Rossi’s R&D Chief Fulvio Fabiani “100% Convinced” E-Cat Works as Promised

We mentioned here a few weeks ago that Fulvio Fabiani, the engineer who has worked closely with Andrea Rossi for a number of years now, has joined the Facebook group Cold Fusion, LENR and Andrea Rossi. He does not reveal very much there, and explains that he cannot post anything that has not been made officially public by Leonardo Corp. because of the NDA he is under.

However he has given his overall assessment of the E-Cat technology in a recent exchange on the page. Hitesh Ceon asked him recently:

“Since you have been so closely involved with the e-Cat… how certain are you that it works as promised? Are you absolutely convinced yourself?”

Fulvio Fabiani responded:

“Yes. 100% — Really I’m very convinced in this technology.”

When questioned further about when he thinks the E-Cat will hit the market, he said that he could not answer that question because he was not involved in production or marketing decisions, and said his position was “Chief of R&D under Rossi orders.”

It’s always interesting to hear from people on the inside, other than Andrea Rossi, about the E-Cat. There are no new details here, but certainly a wholehearted endorsement of the technology from Rossi’s right-hand man.

FF
Fulvio Fabiani — Source: www.andrea-rossi.com
  • Slad

    Rog me ole beaut’, I fear that someone is impersonating you over at the Gluckery.

    Much innuendo has been written, and G. Chody seems a little miffed.

    I wonder how it will all end? Perhaps a final meltdown is approaching.

  • Anon2012_2014

    “Rossi’s R&D Chief Fulvio Fabiani “100% Convinced” E-Cat Works as Promised”

    What else would we expect him to say? There is no information content in his posting. It is synonymous with Rossi saying “100% convinced E-Cat works as promised.” To confirm we need a truly independent test (without Rossi supplying the secret powder) which I expect to be completed within 12 months once the E-Cat is released.

  • Agaricus

    Unless of course the process of ‘exploration’ is itself predetermined, and so another illusion/rationalisation. As the ‘future’ is unknown to a conscious entity then the subjective experience will be identical whether the sequence of events is fixed or open to choice. In other words this is something we can never know, but are free to think we know.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Oh no, it actually works! This is a disaster!!!
    http://www.globalclimatescam.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ccx-rip.jpg

  • Job001

    I like his “toilet seat magnifier”! One might presume this implies a certain scientific skepticism that few experiments work, so, try try again! Evokes Thomas Edison’s trial and error process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edisonian_approach

  • Daniel Maris

    I was responding to Observer! 🙂

    But actually I am quite fond of the ontological argument.

    • bachcole

      It is my part of my purpose to jump into the middle of other people’s discussions, usually when the subject interests me. (:->)

  • GreenWin

    Time? A unit of measurement invented by humans to relieve fear of the unknown.

    • Mats002

      The unknown that we are afraid of then, is the – possible – situation that we all are ‘frozen’ in space-time. The worst implication of that is we have no will, our lifes is a pre-edited 3D movie that can not be changed.

      String puppets without own will.

  • Hitesh Ceon

    I wasn’t expecting this to become news on e-Catworld… haha…but that’s nice. But Frank, my name is spelled Hitesh Ceon, not Coen… 😉 I felt this was the most important question I could ask him right now, without him having to reveal anything else than his own opinion. I found it to be very encouraging that Mr. Fulvio Fabiani is so absolutely convinced of the e-Cat. So far it seems that every single scientist/engineer/researcher who has had the opportunity to test and examine the e-Cat first hand(and lived to tell about it), has become convinced that it works.

  • Daniel Maris

    The slight problem I have with Fulvio is no one seems to have ever tracked down his identity. Am I mistaken? Has anyone?

    • Obvious

      Did he lose his identity?

    • Omega Z

      Are you confusing him with the colonel who posted a cures of Cobraf.

      There is plenty of info about Fulvio Fabiani

      • Daniel Maris

        You may be right! What do we know about Fulvio then?

        • ecatworld

          He’s an Italian engineer who has been working with Andrea Rossi since at least 2012, first in Italy, now he lives in the US. He says he is now in charge of R&D for the E-Cat under AR’s direction. I believe he has been closely involved in developing the control systems for the E-Cat

      • atlantis71

        There is some info on Col. Domenico Fioravanti in Mats Lewan’s book. He served in the Italian Air Force as engineer – and there is an old article from an Italian Newspaper where there is a picture of him in his unifrom

        • bachcole

          I don’t understand this comment. Besides the funny Italian name, what does Col. Domenico Fioravanti have to do with Fulvio Fabiani?

