Rossi Says E-Cat is Absolutely Safe — “There Will Never Be” Gamma Rays Emitted

Safety concerns regarding the E-Cat have to be of primary concern to Andrea Rossi as he pursues his commercialization strategy. His explicit goal is to install E-Cats in millions of homes to provide heat and (eventually) electricity — in order to do this there will have to be assurances to customers and regulators that the devices pose no safety risk to users.

Rossi has said that his Leonardo Corporation is in the process of seeking certification for from Underwriters Laboratories in the US and are in the process of submitting the E-Cat for safety testing. Rossi recently made the following comment regarding safety when asked if it was possible to use an E-Cat safely in an apartment:

1- The E-Cat is absolutely safe, does not emit absolutely any kind of radiation in the room: we made thousands of hours of tests. You can install with absolute safety an E-Cat inside your room.
2- There will never be any kind of gamma emission, but our control panel will detect any kind of radiation anyway, and in case of detection of any kind of radiation above the background will stop the E-Cat. But, again we never detected radiations above the background outside the E-Cat ( Background radiation is the radiation you have in your room right noew, coming from the Universe).

Rossi has consistently refused to provide details of what is going on inside the E-Cat reactor, but he has mentioned that gamma rays have been detected. Recently in a video interview when asked about whether the E-Cat was a ‘cold fusion’ technology he said, “we have found traces of fusion because we have found 511 kev gamma rays at the output, which is the emission of a positron and an electron, and a positron is the product of a proton turning into a neutron, so we have some kind of fusion inside, but I do not think this is the main energy source.” Exactly how these gamma rays are shielded is not clear, but Rossi has mentioned in the past that lead is used.

So Rossi seems very confident that they have solved the safety problem, but it will be down to regulators, who will no doubt be very rigorous in their examination of this new kind of nuclear reactor, to give it a seal of safety approval.

  • Pingback: Oklhoma Bufala « Calcydros

  • Pingback: E-Cat: situazione senza uscita — Nuove Tecnologie Energetiche

  • http://blog.teledyn.com mrG

    ok, I would expect everyone has read this one by now:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46342612/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TzWK_hLKkhg

    and if it is true that Rossi served time with a toxic waste to oil scam and if it is especially true that the copper output is not anomalous with regard to isotopes, I think that pretty much shatters my faith in all this. Anyone care to comment on either of their counter-claims?

    • http://blog.teledyn.com mrG

      ok, the wikipedia does explain the Petroldragon, although they also use the term ‘oil’ and not bio-fuel, but that now casts some doubt on the MSN story because they clearly omit the detail that the process worked, it was just done in a sloppy way that left an environmental hazard (or was that because they were forced to abandon the site?) So Petroldragon appears exonerated and some plus points for Rossi in that his detractors now stoop to prevarication.

      but what of the copper output isotopes? isn’t that, if true, still a tad suspicious?

      • Robert Mockan

        The copper isotopes ratio measurement definitely needs confirmation. If copper in the “waste” product of an E-Cat has the natural isotope ratio, that would be much more than a “tad” suspicious.

      • Jim

        You’re right, they were forced to abandon the site. I read his version of events but I can’t find the link anymore. But he claimed a new law had been passed and they confined him without giving him a chance to do anything. Ultimately they tried to charge him 3 times but he was acquited on all but very minor charges.

  • http://www.american-reporter.com Joe Shea

    ‘The test” mentioned in the first comment? When was that? I don’t recall Rossi permitting any tests, none were publicized (I’m not speaking of the 11 demonstrations, of course), and I think this letter and some of the others originate with competitors or the oil, gas and nuclear energy industry. I would be very wary of what any of them say.

  • Pingback: E-Cat è sicuro e non emette raggi gamma, Andrea Rossi si contraddice? - Energia - GreenStyle

  • Gisli Adalsteinsson

    According to Wikipedia Rossi stated that his thermoelectric generators could attain 20 % efficiency in transforming heat to electricity. When tested non of them worked as he said they should do. What does that do to his credibility?

    • Alain

      it hurts his credibility, like petrodragon affair.

      anyway there are technical and behavioral data.

      clearly Rossi is paranoid, proud, selling plans before tests, is a bad engineer…

      but there is behavioral and even some data, that let clear that he had at least for some demo a working, yet unstable reactor.
      his answer contains mistakes, some show a lack of competence engineering.

      Defkalion is much mode credible, from their board of director profile, from their square penguin mode of communication, from their deep technical answers on some very sensible subjects, while keeping secrets some sensible data.
      Coherent with Corp behavior and real business, with a finished products not far.
      even the video is more credible than Rossi Shows, despite they show factually less (but behaviorally much more).

      • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

        Defkalion is a joke compared to Rossi.

        Name 1 single person who has EVER seen a Defkalion product and I will retract that statement.

        If I issued a spec sheet and a video showing tin foiled pipes I would be on equal standing with Defkalion.

        Defkalion has shown us less than a 15 year old could contrive in his mothers basement.

        They have openly lied. See their own forums for responses about “confusion”.

        The “spec” sheet they issued had a fuzzy photo of something, and a computer mock up of the device they were giving the specs on. If they had specs then why not a real picture?

        I believe in LENR and hope Defkalion is not “Full of it”, but nobody can claim they are looking like a real business.

        I do hope they are ahead of Rossi. I really do, but the fact is they have been NOTHING but talk, talk, talk.

        and more talk.

        AR (Rossi) has at least demonstrated his product to real people. Professors and such.

        I will happily retract this post if anyone can name a single person who has seen a Defkalion reactor ever.

        • Alain

          will see.
          behavior talk more that video.
          I know whom I will lend mi bike to.

      • Jim

        “it hurts his credibility, like petrodragon affair.”

        He was acquitted on everything but very minor charges for that.

    • Ged

      Some of them did work, but produced much lower power, as the Wiki article says. And the fact he sent out his devices for testing, BEFORE MARKETING THEM, is a sign of integrity.

      Thermoelectrics are used in the real world for many applications such as refrigeration. But, Rossi was working with physics that are still being developed right now, using nanotechnology. Thermoelectrics have the potential to be far more effective using graphene and carbon nanotubes, nothing that was around during Rossi’s days and attempts.

      Petroldragon worked. It produced biofuel from waste. Rossi was very much ahead of his time, and now a days the idea of biofuel from waste is completely normal and under heavy investigation across the world. Again, nothing unusual about Rossi’s idea there other than it was too soon–the whole green movement and alternative fuels idea hadn’t yet started! Petraldragon only failed due to regulatory issues, which no longer exist today.

      No where in his past did Rossi defraud anyone. And I certainly hope he isn’t starting now.

  • Pingback: Rossi Says E-Cat is Absolutely Safe — “There Will Never Be” Gamma Rays Emitted | ColdFusionBlog.net

  • Alexvs

    I do not wish to hurt anybody’s feelings but from reading this site it seems there is a collection of Mr. Rossi’s sayings which has become an Evangelium / Quran. Seemingly the collection’s items contradict some with others, no real proof of non material matters are brought in, and a single personal entity, in this case Mr. Rossi, holds the entire knowledge of the doctrine.
    Sorry but the more I read the more skeptic I am.

