LENR: Having Eyes to See

There is much anticipation regarding the long-expected third party report of long-term E-Cat testing, and I think I am as eager as anyone to read it and find out the results of the testing. But I don’t feel much of a sense of anxiety about it, because I fully expect that it will once again demonstrate that the E-Cat is a non-chemical source of energy with the potential to be far superior in power density than any conventional energy source. I think that Levi et al. demonstrated that convincingly in last year’s report.

I realize that there was much wiggle room claimed by skeptics which allowed for the possibility for fraud by Rossi in setting up the experiment, and/or deceit on the part of the testers, but I see that as extremely unlikely, and a possibility I don’t take seriously at all. I know that is a judgment call on my part, but an informed one, I believe.

So my position is that the E-Cat has already been successfully demonstrated to be real and valid, and as such is an energy source that can solve many of the most pressing energy problems the world faces. It is a mature technology in the sense that it is ready to provide useful energy right now. Of course manufacturing, sales and distribution will be required, but technologically I think the first generation of E-Cats is ready to be deployed to provide at least heat in a variety of settings.

But of course ECW readers know that only a tiny percentage of the world’s population have any clue about this revolutionary technology, let alone accept that it is real. I would guess that only a few thousand people around the world are paying close attention to the LENR story. And while a new and better report might convince more people of its reality, it’s possible that following its publication we might find ourselves in a similar position to where we are now — with relatively low levels of interest in a technology that has the potential to revolutionize energy production.

I don’t think there’s a technological problem here — I think when it comes to acceptance of a technology like this, we are dealing with human psychology, and as we know people see things quite differently depending on their needs, interests and the things they are invested in (financially and emotionally). Those of us who are convinced of the reality and utility of LENR may wonder why more people aren’t as interested as we are, but when it comes to accepting radically new things, especially things that seem too good to be true, I think that most people are prepared to wait for those they consider reliable authorities to provide endorsements, rather than investigating on their own.

If this new report is to make a large splash and capture the interest of a wide public, I believe it will be because someone well known and well respected steps forward publicly and says the technology is important, and people should pay attention. That could be someone in the media, politics, business or science or some other prominent walk of life. If that doesn’t happen I think we will probably be carrying on as much as we are now, until the time comes when Industrial Heat or someone else starts publicly selling working LENR products that are an obvious advantage over current energy sources — which is really what is needed for this whole field to be of any practical use.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Bach Cole,

    “Obviously Tom Darden and JT Vaughn don’t think that there are any holes.”

    Not true. I know (and won’t say how) that they were not 100% convinced when they made the investment. Hopefully they and we will be 100% convinced after the mid-June report. Those like me who were not enamored with the Levi et al report are very hopeful.

    • ecatworld

      I suppose there is always an element of risk when making an investment, but I guess Tom and JT must have been fairly convinced to make the purchase.

      • Anon2012_2014

        It’s risk and return. Say the payouts are 10% lose it all and 90% make 10x. It would make sense to bet a large amount on the 90%. This is where I think the Industrial Heat investment is. My guess is they thought it was 60% when they put their money into Rossi. They are not scientist, but they hired some to prove it out: yes or no. Good luck to Industrial Heat — it will change the world if the answer is an unequivocal yes. We all are morally betting with Industrial Heat as when the patents run out in 20 years, we would have free energy. With free energy we can change the world, by making water and food, for example. And fossil fuels will be for hobbyist who like old cars.

        • bachcole

          After 19 months of deliberate and studied agnosticism with regard to Rossi, when Levi et. al. happened in May of 2013, it just seemed stupid to me to doubt Rossi any more. Given my faith in him, I believed him when he said that he sent the specs to IH and they reproduced the E-Cat and made it work. This is not an issue I feel any need to defend.

          • Anon2012_2014


            You jumped ahead of me. I have done a some first party research and analysis that I will not defend either. I don’t like the Levi test for reasons I have mentioned previously on this blog having to do with the volume of the chamber, the materials, specifically their mass measurement, and the proof that the materials in the chamber could not react chemically to produce excess heat for the duration of the test. I am not saying the test is wrong, I am saying that for THIS observer, they could have ruled out those issues for ME.

