Sergio Focardi — Top Witness of the E-Cat [Updated: Video of Rossi on Focardi]

I believe that one of the most compelling reasons for taking Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat seriously is the involvement of Sergio Focardi in its development.

Focardi was one of the preeminent physicists in Italy, being a researcher, teacher and administrator at the University of Bologna. I have never heard anyone, even the most fervent critics of the E-Cat, question Focardi’s professional integrity and credibility as a scientist. In fact most of Rossi’s critics seem to conveniently ignore the involvement of Focardi in the development of the E-Cat.

Focardi seems to have been a consummate scientist. His support of Andrea Rossi’s work was based on his own observations and measurements from experiments he had personally been involved in. The way Rossi tells the story is that Focardi was originally hired by Rossi to disprove what Rossi thought he was seeing in his experimental work – but apparently Focardi couldn’t do that. Andrea Rossi mentions that “he has always worked with us with total, absolute and disinterested attitude, thinking only of the Interest of the science behind the E-Cat.”

In all the public statements I have read or heard from Focardi there has never been any suggestion from him that the E-Cat was anything but absolutely real. In fact, the fact that we are discussing the technology at all stems from Focardi’s insistence that he and Rossi go public with a demonstration and press conference in January of 2011.

When the full history of the E-Cat is written, I think we will find that the role played by Sergio Focardi will have been absolutely essential in its emergence. His work on the safety of the device has been such that, according to Rossi, “without his help in this matter I couldn’t make my work.”

With the passing of Professor Focardi we have lost one of the most important witnesses of Andrea Rossi’s discovery. It is a great pity that he is no longer here to voice his thoughts about the E-Cat. In the past he has referred to it as one of the great discoveries pertaining to energy production. It seems important to me that his statements about the technology should be collected, preserved and made available to the public as a testament of the reality of the E-Cat.

Below is a short clip of Focardi talking to ecat.com

UPDATE:

Thanks to Tom Florek for making me aware of this video clip from an interview he conducted with Andrea Rossi where Rossi speaks of the contribution of Focardi.

Andrea Rossi talks about working with Dr. Sergio Focardi from Thomas Florek on Vimeo.

  • psi

    One of the most impressive posts in the history of this site. Very well done, on all parts. Not only does Focardi come across as utterly sincere and credible, Rossi does also. I have long thought of him in this light and I am glad to see him becoming more well known in his own right, for who he really is…

  • lcdvasrm

    Focardi said that e-cat produced gamma rays. Solution : shielded by lead.
    The tests in march reached temperatures of 380, this is over the melting point of lead. So, the apparatus may have lost its shielding and gamma radiations should have been detected. So why no gamma radiation was detected ?

    • What if

      lol. lead can be contained, dummy.

      • lcdvasrm

        who is replying ? a dummy ?

    • Timar

      The Hot Cat reactor as described by Levi et al has no lead shielding, AFAIK neither externally nor internally. Gamma emissions from previous reactor types were only ever measured during startup phase. The Hot Cat was already up and running when the third-party scientists attended. The possibility of gamma radiation during startup may be a reason for that. I hope that’s not the case though, because it would pose a severe restriction on the commercial viability of the device. I hope Rossi found a way to exclude gamma raditation.

      • lcdvasrm

        This looks like an informed answer. Thank you. The paper does not explain the justification for the apparatus being running before hand. Did rossi give the reason ? The paper does not say if that was or was not the case also for the march test.

        • Roger Bird

          Although it does not matter with regard to the reality of whether the E-Cat is for real or not, I speculate that Rossi did not want to reveal a secret or was embarrassed that it takes so long to get up to speed.

        • Timar

          No, he didn’t, it is just my speculation based on Celani’s observation of a short burst of intense gamma radiation during the reactors start-up phase in one of Rossi’s former public demonstrations of the eCat. There was no gamma radiation detectable when the reactor was running, even when Celani placed his detector right in front of a hole in the lead shielding. I think there never has been significant gamma radiation from a stable running reaction.

  • Roger Bird

    Responding to the very first post by Anonymous Reader on June 24th at 8:00, GreenWin calls Anonymous Reader a tro11, three times:

    “these tro11s”, “paid shils and tro11s such as yourself writing wholesale bluff and bluster are not. Get lost.”, “wastrel wolves wearing sheepish facades”.

    I cannot see the moral difference between this and skeptopaths calling Rossi et. al. crooks and scam artists. I have met many skeptopaths in my day, Anonymous Reader is not one. His thinking is way too clear. He is clearly interested in the truth. Humanitarians don’t accuse people of being shills and “tro11s” without solid evidence. We have no evidence whatsoever other than the fact that Anonymous Reader challenges us to explain to him why he is mistaken.

    Even if he turns out to be a tro11, we are in doubt now. It is a superior policy to assume the best and counter his arguments than to assume the worst and call him bad names. If he is honest, we learn something and/or practice our intellectual skills concerning LENR and he learns something and we may have a new comrade, a very smart comrade. If he is a tro11, we will learn soon enough, and I will be happy to jump on him myself.

    • Barry

      Roger, you’re an argument looking for a place to happen.

      • psi

        + 1. Roger that, Roger. Greenwin, you’ve made some great contributions here, why not turn over this new leaf? Roger’s points are well taken. Any good idea needs some smart opponents; if they are really that smart, they make it better. Just something I picked up along the way…. : )

        • GreenWin

          I’ve already apologized for the “indelicate” approach to Reader. And, just as “tough love” works for some populations, the indelicate approach brought about a very constructive response from Reader.

          And as we say in the service business, If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

  • Iggy Dalrymple
    • Timar

      That’s an absurd assertion! Their writing style couldn’t be any more different.

  • Ecco the Dolphin

    Some videos of Sergio Focardi in 1994 about his experiments:
    http://22passi.blogspot.de/2013/06/ricordando-sergio-focardi-esiste-la.html

    • robiD

      He talked about his engagement with Prof. Piantelli in the first experimentations with nickel and hydrogen.
      Focardi and Habel (University of Cagliari) didn’t believe Piantelli when he exposed the strange results he achieved during an experiment with nickel, deuterium and biophysic materials, in particular because he linked the results to the Fleischmann&Pons affair occurred a few months before. Focardi joined Piantelli only because Piantelli insisted so much.

      Funny, Piantelli was considered a crazy by his colleagues in Siena (that is a little university without laurea degree course in physics). Later when Focardi and Habel (University of Cagliari) joined him in Siena, people talked about “three crazy”. When University of Siena acknowledged Piantelli’s work, the institutions gave him a facility for his experiments and allowed him to create a laboratory inside a *mental hospital* that had been closed a few years before. 🙂

      During an experiment (14 of January 1993) the temperature suddenly increased 40-50 °C without apparent reason and Piantelli was so scared that stopped the experiment by pumping out the hydrogen, then phoned Focardi at 5:30pm. Focardi suggested him to not repeat the experiment without installing neutron counters.

      Focardi also said that those kind of experiments need a lot of time, so, to get progress and testing new solutions, a lot of experiments had to be done at the same time but this requires room, equipments and … money.

  • captain

    OT (sorry…)
    I don’t see Georgehants. What about him?

    • Freethinker

      Saw him comment some stuff in coldfusionnow. I miss George. His commentary is entertaining and insightfull, some times a bit provocative. Sometimes it is out there in deep space. If you read this George, please get back to us. 🙂

    • Roger Bird

      Didn’t he morph into fortyniner? Or was that someone else.

      • artefact

        no, that was Peter Roe

    • Andrew Macleod

      Anyone heard from Robert Mocken lately?

      • Blanco69

        Ah yes, Mr Mockan. Totally off the grid as far as I can tell. My view is that he got selected for Snr Rossi’s ecat program and found himself in an Orange jump suit one day walking towards the light. He now spends his days knowing that he’s part of history whilst the rest of us live off scraps and hints. Come on Robert! Give your old buddies a sign! Snr Rossi will forgive you.

