Major Advance in Cold Fusion Touted as Energy Solution (Adrian Ashfield)

The following is a letter to the editor of the Delco Times (Delaware County, Pennsylvania newspaper) written by Adrian Ashfield originally published here. It is republished on E-Cat World in full with the author’s permission.

Cold Fusion, now called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), took a large step forward on Black Friday Nov. 24, 2017, when Andrea Rossi demonstrated his third generation E-Cat QX (Energy Caratylizer) at the Royal Society of Engineering Science in Stockholm, before a crowd of 70 professors, scientists and business people.

This tiny reactor, about 1 cm long by 0.6 cm in diameter, was shown to produce 20 Watts of heat from a negligible input of power. The Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it. It can also be switched on and off instantaneously, something no other reactor has been capable of, and can operate at a temperature of 2300 C.

Cold fusion, as it was then called because it was thought incorrectly to be the same mechanism as hot fusion, first hit the headlines in 1989 when two respected electrochemists, Fleischmann & Pons, announced it, claiming excess heat from Palladium and Deuterium. The hot fusion scientists were very skeptical because it did not produce neutrons and dangerous radiation.

MIT and Cal Tech both tried to replicate it and failed. It is now known they failed to prepare and load the Palladium with enough Deuterium for the process to start. It was a pity they didn’t consult with the discoverers on how to do it or history might be different. Academia accepted the negative results and declared cold fusion bogus.

It has since been replicated successfully some 100 times, but the damage had been done and academia refuses to look at the new results.

Looking back over the century, researchers found a number of different reactions that had shown generation of excess heat but none of them were ever followed up to investigate why.

Following Fleischmann’s and Pons’ discovery a number of people started to investigate alternative materials, as the original system used expensive elements, was unreliable and could not be easily scaled up.

Andrea Rossi started to experiment with nickel powder ad hydrogen in the early 2000s. Finding some success he sought out a leading expert, Professor Forcardi of Bologna University, and asked him whether he should give up his day job and devote himself to cold fusion full time.

Later, Forcardi became ill and persuaded Dr. Rossi to give a public demonstration in 2011. His E-Cat produced as much as 35 kW/hr but proved to be difficult to control. He went through a number of developments to make the reactor controllable and operate at higher temperatures that would be more suitable for generating power. Two landmarks were his “hot cat” running at 1300C independently tested by a group of professors in Lugano, and his collaboration with Industrial Heat (IH) to build and run the second generation 1 MW plant for a year. The latter ended up in court as the independent referee said it passed the test but IH refused to pay the $90 million called for by the contract. It was settled out of court and they have now parted.

It is important to recognize the Nov. 24 demonstration was to provide people with the characteristics of the E-Cat QX and was not a scientific experiment whose results would allow others to replicate it.

Parts of the reactor are secret so it was difficult to display everything. The measurements made were adequate to show the properties of the E-Cat QX. To ensure there was no trickery some other proprietary measurements must be made. This would be simple for a potential investor to do, so there is no logical reason to doubt the results The QX still needs some engineering development to make it commercial and an automated factory to mass produce them will take another year.

It is hard to overestimate the effect LENR will have on our civilization. First use will be supplying industrial heat. Probably 10 years to start getting vehicles powered by LENR. That will be everything: cars, trucks, trains and ships. Imagine being able to drive a car continuously for a year without refueling or 2.4 hours a day for 10 years. Robots will be fully mobile. Airplanes will take longer but Dr. Rossi is already looking at the possibility of LENR turbines. Don’t throw away your household furnace and water heater yet: it will take years to get UL approval.

Cheap energy is the key to improving life. Electricity will probably cost 1c/ kW.hr. There are millions of people who now have no electricity at all. There will be problems for countries and industries that depend on oil but the transition will take many years. LENR promises cheap, safe, clean power and will end the debate on the need to reduce CO2.

Adrian Ashfield, Havertown

  • Buck

    Adrian,

    you responded to a skeptic at the newspaper’s website with the response cut-pasted below. I may have missed something in all the excitement, but I did not read any of Rossi’s statements providing the level of detail (investor agreeing to fund construction for mass production) you outline. Would you please point to the original source.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Since writing the piece above, Andrea Rossi has stated an investor has come forward to fund the construction of the automated factory to mass produce the E-Cat QX.