    • Colin Connaughton

      I agree with you. The whole thing seems to me to be like a religion of faith which is why the believers try to drum up more support. The support will seem to be an argument in favour of Rossi. I’m a sceptic also but no matter how many people believe in something with no evidence I will remain a sceptic. Support does not seem like evidence to me.

      I advise people not to invest in this thing unless you are prepared to lose money, as I’ve written before.

      • daniel maris

        There’s a big difference between being a “believer” and being an open-minded person.

        Why shouldn’t we be open to a man who worked with a leader in LENR (Forcardi) to develop his device, who has at least operated the basic device in demonstrations, who we know to be working with National Instruments and other reputable organisations, and who no one has yet brought forward any evidence to show is engaged in a scam?

        It’s purely a case of wait and see. One of three things is going to happen:

        1. Rossi will never produce anything.

        2. Rossi will be exposed as a scammer.

        3. Rossi will bring a device (be it good bad or indifferent) to market.

        • lol

          “who has at least operated the basic device in demonstrations”
          Did he? Do we have any data to validate that the device was operating according to the claims?

          “who we know to be working with National Instruments and other reputable organisations”
          Does he? Who is your source? Rossi?

          “and who no one has yet brought forward any evidence to show is engaged in a scam”
          There is no way to verify the claims/device. Where should the evidence come from?

          If you repeat a lie often enough…

          • Steve Robb

            People might spend time answering you or they could more fruitfully talk to a brick wall.

          • Ged

            Nope, Stefano Concezzi, science director at National Instruments independently, confirmed the contract with Rossi, as did Trisha McDonell, corporate PR manager.

            Furthermore, look at the history of the demonstrations. They were not done in secret, and the data validates most of the claims of the device (other than it seems to run half the power Rossi’s been expecting in the past). However, no device was given over fully to be evaluated by an independent party, and that is a worthy issue to take Rossi to task on.

            The rest of your objects though, are false as they stand now. You should rephrase and reform them in a way that is genuine, as there is much to be genuinely skeptical about!

          • lol

            “People might spend time answering you or they could more fruitfully talk to a brick wall.”
            Too bad you didn’t choose either and posted this worthless reply instead.

          • lol

            “Nope, Stefano Concezzi, science director at National Instruments independently, confirmed the contract with Rossi, as did Trisha McDonell, corporate PR manager.”
            So what does it mean? Rossi is a customer of NI? Did they confirm that they work with Rossi on the e-cat?

          • Ged

            Yep, that is exactly what it means and what they confirmed. Rossi’s been stated as their customer, by them, and I think the deal has been to work on making instrumentation specifically for the 1 MW plant. I don’t know of any deal for the smaller devices, but I suppose Rossi can just use what he learns from them, with a licensing agreement? Consequently, Rossi is allowed to use the NI logo on his control panels.

            It’d be a good idea to do some investigating, to keep up on the times.

        • skeptic

          Why shouldn’t we be open … for instance, because we might consider investing in solar panels on our roof.
          When you have an interest you can’t just sit back and wait. If Rossi turns out to be a scam and you have made real decisions based on his statements, you have a reason to be angry.

          • Alain

            ok, but silent…
            we are just interested in the possibility, more and more certain if you follow the domain, that we are at 1 month from the biggest disruptive technology since horse…

            much more easy than nuke or steam engine, much less dependent on geostrategy than oil, much more compatible with existing technology that radio…

            in 5 years you can replace half the planet energy, and get the return as savings.
            in 20 all …

            you don’t wan’t to speculate?
            ok, but wait in silence.
            we don’t yet have hard proof, but a converging cluster of evidence.

            the possibility of no Ni+H reactor working is less than 9/11 conspiracy or Apollo conspiracy.

            null hypothesis too should respect Occam principle.
            (it is a very common mistake not to apply scientific criteria to null hypothesis)

      • Alain

        there is also a difference with seeng the facts, using real-life methods to check what is possible, impossible, probable, and improbable, and refusing to see the evidences that are spear in front of you.

        I am not a believer in anything, not even the usual delusions. I observe facts, and because real facts are not black and white, sure or false, I compute the credibility of differents hypothesis.
        I have no null hypothesis. even skepticism should be based on facts, and “null hypothesis” is simply an heuristic that “consensus” often hold strong proofs.

        If I believed in the possibility of LENR, and on the pathology of denial of the anomaly, it is because the articles criticizing the F&P experiments were not good science.
        If I was not sure, it is becase LENR experiments were not yet solid enoug to be sure.

        now it is sure. Pathology of LENR denial is clear, and compatible with real consensus on epistemology. (got peer review paper on that, books, and historical references)
        Key facts on LENR are established. (got peer reviwed papers, repeated experiments, convergent and various protocol, multiple signs, multiple sources)
        LENR is not incoherent with anything we know, just not yet explained surely. so it does not need “exceptional proofs”, just usual scientific proofs.
        billions are wasted every day on less proffs than LENR (and I don’t talk on hot fusion which deserved interest before LENR get industrial recently)

        using engineer and manager heuristic I trust Defkalion, much more than Rossi, but I’me nearly sure Rossi too have a reactor.
        and I’m absolutely (no reasonable doubt) sure Defkalion have a well working COP>20 stable reactor, and master many parameters of the reaction.

    • Ged

      Nothing in science ever stays static, and many theories are contradictory (relativity vs quantum entanglement), with no clear solutions.

      And science is a methodology. How much more so marketting and engineering? No one should be surpised.

      The thing to watch for is how wild the changes are, and how big the claims. Mr Rossi does not hold the entire knowledge of “the doctrin”. Dr. Sergio Focardi was the one who helped him develop it, and it was the physicists theories, not Rossi’s (as far as I know). Rossi is just the one in the limelight, but you’re losing sight of the ball.

      Don’t forget the history of the demonstrations that were done where people inspected the apparatus and the results. Or that some of the spent fuel was independently evaluated.

      Still, all caution is prudent! And the jury is out–one way or the other. But there is no evangelism or doctrine, and no one loses out if this turns out to be false; it’s a fun spectator sport!

  • Brad Arnold

    Five Stages of Idea Accpetance
    1. It is irrelevant to this situation.
    2. It’s relevant, but it’s unproven.
    3. It’s proven, but it’s dangerous.
    4. It’s safe, but it’s not saleable.
    5. It’ll sell, what a great idea!

    You will predictably see a lot of “skeptics” airing a lot of preposterious and ideosyncratic “theories” on why LENR is dangerous (just like they are now on wheither it is proven or not).

    Bottom line is that LENR is very very cheap, so people will eventually get over their paranoia and ignorance to save money big-time.

