Hanno Essen on 3rd Party Tests

A poster on a Polish web forum has recorded responses to questions he put to Hanno Essen regarding the 3rd Party E-Cat Testing. This is the link to the post — https://lists.man.lodz.pl/pipermail/chemfan/2013/05/msg00028.html

> 1. Why is the quantity of Ni in the charge of the internal reactor so
> small, i.e. only 0.3g?
> If it is so small why is the internal reactor so relatively large
comparing
> to the small quantity of the powder charge?
> Why is there no picture of the internal reactor, just a description?

I do not know the answers to the first questions. We had a picture of
the internal reactor in the original manuscript but it was deemed to
uninteresting. It is just a steel pipe.

> 2. If the reaction in the internal reactor is exothermal then why on the
> picture from the thermal camera we cannot see the internal reactor glowing
> hotter than the rest of the external tube?

I suppose that this is because the material is not sufficiently
transparent to the microwaves. They originate from the surface; there
is no see through.

> 3. Why was the “dummy” test carried out with different conditions
> regarding the supply of power, than the non “dummy” test?

It was not. It was carried out with everything as equal as possible.
The on/off mode was due to a thermostat that prevented the reactor
getting too hot and this was not relevant in the dummy test.

> 4. Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude that
> also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers
> could not detect?

No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal wall socket
and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was
manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can
check this in future tests.

> 5. Did the Ni powder also melt when in the test of November the
> performance of this device was such that the reactor was destroyed,
> melting the internal steel cylinder and the surrounding ceramic layers?
> If the Ni powder melted was the reaction still running despite the Ni
> melted or did it stop running when Ni melted?

I do not know this since only the Bologna group was there when that
happened. I take for granted that also the Ni melted and that the
reaction stopped, but the interior physics is still an industrial
secret that we do not have access to. Sorry.

> 6. Are you going to perform the 6 months test in the Leonardo Corp.
> facilities or in the facilities of the universities in Sweden or Italy?
> Would Andrea Rossi agree to lend you the device and its power supply for 6
> months?
> I believe the he could ensure his industrial trade secrets are secured
> when he would seal the power supply and weld the internal reactor or make
> you sign NDA, and then he could release that device for you for testing. I
> hope that you manage to convince him about that. This would ensure
> independency of the long term test.

Andrea will not part from his device. Tests in Sweden is a possibility
but then he or his coworkers would be present. There are many who wish
to steal his e-cats. So the 6 month test will be in Ferrara. It will
however be continuously monitored by cameras so as not to be
manipulated.

> 7. Will you test the power supplied to the device with oscilloscope during
> the next test?

This is a question for Prof. G. Levi who provides the instrumentation.
It is desirable, I agree; everything can always be done better, but we
have very limited time and resources unfortunately.

> 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.

I expect that the upcoming test will be funded (at least in part) again by the Swedish energy institute Elfosrk AB, who have stated in their financial projections that they have budgeted over 200,000 Euros per year for the next three years for research into E-Cat technology.


Hanno Essén
Docent
KTH Mekanik

  • Robyn Wyrick

    It is interesting to make the case that the E-Cat is a fraud. Rossi would have to be incredibly confident in his deception to allow seven people hundreds of hours of tests.

    Of course, the history of science includes a history of elaborate frauds. In some cases the purpose of the fraud has been financial gain, and in some cases the purpose has been mischief, fame, and notoriety.

    To our good benefit, the results of the third party test have concluded one thing for certain: Rossi is not delusional.

    So either he is a fraud, or we’re seeing something revolutionary.

    So, to the question of “is it possible to fool half a dozen people?” – the obvious answer is yes. It is especially possible if you are not acting alone. If Rossi had a team of people it would be FAR easier to perform such a fraud.

    However, while lone nuts and performance artists might concoct elaborate scientific frauds for fame and notoriety, that is less so for teams of people. History is littered with lone frauds pranking the institutions of science. Not so much for teams of pranksters.

    So, I don’t imagine the chances are good of Rossi having a team of people working for him, pranking the scientific establishment for pure fun. It’s way too costly and there is too much risk.

    Therefore, if there is a group of people executing Rossi’s fraud, it would seem to be for money. Yet there appears so far to be no one suggesting any unwarranted loss of money. Nor does it appear that Rossi, who seems to work quite hard *at something*, is living so large that he could be paying a team of people enough that they would participate in a large, elaborate, legally risky, group fraud.

    So by my remote evaluation, the possibility that Rossi is working *with a team* for financial gain to defraud somebody isn’t terribly well supported by the known facts. Not yet anyway.

    Which would leave Rossi himself.

    Rossi might be performing an elaborate hoax for fun; to spoof the scientific establishment. If that’s so, he’s certainly not doing a very good job. The followers of his blog and this one are hardly the scientific establishment. His hoax is a flop.

    Alternatively, Rossi might be running a con – a very long con, that opens him up to all manner of scrutiny, and of course, now to hundreds of hours of testing by people whom he does not control; a con whose financial gains are enormous theoretically, but in practical terms, very uncertain.

    ——-

    So, in counter to this consider the other implausible option that the E-Cat is real.

    We know that there are *Many* people working on LENR technology, solidly in line with what we know of Rossi’s work.

    We know that Rossi’s claims are high, in the gallery of LENR claims, but not out of the bounds.

    We know that a third party group of scientists has spent hundreds of hours evaluating Rossi’s E-Cat and found extraordinary results.

    We know that Rossi declared over and over again that such a third party was performing tests, and during the repeated tests and delays we had all manner of skepticism on Rossi’s veracity that such tests were being conducted at all — skepticism that now is proved completely baseless. Rossi was 100% on the up and up regarding his claims of a third party test.

    And now Rossi has claimed — as have the testers — that there will be yet another, and much longer *Six Month*, test of the E-Cat.

    Rossi would have to be astonishingly confident of the impossibility of detection of the means of his deceit. He would have to be a genius of deception. An unprecedented expert to hide his ruse under the noses of his investigators.

    Such a genius is not impossible. We see people here daily claim that Rossi *is such a genius* that he created the E-Cat.

    But that’s the level right now. He is either a genius who created a LENR device – which is a more advanced version of what many people are now claiming to have created, or he is a genius who created a means to avoid detection by a team of scientists over hundreds of hours of investigation.

    I personally don’t know. But I generally think LENR is real. And if it is, then why not the E-Cat? Of course, I have no skin in the game, but then that seems to be Rossi’s whole business model.

    The notion that Rossi is a lone genius who has spent his years inventing a means of avoiding detection – but not genius enough to actually get any money out of it, is of limited credibility to me.

    • blaze

      ‘We know that there are *Many* people working on LENR technology, solidly in line with what we know of Rossi’s work.’

      This is really the key detail. If you do a bayesian analysis, you realize by looking at this that LENR has a much higher degree of likelihood of existing after this. P(LENR) = P(LENR|ECAT is real)*P(ECAT is real)/P(ECAT is real|LENR). I’d say the P(ECAT is real) is ~ 0.01 (let’s face it, Rossi is a joke). BUT, the probability that ECAT is Real | LENR, is also very small, because it would mean that Rossi discovered it first even though so many people are looking at LENR. So, the fact that Rossi is a joke is canceled out by the fact so many other people are investigating LENR.

      Which leaves us with P(ECAT is Real) ~ P(LENR | ECAT is Real). These scientists seem like good guys. If what they saw was real, I don’t think this was a delusion and we probably have something here.

