“Reviving Cold Fusion” — The American Chemical Society covers LENR

The most recent issue of the American Chemical Society’s Chemical and Engineering News magazine includes an article entitled, “Reviving Cold Fusion.” written by Steven K. Ritter. The brief summary reads, “After 20-plus years of outcast status, unconventional heat-producing nuclear reactions still seem plausible”. The ACS does not permit its publications to be published for free online, and copyright restrictions allow me to only provide selected excerpts here.

The article is really a review of the history and current state of LENR, much of its content is what people following recent developments in LENR research already know. Ritter contacted a number of people involved in the field, including Dennis Bushnell of NASA, Robert Duncan of the University of Missouri, Steven B. Krivit of New Energy Times, and Andrea Rossi. Quite a bit of the article is devoted to describing Rossi’s E-Cat, and emphasizes that as yet it is unproven.

Bushnell maintains that, “From more than two decades of experiments producing heat and transmutations, ‘something’ is real and happening.”

Krivit says of the E-Cat, ““Rossi has no credible evidence for his extraordinary claims, I have stopped paying attention to him.”

Duncan states, ” “I don’t need to have an opinion about the E-Cat. Nobody does. Rossi is claiming to be going commercial with it. If he does deliver to the marketplace, then the marketplace will decide the efficacy of the technology.”

Duncan explains that his work at the University of Missouri is focused on trying to understand the scientific origin of the anomalous heat effects in LENR, and is not involved in commercial pursuits. Duncan also says, “I like to call it an anomalous heat effect rather than cold fusion or a low-energy nuclear reaction,” Duncan says, “because we still don’t know exactly what the mechanism is.”

While there is not much in the way of new news in this article, I think it is significant that we see an open-minded and generally positive treatment of LENR in a publication of the American Chemical Society, and perhaps this brief article will help to raise awareness of the topic in scientific and engineering circles.

  • Pingback: Rossi Energy Cold Fusion Catalyzer, Defkalion and other LENR Updates | Environmental, Health and Safety News

  • GreenWin

    Fascinating there is zero mention of this American Chemical Society break with old school science, “Reviving Cold Fusion” – anywhere but online blogs. Why would a respected scientific Society publish an article the skeps and mainstream claim to be fraud??

  • What’sUP

    Gary Wright just posted a letter-to-the-editor concerning the article “Reviving Cold Fusion,” published in the Chemical & Engineering News. It probably won’t be published till next month, so he put it up on his website, for all to read now.

    It can be found here:

    The Open Source LENR Project®

    http://www.opensourcelenr.com/
    .
    *************************************************

  • andreiko

    Voor mij heeft DR Rossie een indirect bewijs geleverd
    door de manier waarop hij zijn 1MW centrale gebouwd heeft.De manier van bouwen (vele kleine werkende ECATS parallel geschakeld)laat zien dat er problemen waren met de stabiliteit.

    Door deze bouwwijze voorkomt men een significante explosie , maar heeft als nadeel het gebruik van veel materiaal ,enormveel verbindingen, met alle moeilijkheden van dien ,om van de nodige arbeid voor deze bouwwijze maar niet te spreken.

    Bedrog op deze manier bedreven ,acht ik uitgesloten.

    • Frank

      Very good point! If the reaction could be scaled up safely he would have done so. This also explains why Rossi would seek sophisticated controls from N.I. and then Siemens.

    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      But if he would have severe stability problems with single reactors, why would he be building single core home devices where such problems would be fatal?

      There can be another reason for the 1 MW test: his customer wanted a proof that he can manufacture a large number of units which all work well. It is less time consuming for the customer to have them tested together rather than sequentially. Running them together does not prevent one from gathering individual performance data. (Besides the obvious reason that 1 MW is a nice scale for industrial plants, if that was what the customer wanted.)

    • jacob

      Andreiko,the LENR is a nuclear process ,and why
      should a nuclear process be stable, reactions in
      the reactor have spikes.

  • georgehants

    You will not find this in the school science text books.
    -
    Incredible videos recreate Isaac Newton’s experiments with alchemy
    http://io9.com/5910577/incredible-videos-recreate-isaac-newtons-experiments-with-alchemy

  • Pingback: “Reviving Cold Fusion” — The American Chemical Society covers LENR | ColdFusion – Cold Fusion | Nuclear Reaction Free Energy !

  • Robert Mockan

    Rossi claims high power of 5500 thermal watts per gram mass of catalyst, a temperature of 600 C, and stable operation. What we need to know now is what percentage of the catalyst is actually active at any given time, and how to accelerate the rate kinetics. Presently Rossi describes an energy release in one second for a gram of catalyst comparable to the energy release from a gram of rocket propellant. But aerospace applications need at least a magnitude greater energy release. In other words, we need at least 10 times as powerful as a conventional rocket propellant.

    Come on Rossi! Get off your backside and improve it some more!

    • Robert Mockan

      And another thing. COP=6 stinks! We need a much higher COP for aerospace applications.

      • dragon

        COP6 is only for the Home Unit ECAT.
        For the ECAT PowerPlant COP is much higher.
        Also, defkalion, Brillouin , even NANOR has cop in the range of 15-25+. I am sure that couple of years from now we will discuss COP 50+ if not 100.

      • chris robinson

        Don’t think we have to worry exclusively about Rossi .The race is going to be about who can develop the highest stable COP .The Company that succeeds in that endeavour will surely be the ultimate winner for Industrial applications.

        • Robert Mockan

          Industrial applications! Bleh.

          Chemical propellants in rocket engines generate at least 3 megawatts thermal power per kilogram of thrust with a low molecular weight exhaust velocity of 2450 meters per second, in accordance with the equation:

          Pp=1/2 dm/dt v^2

          Pp in watts
          dm/dt kilogram per second mass flow
          v in meters per second

          Because of inefficiencies that 3 MW is usually closer to 4 MW. But also the temperature required for high exhaust velocity is over 2000 C during chemical combustion.

