Document: Isotopic Composition of Rossi Fuel Sample (Unverified)

A reader has sent me a short document which I am posting in full text here which looks to be an analysis of isotopic changes in the Rossi fuel following the 1 year E-Cat plant test. The title to the document I received was: “ISOTOPIC COMP NATURAL VS ROSSI”. I do not know who wrote the document, or who did the analysis, so I cannot verify its authenticity, but in the current situation it might be interesting to readers. I did sent the text to Andrea Rossi and asked him if it was legitimate.

He gave me this response: “No comment.I did not publish any analysis and cannot give any imformation anout it. I want not to comment in positive or in negative.”

The entire full text of what I received was this:

The natural elements Ni and Li were found in the sample. Their isotope composition is given in the table together with the natural composition. The numbers refer to percent.

                      58Ni  60Ni    61Ni     62Ni      64Ni     6Li       7Li
Natural comp  68.1  26.2    1. 14    3.63       0.93     7.59     92.4
Rossi sample 14.2   6.3       0.3     78.5        0.7      86.5     13.5

If this is legitimate information, and the data is accurate, then very significant isotopic shifts took place during the one year test which would seem to be consistent with the measurements taken in the Lugano test. I must stress, however, that I don’t know the source of this information, so it must be considered at this point as unverified.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Sorry, you are not making sense, that is what the suit is about Rossi’s “partner” forgot to pay him, and also forgot to keep his IP confidential. Why should any partner of Rossi be entitled to more than a modest profit for manufacturing the E-Cat? Why do you want a partner like GE or IH to make huge amounts of money charging us, the average citizen, large amounts for LENR?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    You said, “If that will make money interests rich, not a big problem for me. In a few years, the technology will be free to use, and our grandchildren will not have to worry”, and how will that happen if Exxon owns the IP?

    • Gunnar Lindberg

      Suppose Rossi continue his present strategy, a few secret customers will use LENR in their secret factories. Nothing else will happen. However, if he partner with a big player, not necessarily Exxon, give them access to the Rossi Effect, LENR will start to replace fossile fuel and after twenty years the technology will be free to use.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        I suggest you give Rossi a name of a company he can partner with, who will not reveal or steal his IP, in one way or another. Not only does Rossi get screwed but we get screwed by higher prices for 20 years.

  • Engineer48

    At least everybody now knows the original ash info I shared with Frank was real and not something I or my source made up..

    • bachcole

      I never thought that. I was perfectly comfortable being in uncertainty to find it necessary to invent stories so that I didn’t have to endure the so-called cognitive dissonance so many seem to have to deal with when there aren’t easy explanations for things.

  • Engineer48

    A new ash analysis document has surfaced on NewVortex:

    showing the author is Bo Höistad.

    File download here:

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I agree and I have told Rossi so, he needs to partner with an industrial partner who will agree to build his E-Cat without trying to steal it. Rossi agrees but he has tried two companies and they both tried to steal his IP. Why do you think it fair the “money interests” should become “Rockefeller” rich using Rossi IP? Handing it over to the “Rockefeller” rich will mean LENR will cost the average Joe 10 times more than it should, why do you want this?

  • LuFong

    Frank: what makes you say that this ” looks to be an analysis of isotopic changes in the Rossi fuel following the 1 year E-Cat plant test.” Could it be a redo of the analysis of the Lugano ash or do you have specific information indicating that this is 1MW plant test ash? Thanks.

    • Engineer48

      Hi LuFong,

      The data came from me.

      From further shared info, I certain the ash was from the 1MW 1 year reactor. Alan Smith on LENR-Forum has also stated this.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Right, will be “on the market” for how much?One cent under current market price, the balance of “savings” go right into the pockets of “money interests”, Trillions of dollars.

    • Gunnar Lindberg

      Yes, the first who use the e-cat tecnology will make lots of money. However, as we know, there is no other way to introduce LENR, to save the planet from overheating. A few secret Rossi customers will make no difference.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Turning it over to the oil companies will have the same result. It is my opinion they have been delaying research into LENR for 25 years. Rossi wants to develop an industry apart from these “money interests”, I tend to agree with his plan.

