1 MW E-Cat Plant Test Hits 300 Day Mark (Update: Charges in Reactors Still Unchanged — One Reactor Losing Efficiency)

Today there’s a bit of a milestone in the 350 day test for Andrea Rossi’s test of the 1 MW E-Cat plant. According to Rossi’s It has been 300 days since the test started on February 20th of this year (according to my calculations).

This does not mean, however, that the plant has been running continuously since that date. Rossi has mentioned that there have been plenty of repairs to make over the course of the test, and there have been some down days. From what I can gather the test is scheduled to conclude at the end of February, perhaps it will go into the first part of March if there are further down days.

Rossi’s reports of late about the plant’s performance have indicated that it has manly been stable, although he did report some leakages on December 17th. I have posted Rossi’s updates about the test on this page: http://www.e-catworld.com/rossis-1mw-plant-performance-updates/

We’re definitely in the final stretch now, and I’m sure that many followers will be very interested to find out the final results. It’s also going to be interesting how those results will be shared. AR has said recently that any report that is published will have to have the agreement of all the parties involved, which I assume would include his own team, the independent referee, the customer, and perhaps Industrial Heat.

It would be a big shame if we did not get a thorough report at the end of it all. If there is going to be any commercialization of this technology it will be important for potential customers to have an idea of what they would be getting themselves into, but I suppose it’s possible that a complete performance report will be given only to serious potential customers under an NDA, which would be a big frustration to people on the outside hoping to get a full report. Let’s hope that everything will be publicly released.

UPDATE#1 (Dec 21, 2015)

I asked Rossi on the JONP, “Have the charges in the E-Cat reactors in the 1MW plant been changed during the first 300 days of this test? If not, is there any sign of the reaction diminishing so far?” He responded:

Frank Acland:
No, they have not been changed . Further data will be given after the end of the tests.
Warm Regards,

So, taking all his comments together, if the E-Cat plant continues to be reported as stable (despite some repairs needed), and the charges have not changed for 300 days, it sounds to me like the plant has been doing essentially what it has been intended to do, so far.

UPDATE#2 (Dec 21, 2015)

An interesting comment by AR just now indicates that one reactor may be ‘slowing down’

Andrea Rossi
December 21st, 2015 at 8:27 AM
Ugo Pezzotti:
The 1 MW E-Cat is stable, but we are noticing a decrease of the efficiency in one reactor, probably due to the charge: this is very interesting and we are monitoring this fact very carefully.

  • Omega Z

    Mr. Darden,
    I have a device that “MIGHT” produce heat at COP>1.
    I propose “Without Due Diligence” that “You” spend a couple Million of “Your” dollars & build a 1MW Pilot plant and try it in an Industrial setting. You cover all costs of course.

    Darden responds, Yes, Mr. Rossi. Lets do that.
    Seriously, Does anyone think that’s what went down.
    Tom Darden is a smart guy. He’s made a lot of money & lost a lot as well. What is key is he’s made a LOT more then he lost. He didn’t do that by not doing his due diligence. Especially in the risky ventures he’s dealt with.

    He didn’t just take Rossi’s word for the E-cat working. He brought in his own experts from outside circles. He has some of his people working directly with Rossi. Before building a 1MW pilot plant, Darden & His people verified a COP>1. Or more precisely, A COP that would be viable for Industrial use.

    That said, What will COP be with the 1MW plant? Unknown.
    You may think because a single reactor has a COP>6, you’re ready to go. You would be wrong. You now have a multiple of reactor cores that have to operate in somewhat Unison. Or as Rossi would say, In Concert. If not, your overall COP may not be suitable for an Industrial product. It might be low enough that it can’t compete with fossil energy.

    What is COP when broke down? It’s a major loss of income. Not just in product, but employees you must pay to stand around & numerous other expenses. Any energy savings can quickly evaporate. This technology not only has to save the customer money when operating. It’s got to be as dependable as what it replaces. If not, there is no savings. Only losses. This is why Rossi uses the (F9). COP>100 does not matter if it’s not dependable.

    There are multiple issues to be dealt with in this test, dependability, controllable and many other unknowns including determining the functional COP in an industrial setting.

