Italian TV Programme: “Cold Fusion E-CAT is the Energy of the Future?”

I’m afraid many of us are going to need quite a bit of help from our Italian speaking friends to understand this. A TV programme, Prometeo, was aired on an Italian Class Meteo TV Channel (which seems to have some connection to the US Weather Channel) titled “Cold Fusion E-CAT is the energy of the future?”

From what I can gather from viewing the video without understanding most of the commentary, it’s an introduction to the topic of cold fusion and specifically the work of Andrea Rossi. There are some clips of Rossi speaking and footage of his e-cat which I think many of us that have seen before. There is also a studio interview on the show with a Renato Estri of an organization called Artech. Below is a link to the show.

http://www.classmeteo.it/web/portale/video/prometeo-fusione-fredda-e-cat-e-lenergia-del-futuro/

Any help with this from Italian speakers will be greatly appreciated!

  • Chris I

    I find this to be no more than a bit extra media attention toward Rossi and it comes across as a bit of an advertisement (even though not explicitly). Renato Estri is clearly a supporter of Rossi and even talks as if he works for him.

    Under the scientific aspect, he is hardly competent in the involved physics topics.

  • Sanjeev

    Just got this site in alerts : http://ecatsouthasia.com

    • hempenearth

      This is a version of Roger Green’s E Cat Australia site. It says about the Domestic E Cat:

      due out 2013
      and
      release expected 2014

      Some proof reading would have helped.

  • andreiko

    A computer makes what you give him to eat, his droppings are correspondingly.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    In Mr.Gibbs recent article “maryyugo” wrote two comments. Does anyone know who maryyugo or know anything about him/her?

  • http://www.kaltefusion.tk/blog barty

    New Forbes Article from Mark Gibbs!

    Psstt! Want An E-Cat LENR Generator? For Free?

    A couple of weeks ago I posted an article looking at the issues surrounding Andrea Rossi and the recent testing of his E-Cat energy generation system.

    In the intervening time there’s been a huge amount of commentary about the tests not just here but on the many blogs and lists that cover cold fusion, low energy nuclear reaction, alternative energy, and “fringe” science.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/06/15/psstt-want-an-e-cat-lenr-generator-for-free/

    • artefact

      hehe.

      “If you’re one of the companies making a bid, please get in contact and let me know what happens. You could be a part of one of the most important technological changes in history and I’d love to profile you.”

      • psi

        hehehe, you can say that again.

    • Sanjeev

      Thank you for those offers already made from around the world.

      This means that the news has already spread.

  • Roger Bird

    Thinks4Self and anyone else,

    An intelligent person knows when he understands and when he does not understand. I did not get past the first paragraph at http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4.pdf. But I do know that understanding the 1st paragraph would be pivotal in my understanding of the whole paper. If someone could help me out, that would be very much appreciated. Why does such a climate mechanism violate the 2nd Law?

    “The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
    traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”

    Also, if this is true, then why spend 179 pages going into the details. If it violates the 2nd Law, shouldn’t that be game over?

    • lenrdawn

      No. They’re just wrong.

      • Roger Bird

        lenrdawn, did you read the entire paper and understand it, or did you even read the first paragraph and really understand it, or did you decide that since it didn’t fit your paradigm that you would just dismiss it, which admittedly most people including myself do most of the time.

        • lenrdawn

          I read it years ago (embarrassingly enough it was actually used as “proof” by some climate skeptics on a blog or two at the time) and understood not only the first paragraph. It’s complete and utter cr*p.

          • Roger Bird

            Yes, but it is sincere cr*p, unlike a certain Vice-President who tells you to conserve but has a carbon food print larger than G0dzilla. (:->)

            • Zedshort

              Who would you beat if Al Gore died tomorrow? Suppose that if instead of proselytizing about global warming Gore was a financial guru that was flying back and forth across the country advocating that people should save money for retirement (all the while expending vast amounts of money in his honest pursuit of helping others prepare for retirement)? That would not change the value of his message. But for some reason you seem to point to his hypocritical behavior as reason to not listen to him. Your attitude toward Gore is a variation one of shooting the messenger.

              • Roger Bird

                But his flying everywhere in an expensive jet is only one of his environmental sins.