  • Ted-Z

    Chapman, Some of my number crunching:
    * Are the liberated electrons that create the supplemental current strictly those stripped from the hydrogen?
    — No, I think that the electrons result from ionization by more energetic particles (alpha?).
    * How many electrons are there in 1 Ampere of current?
    — 1 Amere = 1 mol of electrons/95000 = 6.6x10E18
    at 10 V potential, 1A will give 10 W power
    * How much hydrogen, by volume, would be needed to produce the 20 percent total power output that is electrical, over a year’s continuous use?
    — 6.6x10E18 electrons corresponds to 0.4 cm3 H2 at 1 bar (based on the molar volume of gases), assuming that each molecule of H2 contributes one electron;
    I think that the electrons are recycled, with the driving force being emission from the hot core (1mm dia x 30 mm length) with an additional driving force being the difference in the temperatures (core vs. tungsten shell) and some other mechanism. That additional mechanism is not clear to me, but possibly it is the back EMF/induced EMF – please note that the partly ionized H2 is a conductor and that it will get some induced current due to the external coil.
    The calculation corresponds (as to the order of magnitude) to the “specifications” of Quark-X.
    * We should do some math and see if it is feasible.
    * I look forward to crunching some numbers with you and see what we discover.
    — The mechanism of generation of a potential between the core and the tungsten shell might be of interest… perhaps this could be related to some unexplained behaviors of the sun’s corona…and the magnetic disturbances on the sun? Or the alpha particles are stimulated by the electric field to a preferential direction after breaking away from the nucleus?
    I do not have everything nailed down and I do not have any capacity (read:$$$) to do it myself, so I am throwing these ideas “pro publico bono” (for the good of all).

  • Bruce__H

    I think that if what Rossi has is real then he has to work harder than most to allay skepticism. What’s so complicated?

  • Roland

    And burps, don’t forget the burps…

  • wpj

    So where does this leave MFMP and their insights?

    • Roland

      Well behind Rossi as they’re still hoping for COPs he attained almost a decade ago (excepting Me 356 who is peripheral to MFMP and has gone private).

      None the less the effort they’re making is definitely worthwhile and may well lead to insights that have not occurred to others; it’s very early in the game.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting information confirming ash analysis has been done:

    July 14, 2016 at 5:57 AM
    Dear Andrea,

    I suppose you have obtained results from isotopic analysis of the ash from the 1MW plant.

    Do they coincide with the latest version of the theory you are developing?

    Many thanks

    Andrea Rossi
    July 14, 2016 at 7:42 AM
    Warm Regards,

  • Ted-Z

    I think that you are mostly right. However, I think that the electricity in Quark-X goes between the core (1 mm hot nickel alloy), via hydrogen plasma to the tungsten outer shell. Rossi enigmatically mentioned that the tungsten shell is not only serving as a radiation protection. I believe that the tungsten shell is just one pole of the (pulsed) DC current. Meta-stable isotopes are likely to be the intermediates in the side-reactions, that is “aneutronic” isotope transmutations, which could also contribute some energy. The main reaction is most likely the way that you have described above (lithium-based).
    Let we call it the “Chapman-Ted Theory” (your contribution is bigger). 🙂

    • Ted-Z

      In my opinion, the principle of Quark-X is like in the sketch below:

      • Ted-Z

        Somehow, the sketch disappeared, so I am posting it again. Somehow, the sketch disappeared, so I am posting it again. I am not saying that it must be right.

  • Ted-Z

    Perhaps meta stable nuclei (external ring of neutrons near the nuclei) exchanging neutrons on collisions? Why nobody here is noticing a possibility of the meta-stable nuclei being the mechanism for the isotope transmutation reactions without radiation? The blue light is consistent with this assumption (you can call it Ted’d theory). 🙂
    The meta-stability of nucleus is a new finding, but it is now well established in the standard/orthodox nuclear physics.

