Reflections on the Pordenone Hot Cat Report

The reports coming out of the Pordenone conference, along with the data from Rossi himself indicate to me there is something very important afoot with E-Cat technology. The biggest surprise is that after Rossi has been repeating the mantra of COP 6 for so long, he presents data showing a minimum COP of almost double that. There are still questions about the math he has released, but it seems clear that if the COP and temperatures he presents are confirmed, the E-Cat is a technology which far outshines any other available energy source, with the capability to power our world.

I have heard plenty of criticisms of Andrea Rossi, many from some of the staunchest believers in LENR, but to my mind I find it difficult to fault someone who has developed a ‘miracle’ technology and is committed to bringing it forward in order to change the world for the better. I find the man’s dogged determination and dedication to the development of his technology despite harsh criticism from many sources to be impressive, and I don’t think anyone can fault his work ethic.

I have followed with interest the discussions about whether open sourcing the E-cat would be the best and most moral approach for Rossi to take. My feeling on the topic is that given the reality of the current market-based capitalist system that exists in varying degrees in most parts of the world, a traditional business approach makes sense if the goal is to spread this technology far and wide as fast as possible. It will take a concentration of capital to get the best engineers, scientists and manufacturers involved in getting this technology out into the world where it can be put to use. Investors who put up the funds for these operations will want assurances that Rossi’s IP is not given away, and they be left with no returns.

I understand why many people look at this kind of business approach with distaste. In a perfect world things would be very different — ideally people would work on such projects for the good of all, and there would be no poor or disadvantaged people, as all needs would be supplied by a more just and equitable system. Believe me, that is the kind of world I would like to live in, but at the moment, given the realities of our current system, I don’t think realistic to expect Rossi to simply give away his intellectual property at this point.

The exciting thing about E-Cat technology is that it holds the promise of making possible a much more equitable and prosperous world. If this technology proliferates widely, it could have the effect of lessening economic inequality, easing poverty, and solving some of the most pressing social and environmental problems we face. This technology has the ability to turn economics on its head and allow for a world of abundance rather than scarcity. Unfortunately no technology can transform human nature, and I believe there will certainly be challenges involved in making a transition to a world of abundant energy given the many interests that are so heavily invested in the current energy balance of power.

Andrea Rossi may have opened a door to a new source of energy, but there will surely be others who improve upon his work and provide even greater advances in energy technology. Rossi himself credits Fleischmann and Pons for opening his mind to new possibilities, and other minds will be fired by Rossi’s work who could go on to do even greater things. What we are learning now could be just the beginning of amazing new discoveries.

I realize we don’t yet have the third party confirmation of Rossi’s claims, and I think it wise to hold celebrations in check. However, I am certainly encouraged by these recent developments. I personally cannot conceive how it is possible that Rossi is involved in a big scam, or is a deluded madman. The evidence I see continues to indicate that he has what he says.

Frank Acland

  • Don Witcher

    The Popular Science article on Rossi and LENR is now available on the news stands in the November issue. The title of the article is “ Andrea Rossi’s Black Box” Its an extremely good read and gives interesting insights into Rossi’s persona. Unfortunately it is somewhat out of date since the saga it documents ends just before NI week. I think that the reporter would have drawn different conclusions about Rossi given all the events since NI week but thats the problem with paper publications. Also Popular Science has no reference to the article that I can find on it’s web site.

    It has some great insights into skeptic thinking in Italy including specifically Ugo Bardi, Giancarlo Ruocco and Antonio Polosa. Their statements about LENR and Rossi are quite revealing.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    The article mentiones a COP of 12, but it has been discussed that a COP of 20 is more likely due to the conservative measurements by Rossi. Exactly how interesting is a COP of 20?
    Do I understand this correctly that if I put 1000 watt into the device and I get a return of 20000 watt of heat output?

    Considering a 30% efficiency factor when converting this output to energy, would this give me 20000 / 100 * 30 = 6000 Watt of electrical energy?

    Also, what would I have to do with the residual 14000 watt of heat? In the summer when I don’t need the extra termal energy but all the electrical energy, would this heat go into the air?

    • Robert Mockan

      It is more interesting because the numbers for useful electric power work out better. In each case below assume the reactor system (includes heat conversion to electricity) generates 6000 electric watts total using your 20,000 thermal watt and 30% example.