            I am hoping you are right — you’re the early adopter, and I am the slow one.

            • Omega Z


              I agree the 1st 3rd party test could have been better, However, I cut them a little slack on 2 points.

              1- I’ve went to deal with things myself thinking I was fully prepared only to fined once involved, Not so Much. :-)

              2- The test was never intended to be a for all conclusions to begin with, But to determine whether a more extensive in depth test was warranted. In that, it succeeded. Note: Elforsk is privy to much more then the sparse 30 page report that we have seen.

              I base this on information that was available at the time from Elforsk. A small sum of funds for the preliminary test with a substantially larger some for a follow on test should it be warranted.

              I presume this next 3rd party test report will be more telling & solid +/-.

              If Positive as many of us are expecting/hoping, I’m concerned with how it will perform when required to produce actual results.
              Rossi has mentioned trying to increase power density recently. Not sure how to view this. “Rossi Speak?” Does this involve maintaining the COP against the quenching effect that will occur when drawing power from the core?

        • Omega Z

          I would think the confidence issue would center on what happens when the Reactor is harnessed to produce work/energy.
          The coefficiency or COP “could” vary greatly between work & idle mode.

          And Please- Lose the “Free” energy label.
          The Device will not be free. And it will need periodic refueling$.
          It will merely be cleaner & cheaper then our present energies.

          I keep it in the perspective of a new fangled car that’s capable of getting 5K mpg.
          If Nickel should cost $1K per gram, I doubt many would think this Technology so marvelous. :-(

          • Anon2012_2014

            My back of the envelope calculation based on nickel isotopes presumed to have reacted say it is will be 10x cheaper to produce electricity. This would make a huge difference.

            • Omega Z

              Retail will likely be in the range of 2 cents per 1Kwh. However, every region has their own little additives, Federal, State, Local taxes & other little fees. Ahh, means nothing.

              If people want this new energy to be/remain cheap, they will have to fight for it. One thing I’ve learned in Life. If you or I or anyone else find a way to save ourselves a Dollar, Some idiot out there is trying to figure out a way to get it back & then some.

  • Daniel Maris

    I might add that there are many collateral benefits from LENR e.g. clean air, reduced morbidity, cheap energy for poor countries, and reducing the geopolitical risks of war. So direct price is not the only measure.

  • Anon2012_2014

    “I realize that there was much wiggle room claimed by skeptics which allowed for the possibility for fraud by Rossi in setting up the experiment, and/or deceit on the part of the testers, but I see that as extremely unlikely, ”

    I have been involved at a serious level and have been following this LENR tech for over 3 years. I don’t believe Rossi is intentionally lying and I don’t believe Levi et al are intentionally lying. I do believe that they failed to close the holes in the prior Levi report and in the Rossi steam report. I am hoping, but I am not convinced that the new authors will do an effective job on closing the holes so that there is no doubt in a reasonable yet independent scientist, engineer, or investors mind that the effect is real and economically recoverable.

  • Mark

    People believing wrong things can (and DOES) have real-world, negative consequences. Aaronson is causing controversy where no controversy, of this type, should be caused. It is holding back progress in quantum computing. The same is true for pseudoskeptics of cold fusion and the E-Cat. If you want to take the standard United States line that we have to put up with such harm being done to our society in order to allow a poorly-defined notion of “freedom” in this society, then I can’t stop you. (though I would be able to stop you if I was running things) Still, it is important to acknowledge, one way or another, that that this so-called “free” system that we have in The United States does cause damage.

    Anyway, as far as your other question go…have some patience. Rome wasn’t built in a day, or even a few years. I’m sure that those questions will be answered, at some point, pretty definitively.

  • Omega Z

    Cheap Energy isn’t Cheap if you throw half of it away.
    So natural market forces will prevent what your concerned about. Costs will continue to drive improvements in efficiencies. Even if some don’t think this will continue.