  • Lukedc

    Found this interesting regarding Prof Focardi.

    Andrea Rossi

    June 23rd, 2013 at 12:06 PM

    Frank Acland:
    The contribution of Prof. Sergio Focardi has been mainly in the safety issues: without hios help in this matter I couldn’t make my work; beside this, he teached to me much of the Physics I needed to know and also made all the preliminary measurements that we made on the reactors in 2007, 2008 2009, 2010. Thousands of measurements, before daring to make the first presentation in January 2011.
    In the Brasimone nuclear facility ( in the Italian Appennines, between Bologna and Florence) we made tests to measure the radiations outside the reactor at full power, in destructive tests. He mastered the situation as only he was able to do. By the way, in the same Brasimone center he had made an important experiment regarding the search of gravitons.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Barry

    Hi Roger, Perhaps as a posting rule Frank might want to limit the amount of posts to maybe 5. That way no one person over posts. You have good things to say and you crack me up at times, but leaving some space between the notes makes for better music. Peace Barry

    • daniel maris

      Yes, we want Bird Shot not Bird Droppings… Ha-ha..

      • winebuff

        Lol!

  • Roger Bird

    I have seen 49er, GreenWin, and others attack without provocation anyone who doubts, IMHO. Up until late this afternoon, I was reading every comment that you doubt-attackers have read. I know skeptopaths. There are people that you doubt-attackers have attacked on their first visit. A skeptopath like Craig Binns of nickelpower.org fame will pester, pester, pester, but when given links to evidence, will not read the evidence, ever. Anonymous Reader is obviously reading the evidence, and that is all that I ask. We have the truth on our side; we do not need to be insecure. Why risk hurting someone’s feelings and alienating people when it is completely unnecessary? This does not promote LENR. And since when does a skeptopath leave when challenged. Craig Binns and maryyugo have not gone anywhere.

    This is not a boys club. I thought that we wanted to promote LENR, not drive people away thinking that we are just a bunch of true believers. I am reminded of my two idiot but adorable dogs who bark my ears off before they even know who it is that is coming through the door. Hopefully we can have a little more compassion and foresight than my stupid but adorable dogs.

    The right way to handle doubters is to help them along with links to evidence and with ideas and support. If they keep coming back with the same doubts or if they never read the evidence, then we probably have a skeptopath.

    How one can tell the difference between a skeptopath and hot-fusion propagandist I am not sure. I don’t even know that there are such people as hot-fusion propagandists. Perhaps hot-fusion workers with time on their hands might try to disrupt things around here. But I doubt that “they” would pay someone to do this.

  • Roger Bird

    I can’t help it if I am a philosophical savant and have a head full of ideas each one of which I love. So, here is what I will do to keep some of you happy. When I open up my email, I will erase 1/2 of the emails coming from e-catworld.com. (I will round up.) This will reduce the heavy burden of my opinions dominating e-catworld.com. But you should understand that there will be slightly less than a 50% chance that I will not respond to you if you address me directly.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      The name “Roger” means “I have received and understand your message”. He’s just acknowledging our views.

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    My comment on my facebook page:
    “And the most important Italian is already here, Andrea Rossi, who will change the world.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PTSAaCwh5M

    • captain

      I like this ad, too 😉

    • GreenWin

      Great ad. Great change.

    • Karl

      Really great – I imagine the cars driven by steam CATs

      • Roger Bird

        The only thing wrong with steam cars 100 years ago was the time that it took to get started. They are a very smooth ride. Our technology, tolerances, etc. have improved greatly, but I confess that I don’t see an obvious solution to the slow start ups. If someone else does, I would love to hear it.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          The solution will be to allow no cool-down. Keep a head of steam on constant standby. If the cars were steam-electric hybrids, they could feed the grid when not driven.

          • psi

            Now that is a truly mind boggling proposition of the best sort.

            • Roger Bird

              That “excess” energy on the grid that was supposedly going to go away could power some non-residential purpose that for some reason a distributed energy source could not service.

        • fortyniner

          Or use flash-steam boilers – essentially lengths of thin tube wrapped around the heat source, in this case a ‘hot cat’ cylinder. Even 100 years ago a Stanley Steamer could move 30 seconds after being fired up (at least on a warm day).

          The lack of reserve power could be overcome by means of a reservoir at the top of the hot cat, where steam from a number of tubes would collect and be maintained at a high temperature. This would also serve to superheat and ‘dry’ the steam.

          http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=111227

    • psi

      This thing is gonna go viral. Let’s be sure to attach Rossi’s name to it when it does. : )

  • Pedro

    At this moment: 101 comments of which 26 from Roger Bird.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Admin. change the site name to Bird’s Opinion.

      • John-64

        +1

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      You’ve gotta appreciate Roger’s unique perspective from the “CatBird Seat”. ;>)

    • freethinker

      🙂

      I know Roger Bird is commenting a lot. I also know I have had a few episodes of posting insanely many comments a couple of times. It only means he is interested and eager (a bit like the rest of us), and can’t wait to see that cat jumping out of the box…

      • Gerrit

        Yeah. Roger is only in the lead because I have a bad day.

    • Miles

      Nothing wrong with being enthusiastic.

  • Roger Bird

    There is really a very simple solution to the concern about FUDing and conspiratorial propagandists sneaking in here and messing with people’s minds. Instead of attacking everyone who doubts, because many of them are going to be honest and uninformed skeptics (read: scientifically minded people), simply counter their ideas instead of attacking them.

    I really have to restrain my sarcasm by pointing out this obvious fact so politely. If you politely and cogently counter their ideas with facts and insights, then you won’t drive away honest people and you won’t hurt people’s feelings. What a freaking concept!!! [Sorry, I couldn’t restrain my sarcasm!] If the same person keeps coming back with the same fears, uncertainties, and doubts, then you will know that they are skeptopaths at the very least, if not conspiratorial propagandists.

    • robiD

      >…simply counter their ideas instead of attacking them.

      so, for example, you know that according to many skeptics, the hot spots on the E-Cat in the November test was caused by some kind of laser pointed toward the reactor, hence, in your opinion, the professors who tested the E-Cat should take a picture of the ceiling in Rossi’s facility in order to show that no laser aiming at the E-Cat was installed (?).

      But on one thing I agree: the next test I strongly hope the testers will show the wires stripped, without insulation, while the E-cat is working, so people like John Milstone or Maryyugo/AlPotenza, that are so much confident in a tricky-wires fraud, will realize that it was a stupid idea (though it won’t prevent to close their noisy mouths forever but only for few seconds).

      • Rockyspoon

        I doubt Milstone and Maryyugo will ever concede the existence of LENR in an E-Cat format. Just my opinion, but there’s never been any semblance of honest inquiry in their comments. As far as the subject of LENR is concerned, I don’t believe they’re sentient.

        • Roger Bird

          I agree. In fact, I strongly recommend that NO ONE when going to another LENR site read or respond to the likes of Milstone and Maryyugo. There is no point, unless you like getting upset. There is one particular skeptopath named Craig Binns who is almost always polite. But the abusive ones and the ones that NEVER change, I think that we should all just make up our minds to not read and/or respond to their comments. We only encourage them and rattle our own cages.

          We have the treasure. I don’t know about you, but I worked really hard to obtain the E-Cat conviction treasure for 19 months. I am NOT going to cast my pearls before swine.

          I think that if someone is new, we should give them a chance to show themselves. If they refuse repeated to look at the evidence, and if they are repeated abusive, and if they repeated quote Krivit, and if they repeatedly do skeptopathic things, then they should be shunned.

          I do object to jumping on people too soon before we can know whether they are merely skeptics who didn’t get enough sleep the previous night or skeptopaths.

    • fortyniner

      Perhaps in an ideal world, but in this one there is a problem with your suggestion. The fact is that some ‘contributors’ post here with the specific intent of causing mischief. They may be hired to spread misinformation, to create doubt and to disrupt discussion as far as possible, or they may do it for their own personal reasons – it makes little difference in the end. If no refutation of these posts is mounted, then malicious comments are left to stand for others, particularly newcomers, to read – spreading FUD as intended.

