Report: Piantelli Claimed 200W Self-sustain for 2 Months

We recently learned about the European Patent Office granting a patent to Francesco Piantelli for his nickel-hydrogen LENR process, but news about his work is hard to come by. His company, Nichenergy, has only a placeholder web site, and Piantelli himself doesn’t seem to share much information publicly. So I was interested to read a comment on the MFMP Quantumheat web site by a commenter named Giorgio who wrote:

Yes, but since then successive Piantelli experiments demonstrated that a real and large excess heat was indeed present. Last year (Feb 2012) Piantelli told me that in one of his cell he reached self-sutaining (NO input power!) at 200W for 2months!

Certainly that’s not a verifiable statement, so it must be treated with some caution, but if true it would of course be very significant. I’m wondering if there are any readers out there who might know more about what is going on with Piantelli or Nichenergy who could shed some more light on this report.

  • http://twitter.com/bbck777 Bernie Koppenhofer

    Many commenters here state Rossi has failed to deliver; yet he has performed more demonstrations of his E-Cat than any other LENR researcher and has an open dialog with the public on his site. If they mean he has not given away his intellectual property; I say good for him.

    • GreenWin

      Orthodox science has failed to deliver over and again. Knowledge monopolies and “publishing” fiefdoms attempt to confine general knowledge to a strict set of mythologies and little more.

      • Gedo

        Orthodox science ? Where then the Catholic and Protestant science ?

        • GreenWin

          Gedo, I’ll assume you are unaware of the meaning of the adjective “orthodox.”

          adjective

          1.
          of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
          2.
          of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.

  • GreenWin

    Entertaining OT news from Italy as CEO of defense giant Finmeccanica is arrested on corruption charges. Finmeccanica has agreed to sell LENR-involved Ansaldo Energia, builder of large scale power stations to one of three bidders including electronics mammoth Samsung, and Siemens AG. But some in Italy are furious that a crown jewel asset is being sold to foreign entities and have attempted to stop the sale.

    Ansaldo Energia has invested in LENR research and sent representatives to Rossi’s October 2011 demos of 1MW e-cat. They were also present at National Instruments Week, and ICCF 17. Better than most political thrillers.

  • Torbjörn
    • Torbjörn
    • Veblin

      http://www.studiobrevetticicogna.it/

      Deposit, obtaining and defending patents and utility models and ornaments and trade marks in Italy and abroad.
      Research on the existence of any prior patents.
      Supplies copies of patents.
      Advice.

      The Patent Office Franco Cicogna was founded in 1902.
      It makes use of more than 35 employees and attorneys in various areas of law Industrial.
      The firm is able to proceed quickly to the filing of Patents for Invention and Utility Models that protect the functional characteristics of innovative projects.

    • Daniel Maris

      Interesting – thanks for that!

  • http://twitter.com/bbck777 Bernie Koppenhofer

    Why is Piantelli considered to have a “solid reputation”, and anything Focardi/Rossi does is considered “suspect”? The only difference I see is that Focardi/Rossi have decided to have an open dialog about LENR while being very careful not to reveal their IP.

  • georgehants

    Of course the theory is old hat but conformation that the Quantum World produces Energy from nothing (which just means no known explanation at the moment but strong Evidence of something beyond the Quantum) destroys every known scientific law etc.
    Will science now begin to deal with reality or as usual bury this as deeply as possible and go on quoting conservation of energy etc. etc.
    ———
    Nature | Scientific American
    A vacuum can yield flashes of light
    “Virtual particles” can become real photons under the right conditions.
    http://www.nature.com/news/a-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light-1.12430

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Energy of those virtual turned real photons comes from the surrounding apparatus which changes rapidly the index of refraction of the medium.

      • georgehants

        Pekka, is it not correct that the vacuum is full of virtual particles with no surrounding medium.
        Therefore taken on average all those virtual particles add up to a positive amount of energy while they are separated (negative and positive) and if they combine and are destroyed, then an amount of energy is released into this universe.