      The useful electric power is what is left after the reactor takes what it needs to operate.

      COP=6 provides 2667 watts (of useful electric power).

      Look what happens when you just increase the COP.

      COP=12 you get 4333 watts.
      COP=20 you get 5000 watts.

      In each instance the power percentage of the total is similar to the reactor power system mass to the total. That means if you have a 400 pound system mass, at COP=6 only (2667/6000)*400=177.8 pounds of the weight is doing good. The rest of the 400 pounds is dead weight.

      Now supercharge it with COP=20. Same fuel, better engineering, everything else the same.

      Now (5000/6000)*400=333.3 pounds of the 400 pounds is doing good.

      Think COP=6 like a car with a heavy low power engine. It runs, but the acceleration sucks. You are embarrassed to be seen driving it. But when supercharged with COP=20 the acceleration is off the charts, (and all the girls want a ride!).

      (In a car of course we need more than a stinky little 20,000 thermal watt reactor).

      To summarize,

      COP=6 is like BO, COP=20 is sexy.

      And the rest of the heat? It gets dumped into the air most likely. It will be interesting to see how that problem is solved. Cooling towers in the back yard?

      • Voodoo

        No, folks will use waste geat for heating their swimming pool and greenhouses.

        • Dickyaesta

          and walk in iceboxes, Rossi’s extra heat outside, cool inside or am I wrong in that

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Thanks for the explanation Robert. Really appreciated. Also like the alternate universe spock in your avatar 🙂

        Now it makes much more sense: The less electrical energy I have to put in, the more electrical energy comes out. Much more efficient with a higher COP.

        I do wonder what will happen with all the extra termal heat energy when this will be deployed on a worldwide scale. The 14000 Watt is Watt per Hour? That would mean 14000 Watt * 12 (half a day unused heat energy) * 182 (half a year) * 3.500.000.000 (half the earth population) = Watt of heat that is being dispersed every year in the atmosphere and being very conservative at that. Can anyone tell me if this is enough to seriously add to global warming?

        (* The dot is the european notation and does not mean comma)

        • David R

          All of this waste heat already exists with current electrical generating plants, both nuclear and fossil fuel.
          Replacing these won’t affect the waste heat load.

  • tappanjack

    An imagined conversation overheard at the latest conference:

    Attendee: Dr Rossi how are you doing?

    Dr Rossi: Oh okay except lately it seems I’m always up to my rear in biting snakes and snapping alligators.

    Attendee: Why do you suppose that is?

    Dr Rossi: I’m sure it’s because I waded into the swamp and now I am draining it.

    PS: Pray for Dr Rossi’s safety and success.

  • theBuckWheat

    “The exciting thing about E-Cat technology is that it holds the promise of making possible a much more equitable and prosperous world.”

    E-Cat cannot bring about a more “equitable” world any more than free uranium could. What it promises to do is greatly lower the cost of energy, but it cannot lower the cost of transmission lines, service technicians or compliance with government regulations.

    At the peak of summer’s heat, my own monthly electric bill was about $200. Suppose my utility switched to E-Cat and it dropped to $100. Over the course of a year, I might save what, possibly $1,000. While that is great, such a reduction is not going to make society more “equitable’.

    We could say just the same about government policies that have caused gasoline prices to double. Would society be more “equitable” should a change there cut the average driver’s gasoline costs by $1,000 a year?

    You will never find the social justice you seek. It doesn’t exist. And it has nothing to do with how valid Rossi’s technology may or may not be.

    • Voodoo

      Dear Wheat Buck,

      with technologies like: E-Cat, Hyperion and HephaHeat,
      ALL powerplant utilities will bankrupt or in state subsidized Zombie regime within 6-8 years timeframe, even if they buy and deploy these new technologies.

      I analysed this hundreds hours. It is unavoidable.

      • NJT

        Hi Voodoo, You can’t also mean even hydropower? I don’t think that will happen to this source because their production/maintenance/operation costs are generally very low on the older dams. Maybe over the course of 50 years or so this (LENR/FPE) could eventually allow for these dams to be removed, but in the next 6-8 years it will not happen. I live in a state that produces much hydro power, the dams have been fully amortized many years ago and power production cost is less than two cents per killowatt hour…

        • Voodoo

          I was involved in exactly your’s mentioned situation with hydro powerplant survivability question.