    Rossi also commented this would normally take 1 – 2 years, but he is hoping to be in operation in a year.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Andrea Rossi
      November 28, 2017 at 1:53 PM

      Silent Majority Member:
      From now on the focus will be on the industrialization.
      Probably today we reached a very important agreement toward it.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      Andrea Rossi
      November 29, 2017 at 4:32 PM

      Italo R.:
      Several days after the Stockholm demo we made a very important agreement, that will make faster the start of a massive industrial production. These few days have been momentous.
      Warm regards,
      A.R.

      Andrea Rossi
      November 30, 2017 at 2:01 AM

      Daniel G.Zavela:
      Thank you for your kind attention.
      During the test at the IVA I put the power at 30% to put the probability of breaks at zero point. The product will perform better, also because now we are focusing on the industrialization and this means also eliminate the overheating problem. We are working along two lines: 1- industrialization of the product, 2- industrialization of the production. These two processes normally are completed up to 10 years ( the CEO of a car industry told me up to 20 years), but we think it will take less than 2 years in our case. I hope one year, but it will be rude.
      The charge was standard.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • Vinney

        Rossi has also stated (JONP) that at some stage he will setup a ‘public company’.
        I predict this will be with his industrialization venture partners, and after they have the design of several products finalised, and the initial production lines of IP critical fuel manufacture and vital control components in place.
        All else can be out-sourrced with low risk.
        I see this market entry situation only equalled by the introduction of the iPhone in the mobile communications market.
        That brought the Apple company to a market capitalisation peak of close to US$500 billion.
        The energy market is far more widespread and garners a far greater expenditure from both individuals and organizations, so this public company could easily topple $1 trillion in valuation at IPO.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Yes, I read that Rossi stated he might consider going public after the production line is up and running.
          If he is still alone in the field this will indeed be huge. I think he will have some competition by then though.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Rossi has already stated he has recorded the details in case something happens to him.
    Then he is planning to build a production line in 2018. So he doesn’t have to live much longer.

    • sam

      Amazing how healthy A.R. looked on Nov 24 2017.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    “The hot fusion scientists were very skeptical because it did not produce neutrons and dangerous radiation.”

    http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-it-is-difficult-to-get-a-man-to-understand-something-when-his-salary-depends-upon-his-upton-sinclair-27-30-36.jpg

    • AdrianAshfield

      That too!

  • Brokeeper

    It was reported today, due to the increased of renewable resources, GE has cut
    12,000 jobs from the power division that make turbines and other equipment for
    gas and coal-fired power plants.
    Wish GE’s Energy division could only see the vision of retooling for LENR energy. Perhaps they have, knowing it will take time before the E-Cat QX will not be massively available
    for at least a couple of years.

  • AdrianAshfield

    There would be a LOT more jobs for many years doing the conversion. After that, as robotics and AI takeover, who knows?

