Norway’s Aftenposten Newspaper on E-Cat QX Demonstration

An article in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten has been published covering the recent demonstration of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat QX in Stockholm, Sweden. The author is Per Kristian Bjørkeng who attended the demonstration, and discussed what happened there with others. The title of the article is: “Unknown energy source with enormous potential?”

Here’s link to an English language version of the article. (Norwegian version is here)

A few excerpts:

Summary of the experiment:

[Andrea Rossi] He receives a start signal from the controller present and starts the reactor by pressing a button. The temperature meter that shows the effect of the reactor starts to rise. Slowly, but surely, a pump passes the water past the energy generator.

In an hour, the temperature and the amount of heated water should be registered so that the energy that the experiment generates can be calculated.


For an hour, the water trickles out. Aftenposten sticks a finger into the water. At least it´s warmer than it was when going in. We can see that steam condensates. Finally the water is weighed: 1 kg. The external controller, senior engineer William S Hurley, says that for every 1 watt the device used, it produced an amazing 506 watts.

The effect is so huge that if it’s real, the energy cost of such a device would be less than a tenth of today’s cheapest energy sources. We could clearly be standing ahead of an energy revolution on the level of the discovery of oil – if the measurements are not based on some error.

Some quotes:

Plasma physicist Elisabeth Rachlew, Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden: ” I’ve never seen Rossi’s work before, so I thought this was exciting to look at. It was sensational that the device was so small. Some of what he did I know a lot about, and I could see that he did things right . . . it seems likely that neutron radiation is created from the experiment. As soon as this is detected and measured, this research will have to be carried out with much stricter security measures. Therefore, I do not think that LENR could be used in small reactors that fit into cars or inside the house of people”

Physics professor Bo Höistad, Uppsala University “In order to awaken the interest of scientists, he must publish something that can be verified and repeated. There may be an unknown source of energy here, but the truth is that we do not know if that is the case”

Physics professor Dieter Röhrich, University of Bergen: “Why did not they set a meter so we could see if there was radiation from the experiment? This is trivial to set up. I do not want to say that LENR is just nonsense. I just want to point out that those who believe in it must show us an experiment, of high scientific quality, that can be verified and confirmed.”

Andrea Rossi: “I have had a public demonstration for the first time, and that it has shown that we have a device that used 0.09 watts and which produced about 20 watts.

In addition, consumption was only cyclical for three seconds at a time before it was turned off for 4 seconds – to avoid overheating. That’s basically all I want to say. The numbers are the only thing that matter.”

It’s good to see an unbiased report written, well illustrated, in a manner that non experts, unfamiliar with the subject can read. I think this is something I can send to family members who wonder what on earth I have been doing following this subject for so long!

  • Buck

    Excellent article.

    Here is a hint at Rossi’s definition of 5Sigma. It seems to be focused upon the On/Off characteristic of the E-Cat Qx.

    AftenPost Question: “– A major problem in LENR research has been that the process has been unstable. An unstable source of energy can not be sold. How stable
    do you think that the process is now?”

    Rossi Response: “– What I have shown today is the same as I’ve done every day of the past year. We now experience that the reactor fails in less than one of a million attempts.”

  • Gerard McEk

    This a good article for LENR.
    I still wonder how Engineer Hurley could say that the input power was 0.09 W. Either he knows more and has verified some things Andrea didn’t want to show openly or he has some degrees in carpentry….

    • Dr. Mike

      The 0.09W was Hurley’s rather poor calculation of the power dissipated in the 1 ohm resistor.

  • Dr. Mike

    I agree with Frank that this is a very good article showing unbiased reporting, getting expert opinion from both those that are positive and those negative about the future of LENR. I also caught the ON/Off reference to 5 sigma which was pointed out by Buck below. While the ON/OFF function is certainly an important mechanism to verify as reliable, especially if the QX devices are to be operated 3 seconds on, 4 seconds off, it means the manufacturing reliability of the QX devices probably has not been investigated. This most likely means that Rossi has not manufactured a large quantity of QX devices, and therefore does not know what failure modes need to be avoided when setting up an automated manufacturing line. In my opinion this will greatly increase the amount of time it will take to achieve a high sigma reliability manufacturing process. Not understanding the failure mechanisms at this point may also delay establishing a valid test procedure that is needed to verify the QX devices are of sufficient quality to be installed in a module.

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding: the “5 sigma” test:

    I beleive that Rossi was concerned with the behavior of the materials inside the tube which includes the interior surface of the tube which must handle heat exchange between the extreme heat produced by the LENR reaction and the coolant on its exterior surface. My best guess is that the tube is boron nitride. Also my best guess is that the intense light from that the QX produces is the catalyst that drives the QX reaction.

    One goal of the “5 sigma” test was to verify that the boron tube helds up under the LENR reaction.

    The next mechanism that is critical to the QX reaction is the production of the LENR active agent that drives the LENR reaction. IMHO, this agent is metallic hydrogen. Rossi said that the reaction happens in the hair space inside the QX. That space is the volume between the boron tube and the surface of the sides of the nickel electrodes. This is the surface area where the metallic hydrogen is generated as a on-the-fly dynamic fuel generation process. The metallic hydrogen is produced in the microcavities that cover the sides of the nickel electrodes and continually leave that surface during QX online operations.

    The “5 sigma” test verified that these surface areas do not deteriorate over time and still retain the ability to produce QX fuel for up to one year of operation.

    The surface of the boron tube that faces the surface of the electrodes also must be rugged enough to maintain its integrity to contain and confine the metallic hydrogen over a year of operation.

    Lastly, the surface tips of the electrodes that produce the catalytic light signal also must be corrosion resistant for a year of continuous operation in an extreme heat environment.

