Perhaps Still this Month

Here’s a little bulletin from Daniele Passerini on regarding the long-awaited hot cat validation report. (Thanks to ECW reader Renzo for the non-google translation from the original Italian!)

Please have a little patience for news about the E-Cat that you’ve been waiting – as I do – for months after months. I can now tell you that:
1. those independent tests so much expected and delayed are now almost concluded;
2. experimental setting, instrumentation (National Instruments, of course), calibration, procedures, records and so on… this time are “watertight”;
3. nothing is left but the time required to document and communicate all in the standard mode used by the scientific community and those responsible for the tests will certainly do it as accurately as possible.

Passerini is in Bologna and seems to be in contact with some of the key people who are involved in writing this report — people who have yet to be identified. When I recently asked Andrea Rossi if a prediction by ‘Francesco CH’ on who said that the report would be published somewhere around Nov 20-30 was correct, he replied that the timing does not depend on him.

Hopefully these two pieces of information are not too far off the mark, and the report will soon be published.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Probably not related to LENR but:
    (Reuters) – “Google will increase the cash it allocates to its venture-capital arm to up to $300 million a year from $200 million, catapulting Google Ventures into the top echelon of corporate venture-capital funds.”

    Google reported it used 2.26 million megawatt hours of electricity in 2010. Google did not report on the usage of its data centers but local power officials estimated 50 MW per center.

  • GreenWin

    With respect to any e-cat independent verification by an established university – we should come to grips with current peer-review tribalism. As Admin has indicated, there is little chance the hot cat study will be “published” anywhere except JNP for many reasons. The best are well discussed in an excellent book titled:

    Silencing Scientists and Scholars in Other Fields: Power, Paradigm Controls, Peer Review, and Scholarly Communication by Gordon Moran, 1998 Greenwood Publishing Group

    “[The] whole picture is one of a power struggle where the odds against innovation are great but the addiction of the innovator to truth is supreme (deGrazia, 1978, p.200). The major forces or factors against innovation would include paradigm protection and so-called turf protection. Along this line, in an article in Science about controversies in astronomy, Burbidge was quoted as saying, ‘When we come across things we don’t like we cut them off, we referee them to death.’”

  • LCD

    I think sometimes it’s forgotten just how big of an impact on science it will be when a fully detailed and convincing independent report comes out.

    If real it should literally change the course of every scientific field imaginable.

    if P&F is any indication, millions of research dollars worldwide will get diverted to replication and or research of the basic phenomena.

    Energy policies of every nation will change overnight.

    I could go on but it’s almost silly to think that the fate of all that rests with some Maverick Italian inventor who’s previously been convicted of fraud.

    Regardless of whether or not it happens, come on, it’s a fantastic story you would expect to see in a movie.

    • LCD, “I think sometimes it’s forgotten just how big of an impact on science it will be when a fully detailed and convincing independent report comes out.”

      Optimist. I’ve been watching the resistance to this discovery for many years. Top scientists have declared that they have achieved LENR. They have published their findings in peer reviewed journals. They have released videos with names like SPAWAR, NASA etc. You can wander down to a demo at MIT any time you want for God sakes!

      This technology will creep out of the closet very slowly. This report will make very little difference. The only thing that would make a shocking difference is being able to go down to Home Depot and buy one. Its hard to argue with a device running in your home. Alas, if I understand correctly, the safety certification is being held up pending certification by the scientific community. A sweet little catch 22.

      It’ll come, but not in a moment.

    • GreenWin

      LCD, by now all who have bothered to check facts know that Rossi’s purported “crimes” stem from his running afoul of local mafia. The Italian government later acquitted Rossi three times of all charges, including any described as “fraud.” “Rossi was sanctioned only for minor events related to non-compliance with permits obtained for the disposal of waste.” Unless you have evidence contesting this.

    • captain

      If, if, if… one thing is sure: this blog is not for U.

      And if U post in other blogs, one day (but this is not sure) U’ll find an inventor that very likely will invent a LENR device.

      Believe me, U’re wasting your time here, U deserve a better place elsewhere.

    • Just don’t expect to read about on the Associated Press wire.

  • Castrate Posts

    I am very confused. Admin wrote that will report about HOT CAT, although Passerini wrote about E-Cat (i.e. low temp e-cat)

    Where started hypothesis about Hot Cat report ?

    • GreenWin

      What a curious name Mr. Posts.

      • captain

        It belongs to camo(uflaged) skepts of the reptiles’family, such as vipers, snakes…

        • Dickyaesta


          Very respectable intelligent reptiles live below the ground, according to this link: not withstanding the reptiles you are talking about 😉 To broaden the horizont of some and to close the door on UFO`S for others.

          I do agree with georgehants that Ufo`s are even more a taboo to scientists. For me once I stopped looking for proof of the dar_n things and accepted the proof by numbers, it opened a new horizont. I could begin to imagine another world another way at looking at this world (miserable infighting of the very few at the cost of many). And distantiate me a little from this world, there are other things, which might be more interesting, if you change your chip, as the say in Spain.

          • Dickyaesta

            Although I personally could live without shape-changing reptiles 🙂

            • captain

              It makes me wonder if such a reptiles could be in some way helpful to watch/manage Rossi’s hot industrial plants, before he gets granted his patents/brevets. U know, they like hot climates.
              Vaya con Dios. amigo!

              • Dickyaesta

                That would be nice, no 😉 🙂 ?!!

