Criticism, praise and comments on the Swedish-Italian E-Cat report

An earlier critic of energy measurements on the E-Cat so far, Swedish nuclear physicist Peter Ekström, has published his comments on the recent Swedish-Italian report on indications of anomalous heat production in the E-Cat.

Ekström’s comments, which can be found here, focus on a number of issues, ranging from calibration of the input power measurements and the method of thermal output power measurement, to implementation of the null test (running the reactor without fuel) and also an alleged non independence of the authors of the report.

He concludes:

“If the E‐Cat does indeed function as Rossi claims, this would require radical changes in nuclear physics as we know it today (Coulomb barrier, primary gammas, decay of radioactive isotopes). The evidence provided in the report falls far short of indicating that this is the case.”

I obtained a brief answer from Professor Bo Höistad, representative of the authors of the report:

“I would recommend a thorough reading of our paper in which several of Ekström’s questions are answered. Also to be noted is that this is the first test that produced sufficiently interesting results to motivate continued work with further experiments to verify or challenge the results achieved so far. This is the normal procedure in physics when unexpected results occur. There is still much work to be done before we can definitively determine if Rossi’s E-Cat works. We intend to continue this work in the next step.”

I would also like to note some other comments to the report.

Several fierce critics hide behind anonymous pseudonyms, which I believe is unfortunate. An example is this lengthy post by the pseudonym Joshua Cude, arguing that the report is ‘yet another unrefereed, sub-par cold fusion claim to add to the pile of unrefereed sub-par cold fusion claims.’

A few methods for scam have been suggested, among them power input through hidden wires inside the power supply cables thus fooling the clamp ampere meter, hidden power supply with frequencies above the limit of the power measurement analyzer, and hidden power supply through direct current, DC, possibly not detected by the clamp ampere meter.

As for the DC hypothesis, Torbjörn Hartman, co-author of the report has stated:

Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current
on three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the
three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not
used and laid curled up on the bench. The only possibility to fool the power-
meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but that also means
that the current must have an other way to leave the system and I tried to find
such hidden connections when we were there. The controll box had no con-
nections through the wood on the table. All cables in and out were accounted
for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was only free-standing on
the floor with no cables going to it. The little socket, where the mains cables
from the wall connector where connected with the cables to the box and
where we had the clamps, was screwed to the wood of the bench but there
was no screws going through the metal sheet under the bench. The sheet
showed no marks on it under the interesting parts (or elsewhere as I
remember it). Of course, if the white little socket was rigged inside and the
metal scews was long enough to go just through the wood, touching the
metal sheet underneath, then the bench itself could lead current. I do not
remember if I actually checked the bench frame for cables connected to it
but I probably did. However, I have a close-up picture of the socket and
it looks normal and the screws appear to be of normal size. I also have
pictures of all the connectors going to the powermeter and of the frame
on the floor. I took a picture every day of the connectors and cables to
the powermeter in case anyone would tamper with them when we were

I lifted the controll box to check what was under it and when doing so I
tried to measure the weight and it is muck lighter than a car battery. The
box itself has a weight, of course, and what is in it can not be much.

All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with our
measurements but there can still be things that we “didn’t think of” and
that is the reason why we only can claim “indications of ” and not “proof
of” anomalous heat production. We must have more control over the
whole situation before we can talk about proof.

My understanding is that a DC current through a load inevitably results in a DC tension over this load which should be detected by the measurement described by Hartman.

By the way, it has been noted that Hartman has a PhD in medical science. I have been told that the reason is that Hartman’s subject, Radiobiology, was given at the faculty of medicine at the time of his research studies. However, he has basically no studies in medicine but graduated in engineering.

It should also be noted that the degree “civilingenjör” in Swedish is a generic term for Master of Science degrees in engineering, and does not correspond to civil engineering.

Among the authors of the report, everyone except Evelyn Foschi has a PhD.

Some comments on the measurements from another of the co-authors, theoretic physicist Hanno Essén from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, can be found on

An interesting analysis is made by engineering consultant David Roberson who has had a look at the temperature curve over time compared to input electric power. Roberson draws the conclusion the E-Cat must be operated close to a point where run away could occur and that a Coefficient of Performance, COP, of about six, more or less follows from a model he has built from the data.

Earlier analyses by Roberson of measurement data on the E-Cat can be found in my article in Ny Teknik here.

Another comment by Prof Bo Höistad has been published in a comment to a post by Mark Gibbs in the Forbes, and is referred to here. For anyone who would like the original wording in Swedish I have obtained it from Höistad:

1) All input effekt var under full kontroll .

2) Ingen dold energi källa i stativet

3) Den här frågan är bra att du ställer.

I fysiken så kan vi inte ha tro eller magkänska för om ett fenomen uppträder eller inte. Vi måste ta reda på vad som faktiskt föreligger genom noggranna mätningar. Som kärnfysiker kan jag dock direkt säga att, baserat på välkänd kunskap om kärnprocesser är sannolikheten för nukleära omvandlingar som orsak till värmeproduktionen i E-cat försvinnande små. Dessutom om sådana av okänd anledning ändå skulle äga rum skulle de lämna spår efter sig, vilka inte har observerats än så länge.

Vi har velat undersöka om Rossi’s påstådda värmeproduktion kan verifieras i en oberoende mätning. Det första resultatet är att vi fått en indikation på att en värmeproduktion faktiskt inträffar som inte kan förklaras med någon kemisk process. Hur värmeproduktionen går till är höljt i dunkel. Resultatet är givetvis mycket dramatiskt och måste absolut verifieras ytterligare innan några definitiva utsagor kan göras. Vi avser att göra det i ett nästa steg.

Det återstår mycket arbete kvar innan det går att avgöra om Rossi’s E-cat fungerar. Resultaten hittills är tillräckligt intressanta för att fortsätta det arbetet.

Finally some praise for the report. Jed Rothwell who runs — a library of papers about cold fusion — calls the paper a gem, highlighting the conservative assumptions by the authors.


