E-Cat Tester Torbjörn Hartman Commments on Current Measurement in 3rd Party Report

The following comment was posted here on the Swedish Energikatalysatorn forum. It comes from Torbjörn Hartman, Senior Research Engineer at The Svedberg Laboratory which is attached to the University of Uppsala, Sweden. Hartman was one of the authors of the recently published 3rd party E-Cat test report.

Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current on three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not used and laid curled up on the bench. The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but that also means that the current must have an other way to leave the system and I tried to find
such hidden connections when we were there. The control box had no connections through the wood on the table. All cables in and out were accounted for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was only free-standing on
the floor with no cables going to it. The little socket, where the mains cables from the wall connector where connected with the cables to the box and where we had the clamps, was screwed to the wood of the bench but there
was no screws going through the metal sheet under the bench. The sheet showed no marks on it under the interesting parts (or elsewhere as I remember it).

Of course, if the white little socket was rigged inside and the metal scews was long enough to go just through the wood, touching the metal sheet underneath, then the bench itself could lead current. I do not remember if I actually checked the bench frame for cables connected to it but I probably did. However, I have a close-up picture of the socket and it looks normal and the screws appear to be of normal size. I also have pictures of all the connectors going to the power meter and of the frame on the floor. I took a picture every day of the connectors and cables to the power meter in case anyone would tamper with them when we were out.

I lifted the control box to check what was under it and when doing so I tried to measure the weight and it is muck lighter than a car battery. The box itself has a weight, of course, and what is in it can not be much.

All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with our measurements but there can still be things that we “didn’t think of” and that is the reason why we only can claim “indications of ” and not “proof
of” anomalous heat production. We must have more control over the whole situation before we can talk about proof.

Best regards,
Torbjörn

  • Chris I

    This is very encouraging, it suggests that the team is overall competent enough.

    While Essén hadn’t thought e. g. of the possibility of a DC component (even I did, recently) this co-author did and he appears to have checked with reasonable diligence. One must think of everything and it isn’t easy.

    It is also good that they made no assumptions such as balanced load. One mitpicking detail: where he says “zero/ground” it is usually called neutral and ENEL does not guarantee it being ground (indded it typically isn’t).

    It strikes me they were careful enough about measuring ingoing power.

    • KD

      Rossi say, that most important for him is to secure his IP.
      But I don’t think that his patent application, filed couple years ago, is covering all the innovation Rossi made in the last two years.
      Before it was box, with lead screening from radiation.

      Now the Hot E-Cat, is just metal tube with some kind of ceramic, red to white hot and no outside of radiation observed?

      To cover this, it need many new patents applications.

      • Chris I

        This is a matter quite removed from whether or not it works and how well. His patents are useless anyway, but it has little to do with what I said.

  • Jon Baggs

    The easiest way to sort this out is to give world wide Patents to the E-cat so Rossi can safely divulge the E-cat’s secrets. Maybe a special case where they are given with a short time limit for him to reveal it’s secrets, or the Patent expires. Then the world will know for sure it is real and Rossi and Focardi can get their Nobel prizes. The world has a simple choice here, remember global warming is with us!! It does not have to be this difficult just the way the world works at the moment.

    • Roger Bird

      You are proposing an absurd solution. The “World” does not make decisions. Countries can barely make decisions. Even dictatorships have trouble making decisions, although they are a little faster at it than democracies. The UN is mostly just a chorus.

      Many people in this forum, not all by any means, do not believe in AGW. NO ONE likes pollution. I am hoping that we will stop poisoning ourselves with non-CO2 pollutants.

      • Jon Baggs

        True Rodger, the world does not make decisions, however many decisions that effect the world are made by powerful self interested groups. There is little doubt in my mind that human activity has had an effect on global warming. Also there is little doubt in my mind that LENR is real and has immense potential for mankind. Why have CO2 pollution if there are realistic alternatives, also why deny Patents just because there is no proven theory (yet). Just have a look at most of the Patents granted, many are absurd and never make money, therefore what harm is there to give Patents for LENR and other ideas that don’t conform to standard current thinking? if they are ridiculous then they will just never get used, or if they have potential, once protected then true potential can be realised. As for AGW, time for some to take their heads out of the sand, can we risk doing nothing, I don’t think so.

