or their ‘inventions’ a scam – I did ask simple, clear questions and did not let them avoid the question with nonsense. Several other inventors and researchers I gave some of my experience to as possible ways they could explain their device or people they could research to further work. In the case of the Australian presenting Keshe work, my experience supported things he could not explain and, in the interests of openness, I have shared that fully even though I have no idea if the Magrav units work.

        Please remember I do this work unpaid and just, just survive financially, I have no pension, no health insurance here in Czech and can only do the volunteering by the grace and sacrifice of my family.

      • Bob Greenyer
    • Bob Greenyer

      LION has bought a new batch of source material and is preparing to run some experiments.

      I was going to publish the full details of the LION reactor this week however, I have had a lot of work to prepare for the up and coming NOVA reactor tests next week, logistics made worse by the indeterminate building work at the University – forcing me to try and find another EDX solution (not so easy, but apparently done)

      Due to the unexpected finding of the ‘strange radiation’ track in the outer crust of the LION reactor, we are approaching things much more slowly on its analysis, this is the single most detailed strange radiation track ever found. I need to understand the new tools that will be available at Ceitec to see what can tell us what with respect to the samples, already I know that there are tools there that should be able to give us a lot more information about what happened. Firstly, if I can get trained on the SEM – I would like to have enough time to look for other tracks and perhaps get an even better look at the one we have (if can find it again)

    • John Littlemist

      I thought I was following LENR field actively, but this LION guy is totally new to me… Must study harder… 😉

  • Warthog

    Both assumptions are ridiculous, as is the assertion. As a lab rat, you cannot know WHAT your customer plans to do with the technology. All you know is that in YOUR isolated set of experiments, the process works. That doesn’t even satisfy the “replication requirement” for valid science. “Good grief” is right. Complete whackjob logic.

  • LCD

    But this is academic sumdum. You would not get the Nobel prize in physics for stealing ip and demonstrating it. The Nobel prize in physics would be given to the original creators and you would be sued by them. You would have had to add something more to even be considered, like determining the cause of the phenomenon.

    However depending on the situation you might be given the Nobel peace prize. Lol

  • LCD

    Doesn’t sound like the results are very good and Rossi hints to that. “ if they ever publish” lol only if the results are bad would they never publish. If they are good they would certainly publish and be well within their legal means since according to Rossi they have no knowledge of the ip outside of the public domain.

    • Omega Z

      That right would belong to the entity that paid for the work. Not the scientists.
      Possibly Elforsk who financed most of the Lugano test and announced at it’s conclusion that they were setting up their own R&D Lab.

  • LilyLover

    Dear George,
    As irate as the people may be, please don’t stop being the kind-loving person that you are. We look up to you. My standards of expectations depend on the quality of the person. For you, I’ll expect complete avoidance of the h3ll-ish words. Please unengage the ungrown critics. Even if the Brucely thought that he were the king of h3ll, that does not grant him any superiority than the moral authority that you have been. Please stay that way.

    You have inspired enough unspoken voices that are engaged in the real action than you might believe. Perhaps someday you’ll realize that Dr. Rossi was merely an excuse for us to gather together to get your dreams for the World realized.

    Sincerely & Lovingly,

    • LilyLover

      Your “Good day” replies were more like you!!!

    • georgehants

      LilyLover, your comment keeps my faith in the good of human nature going, many thanks for your kind and loving words, that I return.

      Wonderful day!

  • sam

    October 14, 2017 at 7:57 AM

    Andrea Rossi
    October 14, 2017 at 9:50 AM
    I think we are close to be ready for a great presentation. On our way toward Sigma 5.
    Warm Regards,

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I have no idea. It was posted in June 2015 on LENR forum (see ), together with three other ones. Certainly, these photos date from different periods of time (the second one shows the old LT E-Cat, the third one a HT ‘dog bone’).

  • Fibber McGourlic

    On what day in November is the Rossi reactor scheduled for public test and demonstration?