Testers Should Take Every Advantage of Access to E-Cat

The following guest post was submitted by E-Cat World reader Rick Allen.

In a number of responses to questions on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi has indicated that the team of scientists currently testing the E-Cat have full access to his device. Not only can they test it in any manner they see fit, they can also share whatever findings they want. But the good news does not stop there. Rossi has also indicated, in response to a question, that if the team testing the E-Cat were to replicate the device they would have full freedom to publish the details.

Yesterday Hank Mills asked Rossi, “If the scientists performing the third party report figure out how the E-Cat works on their own – perhaps confirming by replicating the E-Cat – would you allow them to publish the details?”

Rossi responded, “The Third Independent Party, as such, is INDEPENDENT. They can publish what they want independently from me and whatever the results, positive or negative.”

This is very good news. It means that if the E-Cat has been fully released and opened to the testers they can share all of their findings. If they were to figure out Rossi’s “secret sauce” or recipe that allows his device to exceed the wildest dreams of cold fusion researchers, they would be allowed to share it with the world. If they are able to determine the mechanisms that allow the technology to work and share them, the upcoming report may be the catalyst (pun intended) that sparks a deluge of replications across the globe.

Of course the E-Cat technology works. No one who is being intellectually honest can deny that the technology is capable of producing enormous amounts of excess heat. But for the most part, the world is still ignorant of the fact that this technology – an energy panacea that could end the fossil fuel age – exists. The best and quickest way to spread awareness, even in the minds of the most hardened cynics and psuedo-skeptics, is replication. A hundred hot cat replications from around the world showing self sustaining red hot reactors maintaining their temperature without input would change everything. Governments, universities, and businesses would race to find ways to implement this virtually limitless, clean, and dirt cheap source of power.

This all depends on the contents of the report, however. Rumors abound that the report will be positive and show a high COP. If this turns out to be the case, it would be wonderful news. But since the scientists involved have full freedom to test the E-Cat in anyway they see fit – including the fuel – I hope they will do whatever must be done to figure out how it works. In my opinion, since they have extended the testing period and have full access to the device, all of the following should be performed.

1) An elemental analysis on the contents of both the “mouse” and “cat” portion of the hot cat before the test begins. This could determine what elements are being used. For example, if lithium or magnesium may be used as Ikegami has hypothesized. Basically, it would tell us what elements and substances are in the device and the percentage of each.

2) An elemental analysis on the contents of both the “mouse” and “cat” portion of the hot cat after the test has been run. This would allow for other components of the fuel to be identified. For example, if lithium is used to coat the walls of the reactor and would not be detected unless heat has been applied and the lithium has melted. Also, it could show transmutation products which could allow us to know what nuclear reactions are taking place.

3) An isotopic analysis of the contents of both the “mouse” and “cat” portion of the hot cat before and after the test has been run. This could allow us to better identify the isotopes of fuel used and possible isotopic shifts.

4) An analysis of the gas in the reactor after heat has been applied. This could potentially let us know if deuterium is being created in the reactor as Ikegami has speculated.

5) An analysis of the size, shape, groupings, and surface features of the nickel powder before and after the test has been ran. A high powered microscope needs to be used to determine all of this. Rossi has stated that the nickel powder has been treated in such a way to creature “tubercules” or “cracks” that allow for nuclear reactions to take place. I think this is especially important. Apparently, Rossi has come up with a perfect combination of nickel processing and catalyst that allows for a huge production of heat.

My hope is all of the above analysis will be performed by the testers. To take it a step further, in addition to figuring it all out, I hope they build their own E-Cat and run a test of their own. With a set of instructions for an E-Cat, scientists around the world could begin replications and no one could ever say again that it doesn’t work.

Rossi has apparently given the scientists testing the E-Cat the permission to do this. Now they just need to figure it out and share the information with the world.

  • Owen Geiger

    If they do it this way (along with opening the operating plant to VIPs plus data release) then it could be a slam dunk/grand slam for IH and Rossi. That would pave the way for top tier publication, patents, increased market share and a big fat Nobel. All big energy companies, other corporations and universities would instantly slam a trillion dollars into LENR research, because everything would be proven and out in the open. It would start a giant stampede.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I have looked. I find that to be a very specific answer about the current implementation, and the limitation is only the amount of time Rossi has actually seen one of his fuel charges sit on a shelf and then work.

    As long as the fuel charge is properly sealed to keep the hydrogen from escaping, the fuel charge should work. This is not a radioactive substance.
    The shelf life of the Nickle is the shelf life of the particular Isotopes which transmute. Other isotopes may decay into those isotopes given eons. Hydrogen can always be replaced, but I think they have chosen some hydrogen releasing solid to prolong storage. There is no law of nature here to constrain the engineering of a long shelf life fuel cartridge.
    I doubt that E-Cats will be one time use disposable. (At first)

    • Omega Z

      Since the elimination of the Hydrogen tank, it appears the core is hermetically sealed to prevent loss of hydrogen.

      With that in mind & some of Rossi’s statements, I assume for the LT E-cat, it is cheaper to just recycle the core then to refill it.

      With the Hot-Cat at 1000’C plus operating temps, Replacing it might be more out of necessity.(Safety) Even 310 Stainless has a limited life at those temps before it becomes very brittle. A recharge of the core & hermetically resealing it would be risky.

      A better option would be a charge life of 1 to 2 years & just dispose of the core. Something of this nature should it explode from stress & brittleness under high temps & pressure. I don’t want to be near something of this nature (Again). Chunks would cut through you like a hot knife thru butter. Just as deadly as a bullet. I still hear it wizz past my ear every time I think about it. It went thru 1/8 paneling, insulation & the metal siding of a Morten building never seen again. Error on the side of safety.

  • US_Citizen71

    Your links below just show the 6 month shelf life as a conservative estimate. He hasn’t let a charge sit for more than 6 months so he can’t say they store for any longer than that with 100% certainty. The materials won’t like breakdown as far as we know from the limited information available, but it is well known that hydrogen is very hard to contain for extended periods of time due to its ability to escape from containers that will hold other gases due to its molecular size.

  • jousterusa

    Frank, don’t you think Rossi had to disclose his ‘secret sauce’ to the scientists testing his device?

    It seems unrealistic to make them try to discover it since he had to discover it himself (apparently) through thousands of trial-and-error efforts, and they probably don’t have the time or inclination to do that. And one of the things they may test for is the safety of the ‘secret sauce,’ and its consistent functionality, no?

    I expect that they would then treat it as a trade secret, so they could evaluate it but not name it in their final report.

    • Ophelia Rump

      There is a significant difference between back-engineering and discovering.
      Good scientists should be able to make short work of the task of back-engineering a working system which was produced using non-state of the art technology.

      I expect that the testers have better technology for analysis than Rossi has ever had for R&D.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I have known people who will only vote for the person they believe will win the election.
    They believe that voting for a loser is wasting their vote.

    I have suggested that voting for someone or something which is against their best interest and personal preference is wasting their vote.

    Such people may eventually acknowledge the correctness of my logic(never instantly), but something else drives their behavior and they do not change.

    I suspect such people are hard wired by nature and to them their beliefs are only a veneer used in an attempt to justify their nature. People can overcome their natures, but doing something that difficult is unnatural and so unlikely without extreme motivation.

  • mytakeis

    Looks to me like Rossi has been fairly compensated both financially and in pursuit of scientific adventure as an chief researcher, (God bless his Soul) and he now is just as anxious as all to have the confirmations, and replications pour through the Internet. May this become the glue of the new Paradigm, and get this world out of the control of the present world order, and diminution of free energy alternatives to the status quo! Good news, indeed.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Yes, that is a good point, and probably the most overlooked.

  • Fortyniner

    6 months is the life of an operational reactor core not the shelf life (unless you have seen something I’ve missed?). There should be a saturation/equilibrium point for absorption of H2, and the ‘fuel’ probably becomes stable at that point until triggered by heat plus ?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Six months is the estimated operating life of one charge running at some particular discharge rate.

      If the discharge rate can be tuned down, the charge size increased, or charges hot-swapped, the six month duration is only some kind of minimum standard convention. The size and weight of the fuel is insubstantial in comparison to fuels like coal or gasoline. The engineering benefits of these differences have barely been considered yet for potential applications.

    • kasom
  • Fortyniner

    +There is some subtlety of meaning here. IH did not pay x$M for IP that is to be given away by a group pf university researchers, or for that matter to be hijacked by them.

    I think it is very unlikely that the testing group had physical access to the internals of the reactor units and probably not to the control unit internals either. They were supplied with complete built units of which they only needed the one, and the report will be on a ‘black box’ basis, the variables being some control settings which were probably filtered through PLC or computer logic. The fuel cartridge may now be removable allowing before/after ‘fuel’ analysis, or more likely some individual had permission to extract samples for analytical purposes.

    I think we are probably being misdirected by Rossi’s masterful use of implication.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Or you might just be mistaken.

      • LilyLover

        Rossi’s “masterful use of implications” dwarfs his “inability to speak English”. His business-sense dwarfs all else.

        • Ophelia Rump

          You refer to the work of a team of scientists as “Tinkering” on a system which you say they are not allowed to actually examine, but were “free to make all guesses”

          I would love to see the documentation which substantiates your claim.

      • Fortyniner

        Rossi doesn’t ‘reverse the meaning of words’. What he does sometimes tend to do is to make two or more unconnected factual statements in close proximity, leaving the reader to concatenate the statements and extract meaning that was never there. It is therefore important to discriminate between what he seems to say, and what he actually says.

        • Omega Z

          At times Rossi leaves the reader to his own conclusions. This allows Rossi to spread FUD indirectly. All his competitors scratching their heads going Who? What? Wait—

          IMO-All details ironed out in a NDA prior to the test of what they could or could not do. Rossi can now state,(regardless of the question) I can’t confirm or deny in his wording of course. This allows the above.

          I find it very likely that, All materials are back under lock & key.
          If the agreement allowed ash analysis, It would have been very limited to a chosen few. Included would be some very strong legalese on exactly what they could divulge as to the secret sauce.
          This will eventually become known, but they’ll want to keep it secret for as long as possible.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Because the time for secrecy, or it’s usefulness is over. Once the product hits market, it can no longer be kept secret.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I like your analysis, I would add that I expect to see devices go to market before the applications have been rejected or approved whichever the case may be.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The testers were supplied one built device and two piles of parts sufficient to build two other devices. So there was really no need for a tear down. They had complete authority to analyze anything in any way and say anything about it. These facts have already been established. I also have to believe that they dismantled the built device sufficiently to make sure there was nothing “Special” about it.

    • Billy Jackson

      i did not know they were supplied the parts to build others. thank you Ophelia.

  • LilyLover

    I’m sure the purpose of 24-hr video surveillance of test was/is to make sure that the scientists keep complying with Non Opening-up Agreement. Complying with that requirement, they are free to tinker as they please. So, I guess, Rossi played fairly and took a small risk and tried reasonably to protect his secrets. They are free to make all guesses based on all the equipments they use but not steal his device. That also makes me think that it needs ‘that special creativity’ which might rarely be found in the testers. Hence the Rossi’s confidence about secrets being safe.

    • Ophelia Rump

      And you would be wrong. They had complete access. This is established.

      • ecatworld

        I recall Rossi saying that he sent three reactors, and that only one was used because it worked fine. The others were sent as backups.

        Are you sure it was reported that parts to build reactors were supplied? I don’t remember reading that.

        Thanks!

        • Ophelia Rump

          The other two reactors were in the form of spare parts. I am of certain of that as I am of anything I read on this site. It is in one of the older threads here. I believe it was in the form of a quotation from Rossi.

          • ecatworld

            Ok, I think this is where the ‘spare parts’ comes from:

            Frank Acland
            April 10th, 2014 at 7:47 PM
            Dear Andrea,

            You mentioned you sent your E-Cat to the neutral location when you learned about it. Did you send multiple reactors, or only one?

            Andrea Rossi
            April 10th, 2014 at 9:17 PM

            Frank Acland:
            We sent 3 of them, as spare parts, but ( this I can say) we did not have breaks or malfunctions, so far, so the spare parts are intact.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

            My interpretation is that they sent 3 reactors, and ‘spare parts’ is Rossi’s English at work.

            • Ophelia Rump

              This quote also seems to indicate that the assembled reactor was shipped as parts, and assembled by Rossi’s team. So I would expect all three to have been parts. I think these were designed as lab bench reactors, not the usual sealed Hot-Cat systems we see in photos.
              You could not do much science with a sealed reactor.

              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.

              • Billy Jackson

                i think she’s correct here.. i know Rossi’s English sometimes leaves us scratching our heads but this seems pretty clear. in any case a question posted to his blog would hopefully clear up any confusion.

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

                  rossi’s english is very clear for someone speaking french…
                  ah ah… he makes errors that i don’t even spot because i would do the same… his level is strange for someone living in US, but maybe he have no time to learn english in an adult school…
                  He is just better than many french executive of his age.

                • Billy Jackson

                  I hope i don’t come across as making fun of his speech as that is not my intention at all. As someone who lives in the USA he does speak/type funny so i try to allow for differences in meaning when it comes to context of the conversations. At times we may have to ask for clarification so that a point he is trying to get across that is pretty important is fully understood.

                • Ophelia Rump

                  I thought your wording was reasonable.

            • bachcole

              I agree with you, Frank, and that has been my understanding all along. “the spare parts are intact” says it for me.

  • Billy Jackson

    I am of two minds on this. First the giddy part. they have complete access in its entirety. This is great and something everyone has been wanting so that they can fully disclose the testing parameters without Rossi’s influence, which some claim taint the outcome due to the inventor being involved.

    the 2nd is. I fully expect them to honor Rossi’s wishes, they know he’s been trying to keep secret the catalyst or secret sauce. i don’t expect that they will let the “cat” out of the bag so to speak without permission from I.H.

    as with the article i would love to hear that they have replicated the device and obtained a positive outcome. But due to testing wrapping up already i don’t think that will be available this report.. possibly as a follow up later?

    speaking of which… where have all the naysayers gone??? haven’t seen em in a few weeks.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Maybe they are frequenting a BlackLight site?

  • RKTect

    Dr Mike – Agreed. I’d be very surprised if the testers had any interest in reverse engineering the unit to the point of recreating it. Dishonorable or theft of an intellectual product actually, in my opinion.

  • mecatfish

    I will be suprised if the report dosent get supressed. Not a lot of people involved. They could all be bought out or silenced and this technology will just disappear. I would have liked to see independent testing done in several labs, in several countries all at the same time.

    • bachcole

      Bought out? Not a chance. Silenced, perhaps, but unlikely. I doubt if anyone that cares that much (in a negative sense) is even aware of the E-Cat. It is natural that we as a group should become narcissistic and consequently paranoid.

  • Gerard McEk

    It would be great news if also the technical details of the E-cat would be revealed and that the professors are enabled to get a picture of how the E-cat functions. Maybe their tests will be used to underpin the patents, which should make the acceptance of these much easier. I can’t wait to see the publication.

  • Anon2012_2014

    -Measure the volume inside the tube.

    -Weigh the powder directly before and after.

    -Do chemical analysis to make sure the powder did not burn or do an exothermic metal hydride reaction.

    -Do chemical analysis of the nickel tube to make sure it did not burn.

    -Make sure that nothing (air, H2, O2) can be introduced inside the hot cat while it is running.

    -Look for signs of melting or oxidation inside the tube.

    -Find a better method of calorimetry than thermal imaging.

    The Levi report hypothesized without proof that a very small amount of volume of the tube had the reactant powder. Others have hypothesized that if the reaction was limited to a small volume of powder and hence a small surface area on the stainless steel (Fe-Ni) tube, it should have melted on the bottom of the hot Cat cylinder. My answer to all of that is “who knows??”
    — it was never measured. I would like the new guys to do better.

    • Ophelia Rump

      I think you would need some very creative methods of observation inside the device to determine the distribution of catalyst. The reactions are probably micro explosive events which would destroy the reaction site that spawned it, while producing new reaction sites.

      Part of the catalyst preparation may be prior use of the catalyst in a reaction. Which would make reproduction without a sample extremely unlikely. I would not put it past Rossi.

      Like making sour dough yeast bread, you may need a little sample of someone else’s starter. Which would beg the question, where did they get the initial yeast?

  • Ophelia Rump

    I expected that IH would allow them to keep the equipment, but this is a little surprising.
    If IH is willing to allow them to publish all the details, I am surprised that IH did not supply them with all the details before the testing even began.

    Perhaps approaching this from a cold start was part of the test protocol, to avoid having their theory biased by Rossi’s perspective.

    • Anon2012_2014

      i think these scientist are testing for IH the first time as well. That is why the details could not be supplied in advance — it was a true experiment. Hence the negative or positive quotes.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Like being handed alien technology. Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.

        • GreenWin

          It is Ophelia. And the portal to this knowledge is gated by the human heart. The heart that demands no personal gain, but rejoices in beneficence is the key. It would appear that Dottore Rossi possesses one of the many human hearts capable of this. To that end, it is a cosmic privilege to witness this technology transfer. With gratitude…

          • Ophelia Rump

            It has the look and feel of a test of worth more than a technology transfer.

            If the scientists fail to unlock the secret of the black box, does Dottore Rossi disappear back up to the mother ship?

          • psi

            Well put. I have often thought of him in this way.

    • Gordon Docherty

      “I am surprised that IH did not supply them with all the details before the testing even began.” – perhaps this is a question of peaking curiosity. If you tell someone how to make something, say a cake, and it doesn’t turn out right, then the natural inclination is to blame the recipe. If, on the other hand, you are given a tasty cake, you can make cakes(!), and then told you can figure out how it was made, you are more likely to :

      a. respect the cake master
      b. make other similar cakes, not the same as the first, but just as good (or better…)
      c. properly understand all the factors and parameters (and nuances thereof) that need to be controlled to recreate the original cake, not just the basic list of ingredients

      It’s actually a much better approach to recreating something than just being given a recipe, and will discourage those who don’t know what they’re doing but claim they do (after all, if they can’t recreate it, despite having the cake in their hand, it means they haven’t even the minimal knowledge set required to understand it – either that, or as has been said elsewhere, to recreate the cake you need to first recreate one or more of the ingredients that go into the cake, and that likely requires imagination. What better way to separate out those with a will to understand from those without than by requiring the use of some imagination.

      This reminds me of two of my favourite passages from the bible – I’m a Christian, but whether you are Christian or not, I believe the sentiments still hold:

      1 Corinthians 3 verses 18-23
      Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

      1 Corinthians 13 verses 1-13
      Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

      Put another way, wisdom often looks like foolishness to those stuck in their ideas: it is good to remember that even the most cherished theory or mathematical abstraction is just that, a theory, a reflection in a mirror – and a poor one at that. Indeed, one of science’s main quests is to improve the quality of that mirror. Who, though, can do so through envy, boastfulness, pride, self-worship, anger and aggression? As the old saying goes, “Hat’s off to Rossi” for having stood firm in the onslaught of those determined to protect and defend their “received scientific wisdom” as if it were fact when, as any good scientist should know, a scientific theory is still just part of a work in progress. Perhaps, in the future, ALL scientific wisdom should be prefixed with the caveat “as far as we currently understand”, just to remind everyone that there is always room for new ideas, as we meet hitherto interactions that may constrain or allow effects previously considered impossible by the then current “laws of science”. These laws, after all, are really only “laws of science as far as we currently understand them”. Further, if an observed effect contradicts these laws, then we should be seeking to understand the effect, not shoot it down in flames in order to protect the “law” taken from the received scientific wisdom. Sadly, however, the saga of CF/LENR seems to have been replete with just such self-serving behaviour, with “authorities in Science” acting more and more as grand inquisitors in a scientific inquisition determined to protect the truth – ultimately leading them into the position of (implicitly) stating that their models and theories are the only truth that matters. As CF/LENR advances, however, I’m just waiting for someone from “the mainstream” to start asking “What is truth?” before attempting to crucify it for the good of science. Or, perhaps, we are already there…