For Discussion: Communiqué from Attendees at ICCF-17 on Replication Project

I have received the following from a representative of a group of attendees at the recent 17th International Conference on Cold Fusion in South Korea. The intention of publishing here is to stimulate discussion and generate ideas. Please, relevant and constructive comments only on this thread, as the discussion will be used to inform the project.

South Korea, 18 August 2012


Following an inspirational ICCF-17, attendees from the conference have solicited the agreement of key stakeholders to facilitate replications of an experiment that has shown to reliably demonstrate excess anomalous heat. We aim to enable at least 5 replications in disparate geographies, by respected authorities, to remove all doubt that this field is legitimate and has a role to play in securing the future.

The effort will be socially funded and this is where you come in.

– Which experiment that was discussed at ICCF-17 and/or NI Week do you think lends itself most to replication in order to meet the stated aim?
– What minimum protocol would you want participants to follow?
– What information would you like to be made public?
– What rewards would you suggest should be offered as part of the social funding exercise?
– What should the reproduction effort be called
– Given that the power measurement equipment costs $25,000 per set up, what amount do you think would need to be raised in the social funding effort to meet the aims?

There are some significant legal and technical issues to resolve, but it is believed that they are not insurmountable. It is the world’s opportunity to end the guessing game and ensure that this field of science finally realises its potential.

It is expected there will be an associated website, dedicated to this effort, within a number of weeks where you will be able to more directly approach the proposal.

  • hammerskoj

    Cures hint on chronology of hot-Cat.
    Last post on Cobras.

  • Andreiko

    Honourable amongst them federalists, I am inventor and have several patents on my name, by a photo of the high temperature e-cat I have an idea how the principle works but I want Dr. Rossi in no way walk in the road, on the other hand, I have the need to make known the principle. Can someone give me an opinion?

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    August 19th, 2012 at 2:16 AM
    Dear ivan:
    We have decided, so far, to limit our sales to the 1 MW plants because this dimension is the one that gives to Leonardo Corp. the maximum economic momentum, considering our present structure. We foresee, anyway, to lower, in future, the power of the products for sale. In this monent there is also a pending situation regarding the Intellectual Property and there are around clowns ( think to the ones that claim to have been able to copy us) that have just mock ups (empty boxes) which they will inmmediately fill up with our technology as soon as cheap E-Cats will be in the market: this has been their strategy from the beginning. Marketing only the 1 MW plants we can select our Customers. When the domestic Ecats will be certified the numbers will be enough big to allow us a big scale production, so that our prices will be enough low to defeat the competition even after they will be able to copy us. About the chance of our competitors to reach us and compete with us, without copying us, from what I saw recently, they all are lightyears far from being able to produce something able to produce real energy: they are making paper aeroplanes, we are manufacturing Boeing 707. With all respect.
    Warm Regards,

    • VERY GOOD EXPLANATION mr. Rossi, very very very good indeed!

      This answer should shut up all skeptics mouths in a convincing way: THE E-CAT 1MW INDUSTRIAL PLANT IS ALREADY ON SALE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD!

      And the reason of such a choice is clear and well explained too.

      What is still unknown is what USPTO and UL are doing, namely how long to wait more for having Rossi’s IP duly protected thru patents and certifications.

      I like to visit forums like this one where different opinions are put down, mainly the constructive ones: but I dislile greatly when stupid skeptics and/or wannabe snakes are talking without accepting the reality of the LENR. And I mean the Rossi’s E-Cat first.

      So, should in the future new posts come out on the subject, my replies will lead to what E-Cat inventor has stated in his message.

      Everyone’s is invited in this forum, but for stupid, repeat intentionally stupid skeptics and wannabe snakes or worse ‘paid’ snakes it’s better they choose other links where they can live ‘in peace’ with their similars, avoiding to ‘pollute’ websites like tis one.


      My COLD regards. 🙂

      • daniel maris

        I think this is a very reasonable explanation by Rossi. I think it also explains why the 1MW plants are priced so high at present.

        Personally, I don’t mind hearing the views of the other side, and arguing things out with them, but it seems a natural division has developed between E Cat News and E cat world, so people can pick and choose whether they want the confrontational argument or the more supportive discussion. That suits me.

