Waiting for the Cat to Roar (Guest Post)

The following guest post has been submitted by Rick Allen.

Hopefully soon, a new report detailing an extended test of the high temperature version of the E-Cat or Energy Catalyzer will be released, and expectations for this report are high. For many reasons, many of us who have been following this saga hope the results will not only prove — yet again — that the technology works as claimed, but also that the paper bursts through the barriers set up by the establishment media. So what am I hoping for in the report? The answer is a demonstration of a self sustaining system and a high COP.

The last third party report was impressive. Except to the most skeptical of cynics, it demonstrated the E-Cat produces kilowatts of excess heat far beyond any possible chemical source; basically, that there is no way Rossi could be hiding a lithium ion battery in the reactor. This should be huge, earth shattering news. Every news network should be featuring stories about this technology. Of course due to the negativity and bias of the scientific community, the results of the last test barely made it past a few popular online blogs. It’s tragic that every tiny increase in solar panel efficiency is covered in detail by mainstream news sources, but the existence of an energy technology with the potential to make energy virtually free (in addition to completely clean) is ignored. There are a few reasons other than improved performance that the upcoming paper may create a greater stir: the involvement of more scientists, the extended length of the test, the location of the test being in a neutral setting, and the fact that Cherokee built the reactors. Of course, nothing can be more impressive than massive power output with minimal or no input.

In the previous test, a self sustained mode of operation was not utilized. That’s right. Despite the fact self sustain is mentioned in the report and Rossi talked about it, the E-Cat did not maintain the same temperature for any significant length of time when the input power was cut off. If you examine the graphs and charts provided in the report, it will become obvious that a pulsed mode was utilized, at least in the second test. In simple terms, the input power was turned on, the temperature/output spiked, the input was turned off, and the temperature/output dropped until the power was turned on again. Now, it is clearly obvious that more heat was produced than should have been due to the electrical input power. Also, after the power was cut off it seems some excess heat was being produced. But the truth is that the output did not self sustain.

This in no way means that the test was a failure. Actually, it was a huge success with one experiment showing a COP of 2.9 and another showing a COP of almost 5, but these positive results were achieved without self sustain mode being utilized.

One hope I have for the upcoming report is that it will contain data from self sustain mode. By this I mean that when the power is off the temperature and output of the reactor remains constant for a significant period of time (let’s say at least several minutes and not a few seconds). This would make the report stronger for a couple of different reasons. First, if the output remains constant without input, the COP of the test will be higher. Secondly, it would provide irrefutable evidence of an unknown source of power. A hot piece of metal falls in temperature quickly when power is not being applied. The hotter the piece of metal, the more rapidly it will fall in temperature. For example, a piece of metal at 1,000 degrees C will drop to 800 degrees C faster than a piece of metal at 400 degrees C would drop to 200 degrees C. If the E-Cat self sustains and maintains the same temperature for even a few minutes, that is absolute proof of anomalous power.

Another hope I have for the upcoming report is that the COP will be higher than 6. One way of achieving this is to use self sustain mode. However, simply allowing the reactor to reach a higher temperature, while keeping the input power the same as in previous tests, is a great way of accomplishing this. In the previous report, one of the two experiments produced an average surface temperature of approximately 500 degrees C and a COP of around 5. Because the amount of power a black body radiates increases dramatically with temperature, the same reactor at 1,000 C would produce 7 times the output. If the input remains the same, this means that the COP can be multiplied by 7. In this case, a result could be a device with a COP of 35.

A COP of 35 (or even 10) would be fantastic, but there are many unknowns that may prevent this: we don’t know if higher amounts of input power are required for higher temperatures (to either stimulate them if pulsed mode is used or control them if self sustain mode is used) and we don’t know if such high temperatures will be utilized in the test.

The best possible result we could hope for is that both a high temperature (such as 1,000C or higher) and self sustain mode are utilized. Rossi has stated that with the current systems he is working on, the goal is to have power on for only one fourth of the time. If you combine the output power increase from high temperatures with self sustain mode, the COP could go to very high levels.

What we now have to do is try to figure out what is a reasonable expectation when it comes to COP for the upcoming report. This is very difficult due to the fact there is a lot we don’t know about the E-Cat. Although Rossi has shared many bits of information with us, we don’t know exactly how the charge responds to heat or the application of power. We also don’t know what allows the system to go into self sustain mode. I’m going to make a few conservative guesses here.

1) Most likely, self sustained mode will not be utilized. I hope I’m wrong, but I expect a version of the pulsed mode will be used. If we are lucky the power used will not be too much greater than in the previous test and the periods between pulses will be longer. This will contribute to a higher COP.