          Generally, you are right. This sector will survive longer then coal fired and nuke powerplants because of lower cost and so called sunk costs.

          Governments may decide for some emergency back-up reserves and hydropower is ideal.

          For future standard business there is one cardinal problem:

          There simply will no customers. Big customers will have own self-sustain devices (for example Hot Cat mini-powerplants) and common folks will have hundreds applications with HephaHeat and so.

          Think about this crushing detail: even one small systems with low efficiency (conversion heat to electricity) will have half cost to what are today transmission fees.

          Even if hydropower sell their electricity for zero, with transmission fees, VAT, losses etc. this will uncompetitive business.

          Others will bankrupt within 6-8 years, with special clauses about if lowering rating their bonds redeemable within 30 days to banksters, such businesses will bankrupt within 4-5 years. And hydropower within 7-10 years (or in cocooned Zombie regime).

          • NJT


            It will take some time for enough users on LENR to replace the present grid system even with a willing government, etc.

            To produce enough units for every household and business in this world even over any ten year period would be very extraordinary indeed if not almost impossible to achieve!

            Dams will always be needed, to some extent or another, for flood and irrigation control, so why not use the excess water energy to produce cheap backup electricity as they are there anyway? Why waste that clean, cheap energy resource?

            • Voodoo

              There will no customers.

              80 years back folks buy ice from ice businesses and ice traders.

              Today even poor households have own fridge, even if it is uneconomical and ice from ice business would cost 2 cents/piece

      • telecommuter

        You didn’t respond to the OP’s point about the effect on society.
        Even if coal fired plants die quickly, they will have to be replaced by LENR plants => net not much total effect on an economy.

        • jjaroslav

          Looking forward (just a little) we see the probable de-centralization of energy sourcing. Evenually little generators in every room for every device. Medium term is the uliziation of more and more localized infrastructures to provide energy.
          Regardless of the medium to long term effects, there is the near term crush to be expected on all the markets once this is ‘real’. And at that crucial point we will begin the deflation and realignment of the energy economy … in itself all pretty scary….

          • telecommuter

            Are you kidding me?

            Who’s going to pay for and install all those decentralized units?
            What is the cost to run and maintain the units vs the cost from the local power company?

      • Chris

        Utilities will have to change. Very much. Even very radically.

        If their management has foresight and does the right thing, they will survive even when they have passed their prime. It has happened to other industries.

    • zvibenyosef

      There are parts of the world today where people have been forced to strip the land bare of any kindling to get firewood for cooking and heat. This destroys the top soil and ruins it for agriculture. They develop lung disease from having to breathe the smoke. Millions of people are dying for lack of access to clean potable water. These are just a few of the problems facing people today which could be solved with this new technology.

      • telecommuter

        Any specific example?

  • Still no proof

    • Peter_Roe

      Stating the obvious is not helpful. Just wait a bit.

      • Bruno

        Been waiting almost 2 years.

        • Peter_Roe

          Did you miss the last few weeks, then?

          • Steve B

            did YOU forget proof means a 3rd party independent verification ? Where is it ? Oh, I forgot, wait a few weeks….

            • Peter_Roe

              Well done – you’ve cracked it.

              • telecommuter

                Right – it’s been a few weeks for 2 years. Do you not remember?

                • Peter_Roe

                  Do you people work in teams then? Maybe you stand in for one another while you take toilet breaks?

  • georgehants

    From Physorg —
    Breakthrough nano-technology solar cell achieves 18.2% efficiency, eliminates need for anti-reflection layer October 15, 2012 (—Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have produced solar cells using nanotechnology techniques at an efficiency – 18.2%—that is competitive. The breakthrough should be a major step toward helping lower the cost of solar energy.
    Read more at:

  • georgehants

    There are a few comments on economics on page.
    Can I make the point again —-
    The only factor showing the success of any system is the length of the working week and the length of the working life. (total man hours worked)
    As productivity rises, that must be turned into more free time for people or we are being hoodwinked.
    Only basing everything on productivity of necessary and reasonably desired things and removing everything else such as finance and profit will the World progress.

