One Week after the E-Cat Report, the Story Awaits Final Resolution

It’s been over a week now since the publication of the Lugano E-Cat report, and we’ve had lots of discussion and analysis here and elsewhere about the results that have been reported.

If people were expecting the world in general to finally open its eyes and accept that LENR/Cold Fusion is a new and superior energy source, I expect they have been disappointed. We have seen that there has been at best a muted reception to the report by the world’s media, and most critics of the E-Cat are still in the same camp, even after this new report, raising various objections.

I think there has been some new interest in LENR generated by the report, and it seems that many people, according to the poll running here on ECW, have an increased level of confidence in the validity of the E-Cat. Traffic stats here at E-Cat World show that there are at least twice as many users visiting the site as before the release of the report — but that traffic is variable, and could drop off over time. But I think the audience of people paying attention to this story is still relatively small.

What will it take for a general acceptance of LENR’s reality? I think Andrea Rossi is right. He has always said that only a product working in the market will change the views of critics, and cause widespread attention. Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Rossi repeated his position:

The 1 MW plant in the factory of the Customer should be the first stone of the commercial breakthrough, and a commercial breakthrough resolves all the discussions: in the late seventies the “experts” used to say that the idea to produce computers for “housewifes” was ridiculous and technologically impossible. Whatever they are saying now is totally insignificant, as well as what they said in the past.
The Sword will annichilate them.

It sounds like we will have another wait ahead of us when it comes to seeing this plant. Rossi is talking about at least a year, so E-Cat watchers will be back in a familiar holding pattern of waiting.

One thing that I think could get some more attention would be if someone were to carry out a successful replication of something similar to the E-Cat. I know there are some efforts underway in this area — Elforsk says they will begin research into LENR, and the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project are discussing a replication effort — and perhaps some that we are not aware of. There are more clues to work with following the release of this report, but still no straightforward instruction. But smart persistent people with curious minds (and time and money), could make a breakthrough here.

So the story continues without a full conclusion. My own response to the test is that it is another piece of evidence in favor of the E-Cat, but I cannot hold it forward as ‘proof’ that the technology works, even if I am personally convinced that it does. In some ways I am glad that there will not be yet another public third party E-Cat report (according to what Rossi has said). The wait is always tedious, and there is always plenty to debate over. And once the test is done, it’s done. The way these tests are set up, there’s no way for the testers to go back to the lab and re-check something, since they are reliant upon Rossi/Industrial Heat for the reactors.

I hope the next E-Cat that will be revealed will be the one operating in the factory of Rossi’s customer.

  • Donk970

    So, given the choice of coal or a light water fission power plant to generate electricity the fission power plant is the best choice. Do a bit of research and find out how much radioactive waste a coal power plant releases into the environment per GWh of energy compared to what a lw fission power plant does. Do I like light water fission? NO, light water fission is an inherently dangerous sixty year old technology that was never intended for civilian use. Light water fission power plants are horribly inefficient in their use of fuel; 95% of the waste is unburned fuel. And that is my point, the public is badly misinformed about nuclear energy in general.

    To anyone who is informed, LENR type fusion is by far the best alternative if it can be made to work. But there are alternatives to dangerous light water fission that would also be a big step in the right direction. There are molten salt reactor designs that would actually consume spent fuel rods from lw reactors for fuel – ton of spent fuel rods in with a 100 pounds of waste with a half life of a few hundred years out sounds like a big plus to me. Another molten salt design would use thorium as the initial fuel with only small amounts of waste produced.

    My point being that not all nuclear is created equal and as long as the public at large doesn’t really know the difference between fission and fusion, the mere mention of nuclear is going to be a problem for acceptance of the E-Cat.

  • psi2u2

    I think you are missing the point, which to a reasonable person thinking about how the real world of industry operates, seems incontestable. Talking about kids building reactors in their garage is utterly beside the point, as anyone who thinks carefully about it will notice.

