Always Open Thread!

This permanent post is for readers to post links, news, tips, comments, etc., pertaining to subjects we cover on this site that may be off-topic in other threads. I hope this page will be a useful place where people can find the latest news, interesting links and insightful comments.

Users can treat this page as a general chat box, or Twitter-like stream. E-Cat World’s posting rules will apply, and posts that are way off topic, insulting, or obnoxious will be moderated.

Feel free to reply to other people’s posts, but remember that replies can get buried over time. The most recent non-reply posts will always be at the top of the page. This could turn out to be a very long thread, as I don’t plan on closing it!

I look forward to joining you all here!


  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting from LENR-Forum: New interesting trial papers published. The test site is going to be inspected at the 2nd of March.

  • sam
  • sam
  • Stephen
  • sam
  • cashmemorz

    I’m not sure if I’m playing devils advocate or being negative but: Free or low cost energy was promised since the 1950’s. The only thing that was ever used en mass was coal oil, gas. Even nuclear had a hard time getting spread around and is getting a negative stance. Photovoltaics are still too costly either on their own or undependable requiring FF backup. Similar wind. LENR keeps promising but also keeps bogging down in legalities, understanding of what is really going on, or being suppressed when success gets raised. The shell game of the FF as being divested is just a shell game to keep it going. In the near future, I expect government (i.e., Trump) or insurance to keep the lid on anything that gets in the way of FF. The only time I see LENR or similar power being addressed seriously is just before pollution gets too serious. Big changes are only made when there is no denying that there is a change for the worse or more likely “worst”. Like the nuclear Manhatten project. it was done because it was the lesser of several evils. So with LENR type energy vis a vis big business interest losses compared to environment and peoples health.

  • sam

    “Four-stroke engine cycle produces hydrogen from methane, captures carbon dioxide”

  • georgehants

    The Atlantic
    The Universe Is as Spooky as Einstein Thought
    In a brilliant new experiment, physicists have confirmed one of the most mysterious laws of the cosmos.
    There might be no getting around what Albert Einstein called “spooky action at a distance.” With an experiment described this week in Physical Review Letters—a
    feat that involved harnessing starlight to control measurements of
    particles shot between buildings in Vienna—some of the world’s leading
    cosmologists and quantum physicists are closing the door on an
    intriguing alternative to “quantum entanglement.”

    • my vision of EPR paradox and spooky action at distance is not the usual one.

      Imagine you send two photon from my home to mars and Venus, where instruments detect their respective polarization.
      Venus and Mars, then the intruments send a message to me by RF message.
      I compare the two, and strangely the results are correlated.

      my vision is that since mars and venus are very far away from each other and from earth, they are quantum insulated, like is the Schrödinger cat.

      So the RF message are superposed states of yes or no, and it is when mars; earth and venus are connected quantumly that the entanglement collapse to one of the two possible states, correlated states.

      A French team have done a Schrödinger kitten experiment which showed that entanglement disappear at the rhythm of foreign photon disturbing the kittens.

      There is no spooky action at distance, just superposed states that collapse when the informations of both side of the universe get connected, at usual speed of light.

      • georgehants

        AlainCo, thank you but the Evidence shows that either the speed of light is infinite and instantaneous or everything is in a singularity in for example the mind of a god.

        • I don’t see the need of that.
          Simple decoherence as recent Schroedinger kitten exprtiments, and admiting that what you cannot be informed of cannot cause decoherence, and thus allows superposition from your point of view
          explains all…

          what cause decoherence is just when observers information reach the kitten, and if the two detectors are so far away, then then they cannot cause decoherence…

          the information that the final observer compare are superposed
          The choice is done on earth, even if on venus and mars they think else.
          (in fact mars and venus are each in superposed states until information reach each other, and earth measure the decohered state).

          • georgehants

            All will be revealed in the end just like Rossi’s Cold Fusion, in the meanwhile all speculation is just fun.

