Rossi: E-Cat Test for ‘Very Important’ New Customer in June (Update: New Details of Test Provided)

Andrea Rossi has posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics recently about an upcoming test that is scheduled to take place in June with someone he refers to as a ‘very important’ customer. Here are his posts on the topic and some follow up questions that I have posted on the JONP.

UPDATE#1 (April 28th, 2016)

There have been some more details provided by Andrea Rossi about the test and the customer (not named) in response to some questions. Gerard McEk posted these questions which I have attached Rossi’s responses to:

Andrea Rossi
April 23, 2016 at 7:02 AM
I am working with the “QuarkX” right now.
The preliminar R&D will be comleted by June, if she geos on as she did so far. I am positive about what I saw until now. We are designing a very small module to obtain any power just assembling and the design is robot-oriented.
In June there will be an extremely important meeting with due persons with a closed doors official test. The certification process has already been agreed upon and this time I think the certification, also thanks to the data obtained from the 1 year test, will be not as difficult as in the past. I hope.
The sun is rising.
Warm Regards,

FA: You wrote: “In June there will be an extremely important meeting with due persons with a closed doors official test.”
1. Is this going to be an extended test over days?
2. Will it be in connection with a) product sales, or b) certification?

Andrea Rossi
April 23, 2016 at 1:52 PM
Frank Acland:
1- yes
2- both (F8)
Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi
April 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM
Very well, very well.
In June we will have a very important test with a very important Customer. We are increasing the worktime to be ready for that with a mature QuarkX.
Warm Regards,

FA: You mention you have a test with a ‘very important customer’ in June. Is this the same, or different, customer that has already ordered the three E-Cat plants you have already announced?

Andrea Rossi
April 27, 2016 at 11:07 AM
Frank Acland:
Is a new one.
Warm Regards,

So despite the legal proceedings it sounds like Andrea Rossi is moving ahead with his plans for commercialization. My guess is that these new tests and customers will be in Europe since the license for the US is under dispute in the court case.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Your particular attitude to me and your attempt to defame me at nearly every opportunity is inextricably linked to your bitterness at the abject failure of the forming of the charity. It is precisely relevant to explain your insinuations in context. No other person engaged in that attempted charity building process acts in any similar way, indeed, I work / communicate regularly, cordially and productively with many of those that were involved and as I said before, others have approached me to explain why they had to pull back. You should know, if you don’t, that I have said nothing that is not true about that very stressful and difficult episode.

    What exactly have you added to the common pool in the past 18 months? Any research done and shared? Any value added or good done? Who are you working for? What are you aims?

    Robert, I have asked Nicolas to address the matter. I hope he does, so your misplaced and unjust personal vendetta towards me can end.

  • Nigel Appleton

    Rossi claims on his blog that the QuarkX can produce steam @ 550 deg C

    So even if its direct electricity production is not very efficient for any reason, he’s right there in Turbine Territory

    I’m sure that the 640MW CCGT down the road (one of the most efficient in the UK) would quite happily add more steam turbines powered by a few barrel-loads of QuarksX

    • DrD

      I’m a little curious why he draws the line at 550 deg C, not that 550 isn’t a great achievement.

      • Engineer48

        This might help to understand why ~600C HotCat operation is important:


        The main advantage and the reason for a higher pressure operation is the increase in the thermodynamic efficiency of the Rankine cycle.

        1) Large Subcritical thermal power plants with 170 bar and 540 / 540 ° C (SH / RH) operate at an efficiency of 38 %.

        2) Supercritical units operating at 250 bar and 600 / 615 ° C can have efficiencies in the range of 42 %.

        3) Ultra supercritical units at 300 bar and 615 / 630 °C will still increase the efficiency up to 44 %.”

        • Stephen

          Hi Engineer48 could we have steam at this temperature (550 degrees C) at near or just over air pressure?

          I wonder how that low pressure (lower density) but high temperature steam would act if it was released in to the atmosphere is suppose it would cool and condense in near to the point of release?

          Also what I wonder the flow rate would be at this high temperature and and normal pressure.

          Could that high temperature steam then heat a higher pressure circuit as you describe through a heat exchanger?

        • DrD

          In that case AR really does need to get a move on (as said
          so often). I have to admit it’s a bit disappointing that he said from the time he decides to go-ahead he will have a mass production factory running in 2 months (I think that’s about right from memory) and since then he says that it will be even faster because IH was a brake. The advent of the E-CatX has been a significant breakthrough but short term has slowed mass production as it isn’t ready and I can see his reluctance to go all out on the old hot/cool Cats.
          Yes, I can imagine the Cat can’t take 170 bar, it’s an interesting engineering challenge you have there.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Why shouldn’t it be possible to encapsulate the reactor in a steel tube that can stand the pressure?

