History Being Made As We Speak?

We’re in a strange situation. In some ways Andrea Rossi is hiding in plain sight. He’s telling us a lot of what he’s doing, without fear of getting too much attention, because very few people with influence believe what he says.

Let’s take this quote by Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today for example.

“The 1 MW E-Cat is an industrial plant, already in operation in the factory of a Customer and producing energy for an industrial activity, not for laboratory R&D: this, in itself, is an important achievement, because it is the first time in History that a plant with this kind of technology is put at work in a productive concern.”

Speaking for myself, I don’t doubt what he’s saying. But setting aside what Andrea Rossi says, this information has basically been confirmed. The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten has reported that it has received independent confirmation from someone who has personally been at the plant that it is working. There have been other such reports from Mats Lewan and Torkel Nyberg (possibly getting their information from the same source). So it does seem to be the case that the E-Cat plant is doing its job somewhere in the United States.

I see this a tremendous milestone, and it should be highly beneficial for the company cutting its fuel bills. However for those who want to see viable LENR in the marketplace, we have to wait for out-in-the-open on-the-record confirmation of the performance of the plant, and we won’t see that until the test is over.

So we’re kind of in a strange state of limbo at the moment. A huge majority of the world’s population know nothing about this technology, and of those who have heard about it only a small minority are taking it seriously. I reckon only a relatively few people seriously believe what Rossi reports. Until the plant is unveiled I don’t think that will change too much.

BTW, by my calculations, Friday of this week should be the half-way point of the 350 day test of the 1 MW plant.

  • Optist

    Is the 1 MW of energy in the form of electricity or is it heat energy?

    • ecatworld

      Heat in the form of steam.

      • Optist

        Thanks, do we know the COP?

        • ecatworld

          Nothing official yet. Rossi won’t comment on the overall COP but does say the plant goes into self sustain mode when the COP is over 100. We just don’t know how long ssm lasts, and the COP of the plant when it is not in ssm.

          • Optist

            I’m cautiously optimistic about Rossi’s work but from your answer we don’t yet know if his invention is useful.

  • US_Citizen71

    Why we would we want to help Gary Wright? No good would likely come from early publication of who the customer is or where the test is happening. The most likely outcome would be for Gary Wright or someone like him to sic the local government on the customer for operating a non-licensed nuclear reactor or some other such garbage.

  • wladk

    To quote one of Reagan’s two coherent thoughts: “Trust but verify…”

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

    if you analyse groupthink theory you see that dissenting data are actively ignored.

    I mean, energy is used not to have access to informations.

    i don’t say to hide, just not to see.

    moreover there is mindguard like Sylvie Coyaud, Luc Allemand, Ethan Siegel, Huizenga, Parks, to motivate people to self-censor, and lower fans to harass dissenters.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

    I have seens my engineering school organizing Web design course based on scientific controversies like LENr and EmDrive, and I was shocked to see
    – that their level of information was very weak (not much more than extremetech articles… not even NextBigFuture level), but not so negative
    – that they were not interesting at all to update their site, after I explained them what was happening, and describing my personal network around LENR

    it is strange because in 30 minutes I can get most recent data on LENR… (partly because of an activist called AlainCo who gather all)

  • radvar

    Too hard

  • GreenWin

    This may explain some of what you ask. The program running this sim does not allow certain actions. http://www.theglimpse.com/are-we-living-inside-a-holographic-universe

  • Obvious

    We must believe in him. We want to be a Satisfied Customer.

  • GreenWin

    To amuse our T-Roll?

  • Fyodor

    I guess by “reproducible test” I meant a test having publicly known parameters and configuration etc. that scientists can take and perform. Obviously if Brillouin and Rossi have precommerical products they are able to reproduce the effect.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    We can only arrive at this conclusion based on the witness
    and testimony of others. Remember, science is an act of faith on your part.

    There are many people today who don’t believe we went to the moon. We can only accept on an act of faith that we did go to the moon. Of
    course one will use collaboration of history and evidence to support ones position, but such a position is STILL an act of faith on your part. You thus have to accept the witness and testimony of others.

    And same goes for the wright brothers. Did they really
    fly on that day in 1903? Again, it is an act of faith on your part to accept the past witness and testimony of others on this matter.

    So going to the moon, or that Wright brother’s flight,
    your belief in these events is STILL an act of faith on your part.

    In fact your belief in near ANY science fact is based on
    the PAST history and witness and testimony of something you read from a book. Your acceptance of that science is thus an act of faith on your part. People somehow often try to pass science off as something other than a system based on acts of faith. People are shocked to realize that science is in fact a faith based system. And it based on past-tense witness and testimony of other people!

    As for Rossi?

    I think the best evidence of a working LENR device is the
    3rd party report. Rossi was not present each day, and the witness
    and testimony of those who conducted the test seem credible. That test ran without Rossi for 30 days and the conclusions are a very compelling witness and testimony. And Rossi stated that such a test was occurring, and again this was the case.

    >Is it on the basis of the subsequent sale to the “secret military customer” ?

    I agree this is a red flag. However the details of this purchase
    are not clear. Did the military purchase, but Rossi not deliver? There is some “wiggle” room on these claims, but they are less than ideal.

    All we can do is look at Rossi’s claims and statements.
    And then back up such claims with evidence which in term will allow you to make a conclusion as to Rossi’s claims being credible or not.

    I don’t think the issue is does LENR exist – we have a
    LOT of independent people as credible witness that support and have provided evidence that LENR is real.

    So the only really remaining issue is does Rossi have
    what he claims to have? He stated that a company purchased rights to the e-cat, and sure enough it turned out to IH. Rossi stated he was building a really nice new plant, and pictures showed this to be the case (much much nicer then the crude plant and public demonstrated in 2011). And in fact that 2011 was a public demonstration!

    So such claims of building a plant, being purchased by IH
    so on all came to be and thus for the most part such claims by Rossi are credible (and evidence exists to support these claims).

    ONE BIG issue is that outside of Rossi, we have LITTLE evidence
    as to how well Rossi’s plant is working. In this regards, we are relying “mostly” on Rossi’s witness and testimony. So yes, this is a problem!

    So yes, we are placing a lot of “eggs” in the one Rossi basket!

    At the end of the day, like near all science, you are
    making an act of faith. In the case of Rossi, for many to accept Ross’s claims will require a 3rd party utilizing such a reactor in a commercial setting. I VERY much accept this is the #1 issue holding back acceptance of Rossi’s claims.

    So for me, based on my knowledge and evidence I thus accept
    Ross’s claims. Many people are not ready to make such an act of faith until such time better evidence exists for them.

    So like going to the moon, the Wright Brothers or Rossi,
    all require an act of faith on your part.

    And for many people they are rightfully uncomfortable to
    ONLY accept Rossi’s claims – the instant others can come forward and support and verify Ross’s claims will go a long way in this regards.

    We really at the point in time in which you either accept
    Rossi’s claims, or you don’t. A good portion of Ross’s claims have come to be (along with supporting evidence).

    So Ross’s has a reasonable degree of success and track
    record in his public claims.

    Rossi’ has spoken very well of the performance of the
    plant. Since many of Rossi’s claims have come to be, then it is reasonable to assume that claims in terms of performance are credible, but they are still just claims without good supporting evidence.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Uncle Bob

      I have to agree with your logic there Albert and I accept that different people require different levels of verification to justify their faith, to the extreme end where some people require none at all.
      I suppose my point is how much evidence people need to support their faith. I have to accept that this is different for all people.
      The fact that the Mormon religion has millions of followers would indicate that for some people, neither evidence nor logic are required to justify their faith. They are happy to hold a particular ‘faith’ based on what just one person said.
      My argument is that in the case for a working e-cat with a guaranteed COP of 6, we have pretty much reached a similar level of verifiable evidence and logic.
      Although I was originally very enthusiastic and supportive for one whole year when all this started, that enthusiasm and support dropped away rapidly when each foundation stone of my belief was chipped away by subsequent inconsistencies, obvious errors in measurements, loss of support of various supporters and partners, contradictions and non delivery of promised milestones.

      Had my belief been based on hope or blind conviction, I would still be believing, but alas, I have placed the same demands for verification of veracity on Mr. Rossi’s endeavors as other people have constantly placed on mine over my whole long life.
      Constant non delivery on promise and non verification of process indicates non existence of results, or the ability to produce them.

      In this particular matter, my faith is now at an all time low..

      • GreenWin

        Bob, it is painful to read your posts. Sympathies. But, chin up. Here’s a stress relief vacation suggestion. https://www.facebook.com/ShipTrapIsandResort

        I’ve been there (virtually) – it’s managed by IGZ Hospitality and it’s great!

  • wpj

    I was referring to update #22 of the “plant watch” thread plus that 7Kw comment. As you say, nothing directly from the man.

  • radvar

    There are many ways to view the world in order to develop a sense of what is real.

    One is to see the world as chains of causation. That view is highly dependent on the starting point of the chains. If a starting point fails, or can be doubted, the entire string fails. That is the view that you appear to be using above.

    Another view is to see the world as a network of causation. In that view, all elements and all their interactions must be accounted for in considering what is real.

    The chains of causation view is of course simply a filtered subset of the network of causation view. The filtering, while highly useful as a sort of shorthand, is necessarily limiting as a mode of discerning reality. The filtering is always necessarily subjective, in the sense that choices have to be made about which chains to focus on in the network. Those choices are in turn always influenced by a person’s pre-conditioned values.

    If a person does or does not want to believe in something, they will filter for the chains of causation that support that view, ignoring the rest of the network.

