New Poll — Confidence Level in Rossi Effect

For a bit of fun and instruction I thought I’d put up a new poll to look at readers’ confidence in the reality of the ‘Rossi Effect’.

The question is simply: How confident are you that the Rossi Effect is real?

I will go on record in saying that personally, I’m 100 percent confident that it is. It’s the only conclusion I can logically come to after looking at all the evidence I can find.

How about you? The poll is on the right panel. Feel free to expand on your response below.

  • quantico

    For those who want to doubt Rossi:
    Italian site

    http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1993/marzo/24/Petrolio_dai_rifiuti_industriale_condannato_co_2_930324368.shtml

    http://e-catalyzer.it/e-catalyzer/andrea-rossi

    But i say Rossi is one that he tries and maybe … who knows?!

    • AlainCo

      It seems the sentence was overturned (it seems retroactive law application). He was judged innocent because nothing illegal done.

      what is strange is that I found the article in corriere dellasere, wiuth the furious journalist moning on that, and on wikipravda they pretendedn they could not find that. it took me few hours to find all you see in that post.
      One more evidence Wipipedia is rotten by biased mindguardian living in groupthink.

      I’ve gathered many article, and some are more recet…

      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2384-Rossi-on-Burning-his-Finger-(The-Beginnings-of-the-E-Cat)&p=5821&viewfull=1#post5821

      in the articles there was many accusation at the beginning, but with time it seems the main impression is that :

      – he was proposing to recycle wastes, because he was allowed by exception, and get many contracts

      – it did not worked so nicely and he was forced to stop before he had time to clean the secondary wastes, and improve the process

      at the end Rossi was not judged a crook, but a loose inventor…

      the explanations of the failure of the DoE thermoelectric generator, seems to be after verification and some details, what DoE says, a classic failure to industrialize lab technology.

      • quantico

        I’m glad your clarification!
        I like to believe in this man … anyway because you mentioned the mafia? in Italy are not only crimes of the mafia! 🙂

        I’m not a scientist and I apologize for my bad english ….

        But I know that if there is a radioactive decay gamma-ray, there is certainly a nuclear reaction at very low temperatures.
        Unfortunately for marketing purposes Rossi does not allow anyone to study this reaction. Perhaps the world had changed a few years ago!

        I have read that Greece with the united states have designed a machine similar to e-cat.

        This news dates back to before the crisis of Greece.

        News you know about it?

        • AlainCo

          Yes that is the Hyperion of Defkalion.

          This company have given more data on their reactror.

          About the gamma, the claim (old) of Rossi that thermalization of gamma is responsible of the heat, does not hold. few cm of lead cannot swallow the quantity of gamma to produce kW without letting deads around…

          Defkalion says that they observe some gamma/X in the 30-500keV range, around the level of the background… they only shield with steel and mu-metal.

          if a LENR reactor could produce enough gamma to warm lead, the physicist would not have moaned that it was impossible…

          they moaned only because the measurement were few orders below what they expected for hot fusion, and only roundt the background (thus harmless).

          for more informations on Defkalion, you can search in thet forum

          http://www.lenr-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?21-Defkalion-Green-Technologies

          and read the Defkalion section in tha executive summary

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

          for detail on how Hyperion worsk, the recent paper of yeong e kim with chadrichristos start with a quick description of the reactor.

          http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-1.pdf

  • Zedshort

    I think people are confusing the anomalous heat effect and the “Rossi Effect”, whatever that is.

    I started out a couple of years ago when I found the vid of Rossi chattering about his device. I was initially skeptical but when I learned that there were members of the Swedish Skeptics society and they were from Swedish universities, I was excited. Since then I have waited and watched as many promises were made and broken. Meanwhile a few tests were produced and some witnessed or assisted by the “Lecturers.” The test results invariably contained errors that exaggerated the output. Although when the results were corrected and the output were adjusted downward but still to a positive output range, I was left with a bitter taste in my mouth. I learned that lecturers in physics are not experimentalists and was left feeling all the data was highly questionable hence the Rossi Effect is doubtful. I can live on faith for only a little while. Of course I hope that Rossi has something but I will wait for a product and an obvious result that cannot be questioned.