            • Sophie P

              As long as they’re shape-shifting reptiles with a working LENR device I’ll put up with them 😉

  • clovis

    Does Leonardo corps have a logo, if not we should come up with a very innovative design that will be very desirable, and if they do maybe they well adopt it, anyway— smile.
    I don’t remember seeing one. so it must not have grabbed me,-lol.
    There seem to be a contest for the best logo,–smile

    • Chris

      Is this attractive enough?

      • clovis

        nah, that is Italiano, smile, we want a world wide view.

        • Chris

          But the logo is the logo mate 😉

          • clovis

            HI, Chris.
            You are correct thanks,— check this out,The noise of an E-Cat of 1 MW is:
            dB(A) < 50@ 6 m
            Translation: is silent.
            Warm Regards,

            AND CHECK THIS OUT–

            • Peter_Roe

              I don’t like to be too sniffy – but it looks like something from 10 years ago. Time for Hank to update his site creation software I think.

            • Chris

              I think the cat’s cuter. :-3

    • Hampus

  • freethinker
  • buffalo

    i got a fln this upcoming demo is more important than people think it is,think about it,celani got ‘supposedly’ excess heat so if these guys get ‘supposedly’excess heat the ‘supposedly’ word starts to lose credibility.mayb fleishmans ghost will be present and kick in an extra 10 0watts surprise.

    • Sophie P

      Maybe 😉 I think it’ll be quite sad if it turns out that he managed to die right before LENR changed the world.

  • Bob

    I need some education regarding the much talked about “Hot-Cat” and it’s projected useful capacity. I guess the same question would apply to the original Ecat as well.

    I believe it is stated to be a 1MW (possibly higher) device and suitable for generating electricity via a steam turbine. High temperatures can be maintained and controlled.

    However what I have not heard about (although I believe I read someone mention it) is what volume capacity it has? Producing 1MW is not enough to generate a useful amount of electricity if that 1MW is produced over a longer period of time.

    Various posts on the subject seem to indicate that a critical part of the control mechanism is keeping the reactor core within a certain temperature range. Too cool and the reaction stops, too hot and it may go out of control. (Not explode or anything, simply melt the nickel)

    If one needs copious amounts of steam to drive a turbine, then that means
    a lot of water will be applied to the reactor. This will indeed cool it and possibly cause the LENR reaction to stop.

    Has anyone heard what the BTU per hour or Watt per hour the “Hot Cat” will produce? If I am not understanding the unit of Watt correctly, any clarification would be appreciated.

    Thanks for any instruction on the subject. It is always good to learn.

    • Ged

      We have seen the Mwh calculations at something around 3-14 MWh I think. I believe that’s what you’re looking for.

      I don’t think that necessarily tells us the stable MWh that can be put into steam, aka the steam volume and flow rate, since those calculations were from the reactor in open air.

      However, the 1 MW low temp E-cat plants do have flowrate information. We’ll just have to see, but I do think flowrate concerns are part of what has made it difficult to adapt the Hot Cat for steam turbine electrical output so far. That’s just my speculation though, and maybe the engineers among us here will chime in with better insights.

      • Ivan_Cev

        I am surprised how little you know about units and what a MW means, a MW is the power measured in an instant. if you use a MW for an hour then becomes energy and is 1MWH.
        So watts are independent of time, but energy is dependant of time.

        • Ged

          Err, I don’t think you are paying attention at all to the discussion, Ivan. Re-read what the OP is asking again, and then get back to me.

    • Robert Mockan

      The conversion factor for watts to BTU/hour is:

      1 watt = 3.412 BTU / hour,

      The “hot cat” produced about 14000 watt, so just multiply the conversion factor by the multiplier factor:

      (14000)(1 watt) = (14000)( 3.412 BTU / hour ) =

      47768 BTU / hour.

    • Omega Z


      This would be approximate as I’m sure the E-cat will fluctuate.

      1Mw E-cat operates at 1 Million watts per hour or 1Mwh.

      1 Million watt hours would be approximately 3.41+ Million BTU/h. About 950 BTU/second

      Rossi & company calculate at between 1100`C & 1200`C core temp, they can maintain 600`C output super heated Steam. For Electric generating This would involve calculating steam volume & Bar pressure verses what is required for a specific Steam Turbine. As Rossi has been involved with Siemens, They probably know pretty much what it will require.

      Just so you know, 1 liter of water produces different volumes of steam depending on the temperature Along with the flow constriction which also effects Bar pressures. These are all integral. I wont go any further with this as it is above my Pay Grade. LOL…

      I’m sure if your really into it, there’s a formula or calculator on the Web for this.

  • Ged

    Just to re-iterate once again.

    If this report is being made by a university, as expected, and if it is planned to be published in a scientific journal, it’s going to take -a lot of time-. I don’t think folks understand nearly how much time it takes to make a publication in the scientific literature, all of which is outside of Rossi’s hands.

    The manuscript preparation itself, for publication quality, is going to take a month or more (hence why it didn’t come out last month, since they were to finish their testing phase at the start of October). Once submitted to peer-review, reviewer comments will necessitate (almost never does a paper not need revision) considerable rewrites and potentially even more experiments, before acceptance. This process generally takes between 3 and 12 months from the point of submission to a journal, to the point of acceptance for print (and then a month or more before it actually appears in the journal).

    Keep this in mind everyone. Science is -slow-. Agonizingly slow. You have to get used to it and have patience. The science discoveries you read in the news now are stuff that started 3 to 10 years ago, or more. If this report is indeed aiming for peer-review publication, hopefully we’ll get a copy of the submitted text, but we aren’t going to see the finished, published product for a long while.