    • tED-z

      Neutron-neutral isotope transmutations are a strong indication of the meta-stable nuclei as THE LENR MECHANISM.
      Perhaps Frank Ackland could make it into a new thread.

  • wpj

    I thought that MFMP were specifically looking for neutrons (and claim to have found them).

    Also what about the huge detection spike in one of the early tests by an observer (can’t remember the name) – what was this?

    • Roland

      Hi wpj,

      A singular brief gamma spike was observed by the instruments set up by Focardi during a test of a very early iteration of the reactor. As there are no reports subsequent to this with the E-cat series it may have been an artifact of that particular setup that was addressed in later designs.

      In these early experiments the thinking was that the reaction produced gamma radiation that was thermalized into heat within the reactor and the reactors were encased in lead as a precautionary measure.

      There were also statements given by Rossi in 2010-11 that a transmutation of Ni to Cu had been observed though there was no mention, that I’ve found, of an isotopic analysis of the Cu.

      Trying to analyze the significance of these early observations leads in multiple directions:

      Were the observations mistaken?

      Were the observations correct but particular to the specific apparatuses?

      Are there multiple pathways that the LENR reaction can take with similar fuel compositions depending on other initial conditions giving rise to anomalous results?

      The MFMP endeavour, and particularly Me 356, will probably shed some light on these issues and MFMP experimentors are the only ones likely to share all the data they acquire.

      If the current generation of E-cats and Quarks still produce high energy radiation that’s detectable outside the devices this hasn’t reached our ears.

      No external radiation was detected during the Lugano run, nor was there any residual radiation detected in either the used fuel or the apparatus immediately after the end of the run.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Right, but who might that be? Who can he trust, remember his goal is to have a free market E-Cat, not one controlled by the money interests who are only interested in how much money they can make.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Rossi was looking for the “right” partner and Darden was making all the right noises, Rossi then realized he had been deceived.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Or, along with their partners they want to deliberately delay LENR.

  • Roland

    I’m still processing the post as a whole, and doing some reading.

    I do have a couple of early observations.

    The exact mass balances of all the detectable elements and isotopes would be very revealing which makes it unlikely that we’ll see them via Rossi himself, so if this information arrives at our table at some future date the likelihood that Rossi completely approves of this action seems low.

    An isotopic analysis of trace Zn and Cu that demonstrated that Zn 62 and, especially, Cu 62 were present would be a very strong indication that your proposed mechanism is correct as there could be no other explanation for their presence.

    In so far as the Lugano Report speculates on this reaction path, with significant provisos, these tests may already have been done. This information would probably also be seen as proprietary for similar reasons given for the lack of mass balance information.

    I’m in complete agreement with your speculation that the major gains in performance of E-cats and the Quark revolve around the control circuitry with a major breakthrough occurring with the development of the ‘driver’ for the Quark.

    As you probably know I’m enamoured of the thought that the threshold requirements for the reaction are being lower by the application of EMF resonance effects.

    The other niggling thought is that its probably not physically possible to heat a Quark up to operational temperature and have it start in a couple of seconds without melting something more than the fuel; a plot of the input energy at start up would be another very useful data point we probably won’t be seeing any time soon.

    I’ll have to puzzle over the ‘floating’ protons and may get nowhere…

  • TVulgaris

    This, however, is CLEARLY the case of the needs of the MOST running concurrent with the interests of an individual (AR) being over-ruled by a relatively small group (even the entire governmental system is only a few million, and inevitably it’s only a few dozen directly involved, who would only be running technical scenarios were they (or, much more likely, their superiors) not suborned by corporate control- or, like Cheney, authors of it)- so you’re correct, but not for the reasons you think.

  • Engineer48

    Interesting new analysis:

    @Erik Walker
    I have prepared a brief summary with some simulated data: .

    The result is interesting but prove nothing. You are welcome to discuss it but without my participation. The E-Cat-related discussions tend to be negative, emotional and time-consuming.”