2) Most likely, temperatures of over 1,000 degrees C will not be achieved. I expect that a temperature above 500 degrees C will be achieved. This will result in more power being produced than in the last test. If the input is the same, this will contribute to a higher COP.

3) The cat and mouse configuration will be used. We really do not know a lot about this configuration, but I hope that it allows for self sustain mode. Most likely, this setup will at least allow for less input power during pulse mode.

My hope is that the COP turns out to be at least 6 to 10. A COP of less than 6 would make the technology complicated and more expensive to implement. If the COP is greater than 6, it will mean that the technology is ready to change the world.

If self sustain mode is not demonstrated in the test, I hope that Industrial Heat shifts their priorities to obtain it. Although we know the technology can already self sustain – in one test a device self sustained, went out of control, and produced a million watts of heat for several seconds or minutes – but the issue is getting it to do so safely.

Rick Allen

  • Teemu Soilamo

    I don’t know Rossi’s reasons for cooperating with IH, but was similarly struck by his incredible work ethic and persistence, reading the book. How he managed to have absolute focus during the time spent in prison and to make it a pivotal turning point in his life instead of giving up was, well, inspiring.

    A great book so far! I didn’t know Rossi was at one point closely connected with NASA, they even had a preliminary deal in place.

    If Rossi is a scammer, he is definitely an artist of the highest caliber — which I’m starting to have doubts on.

  • Omega Z

    Lets hope on going TEG research obtains 30 to 60 percent in the near future. This is not out of the realm of possibility. There are several entities who may obtain these numbers in the near future. 5 to 10 years.

    TEG’s are the Holy Grail for home systems. Zero moving parts & simplistic verses all other possibilities. And Hopefully when mass produced will be cheap. 3D printing may be the key here.

  • Veblin

    From JONP

    Teemu
    April 10th, 2014 at 8:30 AM

    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    When you say that the Professors are conducting their work “in a neutral laboratory”, do you mean they are still in your premises, or instead situated in a laboratory that is not owned by you?

    Best Regards,
    Teemu

    Andrea Rossi
    April 10th, 2014 at 6:02 PM

    Teemu:
    The Professors have worked and are working in a laboratory that is not owned by us, is totally out of our premises and that we never used before. We knew of it few days before the beginning of the test and sent there the E-Cat. It is located in a Country that is not Italy and is not USA. I cannot give further information, but, obviously, the precise location where the test will have been completed will be described in the Report that will be written by the Third Indipendent Party. When we arrived there for the assembling of the reactor, some of the components of the t.i.p. were already there for the set up.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • LENR G

      New info:
      * Testing site not in Italy or America. I would have guessed a NASA facility or neutral warehouse near IH in North Carolina. Guess not. Best guess now… Sweden?
      * Truly neutral site. Rossi sent an E-Cat and then set it up. That was the extent of his involvement/access. Independent testers observed the set up.

      If the results are positive (how could they not be at this point) and the team has a good degree of independence then this could be the watershed event we’ve been waiting for.

      If IH follows it up with a full court press, the LENR era will finally dawn.

      • Fortyniner

        This is surprising news. I can’t remember where the general assumption that the tests would be done in the US arose, but it seems we need to be more careful about what we assume.

        “We knew of it few days before the beginning of the test and sent there the E-Cat.”

        A ‘few days’ seems to limit the possibilities. Even of the reactor(s) was simply sent via UPS or similar to its destination, if inter-continental air freighting was involved this would probably take a week or so. If careful handling was needed, as seems likely, then most couriers would be out anyway, though I suppose that a private flight could have been arranged.

        Somewhere in Canada perhaps? Although it’s always possible that the test reactor(s) had simply been shipped to some destination in Europe beforehand, without knowing the exact location for the tests.

        • georgehants

          Peter, I am sure that if Mr. Rossi wanted a location with the most prestige etc. we can be sure the test is happening in the U.K.
          I would certainly suspect that the high class area of Hampshire would be top of his list.

          • Fortyniner

            Hear hear! (as they seem to say quite a bit in Londonopolis). Somerset would make an adequate backup location – with the added benefit of apple-based refreshments during dull periods.

        • Omega Z

          Wasn’t Rossi seen in Sweden some time back(Last Fall around Sept.) in a restaurant with Levi & others. Time frame seems to fit.

          As for Shipping. The Cat doesn’t consist of that much. The Control box & Reactor. It could be shipped anywhere within 48 hours.

  • Miles

    When you have a threat like this, “Mr Putin warned that Moscow could “completely or partially cease deliveries” if Ukraine does not settle its energy bill”. Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26978356

    I’m salivating to read this report. No one knows what the results are. Assuming they are spectacular results, what’s Rossi’s next step?