      But while it takes such individuals just a few seconds to post some worn out accusation of fra*d, or thoroughly discounted suggestion of secret energy sources and the like, or to make a simple ad hominem attack on a CF researcher, those responding need to spend far more time than that in order to find links and references to support their specific refutation of these false arguments and attacks.

      So how many times should advocates politely respond to this kind of ill-intentioned attack? twice, three times, ten time, a hundred? Surely it would be better for this forum if it did not become filled with endlessly recycled FUD, and the many refutation that inevitably follow?

      The only way I for one can see to achieve this is to challenge any post from a new ID that looks suspicious, so that the content of their post can be weighted accordingly by new readers (the usual targets of such obfuscation).

      If, as happens, the person concerned then comes back with more reasoned and detailed responses, as appears to be the case with Anonymous Reader and one or two others before him(?), then such new contributors can be accepted as legitimate skeptics expressing their considered views. But to allow ‘hit and run’ tro11s to get away with posting malicious comments without challenge as you suggest would IMHO be damaging to the generally rational discussion that is possible on this blog.

      • Roger Bird

        How the frick do you read people’s intentions? This world appears to be non-ideal to you because you are so busy projecting your intentions onto others. Since you can read people intentions, why aren’t you a psychologist or a judge. You could even be a rip-snorting business person or gambler. Now that would be good; you could sit around the poker table reading people’s intentions.

        If we had your way, this forum would be nothing more than club to congratulate ourselves about how cool we are while making sure that no outsider got in who questioned our ideas.

        • fortyniner

          I make no claim of being able to ‘read people’s intentions’ – hence the suggestion that if a comment seems to be intended to be destructive, that it should be challenged rather than allowing it to stand. The commenter then has the opportunity to come back with more information – if his/her intention is constructive.

          Your rude and facetious reactions to such suggestions seem to rather fly in the face of your own repeated claims to the moral high ground. This is also the second recent occasion on which you have presumed to interpret my comments (and those of others) in terms of pop psychology verging on personal attack. Perhaps you need to step back slightly and review your own obviously angry reactions before posting?

      • Owen

        I agree with fortyniner with one caveat. Ideally Frank would create a FAQ page that answers all the general questions most people ask. Instead of debating someone who appears to be a hit and run troll trying to waste our time, simply point them to the FAQ. Serious readers will search for the truth and stick around to learn more. Creating a FAQ page takes time and effort, but that’s part of doing business. This website will likely become as valuable as a gold mine in the next few years and so it seems well worth the time and effort to make this investment.

        • Roger Bird

          Owen, I agree 111%. Bruce Fast tried that at nickelpower.org. I have not seen it for a while. But coming away from it I have a few ideas. 1st obviously is that Frank or we have to be diligent about upgrading it. And, 2nd, no comments. The page became this huge comment section that I thought degraded it. Comments suggests that the included information and links are debatable. 3rd, Frank could ask for volunteers so that he would not have to do all of the work.

          • psi

            I like these ideas. Good discussion all around.

        • Owen

          Maybe Frank could use a FAQ page from someone else and give them credit — possibly one of the readers here. Or maybe someone could do this in exchange for a certain amount of advertising.

  • GreenWin

    Dr. Focardi pursued his knowledge of the anomalous heat effect (aka LENR/cold fusion) unflaggingly. But introducing a disruptive technology to a culture driven by technology has disturbing effects – especially to the highest echelons of power.

    The result is resistance to change. That resistance takes many forms from active to passive. One active and effective form of resistance is to work quietly, at the unconscious, subliminal levels of human comprehension. David Straker (M.Sc. Psychology) explains how fear, uncertainty and doubt works:

    “When a change threatens your way of life, sow seeds of uncertainty of doubt by talking about reasons why the change may well fail or cause problems… Be careful not to be seen as a vindictive naysayer. *Show concern* for people at all times. Be sympathetic with the ideas behind the change but critical of the poor methods that are doomed to failure.” ChangingMinds. org

    This does not suggest “conspiracies” or evil cliques of subterranean villains at work opposing LENR. Just an effective way to resist change.

    “The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.” Mein Kampf: War Propaganda

    • Roger Bird

      And despite your scholarly and insightful comment, not everyone who comes here full of doubts is a conspiratorial propagandist out to spread FUD. I spend a lot of time fishing for newbies by posting everywhere I can (Wall Street Journal, Discovery Magazine, you name it] about LENR, and I don’t want you chasing them away just because you are paranoid. EVERYONE who first encounters LENR will definitely have doubts; it is sort of the nature of the beast: It is new; it is fantastic; it goes against our current theories. I bet you had doubts when you first got here. And no, they probably haven’t read the May 2013 report or anything else. Why should they when they haven’t ever heard about it.

      • GreenWin

        hi Roger, THANK YOU very much for carrying the LENR message to these many different publications. It is just this kind of grassroots messaging that will bring people to look at the mountains of evidence we have accumulated these past 23 years.

        My personal journey with LENR this episode began with Navy SPAWAR’s Dr. Pam M Boss’ revealing paper (“Triple Tracks in CR-39 as the Result of Pd/D Co-deposition: Evidence of Energetic Neutrons,” Naturwissenschaften, 96 (2009) 135-142.) Long before Dr. Rossi & Focardi went public. I found it compelling.

        There is an ancient concept of the two – aka Yin and Yang. One cannot exist without the other. You are correct to invite all that you meet to the feast. I will remain vigilant, watchful for poseurs, con-men and concerntro11s and shall not hesitate to call a spade a shovel when necessary. Think of it like Good Bad Kindergarten Kop. Have a great day and keep spreading the word!

        • Roger Bird

          At risk of being jumped all over by you and 49er, I need to ask this: “Triple Tracks in CR-39 as the Result of Pd/D Co-deposition: Evidence of Energetic Neutrons,” I don’t understand if Levi said that he recorded no neutrons (and very little gamma rays) and Pam Boss showed us the tracks, what is going on. How are these two observations compatible. I know that the E-Cat is encased in steel, and Pam’s was in water in front of G0D and everyone; perhaps that is the reason. Or perhaps one one Pd-D and the other was Ni-H.

          • Anonymous Reader

            “How are these two observations compatible. ”

            NiH: I think That Proton + Ni62 => Cu63 + gamma

            (Ni62 has 28 protons and 34 neutrons while Cu63 has 29 protons and 34 neutrons. Cu63 weighs 62.9295975 while Ni62 weighs 61.9283451 and the H weighs 1.00782504. The difference, because the total charge is the same would be gamma, no?)

            Let’s say that the interaction cross section between the gamma from the reaction and the electrons in the cloud due to Compton effect (or heavy electron Compton effect) is high enough to prevent excess gamma from leaving the nickel crystal. The now lower energy photon is then absorbed classically. My memory of electron photon interaction is not that good, but that would explain the nickel hydride lack of gamma assuming observed excess energy is nuclear (which has not been proven in my belief). Also of interest is that the material now has a copper atom replacing a nickel atom in the crystal. Surely this causes other effects that are beyond my ability to quickly speculate. All of this should be seen by analyzing the isotopic concentrations in the material before and after.

            Pd/D fusion in one hypothesis is D/D fusion catalyzed by the palladium. This can result in a He4 plus gamma; a He3 + neutron; or a tritium + proton (H3 + H1). In the event a neutron is produced its cross section with the surrounding experimental chamber would be low so it could easily be observed on the outside. The Cr-39 is a clear polymer (not Chromium) that can detect the passage of energetic particles as tracks.

            None of this means I am convinced these are nuclear effects, but if they are, they are compatible under these two hypotheses. In my mind, neither is proven, and the act of proving hypotheses is what sets science apart from other fields.

          • GreenWin

            This is the 65kajillion$ question. It is nice to see AReader suddenly instructive in nuclear physics. Tough love works after all!