  • Dr. Mike

    Quite the summary of the development of LENR. While I applaud Adrian for trying to get out the word of the progress in LENR to his community, I’m not sure that restating unproven claims by Rossi is useful in advancing the cause of LENR. Some of the errors and partial truths in Adrian’s “Letter to the Editor” include:
    1. “The Coefficient of Performance (COP) was over 500. That is to say it produced more than 500 times the power required to run it.” Actually the 23W output power was 500 times the power dissipated in a 1 ohm resistor in series with QX devices as measured by Rossi with a claim by Rossi that the QX device was drawing less input power than the 1 ohm resistor. The power used to “run” the device was the input power to the controller (probably 30-60W).
    2. “It was a pity they didn’t consult with the discoverers on how to do it or history might be different.” Actually, Pons and Fleischmann did not realize in 1989 that the deuterium loading factor was what caused the MIT and Cal Tech efforts to fail or they would have immediately pointed this out as the cause for the failures.
    3. “Two landmarks were his “hot cat” running at 1300C independently tested by a group of professors in Lugano”. To claim that the Hot-Cat was independently tested is quite a stretch. Rossi was too involved in preparing the reactor, instructing how the device was to be operated, setting the control, instructing how measurements were to be taken, and extracting the “ash” sample to begin to claim the Lugano test was independent. (My guess is we will never again see a Hot-cat type reactor run for one month while turning essentially all of the Ni into the Ni62 isotope.)
    4. “his collaboration with Industrial Heat (IH) to build and run the second generation 1 MW plant for a year.” IH did not collaborate with Rossi to build E-cat devices for the 1MW plant as the devices that they tried to build using the technology that was supposed to be transferred per the contract simply did not work. The 1 MW plant did not use second generation E-cats (the Hot-Cats), and IH did not help run the 1MW plant.
    5. “The latter ended up in court as the independent referee said it passed the test”. This would be a more accurate statement if you replaced “the independent referee” with “an engineer who was a family friend of Rossi’s”. Based on court depositions it is not clear that Penon used his own data as a basis for his final report.
    6. “The measurements made were adequate to show the properties of the E-Cat QX”. My guess is that some 90% on the engineers and scientists that observed the demonstration would claim this statement is simply not true. What was revealed in the demonstration is that the controller is consuming way too much power to be only delivering 0.07W to 3 QX devices.
    7. “The QX still needs some engineering development to make it commercial
    and an automated factory to mass produce them will take another year.” Does anyone believe even a prototype commercial product will be available in 1 year, especially in light of the fact that Rossi believes that it is now important to work on a system to utilize waste heat from the controller, rather than improve the efficiency of the controller to where waste heat will not be an issue?

    • AdrianAshfield

      ” I’m not sure that restating unproven claims by Rossi is useful in advancing the cause of LENR.”
      I know the skeptics think that Rossi is a fraud. I don’t. There is some evidence that the various E-Cats worked, there is zero proof that none of them did.

      1. “Actually the 23W output power was 500 times the power dissipated in a 1 ohm resistor in series with QX devices as measured by Rossi”
      There was no secret about the set up. Rossi did not want to show the wave forms used to start and run the QX. Contrary to what you said, the measurements were taken by another engineer.
      Rossi said he was running the demo at reduced power: the actual capability was 60 – 100 W. Yes we all know the power pack was very inefficient. You seem to have missed the bit where I wrote it was necessary to take a couple of other measurements to ensure there was no trickery – but that was easy to do and any investor would do it.

      2. “Pons and Fleischmann did not realize in 1989 that the deuterium loading factor was what caused the MIT and Cal Tech efforts to fail”
      The fact remains that if MIT and Cal Tech had followed F & P’s procedure, it would have worked. They were in too much of a hurry to meet a publishing deadline and it looks like they wanted it to fail anyway. Excuse them all you want.

      3. “To claim that the Hot-Cat was independently tested is quite a stretch.”
      I don’t think so. It is a pity that most scientists lack engineering know how and experience. Having spent many years measuring high temperatures I’m wary of optical systems. I would have used type S thermocouples. The ash samples were taken under the watchful eyes of several scientists. You are just making negative speculation because you don’t trust Rossi. That is NOT proof.

      4. ” IH did not collaborate with Rossi to build E-cat devices for the 1MW plant”
      Well they said they did. They supplied the funding and at least one employee. I don’t know what IH’s independent efforts to use Rossi’s IP had to do with the 1 MW plant.

      5. ” This would be a more accurate statement if you replaced “the independent referee” with “an engineer who was a family friend of Rossi’s”.
      I know skeptics think anyone who is not negative about about Rossi is family or somehow a collaborator in fraud. To you, that Penon was paid by both sides and was the agreed referee is less important than a distant relationship.

      6. ” My guess is that some 90% on the engineers and scientists that observed the demonstration would claim this statement is simply not true.”
      No surprise you think that. I’m an experienced engineer. Wat I said was that it imdicated the properties of the QX, that it was not proof, That proving it worked ot didn’t would be simple for an investor doing due diligence. That being so, what would be the point of claiming that it did and being shown to be a liar?