  • georgehants

    Society for Scientific Exploration
    The 36th Annual SSE Conference will be held at Yale University. Yale
    offers us a beautiful campus, good meeting spaces and many close by
    amenities. Our online conference registration will be handled by Yale
    this year. Conference pricing will remain the same as last year.
    The theme for this year will be Expanding the Boundaries of Science.
    Those of us interested in the rigorous study of scientific anomalies have
    been stymied by the strictures and assumptions of the dominant
    materialistic scientific paradigm. And so at least two questions
    challenge us: what parts of the scientific enterprise need
    reformulation; and the more difficult problem, how might we need to
    think differently about the way the world works?

    • cashmemorz

      Anthropomorphism in many guises are what determines what us people start with in considering what is “important” physics included. Avoiding the pitfalls that lead into blind alleys is impossible. “to err is human”. Someone from the other end of the universe, if they were to study us and how we look at the cosmos would probably say to themselves “why the bloody h.. would they make such preemptive assumptions?”

  • Veblin

    The Hindu Business Line
    February 14, 2017
    Not snake oil anymore
    With a number of experiments like ‘hydrino’ and cold fusion forging ahead, a future with clean and cheap energy may just be possible, says M Ramesh

  • sam
  • sam
  • Vinney

    Looks like Tesla’s Powerwall has some serious competition just around the corner from another conventional source, ‘small scale molten-salts’.
    And with relatively low temperatures they will be using ‘sterling engine’ and turbo fan conversion to electricity.

  • sam
  • I can’t recommend this video more. Please watch it. I found it very entertaining and informative. It makes the future look very bright!! It will be a real eye opener for some of you. Enjoy!

    Clean Disruption – Why Energy & Transportation will be Obsolete by 2030 – Oslo, March 2016

    Tony Seba’s Clean Disruption Keynote presentation at the Swedbank Nordic Energy Summit in Oslo, Norway, March 17th, 2016.

    Protip: watch at 2x speed if you’re a busy person. While riveting… it’s a big long.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I have asked Rossi several times if he is getting feed back from the customer of the year long test about the reactors Rossi sold to him. Rossi has replied. It is not up to me, out of my control. Now apparently he is saying he never sold the reactors:

    February 11, 2017 at 6:26 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
    You know my opinion?
    1- you did not ever deliver any 1 MW plant after the end of the test with IH
    2- no 1 MW plant ever existed
    3- retire!

    Andrea Rossi
    February 11, 2017 at 8:14 AM
    1- correct
    2- thank you for your opinion
    3- thank you for your suggestion
    Warm Regards,

    • Brent Buckner

      Good to know – thanks!

  • Veblin

    Realnoe Vremya
    09:00, 10.02.2017
    Sergey Sall, a physicist: ”If we adopt these technologies, need for oil and gas will be reduced tenfold”

    My alternate headline
    Sergey Sall, Crazy Russian conspiracy theory physicist talks about energy, Tesla, cold fusion, e-cats, Rossi, vortex heat, magnet motors and more.

  • sam
  • sam
  • sam
  • Good article on how NG peaker plants are already, or soon going to be, uneconomic compared to energy storage.

    Tesla, LG Chem tipped to dominate massive battery storage market

  • Jas

    This Q&A appeared on the JONP last week.
    Chris Beall
    February 2, 2017 at 8:28 PM
    Dr. Rossi,

    Setting aside IP issues for the moment, what are the barriers for someone to replicate the QuarkX?

    For example: If you were to arrive at a small mid-western town, with your memory intact but no equipment, none of the members of your current team, and a budget of, say $10,000, would you be able to create a QuarkX using local talent and tools and materials available from the local hardware store, pharmacy, etc.?

    Or are exotic materials, processes not readily available, or exotic skills required?

    Andrea Rossi
    February 2, 2017 at 11:33 PM
    Chris Beall:
    to make an experimental apparatus just to replicate the effect I could settle for what you are proposing somewhere, doesn’t matter where.
    To make an industrial product the situation is totally different and, obviously, what I am engaged now with is in projection of an industrial production.
    Warm Regards,

    • Jas

      Does this mean that anyone could replicate the Quark X if they understood the materials needed to build one?

  • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

    So sad: LENR-Cities in liquidation. Personally, I was hoping for better news there.

