Skip to content

Here’s my book on cold fusion and the E-Cat

April 2, 2014

(This blog post was originally posted on Animpossibleinvention.com)


 

AII_cover_eng_200pxFor three difficult years I have experienced much that I wanted to discuss, that I had thought people would want to investigate and understand better. Yet reaching out has been difficult for me. I want you, the reader, to comprehend, forgive and then participate.

The term ‘cold fusion’ is so stigmatized that everything even vaguely connected with it is ignored by media outlets in general and by the science community in particular. Unless it’s attacked. Meanwhile we might be missing an opportunity to change the world.

That’s why I’m relieved today, when I can finally share this story in my new book An Impossible Invention. It’s about, yes, cold fusion.

It’s actually two stories. One story in the book is about cold fusion itself, about the inventor Andrea Rossi and his energy device the ‘E-Cat,’ about the people around him and about how I became involved and subsequently investigated and contributed to a series of on-going events in this scientific arena.

The other story in the book is about how people relate to the unknown, to the mysterious, to the improbable and to what we believe is ‘impossible.’ The story of how new ideas are accepted or rejected, of whether one is curious or uninterested, open-minded or prejudiced.

The book may reveal events surrounding Rossi and the E-Cat. It should inspire some readers and upset others. I hope it will provoke discussions—lots of discussions, among other things about what’s impossible or isn’t. Consider what the British runner Roger Bannister—the first human to run  a sub-four-minute mile, previously believed impossible—perceptively stated: “The human spirit is indomitable.”

Who knows what will happen? More is to come. You, the reader, will play an important role in determining how these matters evolve.

By the way–just as I’m writing these words I’m receiving new information on events that strengthen some pieces of the story in the book, and also some information that add to my doubts regarding certain stakeholders.  I cannot tell you more right now, but I will keep you updated in this blog and in the free newsletter of the book.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

403 Comments
  1. Yes. The greatest forces driving the mankind are well demonstrated: stupidity and greed.

  2. Better focus on the real question.
    which corp will launch a (new style) Manhattan project on LENR in the next months.

    by the way, corruption is growing ;> :
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/471-EU-research-Norr%C3%B8nt-AS-look-for-partner-on-LENR-basic-research-Eurostars-Eureka-/

    probably linked to
    http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/news/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect-paving-the-way-for-a-potential-new-clean-renewable-energy-source/
    http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/emerging-materials-report_en.pdf

    did you read
    http://www.amazon.com/Science-Energy-Nuclear-Reaction-Comprehensive/dp/9812706208

    the book is good. Even for believers to tame their enthusiasm on calorimetry and palladium physics.

    if you cannot afford because all your money gone buying Huizenga book, or Gary Taubes Broadway musicals (if you read chapter2 you will understand what I talk about), ask the Russian librarians. 😉

    maybe you prefer to focus on the clowns, because ridicule is easier on them.

    enjoy the vacation break, fall will be rocking.

  3. The “joke” has a great reward in money for few -and they will not stop the game too soon. Do not forget Hyperion stuff is reported to be still online: they seems to be looking at finding another chicken very soon, even if the account under Defkalion green Technology ( http://www.defkalion-energy.com ) has been suspended. If someone can be so gullible to believe at a Hyperion stuff after 2013 demo and even after 6 months later going out of Gamberale and Cappiello, why should the Rossi game be stopped today or tomorrow? After all, he got only around 17 flats (for what we know) – he could get some more, and his friends too…

  4. skeptic have never been funny …

    anyway I know the evidence have won.

    and i don’t talk of E-cat, I talk of people with a brain and big pockets, and many friends. More than the one of Elforsk and even of China. It is painful to wait hearing tons of high negative intelligence.

    So much effort to deny reality.

  5. I don’t find LENR believers amusing anymore. This has gone too far to be amusing, so far it is not even silly. Monty Python did not have a punchline, but they did know when to stop the joke.

  6. Cimpy permalink

    Don Witcher, you are really amusing, quite like AlainCo
    😀
    At least, remeber Maryyugo is a man, and help those who are here to find that *confession* from me at first click.

    Ciao, paisa’.

  7. Don Witcher permalink

    Mats Lewan
    I wanted to make this post to express my thanks to you for writing this book. Its a well written, well researched and very objective view of a controversial subject and man(Rossi) who is making history, I like the fact that you have been a participant with first hand knowledge of some key events. Its also just a plain good read with a lot of well expressed human interest. I started following the Rossi saga early in 2011, first as a skeptic and then as a knowedgeable observer. This book has filled in many blanks in the Rossi saga that I had often wondered about. So I thank you again and since the Rossi saga is still unfinished at this time I sincerely hope that you will continue your participation and that you will write a sequel when the time is right.
    Don Witcher

    P.S. In case this is posted on the site I think I need to add the following to pre-empt Cimpy and Maryugo and others to whom it might apply. Don’t bother to try to enlighten me. I know that Cimpy is a self proclaimed professional Ghost Writer from his own post on Sylvie Coyaud’s Blog site back in August 2013 http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2013/08/22/nasty-cimpy-crononauti/comment-page-1/ it was made on 25 agosto 2013 alle 02:02 and dear Maryugo has been banned from so many websites that she/he can no longer count the number. Its not that there might not occasionally be some valid issues with respect to the past. Its just that what is said is moot because real world events are due to occur soon that will give a better basis for new discussion than the tired old issues of the past which I have no time for.

  8. AlainCo,
    “First you refuse to admit cold fusion is proven by scientific protocols since long.
    As long as you don’t admit those scientific evidence, I would consider you are a pure denier, having no more credibility than an attorney at work trying to save his client from the death row.
    Sometime right like a dead clock”

    Then, AlainCo, mind this dead clock: I signed the right time for DFK, and I am going to sign it again for E Cat.
    Better you repeat the lesson (and in the meantime, refresh this old lesson trying to keep your ears opened when people in video tell you sometyhing is really wrong with Rossi)

    Melting some iron, AlainCo? Is not all that difficult you know? It is since iron time that humans are able to do that, far far before nuclear power age…

  9. @cimpy
    you use many fallacies as usual, with some real points.

    First you refuse to admit cold fusion is proven by scientific protocols since long.
    As long as you don’t admit those scientific evidence, I would consider you are a pure denier, having no more credibility than an attorney at work trying to save his client from the death row.
    Sometime right like a dead clock.

    Second, if you can accuse and suspect Rossi of error , failures or even tricks on past tests that were (like defkalion’s) not clear enough to conclude, you carefully refuse to account for recent Elforsk-funded 3rd party report. This report, is much harder to attack.