    If this report is aiming for some other sort of setting, like technical communication for corporate review, then we may get the finished product this month (and again, not getting it last month is normal; it would have been crazy to say they do the tests at the start of October and then publish at the end — no way is that possible. Rossi was way, way too optimistic in his timeline for something not under his control).

    • Redford

      Indeed. That being said the process of revision may actually be well under way and the process of polishing Daniele is mentioning can be actually related to that. Also, it’s not a complicated paper after all, that’s just measurements. Methodology, analysis should be dealt with fast and easy.

      So possibly that’s more likely in the 2 month time frame. Last but not least, if the publishing journal is on line, it can go fast too after validation. So I am keeping some hopes we’ll have it published under peer review – but we can already tell it will not be by a heavy structure.

      After all, what’s the point of taking time to follow the codes if it’s not to get the peer reviewed publication?

      • Ged

        I agree indeed.

        I think the fastest journals can move these days, for “accelerated acceptance” tracks (a very dubious process that has come under heavy scrutiny lately) is about one month. That’s the fastest I’ve ever seen, and it left a lot of people scratching their heads; 3 months is generally the fastest one can hope for in most cases even with on-line journals. And if reviewers throw a lot of curve balls, you are looking at a timeframe much farther down the road. Due to the controversial nature of the subject, curveballs are a high probability unless the data is so enormous as to leave no room for such. Still, there are always outliers on both sides of the time range. Maybe we’ll get extremely lucky.

        It’s one thing to say something is just “measurements”, but all science is just experimental measurements (unless we’re doing computer modeling). The writing takes a longer time to perfect than one might suspect. It isn’t simple to communicate and prepare data for publication level, gather all the references for citation, and flesh out the story satisfactorily.

        I am very much hoping we’ll see it published under peer review, but that’ll be a long time from now. For now, I’m just hoping to see the submitted-to-peer-review paper.

        A technical communication could be ok, depending on who signs off on it, and that would be considerably faster.

        • admin

          My understanding that the report won’t be published in an established scientific journal. I think we will see it in the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

          • Ged

            I know that was the case for Zurich’s report, but if this is done by a university, I think they’d want to put it in peer-review by their own accord. Rossi could still put the submitted paper on the JoNP.

            But yes, we’re just wishing for a report that is aiming for that highest standard, but it may well be a technical communication. As long as the organization signing off on that is good, it’ll still be wonderful (for instance, if it is a corporation like NI verifying the product performance, then that is just as good as a science publication I my mind, from a business standpoint).

            • KD

              To Ged
              >>>>I know that was the case for Zurich’s report, but if this is done by a university<<<<

              I don't think it will be done by university but done privetly by scientists employed by universities.

              • Ged

                That is the same difference in my view, as a scientist at a university. The universities don’t tell us scientists what to do; we research what we will, collaborate with whom we will, but all we do is still under the university’s banner.

                I know people want to split those hairs, but I think it is a fallacy.

                • Ivan_Cev

                  ….but you having your american idea of a university roll, that could not be applicable in other countries.

                • Ged

                  You are wrong about that, Ivan. The idea and the roll of the university in research hasn’t changed for centuries, as it spread from Europe outward. The acadmenic world is its own little standardized microcosm.

          • Renzo

            Frank, my understanding is the opposite… I hope you’re wrong

            • clovis

              Hi, Guys,
              You have to keep in mind, that this is basically just a heat ex changer, the core is the only thing that has to have close scrutiny,and there to not much to see just ni and h.

      • Chris

        “Also, it’s not a complicated paper after all, that’s just measurements. Methodology, analysis should be dealt with fast and easy.”

        Hmmmmm no. To be a peer reviewed paper (which I’m not so confident about) it would have to be not such a simple matter. Just about any paper about experimental physics could be described as “just measurements” except for the slight detail: In order to be the least bit worthy of peer review, methodology and analysis are the very key thing and are never so fast and easy.

        But, measurements of a black box with any secret inside is hardly of interest to other researchers. At the most, they wight count the authors as witnesses to something remarkable. There are some things in science which inherently can’t be done just whenever a group choses to do it and/or obtains the funding for it, but by this I mean naturally occurring events, which is not the case here. In this case they are more picky and they will tend to consider it industrial R&D rather than academic research. And that’s what it boils down to, even if a university is commissioned to carry it out. So wouldn’t be so sure about it showing up as peer reviewed.

        • Ged

          You make great points, all around.

        • Chris, I agree that it’s not common in scientific papers to measure a manmade black box, but I don’t see a reason why it couldn’t be done or why referees wouldn’t like it, provided that the scope of the paper is defined in a proper way. For example in archeology where it’s not uncommon to use physics lab instruments they may study value objects that cannot be “opened”.

          • Chris

            It’s not that it can’t be done or that referees wouldn’t like it, It is simply a distinct thing, an industrial product rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon, it belongs in a different place. The papers by Piantelli et al. belong in research journals, they were peer review published in Il Nuovo Cimento, they described the setup without any secret as to how others might try the same thing. They reported a few cases of positive outcome, but still they weren’t withholding details; the difference between positive or negative cases was simply not yet known.