  • Deleo77

    As much as people may not like New Energy Times, I think an article posted there today could really help in moving the issue along. They have a letter from a Professor at the University of Bath to the scientific authors of the paper asking questions and voicing concern about some of the methods they used. So now it is the scientists who conducted the observations and measurements who are going to have to defend the paper. Other university researchers were copied on the letter. I think this is an ad hoc attempt at peer review, even though the paper has already been posted on the web.

    I have no idea if the e-cat is a hoax or real, but by Rossi allowing these scientists to do the 100 hours of observation, and then having those scientists put their names on the results, it could get some sort of chain reaction going that will force the truth to come out sooner than later. If Rossi goes quiet then we know that something was probably not good, if he continues to allow the scrutiny then we can all watch to see where this goes. But it would be difficult for him to drag this out much further, he simply may get too much pressure from the scientific community to do that.

    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/27/scientific-ethics-of-e-cat-promoters-questioned/#more-8818

    • Roger Bird

      What pressure from the scientific community? If I don’t like to hear from someone, I just delete their email. If I am afraid that I might be tempted to read it, I delete it from my deleted folder.

      • Deleo77

        One of the people copied on the email was the Vice Chancellor of the University of Bologna, where Levi is a professor. Other top scientists on Italy were copied as well. It may get flushed out within the Italian scientific community. The e-cat and Rossi are getting enough attention that scientists there may feel the need to take it upon themselves to figure out what is going on. Some of the science behind the e-cat comes from Focardi, who was at the University of Bologna. So this school and community are probably the key group to begin some kind of working dialogue with Levi to get to the bottom of his measurements. I wouldn’t be surprised if scientists in the Swedish community start reaching out to Essen and the others. No country wants its scientists to be duped because it could become a national embarrassment. I say all of this hoping that Rossi does have something. But the scientific development would be so revolutionary that this simply can’t go on much further un-checked.

    • Thinks4Self

      I’m not sure that Dr Alessio Guglielmi has the expertise to question the methods of the scientists involved in the tests. He is a computer science researcher whose primary expertise is theoretical data modeling a far cry from any type of physical research work.

      “Dr Alessio Guglielmi

      Profile

      Research Interests
      I am interested in the foundations of computing, and especially in proof theory and proof complexity. Some of the most profound open problems in science belong to these fields, like P =? NP, coNP =? NP and the problem of determining whether two proofs or two algorithms are the same. My contribution is called deep inference: it is a relatively new research area that I founded, together with colleagues and students.”

      http://www.bath.ac.uk/comp-sci/contacts/academics/alessio_guglielmi/

  • Winebuff

    A six month test ( done within reasonable parameters) will put to bed the chemical theory and with sane proper electricity measurements most of the people that are he’ll bent on not believing for every reason anyone can find which I find comical because this will transform the world and most likely save the same people that continue to steal oxygen from the sane. Put yourself in the place of people with everything to lose (the professors) that many posters seem to disparage with ease. These people are smarter than the lot of us combined and are putting up with a lot of unnecessary personal attacks.

  • Preston

    I’m a believer in LENR, the work by Peter Hagelstein is very persuasive. But with Rossi’s Ecat you always needed to take his word for it.

    If I wanted to fake this test I don’t think something like a DC offset, or high frequency spikes on the power lines would be good, those are to easy to catch. But maybe I would hide a IR lasers, or a microwave transmitter focused on the device. I would need someone there with a remote control to turn it off in case someone stepped in front of the beam – to keep them from getting fried. So, you might see a drop in temp every time someone got close to the device.

    I’m just pointing out that this is “Indications of” not “Proof of” as stated, there is no way they could of checked for everything. The skeptics won’t be quieted until there are working devices being sold.

    The Wright brothers couldn’t get the press to come see their flying machine because it was already well known that heaver than air flight was impossible. They didn’t get the majority of people believing in them until they flew over Manhattan.

    • AB

      IR lasers, or a microwave transmitter focused on the device

      These would be very obvious with a thermal camera, no?

      • Methusela

        Very.

        Those ideas are just insane.

      • Preston

        Yes, an IR laser should show up on the IR camera but it still might be possible to hide the beam somewhere the camera can’t see.

        But, No a microwave transmitter wouldn’t show at all unless someone specifically checked for it.

        • Eric

          Good lord.

        • AB

          I mean that an IR laser would create a big hot spot impossible to miss, whereas the thermal images show relatively even distribution of heat.

          How focused is a microwave transmitted? Would it create a hot spot as well?

          • Warthog

            Not to mention the legal liability if someone just happened to intersect the beam. Since people were working uncontrolled all around the gizmo, the probability of such intersection approaches 1.

            I think validators with severe third degree burns would be slightly unhappy.

        • trux

          Both laser and microwave remote heating would be very difficult to achieve, and at these power levels would probably kill anyone accidentally passing through the beam (and I believe they were messing up around the reactor rather frequently). Besides it, microvawe or inductive heating would heat also the metallic support, and the IR pattern on the reactor woudl be likely also different than what can be seen. If the eCat is a scam, it had to be something else – I would exclude laser, microwaves, and inductive heating without any big doubts.

          • Preston

            Not really, it’s only a few hundred watts of excess power, correct? It wouldn’t be that hard, a couple of 1.5KW microwave ovens with the right antenna would work. Any RF signal with the “active charge” actually a resonant circuit tuned to just the right frequency would work.

            Depending on the frequency, someone might get burned if they were in the wrong place, but it’s unlikely to be lethal. There are many RF signals that would be relatively safe at these power levels.

    • Gerrit

      The armed guard would shoot one time in the air to turn the laser on and two times in the air to switch it off ?

      • artefact

        and if a physicist gets near the reactor and the beam he shoots in the air and says: Excuse me sir, you are not allowed to go there!!

      • Winebuff

        Hilarious!!!!

      • Barry

        Heh heh

    • Zedshort

      A laser of any frequency would create a hot spot on the surface of the E-cat and that would be visible to the naked eye. A microwave beam would be difficult to focus, would scatter about in the room and heat everyone up and cause electrical interference. The issue of a DC current into the system and possibly dropped to earth via the frame of the test fixture is the only possible method of inputting energy to the system of any substantial magnitude. The investigators need to put pen to paper and show that the amount of energy that could have been input via that route and to adjust the data values downward accordingly. They did that in the case of the 2011 report where there was the issue of the steam quality during the test of the low energy e-cat, by assuming all the water leaving the system was liquid water at 100 C. Even with that conservative adjustment of the results downward they showed a COP well beyond 1.0 and it was good enough to keep my interest.

  • Kim

    Skeptics are like people in a house on fire
    they leave one by one as the fire increases.

    You always have a few who will find in the
    ashes later.

    Respect
    Kim

  • georgehants

    How to Prove that the Rossi/Focardi eCAT LENR is Real
    Alan Fletcher
    Version 4.30, May 26, 2013
    http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v430.php

  • Methusela

    Ekstrom, who spends most of his time posting at http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewforum.php?f=4

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg81306.html

    “Comments on the report ‘Indication of anomalous heat energy production in
    a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder’ by Giuseppe Levi
    et al.”

    Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University

    http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf

    This document stands as its own rebuttal.

    - ed

    • Zedshort

      The first line: “This report is advertised as an indipendent (sic) test”, gives the author away as someone with a highly biased mind and only wants to run interference and as a result is not worth listening to.