    Third you try to generalize as usual, mixing Defkalion and Rossi, as a general conspiracy. And even mixing with free energy scams…

    Since LENR is real (ok you deny it), we are facing simply various companies claiming to have harnessed it for industrial use.
    Like for a photovoltaic panel industrial claiming a breakthrough, it can be real or a scam. there is scam, sometime not even illegal, in renewable energy… in LENR too… in Internet too…

    as i say, that time your dead clock seem to have been right, and agree with Luca Gamberale, who is not a dead clock.
    Since you refuse to admit reality of scientific experiments since 1991, you credibility is null. Everybody informed know you are massively biased, and all your claim are to be checked with as much care as the one of Defkalion, since they were caught red handed by Gamberale, as are you, Huizenga, Taubes, Morrison, Parks, Hansen, Lewis.

    Whatever you say I cannot trust any word without checking. If you say that steam make huge noise and huge cloud, I will have to check from experts. Unlike you when in doubt, I doubt, I don’t conclude. To be clear I let a chance when guiltness is not proven, and I keep cautious until good evidence are shown, even if I can have an opinion, good or bad.

    For example I know that steam if dry is invisible, and that after a condenser steam which was dry may be wet… I still hear skeptics saying that nobody could see steam out of pipes for e-cat tests, which is in fact normal…

    nobody discussed for example about the “condenser” part of Defkalion demo that Luca Gamberale names so… I need more data to judge if it could have cooled/condensed steam, but what I observed is that no skeptic discussed that important part.

    Skeptics, deniers in fact, like true-believers can raise interesting question, but they carefully avoid some other points. This is Cherry picking.

    See for example how they ignore the melted E-cat, where it is impossible to claim that electricity can have fed the melting of the resistor and the ceramic, because the heating resistor was destroyed.

    another error is also to think independently, like when skeptics accuse a thousands of scientists to be fraudsters, not even incompetent (because their pathetic claims are incompatible even with artifacts and errors)… you should admit that you publicly accuse a thousands of scientist to be fraudsters, name them :
    – levi, and the 6 others
    – iwamura, toyota team,
    – F&P,McKubre,Oriani,Miles and Bush, Bockris

    and of course you will have to explain the incompetence of your heroes, their misconducts, their lies, their refusal to read dissenting articles, the book with few and biased citations, the anti-scientific logic.

    Your position on the scientific question cannot be defended.

    there is a huge difference between having been optimistic because of missing data on something that is finally broken, and denying proven reality invoking massive conspiracy as wildcard explanation.

  10. Let us do this, AlainCo: let us focus on the already devices really claimed (almost) ready in 2010 to save the world, namely E-Cat and, later Hot-Cat.

    Let’s say that the one designed as the main concurrent, Hyperion, failed to prove not to be a scam, even if Greek and Peter Gulk are still claiming it worked and a new model is ready for all the believers that could give them from one to forty million of euro.

    Let’s say that there still is not a report like the Gamberale one on the E Cat – and even that is probale we will never see something like that from Proia (by the way, do you know that till today Proia sold nothing at all? It has been at least a couple of years…), as Proia is not Gamberale and his chief is not Cappiello (or at least, it is not said Proia or the chief if any gave 1 million euro to Rossi).

    Let’s say we know only what we could read from Rossi, Levi and what we could see on youtube. Now think a bit at it: don’t you see something strange? Don’t you feel as if Rossi claimed for excess of power but show you no more than an electrical iron for more than a couple of years and then a nude electric stove without any cooling system?
    Don’t you feel a bit defrauded of all his claims about being soon on the market while delaying and inventing new models of same couple of device, each time abandoning the old ones that, till the day before should have saved the world? How long are you going to believe he will save you? And as you’re here, tell me: what Rossi has to do with -say- Moses-Boss or Violante or all the others that claimed about cold fusion but never pretended to be round the corner of a solution for everyone in “fiew time”?

    By the way, it is to make a step at a time, but I have a lot to tell about some other smart guys in this Cold Fusion saga. But as the people involved are not making same game (same bargain and same device with same theory behind or even without theory at all), let us speak of this one – might be you could realize that what might make you believe in Rossi is NOT something Rossi made. but is the fact that one of the others, doing something of completely different and nor related is not subject of same type of critcs based on facts even you should get during Rossi shows.

    Of course, if you do believe the steam you could see (or not see) around the end of this Rossi video, for example, is a tornado that blows at around 120 km/h, there is nothing I could show you to make you see how long you’ve trusted a swindler. Speaking of Rossi and E Cat and Hot Cat, which is the main subject in Mats book. Can you?

  11. @cimpy
    you make good point in warning us about commercial claims and lone inventors.

    However you cannot apply your conspiracy theory to Nobel, experienced electrochemist, chemist, physicist, radiochemist, research engineers, accros the planet, from all kind of research structure.

    As you know, I’ve not very supportive of most claims of LENr commercial reactor, beside Brillouin (and SRI), now E-cat, and no-more defkalion.

    you main fallacy is asymmetric generalization , and black-white logic with opportunistic inversion of exist/all quantifier.

    If you claim F&P are fraudsters (you claim it from all you pretend), then why is there no good article against them , many replications by CHEMIST after LONG WORK, and failure by physicist after short work…
    moreover the critics have been caught in huge error and misconducst while the “believers” have never been caught, but suspected , insulted by the fraudsters…

    if you were honest and following you own anti-scam scheme, you will instantly understand that the scam artis are Huizenga, taubes (see his job today), Morrisson, Parks, Lewis and Hansen, supported by state funded business like APS, DoE, Nature, Science, whose business would collapse if their errors and frauds are revealed.

    they follow the scheme of groupthing scam.

  12. read better about “other more famous devices” not working. It is NOT referred to piezonuclear.

    By the way, look at (scam) professionists:
    the key is to deny and demistify evidences and keeping on saying others are working against you. And of course, to say thise others are denying and mistifying…. Guess what? Now Gamberale and Cappiello (and soon Mats, if he does not keep on saying there was no fraud) are the ones who have secret intetests in sinking the marvellous magic device….you, AlainCo are a dummy among those professionists…

  13. why you mix LENR in hydrides, with piezonucleare ?
    just trying to fool the illiterate ?

    You can also try to use homeopathy to criticize LENR ?

  14. LOL, AlainCo… conspirate on this, I am quite sure Mats will translate it for you.
    😀

  15. @cimpy

    interesting, you admit your logic of conspiracy.

    Ok, I trusted too much a report by nelson (the ICCF18 demo was a show we agree). I was interpreting they crazy claims, lack of delivery, absence of test, as governance problems (I am aware of such since long). It was hard to imagine so much stupidity, that costed million to Xanthoulis and my the way to Gamberale.

    I was unlike you optimistic but not sure… too optimistic indeed. there was soft evidence on both side and I did not conclude despite a bad balance… Note that answering to your “I AM SURE” I simply answered with “need more data” … You simply accuse me not to have concluded from without any evidence against… just doubts… This is you way of mind, when it is in your bias, any lack of data is an evidence.