70 thoughts on “Criticism, praise and comments on the Swedish-Italian E-Cat report

Add yours

  1. Jed Rothwell wrote:” These recent tests seem good to me. I see no possibility of fraud. Many people who know more about electricity than I do also see no possibility of fraud.”
    I agree with Jed that it is not necessary to assume fraud in these tests, and I agree that the standards of evidence should be the same for all experiments, but I am not satisfied with the way the tests were done.
    From the waveform shown in the appendix and from the similar I have seen of the function of TRIACs, it appears that the fundamental frequency of the current was close to 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage across the heating resistors! Both the phase shift and the presence of powerful harmonics results in a very low power factor and a high ractive power. This makes the power measurement very sensitive to phase errors! This is not at all discussed by the authors of the article, they only mention the high accuracy of the current and voltage true RMS values. It is of course a very good instrument and important to measure true RMS, but the waveform, which appear to be a trade secret, makes the power measurement very unreliable!
    They try to compensate for errors by comparing with a test with a dummy, and when stepwise increasing power to allow for relaxing to equilibrium, they obtain the same result with the dummy, as with the “hot” charge. But to me, that is no indication of any anomalous release of energy!
    The next step is to “start” the process, it is not explained what they mean. Somehow an ON/OFF sequence starts and it appears that this could mean some extra power release. But here they don’t compare with the dummy, and the “calibration” they had from the comparison is no longer valid since the process is clearly transient.
    To conclude, the first of the three experiments gave no useful data, the second, with TRIAC, only measures input power and is uncertain due to too much reactive power, and the March test is best, but still very uncertain, the dummy test indicates a situation without any additional heat source.
    I do not see any reason to suspect fraud here, it is perfectly reasonable that Rossi et al. have interpreted the erroneous input power measurements as a new phenomenon. If there is fraud, we cannot conclude that from these tests. I have been more reluctant to accept the earlier strange positions of thermocouples.

  2. I like the valuable info you supply in your articles.
    I’ll bookmark your blog and take a look at again here frequently. I am quite certain I’ll be told lots of
    new stuff right right here! Good luck for the following!

  3. All this angst regarding Rossi boils down to a singular juncture, until Rossi makes a sale to a client who then publicly claims they’ve been defrauded no government justice department will attempt to make inquiries into the validity of Rossi’s invention. Until then it will just continue to be secret factories building secret power units with secret partners delivering said units to secret clients. Maybe it’s time we just let Rossi live in his secret fantasy world and move on from all this. If the world ever gets publicly informed of a factory, partner or customer, well then maybe we can come back to this. But until then… this nonsense has dragged on long enough.

    1. In some cases, the government will act without an attempt to sell products if it believes that investors were defrauded or security trading regulations were violated. One example of this in a technology fraud is Sniffex (google it) and similar explosive detectors based on dowsing rods. These dangerous frauds maimed and killed many people in Middle East and third world countries– they probably still do because the prosecution of the scumbags who sell them is still incomplete. See for example:

      … for some of those “devices” and information about the prosecutions.

      The problems with letting Rossi alone about all this (and this applies equally to Defkalion) are that it lets them *continue* to extract money from unknowing investors. In addition, when the scams are unraveled, it will impair the credibility of LENR research everywhere, a credibility which is not very good to start with.

  4. I need to add that Rossi refused your (Jed’s) offers to test his ecat properly starting in 2011. Right, Jed? Don’t you think that was because you were planning to enlist suitable experts and do it correctly? He also refused Celani (who is no competitor at all if Rossi has what he claims). And Josephson. And many others who could have done it right. I think it’s no accident he chose Levi and Essen and the goofy hot cat along with the questionable instruments and methods he used.

    1. I have no idea why Rossi refused to allow open, published tests up until now. I do not understand his business strategy. Mats Lewan and I both pleaded with him to allow tests. He said no, absolutely not, “I will never allow tests.” Then he turned around and allowed Levi et al to perform the latest series of three tests.

      These recent tests seem good to me. I see no possibility of fraud. Many people who know more about electricity than I do also see no possibility of fraud. If you are not satisfied with these tests, I suggest you ignore them. Feel free to go on thinking that Rossi is fooling the professors, or that the professors are conspiring with him. You cause no harm thinking this. Rossi does not care what you think. Neither do I, for that matter.

      You are making an unscientific assertion. That is, one that cannot be tested or falsified. You are saying there might be an method of fooling a wattmeter but you don’t know what that method is, and you cannot describe it. Such a method is functionally equivalent to a configuration error. I think it is highly unlikely that a modern wattmeter in the hands of experts would not catch an error that makes 900 W look like 300 W. Anyway, until you find an expert in electrical engineering who can propose an actual method that can be checked for and confirmed or falsified, you have no case. The assertion that “there might be a hidden trick” or “there might be an undiscovered error” applies equally well to every experiment since Newton. It is an empty assertion; meaningless, and unprovable.

      Your assertions about Rossi’s personality and his business are irrelevant. However evil he may be, he has no magic ability to change the performance of a commercial wattmeter, thermocouple, or IR camera. So-called sleight of hand techniques can only fool human observers, not instruments.

    2. “Feel free to go on thinking that Rossi is fooling the professors, or that the professors are conspiring with him.”

      I never said the professors were conspiring with Rossi. I don’t believe it. Only Levi acts suspiciously. He should have required Rossi to do proper tests involving blanks and calibrations from the start and he should have repeated his February 2011 test with proper documentation and precautions. There is no credible reason not to have done so. So Levi is either incompetent or he is involved in Rossi’s scam. I suppose he could tell us which it is but he won’t. As for Essen and the others, I have no doubt that they are perfectly honest. I just wish they had done better work.

      “You are saying there might be an method of fooling a wattmeter but you don’t know what that method is, and you cannot describe it.”

      I know lots of ways to fool a wattmeter. It can be done, in the case of a microprocessor instrument, by improperly programming it. It can also be done, probably more easily, by providing it with an input signal for which it was not designed. A simple test with a simple oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer would have prevented that. The investigators did not do it. Bad mistake. In previous tests, Rossi probably gamed the output measurement with improper placement of thermocouples and claiming that wet steam was dry. And Rossi categorically refused calibrations which would have ruled that possibility in or out.