            Nor is the ecat something that archeologists dug up, you’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

    • Renzo

      Gerry, you’re right that the actual publication in a scientific journal may take a long time, sometimes a year or more. But usually the unpublished paper is available online as soon as it is ready, it happens all the time, just look at the personal pages of university professors. I can’t see what would be the point to keep it secret for months, it would be obsolete by the time it get published…

      • Chris

        Preprints are indeed a very common thing and often they are eveb quoted as such. But in some cases they end up never becoming an actual, peer reviewed article.

      • Ged

        I agree, and fully hope we get a submitted paper copy at the very least this month.

        • Omega Z

          I believe this is directed more at Business. Potential Customers. Data that Comes from someone other then just Rossi & Leonardo. A 3rd party validation for Business confidence before investing in a Totally new Technology.

          I’m sure once it’s on the Market & Rossi gets his U.S. patent, there will be additional testing & Studies then some peer review. This will probably require more Technical info then Rossi is willing to release at the present. But then, Rossi will no longer care about peer review as it will only be for further research & studies.

          Rossi will already be setting on a beach somewhere having a cool one.
          Not really. I think he’ll slow down but still be very much involved with improvements or new applications of the E-cat. I think that’s just the kind of guy he is. He wouldn’t be happy doing absolutely nothing.

  • walker
  • buffalo

    the question is: if a cold fusion demo produced say,a thousand times more energy than was put in,painfully clear evidence,would it be actively suppressed,or embraced? Or both.

    • Peter_Roe

      I think we may find out in the relatively near future. By that point it will probably be too late to suppress LENR, but not too late to limit those who get to control it.

      • captain

        >…but not too late to limit those who get to control it.<

        Should it become evident that in US, USPTO and UL, don't give in a very short time their approval for the 1MW hot plant, giving protection to his IP, in the meantime, there are other almost immediate solutions.


        Australia, first, easterm EU and Russia, second, and if not enough, straight ahead with South Africa and China.

        And then?

        The US could be the last nation to have their industrial hot plants.

        Think awhile: 1MW of dry hot steam @ 600C into the space of one cubic meter! It's great! And ready to drive turbines for electricity. Great!

        But, most of all, that's the end of nuclear plants (not the military ones) and coal plants.

        Ank talking of the actual E-Cat plant sizes, without considering further COP inprovements.

        Italy started with nuclear power plants in the mid fifties, just with an equivalent power of 12 irons, if I don’t go wrong.
        It was underground at the Milan's Politecnico Institute.

        And now in the 3rd millennium?

        EU crisis is greatly due also to high costs of energy now. No more nuke plants in Germany, in Italy, …

        Instead of having dreams with ifs, buts, maybes, better here start doing calculations of how many Rossi's industrial 1MW hot plants are needed to start replacing the existing civilian nuc plants in the world.

        And when the reelected newq prez Obama will mention the Clean Air Act and the dangerous emissions, be ready to shutup his mouth with one E-Cat.

        • Karl

          I partly agree with both you Captain but also with Peter. I think though the final battle of a full market roll out may not only include countries but also multinational companies of various kinds due to their global activities and strong financial position and influence of decision makers.

          Some countries may see the advantages to use this new clean nuclear power of condense matter (LENR) but many politicians, regardless the country system may typically be under strong influence by companies and people that own certain assets.

          The opponents will probably continue to sponsor priesthood in the scientific community and mass media with false information like powerful companies that have something to loose including companies like Russia.

          On the contrary there would be several global multinational industrial types of companies that will no doubt see clear advantages to jump on the LENR waggon. We currently use to name some of the big ones here Siemens, ABB and GE etc. If LENR is as powerful as it seems to be there will certainly be enough people and companies to jump on the waggon.

          The lack of a precise scientific theory behind LENR is not only a disadvantage as I see it. It may open up various approaches for various other players to enter into the business competition of virtually limitless clean power generation. Those who move fast will have a lot the win. Finally, nothing is as strong as an IDEA which time has come.

          • Peter_Roe

            “may not only include countries but also multinational companies”

            That’s pretty much who I had in mind for those who ‘get to control it’, Karl, except that I think that it is the top level corporations in oil, gas and nuclear fission who will end up with ‘licenses’ to use CF, rather than relatively small engineering companies such as ABB or Siemens.

            The list would most likely include General Electric, Westinghouse, EDF, Chevron, Hitachi, Total, Enron, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Gasprom, BP, RWE, E.on and so on.

            Governments are almost irrelevant when companies such as these decide something, and their only interest will be ensuring that they receive revenues from CF comparable with those they get from fossil fuels – a matter of negotiation, trading legislation for cuts from the profits of the various corporate interests.

            • captain

              1st step – to have an 1MW hot plant working well and producing a stable flow of dry hot steam @ 600C, anyway; also in SSM! And that its thermal power means also co-generation and tri-generation. In a clea, safe and cheap way!

              2nd step – let the world know that the E-CAT deserves to be taken absolutely ASAP into consideration to solve many world problems.

              3rd step – I let U to go on… 🙂

              • Peter_Roe

                ‘Light blue touchpaper and retire to a safe distance’!

                That’s the way I’d like to see things go, but I suspect it will be much more ‘managed’ than that.

        • Chris

          It is unfortunate that you are totally overoptimistic.

          Rossi has said that he will sell to about 100 out of 10000 customers who are banging on his door, because that’s how few of them he trusts about NDA. When the Chinese were mentioned, he muttered a reply with a grimace down at the table; he said he will not sell to Chinese customers.

          As long as Rossi will be the only one to count on…..

          • Peter_Roe

            When news of CF finally reaches the mainstream, Rossi’s lack of IP protection and his resultant insecure behaviour is going to cause quite a bottleneck.