            • DrD

              Not sure without doing a bit of searching but my guess is that at the temperatures of the E-Catx, stainless steal will not withstand even the 170 bar (and that’s the minimum). I think Engineer may know?
              On reflection I suppose you mean the chamber will only see the steam temperature which isn’t so high but even that is 600 deg C or higher.
              Edit: maybe if it’s thick enough it might?

              • Engineer48

                There are many heat transfer fluids that are much more efficient in transferring heat from point A to point B than water or steam. So they are fine for the primary circuit that runs through the reactors and to the primary side of the steam boiler (heat exchanger) and back to the reactor.

                Then the primary side 600C heat transfer fluid warmed heat exchanger can process the heat into 600C steam at the volume & pressure required by the input of the turbines, in the secondary or output side of the steam boiler (heat exchanger).

                That way each side of the heat exchanger works under optimal conditions and at the lowest pressure it can.

                • Robert Ellefson

                  What particular fluids do you have in mind for 600C transfer? I’ve had difficulty identifying practical solutions beyond about 400C. Going to molten metals or salts is not a simple matter, unlike the typical heat transfer fluids.

                • DrD

                  I suppose CO2 would work (as in the AGR) but i’m sure there are better choices available.

                • Engineer48

                  It may not be needed as this design suggest direct 600C steam generation from a HotCat embedded inside each stainless enclosure that would stick through the walls of the steam boiler. Maybe could be installed in an existing coal boiler?

                • Robert Ellefson

                  I have been planning for inert gases as the primary loop fluid, because of the presence of refractory metals within the thermal chamber that need to be protected from oxidation. Helium appears to offer the best performance, but is rather expensive for frequent experiment cycling, unless you can arrange to re-capture it prior to opening the chamber/primary loop, and it loves to leak. Nitrogen is inexpensive and offers adequate thermal performance (~same as air) but is reactive for some materials. Argon is a relatively poor performer, but is inexpensive and non-reactive. I’d be curious to know what other practical alternatives anybody else is familiar with. I expect CO2 would present oxidation issues at these temperatures, but I’m not familiar with the actual chemical characteristics in this domain. This reference seem to indicate that there would be sufficient dissociation to cause issues within the 1200C-1400C reactor-body range that I’m targeting:

                • Engineer48

                  My potential clients say the issue is a non issue. Can’t say more.

        • Karl Venter

          Hi Engineer

          Normally your pressure is determined by your feed pumps
          its not just going to be a simple heat exchanger
          750Mw of heat exchanger is normally (in coal) a 70m high boiler with a considerable surface area for heat transfer?
          You need to transfer the heat
          eg 800MWe boiler needs 100m x16mx 26m) high furnace with tubed walls plus 30m x 16 x 26m of tubes inside the furnace to transfer the heat

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are looking to test Piantelli proton ejection theory safely by using the safe isotope 18O, which if a proton interacts with it becomes 18F – this is a positron emitter with a half life of 109 minutes and so we would see positron + electron annhilation peak + Energy. The 18F returns to 18O fully after about 14 hours so will not contaminate the experimental apparatus or lab.

    18O / 18F is so safe that it is routinely injected into humans whist conducting Positron Emission Tomography scans.

    If we do see the signature – it will be extremely strong evidence that Piantelli is correct that Protons are released.

    We will also look for the decay peaks from the reaction 27Al + Thermal Neutron going to 28Al, which decays rapidly (2.2414 mins half life) to stable 28Si – 100% by beta with a distinctive and detectable energies. 4.6MeV beta and 1.8MeV gamma. Since we observed Si in ‘Bang!’ ash and it was observed in Lugano, then this could be part of the reason for the ‘Signal’ observation.[email protected]/Fig-53-Decay-scheme-of-the-28-Al-nucleus.png

    These experiments will help determine facts sorely lacking in the debate and establish LENR as real with repeatable experiments

  • Eyedoc

    What ‘unpublished work’ are you speaking of Robert ?

    • Robert Ellefson

      Eyedoc: I am limited in what further details I can discuss, thanks to an ill-gotten promise of confidentiality that was required of me when I officially joined the MFMP. The long and short of the matter is that a secret agreement was made by the MFMP to perform work for a third party, and the existence and outcome of the work was kept secret. Prior to becoming a full member of the MFMP, I had been unknowingly contributing to this project, and by default continued contributing to the project for a period after joining, since that was the primary focus of work at the time. If I had known anything about this arrangement prior to joining, I certainly would not have promised secrecy, and I most likely would not have joined the group. This agreement was entirely antithetical to the loudly-proclaimed policy of transparency that Bob continually peddles as a fundamental character trait of the MFMP, then and now. Since leaving the group in late 2013, I have no further knowledge of other secret activities occurring, but that one incident was enough to leave me with a continuing visceral reaction when I read Bob’s false proclamations of transparency. He likes to call this reaction bitterness, but I perceive it clearly as revulsion and disgust.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Robert, I have asked Nicolas to address the matter. I hope he does, so your personal vendetta towards me can end.