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      You’re correct, but discussing about a new economic system is mostly taboo. People are very close minded about that.
      Our current economic system is collapsing, every country is suffering. Isn’t that a example of failure of the system ?

      It’s not only about the debt burden, there are just not enought jobs for the people. What economics miss is the part of automation, technology goes expontantial, it doubles in power every few years. People can’t coop with that curve. In 10/15 year, 80% of the jobs can be automated.

      I think, we will need alot of misery before we are going to change our system. But maybe can the introduction of LENR change that.

      • phlatbeer

        Stanny Demesmaker on October 15, 2012 at 11:11 am
        “Our current economic system is collapsing”… do you not think that that collapse may be synonymous with the ever increasing probability of LENR being tamed on the one hand and the markets realisation of potential devastation of some sections of the current financial system due to LENR’s ( or whatever the phenomena may be called) evolution on the other? I believe, I would by now, be moving funds to hedge against the probability of LENR’s second rising. Also, I would hate to think the present global monetary outlook was just because of too many greedy snouts in the trough, only but that’s more than likely true.

        • Peter_Roe

          Too many very greedy leeches sucking the host dry. Not quite Keynesian theory but it seems to fit the facts.

    • b4FreeEnergy

      I would love a workweek of 16 hours but how to organize this for the entire human population? Yes you can automate a lot of things even producing food and basic needs for everybody but there will be a lot of work left to be done by somebody and that work will not be attractive to most people. How will you get anybody motivated to do those nasty jobs if everybody else is laying on its backs enjoying life?

      This is not at all saying that the current system is ok and should remain as it is as long as possible but how do you see this changing into a better system?

      Free energy for everybody decoupled from the grid as a human right would be a nice first step but I don’t see it happen. Even if it would be allowed there will be a lot of people without a job suddenly …

      It’s a nice idea and I agree life should not be about working all the time but how do you see this getting realized?

      • georgehants

        b4FreeEnergy, thank you, The logic and facts of what I say are indisputable, which is where to work away from.
        Now, it becomes a matter of, if people are willing to continue to be taken for a ride, to simply maintain the rich and powerful as the rich and powerful.
        Forget economists, politicians, popes and opinion experts, we must all open our eyes and look at the Truth.
        While we follow Dogma and authority in such opinion as, Cold Fusion is impossible because I am an expert and I am telling you, so forget FACTS and forget EVIDENCE just think what I tell you to think.
        Then nothing will change and telling people, to fear being out of work etc will keep us all under control.

        • b4FreeEnergy

          Ok but it’s not as easy as that, fact is that if I tell my boss I’ll only work for half weeks (he will most likely look for my replacement) from now on, I need something to make that possible for me because if you like it or not, the fuel for my central heating and the food in the stores will not suddenly become cheaper and I still need it if I want to stay part of society we live in and not want to move somewhere into the jungle and foresee in my own needs.

          Apart from that even if I could manage to do that, it certainly is impossible if everybody suddenly decides for that way of living.

          So it’s not so much fear I guess but the simple fact that we’re trapped in the system we have. You cannot easily change it or get out without creating a huge chaos at the same time. Again not saying that our current system is ok but how to change it into something better without creating world-wide chaos?

          I’d like to hear the brilliant and enlightened mind making that system change a smooth transition for everybody!

          • georgehants

            b4FreeEnergy, Ha, so would I.
            Got to start somewhere and not being easy does not I think change the Facts.

      • telecommuter

        LENR is not free. It’s cheaper.

        We already have an example of a previous change – the introduction of electricity. It was a much more dramatic decrease in the amount of human/animal power needed.

        What was the result of that time?

    • Bruno

      Assuming that Rossi’s Ecat is for real, the world would be better off even if it doesn’t bring about a shorter work week (at least for those working 40 hrs/week). Saving an extra $1000 – $2000 per year will certainly help poorer people. I’d be happy with less pollution, more money staying in my country and less money going to Middle East states that sponsor terrorism & jihad. Energy would become one less resource for nations to go to war over.

