Piantelli forms Protium Srl. to Sell Shares to the Public

22Passi.blogspot.com is reporting the formation of Protium Srl, by Francesco Piantelli and his associates. The following is excerpted from a Google translation of the article on Daniele Passerini’s site.

The “front” of LENR research headed by Professor Francesco Piantelli has returned to give news of him after several months of silence. He did it two days ago, a mailing list of known energeticambiente forum to which they had entered anyone interested in receiving news sull’azionariato linked to LERN Piantelli reactors. Two days ago the above mailing list was sent an information document (with an attached depth technical), which traces the history and takes stock of the results achieved to date by the research and Piantelli – shows setting the Group’s corporate formed to finance the continuation – announcing the opportunity for everyone to become member investors. I summarize briefly the contents of the disclosure document . . .

Unlike other competitors in the race for LENR (Andrea Rossi in particular), the Piantelli group chose to work quietly and discreetly; currently testing continues on two main fronts:
  • study and processing of transition metals (the “fuel” to feed the cells LENR);
  • study and analysis of multiple cells compared simultaneously (powered by different types of “fuel” and driven by different procedures).
It is reported that the increase in the number of tests performed and the results obtained have led to an exponential increase in the understanding of the phenomenon in its control and in the development of the reactors.
To support the search for Piantelli have thus formed two companies:
  1.  Nichenergy Srl  (composed exclusively by prof. Piantelli and the first financing partners that have allowed the resumption of work) that owns the technology, patents, laboratory, and has signed an agreement with a corporation that contributes significantly to the development of research and split with 50% Srl Nichenergy any revenues that will accrue.
  2.  Protium Srl of which may become part (through the purchase of shares) all those (individuals, businesses, companies) who want to contribute to the project by investing capital or other resources and will receive 20% of all revenues that Nichenergy Srl will derive the territory of the European Community.

Piantelli has been granted a patent by the European Patent Office for a nickel-hydrogen reaction process and it looks like he is setting up to try and compete with the efforts of Andrea Rossi, who has rather taken all the attention in the area of nickel-hydrogen LENR. The work of Piantelli has been done, as mentioned above, without much fanfare or publicity, and I’m not aware of any public demonstrations or validations of his systems, and it would be very interesting to get more details of the testing that has been carried out.

Although the late Sergio Focardi, Andrea Rossi’s partner and collaborator worked first on nickel-hydrogen LENR with Piantelli, Rossi has been somewhat dismissive of Piantelli’s work, at one time mentioning that the process described in the patent did not work. I expect that at some point we’ll see legal challenges launched in this arena.

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    Yesterday I received an email from nicHenergy (as they call themselves, good name!) which should provide their progress in the field, as claimed. All the information seems quite dated. It did not adequately show the progress they made recently. I have asked them to provide more proven information. Did anyone also receive this information and do you agree with my complaint?

    I did want to upload this information to make it accessible for all of you, but I found no way of doing this on this site.

    • ecatworld

      I have uploaded the PDF of testing data today.

  • Lexi Mize

    Are you making any $ off of this site Frank? T-Shirt biz? Or is it all a net loss?

    • Shane D.


      Frank shuns the profit ($) motive and proudly lives off government handouts.

      • ecatworld

        Unfortunately, I can’t get a government grant to do the site.

  • oarmas

    two terms from Italian were not translated …energeticambiente… new energy (or energy changers)… forum

    and … sull’azionariato… of action… linked to LENR

  • bachcole

    So what happened to roseland67? Perhaps she is so busy organizing her files and links that she hasn’t had time to get back to us. (semi-sarcasm)

    • roseland67

      roseland67 is a male,
      Electrical Engineer/CEM,
      married 35 years, 3 kids, all thru college and grad school
      I travel extensively and do have the “job thing” that demands
      much of my time.
      If I could figure out how to post an attachment, I would

    • roseland67

      the color coding did not come thru in the text and it matches the schematic, and am still having difficulty attaching my schematics, but the gist of my “scepticism” is below.
      This is the document that generates discussion among my peers,
      it is obviously a work in progress, just as Rossi’s, as I come to understand more,
      I revise as I interpret.
      Rossi’s Nickel hydrogen/catalyst reactor:
      (my initial interpretations only, the available confirmed data is very limited)