    Now what you say is that you refuse to trust a thousands experimenter, who replicated each others, and you trust the lies, the proven lies and errors, repeated errors, repeated lies of 6 people, whose books and article are showing their incompetence and lack of rationality, parroted by people who did not read anything else the conclusion.

    If I made an error to trust one test, you are thousands time more to distrust a thousands experimental papers.

    As I said before you were right, because you always say it is a fraud, and that time you win.
    You were wrong on many other point, like on the electric measurement who were right as Luca admit. You were probably wrong about electrochemical compression like all Italian skeptics.
    In fact you are already massively wrong on all provable facts except on the water flow trick of Defkalion.

    You are also wrong on a thousands of experiment that you deny, but since you are inaccessible to any realism, since facing others claims you simply say that YOU are right and THEY are wrong… supported by 6 liars…
    What can I do… Like Huizenga I may show you a report (start with beaudette book) and you will simply not read it , or refuse to integrate what it says.

    when will you admit you screw up? when it will be industrial and sold? a bit late.

    what will be able to convince you, scientifically.
    i mean not a E-cat reactor melting above the temperature of melting of the resistor, or a report showing huge energy production, I mean a lab experiment?

    LENR was replicated by Nobel, by engineers, by physicist, by chemist, by radiochemist, by electrochemist, by people having student book at their name, it was accepted by ex-skeptics, it was tested in double blind, replicated by civilian, navy, Nuke engineers of western, soviet, non-aligned countries, confirmed by oil companies labs, by academic labs, by private and public organization, by various countries DoE/EPRI labs, by Nasa with 9 years interval, reviewed by a member of a skeptic society…

    WHAT DO YOU REQUIRE SCIENTIFICALLY !

    What is you definition of a credible scientist, excluding “someone that reject LENR without reading or testing” or a member of a given groupthink scientific society… I mean individual characteristic.

    and don’t ask for a tea kettle, a working reactor… it is unscientific.
    I don’t ask for a tea kettle to prove radioactivity. Curie claim of radium was based on ice calorimetry (if you dare to read Beaudette you would know that). Don’t have for a nuclear fission reactor sold.
    And even when you face one working reactor, you refuse to see it. You don’t trust the testers because they confirm LENR, that is all.

    You cannot honestly criticize my optimism in the absence of evidence (now there are clear one), while you deny thousands of evidence… because you don’t trust anybody, else a gang of proven incompetent outspoken fraudsters who are proven wrong since more than 20 years.

    That those denying guys are fooling scientific societies does not prevent some entrepreneur to fool partners the same, but at least please don’t support their myth and start accepting the data.

    I screw up once, but at least I’ve stopped. Unlike you.

    That is the pot calling the kettle black.

    Ps: it is not personal, as you have many clone. The demonstration is not targeted to you, as I know you are inaccessible to update.

  16. You read half of it. I aslo wrote I would trust Mario Massa (for example) judgment . The point is always the same: if you trust the man, you will believe what he reports.
    Difference between me and you is that you trust anyone who says LENR are real. Whatsoever his claims are.
    Secondly, Levi started lying soon so he lost very early his status of trustable. All those who are suspected of fraud or known as error prone are obviously non-trustable (which means: claims are not enough, I want to see the machine or – better – I want a word from a trustable one that tested the machine).

    Your efforts keep Levi among trustable ones is out of hope. You already proved you can keep on believing even against evidences of fraud at least untill everybody else telll you there is nothing to do.
    Months ago, believers from 22 Passi told you defkalion was a fraud (and Caggia, if I do remember correctly, invited you to enjoy Greek dances – Caggia is one of the most irreducibles believers, but he trusts Daniele who told him Defkalion was a fraud). You ignored the fatc at that time, and even in these days you’re hoping R6 could change situation. You simply ignore evidences that say your evidences of cold fusion working devices (like Hyperion, E Cat, Piantelli Cell and Celani tube) are simply a fraud.

  17. @cimpy,
    what is your definition as non-trustable ?
    the usual “someone that accepted LENR as possible” ?

    Levi was trust-able until it accepted E-cat ?
    McKubre, Fleischmann,Miles,Oriani,Bush, Bockris, Tanzella, were all trustable until they admitted the facts?

    and incompetent deniers like Huizenga, parks, taubes, Morrison, hansen, lewis who piled incompetence in calorimetry, with incapacity to read correctly, wrong logic, inability to admit errors, manipulation of uninformed victims.
    The are of the same kind as scam artist.

    you have no excuse, the facts are clear about LENR.
    about business, it is still open except for E-cat, but here what you do is pathetic , trying to use one failure to deny much more solid evidence.

    Comparing Nelson preliminary test, with leaked report, no measurement, in site , and a non independent demo later, with a test run by 7 physicists with freedom to install instruments as they want… please be honest.
    I agree that i overestimated the credibility of nelson report (which is however confirmed, but whose content is weak).

    My only question about how you will react when it will be industrial, is how long it will take for you to switch from total denial to claiming “at last we have evidence”, as if the thousands of papers before were meaningless…
    you have no excuse to ignore current evidence.
    What you wait is simply (I explain it since long) the last desperate moment when even someone below college level is convinced.

    You behave exactly as if I was claiming i am 100% sure DGT have a real things, ignoring luca’s report.

    That is our differences. you only know 0 and 100%.

    by the way, find a credible article, not refuted against F&P calorimetry.

    I’m still waiting. as Beaudette explain, there is none surviving, and only 4 written…
    with the last one killing two others, and one that cannot even be refuted since it is absurd.

    LENR more real than Higgs, as much as HTSC.

    For those who are not aware of the scam artist who manipulated the consensus I quote the fantastic article of jed. As i should be warned reading the report of Luca, skeptics should be warned about their skeptics lords real behaviors:

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

    (I quote it extensively because I know few people are able to read dissenting data without much help).

    “When a scientist writes about cold fusion, he should be held to more exacting standards. He must not dismiss or condemn cold fusion without reading the journal papers, and without presenting a credible, technical reason for doubting those papers. Society relies upon scientists, lawyers, ship captains, and other professionals to make unbiased, informed statements about their areas of expertise. It is unethical for a scientist to endorse or condemn a claim he has not carefully analyzed.

    In rare cases, a few scientists have been guilty of even more unethical behavior. McKubre and other prominent cold fusion scientists have given copies of journal papers to prominent critics, including Douglas Morrison, Robert Park, and John Huizenga. The papers directly contradict assertions made by the critics regarding matters of fact, not opinion, such as the amount of energy produced by cells in continuous bursts, the percent of input versus output, or the amount of chemical energy that a mass 0.5 grams of palladium deuteride will release as it degasses. Morrison often claims the degassing can account for the heat produced during an experiment performed by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann gave him a paper showing conclusively that he is mistaken by a factor of 1,700. Morrison has been told about this mistake countless times, at conferences, in writing, and in a formal reply published in Physics Letters A. Yet he recently contacted a Nobel laureate and repeated the same misinformation. Fortunately, the Nobel scientist contacted me, and I was able to give him the correct numbers.