  • clovis ray

    PT, and what would you think will happen, if the customer is reviled, to answer my own question, they would be harassed, to the point that Dr. Rossi work would be impacted,

  • Fortyniner

    Do mean this one?

    “Mats Lewan: Unless you accuse the whole group of fraud I don’t understand your point.If you didn’t switch probes on both instruments, someone would have noticed during the 32 days that they were showing completely different values. I don’t believe that one of the instruments was in overload all the time, and that everyone thought this was ok.”

  • Fortyniner

    You seem very determined to highlight this ‘error’ (two identical posts plus one similar over the space of 4 hours). Is there some reason for that?

    • Joniale

      Yes my mistake. And i just want this issue to be clarified.

  • Mr. Moho

    Well, that’s a twisted logic there.

  • Freethinker

    Those test will come, but likely on replicated reactors.

    Rossi and IH does not seem very perky on the subject of redoing this very soon, and likely there are preconditions (due to this being a product, there are IP considerations, and NDAs etc) other labs might object to.

    With an open project, a public and freelance project like MFMP or at some accredited and open minded universities, can more readily be repeated again with less or no constraints.

    Then, with papers published, MIT, CALTECH and the others might feel the pressure to look at it, and maybe this time they will be able to get the loading right ….

    No offense intended against Hagelstein and Schwartz, connected to MIT, but those guys are apparently quite lone on that big MIT campus…

  • Freethinker

    You may be right, but it is a bridge that must be crossed eventually, even if the MaryYugo’s of the world will be standing road side and generously sharing their “insightful” opinions.

    No doubt will this be new territory in which to be pedagogic and explaining this to the community.

    And somehow, would that not be just an extension on the divine comedy and joke on LENR, if when it reached fruition it will again be viewed with suspicious eyes, this time for being “nuclear”.

    That bold customer will have to stand up. And likely they will understand that they have to, if this is to progress. If they don’t understand, maybe IH can fix that with some monetary incentive.

  • Donk970

    It occurred to me as I was reading other comments that people are missing one important thing. The public, in general, has a very negative view of anything nuclear. Think about the hysteria that surrounds light water fission reactors. They are much safer and cleaner than coal but just try explaining that to Joe Sixpack. Think about the political shitstorm that would ensue in whatever community Industrial Heat’s customer has installed this heat plant if people find out. It will be impossible to explain to anybody that it’s a different kind of nuclear reactor and isn’t dangerous because everyone will have stopped listening at “nuclear”. This is the kind of thing that could stop the E-Cat in it’s tracks. Imagine a coal company getting hold of this information. They would spin it as “dangerous, untested nuclear reactor being used in urban community”. This is probably the best reason I can think of for IH to build these things in China.

    • Robyn Wyrick

      Sorry, but I can’t let this simply go without comment: Fission Reactors are a serious failure every day of their existence. The production of high-level radioactive waste is not a hypothetical disaster, it is a disaster already – we don’t have a way to clean it up, and and we’re making thousands of tons of it every year. That on top of millions of acres of now-unusable land in the US alone. That on top of contamination of drinking water and other water systems.

      And that doesn’t count for the Fukushima meltdown, which is not under control by any reasonable measure. It doesn’t count the risk of a terrorist attack (that the 911 planes could have flown into Indian Point Nuclear Plant, or Limerick with 8 million people in a 50 mile radius).

      You say, “Think about the hysteria that surrounds light water fission reactors”, but if the reaction of “Joe Sixpack” isn’t credible for you, how about the actuaries at America’s private insurance companies. Because they won’t touch Nuclear Fission plants without a gigantic federal bailout (Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act).

      PS: as someone who has watched this industry for 35 years, and doesn’t drink, I think your little, BS, “Joe Sixpack” derision is insulting and would appreciate it if you would have a little more respectful tone.

      • Fortyniner

        I agree with everything you have said about the ongoing disaster of nuclear fission. and think that Donk970 is seriously misguided when he repeats the nuclear industry’s shallow and disingenuous ‘safer and cleaner’ propaganda.