      Like any good sleight of hand performer, this time he changed the strategy. The output measurement was probably OK but the input one was highly questionable. I am especially amused by the one photo of the power meter display that shows one phase providing power at 6.3 volts and 6 amps. There’s a one ohm resistor somewhere in Rossi’s kludge? Any idea where? And that is just the *start* of the questions in the input power measurement, which topic has been discussed extensively on the Moletrap forum.

      It is correct that I can not specify exactly which method Rossi used and there are probably many methods to fool meters that I am not aware of. Just as there are many methods conjurers and magicians use to fool audiences that you are not familiar with. That does not make the magic any more “real”.

    3. Jed, this is unfortunate, but Essen has uploaded version 3 of the report, and it makes it clear that the testers used a power meter oscilloscope display to look for DC offset. That meter cannot measure DC offset; Mats Lewan has checked with the manufacturer, but reviewing the PCE-830 specifications, I come to the same conclusion. The display is an AC display, any DC offset has been removed, and never even reaches the meter electronics, it would be filtered out by a capacitor.

      So all the claims that experts have reviewed this and find no problem are bogus. There is a fairly simple possible fraud mechanism. Yes, it would be dangerous, and you may wish to point out how unlikely such a fraud is, but it cannot be ruled out from the measurements done by Levi et al, the newly published Appendix shows that they were incompetent on this point.

      I would expect physicists, in general, to not make a mistake like this. I expected wrongly.

  5. In an interesting new development, Krivit has written a new article which says that Kullander independently tested the ecat under auspices of Uppsala University officially. The article further states that the test took place and the ecat did not work. For reasons not stated, Kullander never released the information.

    Also according to Krivit, Goran Ericsson, a professor in the Applied Nuclear Physics Division of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Uppsala University, provided “detailed information” about this negative test of the ecat.

    Frankly, I am amazed that Rossi would ever allow such a test. The rest of the article is behind a pay wall. Mats, do you know anything more about this test? If so, what happened?

    Krivit’s article is here:

    1. Mary Yugo wrote: “Frankly, I am amazed that Rossi would ever allow such a test.”

      You should not be amazed. Rossi has allowed several independent tests. Some worked and others failed. The NASA test described by Krivit failed because the pipe was plugged up. Rossi has allowed tests in his presence and also in other people’s labs when he was elsewhere. The devices were not reliable years ago but they are getting better so the tests succeed more often than they used to.

      Several people tested the heater that was installed for a year or so in in the EON Factory in Italy. Focardi talked about this on Italian television, which is on YouTube somewhere. The EON Factory gadget is described in Rossi’s patent.

      For some reason, people do not often discuss these tests in public. I suppose the tests are conducted under NDA’s, or people want to keep their results secret for some other reason. I wouldn’t know. Some test results have circulated informally along with photographs of the equipment at the EON factory and elsewhere.

      The tests conducted recently by Levi et al. are much better, in my opinion, because the input to output ratio is large, the temperature is high, and the method is irrefutable. Also because this device is more promising than the previous ones.

    2. My comments are not directed at Yugo, but rather the audience of other readers. Mary Yugo is female as far as I know, and as far as I am concerned. If that is a pseudonym that is his or her business and not mine.

      I think the use of pseudonyms on the Internet is silly but I have no objection to it. At Wikipedia it is often used to hide irresponsible behavior so perhaps it should be banned there. That is what Larry Sanger said:

    3. In science, the reputation of an author is crucial. That point is made by supporters of Rossi, when considering the report of the “professors.” It is also made by pseudoskeptics, when any inconvenient comment, such as by the Nobelist Brian Josephson, is deprecated because of other comments the fellow has made about hot-button topics, such as homeopathy.

      One of those who has *personally attacked* the reputation of scientists is Mary Yugo. Mary Yugo made a mistake some years ago that revealed his real name. It was blatant and not a matter of controversy. While some error might have been made, sure, correcting it would have been simple for George Hody. And Mary Yugo and George Hody, if they are not the same person, surely know each other. So George knows. If you look at what Mary says about this, you will see that Mary has never directly denied it. He merely ridicules those who bring it up.

      I use my real name. So do you, Jed. Our reputations, which matter to us, are on the line. My credibility is crucial. If I lie, it is likely to be caught and my whole effort is trashed. If I err, and I find out, I need to acknowledge it as soon as possible. It’s the cover-up, stupid!

      Identity is *not* irrelevant. That is a Wikipedia trope, and it has been used for years to cover up the antics of highly biased editors and administrators, who can do whatever they do and can believe that there are no personal consequences. Wikipedia made a serious error. The reliability of editors of a public encyclopedia is *crucial.* They imagined that they could make it irrelevant. They failed. Wikipedia, as a result, is unreliable when controversy is involved. And you know that, Jed.

    4. “Rossi has allowed several independent tests. Some worked and others failed.”

      So you keep saying but you give no evidence for it. If Rossi were telling the truth about his accomplishment, there should have been HUNDREDS of independent tests by now. Instead, when the people who can a correct test are present, the device conveniently can not be tested. For example when NASA or the people from Quantum/Australia visited Bologna in 2011, remember? And also, the tests recently referred to by Krivit.

      “For some reason, people do not often discuss these tests in public. I suppose the tests are conducted under NDA’s, or people want to keep their results secret for some other reason. I wouldn’t know.”

      It is amazing that this doesn’t seem to bother you. It makes absolutely no sense if Rossi has what he claims. It makes perfect sense if he’s a fraud.

      “Several people tested the heater that was installed for a year or so in in the EON Factory in Italy. Focardi talked about this on Italian television, which is on YouTube somewhere. The EON Factory gadget is described in Rossi’s patent.”

      I’m sure it was such a success that Rossi has provided photos of his lab in winter, photos in which he and his team are seen wearing heavy winter clothes and there are gas heaters running in the background. It’s hilarious!

      “The tests conducted recently by Levi et al. are much better, in my opinion, because the input to output ratio is large, the temperature is high, and the method is irrefutable. Also because this device is more promising than the previous ones.”