  • Zephir

    Here I’d object A. Rossi’s claim, that reactor did run with zero-voltage drop on reactor, as this is physically impossible once you haven’t superconductor in hands. This conclusion could be simply consequence of fact, the reactor was loaded with high-frequency current source, which doesn’t provide any DC component for its straightforward measuring by common DC voltmeter. The voltage drop on reactor could be actually quite high at the time of its running, which would also explain the fear of Andrea Rossi from touching it by Levy at run time. That is to say, the power pumped by (apparently quite huge) external source into a reactor could easily reach 25 Watts, which has been interpreted as energy output by water thermocalorimetry without being even notified by DC signal of an external voltmeter. 25 Watts is energy flux which can be easily achieved at high frequencies by much smaller solid state Tesla coil, which is able to light-up common fluorescent bulb (10 – 20 Watt) at distance.

    • Lou Pagnucco

      I believe an extremely low resistance still could occur in ballistic conduction through plasma filaments, without superconductivity. Also, if this is real, and possibly related to the Branly Effect, the current flow might be very sensitively dependent on outside fields, and stray capacitance (like touching) could shut down the flow.

    • Alain Samoun

      Yes,a simple RC circuit at the borns of the reactor would have shown what energy IN was necessary without divulging the amplitude/frequency of the system.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    This is good.

    Norway has a rather “open” mind to energy, since they are “wondering” what to do “post” oil.

    The country enjoys a rather high standard of living due to oil. Similar to Alaska (in Alaska the
    tax rate is negative – you get money back at the end of the year).

    Norway a few years ago flew in several people on LENR to explain how they could adopt this
    technology post oil. In fact the “question” was should they invest billions
    more into their oil industry, since if LENR came along, all that investment
    would be now lost, or of little value. So they are already asking if they should
    continue investing heavy into oil

    MOST interesting, is my favorite front runner for energy is of course Thorium reactors. And Norway
    been running one for two years now. (very little coverage of this amazing event).

    So we do have technologies on the horizon that can beat LENR to the marketplace – and Thorium reactors are
    one such technology.

    So Norway has shown rather good flexibility in their “search” for some form of energy technology.
    However, if Norway adopted LENR, or say Thorium, that will NOT give them their
    current high standard of living unless they become a “front” runner in LENR, or
    thorium reactors that they SELL to the world.

    Governments tend to like oil regardless of the “carbon” issue, because it has the ability to
    increase so much wealth for a society by SELLING and EXPORTING that oil.

    Places like Norway (or even the Middle East) can build all the solar plants, or LENR plants they want –
    the REAL trick is how to convert that energy into dollars that build roads, hospitals,
    and create lots of money for their country in question to keep a high standard
    of living.

    So I am hard pressed as to how say Norway/middle east can adopt LENR and ALSO keep their
    high standard of living they enjoy now as a result of exporting oil. I am not aware of ANY place
    that not seeing high standards of living WITHOUT them selling large amounts of “something”
    outside of their borders. In California, they export movies and software. In Norway/Middle
    east it is oil that feeds them.
    So the challenge for “energy” countries in regards to LENR is not adopting LENR, but in
    fact cooking up a way to “sell” something, and “lots” of that something to keep their high
    standard of living.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Alain Samoun

      thorium reactors:
      As far that I know,these reactors are fission reactors with all the inconvenience of radioactive waste dangers and burial for thousand years to get rid of. Further as thorium is not naturally fissile,it needs a neutron source at his core – an uranium reactor… France,the US and Japan have prototypes since many years and none of these countries have a commercial thorium reactor.
      A high standard of living based on selling oil is not sustainable for any country in this century.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Yes, thorium is fission. However you wind up with 100 or
        more times less waste, and thorium is rather abundant compared to other fission

        So we talking about a technology that can carry us for say
        the next 500 years or so. It is the ideal choice, if not in fact the ONLY
        choice we have right now.

        And no, we don’t have a commercial thorium reactors because
        the industry been formed around uranium – which has FAR more issues and
        problems then thorium.

        Right now, without LENR, our future is thorium.

        > A high standard of living based on selling oil is not
        sustainable for any country in this century.

        Says who?

        All we can say right now this has ALREADY occurred, and what
        is occurring? So that is a fact and a given.

        So in terms of sustainable, you have to define the kind of time
        frame you talking about.

        You have to point out how long, since I am not aware of any
        country that seen large increases in standards of living without consuming lots
        of energy and oil. And while not all countries “rose” by just selling oil,
        there certainly a LONG list that do and did! (And they continue to do so!!).

        The rise of places like Alaska, the Middle East, or Norway
        is a direct result of them selling oil. So how long it was sustainable to sell
        horses in place of tractors to plow a field, or how long we use oil?

        Well, certainly for the foreseeable future to grow and
        produce our food, we will be using oil to do this, and I don’t see this
        changing anytime soon unless LENR comes along, or we see wide spread adoption
        of thorium as our next fuel.

        Thorium is really our only way forward for say the next 500
        years, unless we get fusion going, or LENR.

        In fact, we mine more thorium now then we need – it is a by-product
        of conventional mining.

        A great video and primer on thorium is this one


        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

        • Alain Samoun

          Albert: To cool off, if possible,your enthusiasm for thorium fission:

          Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power, let’s do LENR

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I certainly am a big fan of thorium. I don’t see any other
            high density energy source on the horizon other than LENR.

            I find that article rather misleading and un-balanced.

            It not at all a fair and balanced view.

            The French, and actually the Japanese bought into this. No
            one has really what we call closed the nuclear fuel cycle. The Japanese tried
            for years and spent trillions of yen or hundreds of billions of dollars in
            trying to reprocess fuel and it failed every time.