      7. ” Does anyone believe even a prototype commercial product will be available in 1 year,”
      It is certainly not impossible. I have been responsible for building several new plants: have you?
      What Rossi needs for an automated plant isa very small unit that can be duplicated and run in parallel as required. I don’t see why, with expert help from ABB, he couldn’t do that is a year. I was involved in building a 1 million sq.ft. plant that took 18 months from the decision to build to full operation.

      • Dr. Mike

        An interesting assessment of Rossi’s E-cat technology: ” there is zero proof that none of them did (work)”. Actually I also think that Rossi does have devices that produce some excess heat, only not as much heat as he has tried to show. In reply to your comments:
        1. You continue to use the argument “Rossi claims” while I prefer to believe what Rossi actually showed.
        2. In 1989 Pons and Fleischmann did not know how to get reproducible results- they could not have helped MIT and Cal Tech get better results. (It might have been as late as the mid-90’s before the effect of loading was understood.)
        3. I also would have measured the temperature with R or S thermocouples. Without an accurate measurement of the reactor temperature, we can only guess at what the real excess heat was produced by the Lugano Hot-cat.
        4. You might want to read the contract to see what was required of each party in the IH deal.
        5. In the court depositions Penon claimed that Fabiani was sending him (Penon) data from his (Penon’s) computer. Fabiani testified that he was unable to access Penon’s computer so Fabiani sent Penon his (Fabiani’s) own data. This seems to be more important than Penon being a family friend. However, IH should have had an qualified engineer full time at the 1MW plant so they are also responsible for errors in the data collection.
        6. I agree that any investor doing due diligence will want to see a better demonstration of QX devices before investing. However, how can you argue this will be simple. If simple, why was it not done in the demonstration? (In a previous post I stated that it would be reasonable for someone to provide funding for improving the controller without any additional information from Rossi.)
        7. Yes I have brought up several new plants for complex manufacturing (integrated circuit manufacturing plants) and I’m well aware what happens when just one vendor’s equipment does not meet their guaranteed specifications. If Rossi had demonstrated a system efficiency of 10-20 at the demonstration, I would have anticipated a prototype product in about 2 years. At the current state of development I believe that Rossi is 3-5 years from having a prototype commercial product.

        • AdrianAshfield

          Good, I’m glad to see we are getting closer.

          1. ” You continue to use the argument “Rossi claims” while I prefer to believe what Rossi actually showed.”
          I fail op see how this applies to my
          previous comment.

          2.” In 1989 Pons and Fleischmann did not know how to get reproducible
          results- they could not have helped MIT and Cal Tech get better results.”

          Not true. F & P had done hundreds of experiments over the years and had discovered how to prepare the Palladium, even if they didn’t understand why. If MIT & CT had followed their procedure it would have been different.

          3. ” I also would have measured the
          temperature with R or S thermocouples.”
          We agree.

          4. Not worth going through this again.

          6.”I agree that any investor doing due diligence will
          want to see a better demonstration of QX devices before investing.
          However, how can you argue this will be simple. If simple, why was it
          not done in the demonstration?”

          For heaven’s sake! Again, Rossi did not want to give away the wave forms used.
          Just measuring the voltage across the reactor would answer 90% of the critics.

          7. “Yes I have brought up several new plants for complex manufacturing”
          Bringing up is not the same as designing, building and operating plants.

          Ni ether of us know enough detail to do more than guess at this stage.

          • Dr. Mike

            Might as well have one more try at this.
            1,4&5. .I suspect that the reason that I question just about thing that Rossi claims,but does not demonstrate, is that I reviewed the court documents in the Rossi vs. IH case and was less than impressed by what Rossi had to say in his depositions as compared to the other evidence that was presented. If you didn’t have an interest in the the evidence submitted to the court, I might understand why you still believe that everything that Rossi claims is true. (I used to believe just about everything Rossi said was true- why would he not tell the truth?)
            2. The circumstances around the Pons and Fleischmann initial release of their results can be fact checked by anyone interested. I’ll stick with my statement that their initial press conference in 1989 was premature because they really didn’t know how to consistently reproduce the excess heat.
            6. The only simple thing that Rossi can show investors is to demonstrate that the input power to the controller is much less than the output power of an array of QX devices. Perhaps this could have been done in the DEMO if Rossi had so chosen.run a large QX array. Not a single bit of Rossi’s proprietary information would have been released in such a simple demonstration.
            7. I certainly agree that my estimation of the time it will take Rossi to build a commercial prototype is a guess. However, that guess is at least somewhat backed up by my post of 10/29/2107 titled “Engineering and Marketing Issues for Commercializing the E-Cat QX”. There is a lot of work yet to be done to have a reliable initial product.