        • georgehants

          daniel, I put on my hat made of silver paper to protect my brain and visited the other place last night.
          There where 379 comments over the last week on one topic.
          Seems reasonable until one looks a little closer, 95% of those comments where from the same 4/5 individuals going round and round on the same mind-numbing attacks on open-mindedness.
          No open discussion of events or Evidence, just condemnation.
          It is a wonder with all the circular posturing that they do not disappear up into a very dark place.

          • timycelyn

            George, I’ve had the odd look in there and agree completely. It’s almost like they are describing a strange parallel universe to the one we are in.

            About the circular posturing I agree, but fear the event may have already happened and we are hearing echoes from that place, hence in part the highly repetitious nature….

          • quoted fm george…
            There where 379 comments over the last week on one topic.
            Seems reasonable until one looks a little closer, 95% of those comments where from the same 4/5 individuals going round and round on the same mind-numbing attacks on open-mindedness.

            I agree with U.
            Next time plz, post those names, though we know them. Thanks in advance.

            Not good at all, admin!

        • did you ever notice how big is the difference in price/KW ?
          The home e-cat would be 80$/KW (800 $ for 10 KW), the industrial 1MW e-cat is 1500$/kW (1.5 mio$ for 1 MW, 1 MW = 1 mio W, or 1000 KW). Putting together 100 single 10 kW e-cats (to reach 1MW) for 800$ each is 80.000 $. 1.42 mio $ cheaper (95%). Ridiculous gap, normally the much bigger device should be cheaper per KW. Who taught them marketing, I wonder ?
          The industry is not so stupid to spend 1.5 mio $ when getting in smaller pieces in one year would be so much cheaper. Correct me if the calculation is wrong.

        • Mark

          Dear Dr Rossi,
          You have given a great comparison between
          Boeing-747 and E-CAT.
          The only problem- everybody can buy a flight
          on Boeing, see it taking off, in the skies,
          or landing.
          To do the same with the E-CAT is to take 1 MW
          heater and exhibit it for a month in one
          of the European capital, then display it
          next month in another capital, then in Tokyo,
          Sydney, NYC, You got the picture.
          The only condition – E-CAT has to be in
          a self-sustained mode, a hall has to be opened
          24 by 7, all outside pipes made from heat-resistant
          glass, the E-CAT is installed on a transparent
          base, no cables … entry charge $10 per person,
          alarm and security in place…coffee stand is
          brewing coffee on the steam from E-CAT, also
          hot meals are cooked next, a spa can be arranged
          next room.
          You become super rich in a few months, don’t
          need to get patents, sell licenses, fight
          with skeptics and snakes.
          Best Regards.. MZ

      • jacob

        thanks ,captain,Mr .Rossi sheds a light on the current situation. It appears his technology can be easily duplicated ,and in order to protect and limit his technology to selected customers in industry with the 1MW plants makes sense .

        Regarding the US patent office,5000 patents were not granted based on national security or military interests, the oil industry is a matter of national security.

        SO the E-cat or LENR may need a vito from the US President.

        If Obama is well informed and smart,2 weeks before the election with all the proof in hand about LENR ,to pass out to media all information on CF and LENR ,to make it an election promise help this new technology save tax payers thousands of dollars a year on energy ,which will obviously be spend on other things like electronics ,furniture and new cars to ,to give the economy a much needed boost.

        • Right U say, 2 wks before elections…and not much before 😉
          ’cause otherwise no 1 cent fm ‘supporting’ sponsors and the like (oilcos?).

  • Cliff Bradley

    I think the name of the project should be “phoenix”, because it is coming to life again after going down in flames with Pons and Fleischmann.