      With regards to working a shorter work week, I’m of the belief that work is good for the soul, that it builds character. I’m not talking about slaving away 70-80 hrs per week in miserable sweatshop type jobs. I’d like to see the need for THAT eliminated. What I’m saying is that most people would waste the extra time if they only needed to work 16 hours per week. I guarantee you, the majority of people would not use the time to improve themselves (liking learning a language or getting a new skill). Some would, of course, but the majority of people would waste their time on excess leisure, watching TV, playing video games etc…

      • georgehants

        Bruno, you said —-
        “Some would, of course, but the majority of people would waste their time on excess leisure, watching TV, playing video games etc…”
        Going by the U.K. Olympics etc. and wartime, when society gets going the number of decent people willing to donate time and effort, I think would be pleasantly surprising.
        While people are kept down worrying about how to pay the mortgage bills etc. the establishment have total control.
        That is why money and finance is made to look as if it is the only way.

        • Anthony

          Well said, George.

          Mind you, when I was a kid back in the ’60s we were told that by now we’d all be working 15 hours a week because robots and computers would have taken over, so we’d probably be part-time teachers or doctors, and brilliant golfers or yachtsmen – yeah, right !

    • Profit is nothing more than a measure of the suitability for survival of an establishment in the current business climate. There is nothing evil about profit provided it does not result in a monoculture. A monoculture of one type of plant or animal is not healthy in that a disease may spread. Finance simply redistributes resources to profitable uses. It too can grow to unhealthy size and cause trouble when they start to create debased currency in the form bad debt packaged with good debt or worse still create unstable structures like some derivatives. Unless they are watched with a sharp eye, they will destroy themselves and us with them.

      • jjaroslav

        The only real change will be in the amount of ‘work’ being used to make and deliver energy….not a small number, but most of us are doing things outside that realm.
        There will huge opportunities for those converting energy systems. ….and lots of work…in manufacturing, raw material sourcing and converting for metals & plastics, health, food, logistics, information & media ….
        all still necessary

  • georgehants

    Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago, Reveals Quietly Released Met Office Report.
    Global temperature changes
    The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
    The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
    This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

    • georgehants

      Now if some keen scientist where to put up an equal graph showing the CO.2 atmospheric content for the last 20/30 years I think we would all have a good idea of Global Warming based on Evidence and not opinion.

      • Peter_Roe

        Unfortunately ‘AGW’ has taken on a life of its own and contains as much vestment as any other fixed paradigm that provides power, prestige or money to its proponents. Politicians in particular have known for years that this is a straw man, but it is far too useful to even think about giving it up. It will continue rolling for a few more years I think, before the complete lack of underpinning facts finally leaks into the general consciousness.

        • GreenWin

          Wait… AGW is not real??

          • Peter_Roe

            Apparently it’s as real as you want it to be!

          • MikeP


            **Mankind does impact the environment, just not in the way AGW states. The world did warm from 1850-2008, but dominantly not due to AGW.

    • Max S
      • georgehants

        Max S, why do you ask me to explain.
        I have simply put up a link and commented that I would like to see a similar graph for CO2.
        If you wish to explain, please go ahead.

      • N810

        Well on the other hand the Anartic ice sheet has been steadily growing…

      • Peter_Roe

        This ‘arctic ice thickness’ thing seems to be about the only argument left to global warming believers. The Northern ice has been thicker in earlier times – and it has been thinner. The sources you cite are all part of the controlled press – so what else would you expect from them. A couple of links in exchange:

        Probably a waste of time supplying them though. This seems to be an issue that is more influenced by propaganda than by fact. I will not take this discussion further, as it is a topic that is actively discouraged by Admin.

        • Max S

          If you do guys don´t want to discuss it then why do you post and comment on such “off topics” ?
          Just allow me the remark that outside the US global warming is considered by the vast majority of experts involved in climate research as a fact which is backup by substantial evidence. And because of this alternative energies such as solar (and LENR in future) are seen as CO2 free viable alternative. The big oil lobbyists will of course deny global warming and spread counter arguments so they can continue with business as usual. Cui Bono. Ever thought about this ?
          But I agree the discussion won´t be resolved here, so let´s stop this and focus on other things.

          • GreenWin

            the vast majority of experts involved in climate research as a fact which is backup by substantial evidence…

            Just the evidence used to prove unicorns and tooth fairies.