    Your characterisation of me is libelous and plain wrong, your jealousy and bitterness is impairing your judgement. You have tried to knock me down ever since you walked away from your charity project because you could not secure rights to spend very large sums of money with no oversight. In fact, what the New Fire charity board considered large sums were agreed, but that was not sufficient for you, you made a point of demanding very large sums which were unconscionable.

    I stood by you as top LENR scientists and thought leaders walked away from your well meaning project because they could not handle your poisonous attitude and unfunded plans for which they may have found themselves financially on the hook for. You are exhibiting the same attitude here. There was nothing to stop you forming a charity on your own under the terms you sought, but you know that would not have worked because all of the good will the project had built up had been decimated in a few weeks by your uncompromising approach. I would urge you, if you really think you could deliver all the things you state above, do it, it would be great to have a well-funded open organisation fighting for the common good.

    You could have been a valuable contributor to the common goals of the MFMP and are very technically competent – but your actions lead to extreme stress levels within the project which took a good while to recover from. The whole attempt to build that charity was a monumental waste of project members time. Your accusations and defamation are a continuation of the deleterious net effect you have had on the projects aims and I am starting to wonder whose interests you really have at heart?

    If experience is to count for anything, I do not expect you to give an inch, however, you need to understand that the project has grown through every difficulty and challenge to its existence, it has had to battle hard to avoid very devious attempts to crush or compromise it over the past 5-6 months particularly and it has prevailed. It will prevail over your threats and insinuations also.

    What doesn’t kill one, makes one stronger.

  • NT

    Hmmm. for a minute there I thought my Brower had malfunctioned to a European or some other website…

  • Eyedoc

    This whole idea of a patent ap being unpublished (hidden) is very concerning to me. Brings out my paranoia,. Has this always been the case??….. It points to a rigged system where a powerful entity(government or industrial/military) can have the USPTO just declare “oh well that idea was already in a unpublished pending ap by XYZ” , sorry little guy (Rossi et al)…..not saying this would happen often, just once or twice a decade on some Black Swan

    • SG

      In general, most patent applications are eventually published, and this general rule applies throughout the world. The U.S. has a special option to request non-publication, but only if you have no plans of filing in another country. The other exception to the general rule that most patent application are published is that of a secrecy order–if that gets slapped on a patent application, it may not be published for decades, if ever.

      • Eyedoc

        Thanks SG, ( but makes me understand AR’s production efforts better) ….because in my above paranoid scenario ……. it gets arranged that the aforementioned XYZ patent gets a predated ‘secrecy’ order attached, so no one knows what it is; and when someone (AR) actually develops it separately, they still cant use it because ‘sorry its “already secretly patent pending”‘. ….Black Swan down

        • SG

          The secrecy order scenario is a real threat to ubiquitous LENR. The thing is, you’ll never know it happened. The patent applicant is also required by law not to reveal it or publish the information separately. It can really put the brakes on. Fortunately, LENR patent applications have been published, including some of Mr. Rossi’s, meaning that the secrecy review process was cleared at least for those. And Mr. Rossi has said that his current tech is essentially based on his granted patent.

          • Eyedoc

            Yes SG, I see what you mean. Sure hope this plays out OK then

  • Bob Greenyer

    Look at the public financial records. Nicolas paid back the money forwarded to him by the project to support the S&G for good reason and the matter is closed. He ran the S&G project thread completely as he saw fit, in a small part against the expressed wishes of the rest of the project members, for this reason there has been no further financial support, we did work with Celani to arrange for fresh wires to be sent to him at the end of 2014 however, so his further efforts would have a chance of delivering, I stand by that collective decision as the right thing to do. The first time the cells did not leak and fail, they were publicly run live under the projects banner and they produced valuable supportive data for the other types of Celani cells we ran. They also ran last year publicly at ICCF-19 with the those wires arranged for him at the end of 2014. As I said before, you must direct questions on the S&G to Nicolas, I have sent him a note.