          The flat landers can keep their mudball, with their “industrial” applications. What we need is much higher COP, much higher temperatures, and low molecular weight exhaust. The engine just needs to fire for less than ten minutes to reach orbit.

          • Chuck Hansen

            There were tests of nuclear thermal rockets for upper stages. Maybe LENR could make it possible to use at a lower stage as well, acting as a jet engine and negating need for oxidizer? LENR would probably need to be used in a genset config to get high temperatures from thermoelectrics, which would add weight but should still be much much less weight than a nuclear reactor with shielding.

            Say for simple example Defkalion spec sheet of about indicating about 1kg/kW… lets say 2kg/kW and go with Rossi’s COP of 6 instead of dekalion’s claims of 25+ and 32+… so 2 tonnes/MW thermal… COP of 6 @ 600C for Carnot eff. of say 40%, can get 400kW then feed 142kW electric back in the system (1/7 of 1MW), one nets 258W electric making the electric density at least 4x less (also need to factor in added with of genset), say around 10 tonne / MW electric. I’m not sure how this compares after adding a specialized electric-heated brayton engine (or maybe just a propfan for subsonic use). And, if the 600C is high enough to run the Brayton cycle with good enough thrust efficiency so electric conversion isn’t needed.

            Consider, a GE90 weighs about 8tonnes, add in that a 777-200 can hold 117,348 L of fuel (smallest tank of all 777 models), that’s about 94 tonnes! Considering fuel weight of the 777 is up to 47% of takeoff weight, LENR powered jets at least sound very reasonable. Add some water for cheap propellant and now you have a LENR rocket. See the SAFE-400 project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE-400) Indicates that reactor is about 3kg/kW – 1.2tonne / 400W thermal. That uses a brayton-cycle (probably He/Xe working fluid for a closed system) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf82.html

          • jacob

            the US built Roundwing air plane,reaches orbit in mere
            seconds

          • Robert Mockan

            > Chuck Hansen,
            The genset mass gets much better with higher COPs.
            Here are (3) equations I apply for a quick assessment to compare vehicle motive power systems that use electric power converted from thermal power from hypothetical LENR reactors.

            COP x eff=(Pie x Poe)/Pie
            Pott=COP x Pie
            Poet=Pie + Poe

            where

            Pott=power out total thermal
            Poet=powerout electric total

            eff=efficiency of thermal power to electric power conversion (assume net).

            Pie=power in electric
            Poe=power out electric

            You can readily see that with a COP=6 and eff=.4, we have 6x.4=1+(Poe/Pie),
            or a ratio of Poe to Pie of 1.4. However eff=.2 is more practical for the net efficiency conversion, and that gives a ratio of 6x.2=1+(Poe/Pie), that is only .2=Poe/Pie! In other words the electric power into the LENR reactor to keep it going (Pie) would be 5 times the electric power being generated available for use elsewhere, as shown

            .2=Poe/Pie –> Pie=5xPoe.

            Not so good when only 1/5 of the mass of the genset system (and 1/5 of the mass of the LENR reactor) is applied for useful output electric power. The 4/5 total mass being carried around to power the LENR reactor is just dead weight.

            On the other hand go to COP=20, and using even a low conversion efficiency of .2, we have

            20 x .2=1+(Poe/Pie) –>
            4=1+(Poe/Pie)–>
            3=Poe/Pie –>
            Poe =3 x Pie

            So now we have Poe (power out electrical) that is 3 times Pie (power in electrical), so only 1/3 of the total genset and reactor mass is being used to power the LENR reactor, and 2/3 is being used to provide power that can be used for vehicle propulsion.

            Higher COPs and higher net efficiency of conversion (eff), and the numbers get better quickly.

            That is why I say COP=6 stinks! COP=10 still not very good with eff=.2

            10 x .2 = 1 + Poe/Pie –>
            2 = 1 + Poe/Pie –>
            1 = Poe/Pie

            because the ratio is 1 to 1,
            that means HALF the genset and LENR reactor mass is being used just to power the system.

            But if one can have COP=40 and eff=.25, (numbers I believe are obtainable), then we are cooking!

            40 x .25 = 1 + Poe/Pie –>
            10 = 1 + Poe/Pie –>
            9 = Poe/Pie –>
            9 Pie = Poe (!)

            Now the electric power output available for use outside the system (Poe) is 9 times the electric power being returned to the LENR reactor to power it (Pie).

            So I say again. ROSSI get off your backside and improve your Ecat some more!

          • Robert Mockan

            I see a small error in the calculation of fractional system masses being used for Poe and Pie. Instead of deriving the fraction from the Poe and Pie equality, apply instead Pie/Poet for that part of the system mass used to power the system, and Poe/Poet for that part of the system mass used to generate electric power available outside the system. It makes the fractional numbers only slightly better, but does not change the advantage of higher COP and eff.

          • Robert Mockan

            This forum needs an edit feature.
            Correction:
            COP x eff=(Pie x Poe)/Pie
            s/b
            COP x eff=(Pie + Poe)/Pie

            thus –>

            COP x eff= 1 + Poe/Pie

      • http://deadstickarizona-zedshort.blogspot.com/ Zedshort

        The year is 1903 and the first Model-A just rattled off the assembly line. You complain: “It isn’t red, and it can’t to 200 mph.”

        • Robert Mockan

          Um.. 1989 when cold fusion was publicized corresponds to 1903. Think of the Model T not in 1903, but if it were not built until 23 years later (!), taking into account the delay in cold fusion progress. So now we are at 1926… and Model Ts just being built. I complain NOT because it ain’t red, and can’t do 200 mph, but because it can’t FLY!

      • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

        It seems that one would need about 1000 C temperature to reach specific impulse of 5 km/s which might be enough larger than LH2/LOX Isp of 4.6 km/s to warrant the extra tankage mass due to much lower density of LH2 compared to LH2/LOX combination.
        An engine power density of 2 MW/kg would equal engine thrust to weight ratio of 60, which is similar to LH2/LOX engines.
        If those numbers were reached, it wouldn’t yet be a launcher revolution, but a point where one might start to compete with chemical rockets. Temperatures in the range 1500-2000 C would be needed for the former.
        But for airplanes, Rossi’s new numbers are already in an interesting range for long-distance A340 class aircraft (I’m thinking of CF heating air directly).

        • Robert Mockan

          Heat exchange at higher than 600 C would help immensely. Nickel does not appear suitable for steady state because it is temperature limited. And low COP is an application killer if the system input is thermal equivalent from electric power. If straight thermal power is needed one can eliminate the energy-conversion-to -electricity mass. That improves feasibility for all thermal power applications.

          LENR technology at this time is on the cusp of being a potentially revolutionary advance in many energy intensive applications, but we still need higher reactor temperatures and higher COPs to make it more practical.

    • Bruno

      Another, admittedly less ambitious, aviation application would be to use LENR to generate electricity to run the compressor portion of a traditional jet engine. In a jet engine, the compressor section is a parasitic load, connected to to power section (combustion & power turbine sections combined) by a common shaft. The compressor uses up well over half of the power produced in the power section, so LENR could theoretically reduce fuel consumption by over half.

      • Robert Mockan

        If the commercial aviation market seems out of reach for a time, one could still power propeller aircraft used in the leisure market. I was thinking a high lift ratio aircraft (like that of a glider) but using a large prop. Not requiring air for the engine one could fly up to 40,000 feet using a prop as long as one has positive wing lift, and have unlimited range with a LENR power system.

  • georgehants

    Last week the premier journal Nature devoted a whole article to dinosaur farts maybe at the turn of the next millennium they may cover the banned Cold Fusion.

    • Wizer13

      Haha ! That’s a good one !

      • dragon

        Yeah… apparently dinosaurs farts were the Fukushima of their time.

        • Wizer13

          Yeah, whatever fits their theory of anthropomorphic global warming. I read some other day that Genghis Khan would have received an environmental prize because of all the people he killed in this time, which made less carbon footprint – and I kid you not on this one. What people will invent to prove a point… Sheesh.

          • dragon

            When people put economics or environment issues ahead of HUMAN Life, the discussion becomes genocidal. Proof of this is the One Child Policy in China…

    • http://deadstickarizona-zedshort.blogspot.com/ Zedshort

      The males used them to create mating calls. That is why even today…

    • GreenWin

      Nature, Science, APS, have fast become the gaseous effluvia of the old school. The world will smell better when they’re dead and gone.

    • jacob

      dinosaurs are creatures of inner earth,so are wholly mammoth ,who are found frozen into ice flows
      and are washed ashore , icebergs are born in the
      north pole opening to inner earth,the earth crust is 800 miles thick,the inner earth hollow sphere measures 6400 miles in diameter and is inhabited by advanced humans.
      A company in Newfoundland Canada cuts up icebergs
      and sells the ice ,which originates from the fresh water from inner earth .
      Many species of birds migrate north in winter to
      inner earth via north pole opening .

      • Andrew Macleod
        • jacob

          no,not a member,but I believe after
          looking at much evidence ,that all
          planets are hollow including our sun

          if you check your school textbook,it say ,scientists believe the earth is
          solid with a molten metal core to cause gravity.

          the temperature of our thermosphere is around a thousand
          degrees celsius,what causes this heat?

          the sun produces gamma rays similar
          to LENR , cold fusion

          • Andrew Macleod

            All tho the sun emmits gamma rays like lenr reactions it doesn’t mean it’s hollow. Maybe lenr reactions in abundance are causing this. Our current theories on how the sun works might be wrong, it very well might me a giant e cat.

  • http://www.grupoice.com Jorge Jimenez

    Throughout this history, the most interesting is to find diversity of opinion, and the wisest thing is to keep track with a good nose, a lot of scientific intuition and faith in a human collective group to which we can trust our trust.

    Certainly there will be doubts on the way to answer many questions and many doubts about the truth or uncertain of the labyrinth in which we are who we want.

    But hey, all is not lost. and not all doubt. There is a road traveled by many scientists who have had success in their research and results shared with the community to continue philosophizing pseudoscientific and find solutions to increasingly come and go.

    For everything I’ve said, what I have read and study. I strongly believe that there is a point light to shine, but already lit and is red hot before glow. Thanks Andrea Rossi envates resist the many questions, your perseverance and faith, that has allowed the whole world know of the existence of a great hope energy, using the Low Energy Nuclear reations (LENR), through the ECAT .

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

    Duncan also says, “I like to call it an anomalous heat effect rather than cold fusion or a low-energy nuclear reaction,”

    That is BY FAR the most brilliant statement in this article. There are so many acronyms flying around to own this space that it is ridiculous. “Cold Fusion”, LENR, LANR, CANR … None of these describes the phenomenon with certainty. What we do know is that under the right conditions Niclel + Hydrogen, Paladium + deuterium produce anomalous heat with minimal nasty radiation.

    • http://deadstickarizona-zedshort.blogspot.com/ Zedshort

      The Japanese like to call it “New Hydrogen Technology.” This is in the same vein of dropping nuclear in anything like the nuclear in “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” and to call it MRI.

      • daniel maris

        How about TE – short for Transmutational Energy?

      • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

        ‘Atomic’ energy? Damn, someone’s already purloined that one.

    • Antonella

      how about “Cool Fusion”?

      :D

      • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

        Its cool – but is is fusion?

  • vbasic

    The race is on. The list is long. Brilliouin, Nanospire, Defkalion, Mitsubishi, Nichenergy, LENUCO, Energetics Technologies, and of course Rossi. There are probably more I forgot to list (Blacklight?). While a decade ago there was only one or two companies. How can science ignore it now? All these companies can’t be fooled by what they see. It’s good that ACS is at least looking at it again. They were more open to the possibility then the physicists anyway. Years from now, the APS will probably say “we still say it’s not cold fusion. But yes, something nuclear is happening.”