  • Gordon Docherty

    The following presentation from Dr. Edmund Storms at ICCF-18 gives a good possible explanation of why the e-Cat has to be controlled with a heating and cooling cycle – basically to keep the reaction going with a high COP without running away:

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

    and particularly 27 minutes 30 onward :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qfpdvwaQSnA#t=1649

    – although the whole presentation is well worth watching and mulling over…

  • guga

    I think a high COP is nothing we can expect. In May last year Rossi explained for the mouse and cat HotCat that it has 900W input for 1/3 of the time and around 1000W output for the rest of the time. Later he seems to have managed to reduce heating time to 1/4. The result is still revolutionary, just not as high a COP as we are hoping for.
    Rossi may have improved the HotCat in the meantime. However, this test was a long term test. They could not change the reactor during the test. So I assume the reactor used for the test has more or less the specifications it had in last May.

    • Fortyniner

      Exactly right. Whatever has been happening in IH’s R&D labs over the last year, the unit(s) tested are representative of ‘old’ technology prototypes. In addition, for the purposes of the test they would have been run in the most reliable ‘hands off’ mode, even if this meant restricting output considerably.

      We can probably expect sustained output that is a multiple of the point where any conventional scientific explanation is possible, but I entirely agree that we can’t also expect a high COP. The shills may seize on this in order to portray the device as little more than a low power laboratory curiosity, although it’s perhaps more likely that they’ll just go for ad hominem attacks on the test team as usual.

      Sustained running should have made a considerable change in the elemental composition of the reactor ‘fuel’ and it would be very interesting if the test data included before/after analyses. I suspect though that this information will probably be considered to be ‘commercial – in confidence’.

      • Omega Z

        The low COP test was also at low temps. They Didn’t want another melt down. Rossi has stated that Higher temps produce higher COP. COP will depend a lot on what temps they were running at.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Yet they were both thieves. Steve Jobs openly stole windows from Xerox, and IBM(Microsoft) stole windows from Steve Jobs. It was perhaps the greatest robbery since the forgery of the “Donation of Constantine”.

    This real life scene would have been priceless.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBri-xgYvHQ

    Best historic scene in history…

    • Donk970

      To be fair the bean counters at Xerox had no idea what they had or how valuable it was and pretty much let Jobs et al walk out the door with the family jewels. Same goes for Jobs, he was so trusting of Gates that he basically handed the whole show over without a thought.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Yes. Big mistake by bean counters. They would have had many more beans.

    • Omega Z

      All this was coming regardless.
      Much of this was being done by individuals in their home or basement.
      Jobs, Gates, were just quicker to capitalize on it.(And Lucky)
      Individuals were developing a windows & mouse systems long before they came to market. These people were contained by the technology at hand & the money to keep up when the technology improved. (Faster processors & memory for the most part)

      Even the Web was not a new concept. Five of us in a user group were able to connect 5 computers across town simultaneously. In 1981. However, it was very problematic. Rigorous protocols & everything in Machine language to make it fit limited memory. Processors at 2Mhz, 64K memory double if bank switching. And none of it was cheap. Thousands of dollars for a fraction of what phones are able to do today. When the technology took off, Many just couldn’t afford to keep up. Others like Gates & Jobs were able to get financing while those like me had to work with what was left over after paying living expenses.

      But the point is, most of the ground work was laid by everyday Joe’s. Gates/Jobs built on top of others. And Rossi has done the same thing. And brought it to our attention.

      Note: If not for Steve Wozniak, there probably wouldn’t have been a Steve Jobs as we know him & similar with Bill Gates. If not them, there would have been someone else. All Salesman, Conman, Opportunists.
      Note: The IBM’s of the World thought Home computers & such were just passing fads.

      I liked Steve Jobs honesty. He publicly admitted the theft of other peoples Ideas.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Yes. I had my first home computer in 1976. A 16K TRS-80 worth $1400 out of the box. The best games were “Android Nim”, adventures by “Scott Adams”, and most of our software was copied out of magazines. You may notice my Moniker shows I also have enjoyed programming.

        Machine language would be a nightmare though. I started with BASIC. There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand Binary, and those who don’t.

        I can recall programs with drop down menus before windows was created, so I understand the era.

        The main point here was that most people using technology have no idea where it came from, and Microsoft/Apple are exceptions. I bet less people know Edison invented the light bulb than use them as example.

        Hardly anybody knows who invented Pens, toasters, televisions, and a myriad of other things used in daily routine.

        The name Andrea Rossi will not hurt the progress of a viable LENR heater if it is presented.

        • Omega Z

          “Scott Adams”, Well known name at that time.