                • Jim

                  If the rule was that we had to reject any progress that was led by sinners we would all still be living in caves, with lives that were nasty, brutish and short.

                • Roger Bird

                  Oh, come on, Jim, You can do better than that. I said environmental sins, not theological sins. Someone who promotes environmental responsibility and then is HUGELY irresponsible environmentally clearly does not believe what he is saying. And if he does not believe what he is saying, why should we. Why is it that we have to explain these kinds of things to liberals?

      • zvidenyosef

        I agree this description sounds completely wrong. I have seen this description somewhere else, and it struck me as rather odd to be quoting ideas about our weather system dating back to 1824. Climatologists today use far more advanced models to describe the global weather system. They now have satellites to collect vast amounts of weather data, which were simply not available in 1824. They also lacked sophisticated supercomputers to crunch the data.

        • Roger Bird

          (:->) They (1824) also didn’t have super-computers to manipulate the data. (:->)

          • psi

            O how mighty are the advances of man.

          • Zedshort

            People are just plain evil I guess. Right?

            • Roger Bird

              People sometimes do evil actions, and this ALWAYS hurts them in the long run given that they are cutting themselves off from their own true nature.

    • Thinks4Self

      They are commenting on the fact that something in equilibrium with something else cannot move heat to the other system. I didn’t make it very far into it either just enough to get to their data tables near the beginning.

      I vote to keep the AGW comments in the AGW thread, it can be a fun debate topic but doesn’t follow the intent of the forum.

      • Roger Bird

        Too late, I already broke the cast.

        If energy is coming into the atmosphere constantly, I don’t see how it could not be the case that the heat engine of the atmosphere could not be radiating energy to the Earth and getting hotter than it was 100 years ago. I’m sorry, although it does not help my disbelief in AGW, right now, as I understand it, the authors are mistaken. There may be more in the other 172 pages that makes the authors not mistaken, but the paragraph as it stands, with my limited understanding, is wrong.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer
      • Roger Bird

        Wikipedia on any controversial subject is 5H1T.

        • zvidenyosef

          Agreed, it is extremely unreliable. Even Rossi was not able to get them to remove an incorrect statement about him, even after he wrote to them to correct it.

          • Roger Bird

            I have to say that this screw-up with Wikipedia (and many others I have seen, all of which were controversial) does not bode well for democracy. Democracy is based upon the assumption that the people have a certain inherent wisdom. Obviously such is not the case. The people obviously have a certain wisdom about their interests and desires. But the wisdom part is sort of lacking. The Senate and/or the judiciary hopefully is fulfilling the wisdom part.

        • Bernie Koppenhofer

          Roger…Like I said I will not reply to rhetoric. (:

          • Roger Bird

            You just did and you never said that you wouldn’t and why wouldn’t you agree that Wikipedia is unreliable when it comes to controversial subjects?

            • Bernie Koppenhofer
            • Roger Bird

              Bernie Koppenhofer, the explanation is simple. I am surprised that you don’t see it. 1st, science has often been wrong, like for instance with continental drift and Alfred Wegener. This happens. It is a normal course of events. And part of the normal course of events is that it corrects itself. And more filling-in data doesn’t help any if you are looking at the problem wrong in the first place. More filling-in data simply paints a prettier picture.

              2nd, money has corrupted the process such that it has exaggerated the occasional mistakes that happened like with Wegener and continental drift. And these mistakes are EXACTLY like what happened with LENR. So, if you are an LENR believer, then it should be obvious to you that the same thing could happen with AGW. People get paid handsomely for promoting a certain perspective, and anyone who threatens that income and perspective is not hired and is not published. It is as simple as that. But now we have the end-of-the-world hysteria, and AGW disbelievers are not just wrong, unpublished, and unemployed, they are criminals.

              When big picture and convincing data becomes available, like with the Navy radar pictures of the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean that resurrected Wegener, then AGW will be finished. In the meantime we have to endure this AGW nonsense. The good news is that a lot of the proposals to remedy AGW will also remedy the pollution problem. And, of course, LENR should gradually reduce the hysteria to zero.

              • Locutus of Borg

                “science has often been wrong”

                No. People have often been wrong.