      • This site is rapidly becoming georgehants private soap box.

        • georgehants

          Hello zedshort have you been banned from ECN.
          You could always dazzle us with your answers to my comments.
          I don’t think I have ever seen you put together more than a one sentence attack.
          Takes all types.

          • No, I have not been banned. Why would you think that? I don’t intend to dazzle, just to put things into perspective. And I don’t attack people; the very worst I do is to provide them with a mirror.

            • georgehants

              Zedshort, I strongly suggest you start by turning the Mirror on yourself before others.
              Perhaps you can advise me when you put something “into perspective” and I will rush over for that unique happening.
              Thank you.

      • Gosh, I wonder how much energy it takes to transform that much ice at zero celsius to water at zero celsius and if that could explain a plateau in the earth’s temperature?

    • georgehants

      I always like Facts and Evidence —-
      Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

  • Francesco CH

    From left to right, Daniele Passerini, Aldo Proia, Andrea Rossi (Christos Stremmenos is on far right – look at his unmistakable white beard):

    (Courtesy of 22passi)

    • Nice photo, Proia looks scared 🙂

      • Peter_Roe

        Maybe it’s Rossi’s hand being so close to his throat.

      • Voodoo

        Proia probably realized that Mr. Inventor want another 2 months delay.

    • Peter_Roe

      4 separate terminals on the device indicate an internal configuration that differs from the first version, despite the similarity of the overall dimensions.

    • clovis

      great picture, Francesco

  • georgehants

    Wonderful day.

  • Francesco CH
  • Francesco CH

    Here Daniele Passerini with the Hot Cat prototype in his hands:

    • Francesco CH

      Look at the pictures!!! Look at the pictures!!! Look at the pictures:

      Thanks to 22Passi

      • Peter_Roe

        Sorry Francesco – it’s a black cylinder with end caps and four terminals. I recognise Passerini, Proia, Rossi and Stremmenos. Am I missing something of significance?

    • georgehants

      All this fuss over that.
      If you found it in the road you would think it has just fell off the silencer of some old car and kick it to the gutter.
      It’s not the clothes you wear but what’s inside that counts.

    • Filip47

      It’s art!

    • Peter_Roe

      When you see the thing it becomes apparent how thinly spread the 20g ‘charge’ must be. I suppose much of the mass must be to allow even heat diffusion and avoid small fluctuations, but for me it also seems to argue against the thermal control idea (more thermal mass = less precision of heat control). 2.4kW of electrical heating could be squeezed into a much smaller volume, as for instance immersion heater elements, so the extra mass must serve another purpose.

      There seem to be a couple of options for placement of the charge (including hydride);- a thin tube at the centre of the assembly, or a small annulus between two tubes (perhaps the visible outer tube and another just inside). The former would be easier to construct and would allow retention of heat by the core, the latter would be more consistent with the preceding design but might be subject to uneven heat distribution. I suppose a ring of thin tubes embedded in the heater’s ceramic carrier, each containing say 2-4g might also be an option, or the twin-walled core visible in the first unit may simply have been retained behind the end caps.

      • timycelyn

        Peter, I’m having a senior moment!

        I’m pretty sure I’ve read that it is an annulus, if I remember correctly this came out in some of the description round about the time that leaked picture taken by ‘Cures’ of the hot cat appeared.

        But where……I cannot remember. Sigh….

        ps replied in our other conversation, but am ‘in moderation’.

        • Peter_Roe

          Tim, you may be thinking of the discussion (actually mostly me sounding off) that took place on this blog in August/September after Hammerskoj (who sadly doesn’t seem to post here any more) spotted a thin line visible at the end of the inner tube in the photos. All speculation of course – I don’t think there was ever any confirmation, at least not here.

          • timycelyn

            Mmmm…. I’m sure I saw it somewhere else. 22 passi or somewhere…..

            That’s the trouble with following this too closely on too many sites.

            Ah well…

            • Peter_Roe

              Interesting. If you come across it again, maybe you could post the link?

        • Peter_Roe

          Tim – my reply moderated as well. I’ve no idea why. Hopefully it will emerge in due course.