            • captain

              Yeah, thank to the shame of USPTO in non granting him what belongs to Rossi.

              OK OK, maybe Rossi has not presented to USPTO his whole new theory, because of this… because of that…: but USPTO, in due time, have to consider that the E-CAT is working and working even too well!

              For that reason they should give him immediately what belongs to him. That’s the point.

              Rossi, one man, is working 16/24, why USPTO can’t work in 2 or 3 shifts, say 16/24 or 24/24, due to the importance of that discovery?

              Only and only USPTO actually is damaging Rossi, like it or not.

              And what’s behind USPTO?

              • Chris

                That’s not how patents work (and what about the rest of the world, anyhow?).

                What’s lacking is not his “whole new theory” but just his 11 herbs and spices. A patent is antithetical to an industrial secret. Ask any competent IP consultant.

                The EPO has officially informed Rossi that his patent application was deemed not compliant with the basic requisites and he has 4 months (already elapsing) to satisfy them, as stated in an annexed document, otherwise his application will simply be discarded. He simply did a sloppy job.

                Piantelli’s application is being granted, his patent lawyer did a good job and those versed in the art need no unknown information nor further fiddling in order to get it work. It was the work of Piantelli et al. that Rossi followed up in the first place, only he and Piantelli took two distinct paths.

  • Chris

    It’s a good thing, but I really don’t think it will convince any of the pathological skeptics. It seems it won’t be peer reviewed, it won’t even be much for healthy skeptics. It will just be one more little step. If it looks good, it’ll increase my own confidence but I’ll still be waiting for more news.

    What’s really needed is for more researchers to be bothered enough to get up off their lazy arses and take a look. They would also have to publish any positive outcomes without fearing the old stigma but instead contributing to defeat it. Too much to hope for.

    At that point, the only doubts about Rossi would be quantitive and, you never know, perhaps some group that includes good chemists would even hit on Rossi’s 11 herbs and spices or something equivalent. Or something even better. Too much to hope for.

    At Rossi’s snail pace, China will keep building more coal and fission plants and the polar caps will melt and all current coastal towns will become scuba diver’s resorts before he makes a significant headway, and there will still be folks crying foul because of confidentiality.

    • Karl

      For scientists to seriously look into Cold Fusion is much more about courage and heart and much less about laziness I imagine.

      • Chris

        I know, I just used a word or two on the fly 😉

    • Chris: I agree with many of your points, but not that Rossi would be proceeding slowly. I think that he proceeds much faster than a typical new tech development (“as fast as possible, but not faster”).

      • robiD

        Indeed. If you only think to the hot-cat, it’s impressive the way, and the rapidity, he resolved the problem of the hydrogen container that is a fundamental step to move the development in the direction of the E-cat for domestic use.

        • GreenWin

          You may tire of it but let’s compare, Rossi pace vs. 60 years unmet promises from hot fusion. AND $274BILLION tax dollars. Seriously?

    • Peter_Roe

      As someone who will get England’s largest ever nuclear power station built on his doorstep if nothing turns up to stop it, I agree with the sentiment. However I’m sure that Rossi is aware that others are creeping up on him, and that someone else could have the same breakthrough he has with the ‘hot cat’ tech, he will be moving as quickly as he can towards getting his US installation running.

      The US partner will not want publicity, at least not until their joint venture is proven successful and perhaps not even then. For the time being, a lack of announcements at least means that the shills have less to feed on. (Although we do seem to have an increased number of them just now, perpetually demanding ‘proof’ they wouldn’t accept even if it were available, or chipping away at Rossi’s credibility in any way they can).

      • Omega Z


        I believe with what we know, Rossi’s partner is probably Siemens.

        Remember the SGS Certification leak. Rossi said no, it is not. We don’t have relations with SGS. A few days later in Zurich. Wala. SGS

        Rossi’s partner is going to Co-generate. Well, Siemens is specializing in Co-generating. They recently expanded their Manufacturing facilities in Charlotte, North Carolina to include Gas Turbines.

        This plant produces Steam turbines, Generators, & Now Gas Turbines allowing a mix/match for Co-generation. All at one site. The E-cat would just be 1 more piece of the puzzle. The E-cat would be Ideal for a base load system. Gas Turbine for peek loads.

        • Peter_Roe


          I agree that from the evidence it is pretty certain that Siemens have some kind of association with Rossi. It’s hard to see though why they would use their US subsidiary, rather than construct a prototype in Germany, where a huge market for non-fission nuclear power would be assured. America’s cheap gas makes the market there far less certain, especially if COP is limited.

          My guess would be that Rossi has reached a deal with a major US company (GE?) AND maintains a partnership with Siemens for EU development. That way he could put Leonardo in a position of considerable power, as to a certain extent he would be able to set one against the other, should relationships ever become difficult in some way.

          • Omega Z

            Could be because the U.S. is now Siemens biggest market. The U.S. is 25% of their business & has surpassed Germany itself.

            I’m also considering that Rossi specified Co-generation & the partner was taking a different direction as in the U.S. is starting to eliminate subsidizing of other Green energies.

            E-cats would allow them to continue to expand & remain profitable. If the E-cat produces enough Electricity to offset whats used then it’s still much cheaper then the alternatives. Especially if savings aren’t passed on to the Consumer for several years.

            Just my opinion, But I think Siemens probably has more U.S. based assets then G.E. Siemens is expanding while G.E. has been moving everything out. Seems a lot of U.S. Corps are skedaddling. These days if you want to buy American, you have to buy Foreign. American built with Most American Content.