  • Jim Johnson

    General Formula

    1) Mission Statement = Create a high reliability “cookbook” for reproducing Celani/NIWeek-grade results
    2) General Plan – expansion of this list
    3) Engagement from Celani, others who have done experimental work (at minimum to review the experiment plan)
    4) An starting experiment plan
    > best available starting point “cookbook” for replicating Celani/NIWeek or other results (note this is the first of 3 Lab Work Stages, in this model)
    > Lab Work Stage 1: decide on the most likely approach, and create a draft cookbook
    5) A “business plan”
    > governance, roles and responsibilities, finance model, intellectual property rights, social funding recognition, etc.
    > Keep It Simple on the first draft
    6) A high level project plan (Excel might be enough)
    > Phases: setup, launch, Stage 2 lab work (lab work initiation, lab results tracking, results analysis), Stage 3 lab work (ditto), summarization, publication
    > Lab Work Stage 2: experiment to update and make the cookbook reliable
    > Lab Work Stage 3: distribute for replication by other groups.
    > Major steps per phase
    7) A proposal (roll up all of the above into one of their formats)(or other social funding idea?)
    8) Funding recruitment (start with pledges)
    > The better the plan, the better the chance of finding an “angel” who will fund the whole thing.
    > Social funding reward = name on donors list
    > to be published on web
    > distributed in a mailing to major institutions
    > other
    9) Experiment operator recruitment (finding someone trustworthy and with good reputation: Celani associate? NI? The guy that tested Patterson? The people who attested to Brillouin?)
    10) Some kind of contract
    > indemnification, IP rights, payment procedures, etc.
    11) A share document repository / wiki
    > VERY important, because we need to start collecting and compiling ideas and text drafts, and unfortunately cannot do that in blog format.
    12) Sweat equity, payback in psychic income, finest kind (how many opportunities to save the world?)
    12.a) Admin (including bookkeeping)
    12.b) Project Oversight
    12.c) Governance
    12.d) Advisory Board

    Serious engagement starts when the Wiki is set up. Then all these things can be worked on in parallel, and we can start to see who and what we have to work with.

    I’ll be looking for that.

    Let’s do ‘er!

    • Jim Johnson

      – Which experiment that was discussed at ICCF-17 and/or NI Week do you think lends itself most to replication in order to meet the stated aim?
      > I vote Celani’s, but I didn’t see much of the others
      – What minimum protocol would you want participants to follow?
      > Celani’s, but see comment above, it may need to be refined
      – What information would you like to be made public?
      > 100%, every pixel, every bit, every pencil scratch
      – What rewards would you suggest should be offered as part of the social funding exercise?
      > See above: wide publication of names, maybe a plaque
      – What should the reproduction effort be called
      > Galileo
      – Given that the power measurement equipment costs $25,000 per set up, what amount do you think would need to be raised in the social funding effort to meet the aims?
      > This needs the first several steps from above, all of which can be done on sweat equity and relatively minor communications and internet service costs.

      • Malmahey

        I like the project name Galileo – thumbs up!

        Also like the idea of a wiki, but moderation would be a full time job. The task of weeding out pointless posts from both jaded psychoskeptics and reality impaired free energy hippies would be a headache.

        • Ivan_cev

          Phoenix. should be called Phoenix because it was raised from it’s ashes

          • Malmahey

            Galileo is relevant but has already been used for a space probe mission.

            Phoenix sounds neat and involves heat, but isn’t that relevant.

            How about the Fleischmann Project?

            • Paul Hunt

              Name it the Celani project.

        • Jim Johnson

          Regretfully, paid entry is the only way to go with the wiki. Best entertainment $ I could spend.

      • Malmahey

        OK here’s my last project name idea.

        Sought to bring the heavenly fire to mankind and was punished for defying the gods.

    • – Which experiment that was discussed at ICCF-17 and/or NI Week do you think lends itself most to replication in order to meet the stated aim?

      That’s easy: the hydrino reactor Dr. Storms talked about ay the end of his presentation (see for the excellent and very informative video). Dr. Mills was in the audience. It has been validated 6 times now, so why not go in the direction the horse is running?

      – What minimum protocol would you want participants to follow?

      I wouldn’t presume to impose my ideas on scientists who know what they’re talking about. So long as they stick with the sceintific method, I’m there.

      – What information would you like to be made public?

      The status of Mills’ projects and an ETA on their delivery to market.

      – What rewards would you suggest should be offered as part of the social funding exercise?

      No rewards are necessary.Nowever, a home hydrino reactor would be great!

      – What should the reproduction effort be called

      Operation Truth

      – Given that the power measurement equipment costs $25,000 per set up, what amount do you think would need to be raised in the social funding effort to meet the aims?

      My guess is aboutr $150,000.

    • s

      A much simpler formula:
      1. Find a venture capitalist
      2. Let the VC’s scientists perform an independent test to verify the device
      3. Collect 10’s of millions of dollars.