            According to the H1+Ni62=>Cu63+gamma (.00657264) that MAY be thermalized inside the reactor. Or not. The Widom Larsen theory has other suggestions for the suppression of gamma. But it IS interesting that “Nickel-62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon of any isotope for any element, when including the electron shell in the calculation.”

            I do not purport to be a nuclear physicist. Just a simple humanitarian (rhymes with Unitarian 🙂 )

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      GreenWin….I see your point, but I must go with the guy on the front lines. When I asked Dr. Rossi if he had changed his mind about conspiracies against LENR he said, “After the publication of the Report of the Third Independent Party my position is changed. …. aggressivity against my person has changed…. Now I am running real risks….. from higher echelons, supplied by deadly force. I got specific information.“

      • GreenWin

        And I am not about to differ with AR on aggression against his person, Bernie. Given the planetary stakes, and history of LENR suppression, I would be surprised at anything other.

  • Mannstein

    Let us not forget that crude semiconductor diodes were in use as radio receiver detectors at the beginning of the 20th century. Also the copper oxide power rectifier came into use in the 1920s. This was several decades before the transistor at Bell Labs was invented in the late 1940s and a theory of solid state physics had been formulated.

    Just because a theoretical basis explaining LENR does not exist at this time in no way negates the observations made by experimentalists.

    • AlainCo

      Right except at the end :

      THERE IS NO THEORY THAT PRETEND LENR CANNOT EXIST…

      Just nobody have found how it can happen respecting QM.
      Just nobody have proven it cannot happen respecting QM.

      If you don’t know how to make a plane, does not prove that plane cannot exist.

      In fact that evidence is challenged everyday by many scientists.
      They don’t respect Scientific method. That is a fact.
      http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html
      And of course they deny that experimental fact every day. which does not respect Scientific method.

      funny.

      • Freethinker

        Agree fully.

        Sceptics, pathological or not, do not realize the they need to look at the empirical evidence. Squabble about the theory as to “why” will be a later problem. How anybody in their right mind, studying the evidence (important caveat, as some seem not to study evidence, simply propagating opinion) can conclude that there is NO phenomenon, and all this is rubbish, is beyond me.

        • AlainCo

          That is THE point, even for the LENR convinced.
          Best way to make people deny LENR is talk of theory.
          Big scientific tragedy are based on theory, model, and bent evidences to match the theory.

          Today for LENR theory says nothing, and support no position. LENR is neither explained, nor impossible, nor proven possible.
          It is just observed, which is enough for scientific method, but not pertinent for Modern Science.

          Modern Science don’t care of evidence (as long as ignorant, like engineers or businessmen, don’t put their dirty incompetent nose in the affair), but care of theoretical coherence and capacity to modelize and compute. If you cannot make a theory, and compute, it does not exist.

          LENR scientists presenting their pet theory have damaged deeply the domain.
          Plasma physicists using their usual theoretical simplification, where it does not apply, have ruined the domain.

    • psi

      Thanks for the apt illustration.

  • Charles

    Anonymous Reader Scientist. Did you study this?:
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf

    • Anonymous Reader

      Yes, I have read it top to bottom; and have been studying it since the initial release and the updates.

      • Roger Bird

        Anonymous Reader, it may not mean much if you have not been reading and reading about some of these people for a year or so. I will admit that LENR only seems real to skeptics like us because we have been studying them and it for a long time. When ElForsk announces that they have an E-Cat plant and that they love it, then we will see what we will see.

        • Anonymous Reader

          Mr. Bird,

          Roger that!

          I am into this for 18 months thus far.

        • psi

          I can’t wait.

  • a

    Interesting that the “best witness” of the e-cat is dead. Is there anyone alive that can show or tell us anything relevant about Rossi’s claims being true?

    “That guy had lots of integrity and he believed in Rossi, too bad he’s dead and can’t say anything more on the matter” just doesn’t cut it and is an incredibly weak argument.

    • Roger Bird

      a, you really are either new or deliberately daft. We have LOTS of evidence. You are not the only skeptic. We are ALL skeptics. I spent 19 months watching and waiting for Rossi to convince me. The evidence has forced us to believe:

      http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
      http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtweR_qGHEc&list=PLoJpzqEJwmE7qmAOuFNERIWD2Kwt20god

      I hope and invite other people to post links in order to educate ‘a’.

      Since you were a little rude with your comments, I don’t want to hear from you again until you have checked out the very small amount of evidence that I have presented here. Otherwise you will be labeled a skeptopath. A skeptopath is someone who refuses to look at the evidence.

    • Italo R.

      Have you ever heard about Ing. Fioravanti? He is an extremely valid technician that has worked togheter with Rossi to develope and test the various models of E-Cats.
      He wrote on http://www.cobraf.com with the nick “Cures” and leaked there the very first picture of an Hot-Cat.
      Cures has written many time on cobraf.com that the E-Cats are real things, with a very high COP, and then that the “Rossi Effect” is real, too.
      He is a reliable witness.

      • Roger Bird

        Although he may be a reliable witness to you and to me, I assure you that he is not a reliable witness to others who know little to nothing about the E-Cat.

        But it is nice to know. Thank you.

    • fortyniner

      ‘a’ – please follow the link given by Charles immediately above your rather unpleasant post. Seven more reliable witnesses reporting their findings.

  • Omega Z

    I believe there is a video of Focardi stating that Rossi Gave the 2011 demonstration at his request. Note: I can’t recall if he stated it in English or if it was in subtitles.

    If anyone can locate this video, it would make a nice addition to Franks Video archives for quick reference.

    Thus a simple response to those who repeatedly ask why Rossi did the demo’s so early on.

  • TQ

    Guys, have you seen the last BBC Horizon episode “Fracking: The New Energy Rush”?. It speaks about how the latest techniques to extract gas from the land are poisoning the water in the United States. They still fail to make any mention of the future energy.

    • fortyniner

      Its the BBC – they will fail to make any mention of cold fusion even when it is powering their transmitters. At least that will be the case for as long as Roger Harrabin is their ‘Environment Analyst’.

  • glhf

    Focardi posing with Carlo Rubbia, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1984 (taken from 22passi.blogspot.com/) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lERMQvmk_0c/UcdqNmyxC7I/AAAAAAAAKCU/rRlS_8pNWaM/s1600/Focardi+Rubbia.jpg

  • Tony McDougall

    Sadly, he won’t be here to accept his Nobel Prize.

    • Roger Bird

      I guarantee that his reward now is much greater than any Nobel Prize.

    • Hampus

      The Nobel price is not given to dead people so I am afraid he will not receive one. Piantelli is still alive though, he will surly get one. Along with Andrea Rossi ofc.

    • Roger Bird

      Fisher is another newbie.

      Fisher, Rossi can’t get a patent because cold fusion has such a bad reputation. So he is keeping his secret a secret (that’s why they are called secrets) until such time as he can flood the market with his products and make a bundle. We do have many demos and tests, including the famous May 2013 third party tests done by people we here at e-catworld are all familiar with and trust: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913 Also search YouTube for “Rossi 2011” or something along that line.

      Check it out before you get slammed by people who think that you already know what they know and think that you must be part of some big conspiracy to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). Unbeknownst to them, there are actually people in this world who are not part of a conspiracy and don’t already know what they know. In fact, some people have never even heard of cold fusion.

  • Barry

    For those who want to watch more of this wonderful man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cOEHQmnG-I

  • Roger Bird

    LENR will help the poor. It will also aggravate people’s tendency to chase after the fulfillment of desires in order to be happy [which does not work]; this too is part of spiritual growth, people learning that real happiness comes from within.

    • GreenWin

      I agree Roger. But a dish of ice cream on a warm day, sure makes life happy!

      • Roger Bird

        I get a postprandial diabetic shock from a bowl of ice cream. I am still trying to figure out how to make ice cream with stevia.

        • GreenWin
          • Roger Bird

            I will try it out. Most of these recipes require an ice cream machine. I wonder if it will work with kefir.