                • fortyniner

                  Once an incorrect idea has entered group-think (or ‘orthodox science’) it becomes rather more than just people being wrong.

              • Roger Bird

                Locutus of Borg, yours is a pointless point. A scientific paper has no meaning if the people looking at it do not all agree that the letters “h, e, a, & t” stand for what we mean by the words warmth or infrared energy. Science is in our heads. Science and the people who practice it are one and the same.

                But more importantly, very large numbers of people have been wrong, scientifically speaking. When Wegener died in 1930, it is possible that every single scientist in the world was wrong about continental drift.

        • Felix Fervens

          >Wikipedia on any controversial subject is 5H1T.

          +100

        • Zedshort

          Not necessarily. There are a few article where a cadre of trolls squat upon the article and pretend to be the arbiters of the truth. They do not edit the articles but instead they select among the submitted edits the ones they like and delete the rest. They are very, very able to quote the rules (I have severe doubts about the mental flexibility of rule quoters) and are extremely tenacious, and I suspect backed up by some corrupt admins. Their attitude is that of Newpedia rather than that of Wikipedia.

    • Zedshort

      “The atmospheric greenhouse effect,…, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.”

      The atmosphere acts like a resistance (a blanket if you prefer) to the flow of radiation that has the peculiar properties of being relatively more transparent to the radiation of the Sun’s spectrum and more opaque (resistant) to the flow of radiation from the earth in the infrared range at which the earth radiates. It really is that simple. If the blanket is made to be more insulating the net effect is to trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere, and melt ice, warm the oceans, and the soil (a miniscule effect), hence the global warming.

      Honestly, I did not read the paper as it will give me a headache but I am sure more qualified people are getting a good chuckle from it.

      • Roger Bird

        Well, I am anti-AGW, but what you say makes perfect sense, and that paper did not. I know that it was really long and used a lot of big words and scientific lingo, but it didn’t make any sense. I am still anti-AGW.

      • AlainCo

        yes, denying greenhouse effect is not serious.
        the real point is simply in the “sensibility”, linked to retroaction effect.
        The basic “greenhouse” effect have acceptable effect. The only reason, manipulation, to be afraid is that the ckimatologist like a Joshuah Cude of climate have found theoretical and some measurement arguments to justify positive retroaction, while carefully ignoring and reducing negative retroaction.

        I admit that given the importance and uncertainty of retroaction or both side, we hare in a “no prediction possible” zone…

        with recent stall in warming, beside the Mary Yugo kind of escapes (hidden heat in the ocean, hidden volcanism), more and more climatologist simply admit slowly that the sensibility is below the panic zone, because so slow warming is not compatible with high sensitivity.

        the people trying to deny greenhouse theoretical effect, or warming since 200 years are simply playing agains their camp.

        Climate is warming since 200 years, since the Maunder minimum that raised French revolution (a kind of Arabian Spring caused by starvation and weak corrupted governments), the current pause is the same a the one 60 years ago.
        If you admit is it simply an oceanic oscillation, like the one climatologist before AGW were studying, the you see that all is continuing as usual since 200 years.
        It can change anyway, and maybe because of CO2, but we have no evidence, and no idea if it will be warming, cooling, and total mess… it can also like some says recently because of CFC, of soot, of sulfur, of volcanism, of medieval warming (which climatologist tries to hide shamefully), of land-usage, of urbanisation,…

        we should more prepare to change in any direction, than try to fight on unproven hypothesis and an unproven prediction.
        Dumping less CO2 because of LENR, probably won’t do evil and would heal some evil that we may not even know.

        anyway I’m not afraid about earth, it is an anti-fragile, this mean benefit from changes, like New York City, like Beyruth or Alep city, like Singapore, Jakarta or Neuchatel. Only fragile entities like French republic, civil servants, renewable subsidized industry, will suffer from change … we should just help the fragile people to bounce again, not prevent the change.

        • Roger Bird

          I notice that when the sun goes down where I live, which is very dry, the temperature drops very fast. And in more humid places, it cools down much slower. But CO2 is a very small part of the atmosphere compared with H2O, even in deserts. Does anyone know how many ppm of H2O is say 6% humidity or 50% humidity?