  • georgehants

    O, now I wonder if anybody has thought of Nickle. Ha.
    Science News
    … from universities, journals, and other research organizations
    Platinum Is Wrong Stuff for Fuel Cells Because It Wastes Energy, Expert Says.–+Chemistry%29

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    August 18th, 2012 at 1:54 PM
    Dear Stefano:
    Our industrial E-Cats are already in the market. As for the domestic I think that the Certificarors will need enough experience with the industrial application to certify also the domestic ones. The good new is that we have now engineered our E-Cats to let them work with gas instead of with electricity, so that now we do not need electric kWh to produce thermic kWh.
    Warm Regards,

    • Mark

      Dear Mr. Rossi,
      I am awfully sorry, but You
      are selling licenses, not E-CATS.
      As You know, it is a slight differences
      between these two entities.
      Sincerely, MZ.

      • dragonX

        One is paper (licenses), the other would be a miracle device (1 MW cold fusion plant).

        • Dear Mr. Rossi.
          I am a successful business man.
          I watch your every move with admiration.

          I really believe you have been making the right moves and choices.
          Apart from your original mistake in dealing with those Defkalion MUPPET’S.
          However you did well to get well away from them with their big talk and no action puppetry, to form alliances with respectful entities.

          You are right to stick with the larger applications to big firms with good confidentiality disclosures in place. As with a home e-cat every one sold will be dismantled and copied.

          With a few good contracts in hand there will be no need for main stream media which could only become a serious risk to you as ‘big oil’ at that stage will want to eradicate you like a rabbit..

          I realize public disclosure and the internet is your best safety net. Good work with that.

          You ‘are’ doing a great job!
          You are making the right choices!
          Keep to your path, and don’t compromise your objectives with fools and snakes.

          Kind Regards

  • georgehants

    It may be time for science to become more scientific and start giving students wishing to enter the profession, psychological tests to determine their ability’s to display common sense with an open, inquiring mind.
    Those failing to meet a fair standard of freedom from Dogma chasing should be gently directed to more suitable vocations, such as drain cleaning or president of the flat earth society.
    It would probably be a good idea to remove their tackle to allow a directed genetic improvement in science as a whole in future years.

    • Dickyaesta

      Have you ever seen how science is taught nowadays? Exams in multiple choice is hardly a way to force one to think out of the box! Alas it makes robots not free thinkers!

  • david

    Article about Martin Fleischmann from Financial Times.

    • daniel maris

      At last an obituary that tell something of the truth. Is the fact that it is the Financial Times significant? Probably. The money men have far more reason to keep watch on developments than do orthodox physicists.

  • david

    Article about 17th International Conference on Cold Fusion

    • cx

      posted already

  • georgehants

    Lots of interesting comments but, in a few weeks (hopefully) Rossi is either going to show that the whole of Cold Fusion is missing something and every big energy company is going to stream into research to try and catch him up, or, the situation being discussed at present will become much more important.
    We might as well all wait them few weeks to see if Rossi has the game changer, If yes then one course must be chosen, if no then another.

    • Jim Johnson

      I dunno, guess it depends on who is attesting to the validity of Rossi’s paper. I’m not sure his presentation would be as strong as similar positive results from five different labs from the same cookbook. But yes, it’s coming up pretty quickly.

  • LCD

    1 thing I don’t like about his experiment is the thermocouple placement on wire I think it’s easy to do that but I’d like to see something that spreads out the heat. Flow calorimetry sure, but maybe something as simple as an insulator around the wire to evenly spread the heat out. With such a lower COP, it’s tough to rule out that wherever you place a thermal couple the wire gets hotter.

  • s

    They should obtain funding by the traditional route: demonstrate what they have to investment capitalists. If they can prove to the scientists appointed by ICs what they have works as they say, they might receive millions if not 10’s of millions of dollars.

  • GreenWin

    Don’t know if this has been posted earlier but I find it fascinating that NASA is openly licensing its LENR technology to any and all. Going through the logic curve, if LENR is not a real technology but NASA is licensing it anyway – that would make NASA… No!

    “Langley’s Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) Technology Available
    Check out our latest technology video on our homepage featuring a novel, clean energy technology.”