        Although the energy is virtual it is never the less is there and in effect produced from nothing whether negative or positive.
        If one takes Hawking radiation dependent on one half of the particle being transmitted and the other half absorbed by the black hole then this universe gains the mass of the particle ejected.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I quote wikipedia for one sentence: “The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly
          established, but their ‘reality’ or existence is a question of
          philosophy rather than science.” We do not need to know the zero level of energy in order to compute all observable quantities from quantum field theories without gravity, and regarding gravity the question is open since we do not have a theory for quantum gravity. Read the wikipedia virtual particle article for more.

          In Hawking radiation the black holes is thought to lose the same mass than the mass of the emitted Hawking radiation. Although some people seem to be unsure if energy conservation can be meaningfully defined for the whole universe in general relativity.

          • georgehants

            Well, remember I am at the limit of my knowledge and understanding here, ha.
            Does not this latest research on my link above go a long way to proving the existence of the virtual reality particles?
            Understood on the possible energy input from gravity.
            Understood on the uncertainty re Hawking.

            • Pekka Janhunen

              I’m afraid “existence” is a bit too strong word. Virtual particles are mathematical things that appear if one makes a Taylor expansion, which is considered a valid approach when interactions are in some sense weak. They “exist” in the sense that if one computes by the Taylor expansion which contains them, one gets (in certain types of situations) a result which is in agreement with experiments. In my opinion the main miracle is that the recipe gives (in those cases) correct results even though its philosophical and even mathematical foundtation is shaky.
              Theoretical physics is about building mathematical models which work better or worse and are more or less mathematically rigorouss, while existence is more a question of philosophy.

              • georgehants

                Of course, at this juncture all Quantum is at the very edge and good theory’s are very useful especially if the math looks and feels good.
                Can we just say that this is all Wonderful science and at this moment anything is possible and only time and good theorising and research will find the answers.
                Thank you Pekka.

              • GreenWin

                We are beginning to reckon with human consciousness / perception in this. Much as we have learned from Schrodinger’s cat, virtual particles may exist in abundance in an extra-dimensional superposition – until collapsed to “real” photons by observation (apparatus) or the presence of some form of consciousness.

                • georgehants

                  GreenWin, agreed and much else re. consciousness but unfortunately that becomes heretical in many areas of science and the seemingly religious PTB enforce a campaign of denial and debunking as with many subjects.
                  One Wonderful day science will be set free.

    • LENR4you

      I prefer the ECE Theory:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Cartan%E2%80%93Evans_theory

      http://www.aias.us/

      EXPLANATION OF LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS

      http://aias.us/documents/LectureMaterials/Essay69.pdf

      GENERAL ECE THEORY OF FIELD AND PARTICLE INTERACTION APPLICATION TO LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTION (LENR)
      http://aias.us/documents/uft/a226thpaper.pdf

      • georgehants

        LENR4you Thank you, I do not study in depth all theory’s of the Quantum as that takes much time and dedication.
        I very much like to keep aware of if a particular theory is showing promise from experiments or effects.
        Theory’s are very useful and important but unfortunately in many areas they are mistakenly taken as Facts by many scientists.
        ——
        You may find this interesting as it may concern Cold Fusion.
        Sustainable new catalysts fueled by a single proton.
        http://phys.org/news/2013-02-sustainable-catalysts-fueled-proton.html

    • Dave Lawton

      It is worthwhile studying Oliver Heaviside,he was years ahead Hendrick
      Casimir,and predicted what is now called the Casimir effect and much
      more.

      He also said if we need to find the source of all energy we must look to the

      Aether ie The Vacuum.

      • georgehants

        Many great thinkers ahead of their time that appear to receive inspiration from somewhere, Ramanujan was a Wonderful example and very well known but very little understood.

  • lifematters

    I believe most people here support LENR as the scientific evidence and weight of those who support LENR is difficult to ignore.

    Rossi, however, is another matter. It seems that his exaggerated claims (compared to others’ research) his failure to meet even a single one of his stated deadlines for demonstrations, verifications, certifications, customer revelations, public displays etc., and his prolific blogging on JONP while claiming to be working harder than ever, should throw up some red flags to rational people.