    • dsm

      Absolutely.
      .
      There are now many serious scientists closing in with potential products.
      .
      It is very reassuring. The greatest breakthrough is when someone can stitch together the theory as to what is happening. That is a weakness. Without a theory we lack predictability. Without predictability we lack the ability to reproduce it.
      .
      DSM

      • GreenWin

        For a thousand years men had no idea what made fire work. They had no theory. But they did know that wood and peat and eventually coal burned and provided life saving heat when it reached its kindling point.

        The “breakthrough” is when old thinkers quit impeding progress to protect their fiefdoms.

  • SeanMac

    how pathetic can Krivit be and what a looser, everyone thinks he is the fool now)

    • Bigwilly

      What is pathetic about Krivit? I dont think he is a fool. Rossi has made extreme claims and backed them up with nothing. Really nothing…

      You dont say Rossi is pathetic or a loser do you?

      How bout if I say I can transmute lead to gold right at my cubicle with nothing more than a stapler? Would you believe me with zero proof? If so stay tune because I am going to showcase my transmutation this October and dont worry it will be better than last October where I did it only for a “super top secret customer”

      BW

      • Per

        Well,

        There is a difference to require real proof another to crusade against Rossi and calling him a fraudster. Krivit has made a fool out of himself by being overly antoganistic.

        Krivit could have written one article saying today there is not enough proof to verify operations. Instead he choose to attach Rossi and other persons including Mats Lewan in a series of articles. He is a journalist that rather stays focused on the negative instead of writing about all good things happenings within the field.

        • Bigwilly

          Per,

          I appreciate your opinion and comments but must disagree. I think the extraordinary claims and frequent reversals, no shows and “secret customers” coupled with zero evidence warrants an other wise overzealous critique.

          I think it is the patho-supporters who just “really really really” want him to have what he says but cant/wont show are delusional.

          BW

          • dragon

            If there are patho-supporters for Rossi what about:
            Defkalion, – lying about “Hyperion”?
            Brilouin, – lying about “Hot Tub”?
            NickEnergy, – liars?
            LENUCO, – liars?
            Jet Energy – lying about “NANOR”?
            Mitsubishi
            NASA
            + bunch of professors in Italy – liars?
            etc

            If you were to speak one year ago, maybe… but now?

          • Per

            A crusade is a single-minded focus on, in this case, one man when you have a whole field of players. Krivit have also tried to miscredit Rossi as a person in a way that no objective journalist in a civilized country does.

            He is the kind of reporter that shouldn’t write.

          • Bigwilly

            Mr Dragon,

            Please do not confuse me not supporting Rossi with my denial of LENR as a science. I know many commentors on this board lump those two together but I assure you I am very excited and confident about the level of knowledge slowly building in the scientific community.

            I hope you would agree with me that there is a difference between respected scientist, independent tests, working examples that can be examined and…nothing. Rossi has given nothing.

            Am I wrong? Please any shred of anything that Rossi has anything? Even if not commercially viable but proof of excess heat.

            BW

          • Per

            BigWilly,

            Rossi has given many demonstrations so I am not sure how you can get that to be nothing. Then there have been many interpretations of those demonstrations.

            Rossi is not a scientist and he choose not to introduce his invention via the scientific process, but through the market. Thus he cannot be judged by Scientific standards (now) but by what his product finally deliver.

            This however does not exclude a scientific process in the future. I would personally be convinced if the E-cat lived up to specs when it heated mine or others homes.

          • http://deadstickarizona-zedshort.blogspot.com/ Zedshort

            Mr. Dragon

            You seem to be very disappointed about something. Was the girlfriend that dumped you a cold fusionist?

          • dsm

            Dragon
            Lets get to the facts that matter.

            Name one commercial product any of those companies has ?

            Just one.

            But many of us are believers that one or more will produce a working LENR device sometime. It just may not be this year or next.
            .
            Rossi make a massive claim re what he had then walked away from validation – why ?
            .
            DSM

        • dsm

          Krivit is like a Rottweiler, I’ll give you that. But being so tough on Rossi doesn’t excuse Rossi from proving that what he claims is true.
          .
          Rossi has let us all down with his characteristic rants against anyone who questions him.
          .
          He alienated DGT to such an extent they began claiming they could make better ecats than he could.
          .
          Rossi triggered the global interest & Rossi owes it to follow up with a working device not repeated delays & ‘stories’.

          He has now been at it for nearly 2 years and still none has seen a validated eCat. Just escalating promises & blog posts.

          DSM

      • http://www.choicedowsing.com kwhilborn

        Krivit is far too biased to be taken seriously. Who currently has several LENR books selling on Amazon for $175 each. Even if he only co-authored them he still stands to lose book sales when this energy is researched making his books too out-of-date.

        Go to the home page of his website and you’ll probably find at least one ad for them.

        Another thing.

        Won’t his website itself become obsolete once LENR takes hold. I mean if we have a clean,cheap,viable energy then what point would there be for a website called “newenergytimes”?

        Krivit has seen enough evidence to know this is real. He is acting in a self preservation mode imo, and is hurting an industry that will save lives.

        LENR is now proven. If people doubt it then their education needs updating.

        Krivit does seem to be a Rossi hater, but he avoids commenting on many of the other senior LENR players. Is he verbally abusing Mitsubishi, Toyota, Miley, Brillioun, etc?

        I agree with the comment Krivit is a loser.

        He is only interested in his own self preservation.