    • cx

      can’t get that page loaded for anything

    • cx

      Had to use a proxy.
      hmm bad wording we know they working on but I doubt they have anything available yet. That would be big news wouldn’t it. And that’s news from last year.

      ps: Where does it say they licensing it and what exactly they licensing.

      • GreenWin

        Unfortunately the page I linked to has been removed. The page link from Cold Fusion Now, displayed the written statement I quoted. Seems NASA wants to license its LENR technology but pretend it doesn’t.

        This type of redacted publicity makes the organization appear to hide something. But what do they have to hide? They have published a couple of patents and we all know LENR works. It exists in NASA at taxpayer expense – i.e. it has been paid for by the people. Which also means it should be available to the people who might want to license it for further development for commercial use.

    • Jim Johnson

      This takes you directly to the LENR page

  • NJT

    Anybody have an in with the Bill Gates foundation? Perhaps they could focus an effort to solve most of the world’s problems – not that a new toilet is not nice, but putting LENR out to all the world trumps that project a few thousand times…

    “The charitable foundation founded by Gates and his wife kicked off a “Reinvent the Toilet Fair” in Seattle and awarded prizes for promising innovations.”

    • GreenWin

      “The Gates Foundation has given out $24bn in grants since 1994 – $3bn into global development, $14bn into global health and $6bn into improving US education.” They average about 3.5bn in grants annually – most now directed toward global health and education.

      • NJT


        • GreenWin

          Do you have a global health and education project proposal?

  • GreenWin

    This would be a good exercise in the Open Source sense. But I suspect resistance will continue or increase with additions to the proof already irrefutable. Rossi’s approach seems best. Build a commercial unit and let people operate it on their own. Until “consensus science” mentality becomes more open – it is fruitless to provide more evidence. But, good idea.

    • By and large, the academic scientists have pretty much proved their irrelevance, and effort shouldn’t be wasted trying to convince them. Many have their own reasons for being ‘unconvincible’ anyway.

      However, it may be worthwhile building a body of evidence that shows that the output from Celani’s apparatus is subject to improvement, so that CF may possibly become more attractive to industry and to foundations such as the Bill Gates one. Don’t forget that A C Clarke’s second level of acceptance (after ‘impossible’) is ‘unimportant’, i.e., has no potential for development. That one needs to be knocked on the head too, and as quickly as possible.

      • GreenWin


  • Pingback: For Discussion: Communiqué from Attendees at ICCF-17 on Replication Project | E-Cat News Live Feed()

  • Sanjeev

    This is a very good idea and I’m very happy that someone took the initiative at last. My 2c:

    – Which experiment that was discussed at ICCF-17 and/or NI Week do you think lends itself most to replication in order to meet the stated aim?

    Celani’s setup looks simple enough to be replicated and can be made simpler by using only one wire wound on a metal pipe with water flowing through it, enclosed in another pipe filled with H2. The only issue is, different wire samples will produce different results.

    – What minimum protocol would you want participants to follow?

    The calorimeter should be flow calorimeter, so that the T^4 thing can be gotten rid of and stable readings can be taken. The wire should be prepared and tested by Celani himself before sending it to the 5 labs. This will eliminate the possibility of people wrongly preparing the wires.
    The experiment must have a control run with a noble gas instead of H2. Neutrons, gamma etc should be measured.

    – What information would you like to be made public?

    Detailed measurements, experimental setup, exceptions, tolerances, data, instruments used, calibrations and all that stuff, leaving no holes. Above all it must be signed by reputed and known people.

    – What rewards would you suggest should be offered as part of the social funding exercise?

    Fame is the reward. Money brings unethical practices with it.

    – What should the reproduction effort be called

    As others have said, “Celani Effect” seems to be ok. F&P effect relates to Pd-D/ wet methods.

    – Given that the power measurement equipment costs $25,000 per set up, what amount do you think would need to be raised in the social funding effort to meet the aims?

    No idea. I guess it will be better to choose people who already have a lab and instruments. Mostly reputed scientists, Unis and engineers already have them. It need not be NI everywhere, because it can cause doubts about there being a bug in NI software/hardware.

    • All excellent suggestions, particularly for protocol.

  • John

    Dr. Celani should offer to sell preloaded wires for replication experiments. students and Experimenters all over the world could begin to do their own experiments. They could used the Celani samples as a control. if anyone could do their own replication, it will change everything.