    That Rossi’s further “development” of a “product” with no certification, no patent, no intellectual protection of any kind would attract high-level investors, let alone a large buyout seems a bit absurd.

    There is a film starring Russell Crowe called “A Beautiful Mind” (based on a true story) where a very intelligent economist imagines himself a hero in a world his own mind creates – integrating his world with the real. He remains quite intelligent – in fact winning a nobel prize – yet he is quite delusional and schizophrenic.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      In my books Rossi hasn’t yet erred in physics in a major way. He has perhaps erred in some details such as X-ray heating and corrected them later. The Penon report is consistent with his claims in a nontrivial way. I get the impression of him that while being impulsive and inventive, he tends to proceed systematically and usually with a good idea of the limits of what is certain and what is not.

      On the other hand many of his competitors have given some statements which in my opinion call into question the consistency of their physics.

      • lifematters

        I believe Rossi may have invented something but suspect it largely stopped there.
        The utter failure to deliver on anything he has promised for over a year even as his claims have become increasingly grand, improbable and sometimes contradictory (such as constructing roboticized factories for home e-cats when he acknowledges he has no plans to sell them) cannot be easily waived away.

        I believe in LENR and I like Rossi, but rational belief can only tolerate so much cognitive dissonance before it must yield to the unappealing obvious.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          He didn’t start marketing home units, for a reason which in my opinion can be understandable. We don’t yet have a visitable factory, for reasons which might indeed be due to the customer. The third party validation has proceeded slower than he thought, but again “what is independent, is independent”. But we have the licensee network built up last year as planned, with two (originally said one) conferences held, we have HotCats which were not promised and some data from them, and there is SGS certification document.

  • Omega Z

    Questioning the reality of LENR or Anomalous Heat or whatever your flavor is ridiculous. Do the research on Who, When, Where all this work has been done. It’s real, repeatable & beyond Chemical Reaction. All evidence leads to the conclusion that it can be scaled up for Practical use.

    The Only Question is Who will bring it to Market First & How Soon.

    As for Piantelli producing 200W for 2 months. Don’t know. Focardi worked with Piantelli for years & claims they did produce excess power, but I don’t recall how much.

    As for MFMP, Their not there yet. But 1 thing you can learn from their project is- It’s Not Easy and It’s Not Cheap to research this phenomena.
    So in conclusion, Keep This In Mind when critiquing Piantelli, Miley, Rossi & Others why they don’t provide more Info faster. It Takes Time & a Lot of Money…

  • georgehants

    It turns out as usual that Wiki-rubbish and the users of Ockham are in error.
    But science appears to be following Ockham’s teachings to the letter with beliefs in their own Sacred Scripture.”
    He actually said —–
    “Nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is
    self-evident or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred
    Scripture.”
    Born in England, Franciscan monk William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347) is
    among the most prominent figures in the history of philosophy during the
    High Middle Ages. The Skeptics Dictionary quotes the Razor as
    Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, or “plurality should not be
    posited without necessity,” while Wikipedia defines Ockham’s razor as
    follows:
    “Among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected.”
    ——
    Brother Ockham, however, said nothing of the kind. Later philosophers
    have put these words into his mouth for their own convenience.
    Here is what he wrote, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
    ——-
    “Nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.”
    http://boingboing.net/2013/02/11/what-ockham-really-said.html

    • Pekka Janhunen

      The excerpt also exemplifies, as also Rossi said in one his replies today, that truth seeking using logic, personal and historical experience was alive and well before the advent of modern science. Newton added to the toolbox mathematical analysis (differential calculus) which enabled widespread use of physics experiments, since calculus produced numbers which could be compared with experiment, not only yes/no assertions as logic does. People used theology and philosophy as long as they were regarded as the most efficient ways of obtaining information, and they started to use science when its enabling innovations were accomplished by clever individuals.