      Hydrogen, (H), has an atomic # of 1, this means there is 1 proton & 1 electron in the Hydrogen nucleus, (see the # 1 above H in the Periodic Table of Elements).
      Nickel, (Ni), has an atomic # of 28, and similarly, has 28 protons and 28 electrons.
      Copper, (Cu), conveniently, right next to Nickel on the Periodic Table,
      has 29 protons, and 29 electrons.
      Many elements, including those above, have multiple naturally occurring isotopes.
      An isotope is an element that has varying amounts of neutrons. Some naturally occurring nickel isotopes have 30 neutrons, some have 32, 33 etc.
      The specific number of neutrons determines the name of the isotope of the element.
      An example would be a Nickel atom with 28 protons, 28 electrons but w/30 neutrons.
      As this atom has 28 protons it MUST be Nickel, however, we refer to this nickel isotope, as Ni58, (58 being the # of protons, 28 + the # of neutrons, 30, or 28 + 30 = 58).

      In an atom, the # of protons, (positively charged), and electrons, (negatively charged),
      are identical. This force of equal & opposing charges, (+ -), is what repels other protons and also what helps bind the atom together, this force is known as the Coulomb Barrier.
      The Coulomb Barrier is a very tight electrical bond that surrounds protons and electrons,
      it cannot be twisted, turned, pulled, or torn apart w/o incredible amounts of energy.
      This is what brings us to Andrea Rossi’s NiH reactor.

      Rossi posits, (as I understand it), that under certain conditions, specifically,
      a powdered Ni58 isotope, doped with an as yet unrevealed catalyst, contained in a tube, oscillated, (by RF?), heated and suffused in pressurized Hydrogen, the Coulomb Barrier apparently “relaxes” slightly, or is somehow “weakened” allowing one of the surrounding Hydrogen atoms to penetrate the Ni58 lattice of protons and electrons, (see attached drawing).
      This Nickel atom now has 29 protons, but the Periodic Table tells us that the only element with 29 protons is Copper, (Cu), not Nickel.

      So, (briefly?), we have a Copper isotope with 29 protons, 29 electrons and 30 neutrons, Cu59. We Google Cu59, find it radioactive, yet there are no emissions in the reactor?

      Is it possible that the extra proton/electron now inside the Ni lattice somehow form a neutron leaving us again with a Nickel atom, with 28 protons, 28 electrons but now with 31 neutrons, (28 + 31 = 59), or Ni59? We Google Nickel 59, and find another highly radioactive isotope. This is good because it is a great source of heat for the reactor, (T2 increase in drawing), but bad, (really bad), because Nickel 59 has a radioactive ½ life of over 76000 years. 1

      Rossi however, states that there is no radiation being emitted from his reactor.
      He suggests that this new Ni59 isotope, continues to absorb Hydrogen atoms
      and goes through similar additional decay sequences until Ni59 becomes Cu63.
      (I am not smart enough to know if this decay chain sequence is even possible).

      We now Google Copper 63 and find a stable isotope, (no longer radioactive),
      and no longer capable of absorbing any additional Hydrogen atoms.
      The decay chain has ended, produced “Bo Ku” heat in the process, but zero radiation,
      the only byproduct being some Copper residue in his reactor when he opens it up.
      Turning Nickel into Copper? A transmutation of elements? Alchemy? Possible?
      In fact, while extremely difficult and very $, it may be possible.
      My inquisitive skeptical engineering nature, along with my very limited understanding of nuclear physics, (see obviously above), suggests something isn’t quite right here.
      When that happens, I seek out someone smarter than me and ask questions, lots of them.