      The current test is unnecessary and distracting. I know you don’t see how it could have been faked but that probably reflects more your gullibility and lack of awareness of deception than Rossi’s honesty or Essen’s competence. I don’t about about Levi. He’s had two years to repeat his obvious, clear, simple, but badly documented and uncontrolled/uncalibrated liquid flow calorimetry of a small ecat. He should have repeated it but properly. And in public. There is absolutely no reason not to. There is no reason for the current test to be done in Rossi’s lab and with his and Levi’s instruments and methods. Well… there is no reason if you discount fraud.

      “Mary Yugo is female as far as I know, and as far as I am concerned. If that is a pseudonym that is his or her business and not mine.”

      Thanks but LOL. True Believers seem fascinated by identities and genders. Of course, they don’t matter. Similarly, skeptics can’t prevent enormous success by Rossi if he’s telling the truth. I think I know about that but we won’t know for sure until results of truly independent testing, done outside Rossi’s lab, not involving Levi, Kullander and Essen, and especially not using their instruments and methods, is done. There is absolutely no excuse for not having that done by now. None.

    5. Around here, maryyugo, nobody gives anything to anyone. If you want the evidence for LENR and/or LENR+, you have to go look for it. It is not our place to hold your hand. It is your place to be a responsible human being and investigator and look for the evidence. And given your phucking attitude, I doubt if anyone really wants to help you find that evidence.

    6. @people reading maryyugo

      If evidence are weak and rare, there is a rational reason, that may also explain the story of wright brothers.

      Millis of NASA durin a workshop anysed risk among which:

      *Risk:(For commercial research) Competitive advantage weakened from premature disclosure
      **Threshold of attention is when device can be engineered
      **Disclose only enough for independent verification of key principles, not device, not best demo
      After independent verification, advertise improved version whose performance is more pronounced than verification demo

      for the story of Wright brothers

      note also that Rossi tried to make demo, and each time, because of him and of you mary&clone it was unconvincing… Mary you are of the same wood of 9/11 conspiracy theorist, people have to observe it… Some time like a microscope you take some point, but you are unable to see the reality at the reality scale.

    7. I am reminded of a TV show named “A Gifted Man”. The show glorified MDs, so I couldn’t stand it for too long. But in it the MD met the ghost of his X-wife. He was looking at her, conversing with her, but he was convinced that he was hallucinating because as he said he was a rational person. Some people are so hung up on their mental models of how the world is and works that new observations are simply rationalized away. In the case of the Gifted Man, he said it was an hallucination and went to the library to research hallucinations. With LENR skeptics, they say that it is either incompetence or a scam or both. The worship of science and objectivity has made us so alienated from ourselves that we don’t even trust our own experience.

      In the health field, I notice that pharmaceutical companies raise the bar for what constitutes evidence so much so that only they can afford any science that proves anything. Twenty sample studies aren’t good enough for proof; it is supposedly not scientific unless there are 20,000 people in the study. Carrot juice companies can’t afford studies with 20,000 people, so they are not scientific. Pharmaceutical companies have been trying to hijack science for their own purposes, but people are fighting back, partly by noticing that Big Pharm has been raising the bar.

      The same sort of thing has happened here. Three really good experiments (one report) is not good enough because Rossi knew the testers. Never mind that Big Pharma not only knows the testers, but the testers WORK for Big Pharma, openly, and that is supposedly scientific. But I don’t see the skeptopaths going after Big Pharma. Now we have Yeong Kim saying he eyeballed the Defkalion machine puttering away. That isn’t good enough for skeptopaths. There really is no point in conversing with a skeptopath. No matter what you say, no matter how cleverly you say it, no matter what fabulous links you provide, it won’t make any difference.

  6. That is precisely my point. There is NOTHING NEW just the same Rossi “demo”.
    I am sorry that you believe I can not afford the more expensive drugs you must ingest!

    1. jetmech, it does not matter which forum you are on. I still won’t read your comments. Your writing style is still like someone on meth. And you never say anything new.

  7. We all wish to dream alaincoe!
    Produce facts not dreams or speculations.
    Interest was waning.
    Rossi produced another demo.
    What else have you got?
    And Dr Gugliemi
    raises the most significant point.


    Dear colleagues and friends,

    I had an exchange with Prof. Essén and received two emails from him in response to my initial message reproduced below, and to another one where I repeated to him the two questions:

    1) How does your paper advance knowledge?
    2) Who will benefit from it?

    Unfortunately, Prof. Essén refuses to answer these two questions, and at this point I am even more perplexed, because I believe that a senior researcher should always be able to answer those two questions without hesitation and with pride in his or her work. It is a pity that this seems not to be the case for the manuscript on arXiv, and I still hope that the other co-authors will be able to find convincing answers to those two very basic questions.

  8. Wait for it.
    The Rossi Ecat does not exist.
    After all this time there is no evidence that it exists.
    It is shown from time to time when interest wanes.
    It does not exist.
    It is not sold. It never will be.
    It does not exist.
    A Rossi Ecat will NEVER be sold.
    Will never be produced.
    What does this new “demonstration” prove?
    No independant test has EVER been conducted.
    Independant meaning the tester supply the power, the test equipment
    and the location of the test Rossi supplies ONLY the Ecat!

    Yes many “demonstrations” under the control of Rossi have been observed
    usually by the same people (how odd).

    Without absolute control of all testing parameters and
    the tester tailoring the test to meet the claims of the testee (Rossi)
    how can you say even a modicum of a test was conducted?
    By whom? Rossi?

    Uri Geller was able to fool scientists when the scientists were foolish enough
    to let Geller run the show!

    1. Thanks Oystla, you’re right (I have one myself BTW). I have now updated the post.

  9. “Anyone by now still stuck in thinking this is definitely a scam has not been paying attention”
    Not seen any comments along these lines.

    As scientists or concerned citizens, what purpose do these test serve? Prior to the tests there was hope of a reasonably conclusive report, which would provoke the wider world to take note.

    This has not happened for well documented reasons :test location, tester independence, input electrical measurement). If there is any possibility of repeating the test, then it could be done in Rossi’s home town at a location not controlled by him, the testers should have no relationship (known supporters/associates) with Rossi and the phase and magnitude of input should be measured with equipment brought by the testers. Uncoordinated details should not emerge later: the issued report should be complete.
    Simple really.