      • georgehants

        Pekka, any reason for science to exist, I believe, is made interesting by reference to any historic quotes, teachings, etc. etc. but if they are to be taken seriously they must confirm just one scientific principle, that TRUTH following clear unbiased Evidence is the only Principle, Law, Rule Method, or Teaching of Science.
        If the Evidence is not clear then no opinions just Research Research Research.
        Without that overriding Principle science is no more that a silly joke.

    • Job001

      Thanks for correcting the Ockham false interpretation. I’ve distrusted it since learning to trust all of my experimental data. All of the data includes the statistical residual.

      Philosophically we cannot fully accept the simple hypothesis and ignore the residual. We can provisionally use the simple hypothesis and give honor to the data as yet insufficient to fully model reality.

      My apologies to Ockham for having blindly accepted what a professor quoted.

  • Gedo

    200 Watt is very modest value compared to by house basement needs.

    • AlainCo

      Are you jocking?

      important is energy density, and power density.
      200W in a beer bottle for 2 month, is HUGE energy density…
      it is fair for powerdensity.

      try to do that with any chemical fuel.
      just pile those bottle in a big box, and you can heat your house.
      it is just the same claim as rossi and defkalion…
      and if you count well, same as celani.

      similar to fission, reactor if you remove the shielding and safety.

  • Gedo

    200 W is very modest amount very my house basement needs.

  • JC

    At the Atom Unexplored conference, a representative of Piantelli claimed that a cell sustained 300 degrees with no power input for “some months.”

    Video available here:
    http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/05/09/heat-generation-with-no-power-input-for-several-months/

    • ecatworld

      Thanks for sharing — very good find, and it helps to confirm the above comment.

    • Miles

      I hate all this secrecy about LENR. C’mon already, give this cheap energy to the world.

  • Bob

    Possible good news, but unfortunately as stated in other posts… someone says… but no real proof. We can keep hoping though!
    Related to the subject of people reporting news on LENR advances, what ever happened to “Cures” who was believed to have first hand knowledge of the Ecat proceedings and occasionally posted some “leaks” about the Ecat?
    Also, there was another poster who evidently had close connections who once posted “the third party report will be bomb proof and by the end of Novemeber”.
    (The above is paraphrased from memory and may not be exact in detail) I cannot remember his forum name. But I remember he seemed very outspoken that he was privy to inside information that was of a significant importance.
    Are these individuals still posting and what are they saying?

  • Pekka Janhunen

    We are still quite in the beginning of understanding a theory side of LENR. Storms says that cracks are where the process occurs while Swartz says that cracks are to be avoided because they let hydrogen out and challenges anyone who thinks otherwise to present a working demo. Piantelli says that argon is poison while Celani used H2/Ar mixture in one phase (not sure if he uses it any more). Celani uses amorphous metal coating which I think goes more with Swartz than Storms. But Storms’ metamodel may also have its virtues since it produces a set of checkable predictions.

    Gamma ray bursts were perhaps a somewhat similar story. When first observed with a satellite, people thought that they were some deep space Soviet nuclear tests. That explanation was pretty far off. For tens of years tens of theories were proposed until some kind of agreement was found that at least many of them are related to formation of stellar black holes in core collapse supernova in distant galaxies.

    • Ged

      Very true indeed, Pekka. Hmm, a unified theory of LENR could be the real breakthrough that brings a whole new spur of working reactor development. The question is how to put together the puzzle pieces.

      Argon may be a poison only in as much as it may compete somewhat with hydrogen during hydrogen loading (as hydrogen has to reach a loaded threshold from all we know), especially in “cracked” material? Amorphous metal coated material may be less vulnerable, as it may be less permeable to the argon.

      I wouldn’t think cracks let hydrogen out though, but they certainly may not be necessary at all. It could be they are more of a surface area effect, which also makes some sense if one looks at the amorphous layered (metal laminated?) wires, if the layerings can act to increase surface area via concentric rings.

      All that assumes that the surface area of the metal is where the LENR takes place, and not deeper in (which would require a lot of hydrogen loading over a long time to fully penetrate into the core of the material). So many questions, but the picture grows clearer.