    How many think all IH/Rossi have to do is go to the banks and their set to go. If you think that, you would be wrong. A good idea or product will not get you anything. You need Investors to get this off the ground. 20, 40, 80 million dollars isn’t going to do it. Well it would but the time line would be very long. They need a lot of big investors to get this going. They need a positive test to get those investors.
    Keep in mind, It is the Industrial products that will bring these to the Individual at an affordable price. IH/Rossi could spend years & million$ in running dummy cats to accumulate the safety data for a consumer product. Many wouldn’t be able to afford them for years.
    Once on the market, they could sell a million of these to the consumer & have a Billion$ in gross sales, but they could market a 1000 1MW plants to industry & make a Billion$ in Profit.

    That’s a lot of factory floor space & robots paid for. Business as with many products of this nature, pay for all the upfront costs. They are the testing ground and pay for all the upgrades that make them dependable consumer products. They pay the billion$ of investment.

    Rossi is right when says it could be positive or negative. It needs to convince big investors it is a viable product. A negative wont be the end, but it could mean a long delay. F9 wont be determined until the test is complete & the data all analyzed.

    • Pedro

      If F9 turns out to be negative for commercial reasons, but the test is a big success in COP and proving LENR beyond any doubt, it may very well be the game changer that we all hope it will be. It might open the floodgates and spur research and development by many more parties.

  • Omega Z

    I think that was your thumbs pressing against the cork causing an expulsion of pressure release….

  • Bob Greenyer

    If the charges have not been changed – this supports the notion that it the main energy yield comes from

    1H + 7Li > 2 X 4He (catalysed by Nickel – only truly catalysed if the isotope remained the same)

    Because this would remove He from the reaction interface and leave predominantly active reactants in place (Ni + molten Li+H-). It may require some periodic off-gassing – this should be done after the H has been captured in the molten Li as LiH (as there is free 6Li which does not play a role, there will always be more H in this part of the cycle than needed to fully burn the 7Li) – this would leave an atmosphere of He to be extracted.

    xNi stops at 62Ni in the early part of the reaction (like Lugano) when there is plenty of spare H2 – this causes the COP/SSM to rise as most reactions become the above high net yield one. The H- composite particle acts as a heavy electron – enabling it to travel around in the sea of electrons in the Ni metal clusters before circumstances are right to allow it to descend to lower electron shells and act in the two ways Piantelli describes (if he is right) that will lead to transmutation of Nickel in the clusters – right through, as observed in Lugano ash.

    If it was bound Neutron capture (like Gullstrom) – ie.

    xNi + 7Li > (x+1)Ni + 6Li

    I would expect the COP/SSM to go down as there would be progressively and proportionally less 7Li on the Nickel surface and less neutron deficient xNi to react with at the surface and isotopes of nickel beyond 62Ni were not found in the Lugano ash. If we are to assume that 62Ni takes on no neutrons, then the Gullstrom reaction would stop – and could not be extended by adding more H2 and free Lithium.

    • Eyedoc

      But in the reaction ……..1H + 7Li > 2 X 4He (catalysed by Nickel – only truly catalysed if the isotope remained the same)………isn’t 7Li also being used up ? could there be enough to last 300 days ???

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes – 7Li and 1H.

        The good thing is – you just add more free Li (and LiAlH4 to ensure the LiH ratio is maintained) – this, in my mind, is how Rossi could determine the run time for a certain amount of fuel. The Nickel ends up stuck at 62Ni – and becomes merely a catalyst. 4He can be extracted out of the reactor when H2 is trapped in ionic Li+H- molten solution with Al and dissolved Ni. Rossi is putting in a mix to last a period – the main consumables are 7Li and H2.

        In the Gullstrom theory – the Nickel, which is far more massive, would need to be increased if it stops at 62Ni in addition to the free Li. The Gullstrom theory may allow for the reactor to be open and still work though.

    • Axil Axil

      LENR transmutation might act like the processes that occur in stars where there is an ever ascending ladder of transmutation produces that increase in the Z direction until it cannot increase anymore.

      As a illustration, the reaction that LeClair produces in cavitation generates lots of carbon from water but it doesn’t stop there, The reaction moves up the entire Z scale until it gets to californium, the heaviest of the manmade elements.