            Really? Bought into what??? Since when did these governments
            have a huge thorium program or reactor? (They did not). So by logic he talking
            about the current conventional industry, and THEN applying that to thorium. That is
            simply not fair. That would like saying we trying to close the loop with a
            tractor, and after we burn the gasoline, we going to convert that gasoline back
            into useable fuel (that is really hard!!!). If I talk about say using biofuels in the tractor, and part
            of the crop is converted back into biofuel, then you have a fair comparison

            Such a closing of the loop sure as the heck not going to
            occur with current nuclear technologies – LTFR gets MUCH closer to this closed
            loop. So telling me that current reactors and the failure of moving towards a
            closed loop not been done is of course the case.

            Of course you not going to get much of anywhere with the
            current reactor designs! The fuel rods have all kinds of VERY high quality
            metals (zarcroimum etc.). Trying to re-process a metal rod compared to a liquid?
            With liquids you have FAR more possibilities in terms of re-processing. With a liquid
            fuel, you can attack the problem with distilling, boiling, and even use chemical

            Telling me that they not moved closer to re-processing and a “smaller” loop
            due to existing technology is rather silly. The real challenge right now is that MOST of the
            re-processing of the fuel occurs after it been used. In the case of LFTR it
            occurs at runtime. And fact that is the great challenge of thorium (again, to
            be fair and balance). So in terms of being balancedhere?
            Yes, No question you are attempting part of the re-processing loop while the reactor runs, not a 100% separate process AFTER you spent the fuel. This is MOST certainly the challenge of LTFR (yes, it is, but the result
            is about 100-1000x less waste.

            Following a review, even the U. S. Department of Energy has
            concluded placed Thorium Reactors in the same category as all other nuclear
            power reactors.

            Once again, they playing the un-fair game. There were NOT
            talking about LFTR. If you build a reactor based on conventional solid fuel
            rods with thorium, then yes, you gain LITTLE if any advantage to use thorium.
            However that energy report was in regards to solid fuel reactors – thus leaving
            out the liquid part. Again, VERY unfair for an article to “flip” between the solid
            fuel vs liquid fuel constantly through that rebuttal.

            Remember, the WHOLE money making game and cost structure in
            the nuclear industry is fuel handling and waste management – LTFR threatens this
            huge part of the industry. So existing nuclear papers naturally work rather
            hard to ignore this difference.

            Of course the nuclear industry not going to give much credence
            to a technology that will take away most of their gravy train. The major costs
            in conventional nuclear is fuel management – especially handling of spent fuel.
            LTFR reactors can reduce this part of re-processing by substantial amounts.

            The resulting benefits of such a nuclear source of power is
            really amazing. Safety, and far less waste, and far less processing of the
            waste is the result.

            The key concepts are about 100-1000 times less waste, and a
            far safer system then what we have now. And no, how the fuel is used makes it
            VERY difficult in terms of proliferation of material used for nuclear bombs.

            Now to be fair, no question that using a liquid has
            challenges. I mean, you spill some solid coal on road from a transport truck,
            then you don’t have a huge problem. You spill liquid gas, then yes, that’s is a
            VERY messy clean up (so at least be fair on both sides of the fence).

            And yes, that article mentions we don’t have re-processing and
            handling of waste in regards to for molten salts – yes, again, no kidding! All
            that says is we don’t have a nuclear industry based around molten salt reactors.
            However, as such that not an argument against molten salt reactors.

            The simple issue is current nuclear technology is really
            old, and has tons of issues – many of which can be solved by LTFR reactors. It
            kind of like comparing 50 year old computers to what we have today. That industry
            due to heavy regulations been stick in a time warp.

            As noted, I am VERY much of the view, if we don’t get some
            form of fusion, or LENR, then thorium is the only way forward to meet our
            energy needs, and do so with the smallest environment foot print.

            Norway been running a thorium reactor for two years now.
            Note how I said “running”. The simple issue is that liquid thorium reactors needs
            some investment, and Norway’s example shows that not a huge amount of money is
            required for this technology.

            As population grew, it was clear that lamps fuelled by whale
            blubber was not sustain us. So oil came along at about the right time.

            I simply don’t see any viable future choice for energy than
            that of LTFR reactors. We are fast moving towards the need for a future energy source.
            That future going to be LENR or LTFR until someone cooks up or offers something
            more viable for the future.

            If someone cooks up something better then LTFR, then sign me
            Heck, that’s why I spend time following ECW – we hope that LENR is the
            front running horse, but if it is not, then we have to pick another horse for
            our future needs.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

        • Axil Axil

          Neptunium 237 is a thorium reactor waste product that does not burn and it is very dangerous. It is more dangerous than plutonium 239 for proliferation and dissolves in water.

      • Axil Axil

        In this type of reactor, the thorium is just an additive because most of the fuel is U238 as a proliferation protection mechanism (less than 5% fissile). A thorium reactor produces loads of plutonium because of all that U238.

        Also. neptunium-237, is a proliferation risk and is water soluble which makes it a very dangerous nuclear waste that can travel far and wide through the water table..

    • orsobubu

      Your perfect observations link to the issue of the capitalistic production system becoming (already) inadequate to manage the huge progresses in productivity (you have too much useful products – ie energy – and nobody to sell them to). This problem has absolutely no solution inside the present social structure, if not a fast human extraplanetary expansion,very fast before it is too late

      • Albert D. Kallal

        I not really sure what you mean by too much useful products?

        The use of carbon based fuels to replace muscle is the very reason why you have all these amazing things like air travel, trains, and food piled up to the rafters in your store.

        The UN reports that we have more obese and overweight people then we have starving people.