    Also, Without major advances in multiple technology fields, I don’t see E-cats in individual homes other then supplemental heating.
    In this situation, It would actually be more efficient then our present system. Less overall heat would be produced as less energy would be wasted Considering using Electric heat results in 70% of the energy/heat is released into the environment at the power plant.

    Also, people all over the world burn wood, coal, cow dung, whatever for cooking & heating & a huge part of this is wasted & expelled into the environment. All in All, Energy & heat from e-cats could easily result in less heat production world wide. Not More…

    This said, IMO, other then Heat Island Effect, I think the heat conversation is over stated for political purposes. ( It’s for Wealth Redistribution.)

  • Omega Z

    Blacklight Power Whats-New

    BlackLight’s Second Test of Automated Ignition System of Auger-Fed H2O-Based Solid Fuel Powder


    • Allan Shura

      This (engineering) looks to have an effect on the surface the rolling (electrodes?) with
      the appearance of pitting and residuals that typifies irregular arcing.

  • Omega Z

    Maybe if Kim Kardashian or Justin Bieber were to speak of it People would at least become aware.
    Credibility on the other-hand would be lacking. :-)

  • Omega Z

    Due to this being an unknown phenomenon, It can’t be certified for consumers without an abundance of safety data. This can only be obtained through Industrial, Then Commercial use.

    Also, Home use would only have been for supplemental heating for the foreseeable future. It will take time for the technology to become cost/benefit marketable for home energy generation.

  • Omega Z

    An E-cat power plant can’t depend on power from itself for operation. If the E-cat should become unstable, so does the power supply your using to control it. At best, It shuts down. At Worst, it melts down.

    Most of all existing systems Draw energy from the Grid that they feed power to. If there should be a problem, they still have a stable power supply for control.

    E-cat power plants would be no different & hooked to a grid would be no different then what we have. Note: If your E-cat system is small enough, A battery rack backup would suffice.

    Had Fukushima not lost it’s Grid Energy Connection, That Fiasco would have been avoided. Even the backup Generators had they not been swamped could Not have kept the Fukushima plant in operation(Not Enough Power), But they could have kept the cooling pumps working until Grid power was restored.

  • jousterusa

    I often wonder about the one E-Cat that we were told went to the US military, apparently to Afghanistan, where it provided power in remote regions of the mountains where US troops were in need of electricity and heat, or at least heat. I can certainly understand if this scenario was completely invented, though.

  • Ophelia Rump


  • Paul

    No, Rossi denied only thermal cascade, not electric. Indeed, electric cascade gives no control problem if you adopt cross schemes.

  • winebuff

    Big question I have is will rossi be alive by the time his device changes the world at the rate there going I think the chances are slim. This would be a good thread for everyones feedback.

  • Chris I

    It is unlikely that Cherokee have become a den of conners. They say they have aquired the IP from him; they don’t conduct blackbox tests but instead produce it themselves, from available materials. The only remaining option is that they’ve been fooled too.

    Unless it works, of course. At this point, either they themselves still need the report to be sure, or else nobody really does.

    • US_Citizen71

      They need the report for marketing and R&D. An outside report is useful for bullet points on product literature as well as insuring that you are not fooling yourself with wishful thinking.

    • deleo77

      The big thing that doesn’t get mentioned a lot is that an e-cat has almost definitely been running for many months wherever IH has its R&D operations. It seems like the common thought is that an e-cat has only been running at the independent test site (probably in Sweden), and perhaps at another pilot test site. But it is hard to imagine that there isn’t an e-cat continually running in North Carolina, and it is being studied, tested, and improved upon by the engineers at Industrial Heat. Darden probably sees it himself regularly and gets status reports from those who are operating it.