        • dsm

          It would help if you provided some evidence to back up what comes across as your personal opinion of Krivt rather than what he says.
          .
          Why is it that Rossi still has not shown one investor a working home ecat let alone shown the world *after* he went public claiming he had reinvented the histroy of energy on the planet.
          .
          It was Rossi who started the firestorm of interest. It is he who owes it to his investors and the public he got involved, to prove his reactor is what he says it is.
          .
          So Krivit called him out – Rossi in typical Rossi fashion went ballistic and from then on called Krivit the snake. Rossi simply goes ballistic at anyone who criticizes his testing method. All Rossi really had to do was allow Bologna or Uppsala or NASA conduct the tests he promised to let them do.
          .
          Please offer some justification for why Krivit is wrong rather than by ad hominem comments. T
          .
          DSM

          • Ryan

            Actually DSM, Rossi owes you, nor anyone else that hasn’t actually invested in his concept, anything. This exact situation can be turned around on you. How do you ‘know’ Rossi hasn’t shown things to investors that are proof of claims? How do you know there isn’t a tizzy of activity in the background all locked up with agreements to avoid discussing those agreements. The simple answer is you don’t. Claiming someone owes you something that you’ve paid absolutely nothing, except your own personal time, into is churlish and petulant. As for the whole world knowing about it from Rossi’s demos, I’d rather say it is instead a very, very small demographic that pays attention to these developments. How about you test this by randomly asking people on the street how much they know about Rossi’s invention, again I bet you find next to no one knows anything about it despite Rossi’s announcements and blog.

            As kwil noted, Krivit has a profit incentive to lash out, with his books promoting a specific theory, especially since Rossi is claiming that the process inherent to LENR is different from what Krivit claims.

            As for testing, again, it isn’t your choice to make. There very well could be testing going on in the background that we aren’t aware of, again we small cadre of observers aren’t owed anything just because you believe it to be so. You have an overzealous since of self worth to demand to know every little nuance, again about a project that you have not invested any resources into. When you’ve paid anything into this I might give you some credence, until then you’re simply complaining that you’re not getting what you want, when you want it.

            On the topic of why Krivit is simply dismissed, well, you ask for proof from Rossi but nothing from Krivit. Neither has shown beyond a doubt proof of their concepts for LENR and Krivit certainly doesn’t have even a supposed working prototype to support the Widom Larsen theory. So in the end you are simply showing a bias against Rossi because you personally don’t believe him.

            I personally will wait for verification. It neither hurts me, or my pocketbook, to follow the details as they arise. Spouting off opinions changes absolutely nothing and that is essentially what Krivit does. Unless of course you have some evidence that he is himself building a prototype using the Widom Larsen Theory to prove his chosen theory.

            Note, I am not coming down on any one side (personally I feel one of the other groups will come out ahead in due time). Rossi clearly has issues with paranoia and bandies about details of his project rather randomly, especially on a concept that may have drastic changes happening rapidly given that it is relatively new science with little firm ground underpinning the processes involved. Were I him I would wait until I had rock solid information to disperse. I am not him and cannot make decisions for him. Moaning about his decisions will accomplish absolutely nothing as well. In the end he will either have something or he will not. Even if he has something it may not matter, as there are other groups working on it and as history has shown even original innovators can be completely screwed out of any real profits from their work (the Wright Brothers being a classic example). For the most part I read what Rossi says and simply say to myself that it doesn’t matter until he comes out with something that can be shown to all. Then again I don’t write post after post complaining about it either. Issuing statement after statement that Rossi is a fraud or is lying does absolutely nothing, especially without iron clad proof to back those statements up. Krivit makes a great number of claims, but never with anything that would be more than word play and no real intimate knowledge of what is going on in the background. In that he is all too typical in what passes for ‘journalism’ now. Ultimately the only logical position in this case is neutrality with patience. While I doubt Rossi will be the front runner of this technology I also don’t discount it either. In due time we will all have a better understanding of what is going on. Prognosticating on the validity of any claim without any real information is pointless.

          • Bigwilly

            Gentlemen,

            Interesting comments from everyone.

            I think it may still boil down to this.

            If I make a claim that I can levitate, that means nothing until I can demonstrate it. The default position of anyone hearing my statement should be doubt because it is an extraordinary claim.

            A demonstration would be needed to change this default position. Rossi has demonstrated nothing. He has shown some steam and piping sure, but those items are not extraordinary I think we could all agree.

            Basically he stated that he can levitate without any proof and his supporters believe him because sometime in the future he will demonstrate it.

            BW

          • Ryan

            BigWilly, I stand by my previous assessment. To me the only logical stance is to observe noncritically from the sidelines and wait for details to come forth. It hurts me not one jot to do so, and can actually be seen as having entertainment value in and of itself. My entire life hot fusion has been said to be just around the corner. We’re always supposedly just one good step from reaching it. That has been going on for decades and we fund that with billions. I don’t discount that we might one day achieve hot fusion power and to this day I still follow news on the topic (of which there has been positive developments in recent years though not from the fronts getting the billions). Despite the setbacks hot fusion is almost never questioned, there certainly has been no demonstration of working, active, controlled fusion. What we currently know about physics supports it and we have examples of it readily available, if not realistically imitatable, in nature. The key phrase there though is what we currently know now. I seriously doubt we’ve even scratched the surface of what there is to know about reality despite proclamations that we’ve learned all there is to know by some members of academia. As we develop more sensitive and complex tools we seem to always discover we didn’t actually know all that much after all. I have little doubt that trend will continue for a long, long time. Perhaps I’m just odd, but I actually like that notion, makes the universe far more interesting.

            As for using the claim of levitation, I will counter with, yes, if only one person was claiming it then I would be rather leery and more prone to suspicion, though I’d still observe for more details. However, if many people all over the world with notable members of the scientific community making similar claims I will be much more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and more eagerly await additional details. If nothing comes of it, then nothing comes of it, that actually happens a lot in a wide range of scientific research. However, if something amazing arises from these early events I can at least say I was aware of it and followed the details when most of the world was completely oblivious about it (though given the average person’s obsession with reality tv it really doesn’t surprise me that most are oblivous to anything of import). Perhaps on the longshot I might even be positioned to invest in the next microsoft or apple should one of these groups succeed in bringing a product to market since there would be lag time between such a product hitting and the average investor realizing the potential that would be inherent, should any of these groups get LENR controlled and working. A lot of the greatest innovations we have and commonly use now were detracted by powerful, and supposedly knowledgeable sources, throughout history with claims of it isn’t possible or goes against everything we know. LENR could just be yet another item to add to this list. I’ll wait and see.