        Without using carbon based fuels, then you quite much back to whacking people over the head to grow food with stick. (Near slave conditions). So rather easy to say energy use quite much can eliminate poverty,
        slavery, and is the VERY means by which we easily feed people.
        Even just 30 years ago it would be un-thinkable that places like China exports food – and yet
        they do!

        And by replacing labor (muscle) power with carbon fuels,
        then we see a spectacular increase in lifespans. At the turn of the last century
        (1900), as we started adopting carbon fuels in place of muscle, we had a life expectancy
        of 50 years also (people worked too hard – it not the creating of hospitals and
        medicine that caused this massive increase in lifespan, but the “ease” of work).

        No wonder someone had to be married when they are 22, since
        when you hit 35, you have only 15 years left to live!!!

        So most of the rise in lifespan to 70+ years old is once
        again directly related to people not working so hard, and wearing their bodies out.
        And of course having abundance of food, and better food of course resulted in
        lifespans dramatically increasing. And yes, sure an aspect of this is better
        medicine – but those hospitals and medicines again are the result of using carbon
        based fuel.

        So fuel and capitalism has eliminated slavery, poverty, and
        starving people everywhere when you combine this energy + capitalism to replace
        human labor with.

        So I not really aware of what you mean by no one to sell the
        results of using energy or production to? We use all the energy we create right
        now, and can use more all the time. And we find using more energy increases standards
        of living.

        We need and want to “increase” the per captia energy use,
        not reduce it. More energy use = higher standards of living.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

        • Alain Samoun

          Albert: All you say may have been reasonable the last century or so. Today,it appears that we are reaching a point where the good old capitalist system has reached its limits: Too many people,not enough work,not enough space and resources. Earth capacity to sustain homosapiens has limits and we can see that in the climate change,don’t you think?

          • Albert D. Kallal

            I see nothing in regards as to having too many people and not enough work?

            The wiping out of the middle class was simply due to
            adopting of trade policies that allowed a factory to close here and then be
            moved to a lower cost labor market. That had zero to do with capitalism, but
            simply really bad trade decisions, and politicians selling out a countries
            future, and control of their own destiny.

            The free trade experiment of 30 years simply how shown to be
            a really bad idea – and it has resulted in the decimation of jobs, and a huge
            blow to the middle class – and huge losses of good paying jobs.

            I am not aware of any well managed economy in which jobs are
            an issue. And I see nothing wrong with some poor country adopting tractors and mechanized
            food production to feed their people. I fail to see how some country adopting
            energy and mechanization going to affect me, or cause our jobs to go away here unless
            we adopt policies that allow that industry and work to flee away to someplace

            We really don’t sell a lot of cars here from say to Africa
            or India. If they want to start building factories, and build their own cars –
            then great – it not going to affect our economy much at all.

            The result of a factory, or using a car, or a robot is the
            same – you increase work output and get increasing standards of living. However the
            issue is not factories or robots, but in fact WHERE you going to have those
            robots doing the work. If the products produced by robots occurs in China, then
            china will receive and benefit from that increased value (so they get the
            taxes, the money for healthcare etc.). If the robots are in China, then you not
            have tax revenue for even some kind of basic income here. It is WHERE you
            increase the value is the key concept here.

            I am not aware of ANY history example in which adopting energy,
            manufacturing etc. did not increase standards of living, and also increase job opportunism.

            You have to give me that example in history where this occurred.

            You don’t have to go much farther back to see the effects of
            this. I mean, what if I told you that 93% of all jobs would not exist in the
            future? You would be hard pressed to imagine such a change. I mean, what would
            everyone do?

            Well, in fact we saw this occur already. Just over 100 years
            ago well over 90% of people worked in agriculture. Now, it only 7%, and I believe
            even less in direct farming (3%).

            So what did all those 93% of people do? They certainly did
            not stop working. It just now you can send your kids off to dance lessons, a pottery
            class, or pay someone to come and install you a hot tub, or mow you lawn.

            I love that back to the future scene where the Wild West
            folks laugh at the idea of “run for fun”. No one could EVER imagine that people
            would be so silly to run for fun! That is like work! – you would NEVER waste
            and throw away your MOST precious thing! That THING was muscle power used in a society
            in which you converted you muscles into wealth. So near everything was produced
            by human muscle!

            You can only really grasp how deep this funny scene is now that
            I give you the above context – here is a 30 second clip of that scene:


            Because human needs and wants are unlimited, then the kinds
            of jobs and things each human can do, the possibilities are endless. Perhaps you
            start a done company that helps farmers identify what area of their crop needs

            Humans are not just like a cow in which you feed it some
            grass and out comes milk – humans are creative, and thus there is really no
            limits as to what humans will desire and want.

            So more robots, more energy will continue to increase
            standards of living, but not if we don’t use the energy and robots in your own country
            – since the wealth creating and increase in standard of living occurs WHERE you
            use those machines, not in the country buying the results of those machines, factories

            What country are you talking about that has a job problem?

            The only ones I am aware of are those that adopted stupid polices that allowed
            their wealth creating factories and machines to go away at the same time. I see this the same as
            selling your children’s labor to another country, and then buying back the fruits
            of that labor creating or wealth creating machines or wealth creating people that you chased out of your country.

            that not a issue of capitalism – that just the result of really stupid policies.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Axil Axil

            “I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing,” Grassley (R-Iowa) told the Des Moines Register, “as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”

          • AdrianAshfield

            “The free trade experiment of 30 years simply how shown to be
            a really bad idea – and it has resulted in the decimation of jobs, and a huge
            blow to the middle class – and huge losses of good paying jobs.”

            It has vastly increased the number of jobs worldwide and allowed poor countries like China to rise to its present position.

            But I think the game has now changed and in the future the number of jobs will decline. This is hidden in the US official figures where the loss of well paid jobs in manufacturing have been replaced by low paying service jobs, as if they were the same. A country can’t survive without manufacturing.