          For a time, Apple, Atari, & Commodore all used the 6502 processor. If you could program in machine code & had the manuals with the memory map, you could program for all of them.

          And my 1st computer, Don’t recall who made it, was a Kit. You Built it into a wood block. Had like a dozen switches & push buttons..
          The 8 switches were to set for 1/0. a button to accept, a switch off/on, Reset, don’t remember the last one. 8K I believe. Maybe the last button was to save to tape if you had one. Oh, If you entered any Data wrong, you started over. You learned not to do that real quick. :-)

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Glad to see they have progressed.

  • Donk970

    It seems to me that the inability to run an E-Cat without an external source of heat to enable it is a very important safety feature. The only thing that should be necessary to turn the E-Cat off is to turn off the electric heater – essentially a passive shutdown. This all means that Rossi et al need to build an actual power plant, even a small one, that generates electricity. If a small power plant is sitting in the middle of a parking lot generating excess electricity for months on end it will be pretty hard to argue with, not to mention that it’s a shippable product. So far we’ve heard a lot of talk about how great this technology is going to be and we’ve seen some devices get hot and we’ve seen some good experimental data. There’s no doubt that the effect is real but what we haven’t seen is someone do the whole widget. Given the fact that generating electricity with hot steam is a well understood area it seems odd to me that nobody has a LENR device generating electricity now.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Using external input power to control the reaction is not the only conceivable means of controlling the reaction, it just appears to be an engineering design choice that Rossi has declared to be essential. Once details of the reaction are better understood, I have little doubt that more carefully-thought-out engineering will create an alternate control mechanism that does not require an external power source. Don’t forget, we’re working with about 20% science and 80% “Rossi says” when it comes to details of the E-Cat operation.

      • Omega Z

        All the power plants that provide power to the Grid draw power from that Grid in order to remain safe & stable in operation.

        An E-cat would be no different. At the very least, it would require a battery rack of sufficient capacity to maintain control/stability & safety. This isn’t just an engineering design choice. External power is a necessity.

        Now, Theoretically, You could loop the system, But, if the Cat becomes unstable for any reason, so does your power output & control is gone. Time to replace that melted reactor core.

        • Robert Ellefson

          It seems as if you are relying on tautologies in lieu of system design parameters. There is no reason that all existing power plants, such as photo-voltaic arrays, need to draw any power from their grid inter-tie in order to maintain stability or safety. They only use information derived from the grid in order to maintain AC phase stability. There is nothing fundamental about a PV array that requires external power. This is a single counterexample to your assertions; I can think of many potential LENR reactors that could be modulated by means other than external power. For example, let’s imagine a reactor with active coatings around both the interior walls of the reactor chamber, and also around the exterior surface of a “core insert” that fits snugly into the reactor chamber. Once activated, perhaps by external power or not, then such a reactor’s output could be modulated by adjusting the core insertion depth, which directly affects the reaction feedback caused by radiated coupling between core and chamber walls, and thus reduces or enhances the reactor output. This is just one example of many imaginable reactors that could be modulated by something other than external energy source.

          • Fortyniner

            There is also the device that ‘generates frequencies’. Oscillating EM fields, RF input or even modulated current flow through the nickel may also have a potential role in stimulating or damping the ‘Rossi effect’, even if these are not utilised in current configurations.

          • Omega Z

            Guess I should have specified All fossil, Nuclear & Hydro power plants require power from the Grid in order to remain safe & stable in operation..

            A few are designated Feeder plants meaning they can be fired up by backup Generators. The vast majority require so much energy to start that they can only be fired up from Grid power by way of the feeders. The Generators will not generate power without power feed to it. no matter how fast they spin. This is intentional in order to cut power production nearly instantly. If you have a sudden drop in demand by say a million volts, You have to quickly adjust. If you produce it, It must be used. If not the weakest link gets fried. You don’t want that to be the Generator or the appliances of 1000’s of customers.
            And Don’t forget the power for the control rooms pumps & an array of other equipment.

            To the looped E-cat. If it becomes unstable(To what degree) What ever device you use to generate electricity will likely also become unstable & Electronics are finicky about that. If your control box drops out, Your done.
            Note: I didn’t say it couldn’t be done. But it could have serious consequences.

            • Robert Ellefson

              In other words, you seem to be asserting that power generation systems which require external power for some reason might not work well if they don’t have external power. Fair enough, point granted. You win.

  • Donk970

    It just occurred to me that the whole cold fusion saga can be pretty well summed up in the Dr. Seuss story “Horton hears a Who”.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Please, alliterate for us?

      It is rude to peek our interest with such insight and leave us hanging.
      Let me rephrase that.

      I wanna hear the story!