    1. Classic argument.
      If you assume that e-cat is real, you understand that letting a 6 trillion dollar (10%GDP=energy) invention in an totally uncontrolled zone, is difficult for a man who was put in jail after his government back-stab him with regulation, comforting waste mafia, and sued him with retroactive regulation (hopefully justice recognized that).

      When you propose a protocol, please consider the hypothesis it is real, and the fact that it is thus a commercial activity.

      I agree that Rossi is paranoid, but since he is convinced that competitors introduced unauthorized instruments and get some trade secret, it is not totally crazy.

      Some safety measure don’t restrict the reality of the test. And yes, even if it is not a scientific result, it is a pragmatic result.
      Let us say that Hiroshima was not exactly a scientific test, but it tell something to the scientist who did not believe in Atomic Bomb.

      Note also that the freedom that Rossi let to the testers tell much about the fact that it is not a fraud.
      You were with Nelson, among those who suspected Rossi of fraud because being too strict about testing protocol… like a stage magician is with his spectators.

      Letting people free to measure heat as they like around the reactor (with IR camera, with thermo-couple), and free to measure electric parameter BEFORE the reactor+controlbox, mean that if there is a trick it is only inside the “black box” : reactor+controlbox… if heat produced is above chemical, it may be a trick, but a nuclear trick.

      Last hypothesis for me is that Rossi have hidden a nuclear reactor in the box or the reactor…
      Given the temperature, it is probably a fission reactor, and all the testers will die in few days.

      Oops, the test happens few month ago…Maybe Rossi give them coffee with miraculous anti-radiation cure.

  10. Abd and Roger B. (and Alain & everyone), great discussion here. We need testers who do not feel any threat one way or the other to their credibility, with the courage to do real science, following in the footsteps of the authors of the recent report, to put the little kitten through its paces. I think I know the outcome, but I could be wrong. Anyone by now still stuck in thinking this is definitely a scam has not been paying attention. Anyone convinced that its a done deal and there will be free e-kits for all with your 2014 tax rebate may be disappointed. At least that’s how it looks to me, from this little patch of fringe theory.

    1. Mats, I LOLed on your comment.

      I guarantee that you are the only journalist that I have ever admired and probably the only jounalists that I will ever admire.

      Rossi et. al. have invented (new) fire, and so it will be a long time before we have the new fire equivalent of the internal combusion engine. I hope it won’t take 1 million years. I keep telling young people that the day will come when their houses are warmed with an LENR.

  11. The basic problem with this report is that it was not fully independent. While a fully independent test may not be possible with conditions being set by Rossi, a test could certainly be *more* independent. I was disappointed by the report, because Rossi had led us all to think that these were “independent professors,” and we would certainly not have expected Levi, highly involved with Rossi, to be the lead author, and Essen would, not, because of the history, be clearly independent either. Nor would this be only a collaboration between Bologna and Upsalla.

    The problem is that standards for evidence here must be higher than in ordinary science. Because of the enormous implications, because of the history of Rossi, and for many reasons, *fraud cannot be ruled out except by very strong measures,* and those measures were not taken. There was apparently *some skeptical investigation,* from what authors have written. A sophisticated fraud, however, can be *extremely difficult to detect.* Practically by definition, it may be something that nobody in a test group has ever seen before. That’s why we really want testing to be under *independent control*, not just be a watching of a demonstration under the inventor’s control. Think of what magicians routinely do.

    However, given the restrictions that Rossi insists on, a test could still be designed to far more thoroughly rule out fraud. If this were proposed by even these authors, and if Rossi refused to allow it, that would be telling in itself. (It would fully protect Rossi’s IP.) It could be done, and I hope that the authors will be sufficiently cautious to go for it.

    (I have described such a test protocol on the private list for cold fusion researchers.)

    Others have correctly pointed out that this testing tells us very little about the reaction itself. It’s essentially a test of a sealed stainless steel cylinder, and is inherently not reproducible independently.

    It may, however, be of value for guiding investment in Rossi’s research, that’s about it. Were I an investor, given all the history, I’d certainly want to see better than this test, and I’d insist on it.

    The real issue with Rossi is not the possibility of some LENR device, there are good reasons to think that possible. It is *reliability*, and in all the smoke and flap over this test, that it shows the device may be *unreliable* is missed. That’s what many of us have suspected all along. He may have something, but has not solved the unreliability problem that is the *real problem* with almost low-energy nuclear reaction work. That is why there has been so much delay, then, if this is so. He has kept thinking that a solution is just around the corner, so he promises it.

    1. I find Mats Lewan to be completely and utterly convincing. If he says that the E-Cat is the real deal, that is good enough for me. I realize that this my conviction cannot be given to someone else other than perhaps a family member, but just the same, I believe Mats Lewan.

      I don’t care if you doubt him; I expect you to follow your honest thinking. But if you disparage him or call him bad names, don’t show your face in my neighborhood.

    2. Weird. Mats is a reporter who has done a great deal of valuable work. I don’t see him reporting that the “E-cat is the real deal.” He made a comment on a particular issue, and it has not been disparaged, though I don’t find it fully convincing, nor has he been called “bad names,” at least not by me.

      This report is quite recent, and it has happened that the full implications of Rossi demonstrations, and possibilities for error, did not become clear until months after the demonstrations took place. It’s obvious that some people are jumping to conclusions, and that cuts both ways.

    3. Oops….Sorry. I made a mistake. Mats Lewan is a reporter. I had him all bunched up with the other Swedes as one of the scientists. My mistake.

      I also was not implying that you, Abd, was saying disparaging things about him. But I know that such is going to happen to the testers and anyone else who believe in anomolous heat.

      But I have to add that being an expert on testing whether LENR does not require a PhD in anything; it is not rocket science. It is mainly a problem of having credentials to risk making a mistake. I could easily test it to see if it was real with 8 hours of instruction. Getting the exact COPs and such might require a few days of instruction. What really matters is the risk that these testers are taking. No one would believe me because I don’t have the reputation to risk. I have nothing to lose whether I lie or tell the truth. Levi, Pettersson, Essén, et. al. do. So what they say matters. It is all about credibility.

    4. Abd wrote: “The basic problem with this report is that it was not fully independent.”

      So what? Several professors are not going to conspire in a fraud. And if they are conspiring, they are bound to be caught sooner or later, so stop worrying about it. If this is fraud it is a trivial matter for the police to deal with.