    • Alain

      since a few month ago, I’ve predicted that there will be a campaing of fear to fight LENR.
      It is the only solution to block this technology so it stays in the hand of incumbent oligarchy.

      the second lobby is the néo-malthusianist, and the numerous common media-brain-washed followers(30-50% of population here), that will consciously or unconsciously tray to fidn a bad reason to block that immoral technology promoting growth, happiness, pleasure, consumption…

      I’ve imagined that the big players would feed the very influent neo-malthusianists so they lobby (efficiently as usual) the media to brainwash the population, so we block LENR at home…
      like some are blocking GMO, Nuke, Shale gas/oil, or promoting wasteful investment is hopeless energy (making some opportunist players, including more and more big, very happy to pump subsidies from traditional tax payers)…

      LENR if people were rational will kill instantly wind/solar generators, new nuke, shales oil/gas, geothermic, carbon cap and starve old oil and nuke, IPCC until they die of uselessness…

  • susu

    E Cat is a gift from God to humanbeing to get warm.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    One thing is certain. Replacing a conventional furnace with an E-Cat would eliminate the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.
    http://www.creia.org/July-2011-Inspector-eNews/carbon-monoxide-leading-cause-of-poisoning-deaths.html

    • Alain

      moderate risk of Hydrogen fire.
      Rossi says (I trust him moderately, Im afraid he only have ideas and hope)
      based on Defkalion data for hyperion, and dada from AirLiquide
      if leaking Hydrogen nearly always burn and at very high temp, even for very small leaks.
      but I’ve computed that the bottle in Hyperion (2litter at 200bars) is only 32g of H, and have the explosion capacity of 1/5 of the small camping gaz bottle.
      anyway H is dangerous if no air flow.

      • Alain

        oops, cut phrase
        Rossi says (I trust him moderately, Im afraid he only have ideas and hope) that there won’t be any bottle for e-kitten, as the cartridge will contain hydrogen source…good idea.

  • Gregoryyc

    My friends. I am just gonna have some fun throwing $ numbers around so have patience.

    I just took a look at an amazing $$$$$$$$$ market size for LENR/Cold-Fusion. It is so freaking huge it makes your head spin and never to stop. Ok lets put a number on it.
    World energy was 2400TW in 2008. Lets assume Ecat and Hyperion will sell 1MW generators for $1M, which equals to $1=1W (industrial).
    And lets call 0.1% market penetration/replacement as success per year. So that would take 1000 years for complete change over. Hey I’m not gonna survive that long but I’ll try ..How else am I gonna see the new world you guys are talking about before I go HUH ?

    Anyho, 0.1% is 2.4TW = 2,400,000MW
    At 1MW = $1M = $1/W
    How much is that going to my bank account ?
    Walla. It is: $2,400,000,000,000 !!!!!!!!!
    $2.4 Trillion

    Now Dr. rossi did say that for home heating units he’ll charge $50/kW. = 5 cents/W
    Another Walla yet ! $120 billion !!!!

    So averaging out between home ecat type and industrial types and assuming 50/50 spread. Around $1.3 trillion.

    And that is just to satisfy existing replacements. What about all those newbies ? I heard that would multiply 100 folds total users easy around the world. so the 2.4TW goes straight up the scale to 240TW .

    Now that will then make it to become $130 Trillion/yr business. …for 1000 years !!

    And you have to manufacture 240,000,000 1MW size E-cats.

    And I heard somewhere’s that Dr. Rossi wanted to allow 100,000 units per licensee per country ? At that rate you will need 2400 licensees over 2400 countries.
    We only have 110 or so countries , counting those mickey mouse island nations with only few thousands people even. So…We’ll need to go take over Mars and Venus and the whole lotta solar system planets in a hurry to make that number happen.

    And all that money !!!whoww !! you will make that much for 1000 years give and take few years. !!!!!!!

    Good thing is with E-cat propulsion you can go anywheres without tooo much problem.

    I don’t know .. but I think I’m gonna go have coffee and go to sleep ………..

    • Petrol

      240TW of electrical energy is much different than 240TW of heat energy. Carnot tells us without high temperatures we’re SOL when it comes to putting those watts into powering our toasters and tv’s.

      By rushing the low hanging fruit of a first gen deliverable heat generator. I think what Rossi is doing here is the best possible course of action. He is the “catalyst” for something that if it is not a fraud can not simply be put back into its box (See P&F) and will then see world wide attention and proper economies of scale.

      • Alain

        divide by 3 or 4 for a big plant…
        defkalion Hyperion can already get above 400C (maybe up to 600+), so efficiency is fair around 3, above nuke…

        I’ve made some computation befor, base on Hyperion consumption and spec…

        with data from defkalion,
        viewtopic.php?f=4&t=836
        5kW hyperion core, holding 10g Ni, and assuming a 25kW x5core
        with 5500Eur each 25kW, and 200Eur/y maintenance

        I reach a consumption of 10% of ni production,
        15%GDP investment for building reactors
        cost of maintenance 0,5%GDP
        and nickel 0.004% GDP

        price of nickel is 0,007€/MWh thermal
        price of maintenance is about 1€/MWhthermal
        if amortizing in 10 years cost is 2.5€/MWthermal (10y is a mix between expected life 20-30y, and no-inflation interest rates 1-2%)

        multiply by 3 to have electricity price estimation : 10€/MWelec (3€maintenance, 7 investment)

        assuming thermal power converted to useful energy at 33%
        (numbers from wikipedia, nickel, GDP, … some from Ni traders)

        of course many unknown, like cost of turbines, the fact that each kind of usage will need a different kind of reactor (here I suppose that industry/farm is run with 25kW reactors with turbine)

        at least it says that this energy can scale up to replace all, without long term problems. no impact on nickel market. no impact of nickel price.

        main factor is investment and maintenance.

        about core building, usual distributed intelligence of capitalism market can cope with the challenge. no need of subsidies, quota or cap trading, decision to move are short term good. investment seems good from 5 years.

        about electricity price, it seems very very competitive relative to nuke, and much more easy to finance for usual free market.

        http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5196#p5196

  • Sparks

    Hmmm… Could it be that this is because, “There will never be” an e-cat product??

  • admin

    Interesting post from vortex-l on this topic:
    Evidence of electromagnetic radiation from Ni-H Systems

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSevidenceof.pdf

    In an experimental series performed by Piantelli, he observed the production of either heat or gamma radiation but not both at the same time.

    In these experiments, the variable that seems to matter is the rate in which the hydrogen was loaded into the nickel lattice.

    Slow loading of hydrogen produces radiation, fast loading produced heat.

    Some additional insights can be drawn from what we know about Rossi’s reactor development path.

    When Rossi was early in this development, he saw gamma radiation including the 511 kev gamma ray footprint of radioactive decay residuals from copper fusion.
    From the demo of the first one liter Rossi reactor during the time at startup when the lattice was cold, a massive radiation burst appeared for a second or two. From this, I deduce that the energy production mechanism will generate large amounts of radiation if the lattice is cold and the phonons present in the lattice are not energetic enough and/or the nickel has not yet reached the Curie temperature demagnetization threshold of nickel.

    One often reported problem of that early design stage was the generation of bursts of radiation during startup and shutdown. I assume that the lattice was cold or cooling at those times.

    Rossi was greatly concerned by these radiation bursts since this behavior would surely block commercialization of his reactor.
    He changed his design so that an external heater warmed the nickel lattice before the reaction was allowed to begin.
    This tells me strongly that there is a second quantum mechanical reaction that converts the radiation generated in the metal atom’s nucleus to thermal energy within the lattice.

    The lack of radioactive decay products after the Rossi reactor is shut down also speaks to a radiation thermalization and suppression mechanism.

    It is wise for the NiH reactor builder to heat the nickel lattice up to operating temperature before hydrogen is pumped into it.