  • MK
    • ecatworld

      Ok, thanks for the email. I haven’t communicated with him before, but I will write and see what happens.

      • MK

        THX!

  • Leo Kaas
  • RobiD

    I wouldn’t give so much attention to claims that don’t come directly by Piantelli or someone that is in strictly contact with him (for the web people I can suggest reading Roy Virgilio on energeticambiente.it http://www.energeticambiente.it/sistemi-idrogeno-nikel/14742857-novita-cella-piantelli.html).

    For sure Piantelli received bad news in 1994 when some CERN’s physicists tried to replicate his cell and didn’t find any excess heat. Since then he had several problems (health and logistic), but all his efforts were dedicated to build, and foremost to replicate, a cell that is able to self-sustain the production of energy because that is the only way to demonstrate beyond any doubt (experimental setup and skeptics’ paranoia) that the phenomenon is real and suitable for commercial use.

    He claimed the self-sustain production of heat in his papers as a random effect though with a long duration and many persons say that lately he achieved very often and for a long time the self-sustain mode with his cells, but what he is searching is the exact procedures and methods to build the cell’s core (thin film nickel) in a way that the self-sustain functioning is the rule and not an exception or a particular case. In other words, after the 1994′ bad experience, he is not longer interested in showing to the public or the scientific audience A single cell that works with output energy greater than input energy, but he is searching for the 100% of the reproducibility in the construction of a self-sustain cell. And I think he will publish something only when he will reach that result (that, IMHO, is too much ambitious).

    The only problem with this approach is that now 19 years are gone and he is 81 …, though he is not working alone (Rossi style) but with a large team that knows every detail of the reactor.

    OT
    Disqus is a bad platform, I never liked it. To make it working completely, one has to enable _all_ the scripts in the page that are a lot (an impressive number). The result is a very heavy page and a lot of time and bandwidth to recharge it.
    /OT

    • invient

      Good info! However, disqus is useful if this site goes down you still have access to your comments, and recently admin changed the site and a few days comments were lost… Yeah, it can be a pain enabling scripts, but there should be a way to whitelist this site in the browser to make it faster.

  • V.p.S.

    Sadly enough, the field of cold fusion “inventors” becomes increasingly a field of extraordinary claims without clear and credible confirmation. Hard to believe this after more than 23 years of research. Ok, the last one has definetely some exaggeration in it, but really, the only light we can see at the end of the tunnel, comes from MFMP. If they will be able to increase the level of excess heat significantly, this will be the breakthrough, the one and the only. I think, anybody who is able to support them with a donation, should do this now. We, as a community of believers, can really help make this breakthrough.

    • GreenWin


      “We now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide
      indicating heat
      and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any
      rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring.
      So, is LENR “Real?” Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse
      experimental evidence. “
      Dr. Dennis Bushnell, NASA Langley Research Center Chief Scientist

      • AlainCo

        right, you remind us the fact that LENR is NO MORE EXTRAORDINARY.
        LENR is a fact. It have nuclear effect (or even more magic),and the hypothesis of chemical only is refuted for sure.

        now if Piantelli says he had self sustain for few month, it is as if Fermi was saying that his reactor was working… not extraordinary, but we should check…. we can be optimistic if the man is reliable…

        the problem with people skeptical about LENR is first that some forget that LENR is proven by extraordinary evidence (a network of good fact, correlated, and coherent), and despite that they doubt of anything asking for extraordinary evidence… in fact normal evidence are enough, not more… for piantelli it is a scientist that speak… lie is possible but not so much… need confirmation…

        typical cognitive dissonance.

        the second is to believe anything about LENR because LENR is real… even with normal fact, you need to check a little, especially with some unreliable chatterbox.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I do not know if Piantelli’s reactor works or not. I know that when I read his patent, there are things that do not make physical sense to me. So, unless I’m completely mistaken/misunderstanding, it’s not so that he gets everything right. I’m 50/50 +-50 with him.