      “I was disappointed by the report, because Rossi had led us all to think that these were “independent professors,” . . . .

      I would not take Rossi’s statements about things like this seriously if I were you. He says all kinds of stuff. Just concentrate on what other people determine about his machines.

      “. . . and we would certainly not have expected Levi, highly involved with Rossi, to be the lead author, and Essen would, not, because of the history, be clearly independent either. Nor would this be only a collaboration between Bologna and Upsalla.”

      Who else is going to do a test? You will not find 7 qualified professors in this world willing to do this who are not already acquainted with Rossi.

      If you do not trust these people, I suggest you ignore this test.

      “The problem is that standards for evidence here must be higher than in ordinary science.”

      No. The standards for evidence is the same for all experiments. Whether it is a high school experiment demonstrating a well known textbook law of physics, or an experiment upon which the fate of the human race rests, the standards must always be the same. The results have to be rigorous and clear-cut, and the work has to be done to the best of the ability of the researchers, given their limitations of budget and time. These people did a fine job. There is no reason for anyone to complain about it. The skeptics have not found any errors in this or in any other major cold fusion test. They never will find any.

      This statement borders on the notion that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. That is the most pernicious nonsense in the history of modern science. Extraordinary claims call for the most ordinary, most conventional, most textbook-based results you can come up with. Levi et al. used the minimum number of instruments, and they depend upon the Stefan-Boltzmann law which is indisputable.

      “Because of the enormous implications, because of the history of Rossi, and for many reasons, *fraud cannot be ruled out except by very strong measures,*”

      The fraud hypothesis is preposterous. It is a matter of public record that Rossi has spent about $1 million of his own money on this and that he works 12 hours a day. No one who is engaging or fraud does things like that. If this were fraud he would spend a few days making a fake system and then spend the rest of his time trying to persuade people it is real. Many people have worked with him side-by-side for months. They report that he spends all his time in the laboratory conducting experiments and that he has dozens or hundreds of prototypes.

      The notion that professors at the national University would take part in a fraud of this nature is so contrary to experience and common sense that anyone who takes it seriously is a gullible conspiracy theorist.

      “. . . and those measures were not taken.”

      Measures schmeasures. It makes no difference how many measures Rossi takes. You could have this test done by the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pope. The skeptics would not believe a word of it. They will believe nothing until Nature magazine, the DoE and other mainstream scientific organizations endorse the result. These people have no opinions, knowledge or judgment of their own. They are conformists who believe whatever they are told by establishment organizations.

  12. My understanding is that the issue with DC is resolved according to the statement by Hartman above. Also Levi has given me the same details. I can see no conflict with the new statement from Essén.

    1. It does clear the previously existing conflict though since Essén and Hartman said two different things.

    2. Dr. Essen neglects to say how the DC component was ruled out. He also says nothing about high frequency components which would not be measured by the clamp-on meters.

      Be that as it may, there is no assurance of integrity of the experiment as long as it is done with Rossi’s power, in his facility, with his setup, and with Levi’s instruments. None at all. Regardless of what Dr. Essen says.

    3. And you focus on details but fail to explain the bigger picture in which all this is taking place. Everything in the bigger picture supports the reality of the e-cat.

      How do you explain Defkalion? They are working on their own version of the e-cat. They have an office and employees.

      How do you explain Focardi publicly stating that he has personally measured heat and radiation from e-cat prototypes? He ran his own Ni-H experiments and knows everything

      Why would Rossi sell his company EON srl for 1 million Euro just to start a scam? He even says he sold his house. Why would he take such risks for a scam when he could comfortably retire?

      In fact there is a claim by Krivit that Rossi was given 200 million dollars in relation to AmpEnergo, back in 2010. If Rossi was perpetrating a scam, why didn’t he just run with that money? Why did he go public and make demonstrations. The longer a scam goes on the higher the chance it is discovered. This behavior doesn’t make sense for a scammer.

      You have often said that the scam is obvious, but Rossi is only gaining supporters. No person with technical training that has participated in e-cat testing in person has come forward to publicly denounce Rossi as a fraud. They clearly don’t believe that it’s so obvious.

      Prior to Rossi, Ni-H anomalous heat was not popular and even within the CF community there was skepticism. After Rossi, several different parties have reported seeing anomalous heat with this fuel combination, but none claimed anywhere near Rossi’s energy output. There existed the possibility that Rossi was seeing a real effect, but was deluded or incompetent and thus overstating it. However now after the recent paper, it is clear that no self-delusion or incompetence is occurring.

      There are probably a few more that I’m forgetting at the moment (it’s been over two years since Rossi went public), but I’m of the opinion that fraud is highly improbably when looking at the big picture.

    4. “How do you explain Defkalion? They are working on their own version of the e-cat. They have an office and employees.”

      Most scammers have offices and employees! Did you think they can take millions of dollars from investors using only the internet and maybe PayPal or crowd funding?

      Defkalion has never had an independent test that could be checked up on. They claim *seven* large companies tested them last April but they refuse to divulge their names and no results have come to light. I think that was a lie. Their presentation at the previous NI Week included all sorts of extravagant performance data for their Hypersions without a shred of evidence that there even is such a thing as a Hyperion.

      Defkalion claimed in 2011 that they were testing dozens of table top reactors making up to 45 kW of power continuously. Since then, nobody has ever seen one or tested it and reported properly. Nelson’s supposed test was lame and inadequate. They could have fooled him (and probably did) any number of ways. Defkalion’s claims were roundly criticized on their forum and guess what they did– they deleted the entire forum and closed it.

      Nothing about Defkalion is in any way credible. They have every hallmark of an investor scam including their desperate attempt to persuade Dick Smith to invest a million dollars of cash last year without having the opportunity to have his experts test a device properly. Of course, he declined.

      Focardi is old and sick. It isn’t at all clear what he did or what he thinks he knows.

      Ampenergo admitted giving Rossi money. I don’t recall they said how much. Where did you get the $200M figure? It seems way high. Anyway, Ampenergo has never done anything. They made no statements past the first one almost 2 years ago and their web site has not changed since and there is no useful info on it. They appear dead.