    • GreenWin

      Rossi’s issued patent was granted in 2011 and runs through 2028. It is recognized by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) subject to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of 147 Member States, including Italy.

      I understand he has filed for other patents with updated design and art details. The catalyst must remain non-public to provide international trade secret protection.

      • Jon Baggs

        Thanks, could Rossi not get a Patent on the Catalyst? does it need special treatment etc. or does nobody know?

  • georgehants

    Science Blogs
    The E-Cat is back, and people are still falling for it!
    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/

    • Jon Baggs

      This link seems naff to me. The power magic current clamp in it states they could fool the testers seems incorrect to me. You can measure current flow through a two wire cable with a clamp so it would not measure 0 if switched off, just try it. Also if I recall you can also get hall effect DC clamps, so this could solve the other problems stated by some who think the testing may have been manipulated. In my humble opinion it sounds like some people are clutching at straws trying to disprove the e-cat.

      If in doubt get the next testers to bring their own petrol generator, inverter etc.

  • Bento

    Anyone knows if there’s already a date fixed for the next summer test?
    Summer starts next month and only last for three months :)

    • Mikael N

      I sweden it lasts 3 days.
      So hurry up.

      • Martin Rydberg

        Hahaha, good one!

        But seriously, it’s true =)

  • artefact

    From JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi
    May 26th, 2013 at 3:36 PM

    Dear Robert Curto:
    he,he,he…right! I am reading really laughable comments in blogs of naives…not only this one, that says he discovered the Professors were veterinarians, but another, for example, who says he is an astrophysic ( but a Prof of Astrophysics I know never heard about him and from what he writes suspects he is more an astrologue than an astrophysic…) who discovered that the charge cannot make the job, without having any idea about what the charge is, unless-as an astrologue- he read the formulas in the cristal ball, another who says the emissivity is wrong, but analyzing what he writes appears evident that he simply does not know what is the emissivity, how it works and did not understand that higher values of the Epsilon calculation does not imply higher energy irradiated in the calculation, due to the lowering of the values of the temperatures registered by the thermochamber when the epsilon is assumed higher . The calibration of the Epsilon has been made with the highest possible precision, and the margin of error has been considered in the more conservative measurement. An expert of the art can understand this reading carefully the text of the Report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    • Sanjeev

      I fully agree with Rossi, the quality of skepticism is utterly low. Rossi must be sleeping like a log every day.

      Hartman’s statement clears up a few things and now you can trust the input measurement a bit more. However, science does not know the concept of trust and faith and if there is a way to eliminate the troubling variables, a scientist will do it surely.

      Lets wait for the next test.

      • Gerrit

        Sorry, but science has a very strong concept of trust and faith.
        Trust only established scientists, have faith that there are no big physics discoveries anymore, humanity already knows all.

        • Sanjeev

          :)

    • kirk c.

      Rossi apparently changed his mind and thought calling Ethan Siegel (scienceblog) and Motl (the string theorist) IMBECILES was maybe a bit much (yesterday I copied his original response from the site http://rossilivecat.com/ unless someone changed it from the JONP I got a huge laugh Another very funny comment by Robert Curto Dr. Rossi, it should be obvious to you that a Veterinarian would be the one to examine a E-Cat.

  • georgehants

    Allowing that Mr.Rossi’s high output Cold Fusion is excepted to a high degree, then the only course of action is to discover the secret formula so that it can be replicated and used for the benefit of all.
    Capitalism dictates that the World is kept without that knowledge from Rossi, that being so, every government, science establishment, industry and individual should be working full time to find the completely new and unknown science that supersedes all previous “expert opinion” and closed minded Dogma.
    The only worthwhile discussion is, what is being done by the above mentioned people to find and replicate the science of Cold Fusion, how much money and manpower is immediately being invested.
    All other “talk” maybe fun and a little interesting but will not achieve anything constructive.