  • Don Witcher

    This communique, when read objectively, basically states that Cold Fusion is still in the same state that it was in in 1989 after Pons and Fleischmann made their announcement. Think about it. Is that the message that needs to be conveyed to the World at this point in time.

    • I imagine they are just being careful to be objective and make no pre-suppositions. However I don’t think this initiative would exist if there was no expectation of success.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I liked the experiments that John Hadjichristos ran using pure isotopes of nickel. If the products of these single isotope reactions are analyzed, it would be much easier to nail down just exactly what’s going on. For example, is cobalt coming from the following reaction?
    H(1) + Ni(62) > Co(59) + He(4) 0.345 MeV
    You can’t come up with a meaningful theory until you determine what the actual products are (You can’t choose to ignore the fact that isotopic shifts of palladium are taking place in the D-Pd systems!)
    But on the other hand, there’s a mountain of data that’s been gathered over the past 23 years that people have chosen to ignore. In the long run, Rossi will just have to crank out his Cats. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if it weren’t for Rossi’s herculean achievements.

  • Lu

    Dick Smith’s offer of $1M for a LENR device that demonstrates 1KW of energy should be easy pickings if he is a man of his word.

  • Robert Mockan

    Posted for your convenience, because the Papp process does not appear to be a LENR process, and not really appropriate to keep talking about it at E-Cat World. Thank you Frank for being gracious and allowing comments about the Papp discovery at E-Cat World, but this post will offer interested people other places to learn about it, and have discussions.

    Russ Gries of is open sourcing studies of the Papp engine process by building the PlasmERG “Popper” offered for sale at the Tesla 2012 Conference by John Rohner of Inteligentry, that might interest enthusiasts of Papp. The site to visit is the Russ Gries forum where videos and comments are posted, here:
    Also an excellent You Tube video by the Rohner Group LLC run by Robert Rohner, that shows ongoing work about the Papp process being done in their workshop, has been uploaded again and is available here:

    • Barry

      I get a little worried when one brother said the other made up the story of President Clinton getting involved.

      • Robert Mockan

        Sibling rivalry is usually nuts. These brothers have taken it to entirely new levels. If one uses public image character as a criteria to determine voracity, the Rohners make Rossi appear a saint. People who do not believe Rossi, for any reasons including the perceived lack of information about the E-Cat experiments, will certainly not believe the Rohners. I believe because I have my own experiences to draw upon, from my own research, experiments, and contacts I’ve made, but understand completely if others decide not to.
        As for the behavior of Rossi or Rohners, they are just shooting themselves in the feet by not open sourcing everything to enable straight forward replication, and continue to deny the technologies to people of the world who need it, (with the obvious ramifications of that!).

      • The Clinton story did seem pretty unlikely. I’ve kinda lost track of what the two surviving brothers have demonstrated or claimed – they both seem to have something important. I think Mike McKubre has loosely associated himself with John Rohner, but it is Bob Rohner’s Inteligentry that is offering the ‘popper’ demonstrator kit and generally seems the more professional. What a mess.

        • Larry

          You mixed up the brothers in your comment – Mike McKubre appeared with Bob at the presentation in Albuqueque, John (CEO of Inteligentry) is offering the Popper.

        • Quite right. As I said – I’ve lost track of which one is doing what!

          It does seem then that it is John who may be ahead – apart that is, in web design.

  • Andrew Macleod

    The set up should be fairly simple with as much transparency as possible. It should also produce a significant amount excess heat. A standardized document procedure should be created so all teams reporting are “on the same page”.

  • H. R. Gillis

    Buy a 1MW reactor from Rossi and run tests on it. This device has been commercial for nearly a year. Have NI run the tests. Then U. of Missouri. As many labs as you like. It is my understanding from their web cite that the performance is guaranteed by Leonardo Corp. If it does not meet their own specs you should (theoretically) pay nothing. If it works as advertized then I would think you would be able to recover most of your investmennt by re-selling the unit [after your verification report issues]. It would be an item of historic value.

    • Andrew Macleod

      This would be very expensive…. They are talking about $25k per team and you want to bump it up to $1.5M.