      I don’t know what Rossi sold or what he got. It’s all based on what he says, as far as I know and I don’t trust what he says.

      Finally, whether or not LENR/cold fusion is a real phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Rossi’s and Defkalion’s claims are true.

      As we said many times, the current paper was set up by a close associate and friend of Rossi’s (Levi) and involved Essen who has been gullible with Rossi at least THREE times before and failed to order the right tests. He apparently did that again. The tests were done in Rossi’s lab with Levi’s equipment and methods. They are not credible.

    5. I’m realizing that I may be wrong on the 200 million number. AmpEnergo did say that they gave Rossi a substantial amount, but I’m not sure if it ever emerged how much it was exactly (it’s been a while since these were current events). I hope you won’t hold it against me.

    6. note that Defkalion have let Nelson test independently (he could even open the reactor, just not analyse the powder) the ractor… the results published are not bulletproofs, yet let no doubt that a COP>>1 exist. What is bullet proof is that Nelson confirmed his report to Gibbs of Forbes, including the satisfaction to be allowed to do what he wanted, except on some trade secrets.

      to understand what mean that, you need to have a brain that can understand human stategy, and I agree lack if honesty (I won’t accuse you of stupidity, that would be clearly false) does not help to understand human factor.

      For SRI report on Brillouin reactor, published at ICCF17, I imagine that it is so undeniable that you don’t talk of it.

      Did anyone question the ethics of pathoskeptics ?

      I mean not about vested interest (I don’t believe so), but simple egotic denialism.

    7. AlainCo, you know I am a staunch LENR/E-Cat believer, so when I correct you, don’t flip out. Brillouin has a close connection with SRI in the person of Dr. Mike McKubre. He is one of my favorite LENR dudes, so it doesn’t bother me at all. Remember that we are not trying to convince ourselves. We are trying to convince others who may not be aware of what is going on.

      Patho-skeptics individualy commit crimes of libel and slander and lying and bribe accepting. As a group, they hurt society. They are sort of the mental inertia that impedes real progress.

    8. @Roger bird
      sorry I did not answer to you, but to Mary…
      I agree, and I need to calm down…

      It is painful to see the gap between the facts that are accumulated, and what is the official truth, mostly outdated, erroneous and biased…
      Reading the data could make people understand, but it a long job., especially because the data are complex, and gain much value by being connected and put in the context. It is natural since I did that for long.

      It is not an easy domain.
      It seems that if you don’t have the competence, focusing on details, blur rather than sharpen your vision. On the opposite, looking at global scale, considering all positions , you get a much clearer vision. But that mean that your goal is to find the answer, and not to confirm your answer.

      I don’t know if skeptics have that pain in the stomach when deciding what is the probable reality, afraid to be wrong, facing opposing positions, weighting critics and evidences, building worst scenarios, weighting alternatives…

      I take risky position (it took months for me to decide to commit on LENR revolution), and it is never definitive, since for me, being wrong is a real risk to mitigate as quickly as possible.
      However even if I keep the hypothesis that all is fake, or that some actor is not honest, it is more and more hard everyday to imagine that…

  13. The possibility for DC current fraud is in serious doubt with this new comment from from Hanno Essén:

    “In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since the clamps could not detect such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all coautors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)”

  14. Please folks, remember, no trolling.
    And avoid personal criticism. I will edit and cancel comments.

    1. Thanks, Mats. The identity of prominent critics is not “personal criticism.” It’s fact or at least alleged fact, and is relevant, just as Rossi’s past is relevant. It was accompanied by evidence, as to the first mention, and anything I say here can be supported with evidence, and has been (on the yahoogroup newvortex).

      I am a real person, using a real name. It will be on my name tag at the International Conference on Cold Fusion in Missouri in July. It’s what people know me as in daily interactions. I am personally responsible for what I write.

      “Rats,” “intellectually bankrupt,” and “illogical” is personal criticism. If I had a history of deception and masquerade, it would not be personal, it would be relevant. However, because the identity issue is important, for the reasons I’ve given, I do consent to your leaving that kind of post in place, as it relates to me. As to further debate on this issue, it *is* irrelevant. My being a Rat has zero to do with Rossi.

  15. And “Mary Yugo” is George Hody, it’s well-known. Why is this important? Becaiuse science crucially depends on the personal integrity and reputation of authors. People may, with practice, develop convincing arguments, cherry-picked out of the vast fields of available evidence and interpretations, and can easily fool the unwary. Anonymous authors can simply disappear if they are recognized as blowing smoke.

    The authors of this report, for better or worse, “independent” or not, have staked their reputations on it. Thanks for your post, Mats.

    1. The hilarious part of all this is that George Hody, who you think I am, is vice president of a company which has made and sold advanced and sophisticated thermal instrumentation of many types for decades. If I am who you say, I am all that much more credible. But that only matters if someone relies on appeal to authority, a common logical fallacy. Nonetheless, the constant blathering about who the skeptics are is truly hilarious and good evidence for how intellectually bankrupt and illogical people like Abd and Rats truly are.

      As I’ve said before, with supporters like you, Rossi needs no enemies.

    2. Hody is what Mary says. Indeed there would be more credibility for George Hody than “Mary Yugo”. But Hody has remained entirely silent on all this except through the pseudonym.

      There is direct evidence, which Mary Yugo attempted to cover up by deletion, for that identity, plus much circumstantial evidence.

      Evidence re Joshua Cude / Science Apologist / Joshua P. Schroeder is only circumstantial, though relatively strong. Schroeder has attempted to cover up his past as well, that’s clear, and has made no comment on the identification as Cude, in spite of it being all over the internet. He would certainly be aware of it.

      There is not “constant blather.” It is mentioned as being *scientifically relevant* because science is based on trust.

      And I’m not a “supporter of Rossi.” That’s nuts, I’ve strongly criticized Rossi for years, and I have strongly criticized this latest report, but mostly privately, so far, on the list for cold fusion researchers. There are obvious problems. They could be remedied.