          • atlantis71

            no relationship between Fabiani and Fioravanti, as far as I know. My comment was just a reply to Omega Z.

      • atlantis71

        Wasn’t Fabiani on LinkedIn?

  • HS61AF91

    Mr. Fabiani may be seeing convinced, the English meaning, as meaning something akin to committed or totally supporting, short of ‘convinced’. Or he may really be ‘convinced’, like those herein.

    • http://www.facebook.com/hiteshceon Hitesh Ceon

      I asked him if he was “absolutely convinced” that the e-Cat works as promised, and his first reply was “Yes. 100%”. The rest of the reply quoted over, was a seperate follow up answer. I don’t think that can be understood in any other way than that he is absolutely without any doubt, certain that the e-Cat actually works, as described by Rossi & co.

      • Mark

        You are right. Most probably Fabiani used “I am convinced” as a translation of the Italian “sono convinto” which means “I’m sure”.

        • HS61AF91

          Cool!

  • Observer

    The Universe (both time and space) exists. Since the universe exists, that which brought about its existence also exists (from within or outside of time and space). Everything else is minutia.

    • Daniel Maris

      The ontological argument. Sadly, you are not the first to make it. 🙂

    • Private Citizen

      If everything that exists necessarily has something that brings about its existence, then you have an infinite regress. Who created God? If God needs no creator, why not an un-created universe as well?

  • Brian

    Does Fulvio have a record similar to Rossi? What is his motivation? He says exactly nothing, but it advances the E-Catagenda

    • psi2u2

      I’m really sick and tired of hearing this kind of comment. By “record,” what are you referring to?

      • GreenWin

        psi, the p-skeps are greatly frustrated by the steady, uplifting progress of Rossi/IH and LENR. The last resort of the powerless is personal ad hominem attack. Such comments do not belong here, IMO.

        • ecatworld

          I have yet to hear anyone who has been closely associated with Andrea Rossi try to expose him as a fraud, or the E-Cat as not working as claimed.

          • psi2u2

            Right. I guess that, according to the latest ad hoc seat of the pants “arguments” that is because they “must be” tainted by association. A better theory is that they actually have some first hand knowledge of Rossi’s accomplishments and character.

            • GreenWin

              We expect to see increasingly desperate attempts to discredit IH/Rossi and LENR. Increased desperation reflects LENR success. A revealing metric. 🙂

              • psi2u2

                Indeed.

            • clovis ray

              hey, buddy, I keep this link just in case someone wants to know what they tried to steal from him, and then years later someone picked it up and built it, and Dr. Rossi gave his blessings. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/06/25/edmonton-to-launch-waste-to-biofuel-plant-based-on-old-rossi-technology/

              • psi2u2

                Very nice. Thanks. Wikipedia needs that link – but the last time I tried to edit Rossi’s page, I got the usual brushoff from the wiki goon squad.

        • psi2u2

          I was wondering if “record” referred to the fact that Rossi spent time in jail, or set the world record for the 24 hour run, or has a record of collaboration with the DOE, or what?

          All of these things are a part of his biographical “record.”

          I’ve been to jail too. That doesn’t mean I did anything wrong.

          The police did something wrong, and the congress did something wrong, when they criminalized one of the most beneficial plants on the planet, one with over 5,000 years of medicinal history.

          Without knowing all the facts, I’m pretty sure that in Rossi’s case the Italian police and lower court were in bed with the mafia. But people who blabber on about his “record” can rarely be bothered to consider the larger context, and treat his jail time ipso facto as proof of wrong doing and bad character. As you say, desperate ad hominem bs.

  • Facepalm
  • AdrianAshfield

    georgehants,
    Further to your comments about believers it is interesting to note that ALL the GOP presidential candidates, except Trump whose view is not known, profess to believe in creation not evolution.
    As evolution is a fact, in the same way we know the planets revolve around the sun, it is unlikely that they really think this, with a couple of exceptions, but a very clear example that they will literally say anything that they think will get them votes.
    If even our next possible president is prepared to lie in this way, is it any surprise that scientists will lie in order to get grants?

    • georgehants

      Adrian, thank you, I do not understand what you mean by giving examples of people who believe in creation, creation is an obvious Fact, not in anyway connected to evolution, that is simply, as it turns out an incorrect guess at how life progressed on Earth.
      I would suggest doing Research on the Facts of evolution especialy epigenetics etc. and forget the religion of evolution taught to gullible students for many years.
      By creation are you mistaking that clear Fact for some kind of religion.
      It is not surprising that everybody lies and cheats it is surprising how people try to justify that in a myriad of ways such as your own comment, instead of saying what you say is True we must change this.