            • Omega Z

              Just to add, I’ve been doing a lot of poking around & name tracking & the behind the scenes connections would also indicate Siemens. It’s who you know. Like from NI to Siemens for controls. Connections.

              • captain

                Siemens fits perfectly to be the power co. diffused the world all over.
                It makes sense, after NI, to use their instrumentation, and as already said, that Siemens Sweden should prepare a specific steam turbine for Rossi’s plants.
                The convenience of a deal Leonardo-Siemens is reciprocal: as soon as the name of that power co. will be unveiled, be sure that after 2-3 months of an hot E-Cat plant operation, there will be no more need of suppositions, third parties reports, non more battalions of skepts.
                We’ll see a frantic rush for buying those shares 🙂 🙁 🙂
                And Maryyugo-Gary Wright & comrades will be be among the first ones to do that… what a $ham€…

    • b4FreeEnergy

      Who says Mr. Rossi wants to really convince the academic world, if he does and he’s really convincing, the entire world will be all over this in no time and there will be labs involved with much more money and much more people at hand.

      That’s not what he needs right now. He knows it works and he also knows he needs more time to fine-tune the systems he has to make them ready for the market.

      Development is a time consuming thing. Not everyhting goes immediately right and the way you want it. You often need loads of iterations to get it perfect.

      Leaving it a bit misty if his cats really work or not simply buy him time! – And who says certain labs are not working on it already, full steam ahead but silently and undisturbed by the mass media …

    • Ducky1

      Of course it will not convince the pathological skeptics, nothing will.

      Science progresses one funeral at a time.” — Max Planck

      I do not however agree to that Rossi is proceeding at a snails pace. If anything he seems to move too fast to be believeable. Developing new technology is a very time consuming task with frequent setbacks and problems to be fixed while all the time learning what can be done better.

    • Chris

      Wow, what a lot of response. I think a point or two got skewed though.

      By snail’s pace, was referring to his 1% (at the end of Pordenone) due to guarding his secret, it wasn’t his R&D that I meant.

      As for researchers, it would be great if the stigma dissipated. One single Rossi isn’t enough to save the planet in time. I was neglecting a bit about Piantelli’s patent being granted though, it might help to facilitate with research by more public institutions along with a few other things. Weighing this and other things in, the fog might start to dissipate with increasing rapidity.

      • MikeP

        Yep … we’ll likely have to develop some geo-engineering to add CO2 to aid plant health and diversity.

      • Omega Z


        I do believe by leaving uncertainty, Rossi is buying time to finish the E-cat for market. Once the Cat is out of the bag, everyone will be scrambling. Entities much more powerful & financed. He wants the lead time, otherwise he would quickly be left behind.

        Note that Piantelli may have a patent, but still far from a marketable product. A lot of R&D to go.

    • HeS

      @:”If it looks good, it’ll increase my own confidence but I’ll still be waiting for more news.”

      Are you waiting until your neighbor buys ECAT and you will be able to test it personally?

      • Chris

        Er, uhm… actually… no!

        I’m very patiently waiting until I myself will finally persuade myself to buy one and see what it does for my own bills.


    • robyn wyrick

      “but I really don’t think it will convince any of the pathological skeptics”

      With due respect, I think there is nothing pathological about being skeptical here. Even this site’s admin continues to remind us, “if it works” is the most appropriate model for consideration.

      Like many here, I am convinced Rossi is on the right track. But that is mostly based on other things in the development of LENR (NASA, NRL, NI-Week, MIT, Celani’s report, etc.) – and so Rossi’s statements appear to fit.

      But if I had to go only on Rossi’s statements, they would seem fantastical.

      There is no reason to lament skepticism about his claims. We have no independent verification.

      But I am hopeful we will in a few weeks.

      • Renzo

        Robyn, just read the comments at e c a t n e w s . c o m and you’ll understand what is meant by “pathological skepticism” that is a different animal from rational skepticism.

  • barty

    News from the MFMP!
    They are currently loading the celani wire in their cell!

    “10:52 pm Minnesota Time: The cell is assembled and has been charged with helium. We have updated the software with the necessary changes to be able to calculate the power out as a function of cell temperature. We are just trying it out and seeing how it works. It takes some getting used to and some explaining. Right now we are testing at 5 bar of Helium and it is showing positive energy, but that is probably because the gas is not the same as the calibration equation. Any time we turn the power down and the power in drops before the cell temperature it seems to indicate excess energy, which has fooled our eager little minds a couple of times already. Because of this, I am hesitant to share the live data stream, for a little while till we can explain things better. Things are moving fast, though and it will be available soon.”

  • Redford

    If the text is not completed yet, it really does seem way too early for printed publications. And it also means that this will most probably not be peer reviewed. What we’ll have will be something not really different from the last report, except with probably more names, more details, better figures. But I don’t expect any paradigm change. Actually, I am a bit disappointed if it’s not peer reviewed.

    • Karl

      Proper reviewed – be careful – your comment could be seen as a typical unfriendly attitude to cold fusion in general. What you call for is that Rossi has to crack the catch 22 scenario that shamefully has been organised by the main stream scientific community in its unscientific attitude that have kept the door closed for this kind of research and access to publications the last 23 years.

      There has been too many refusal of papers in this research segment and my estimates is that Rossi still has to finally deliver products with satisfied customers before this whole earth saving solution will be opened up and this will not be thanks to the mainstream scientific community.