            • Eric

              …and todays off-topic reward goes to Roger!

              • http://www.drboblog.com DB

                I would have to agree with both of you: @Eric @RogerBird

                Money can not buy happiness, happiness is a feeling and feeling comes from within.

                These things all though not very deep, still very true.

                • John

                  Having been to a poor village in India (Red Cross) to see a real reality, talking the talk of a wealthy “Money can not buy happiness, happiness is a feeling and feeling comes from within” make me wonder – try to be happy on a dollar a day without hot water.

                • Roger Bird

                  John, how many times have I said in this forum that necessities must be met for a person to be happy???? How many??? I NEVER talk about happiness without first saying that. And it is the responsibility of the richer people to help poorer people fulfill those necessities. So why do you and others persist in saying that I did not say that?????? Because you want to continue chasing after your desires, thinking foolishly that it is going to make you happy, NOT because you have a desperate need to help the very poor. Your very desires have twisted your thinking into believing that I did not say that needs must be met to have any kind of happiness.

              • psi

                lol. Maybe this week’s?

    • John De Herrera

      “aggravate people’s tendency to chase after the fulfillment of desires”
      Roger Bird, most people pursue a dream of earning enough money to buy a car, a house, and support their family, send their kids to college. “to be happy,” we wake up early each morning and earn a living. To say “[which does not work]” is way off. “happiness comes from within” is also way off – try paying bills with that. There are some who do a minimum to survive and prosper, they would do even less work if LENR lowers energy costs. jdh

      • Roger Bird

        jdh, I clearly and distinctly said that needs must be fulfilled or else one is going to be miserable. I have the same problems that you do.

        But, over time, we can often begin to think that our desires are also our needs, and we become unhappy because we think that we will be miserable or doomed if our desires [which have become needs in our minds] are not fulfilled. An obvious example is drug addiction. “I like it” becomes “I need it”.

        Check out North Korea and Burma. Both have dreadful governments and dreadful economies. Check very closely, not the statistics but the actual people; check documentaries about both people: the people of North Korea are pretty miserable, and I would be also if I lived there. The people of Burma are happy and contented while dodging government thugs. Why? North Korean have basically very few if any spiritual values. Burma has Buddhism. (Buddhism does not have a monopoly on spiritual values.) And the Burmese will come right out and say, “I don’t have much, but I accept it and am contented and trust Buddha [or God or Life or my fate or my karma, it doesn’t matter.].

        True happiness comes from within. Everything else is bogus happiness. There is absolutely, positively no way that I am going to back down from that. I would be doing you a disservice if I did.

        • psi

          Fascinating contrast.

  • Anonymous Reader

    There is no doubt that Focardi saw anomalous heat.

    In my mind, there is little or no doubt that Mr. Rossi also saw large quantities of anomalous heat.

    The only issue that needs to be solved is open scientific proof. As it stands now, we as outside observers cannot be sure if the energy density beyond a metal hydride reaction that is non-nuclear and as useful as a powerful battery.

    Rossi could solve this with independent and full third party testing where for example the quantity of the fuel is measured in the chamber and the excess hydrogen from the loading is valved off. How do we know we are not seeing ordinary combustion of the hydrogen following a release from the metal hydride during the energy input phase of the cycle.

    Finally, the infrared temperature estimate method of energy dissipation is so inaccurate compared to water based flow calorimetry.

    Unless Rossi is having a problem with the performance, he could do us all a big favor and close this potential hole in the demonstration.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      Anonymous Reader……Skeptics are very welcome on this site, after the nine plus demonstrations of the E-Cat and the last third party testing, all I can say to you is; you will not have to wait long to see a working reactor that will prove its economic benefits, please stay tuned.

      • fortyniner

        Indeed. Perhaps you would also enlighten those who have been following this story for a couple of years about this new ‘metal hydride reaction’ that could store enough energy to explain the results achieved in the Elforsk tests – this alone would be a breakthrough in energy storage technology worthy of widespread recognition and acclaim.

        • kasom

          absulutely, excelent point to mention!

        • GreenWin

          heh heh, these tro11s have yet to get their pink slips (or lack reading skill). But, any day now, any day now…

          • Roger Bird

            Why do you suppose Frank put the word “tro11” in the moderation list. Do you suppose it might be because people jump on anyone who does not fully understand or believe as most of us do and use the word “tro11” on and at them? Do you suppose that it might be because Frank wants to welcome everyone here?

            • captain

              Quoted from Admin’s Posting Rules:

              ………..
              Moderation is a constant balancing act, and it’s a role I take seriously. I may sometimes err on the side of leniency, and at other times err on the side of severity, but I hope it balances out in the long run. I do try to be fair and I do want well intentioned readers to have their say.
              _____________________

              Considering that ECW is IMHO a blog mainly committed with e-cat energy, and of this Rossi should have an indirect (or direct knowledge), it’s a wise thing for Frank keeping it running ‘smooth’ and now as now avoiding what i call ‘unorthodox practices’ from tro11s, snakes and the like.

      • Roger Bird

        What he said.

      • Anonymous Reader

        Replying to all:

        1) Bernie. I am a skeptic as a scientist. I WANT LENR to be proven right by the data as soon as possible. So I HOPE you are right and I am just slow!

        2) 49er: I am not certain what is happening in the chamber of the 3 tests witnessed by Levi et al. in their most recent Arxiv paper. I thought that occurred in Italy. I missed Elforsk (Sweden?). I will look to see if someone else has published on that. If you are talking the Levi test, we are at least talking about the same paper. I still don’t know enough about what was happening in the reaction chamber to prove that it is not as you put it, some type of energy storage system; i.e. a “heat battery”. We know that conventional metal hydride “chemical” loading works as follows: hydrogen in -> heat out. Heat in -> hydrogen out. So a hypothesis is that one material requires less “heat in” supplied by the electric heating element to liberate the hydrogen; and that a second metal absorbs (loads) the hydrogen giving “heat out”. The problem is I don’t know enough about how the trade secret material was prepared to say it is MORE than a heat battery. If it is more than a heat battery, i.e. a true powerful nuclear reaction, it will change the world. I hope for this, but I don’t have sufficient evidence from the paper.

        The other problem is the volume and mass of the charge in the chamber is not known. We also don’t know if the chamber was hermetically sealed from the outside (allowing in oxygen to combust and allowing out combustion products), and if the chamber interior material itself could have participated in the reaction. We don’t know anything beyond the dimensions of the reaction chamber because everything on the inside is trade secret.

        Lastly, we can calculate different power dissipation’s from the device depending on the properties of the camera and the emissivity of the device. The range of potential powers is too great. All this makes me believe that it could be a metal hydride type chemical reaction instead of a nuclear one; because we are simply missing the data to draw firm conclusions. I wish for water based flow calorimetry — with a good rig it is easy to calibrate and get accurate measurements based upon the specific heat of the water.

        So, I wait for conclusive results so I can pop open the bottle of Champaign with you.

        For those who find my skepticism uncomfortable because you have already drawn your own conclusions, I apologize in advance. I appreciate all conversation on this site and others as I follow the news. I do not intend to offend or to provoke negative responses.

        Greenwin: With regard to ad hominem attacks on me rather than on my ideas, I think that adds nothing to our conversation. I prefer never to attack anyone personally. It is impolite.

        Best regards to the ECW readership!

        Anonymous Reader

        • GreenWin

          Concerntro11 – You say: “The other problem is the volume and mass of the charge in the chamber is not known.” R E A D the paper:

          “The weight that may be assigned to the powder charges is therefore on the order of 0.3 grams; here it shall be conservatively assumed to have the value of 1.0 gram, in order to take into account any possible source of error linked to the measurement.” page 22, subhead “Rangone Chart,” the Levi paper.

          Honest skeptics ARE welcome, paid shils and tro11s such as yourself writing wholesale bluff and bluster are not. Get lost.