    An interesting experiment would be to load radioactive potassium or cesium with hydrogen and heat in into the 400C range to determine if baseline radiation levels are reduced as a function of hydrogen pressure and temperature.

    • Ged

      That is extremely interesting if true. There’s a lot about the underlying physics and mechanisms we could learn… I’d love to see that experiment carried out.

      In some ways, this reminds me of super conductors, where the quantum effects are completely temperature dependent. Complete and dramatic switching of physical properties at the quantum level when you hit a certain heat threshold seems to be the norm, and we’ve hardly begun exploring that observation.

      • Alain

        the basic of widom-larsen theory
        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml
        is that many quantum coherence happens at the surface of Hydrides
        the protons get coherent (like in superconductors for electrons, but for protons. anyway it has been observed in graphene see http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2009Sept3LatticeEnergySlides.pdf around p 60) .
        the electrons get coherent too, and together they allow excitation called polariton (wave of charge holder like e and p). and evanescent photons (plasmon) at the interface can couple with those polariton wave to became SPP, surface plamon polariton, that can be so intense that protons and electrons both move(born Oppenheimer approximation breaking), makin electrons englued with SPP…
        those heavy, thus wide, electron can be absorbed by proton (impossible for normal electrons, because endothermic in that case,and improbable because too small).
        it gives neutrons…

        we don’t know yer if WL theory is the good one, but is is one of the best candidate.
        it will be quickly presented at CERN in march,the 22.
        http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379

  • http://www.neotreksoftware.com Allan Shura

    “no proof of fusion”

    This is another line propagated by those quick
    to debunk cold fusion without reading the widely available information.

    In all of the experiments trace byproducts of
    many other elements formed on the surface.

    Rossi claims that nickel is transformed into
    copper.

    Such observations could not occur without fusion.

    Cold fusion theory always says the fusion is a different type of a fusion but despite this a recent widely distributed article maintained
    there could not be fusion and based this claim
    on the unrelated logic of hot fusion theory.

    • Alain

      DD fusion seems impossible, but the mistake of the hot-fusionist have been to keep to the line that ther could only be classic hot fusion…

      in fact it is clear there are non fusion transmustion, that can explain all the energy.
      widom-larsen theory is on possible explanation. it’s advantage is that it is based on observed facts out of cold fusion world

  • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

    VALID CONCERN HERE?

    Let’s suppose we have ecat powered cars/trucks/boats.

    Gamma rays can penetrate almost anything especially flesh, and that is why AR has put shielding around his ecats.

    Here is my question.

    Would it be possible to drive into Gamma rays from the e-cat in the car in front of me?

    Pretend we are on the highway, and thousands of cars are heading home from work and they all have e-cat power. Would the highway be filled with gamma rays we could drive into?

    This is more of a science question then a comment, but I’d like to see it asked before rather than later. Would it help to have the e-cat lower or higher than the people in cars?

    I know AR says it is not very measureable, but does that mean non-existent?

    I am an e-cat buff now, and know we will have e-cat cars someday soon, I just have had that question plaguing me.

    • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

      I suppose we could put film liners to block gamma rays in the front of our vehicles. That or tin foil hats.

      • Alain

        defkalion proposed to put a radiation screen made in polymer
        http://www.ecomass.com/index.html
        only 3mm… same efficiency as lead.
        very thin, look like an anti-witch umbrella.

        for their public test they put no shielding, because they say there are no noticeable radiation above background…

    • Petrol

      **Assuming** each car gives off a non-trivial quantity of gammas above background your exposure follows inverse square law. Doubling distance = 4x reduction of received radiation.

      Your own cold fusion powered car is comparativly more harmful to you than the contribution of the thousands of other fusion powered cars sharing the road with you.

    • Paul Richards

      Natural exposure to gamma rays is about 1 to 2 mSv per year, so currently you are doing just that as you walk, cycle and drive.
      If you live in The US it’s even higher at 3.6 mSv per anum.

      So what are you going to to stop walking?

      Some critical thinking please, it’s lowering the tone of discussion.

      Besides, Rossi is not even in this vicinity of a yearly dose rate, he claims there is no issue. I know some here don’t believe a word, and scepticism is appropriate for certain levels of thinking, it’s fine. But transparent to us all.

      The fear is of Gamma Radiation is imagined, if I were you I would be more worried about radiation dumped on the Japanese recently and in the Pacific ocean. It’s real.

      Rossi’s eCat is still in the projected future stage.

      • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

        Thank-you for responses. I’d just rather look at that idea before 600 million cars start driving around with this tech.

        I think the e-cat future stage will soon be upon us. I think it will be public talk before the end of this year and once investors hit the stage it will be a boom.

        • Ged

          I hope people have been educated in how radiation works, in this thread. Been a lot of great discussion! Also shows how very low the understanding of radiation is out in the public.

          Inverse square law alone basically nullifies any worries, as Petrol pointed out, let alone the attenuation of gamma rays by lead of a factor of 5 for each 1.63 cm.

          The gamma rays Rossi detected in his early devices are low energy (0.5 Mev)–the same energy level as background gamma radiation we are bombarded with per second. Your body is designed to handle that type of gamma. You’re at a far higher risk to radiation from eating bananas, literally.

          • Alain

            you will shock any greenpeace fan if you say that truth…
            banana is even a radioactivity unit of contamination…
            BE AFRAID of banana…
            note that your wife/husband is also a strong source of radioactivity (like ground and sky)…
            but the worst is plane flight.
            with greenpeace numbers (the falsified no threshold linear law), all flighing staf should be dead, and there should be millions of cancer caused by flight…

            get calm. not observed.

    • Philip

      If you had a e-cat powered car, it would certainly have radiation shielding just as talked about in the article. That shielding would stop gamma radiation just as well in a stationary house as it would in a moving vehicle.

      • Alain

        be clear, no gamma observed at a noticeable level.
        the fear will have more chance to cause you stress, thus death.
        it is event the biggest cause of death around tchernobyl (~1000 suicides, and stress induced violences increase be cause of moving and fear )

  • Sanjeev

    http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379

    Please note that this event will be available live via the Webcast Service.

    • dsm

      This event may prove a watershed in the rehab of ‘cold’ fusion.

      No doubt the new name LENR (or LANR) will be used but CERN running this event is great news.

      Doug M

      Krivit also leapt on this & paints its importance

      http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/08/cern-recognizes-lenrs-widom-larsen-theory/

      • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

        I see this more as a punt than a watershed. An overview is just that. It won’t go into any detail or reveal any surprises. It will occur 45 days from now and directs attention away from any scrutiny of the existing wild claims for the time being.

        So now we have the big names involved:

        CERN – overview without any detail or substance

        NASA – the Langley Climate Science and LENR division, or was that LENR and Climate Science section, makes a video and fantastic claims refuted by the chief scientist involved on his personal website

        MIT – cold fusion display in classroom but not by an official MIT professor

        • daniel maris

          Naughty, Charles, you know he didn’t refute the claims. He just made noises and used the S word at the behest of someone…so people got the impression had had withdrawn his statement to some degree, whereas he was quite explicit in NOT doing that.

        • dsm

          Charles

          NASA people presented 4 significant slide shows at NASA’s GRC event on 22 Sept 2011. I am guessing you don’t know what they are or what is in them as your post indicates a real lack of understanding of NASA’s 2011 LENR position.