    • theBuckWheat

      People can assert that present life proves evolution to be unquestionably true. Irrespective of how true it may be, logic dictates that there must be living organisms from which all present life evolved. Yet there is no mechanism in mutation, selection or comparative advantage that is remotely plausible to explain how something alive arose from something that was not alive. There is not enough time since the Big Bang for random chance to make the first single cell, let alone one that functions sufficiently to successfully reproduce.

      No matter to what degree that mutation, selection or comparative advantage may have enabled increasingly sophisticated creatures to emerge, every attempt so far to explain the origin of life has been full of speculative excuses and very long reaches. I know that evolutionists studiously avoid the issue of origins. Logic dictates that they are linked. I cannot look at this grand system without seeing that it was a deliberate creative act. I say this knowing full well that some will hold me in contempt for my opinion. I await their proof.

      • keV

        If life is programmed by some intelligent deity, then they need to run some decent bug checker on their sloppy ‘human’ code – homo sapiens are having the same effect on other species that unchecked pandemics would have on our own species. If we don’t check ourselves, we will be our own reaper. It will take a new “global family” mindset to change this – not simply a new energy source (these tend to just enable us to increase the amount of destructive force we exert on our environment).

        It makes more sense to me that randomness and time would produce such a clutz of a species. If I had designed and created mankind, I would be very embarrassed if anybody mentioned humans at a deity party : )

        I do sometimes wish I could just off-load my own individual responsibility onto some unknown fuzzy entity though – must be bliss.

        • http://www.facebook.com/hiteshceon Hitesh Ceon

          There is more behind life/consciousness than we have the ability to know at this time. Some things are still a mistery to us, inspite of all of our scientific and technological evolution. But what is absolutely certain, is that this has nothing to do with any religious “deity”.

          • Mark Underwood

            “Absolutely certain” you say? Deity to many people is what *is* “behind life/consciousness”.

            • http://www.facebook.com/hiteshceon Hitesh Ceon

              Yes, those people base their opinion not on scientific evidence and rational analysis, but on irrational and delusional religious belief. Therefor that is irrelevant.
              For example the idea that the “god” of the bible is behind life and consciousness and the universe, has about the same probabilty as Donald Duck being behind life and consciousness and the universe. I would say almost infinitely close to zero. And therefor I said “absolutely certain”… but if you want to be catogorical, of course nothing is absolutely 100% certain.

              • georgehants

                Hitesh, could you please put up some of this “scientific evidence” that strangely somehow convinces you that there is no Truth in any part of a religion.
                Could you please put up your “rational analysis” that leads you to deny something with and I quote myself “not the slightest scientific Evidence”.

                • http://www.facebook.com/hiteshceon Hitesh Ceon

                  There is absolutely no scientific evidence of any religious deity. So there is nothing to document. And religious belief is not based on rational analysis, but delusional acceptance of religious texts/ideas as “truth” or even “holy truth”. Therefor the mental process in itself, the religious “belief” is always wrong, even if what is believed may sometimes happen to be correct(although much of it is obviously incorrect). For example you may choose to believe that Jews lived in Israel in biblical times, because it says so in the bible and you believe the bible to be the word of God. Your reason to believe that Jews lived in Israel in biblical times would then be wrong, even though what you have chosen to believe happened to be right(that Jews lived in Israel in biblical times).
                  And if you want my opinion(perhaps you don’t)… the primitive ideas of a “God” in the bible/koran/Torah/etc, are obviously wrong, that God is somekind of revengeful angry human personality that resides in the clouds/heaven. It doesn’t take a minute for a rational person that is not brainwashed with religion, to understand that these ideas have extremely low probability of being correct.
                  But when considering a more thoughtful and rational concept of a “god”(but I wouldn’t call it that), for example whether the entire energy of the universe, everything that exists, may have a singular consciousness behind it, that is something that is currently beyond our knowledge and our science, but nonetheless a rational possibility considering that all life seems to be based around consciousness. Either there is a singular universal consciousness or there is not. Therefor I am agnostic to that idea, leaving the probability at 50/50. But chosing to “believe” in one of those 2 possibilities would be an mental error.