    • Rene

      It suggests that a simulation where a few neutrons (or protons) are added yields isotope ratios similar to the Lugano ash. Assuming good CoC on the ah, I guess this says that the the fuel mix and composition is for the most part externally aneutronic.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Rene,

        Rossi did mention propulsion:

        Looks like there is now no need for the lasers to excite the reaction:


        • Thomas Kaminski

          I question the use of “fusion” since the reaction produces 3-helium from 1-Boron plus a proton. Is this not “fission”?

          It is clearly without neutrons.

      • Gerard McEk

        Can you explain why this points to an anutronic reaction, René?

        • Rene

          I wrote “…for the most part externally aneutronic”. There can be protons or neutrons in the lattice undergoing capture. They are just not getting out. The before/after ash analysis suggests that is happening, e.g., Ni getting up converted to lower energy Ni62. And, given no copious neutrons have been detected, externally (outside the reactor capsule) no neutron flux. I don’t consider one or two neutrons in hours as a flux.

  • Observer

    Just because a master craftsman shows his apprentice how something is done does not mean that the apprentice can immediately do the task as well as the master craftsman.

  • Engineer48

    Hi Bachcole,

    I believe it happened like this::

    Alan’s source –> Alan.
    Eng48’s source –> Eng48 –> Frank.

  • SG

    My take is that he was in need of money at that time to continue his pursuits with the e-Cat. Investors usually have significant negotiating power over the inventor. And he had just come off of a very bad experience with the Greeks, and needed to find redemption. All of these likely played into the fact that Mr. Rossi basically got the short end of the stick with this deal. And IH is now twisting the knife.

  • DrD

    I’m puzzled. I thought we knew that Rossi didn’t use naturally occuring Li/Ni Istopes? If so the data would be useless. I suppose I must have miss-remembered that. Can any one confirm that with confidence?
    The other thing that puzzles me is the lack of actual mass data. Individual Li/Ni % say nothing about fusion whereas actual mass of each would seem to be invaluable to the cold fusion argument and to AR’s explanation when we see it. So, I wonder, was there fusion or not?

    • Engineer48

      Hi DrD,

      The patent doesn’t mention the use of non naturally occuring Li/Ni isotopes.

      • DrD

        Hi Engineer48
        Thanks for that.
        I’m not sure it proves it one way or the other but I agree, he probably did use naturally occuring forms based on the Lugano report as mentioned by Roland above. I think I may have been remembering the discussions Roland refers to in the MFMP threads.

    • Roland

      There was speculation regarding the impact of using specific isotopes, primarily nickel 62, as a leg up in getting the old style dogbone reactors fired up.

      There was speculation that part of the Hot-Cat iteration’s improved performance was due to running them with ‘pretreated’ fuel partially ‘consumed’ in a prior LENR run.

      What is known from the Lugano Report is that the initial isotope distributions for Ni & Li in the unused fuel taken prior to the run were of the natural distribution on the planet. The sample taken after the run had a non-natural distribution.

      Rossi’s reaction was interesting and suggests that the idea to check the isotope distribution, before and after, didn’t originate with him.

      Rossi was surprised to learn that the isotope distribution of Ni & Li had changed during the run and stated that this new fact had altered his thinking on what was transpiring during the reaction. Prior to these concrete new facts the main focus had been on the role of hydrogen in the reaction.

      There are a number of papers describing describing transmutation of elements, Mitsubishi et al, but I can’t recall any specific references to isotopic transmutations prior to the Lugano Report.

      There has been subsequent discussion, mainly on MFMP threads, examining whether there was any advantage to be gained by adding isotope ratios as yet another variable to their experiments, Bob Greenyer would be your best bet to learn if it’s been tried yet.

      The data we’ve been presented is a limited sub-set of a larger body of data, but it does indicate that the unused fuel contains Ni & Li in the natural isotope distribution.

      I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a plethora of fuel related data, including precise mass balances across various fuel compositions, gathered during the first opportunity to acquire data from a multi reactor plant running more or less continuously for a year; obviously we only have a limited window to peer through so far. I ballparked the neutron count to see if there were enough to go around…

      The direct discussions of fusion, as in ‘cold fusion’, arises from the very early apparatuses that did, according to the instrumentation, fuse deuterium into helium. The COP of these apparatuses were extremely modest and they relied upon relatively expensive materials.