  • Henk

    There is a lot of noice from the sceptics that Rossi has sneaked in an DC-current in the three-phase system, which is not detected by the naive or fraudulent testers. What I have not seen is how that undetected DC can generate nearly 5 times more power in the output resistors.
    Even if you would rectify the mainsvoltage it would only double the outputpower.
    So please sceptics, explain how it is done.

    • mcloki

      Wouldn’t the wires leading in all that power be glowing red hot s well?

      • trux

        Not that I claim it happen, but it is indeed possible to send a few kW over those wires in DC. By a rough estimate the wires easily take 20A, likely much more, so 1000V DC would be sufficient for 20kW.

        • Henk

          They measured the mainsvoltages and certainly whould have detected your 1000 V DC.
          You have to try better….

          • trux

            Just the problem is that Essén wrote, they did not check the DC. On the other hand Hartman tells something else, so who knows.

      • lenrdawn

        No. We’re talking about 1.6 kW or so. You’ve probably got more than a handful of devices at home that use more than that.

        • Eric

          CLEARLY your main objective is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. FUD! Go away!

          • lenrdawn

            Hang on – are you suggesting they’ve measured more than 1.6kW output or do you doubt that mcloki has got a hair dryer, a vacuum cleaner and a washing machine?

          • Robyn Wyrick

            Respectfully, I don’t think lenrdawn’s comment warranted your abuse. The comment wasn’t disrespectful, but simply to reply to mcloki’s comment about glowing red hot wires.

            I’m not a tech person in that field, so I don’t know, but if you have some complaint on the merits, by all means share them. Otherwise, I would be happier if we could tone down the personal attacks some.

            • Eric

              Robyn,

              Its not just this comment. Its the sum of them all that screams FUD. Thats ok, he or she is just lost in the blogosphere. He or she should be commenting on ecatnews.com. Thats all.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Wouldn’t that much DC fry the control box electronics too?

    • Mannstein

      This whole issue with “sneaking in” a DC current which is undetectable with an inductive clip on ammeter probe could be avoided in the next test by using a Hall effect clip on probe and observing the resultant current waveform on an oscilloscope. Of course the skeptics will come up with some other red herring.

  • Eric

    FYI:

    “LENRDAWN” is commenting on this blog to spread FUD, nothing else!

    • freethinker

      U sure ? ;)

      • Eric

        After 2 years reading comments from these so called “sceptics”, yes.

    • AB

      It seems so. The signal to noise ratio is pretty low. He is apparently seriously proposing the theory that Hydrofusion exposed Rossi’s fraud and then just continued to be his business partner.

      • Winebuff

        That makes perfect sense!!;)

      • lenrdawn

        Look, you asked for the link and I posted it. As far as interpreting hydrofusion’s behavior in relation to it goes, I haven’t got a clue and neither, I suspect, have you. I’d only point out that hydrofusion didn’t do the measurements – the SP Technical Institute of Sweden did – and as far as I know, never publicly commented on it. (If it wouldn’t trigger another remark about “signal to noise ratio”, I’d post the link to the nyteknik article about the affair – but I’m sure you’d find that yourself if you were interested).

        • AB

          That’s why your signal to noise ratio is low. You’re content with linking to the statement (which doesn’t even confirm your claim of manipulation of input power). You don’t stop and follow through with the question as to what Hydrofusion’s statement actually means in light of the current situation. It can only mean that Rossi’s version of the story is correct – otherwise you’re literally proposing that Hydrofusion found evidence of manipulation of the test, but never reported it and continued to stay Rossi’s business partner.

  • KD

    Frank Acland.
    I wonder, that in time of absence of news from Rossi to as BlackLight Power about theirs achievement in developing theirs reactors.

    Five year ago they claimed they has working 1kW and 50 KW reactors in testing.
    They were showing four different reactors. Sign six or eight contracts with utility companies for thousands of Megawatts of power.

    Meantime the others reactors pictures disappeared on the changed website, but record press release still exist.

    Early last year they said that their new reactor is producing 10 Watts,
    At the end of 2012 will be 200 Watts, and 3013 will be 1,5kW.
    So far I don’t see any progress.
    Maybe they will explain something, what happen with theirs reactors developed five year ago.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    May 27th, 2013 at 12:45 PM
    Dear F.Fabiani:
    Yes, on Wikipedia they have written false information upon me and when we try to correct the false information, after few seconds the corrections are taken off and the false information is reinserted. There is a moderator ( who makes himself named Rojelio) that full time defends all the false information published against me and my work.
    Recently they have published that I have sues against me in Court, which is totally false, and they have written that I have been convicted for crimes from which I have been acquitted many years ago. And when I try to correct, the correction is cancelled in SECONDS, not minutes and the falsities reinstated. For these reasons our attorneys are preparing a sue against the Administration of Wikipedia, to be refunded for the damages they are causing against us. We have printed all the falsities that they have published, as well as our corrections and dates and daytime in which the corrections have been published and cancelled. Of course, it has been Always cancelled the address , that we tried to put on Wikipedia to amend the false information, wherein is described what really happened to me in my past:
    http://www.ingandrearossi.com
    Warm Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

    • artefact

      that is good. I wondered why he does not do anything.

  • Hendrik

    To me it sounds EXTREMELY suspicious to “forget” the DC option of fraud. And the argument that checking this was outside the budget is not at all valid in my opinion. There are very easy and cheap ways to measure a direct current (of this magnitude!!!!) in a copper wire. Just measure the diameter of the copper wire, look up the resitance of copper, and measure (just estimate with your hand) the heat production of the wire. Or simply put a compass next to it…

    • Methusela

      http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg81271.html

      Andrew wrote:

      **
      > By direct admission of the team, posted here, *it did not occur to them
      > to check* for a DC level change.
      >

      Okay, so they will do it next time, or the time after that. If Rossi is
      doing anything like this, it is inevitable that he will be caught.

      Sooner or later someone will use a conventional commercial watt meter.
      These devices are miniature calorimeters, in one mode. (They have 3 modes,
      as I recall, and they use all three.) They put a small resistor across the
      circuit and measure the temperature of it. Power is a function of
      temperature. There is no way you can “sneak” power past this, with any
      waveform, AC or DC.

      Andrew also wrote, in response to this:

      7. Will you test the power supplied to the device with oscilloscope during
      > the next test?

      “This is a question for Prof. G. Levi who provides the
      instrumentation.Oops, what a giveaway.”

      I assume this means that Andrew is convinced that Levi is part of a
      conspiracy, so this is a “giveaway.”

      Okay, let me repeat what I said, modified:

      The next time, or the time after that , someone will use an instrument that
      detects this “trick.” If Rossi and Levi are doing anything like this, they
      will inevitably be caught. They know that. There is no point to fooling
      people with a method that will be exposed as sure as night follows day.

      Andrew should address this fact. He should stop repeating this tiresome
      nonsense.

      Andrew wrote:

      “Thus you can supply high power at low current if you use high voltage,
      which is how a thin wire can be used to sneak in high power. Jed made the
      same mistake as you, thinking that you need high current to get high power
      . . .”

      No, I did not “forget” that. I am aware that power is I*V. However these is
      a limit to how much power you can conduct with any wire. You cannot conduct
      enough to melt a steel cylinder with an ordinary wire.

      - Jed

      • lenrdawn

        I can’t believe Jed Rothwell is defending the omissions of this report with what he is sure will be done at some point in the future. I remember trying that with my piano teacher but it never worked.

        • Methusela

          It’s only a matter of time George.

          • KD

            About what next?, Rossi commented that next 6-months will be work to build the HOT 1MW plant and organize production of them for the market.