      • Warthog

        “If the blanket is made to be more insulating the net effect is to trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere, and melt ice, warm the oceans, and the soil (a miniscule effect), hence the global warming.”

        Unless, of course, if there are other factors at work than just the “blanket” (of which there are many). One in specific is “global cloud cover”, which is NOT included in current GHW models. Formation of certain types of clouds changes the atmosphere’s albedo and prevents entry of more radiation in the first place. Cloud cover is affected by 1) warming (more water evaporates), 2) cosmic rays (atmospheric ionizization increases nucleation sites, and 3) biospheric effects (increase in sulfate by certain bacteria, and probably others).

        • Roger Bird

          To think that I am agreeing with some guy whose handle is Warthog and I a fan of Johann Sebastian Bach!!!

          Warthog, yours is the global climate changing mechanism that I exactly subscribe to, plus the orbit thingies and CO2 and other atmospherics greatly less influential than AGW proponents make them out to be. Of course, volcanoes mess up our theories and calculations all the time.

          • Warthog

            Vat makes you tink Varthogs not like Bach??

    • Pekka Janhunen

      They call pseudoscience some stuff that uses scientific terminology and formulas and is equally incomprehensible to laymen than a scientific paper, but which is actually meaningless. The paper you linked to seems to be a prototypical example.

      • Roger Bird

        The problem with the paper is that I really enjoy laying in bed in a cold room with a blanket over me, and the blanket is not warm. I am warm and I warm the blanket and it pays me back with warmth. If we put a heat lamp over me, the blanket would still be warmed by the heat lamp and I would benefit and may in fact get too hot. This analogy is so strong and so clear that, in my mind, it blows the paper right out of the credibility water.

  • captain

    Nothing new in this video: but day after day, video after video, news after news… the LENR is going ahead.
    IMO Sweden will be the real first country to adopt e-cats energy, it’s only a matter of a couple of seasons. And after that, only after that, patents will be granted, hopefully, to Rossi.
    Admin, keep on posting new threads: U’re doing an excellent job and Andrea is happy of your commitment.
    (BTW this in mod.n?)

    • John De Herrera

      I’M not that good with Italian, however, I understood enough to know it was ALL POSITIVE and covered the basics of solar hot fusion, basics of cold fusion, and the fact that all started with Albert Einstein’s formula E=mc2! Now the Italian people can begin to learn about their Native Son, who will soon be a great hero to all of mankind. jdh

      • Roger Bird

        I’m sorry, John, but Rossi belongs to the USA now (or we belong to him). He even wears an American flag lapel pin because he loves this country so much. Even candidate Barack Obama wouldn’t wear an American flag lapel pin.

        • Zedshort

          It’s interesting to see people escaping to the USA with their ideas, but the seed that is planted in youth and springs up in another country, and has been cultivated by that country deserves serious mention. The education system that nurtures genius has produced the product and merits our study. Maybe we could learn something from those other funny sounding foreigners. We just happen to have an economic machine that works better than theirs. Oh, and a military machine capable of getting us into serious trouble.

          • AlainCo

            Yes that is a problem for country like France, and to a lesser level to Italy (yes Italy, despite mafia and crony capitalism, is less crony than france, elites and taxes supporting the installed economic rent while shaving the entrepreneur).
            Someone told me that getting a silicon valley bar, you can often hear french innovators discussing. because when you have an idea, in France like for Rossi you get shaven by your boss, your partner, your government. and if not shaven, you get blocked. and if failing, you get erased with no second chance.

            US is awful for education, but good for entrepreneur.
            so people get educated in EU, the move to US or Asia to become entrepreneur.

  • psi

    Someone please pass the popcorn.

  • Thinks4Self

    Interesting development! I hope it leads to more media attention.

    I think the situation is reaching the point that the mainstream media is just waiting for a reliable person or organization to quote that has media Q. The University of Bologna has an unfortunate connotation in America and would result in many viewing or reading the story to think it was meant as a joke. A great photo op like a HD profession news camera capturing a hotcat glowing red with pieces of paper being ignited from the body for dramatic effect wouldn’t hurt either.

    • psi

      O ya. There’s the goods.

      I think they call this “internet added value.”