          • Bigwilly

            Ryan,

            I appreciate your thorough response. I am in general agreement with much of what you said until the last part where you commented on the levitation analogy.

            I believe you maybe incorrectly coupling LENR and commercial LENR. The levitation analogy refers to commercial LENR, which as it is now is an ultra extraordinary claim that could drastically augment the worlds production, prosperity, health…etc etc. LENR itself is interested and credible given the growing mountain of evidence by members of the scientific community.

            So when I use the levitation analogy I mean specifically commercial LENR. That I know of, only 3 organizations have claimed this: Rossi, Defkalion and Brillioun to some degree. None of them have demonstrated it so I, being a reasonable person have ZERO reason to believe them.

            I also agree that following this story requires nothing from me and I do enjoy the conversational discourse.

            BW

          • GreenWin

            Ryan – very well stated arguments. Many skeptopaths appear emotionally driven to deny Rossi, LENR and ideas that disrupt classical physics. This is likely because they see themselves as somehow more intelligent and evolved than the unwashed.

            You are correct that there is much maneuvering behind closed doors. It is more than a gold rush – it is a rush to secure control over abundant energy – i.e. power. The effect on global politics as well as economies will be staggering.

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

      Krivit says of the E-Cat, ““Rossi has no credible evidence for his extraordinary claims, I have stopped paying attention to him.”

      That’s the best news Eng. Rossi has heard all day.

      • Methusela

        That’s the best news any honest person could possibly hear.

        Actually, it really means that Larsen is no longer contributing financially to NET.

        • GreenWin

          Times, are a changin.’

    • Frank

      Unlike many other Cold-Fusion and LENR advocates, Krivit is not a dreamer (and not a fool) and knows that you better remain highly sceptical to any claim of cold fusion breakthroughs, in particular when the claimant refuses to provide proper evidence.

      Because of this attidude he lost a lot cold-fusion fans.
      I pay respect to him because he does not just sacrify his honest opinions ( like “extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof”) in favor for more fans to his web-blog.

      • Per

        But he does sacrifice his objectivity to personal vendettas.

    • dsm

      Krivit knows more about CF & LENR than you can ever dream about.

      Don’t make the sorry mistake of shooting the messenger when it could well be that you don’t understand it.

      D

    • GreenWin

      Actually SeanMac is not far from the facts. Krivet made a fool of himself when he attacked Dr. Hagelstein and Dr. Swartz’s work on the still running MIT NANOR experiments:

      http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/swartz-and-hagelstein-respond-to-steven-b-krivits-reporting-of-jet-energy-cold-fusion/

      And here Dr. Swartz shows journalist Krivet he is not as “smart as a fifth grader.”

      http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html

  • http://deadstickarizona-zedshort.blogspot.com/ Zedshort

    This is a positive development. Now, if the American Physical Society could just get over the idea that they don’t have the market on the truth cornered, the dam might burst.

    • GreenWin

      APS quickly fades as CERN, ACS, private enterprise and dozens of international institutions replace the old school.

  • http://www.21stcenturyenergyrevolution.com Tony McDougall

    Their Logo is “MOST TRUSTED, MOST CITED, MOST READ”.

    If they can be trusted to give unbiased coverage of the E-Cat, maybe it’s time I removed the ACS from Andrea Rossi’s T-Shirt!

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

    I just don’t get the feeling that the author of the article on cold fusion did a very competent survey of work in the field. Peter Hagelstein of MIT, for instance, is running a cold fusion device that scientists and the public can come and see. Brillouin promises a very rapid deployment of its LENR technology, and Hagelstein said he believes Niche Energy will be the first to the marketplace.
    It may not have been the goal of the author to survey the field, but it would have been a lot better-informed if he had. Also, quoting Steven Krivit, who has no advanced degree in physics, on the E-Cat is like quoting Gen. Sherman on the future of the South. He and Rossi hate each other! I wish you had just said it was a poor piece of journalism.

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

      You are very right! Eng. Rossi has re-ignited the LENR flame, but there is MAJOR scientific evidence far afield of Eng. Rossi to support the validity of the LENR phenomenon.

  • andreiko

    Geachte belangstellenden in LENR ,er wordt voortdurend gesproken over bewijs dat de ECAT werkt,het beste bewijs lijkt een langdurig werkende ECAT ,voor mij is echter de omzetting van NI>CU het ultieme bewijs ,immers ,er is dan onweerlegbaar massa omgezet in energie.

    Dit bewijs moet gemakkelijk leverbaar zijn en onweerlegbaar!

    • dragon

      My thoughts exatcly !!!
      I mean… if I only knew this language to understand them. I see some LENR and ECAT in there, so I will assume is a positive message :-)

      • http://TowerOfEden.com Tim

        Try http://translate.google.com next time. It auto-detects the language and returned this:

        “Dear interested in LENR, there is constant talk of evidence that the ECAT works, the best evidence seems to be a long-acting ECAT, for me is the conversion of NI> CU the ultimate proof, indeed, there is irrefutable mass converted into energy.

        This evidence should be readily available and irrefutable!”

        • dragon

          Well, tell andreiko to do just that before posting here.

          • JWR

            to andreiko
            Men vraagt of u uw post eerst met google vertaald naar het Engels.

            translation

            People would prefer that you use the google translator from Dutch to English for your future posts.

    • jacob

      Andreiko,you can get the proof when you buy a unit next year, and test it yourself,and heat the water
      everybody wants proof proof proof ,just believe by looking at the many companies that are in a race to bring it to market,if it did not work,there would be no race,get it?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Is C&E News aware of the country name Japan? They actually do real science there.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Pardon me: NAMED Japan.
      And I forgot. Some famous guy at MIT (who probably drives a Japanese car) said there’s nothing to it so everyone in Japan must be wrong.