            So by the time the team of professors start in Autumn test the same small Hot E-Cat, the working Hot 1 MW plant will be ready

        • Winebuff

          Omission?? I think not, Essen must have been asleep in the back when the other guys were checking the wires. You problem is u only tell half the story what did the other professors say? You obviously have no idea.

          • lenrdawn

            I said the omissions “of this report”. It doesn’t matter whether Essen was asleep – I’m sure he wasn’t awake the entire 200 odd hours – but he and Hartman certainly read through it before uploading it to arXiv.

      • hadamhiram

        “You cannot conduct enough to melt a steel cylinder with an ordinary wire.”

        I have seen this stated many times, but I am not sure if it is accurate. I am not an engineer or physicist, so perhaps an expert can correct me. But I think if the resistance of the wire is much lower than the resistance of the “heating element”, the electrical energy is converted to heat inside the heating element. This is the same as a tea kettle or an electric stove top.

        So, how can a steel container melt? Well, if the heat energy is *very* well insulated, then it cannot radiate out, and so it builds up inside the container. Imagine if the tea kettle is very well insulated: it will get hotter and hotter as heat is pumped into it. If the insulation is good enough, the tea kettle could melt.

        This leads to the question about the emissivity of the E-Cat outer coating. If the emissivity is *very* low, then this is basically saying that the device is a good insulator. If the device keeps enough energy without radiating it away into the surrounding environment, then the heat energy will build up, and this might be enough to melt steel.

        Of course the problem here is: what is the heating element?

        If the heating element melts at a lower temperature than the steel, then of course as soon as the temperature gets to the melting point of the heating element the device will be destroyed.

        I suspect it is not possible for the system to get so hot through a regular electrical heating effect to melt the steel, since other parts of the system would be destroyed first. But this does not include the copper wire *outside* the device carrying current! It only applies to the materials inside the device.

        Can an expert confirm/correct me?

    • Henk

      Hendrik, if there is a substantial DC current fed into the controlbox, there should be a substantial DC voltage as well, remember we have to provide a substantial amount of power into those resistors to bring COP down to 1.
      The mainsvoltages were continuously measured and did not show your DCvoltage.

      • Winebuff

        +1

  • Stefan

    Hi,

    So the tests have some possible flaws regarding checking for fraud,
    which is not surprising cause it is more difficult to get bullet safe proof then performing an actual experimentation to validate the effect. Numerous checks was indeed done and the checks that was suggested and performed was independent of Rossi. So it would be quite strange if it all was a fraud and he allowed this kind of test. Also suggesting that Levy should be included in a staged test is also quite remarkable. Actually most people would have a hard time masking their feelings and behave normally while participating in fraud, it probably takes a really tough con artist that have practiced in that questionable art to get away with it, does this match Levy? I really doubt that. And now Rossi will allow for a long run test, where the testers, which are just normal scientists whatever the crazy mob are yelling, will be prepared by the information from all the discussions around this setup all over the internet.

    Anyhow There seams to be some options of fraud here
    1. Extra wires? two wires under the same insulation. Not sure how well
    they checked against this.

    2. It should be possible (in theory) to push high frequency amps but keeping the voltage waveform close to ideal 50Hz or whatever. Not sure
    how the cables could handle it though. And not sure how hard one need to drive this setup in order for the small high frequency harmonic voltage to be under the radar of the instrumentation.

    3. They seamed to have checked against some variants of DC but there was at least one possibility of DC that was not checked.

    4. Levy supplied the instrumentation. It is indeed a possible theoretical weakness.

    Finally, A lot of people discussing this is really unprofessional and many critics behave more questionable than any of the people accused or suspected of fraud here. It really looks like there is a vast disinformation campaign going on.

    Now considering the difficulty to explain the phenomena and the unlikely character that Rossi indeed are it is understandably that people still are skeptic. But at this moment of time any CIO in an dependent industry should really start to take this saga seriously the odds for LENR to be a real and useful phenomena has raised quite remarkable.

    Have fun

    /Stefan

  • AB

    While Essèn says that they didn’t check for DC manipulation, Torbjörn Hartman said that he specifically looked for fraud involving this method.

    See http://www.reddit.com/r/LENR/comments/1f3gzh/torbj%C3%B6rn_hartman_about_measurement_of_current/

    It seems that the skeptic arguments really have been reduced to:
    1) Most/everyone involved is a fraud.

    • lenrdawn

      You’re a bit late (see previous thread). And you forgot to mentioned Hartman’s closing remark: “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.”

      • AB

        Okay, then:

        2) It’s fake but we don’t know how he is faking it.

        Which is pretty much the same thing as 1) in the end because you can’t test against or exclude fakes you can’t think of. These are excluded in the same way you exclude 1), by letting some other group elsewhere do testing.

        • lenrdawn

          Depends. If you’re doing it in your own lab and clever enough and restrict the testing (“industrial secret waveform”, no data logging etc.), you probably can do it in a way that stands a good chance not to be discovered, especially when the test is being done with the exact same instruments that you used all the time (PI-160 Cameras and PCE-830 power analyzer).
          Wasn’t there a previous test done by a Swedish institute that revealed a lot more input power than Rossi claimed? I know Rossi denied that later, saying they were incompetent, but do we necessarily have to believe him? I mean it’s not like this possible manipulation has passed every test with flying colors.

          • AB

            I believe you are referring to a Hydrofusion statement. I think they retracted that.

            • lenrdawn

              It is still there: http://hydrofusion.com/news/press-release

              But even if hydrofusion change their mind in light of the new report – it doesn’t make that incident go away.

              • AB

                Where’s the “previous test done by a Swedish institute that revealed a lot more input power than Rossi claimed?”

                • lenrdawn

                  When I click on that link, I get this:

                  ” Press release
                  09 Sep 2012/in News/by admin

                  Hydro Fusion witnessed a new independent test of the high temperature ECAT prototype reactor on September 6th in Bologna. Although no full report has yet been received, early indications are that the results of the July 16th/August 7th reports could not be reproduced.

                  Hydro Fusion cannot at this stage support any claims made, written or other, about the amount of excess heat generated by the new high temperature ECAT prototype.”

          • mcloki

            Post the link. These guys should be lauded if they actually have something. Wouldn’t all the skeptics latch onto that link and use it as their proof.

            • lenrdawn

              You’re new to this, right?

              • mcloki

                Not a full time troll.

        • Zedshort

          Yes, you can guard against fakes. A proper energy balance performed on the system by any competent experimenter would account for all methods by which energy is added to the system, and account for all means by which energy leaves the system. If at the end of the test you have substantially more energy leaving the system then you can conclude that it is creating energy internally. If the energy created is of such a magnitude that it cannot be explained away as the result of experimental error then you have something very interesting. The next question would be, “Can the energy created within the system be explained by chemical reactions or energy storage methods.” That question is answered by the calculation of the energy density. If the energy density is so high that the energy released is beyond conventional chemistry or storage methods then you can conclude that you have source of nuclear energy involved.

          • DaPhys

            Agreed. And the energy to produce the “charge” should be taken into account as well. We do not know much about the charge except that Ni is exclusively composed of the Ni-62 isotope. And to produce Ni-62 is not cheap. At the end, I cannot see how the balance can be calculated without knowing (1) the energy required to produce the charge (2) the energy needed by the “industrial secret waveform”. Which makes a good test not feasible today.

      • Winebuff

        Find some balance. What will you come up with next the amount of straw to pull is thinning.