      Even the Lugano test had a substantial heavy element representation including lead and upward to z = 281 and above.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes. But how many yield net energy gain?

        • Axil Axil

          They all do based on the first commandment of quantum mechanics and conservation of energy. Nuclear reactions don’t happen unless the energy produced is positive.

          • Bob Greenyer
          • Bob Greenyer

            This is an old by good one also – I like page 24 section 3


            • Axil Axil

              Dear Bob,

              LENR is based on the production of a monopole magnetic field. The nuclear color force is also base on the monopole field. When a monopole field is applied to the nucleons, they breakdown into a soup and eventually reform into a lower energy configuration. This looks like fusion but it is really nuclear disruption through the interference with the nuclear color force.

  • psi2u2

    Of course they do; they are just boiler plate “due diligence” types of statements.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The MW plant like everything else has to be tested before it enters the market place.

  • artefact

    Rossis full answer:

    “Andrea Rossi December 21st, 2015 at 8:27 AM
    Ugo Pezzotti:

    The 1 MW E-Cat is stable, but we are noticing a decrease of the
    efficiency in one reactor, probably due to the charge: this is very
    interesting and we are monitoring this fact very carefully.

    The E-Cat X is so promising, that I have increased the time dedicated to
    the jet engine design, in collaboration with a US engineer with high
    skills in the matter. This has been a game changing issue, because 2
    months ago I was oriented to consider futuristic this kind of
    application in a measure to discourage immediate attention.

    Warm Regards,

    • Mats002

      Competition is slowly growing, see the updated site for Nichenergy, http://www.nichenergy.com/index.html

      Nichenergy is Piantelli et al, possibly Rossi/IH need patent rights from them.

  • Brent Buckner

    You wrote: “It is impossible to believe that Woodford Patient Capital Trust made their investment on anything other than what someone SAID rather than what they could actually prove to be true.”

    Being as I believe it, I know it is not impossible to believe. Given the date of WPCT’s investment I believe that they could have visited the 1MW site and viewed months of data collected by an independent referee.

    You wrote: “If there was then the constant declarations that the results could still be either positive or negative make no sense at all.”

    Lawyers ask for lots of things that may seem nonsensical. I regard the F9 statements in that light. YMMV, and clearly does.

  • Bob

    I see a different logic.
    The 1 year test was set by Darden, not Rossi. So that would eliminate the “fudge results” hypothesis. Darden is not trying to fraud anyone and to think there is some huge conspiracy that people will make millions off a non-working product does not have a basis to it. No, the year long test is not Rossi trying to hide the facts. I believe it is that Darden is gathering data that he understands and can control….. financial balance sheets of power purchased versus power consumed. For this type of test to be really accurate one needs to run it for a sufficient length of time. Simple as that.
    I agree if the test is not “positive” that this will not be the end. I think this prototype plant must surely have proven enough potential by now that Darden would have ended the test if it had not. If he saw there was NO COP > 1 after six months, he would have shut down. Woodford would have bailed. I do not believe Darden is keeping his eyes closed for 12 months and will open them after the test and only then look at the data. He probably has been following the test very close all along. After all, this could be the biggest thing since the A bomb. So it has continued because the financials have show a positive. How much? We do not know.
    So if Darden has continued the test, then the reason is to see :
    1) Will the process work in an industrial setting… what needs to be addressed with it before going to market.
    2) What is the potential economic benefit. Will it pay for itself?
    3) Does he have the solid proof he needs to go fully public.
    I expect Darden is convinced the effect is real, thus he continues the test.
    I expect there is control or environmental issues with the eCat operation,
    thus all the talk from Rossi that the test could still be negative. Possibly the COP is not as high as hoped.
    I fully expect that the plant design is not ready for commercial use and we will not see sales in 2016. This is not unreasonable for a first prototype. The question is can the issues be resolved?.
    We all continue to wait…

  • Brent Buckner

    OTOH, Woodford Patient Capital Trust’s investment in IH was made after the 1MW test was underway. I expect that they would have had access to results up to that date, and if they weren’t seeing COP>1 that they wouldn’t have invested.