            The problem is with business attitude not sharing the gains in productivity with its workers and a political system run by millionaires for the rich. The danger is that corporations will end up owning the automated plants and fight tooth and nail not to share the profits with to the general population.

            I recall you were skeptical about AI. Try this one for size:

          • Albert D. Kallal

            The manufacturing and creating of jobs say in China did not
            have to occur at our expense.

            China buys double the amount of cars we make here (30 million
            in china, compared to our 15 million – and my number is based on memory – it likely
            even larger gap now).

            We were never really exporting a lot of manufactured goods
            to china, so really nothing was stopping china from building their industry.
            What we did wrong is allow far too much of our industry to flee our country.

            Nothing was really stopping china from building their
            industry. So that wealth increase and job boom in those areas could have easily
            occurred without us having to lose our industry. Our industry and jobs was
            really never that dependant on what China was buying from us.

            I certainly would admit that many of our jobs losses were
            due to moving industry away, and you could argue that this speed
            up the rise of China, but at the end of the day, with the massive
            population of china, they could have easily industrialized, and this did not have
            to occur at our expense.

            There seems to be this idea that if I get a burger, or a
            car, then someone else does not. That not how wealth creating works. Because I
            get and buy a car in no way means that someone else goes without a car. Because someone next door starts a computer company in their garage and makes a billion dollars does not mean you are
            somehow poor as a result.

            And given that a person on welfare can have a phone, TV, and
            eat meat on a regular basis, then I would not agree that massive increases for
            the poor has not resulted due to industrialization of our economy. In fact it
            was only a VERY few wealth people that had such conveniences that near everyone
            has today. So having phones, TV, and eating meat, and not living under slave
            like conditions for such poor means they likely have seen GREATER increases in
            standards of living then the wealthy. The wealthy already were not working that
            hard and able to eat good food on a regular basis – now that is not only the realm
            of the wealthy.

            When a company adopts automation, then it increases the
            value of each worker. And since a company is greedy, then they will continue to
            hire workers if each hire makes them MORE money then what the employee costs.
            If I can hire someone that makes me more money than they cost, then I going to
            hire as many of those people as possible. The problem is when hiring someone
            does not make you more then they cost – then the company simply cannot hire
            anymore, can they?

            And that chess example is rather lame. They had to write
            computer code to know the rules of chess, and then based on those developers writing
            code for those rules, the computer ran many games, and simply remember which
            moves not to do. It not like there was some box that did not know anything
            about chess, and then figured out how to play chess.

            We been writing computer code that does this
            for 50+ years now – the only difference is computers can do this task faster. I
            hardly see this as anything different then 30 years ago the same thing being
            done with tic tac toe, but with more processing we can do it with chess or go.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • AdrianAshfield

            Albert, “Because I get and buy a car in no way means that someone else goes without a car.”

            Obviously true. I never said otherwise. But if I buy a car made in Korea, people there will be able to buy something. If America doesn’t make it or it is not as good or more expensive, that money ill leave the country and the inhabitants wil be that much poorer The problem here with the weak recovery is because the population carries so much debt they can’t afford to buy enough new stuff.

            The new tax bill will just widen the income inequality. You talk about people on welfare having TV, iPhones & meat. You miss the point that they are in debt, living check to chek, can’t afford a house & start a normal family, and are always on the brink of disaster. According to The New York Times, the richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Read again what I wrote here:

            I’m surprised how you underestimate that AI example. A five year old can learn the rules of chess but that doesn’t make him good at the game. Many man years of programming , using examples of master’s games, went into Deep Blue. This program apparently does a better job in 24 hours by learning.
            I’m sure it could figure out the rules too from a few examples.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well, we have to separate out the issue of debt and an abuse financial system.

            I not aware that people on welfare have piled up large amounts of debt – since they were never making a lot of money in the first place.

            And how is a tax cut going to affect working poor in a bad way? I mean, you can’t cut taxes to people that are not paying taxes? I mean does one REALLY have to point out that cutting taxes is going to help those
            that pay more taxes? (Did I just really have to explain this, really????).

            Right now, the top 20% ALREADY pays 84% of taxes. Exactly
            how much do you want to take from these people by force of gunpoint and power
            of the state? And the top 1% pays 45% of taxes. We can’t hang more taxes on that
            group – they are already over taxed.

            I mean did Steve Jobs rob or steal money from homeless people?

            And what level of income inequality do you want? You not
            given or explained to anyone here what amount of income equality you want? Do
            you want everyone to make say $40,000 per year? So you tossing out and making a
            point about income inequality being bad, but you not shared THEN what that
            number should be? So do PLEASE share what level you think is correct and that
            you want to implement in a given society. I mean, without you given some kind
            of number, then all you doing is virtue signalling to readers about jealously or some perceived evil, and yet you not
            provided what level of income you think is correct for the given society.

            So a MBA player makes 400 times what other workers in that franchise
            make. Is this bad, or wrong? Should the water boy make the same as the NBA
            player? (And why if you think this way).

            Why this fixation about someone has a larger house, and has
            more money? What we need to worry about is figuring out how to increase the
            wealth of the poor – not stop or take away “nice” things from people who been successful.
            (So the solution is to make everyone un-successful?).

            I mean, I thought it was bad that a slave owner would provide
            food, housing, and then take the fruits of their labor. Now today, the government
            not paying your food and housing – so we reaching near slave tax rates now. And
            those taxes are at gunpoint and by force.

            And it not like there is some “cabal” of people living at
            the top. It is a revolving door. People like Martha Stewart moved into this
            bracket, and also have moved out. Same goes for Steve Jobs. It not like some group just sits at some income
            bracket – it is a revolving door (people move in and out of that income level).
            And a ton of them left that high income during the dot-com bust.