  • AB

    Some personal speculations. I think the universities of Bologna or Uppsala are strong candidates for the “scientific institute” mentioned by Rossi. Similarly, it seems likely that at least some of the testers from 2013 are also involved in the current round of testing.

    This is based on a quote by Levi who said that further tests were planned. There also has to be some degree of mutual trust between Rossi and the testers and I think Rossi would have a preference for testers that he had previously contact with.

  • JJE

    During the tests of the e-cat by a third party in 2013, a part of the Rossi device, I would call “black box” has not been accessible by team members. Do you think that the black box will be accessible by the current test team ?

    • Donk970

      Nope, the need to keep the process secret so that the company can make a profit on a working device won’t allow it. I’m really not sure why all these tests are even necessary. The only people Rossi needs to convince is the investors and the board of directors. Rossi needs to keep the funding coming long enough to engineer a working power plant. Once there’s a working power plant that can be sold it really doesn’t matter if anyone believes that LENR is real or not.

      • Omega Z

        Donk970

        IMHO, Industrial Heat is going to license this technology to others. At least Most of it. This 3rd party test will provide confidence for those external manufactures.
        This will effect how much these Entities are willing to pay in licenses fees. It Determine how easy & what terms Loans are granted to these Entities.
        When Borrowing Billion$ for new Manufacturing Facilities, Banks will Require this Data. This is standard for any venture. Even more so when your trying to do the Impossible.

        • Fortyniner

          I’m not so sure about that, at least not in initial phases. I think concerns about loss of control of IP may result in an attempt to lease web-connected black box reactors directly to industry, possibly attempting to meet demand by continuously recycling profits in order to acquire ever increasing manufacturing capability.

          If they do go down that road of course, it will slow down uptake to a relative snails pace.

  • parallelB

    Rick,
    Not clear why you are so keen on self sustain. It is not under control in that mode.
    The best solution would be a mouse, using very little power to operate, providing heat to the cat, with an overall COP of more than 10.

    • Omega Z

      I think the self sustain mode is the critical key to the overall COP#.
      I also think that is the Wild Card.

      Rossi has stated that self sustain can last minutes or many hours. The best we can expect is to improve on this where hours are more common then minutes, But will always be the Wild Card.

  • Billy Jackson

    my only advice is to temper unbridled optimism with judicious caution. It does neither side any good to either blindly accept or deny the outcome of these tests. Every generation thinks that they are the top of the heap, everything that can be learned has.. when in truth we are but another stepping stone in the progress of an ongoing evolution of knowledge sustained by the undaunted will of those who dare to challenge the known boundaries of our physical universe.

    These tests may fail. if they do it doesn’t mean the end of LENR just another hurdle to be crossed and experience to learn from. be the story true or not. the tale goes Edison made a 1000 light bulbs before he hit on one that worked.. LENR is somewhere around light bulb 18.. we have plenty of experiments left before commercial applications to the general public become available.

    then again they may succeed. and in doing so we still will have to temper our excitement as products or availability will be sparse for years to come.

    looking at the over all scene we are at the dawn of something new and exciting.
    LENR
    Graphene (electronics)
    Bio Genetic enhancements or correction
    Rejuvenation
    Longevity
    3D printing
    Virtual Reality
    Molecular engineering
    these are just a few that will change our world.

    we sit at the same place as those who were at the start of the industrial revolution, today we have processes that exist that did not even have words for them in the English language. Yet we use the benefits of all that progress on a daily basis without even thinking about them. describe the internet, or a cellphone and all its capabilities to someone from the 1914 and you will probably loose them with all the details due to not even having a concept of what your talking about.

    In one lifetime look how much we have changed.. what can be expected for our children and their lifetime? i don’t know.. but i am excited to see the coming changes and what they will accomplish on the shoulders of their parents.

    • Donk970

      What you say is exactly right. Edison’s light bulb is a perfect example. It took Edison something like twenty years to get a lightbulb that worked and at that it only worked for a few days, yet today making an incandescent light bulb is like falling off a log. The Wright brothers is another example, it took several years after the flight at Kitty Hawk before the main stream press and established science would finally recognize the truth of it. I believe that LENR is well past the stage of proving that the effect is real and into the stage of trying to build a working device. That’s the thing that critics are missing. Using the Edison analogy; we know that some materials get hot enough to glow when you pass electricity through them we just don’t yet know how to make that work in a lamp.