      • H. R. Gillis

        I believe that $1.5M is quite small compared to the billions being spent on energy research, and in view of the potential payoff. Note also that the Rossi reactor appears to be guaranteed to perform, so that a negative result costs nothing (or relatively little). If the result is positive then you have the equivalent of the Wright Bros. first airplane. Name your price for that! Finally; what would be most interesting is if Rossi refuses to sell to the ICCF Consortium. That would speak volumes- – and cost nothing to find out. I am surprised this has not been done already.

        • Andrew Macleod

          I think you are missing the point. Each team spend $25k to INDEPENDENTLY verify Cold Fusion claims with seperate experiments using a repeatable process. Thus refuting the biggest claim mainstream science has against CF, reproducibility. I’m sure an extensive NDA is included in the purchace agreement of an industrial ecat. The goal of the consortium is not to prove CF is real ,there is already enough data for that. It’s to prove that anyone can reproduce these results and a real understand of what is going on can now be looked into.

  • andre blum

    also: celani and ICCF should have a firm talk with Dick Smith

  • dragonX

    It is strange for the public to fund 25000$ when 5.000.000$ were given to Robert Duncan at Missouri University for COLD FUSION. I am sure he can work something out with prof. Celani.

    • Barry

      So a CF researcher is going to verify Cold Fusion to the world? Yeah, that ought to work.

    • Robert Mockan

      On the other hand, give the lessor high-brows $25,000, and the dedicated will probably do the experiments. But give $5,000,000, and unless having a name to maintain, like Duncan, no matter how dedicated, many might simply embezzle the funds and disappear. A sad state the world we live in.

  • Barry

    Off topic, I wonder how Tyler’s presentation went. I’m sure he partly felt he was preaching to the choir. Still, chance of a lifetime.

  • Barry

    Prof. Celani seems to have something solid, plus he has openly and generously shared many of his findings. His device seems the most available and reproducible but the COP seems low. I’d like to see the NANOR offered because of its portability and high COP, but the COP does seem to vary, depending on the loading. Yet if five NANORS produced a minimum of 6 COP then the FP effect can’t be denied.

    A gain in COP should be the bottom line and would be the easiest for the public to wrap their brain around.

    200 thousand for each project and if all five prove indisputable reproducibility of a COP gain, the reward should be another 800 thousand. This will motivate scientists and keep things moving. If proven then the scientific world can roll up its sleeves and get to work on refining.

    I would think 5 open minded governments could come up with 1 mil for each project on the condition all five proved reproducibility. I’m sure the Japanese for one, would do it in a heartbeat. Considering the implications this is well worth it. If not five governments, perhaps five conscientious million/billionaires.

    Would the Fleischmann Pons effect apply here for the name of the project? If not I think their names should be worked in. Second choice, I agree with Peter’s “The Celani Project”.

  • Tony76

    Surely National Instruments might be willing to fund the measuring equipment?

    Reward – their names will go down in history if this lights the LENR touchpaper.
    Isn’t Celani starting his own enterprise? If it was the Celani project, maybe Celani could offer them some options to buy stock at generous prices in his enterprise.

  • mikes44

    Rossi will Trump all this on the 10th of September – the “Rossi Project” its called, build and present LENR to the World.

    • Barry

      Best not to put all of the LENR eggs in one basket.

      • clovis

        Hi, guys.
        Not sure how all that will fall out the tree, but it should be very interesting, to see who gets the right to call it their own.
        I personally think f and p should get some of the pie and Mr Rossie should have the say, because he was first to market, just my 2 cents.

        • georgehants

          clovis, agreed, every scientist who looked at P&F’s Evidence and went off to do serious research based on it should be awarded a special Cold Fusion medal whether they succeeded or not.
          Every “scientist” who has debunked, denied, or followed the nay sayers, should be removed from science or found a menial job more fitting to their competence.

          • clovis

            Hi, George.
            This is the most important thing that has came down the pike in a very long time , as a good friend of mine said just this morning, we have the best advantage of standing in the tent and pp–ing out, instead of the other way around.—smile

  • Karl

    I think it is a good idea. The faster any doubts can be clarified if these phenomena’s are for real or not, the better for all of us. Perhaps someone could revise a list of possible candidates.