          • AdrianAshfield

            4&5. . “I
            might understand why you still believe that everything that Rossi
            claims is true.”
            You are wrong. I don’t believe everything Rossi says. But unlike you, I don’t assume everything is a lie, I wait for further evidence.

            I read most of the court documents and thought Rossi answered his critics reasonably well.
            I’m not prepared to read them all again to answer your points. Once was bad enough.

            2. Re Pons and Fleischmann.
            “I’ll stick with my statement that their
            initial press conference in 1989 was premature because they really
            didn’t know how to consistently reproduce the excess heat.”

            As you should know, they were forced into a premature release because the opposition had got hold of their idea and was panning to beat them to it.
            The fact remains MIT and CT blew it no matter what you say.

            6. “The
            only simple thing that Rossi can show investors is to demonstrate that
            the input power to the controller is much less than the output power of
            an array of QX devices.”

            Not a “simple thing.” The purpose of the demo was to show the characteristics of the QX. He didn’t have an efficient power pack. 60 W of cooling! We will have to wait for a commercial module to prove the point.
            Investors can measure a single unit easily enough.

            7.
            I I’m not as pessimistic as you, even knowing these things often take longer than one expects.
            The big unknown for me is how much work needs to be done on the QX.
            Building a small plant to mass produce it could easily be done inside a year.

          • Dr. Mike

            Let’s revisit the status of the QX next Christmas. We’ll see if Rossi has a prototype commercial product by then or if at that time he claims it should be available sometime in 2019.

          • AdrianAshfield

            Good idea. e may get tidbits before then but proof will have to wait.

  • Kurt Gminder

    THREE CLEARLY COMPATIBLE LINKS EXPLAIN THE COLD FUSION
    It’s about rapprochement, but rapprochement is always accompanied by a temporal shortening of events.
    There in the quantum area but a constant average inertia is not granted, so the results can only be recorded statistically.
    The problem, therefore, that the inertia on the nanoscale must fluctuate, that is ancient. Vibrating atoms which decelerate abruptly and inelastically rush in the other direction, something is simply impossible with a fixed inertia. These structures would have to be present within such groups of elements, which would be million times harder than Dyamant, where this energy comes from that is anyway completely unexplained, besides, these atoms drive this wild game without ever tire. Such is explainable only by the image of a massless wilting leaf tumbling in the wind. The inertia is thus, within a very short periods completely losgelößt, where it is sufficient if this assymmetrically verstests on a transverse direction, then this has no resistance in the longitudinal direction when accelerating and decelerating.

    Thousands of times this has already been observed and is energetically effective as super-conductivity in narrow capillaries and with liquid helium along surfaces.