          I’ll leave it to you to do the leg work to find them, just like most of us here have had to do to build up a respectable insight of this very important topic.

          Pontificating on a topic with 1/4 or less knowledge is ‘reputationally’ dangerous to any of us (those who care that is :) ). Damage yours as you see fit.

          Doug M
          You have the clues – go prove you can do real research :)

  • Jake

    Of course it’s safe; thin air and empty talks generally don’t pose any danger.

    • Ged

      If the e-cat is false or not (and it’s still impossible to say which of those two is true), that doesn’t change the fact radiation isn’t quite as dangerous as the general populous things.

      I’ve personally worked with radioactive Sulfer35, and been radiation certified.

  • atanguy

    Quote:
    <>
    True but you have to add the ‘man made background’ of the atomic tests and nuclear accidents Fukushima,Chernobyl and TMI and also the radiations coming from burning coal and oil.

    • Roger Bird

      Please, the radiation from all three, Fukushima, Chernobyl, and TMI are currently ZERO, except in the minds of anxiety worshiping hysterics.

      • atanguy

        Roger Bird where do you live? Fukushima prefecture? Tokyo? Kiev? Three Miles Island? Or maybe close to one of those ‘safe nuclear plants’?
        Would you replace your Geiger… Please!

        • Roger Bird

          The risk of the radiation from Chernobyl spreading is extremely small if not non-existent, and the animals around there are thriving, without mutations. I know that many people are hysterics who project on to the external world their inner anxiety. You may be one of those people.

          • Alain

            I confirm.
            suicides killed more and are the cause of fear not radiation.
            for now, 10-20% of the suicides firemen that absorbed many sievert died, and the other should have increased rate of cancer. 1Sv have been observe in hiroshima as changing the rate of cancer from 32 to 37%. lower dose have non linearly lower effect, and even short term protective effect. below 200mSv have no effect for adult. 100mSv for kids. no effect on descendance (the mythology of malformed kids around Chernobyl is a NGO manipulation helped by subsidies hungry government).
            there have been few thousands of Thyroid cancer, that have been not too badly cured, despite bas health system (privatization of their heath system in a poor crony capitalist system- thanks the chicago boys). only few kids died.
            no impact on adults, and it is logic since none have been exposed to more than 200mSv according to simulation.

            the fall of the economic infrastructure, the bankruptcy of the health system have killed millions of people meanwhile in ex-USSR.

            in fukushima, the tsunami killed 21-28000 people.
            radioactivity have killed nobody.
            few workers have been exposed to more than 200mSv, but none get sick (mean below 1Sv, probably 600mSv).
            we can estimate they will have a little more cancer than average population, but a few % more only.

            the rest of the population if they have stayed in the forbiden zone, would have received 30mSv in the first year, thus causing no effect.

            there are natural zone with many time that level, and no noticable effect… just a small reduction of solid cancer, and increase of leukemia. a small increase of immune system activity.
            this effect happens for local people, and also for people from outer origin.

            it is coherent with todays modern theory of cancerogenesis, that show threshold and different mode of defence agains any aggression like heat, radiation, sun, chemical…

            anyway like cold fusion, that well known truth is ignored by mainstream and thus by regulators…
            scientist don’t even dare today to express that in public, yet some write articles… provided they don’t argue with regulators and NGO they can write science… even the big nuke no more dare to critics the urban myth too strong.

  • londo

    Hm. Strictly speaking, detection of 511 keV radiation does not prove fusion. It is the typical sign of beta+ decay. Mega electron-volt gamma would be a much better signature of fusion of some sort.
    However, if the Widom-Larsen theory comes through, it claims to explain the “lack” of hard gamma photons. I’ll have to give this text some time to see if I believe it.
    Anyhow, it’s nice to see the deeper consequences of this process know as LENR being brought to public awareness. If all this turns out to be true, even if Rossi’s device isn’t (I’m not claiming that isn’t, just if), it would present the biggest discovery in physics since superconductivity. The little I’ve read about Widom-Larsen theory, I kind of get a BCS feeling. There is hope.

    • Ged

      There was another LENR fusion theory by a nuclear physicist I posted somewhere else on this site (looked for it, but don’t have time to crawl through all the news articles to find it) that also proposed a mechanism using bose-einstein condensates that would not give off hard gamma rays. So Widom-Larsen isn’t the only theory that explains LENR or the lack of hard gammas (it’s actually the decay of two radioactive copper isotopes that can give off the gamma radiation, not the fusion of the hydrogen and nickle itself–especially if stable copper is the favored outcome).

      • londo

        In the case of Ni-H system, it should be beta decay of Ni to Cu, I think.

        • Ged

          I think so too.

          All of this has made me start learning a bit more about nuclear physics. It’s fascinating! But a lot to take in and try to keep straight.

        • Alain

          I don’t think so fro WL.
          Widom larsen expect only beta-minus decay, and beta-delayed alpha decay.

          beta+ decay is strange, but maybe it is a consequence of the alpha, bombarding some nucleus like Al27 giving P30+n, then beta+ decay.

          beta+ seems a rare event, but it is very noticeable… maybe as improbable as to see a birth on a battle field.
          but it happens.

    • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

      Yes. The Widom-Larsen Theory allows for the excess protons to be used in new atoms after being bombarded with neutrons.

      • Alain

        it could maybe be the consequence of alpha bombardment (many alpha are produced) on some nucleus (Al27 for example).
        the two merge, and eject a neutron (eg: AL27+he4->P30+n)… then some nucleus beta+ decay (like P30 do)…
        Irene an Joliot Curie were the first to do that He4 Bombardment on Al27, producing P30 and beta+,

        Ive not seen any reference to beta+ in widom-larsen theory documents.
        normally beta+ is not logic after neutron absorption, because beta+ happens when there are too much protons and lacking neutrons.

        did you see where it is cited, and tell it here. I’m interested.
        it seems minor fact, but should be explained anyway.

  • Sparks

    Whoa, lead shielding! Based on the information given here that the e-cat contains lead shielding, it looks like the 10 kW home unit will indeed be rather heavy, exactly as I argued two days ago. So indeed there WILL be a large amount of material moving through this factory. So where is this large factory located, which will begin mass-producing 1 MM units anually in just 8 months?
    Here’s the analysis: If each e-cat weighs 50 lbs (lead shielding…), that’s 50 million lbs, or 25,000 tons of material that must flow through various supply chains and arrive at the factory each year. Those 25,000 tons of material will need to enter Rossi’s factory shipping and receiving department each year, be brought together on a robotic assembly line, and go out the shipping docks. The shipping and receiving alone will be the equivalent of supporting a factory producing about 15,000 automobiles per year (based on simple tonnage of material flowing). At roughly 200 working days per year, we are looking at moving 125 TONS PER DAY of material coming in and going out of the factory. Okay, even if it’s half that (say, longer shifts, no days idled), it’s huge and its construction and tooling would need to be well-along by now. Where is this factory?

    • Ged

      Sparks, don’t get ahead of yourself. Lead shielding of a few centimeters is not that heavy, not compared to all the other metal components that make up the entire device. Think of how heave a CRT monitor is.