            Most important is to ensure you have income mobility in your
            society. (This is more important then differences in income). So this suggestion that someone is wealthy is
            due to some wrong, or taking away from the poor is silly – that is just plain
            class envy. (And I not suggesting you saying this, but many a reader will
            conclude this when people point out about income inequality). So the idea that
            income inequality is some evil or a bad thing is silly.

            If you took the total pay of the CEO of wall mart, and gave
            it away to ALL workers, each worker would get $10 more for the WHOLE year! So
            this “farce” or jealously of income inequality is simply not really the
            issue here (unless one is driven by wanting to take things away from others, or
            are saying that those people someone became wealthy due to some evil or wrong
            or taking that money away from other people by force).

            And EVEN when working for the same company, then so what if
            a NBA payer makes 400 times what other workers make working for the team? Why
            is this bad or wrong? Are you telling me that NBA player should not make 400
            times more than the water boy? And if the player should not then YOU explain
            why? So what level of difference do you want for the NBA player and what level
            do you find or want here that is acceptable to you? (You REALLY have to answer
            this question).

            If we compare income and standards of living in the USA,
            then 9 out 10 people are better off than other parts of the world. So should we
            now compare this to some poor country? (And why???), or why not???.

            Are you richer or poorer because Bill Gates made money? (Did
            that cause homeless, did Bill gates go around taking money away from homeless???).
            Again, you not explaining why this is a bad thing.

            So I don’t care about some NBA player making 400 times the
            average. However, what IS MOST important is wage mobility – and that you MOST
            certainly do want.

            Right now, based on USA tax returns, we find that fully 80%
            within 15 years move out of the ranks of poverty. However, if you increase taxes
            for business etc., then you going to PREVENT this mobility.

            The #1 factor in your income is going to be the choices you
            make. A single white women with children has a 40% poverty rate. Yet a married
            black family with children has a poverty rate of ONLY 7%. So the idea that you
            blame this on the “system” that keeps everyone poor is simply not the case.

            What this means is go to school, get job, and get married
            and STAY marred. These factors are at the top of the list in what will
            determine how you faire in this economy. In other words, YOUR choices and YOUR
            decisions you make will be the #1 issue in how things turn out for you. Far too
            many want to give this responsibility to the government, but then that means
            you don’t suffer from making bad choices in life, and WORSE you want to take
            money away at gunpoint from people who simply made better choices then you!
            Why should I pay for your bad decisions? Why???

            A tax is cut is most desperate needed here, and this is much
            in regards to jobs and better opportunity. And the reason of course is much of
            the job stagnation we have here is due to business tax rates being VERY high.
            In fact they are higher than Japan, France, Germany, Sweden, and just about
            every modern western nation I can think of. .

            So we at least need to get business rates down to some level
            at which we can compete with say Sweden, or Norway, or France that have more favorable
            tax rates for business that creates jobs then we have right now

            Most people don’t think of the USA as an overregulated and
            over taxed economy in regards to business compared to say Sweden, Norway, or most
            western countries. Yet we have higher tax rates for business compared t those countries.

            Toss in REALLY bad tax rates, and THEN open up trade? Well,
            all you do his cause a mass exodus of industry that creates jobs – and that is EXACTLY
            what occurred in regards to free trade deals. This process is most of the
            reason for losing good paying jobs.

            You not explained why it is a problem that someone working
            in a garage starts some company and makes a billion dollars living next door to
            you? Why is this bad? That does not mean you going to be richer or poorer
            because of someone else going out and starting a company.

            Of its own, income difference is not a bad thing. What is
            HORRIBLE is when you damage income mobility.

            The tax bill widening income is not going to hurt working
            poor (since them not paying taxes anyway).

            The tax cut don’t’ hurt the poor, but the real issue is business taxes in the USA are higher than Sweden,
            Norway, France, Japan, etc., and just about every single other western nation.

            I mean why is income inequality bad? Why is it a problem if your next door neighbour makes a million dollars? This idea that someone making more then you is somehow a bad thing is absurd.

            The main reason why large portions of working poor exist is
            because we shipped out the manufacturing jobs to other places. No question
            someone benefits in Korea if we buy a car from them. However this does not
            suggest that Korea can do just fine and dandy building their own cars for their
            own people. It don’t make much sense to close down industry here, and have all
            those people now take some crap job in which they work paycheck to paycheck. I mean, it not like our auto industry was selling all the cars to Korea at one time – and in fact our auto industry
            really never was much if at all was based on exporting to other counties.

            So sure, in the case of exporting goods, you often get
            winners and losers – and with poor trade choices we darn near wiped out the
            middle class – and for no good reason.

            As for the AI example? No, it nothing new at all, and I am
            not impressed at all. That is a classic min max code that we had in our
            industry for 50+ years. I should point out that I am currently a software developer and took computing science at U of A


            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

          • AdrianAshfield

            Albert, I disagree with much of what you wrote. For example: “I not aware that people on welfare have piled up large amounts of debt –
            since they were never making a lot of money in the first place.”

            Americans owe a lot in credit card debt: More than $1 trillion, according to CNBC Not only that they are charged ~18% interest on it.
            The basic problem is that wages have not gone up since the 1970s so it difficult to make ends meet.

            The new tax bill will give most of the benefits to rich corporations, who will give it to the shareholders, executive pay and buying back shares to increase their value. I has been tried before and didn’t work. It will do very little to increase wages.
            It will reduce the services and health care for for the bottom 30% and not enough for the middle class to even notice. It does nothing for the crumbling infrastructure.

            Things like the slums and half a million homeless don’t bother you. As long as we can keep spending $700 billion/yr on the military and starting new wars, all is well. Arms manufacturers will be great again.
            The millions we kill, wound or turn into refugees don’t matter as they are not American.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Actually, in regards to debts, I think the system is terrible, and abusive. And I often think that the financial is something that just sucks money from everyone, and in a VERY bad way. So no, I think I am “very” aware of this issue.
            And in regards to taxes? Yes, I STONG believe that attacking income inequality by “just” taxes is like tossing more gasoline on a burning fire. The only real means to fix income inequality is to bring back the jobs for the middle class – not some “fix” with taxes. So yes the the fix is to address the jobs and manufacturing leaving the country (due to crap policies and taxes), not some “other” kind of fix to income inequality. You bring back jobs to fix this issue. So we have to attack the cause, not the symptoms that resulted from such policies.
            And yes, Regan cut taxes in CA, and government revenues increased – in fact SO MUCH that a second round of tax cuts occurred. So yes, there are examples in the past. Such tax cuts not only had dramatic effects on jobs being created, but it also increased tax revenue for the government. There are a number of states right now that have reached the point in which increasing taxes will cause a negative result in taxes collected. (they might get 1-3 years of more money, but after that the negative effects kick in, and you just start chasing jobs away).
            As I stated, we have higher taxes then Sweden, and most other western nations. The only real way to fix this issue is in fact to provide jobs and change things to keep manufacturing here. Any other approach is a band aid solution.
            We have example after example of bad trade polices and taxes that just simply result in manufacturing jobs leaving to more tax friendly locations – combined with ease of trade policies, then it little wonder so many companies simply pack up their bags and flee to Mexico, or China. We have to address this flight of middle class jobs, and trade + taxes is the only way we can fix this issue, since that was the cause of this issue.
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    • Jag Kaurah

      According to the above site India is about to commission the World’s first large scale Thorium reactor

    • Vinney

      Interesting that Rossi has mentioned that he has obtained ‘finance’ for his industrialization of the Ecat QX production, which is not the same as a technology partner at his Stockholm presentation.
      Albert, I think you may have identified the source, a Venture Capital Fund linked to the Norwegian Government Sovereign Wealth Fund.
      If this is so, their frequent compulsory reporting should reveal this investment.
      Hence the necessity to build a production facility in Sweden.
      Hydrofusion must have been very busy lobbying this fund which is one of the largest in the world.
      The interest rates and equity conditions would be far more generous than any Venture Capital in the US.

  • kenko1

    5 sigma was never mentioned directly, but inferred, as there were questions about reliability raised. And I thought 5 sigma was supposed to put to rest all doubt about reliability.

    Also suprised to hear that no radiation detection devices were present. Couldn’t one have been there just for thuroughness? I’ve heard that they’re fairly cheap.not hard to set up, and accurate.

  • I and Rossi discussed who could be invited as a media representative and I suggested Per Kristian Bjørkeng since he had shown interest in the field before and also proven to report on LENR in a neutral and open minded way, opening up a large perspective on the topic while also keeping it accessible to a broad audience, which is necessary for a mainstream daily newspaper as Aftenposten.

    • Dr. Mike

      A very good recommendation!

    • Mats, do you know with whom Rossi has partnered? Not that you need to tell us.

      Have you ascertained what organizations were represented at the demo?

      • I have my ideas, but no confirmed information.

  • Steve Swatman

    Wow bruciebaby, you really went to town on this one. That you take all this “I think, information” and throw it out there as if its gospel, and yet you actually know nothing about Hurley, his agreements with Rossi and knowledge of the QX, the demonstration and the relationship between Rossi and Hurley and Yet although everything you write is negative conjecture, you project it in a manner that would suggest you have absolute knowledge and insider details.. You really are well trained in manipulating social media opinion.

    I see
    no indication at all that Mr Hurley has any inside information on the
    QX. I think he knows exactly as much as you or I do.

    (The fact that he is sitting there, appears to be a part of demo, and is accepted by Rossi and his team, leads me to believe your summation is incorrect.)

    Judging by
    the adulatory posts someone with Hurley’s claimed name and background
    has been sending to Mr Rossi’s JONP blog for years I would guess that he
    (Hurley) would feel excited and honoured to sit beside Rossi at the
    demonstration and make calculations without knowing any details.

    (You guess, well, you know, that’s just a guess based on your negative views, right?)

    is a sort of assumption around that Mr. Hurley was overseeing the
    demonstration. I have asked Mats Lewan and Alan Smith (from LENR Forum)
    about this and they both say they have no insight into what “oversee”
    might mean. I even note that the author of the Aftenposten article
    labels Hurley “the independent observer”. This denotes a type of
    inflation of Hurley’s role and influence for which I see no grounds.
    Hurley is not “independent” of Mr Rossi, he is a long time acolyte, and
    there is no evidence at all the he oversaw the demonstration in terms of
    setting up the measurement apparatus or anything like that.

    (Been a follower of Rossi does not make Hurley a “none independent observer” after all, YOU have been following Rossi’s work for years and had you been invited to the demo, YOU would class yourself as an independent, would you not?)

    has been Mr Rossi’s long-time habit to keep people around him in
    separate compartments insofar as knowledge goes. This played out big
    time during the Doral test with IH not really knowing what was going on,
    and all the workers on the Leonardo side of the facility kept in total
    ignorance of people and events on the JMP side.

    (All negative assumptions as to why Mr Rossi keeps people in separate compartments)

    (IH knew exactly what was going on and even had their own people on site monitoring)

    (The JMP side was really irrelevant to the reactors producing excess heat)

    (This is simply creating negativity from thin air)

    I think what we
    see here is more of the same. Rossi has offered Mr Hurley a role which
    Hurley accepted without much understanding of what was going on (like
    Bass or Penon).