    With cold fusion is known that one material must penetrate into the interstices of the other to trigger a sudden increase in tempo.
    It has recently become known that no blunt heat movement needs to be introduced, but that a perfectly timed weak electric oscillation sequence is already sufficient.
    What has not yet been fully realized is that such a plasma is extremely sensitive and is particularly good at collecting ions from the environment. The energy performance therefore tends to unpredictable overheating, which has been circumvented by the fact that the catchment area of ​​ions was simply extremely reduced. It is therefore not only predictable, you also get the arbitrarily occurring increase in energy better dissipated, because the heat dissipation is closer to the heat source.
    The radical difference that had to be introduced in the interpretation of macrophysics and the unpredictability of quantum physics, since now intervenes this LENR phenomology and could contribute to their conclusive association, namely the finding that the inertia is quite influenced. Good night Mr. Higgs
    In german… .DREI KLAR ERSICHTILICHE ZUSAMMENHÄNGE ERKLÄREN DIE KALTE FUSION
    Es geht um Annäherung, aber eine Annäherung geht auch immer mit einer zeitlichen Verkürzung der Ereignisse einher.
    Dort im Quantenbereich ist aber eine gleichbleibende Durchschnitts Massenträgheit nicht gewährt, also können die Ergebnisse nur noch statistisch erfasst werden.
    Das Problem demnach die Massenträgheit auf der Nanoskala fluktuieren muss, das ist uralt. Schwingende Atome welche ruckartig abbremsen und inelastisch in die andere Richtung losschnellen, sowas ist mit einer fixen Massenträgheit schlicht unmöglich. Dazu müssten Strukturen innerhalb solcher Elementegruppen vorhanden sein, welche millionenfach härter als Dyamant sein müssten , woher diese Energie stammt das ist sowieso völlig ungeklärt, zudem treiben diese Atome dieses wilde Spiel ohne jemals zu ermüden. Erklärbar ist solches nur durch das Bild eines im Wind taumelndem masselosen welken Blatt. Die Massenträgheit ist also, innerhalb sehr kurzer Zeiträumen völlig losgelößt, wobei es schon ausreicht wenn diese assymmetrisch sich auf eine Querrichtung versteft, dann hat diese schon in Längsrichtung keinerlei Widerstand beim Beschleunigen und Abbremsen.

    Tausend mal wurde sowas schon beobachtet und ist als eine Supergleitfähigkeit in engen Kapillarien und bei flüssigem Helium an Oberflächen entlang energetisch Wirksam.

    Bei kalter Fusion ist bekannt dass das eine Material in die Zwischenräume des anderen eindringen muss um eine plötzliche Tempozunahme auszulösen.
    Jüngst wurde bekannt dass dazu keine stumpfe Wärmebewegung eingebracht werden muss, sondern eine perfekt getimte schwache elektrische Schwingungsabfolge schon völlig ausreicht.
    Was noch nicht ganz erkannt wurde, ist dass ein solches Plasma extrem empfindlich ist und besonders gut Ionen aus der Umgebung auffangen kann. Die Energieleistung neigt daher zu unkalkulierbarer Überhitzung, wobei diese Problem umgangen wurde dadurch dass der Einzugsbereich von Ionen einfach extrem verkleinert wurde. Es wird daher nicht nur berechenbarer, auch bekommt man die willkürlich auftretende Energiesteigerung besser abgeleitet, weil die Wärmeableitung näher an die Hitzequelle angelagert ist.
    Der radikale Unterschied welcher eingeführt werden musste, in der Interpretation der Makrophysik und jener Unberechenbarkeit der Quantenphysik, da dazwischen tritt nun diese LENR-Phänomologie und könnte zu deren schlüssigen Vereinigung den entscheidenden Beitrag leisten, nämlich die Erkenntnis dass die Massenträgheit durchaus beeinflussbar ist. Gut Nacht Herr Higgs.

  • Dr. Mike

    I actually believe Rossi has ever right to protect his IP, by patents or by keeping some things as trade secrets. It really would not have been that hard to demonstrate that an array of QX devices could provide an output power that was more than the total power input to the system. Theoretically, anyone skilled in the art should be able to replicate Rossi’s patented device. As far as knowing what is going on in the devices, I don’t expect proposed theories to be investigated properly until experimental work is begun on a large scale in the top universities of the world.

    • roseland67

      Dr. Mike,

      Whether you choose to take Rossi at his word or not doesn’t matter.

      I can think of no way that Proper input and output measurments would reveal any IP, can you?
      On the contrary,
      if Energy Out > Energy In, as has been suggested, and is properly measured and vetted, it would open the field to global exposure and investment.
      As I have indicated many dozens of times here, a working theory is simply NOT required.
      This is not a thought experiment.
      IF, my experiences, experiments and observtions are properly measured and verified, the theory, whatever it is must conform to these results,
      not the other way around,
      This is science not religion.