      Also, how do electronics and computers get made in the millions per year? Don’t underestimate manufacturing. For instance “New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) was an automobile manufacturing plant in Fremont, California” and “Up to May 2010, NUMMI built an average of 6000 vehicles a week, or nearly eight million cars and trucks”, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI

      I see absolutely no problem with a SMALL factory producing 1 million E-cats annually.

      Finally, the factory is supposedly in the US, and likely Massachusetts where he met with the Governor to talk about setting up a factory. Still, tracking it down if it exists would give us some very interesting info.

      • Ged

        I must make an addendum–it wasn’t the Mass. governor he met with, but the Mass. state senate minority leader Bruce Tarr, along with representatives from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northeastern University, and the University of Massachusetts; as confirmed by the senate office, and Robert Tamarin the dean of science at UML.

        Much better than just meeting the governor.

        Anyways, had to make sure all facts were straight.

    • mike

      a semi truck will haul 45,000 lbs so it would take 6 trucks per day @ 200 days of work. would not need to be that big of a plant to produce this.

  • Frank

    Rossi says to have received about 100.000 pre-orders for the home-ecat.
    Pre-orders are taken since end of November, so for about 60 working days now.
    If you consider that the one who files the pre-orders works 9 hours a day, one person can only effort 20sec per order (if all orders are for a single unit only).
    If Rossi confirms all the orders himself ( like he does it on the JONP-website) then he must be very busy with this work – beside all the R&D work, setting up a new factory, preparing for mass production, licencing his product etc. etc. But probably his wife supports him in his home office – Strange, that there is not more evidence for a bigger staff in his venture. ;-)

    • Sparks

      Spot-on, Frank. And see above.

    • Sparks

      Spot-on, Frank. And see above.

    • Ged

      He definitely has a staff. There are people who run the official E-cat website, for instance. But, most of all, the construction of the 1 MW plant proves he has a team of some sort working for him. 52 devices are a lot of devices! It was built too quickly and too professionally to be by one guy and his friends, even if a mockup. Way too much material.

      So yes, he absolutely must have a staff working for him, or someone he’s contracting to put his IP into action. This is one of the biggest mysteries to me. If we can find these folks, we could gain a massive amount of information from them. People are too busy looking at Rossi to notice all the workers behind the scenes… We need a detective on our side to do some digging.

      • Frank

        The guys who run the ecat.com site are not that sort I would comsider as part of Rossi’s staff.
        There is only one guy who appears in several ‘ecat-videos’, seems to be a plumber (that’s the impression when you look at the toolbox which he carries around).
        If Rossi has more staff, then it seems that he is hiding them. But why should he do that? Wouldn’t it have been a good idea to show some of his team (if he has one) in the recent ‘Bologna videos’.
        I’m sure Rossi’s explanation why he doesn’t show more of his organization, is because they want to work ‘without any disturbance’ ;-)

        • Ged

          I’ve never known any company or organization that showed off its entire staff–though I’m sure some small ones have. There’s absolutely no reason Rossi should have to do so. My university doesn’t show me off for working here, its only concerned with the science results and not the people behind the scenes.

          I’m just speaking from the amount of work that’s been done. There has to be people, more than a few, working on this, as there’s no way Rossi could have constructed the 1 MW plant on his own, even with one plumber guy helping him. And if he did, that is insanely impressive. It’s always possible Rossi has been contracting some other organization, so that no one is directly working for him, in that sense.

          If we had a detective, we could find out for certain; as well as maybe pick their brains for inside knowledge.

  • Robert Mockan

    A radiation detector on each E-Cat! Just in case?
    This does not pass the smell test.
    First, radiation detection is expensive. I’ve seen neutron detectors selling cheap on E-Bay, for only $3000. Then there are beta rays (electrons), alpha particles (helium nuclei), gamma rays, and some odd emissions of other particles, and to detect all the kinds of radiation is going to cost…thousands of dollars! The only reason Rossi might have a radiation detector is for liability insurance issues, or to pass regulatory product approval. Some toy radiation detector is not going to pass muster.

    So this story is going to change. Otherwise we will not see E-Cats costing less than a few thousand.

    • Ged

      Really? Your smoke detector is a radiation detector, that’s how it does its work, using the radioactive decay of Americium241.

      • Robert Mockan

        Smoke detectors using Americium are not radiation detectors.

        Reliable complete radiation detection is expensive. The devices worn by personal in industry, and inexpensive radon gas detection, for example, in the home, are not accurate or calibrated. On the E-Cat an alarm would need to sound for ANY kind of radiation. Development of such a device would be more expensive than the E-Cat.

        • Petrol

          You don’t need high accuracy or high resolution for this application. a/b/g event detection tubes easily capable of detecting background are publically avaliable for less than $20. The rest is electronics which it sounds like Rossi has covered.

          • Robert Mockan

            The devil is in the details.
            Background from naturally occurring radioactive isotopes in the environment can vary 100 fold higher depending on location. Homes with radon emissions even higher. That does not even begin to address the altitude dependent variation due to cosmic radiation.The criterion for an E-Cat radiation detector would not be to determine if the E-Cat is contributing to background, but is it generating any radiation. The question of safety is another issue. Product regulatory agency approval would need to be based on maximum allowable safe level. Unfortunately there is NO defined maximum allowable safe level that is not routinely exceeded depending on location.

          • Alain

            @Robert Mockan
            you don’t need to detect any radioactivity.
            it is stupid (politiccaly correct, environmentalist, but stupid).
            and where come the radioactivity is not a problem, the total is the problem…
            you need to check radiation is below a give threshold, that is accepted, otherwise stop all…

            anyway your idea of safety is very common among environmentalist. for them a natural gamma is less toxic than an artificial gamma… I don’ discuss religion.

          • Robert Mockan

            @ Alain

            There has been much “politically correct”, and “environmentalist” type thinking used for agendas. Unfortunately that is the kind of world we live in. Rossi would do better to be able to prove because of the way the E-Cat energy process works, it is not possible for it to generate radiation. Presently he can’t do that.

          • Petrol

            A couple of points:

            1. With a detector inside a sealed e-cat container there is no way alphas from Radon will be detected. They simply lack sufficient energy to get anywhere near the detector.

            2. You can easily establish a statstical baseline by recording radiation before the device is switched on.

        • Ged

          I reiterate what Petrol said. No need to measure -actual counts-. You just need a detector to pick up any radiation above some hardwired preset. That’s easy as pie–you can use electrical induction and resistivity alone to do that!

          Just like a smoke detector, which works this way but in the reverse sense where smoke attenuating the radiation signal is how it detects the presence of smoke. Yes indeed, a smoke detector is a radiation detector. See http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/fire/smoke3.htm for a brief overview.

          • Robert Mockan

            I like your enthusiasm, but read what I commented to Petrol about some of the details involved in radiation detection. Your thinking about the smoke detector still misses the point. It detects variations in conductivity due to smoke particles in air ionized by the specific kind of particle radiation from Americium. I understand your “reverse sense” thought, and actually think it has some merit. But by strict definition, a smoke detector can detect smoke, but applies the radiation from the Americium to do so.