    Gary Taubes is another prominent critic. He made many misinformed claims in his book, on the radio, and in the mass media. He may not be qualified to read journal papers, because he does not appear to understand basic concepts such as electricity. He claims people sometimes measure electrolysis amperage alone and not voltage, and he thinks that regulated power supplies put out more electricity over the weekend because factories use less power. He thinks some researchers measure tritium once, after the experiment, without establishing a baseline or taking periodic samples. His book is filled with hundreds of similar errors. Perhaps the most mind-boggling one was his statement that a cell might have huge temperature gradients, “say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other.” This is like asserting that you might stir a cup of coffee, drink from the right side and find it tepid, but when you turn the cup around and drink from the left side, it will be steaming hot.

    Taubes wrote his book using the same methods employed by sensation-mongering reporters in 1912: he pieced together second-hand rumors and made wild guesses about a subject he does not understand. He described his methods in the introduction, footnotes, and appendices. The book is based upon interviews and telephone conversations with 257 people, listed in an appendix. He spoke with seventeen people who actually performed experiments. Four of the seventeen are implacable enemies of cold fusion, including the authors of the three famous “negative” experiments. Most of the remaining 240 are critics like Frank Close and William Happer, who deplore cold fusion, and have staked their reputations on its demise. They have attacked it in the mass media, the ERAB report, and in books. Although more than a thousand peer-reviewed papers were published by the time Taubes wrote the book, he did not reference a single one of them in the footnotes. His descriptions of the experiments are wildly at variance with the facts, in major and minor details, so it seems unlikely that he read a paper. Describing an experiment is an exacting task, even when you understand electricity, you read the paper, visit the lab, and ask the experimenter to review your description. When a scientifically illiterate person tries to imagine how an experiment works based on allegations made by people who despise the research, indescribable confusion and distortion result.

    Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it. When Robert Park attacked it with inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric, a room packed with hundreds of members of the American Physical Society (APS) applauded and cheered. ”

    about other scam, you can read the frauds that Mallove reported and that pushed him to resign.
    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf
    and some more details on the ambiance.
    http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1991/eirv18n37-19910927/eirv18n37-19910927_052-clearing_the_air_about_the_cold.pdf

    to see on which incompetence is based your myth
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-Isoperibolic-Calorimetry-ICCF17-ps.pdf
    beside what Beaudette describe about the 4 critics
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35

    to understand how nature and Science support the scam of Caltech, MIT, Harwell, using their credibility :
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

    and
    http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchieste/documenti/letteraSCIENCE001.pdf

    The jury is out for Defkalion, even if we probably share the same prediction on the sentence, and I hope it will be quick.

    On the opposite for E-cat, the second test is a desperate appeal for you, and if the jury is out, there is nearly no doubt the sentence of success will not be reverted. Question is more about performance.

    But for APS, MIT, caltech,Harwell, nature, Science, Huizenga, Parks,Taubes,Hansen,Morrison,Lewis, the sentence is clear and confirmed… you just need to read.

    all is public. the incompetence and misconducts are clear and public.

    I will deny you the right to claim you were not aware.

  18. so what you say is that nothing can convince you, until it is sold.

    classic.
    so if reality is not sold, it does not exist.

    Notice that E-cat is sold to Cherokee… but you deny again.

    Heat is proven by Levi&al.

    do you deny higgs boson ? only paper, no sales ?
    You would have denied Wright brother planes, because only demo, and no sales. An indeed plane was recognized only after sales to France. So you are very common.

  19. AlainCo, I will say it works either when Mario Massa will say it works or when I will get energy from a working cold fusion device.

    Out in the web is full of papers that state this or that device are working fine – like Nasa report for Hyperion.

    If you want me to believe papers, trustable people must have written it. Point is: they have to be also smart people – as you know: Focardi wad trustable but guillible and he had been fooled for years.

    You’re out of luck if you hope a patent? a piece of paper or words from Rossi or believer would make gammas appear in those device and thermalizing due to the sign of a “Levi kind” on a piece of paper.
    You might have more luck preparing me the Giancarlo’s shower so that I can test it on my skin – and in Massa house.

    Guillible? No thanks.

  20. http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

    “Max Planck: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grow up that is familiar with it.
    But Kuhn argues that Planck’s famous remark overstates the case.
    * Neither proof nor error is at issue.
    * The transfer of allegiance from paradigm to paradigm is a conversion experience that cannot be forced.
    * Proponents of a paradigm devote their lives and careers to the paradigm.
    * Lifelong resistance is not a violation of scientific standards but an index to the nature of scientific research itself.
    * The source of the resistance is the assurance that
    – the older paradigm will ultimately solve all its problems.
    – nature can be shoved into the box the paradigm provides.
    * Actually, that same assurance is what makes normal science possible.
    * Some scientists, particularly the older and more experienced ones, may resist indefinitely, but most can be reached in one way or another.”

    I notice two statement, that let hope but not for all around here :
    ” Neither proof nor error is at issue.”
    “Some scientists, particularly the older and more experienced ones, may resist indefinitely,”

    about older I disagree since today the most conservative are middleaged insiders, while younge are submissives, and older can at last afford to be rebel.

  21. @cimpy & clone
    if the 3rd party report on E-cat get out and prove E-cat is real, thus cold fusion is real,

    Will you admit you were wrong, like I do on Defkalion?

    that is the difference between us.

    (In fact you already answered since you already deny evidences.)

  22. web passengers should make sure they step also here : the fall of the Greek E Cat called Hyperion is a must read.

    Also be sure you download Gamberale document and read how easy (now that you can see it) was the trick that fooled professors and physics and technicians (and every believer) for around three years.

    Be sure you read about dr Kim (the Focardi counterpart in this story) who never really tested the machine, and of the story of the Nasa reports that stated Hyperion did work – which nowaday are said to have been modified by Greek people (that is : the reports are now a fraud).

    And now ask yourself where the difference with the E Cat story, where the real evidences that E Cat does work as claimed, and how can you be really sure this is a different kind of story.
    Might it be so as becuase Rossi is more reliable than Xanthoulis? Or is it because you do not have a report like Gamberale’s one to download?

    Best regards

    Do not feed scams’ boosters. Slap them

  23. Thanks M Yugo for the YouTube link. Nice interview. Mats is ever the inquisitive scientist.

  24. maryyugo permalink

    Has anyone heard Mats’ newest interview? I listened to parts of it. It seemed he was taking Rossi’s word about a lot of things, including Petroldragon. That’s sad and I think he will regret it. He was more skeptical of Defkalion but in my opinion, it was too vague.