    • georgehants

      The other alternative is for the World to give Mr. Rossi ten billion dollars, a fully equipped laboratory to continue his work, six Nobel Prizes, make him a Field Marshall and take his secrets for humanity.

      • GreenWin

        I would think the faces of those whose thirst is quenched by a fresh water pipeline (from affordable desal,) would be a gratifying reward for Dottore. No need for the Field Marshall title. In an abundant universe the reason for conflict disappears.

        • Roger Bird

          The abundant universe that you seek is called the afterlife. Your abundant world in this universe assumes that people don’t get unhappy if their desires are unmet. There are just so many Kim Kardashians to go around, and my frustration at not having her or someone like her has reached the boiling point and I am going to take my frustration out on the next waitress that I deal with. What happened to your abundant universe? I was a meanie head toward that waitress and all of my needs were met. But my desires tripped me up and I blew up at someone. Your “abundant universe” is code for materialistic nonsense.

          The E-cat will make many people happy by helping to fulfill their needs. The E-cat will also make many people miserable by helping them to increase their desires and thus making them shallow and frustrated.

  • Methusela
  • lenrdawn

    @Torbjörn

    Can you confirm a power factor of about 0.5 during the measurements? It seems incredibly low. Have you or anybody else on the team found an explanation for this when checking the cabling?

    It also seems weird not to use the PCE-830′s data recoding but having a video camera set up with a clock in front of the device. Can you comment on why that setup was chosen and who decided to do it that way?

    The paper hints at the team not using the PCE-830s wave analyzer to protect Rossi’s industrial secret waveform apparently generated by the blue control box. Was the wave analyzer used during the second test when it was measuring the cables leading from the mains to the control box?

  • Robyn Wyrick

    I find this a fascinating conversation.

    We are not discussing whether the measurements were accurate – it appears now to be generally agreed that where they erred, it was on the side of the conservative value.

    So, if we accept that the values are accurate and/or conservative, then the heat they measured is very remarkable.

    This is an important point: there appears to be general unanimity that the only way such results could be wrong is through intentional tampering. Which leaves us with a radical moment: Rossi isn’t delusional.

    For these many months (years) the debate has revolved around three options: The E-Cat is genuine; Rossi is a fraud; Rossi is delusional.

    Now one is down: Rossi is not delusional. That leaves only two options.

    I know that is little comfort to Krivit and his compatriots, who have long derided Rossi as a fraud.

    But it comforts me: for Rossi to be committing a hoax – and somehow piping electricity or some other energy into the E-Cat – he would have to be supremely confident that for a couple hundred-odd hours, seven people (who would explicitly be looking for some deceit) would not find any trace of it at all.

    To me, that confidence seems improbable.

    Of course, the E-Cat being real is also improbable. And so we are left to sift the realm of probability.

    It is growing more probable by the day that “something” under the general heading of LENR or the “Fleischmann-Pons Effect” is real.

    And when looking at LENR, Rossi’s claims and descriptions are above normal, but certainly in the same species as the other claims.

    So, for me, if some form of the “Fleischmann-Pons Effect” is real, that substantially increases the probability that the E-Cat is real.

    And that is where I am: highly confident that *something* important is happening with the “Fleischmann-Pons Effect”, clear that Rossi is not delusional, and with the third party test, increasingly confident that Rossi is not a fraud.

    This is an excellent place to be; first there were three options, now there are two, and by this time next year, I expect there will be one.

    • Ecat

      Awesome comment!!!

      • psi

        +1.

    • LCD

      Your right.

      I think for the people who remember Steorn when they went public in London they were probably delusional and an independent body essentially proved it, now they are possibly in denial, or turned to fraud. Who knows, point is being delusional can happen. This would seem to rule it out.