        However this doesn’t invalidate his argument that cold fusion could become entangled with fission in the minds of the less well educated because of the ‘n’ word. IMHO, the term ‘low energy nuclear reaction’ was a mistake from the outset for this reason, and is handing the opposition a convenient club to beat the technology with.

        It may be too late at this point but I would really like (but don’t expect) to see the term LENR dropped in favour of ‘cold fusion’ or a newly invented term as quickly as possible – certainly before the pilot plant or similar devices from other parties are rolled out in public.

        • bachcole

          I am confused. Why would the nuclear industry be saying “safer and cleaner” when they refuse to consider any new technology and their technology is the same ol’ same ol’ for the past 50 years? Is it because it is easier to lie than to consider radical and hopeful new technology.

          • Fortyniner

            Basically, yes. Not only are many hundreds of billions of dollars invested in fission reactors plus fuel supply infrastructure such as mines and processing plants, most of which would become both redundant and unwelcome overnight, but they would also be left with trillions of dollars in liabilities, including decommissioning their white elephants and having to find some way to tackle the huge legacy of high level waste and ground contamination.

            There is also the factor of the world’s nuclear arsenal, much of the cost of which has been hidden in and offset by the civil nuclear program. Without this ‘cover’ or the reactors they need to produce plutonium for their bombs, the militaries of all large powers would be left high and dry – something all politicians in the countries affected will fight tooth and nail to prevent (q.v., Cameron in the UK).

            Politicians will also be aware that should the nuclear industry collapse, the financial institutions that are the ultimate owners will quickly hive off their nuclear interests and make these subsidiaries bankrupt, passing the cost of dealing with decommissioning and waste on to their governments (i.e., the public- not exactly a vote winner).

  • Donk970

    The customer is using a nuclear reactor to generate heat. Maybe they are worried that despite Industrial Heat getting a certification they may still get in trouble for using a nuclear reactor. I think everyone is on very shaky ground here and the customer may be very reluctant to reveal themselves for fear of some blowback from government regulatory agencies or from the local public. Think about the news headlines if the local micro brewery installed an E-Cat to generate steam to boil wort more cost effectively. I can just see it now. “Joe’s Brewery Caught Using Nuclear Reactor to Make Beer”. Can you imagine the public outcry?

  • Joniale

    It seems there is an error in the ECAT report.

    Could somebody confirm this?

    Please, see the comments of Mats in the following article

    They are discussing about an inverted clam that can cause the COP 3.
    Please i need to know if this is destroying the report.

    • the symptom of inverting a clamp cannot be discrete. it is clear as some power get negative or pure reactive… the waveforme are illogical…

      they cannot be corrected.

      the only problem that I notices from McKubre, is that the calibration is done at 450C, and thus it is extrapolation ond model.

      anyway the 800->900W 1250-1400C excursion is the evidence of COP>1, even if all models and assumption are wrong.

      • Freethinker

        “the only problem that I notices from McKubre, is that the calibration is done at 450C, and thus it is extrapolation ond model.”

        McKubre also states that he is not familiar with the methodology of thermal cameras. ” I have little direct hands-on experience” he says.

        I have looked into it. Even though I am not a practitioner of thermal camera measurements in my daily life, I am not ignorant of this kind of instrumentation, the physics around it, and the properties of them.

        I wrote an extended comments below on my take on the temperature measurements etc, this is the snippet about the calibration:

        “The IR cameras used in the test operates in 7.5-13 microns. In this interval the alumina is opaque. You will not see through it. The alumina will behave like a black body. To calibrate the camera the emssivity is set, but this is done for the dummy at lower temperatures. This is OK,
        because the emissivity in the range of 7.5-13 microns does not vary (or very little) with the temperature, see Morrel 1987. A small systematic error may be attributed to the higher temperatures, making them be slightly overestimated. Morell 1987 : Morrel, R. (1987) Handbook of properties of technical and engineering ceramics.”

        If you find anything wrong in my reasoning, please let me know.