    I still hang some faith on the word of Dr. Duncan. If he says there is a there there then I will cheer. If he says there is nothing, I will quietly but reluctantly accept his word and throw in the towel on Rossi and the entire effect.

    • bachcole

      I don’t understand what you are saying. Are Levi et. al. lecturers? Do you find nothing of merit with the May 2013 Levi et. al. report {http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3913.pdf}. Are not doing your homework. There is also a report recently in the same league by Kim and Hadjichristos {http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-1.pdf} which Frank has not yet posted about, but I bet he will soon. Then there is the article in the Elforsk magazine {http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Trycksaker%20och%20broschyrer/elforsk_perspektiv_nr2_2013.pdf} Look at the name “Andrea Rossi” in the lower, left corner; you don’t need to translate from Swedish to English.

      How much more proof do you want? You are a naughty boy who doesn’t do his homework.

      • Zedshort

        The criticism of the arxiv report was that the particular instrument used to measure the electrical input was not capable of measuring direct current. I see no addendum to that report clarifying the matter. If the measurement of the energy input to the system was not done properly then the entire report is dross. The report from Purdue is based on data that was not gathered by an independent lab. Hence the data is suspect. The only thing that matters is data. If the data is dross then so too is the theory that follows from the data. I cannot read the Elforsk report hence it is of no consequence from my personal perspective on this matter. A picture of Rossi is of no consequence.

        • bachcole

          I personally feel that it is just too insulting to accuse the testers of being crooks or incompetent to delve deeply into that. At some point, short of owning a LENR+ device and watching my utility bill plummet, I have to trust someone. Even if the test were PERFECT according to your standards, we would still have to trust that the test even took place and the report was not a complete fabrication.

          • AlainCo

            http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

            “BTimes: How do you respond to criticism on the measurements for both the December test for the March?

            Bo Höistad: Their conjectures about the difference in the excess heat produced between the test in December and March are incorrect. Just look at our article.

            IBTimes: Finally Ericsson Pomp and argue that in tests made ​​by you will encounter a typical attitude of pseudo-science, which is extraordinary steps quickly to conclusions rather than trying to find explanations in the physical standard. It is a very heavy criticism: How do you respond?

            Bo Höistad: It is very unfortunate that Ericsson Pomp and resort to bad comments and mischievous. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important international journals in physics be hired to pseudo-science is simply an insult severe and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that you refrain from personal attacks of such a low level.”

            ** an insult severe and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic behavior. **

            **Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that you refrain from personal attacks of such a low level.**

            why people can be so ashaming and clearly take risk to ruin their career:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
            whay risk to be punished later?
            * Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

            * Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

            why refuse to see facts:

            * Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.

            * Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

            why so much violence?

            * llusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

            * Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”

            * Mind guards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

        • Omega Z

          At least 1 of the 7 involved in the arxiv report posted that DC had been ruled out. Don’t recall, but it may have came from 2 of them.

          Doesn’t matter as Elforsk found the data compelling enough to provide several 100K for additional tests. But then, They had 1000’s of pages of data to make that determination.
          The arxiv report was what, like 30 pages. Just a snapshot provide in that report.

        • AlainCo

          As Bo Hoistad explain well

          http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

          the pomp&erikson toilet paper start by conspiracy theory, then accuses the instruments to be build by amateurs, physics to be incomplete, forget some cross checking done, (emissivity check, thermocouple, known emissivity dots)…

          and among that pile of absurdity only one question, survived the peer-review.

          DC was not tested by the instruments…

          some testers claimed yes, but the pce830 could not, I confirm.