  • Brad Arnold

    This site is called “e-catworld,” so that ought to tell you who is the real “father” of LENR in terms of commercialization. BTW, “commercialization” means profit, not giving it away to satisfy some people’s misguided sense of justice and morality. Let me remind people that the steam engine was around since B.C. (i.e. power generated by heating water to a vapor), but the technology wasn’t harnessed and spread wide because people were slaves who didn’t have the option of working for themselves for profit. A true evil is enslaving people for the “public good.” Profit or money is not distasteful unless you are a moocher.

    • Stanny Demesmaker

      That’s why 1/3 of all corperate profit comes from the financial sector. Which produces nothing besides “profit” and the impoverishment of the general people. And the 1% is richer then ever. I don’t believe this system will go much further.

      But Rossi is right, his way is the only way to let this technology avance enough before it can beopen sourced and we finally can leave the dark ages which we are trapped in for to long.

      • Peter_Roe

        Agreed absolutely. The dismantling of the corrupt financial structures that currently control the world would do more for humanity than almost any technological development.

        • telecommuter

          My perception is there are many greedy, overly egotistical people in the financial industry.
          At the same time, without the financial industry, not much else runs.

  • Re: Open Source – there are many examples in the software world of open source and proprietary technologies existing successfully side-by-side. In addition, the open source technologies are quite lucrative for those who take the trouble to understand and support them. Apache, Linux, PHP, MYSQL come to mind, to name only a very few.

    Now there are open-source hardware technologies emerging, like the Arduino electronics systems, the various makerbots, quadcopters and fixed wing drones and the impressive number of Kickstarter-funded open source hardware projects.

    Considering the ongoing proliferation of LENR and related energy sources under development, some of which are already open-source, I believe that these technologies will develop along both proprietary and open source lines, with neither being any the worse for it.

    In my opinion, the underlying reasons for this are two fold – first, technology cannot be successful without know-how, and vice versa. Second, know-how is as marketable as technology, and even open-source technology is marketable to those who do not have the know-how to exploit open source products.

    Back to Rossi’s Report; I disagree with the idea that there are still questions regarding his math. Rossi’s only sins in this regard are very minor, in that he did not catch all the typos and his long equation is clumsily stated, but still correct arithmetically.

    There are at least two typos, one where he gives the results of his long equation as Wh when it should be kWh, but then he corrects it on the next line, and the other where he gives the total energy (after a 30% reduction) as 3.268 kWh when he clearly should have written 3,268, given that he had already explained his rules for the use of , vs . in numerics.

    Indeed his calculation of COP would be nonsense otherwise.

    So I think it is unfair to carp on about his math when it it is only his proofreading that needs work.

    • Hampus

      One old but good example of open source is Calsbergs, the founder of Calsbergs belived in the sharing if information so when he discovered the most efficient yest, he did not keep that to himself but shared it with the world, that way others could perfect it and we would help each other. Calsbergs is now one of the biggest breweries in the world and it all started with “open source”.

      The yest is called Saccharomyces carlsbergensis and is used in nearly every beer today.

      • Peter_Roe

        I did my final thesis on the genetics of S. carlsbergensis as suitable ‘feedstock’ was conveniently available from the brewery next door to the college. I wonder why I chose that subject?

        P.S. – As a ‘bottom fermenter’ it is only used in lager-type beers including ‘white beers’ (my personal favourite!).

  • Omega Z

    “and other minds will be fired by Rossi’s work”


    I would add:”and other minds HAVE BEEN fired by Rossi’s work”

    Many who were only halfheartedly working with LENR or hadn’t worked with it in a while because they had reached an impasse in Energy gains have been reinvigorated.

    The Athanor, Abundo’s- Hydrobetatron, Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, Celani’s Reactor. All these have been directly affected as have many others to numerous to list because of Rossi’s E-cat. I believe it’s had an Impact on Governments & Government Agencies. Universities around the World. Some of these may have never come about. Others would have lingered further down the road. At the very least, Rossi’s approach has had the effect to cause many of these Entities to take a wider view or approach to advancing the technology. Leading to bigger gains & additional knowledge.

    As Rossi has stood upon the Shoulders of P&F, So to do these entities. Rossi if nothing else has been an Inspiration to others.

    Note also that many of these Entities have been present at Rossi’s Demo & had direct contact with him. And Others directly affected by them.