      When Cu59 decays, (e- e+), doesn’t this new Ni59 radioactive isotope emit 2 gamma rays, there are none detected here, why not?
      For this initial Ni58 isotope to continue to absorb Hydrogen protons and decay until it reaches Cu63 is mathematically unthinkable to me.
      Imagine the entire city of Chicago, standing blindfolded on Medinah golf course with golf clubs and unlimited golf balls, (the golf balls are Hydrogen atoms), and all of these blindfolded people are trying to get a hole in one on # 16, (Ni58). Sure, there’s a lot of golf balls whizzing around that course, a lot of chances to get a hole in one, but we need not one hole in one, we need 4, (4 Hydrogen atoms), to land in the same cup, (the same Ni58 atom), to complete the decay chain from Ni58 to Cu63.
      Now let us assume for a moment that this actually happens. We now consider this mathematical improbability must occur for EVERY Ni58 isotope that absorbs a Hydrogen atom, not some, not most, but all of them. (If a single golf ball falls into any other hole, 3 more golf balls MUST follow). Every single Ni58 atom that begins the decay chain by absorbing a H atom MUST now complete the decay chain up to Cu63. If they don’t, then some of these original Ni58 isotopes will not end their life as stable Cu63 but will remain unstable radioactive isotopes of either Ni or Cu. Yet, Rossi insists there is no radioactivity.
      How is it possible to predict and control when and how many Ni58 isotopes “absorb” the required Hydrogen? This process, (if it works as I interpret it above), should literally “run away” with uncontrolled Hydrogen absorption and incomplete, (radioactive), decay chains, followed by uncontrolled heat gain.
      Penetrating the Coulomb Barrier with some Hydrogen, heat, vibration, a few bars of pressure and some secret catalyst?
      If it does work, wow, amazing, a new energy revolution and once again,
      it will be time for me to seek out someone smarter and start asking questions,
      lots of questions, hopefully soon, but as usual, I’m from Missouri.

      • US_Citizen71

        I am not a nuclear physicist but my money would be on the creation and decay of Cu59, Cu60 and Cu61. With the majority of the reactions being to create Cu59. The half lives are short and the gamma released being of the lower energy variety that could be stopped by a steel wall and thus the creation of heat.

        “The energies and relative intensities of the gamma rays following the positron decay of Cu59 have been determined. The energies are 0.343+/-0.004, 0.463+/-0.010, 0.872+/-0.005, 1.305+/-0.005, and 1.70+/-0.01 Mev, with respective relative intensities of 16+/-3, 15+/-5, 29+/-4, 36+/-4, and 4+/-2%. The half-life of Cu59 was measured to be 81.5+/-0.5 seconds. The energies of ground-state transition gamma rays following the positron decay of Cu61 were measured as 0.070+/-0.002, 0.282+/-0.003, 0.659+/-0.003, and 1.192+/-0.005 Mev. The accumulated works of several authors are discussed and compared.”

        “A new decay scheme is given for Cu60 which agrees with the main features of previous schemes. However, evidence was found for previously unreported feedings to levels at 4.08, 3.73, 3.39, 3.27, and 3.19 MeV. Analysis of single-crystal γ-ray spectra and spectra in coincidence with 1.33-MeV radiation and with annihilation radiation revealed, in addition to previously established γ rays, new weaker γ rays whose energies are 0.47, 0.50, 0.64, 0.95, 1.03, (1.10), 1.86, 1.94, 2.06, 2.40, 2.74, 3.19, and 3.27 MeV. No 3.52-MeV γ ray was found. The half-life for Cu60 was measured to be 22.9+/-0.1 min. Angular-correlation measurements for γ rays of 0.83, 0.95, 1.03, and 1.79 MeV in coincidence with 1.33-MeV radiation have been made. Spin-2 assignments resulted for levels at 2.16 and 3.12 MeV. E2M1 mixing ratios δ=-1.2+/-0.3 and 0.21+/-0.04 were found for 2i+–>21+ transitions of 0.83 and 1.79 MeV, respectively. A spin-0 assignment for the 2.29-MeV level was made. The present γ-γ angular-correlation results are compared with results of a previous γ-γ angular-correlation study and with results of a Ni60(p, p’γ) γ-ray angular-distribution study. In the case of the E2M1 mixing ratio for the 0.83-MeV γ ray arising from the 2.16-MeV level, the present value for δ is close to the value obtained from the (p, p’γ) study, and disagrees with the previous radioactivity work. The negative sign of δ for this 2+2–>2+1 transition is discussed in the light of new theoretical estimates by Greiner. The relationship of the present experiment to other recent work is discussed.”