      Darden and Cherokee have $11.5 MM invested in this IP, so to not be operating an e-cat continuously in-house with experienced engineers over the past year would be ludicrous. It doesn’t mean that the e-cat works exactly as Rossi has claimed, but if this were some giant scam by Rossi it would have been easily discovered by now. News of something going terribly wrong (a la Defkalion) would probably surface by now. The likely case is that the investors would quickly get their money back and some type of statement saying that Rossi was no longer involved with Industrial Heat or Cherokee would be issued. But so far none of this has happened.

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

        sadly Defkalion proved that point.
        as soon as a partner have control on the test, he can spot the fraud.
        The error of Luca was to sign before he could do a test where he decided of the protocol.
        As you say, he instantly stopped relation with clients, and finally after some time waiting fro explanation he decided to throw the towel.

        Jed rothwell is right when he says that spotting fraud in calorimetry is easy when you can do what you want on the device… The red flag is raised when the reactor builder prevent you to change the test condition for an irrational reason.

        This is why the Levi&al test is a good evidence, because Rossi could not prevent someone to bring his IR cam, his voltmeter, his power clamp, his powermeter…

        • Daniel Maris

          Yes, this is my argument with the Skeps. Rossi can’t know just how sophisiticated the testers will be. If he were a scammer he would be taking a huge risk of discovery. The Skeps responds that Rossi chooses his “shills” well.

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

            the two points are good.

            Random testers rule out fraud in real third party tests.
            The definition of a third party test is when the testers can change the testing protocol out of the black box, and divulgue the results, and their doubt on the measurement.
            There is no requirement for the test to be done in a third party resort, as long as the room can be tested at will.
            There is no requirement for the inventor to be absent, provided he cannot oppose any non intrusive test out of the blackbox.
            There is no requirement for opening any blackbox.
            There is no problem about NDA on trade secrets provided it does not cover the success,eventual frauds or “discrepancies”.

            But if you choose conspiracy testers, then all is possible. Just have to be sure that all who can change the protocol are in the conspiracy.

            You can also bet on incompetent testers, but it is very risky.
            See how SHT bet on Sterling Allan, famous for his optimism on free energy, who spotted the tricks, despite the test was a pony show clearly not even third party.

      • Chris I

        Actually there is no doubt about all this, as far as I go it would be superfluous for it to get mentioned (let alone a lot), but sadly there are many who can’t see beyond the tip of there nose. The reason I was much more concise is because it is often no use spelling something out better for those who can’t see it themselves.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Yes and I read my words and retracted that statement, when I realized it was not at all what I was trying to say, much like you, my communications are often less than I desired. You have my apologies for the original version, it was really bad. That is why I retracted it. I thought it so bad that it was shameful. Thank you for being so understanding.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      Thanks for that post. Disqus had mailed me the unedited version.

  • Bernie777

    Christiana……like your energy and all the names…keep them coming.

  • Private Citizen

    What marketing genius names a product SHT, anyway?

  • Leonard Weinstein

    There are two potential problems with widespread use of e-cat or equivalent technologies in the near future, even if they work as expected:
    1) The cost of implementing and supporting use has to be at least (and preferably more than) competitive to existing technologies, and this has not been demonstrated yet. This is NOT free power. The electrical power needed to operate such systems, the capitol cost of systems and supporting equipment, and the long term operation cost may not be as favorable as some think.

    2) The difficulty and dangers of using these systems (heat exchangers, piping, control systems, possible problems with partial failures, etc.) is not yet clear. While these are mostly engineering problems, it may take a long time before systems are usable as mature technology.

    While the possibility of potential problems or limitations is not a reason to not go forward, caution is advised thinking this will be a straightforward jump ahead in the near future.

    • Rob Squires

      I don’t think it has to be that hard, here in the domestic UK market at least. Surely its just a case of transferring knowledge and skills from the air source heat pump industry, which is starting to go very nicely, especially with the role out of the Renewable Heat Incentive scheme over the next 7 years. If an ASHP typical COP is about 3-4, and an E-CAT can do 7 or 8, and maintain an equally high COP when the air outside is cold, then its got to be a winner.

    • Bernie777

      If we can put a man on the moon, we can convert 1000 coal plants to Nickle Energy. All that is needed is the President to establish the goal.