  25. “It is laughable to judge a university on one man”
    true, but there was more than one man behind (at least three)- and the silence of all the others has been interpreted as being in agreement of the whole university. I am not the only one who is waiting for clear words from people who can represent Bologna Department of Physic – and by the way, as Levi is NOT one of them, I am waiting for nothing at all from him, as usually I do not expect great piece of science from “thirdy partners” of scammers.

  26. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Cimpy if you have good questions and don’t get good answers you are in your full right to be dissapointed and angry. Science has it’s roots in philosophy with high morale like the Hippocratic oath. It’s about being professional, meaning that you basically make sure that you keep from being political and personal in your speak and stick to constructive chrique, Pomp and E is a classic example of professionalism and to be honest I find it very suspect because of their low level of argumentation. An official discussion stick to facts, period. You just don’t slam the paper in the face of the opponent when they have good intentions. You argue that you need answers from Levi, and being ignored. That’s not right either, you don’t need to call him an obvious scammer or such. Your story is enough for people to actually be very critical of work that comes to results stemming from his involvement. Now you say that it put’s a shame onto your university, well I find those teaser pretty ignorant, and more sounds like a bunch if stupid teens on facebook or whatever. It is laughable to judge a university on one man.

  27. “pretty angry with academics for this and simply think they are a bunch of cowards”
    I am more disappointed by those academics who keep scams going on, even not speaking when their collegues actively work for a scammer.

  28. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Cimpy

    Today I’m very critical what to what most academics say, it is not anymore the borg of free thoughts, it’s very controlled and directed to serve the industry. It is guarded by some reason,
    maybe terrorist threats, maybe booogy bomby, maybe to get your own industry an edge and don’t spread useful thoughts to the world. These are good reasons that I would expect any nations academic guardians to swear to until proven wrong. I have actually very good reason to be critical to the sanity of theoretical physics and their ability to describe the world such as cold fusion and high temperature superconductors. Randy Mills of Black Light Power has a theory that produces very accurate formulas (It beats QM by a mile) for thousands of measured quantities in atom physics.It’s been out for +20 years and still no one have showed how he can fool his formulas. All critics is to the weird regions of his thoughts like hydrinos so Randi states A,B, people critizise A and mean that A => B, but actually B =?> A e.g. the theory itself does not necessary show that hydrinos exists just as QED does not show that they exists, just that they are strange mathematical solutions. And you know what, Mills theory is simple, there is no strange math, just calculus and EM. It have good prospects to be a theory of everything if physics could stop their weird fixation of QM and start developing the theory further with an open mind. I have gone through internet, I have asked questions to academics and they answer basically it is crap because I tell you so, really!!! I’m pretty angry with academics for this and simply think they are a bunch of cowards with brain that just sit and consume hard working taxpayers money playing with their lovely theory.

  29. ” The real problem is that the numbers have been provided by the professors of the Physics Department of Bologna. This is what Rossi said in front of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw&t=6m34s

    Exactly. If Rossi alone had said those numbers, the story would have ended one year later. But university professors claimed they were true, and the whole story is still alive as the first thought of everybody is “University is saying it, thus it must be true”. What a pitfall to trust Levi, what a fall into the abyss for University to play the game of the ostrich in these days…

  30. Ascoli65 permalink

    @maryyugo,
    ”I doubt Rossi used canned data. He didn’t need to. He used what Moletrappers call “mismeasurement”. Deliberate errors. … So no need for canned data in any of those.”
    This is exactly what I meant in my previous comment. Gary Wright was wrong to make this particular assumption. No need to imagine any canned data in order to figure out where the excess heat comes from. Someone invented some data and Levi wrote them in his report.

    ”In the first few experiments, the steam was not dry but Rossi pretended it was.”
    The problem is not Rossi. The real problem is that the numbers have been provided by the professors of the Physics Department of Bologna. This is what Rossi said in front of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjdXpSUDRlw&t=6m34s

    After more than three years, we are still waiting for the professors of Bologna will give us an explanation of what happened that afternoon in January.

  31. maryyugo permalink

    And another scam is ending. EEstor and Zenn Motors, a joint venture and supposed discoverer of extremely efficient and cheap “super capacitor” to be used to power electric cars, is going down in flames. Like Rossi, their leader, Weir, gave sleight of hand razzle dazzle talks and made claims which fooled self-styled experts. Their latest news release is one way that Rossi’s swan song may also be sung:

    “Mr. Kofman commented, “The results to date at EEStor have obviously been very disappointing for everyone. It is clear from our work that EEStor remains a long way from a commercial product. The team has worked hard since acquiring control of EEStor on January 27, 2014, to understand the technology and its prospects. The work of the Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”), which has been a huge benefit to ZENN, has confirmed the challenges the Company had identified. While there is reason to be optimistic that there may be applications for the EEStor technology in existing capacitor markets, the real goal of achieving meaningful energy storage is unclear. “

    In plain English, nothing worked as Weir said it did, we can’t make products, and all the claims were bullsh*t. Eventually, I expect a similar news release from Industrial Heat and/or Rossi’s renown and consistently misspelled “third indipendent party”.

    http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/zenn-motor-company-announces-resignation-of-chairman-and-other-director-tsx-venture-znn-1906145.htm

  32. maryyugo permalink

    @Ascoli65

    I doubt Rossi used canned data. He didn’t need to. He used what Moletrappers call “mismeasurement”. Deliberate errors. In the first few experiments, the steam was not dry but Rossi pretended it was. In October 2011, the heat exchanger thermocouple was misplaced in too hot a region (the same thing Levi did in his February 2011 liquid cooled run). In the “megawatt plant” experiments, nothing needed to be faked — the data presented on a piece of dirty paper signed “the customer” were entirely fake. The large container full of ecats was electrically heated from a diesel generator but no real measurements were done which is why the audience was kept away from the experiment the entire time it ran! The probably scam with the hot cat was the input power. So no need for canned data in any of those. But sure, it’s remotely possible.

  33. Ascoli65 permalink

    Three days ago, Gary Wright published a long post (1), addressing some of the incongruities present in the first 2 Levi Tests described in his report of 2011. Many of his considerations are correct, but at least a couple are questionable.

    First, GW underestimates the role played by UniBo in the affair and the great contribution she has given to the initial credibility of the claims about the performance of the device. He writes:

    ”Levi’s job was to create a convincing demo for the news media, the physics department at UNIBO, the public, the patent office, and future investors. Levi failed miserably on all counts, because the demo was NOT convincing by any means, starting with the people at the demo itself. The last part of the January 14, 2014 demo was a discussion criticizing the methods, analysis and results of the demo that had just taken place. If any reader wants to know how successful this demo was at convincing those who really counted – the personnel from the physics department at UNIBO – all they have to do is contact them and ask. Twice UNIBO had to issue official statements contradicting and distancing themselves from Rossi and his false claims.”

    Contrary to this, all UniBo physicists present at the demo endorsed in various ways the reality of the performances they have witnessed. For what the videos show, none of them criticized the calorimetric method and the energy balance. On the contrary, many have explicitly stated, in the subsequent days, that they had witnessed the production of a large excess of heat.