  • Pingback: “Reviving Cold Fusion” — The American Chemical Society covers LENR | E-Cat News Live Feed

  • Stephen

    Good to hear this… I think this is what is needed: a calm, serious and open-minded discussion about the subject. In particular I hope it will be possible for people to investigate it without the risk of being derided and tagged immediately as a crackpot scientist. I think a good starting point for reaching such result is avoiding claims which cannot be properly sustained… note Duncan says that while unexplained heat and other effects are most likely real, we don’t even know if all this is due to some sort of nuclear fusion: a very thoughful statement.

    So I am not sure who is damaging more the subject… if Krivit (he’s surely not my favorite commenter, but I normally find his comments relatively well-grounded…) or rather Rossi (whose behavior will surely upset 99% of the scientists). Of course if one day AR will sell a working machine the problem is solved. Unfortunately we cannot know if this will ever happen… that’s why I am disappointed by his behavior. If no eCat will ever hit the market, this will be a strong and easy point in favour of those saying LENR is BS science… I think that would be an unfair conclusion, but a hard one to contradict.

    • dragon

      In the end you have to look at the bottom line. Who is the most positive of the two: Krivit or Rossi?
      Krivit brings NOTHING to the table. 0
      Rossi might bring e revulutionary device. 1
      Krivit did not started a media revuolution around Cold Fusion. 0
      Rossi already achieved that. 2
      Krivit does not have a real energy background. 0
      Rossi has one even if it is “interesting” to say the least. 3

      With a score of 3-0 for Rossi I think we can conclude that he is the one to be respected and more trusted than Krivit. I place my bet on Rossi being real deal until proven guilty.

      • Bigwilly

        Dear Sir,

        Your analysis confounds me. I don’t know Krivit personally so I cant comment on that but I would venture to say that both him and Rossi have brought the same thing to the LENR world…nothing!

        If that changes well then we can evaluate.

        BW

        • Matt S

          BW,

          I do disagree with your view that Rossi has brought nothing to the LENR table.

          Even if Rossi was found to be misguided at the outcome of this story the fact that so many of the public have now become aware of LENR/CF effect or what ever you call it, has much to do with Rossi and his brand, e-cat, that is an incredible and significantly positive thing to those of us that were following CF developments on the Cold Fusion Times website for years prior.

          Until January 2011, pre e-cat, people had largely all but forgotten about the CF debacle, or had never even heard of it. The CF CBS news feature helped in 2009, but Rossi has made most of the news, albeit lower volume for now.

          BW could you tell us how you found out about CF/LENR and when, even if you did find out prior to Jan 2011 I bet a huge majority of followers of the story on this website only did so because of the Branded E-Cat and Rossi.

          My concern with Krivit is that his target and argument is very one dimensional, which unfortunately for him makes him come across as a rather spoilt two year old child, and that is never very endearing to someone who is trying to get his point of view over, even if he was eventually to be vindicated in his views about Rossi.

          • Bigwilly

            I did not hear about it because of Rossi but I agree that probably the majority of followers did.

            That in my opinion does not really warrant Rossi as supporting the “LENR cause”. It could be disastrous if his claims turn out to be like Stoern’s Orbo.

            Rick

        • Per

          Rossi has brought a dramatic increase in interest to this field. He is the reason why we have this discussion in the first place.

      • Stephen

        Yes but it takes an act of faith (which I don’t want to take) to believe in the revolutionary device.

        Once you recognize this could be a misplaced faith (unfortunately, it could) you can also easily see that the +1 around the media attention could revert into a -10

        Finally, the energy background of Rossi is too “interesting” for my taste… :)

        • Stephen

          But ok… let’s hope for the best…

      • dsm

        Rossi stepped in and tried to hijack the LENR movement. In late 2007 he built a reactor, patented it in April 2008. In 2009 registered leonardo1996.com & then started his campaign to publicise himself has savior of the planet.
        .
        He went public globally with extra-ordinary claims of power output then went to extra-ordinary efforts to avoid providing exta-ordinary proofs of having his device validated. It still isn’t.
        .
        Krivit knows more about LENR & CF that you could dream of and whilst he may not be a charming person he is right a remarkably good deal of the time.
        .
        Krivit got it spot on in regard to Rossi.
        .
        DSM

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          Krivit got it spot on in regard to Rossi.

          In 10 years only Kermit the Frog will speak of Krivit.

          • dsm

            Very funny ? no
            .
            a waste of blog space ? yes
            .
            In 10 years some will still be saying Rossi will get there just be patient :)
            .
            DSM

  • What’sUP

    Admin –

    Please post all three sections of the audio for your story –

    “E-Cat World Exclusive Interview with Andrea Rossi, May 12, 2012.”

    Or is what you wrote not what he said?

    Only section 3 downloads.

    ++++++

  • Filip

    I have been thinking of the discussing of the level of COP from a LENR device. I think the level of COP is not important but wether there is a COP higher than one.
    The differnce between 0 and 1 is infinate. So if you want more energy, one have to build more Ecats.
    1 Ecat producing 10kw from 1kw imput has a COP of 10, right?
    1 Ecat producing 2kw from 1kw imput has a COP of 2, right?
    So, 5 Ecat producing 2kw excess energy, produce 10kw: the same amount of energy than the 10 cop Ecat.
    Even a COP of 1.1 is enough, the difference between nothing and something: infinate.
    Well, I am obvious not the scientist here but can someone explane me where I’m wrong here?