          Some technical details could rule that out, like the presence of instruments on the same socket,s but the most serious reason to rule out that fraud is simply that Rossi is not stupid to the point to fraud with DC whil he let the testers free to use their own instruments, recable the power in…

          this is what Elforsk says in the article.

          http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2475-News-from-Swedish-Elforsk-about-ECAT&p=5900&viewfull=1#post5900

          “On the Internet you can find a variety of speculation is based on experiments is a forgery. Smuggling of electricity through ground wire and smuggling of DC when measuring instruments measured the AC have been proposed as explanations for deception. My reaction is that this is extremely unlikely. This power through earth management have been checked and DC theory can be ruled out for several reasons. Purely psychological works not that they are working intensively for years to deceive others with simple peasant prisoners trick. There is no credibility in such theory. A number of reports notes anomalous heat production, of several independent and competent persons, strengthens this hypothesis, says Hanno Essén”

          • Zedshort

            I am not calling anyone a fraud. I am calling them deluded and incompetent.

            • AlainCo

              Is it possible the deluded and incompetent, is the physicists ?

              as Bo Hoistad notes, Pomp&Eriksson are only nuclear physicist, and the Elforsk test team have wider competences.

              there is no need of a PhD to see that their paper is insulting, nasty, start with conspiracy theory, list accusations without evidences, make huge mistakes, and amon all that is not simply false by reading the initial paper or knowing basic science, there are many point that have been addressed by things notified later.

              more generally in the calorimetry problems, it seems the ration of ego over competence is too huge for nuclear physicist.
              They claimed something was impossible, 20 days after publication fo a paper based on 2 years of experiments, using free space physics inside a lattice.

              if when student I was using ideal gas law inside solid silicon, i would be bashed by my microelectronics professors…

              sso huge incompetence mixed with so huge ego,wit so huge risk, so huge hate (as bo hoistad details), is typical og roupthink situation…

              those physicist sincerely think they are righ, thus that opponents are corrupted and incompetent, that they are genious, that any critics does not deserve to be read (see how thet did not read the report seriously), it push them to take suicidal risk on their carree convinced to be right, and they protect each others…

              clearly a groupthink situation, like what happened in enron… the syndrome of the best guys in the room.

      • GreenWin

        Some here are unable to understand the technical language in the Elforsk-Levi report. It is very clear and positive to most. Else why has Elforsk (the electric utility R&D facility of Sweden) published a positive article in their official magazine heralding Rossi and the E-Cat validations??

        • bachcole

          My science/technology degree is a mere A.S., and I had NO trouble reading Elforsk-Levi. And I enjoyed it VERY much.

    • Stephen

      Wow, the answers to this post are quite interesting… looks like that if you are not 100% convinced of the Rossi effect you must obviously be some sort of moron or an unfair SP. I wonder what is the purpose of these blog discussions then. Karma police maybe?

      Anyhow, I mostly agree with you. I am very tired of all these fancy promises that then never come true (what about Defkalion going on the stock market by the way, plus releasing all the info about collaborators etc…). For me it’s impossible to give a clear answer, true vs not true… mostly because the players here are simply not giving us enough clear facts to tell what is real or not. There are many strange things going both on the believer and skeptics side, on but I really got tired of thinking about it and trying to deduce something from unverified tests or even from the psicology of the poeple involved (how could they behave like this or that if this or that… etc). I guess that if RE is true something will show up on the news or on the shop sooner or later. So good luck, you have all my best wishes and I surely think it would be great that all this turns out as product I can buy. But please don’t tell me I obviously have to be a believer.

      • AlainCo

        It depende on what you read.
        My corporate experience make me quite skeptic on what I see, what I deduce, what I compute. I don’t trust what people say for what they say.

        However I know that the evidence are in the behaviors, and in the structure of the proposed evidence, of the behaviors.

        You can easily distinguish a fairytale from a murphysm, loose work from stage magic… a murphysms is real life… not fairy tales.

        Elforsk is one of the last nail in the coffin…
        Aldo Proia is another
        National instruments/Concezzi/Truchard are another

        if you go beside rossi and defkalion, and simply look at the science, there is no possible doubt, not because of the results themselves (few of them may be artefacts), but because of the structure of the results, which is not the structure of fraud or of artefacts. it is the structure of unusual condensed matter effects.

        The structure of Pomp&Eriksson paper is bullshit… it is crackpottery of the worst king, like what I find on beforeitsnews. for better and worse, I’m experienced with crackpots, even from mainstream crackpost (like quants, economists… and some pretended hard science, like APS).