    A few months after the demo the Department of Physics has officially signed a contract with Rossi for a two-year research on his device. This contract was canceled only in January 2012, one year after the demo!

    Many professors in the Department of Physics, not just Levi and Focardi, have attended all the 2011 tests. Neither of them has ever expressed doubts about the production of excess heat that has been touted in all these tests. Even the UniBo has never denied these false claims.

    A second inaccuracy in GW post is as follows:

    ”In our opinion Rossi faked all of the tests and demos in 2011, except for the demos using a heat exchanger, by using one or a combination of – pre-canned computer data feeding the computer display, by altering the energy into the heaters and/or lowering the flow rate.”

    Leaving aside the fact that ALL the demos in 2011 show some flaws that make not credible the excess heat claims, we can also exclude the possibility that in the demo in January 2011, and probably in any other tests, have been used pre-canned data.

    GW writes:

    ”Think we are joking about the possibility of Rossi just playing back a canned demo, and telling everyone it was being recorded in real time? All you have to do is watch part two of the three videos of the January 14, 2011 demo. In this video, the live demo is over, Rossi has taken his computer into the same room as the guests, hooked it up to a projector sending the picture onto the wall.”

    No, it is wrong. The computer has always remained in its place on the test table. A corner of its screen is still visible behind the device in the last photo of the evening (2) when the staff of UniBo was dismantling their equipment at the end of the test. The temperature projected on the wall are the real ones measured during that evening. The excess heat comes from much simpler magics.

    (1) http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-scientific-engineering-reporting-by-giuseppe-levi-unibo-trustworthy/
    (2) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTEPlG3qhnI/AAAAAAAAEz4/8m5rYcUyBZo/s1600/140111rossifocardi1814.jpg

  34. “can anyone propose an idea on how the Power IN control works?”

    Like USS Eneterprise motors? You’re looking at a farce and are trying to take it serioyusly. Point is NOT how it could ever work, point is how can you trust Levi– Did you realize he invented data?

  35. Mats Hilmersson permalink

    Regarding last years Levi et al. report and the Ericsson Pomp comments: In plot 8, when focusing on the start of the red “Power IN” signal, it looks like the blue “Power OUT” signal already has started to turn upwards. How is that possible? The authors say on page 26 that the two signals are synchronized so Ericsson Pomp is wrong in stating that is unclear. However, I’ve not found this peculiarity discussed before. Let’s say the Power IN signal never had come, would the Power OUT signal increased anyway? Then, can anyone propose an idea on how the Power IN control works?

  36. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Millstone
    You make it too simple. In essentially all research you have a believer that mixes an optimistic view with a critical one. It is silly to assume otherwise – yes it is a stretch of your argument but important to point out. Of cause dreaming up physics attached to the black spots of or knowledge is really a non fruitful way to go generally. But Rossi learned about cold fusion and put a mental picture of what he believed how it worked and pondered that picture with different variations and ideas in the tinkering process – that is a common theme of the development of physics and has succeeded time and time a again. Note that Cold fusion research do have good indications to be functioning, good enough to not rule out that everything is based on whishful thinking, you don’t need to believe everything but many of the researchers there are true scientists, very skilled in the art

  37. maryyugo permalink

    Gary Wright’s latest summary of what I have come to call Rossifiction.

    http://freeenergyscams.com/florida-bureau-of-radiation-control/

  38. John Milstone permalink

    @Stefan Israelsson Tampe :

    Physics isn’t wishful thinking. Of course, Rossi has abandoned his “theory” of how the E-Cat works. Originally, he and Focardi claimed a specific process (Ni -> Cu + 2-511KeV gammas) for which the math works, but a century of experiments and very solid theory says can only happen at a temperature in the billions of degrees. Of course, since then Rossi has abandoned that explanation (he decided that having gamma rays hurt business), and replaced it with… nothing. Rossi might as well claim that the gods breath on an E-Cat to make it work.

    And, if Rossi said that Levi changed cables, we should assume it’s a lie. After all, lying is the only thing Rossi has proven to be able to do after these 3+ years.

    And, every earlier test was going to be the “conclusive” one. Yet none of them are. This is EXACTLY the behavior of every “free energy” fraud in history. When people want to believe in something badly enough, they will ignore or excuse ANYTHING that stands in the way of their belief.

  39. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Millstone

    We don’t know if it violate accepted physics. Sure unlikely yes
    but violate no. Accepted physics is physics from first principles, all possible deduction from those for solid state physics is still accepted physics. But this space is of such complexity and, I claim and would be challenged here, not well known by us. The formation of neutron radiation in plasma is well known and well established I don’t challenge that. But obviously how it can work when you interact in solid state, again accepted physics from first principles seams to be for us unknown territory. If I could believe in a huge base of simulated cases of solid state setups with QED or well established equations derived from that I would accept your statement. No one have told me that this is the case, much more the vice versa. But it is indeed unlikely and we should be careful and don’t redo the previous misstakes so let’s rip the next report into pieces to see how well it stands.

    The report doesn’t mention everything. Rossi has said that Levi et all changed cables, and Levi has mentioned something similar in a statement, it is however unclear how well it was implemented
    and the interpretation of the statements may differ depending how you want to interpret it, as usual languish is not lawspeak and one can draw many different conclusions from the same text. But I take the interpretation of a sane researcher that switches the correct one for enough evidence to continue with further tests. For proof of such an effect you need to be a little rude and politely ask Levi to sit beside for the sake of science and humanity, not because we don’t trust him at first approximation, but the science is so unlikely that at second approximation he need to step aside. If that is done I would expect that the next test to be pretty conclusive.

  40. Keely is my favorite one. Even after his death, when his house was digged and it came out that ” in the basement there was a three-ton sphere of compressed air that ran the machines through hidden high pressure tubes and switches. The walls, ceilings and even solid beams were found to have concealed tubes”, there has been people swearing it was all real. What makes them so sure? They do want to believe, and they trust(ed) Keely, one who clearly deserved no credit at all.

    Point is all there: do you trust Levi? Do you trust Rossi? Because there is no magic device at all, there is only a vapor (and a weak one) or heat from electricity and a resistence. And then what Rossi & friends said, clearly inventing or multiplying data. There is nothing else, that is your matter. A matter of trust.

    Soon on the market in 2010. For sure, and if AlainCo were right, it should have been decades ago.

    Simply a matter of trust – also Industrial Heat claimed to have been convinced by Levi’s Thirdy Party Report (and even calling it a “third part” stuff is ridiculous), trust in people like Levi, which is no more, in this story, than the man who play the role of the saved by the magical medicine of the (snake)Oil seller in charge…Oh, yes, trust him, if you think you really deserve his medicine.

  41. Ascoli65 permalink

    At last, Israelsson got the central issue: “But if we can trust him …”

    The answer is easy: No, we can’t.