          • GreenWin

            PS: Frank, ECW readers and friends; I apologize for my curt, somewhat indelicate response to Anonymouse Reader. However, given the mountains of hard data, evidence, peer reviewed studies, the consummate work done by the international team of scientists authoring the Levi report – I find it appropriate to ferret out the wastrel wolves wearing sheepish facades. peace.

          • Roger Bird

            GreenWin, you are out of line. The only thing wrong that Anonymous Reader has done is to comment before reading the details of the various tests and duplications. Why is it that everyone who disagrees with you must necessarily be evil? How are you any better than the various nuclear physicists who have run thousands of experiments that say that the Coulomb Barrier is a certain value and cannot be breached at near room temperature. Your attitude is exactly the same as theirs; if you disagree with them then they say that you are stupid.

            • GreenWin

              The guy claims to be a scientist; and he did not bother to READ the paper. Call it “tough love” Roger. 🙂

            • fortyniner

              Roger

              Calling a spade a spade is not out of line, and I am perplexed by your repeated defense of new posters who are quite clearly intending to introduce doubt and confusion, and specifically to try to undermine the Levi findings – the typical actions of tro11s.

              In this instance, when you unpack the verbiage, this individual is simply (very politely of course) repeating the same tired old tro11 mantras, viz., that the results can be explained by some unknown chemical reaction, which might include simple combustion, and that IR calorimetry is grossly inaccurate.

              These time worn ‘critiques’, typical of maryyugo-type shills, have been quite thoroughly analysed and dismissed on many occasions, and dressing them up in new clothes is just simply wasting everyone’s time (the second objective of many tro11s, after introducing doubt). Even the introductory paragraph – ‘I want to believe – but…’ is predictable standard-issue camouflage.

              • Roger Bird

                I don’t see that at all. I see new people who often times have not read the literature. You and GreenWin both project what you know on to other people and then assume the worse.

                • fortyniner

                  “If it walks like a duck…”

                  It is open to the skeptic commenters to present their evidence for doubts. This is not the same thing as simply rehashing old and baseless shill refrains.

                  If it later becomes clear that I have been mistaken in my assumption (as happened on one occasion) I will of course apologise to the individual concerned. I don’t expect to have to do that on this occasion.

              • Roger Bird

                You say that you accept skepticism, yet any doubt expressed by anyone you jump on as part of some kind of conspiracy to cast doubt. Not only do you project on to others what you know, but you don’t even have confidence in your knowing of what you do know.

                • fortyniner

                  Sorry Roger but I don’t understand the second sentence. Maybe my earlier reply (currently in moderation) will clarify my position.

                • Roger Bird

                  49er, With respect: You tend to project on to others what you know. That sets you up for these crazy conspiracy theories. There are people in the USA who have never heard of LENR.

                  You also go crazy when someone else doubts LENR; you don’t seem to have confidence in your own knowing that it is true. It is true; I assure you, but you have believe in yourself enough to not be upset when someone else comes along and doesn’t believe LENR.

                  How do I know this? Because I have the same problem. But I am getting better the more and more I get a grip on the fact that hot-fusionists are seeing the inside of the atom with exclusively extremely fast particles. This biases their experience of the Coulomb Barrier as being this big monster at the door which cannot be bypassed.

                  I think that when the dust settles, in 50 years, that we will have a new physics which includes the findings of both cold fusion and hot fusion. By that time Rossi’s heirs will be fabulously rich and hot-fusionist will be unemployed.

                • fortyniner

                  Roger – thank you for that elucidation. It’s an incorrect assessment of my motivations, but I accept that you gave it in good faith.

                  Given the evidence available to me I am quite confident in my current assessment of cold fusion and its current chief proponent, Andrea Rossi. I don’t do ‘going crazy’, and I will only alter my current assessment when new evidence comes along (either way) – not in response to comments by uninformed or malicious contributors here. However I do still (even at my advanced age) tend to react with anger when I see what I perceive as injustice, even though this is probably the norm rather than the exception in many areas. If you want psychology, this behaviour is apparently common in adults who have more than the average number of siblings – like myself.

                  ‘Injustice’ is a broad term, but in this case I refer to individuals who act in their own self-interest to the detriment of others – especially those who occupy positions of trust, power or influence. In the case of cold fusion, this includes lobbyists who misrepresent the facts on behalf of vested interests, corrupted politicians and academics who pull strings to damage the progress of something that would benefit everyone, and hacks who spread disinformation for whatever reason – including the various shills who are paid to manipulate the truth in any arena they have access to. I have less of an issue with unbalanced individuals of the kind that inhabit the ‘skeptic’ sites like moletrap and wavewatching/fringe, but there does not seem to be any way to distinguish these people from paid tro11s. So if you detect some irritation in my reponses to posters who IMO behave like tro11s/Shi11s – whether or not they actually are – then I hope you will understand this a little better now.

                  I agree with your final paragraph, but hope/believe that the new branch of physics will be reasonably advanced in 5-10 years rather than 50.

          • Bento

            🙁

            • GreenWin

              Eyes roll…

          • Anonymous Reader

            GreenWin,

            Got you there. Levi et al. admitted to having no idea what is the mass of the powder in the chamber as the scale read essentially the same in both cases (.3 grams). So they estimated it up and said it was 1 gram. I think it could be the whole mass of the chamber as they said in the second test from this paper. The fact that the chamber weighed the same before and after the powder charges were “removed” is an inconsistency that needs to be addressed.

            “Before removal of the powder charges the cylinder was weighed once again (1522.9 g), to compensate for the steel machine shavings lost. Lastly, the inner powders were extracted by the manufacturer (in separate premises we did not have access to), and the empty cylinder was weighed once again (1522.6 g). The weight that may be assigned to the powder charges is therefore on the order of 0.3 g; here it shall be conservatively assumed …”

            (Levi et al, p. 22)

            If this was open science, the powder could have been observed and weighed independently.

            I have a problem with this estimate and hence the entire Rangone diagram outlier (volumetric and mass energy density).

            GreenWin, if you’re Roger Green, I understand from the public information you’re invested with Leonardo through licenses. You may have test information that is not public. I am lacking this information. I need more information to celebrate with you. If you have the ability to encourage Rossi/Leonardo to disclose more information and to improve the professionalism of his public relations, it would serve to quicken the acceptance of this technology and thus to increase your returns.

            That said, I applaud you for your effort to get involved in the realization of this technology. Good luck — I hope your investment is a major success.

            Best regards,

            Anonymous Reader

            • GreenWin

              AReader, you said, “Got you there.” Rather the converse, which has prompted your response. The measured difference in reactor weight showed the proprietary powder to be on the order of 0.3 grams. In keeping with Dr. Rossi’s supporting statements as to the volume/weight of “charge.”

              Tough love works, doesn’t it? And the coincidence of the name/word Green is just that. Coincidence. To imply that I know more than you and thereby retain some uncommon advantage in analysis of E-CAT, is flattering though altogether untrue, just as your fifth sentence in paragraph one.

              I shall assume you Mr. Reader, will buy the champagne that we drink together in celebration of this magnanimous discovery of Dr. Rossi’s. Prost!

              • Anonymous Reader

                Mr. Green,

                If we drink the champagne it will be virtual unless someone throws an LENR celebration party for us all to congregate. I will still salute you.

                With regard to my confusion between you and Roger Green, you had mentioned that you had already made 100:1 on your investment. I assumed that it had to be Roger Green, aka CEO ECAT Australia. I will take your word you are someone else.

                Best,

                Anonymous Reader

            • Anonymous Reader

              Come on Mr. Green. A scale with a 1.5 kilogram weight on it is consistently right to 0.3 grams? The weight difference before and after is within 0.02% identical; i.e. there is no realistically measured weight difference. So Levi et al. rounded up to a weight difference of 1 gram.

              Now we know that if the chamber was not hermetically sealed, which Levi et al. did not test for, that oxygen could have entered to increase the weight; and that hydrogen could have left to decrease the weight. So although I would like to consider this test as proof of a successful LENR reaction, I cannot do it based upon 1 gram of weight which is essentially pulled from thin air after the weight of the chamber before and after were essentially the same.