                • georgehants

                  You clearly have a strong religious belief in Atheism, just another religion but one that goes against every scientific principle.
                  You are giving your own opinion as if it is a Fact, the worst mistake that a scientist can make.
                  You nor any part of science knows.
                  A god or creator is simply one of the sensible hypothesis regarding the existence of our reality, science not being able to put forward any others that make any sense.
                  A blind unfounded belief is an anathema in science that leads foolish scientists to deny Cold Fusion etc. because they have never learnt that an open-mind is the first principle of science.

                • http://www.facebook.com/hiteshceon Hitesh Ceon

                  Completely wrong. I am not an atheist, I am agnostic to rational concepts of God as described above. But I consider religious “belief” to be an mental error and therefor I oppose all religion based on religious belief(a religion not based on belief is rather a philosophy or an ideology, not really a religion).
                  And no, I do not have any “religious belief” whatsoever. I simply evaluate the probability of something being correct based on the available evidence and applying rational analysis. Accepting religious ideas as truth without evidence is delusional.

              • georgehants

                Hitesh, could you please give your “scientific evidence” or ” rational analysis” for you opinion that “those people base their opinion not on scientific evidence and rational
                analysis, but on irrational and delusional religious belief. Therefor
                that is irrelevant.”
                I know of no scientific Evidence that in any way refutes the possibility of a god or creator.

                • http://www.facebook.com/hiteshceon Hitesh Ceon

                  I had already replied to this, but since the moderator has removed two of my posts here that detailed my view on this, I am assuming he/they do not wish to have much discussion about this subject here, so I am not discussing this further in this forum.

                • ecatworld

                  Thanks, Hitesh — no offence intended, but this site is really not intended to be a place for debate over religion.

                • http://www.facebook.com/hiteshceon Hitesh Ceon

                  Of course. I find it an interesting topic to discuss, and easily get carried away discussing it… but obviously the subject of religion and religious belief does not have much to do with the e-Cat.

                • bachcole

                  It does seem to be a place to debate debating, philosophy, epistemology, etc., so it is easy to stray into forbidden areas.

      • Roland

        There are some philosophical ambiguities surrounding evolutionary theory that a closer analysis resolves. That recognition that evolution occurs is a separate issue from what Scientific Materialism describes as the mechanisms by which evolution proceeds.

        In short, we can acknowledge that evolution is supported by evidence but that the explanation of the mechanisms offered up is not supported by the evidence, as much contemporary work by Sheldrake et al strongly suggests.

    • HS61AF91

      I kinda believe in both: something had to create DNA, so it could evolve into lots of things, including us.

  • georgehants

    It is worth remembering this is only a scientist who has worked with Cold Fusion for many years and not one of the 95% of highly qualified religious mass that are able to dismiss Evidence in science by faith alone.
    We should take no notice of this man and keep on believing that there is no such thing as Evidence for UFO’s Telepathy etc. as our priests instruct us, having spoken to their own personal gods for their Wonderful knowledge.

    • Billy Jackson

      we all have our own personal blinders on at times.

      Be it Religion or Science it comes down to what you are taught. We believe those who are in a position to know and to not lead us astray with false teachings. Faith in what you know is strong for most individuals, some of whom refuse to challenge their own knowledge of a given subject, the authorities have spoken.. that’s good enough for them.

      In this Religion and Science suffer equally. Blind acceptance of either without the personal conviction to challenge your own preconceptions of the teachings of either could potentially lead you down a dangerous path where your own ignorance acts as a shield to protect yourself from the truth.

      • georgehants

        Billy, of course what we both say is clearly a Fact that the vast majority of people fight to deny until their dying day.
        Until education starts to teach from the very beginning that most of us are built in such a psychologically way that this is a constant danger then no progress can be made.
        This will not soon be done because those able to be aware of this inbuilt fault in our characters wish to take every opertunity to use it to manipulate those around them.
        Be this the rich, powerful, advertisers, media, religion, government, war, capitalism, or any other number of manipulations.
        Many years ago it was only the strongest that ruled, then as time went by those with the ability to manipulate became the “winners” Hitler and many like him being amazed at how easy it was to turn ordinary people into being willingly following monsters.
        Now the major tool is money that controls those while giving the illusion of democratic freedom.
        But we are talking science, a subject that is simply a joke if those teaching and practicing are not able to control that insidious need to follow, no matter how illogical or stupid, Cold Fusion being as I have many times said, only the tip of the iceberg.
        What can be done?