        • Stephen

          I agree with you that strange things are going on in the skeptics field. I think some of them are being plain unscientific, and masking their a-priori rejection under some sort of legitimate rigorous thinking.

          On the other hand… even if I understand and in part share your “detective” mind and I understand your reasoning about the “structure of the results”, “behaviors”, etc… I also think this is a very dangerous road, one full of traps. I disagree it’s so obvious to sort out what is real from what is not. I think persons can be very complicate and develop unpredictable reasons for their acts… in fact at times what they do is just plain illogic or self-contradictory. Even if you have a lot of experience, can you trust you have the tools to understand anything that goes on in other’s mind? Wasn’t this the very reason why the scientific method, with all the boring reproducibility etc etc, was introduced? It’s all about removing the troublesome “human factor”, with everything nice and bad it brings, from hopes to fraud. Personally I am tired to play the detective and try to reverse-engineer the thoughts/intentions of these people… I feel they are playing with us, for some reason.

          • AlainCo

            right, skepticism, science, fringe, all suffer from similar human problems with reality…

            My experience is that realism is better when you have more data than prejudice… Getting familiar with a thesis make you less and less able to

            it is hard to be sure, because what prevent us to see the reality in complex situation, is what protect us from illusions in everyday life… trusting authorities, trusting personal experience, keeping prejudices based on experience, asymmetric update of data… all that is useful in everyday life to avoid being afraid of ghosts when traveling in a forest, or challenging the reality of apollo moonlanding.

            My advice is to be careful with logic and scientific reasoning, and to use our inate competence in bullshit detection, in manipulations, in lies… howevet that machine is only active when we are really unsure of the result.

            when we have a belief, even a bias it is very hard to open our mind to evidences. In fact many factual evidence, as show the hypercritical method, can be used to hide simpler and more solid evidences.

            one tool to see what you are blind of, is to look at newcommers… in LENR the behavior of Robert Duncan have more value than of Zawodny.

            the structure of indirect evidence is often more reliable than face evidence.
            fore exeample on LENr the structure of the condition that allow LENR experiment to happen says more on it’s reality than the unverifiable (by us, far and incompetent ont key tiny details) claims on calorimetry.

            The behavior of rossi in 2011 was for example very frightening … in 2013 it is the opposite, and this ruleout speculations on wires, DC, emissivity …
            on the opposite the structure of the Pomp&eriksson paper is clearly showing what is the mental state of those critics… adding to that they professional prejudice and their natural incompetence, you can pass over the technicalities inside to dump it in the crackpot…

            for others subjects looking at the structure of the technologye, of what its cures, solves, you can have idea of what it is…
            not the subject here. people are here for many reasons, there are real rationalists who see in LENR rejections a pathologic science violating the old claimed rules of scientific method, using merchant of doubts methods like tobacco companies, some prefer to see the opposite, a reason to challenge the usual scientific method as unable to work…
            Some of us attack alternative medecines, and some support them. Some challenge carbonist climatology as a pseudo-science who took over science community line anti-LENr did, and some challenge climate skepticism as denial of evidence like LENR-denial…
            some support magnetic superunitary motors as example of thing that like LENr should be studied and despite rejection are proven, and some dismiss them as unproven as strongly as LENr is proven…

            we are very different. I don’t think the reason people may be erroneously supporting a scientific thesis, is they are gullible or stupid.

            The reason live in personal experiences, and in the difficulties to check if facts are real or not, when you have a strong prejudice that prevent you to see evidences at the level of what they are…

            For LENR my strength was that i discovered it in 1993, when all evidences were stabilized enough, with no knowledge of the controversy of 1989. Add to that that I have professional knowledge of microelectronics, semiconductors physics, some amateur knowledge of moderns condensed matter quantum mechanics.
            Finally add to that that I have an education as Engineer (MSc-level in france) which focus on reality and technology, and which teach us to relativize the french love for theory…

            I got lucky… anyway I missed all what happened in LENr for 18years… unconvinced by JNLabs mizuno experiments, by CR39 at soawar, by early Rossi… I get convinced only when my engineer instinct make me understand it was not crackpot, because of behavioral evidence on Defkalion forum.

            we should not talk too much of others “beliefs” because it is quite often bloody and is off-topic…
            even If I have strong opinions on most of those subjects.