  42. John Milstone permalink

    @Stefan: Of course the E-Cat violates accepted physics. It’s only the “True Believers” who don’t see that. It’s possible that the accepted physics is wrong (as happened about 150 years ago with the discovery of sub-atomic physics), but we’re a LONG way from that point here. It is you who must, using only standard physics (pick your favorite physics text book), to describe how the E-Cat works, WITHOUT resorting to nonsense such as “tricking condensed matter into existense”.

    Was Levi supposed to “switch the cables”? I don’t see anything in the report about it. All the report says is “All cables were checked before measurements began. The ground cable, the presence of which was necessary for safety reasons, was disconnected.” Note that this was added along with the incorrect statements about the meters not showing a DC bias, which demonstrates that the authors didn’t understand how their test equipment worked.

    As for Rossi being “sieved out”, that will happen eventually, but I’ve collected a long list of similar fraudsters who managed to go years, or even decades without being “caught”. Look up the histories of: John Worrell Keely, Carl Tilley or Madison Priest (of Florida). Tilley was a favorite of Sterling Allan before his scam fell apart. Priest managed to scam over $10 million from such investors as Intel and General Dynamics and lasted the better part of a decade with nothing more than a hidden cable running between his two “laboratories”. Keely’s story is a mirror image of Rossi’s, and he kept his scam going for over 20 years (until his death).

  43. “claiming that today’s physics excluded the possibility of cold fusion is naive”
    Claiming it might have happened in Rossi’s or Defkalionì’s shoeboxes is worse than naive, is gullibility. Or pure faith.

  44. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Millstone
    No one claims that It is violating physics. The energy is there and it want’s to come out, the question is if condensed matter can trick it into existence or not. I challenge you to argue more
    specifically that we really do know so much about this physics that your claim becomes practically true, no one takes this step, so I assume that I am right claiming instead that we do not know the physics enough to state your statement.

  45. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Maryyougo @Millstone
    Well Levi is supposed to switch the cables for his own, we just don’t know how well he did it. So that means that a if we cannot trust him then the setup is flawed. But if we can trust him, then I would not suspect that cheese power is it. They did change the cables, how did Rossi master that getting them to just skip only the right ones and fool the swedish party. So considering this the test is an indication that there is something interesting and it is the right descition to continue with further tests. And yes Rossi may very well be a fraudster, but don’t worry, his kind will be sieved out through normal Darwinian selection or well, similarly through the justice system of USA. It is really not a master plan for someone that wants to foul himself some buckies.

  46. John Milstone permalink

    @Stefan,
    How do expect a scammer to act that sets him apart as a scammer? By definition, a scammer who looks or acts like a scammer will not be successful.

    I’m still waiting for anyone to explain how the report would be different if Rossi used the gimmicked wire trick as opposed to having a revolutionary new device that violates the known laws of physics.

  47. maryyugo permalink

    “And then of cause the new report will show that the it does not work, and the show ends for him, leaving it obvious that he scammed Industrial Heat…”

    It is my suspicion that this is what is most likely to happen but you never know! Rossi is successful and Vaughn and Darden are obviously gullible.

    “the physical setup of the test is good enough with a wide margin.”

    It is most certainly not adequate. One possible and likely place Rossi cheated was with the mains input wiring. This famous “cheese” video shows how effective and invisible this particular method is. And Milstone’s argument is that such a deception would account precisely for the “COP” that Levi et al found.

    Here is the famous cheese video by TinselKoala– it’s only 6 minutes long. It demonstrates how a simple block of moldy cheese with two wires attached to it and no other source of power, can cause a lamp of some size to light up and remain lit indefinitely. I didn’t see a safety heater but cheese doesn’t explode or cause radiation. Cheese is very safe and at the end of the experiment, you can always eat it.

    Now pay attention folks:

  48. @milstone
    I dont say that the power mettre was powered by the lin, but they plugged the camera and another instrument I forgot

    @cimpy
    it is funny to see you say that there is nothing that will convince me, as it is what happen to you, like to taubes, Parks, Huizenga, Morrison, Lewis, hanse, and they really have been caught red handed, and denies like a drug dealer all charges, despite huge evidence of their incompetence, their fallacies, they dishonesty, they stubbornness.

    all you say is pure conspiracy they, and you try simply to fool the readers by inventing problems based on missing data.

    about the errors, it seems some people mix the errors with cassandra Oil when Rossi never admitted his problems, with the Elforsk test.

    by the way Cassandra oil works in the same business as Petroldragon…
    strange to see someone trust Rossi if as you pretend it is a known scammer…
    Only his boss, DoD, people working in synthetic oil seems not aware of that evidence.

    your argument that levis was the only present at all test is not good.
    only one independent (you say levi is not independent, which is absurd given his career…. E-cat is just ruining his career, and like most physicist his interest it to take you conspiracy position) could have detected the fraud , and each did various personal inspections as some report…

    each time evidence arrive you add a dozen more of fraudsters in the story, that is a tactic of conspiracy theorist.

    tell me from F&P to Rossi, what is the side of the required conspiracy…

    you deny E-cat simply because otherwise F&P are right.
    that is the elephant in the kitchen.

    @mary
    that episode is the one with cassandra oil if i remind well,

    you should read the book.

  49. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Maryyougo,
    What did you expect, clearly he was taken by surprise by this, and pretty hi on stress hormones, He does not seem like the cold headed scammer, more like a tinkerer that did a serious misstake. If this was a planed scam he should definitely responded differently with some saner arguments. Or just quit the show, why does he continue with the show. He manages to sell the technology to Industrial Heat, does he quit and leave the show with some million dollars in the pocket. No he continue, is Industrial heat playing along in the scam, not likely, so he must have fooled them, for the joy of playing with some more toy’s in the shop. And then of cause the new report will show that the it does not work, and the show ends for him, leaving it obvious that he scammed Industrial Heat, well in USA!!!. The first test by Levi et all, was so thoroughly done that it basically rule out anything else then a pretty decent scam, Millstone is a good player and speaks about important things, but the physical setup of the test is good enough with a wide margin. Milstone’s critic in this part is of such a low quality that it’s a joke. He should address the possible error in their error bounds, not just state “it is not suitable”. I have seen experts in heat cameras, that is pretty skeptic about the test (due to the possible scam attack vectors) that states that their setup was well done. Also not trusting Levi means that you can enumerate to the hell freezes of possible evil scams that may have taken place.

  50. maryyugo permalink

    I hope Mats reads his own blog and in particular, the comments by John Milstone.

    Here is the original rant by Rossi about the Hydrofusion technician’s measurements. Note that in this incoherent babble, Rossi confuses power for energy. KwH/H is not a conventional set of units anyway but if it were, “kilowatt hours per hour” is simply kilowatts which is power, not energy. You’d think that the inventor of the world’s first high power cold fusion reactor would know that!