    • Robert Ellefson

      As a footnote, you might be interested to learn more about Irving Langmuir’s contributions to science. In the process of optimizing the electric light bulb at General Electric, Langmuir apparently discovered LENR when he observed excess heat coming from heated tungsten filaments in hydrogen atmospheres. Bohr urged him to drop the line of inquiry, since it did not fit accepted models, and eventually it was Langmuir himself who coined the term “pathological science.” In the end, not only does Edison enjoy popular credit for something he did not accomplish (the “modern” light bulb) but Langmuir himself created one of the most effective tools for suppressing the history-changing technology that he first discovered and then abandoned prematurely.

      • AB

        LENR doesn’t actually fit well into the description of pathological science given by Langmuir. See the section “Cold fusion as pathological science” at http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

        • Robert Ellefson

          Of course it doesn’t fit – that’s because we know LENR to be ‘real’ science now. However, the incorrect assertions that cold fusion is pathological science continue to this day, and I would say that these assertions are the single most significant suppressor of LENR development, historically and presently.

          • Fortyniner

            Terms such as ‘pathological science’, ‘conspiracy theory’, ‘tinfoil hat’ and so on have become generic Pavlovian triggers (fear of ridicule), and are often used deliberately in order to deflect attention from certain ‘sensitive’ lines of enquiry.

      • bkrharold

        Robert thank you so much for bringing this to the attention of ecat world readers. I had never before heard of Irving Langumir. I had to find out more about him. I was astonished at his many accomplishments, including his discovery of cold fusion. It is ironic that at the time of his discovery he was working for one of the mightiest corporations in the world General Electric. Just imagine how history might have changed, had he not been dissuaded from publishing his findings by the great Neils Bohr.

      • Omega Z

        Langmuir is 1 of many who had these observations in the past.
        And 1 of many who were coerced to leave it be.
        Thus your career could be over.

    • Obvious

      An interesting look at describing the future is the c.1913 “The World Set Free”, by H.G. Wells. He “predicts” atomic bombs and flying “cars”, but at the end of the story the most advanced medical facility in the world is updating their knowledge storage system (essentially an encyclopedia) by literally pulling out pages and inserting the updated pages.

    • Omega Z

      “someone from the 1914 and you will probably loose them with all the details due to not even having a concept of what your talking about.”

      Ha ha. You could just as easily insert 2014. This statement would still be valid.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    We already know Rossi will taint the test results again by not allowing an ecat off his premises unsupervised. His comment before was that the testers will “Bring their own equipment”. I take that comment to mean they will not have an ecat brought to them.

    Rossi is a failure at determining what constitutes enough proof:

    – In 2010 he submitted a paper about the ecat feeling it would be enough proof. It was not.
    – In 2010 he submitted patents worldwide (leaving out catalyst). These were not proof.
    – In 2011 he held a year of public demonstrations feeling it would be proof. It was not.
    – In 2013 he had verification on his premises with scientists he knew. It was not enough proof.

    He has a strong history of this error, and I would not trust his judgement about “proof” very easily.

    It would be nice to be surprised by a report that gets published in Nature Magazine, but I wonder if they are owned or edited by big oil. The only comment in Nature about LENR is an excerpt eulogy from Professor Brian Josephson about Martin Fleischmann.

    Speaking of Professor Brian Josephson. I had exchanged emails with this Nobel Prize winning physicist in the past (another subject) and he openly supports LENR and Rossi. I wonder if he is in the loop of Professors involved in testing.

    I have some hopes for verifications, but I have lost faith in them. I think Rossi will not win the LENR patent race due to his caution.

    • ecatworld

      Hi FP — Rossi has said that the current tests are being conducted not on his premises, nor those of Industrial heat, but in a neutral location. Of course, to be confirmed.

      • Billy Jackson

        at this point and time.. rossi is almost not a factor in the future of LENR he took himself out of the scene when he sold the IP. we simply don’t have anyone else giving us news to go on. I dont think that the situation will remain as is. I think that for some reason people don’t like rossi and IH knows this.. so expect a new face besides rossi if this test is positive. he wont be removed completely and more than likly may even stay in charge in the labs. but he muddied his own reputation and for a company like this they will want to distance themselves from that reputation by putting a different face on it to the public.

        • ecatworld

          If Rossi delivers a powerful working E-Cat, I don’t think it will be so much of question of whether people like him, or don’t like him. I think anyone who can come up with an industrial-strength LENR device will get plenty of respect — and I would think to have Rossi on their team would be an asset for IH.

        • georgehants

          Billy, I for one like Mr. Rossi.
          Why do you think anybody, say yourself, would not like Mr. Rossi?

          • Billy Jackson

            if you read my past posts i am an advocate in belief for rossi and have stated so publicly to the point of defending him. that being said were talking corporate and politics here after a successful test. i think that ecatworld may be right and a successful test will erase a lot of the stain (perceived not real) against rossi.. but then again were talking corporate and sometimes they make decisions that are .. odd..or very self serving.