  • georgehants

    Cold Fusion Now
    University of Cambridge
    Nobel laureate Brian Josephson affirms reality of E-Cat HT
    university-of-cambridgeDr. Brian Josephson discusses Andrea Rossi‘s E-Cat technology with Dr. Judith Driscoll in a video released in 2011. Published on the University of Cambridge website for Video and Audio Collections, the page is now amended to include the latest confirmation of heat-producing capability by the E-Cat HT.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/nobel-laureate-brian-josephson-affirms-support-for-e-cat-ht/

  • georgehants

    Cassandra’s legacy
    Monday, May 27, 2013
    Ethics of the E-Cat
    I said in a previous post that the story of the E-Cat has lost all interest for me in scientific terms. However, it is still interesting as a probe of the way the human mind works and for the several ethical and professional issues it raises. So, here is a letter from professor Guglielmi of the University of Bath which addresses some questions to the authors of the latest E-Cat report. It is published here with professor Guglielmi’s kind permission.
    http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html?spref=tw

    • lenrdawn

      He does raise some valid questions. However I think his answer to the big one (cui bono?) is a little too one-sided. Yes, Rossi will certainly use this paper to sell more licenses and/or licenses for higher prices but the renewed awareness this paper brought to the public will hopefully also help to speed things up a bit – be it in the direction of getting Rossi to court and ending the fraud or in helping the planet solve one of its major problems if it is real.

      • Gerrit

        If Guglielmi was truly interested in advancing knowledge he wouldn’t have neglected the peer reviewed literature of LENR experiments.

        If he wants to advance knowledge he can start with attending the ICCF-18.

        I see this letter as a blatent attempt to stifle research by intimidating the participating scientists into conformity.

        Guglielmi should now also officially complain to ELFORSK who intend to spend more money in the next years for investigations.

        This might turn out to be the biggest blunder in the career of Guglielmi.

    • Timar

      I wondered when their peers would begin to throw the dirt on them… now Dr. Guglelmi seems to claim the “honor” to have thrown the first clot of mud.

    • AB

      It’s only unethical if you exclude the possibility that it could be real.

      If there’s the possibility that it’s real, not investigating would be unethical because investigation will either expose the deception or confirm the reality.

    • John Bull

      Dear Dr. Guglielmi,

      I hope my comment finds you well.

      Your (open) letter is valuable. It addresses a serious issue and it does so in a way many of the commenters can or should use as an example. Your concern is indeed frankly put, yet raised in an elegant manner. This is how a discussion should be held.

      However, it also points out that the elite in Science, and i am sorry but i cannot think of another way of putting this, can be naive at times.

      Your letter is a symptom of a dangerous virus. The kind of virus that Ayn Rand described thoroughly in her magnus opus; Atlas Shrugged. The virus is a hybrid of naivety (if there is no scientific explanation it does not exist) and supremacism (good science can be done in one way only).

      Mankind is and will be tremendously helped by men (or women for that matter) that are not only pushed by a pure scientific incentive. Who cares if Rossi will sell a few more licenses due to the report? We have so much more to win than we have to lose. Please let go of old fashioned mores and make a contribution to what can possibly be the biggest invention in a few hundred years.

      Your truly,

      JB

  • KD

    When I tried to get to this Polish website, I am just getting message.
    “There’s a problem with this websites security certificate”
    Not the website.

    • RenzoB

      it seems their ssl certificate has expired, nothing to worry about

  • RenzoB

    FYI I think I found the death threat Rossi wrote about a few days ago. It happened on the EEEstor forum where an harsh discussion between supporters and patho-skeptics has been going on since 2011. One of the latter (Lensman) wrote in 2011 that scammers like Rossi should be hanged or worse: http://www.theeestory.comwww.theeestory.com/posts/222266
    Of course it is not a serious threat but it was referenced again in some recent posts and perahps it was read by Rossi or by one of his assistants:
    http://theeestory.ning.com/forum/topics/lenr-or-cold-fusion-thread?id=6495062
    So nothing to worry about, unless Rossi referred to something else

  • George N

    Rossi deserves a 20 year patent; then we can stop talking about the anti-capitalism lunacy — my question is, if you are anti-capitalist, are you then anti-small business economies?

    • Invient

      Depends on what type of anti-capitalist. Libertarian socialists simply want corporate entities run democratically by workers, and would probably be fine with non extendable limited duration patents. Small businesses wouldn’t have any change, up and until they apply to be a corporation or their workers form a new entity once the companies original patents expire.

      Obviously I am not going to label myself as a lunatic. A system that can be empiracle, including ideas from capitalism, socialism, and communism where all three are tempered by one another and applied to different economic areas until some optimal condition is found. As long as there is scarcity, aspects of capitalism must be incorporated, as long as there are socioeconomic classes socialism must be incorpated, and as long as there are those things which are not profitable to make, communism must be incorporated. Why we don’t apply the scientific method to policy is beyond me, and shows our species has an incredibly long way to go.

  • Zedshort

    “4. Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude that
    > also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers
    > could not detect?

    Essen: No, we did not think of that.”

    I cannot tell you how disgusted I am with the answer. If the experimenters fail to account for all the means by which energy is transferred into the system and all the means by which energy is transferred out of the system, then you have failed to perform a proper energy balance analysis. If the idea of a direct current cannot be dismissed (too high a power to be carried by skimpy wires into the system) then all the work collecting data and its analysis is a waste of time and the report is worth only the paper on which it was written.

    I am disgusted. I cannot understand the sleep-walking behavior of these investigators. First they miss the issue of the steam quality, then they miss the possible issue of a direct current applying additional power to the system. I thought Professor Essen was a skeptic.

    • evleer

      Rest assured. It’s safe to assume that the disgust is mutual.

      • Zedshort

        Meaning what exactly?

    • kasom

      krivit, is it you?

      • Zedshort

        I’ve been around here for a long time. I believe Rossi has something. But I absolutely cannot understand why seemingly intelligent people like Essen cannot perform a bulletproof energy balance on such a simple system. Any graduate of an engineering college could perform such a thing but he cannot in all honesty say that he has accounted for all the means by which energy could have entered the system. In which case he has garbage data, and all the detailed analysis that is performed after the fact on that garbage data is also garbage. Garbage in equals garbage out.

        As for those of you who don’t understand what an energy balance is or how it is performed I refer you to any standard text on thermodynamics. Read and learn, otherwise keep your mouths shut.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Any and all future tests including the six months test to be conducted will have flaws the skeptics will focus on, this is an unending witch hunt. The Only way to shut them up is a profitable working model and entrepreneurs falling over themselves finding profitable ways to use LENR.

          • Zedshort

            I don’t care about the patho-skeptics. What I want to see is a bullet-proof energy balance performed on the system by competent people who are reasonably distant from Rossi. One of the characteristics of a fool is their inability to look at the evidence in a dispassionate manner. That goes for the patho-skeptics as well as the patho-believers.

            • Roger Bird

              Z-short, is patho-either someone who doesn’t believe the way that you do? I am an LENR and Rossi believer because of the evidence. Patho-skeptics disbelieve in spite of the evidence, usually because they refuse to look at the evidence. Patho-believers believe without having to look at the evidence.

              Actually, I just realized that “patho-skeptic” is a misnomer. We should be calling them patho-disbelievers. So-called patho-skeptics are not skeptics because of a pathological problem. They are disbelievers because of pathological problem.