      Really all that is left is fraud or its real.

      Just my opinion

    • Blanco69

      Great Analysis Robyn. If we concentrate on the fraud option then, you would expect there to be some sort of financial gain. Snr Rossi would have to be playing tennis in Miami and living a playboy lifestyle by day and maintaining the most complex scientific fraud of all time at night. All of this with millions of dollars of license payments from investors around the globe. Every one of whom would be reguarly looking for updates and information on the state of their investments. With the amount of information we have seen from various interviews/demos and reports, I believe that one human mind could not maintain this imaginary condition to the extent that we see here.
      Personally, I find this scenario more difficult to believe that the other one where LENR and the ecat is indeed real and mainstream science has somehow got itself wrapped up in Global Warming, Higgs Bosons, and other similarly unimportant issues.

      • GreenWin

        Higgs boson is profoundly unimportant. Warming is a well-intended but corroded fund raising scheme.

        • Roger Bird

          Nice!!!!!!! Very nice!!!!!!

  • Bob

    I have a lot of faith in what Torbjörn Hartman says regarding the recent tests. He comes from a background which is normally antagonistic to LENR and I don’t think he would have any interest in knowingly ignoring anything in the test which would have contributed to a false result. He is also still quite reserved in the wording of his endorsement which would be inconsistent with someone who is simply ‘peddling a cause’. If he was doing that he would now be claiming the tests as positive and conclusive proof, and he is not.

    The photo of the first ‘failed test’ shows a black object a foot long and 4 inches in diameter glowing orange hot in free air. Quite simply, you cannot achieve this if the only energy to the system is an input power of 1 kilowatt. It just doesn’t happen. At best it would be a very dull red glow. There has to be more energy either input to the device or produced in the device itself.
    Any claim that energy is fed to the system from external rf radiation or magnetic fields or anything else like this is extremely doubtful due to the fact that people were in close proximity to the device for a number of days. Had there been anything of this nature present they would have suffered some ill effects and it appears they have not.

    I see the only way this can be fiddled is if something in the control box allowed the input power to be more than the reported 1 kw, or 360 watts in later tests, and it is therefore good to hear that this was given due attention during the tests.
    There are ways this can possibly be done by including large inductors and capacitors in the control box, for the purpose of getting the voltage and current out of phase, that is, fiddling the ‘power factor’. This was my initial concern but it appears from the test instrument used and the checks done, this possibility has been mostly eliminated. It would be more positively eliminated by a simple photograph of the internals of the control box. Nothing of any secret information regarding the ecat could be obtained from this other than the elimination of the possibility of fraud. The size of the inductors and/ or capacitors required to do this at a 1kw power level would make them immediately obvious. They are not all that heavy so a weight check would not reveal them. The fact that they were not allowed to look inside the control box makes me very uneasy as to what was actually in there.
    If it turns out that there is nothing of this nature inside the box I think it would go a long way towards easing the doubts some people, including me, still have.
    I would like any further tests to include a quick visual check inside the control box.

    • stuey81

      nice point +1, admin, can you put this to rossi, also we never got a photo of the “failed/melted” reactor

    • Dickyaesta

      If you have doubts still, if one knows the seize of the controlbox one can possibly rule in or out, once and for all, the existence of big inductors and/or capacitors, I think. Does anybody know the seize of controlbox

      • Dickyaesta

        For a quick look at sizes of inductors available in industry; this link http://www.eldec.de/en/products/energy-sources-and-heating-systems/eldec-heating-systems/
        It seems grotesque to think these sizes can be overlooked by 6 guys in a room for 5 days, one would doubt directly all claims, if the controlbox is much bigger then the TRIAC power supply used in the first tests.
        All respect for you @Bob for your excellent post. It is to give an extra dimension to your point of big inductors/capacitors hit away in the controlbox.