    • Daniel Maris

      There is much truth in what you say. It’s not going to be free energy. It’s going to be very cheap energy – my guess is about 2 cents per KwH is achievable. A lot depends on to what extent you can adapt existing plant.

    • Alain Samoun

      The two problems that you see are the same for all existing energy sources. What should make a difference for LENR is the promised output of energy that is equivalent to nuclear fission without the radioactivity dangers and the need of centralized energy distribution.
      The factors against the change:
      – substantial inertia due to technical standards, organizational routines.
      – systemic features of energy supply prevent innovations from being implemented overnight.
      – political might of highly capital-intensive infrastructure of centralized distribution.
      The same factors that exists to implement renewable energy right now.

    • Paul

      You forgot other important potential dangers, like neutrons or strong magnetic fields. The intensities of both these quantities have never be shown, so we have to trust in Rossi. But remember that with high COPS he said there are neutrons, so these quantities matters! Moreover, the currents created by Rossi effect are probably associated
      with strong magnetic field, as suggested by a scientific paper
      describing this effect measured on an Hyperion.

      • Omega Z

        Neutrons were detected only when it exceeded COP>200.
        That was also in the Original E-cat.
        The Hot Cat operates differently then the Original E-cat so we don’t have a clue as to this even being a problem.

        • Paul

          Neutrons are not yes/not, there is a broad energy spectrum so your info that I perfectly know says something only on their detector treshold, not on the types and number of neutrons produced at varoius COP, and we have no information about it. But without such information, not yet officially released with a third party document but only as “Rossi says…”, a physicist or a customer would not sleep near an E-Cat, be sure!

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

            yes, but the good point is that if detectors don’t see neutrons, then our body won’t be hurt.

          • Omega Z

            I was just speaking of the Neutrons.
            As to other effects, This is why it wont be available for home use for some time. Being of a new phenomenon, it will require a lot of safety data by way of Industrial use for the time being.

    • jousterusa

      I think the hydrino reactor with the solar panels collecting hydrino-generated light bursts and converting them to electricity may be less problematic and easier to scale up.

    • Omega Z

      #2 is mostly of existing in use technology. So not a problem…

      #1 Is Valid. But IMO, Capitol Costs should be similar to existing technology.

      To Compare- A 1Mw Natural Gas burner & it’s boiler system will likely be much cheaper then a 1Mw E-cat & it’s boiler system. However, IMO- I think this cost will be offset by a longer Life-cycle of the E-cat. Any additional Expense will likely be offset by other savings.

      Ultimately, This should provide Cheaper Energy Costs. Also, Much Cleaner then Existing technology.

      Another possible benefit of E-cat Plants will be scale. They can be built smaller then Conventional Facilities closer to point of use while maintaining Efficiencies & cost savings. I’m thinking City Grids instead of regional.
      As Far as Home systems being of grid, I don’t think the technology exists as of yet to make this Economical. It will likely cost more then people presently pay due to the Capitol costs.

      Actual Results: Each Country, Each Region has it’s own Taxing schemes so Individual savings will very, But all should see a savings.

      As to the Roll out of this technology, I’ve explained this before. Now I’ll tell it from the point of view of the Experts.
      If the U.S. Government & States, Etc.. would Double Down on Tax breaks & Incentives, The U.S. could be producing as much as 45% of our Electricity by Wind & Solar by 2045.

      That’s an Optimistic 45% in 30 years. So My version of it taking at least 30 years for LENR to replace most of our existing system is truly Optimistic according to the Experts.

      I Still like my view better & think we could easily exceed 45% in that time frame With only 1 tax break. Allow them to write off the expense of new manufacturing facilities in a shorter time frame. Maybe 5 or 10 years instead of 20 or 30. This small revenue loss(Not really a loss, Just accelerated depreciation) would be more then offset by economic growth.
      But Ultimately, The Roll out time frame will be determined by Real World Finance. It will be built when we have the Financial means. No sooner..