      Thus, regardless the final paper works of the independent tests of the Hot Cat, it will open eyes for those of us there will want to see the truth regardless the procedure to make it public. Most of us following this drama will not be surprised the resistance from a paid pseudo sceptic community will continue and grow after that. The truth can be a great threat for false prophets.

      • Redford

        I am not friendly or unfriendly to cold fusion. You can consider me as unfriendly, or at least not giving any credit, to people claiming it’s a matter of being friendly or unfriendly. People mocking cold fusion and people flaming any criticism against it are two side of the same worthless coin to me.

        Rossi has announced this report would be publish into a scientific review and that’s why I had what I think is a legitimate hope to see something peer reviewed. OTOH to me any review labelling is not a must. Third party validation is, thus, would it only be because even working stuff without 3rd party validation will not build enough confidence to happen.

        That being said I’ve been advocating the fact that 3rd party validation is here since Levi first, and now with the latest hot cat report. The talk is about getting more of it, but I consider that those who have refused to acknowledge the existence of 3rd party experts who have validated Rossi’s claims are obviously suffering from a bias that will not be challenged by more of the same.

        • Dr. Mike

          As long as the report is written by a truely independent third party, the engineers and scientists following LENR on this website can provide the peer review of the report. We will be able to point out any weaknesses in the report and ask that the reporters clarify any deficiencies.

          Even Rossi’s own cryptic hot-cat report was essentially peer reviewed on this website and his blog. There was several things in his initial report that didn’t make sense to me, but eventually they were clarified in his revisions and by his comments on his blog. The final report with Rossi’s additional comments made for fairly convincing evidence that the hot-cat was working as Rossi had claimed.

          I will be “reviewing” the third party report to see that the experimental work was done using standard scientific methodology, as I am sure others will be.

          • Redford

            I agree on this, and this is one of the reason I come here. That being said it’s not the same, communication wise, that a peer reviewed publication in an established journal.

            • GreenWin

              You guys are both correct in my view. And we may have to accept that Open Source peer review is all that will be available to LENR, until a government agency or large corporation forces review in old school journals.

          • Omega Z

            Dr. Mike

            I would add that if these tests are done by qualified personnel from 2 different Universities, that it would be fairly well Validated. Even without a University taking direct Claim although that would be Icing on top.

            Being False witness to DATA would very likely be Career ending if found out at a latter date. Universities don’t like bad press.

    • Ged

      We could get the submitted article, which will be peer-reviewed.

      Let me just say, as a published scientist, if you want to see this report after peer-review, expect to wait anywhere from 3 to 12 months from now. Peer-review is slow, especially on such a controversial topic. It’s going to be a -long- time before it gets through the literature, more likely than not.

      I’m hoping we’ll get a copy of the submission rather than wait.

      Again, people have not realized just how long scientific publications take; and it is completely out of Rossi’s hands. Manuscript prep takes a month or more to perfect before submission usually, let alone the time till publication.

  • Michael

    Why is National Instruments mentioned so often? Their product is simply a data acquisition system, used in many many labs around the world. Standard software, off-the shelf. Nothing special, but good stuff. I can simply not understand what the special thing is.

    By the way…..item 1 says that the tests are almost finished, and item 3 says that the only thing remaining is the documentation. A small detail, but it is slightly contradictory. It should also be very simple to mention what kind of measuremants that are made without revealing any secrets.

    • barty

      I think it’s to show that they are using high quality equipment, and not “no-name messurement devices” which could deliver false or faked data.

    • captain
      • Michael

        SP is a highly respected company/organisation. If you believe that they are not professional in measurements you can take a look on the page describing the calibration capabilities:

        • captain

          A light bulb of 60W must be measured: as per Rossi’s instruments it’s 59 or 60W and for the Swede SP it’s 120W (or 200W?).
          Who is serious?

          and also:

          An electric heater of 2,000W has to be measured: for Rossi it’s 2,000W and for the Swede ST it’s just double!
          Who is serious?

          But did U read the whole news?

    • Peter_Roe

      National Instruments are mentioned frequently because of a commercial association during which their engineers worked closely with Rossi to develop a bespoke control and instrumentation solution for him. Following this, the company took things much further by sponsoring ‘NI Week’ – an international conference in which a number of LENR developers were invited to give presentations. and following threads.

      It is rather odd that you seem to be unaware of these facts. If that really is the case, perhaps you should do a bit of reading before commenting. Or perhaps you have other purposes.

      • artefact

        plus National Instruments gave free instruments to LENR researchers including the University of Bologna.

      • Michael

        It is new to me that NI did work for Rossi. I thought they provide software etc for making control and monitoring system, including courses, but it seems that they also develop the software for the customers. Anyway, then people at NI must know more about the e-cat process than most other people. At a quick glance it seems that NI week is a gathering of people showing how they have used NI products in the development work. You can find similar arrangements around other products, Matlab, or CFD codes for example.

        I can not find any sponsor to NI Week 2012 (conference program on National Instruments web site) that seems to be associated with the e-cat.

        • Warthog

          Try NI Week 2012 and Celani. Celani live-demonstrated his reactor using instrumentation provided and installed by National Instruments, and demonstrated positive energy output (not as great as Rossi reports, but still well above any possible chemical effects). He did this on the floor of their exhibit. Had zip to do with Rossi, and everything to do with the reality of cold fusion.