  • artefact

    From Peter Gluck und Vortex:

    “Dear Friends,
    It is my privilege to be the first to inform you about
    a very important, interesting and inspiring paper:
    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/10/a-seminal-new-paper-about-new-energy.html
    It is an Event, IMHO.
    Peter”

    • pg

      Hi Pekka,
      I apologize in advance for trying to drag you into this, but would you be able to comment on the paper that Peter Gluck has posted? Is it really that important?
      Thank you,
      pg

    • bachcole

      I read through the paper (yeah, right). OK, I plowed through the paper skipping most of it, but it looks extremely promising. Apparently the magnetic fields are real, which I doubted before.

      • AlainCo

        I disagree, without being sure.

        the measurement were done at 18cm from the center of the reactor, thus at about 1.75-2 times the length of the chamber (about 9cm).

        good point is that it was peak DC, not AC.

        but field decay with distance a in R^3, thus

        thus peak 1.6T means 5-8 times more thus 8-12T inside the reactor, which is much above what permanent magnet can produce…

        however I cannot rule that out totally, because 8T is huge, but not far from what superconducting magnets can produce

        it is a little more acceptable than what I concluded from Adm ul-Rahman lomax analysis

        http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?2185-Defkalion-observe-Huge-magnetic-fields-(1-Tesla)-inside-the-reactor

        • pg

          still better than raz al ghul theories!!!! I know, I’m sorry, fingers just kept typing….

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    Rossi effect? ______100%

    Ready for prime time? 55%

  • GreenWin

    Ooops, spilled the beans… 🙂

  • Omega Z

    In my 1st post, I stated I believe in the Effect 100%.

    I haven’t kept an actual tally, but would note there’s likely a dozen at least in the Field of Physics who reasonably believe Rossi is on to something. Rossi also isn’t the only 1 working on this phenomenon. All these people can’t be wrong. The Effect is real.

    I posted Less then 100% on effectively Controlling & Harnessing it.
    I think this is where I differ from many others that post.
    Those who say Rossi can’t control it. I Think he Can & has fairly good control of it. Just not to the point where it meets marketability. And that is probably 1 of the main subjects of the on going tests. I suspect it is nothing more then an Engineering problem & will be overcome in time, but who knows.

    That said, If Rossi did 100 Test Runs & 2 or 3 melted down, He could stand & say I Have a very good understanding & control of the technology.(Basically what Rossi has said in the past.) Under these conditions, Few would argue otherwise.

    However, this is in no way ready for large scale production & implementation. Even if there was no risk to life or health, It just isn’t dependable enough to go forward. Much work will be needed to get beyond this point. People have become intolerant to inconveniences. Having to reset clocks when the power flickers upset them.

    Note Rossi also stirs feelings in our confidence level when he states, Results of the tests will be published- Good or Bad. It leaves 1 wondering- Well does it Work or Not.
    I think the Real Question is can it be Controlled to meet market expectations.

  • Martin

    20% – I’m loosing confidence. I’ve logged on near every day for two years hoping to see something, but still no real proof

    • Rui Germano

      Martin,
      I think you might have logged into a different site. How about the third party independent report?
      Those scientists put their careers on the line, behind those findings.
      Regards,
      Jorge

  • Jimsy

    The “Pons Fleischmann Effect” is more appropriate as I do not see any other groups naming this reaction after themselves. As other scientists have noted, Rossi is probably tinkering with this effect, but I doubt he has the control that say Brillouin Energy has.

  • guga

    I would have taken 80%, but up to 99% is much too much for me, so I chose the lower option with 79%.