        Isotope Half Life
        Cu-61 3.4 hours
        Cu-62 9.7 minutes
        Cu-63 Stable
        Cu-64 12.7 hours
        Cu-65 Stable
        Cu-67 2.6 days

        • US_Citizen71

          I do not think multiple absorptions of the protons from ionized hydrogen is what is happening. I think what is occurring is a single proton being adsorbed using quantum tunneling or similar process to create Cu isotopes. I also have a theory that whatever the mechanism is that causes the creation of the Cu59, Cu61,Cu62,Cu63 and Cu65 it is inversely likely to occur the greater the atomic weight of the Ni isotope which is acted upon making Cu59 the most likely product of the process. I believe this because as you have more and more subatomic particles in the nucleus it would seem more likely that something would get in the way of the tunnel or block the creation of tunnel. Making Cu59 decay the most likely true fuel for the Ecat both by natural abundance of Ni58 and difficulty in creation of the quantum tunnel in heavier isotopes according to my theory. I admit I am a complete layman I know enough quantum mechanics and quantum theory to know that I know nothing.

          • bachcole

            Whatever the mechanism, we should be working backwards from the REALITY of the 2013 Levi et. al. report. If someone should come forward and say that it can’t be so because there are not neutrons or no gamma rays or not enough Ni69 or whatever, that won’t cut it. We have a reality, which is a COP way over 1. Now we need to figure how it happens.

            • US_Citizen71


              There is only so much information that can be gleaned from the third party test, which is exactly what Rossi wanted. The mechanism can’t found from the data as not even cursory examination of the fuel powder before and after the test was allowed. My assumption from that piece of information is that a small amount of Cu61 is created, as the cooling period would not allow for all of it to decay back into Ni60. Passing a Geiger counter over the powder when it was emptied would have shown gamma and would present somewhat of a radiological danger. Rossi is a smart enough businessman to not give away his secret in this way. To me Rossi has known that there is a gamma release since the beginning, which is reason for the lead wrap on the reactor during his first public demonstration. Adsorption of the gamma is what creates the majority of the heat leading me to not be so confident in Celani’s experiments.

              Thinks4Self – If you hadn’t figured out my previous name from my avatar and writing style.

              • bachcole

                US_Citizen71, you misunderstand what I am saying. I don’t expect anyone to figure out how the E-Cat works from the successful testing. Mine is more logical or epistemological. The skeptic way of looking at things is “No neutrons, therefore no LENR and the whole thing is either incompetence or a scam.” I am saying, “The Levi test was true, therefore LENR+ is true and we have to figure out how it works and why there are no neutrons.”

                • US_Citizen71

                  Clearly you have to believe it possible to get a proton (ionized Hydrogen) in to the nucleus of an atom without the BFI approach of the hot fusion researchers. Without that premise you’re stuck in the box.

                • bachcole

                  Now I don’t know what you are saying.

                  IF {2013 Levi}, THEREFORE {we have to find a theory that fits all of the evidence}.

                  What if it isn’t even nuclear? What if we are punching tiny holes in space/time and extracting dark energy?

                • US_Citizen71

                  Sure we have to keep all options open, but we can only pursue theories for which we have tools to test them with, so holes in the space time continuum and such have to be put aside until we have means of testing them or all other theories have been eliminated.

                  If H and Ni are the fuel for the process then the obvious solution for a nuclear level energy event would be either a fission event where the H breaks the Ni or a fusion event where the H fuses with the Ni. Fission would produce transmutations and neutron emissions.

                  Fusion on the other hand would produce an isotope and after decay of non-stable isotopes the original starting materials. If the proton from the H under goes some method of change to become a neutron you would have an isotope of Ni. More likely it doesn’t since to my knowledge that hasn’t been observed ever happening. So we are left with Cu isotopes most of which would be unstable and decay back into Ni. Some would remain as a transmutation but the Ni isotopes that could undergo transmutation to stable Cu would only be 4.5% at natural occurring levels. This follows what little has been reported on the Ni powder after long periods of reaction. The recycled Ni fuel with the created Cu removed would be a better ratio of Ni isotopes than nature as the percentage of permanently transmutable isotopes would be come smaller with each cycle. Which is probably why Rossi wants his fuel back in a sealed cartridge.

                • bachcole

                  Many researchers have seen 2H -> He and the like.

                • US_Citizen71

                  I won’t rule out He creation either, but since to do it you have to hit a bullet with a bullet I don’t think it is the dominant reaction.