    • clovis ray

      Where are you guys keep getting the cop of one, that is just plain wrong, the e-cat can produce as much energy as you want, want a cop of 20, it is possible all is needed is to turn her up, what a waste of words today, just to up date you bob, everything is going not just good but it’s going excellent, everything is on course,and working as planed, you might well stop trying to second guess, Dr. R and mr. darden, you are not even in their league . they are so for ahead of what you guys think you know, it unimaginable. And I personally take offense of some troll calling this good man a liar.

      • Brent Buckner

        As your Reply is to me (though it seems to be directed toward Uncle Bob), I’ll pedantically bother to state for the record that I don’t “keep getting the cop of one”, I referred to COP>1.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Actually, the comments were COP>1.
        (that means greater than one).

        However, the BIG question is the COP? We
        simply don’t know. A COP in the 3 range is not really commercially viable.

        And there is NOTHING I read that the COP
        can simple be “turned” up.

        The system in its current form requires input energy to keep the LENR reaction going. So I am not sure where you read or surmised that the e-cat can produce high COP’s. And NOTHING I read on any
        LENR device suggests that COP can “simply” be increased or turned up for a given device. Rossi has MOST certainly stated that a self-sustain mode exists. (so drive power is cycled on for about say 3 seconds, and then turned off for 3 seconds. In such a SSM operation, then your COP jumps from 3 to 6. And we don’t know the SSM drive ratios at this point in time.

        Matts Lewan reported he heard a number
        of 20-80 and thus confirmed that rumors floating at ICCF19 also suggested COP’S of 20-80. However, this is ONLY a rumor and speculation.

        If the COP is 20-80, then this is a HUGE revolution.

        There nothing here that suggests that high COP’s exist with the e-cat.

        We have MUCH hope the COP is high.
        However, given how cautious Rossi is, then I have to think that the COP is the LIMITING factor and REASON for Rossi to be cautious.

        In other words, if a VERY HIGH COP is being realized, then the yearlong test would be EASY a success, even if reliability issues exist, that’s just an issue of better parts and materials (not a big deal).

        A high COP eliminates MOST issues of high fuel costs. And ALSO really eliminates the issues of labor costs of running the reactor.

        So I think the REASON for Rossi to be cautious is the relative LOW COP issue – there really few other reasons I can think of in this regards.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • http://bobmapp.com.uk twobob

    It would seem that this Effort of Mr Rossi is going to Suck seed.
    ( Like the toothless Canary)

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates


      • Roland

        ‘Merican blue collar humour Nicholas…

        • Ophelia Rump

          More like budgie fancier run amok.

    • giovanniontheweb

      just appearances bob

  • Gerald

    Remember the sifferkoll analysis, public anouncement off lern the black swan when oil hits 35 dollars………

    • HS61AF91

      like waiting for the right time

  • giovanniontheweb

    this forum is a good investment control of what is going-on around, yet few claims from Padova Pedrocchi dinner have disappeared.

  • Gerard McEk

    During the 300 days of operation the reactor performance did not seem to degrade. Probably the things around it were less stable, when you look to the many disturbances. (I shortened it to the essentials):

    ‘It occurred to me that since the beginning of November you did not mention anymore that the 1MW plant is in SSM. This triggered my question: Did you see any change in performance during the long time of testing of the plant? If so, did you expect if to happen in that way?’

    Andrea Rossi
    December 19th, 2015 at 9:30 AM
    Gerard Mc Ek:
    Nothing is substantially changed in that sense, so far.
    Warm Regards,

    Although I think this is quite interesting (the LENR does not degrade in this period), it may still be te case that LENR is difficult to control. Let us hope that AR does decide he can control it sufficiently to put it on the market.

    • Mats002

      If his lone-wolf work does not pay off in a commersial stable product, I hope he see that time-to-market will benefit from parallell development. He already has the money, scaling up to several teams should not be hard to do.

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes, that is what I would do, build some compitition in to drive these different groups and reward the best, that would improve the development speed.

    • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

      It was somewhat of a relief to look at the performance updates that Frank listed above http://www.e-catworld.com/rossis-1mw-plant-performance-updates/

  • Ophelia Rump

    I wonder if IH will even bother with a press release.
    The moment deserves a three ring circus media event, but we all know that will never happen.