              There was no measurement of the material inside the chamber before or after the test, only of the sum total of the chamber after something occurred behind the curtain. And that sum total difference is essentially zero. Therefore, why not say that the device has an infinite energy density, i.e. that the weight difference is zero (1/0 is infinity). Just as valid as saying it has an energy density based on 1 gram.

              I support both you and Mr. Rossi in your endeavor, but for scientific evidence, this does not work for me. You can believe on faith if you want, but I prefer to believe on scientific evidence.

              And you may shoot me down because you do not like my opinion. You may suggest that I am biased. I suggest that you are not considering the report as written.

              • GreenWin

                “I support both you and Mr. Rossi in your endeavor, but for scientific evidence, this does not work for me. ”

                You are of course welcome to your opinion. Perhaps you have not read enough on previous Rossi demos where volume of catalyst is considered. I’ll leave it to you to do so. Or not.

        • Omega Z

          According to the device weight after the charge was removed, Indications were the charge weight was .3 tenths of a gram.

          However for a conservative measure, they used 1 gram for their calculations.

          The 1 gram eliminates any known energy source other then some type of nuclear reaction.

        • Roger Bird

          Anonymous Reader, please don’t think that we are all a bunch of unicorn believers who dance around the maypole singing kum ba ya. It took me 19 months to finally decide that Rossi was for real. I don’t know anyone here who is a unicorn believer. We are all skeptics. We have come to believe because IT IS TRUE, because the evidence became overwhelming for me, because disbelief did not make any sense. I took 19 months getting to know most of the people involved with the May 2013 test, so when they came out and put their careers on the line, I believed them.

        • DB

          Hi there anon,

          My background is different from most? people here

          Personally I do not have a scientific background soo I could not read and understand these kinds of reports no matter how many thousands of them are released..

          I heard about Cold Fusion during different business conversations and then started investigating it.

          There is many things we take for granted as true without looking into them at all.

          If you can look into it and you do understand the importance of the reality of cold fusion and you have a scientific background, woppdidoo for you… you could have stumbled over some very interesting career opportunities 😉

          @ Everyone

          Please continue fighting each other, I find it very amusing 🙂

          • Roger Bird

            We actually love each other, we just don’t realize it. (:->) We are too far into our heads and too far away from our hearts.

    • Warthog

      “How do we know we are not seeing ordinary combustion of the hydrogen following a release from the metal hydride during the energy input phase of the cycle.”

      Because there simply isn’t enough ROOM in the volume of the E-Cat for ANY chemical reactant to be in sufficient supply to run the device for more than a few minutes, much less many hours.

      The ONLY remaining possible way to “fake” the Hot-Cat is “somehow” sneaking in more electric current than the testers are measuring, and even that is unlikely, as they checked for such connections.

      • Roger Bird

        What he said.

    • Thinks4Self

      The inaccuracy in using infrared instead of water flow calorimetry is that it shows understated energy emissions not over stated emissions of heat, so it is only hurting the case not helping it.

      • Roger Bird

        “so it is only hurting the case not helping it.” meaning hurting the skeptic’s case. It is helping the case that LENR is real. Don’t you just love it when your wife tells you to turn left at Turner Street, and you say, “Dear, is that East or West or towards the mountains.” (:->)

      • Roger Bird

        What he said.

      • Warthog

        Excuse me?? Infrared cameras are used daily over a wide range of industries specifically to determine heat losses from a vast range of devices. There is no “inaccuracy”, especially since they cross-checked the cameras results with thermocouples, and the calibration of the camera with “tags” of known emissivity.

        And “water flow calorimetry” resuscitates the old possibility of “some” (never stated) reactant that might be producing the measured excess heat.

    • AB

      You’re saying that we cannot be sure if it’s really a new type of nuclear reaction or merely a known chemical reaction that appears to produce more energy than it really does.

      The latter case seems to be the least likely at this point. A hundred hour test in the Levi et. al. paper is pretty conclusive in that regard. The fuel container was sealed during the test. There is no known chemical fuel that can explain the amount of energy observed.

      Finally, the infrared temperature estimate method of energy dissipation is so inaccurate compared to water based flow calorimetry.

      This vague statement has been repeated on various skeptic sites but it doesn’t hold if one reads the paper carefully. The method was calibrated against an e-cat without fuel during the last round of testing. There is no possibility that Levi et. al. are off by a factor of ~3 after calibration. When the excess energy is so large, you don’t need elaborate water calorimetry to see whether excess energy is present or not.

      There are only two possibilities after Levi et. al. paper:
      1) Deliberate deception.
      2) It’s real.

      • Roger Bird

        What he said.

      • Anonymous Reader

        AB,

        I have re-read the paper with respect to the IR camera calibration.

        I can agree that their calibration method for the camera was reasonable — running the dummy device at about the same power as the live ECAT in the same test.

        Therefore, I withdraw the temperature measurement criticism; but remain skeptical on the count of I am not sure what the mass and volume was in the chamber (see my other comments) and if the chamber materials themselves have participated; and I am also not sure if we are exploring a new highly exothermic area of “chemical” metal hydride reactions; or of combustion of hydrogen (stored in the “loaded” nickel metal hydride) or other chamber material with atmospheric oxygen. These elements of the test are not available for review.

        If Mr. Rossi could only patent the process and make it available for independent replication; we would be sure.

        Otherwise, I like everyone else wait for wide spread introduction of commercial versions of the device from Leonardo or Defkalion, or another competitor.

        • Warthog

          The possibilities you mention simply don’t contain enough energy. NO chemical reaction contains enough energy given the known volumes encompassed by the Hot-Cat.

          Me chemist, have vague notion of relative energies of chemical reactions. You chemist?? I would bet not.

        • Rockyspoon

          I believe a “new highy exothermic area” yielding so much energy would border on an explosive device. If it is some “chemical” metal hydride reaction as you assert, what keeps it buffered to maintain a rather level energy balance rather than reacting nearly instantaneously and causing a massive and destructive explosion?

          Only a reaction that is controllable using some sort of electronic wave form could be as level as the demonstrations, and as lengthy as 100 hours.

          I find it more far-fetched to assert some (non-runaway) chemical reaction over a nuclear device, for which sufficient theory and characteristics are now available to dispell a chemical explanation as the energy source.

          While skepticism is healthy, focusing on an even more illogical explanation as a viable alternative to nuclear is not.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “It hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it” – Upton Sinclair

      • Jim

        +1

      • fortyniner

        Excellent.

      • GreenWin

        Thank you Iggy.

    • daniel maris

      My instinctive non-scientific view is that infrared measurement is much more reliable. When the Police are looking for a human body with an infrared camera, it’s obvious when the body is at a temperature above background.

      • GreenWin

        FLIR is also helpful in tracking aliens whose body temp is below ambient temps. It makes for a negative scan (no reflection on character of course.)

    • John De Herrera

      “he could do us all a big favor…”
      Andrea Rossi does NOT owe us a darned thing. He is busy and doing a great job developing his Energy Reactors. Perhaps he is not the best theoretical scientist around – but he darned well beat ALL OF THEM at developing a NiH energy reactor that is ready for commercial applications. jdh

    • glhf

      First off I want to believe. A person expends about 100 million calories in their lifetime in food, the water content in two snowflakes can release that amount of energy from conventional fusion of hydrogen. I believe that when people are able to access this energy it will change nearly all motivations from what we have to do to obtain the energy for existence to what we would really want to do with our existence.

      However, scientist have come to false conclusions in the past, a recent finding was that neutrinos were detected traveling faster than the speed of light. I can read the results and can try to investigate the science but to a larger degree I can only wait for further studies to come to a larger consensus and I can then I can defer to the authority of the larger group that the findings are true, or not (the consensus says not).