    (You seem to think of Hurley, Bass and Penon as an idiots, which is quite interesting as they are obviously quite well respected/educated in their fields and careers)

    Having played out his part Mr Hurley has left the stage
    but meanwhile a “report” has emerged, first posted on Mats Lewan’s blog
    and with Mr Hurley’s name on it, outlining calculations of energy in
    and energy out. This report, purportedly by an American, is written in
    slightly ungrammatical English using nonstandard notation (Wh/h) that
    Mr Rossi likes to use and with the name of Hurley’s employer misspelled
    at the end. It is therefore written by Mr Rossi, not Mr Hurley. I am
    totally amazed that after having had this pointed out to him, Mats Lewan
    is incurious about who really wrote it and whether Mr Hurley actually
    ever saw it at before it was published.

    (I am sure that Mr Hurley would have said something if your claims were true, after all, no one wants to be shown to be an idiot in the world of the media and Science)

    (Mr Hurley has all the opportunity in the world to contact Mats and ask for the truth to be told, should he feel that he has been exploited in some way)

    That you assume so much with so little first hand knowledge it is quite amazing, one might suspect (using your own assumptive logic) that you are been paid and manipulated to write these negative posts, but it would be wrong of me to assume so much wouldn’t it.

    • Ciaranjay

      Interesting suspicion that you raise Steve.
      Any ideas who would be wanting to pay for negative posts about Rossi?
      Do you think it might be IH or the oil industry?

      • Steve Swatman

        No point in speculating on that, however we all know that there are many companies setup to manipulate social media opinion, and many companies who have their own departments to manipulate social media, as well as many government agencies to also do the same. The SMI annual conference on militarization and manipulation of social media manipulation, gets around 200 attendant agencies and that is just one such conference.

        I note that just before any Rossi announcement or demo, there is a large increase in negative attacks on Rossi, his past, his work and his associates, and directly after they are very active too.

        Bruce and Rosie are always fun to read though.

  • Steve Swatman

    No one knows anything about Mr Hurley.

    (that did not stop you from attempting to totally destroy him and reputation he may have, though did it bruce)

    But this train of surmise is a result of Rossi’s stage managing and doesn’t need to correspond to any reality.

    (Thats a rather large assumption, considering you know nothing and was not present)

    (The heat exchanger is not relevant, if you take the temps of the water going in to the reactor and the temps going out, the heat exchanger argument is just a deflection)

    • Buck

      I found Alan Smith’s comment about his conversation with William Hurley very interesting in how it suggests the direct involvement of Big Oil as an interested party and possible investor:

      “I had a word with the oilman. I asked him what his interest was, a politer version of ‘wtf are you doing here?’ His reply was – ‘I work for a huge refinery company with plants all over the USA. We use a lot of heat.’ ”

  • Buck

    It is hard to be more clear about the consequences of the Stockholm demonstration and the subsequent financing agreement with the mysterious new partner.

    Great set of questions Frank!


    Frank Acland
    December 18, 2017 at 9:06 AM

    Dear Andrea,

    So if I understand correctly:
    1. You are working now to develop the first E-Cat industrial product?
    2. You are working now to develop the robotic system to make the first E-Cat industrial product?
    3. You will only present the product when both 1 and 2 are accomplished?
    4. After success with 1 and 2 and 3, you plan to expand the production capability for massive production of E-Cats?

    Thank you,

    Frank Acland


    Andrea Rossi

    December 18, 2017 at 3:28 PM

    Frank Acland:

    1- We are working now to start the industrialization of the E-Cat QX for industrial applications
    2- yes
    3- yes
    4- yes

    Warm Regards,


    • Dr. Mike

      Frank has consistently been asking the best questions of Rossi! Many of Rossi’s mis-statements have been clarified only through Frank’s good questions.

    • Buck

      Rossi adds more perspective to 2018.

      Frank Acland
      December 19, 2017 at 6:56 PM

      Dear Andrea,

      I would agree that from the information you have shared, you have a very ambitious business plan.
      1. Do you now have the expertise at your disposal to make a sophisticated robotic production line?
      2. Is the goal of mass production in 2018 yours alone, or is it something your whole team is working towards?
      3. Is it realistic to expect the presentation of the first product in 2018?

      Best wishes,

      Frank Acland

      Andrea Rossi
      December 20, 2017 at 2:42 AM

      Frank Acland:

      1- I am working on it with specialsists. I have not expertise on this field, I am learning.
      2- The 2018 target is shared with our Team and our Partners.
      3- It is our ambitious target.

      Warm Regards,


  • Buck

    I found Alan Smith’s comment about his conversation with William Hurley very interesting in how it suggests the direct involvement of Big Oil as an interested party and possible investor:

    “I had a word with the oilman. I asked him what his interest was, a politer version of ‘wtf are you doing here?’ His reply was – ‘I work for a huge refinery company with plants all over the USA. We use a lot of heat.’ ”

  • Steve Swatman

    I do not find his role to be of particular interest, he was simply another member of of the demo team, although, it does seem that certain people have used his appearance as a negative point and attacked him and his presence as if it is more important than the demo its self , this is simple social media manipulation, deflection, creating negatives where they do not exist for the sake of casting dispersion’s on The demo as a whole, I found your particular comments to be straight out the “Social media opinion manipulation” handbook.

  • Steve Swatman

    And there you go making negative assumptions, obviously Mr Hurley is important enough to you that really, really feel the need to tear him to pieces even though YOU know nothing about him.

    I rather feel you are been a little too obvious in your trolling since this demo.

    maybe Mr Hurley was just a sacrufuicial dove for all the rolls to tear apart, leaving Mr Rossi in peace.