  • GreenWin

    300 days is itself a remarkable milestone. Minimally that’s 300 days at COP>1. Compare to more than 22,630 days (62 years) of hot fusion tests yet to produce ONE WATT useful energy. And at a cost to global taxpayers of some $250B dollars. A clear win for Dottore Rossi.

    Certain proprietary data will be reserved for the Rossi/IH partnership. This is to be expected as there is no obligation to do otherwise. Were public funds involved – demands for full disclosure would be reasonable. To that end, the government entity that purchased one of the first E-Cats does use public funds. It is then withing reason to petition for disclosure and details directly from that entity. But, as the entity remains “secret” (a secret customer,) getting information is unlikely… More unlikely than Ernie Moniz learning about CF and declaring himself wrong.

  • matteo

    let us remember that this is a test mandated by one specific customer for the unique needs of its factory. It is not a test to see if the Rossi effect is real.

    If a manufacturer says he will only manufacture your unicycle after he sees you ride it for a continuous 3 miles, and you fall after 2.8 miles, it does not mean that the unicycle is a failed concept.

    Rossi’s customer can only say, “Yes, the e-cat works for our purposes!” Or, “No it does not work for us.” They cannot validate the e-cat overall. There are other customers, other uses…

    • http://bobmapp.com.uk twobob

      If you are such a prat.
      To think it is only making TEA.

    • http://bobmapp.com.uk twobob

      Let us Not.

    • Bob

      I firmly believe this test is for only one person, Tom Darden. (Possibly his board of directors as well). The secret customer almost certainly is a Darden owned or controlled entity. There is no other customer mandating this test. It is IH / Darden. Who else would allow potentially nuclear development work at their site with little to no known theory or history?. Safety and liability concerns would not allow this.
      I personally believe this test has nothing to do with the secret customer’s facility or production process. It is totally a long term confirmation test for Darden’s own confidence in the eCat and possibly Rossi to some extent. Most likely the eCat technology itself.
      There has been some demo’s and third party tests before. 2011 and the Lugano tests. Both were not definitive and opened about as many questions as they answered. But they did prove potential. I think Darden surmised, possibly along with Rossi’s insistence, that they only real proof of the eCat, would be a long term test that was, to them at least, proof positive.
      Tom Darden is not a scientist, he is a business man. He probably is not concerned with theory or recognizes that that LENR is above his education in physics. However, he knows balance sheets. He knows that it can be quite accurately measured how much energy he paid for a the secret facility and how much energy they used. If the latter is greater than the former, then the eCat had a COP > 1. If not, then something is not working. Over the 12 months, the data would be certain.
      This is why the talk from Rossi about F9 test results and tying the Rossi Effect to seems silly. The LENR effect is surely known by now. But he has refused to say it has and has explicitly stated that the skeptics could be right. I do not understand such comments. But then, many did not understand Tesla either. Who knows?
      The weekend is almost over…. I continue to wait.

      • Agaricus

        Generally agreed, although I believe that rather more may ride on the outcome of the test than Darden’s satisfaction (specifically, a larger investment or manufacturing contribution than IH is capable of providing).

        The sole purpose of the ‘customer’ is to provide a realistic load into which the pilot plant can feed, complete with variable demand and return flow temperatures. Given the unknown stability of the pilot plant, the propensity of any prototype for major downtime, and even the complete replacement of the reactor at one point, it is impossible to believe that any independent manufacturing or processing business would allow themselves to become dependent on such an uncertain supply of energy, even if their ‘old’ heat source could be reinstated in a few hours if necessary.

        We have all focused entirely on a couple of shipping containers containing Rossi and a few technicians, while somehow ignoring the ‘ecosystem’ within which this must all have taken place:

        The LP steam produced is used for some process immediately outside the containers, which means employees and managers on site who must be aware of what is going on. Parts and upgrades for the plant have been manufactured somewhere nearby, physically moved into place and installed, presumably by a team of prototype engineers supported by machinists, technicians, porters, installation engineers etc. This same team may also be building and testing e-cat x prototypes. And all these people need to be provided with meals, drinks etc. presumably by caterers etc. and perhaps a canteen, all mamaged by others who are responsible for coordination, finances, purchasing and goods handling and all the other necessities of project management.