      • Dickyaesta

        Sorry size not seize. One doesn’t have to grab(sieze) something to know its size :)

      • lenrdawn

        You can see the control box on the pictures. It is an open box, maybe 25cm on a side and a single look at it should exclude the idea that the box contains energy storage of any kind even remotely big enough for the measured effect. Any doubts on the input side would have to come from the form in which the power is delivered and that is where it gets tricky. Especially because the tests took place in Rossi’s R&D facility, which means that even manipulation on the main power itself can’t be ruled out.

  • Ecat

    > Woudn’t you think that it would be a good idea to install in the room
    > where experiment would be carried out a webcam with a live feed to
    > internet available 24/7, so that everyone on internet could observe the 6
    > months experiment live through internet?

    I do think that the plan is precisely that.

    http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/05/26/1232/8502322_qa-with-hanno-essena-regarding-recent-e-cat-test/

  • stuey81

    just contacted the CSIRO and they put me on to these guys, i will let you know of what ever outcome i get from them.

    ANSTO’s general purpose is prescribed by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 and translated into action through the corporate drivers of vision, mission and strategic priorities.

    The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) is an agency within the portfolio of the Commonwealth Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Climate Change, Research and Tertiary Education. ANSTO is responsible for delivering specialised advice, scientific services and products to government, industry, academia and other research organisations.

    It does so through the development of new knowledge, delivery of quality services and support for business opportunities.
    – See more at: http://www.ansto.gov.au/AboutANSTO/About/index.htm#sthash.O32R5cbb.dpuf

    • stuey81

      just a quick one, does the u.s military confirm or deny being a customer of rossi? can freedom of information act be used to find out if they refuse to confirm or deny as they would have used tax payers dollars to purchase said unit.

      • Joe Shea

        The FOIA difficulty is that you don’t know what branch of the armed forces. Otherwise, it should be amenable to FOIA.

        • stuey81

          cant you use FOIA to find out which department? if not, it would be a process of elimination and not at all an impossible task

          • Invient

            Start with the navy… After all spawar is a navy research lab.

            • Thinks4Self

              I am with you on it likely being the Navy or someone acting as their agent be it DARPA or a civilian contractor. Maybe even a contractor created for the sole purpose of testing and adapting it for naval use. All you would have to do is name it something benign like ‘ABC Services, Inc’. A 2 or 3 million dollar payout to a neutrally named contractor would easy to hide.

              As for FOIA requests unless you know the exact right question they are useless. You do not need to look any further than the Synthetic Line Snapback training movie The Mythbusters tried to find information on. There are 10′s of thousands of Navy vets that will admit to have had watched it as required training. But, The Mythbusters didn’t know the exact name or military designation number for the film, so the FOIA reply was “No Information could be found.” If they want to make it difficult they can.

              • Roger Bird

                And the guys looking up the documents don’t even have to be in on the cover-up.

        • KD

          It don’t have to be “branch of the armed forces”
          It might be private company working for the army. But they don’t want to be identified.

      • Roger Bird

        I think that it would be extremely unwise at this point to force the US military with a Freedom of Information thingie to disclose whether taxpayer money is being spent on cold fusion. It would be a PR disaster the likes of which you have never seen before. Wait until CF has a better reputation. You know what it could be like if someone poured a truck load of wet human excrement on to a huge, rapidly rotating fan. Use your imagination.

        • stuey81

          i disagree roger, it would show they have bought a working green zero emissions device to better mankind, i can also see where you are comming from, (i.e wasting tax dollars on an unproven science) but it depends on how you look at it, you could spin it in a way that puts the u.s as the first ones to be involved in a game changing new energy source, one that could make space travel a reality, the new “sputnik”

          • Roger Bird

            You said “you could spin it”. I won’t be doing any spinning. The dependent thinkers in the media will be doing the spinning, and it won’t be pretty. Refer back to my analogy with the truck and the giant fan.

            I think that this gets back to the fact that we have to get more and more people, particularly media types, to understand what is going on. Media types aren’t real deep thinkers and they don’t have a lot of time for every (what appears to be) whacked out idea.