    I sense a deep sense of ongoing bitterness with you Robert – precisely because of the failed attempt to build a charity that traded off the extreme effort put in by project members and volunteers up to that point. As I said before it is unfortunate that charity did not work out – however, it became clear to others you had a huge personal agenda and were prepared to be authoritarian and vindictive to achieve it, scientists and volunteers walked away from a potentially beautiful organisation for a range of reasons long before you ordered others to resign because they were not willing to accept your demand that you could spend $10,000s on a regular basis without board approval. You withdrew participation precisely because you could not get agreement on this executive spending power you demanded for yourself, on reflection it was the best outcome given the governance risks and potential personal liability to board members. The failure of that charity is in the past and yet you choose to make insinuations and impugn my character and that of the guiding principles of the project out of spite and jealousy.

    We have a functioning charity now that is incredibly efficient, only requiring annual accounting.

    I challenge you to find one other organisation in the history of LENR that has shared more details on precisely how to (and how no to!) conduct research in this field than the MFMP. Of course we would like to do more, quicker and faster – but you cannot force a volunteer, we do it because we want to and hopefully with the support of our families / loved ones.

    We will continue to do our best, I will be working hard this coming week to produce videos and other material – I hope Nicholas will be able to address your concerns in due course.

  • Brent Buckner

    And so it would have been better if you had opened with “I have applied for a patent” (or “I have a patent pending”) not with “I have a patent”. The implications are different.

  • Been there, Seen it

    Bob G went home for a few days. Gave a lecture in Brno. Got stuck on the way back by German airport strike. He’s back now though. If you want to see what is just around the corner (having been re-produced in 5.3 experiment) go to the GS 5.2 results and find the article entitled: “Iceberg in the Glowstick 5.2 Data” written by Bob Higgins on Feburary 23, 2016. Bremsstrahlung radiation seen again!

  • Brent Buckner

    Above you wrote: “I have a patent on a low energy nuclear fusion reactor based on research by H. Ikegami.”

  • Bob Greenyer


  • Bob Greenyer

    Well, since IH apparently constructed the reactor and supplied the fuel, one would expect it to have returned to them. What tests did they conduct on it?


      where are they headquartered?

  • luca

    Se poco poco ti informi dei precedenti di rossi e del suo modus operandi, è meglio che classifichi il tutto come “seri-tv” drammatica-fantascienza (per non dire altro). Il breaking bad dei poveri delle energie alternative (senza arrosto però). Come al solito noi italiani sappiamo farci riconoscere…

    • tuder

      “Sappiamo farci riconoscere” also because you are posting in Italian on a forum where everybody uses English – including many Italians. Just go to a damn evening English course.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have seen the video.

    Project members have studied, reported on and integrated the knowledge from Ikegami into our thinking.

  • Bob Greenyer

    You will have to ask Nicolas Chauvin about the S&G, it was his project which he led on his own terms, really, on his own terms, we supported with loans of equipment and our precious relationship with Celani. Nicolas Chauvin has not actively participated in research in the project in any other way for years since the conclusion of the main test, in part because he developed commercial interests, which are well known and are not compatible with the structure and modus operandi of the project.

    The last post we made on the reactors was on April 12th 2015 and can be found complete with photos here:

    For brevity, this is what was said.

    “S&G Cells: Running again!

    Nicolas Chauvin in Switzerland has re-built and re-built the Steel and Glasscells improving with each iteration.

    Over the past several weeks, he has been calibrating them live on HugNet and preparing them for a live run.

    This week he received new-generation Celani wires as will be discussed at ICCF19 and installed them. Thanks once again to Francesco for his generosity.

    Loading has gone well, Nicolas says

    “For the loading phase, it is 180 minutes at 18W input on each wire (36W total, internal temp ~ 285°C), then a relax period of 60 minutes at 3W to cool the wires down (6W total, cooling down to ~ 100°C).

    This cycle of 180/60 min goes on for 24 hours (6 cycles).”

    He reports around 20% change in resistance.
    He is now stepping up the power.

    For information regarding the Logbook, the live data and many images, head over to our main site.


    Nicolas last post was on the 20th April 2015 on the officially classified “Dormant” experiment is here:!20150408_194608

    As I said before, no one can force people to run their experiments. He did have the experiment running live on HUGNet last year during ICCF-19 Padua in its new configuration in wine coolers as shown in the post above. It was again showing that the null required 8-10% more energy to maintain the water at an equivalent temperature. I was, with Alan and Mathieu – focussed on the Padua *GlowStick* and had no time or energy to support the communication of that data and experimental set-up beyond the basics and Nicolas did not provide any information that would allow more communication.

    Nicolas had great difficulty finding the time to correct the errors that caused the initial testing of the reactor to fail.

    So, as I say, please contact Nicolas Chauvin for any questions you have about the current state of the S&G cells and their history.