      The ‘Italian School’, centred at the University of Bologna, had already been experimenting with Ni & H apparatuses when Rossi showed up there and demonstrated a primitive device with a significantly higher COP than the first generation designs; most of the LENR field tacked in the new direction.

      I’m not aware of any reports, or even rumours, that any of the E-cat iterations transmute hydrogen to helium. The term ‘cold fusion’ is rarely used now and we’re on to ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reactions’ and a few similar rubrics.

      So as to your question of whether or not there is fusion in the classical sense of that word; Rossi has more data than anyone on the planet and is still quite busy adapting to a growing body of phenomena.

      If you read up on Quarks, the ‘particles’, you might, or might not, gain insight into his current predispositions on the matter.

      • DrD

        Hi Roland,
        Thanks for that very detailed summary. It’s not easy to keep track especially as things change (and my grey matter ages), many different approaches (eg Mills etc) and theories evolving. We may be dealing with more than one “unknown” source for the excess energy. There might be a common mechanism with diffferent theoretical interpretations but I think I bend towards the former.
        Much appreciated.

        • Roland

          We were in multiple pathways almost straight out of the gate and we haven’t even included entire alternate modalities such as cavitation in this list.

          There have been proposals that postulate that the observable universe in all its subtleties is an emergent property of an underlying continuum from which perspective our continuum is unified in all its aspects.

          Nobel Laureate David Bohm likened our situation to holography; we inhabit the emergent properties of an ‘explicate’ order equivalent to the protected holographic image when you apply the correct LASER to a holographic plate; the holographic plate itself is a wholly non-representational medium storing the projectable image as unreadable moire patterns.

          Bohm labeled this the ‘implicate’ order.

          This is, at one level, just another appeal to ‘the’ technical metaphor of the age, and at another level it has, relatively recently, spurred on groups of researchers very determined to keep doing science with creative tools that will cope with phenomena even if the phenomena lie outside the previous paradigms.

          Rossi is, in my estimation, such a person.

      • wpj

        Early reports from Rossi suggested that the nickel was being converted to copper, but it now appears that was an erroneous result.

        He has mentioned measuring helium before now, but I don’t know if it has ever been done.

        I believed that he was aware of the isotope changes, but he was surprised at the extent of the transformation in the Lugano test (though it was just that small particle which may not have been representative of the bulk). Maybe I was mistaken.

        What most of us were unaware of was that lithium was also being used in the mixture rather than just nickel and LAH.

        • Roland

          Please do note that I’m largely drawing on memory and, in the case of Rossi’s surprise at the isotope distribution, openly speculating. Do feel free to address any errors and omissions on my part.

          The Lugano Report mentions the presence of trace He in the body of the text but stops short of attributing that to the reaction as there were insufficient controls in place to positively identify the source. This implies that there may be other analytical data that wasn’t included in the report regarding various identified trace elements (more speculation on my part).

          There are simulations of both the Lugano and the current Ni & Li isotopic distributions at the link below that are in good agreement with the data; this suggests that another useful data point would be the elapsed run time, of the recent reaction, at which the sample was pulled.

    • Rene

      Nowadaysthere is no naturally occurring Li isotope ratios since the superpowers sucked the Li6 out of the earth for fusion bombs. It is also why there is so much cheap lithium grease available 🙂

  • DrD

    You seem to have completely overlooked the explanation held by most of us. I wonder how that’s possible.

  • Bruce__H

    I am totally on board with this. I would ask anyone who is interested to look at the video for themselves and try to match the steam that they see with Rossi’s claimed flow of water. I have suggested it to Engineer already if I recall correctly. If my calculations are wrong I would like to know about it!

    I have recently done a very similar calculation for the 1 MV test facility in Florida. I find that to accommodate Rossi’s claimed flow rate and outlet steam pressure there should be an outlet pipe almost 1 metre in diameter connecting the Ecat and the customer’s production facility. I welcome anyone who would care to make their own calculations and also could tell me if they know of the actual size of that pipe (I think it must be in some pictures).

  • Chapman

    “If what Rossi has is real then he needs to work harder than most to allay skepticism.”

    Why? That is an honest question. Why does Rossi need to address your skepticism? THAT’S what I keep asking, but I never get a simple answer…

    Come on Bruce. I am asking nicely, and with extreme care. I am not bashing, just asking, cause I don’t understand. Why?

    • Bruce__H

      I will reply by first telling you what I had in mid when I wrote this passage, then by answering more what I think you are trying to get at.

      Rossi faces skepticism from many people. More skepticism than most people face. He therefore has to work harder than others to overcome it. He has to work harder simply because, for whatever reason, there is more to overcome. That was my meaning when I wrote the passage.

      But I think you are asking WHY is the skepticism there. For me it is because of his past and present actions. Some things he has said in the past are complete puzzles. The disjunction between his remarks in the Krivit video and what one can see is an example. All the companies that supposedly had bought early ecats but are not longer mentioned is another. But also he just acts in a suspicious manner. Constantly! He always has plausible explanations … but why does he need them so often? He doesn’t want certain measurements made. People can’t enter a production facility. And on and on. People put this down to him being a cantankerous genius but this only cuts you so much slack. If he is suffering from this suspicion that he generates then he has only himself to blame.

  • Zeddicus23

    Have you looked at the license agreement between IH and Leonardo? It’s very one-sided, e.g. pro-IH. Have you considered the possibility that Rossi wanted to get out from this agreement, which was unfair? Also, you may have noticed that he is suing for the additional $89 mill (not 100 mill) and claims he has evidence demonstrating that the 1-year test was successful. (Which leaves him open to proving that he has a working reactor and otherwise facing possible charges of fraud.) Based on IH’s interpretation of the license agreement, they still have the IP without giving him the $89 mill. So why not just declare the test a failure (even if it succeeded) and keep the 89 mill? This satisfies three possible objectives, delaying the roll-out of LENR to a more suitable time for their other investments, allowing them to claim total control of “other” independently obtained technology that they may develop when and if they want, and saving 89mill. You may have noticed that IH is not a manufacturing company and so it’s not at all clear that they really intended to produce LENR devices. Of course, the opposite is also possible, e.g. IH is as pure as the driven snow and is only motivated by the highest intentions (OK perhaps that’s an exaggeration) and Rossi is/was a fraud or due to other reasons was unable/unwilling to transfer his IP to IH. Given all of the contradictory info in both directions, as well as the large amount of missing information, it’s hard to draw a definitive conclusion. However, I must admit that if one tends to be skeptical, and wonders why after 5 years his reactor still hasn’t been clearly validated then it would seem to be more likely that either there is no working reactor or at the very least he has still significant problems with reproducibility etc. (On the other hand IH was supposed to have conducted several validation tests before they handed him the $10 mill, so you might want to question their competence as well.)

  • Bob Greenyer

    That is very kind of you. It takes a lot of effort to become a TED fellow.

    Right now I have enough commitments already with the project to burn my time.

    Regarding what I could convey in 12 minutes – well – I think every day it becomes more clear – so I could convey more as time passes. The trick in to be succinct and I am working on that.

    Of course, BLP at the highest level have asked from the project to takedown my ‘Signal Part 2’ video – due to use of 2 slides that are available on their site which the MFMP youtube also linked too. It is unfortunate but their right. I will have to author some equivalent schematics and edit the video.

  • Robert Dorr

    I don’t see anywhere were it is stated they did an analysis on identical masses of fuel and ash. A guess would be that the ash sample weighed 2.04 mg and they stated the isotropic composition of an equivalent amount of fuel to make it easy to compare the results. Nothing fishy there. I don’t understand why you are being critical of a standard technique used in analysis i.e.: mass equivalence.