        • http://www.facebook.com/claesand Claes Andersson

          LENR is NOT thoroughly proven. If what everybody claims is true then it is, but we don’t know that, so it’s not. If it works, it’s probably thoroughly proven TO SOME – namely those who have been in direct contact with the experiments. For us others, “it’s in my lab” is worth very little apart from that it can stimulate our interest.
          It will be thoroughly proven the day it’s either confirmed by several research groups and in an official way, and by groups that were initially sceptical to it. When it begins to sway the community. Conspiracy theories don’t fly here: if it works then sooner or later it will be accepted. Or it will be proven if it is actually used in industry. Rossi claims this and that about having delivered it and that it’s used but as long as we here nothing from those users, that statement has no weight whatsoever. It’s even suspicious. Somebody claims: “I have a frog in my pocket” – and you can do anything except look in the pocket! It could be just made up – we don’t know.

          • AlainCo

            False. back to the facts (less than 20 years ago).

            LENR with palladium-deuterium is thoroughly proven, much better than usual scientific claims. read the numerous data.

            Detail on why:
            http://lenrnews.eu/evidences-that-lenr-is-real-beyond-any-reasonable-doubt/

            no critic still hold, and most were simply right even in 89… they were often classic forgivable bad reasoning, yet very bad for someone educated.

            LENr with NiH is less proven, but since Pd-D works, you can accept NiH with normal evidence.

            Few scientist with a goof experince, good backlog, claims results that are coherent with each others. And knowing the impact, or their age, you can guess why they don’t communicate more.

            LENR as industrial claim is proven for SRI, but at COP2 (by SRI), for Defkalion at COP1.3 (by Nelson).

            no need of exceptional evidence since LENr is real…

            Moreover their only reason to communicate publicly is not very rational (ego, naiveness), so forget about public data.

            It is indirectly proven by the behavior of Aldo Proia and his investors for Rossi, and the behavior of Defkalion Board of Director, and of the R&D team as described by Nelson.

            Since clearly you missed some points, get that googlish executive summary http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Flenrnews.eu%2F%3Fp%3D1018

            • yamal

              nothing about lenr is proven. mfmp, celani, piantelli, miley and others are fighting an uphill battle here and you make it sound like they are blind fools wasting their time on a trivial and pointless exercise decided decades ago. they are not.

          • Job001

            LENR is extremely well proven now at the level of sophisticated science such as repeatable spectroscopy, calorimetry, nuclear ash(end products), multiple pathways, observation science, and independent confirmation.

            LENR is not proven at the level of theory(it’s a challenge to standard bad assumptions), economics, engineering control, commercialization, product certification, broad patent protection, and “common man hands on” acceptance by use.

            The frog in my pocket story shows your focus is not science based but instead the “common hands on” level focus.

            This is still the time for excellent science, it is only 10 years since LENR was named(2003) with yields now from 10% confirmed to self sustained reported(common hands on reasonably not permitted).

            Hot fusion went 50 years with 50 billion of Government funding with ZERO yield results so LENR is at least 5 times faster and 500 times less expensive, truly excellent progress.

            • Gerrit

              yes !

              @claes, please do make the distinction between claims about commercial power output that have mostly surfaced the last 2 years and for which we haven’t seen real verifiable demonstrations on one hand and the scientific work that has been done by “many excellent laboratories which confirm that the excess heat effects
              reported by Fleischmann and Pons are real, and roughly one thousand
              times larger than can be attributed to a chemical process.” on the other. see http://research.missouri.edu/iccf18/welcome

          • Ken L

            Such is the life of competitive markets. I agree with what you are saying except there are several scientists who refuted Cold fusion in the past and yet are part of the teams working on it. Something must have changed their minds. I also remember reading a post on NASA.gov about how they are supporting the anomalous heat effect and one of the theories on what physics are happening. This has to hold some weight against your argument.

      • V.p.S.