                • Warthog

                  Since the H atoms are “contained” in the matrix of the nickel substrate, they are not “bullets”. More like “sitting ducks”. And for the Pd/D2 case, there is no question that He4 creation is the dominant pathway. As one Nobel physicist (who DID think LENR is real) said……the conditions in the solid state are not those of a high-temperature plasma. A point I would think to be glaringly obvious.

                • US_Citizen71

                  I won’t call them “sitting ducks” more like rubber bullets in a closet vs a gymnasium. They are still a gas and as such are going to be more active than a solid, they are just contained in a small area. Solids being solids tend to move infinitely less than a gas. In the Pd/D2 cells the energy output is lower than the Ni/H cells if we believe everyone’s data. So you could conclude that D2 to D2 reactions are the dominant and possibly only reaction in a Pd/D2 cell. While H to Ni reactions are the dominant reaction in a Ni/H cell. It all comes down to the mechanism that causes the fusion. It maybe something as simple as the RF signal used by Rossi and DGT causes a harmonic effect with the electrons of the atoms involved, causing them to be bunched on one side of the nucleus at regular intervals leaving the nucleus unguarded for extremely brief moments in time from certain directions. RF signals causing re-positioning of electrons is not an unprecedented thing. The current accepted theory of why John Kanzius’s salt water burning machine works states that the RF signal he used caused an alignment of the H atoms in the water that ripped apart their ionic bonds.

                  If you have never watched a video of it is a little surreal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvLwDX2WW0

                • AlainCo

                  “.the conditions in the solid state are not those of a high-temperature plasma.”

                  simpler than Yeong E Kim:
                  “I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams.When they were being criticized at the APS meeting, I was frustrated that I could not rebuke public criticisms by my nuclear theory colleagues, since I did not have an appropriate alternative theory, even though I realized that their theoretical arguments are premature.”

                  ” A point I would think to be glaringly obvious.”


                  When I begun, I could not understand how that detail, obvious for an engineer trained in semiconductors, could be ignored by physicists.

                  Then I read Benabou, Kuhn, Taleb. and the light came.

      • Charles

        Roseland, I am a BSEE, electronics, with experience in radar, optics, inertial guidance and control engineering. I have had two articles published in my local paper, The Roanoke Times, extolling LENR and its potential for the future of mankind. Both contained what I consider the proper amount of hedging about “reality”.

        I once entered a fairly long article in e-cat world regarding the proposal that I ponder whether Rossi, Defkalion and Brillouin are strong enough in Control Field Theory or whether they are even paying attention to that. My major question was whether the physics is well-enough understood to figure out where and how to do the sampling necessary for feeding back the output to the input in order to control the process. Have you any comments on that?

        • roseland67

          I have no knowledge of Control Field Theory

        • AlainCo

          Control theory is not rocket science (ok, a joke, it is part of rocket science ;-> )

          From discussion with them and some remarks I’ve read, I trust Defkalion to have applied good control techniques.
          Rossi have discussed of MPC… anyway you just have to hire a good engineer in that domain…

          With some robust control, you can manage uncertainties in the model. adaptative control may help, and with modern software, adaptative control is not so complex… problem is to avoid unstabilities by over adaptation.

          The only problem is whether the system can be stabilized.
          LENR seems to endure strong positive retroaction from temperature to power… hopefully Defkalion seems to have played n the different retroaction gain depending on the timescale… lower gain at long terms allow reaction to cool.
          Defkalion with it’s non-thermal excitation have and advantage.
          Same for brillouin.
          E-cat make me more frightened, but maybe Rossi have found tricks to activate or deactivate the reaction.

          anyway as you say, the only serious question on LENR reactors is “control”

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Roseland, if your stance is that you have to understand what is happening before you believe in LENR, then you’re out of luck. LENR reactions are somewhat unknown though there are many theories. According to these, circumventing the Coulomb barrier doesn’t seem so impossible anymore. So in this instance you cannot try to understand what’s happening using known theories, you have to open yourself to new ideas.