      • Dr. Mike

        I totally agree is that the simplest way to run a demonstration that will not compromise any of Rossi’s IP in to measure the input power to the controller and the output heat of the QX array I also agree that eventually the science (theory) will explain the results of every experiment that was ever run (assuming all information on exactly how the experiment was run is available). I believe a good theory will accelerate the development of useful products even if a working theory is not an absolute necessity.

    • Vinney

      Skilled person’s in the art will commence getting better results after studying the recent QX demonstration, we should see their announcements in coming weeks, from Parkhomov ( and his Russian colleagues), MFMP and ME356.
      They are patching together controllers as we speak.

      • Dr. Mike

        Perhaps some of those with past attempts at replicating Rossi’s work will gain some insight from the QX demonstration to begin an attempt to replicate the QX device. It’s hard to say if there was that much beneficial information revealed in the demonstration.

  • Thomas Kaminski

    Adrian,

    Thanks for doing this. I believe that the more people are aware of this, the more likely the truth will out.

  • Bruce Williams

    Adrian and Mike,
    Thanks a lot for the time and effort you have both put into this, I appreciate very much the discussions that you have had and I have learnt from them.

  • Brokeeper

    I’m having a very selfish thought: Why inform the world about the success of the E-Cat demonstration, its theory presentation and soon massive industrialization? Rossi isn’t. Once the IPO (Initial Public Offering) is open to the public there will be a massive initial rush to Leonardo stock purchases for an obvious investment win.

    Now set at “10 $/kWt” per reactor (REALLY?!), the fewer who know about this groundbreaking device the probability one will have entered below the peak investment curve before the closing bell. Excuse me while I confess my sin.

    • AdrianAshfield

      The thought had crossed my mind too. Rossi doesn’t want a lot of publicity before he is ready for mass production, as that might encourage competition.

      History shows such information will be ignored. I want it out there because of the many daft things being done by the greens and government. Just think about how much money is being wasted on renewable energy, oil pipelines, climate science alarmism, etc.
      Money that would be much better spent on protecting the environment, stopping over fishing, loss of so many species each year, etc.

      It will take a lot of similar pieces to begin to change government and funding gatekeepers’ minds.

      • Brokeeper

        You have the better nature, Adrian. 😉
        Good post.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah. He has patents now (years ago no one could get a LENR/cold fusion patent). So, now he can take his time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIE2GAqnFGw

  • Vinney

    In those days his demonstration reactors were not always 100% functional.
    There is also the previous demo that Hydrofusion setup with potential investors in Sweden (2012) where the investor’s technical staff walked out on a demo, though Hydrofusion patched up that relationship.
    Joseph Fine recently posted a transcript of an interview with Focardi ( translated) where they tested reactors over months (circa 2008-2010) that had COP from 100 to 200 ( his words) and I would think Professor Focardi would have fair idea how to take measurements.
    These where basic experimental reactors where the only ingredient not known to Focardi where the finer details of the nickel treatment and ‘secret sauce’ additives.
    These reactors went for months, non-stop.
    Are you saying that he is lying, or has been tricked by secret wires.
    I find that hard to believe as he was involved in the design and final inspection of the apparatus.
    Incidentally, that same interview (2012) emphasized the importance of atomic hydrogen, and hydrogen release ( into reactor) by controlled electrolysis.
    Making the apparatus safer and more reliable.

  • Dr. Mike

    A calculation of the expected velocity of the steam depends totally on the estimate of the hose inner diameter. From the point in the video showing the steam coming out of the tube I would estimate the inner diameter of the tube to be about 1.4 cm (+/-0.2cm) as the outer diameter of the tube is about the width of a finger (2cm) and the inner diameter of the tube seems to be larger than the two thicknesses of the tube. My calculation of of the expected velocity of the steam is as follows:

    Water flow rate: 7kg/hr= 7000gr/hr / 18gr/mole /3600sec/hr = 0.108mole/sec
    Volume of 1m of tube = 3.14 x 0.7cm x 0.7cm x 100cm =154cm3 = 0.154L
    Moles of steam at 373K in .154L (n=PV/RT) = 1atm x 0.154L / 0.08206 L-atm/K/mole / 373K = 0.00497 moles