          • Ged

            Well, I was just trying to make the point that you can detect if something is a source of radiation, trivially. You don’t need $500 dollar detectors (the average cost for a serious geiger counter, I just looked), just to say if radiation is coming from a source or not. Any ion trap, like the smoke detector uses, will detect gamma radiation for you. Then, all you need is the circuit to be tuned to give a warning if enough electrical conduction is generated above background. This can allow modulation for high radiation background environments like homes with radon, as you mention.

            Check this out http://madscientisthut.com/wordpress/daily-blog/easily-make-a-radiation-detector-ion-chamber/ step by step instructions on how to make a radiation detector, able to even detect radiation from a lantern mantles 6 inches away.

            If something that crude works, it should be trivial to make a little detector dedicated to monitoring if the E-cat chamber is giving off radiation–in fact, you could just grab a smoke detector’s ion chamber and use that!

            That’s all I was saying.

          • Ged

            Actually, I think I know where our difference lies.

            From reading your good thoughts, I think you’re thinking of the detector being used to monitor the actual counts of radiation in the room itself, and seeing if the E-cat is rising the total radiation of the environment.

            That’s a completely different thing from what I’m thinking.

            My thought is just a yes or no question of if the chamber is giving off radiation or not. So you’d put the detector as close to the chamber as possible, and monitor if any radiation at all is produced past a certain calibrated hardwired threshold–and you could make that well above background but below safety limits (0.5 mrem? since medical x-ray is 3-4 mrem). That seems to be the important measure to me, and a far easier problem to solve.

            The other good bit of news, is that if the e-cat produces radiation, it’ll only be while on and running. So you could have your detector set up to automatically shut it down if it trips.

            • admin

              I think you are right, Ged — this is what Rossi said in the post about gamma rays: “our control panel will detect any kind of radiation anyway, and in case of detection of any kind of radiation above the background will stop the E-Cat”

          • Robert Mockan

            @ Ged

            I was thinking of a survey type meter with digital readout in the room where the E-Cat is located, that would continuously measure the radiation level, with an alarm sounding if it rises. That kind of equipment already has regulatory approval for industry. In my opinion, unless there is proof that the E-Cat process can not under any circumstances generate or release radiation into the environment, the product regulatory agencies that Rossi needs to obtain approval from will probably want monitoring equipment of some kind, in addition to an automatic shut-off of the E-Cat. I have some uranium pieces I have worked with as electrodes in a LENR cell, and use a radiation meter hooked up to my computer. If I wash my hands and hold them next to the meter,the background count does not change. But if I just pick up and move the uranium on the other side of the room, then later hold my hands next to the meter, it can go off scale. The actual radiation level is still way below the safety limit, but my point is that, for a domestic appliance where do you draw the line unless you have sensitivity and accuracy? Just sensing radiation can be, as you say, easy to do.
            A simple gold leaf electroscope will do that.
            But any device used for the E-Cat has to have intrinsic sensitivity to be able to set the set point triggering
            in the electronics causing an automatic shut down. I use cheap equipment. it cost a couple thousand. If I had ANY kind of nuclear reactor around, I would want at least my kind of equipment being used to monitor it.

  • daniel maris

    I find the lack of interest of the health and safety agencies in the E cat puzzling. Does this indicate there is no “E cat” or does it indicate that the authorities are fully aware of it and do not wish to prevent its development, given its importance to national security? BUt if there is no E cat, why aren’t the authorities moving in him as a fraudster?

    • Ged

      Because radiation is not even remotely as dangerous as the public mindset would lead you to believe.

      Every second of the day you’re hit by an average of 89,000 gamma rays at 0.5 Mev (the same gamma ray power Rossi detected from his device). Now, Rossi hasn’t told us how many gamma ray hits he detected per second, which would be a quantitative level of the radiation given off, but a few centimeters of lead shielding can block basically all gamma rays when they have an energy of 0.5 Mev (divide the amount of gamma rays by 5 per 1.63 cm of lead, over what it would already be reduced by simply because of distance from the source).

      • Steve Robb

        A dentist friend told me that in the history of the employment of x-ray machines in the business he heard of only one case of someone developing a cancer that could be directly blamed on the use of the equipment and that was a cancer of the dentists finger that was employed to hold the film in the patient’s mouth as the device was employed. But I understand gamma rays to be a higher energy emission.

        • Ged

          Actually, X-rays can reach up to 45 Mev, such as those used for radiation therapy (termed megavolt X-rays). I think the X-rays from a modern dentist machine are something around 100 Kev.

          But, more importantly than the energy of each photon alone are the counts: how many photons are used per bombardment, which is usually 2-3 mrem for a modern dental X-ray. Don’t know what they were using back in that guy’s day, but I know back when I was young they’d make me wear a lead vest due to the high power of the machine and chance of beam leakage. It’s supposed to a directed beam, instead of an omnidirectional (think a flashlight instead of a lamp).

        • Petrol

          Problem with this line of thought it simply is not possible to know who has contracted cancer as a result of an x-ray. You can only make statistical guesses.

          Even what seems to be an obvious causal relationship could simply be a conicidence or mearly one of many contributing factors. We don’t know. We don’t have the technology to know.

    • Frank

      Quote “But if there is no E cat, why aren’t the authorities moving in him as a fraudster”
      If I would claim on my Internet homepage that I have developed in my garage an anti-gravity machine, the authorities wouldn’t chase me as long as nobody files a law-suit against me because I have financialy cheated him.

      • Roger Bird

        Frank, the authorities will chase you if you try to sell one to someone, and I suppose that they would have to complain.

        Can I see one?

    • Petrol

      Static master brushes have polonium in them, smoke detectors Americium, glow in the dark watches tritium/radium, gas mantels (thorium). Products with radiation for sale at local walmarts everywhere… we’re all doomed…

  • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

    Safe for all but investors:)

    • http://www.nickelpower.org Bruce Fast

      But he hasn’t given me any opportunity to give him my money. He has my name, as I have requested to buy one of the first products, yet no mechanism has been provided for me to give him money.

    • Steve Robb

      Yes, yes, there, there.

  • Daniel M. Basso

    For those mentioning other easier ways to kill someone: all of them leave forensic evidence. Now prove “my neighbor gave me cancer”… much harder, isn’t it?

    I want cheap energy as much as you all do. But to simply ignore the possible misuses is pretty naive. We must discuss and prepare for these kind of things before they actually happen.

    • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

      We must discuss and prepare? That’s the FDA’s job not ours. Any device that even occasionally emits radiation, even industrial devices that find themselves on the factory floor, must go through the FDA approval process. That could take years.

      • Daniel M. Basso

        It is the job of those interested in the issue. Even if you don’t have the technical knowledge you can raise reasonable questions that may help educate yourself and others. Your very reply is an example of this. If it was not for it, I wouldn’t deliver this message.

        I hope you don’t extend your point of view for political issues. After all, laws are Senate and Congress’ job, right? Well, if you don’t get involved, don’t complain when they screw you in the a**.

      • Ged

        No, it doesn’t take years for most things to pass through the FDA. Just months in most cases, even for drugs once their clinical trials are done (THOSE are what can take years depending on the drug).

        • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

          If a similar device has been approved in the past you only have to prove yours is similar enough to the previous and the process can take months. You are 100% correct Ged.