    As regards your new insinuations about your time trying to put together an MFMP affiliated US charity, It was unfortunate that following our engagement with you, we had to spend a very considerable effort re-building hard won relationships with scientists in the field and to this day, some of them have yet to been repaired. Several individuals that were part of that process took the opportunity to approach active MFMP members, during ICCF-19 to patch things up, which was nice. Most importantly we were able to fix and build our relationship with Alan Goldwater who has been an immense asset to the project for which I think the wider community is indebted.

    You showed great passion to build the US charity, but to date, in the entire history of the MFMP, we have not yet received donations sufficient to cover the first year salary you wished for yourself to act as officer of the planned US Charity. Perhaps with you being located in the worlds fantasy zone (SF, Bay area / Silicon Valley) would have allowed you to raise all the funds necessary – but you will have to forgive those, some of which also lived in the area, for not seeing it as realistic.

    We are currently trying to raise funds at the moment for an initial 1 year full-time lab based research program, including support of researchers, in the Scotts Valley area near you that would cost a small fraction of the property lease alone that you put forward for the planned US Charity. We have had an affiliated US Charity for more than 1 year now and it has cost little more than the accounting fees, I am not an officer but I do help try to fund raise for it. Perhaps you could get involved with fund raising for the Scotts Valley project through the US charity, given your proximate (relatively) location – that would be a greatly appreciated positive action.

    The reality is that everyone knew that the first attempt at a US charity, as proposed, was unworkable and an affront to the sacrifices made by project volunteers and donors to get the project to where it was at that time. It is a great shame that compromise could not be reached. So much effort was expended that sadly yielded nothing tangible and it took many months for people to recover. It is never easy to try and build something, so thank you for at least trying.

  • SG

    Yes, it is your prerogative to request non-publication in the U.S., as long as you have no plans to file a foreign or international application. Bear in mind, saying “I have a patent” on something is quite different from having a patent application filed with patent pending status. But kudos to you for making an investment in your IP and I do wish you the best.

  • SG

    What is your patent number?

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have read and discussed his work at length.

    I regularly mention it.

    In theory – we are trying to achieve part of the effect inside our reactors.

    In an up and coming reactor design video – I will draw upon lapsed and active awarded patents that guide reactor design – in part to create this effect.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hello Robert, long time no see – How is your research going?

    We cannot publish work that we did not do or that was not done as an MFMP funded project, to do so would be acting as an industrial spy and would basically break all trust between the group and the scientists and other bodies that assist us. We are often told of work by third parties that we strive to get permission to publish and often times get that permission however.

    Given that it takes a very long time to publish work we have done as we are volunteers, it is amazing we have published as much as we have (some other organisations spend far longer with paid research teams). I am personally sitting on a lot of videos and material from GS 5.3 – it will take me several weeks to get through it all. I am very fortunate that my partner is very understanding and demands little so that I can continue to give so much life to a field that most of the world couldn’t care less about and where people that should be your friends act in very much in the opposite manner. Right now I am having a few days with my family owing to being basically in a garage running an experiment for weeks in California – an experiment where we shared more data real-time than in any other LENR experiment in history.

    Sometimes we have had to work really hard over months to get some information published – for instance – it took a very long time to get agreement to publish our findings that showed that systematic errors that we identified in Celani’s NI-Week 2012 and ICCF-17 experiment meant the excess appeared higher than we had observed evidence of and that he had seen before those events. But we did get that information out.

    In addition, there is work that we have yet to published, but have committed to with regard to making Celani wire, we took a decision to put that on hold whilst Celani was fighting to save his lab – we did not want to kill off his career given that it was his courage that enabled the project to start. The material will still take time to roll out.

    We have also a raft of other stuff to publish and a lot of that comes down to me, for instance, with respect to our Piantelli visit last year, there is still much more to roll out – but until GS 5.2 there was little justification to do so as it was mostly just another theory, one of many. Now it has clarity due to the results of our work – and much of the stuff shared is now in his awarded patent, more can be explained.

    Of course, there is nothing that says any member has to do anything – I am constantly amazed and thankful that they do anything – from time to time, the need to earn money to live or just spend time with our families, have a baby, deal with a suffering loved one gets in the way of our desire volunteer all our time – this has happened to all members from time to time and we make no apologies for being human.

    Perhaps I should rephrase that “given that we *intend* to publish everything…”

    If you have a specific allegation to make, rather than a poisonous blanket insinuation – please share it so that it can be addressed.

    If you do not have a specific allegation to make, please retract your defamatory comment.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Sounds interesting – please share details.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Some people do not know why an egg boils hard but they eat them all the same.