        Yet despite all these people who must be involved, there has been no leakage of illicit information, no unauthorised photos – nothing. This could only be the case if the facility is secure, and all employees are on the IH payroll and are aware of the consequences of unauthorised contacts. In short, the idea that the ‘customer’ is an independent trading entity that has agreed to allow all this to go on in their factory is completely untenable.

        • Bob

          These are good points. To summarize what I believe you are saying is that Darden is not only wanting to confirm the “Rossi Effect” but also determine if the process can work in an industrial setting. In a lab, the output steam normally goes down the drain, but in a working setting, the steam probably needs condensed and recycled. Thus, can the eCat work with hot water as the incoming media and at what ranges etc?
          So it is probably logical to make the following assumptions:
          1) The test early on was to confirm the LENR / Rossi Effect .
          2) As time went on and effect seemed to be confirmed, the test then eventually switched more over to proving it would work in an industrial setting. Not so much pipe leaks etc., that is simply engineering, but can the effect be controlled, will it work under various environmental conditions and of course, how durable.
          3)Once the above test is completed, Darden will know much more….
          A) That the effect is indeed real. He will be able to document enough data that the general media / skeptic academia will have a hard time demonizing him for bringing this to the public.
          B) More will be known as to how much more engineering will be needed to make the eCat ready for market. If just leaks etc, then those are easily fixed. If control or stability, then who knows. Darden will probably then assign other technical resources.
          C) Operating costs will be more realized. If the eCat is not economical, then the above does not matter at this point. Darden will know that he cannot sell the device until it is made more economical. (Thus the eCatX?)
          So my crystal ball (purchased at Walmart) shows this scenario.
          February will come and some delays will be known. Possibly in March some announcements, but very little data. I doubt that the secret customer will be made known. I do not know what to think about the “certification company”. Probably will not hear much from them.
          Hopefully Darden will provide some type of news release.
          The eCat will be deemed unready for market (which is not unrealistic for any first prototype and should not be taken as a major issue). The eCatX will be presented as the solution and we will be in for another year long test, perhaps a bit less. There will be little to no definitive test data released.
          We will be a step closer, but still a ways to go. Hopefully Rossi will turn more over to a development team, but I doubt that will happen.
          A new week and we continue to wait…

          • Agaricus

            That’s pretty much it, although I get a strong impression that there were probably several intermediate prototypes before the pilot plant that we never heard about, which were subjected to duration tests that confirmed the ‘Rossi effect’ some time before the current test.

            It’s pretty clear that the pilot is not yet developed to the point where unattended operation is possible, and that several more iterations will be needed before anything approaching a commercial product becomes available. That is only to be expected, and like you I don’t expect to hear much about production at the end of the test period.

            I hope you are wrong about Rossi’s focus moving away from the current model and onto ‘e-cat x’ but suspect that might be the case. I hope IH have a competent team who will be able to take the project forward if Rossi loses interest in it, but I worry about his apparent personal control over fuel manufacture. I sincerely hope that his secrets have been committed to paper, replicated and stored safely for use in the event that he is unable to continue his work for any reason.

  • georgehants

    I think that any reasonable scientists and others on page have very little interest in if Mr.Rossi’s device is mature enough to put into large scale production.
    The question this man needs to answer is, do the tests so far show conclusively and repeatable a Cold Fusion phenomenon that can be passed on to others, including IH for the purpose of refinement and improvement.
    That question can obviously be answered just as well today as in one month or ten years.
    The silly games have gone on long enough, but the World lacking any other published indisputable replication, able to show repeatable continuous Cold Fusion from an unknown energy source with an output .000000000000001 above any input has not been forthcoming, so we are left with having to play silly games.
    Of course other childish black projects and capitalistic entity’s may be far into the subject, especialy the one having acquired a Rossi device by an arrangement that may never be known.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I not sure where you going with this, but
      we have what, 4 or more other LENR announcements this year?

      We have the China institute and their announcement
      of heat due to LENR.

      We have the Russia institute and their announcement
      of heat due to LENR.

      And we have the Parkomov replication and
      his announcement of heat due to LENR.