      LENR seems to have a growing consensus that there is something going on. E-CAT may be one result to add to evidence towards that consensus but no one result can be thought of as overwhelming proof.

      I can browse to other boards and find people speaking adamantly about the existence of many things which we all probably should be skeptical of, which can benefit by welcoming people who are skeptical and civil by being open and civil in return.

      Here is something that occurred to me recently. What if the difficulty in repeatability comes down to an inherently stochastic process, like what appears to happen with the decay of an atom?
      Couldn’t it be that say a device will produce excesses heat with a certain probability over a certain amount of time rather than a certain amount of heat over a certain amount of time.

      • GreenWin

        glhf, science is NOT done “by consensus.” Science and truth is learned by individuals doing the work necessary to make a cogent decision based on evidence.

        This is why throwing around all the agents and associations of “scientists” who fear AGW is BS-IMO.

      • Roger Bird

        glhf, I can see that you are an clear thinker. I appreciate that. If anyone gives you a hard time, they will have to answer also to me.

        The neutrino thingie was not duplicated. And even if it was, who cares, really. Is neutrinos going faster than the speed of light anything more than intellectual entertainment? But LENR has been duplicated many times. Hegelstein ran an experiment with continual excess heat for like 100 days or something like that. McKubre is not just bragging about excess heat anymore; he is developing a commercial product at Brillouin. The May 2013 test report described three test: 1 with molten metal on the floor, and 2 with EXCESS heat for 100 hours. There are MANY reports of duplication. I invite others to give other examples of duplication.

        I invite you to stick around. And I invite you to be as skeptical as you like. Be true to that sharp mind of yours. Now, conviction requires study. Soon, very soon, conviction won’t require study. It will become obvious. I guarantee it.

      • John-64

        Regarding the recent neutrinos “episode”, what happened was that researchers stated that they did not know why the results showed that neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. As it turned out, testing revealed that a loose cable was the probable cause of the false results.

        Neutrinos have been proven to travel slower than the speed of light. Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A#Neutrino_emissions

        Also, neutrinos have mass. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, as mass increases with velocity.

        • fortyniner

          The OPERA researchers never claimed they had definitely detected FTL neutrinos – in fact they asked the research community for other explanations as they had been unable to find one.

          The ‘faulty connection’ idea was never proven and seems to have no basis in fact. It appears to have been put about by those who were so desperate to ‘debunk’ the possibility of FTL travel that anything that could ‘explain’ the anomaly was seized upon – whether or not there was any actual reason to believe it to be the case.

          In fact there is a far better explanation available that is based on relativistic effects resulting from the orbital speed of the GPS satellites that were used – no faulty connections required:

          http://www.technologyreview.com/view/425765/faster-than-light-neutrino-puzzle-claimed-solved-by-special-relativity/

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            Right and interesting.
            The sad thing is that the boss of Opera was resigned (grammatrical error intended, as we do in french), for just asking a question.
            FTL neutrino were much more annoying than LENR.
            LENR still break no law of physics (no FTL information, no TD1/TD2 law breaking, no Heisenberg breaking)… just bad habits are endangered (2body, BO approx, free-space).

            The way the cables were accused without evidences, is something new for me…
            Even if a support the idea that neutrino are not FTL, the way it was managed stinks much.
            it stinks like LENR, and like others yet-to-be buried consensus science.

            I’m getting more and more sad about Science.
            Like discovering your girlfriend is cheating you since the begining.

            • GreenWin

              Alain, I also found the hysteria arising from this very comprehensive study that merely asked the “community” to help explain the anomalous data… stinky.

              “Loose cable” explanation, smells fishy.

        • Roger Bird

          If LENR is true (which I am convinced it is), then a lot of physics will have to be rewritten. And I think that this puts the whole neutrino idea in jeopardy, an I idea I have never been really crazy about.

          • Rockyspoon

            Not really, Roger.

            Hot fusion and fision deal in the strong force realm.

            LENR deals in the weak force realm.

            The two overlap a bit but the two arenas are entirely compatible with each other–both in theory and practice.

            Now, getting the strong-force crowd to appreciate the potential of the weak-force realm might be a bit of an undertaking, but those who refuse might find a bit of study and openmindedness preferable to flippin’ burgers as an alternative.

            Time will tell…

  • frank sedei

    Focardi’s words were all I ever needed from the beginning to verify Rossi’s findings. Serious scientists should step forward now in long overdue support of E-Cat.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      +1

    • kasom

      +1

      as well!

    • Roger Bird

      They have: Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén, Mike McKubre, et. al.

    • John De Herrera

      “Focardi’s words were all I ever needed…”
      Those are my feelings also. He was in there a very long time, watching and helping Rossi with the development and testing. I feel sad that Sergio Focardi has passed away. However, I feel that he was a GOOD man and and will be rewarded for that. jdh

      • Roger Bird

        +12

  • bruce williams

    Thanks Frank, this is really memorable.

  • Gérard2013

    A homage supported scientific peer Mr. Sergio Focardie, humanist, would be a good thing.
    Recognition for his career and his latest scientific battle for the new fire LENR.

    In French

    Un hommages appuyé des pairs scientifiques a Monsieur Sergio Focardie, un humaniste, serait une bonne chose.
    Une reconnaissance pour toute sa carrière et son dernier combat scientifique pour le nouveau feu LENR.

  • GreenWin

    Thanks Frank – this shows Prof Focardi in glowing light. Interesting his answer to the last question “Is this the biggest invention within physics you have experienced?”

    His answer was a hesitant “Yes… this work is many, more restricted.” And then he smiles.

    Restricted by who??

    • Roger Bird

      I am certain that he did not mean what we mean when we say “restricted”. But I do wonder what he did mean. Perhaps if we ask a native Italian speaker who speaks English they might be able to give us a better idea.

      • captain

        Yeah, for ‘restricted’ Sergio means ‘limited’ to Andrea and himself, mainly.

        Restricted for him is the english translation of ‘ristretto’. He could have used also the term limited to… (limitato a…).

        And the word ‘collaborator’ is used by italians also when ‘cooperator’ is more suitable.

        • GreenWin

          Or perhaps he meant in his own personal way, something like…

          “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Dwight David Eisenhower, President United States, 1961.

          Or not.

    • Pedro

      I guess with restricted he ment smaller in scale in comparisson to the large projects that he was involved with before. It was ‘the biggest invention’ he was involved with, probably also because his involvent was much bigger due to the small team.

      • Barry

        Or I wonder Pedro, if he meant they met up with a lot of obstruction and obstructionist.

    • Omega Z

      Or Restricted as in,

      We have only seen a glimpse of it’s true capabilities.
      We have only been privy of the family economy model sedan.
      Not the Formula X model. 🙂

      • fortyniner

        Or a ‘turtle’ as Rossi once put it, presumably meaning a tortoise(?). As opposed to a hare – or perhaps a cheetah if we stick to the moggy analogies.

  • Sanjeev

    Very good post indeed.
    I wish more scientists like Focardi come out in support of lenr and make this field richer.

    • kasom

      yes, I am sure that many younger scientists know that LENR is real but want to keep their knowledge for money’s sake.

      • fortyniner

        Just as I kept my mouth shut about the evidence for ‘Lamarckism’ or non-inherited (acquired) traits, when I was a young researcher in genetics (now confirmed and explained by the recent science of epigenetics).

    • John De Herrera

      “I wish more scientists…”
      They will ALL come out – after there are working E-Cats everywhere – to say ‘they knew all along…” that cold fusion/LENR was real. They were just ‘too busy’ and let the Hot Fusion physicists and Skeptics abuse and bully anyone who dared speak about this research and developments by Andrea Rossi. jdh

  • NJT

    What a great man, scientist, leader and mentor. He will be greatly missed as his memory and contributions to mankind lives on and as LENR takes its proper place in this world, making all our lives so much better and productive – Rest in peace Professor!

  • Barry

    Thanks Frank, didn’t know Prof Focardi spoke English.

  • Hal

    Nice Obituary Thanks