    Moles of steam at 373K in .154L (per meter of tube) = 0.00497 moles/m

    Velocity of steam = 0.108 moles/sec / .00497 moles/m = 21.7m/sec (48.6mph)

    It is hard to estimate the velocity of the steam exiting the tube from the video, but it seems to be well less than 48mph. However, I believe that watching the steam’s motion at even a short distance after it exits the tube gives a considerable underestimate of the real velocity of the steam in the tube. Obviously, the steam output in this experiment is a wet steam containing some percentage of water droplets. The question is what was the wetness of the steam?
    Why didn’t Rossi ever run this same experiment with a high enough water flow so that the water never changed phase? My guess is that he was trying to demonstrate the best possible results for his e-cat device. It should be noted that if only about 5% of the water was really converted to steam, the COP would have been greater than 1.0. We would have seen water with steam bubbles coming out of the tube if only 5% of the water had been converted to steam.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Anonymous December 9, 2017 at 9:29 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi
    Is it correct to say that your new partners have invested with the specific goal to make the industrialization?

    Andrea Rossi December 9, 2017 at 2:08 PM
    Anonymous:
    Yes.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Dr. Mike

    I remember- I believe it was the same factory that is now using the output pipe and the heat exchanger pipes and fans from the 1MW plant in a proprietary way so that they could not be viewed as evidence in the court battle with IH. Perhaps the 4-5ft diameter fans were used in the the controller for the QX devices? Could the hundreds of feet of pipes that were supposed to be used in the 1MW heat exchanger now be used to make sure the QX devices don’t overheat? With Rossi working on 7-20W QX devices just what did happen to those pipes and fans that they were not available for court evidence? Let’s hope that Rossi used these pipes and fans to really help in the QX device development.
    Seriously, let’s all wish Rossi success in commercializing the QX devices. It is not going to be a simple task.

  • Dr. Mike

    Bruce,
    I estimated the pipe outer diameter to be about the same diameter as Rossi’s finger (~2cm) from where he had his hand under the pipe at about the 10:00 mark in the video. However, it really doesn’t matter whether the calculated steam velocity is 16m/sec or 22m/sec, it is obvious Rossi’s steam velocity was much less. The video is very enlightening! (Now this looks like a 2.5cm inner diameter hose.) I certainly agree that if this steam flow rate 6kg/hr, even with the larger hose the exit velocity of this steam is much higher than Rossi’s.
    It looks like I made a erroneous assumption that the water flow was really 7kg/hr. I actually thought that the water flow was so easy to calibrate (weight divided by time) that I took the water flow rate as a fact. My rough calculation was that if 7kg/hr were heated to 100C, then only a little of that 7kg/hr would need to be changed to steam to verify excess heat was being produced (COP > 1.0). However, I certainly agree with you that it is much more likely that the flow rate is much less than 7kg/hr and the lower flow is probably being converted to steam with maybe a nominal wetness of 10%. I agree that the flow rate would have to be above 1.07kg/hr to establish a COP of greater than 1.0, and there is no way to verify what the real water flow rate was for this demonstration.
    My only recommendation would be to determine the exact size of Rossi’s output pipe, then flow steam through the pipe at various flow rates to determine what flow best matches the flow in Rossi’s video. I would have to agree with those that claim that Rossi’s COP calculation was not correct for this demonstration because the water flow rate is not correct. (This assumes the 6kg/hr flow rate was measured accurately in the video.)

  • AdrianAshfield

    That was made up by the trolls. Are you one or just repeating what you read? Show the actual reference of what Rossi said.

  • Frank Acland

    December 3, 2017 at 12:20 PM
    Anonymous:
    The strategy is proceed to the industrialization process immediately, put in the market a product and, after its success, make an IPO for a worldwide rapid expansion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Frank Acland

    Yes, the demo was on November 24, his comment above about an IPO was December 3rd. He has mentioned a few times recently about plans to go public. Maybe that was part of the agreement he made.