        Classic scientists have great difficulties doing so, as they seem to think everything has to be explained and predicted by known theories and in believing so they try to fit the evidence to the theory instead of the other way around. According to them there is no known theoretical model to explain LENR (Huizinga’s miracles), so the evidence has to be wrong; measurement errors or just fraudulent. They (science) should be guided by empirical evidence first which in this case is that LENR reactions are happening and then theorize about possible explanations.

        Nowadays almost everyone can replicate LENR reactions; there’s plenty evidence to be found. I think hardly anyone on this site doubts LENR itself. The only question is if people like Rossi have *high power* LENR. After looking at the evidence myself I happen to believe Rossi and Defkalion have that, but that’s something everyone has to decide for him or herself.

        The beauty about LENR it is that next to the possibility of cheap and unlimited clean energy, there may be a whole new field of physics and new applications to be discovered with who knows what new blessings (or curses) for mankind.

        • roseland67

          I have no stance, neither pro nor con.
          There are many smart people on this board with very different theories/explanations on how Rossi’e version of LENR functions. From my post last night @ 1:00 am: there have been Helium, Control Field and Proton absorbtion alone.
          It appears obvious to me that no one knows what or how LENR works, and neither do the 2 major national labs where I do work, many a “raised eyebrow” is returned when this discussion arises.
          History is littered with examples of engineering preceeding science, so that is not difficult for me to get my arms around.
          No uneducated person on the planet can argue the “beauty of LENR” and all it’s world changing potential, myself included.
          I very much look forward to this day, but, I am not holding my breath.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            roseland67 Thanks for you input to this site, skeptics like you make for interesting discussions. I am encouraged by what seems to be a softening in your stance. From: ” Proven to who? Certainly not to me, I believe what my senses tell me,
            and up to now, my “Spider senses” are tingling.” to this, “I have no stance, neither pro nor con.”

            • roseland67

              I am not a skeptic, I actually introduced my peers to this possibility of LENR and what is known as the Rossi effect. I outlined my explanations to them, then in the very next page, brought up all of my concerns, just like above.
              However, niether, I do confess, am I an LENR zealot.
              It seems that on this board, if you are not a “friend” you must be an “enemy”
              and are labled and treated as such.
              Engineering preceeds science everyday, (I am an engineer NOT a scientist), it is entirely possible that it will here also and if/when it does I shall be deeply interested in the “how”.

            • roseland67

              roseland67 Roger Bird
              • 2 months ago• 0 0

              Bernie/Warthog/bacchole et al,
              This is a post of mine in a reply to Roger Bird, 2 months ago,
              no mention of a required theory, just the opposite in fact.

              Roger Bird,
              If Rossi has what he says, it is safe, reproducable, cheap, reliable, repairable, emission free, regardless of the theory, it will be be reverse engineered and available globally with a year.
              If all above is true, can we then compare Rossi to say, Jonas Salk, and if so does he, Rossi, OWE this ECAT to mankind.

              As usual, I’m from Missouri

              • bachcole

                roseland67, using Jonas Salk is not a good way of getting my attention since I know that the polio epidemic was on it’s way out before his vaccine became available.

                I really have no opinion on what Rossi should do with his invention, give away the secret or make a bundle. Everything is just fine as it is and will change into just fine with me.

                • roseland67

                  The Jonas Salk reference was not meant to get anyones attention.
                  The first paragraph was, which you conveniently ignored,
                  “Regardless of the Theory”
                  The theory does not matter, if it works, it works, I would like to understand it,
                  but if I am not smart enough, it’s still going to work.
                  I want to KNOW, not just be told, and as of today,
                  no one here KNOWS “squadusch” (Chicago term for nothing).

      • bachcole

        It is my understanding that McKubre gets helium in amounts that explain the heat that he also gets, and he has always had the equipment that Rossi did not have for a long time. (too expensive) It is possible that copper has nothing to do with the reaction or that copper was a “dirty” form of the reaction. And I suspect that Rossi may have the equipment now and just doesn’t want to correct anyone since that might help them to compete with Rossi.

      • warthog

        Your spiel is just a direct regurgitation of skeptopath comments that get recycled over, and over, and over. All objections based on the theoretical argument that “the Coulomb barrier makes CF impossible”. This despite the fact that multiple experimental works by a large number of competent scientists and reputable organizations which show that LENR is indeed real.

        If you really want to understand the what, why, and how of both the science and the sociology of the skeptopaths, read Charles Beaudette’s excellent book “Excess Heat”.