    • it is known since 2016.
      I don’t have the details, but I know that if they could not find funding to continue, they will have to stop burning their modest seed capital.

      Anyway that is not finished, as their investor, Georges de Montmollin, a Neuchatel’s Tycoon, is continuing the battle independently with LENR-Cities Suisse new company,
      with some researchers…

      Michel Vandenberghe, author of the concept, is today inactive on the domain because of personal problems. Maybe we will see him too on the domain, when possible…

      The concept was really great, but hard to understand (it took me hours of exchange)… It seems the timing of investors decision was wrong, right when Rossi attacked IH and things get stinky.

  • sam

    “Scientists design electricity generator that mimics trees”

  • sam

    Abd ulRahman Lomax Has his own blog.

  • Achi
  • sam
  • georgehants

    CIA conducted psychic experiments on famed Israeli magician
    Uri Geller for 8 days in the 1970s, newly
    declassified documents reveal. About 13 million pages
    of documents and videos were released last Wednesday.
    They show that the CIA investigators were convinced he
    had true paranormal abilities.

    • Gerard McEk

      George, I am sure Uri could have helped us to get LENR started…. Would Andrea have the same abilities?

      • georgehants

        Gerard, unfortunately most people have not grown-up enough to even understand what you are saying.

      • georgehants

        Gerard, so agree, but we will never know until science excepts reality.

  • sam
  • Veblin

    Triangle Business Journal
    Feb 1, 2017, 5:26pm EST
    Despite lawsuit, Industrial Heat continues mission, investor says

  • LT

    Was the power measurement of the ECAT Replica test
    wrong ?

    In the Proceedings of the first French Symposium RNBE-2016 on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science there is a paper dedicated to analyzing the ECAT thermal behavior named :

    Investigations of the Lugano HotCat Reactor
    Mathieu Valat*, Alan Goldwater, Robert Greenyer, Robert Higgins and Ryan Hunt
    Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project

    Link :

    In this research paper the authors used a replica of the ECAT and applied through a resistiveheating element several fixed power settings and measured the replica’s surface temperaturesfor each power. They then used the measurement results to get an interpolated curve giving the relationship between power and surface temperatures.
    The conclusion from this research paper was that there was a large difference in powertemperaturerelationship between the data of the ECAT as presented in the Lugano report andthe replica investigated.

    The intent of this write-up is to investigate what caused the differences between the two tests. The conclusion of this investigation is that the power measurement during the ECAT replica test must have been wrong.

    Let’s start our investigation with the temperature of the ECAT in test run 16 of the Luganoreport.For the ECAT body temperature The testers in their report give a value of 1412 degreeC. However an investigation of the Lugano report showed that the testers had possibly used the wrong emissivity setting for their Optris infrared camera and that the reported temperature was wrong. The name of that report is :

    Making Sense of Alumina Spectral Emissivity

    Link :

    The conclusion of the report was that the actual temperature must have been about 1130degree C and not the 1412 degree C reported by the Lugano testers.
    However from the test with the replica of the ECAT it was concluded that the actual
    temperature must have been 1045 degree C for the same power as reported in the Lugano report, about 90 degree lower then the 1130 degree C..
    Since both results can not be both correct, the question is, what is the correct answer for the ECAT surface temperatures versus power setting.

    How can you verify that your power and the surface temperatures measured are likely to be correct ? One indicative method is to calculate the radiated and convective power from the surface temperatures, add both and compare them with the applied power. Both the applied power and the total radiated and convective power should be about the same.

    This is what was done during the Lugano dummy test. The testers applied a known power to the ECAT through the heater windings and measured the surface temperatures of the ECAT. They then verified the result by calculating from the mesured surface temperatures the radiated and convected power comming from the ECAT. The applied power was 479 watt and the calculated power from the radiated and convected heat was 446 Watt which is about in agreement.