  • Pweet

    From one who takes a lot of convincing about anything ‘Rossi’, I actually don’t have much trouble with the total mass of the ash sample being exactly the same mass as the original fuel sample. I think the most logical explanation is that the mass of the ash sample was very much different to the fuel sample, but after the analysis was done, the results were scaled either up or down, (normalized) to make the total mass identical to the mass of the fuel sample. By doing that it makes it immediately apparent what the magnitude of the claimed transitions are, without having to scale each individual result up or down.
    However, that does not mean I have any faith that the published results are a proof that any transitions actually occurred inside the 1MW plant, due to a complete lack of provenance of the supposed ash material.
    If there is any skulduggery going on here, and to be consistent with all previous tests, I believe there is, then the provenance is the thing everyone should be looking at; not the other minor curiosities which may well have logical explanations. To make too big an argument about the trivia may well allow the most critical ball to fly past the keeper, and that ball is the origin and then proven chain of custody of the sample. (provenance)
    I am fully expecting at some point in the chain, a person who has a very big interest in proving this all works, has had custody of the sample and thus whatever information is obtained from it is severely compromised.
    To mean anything, the ash material would have to have originated from, direct from a working reactor, and then maintained by a totally reliable and independent source who had no financial interest in the results one way or the other, and in relation to this last test, I don’t think such a person exists.
    However, the results are still interesting, but definitely meaningless.
    Why is it interesting? Because comparing the analysis of the ash samples of previous tests, it show a moving feast of modes of operation from the original ecat, the Lugano ecat and now the 1MW plant ecat, which was supposedly the same reactor technology as the original ecat, and yet the ash analysis is totally different. For instance, where is all the copper in the ash? Where is all the lithium in the original ecat ash?
    Now, it is reasonable that the theory of operation can change, but the actual mode of operation should not change, otherwise there would be lenr everywhere. Therefore the ash sample should be remarkably consistent, but it is not. That is a problem here. Has Mr Rossi invented a series of different low energy nuclear reactions, all producing kilowatts of excess energy, when nobody else can produce any? Not to mention that he has now produced even one more with the QuackEcat. (Yes, I know, I’ve just mentioned it). I think I can reliably assume the ash sample will again be totally different.

  • Engineer48

    I now know more about where the data originated from, via another trusted source that is not my original source.

    I agree with Alan, the data has a very credible source and should be respected.

    • Rene

      I very much believe in transparency. Will wait it out until the seekrits are disclosed.

      • bachcole

        I very much believe in confirmation. Will wait it out until the seekrits are disclosed. (:->) Pretty much the same think.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Bachcole,

          I could drop a few names & I suspect your doubts would be gone. But I can’t, not just yet. It is their right to release the full report. Not mine. I mean they did the work.

          While I only saw the partial ash analysis, as I sent to Frank, it is my understanding there is a fully comprensive fuel & ash analysis report in limited circulation.

          • wpj

            “I mean they did the work”

            Interesting; are we talking about the analysis of the samples or other work? (Sure you are not at liberty to divulge and this is just for speculation).

          • DrD

            To my mind, one of the biggest theoretical questions is “is there proof of fusion?”.
            To answer that, it’s essential to know the “before & after” changes in actual masses of Li, Ni, H and all other elements. Was that much detail really not measured or just not “leaked”?

            • Engineer48

              Hi DrD,

              All I have seen is what you have seen.

              However I understand the shared data is a small portion of a detailed Before & After analytical report.

              Was told there is more to be released.

          • bachcole

            But, Engineer48, that would mean that I had to believe you, and I don’t hardly know you from Adam except that I know that Adam couldn’t type. Everything that you have said since you have been here has value only if you and your information prove to be true. Otherwise, it could all be bogus. So far, AFAIK, nothing that you have said has been validated. This does not mean that it might not be validity. This does not mean that it can’t be validated or won’t be validated. It only means that, for me, everything that you have typed is very hopeful words but nothing more. When all is revealed, then we will know, and hopefully we will say, Engineer48 was exactly right on.

            • Engineer48

              Hi Bachcole,

              This is NOT my data. Frank & others know my source. I doubt Frank would have published just from me sending him a word doc. Frank is not a fool and did due diligence checking.