        The problem is, where this “real” LENR is happening. And the answer is so far – “in my lab”. Well, at least this is the image which the cold fusion phenomenon carries around for years. And all those Rossi & Co with “we have now even better results”, “we are ready for market”, “we sold it to a secret customer” may not change it in the next years, imho. Because in the commercial field their must be always the last unknown detail, which gives them the competitive advantage. And then comes big partner, TPTB, strategy behind the scenes, bla-bla-bla… MFMP is not commercial, has on the contrary all possible transparency, clear protocols, exhaustive data and hopefully at the end reproducible results. And currently they are just less than 10% away from the final funding target for the Kickstarter series including nano-powder experiments. This clearly looks like the chance for the breakthrough.

    • Daniel Maris

      Well I’m looking forward to MFMP working with nanopowder.

      • Job001

        MFMP “open source” process is showing a rapid learning curve. They have rapidly become more sophisticated with blog and good science feedback from many sources. Criticism of early results should be discounted. Undoubtedly, nanopowder and Nanor like processes will extend this rapid learning curve progress.

        • yamal

          i wouldn’t be so fast with discounting criticisms of early results yet. so far they made some minor changes but it is entirely unclear whether that improved the reliability of their excess power calculation or made it worse. from what i picked up, they still have a couple of potentially huge bugs in their approach and a number of phenomena around it which they don’t fully understand.

          • Job001

            A rapid “Open source” learning curve values criticism and suggestions by sequentially fixing the issues. They are doing “Open source science” very well in spite of limited funding.

            Criticisms are valuable items for improvement rather than just being discounted. My wording could have been better to reflect this subtle process. Open source gets feedback near real time rather than after 5 years and a published report.

      • Peter Roe

        In the meantime Daniel, it’s possible that an apparatus with multiple Celani wires and standard liquid calorimetry may produce interesting results.

    • Dan

      Why do you think MFMP will deliver anything? I’ve followed them closely since day one and they have clearly demonstrated the challenge of calorimetry while seeing minimal excess power.

      Lets face it, they’ve probably come close to showing Celani’s result is just a measurement error. Even the vortex-l posters seem to be close to accepting that MFMP didn’t pan out in proving the ‘new fire’.

      • Dan

        Read this Vortex post from Dave Roberson – he did a detailed curve fitting for MFMP and found zero excess power.

  • Gerrit

    off topic: I found this little funny tool to play with. pulp-o-mizer

    A little self irony doesn’t hurt.

    • Barry

      Heh heh heh

    • Peter Roe

      Excellent!

      I found the site and bookmarked it for a bit of fun when I have some time.

  • Gerrit

    I would believe it if it came from Piantelli directly.

    In this form I wouldn’t give it much attention. It simply seems too good to be true :-)

  • HeS

    Lately:
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    I’m looking forward to the publication of the third party report.
    Meanwhile, it is interesting to know, if you please, how the gas is used in the gas-E-Cat version:
    1. For direct heating of the core;
    2. As a fuel in the thermoelectric Converter that powers the electric heaters of the good old E-Cat?
    Personally, I’d prefer the second option.
    Warm Regard
    ——————————————————-
    Andrea Rossi
    February 12th, 2013 at 8:41 AM
    Dear Anatoliy V Sermyagin:
    1- confidential
    2- we do not use, so far, thermoelectric devices, because of their low efficiency.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ———————————————————

    Is it possible that the natural gas (methane) is the only safe source of hydrogen??

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I think it’s direct heating of the core, what else, and he has said it before many times. Maybe this time he just saw the word “core” and automatically wrote “confidential” without thinking more about it.

  • Daniel Maris

    Great news – with the usual caveat “if true”.

  • Any Name

    All though not presented as a fact it was mentioned on MIT 101 that Piantelli had achieved self sustained reaction over a longer period of time

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZYA7SGKNUHOJMJPJXKN7TUEFFA Yamali Yamali

    very strange. it is like the sentence ‘last year a guy called neil armstrong told me that he took a stroll on the moon’ was the first the world ever heard about the apollo program.

    • Daniel Maris

      Er no – that’s a very poor analogy.

  • Nixter

    Piantelli has a solid reputation, if the claim of 200W for 2months could be directly attributed to him, the statement would impress me as likely but unconfirmed, as it is, it is just interesting with no supporting evidence.