    If there was a choice between incontrovertibly testing a black box or not (because we couldn’t know the process inside) – I’d take the testing opportunity

    • adriano

      Yes but the idea in the original comment was to have someone that can be trusted by Rossi and can be above every suspect to test and define the real capabilities of Rossi’s devices in order to give us answers. To have someone to test it just for his own pleasure or scientific interest it would be the same pattern reapeated again.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We would only test it if the full details of the test could be disclosed – moreover, we would want to test it live.

        If the test agreement would not allow internal inspection, that is commonplace and not a cause for concern if the output is shown to be way in excess of input – far beyond what the physical form of the device could sustain via chemical or energy harvesting process.

  • Karl Venter


    and now english?

    • OrwellsCat001

      use google translate !

  • SG

    What COP have you observed with your reactor?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Given that we publish everything, we’d make pretty useless spy’s – who would want to hire us???

  • timycelyn

    Arthur, you make a very good case, and logically you are correct. I have been brooding over the contradictions of this situation over the past few days, and what I am starting to focus on is Rossi’s psychology.

    I may try and expand on it in a more organised way in the near future, but basically he seems to have a mix of:

    1. Incredible possessiveness for his technology
    2. A 100% track record – through life – of having his partner companies – in HIS eyes – shaft him, every single time.
    3. Some sort of compulsion – I have seen it in his attitude years ago – that he (in the sense of Leonardo or whatever) has to do the lot. An unshakeable belief in his core that if he lets someone else run with it as well they will f**k it up in short measure.

    Ths has really affected his psyche in my opinion, and is the darker side of the genius he undoubtedly is. It leads to partner relationships that have the seeds of destruction in them even before the ink is dry on the contract, His suspicion of his partner companies becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    The howling mob of shills, pathotard tw*ts and pseudoskeps will not be helping the siege mentality in his mind – and to be honest he is probably right to feel that way.

    I find this worrying, as you are correct in the dispassionate pont you make. Unless he takes many disparate groups with him, in some sort of more controlled sharing, this technology, if not stillborn, will be still delayed and may take many more years to reach its full potential.

    Years that – because I am one of those who is convinced, very convinced, by the evidence for AGW, we do not have.

  • sam

    A sharp janitor can find out a lot.

    • MLTC

      He’s not a janitor and he’s not sharp.

  • georgehants

    For new readers I think it must be continually pointed out that there is no need and never has been to have to wait for the result of said trial.
    Mr. Rossi can send a basic unit to MFMP at any time of his choice and I believe they are perfectly capable of determining if it produces a Cop above 1.
    The only question of importance seems to be, Why he has and does absolutely refuse to take the opertunity to have his (possible) discoveries openly verified.
    He has stated that his units are now near impossible to back engineer so that is not a problem and if he has not patented with full disclosure his method, then he has no protection when another replication is achieved by MFMP or anybody.
    He is like Galvani and Volta discovering electricity and refusing to show others how to replicate.
    Five years and counting.

    • Bob Greenyer

      With a FDA (Full Disclosure Agreement) the MFMP would be very happy to test a black box.

      The MFMP has always had this option on the table.

      • Engineer48

        Maybe instead contact IH and ask to test one of the Lugano HotCats inc fuel they manufactured for the Lugano tests? Also ask them what happened to the Lugano ash and the reactors once the tests were completed?

        • Bob Greenyer

          We would like to double blind test the balance of the Lugano Ash – where is it I wonder?

          • Engineer48

            Weaver (nckhawk) said on Mat’s Blog that he didn’t know where the ash was. Amazing statement that as the Lugano ash is probably worth more than the test results.

            As I understand it, the reactors were IH property and loaned to the team at Lugano. So they and the ash should be at IH.

            Maybe ask the Lugano team members what happened to the reactors and the ash?

            • Ged

              This is a great line of inquiry. If it pans out, it would be tremendously useful. MFMP has plenty of other fuel/ash samples to take part in a double blind test as well, with known results to calibrate against.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Considering they were allowed only a limited amount of the ash – one must assume that the rest of the reactor was taken away.

              • Omega Z

                I believe they were given 2mg of the 1 gram fuel charge or the ash that was left..

                The ash sample was actually samples taken from 2 or 3 clumps. The ash wasn’t all made of clumps. This would not be an accurate representation of the ash. Rossi has said as much and indicated that they have done additional analysis of the remaining ash. Of course, indicating such and stating such aren’t the same.

                There was also an analysis of the fuel charge pretest. It was shown not to be isotopically different then would be expected. No sign of Ni62 enhancement.
                Something that may be of interest.