        • roseland67

          I did not say it is impossible, 5th paragraph from the bottom I said, “it may be possible”, READ.
          I just do not understand how, and from what EVERYONE i EVERY blog suggests, they do not understand either.
          So warthog, pray, tell me exactly how LENR works?
          Don’t know do you, didn’t think so.

          • bachcole

            No one knows. But neither does anyone know how charge works, why some things are positive and other things are negative. We get used to things and we can describe their “behavior” with mathematics, but we still don’t really understand them.

          • Warthog

            “How it works” (i.e. theory) is irrelevant (and another typical pseudoscientific skeptopath talking point….”there has to be a theory”). Real science says that experiment confirms theory, and not the reverse. Nobody knows exactly how quantum mechanics works either. But work it does.

            Theory is nice, but not necessary for the scientific validity of a phenomenon. Scientific validation comes from replicated experiments, and nothing else.

            Oh, and it’s “beaucoup”, not “bo ku” (south Louisiana Cajun french term).

            • roseland67

              It’s not irrelevant to me.
              Am I supposed to, like others here, simply believe what I am told?
              Ain’t gonna happen.
              No one on this board, including me, knows any of the scientists, was present for any of their tests, documented any of their practices, procedures or policies.
              No one here is familiar with their politics, religion or motivations,
              but again I am supposed to blindly follow the masses and agree that
              this process works simply because I want it to be so? and if I do not,
              I am labeled a “skeptopath”.
              I did not say there needed to be a theory, I outlined my interpretation above and not a single post has debunked it. Meanwhile there have been dozens of other posts with other interpretations & I applaud these independant thinkers.
              I think you just like using the work skeptopath,
              In the interim amigo, I suggest you switch to decaf.

              • bachcole

                roseland67, you are making jumps that I don’t understand. I don’t need to know Mike McKubre to believe him. I don’t get that you feel that you are being pressured into believing. I don’t see why you can’t trust people who you don’t personally know? I don’t get that you think that I believe McKubre and Rossi because I want LENR to work. I believe them because the evidence is compelling to me. I see no reason why I shouldn’t believe Levi, Essen, and the lot of them. They have their reputations, integrity, and careers on the line. We obviously look at things differently. But if you pigeon hole me into being some kind of true believer unicorn thinker, then you don’t understand me at all.

  • blanco69

    I know that Piantelli’s work has been a key factor in developing Rossi’s ecat but I haven’t seen anything to lead me to think that he’s got any more than a few watts of excess energy. In that respect I’d be reluctant to invest without some significant evidence. I suspect he’s hoping to catch up with a move like this. I get the feeling that Piantelli could miss the party when it starts yet, of all people, few will have had a more direct influence on the birth of this technology.

    • Daniel Maris

      That seems to be the case….but who knows….

    • Warthog

      Even a few milliwatts excess, confirmed by experiments “should” be enough to have every physicist in the world working on knowing more.

      When LENR is accepted incontrovertibly (soon, IMO), the profession of physics has a LOT to answer for.

      • roseland67

        YES, I agree 100%.
        IF this process can create even a few milliwatts of excess heat,
        AND it can be scaled up, then do it,
        the physics will follow, who cares about the theory, most of us,
        (myself included), will probably not understand it anyway.
        However, if it CANNOT be scaled, what follows?
        Conspiracy theorists unite.

  • Daniel Maris

    Excellent news – sounds like an important development.

  • clovis ray

    hi, guys,an interesting move, I will be looking forward to seeing and hearing the sales pitch.

  • jym

    I dont think Rossi ever mention selling share, but DGT does lurk into the stock market!

  • Sanjeev

    So has anybody sent and email to get the technical study etc ?
    It’d be very interesting to know its contents.

    • tombuktu

      I just send an e-mail, asking for information

      • Sanjeev

        Great! Please let us know.

        • tombuktu

          Today I received Nichernergy’s answer. Does anyboby kno how to post it?
          I will send it to ecatworld.

  • Predictor

    “the latte Sergio Focardi”

    Why am I thirsty all of a sudden?

    • ecatworld

      🙂 Thanks!

  • maozhijie

    that is good news. The spring of the Lenr is coming.