    • mcloki

      Does this method you prescribe work at heating this vessel for 110 hours.
      Does it no burn out itself delivering all that power for the 110 hours.

      Just curious.

      • Zedshort

        What? Non sequitur.

    • trux

      Indeed, the admission of prof. Essén, that he did not expect any faul play, and hence did not think of testing for DC is rather surprising, and would render the enitre test useless, since hidden heating of the reactor with DC would be trivial.

      On the other hand, from the comment of one of the other testers, Torbjörn Hartman, it is apparent another voltmeter was connected also directly, and he explicitely mentions the possibility of passing DC voltage. However, even from his comment it is not entirely clear whether they really monitored DC voltage on the wires all the time, or just AC (many voltmeres will do either one, or the other, but usually not both in the same time).

      So frankly told, I am confused, and am not sure whether they really checked it, or not. Hopefully Essén was just not sufficiently informed about what the engineers do, but it is sad anyway he did not think about checking such basic condition.

      • lenrdawn

        “another voltmeter was connected also directly”

        Can you quote that, please? I can’t find it.

        • trux

          Well, actually it was probably not another voltmeter, rather just another input of the power analyzer. The analyzer was connected to the eCat not only with the 3 inductive clamp ammeters, but also with three probes connected directly to the wires for voltage measurement (see page 5 of the report). The PCE-830 logs all data, but I have no idea whether it logs concurrently the AC and DC elements. Common sense would tell it should, but that’s just my opinion. Perhaps Torbjörn who posts here occassionally could tell us exactly, or better yet posting the complete data on the web.

        • trux

          … thinking about it again, I believe I’ve read the PCE-830 could sample the values each 10µs, so if it logs it all, it is actually irrelevant whether it measures separately DC and AC, because the absolute voltage value would be fully sufficient up to very high frequencies. And for frequencies that high, it would be practically impossible to pass several kilowats of power over those wires. Still, I have no idea wether they really recorded those data (including the voltage sampled at 10µs) or not.

        • Winebuff

          Lenrdawn

          Read the torborg article where he says they measured everything. Maybe you should try focused mirrors. Did u ask if the skylight was open?

    • Ecat

      Zedshort, don’t be “disgusted”, read this:
      AB on May 27, 2013 at 4:49 pm

      While Essèn says that they didn’t check for DC manipulation, Torbjörn Hartman said that he specifically looked for fraud involving this method.

      See http://www.reddit.com/r/LENR/comments/1f3gzh/torbj%C3%B6rn_hartman_about_measurement_of_current/

      It seems that the skeptic arguments really have been reduced to:
      1) Most/everyone involved is a fraud.

  • Pompey
    • mcloki

      Finally Rossi’s scheme is revealed. He’s gone through all of this over the last 3 years so he can sell t-Shirts. Why could we not see this coming?

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    “There are many who wish to steal his e-cats.”

    Seems like Rossi has all the right reasons for being very protective of his ecat’s.

    I wonder if somebody already tried to steal an ecat…

    • evleer

      If the E-Cat technology were to become the worlds primary energy source, it just might turn mr. Rossi into the richest man on the planet. And rightfully so. No wonder he wants to guard his Precious at all costs..

      • Invient

        One Ecat to rule them all, One Ecat to find them,
        One Ecat to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

    • mcloki

      He’s building a massive case for prior art.

      • catbauer24

        +1

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        +1

  • Yury Kissin

    When discussing a possibility (some say necessity) of an independent test of an e-cat without Rossi being anywhere close, in Sweden or in the USA, please consider one mnor subject.
    This device belongs to the LENR category, meaning NUCLEAR! No custom in the word would allow this device to be brought into a particular country without a thorough (2-3 years) review. (Maybe, the military could do this). I also suspect that very few facilities in Italy would allow such tests. So, stick with Bologna!

  • Bob Finley

    Mr. Rossi, when you become the richest man that ever lived, will you reward all your supporters here with a free C-Cat? Or at least a t-shirt that says “I supported the richest man in the world!”
    Just joking. (but I will take either one)

  • Janne

    Can’t say that I’m comfortable with Levi providing the instrumentation. He’s been closely associated with Rossi and the E-cat for several years now. Why not use completely impartial observers?

    • RenzoB

      Why? Levi is a beloved professor of Physics at the university of Bologna, he was very skeptical of the Ecat until he tried it himself back in 2011. He’s not paid by Rossi, nor his associate. And he’s not a fool.

      Some idiots accuse him of fraud but it’s utter nonsense

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        +1

    • Chris I

      Well, so far Levi has been an observer.

      But of course, anybody who has ever seen the thing working and vouches for it automatically becomes a member of Rossi’s club…

      • Gerrit

        Yes, that is the rhetoric that the pseudo skeptics use.

        Robert Duncan always thought that cold fusion had been debunked until CBS 60 minutes asked him to look into the topic. He did, now there is a 5.5 million LENR research project at the University of Missouri. So it is completely valid to say that an impartial scientist looked into the topic and found evidence that further research is worthwhile.

        However the pathoskeptics will simply claim that another one fell into the pseudoscience pit. Ridicule, derision, contempt, character assassination is what these trolls think are the most powerful tools for what they believe is science.

        • Janne

          I’m no pathoskeptic. However, extraordinary devices require extraordinary proof. The E-Cat seems too good to be true, and we need to tie up all the loose ends.

          I hope to God I’m wrong.

          • Gerrit

            It was a general comment.

            I cannot assess if Levi is too close to Rossi, but I hear it all the time, because people are looking for reasons to discredit to report.

            I really dislike the “extraordinary claim” phrase, it so often misused.

            If a scientist doesn’t want to listen to what you have to say, they will simply assert that your message is extraordinary and your evidence not extraordinary enough.

            Extraordinary is an arbitrary definition.

            I am reminded of the Spanish inquisition when I hear that phrase. Once somebody had been accused of heresy nothing would be extraordinary evidence to proof he was not a heretic and save him from the stake.

            A medieval mob chanting “Burn the witch, burn the witch” sounds very similar to a pseudoskeptic saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” don’t you think ?

            • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

              +1

              • Hal

                Indeed!!
                Also they used the ducking chair in which you weree submerged for several minutes..if you drowned you were innocent, but if you lived you were a witch and burned at the stake.
                seems nothing has changed much! :(

            • artefact

              +1

            • Chris I

              Actually, it is extraordinary.

              It is extra-ordinary because it is so far unexplained, or not in a way that lies within the -ordinary models. This makes the whole of cold fusion excepting muon catalysis and extra-ordinary claim, whether or not it is true.

              Further, most nuclear and particle physicists have a couple of objections which are very binding indeed, because they are based on very fundamental rules… only that they are applying these -ordinary rules to -ordinary assumptions, by thinking within the -ordinary (same usual old) groove. I have a conjecture which is extra- the usual -ordinary groove and which would make these rules inconclusive; the interaction involves a good bit of metal lattice, rather than a single Ni nucleus.

              Whatever the case, even just the lack of an -ordinary explanation requires more than -ordinary evidence. But I’ve been thinking that just about enough serious folks have been seeing it happen with good enough measurements to discern the excess heat. This is the point where folks ought to be just looking for the (extra-ordinary) explanation of the darn phenomenon. Just like folk did after Michelson and Morely had provided very, very extra-ordinary evidence of the speed of light not changing with the observer’s motion. The explanation of this was rather… extra-ordinary.