      It quite reasonable to assume that ALL
      of the above are the result of looking at Rossi’s work and test results, and
      ALSO the patent applications.

      And we have the Brillioum and their test
      results (from Stanford research Institute).

      And then there is Dr. Hagalson (sp) who
      gives students a working LENR device for his LENR 101 course.

      And we can go back over 30 years all the
      way back to Pons & Fleishman that saw heat.

      And then of course we have Rossi.

      I mean, if you stating that Rossi not
      given YOU enough to convince you or the science community of LENR? Sure, I can
      respect your position on Rossi.

      However to make an outright flat statement
      that nothing suggests LENR is a real and repeatable effect is simply not a reasonable
      position for anyone of sound mind to take.

      And clearly over the last 30 years MANY
      have replaced LENR. In fact success rates are FAR greater now than say from the
      time of P&F.

      Thus a HIGH degree of LENR replications
      have occurred and CAN be reproduced. This is especially the case with palladium
      and deuterium (heavy water) loaded metals.

      So the information DOES exist, and clearly
      Russia, China, Beryllium, SPWAR + recent patents granted to the US navy shows
      that LENR been RATHER widely reproduced here.

      Are you saying that LENR not real and repeatable?
      (and you ignore the last 30 years of many replications).

      Or are you saying that Rossi not helping
      the case here?

      So in the case of Nickel + Hydrogen replications,
      we have several this year alone. And they are independent from each other and
      mostly based on Ross’s work.

      So a great paint by numbers on how to
      build a Nickel based LENR device certainly does not exist yet, but your post is
      VERY unclear in this regards – your post sounds like you don’t accept LENR.

      I mean exactly how many years was it
      after the Wright brothers did some plans come out on how to build a plane?
      (most of the copy cats did not grasp how a wing worked – it is hilarious to see
      some the replications that have wings made out of FLAT boards – they simply did
      NOT look close as to how the wings were built on the wright brothers planes).
      In fact we saw some heavy funded government attempts at building aircraft. Some
      had with FIVE TIMES the power of the Wright Brothers, and yet planes of similar weight
      (and what looked to be a similar design) could not fly!

      So it going to take time for mankind to
      CRACK the LENR formula in terms of nickel based systems – but we come a LONG
      way in just this year.

      The issue (as usual) is not that LENR
      works, but is it ready for COMMERCIAL work? I mean, it might be cool to see a
      plane fly, but until such time the plane has commercial viability, it remains a
      curiosity. I mean today, we are seeing the birth of the “drone” industry, but I
      going to be a number of years before we see packages deliver by Amazon (despite
      their PR of recent).

      So would not take the position that
      planes don’t fly, or that LENR not real. The only remaining issue is how commercial
      viable is LENR and does Rossi really have a good 5-7 years lead on everyone

      There is ZERO guarantee that test
      results and information from the yearlong test will become public knowledge –
      this is a “bad” speculation and rumor often spread here – but I never seen any statements that promised the TIME frame for such information to become public knowledge.

      However, I do think that once IH starts
      selling systems, the performance and what to expect will NOT be NDA, but will
      simply be part of their web site or easily found in their product brochures.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • nietsnie

        It looks like it should be in iambic pentameter.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Thou willest to have our beloved Industrial Heat
          to reach out in strict pentameter beat?

      • georgehants

        A very long reply that completely misses the point of my post.
        Does MFMP et al have the knowledge to replicate consistently a Cold Fusion effect, if not then my comment is correct.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We are to receive latest generation of Celani wires which have been our most interesting platform to date. We will also be rolling out more information on reproducing them on this thread.


          The GS5 run was very interesting (if only it had run for longer!) and looking forward to the next one. It seemed to show two things – adding Fe2O3 lowered the onset of LiAlH4 breakdown very significantly and apparent excess heat started around 250ºC as per the statement in IH patent application.

          Are we close – I’d like to think so – that is assuming there is something to be close to!

          • georgehants

            Bob many thanks, which brings us back to scientists having to waste time in repetitive work that supposedly has already been done.
            These scientists could be working productivity to forward the progress already achieved.
            It is like the dark ages, 21st. century and we have not yet learned to share and care collectively for every persons benefit.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Whilst it may seem tedious and patience testing – even 30 years (from P&F) to realise a technology of this magnitude and import is trivial.