    • Filip

      I probably just made a fool out of myself :)

      • Barry

        I like it Filip, I’m fairly sure I read somewhere that once the COP is greater than 3 a CF devise can produce enough energy to power itself. A Rossi is claiming 6 in a home device. The NANOR at MIT is producing 10 to 14 times. I’ve read higher claims. I think consistency is the issue. You’re right all of the surplus points to an infinite supply of energy. Limited only to how many CF devices you can build.
        PS Mitchell Swartz has been very kind. Sent him (and Jet Energy) the MIT/NANOR video to approve and expect a reply at time now. Part of the delay has been sending a large file to a private source. Frank I know you know the frustration from putting out the Rossi audios. Great stuff! Barry

        • Barry

          Even Pirelli High School is getting a COP of 4. For those less techy like myself, Wikipedia defines COP as – rated heating capacity output (kW)/heating input power (kW)

        • Filip

          Thanks! Barry.
          I didn’t know a COP 3 is neccecary for self-sustaining mode. (self sustaining mode sounds really like a fairy tale, I can imagine people having trouble believing it) The only way to find out the Ecat is real, IS in fact running it in self sustaining mode. For me that’s the only evidence. One doesn’t need a herd of white coats or soffisticated measuring devices. I can imagine it running for months, no cables to it, it would look like some kind of miracle. That’s why it is so hard to believe.

          • dragon

            Filip, I don’t know if you are new to this CF/LENR thing… But part of the reason of all this people here is just BECAUSE CF sounds like a miracle.
            If Cold Fusion is real then people will start to believe in science miracles again, like old pre-industrial times. CF will prove 2 things:
            First that there is a lot more to know about atoms and their interactions than the standard model.
            Second is that a small time inventor can be more succesful in science than hundreds of tenure professors. And that shows again what true education is – not to trust books but to follow your intuition.

    • Per

      The net energy in a cycle also include materials, energy to produce and assemble them and transportation.

  • georgehants

    I could not see Alex’s answer on yesterdays page but sorry if this is a repeat.
    Andrea Rossi
    May 15th, 2012 at 10:39 PM
    Dear Alex 2E:
    In this moment your question is very important, even if I have already answered to it many times in the past, but it is opportune to remember that:
    1- We made thousands of hours of measurements with specialists from the University of Bologna (Prof. Sergio Focardi, Dr David Bianchini, Prof. Pierluigi Rossi et al.) to detect the radiations out of the E-Cats and around: never have been found values significantly above the background
    2- microwaves ovens, cell phones, television sets have values not inferior than the E-Cats, and the laws regarding such appliances are the same valid for the E-Cats
    3- I spend not less than an average of 10 hours per day in proximity of operating E-Cats from the year 2008.
    Thank you very much for your important question.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • georgehants

      Science News
      New Look at Prolonged Radiation Exposure: At Low Dose-Rate, Radiation Poses Little Risk to DNA, Study Suggests
      ScienceDaily (May 15, 2012) — A new study from MIT scientists suggests that the guidelines governments use to determine when to evacuate people following a nuclear accident may be too conservative.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515181256.htm

    • georgehants

      Andrea Rossi
      May 16th, 2012 at 9:58 AM
      Dear Antonella:
      We must put a clear distinction between competitors, acting as “neutral validators” and true scientists: we are working very well with many of the best scientists who are helping us very much. I am referring, among the others, to the military scientists working on our plant.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Peter Roe

    Thanks for the summary of the ACS article, Admin – something we would probably never have known about if you had not picked it up. It’s importance is obviously not in the content, but in the fact that such a ‘serious’ trade rag has actually decided to take another look, and another group of scientists will be exposed to the information as a result.

    It’s just a great pity that Krivit was able to drop his spoiler into the mix – it could do a lot of damage to the slowly growing ‘acceptability’ of CF. While the comments are obviously aimed at Rossi, others are not aware of the nuances here, and it may allow those professionals of a more conservative outlook to simply dismiss all LENR/CF data out of hand.

    • Filip

      Too bad it didn’t say what Krivit thinks about LENR in general in stead of ventilating his opinion about
      AR.

      • What’sUp

        He did. Why don’t you read the article before making comments like this?

        Frank said that he posted only part of the story.

        Here is a little more from the article.

        “ONE THING IS CERTAIN, says Steven B. Krivit of the online magazine and blog New Energy Times: Multiple labs have detected excess heat that is too large to be explained by any chemical process. As before, the experiments are only occasionally reproducible, and scientists have not determined how to consistently turn reactions on, off, up, or down. A variety of companies, most of them no longer in existence, have tried to develop a practical commercial technology, adds Krivit, who has closely followed the history of cold fusion/LENR. So far, none of the companies have struck pay dirt.”

        ****************************************
        ****************************************

    • GreenWin

      Krivet has self-destructed in pursuit of some sort of Rossi vendetta (he also attacks Mike McKubrick, Hagelstein, Miley, others.) And he has no formal science training – making him an interloper in the ivory towers.

      As for the influence of Journals – they are rapidly losing it. Simply because they are being exposed as closed-minded knowledge gateways. There is no way to choke off 4 billion internet users. Non-Open Journals follow Krivet’s lead into the abyss.

      • dsm

        GreenWin
        Yes attack Krivit rather than read what he says. Classic shoot the messenger approach.
        .
        IMHO Krivit is more accurate than anyone else on CF/LENR matters but clearly it upsets you. So shoot him rather than analyse why he says what he does about Rossi.
        .
        DSM

  • Dr. Mike

    It certainly is good to see that an association as noteworthy as ACS is giving LENR some space in their publications, but why isn’t LENR getting more coverage in publications read by the general scientific community? Perhaps the editors of these publications need to receive more letters from those of us following LENR on “e-catworld”. Recently I sent a letter to the editors of Science News recommending that they review the CERN presentations by Drs. Srivastava and Celani in response to an editor’s claim that the Pons-Fleischmann experiments have “never been confirmed”. While I never got a response from the editors, I am hoping that soon I will see an article in Science News or Scientific American that reviews the current status of LENR.

    • GreenWin

      Closed system Doc?

    • daniel maris

      I doubt that would have any effect. Probably will take a really big name pronouncing the effect genuine and calling for research.

      I am not sure though that there are really well known physicists as of old. It all seems a bit bureaucratised – which may be part of teh problem.