          • Ged

            Yes, I am 100% correct, and it gets even better. From the FDA’s website itself: “Standard Review of a new drug application be accomplished within a ten-month time frame.” and “Kaletra for the treatment of HIV/AIDS was reviewed and approved in 3.5 months. Pegasys, a combination product for the treatment of Hepatitis C was approved for marketing in 4 months.” Reference: http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byaudience/forpatientadvocates/speedingaccesstoimportantnewtherapies/ucm128291.htm

            And then “Median Time to Approval For Priority Applications Remained at 6 Months for the Fifth Straight Year” and The estimated median approval time for standard applications in FY 2007 was 15.1 months. Reference: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UserFeeReports/PerformanceReports/PDUFA/ucm209349.htm

            So, as you can see, passing through the FDA never takes years. If it took years, it would be because of initial rejection, redesign, and resubmission. But the actual FDA process is on average less than a year, though median is slightly over one year.

            Also, why would the FDA be approving this? FDA is only needed for medical or food affecting devices. EPA would be more likely for the E-cat. But that’s what the UL certificate is for.

          • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

            Ged since you know so much about the FDA approval process and which devices are and are not within their jurisdiction, we’re done.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          >”No, it doesn’t take years for most things to pass through the FDA.”
          ~~~~~~~~~
          “First synthesized and found to reduce blood sugar in the 1920s, metformin was forgotten for the next two decades as research shifted to insulin and other antidiabetic drugs. Interest in metformin was rekindled in the late 1940s after several reports that it could reduce blood sugar levels in people, and in 1957, French physician Jean Sterne published the first clinical trial of metformin as a treatment for diabetes. It was introduced to the United Kingdom in 1958, Canada in 1972, and the United States in 1995. Metformin is now believed to be the most widely prescribed antidiabetic drug in the world; in the United States alone, more than 48 million prescriptions were filled in 2010 for its generic formulations.”
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metformin
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          It only took the FDA 65 or 70 years to approve the safest and most effective diabetes drug ever invented. Their foot dragging probably caused the early deaths of 10s of millions of Americans.

          • Ged

            Errm… that didn’t have anything to do with the FDA in and of itself. People lost interest in it till the 1970′s, and it was approved in 1994. But approval requires a manufacturer applies to the FDA with a formula to be marketed. More than one metformin formulation has been given FDA approval and marketed. So you’d have to look at each individual application to see the time it took the FDA.

            As it is, I posted data directly from the FDA’s site about time to approve an application, which is generally around 6-10 months (10 months being their goal), and can be as fast as 3.5 months in extreme cases.

      • Roger Bird

        It is for OSHA to sign off on these kinds of things. The FDA does drugs and raw milk and other things that you can eat.

        • http://none.com Charles Ponzi

          http://www.fdaimports.com/industries/electronic_radiological_devices/

          > The FDA regulates radiation emitting electronic products whether or not they have a medical purpose.

          • Roger Bird

            Someone should regulate the FDA.

          • Ged

            By the way, I mentioned the EPA earlier since if the e-cat does not produce radiation such as gamma rays, as Rossi says, then it will not be subject to CDRH’s approval (that subgroup of the FDA). However, it may still be subject to EPA approval due to the nickle and compressed hydrogen. I’m not sure on that at all though.

    • Harold

      Any technology has the potential for misuse. Even an automobile can be used as a lethal weapon. If someone is determined to hurt other people, they will find a way. This should not be a reason to forbid use of the ecat in the service of mankind. It has a much greater potential for good than for harm.

      • Daniel M. Basso

        I absolutely agree with you. My point is that getting away with murder by car is way harder than murder by radiation poisoning.

        To be honest that is just my assumption. I’d be happy to be corrected by someone who knows this stuff.

  • Dave

    I believe Rossi 100% here. The E-Cat is just an electric water heater, so why wouldn’t it be safe?

    • Daniel M. Basso

      > The E-Cat is just an *electric* water heater

      No, it is a LENR water heater. You know that fission nuclear plants are also just big water heaters right? So why aren’t them safe?

    • http://www.nickelpower.org Bruce Fast

      Dave, do you clearly believe that Rossi doesn’t have the technology that he demonstrated. Is it your belief that all LENR is hooey?
      http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/

      If so, please read this post, and follow the first level of links. If LENR is bogus, then Rossi is bogus. If LENR is true, Rossi’s technology might still be bogus, but it also might be true.

      • Jake

        The problem with AR is not LENR not being true. It’s his acts, hist attitude, his unaccountable claims, and his criminal record.

  • http://www.shake-speares-bible.com psi

    Daniel,

    I think there are already much easier ways to kill someone. Try your local gunshop or medicine cabinet.

  • HanzJager

    I bet there are much easier ways to harm or kill someone. Not to mention cheaper, who wants to damage their eCat? ;)

    • HanzJager

      Meant to post under Daniel Basso. Strange connection issues today. :(

  • Daniel M. Basso

    Suppose you are an intelligent psychopath, then you could remove part of the lead shielding, direct the opened part to your annoying neighbor/victim, and bypass the radiation security check.

    If this is a possibility, you can be sure some motherf**ker will do it. But I think the need to carry a gamma ray detector all the time is a small price to pay for the benefits this technology will bring.

    • Luca Salvarani

      To Daniel Basso
      Ok but it’s the same for any gun (pistol) or even dinner knife.. I hope anybody will abuse this argument in order to stop or delay the revolution because we absolutely need it!

    • philippefx

      You may also put dioxyn in his drinking water, or crush his head with a stone (the second solution will be far more efficient).
      The goal is to avoid the accidental risk, not the intentional risk.

    • atanguy

      Yeah, I always expected that as soon as LENR is going to be commercial, all the ugly, dirty dinosaurs of coal,oil,gas and fission would use the argument of “NUCLEAR=DANGER then LENR=DANGER” even if it is proved otherwise.

      • dsm

        Yup

        I recall all those shows on electricity where Edison was trying to squash a/c current in favour of his very inferior DC. Edison knew that DC would require lots of generators (sales) as the lines would not carry the current far. A/C on the other hand could travel great distances on overhead wire.

        Edison ran a road show across the US where he used A/C to electrocute elephants & horses in front of audiences as his way of trying to destroy A/C acceptance.

        Edison is alive and well :)

        Doug M

        • Joe

          That was a fight over which technology was more desirable. Edison did not suggest that A/C might be a fantasy or a fraud on Tessla’s part.

          The questions people raise about LENR is not if its more desirable than some other power source or if it will benefit society. Its about if LENR is real, if Rossi is a delusional fraudster.

          Don’t compare two unlike things and say “see, they did the same thing to A/C, A/C is legitimate which means LENR is also legitimate”

          Everything must stand on its own merit in the light of day.

          After decades of work on cold fusion there exist not a single testable theory formula or device that produces excess power in the hands of an independent party.

      • Steve Robb

        Whole generations have been brainwashed to believe nuclear anything is bad, Mr. Yellow-Face good.

        • Alain

          agreed. and not only about nuke.
          in europe: GMO, EM-Wave, consumption, oil, happiness, CO2
          in US: government, communists, …

          and there are also the sacred cow that despite proved false are still true in the news…

          and always people taking advantage of the false beliefs to sell products or ballots

    • Roger Bird

      I’m tempted.