    There seems to be quite a number of alternatives to obtain strange anomalous effects from ionized hydrogen approaching cracks in metal lattice, releasing heat and create transmutation of metals or other strange phenomena. Even the phenomena of ionizing gas in a Papp engine might have a similar origin? We may even have to seriously reconsider some of the old alchemist’s experiences.

    From an outsiders perspective what we recently learned by reading and watching Celeani’s demonstrations it seems to be a reasonable good candidate. He seems to be willing to share his results with the public which is of course important.

    Why not approach some of the charitable organizations for funding. If it can be proved that LENR is real poverty has a chance to be eliminated on earth.

    • clovis

      Hi, Karl,
      How Good that would be. i just see good things coming of this lenr, is there a bad side. –smile

  • I also would like to see Prof. Celani’s experiment replicated, together with some experiments to establish an optimal wire composition and surface preparation method. When a basic optimised set-up has been established I would like to see a series of experiments carried out in a hydrogen atmosphere in addition to pre-loading, and with varying electrical potentials applied to the test wire, to include a range of pulsed DC and AC waveforms at different voltages, plotted against excess thermal output. Pulse frequencies should extend into RF wavebands. Power input measurements should be made upstream of FGs, RFGs or similar equipment.

    The object of the variations would be to work towards finding the conditions that produce maximum COP, and to build a data set that might help elucidate a theory to explain the anomalous heat.

    Name – The Celani Project? Project Celani? I don’t have any suggestions regarding rewards, funding etc.

    • timycelyn

      Mmmm, not so sure about that Peter. It is self evident that there is a huge amount of discovery and optimization yet to occur in this area – whole universities and countless PhD’s worth would be my guess, over the next 10-30 years. However, Celani has given a clear replicable demonstration that I understand is well described in its experimental detail, and seems to be pretty reliable and well behaved.

      My understanding of the objective of this exercise is to replicate – according to the plan described in the above blog entry – anomalous heat effects so thoroughly that the results are unarguable, with a view to, I assume, publication via recognized scientific journals so that finally this area comes in from the cold, and receives the open attention it so urgently needs.

      Then the optimisation activities will continue and multiply as funds and researchers all become more readily available.

      My view is to take Celani’s rig as it stands, with perhaps any minor tweaking he recommends based upon recent experience, and run with that. This makes it a much more definable and costable programme.

      Regarding the other questions above, I don’t feel qualified to comment on most. I’d go along with you on the name. Regarding the size of the fund, I’d guesstimate it something like:

      Measurement kit x 5: 125$k
      Experimental setup x 5: 50$k
      Other expenses including travel x 5: 100$k
      Contingency: 50$k

      Total: 325$k

      I stress this is a complete guess/finger in the air, or to use the old UK expression, ‘Your starter for 10’….

      • Tim, I think most of the things I suggested could be done on a ‘quick and dirty’ basis once someone has the basic Celani setup working. For instance, Celani used the particular Isotan alloy ‘ad hoc’ and as far as we know didn’t try slightly higher or slightly lower copper content wire to see if this improved things. Also he didn’t use a hydrogen atmosphere simply because he wasn’t allowed to bring a gas bottle into the conference hall. A couple of frequency generators covering the Hz to MHz range, plus a variable frequency DC/AC converter would be relatively inexpensive and could be easily inserted into the drive circuit to very quickly show whether there is a better alternative to ‘straight’ DC.

        Because the detractors will inevitably cite instrument error to ‘explain’ the relatively low excess heat, I’m pretty sure it would be worth spending say a week messing around in order to see if there is an easy way to maximise output. Even if one is not found, the formal ‘replication’ runs would then be done in the knowledge that they are using what is probably the most efficient system available, to provide the clearest possible results.

        • timycelyn

          See yr point Peter. Just done so much of this sort of thing in the past that I’m always very wary of plans that contain open ended sections. I’d go along with a defined ‘playtime’ after which a model is selected, the default being what Celani demonstrated.

  • andre blum

    I say Celani’s experiment is best suitable.

    • jfab

      Celani “COP” is enough for demonstration purpose, the guy and the science is legit, not like Rossi, DGT and other frauds.
      Funds should come from Robert Duncan and croudfunding on

      • jacob

        eh ! frauds ? glad it is just your opinion.

      • jacob

        jfab really? have you pulled your head out of the sand lately? since Oct. 2011