    However in the ECAT replica test report it was concluded that to reach the same surface
    temperatures as during the Lugano dummy test the power should have been 190 Watt instead of the 479 Watt reported by the Lugano testers in order to reach the same surface temperatures. We want to know if this was due to an error made during the measurements and thus want to check the applied power of the replica test with the total radiated and convected power.
    Unfortunately the surface temperatures for different sections of the
    replica are as far as I know not public available. But we know approximately the
    temperature of the body (central part) of the replica. For an input power of 479 watt the
    temperature of the body given by the curve in the report is 715 degree C. This temperature of 715 degree C makes it possible to make an appoximate calculation of the radiated power and convected power of the replica body for the input power of 479 Watt. Given the temperature of 715 degree C the calulation results in :

    Radiated power 700 Watt
    Convected power 185 Watt
    Total power 885 Watt

    This is 885 Watt is much more then the input power of 479 watt and that without the radiated and convected power of the end caps added. (note that for the thermal radiation calulations the body area inclusive fin area was used, not the bare body area without fins as used in the Lugano report)

    So the discrepancies between the Ecat replica test and the other reports seems to be due to that something went wrong in determining the power temperature relationship during the Ecat replica test.
    The temperature reading can not have been wrong during the test since
    thermocuples where present to verify the readings of the Optris infrared camera. So this
    leaves only the possibility that something was wrong with the power reading. My hypothesis is that the power reading of the Ecat replica test was off by a factor 2. That means that 100 watts reported in the replica test, must have actually been 200 watts.
    So I redid the graph of the replica test by multiplying the x scale values by a factor 2
    and also extended the curve to a maximum power of 3600 watt. Then the power versus
    temperature values of the dummy test and that of test number 16 of the Lugano report were added to the graph. The result is shown in the figure below. As can be seen both values of the Lugano test are now exactly on the redone curve of the ECAT replica test.
    (Note that for the temperature of the right hand dot the corrected temperature of 1130 degree C as was used as a result of the emissivity correction. )
    The conclusion is that likely an error was made in measuring the electric power to the replica.

    • cashmemorz

      I remember someone in a much earlier comment, maybe 6 months or more ago, on ECAT World had made the estimation that the temp measured during Lugano test was calibrated in Celsius reported as Fahrenheit which scale differnce is close to 2x that of Celsius. If I find that comment wherabouts I will let you know regarding this point.

      • Obvious

        The Optris reports in Celsius, and these were European scientists, so I doubt that Fahrenheit would ever come into it.
        One of the first E-Cat IR camera tests reported the temperature in K, which is 273.2°C higher.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Every temperature was in Celsius.

          We achieved Lugano-like reported Celsius temperatures with similar input power, by simply dialling in the incorrect emissivity values they were using.

          Of course, the K-Type, B-Type and Williamson IR were unaffected by the change in emissivity value selected in the Optris software they still reported the same temperature range as that given by the Optris when emissivity was set to around 0.95 as detailed in the Optris manual on Page 42.

      • LT

        I agree totally with the comment of “Obvious”. In Europe the Fahrenheit scale is not used anymore. And the test was performed in Europe by people living in Europe.
        That said, if the recorded temperatures where in Fahrenheit, then there would have been a very large disagreement between the electrical power and the calculated radiated power and convective power of the Lugano dummy test. And that was not the case.

    • None of the 3 hypothesis is easy to accept.
      Making x2 error is impossible if you use a power meter and know how to use it. It is typically the kind of error you do my mixing triangle and Y mode, but a power meter don’t care if the clamp and voltage are well placed.

      Once the probable is eliminated, and the impossible stated, the improbable, the unverified or the wrong doing have to be considered.

      Error in TC temperature is not to exclude, especially if basic errors are made, like having wrong reference, wrong wiring…

      note also that if the testers trusted a manipulator, some simple tricks could be used.
      It seems the testers were naive and authorized what should not be if you don’t trust your partner (a rational situation in normal science).

      for me trying to understand what happened is a kind of autopsy. This dream is dead; remains others.

  • sam
  • sam
  • Gerard McEk

    Not LENR, but mabe important:
    The NanoFlowcell is now controllable and may be a good candidate for future electrical cars:—160162.html
    The question is what the total efficiency is of the charge/discharge cycle.

  • radvar

    Frank, FYI

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Also: E-catworld has padlock with red slash over it as “not secure” website in Firefox.

      • Monty

        I guess thats because ecatworld is not using https