    There are still some possible problems. Fraud is becoming less likely over time, but still can not be ruled out completely. Also, maybe there is an interesting effect but no fusion or similar, and will not allow production of large amounts of energy. Or all people that believe they have measured over unity have fooled themselves. That is becoming less likely over time but is not impossible. Than there are other factors like the fact that no information about a Rossi customer has leaked or that Rossi is emphasizing the “negative” so much recently. Then the fact that COPs of 6 or more have been reported by Rossi and DGT, but no one has yet presented a self sustaining generator driven device.

    Too me this all adds up to some incertainity.

    It’s really great that an organization like Elforsk reports about LENR. But no organization is too big to be wrong, so that is not a guarantee too.

    Let’s see. I think the long term tests will help a lot. But even better would be a self sustained device with a generator that can be unplugged from the grid.

  • Linus Johansson

    About 50% confident. I have read about ECAT’s, “The Rossi Effect” etc.. and it all looks promising, but I have never seen or touched a real device, so… But hopefully that will change in a near future.

  • Buck

    I find this all a surprise given how I started down the LENR path . . . reading and following the links in LENRProof.com. LENRProof pointed to one simple truth: cold fusion was a 100% real phenomena that was being effectively harnessed by many like Rossi. The remaining steps included engineering and selling a market ready product. And the estimated timeframe, 2-5 years, was relatively short given the 25 year history.

    There was only one answer: 100% real.

    Frank,
    I wonder how the results of this poll would change if those who responded only included those who did a thorough read of LENRProof and research of all the links? I wonder what dissenting arguments to LENRPRoof would actually hold water?

    • GreenWin

      The effect, whatever it’s name is by now well known and replicable. Most of the gas-loaded Ni/H1 work originated with Mills at Blacklight Power and with Piantelli in Italy. Joint work between US and Italian labs has been ongoing. There are few credentialed, informed scientists that question LENR. The net is filled with anonymous sock puppets attempting to debunk the work.

      • Buck

        I agree with your observations.

        My surprise comes from the fact that of those who visit this site, only ~30% see the LENR phenomena as being a 100% natural phenomena, without a shred of doubt. You have to search out this site . . . it is not on the main thoroughfare of the WWW. And, I find that notable.

  • Asterix

    It’s unfortunate that there’s no choice for “confused”. By his own claims and by others, Rossi has sold several e-Cats, so why even ask the question? This situation is much akin to asking in 1920, “Is heavier than air flight possible?”

    So, with that information, I’m left with two options, as I see it. Either a grand fraud is being perpetrated, or the Rossi devices actually do what he claims.

    Honestly, I don’t know what to make of this. A poll solves nothing for me.

  • bkrharold

    It should be called the Pons Fleischmann effect. I believed in it 100% since their initial announcement

    • bachcole

      bkrharold, now that I am so very experienced in practical epistemology, what you say makes perfect sense. Two world class scientists decide to throw away their careers for nothing; that makes no sense whatsoever.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        practical epistemology

        Does that pay well?

        • bachcole

          ONLY as self-esteem for me, but for a venture capitalist it can be very lucrative. (:->) It could be called life science since life is filled with uncertainty.

      • bkrharold

        Thanks for that, and thanks for teaching me a new word. Yes I was impressed by their sincerity and lack of sophistication. It was obvious these were not slick con men, but genuine scientists. For the record they never claimed to know that they understood the source of the anomalous heat. When pressed Fleischman speculated it must be some type of nuclear interaction, because no known chemical reaction could produce that much energy. He never coined the phrase cold fusion.

  • SteveW

    I voted 100%. Though I feel it somewhat foolish to believe in anything 100%, but honestly, my doubts just don’t add up to 1%. Maybe I’m really at like 99.85%, but hey, that rounds to 100%. Whether the technology can become a practical commercial product, with the PTB, suppressing, paying off, covering up, or perhaps running over those involved is another question. The whole thing may be manipulated to look like a scam in the end. Another dark possibility is that LENR may not lead to an utopia but a tyrannical police state for the reason that this technology is just too powerful without total control of the entire world population.