    • Joe Shea

      My impression, with the topic being breached in The Washington Post, is that there will soon be substantial coverage in some of the major media. After all, it has been written up in a lot scientific and non-scientific journals now, so it is at least worthy of debate. Besides that, you have people like Robert Duncan, a highly-placed and deeply respected academic, taking it very seriously indeed. I think we may get our breakthrough in the next 3 months. Not all mainstream journalists have their head in the sand when it comes to LENR.

  • Piero

    I’m not even sure the programme goes on TV rather than just on the web. The site itself is little known and deals with wheather news. Mr.Estri is typical technichian totally unable to convey any sense of excitement in the things he says. His tone is scholastic and sometimes he misses the point. But may be we are so much into the matter that when someone tries to explain the basics we find them boring. Yet, I guess these small drops of information might eventally fill the ocean. My personal feeling is that until we don’t have anchors like Larry King (or David Letterman for that matter)discussing the topic, we won’t go anywhere.
    By the way, I found out that the company of mr.Estri is based near Bologna.

  • RenzoB

    I was writing a translation but lost the file when it was about done. Sorry I don’t feel like restarting. I think the interview doesn’t add anything new at all, actually it was conceived for a general audience without previous knowledge: most of the explanations were dumbed down.

    Renato Estri is the same architect who was present at Zurich last semptember, isn’t it? They say his company Artech designs industrial control and electronic identification systems. First he explains nuclear fusion in general, then he says that with cold fusion they use nickel and hydrogen. The guaranteed cop is 6 tough in laboratory they get even better ratios. The energy is absolutely green and the fuel is cheap and plentiful. He then says the Ecat will integrate with other sources of energy, it will take time to replace all oil uses but the Ecat is already excellent for district heating. A request for international patent is pending and they expect it will be granted once the Ecat is demonstrated to work in the market. After the patent they will fully disclose the inner working.

    • http://www.kaltefusion.tk/blog barty

      After the patent they will fully disclose the inner working.

      This is realy nice to hear!
      So other scientists at universities can start to replicate and optimize the reaction.

      • psi

        O boy. We’re having fun now.

      • Omega Z

        barty

        Once on the market, it would be silly to try to hide the inner workings.
        Many will reverse engineer it regardless of disclosure to study the inner workings in order to develop their own Proprietary system.

      • lenrdawn

        “After the patent”? There will be no patent without disclosure.

        • Anthony

          Presumably the disclosure is only to the Patent Office, otherwise it rather defeats the object of patents, doesn’t it ?

        • Warthog

          “Disclosure” is only to the Patent Examiners, not the public. There are mechanisms by which a patent submitter can prevent the PO from publishing the examination if they intend to keep the subject matter as “trade secret” in to event a patent is not issued.

          I suspect that Rossi has MANY other patent applications “in submission” on specific aspects of the E-Cat.

      • Sanjeev

        The disclosure bit was the only new thing in it (for me at least).
        Its a good news. It can happen before or after the patent, doesn’t matter. Rossi will suffer no loss at all, even if other inventors/companies make their own LENR reactors by taking hints from it. The market is huge and the demand will last forever.

        Almost all of the ground breaking techs we enjoy these days are not secret, they are taught in school to everyone, yet, the businessmen prosper by making products out of those.

        • Roger Bird

          But Rossi knows that his secret is so simple that for him to make a product out of it he has to get a huge head start. The secret is not like an incredibly complicated i-pad with kajillions of transistors and production contracts with Malaysian dudes and lawyers protecting copyrights etc. etc. etc.

    • Roger Bird

      I don’t have a problem with this. Remember that 99.9% of the audience probably never heard of “cold fusion”. It sound upbeat and did not try to get too technical. It sounds like Mr. Estri is one of us.

      • Omega Z

        Publicity is Publicity

        Raises awareness.

  • AB

    First impression is that it’s a positive talk on the topic intended to inform an educated audience. It is never suggested that the e-cat could be a fraud, or that it is physically impossible.

    One gets the impression that Renato Estri has worked with Rossi, as he says things such as “we have seen an even higher COP in the lab”. Artech makes industrial control systems.

  • http://www.kaltefusion.tk/blog barty

    Frank, you postet the right URL, but the link is going to washington post.

    • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

      Thanks very much — fixed now!