    If you have a model for the full set of phenomena and relationships involved with LENR, that points to significant doubt about the reality of LENR (or the Rossi Effect), please provide it.

    • Uncle Bob

      As you say;- “If a person does or does not want to believe in something, they will filter for the chains of causation that support that view, ignoring the rest of the network.”
      I entirely agree.
      Prior to the last global financial crash, a whole lot of clever people were inventing new financial ‘products’ backed up by various models and formula to justify why what they were selling was good value and worthy of a triple ‘a’ investment rating.
      In spite of what common sense would tell us regarding the ‘chains of causation’ as you put it. the market chose the flowery language of ‘sub prime mortgages’ instead of calling them ‘loans that little hope of being repaid’, They were conned into believing that by lumping them together into ‘structured investment vehicles’ , a name which implies strength and mobility of assets, the whole worthless lot would become something of proven value.
      In a way they were right. The ‘structured investment vehicles’ carried the debt away from those who originally incurred it to those who were duped into taking it on. History records they lost almost all of it.

      The whole point is, never let flowery language and empty promises override common sense.
      Flowery language and promises are fine so long as it’s backed up by proven performance. If it’s backed up by just more of the same, it has no value at all.

      • radvar

        Yeah, but…

        Your story about sub-prime loans is still in the metaphor of “backed up”, as in chains of causation, instead of “surrounded by”, as in networks of causation.

        I appreciate your urging caution with respect to LENR, however, your original post verges on (or crosses right over into) casting doubt out of some personal need to make some type of impression on other people.

        Doubt is both a “dampener of enthusiasm” and a stifler of creative imagination. It’s very difficult to construct a view of the future, when our assumptions about the present wobble.

        It’s my view that if the information surrounding the Rossi Effect is taken as a whole, and placed in the context of a network of causation, then maintaining a dampening, stifling doubt about that information, based on asserting certain chains of causation is a needless and harmful sacrifice of both good feeling energy and opportunities for creative insight.

        We can split hairs and say of course there is some small probability that everyone has been hallucinating, and/or that some massive number of errors of judgment have been made, and/or that Rossi is an extremely clever influencer, however, that by itself only serves the purpose of those who NEED to have doubts.

        You’re welcome to it, but foisting that on others arouses in me step 6 in my original post.

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

    in fact no.

    Journalist where at Oxford and they heard things tha could embarrass politician.
    they heard things that could both support LENR or embarass important people.
    same in milan or in Neuchatel, or in padua…

    don’t ask why nobody say LENR is good science, but ask why nobody say a dozen of top company executiv, agencies, universities, support and finance what is supposed to be scam and pseudo science.

    they were there and they did not say anything..

    if the Wright Bro where flying in their small city, like in 1900 the media wil receive reports from their journalist and will dump the tape.

    only small blog would talk of it.

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

    people who have a budget and are not sure it is nothing, don’t care to check, they know the science is real, because the data are clear.

    the problem is not the evidence, even the bad evidence we observe, when piled make a clear photography.

    the problem is that the one who know it is real either don’t dare to tell their boss, their shareholder, or simply try to do it alone.

    Some today are doing it alone.

    some have done it, like Shell or nasa, and carefully don’t communicate on it.

    some have been fired.

    this is how groupthink is enforced, through self censorship, and if not respected, though terror by mindguard.

    imagine what happened to Elforsk boss when he was attacked by Sylvie Coyaud and its minions… He had bollocks not t flee … most French or US boss would have flee and said he have nothing to do with Rossi.

    the people who have the budget to make good inquiry, good research, manage the money , the company, of others people, so that cannot dare to work on LENR.

    Darden (like carl page) manage his company money with more freedom than usual and have a good insider knowledge of what is happening.

    DIA made a report. who cares?

    NRL and Spawar worked on it.

    the more it is disruptive, the less it is funded.

    http://singularityhub.com/2015/07/14/why-entrepreneurs-not-government-drive-innovation/

    guess why LHC have more money than EmDrive, while they both study possible break in current physics…
    because LHC does not propose already a break like emDrive, and because the LHC discovery will probably be useless, unlike EmDrive confirmation.

    Iter have no usefull ness and cost much more, but it does not propose to change physics.

  • Owen Geiger

    How about “Do to others as you would want them to do to you.” Would you want people trying to steal your hard earned ideas and possibly ruin your business?

  • rocky172534

    mike is this a joke?c’mon it’s a joke isn’t it.

  • Jarea1

    As you say, that would not be “polite” but i also think that is a good idea.

    The topic is: He has the right to try to hide their secrets but do we also have the right to try to find them through other channels?

    /joke
    We look for experience paparazzis!
    Is it not about getting industrial secrets but to confirm and clarify some of the premises we have. For example, who is the customer?, where is the 1MW plant?. How many people work with Rossi? Is really Rossi working and sleeping everyday in the container?. What kind of coffe do they trink? XD , XD /joke