  • clovis ray

    99%, i left myself an out, in case the sky falls. lol

  • bachcole

    As improbable as the Rossi Effect seems, I went with the evidence and not my sense of the improbable; I voted 100%. (:->)

    • AlainCo

      Too bad,
      that is the problem with evidences, they don’t respect your previous beliefs…

      we should solve that by denying facts when they dessent. Dissenter should be ridiculed or erased…

      • bachcole

        It is not my previous beliefs that are stimulating my sense of the improbable. It is the fact that it is utterly new beyond all imaging, since the beginning of Life on Earth nothing like this has ever happened before.

  • artefact

    New paper on JONP:

    Virtual neutrons and miniatoms in low energy nuclear reactions of hydrogen and deuterium
    by
    Lino Daddi
    Retired Earlier Professor
    at Naval Academy Leghorn, Italy

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=829

  • Omega Z

    100% on the Effect.

    95% to 99% on effectively Harnessing of it in a useful & timely manor.

    By most standards here at ECW, Very Pessimistic of a fast market conversion.
    I Hope it rolls out fast enough to eliminate the need for further Nuclear Plant construction.
    Followed by eliminating Coal & Solar shortly after.

    Months ago, I read an Energy Report that projected World demand for New Power plants would/could reach 1G-watt every 3 days for decades if the Money & resources were available. In Fact it said demand could exceed these expectations.
    That would require 1 G-watt of H-Cat capacity Plus every day. Doesn’t Include the rest of the Components, Turbines, Steel, Concrete, Etc..

    Reason I’m pessimistic on a quick transition.
    1. The Money & Resources aren’t available.
    2. Even if the money was available(I Guess Uncle Sam Does Owns a Printer), the resources would take couple decades to develop.
    3. Doesn’t Include replacing Existing Power Plants.
    4. Doesn’t include Transportation nor an array of other new uses.

    Optimistic Points.
    1. Only Valid argument for Nuclear Plants would be of the type that eliminates the current Nuclear waste, thus no need to store it for a million years.
    2. Economic growth that would bring all Countries to a 1st World status all but eliminating poverty? There will always be a few who can’t be helped & you can’t make them. Just a sad fact.
    3. Contrary to what some think, Corporations will be all over this. They’ll invest the 100’s of billions to get things going.

    We just need Government to stay out of the way. Let the Technology go on it’s own. It will take time. Disruptions will be minimal if they keep out of it. Natural Market restraints will take care of most issues. And this is So Big, No Country need be left out. It will take Everyone to do the job. Everyone can participate.

    • Fortyniner

      Agreed – withe caveat that I think that corporations will be split, depending on how much they have to lose or gain. and to what extent they believe they will be able to control any introduction. Corporations often think in the long term, and some will attempt to introduce delays and monopolisation, in order to protect their present investments.

      • mecatfish

        I see a meadow mushroom..Yummm. They are up here in NE indiana right now.

  • Grek

    I am very confident that it is real. I am not as confident that Rossi knows how to control that the reaction does not run away or die in a satisfactory manner.

    • AlainCo

      I agree. On vortex jed rothwell seems to be convinced Rossi could not control his reactor at first elforsk test, from what Elforsk testers wrote…
      I’m less sure than him, but if is probable.
      then the question is whether Rossi, today, can control the e-cat at a usable level, even less hot… being able to work 1 month at 400C is good, provided the cost is not to high…

      • US_Citizen71

        I think the first test run was a reactor loaded to give maximum effect. I think the charge was to high due to wanting to create an immense quantity of heat for the test. I think that the heat dissipation calculations were likely flawed or over estimated. The outcome is not that different than some of Von Braun’s first test launches. ‘A good rule for rocket experimenters to follow is this: always assume that it will explode.— Astronautics, issue 38, October 1937’ – Somehow even with this type of pessimism we still got to moon.

        • AlainCo

          seems possible.
          I hope so.

  • Paul Smith

    A few weeks ago I asked to “Cures” on cobraf.com if the Rossi Effect was real. His reply was: “Yes of course, it’s real!!”

    Cures as you know is the nick of Ing. Fioravanti, who has worked with Rossi to various types of E-Cat and Hot-Cat and has tested the 1MW plant for a militar customer.