            • Gerrit

              When it comes to science the media are mostly just flipping the news burgers they got delivered by the science factories.

              Unpack, flip, add the relish, done.

              • Roger Bird

                On a scale of -10 to +10, I give your analogy a +7. Nice job. Most media types seem deliberately daft when it comes to science.

      • Alp

        As far as I can determine from reading, **NOBODY** has **EVER** admitted being a client of Rossi’s and receiving an ecat of any type. If you know different, I’d love to see a link or some other evidence. It’s a problem!

        • stuey81

          @Alp but have the u.s defence force gone on record and denied purchasing a unit?

          • Roger Bird

            That would prove nothing either way.

        • khawk

          Why would any client want to be on record at this stage of the development process? No one deserves to know this information right now – the detractors can continue their game. The players don’t really care.

          • Alp

            If Rossi doesn’t care, why does he agree to independent testing?

        • Roger Bird

          Alp, although I am an LENR/Rossi believer, you are right. It is a problem.

    • lukedc

      ANSTO runs Lucas Heights.
      They are all standard model and you won’t get far asking them about LENR unfortunately.
      Your better off getting in touch with AERI
      http://www.aeri.unsw.edu.au/

      • stuey81

        even still, we will see what they say, what luck has anybody eles had contacting the authorities and who have you contacted guys?

        • stuey81

          as soon as i mentioned the word “nuclear” i couldnt get any further with the CSIRO, even though i tried to explain it wasnt nuclear in the conventional sence of the word

          • stuey81

            @admin mabey you could compile a list of government and private agencys that have been contacted and alerted to the fact of LENR and the latest test results, i can start you off:

            these are Australian ones i contacted today
            CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation)

            ANSTO (The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation)

            please feel free to add to list guys, the more contact, the more exposure, the more exposure, the better – stuey

        • lukedc

          I have a close friend who is a senior network designer for Energy Australia.
          He flat out said to me “It will be sometime before something like that will be able to replace base load generation”
          He speaks in absolutes. That was his exact words.
          Personally, it will a decentralised model that replaces current power distribution as we know it here in Australia.

          • stuey81

            so lukedc, do you think its safe to add energy australia to the list of private companies aware of LENR? has your mate read the report or visited this site, or was your conversation just a quick hypothetical? i.e did your conversation go down like this – “just say i had a magic invention that puts out large amounts of high heat for basically nothing, could it be quickly implemented to replace current means of base load power generation”

            • stuey81

              I work for the largest food company in the world (nestle) I believe they would be a good candidate for a potential customer of Rossi. In 2011, Nestlé was listed No. 1 in the Fortune Global 500 as the world’s most profitable corporation, With a market capitalization of $ 200 billion, so i know they could afford a LENR plant,I wonder what thier global total electricity bill is? and exactly who i could contact within the organisation with enough pull to perhaps purchase a plant from rossi? surley the savings alone would justify the purchase (and yes, i have tried to bring up the ecat tech at work but i have a know it all boss who just dismissed the topic, i need to go way higher) p.s nestle is a swiss company, mabey i need to contact R&D in switzerland – when i find out who to contact i will do so and add them to the list above

              • Noname

                I work for Cable Australia’s and we are aware of this technology. It may knock us out of the water.

                • Stuey81

                  Cable australia? The electrical power cable company?

              • Roger Bird

                I hope that you don’t get fired for going over your boss’ head.

                • Stuey81

                  Doubt it, massive union site! Mabey it will be he that get fired for writing me off on the subject of saving money

  • Igor

    There’s a simple and fairly inexpensive way to prove that input electrical energy measurements are accurate and not being manipulated – all incoming electricity must be connected only through Online/double-conversion UPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uninterruptible_power_supply#Online_.2F_double-conversion) with power being measured AFTER the UPS but before any HotCat equipment is connected.
    Some of those UPS models have remote monitoring through Ethernet that could be connected to laptops recording other measurements (video, temp etc) and those reading should be saved every second or so.
    While using UPS’s is not necessarily the cheapest method, it’s pretty inexpensive, simple and seems rather hard to fool.
    If Rossi will not allow UPS to be used (personally I consider this not very likely), that’d be an indication of something very fishy going on.
    Just my $0.02.

    • Gerrit

      brilliant idea an isolation transformer will completely solve the DC issue.

      • Chris I

        Indeed, that’s also a good idea, they could bring their own isolation transformer. It isn’t even hard to check one if it is supplied by others.

  • Zedshort

    It is very good of Mr. Torbjörn Hartman to address to us the precautions he and others took to look for signs of suspicious activities but I don’t understand why he would say this: ‘ but there can still be things that we “didn’t think of” .’ I can’t help but believe that if they had put their heads together and discussed the possibilities of the other possible methods of fooling the test they could have found all reasonable methods and all the rest, being unreasonable flights of fancy could be dismissed. At that point the investigators could honestly say they did a proper job of guarding against fraud and could come to the conclusion that their work was worth writing up and presenting. Otherwise it is not worth the paper on which it is written.

    Perhaps he is just being a typical wishy-washy academic and doesn’t have the guts to come out and say that all the flights of fancy about fraudulent means are bull. I think some people need to grow a pair and learn to speak in an honest and direct manner.

  • Omega Z

    Many here propose pushing the Government to fund research in LENR & other science.

    I’d like to point out something. In the U.S anyway.
    Government provides (funding/Tax payer money) for research. It’s a drawn out process & can take decades for things such as LENR.

    These Funded research Projects, Institutes/Universities, When they happen upon something, they Patent it. Note the Project that received the right to present recently to business. The process many of us voted in.

    The Patent holders of the Technology helped develop it at MIT. Yes, they developed it with your tax money. Not Theirs.
    Those at SPAWAR with multiple patent holders. Developed at Tax payer expense. The Examples are nearly endless.

    Here’s the RUB. These Entities will determine WHO can License it & Where. If you think Politics & Cronyism isn’t involved, your Mistaken. These are the Same Entities you rail against. They can block the common person if by no other means then pricing you out.

    In the U.S., There are many Universities today that receive Large Endowments from past Graduates among others & even License fees. Many of them have Trusts so huge today, That they could offer free enrollment & these trusts(10′s of Billions) would continue to grow larger every year. The Returns are that Great. Yet they continue to be funded solely by the Tax payer & Huge Tuition (10′s of thousands) Fees. The Trusts are left untouched. No 1 questions this. WHY?

    NOTE that I actually believe those who invest their intellect in technological development should receive a percentage of any gains within limits regardless where the funding comes from. Imagine developing something that makes Billions for the University or Institute & then Next year they call you in the office and say, YES, But what have you done for us lately. Goodbye…

  • Roger Bird

    When we get down to the nitty-gritty, so-called laws of physics are nothing more than patterns. When the pattern is consistent, we call it a law. But now we have some patterns that are not consistent. So the law, the theory, has to change with the observed pattern.

    • Omega Z

      Yes Roger,

      Better they were called a Rule of Thumb.
      1 Day nature may kick our behind for being arrogant enough to tell her what the Laws are.

    • Udi

      Certainly there are no “laws”.
      There are mathematical formulas that describe or predict measured observations.
      Now there is a new observation, without a formula.
      But since the process is guarded by Rossi, it would take some time to find this formula.

    • AlainCo

      I agree that law are descriptive as you say.
      but with LENR no law is broken.

      just old-habbits, usual facts…
      The physicist in hot-fusion thing in two body interaction, and independent particles.

      lattice physicist don’t.
      LENR respect all conservation and limit laws:
      - Energy, entropy
      - Heisenberg, charges
      - speed of light

      all the rest is mum-recipe.

  • daniel maris

    THIS is probably the most important post that has ever come on E Cat World! It is witness to a rigorous approach – the sort of thing that any scammer would be frightened of.

    • Roger Bird

      I agree. And I thank Torbjörn Hartman for posting here. In fact, it would be really great if he “stayed” here, like perhaps an hour a day for a while, helping us see what happened.

      • psi

        +1.

  • Torbjörn

    “In the case of cables in the systems control box-reactor (and between them), all participants had full control. All existing cables and connections were checked thoroughly and was fully visible. As far as I can see, there was no room whatsoever for smuggling of electricity past our measuring instruments.
    Regards
    Hanno

    PS And it was not, (no room for smuggling) nor at Kullanders and my visit earlier and the thing with smuggling through the ground kable was checked as extra by Mats Lewan using appropriate test.”

    http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=560&p=25225&sid=625afa97723e82c4ff53603346f4b1d5#p25222

    “No, as far as I know no one has a financial interest in the
    invention. Also the measurements and the trips were financed by
    independent sources.
    regards
    Hanno”

    http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=560&p=25114&sid=3df51fa705752aac6ab8dbca762ad046#p25109

    “The article on arXiv.org is genuine and all writers provide the content.
    Hanno Essén”

    http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=560&p=25044#p25042

    • Chris I

      I’m getting confused now. Are you Hartman? Or some other Torbjörn?

  • Gerrit

    the good news is that the testers were actively trying to find signs of rigged cables, connectors.

    Torbjörn took pictures of the connectors every day to make sure nobody fiddled with them when they weren’t there.

    It means 80% of the “I know how Rossi rigged this test” can be scrapped.

    • Barry

      Good points.

    • HeS

      @Gerrit:”Torbjörn took pictures”

      Why the report does not contain a link to an album of all photos taken during the test, and why all the photos in the report are so low quality?
      A set of high-resolution pictures of the whole test environment would be helpful in case of some doubt.

      • Loop

        Please be kind and ask Mr.Torbjorn.Hartman to provide to e-catworld and ecatnews, the photos in the max res of all testing phases, including the previous photos already released but in better quality
        Torbjorn.Hartman[AT-sign]tsl.uu.se.

      • Omega Z

        See, I assumed from the beginning that this 29 page report is but a Snapshot of what is probably several hundreds of pages of Data & pictures taken.

        They were in fact looking for answers for the concern of those funding the tests. Also no matter how well done the Test, You can always find fault regardless of Further, Better, tests.

        Here you Go Skeps.
        “Torbjörn took pictures of the connectors every day to make sure nobody fiddled with them when they weren’t there.”

        Haha, So there was periods when apparently no one was watching. Prove Rossi didn’t run in there with an Industrial Torch & heat the Hot-Cat up while they weren’t watching.

        How Many Bathroom Breaks did they take? I don’t see that in the report.

        Rossi is Right. Only Products on the Market in use will be the Proof.

        AC current can use another AC leg in lieu of a Ground.
        DC I believe cannot. A Physical Ground is necessary. One of the Authors said the Ground wire was not connected to the Cat. It was left laying wrapped up on the work bench.

        • Mcloki

          Like I said before. Put the next test on a webcam.

          • Ecat

            Hanno said:
            I do think that the plan is precisely that.

            • Roger Bird

              Excellent. I vote for two webcams with two pictures showing from different directions.

        • saclamb

          With regards to the DC issue, the term “ground” wire may be misleading. A ground wire is a conductor that is physically connected to the surrounding earth (usually via a metal spike or water pipes). Neither AC nor DC systems require a ground wire, but it may be used to improve safety. Both systems need circuits – i.e. two or more wires to allow circulation of electrons (grounded or not). In this case, the DC issue relates to the measurement of the input energy – specifically where the measurement devices were only capable of measuring AC energy. Any superimposed DC energy would have been missed. Interestingly, the clamp meters would have been capable, but only if they’d been switched to DC mode. I don’t know if the testers checked for this.

          • LCD

            They were not capable of measuring dc according to the specs. But what where the four voltage meters doing, what were they measuring, I guess I don’t understand what that’s about.