          • Michael

            I can not find Celani in the NI Week 2012 program, only on Youtube and LENR-supporting web sites.
            It is also interesting to read the description of the one-hour panel discussion “The Quest for Alternative Energy—Anomalous Heat Effect (a.k.a. Cold Fusion)” I have cut this piece of text from the program: “…“cold fusion.” While the term has evoked controversy, many research facilities have observed over 200 instances of intense heat. This demonstrates either an unknown physical event or a need for better measurement and control tools. In both cases, NI can provide the tools to accelerate innovation and scientific discovery.” I interpret the text as NI has no opinion if LENR is real or not, rather offers products for the measurements.

            • Ged

              The NI CEO has publically come out saying he believes it is real. It’s why the company gives such a huge chunk of its time to LENR research and presentations (like NIWeek). If NI didn’t believe in it, it would never have been allowed at their NIWeek. Don’t be fooled by the standard “covering our rears from controversy” equivocal speech companies usually use.

        • Peter_Roe

          “Anyway, then people at NI must know more about the e-cat process than most other people.”

          I think you may have cracked it. Do you think they would have allowed their name to be associated with presentations about anomalous heat by Celani, Takahashi, Duncan, Morrow, Defkalion et al. if they didn’t already know that LENR is real? In fact NI’s co-founder, President, and CEO, Dr. James Truchard himself gave a presentation in which he described NI’s projects relating to cold fusion, and expressed his support of this research.

          I think it would be good if you stopped trying to mangle the facts, before people begin to think that you might be a troll.

          • Al D

            Also, I wonder which company that specializes in instrumentation and control systems and is very familiar with the e-cat would be interested in making and selling the multi-millions of control systems that the home e-cat will require?

  • AstralProjectee

    Gee, can’t wait. I do have a question though. Is this report suppose to be good enough for mainstream scientists, and the media to start taking seriously?

    • John-xyz

      I guess it depends on who writes it and how much status they have in the academic world, and what the report says. Personally, I’d say no, because often scientific journals have material that contradicts other reports. If there were multiple reports then that would have more effect, but I can’t see that happening. Rossi has been dragging his heels about getting independent testing for so long, can you imagine him loaning out 5 machines to different universities? Me neither.

      • Peter_Roe

        So even a report in the academic press would not be sufficient for you now – it has to be five of them? No wonder Rossi has little interest in going down this path.

        In any case, can you imagine any reason why Rossi would want to spend his own money and risk having his secrets discovered by sending out 5 unprotected e-cats to various universities, while having virtually nothing to gain from such as exercise. Get real.

        • John-xyz

          Well, I guarantee that if the report is positive then it will be ignored by media organisations. Or they’ll say that they need more verification by other researchers, or will play a waiting game.

          • Karl

            Of course – but for most of us that follow this drama it will an important report. The “unscientific” attitude will continue until there is enough numbers and types of working LENR products on the market.

            • Michael

              If a home e-cat shall be sold on the European market and is gas-fired it must fulfil the requirements of the Gas Appliance Directive, including safety and performance tests. Then, there is the market and production control. And in the near future will the ecodesign directive for residential appliances apply.

              • Peter_Roe

                Correct, and equivalent requirements also apply in the US. This is why home e-cats are no longer a Leonardo Corp. priority, and certification will not be attempted until there is sufficient data from industrial low temperature installations to demonstrate safety.

                By this time (c. 2 years I think Rossi mentioned) the technology will have moved on, and I imagine the whole thing will need to be redesigned from the ground up in any case.

          • Peter_Roe

            I agree with Karl. Lack of reporting would be an indictment of mainstream news and science media, not of Rossi.

  • Gerrit

    that’s good news.

    I hope Passerini will also let us now as soon as the tests are fully concluded.

    The only open questions would be: how credible are the people performing the tests and what journal will the paper be published in ?

    I hope the paper will be put on a preprint server as soon as it is finished.

  • captain

    The time limit has not to be considered within Nov.30, ’cause this doesn’t depend on Rossi; OTOH he would say, hopefully, but it could happen well beyond that limit.
    This just to prevent stupid insinuations.

  • Torbjörn

    “That means, we should be ready to load the Celani wire tomorrow (read Friday), unless we think of something else that is worth doing first. The anticipation is thick here. So is the nervousness. We don’t want to make any mistakes with the wire.”

    • daniel maris

      At the moment, this is more important than Rossiworld. This is a definite fork in the path

    • barty

      News from the MFMP!

      “10:52 pm Minnesota Time: The cell is assembled and has been charged with helium. We have updated the software with the necessary changes to be able to calculate the power out as a function of cell temperature. We are just trying it out and seeing how it works. It takes some getting used to and some explaining. Right now we are testing at 5 bar of Helium and it is showing positive energy, but that is probably because the gas is not the same as the calibration equation. Any time we turn the power down and the power in drops before the cell temperature it seems to indicate excess energy, which has fooled our eager little minds a couple of times already. Because of this, I am hesitant to share the live data stream, for a little while till we can explain things better. Things are moving fast, though and it will be available soon.”

      • Peter_Roe

        Exciting stuff. It would be interesting if helium turns out to be not so inert as it is supposed to be in this experiment!

        • buffalo

          yeah,cudos to the papp nobel gas thingy

      • clovis

        GOOD WORK , GUYS.
        your work is another third party confirmation of lenr.
        And i for one will take your data as correct, because i know you guys are doing things, using scientific methods, and procedures.
        I follow your progress daily, and you seem very dedicated in your work, thank you very much for your openness –clovis