            • georgehants

              Nice to hear and you are correct that capitalism automaticaly leads to “self-serving” and corrupt decisions.
              Would be good if a fair honest system where used, but the capitalist rich and powerful keep everybody under control, so that cannot happen. (especially politicians and the media)

        • friendlyprogrammer

          If the ecat works and Rossi/Cherokee/IH manages to somehow hold the rights to it many people will buy the product and not even be aware of Rossi. We know the name Bill Gates because he was the richest in the world, but we rarely know the 10th richest by name, and I used a computer for years before I heard of him.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        I did not know that, but they likely will control the environment to some extent and have the ecat guarded 24/7. I know if I had a minute alone with it I would cut it right down the middle and examine the insides with a lab team.

        “I have some hopes for verifications, but I have lost faith in them”..

        I am more excited about Brian Ahern joining MFMP.

        • Omega Z

          FP
          Just in Fun.
          Minutes after leaving a research facility, a man drove off an embankment & was killed. This may be related to a defect recall by (Insert Car Manufacturer here)

          Some made fun of the security person at the last test, But If I recall, He carried a sidearm. This should have been a clue to most observers as to how serious this business really is.

          Oh, And didn’t anyone ever tell you not to go swimming with concrete boots. :-)

      • Obvious

        Even if tests were at “Rossi’s place”, that doesn’t taint anything. If CERN does something high energy, one goes to CERN to test it again, and use their stuff. Otherwise one must start tunneling, save up, and maybe test it independently a decade or two later.

    • Andrew

      If I were Rossi I wouldn’t let it out of my sight either and neither would anyone one else in his shoes. Why would you put which a high moral standard on someone else? If anything his secrecy give credence to his cause. If it were a sham wouldn’t he be trying to be as open as possible? The last test was enough proof for me and many others. So it was on his premise. Do you really think he had “hidden laser beams” giving extra power? Or fed power through the metal stand? Or injected extra dc power over ac? Why o why would he spend all this time and effort over the years to scam a little money off investors when robbing a bank or holding up a store would be so much easier, quicker and more likely to get away with it?

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Most inventors get patent protection. In the Ecat case he even refuses to give the patent office his secret catalyst. Had he done this then his invention would be protected even if he needed to sue for the rights of invention. Morals are not required in the business world. When the phone was invented was Bell afraid to show it to corporations? No? Because he held a patent.

        As it stands he has no protection on his catalyst, and the ecat itself might be replaced or replicated by the 20+ other organizations in the patent race.

        The last test was enough to convince you and me, but it did little to affect the worldview, and I doubt you could name 5 people in your personal life who have heard of LENR.

        I am not against Rossi. I just think he really needs to look at his invention from the standpoint of the world. Common sense says he has something, but there is no real proof on paper. No proof that has not been knocked full of holes by skeptics.

        I hope Rossi Succeeds as he was one of the first to bring the Nickel/Hydrogen version into the public eye. I am merely saying I am not holding my breath over this “verification”

        • deleo77

          I think you have to look at it from the standpoint of Rossi selling his I.P. to Industrial Heat. Rossi knew that he had neither the money and other resources needed to get the patent and more importantly to commercialize the e-cat. So he did exactly what he should have done, which is to sell the I.P. to someone and let them try to get the patent and commercialize it. Handing all of this off is the best thing Rossi could have done for himself.

          We will see with this latest test if the e-cat holds up to further scrutiny. If it does then Industrial Heat will be leaps and bounds beyond the competition. They will have an LENR device that shows a long term, stable reaction. Industrial Heat has also raised $11.5MM, and they have made key contacts in China. I’m sure they have made key contacts with large U.S. corporations as well. Darden, who is the CEO of IH, is a sharp attorney with a lot of connections in the public and private sector.

          If the e-cat can be brought to market and it is successful, Rossi will likely get some type of royalty that will make him more money than he needs for the rest of his life. The existing patent that was just rejected will likely be amended right before commercial launch with the necessary details. I’m sure IH has patent attorneys hard at work on this. Meanwhile others at the company are finalizing development steps to get to a commercial product. I am not sure what else could be taking place for Rossi’s benefit. This is probably the best shot he has ever had.

        • Ophelia Rump

          You are not granted a patent the moment you apply, neither are you granted protections.

          So you reveal, they reject, you are left with nothing. Surely one so wise as you knows this already, hmmm.

          I think a much more interesting question is “How do you find jobs shilling on the internet for special interests?” I think we all want to know.

          How is that done?