              Right now – it is needed more than ever.

              • Albert D. Kallal

                I can actually say that Rossi “already”
                done more for LENR then anyone else! And efforts like yours are acts of passion for the good of everyone!

                Keep it up!

                As this year winds to a close, it been a VERY interesting year in regards to LENR. While much of the news has been centered on Rossi, there been many interesting announcements, and that includes your efforts!

                I do hope that a “breakthrough” moment happens press wise next year.
                We are already seeing some welcome movement by the science community on LENR, and I predict that next year will show even more

                All the best during the holidays, and next year should be even more fun, and more exciting than then this year!

                Albert D. Kallal
                Edmonton, Alberta Canada

                • Bob Greenyer

                  Thankyou Albert – it certainly has been a fun ride – and my own opinion is that the potential outcome is worth the effort.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Well, my post was a bit long since you did
          not clarify and restrict the issue of LENR being real.

          So your position is that this energy source
          needs to be released to the public?

          And what moral code are you going to use
          to take away that persons labor and efforts?

          I mean, if you worked for the last 15 years of your lie to build a house, then how come you don’t have a moral obligation to give that house away to people that don’t have that house? I mean, after all, if everyone allowed anyone to just walk into their house and park there,
          then the housing crisis would be solved! So why is a suggestion for everyone to give away their house any different here? (the key issue being why someone should give away their efforts of the last 15 years of their life?).

          The problem with your scheme is you
          asking someone to give away their labor and efforts of the last 15+ or more years of their life to everyone else. Yet, you not willing to give away the last 15 years of YOUR labor and efforts.

          Why not give away what you worked for
          the last 15 years then? You asking others to do something that you are not willing to do!

          The simple matter is that governments
          are spending 20 BILLION per year on global warming research. LENR likely only needs about 50, to 100 million of funding to reach commercial viability, and yet we see nothing from the governments of our time. Why bother with Rossi who is resource limited?

          Yet you asking others to give up the
          last 15 years of their life efforts?

          As long as you are willing to give up
          the last 15 years of your life, say your savings, or your house or cars or
          whatever, then you might garner some support here.

          Of course it is OH SO REALLY easy to
          suggest taking things away from others, but such suggestions then are NOT acts of charity, are they?

          Worse, is we don’t know how viable Rossi’s
          system is. We don’t even know if it is ready for prime time, anymore then the recent US Navy that was awarded a patent on LENR.

          I mean, why single out Rossi here? What
          about the US Navy, and what about you giving away the last 15 years of your life efforts too? You are projecting a moral obligation on everyone else in society, but such projecting does not apply to yourself (unless you can demonstrate that you have given away the last 15 years of your efforts on this planet).

          I would expect MIT and the many government funded institutions TO FIRST come clean on LENR, since they received millions and millions of your tax dollars. And the same goes for the US Navy. What about NASA? So they just sit around sucking up your tax dollars and do nothing here? They have no obligation, yet they live off the backs of working people who pay into the tax system? (government employees don’t pay into the tax system – they take out and live off of taxing others – the fact that such people file income tax does not mean they are paying into the tax system – the are net outflows).

          So you are singling out Rossi to give away the last 15 years of his life’s work?

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • LarryJ

      I believe this test has nothing to do with proving the truth of cold fusion. That has already been proven to any reasonably open minded person. This test is designed to see what kind of issues would arise in the course of a normal year of operation. Large sums of money are required from the investors to bring this to fruition and the investors need to be confident that the current technology is mature enough to justify this expenditure.

      Rossi is right when he says that only working reactors in the market will prove his technology and even then I am sure that many critics will take their disbelief to the grave. This is a paradigm shift after all and those most knowledgeable about the current paradigm will have the most difficulty making the shift. The only reason Rossi/IH might share the results of this test would be to confirm the technology to his customers, whose pre-orders will be used to set the original scale of manufacture. Once the test is concluded we are still a good year from the first delivered reactors so I would not get your hopes up about any detailed announcements at the end of this test. It will simply mark the beginning of the industrialization phase F9.