        • Obvious

          George, it has taken decades to train my brain not to colour my memories with various biases. It is important to my job to be an objective observer. I am not perfect at it, but at least I conciously monitor bias creep. The observations I make are used for various decisions, and the data routinely is painted in a light that suits the users, and frequently to support theories that are not in any agreement with my opinions, which I rarely include unless I feel that the abuse of my data is almost certain to be used to support something that the data should not. This makes my information more useful in the long run, but hardly any friends. I am often used as a consultant because I will almost always deliver an opinion that is different from whatever the prevailing opinion is of a data set. In most cases, my input will be ignored. Generally, years later my comments are found by a new operator of a similar project (the original having failed, by sticking to a wrong theory or plan that is increasing unsupported by facts), where my comments appear in a more favourable light. Then they are selectively quoted, and used to support something else that is also mostly a fantasy, or flavour of the day…
          Objectivity wins few friends, and even those friends are reluctant to introduce you to their friends, lest you actually speak your mind, and offend one, the other, or both. Clients often wonder if I am actually on their side. Coworkers question if I am working on the same goal. I am working on the overall goal, which may not look the same as the intermediate goals. The intermediate goals set by the client can frequently undermine the primary goal (which is to stay in business). Being truthful and factual supports the primary goal, but it is amazing how often truth and facts are perceived to interfere with the intermediate goals, which are to keep the shareholders (literally and figuratively, depending on the job) constantly being fed only good news so that the project may continue, even if it takes the whole company down in the long run.
          My job is a mixture of science and business. Both parts get the blind follower effect, even though there are more than examples of this leading to failure than success, and almost constant upheaval in the industry to serve as examples of what not to do. My conclusion is that most people will be intentionally stupid rather than be cast from the group.

          • georgehants

            Obvious, you are pointing out the Truth of my point in a particular area, your profession, I am sure you would agree that the same problem affects every area of life.
            It is to me so depressing that the average guy, fairly, only wishes to lead a peaceful life with fair remuneration for doing his share of the needed work, he does not have the mind or inclination to lead, but relies on those more able, to take that lead.
            Those in positions of power whether that be a local official, president, or pope have their own agenda’s that consist almost always in power and gain for themselves and manipulation of others to that end.
            Science is to important for the majority to allow the corruption and incompetence shown specifically with Cold Fusion but in Fact in most areas, like everything else.
            I cannot understand why more scientists do not think like you, allowing that if you are doing your honest best and are wrong then that is not a crime as long as you state “in my best opinion”
            Would you agree that It is a crime to debunk, attack or deny any subject where there is the slightest Evidence to support it, or continue to blindly believe in a subject where counter Evidence is available, there being only one honest response, we do not know and more Research is needed.
            This subject is to tiring for me.
            Best to you

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

          my observation is that the worst problem is not money, but “FEAR”…
          ideology, scapegoat, scaremongering, feed the worst of national and international horrors, of waste lifes and waste wealth, killin worthy opportunities.

          Scientists don’t follow the lemmings just for money, they can endure poverty, and scarcity at work, but by fear to be rejected by the group, to lose their job, to have no life, no career…
          very few seek success, and many of those success-seekers will enter LENR domain because , not despite it is risky.

          the problem of modern western civilisation is that we fear too much, and we desire too few.

    • GreenWin

      Perhaps a good result of the LENR saga will be a newfound respect for scientists and experts who admit to being wrong. That is, “expertise” is a temporary cache of knowledge that we all know will change. This should be emphasized to students and alternative evidence should not be dismissed. Hopefully we will produce a new generation of expertise with far broader thinking. Such people should be lauded.

    • Brokeeper

      It’s simple. It’s harder to ‘unlearn’ than to learn. So human, to take the easier path.

  • MasterBlaster7

    I think a few more questions are in order. Some beating around the bush questions like….

    1. You, personally, do you have a feeling of euphoria and/or a feeling like ‘oh my god we are about to change the world, we have the holy grail of energy here’. Just your feeling and/or attitude toward the project without subjective/objective information on the project F9.

    2. Does it seem like there is a sense of urgency or excitement in the team to roll out the e-cat as quickly as possible after the test runs are done? Not subjective/objective information regarding the project; just the mood and urgency of the team to industrialize.

    3. Do you ever think to yourself, “hey, this must be what it would be like to read Einsteins notes in 1904” or “hey, this must be what its like to be in the wright brothers bicycle shop before first flight”. Any thoughts like that?

  • Gerard McEk

    I guess he needed even a permission of AR for this remark. It is good that he openly stated this because it would be bad for his reputation if it turned out differently

  • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

    That’s encouraging.