          • Fortyniner

            Yes, I’d like to know that too. And the rates…

    • Donk970

      The simple fact is that we live in a capitalist world where pursuit of profit drives most science. Rossi would be insane to let those devices out of his sight. The simple fact that the e-cat exists will motivate someone to reverse engineer the thing and soon enough everyone will know how it works. IH will have to make a profit before that happens.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Rossi has nothing to do with the current test, so your fears can be let go of.

      No more fear!

      Now don’t you feel better?

    • Omega Z

      Nature Magazine Etc.. Controlled by the present paradigm hierarchy.

      Rossi said this test is done at a neutral site.
      However, this is no longer a Rossi affair.
      It is Cherokee/Industrial Heat affair..

      • Omega Z

        Forgot to Add
        There is only 1 person from IH present should those testing it have questions, But those running the test are in full control of the test.
        IMO, This 1 person is probably also(Primarily) there to see that no one opens up the reactor to obtain information about the secret catalyst..
        Trust but Verify. :-)

    • Teemu Soilamo

      “We already know Rossi will taint the test results again by not allowing an ecat off his premises unsupervised.”

      Thanks to you, we now know that’s not true!

      Teemu:
      The Professors have worked and are working in a laboratory that is not owned by us, is totally out of our premises and that we never used before. We knew of it few days before the beginning of the test and sent there the E-Cat. It is located in a Country that is not Italy and is not USA. I cannot give further information, but, obviously, the precise location where the test will have been completed will be described in the Report that will be written by the Third Indipendent Party. When we arrived there for the assembling of the reactor, some of the components of the t.i.p. were already there for the set up.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Yes. I saw you had asked that, and have commented on that thread. It is good news.

        I believe Andrea Rossi has what he claims, but I worry he has not done enough to stake a claim over the intellectual property. The story is supposed to go. ..

        – Man get’s idea…
        – Man patents idea …
        – Man shares idea …

        Even if the patent office say it is impossible now. a correctly worded patent application would offer protection if its author sued for the rights when it is proven possible.

        I think Rossi should include his catalyst in his patent applications to ensure his ownership of the invention.

        Thank you for asking that question directly though. You cleared up a lot of guess work.

        I support Rossi since 2011, and can see no plausible scam scenario. The easiest corporate scam is like mining companies have done. Claim they hit a motherload, sell shares, pay themselves millions in wages and then fold the company. It is somewhat legal if done with “honest” intent. Rossi could have gone public with Leonardo Corp and I know I’d have bought a handful of shares, but he has been consistently very hard to invest with.

        Thanks..

    • Fortyniner

      Your post seems to set out not only to dismiss the new test results before they are released, but you also seem to be subtly implying that Prof. Josephson may be a part of some Rossi-led conspiracy. Perhaps you could make it clear that the latter is not your intention.

      Rossi’s comments make it completely clear that the reactor was taken to a test location previously unknown to him, where some test equipment was already in place, showing your initial paragraph to be the unfounded and deliberately destructive BS it is.

      To be honest I am mystified as to why your obviously agenda-driven and frequently malevolent posts are permitted here.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Let’s assume that the reactor is powered electrically, and the released heat is converted into electricity with an efficiency of 30%. If you then feed the reactor with the generated electric energy, you would need a COP of 100/30 = 3.333 to get a self-sustaining device, with a resulting ‘electrical’ COP of 1. That sounds useless from an economic point of view, but there is still the waste heat from the electricity generator. Since extracting that waste heat might influence the reaction in unexpected ways, it is difficult to estimate its usable amount. But with a COP above 3.333 (measured without self-powering) the remaining electricity could be withdrawn from the system. You would have to pay only for the reactor, the maintenance and the fuel. In reality it might be more complicated, mainly because the reaction will not be continuous all the time. However, with an array of multiple reactors and/or an energy storage system the problems should be solvable.

    • ecatworld

      Good points, Andreas. I think where this will really start to make a difference is if you could get a COP of 5+ which would allow an E-Cat to charge another E-Cat (or itself) with electricity left over. Multiple E-Cats charging each other could result in much more savings.

      And if you can use the ‘waste’ heat for something productive — all the better.

  • georgehants

    Just for fun I put up the below comment the other day, I now notice that Mats has replied with good humour.
    ——-
    Have just received my book – An Impossible Invention – from Sweden, with
    dedication -To georgehants – a man who believes in the TRUTH and not
    false scientific “opinion” – Mats Lewan.
    I of course will not read it, but keep it in perfect condition
    I am ready to receive offers for this unique piece of history.
    I suggest offers start at 10,000 and I mean real GBP’s not the shells and beads used by the colonies.
    You think I am joking, Ha
    ——–
    Mats Lewan
    Georgehants, maybe if I sell enough books, one day I could afford to buy it back from you!