                I recently read they discovered that Alumina emissivity is higher then previously thought. Sadly, I don’t have a link, but it involved turbine research. I also didn’t take note of the error factor and usually these types of errors can take years to be corrected in the literature.

                Grooves in the Alumina is also an emissivity enhancer as is nickel. Perhaps, the Lugano test data is more accurate then thought???

                • Obvious

                  If you really want to know the Lugano emissivity, buy a can of Durapot(TM) 810 and heat it up.

                  It is explicitly mentioned in the now infamous patent application. Thanks IH!

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Another good question is what is the Lugano test team doing now? I think if MFMP could get a replica of the Lugano device, they could use thermal output measurement instead of IR radiation to quantify the energy output.

          • Engineer48

            Think I read they were building their own reactor. Do seem to remember seeing a few photos.

            • Obvious

              Ahhh, this old chestnut?

              • Obvious

                I wonder what he thinks he can plug that into while in his office.

                Check out the size of those heater wires.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            You could use the same setup that is used to test Solar Thermal Collectors (Air only) per ASHRAE-93-2003 as shown below.

      • adriano

        Do you think you would be able to make one of Rossi’s device working at COP>1 without knowing Rossi’s secret fuel composition?

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am not very good at speculation or opinion when it comes to science, I prefer to raise hypothesis based on data and if verified present a experimentally derived conclusions.

          • psi2u2

            I’m sure the rest of us can make up for your lack of speculation, Bob!


        Can you give me an FDA to show MFMP my patent? Its important. George Miley has signed an NDA and read it. Why dont you?

        • Bob Greenyer

          The beauty of a full disclosure agreement is we don’t need to sign anything – if you want us to read it, then just publish the patent (do you mean an application or awarded patent?). If we read something under FDA we share it, but you can save us the trouble, by publishing it.

          We are a volunteer organisation with limited resources, we can’t research everything at once.

    • Alan Smith

      Rossi will not part up with a unit or even a fuel sample. For anyone.

      • Engineer48

        That is not totally correct. He has IP security issues, which are entirely justified and understandable.

        This has not stopped our discussions to buy 2.3GWt of HotCats for my potential client.

        • Alan Smith

          I am sure you are correct. No argument he wants to engage with commercial customers, what I meant was that Rossi/Leonardo will not give out samples for testing to entities (like MFMP or Lookingforheat) over which he has no control. As far as he is concerned further small-scale tests are of no interest or benefit to him or the project at this particular time..

          • Engineer48

            Was told 10MWt is smallest order. Not an issue for my potential clients but they need 600C steam, which is not yet available.

            While waiting for 600C steam, they are investigating how to evaluate 105C steam.

            Rossi has been very understanding & supportative during this process.

            • DrD

              That’s an interesting challenge.
              It ought to be possible to extract the steam directly by making use of the high temperature of the reactor.
              However, it would definitely be possible even if you’re forced to rely on an additional stage (electric) to give the final temp boost. Obvously that part of the cycle has extra conversion losses and we don’t yet know how much the COP is reduced for high % electric output.
              Here’s wishing you a very early success!

              • Engineer48

                To run a subcritical steam turbine at 550C requires very high pressure. Probably way too high for the reactor.

                Solution is to run a high temp heat exchanger oil / fluid in the primary HotCat circuit, then to a steam generator (heat exchanger) to gen the high temp & high pressure steam in the secondary circuit needed to drive 550C steam turbines.

                • DrD

                  Hi Engineer48, you have me interested.
                  Yes, i understand what your saying.
                  Could another way be to add energy (boosting pressure and temp) via a final stage (electric)?
                  I think I can guess why not but I suppose you aren’t at liberty to divulge the nature of your clients business.
                  Nevertheless, if their output is electric power then what I suggested is not sensible for an obvious efficiency reason.
                  If using electric (from an e-Catx) to provide the “boost” is possible then it seems obvious that it’s better to omit entirely the turbine stage. I believe AR has implied that this is possible and more efficient than existing techniques but due to his F8 we do not know this quantitatively (COP unknown for high % electric).

                • Engineer48

                  My potential clients desire to eliminate the burning of brown coal as the quality and quality of the coal they are receiving continues to decline (becoming wetter and dirtier).

                  I suggest it will be a LONG time until QuarkX can generate mains power at the 750MWe level. Besides then the investment is large as it is all new plant. With 600C HotCats, the existing heavy investment in the turbines & generators is preserved and the coal burning boilers flume towers are eliminated.

                  Plus the long term fuel costs are almost nothing compared to the price of the coal and the energy intensive brown coal processing that is needed before it can be burnt.