  16. Mats,
    The analysis about emissivity is using stainless steel. Why??? The outer 2 cylindrical components of the eCat are CERAMIC, not stainless steel. How can such an obvious error get propagated??? Because so called ‘experts’ are NOT reading the source material carefully, or are basing their critique on someone else’s comments, and are not picking up on the erroneous statements.

    1. And who Cude is makes a difference how? I am amused at ardent believers who try to discredit anonymous skeptics by trying to find out who they are. People who do this clearly can not address the issues. Most skeptics do not expect you to believe them based on their authority or credentials. They hope you will consider their FACTS and REASONING.

    2. Exactly what facts do you refer to? Have you personally inspected or tested an E-Cat?

      Unless you have your facts are nothing but conjecture just like the rest of the commenters.

    3. Facts and reasoning need to fit into an integrated network of causation. I recommend that you document all the points of information for which people give Rossi credibility, and provide hypothetical examples of how Rossi could have mis-led people in each one of them. Counting all the people and events that have been involved, there are probably no more than a few hundred points that you could work on. I think that would be an excellent application of your determined interest in this subject and a great service to the community in general. I look forward to your formal work on this.

    4. As Curious implies, the thing that adds the prefix “patho” to the honorable title of skeptic, is, for example, the flamboyant appeal to the “facts” and “reasoning” of….Mary Yugo. Sorry, Mary, there are a LOT of relevant facts in this discussion, and you focus on on a few them, and the ones you focus on seem to have far less real presence as “facts” as those you keep assuring is don’t exist. Any contribution to to this discussion that cannot start by understanding that “the facts” are in doubt and that reasonably honorable people on both sides of the discussion can admit the possibility of error or at least uncertainty should have any standing in it. This is not a position based on good faith and should not be accepted *a priori*. Sure there are inconsistencies and even contradictions — in what we can know, in what Rossi says or does, and in the whole epistemic muddle that is called “cold fusion.” But please, please Mary stop just exposing yourself as a bigot who is unable to process the possibility that someone other than yourself and your bully comrades may have actually thought more carefully, and written with greater candor and accuracy on this subject than you have. It seems to me I can think of quite a few of them, not the least being Mr. Lewan himself, the host of this website.

      Thanks Mats, keep up the great work!

  17. “Fierce critics” is an overstatement trolls who continue to badmouth scientists who do more in one day than they have ever achieved in their digital or real life, as we have seen nothing substantial from any of them. These trolls are mere “chip bodies”, digital representations of some facet from a deprived personality and neglected physical body.

    Kudos to these real-body scientists who’ve managed to be fair and honest in the face of real-life antagonism.

    And thanks Mats for your continued coverage of this historic achievement.

    1. Ruby, with all due respect, what do you do, other than repeat what Rossi says? What Defkalion claims? What Swartz and others say they are thinking?

      With respect to Rossi, have you ever considered seriously the possibility that he has not told the truth? That he is acting like someone trying to get money from investors? That he has never been able to prove he sold a single ecat to anyone and that he has never had a single ecat properly tested in experiments in which he was not directly or indirectly involved? And in which he or close associates and friends provided the power supply and all the measuring methods and equipment?

      Isn’t it sort of odd that, after two and a half years of claims and controversy, Rossi can not name a single customer? That he has not had testing from a national laboratory, a major well known company, or officially from a major university head of department? That he does not have a single refereed publication in any main line journal? That his patents are so vague as to be meaningless? None of that bothers you at all?

    2. I believe that Rossi has invested most if not all of his families assets and the last 6 years of his life in this project. If this is a fraud then he is the one who has lost the most time and money. I find it very difficult to understand that you continue to perpetuate your story – Rossi is simply doing this for pence if you are right. Look at all the different devices he has constructed for improvement – how do you perpetuate a fraud doing that? Of course some experiments fail. According to the data from ENEA presented on 6/3/13 only 1 in 20 LENR runs work at NRL and 1 in 7 work in Dardik’s labs. I think its time to find someone else to pick on.

    3. I have noticed that the forces of patho-skeptology either have to keep retreating or keep lying, like an army that lies about it’s casualties. I also notice that Occam is in agony over some of their explanations.

  18. Hi again, Mats.

    Pseudonymous “Alsetalokin” has produced a pair of cute, if not definitive, Youtube videos which demonstrate how clamp on ammeters can be fooled. His free energy is derived entirely from cheese. Or so he says. These are worth a brief viewing:

    It will be interesting to see if Rossi *ever* allows testing in which he (or his close friends and long time associate Levi) do not control the input power source and the output power measurement methods. I predict they won’t. Ever.

    Meanwhile, where are Rossi’s million ecat factories? Why has nobody ever seen one? Where are his help wanted ads? (You can’t make a million ecats a year without a few employees) and who are his clients for the megawatt plants he said more than a year ago he had already sold?

    And while we’re at it, who are and where are all the seven famous companies which independently tested Defkalion’s Hyperion?

    1. @maryyogo

      People best understand reality an integrated network of causes and effects. It has to work, or not work, as a whole.

      Casting doubt on individual elements of that network is not the same as comprehensively refuting the entire network.

      Perhaps you would, as a service to the rest of us, prepare a comprehensive model that shows how ever single one (or at least most) of the pieces of information that point toward e-Cat being “real” is could actually be the product of fraud.

      There are only a finite number of such pieces of information. All you would have to do is list them out, and for each one, provide some hypothetical scenario for fraud, such as “he ran a wire under the floor”, or “he switched the settings while no-one was looking.”

      I think it would be well worth your time, and again, a great service to all interested readers, if you would please do that

    2. My position on various Rossi claims and experiments is well known. If you want a more comprehensive and organized treatment of why Rossi’s activities appear to be investment fraud and why it looks as if there is no such a thing as a working ecat, read Krivit’s web site, specifically The Rossi Timeline at this link..

    3. Rossi

      MARY BINGO! I win!

    4. So you are accusing Levi of fraud. I think you need more than two stupid videos (indeed only poor people could think to link bulls**ts like those) to support fraud accusation.

      The amusing thing is that you think that those videos “are worth a brief viewing”. Please don’t tell me that you have not understood the trick.
      Do you know that Hanno Essenc was chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society?

Leave a Comment. Latest comments are displayed on top. Comments are not threaded.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: