After the E-Cat Report

I feel reasonably confident that we will see the long-expected third party E-Cat test report within the next few weeks. There have been a number of clues, leaks and hints that seem to point in that direction, anyway. The question on my mind right now is that assuming the report gets published, and it provides further evidence that the E-Cat reaction is ‘unconventional’ and potentially useful as an energy source — what happens next?

One thing I am confident of is that this will be a very big event in the LENR community. I am certain that many readers here and others who have been following the LENR story are paying close attention and will scrutinize the report to get as much information as possible from it, and draw conclusions therefrom. I think we are very good at analysis and interpretation of data, and I expect that there will be very useful new information in this report that will help us get a bigger picture of what the E-Cat is all about.

What is not so sure is what the wider reaction will be from the wider scientific community and the general public. If LENR is going to ever get a foothold in the public consciousness, something needs to happen that will make people sit up and take notice.

If the reaction to the publication of the first third party report is anything to go by there are some things we can expect. There will be hyper-critical analysis of the report from people skeptical about LENR in general and the E-Cat in particular, and if there is anything in the report that opens the door for doubt about the report’s conclusions, it will be seized up and magnified — and could have the effect of essentially nullifying any positive impact of the report.

In the previous report there were questions raised from skeptical sources about the chance for hidden wires being used to feed the E-Cat hidden DC power — the implication was that since this test took place in Rossi’s own factory he could have rigged the whole demonstration. In my mind, this scenario was preposterous — but that didn’t really matter. The doubt was raised and repeated widely enough that it ended up being taken seriously by opinion-makers and media persons — and the report was largely discounted and therefore ignored.

There was also the fact that in the first report, there was no analysis of the contents of the reactor. It was essentially a black-box test — something which many people discounted as being non-scientific, and therefore not worthy of being taken seriously.

My hope is that the new test will be different enough in terms of experimental setup, location, and materials analysis that the objections brought up previously will not apply. But there may be other things that skeptics can bring up to shed doubt on the whole affair — I don’t doubt that they will try.

Anyway, I have been trying to formulate a plan of action for when the report is published, and this is my current outline.

1. Announce the publication of the report as soon as I hear about it.
2. Read the report.
3. Listen to the analysis of others whose opinion I respect (many ECW readers)
4. If the report has important findings, try to share it with as many people who I think will be interested as possible — especially people in the media and scientific communities. I hope to be able to use any influence I may have to get the information to as wide an audience as possible.

There’s only so much planning one can do with so many unknowns still out there, but if the report is noteworthy, I feel we have a duty to share it widely. I hope our job will be made much easier with the assistance of more influential media outlets, but I don’t think that assistance is guaranteed.

So it’s an interesting time. I don’t know when the report will arrive, but I feel it could be in the next couple of weeks. I think I’m as ready as I can be.

How about you — do you have any plans? Maybe people here could collaborate in some way.

  • bachcole

    Broncobet, you and I are NOT agreeing. Someone can invent a new type of engine without it be installed in a car and still know all kinds of things about it, like it’s power level, exhaust, etc. etc.

    Regarding your points: 1) proven; 2) proven; 3) absurd, no one said that; 4) no one has ever said that. In fact we have been saying exactly the opposite; 5) proven; 6) uncertain.

    You got .5 out of 6 (you get #6 half right), which equals 8.33% right. That makes you either not paying attention or deliberately daft or a skeptopath.

    • C. Kirk

      I agree with Broncobet’s first word…Exactly….. everything following that is rubbish!

      • bachcole

        I will agree with the general idea that a lot of people here do a lot of speculating. I think that this is OK, given the nature of this forum. But when they speculate from speculations rather than from facts, then I just delete the email before finishing it and go on to the next email. I get more than 100 emails, perhaps 200 emails every day. I don’t have time for speculations based upon other speculations. (This sounds sort of like rumours to me.) An example would be if the email started out with “I wonder if GE will be using the E-Cat for a home heating unit or for supporting the utility companies . . . ” We don’t even know for sure if GE is aware of the E-Cat or not.

        Then there is the taking speculations as being fact, like “Now that we know the Elon Musk is planning on using an E-Cat in his car . . . . ”

        I delete these kinds of emails immediately.

  • Mats002

    That might be a little premature 🙂

  • GreenWin

    Bronco, the game has already changed.

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

    I don’t says that exactly.

    I clearly say the evidence show the test is scientifically positive, : time of test, number of unused reactors, time of the review. scientist would not lose time on a report of failure, would have tested all spare reactors, would have stopped after few weeks.

    It is not a surprise from the specification of the test which: protocol of the test (not a pony show), invitation of Stephan Pomp…

    As you say I agree that there is risk the reactor is not really economically fantastic.

    Positive or negative is visibly a NDA formula. not more meaningful than when a startup CEO says it works perfectly.

    anyway the real problem that E-cat report may or may not solve, is the collective delusion, and the question is purely scientific: is it real or not…

    I agree that if it is proven real but not useful/stable some deluded deniers will use it to deny the total reality with a tea kettle argument. like some abused of the blackbox argument, or the reproducibility argument… this is not argument this is manipulation for the submissive non academic layman who imagine that academic have an argument because academic state it strongly, yet the layman perfectly understand that it is not logical for him.

    whatever is the report some corps, some investors, are preparing to invest in research, starting from what is public in the scientific community of LENR, knowing well that even if E-cat test is positive or negative the technology deserve huge interest and have 99.99% chance to be harnessed in the next 20 years, provided they work seriously on it.

  • JDM

    Break out the mayonnaise and champagne for the snakes that will be on the menu.

  • Fortyniner

    I believe that’s exactly where IH are heading at the moment, i.e., a ‘phase 1’ to consist of certification and manufacture of process water heaters for industry, while R&D aimed at electricity generation goes on behind the scenes. However, just satisfying this market (which will inevitably diversify into LP steam, ovens and so on) is way beyond the resources of one company, even with Chinese mass producers manufacturing the ancillary equipment, if not the reactor cores.

    The likelihood seems to be that IH is already involved with at least one multinational corporate backer who will turn over their production base to the task in due course, and others may be set to become involved on a similar basis. I cited GE and Westinghouse as possible/probable primary candidates for this role, but of course there are many other possibilities.

    This market alone probably has the potential to absorb all production of e-cats for perhaps a couple of decades, but somewhere along the line (perhaps quite quickly) competitors will emerge with their own independent CF systems, and (patent wars notwithstanding) will proceed to attempt to capture the obvious ‘retrofit’ market for powergen, forcing IH’s backers to enter this market as well.

    There will not be a ‘free for all’ as the whole game will be conducted within the confines of the multinational energy cartel, but internally to the cartel there will be blood on the walls. Some interesting times ahead.

    • Omega Z

      Good post, but skimming JONP you will find Rossi/IH are very keen on retrofitting as well. Personally, I want to see smaller scale plants built near point of use & less centralized. Long term I think, this approach would provide additional savings to the consumer. Much of the waste heat could be utilized.

  • Mats002

    I will fill in LENR G:s webform while reading the report, then take a long walk considering the meaning of the situation. The bucket of popcorn will be empty and I hope my wife is still there waiting for me 🙂

  • LCD

    If Rossi has a working production ready design to sell then why is it not selling?

    That’s the question I’ve been asked. My response at the moment is I’m not sure, but if Rossi is somehow waiting for the patent to be accepted and if this report is a catalyst for that patent, then it could potentially be very important.

    So it follows that potentially after the report we will simply get more of the same or a paradigm shift in the world.

  • BroKeeper

    I’m accused of paying more attention to E-Cat on my lap than her. Sadly she’s probably right (sigh).

  • psi2u2

    Hmmm….four guest votes “like” “Fibber McGourlick’s” post but none of them have yet liked this entirely apt query.

    • bachcole

      We could also present that question to all of the Rossi-supportive people who make pronouncements about his financial arrangements with I.H. That is why I don’t read those comments; we have no clue what is in the contract.

  • Fortyniner

    Why?

  • Fortyniner

    The core of your suggestion, that the response of the energy cabals to LENR will be proportionate to their potential losses seems indisputable. However, as a large part of their present businesses are doomed anyway in the longer term, they will also see cold fusion as a lifeline, i.e., a new source of virtually unlimited profit to replace the old ones – IF the situation is managed carefully. I believe that it is inevitable that their resources will focus initially on sequestering and ring fencing the technology while continuing to hide its existence from the public, and then later, on managing public perceptions in order to create the ‘right’ climate for introduction.

    We’ll know when the second phase is under way when the ridicule and denial stops and the skeps quietly disappear, and articles emphasizing both the reality and desirability of the tech, and it’s supposed inherent ‘dangers’, begin to appear in the MSM. I would also expect politicians to suddenly notice the technology and begin making pronouncements at the same time, while quietly introducing legislation designed to introduce and enforce a cartel monopoly on LENR devices.

  • Gerrit

    I think that after the ecat report we will see some web pages starting to quietly disappear.
    For instance this gem: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/cold_fusion_01

    I have made some screen copies of blogs and web pages, so that in future the science anthropologists will be able to see how cold fusion was seen back in the day (==now).

    I encourage you all to make some copies yourself before such pages are taken offline.

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

      just the latest from pathoskeptic

      http://pathoskeptic.com/2014/09/28/andrea-rossi-pulls-an-other-rabbit-out-of-his-ass/?__scoop_post=07e5f5c0-4950-11e4-a362-001018304b75&__scoop_topic=1430334#__scoop_post=07e5f5c0-4950-11e4-a362-001018304b75&__scoop_topic=1430334

      just see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

      Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

      * Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.

      * Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

      Type II: Closed-mindedness

      * Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.

      * Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

      Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

      * Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.

      Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.

      Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”

      Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

    • psi2u2

      keep the record.

    • Fortyniner

      There’s always the ‘wayback machine’ even if the naysayers try to erase some of their more stupid comments. The system will always look after its own though – there won’t be any tribunals, or in fact any payback at all for those who have used their authority to attempt to deny CF to humanity for 30 years or more.

      • GreenWin

        It may not make headlines, but falling oil process will spank a few skep behinds. And MIT’s hot fusion boondoggle Alcator C-Mod, has been slated for termination next year. Baby steps.

  • malkom700

    It’s all in the production starts. Miracle should happen, even to interfere in the politics and would take control to prevent GW.

  • Gerrit

    The science world will take note only if there is sufficient scientific value in the report. If it is just a black box test report then scientist will complain that there is no information in the report that enables them to repeat the test. But if there are at least isotope measurements and an acceptable, if not complete, description of the innards of the ecat or of the possible process then some scientists will get interested.

    The pathological disbelievers will demand an independent replication and extraordinary evidence, in their eyes the report does not offer that.

    I wonder how the mainstream “cold fusion doesn’t exist” media will cover this report.

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

      it will not cover it

  • Ophelia Rump

    It would make a nice subject for children’s science toys for Christmas. If it is not already too late for that. Win the hearts and minds of children and there is no closing the door ever again.

  • peter gluck

    What to do depends much on some still unknown things: if it is posiitive, what is the value of the Report measured with an successometer? Where it will be published? What does it say that I can explain to my 8 years old granddaughter? How can the report be translated in the pragmatese language? What does it give beyond thermal data? Has it logical consistency? In which extent is it nuclear and what is the other part? Is the process a Cold Fusion daughter and if yes, then why actually not? Scientifically speaking…and you know that Rossi has said it is more about the Cold Fusion dream than the accumulated LENR science.
    It is a lot of work to be done to evaluate the Report and establish its significance and possible impact.
    And then many worldwide and national, institutional campaigns have to be organized – wisely because aggressive messages face greater agressivity- as petitions on change.org, avaaz.org
    and similar ones.
    It can be a great opportunity for good change- let’s wait and see.

    Peter

    • Omega Z

      Peter
      I’ve have concluded that the report is aimed at
      1st the possible granting of the patent
      2nd as Business interest.
      3rd MSM isn’t necessary

      Even if the 1st doesn’t take place, If those who administered the test are highly credible & it shows a high enough COP, Business will take serious notice. If product hits the market, the MSM will pick up on it.

      • Paul

        To be precise, as it will be clear when it will be released, it is aimed to: 1- Certification 2- Patent etc. Remember that Hot Cat had never been certificated before, and it is completely different from the old E-Cat operating at low temperature.

        • Omega Z

          Rossi claimed hot cat certification in April & again since then, but According to that date, you could be right that it was obtained during the test. But I’m thinking Rossi claimed Certification quite sometime before that prior to the 3rd party test. Not sure it’s worth my time to look for it.

      • peter gluck

        dear Omega Z,
        1- the patent, cannot be saved by the best result because it will be obvious from the results that the e cat does not work as it is described in the patent.

        2- the business effect depends on the success factor of the Report (not easy to measure) and about the reaction of the Web to it – impredictible but it must be optimized.

        3- Mainstream Media (I guess this is your MSM acronym) must be influenced. More wisely as usual.

        It would be counterproductive to say things as “Cold Fusion has eventually won”
        because this is an other form of Useful Energy from Hydrogen Metal Deep Interaction.

        Peter

        • Andreas Moraitis

          „Hydrogen Metal Deep Interaction“, or “HDMI”: Good idea, although “HDMI” is already in use for “High-Definition Multimedia Interface”. I’m not sure if it is a registered trademark.

  • Ophelia Rump

    The report is important but by itself will probably not change a thing, except adjust the bias level in anyone who bothers to read it.

    • Nixter

      I agree, but with the qualifier that it will likely be read and understood by a few physicists who had been heretofore unconvinced and will then become interested enough to begin changing their views. Too slowly and too late to matter, as you have implied. But still, the seeds of doubt will have been planted deeply into the furrowed fields of the scientific meta-paradigm. Unfortunately for them, they will be many years behind the progress made by people like Rossi who has struggled for years to achieve success. I agree with you wholeheartedly, the proof will be in the pudding and the nay-saying science hacks won’t be invited to taste the fine lenr flavored pudding when it is finally served up publicly.

    • clovis ray

      Hi. miss o.
      A point i have made over and over, when you take the people out of the equation,that only leaves, business, and science, if we here, are satisfied, with the science and that itself doesn’t cause chaos , then it will be a slow grind, but if people see their power bill go down well the people will be back in the equation, power to the people.

  • jousterusa

    I have not had a specific plan other than running a huge headline and story in The American Reporter. I am certainly open to suggestions. I had hoped my book, POWER, would have been a way to intrigue people about the actual technology, but without a review in E-Cat World it has gone nowhere, my first royalty check notwithstanding.

    • Andre Blum

      You said you published it on Amazon? After your earlier reference, I tried to find your book there, but without result. Same today.

  • downer Roger

    I will send a hard copy to Tony Abbott. He can digest it slowly

  • BroKeeper

    Nice side effect. 🙂

  • Fibber McGourlick

    What’s all nonsense about convincing skeptics and selling the e-cat idea to the science establishment? Forget it! There’s no arguing with a magic bullet. He who positively and openly demonstrates a working reactor that provides a cheap, pollution-free engery will rule the world.
    On a side note, it still bothers and puzzles me that Rossi would sell such an invention for what is petty cash, relatively speaking.

    • jousterusa

      Not if the NY Times and the AP report that it’s a fake, as they did with Pons & Fleischmann…

    • Billy Jackson

      we dont know the extent of the contract or what royalties Rossi will receive as the inventor.

    • Broncobet

      Yes,true, demonstrates a reactor is hard to do. All they have to do is to ask for money as the DOE had 10 million for LENR research but no one even asked for it. They didn’t have to demonstrate anything, just ask for the money, it’s highly suspicious that people would not ask for money,of course if they had a reactor that did what they claimed they’d already be trillionaires and wouldn’t need it.

  • Richard Hill

    Is it possible that the report will say that the effect exists, but is very small, even tiny?
    If so, then the report will achieve the IP objective of Rossi, but may not
    be as shattering as many commenters on this blog seem to expect.
    I guess at least one other commenter has made a similar remark.
    As an example, there is recent research on the chirality of beta radiation,
    having a biological effect, to a very minor degree.
    It is extremely important but will probably sink without trace.
    (refer Lubos Motl blog)

  • masterbotter

    After the report is released, I will be able to stop coming on here looking for the report a million times a day. Ooh the time I will have back in my life! who knows what mischief my idle hands might get me into.
    I will probably feel the urge to contact every person I spoke to for more than 5 minutes over the last year and say “THIS IS WHAT I WAS RAMBLING ON ABOUT” “ENJOY”
    But let’s be realistic, they are not going to read the report. It will use jargon the don’t understand and well, people just aren’t as excited by the words Work, Energy and Orders of Magnitude as I am.
    Some of them might Google his name, but they are just going to find the same old wiki page which has been a slight on his character since its creation to the last modification on the 5th of June.
    All you have to do is look at the end of each and every section to see this is a biased opinion. “Accusations of dumping environmental toxins, as well as tax fraud” “he didn’t produce a single drop of oil, as far as we know” “produced less than 1 watt each instead of 800-1000watt” “there is uncertainty about the viability of the invention” enfact the only section that doesn’t seem to degrade the man is his biography that ends indicating his marriage to maddalena Pascucci, but having not met the lady, I can’t be sure this is not also an attack of his character!
    I really truly hope that once the report is out that this page will be amended appropriately, who knows how the wikigods will react.
    Maybe this is something that could be done before the release? I know Rossi himself has been in contact with the wikigods personally in the past but to no avail. This was long before the Industrial Heat press release and I am sure he has been far to busy with them since then to worry about it for any length of time.
    Unfortunately the accessibility of Wikedmedia and the accessibility of a scientific report on the measurements of anomalous heat are two completely different things. If only the difference between fact and fiction online was so apparent.

    In the mean time I shall continue to hit refresh.

    • Omega Z

      Before Wiki would say a single kind word about Rossi, They would just terminate the page.
      Of course that in itself might be good.
      Oh the TURMOIL.

    • Omega Z

      “who knows what mischief my idle hands might get me into.”
      Hand Up, I know, I know,
      Nothing. Use it or Lose it. You Lost it. You no longer know how to do anything but sit staring at the computer screen & Wait.

  • GreenWin

    I’m happy he’s seeing the light. Just don’t want to see Algore naked, in that light.