                • DrD

                  As always, technology, is only a small part of the equation.
                  He just said it will take only minutes to manufacture each quark (100W) so it depends how many production lines he has and how soon he is ready to go. 750MWe is a lot of quarks (minutes) so your right, not only the timescale but capital outlay may be an issue as the existing plant will have to be written off, an accountants nightmare if it’s no where near fully depreciated.
                  All the best and hope you make progress, that brown coals not nice stuff.

            • DrD

              Note his recent comment, steam @ 550 deg C.

          • DrD

            He was recently asked that and said MFMP could have one. I need to check the exact wording but I think that’s accurate. My take is that he was only saying that when they are on sale to the PUBLIC, he will sell (or donate) one to MFMP.
            As you say, it’s of no benefit to him, quite the opposite i guess.
            I think a very well equiped research lab is needed to reverse engineer, prize the “secret(s)” out of it much more then is already known.

            • Alan Smith

              Yes…that is a ‘one day my ship will come’ statement. With a looming court-case the hatches are firmly battened down Which one assumes is why the Swedish team have gone quiet.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Actually, not aware anyone here is waiting for the end or even start of some trial. Rossi stated he’s going ahead with manufacturing of his technology. AS FAST AS POSSBILE!

      > Rossi can send a basic unit to MFMP at any time of his choice

      That is the problem. HI wants to build and manufacture. However we heard that HI can’t build anything that works based on Rossi instructions. And that’s why HI DID NOT WANT to build
      the 1MW plant test. They asked Rossi to provide anything that works, even a 100
      watt model that they can test.

      So any point about “releasing” some technology to save children of the world certainly does not fall on Rossi until such time he demonstrates a working device.

      On the other hand, governments JUST handed out several billion dollars as a result of commitments of the Paris global warming summit.

      You have explain why you feel that the recent billions of dollars pledged to the UN and the Paris
      climate summit should not be going towards LENR?

      However, some lone guy holed up in a shipping container that has not taken your tax dollars, not
      fleecing your pockets and as of yet has NOT independent proved his technology is
      somehow responsible for those starting children?

      Quite sure the “many” billions pledged to the Paris climate summit would EASY feed children of the world for MANY years! (many years!).

      After all, it was YOUR socialist driven government institutions that threw Pons & Fleishman under
      the bus. And it was YOUR socialist government institutions that refused cold fusion
      patients for nearly 30 years.

      And YOUR socialist driven institutions BELIEVE that global warming is the MOST THREATING and WORST problem of our day. So with the BILLIONS of dollars pledged to the UN which in
      turn will re-distribute this money, then WHY NONE of your government people are
      promoting LENR and funding LENR? For what reason, after all, they have billions
      at their disposal (as compared to one lone guy holed up in a shipping

      So your socialist governments are spending BILLIONS on global warming, and yet they spend no money on a technology that does not product CO2, and thus would save the planet? (and save the need to fund the UN and spend those billions by the way!!!)

      So if governments and UN funds LENR, then they can’t spend billions on global warming, and pelage billions to the UN when then in turn will re-distribute this money, can they?

      MOST IMPORTANT here is who exactly is selling us out? Some guy holed up in a container, or NASA, DARPAA and the billions of your tax dollars being spent on global warming,
      which can be solved by LENR? (and all of these institutions are aware of LENR).

      I mean, you selling out your socialist foe here! They have all the money, all the power, and tell
      us global warming is the worst problem of the day. (that last part about global warming being the HUGE problem means they have a moral duty to fund LENR, don’t they?).

      It would REALLY help if you could explain how governments spending billions on global warming
      don’t fund or support LENR are not responsible for holding back LENR?

      However, one guy holed up in some meatal shipping box has any kind of responsibility here for
      holding back LENR? In in fact that person has NEVER backed up his claims by allowing
      independent testing of his devices (so we don’t’ even know if he has anything
      of value yet).

      So Rossi who does not have billions, has not stated that global warming is some huge issue, and
      is not asking you for your money – this person is responsible here? Please!

      Out of the 100+ billon pledged at the Paris climate summit, you think they could spare 100 million and solve the global warming issue, and then not have to spend + pledge the other 99 billion because LENR solves the global warming issue – do ya think so?

      Of course, you have to convince these socialist UN people to give up the 99 billion that they will
      now not need if LENR works.

      Any serious funding of LENR by major governments would crack and solve the LENR issue in about a year with proper funding.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • it seems Proia was quite unhappy of that move, and agreed just to get rid of that unreliable partner.

    they get just their money back plus few % (10%?) which is probably not accounting for the efforst and the running cost of a company.

    Maybe that is what IH will do.

    the best to do with an unreliable partner, is to pay a limited fine… and get free.
    a bit like a happy divorce.