              Alan Smith has also stated the data is real as he knows the original source as I also now do.

              I also know how & why my source received the data & sent it to me and others.

              • bachcole

                I feel left out. Nobody loves me. Everyone hates me. I going to go eat a can of worms.


                Seriously, that helps a lot. But does Frank and Alan Smith confirm this? If so, please show me, or perhaps Frank and/or Alan Smith can confirm this. I know, I either forget or weren’t paying attention. But, please, indulge me, por favor.

                • Engineer48
                • bachcole

                  So Alan Smith says it is real. Did you get your information from the same source or from Alan Smith?

                  I’ll save some back and forth and say that if you got it from Alan Smith, then we are dependent upon Alan Smith. If you got is from his source, then we are dependent upon the mysterious source.

                  If Frank got it from the mysterious source, then you three are dependent upon the mysterious source. If so, do you three vouch for the integrity of this mysterious source? And if so, has anyone else been vouchsafed this information from the mysterious source?

                • Engineer48

                  Hi Bachcole,

                  Frank’s source is me.

                  My source is not Alan or Alan’s source. I believe Alan & Alan’s source is higher up the feeding chain than my source.

          • And we can assume that the fuel approximates the fuel in the Lugano test?

            And that there were significant isotopic shifts from fuel to ash?

            • Engineer48

              Hi Lenr,

              What I have seen is what you have seen.

              Was told there is a full report and that there will be further releases.

              I believe I now know now and why the data travelled from the analysis lab to various others, to my source, to me and then Frank.

              Have no doubt the data is real and is a portion of the ash analysis of the 1 year test.

              • Rene

                The chain of custody that needs to be determiend:

                LENR reactor located in ________
                -> fuel handler removes ash sample ________ **
                -> delivered to lab ________ **
                -> analysis performed by ________ *
                -> reports delivered to ________ *
                -> E48’s source of report ________ *
                -> E48 RL ident is ________
                -> Frank Acland ________
                -> WEB site (whois -> , privacy registrar)

                Let’s fill in the blanks, shall we? The starred ones(*) are important to know because then the report Frank has can be verified with them (asking “is this report which we have the same or partial report you have”). The double starred ones are important for the uber-skeptics who will want to challenge sleight of hand issues.

                • LuFong

                  You forgot:

                  ->Fuel sample(s) removed from fuel inserted into reactor ________*
                  ->Fuel samples(s) retained by 3rd party _________*
                  ->Reactors monitored/prevented from tampering during operation _______*

                  Without this this, garbage in, garbage out….

  • Roland

    Though ultimately enigmatic, in result, the simple apparatus of the two slit experiment was thought to be reasonably well understood at every point of progress right up to the moment when some bright light posed the next question.

    (Brief recap) The two slit experiment was intend to answer a simple question; are photons particles or waves. The basic apparatus is dead simple; a photon source, a screen and a photographic plate. The initial tested variable is also dead simple; the screen has either one or two slits.

    With the one slit screen photons act like particles, with two slits photons acts like waves resulting in the predicted interference pattern on the photographic plate. First conundrum; the answer to the initial question depends on the apparatus.

    New question; which of the two slits does a, singular, photon go through. Add photon detectors behind the two slits. Answer; the, singular, photon passes through both slits. Fresh conundrum.

    New question; what if you alter a property of a photon on the way to the two slit screen. Polarize the photon on the way to the screen. Answer; the photon acts like a particle. Fresh conundrum.

    New question; what if you reverse the initial polarization of the photon on its way to the screen. Polarize a photon on the way to the screen, then polarize it again to reverse the first polarization. Answer; the photon acts like a wave and passes through both slits. Fresh conundrum.

    New question; how does a, singular, photon ‘know’ that the apparatus has been altered. Answer; we don’t know but it’s a very interesting, and I suspect important, question.

    New question; given that this very simple apparatus coughs up different answers depending on the proposition being tested how, exactly, do we parse the experimental results from CERN. Answer; that’s a very good question.