        • Chris I

          Indeed, they’re already counting Tommaso too, as a new member of Rossi’s club. Wonder if he’s passed his initiation ritual yet, he might still be in time to abjure…

        • df

          Arthur Schopenhauer once said: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

    • Redford

      According to your logic, any impartial observer will loose this quality the very second he/she will observe eCat because then he/se will be “closely associated to Rossi”. AFAIK the only link between Rossi & Levi are Levi’s interest in eCat and Levi’s personnal relationship with Focardi. Anyway, in science human relation are part of the deal and only conflict of interest/family can be considered as anomalous bias.

    • AB

      “Closely associated” is so vague and allows much room for fantasy.

      Why not state things as they are? Levi helped organize some e-cat tests. The reason was Focardi telling him that it’s real. That’s it.

      See, now that sounds a lot less shady than your vague expression.

      • artefact

        +1

  • lenrdawn

    “The on/off mode was due to a thermostat that prevented the reactor
    getting too hot and this was not relevant in the dummy test.”

    They didn’t mention a thermostat in the paper, did they?

    • rolando

      the thermostat can be set and therefore theoretically can change the hotcat temperature and its COP

      • lenrdawn

        Yes, thank you, I think everybody understands what a thermostat is. It just seems strange that they don’t mention it anywhere. Was it connected to the e-cat? Was it some kind of remote sensing? Did it get its power from the control box or from somewhere else and if it did, how was it connected to the control box? That sort of thing.

        • Gerrit

          and is it a simple temperature sensor or does it measure resistance change in the heating coils.

        • rolando

          Really!
          I find that using a “thermostat control” to change COP fascinating. One control box or “mouse” could drive three Ecats, each 120 degrees out of phase.

        • LB

          It’s in Rossi:s blue control box and part of the control system.
          The excess power generation has a positive feedback
          therefore he cut input power before it gets to hot.
          That is why he insists on having power input, so he has a way to decrease the drive and prevent meltdown.
          You can see that on the curves in the report. Compare the heating curves för pure resistor with that of the e-cat.

  • Hampus

    The first ever Cold Fusion News is out!
    By me Hampus Ericsson.

    I plan on doing more videos as this great story continues.

    http://youtu.be/lOIrO84CDGw

    • Sanjeev

      Good job !

      • R101

        Well done!

    • Gerrit

      Well done Hampus ! All beginning is difficult, but if you keep this up it will become a very valuable piece for many people. You can be the cold fusion “anchorman”.

      - The light conditions can be improved.
      - I would think of another title, there are too many things like “cold fusion news”. I would call it “Hampus’ cold fusion review” or “Hampus’ take”, you will get a better connection with your audience.

  • artefact
    • AB

      The most interesting information is that clients and scientific journalists may be able to see a running e-cat in a few months.

    • Sanjeev

      Not tested in US, they got the headline wrong.

  • Stuey81

    I posted in the previous thread a list of government agencys ive contacted in reguards to LENR, i also left it open for people to add government and private bodies that any other readers may have contacted, no one replied, is it safe to assume none of our regular readers here have been as proactive as i in trying to bring LENR into the lime light? I would have thought there would have been a ton of responces to that.

    • SteveW

      No one in government is going to acknowledge LENR. Not that the vast majority of them know what’s going on- I’m sure they don’t. They do know of things that there not suppose to talk about like chemtrails, the Illuminati, and of course cold fusion. Politicians know what not to say and do to maintain their power. There’s probably a small think-tank tracking LENR development who meets with certain powerful individuals to set policy. And the policy is to ignore, not report it in the media, pretend it’s just junk science done by crackpots, delay it’s development as long as possible. If they can delay it long enough, maybe by then, they will have their world government/ police state to keep it strictly under their control. But, now it’s too late, times up. There going to have to resort to plan B.

      Plan B will be, I’m sure, a huge bail-out of the energy companies with the windfall from the incredible efficiencies of LENR. Face it, they have us over a barrel. It’s not like we can just switch over to LENR overnight. It will take decades. The utilities will want guarantees that their continuing investment will be paid for. They could cripple the economy by not maintaining their infrastucture. Imagine if the power companies said they would no longer be repairing their lines, transformers, hooking up new customers, businesses, etc, since the cost may not be recoverable. The oil companies, opec, whole nations will threaten to cut off the supply of oil unless we give them guarantees of compensation for decades down the road. Industry after industry will want a bail-out and governments around the world will undoubtedly provide it to them from threat of total economic collapse.

      • AlainCo

        the reality is that few big corps and few SMB and innovators are already preparing and the report start to make them move.
        Some politician even.

        most data is public, and the private make some public noise, but be smart. ;-)

        I advise companies an venture investors to move fast, because, I see the first sign of an avalanche effect.

        I realize (with incredulity) that the clowneries I participate with patho-spektics does not blur the vision of businessmen. some know it is the time.

        If you have any contact in business or politics, time to let them their last chance to participate.
        no joke,.

        AlainCo — the techwatcher of lenr-forum (see my scoop.it too)

        it will be bloody, and enthusiastic.

        • SteveW

          I agree it will be very bloody and many companies will not survive but just like the banking crisis, the government will step in and bail out many industries in a plan similar to the bank bailout of 2008, only at a truly colossal scale. They will claim these affected industries are too important to fail and will cripple the economy. And that is certainly true, we will still need oil, gas, coal, electric utilities for a long time to come. Unfortunately, governments are almost always reactionary, they will let an economic crisis occur before they do anything to calm markets with bailout plans. And when they announce the bailout and markets rebound, they will take the credit for saving the economy when in reality they should have done a preemptive strike and not allowed the huge collapse to occur in the first place. The smart money will be buying when the blood is flowing. The cynical side of me says this “smart” money will be tipped off to the coming bailout.

      • Richard Wilson

        Actually, I expect the first commercial users of the technology will be the power companies. The Hot Cat is capable of generating steam for a turbine generator. It is possible for this technology to be dropped into current power plants as a direct replacement of fossil fuel generators. I believe that is why the electric power industry in Sweden is funding the tests.

  • lenrdawn

    Two things seem very odd. Essen says that “Andrea will not part from his device.” How is that possible? Was he or one of his co-workers present during the tests? I thought Rossi said he had no idea what they were doing. The other is “there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was
    manipulated”. There absolutely was a reason to suspect that. It is astonishing how much trust Essen puts in Rossi being honest and true – while Rossi doesn’t seem to trust Essen and the others further than he could throw them.

    • Loop

      Yes someone from Rossi side was always present including the armed guard.
      Other side was not always present.

    • Redford

      “There absolutely was a reason to suspect that. ”
      I think you refer to “motives” while he refers to “indications”.

      • lenrdawn

        Probably, but what is the difference in this case? I think we all agree that Rossi is either a genius or a fraud – no middle ground. And his machines either work or they don’t – no middle ground either, except if you’re quibbling about COP 3 or 6 or 10. So the only indication I can see for somebody who set out to validate this technology and write a report about it that would NOT justify suspicion would be a COP of 1. But if they see a COP of more than one and then decide there is no indication for suspecting manipulation, they could have stayed at home in the first place.

        • evleer

          Even of Rossi is a fraud he is brilliant. I don’t know many people who are able to fool respected physicists over and over again with a disguised electric watercooker. Applying Occam’s razor, I think that we can rule out fraud.

          • lenrdawn

            The big problem with Occam’s razor is the point of view you’re swinging it from. When you say “If I hear hoofbeats I think horses, not zebras.” that is perfectly ok in Kansas. Do it in Uganda and it might be an all together different matter.

            • G_Zingh

              You have to admit there was nothing preventing the team from checking for DC voltage. Rossi never said you cannot check for DC voltage. So where is the fraud?

              Did Rossi tell them which outlet to use? You don’t know. Did all the outlets have DC voltage running through them? If so how did the laptops and camera not fry?

              Only three wires were connected and the ground was unused so how did the DC come in? If it didn’t come in through all three wires but only one wire it would have altered the power readings. If it came in through all three wires how did it leave? There was no other extra wire connected.

              Then there is the case of the dummy ecat module that was connected the same way as all the other ecats in the tests. If there was a DC current why did it not show anomalous heat energy production?

              I can’t say how disappointed I am in the lack of scientific validity to your arguments.

              • Roger Bird

                Actually, I am quite delighted with the lack of scientific validity to his arguments. And I also thoroughly enjoyed your rebuttals.

        • Redford

          Actually I entirely disagree to every “we all agree” affirmation that you make. First I think that most probably Rossi has a finding but that getting that finding to become a working product is a very long shot. I believe that’s what he had in the past with Petrodragon : he was able to produce fuel from garbage, was a pioneer in an industry that then bloomed but his fuel was just not very good. I think people who don’t realise the huge gap between a scientific finding and getting a product are unrealistic. And yes, I do think that there are plenty of findings that has not become products.

          And about what’s the difference between having no reason to suppose the intention of a fraud on a particular part of the engine and finding no trace indicating a fraud on a particular part of the engine, it’s clearly very important. That guy was here, saw the thing, and when asked if there could have been a specific cheat says that nothing indicated such cheats primo facie and you say “wrong, there was plenty of reasons to do so”. Well certainly, but this is OT and nobody denies it anyway, so what’s your case ?

    • Barry

      Lenrdawn, septicism is essential to the scientific mind, but your skepticism has a tone of trying to discredit. Reasonable doubts are being addressed. As you know some people seem intent on tearing apart. Just not sure where you’re coming from. Peace Barry

      • lenrdawn

        I’ve been following this since ’89, Barry. Lots of hope. Lots of disappointment. Lots of fine scientists working hard to get this right but not getting close to a breakthrough yet. And now Rossi. A weird guy with a checkered past and a product too good to be true and business partners like Roger Green and Adolf Schneider. If this turns out to be a fraud, the entire field will take a hit it’ll probably never recover from. I won’t cheer him on unless somebody or something convinces me that he isn’t taking us all for a ride. So far I haven’t fully made up my mind – not enough information and no evidence either way and far too many open questions. I realize that the prevailing mood on this blog is “Believe it already. If you don’t you’re evil or stupid or both.” but from what I’ve seen that is either wishful thinking or the arrogant idea that one is so clever, one can’t possibly be fooled.

  • Chris I

    Why is that URL an https? Firefox gave me a warning on it, as if someone might be trying to fake it. Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer

    Has anyone else run into this hitch?

    Har, LOL, is it the Establishment? Is the snake interfering?

  • Thomas

    Microwaves? That’s interesting … Perhaps the core is nothing more than a magnetron?

    • Chris I

      No. The core is, quite simply… hot.

      At that kind of temperature, actually, there is more IR than micro, and visible too (red and orange).

    • Jack

      That is my guess.

  • Martin Lasser

    After the answers from Essen i have no doubt – The E-Cat works.
    Gratulation to Rossi!

  • Matt S

    When is the 6 month test scheduled to start? Has Rossi said anything about allowing the extended test?

    • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

      Not sure of the starting date, but Rossi has mentioned there would be a 6 month test.

      • Sanjeev

        Dear Frank Acland:
        Yes, it had been scheduled from the Professors at the end of the test of March. One of the Professors told me last week that Autumn could be the best period for them.
        Warm Regards,
        A.R.

        • Gerrit

          with a glowing hot ecat around I would prefer a cool autumn over a hot summer to do the test.

        • KD

          By Autumn, the “US Partner” should have results of the 6-months test of the working 1MW plant.

      • Barry

        I thought I read it would be starting this summer.

        • Omega Z

          Barry

          It may now be Autumn. Would be a better time for them.

          I probably wouldn’t want to be inside a hot building in summer monitoring a Hot Cat myself. :(

  • 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.
    —-
    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.

    • Gerrit

      clone him, imagine what a 1000 Andrea Rossis could accomplish.

    • Loop

      The main problem is, even if the E-cat is real(hot-cat call it whatever you like), is that Rossi is somehow the enemy of the Planet earth and to the people especially.
      In the same way as any other capitalistic swine, sorry on the bad words but that were the facts.

      I always remember the example of Louis Pasteur and how he gave to the world for free the strain which is worth as every Pharmaceutical company joined.

      If you remember from the video interviews Rossi dream was to became even more powerful then Microsoft, his idea is to worth over trillions.

      That is the worst thing that could be.
      If its true that his formula is a god like, then its in wrong hands.
      Such formula needs to be in hands of person similar to Louis Pasteur.

      Dis anyone asked Rossi what would be the price of formula to gave it to the Humanity and to Human kind.
      I stat 10 millions, 50 millions, 500 millions, 1billion, 10 billions , 20 billions, maybe 500 billions.
      What is the amount.

      • kasom

        You obviously don’t know, that Rossi sold his knowhow last year to an “US-Partner”

        • Loop

          Don’t believe such bull story that he sold Company or formula.

          I’ve read every bit of information regarding this story, I also read almost every comment on four major sites including fifth quantum-heat.
          I watched every video.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Rossi has repeatedly said the US partner has full knowledge of how E-Cat works.

      • Barry

        This sounds kinda loopy Loop.

        • Loop

          No its not crazy or bizarre the word made you think its crazy, we are living in a crazy environment.
          Capitalistic system is the worst system that could be mounted into one society.

          • Tappanjack

            The capitalist system is the only system to bring it to the world markets without creating another orgy for the hogs at the trough (the looters)and the “you owe me something for nothing” crowd (the moochers).

          • Wally Palo

            Perhaps you are suggesting that the economic systems of North Korea or Cuba are doing a better job of bringing abundance and leisure to their people? Capitalism (the suppression of theft) began unleashing the ingenuity of individuals back in 17th century England. Phones, lights, motor-cars, antibiotics, and now cold-fusion power — all brought to you by individuals thru capitalism.

            • Loop

              Quite opposite, Capitalism is regime of pure theft.

              • Roger Bird

                Loop, you did not address how well North Korea, Cuba, etc are doing. In particular, how is North Korea doing. South Korea is doing very well. My wife and I are addicts to their most excellent movies and TV series. Our juicer is the best, built and sold in South Korea. Our Ceragem (therapeutic massage bed) is also designed and built by a South Korean company. But I don’t recall any products of ours from North Korea. I wonder why.

                • Loop

                  You are confused with comparing countries that are jailed for almost life time.

                • Roger Bird

                  Please, they put themselves in jail because they deliberately and openly threatened the free world. China and Vietnam no longer threaten the free world and we pay very little attention to them. And North Korea attacked South Korea. Who put whom in jail again?

          • Omega Z

            You Confuse Capitalism with Greed.
            They are not the same thing.
            Totally 2 different subjects.

            • Barry

              Well put Omega.

    • frank sedei

      These responses brightened my day. Have a great holiday!

    • Ted-X

      Perhaps we should create a stream of hints for the open source replicators and they in turn would produce a weekly summary on a web page? How to do that to “make the catalyst a public knowledge”?
      This would speed up the progress of implementation.