    “Andrea Rossi
    September 10th, 2012 at 3:14 PM

    DEAR READERS:
    TODAY A BIG MESS IS POPPED OUT FROM A SHORT MEASUREMENT THAT HAS BEEN DONE THE LAST WEEK. I REALLY HAVE DIFFICULTY TO UNDERSTAND WHY SOME PERSONS HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED WHAT I CLEARLY SAID IN MY PRELIMINAR STATEMENT IN THE REPORT PRESENTED IN ZURICH: I SAID THAT ALL THE DATA ARE NOT FINAL, THE VALIDATION, THE R&D, THE CERTIFICATION OF THE HIGH TEMPERATURE REACTOR ARE IN COURSE AND THE FINAL REPORT WILL BE RELEASED WITHIN MONTHS. NOW, A GUY COMES HERE (INVITED FROM US) MAKES SOME HOUR OF MEASUREMENT, GOES AWAY AND A WEEK AFTER MAKES A PRESS CONFERENCE LIKE HE HAS MADE A PROCESS OF VALIDATION THAT TAKES MONTHES: DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE? I AM VERY CONFUSED. ANYWAY:
    THE EXTERNAL SURFACE OF OUR REACTOR IS 933 CM^2
    THE TEMPERATURE WE REACH WHEN IT IS STABLE IS 1050 CELSIUS ON THE EXTERNAL SURFACE. THE GUY IS ESCAPED FROM US BEFORE THE REACTOR REACHED THE DUE TEMPERATURE SAYING HE HAD SEEN ENOUGH ( ENOUGH OF WHAT?).
    THE MAX POWER OF THE RESISTANCE IS 8 kW
    WITH THESE NUMBERS ONLY, THE ENERGY PRODUCED IS ABOUT 17 kWH/H, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ENERGY FROM THE INTERNAL CYLINDER (WHATEVER IT IS), THE CONVECTION ENERGY ( WHICH IS A LOT).
    NOW: IN THE NEXT 2 MONTHS WE HAVE TO ARRIVE TO A PRECISE DETERMINATION OF THE MAXIMUM COP, BUT JUST FROM THESE VERY BASIC ANC CONSTANT NUMBERS ( INDIPENDENT FROM THE MEASUREMENTS OF AMPS AND OHMS) WE HAVE A COP AROUND 2.
    THE ITER PROGRAM, TO MAKE ENERGY WITH NUCLEAR HOT FUSION, IS COSTED 100 BILLION OF EUROS AND GOT NOT EVEN 1.01 OF COP.
    SO, WHAT ?
    IN THE FINAL REPORT YOU WILL SEE A LIST OF MANY PROFESSORS AND ENGINEERS WHO ARE MAKING ALL THE NECESSARY MEASUREMENTS FOR MONTHS.
    LET ME WORK, AND LET THE TEAM OF PROFESSORS AND ENGINEERS WHO ARE MAKING THE VALIDATION ANDE CERTIFICATION WORK. THIS TIME, ANYWAY, WE GOT FRIENDLY FIRE, IT APPEARS.
    ANDREA ROSSI”

  51. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Alain
    There is nothing that can change @Cimpy’s mind of the fact that the Rossi have the goods.
    Jokes aside, we have two sides here, hailing fraudsters or burying something that may save the world from disaster. Either is a crime. Sure we do not have a theory of how it should work, but claiming that today’s physics excluded the possibility of cold fusion is naive. The simple fact is that solid state physics is not plasma physics, and we don’t master the solid state physics to know either pro or con.

  52. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @John Millstone, I mainly acked! your point 2, but added the possible interpretation that Rossi
    tuned with measurement errors, yes that include the 3 times error in measurements of the power, which in the initial phase is what you should have. That was what the Swedish institute measured
    and Rossi tried to cover it up, but me, Alain, Mats and most everybody else thinks that the Swedish institute was right in their measurements. That was enough for the party to depart and close the tests, joking about an obvious fraud and leave, without testing it when it was up and running with an extra 2x of power. After this incident, Rossi changed the setup and the measurement can now detect this kind of fraud or mistake whatever you may stand on this issue. I think that the most probable explanation is Rossi doing this miss take, how the heck can he do such a stupid fraud (thus meaning He knows his measurement theory) and allow for such a test that would certainly fail so miserably. That is crazy. But still this incident means that we need to be careful in the judgement.

    Also of cause you need to rewire correctly and document that you are doing it, I would not accept a result in the new study, if the new study don’t claim to have replaced the wiring correctly. The new study is claimed to be done in an independent location which means that your points should have been addressed.

  53. There is nothing you can say that might make AlainCo accept the fact it is a scam: he does believe, he trusts Rossi and Levi and everithing is fine to him.
    On the other side, to all people not mesmerized by this story, there is plenty of evidences that Rossi and Levi are untrustable.
    Ascoli65 has a good point in remarking it makes few sense to analyze reports or claims from Levi, who proved to have lyied more than once – why he should be taken seriously?
    At end, his way of doing made Bologna University gain the nick of “Baloon Universty”, but I am sure to AlainCo this means nothing at all.

  54. John Milstone permalink

    @Stefan Israelsson Tampe
    1) The report describes the wiring as it existed, and what they did with the wiring. All of their comments regarding “removing and reinstalling” the wiring appear to only apply to the wiring connecting the controller and the E-Cat, NOT the wiring from the wall outlet to the controller. This was a clever bit of misdirection by Rossi (and quite possibly Levi), since there was no need to “gimmick” the wiring between controller and the E-Cat. Rossi used the fiction of “trade secret waveforms” to prevent them from measuring the excess power being sent to the E-Cat. Meanwhile, the power cord appeared to be normal, and was plugged into a normal outlet (which really was normal). They would have examined the power cord, the power outlet, perhaps measured the power coming out of the outlet (which was normal) and decided that nothing was amiss. Sadly, they were operating from the false assumption that Rossi was honest, and all they had to look for was honest error (which, as the Believers point out, would be all but impossible).

    We don’t know how the Swedish Research Institute testers measured the power going in, but I strongly suspect they did exactly what you suggest: bring their own extension cord and measure the power going through that. Whatever they did, they DID find 2-3 times more power going in to the controller than Rossi claimed, meaning that the E-Cat was not generating ANY excess heat.

    2) There is no evidence to support anything in your point 2. It is entirely based on Rossi attempting to discredit the Swedish Technical Institute report. Do you remember Rossi’s panicked comment on his blog (all UPPERCASE) where he claimed that the STI testers were too incompetent to measure AC power? You can’t use Rossi’s comments to determine that Rossi is telling the truth, but you CAN use his statements to determine that he is lying, as has been done numerous times.

    @Alain
    “Loose and stubborn” could just as easily describe a con man who’s been caught red-handed. Do you honestly believe that Rossi would have just given up and admitted to faking the E-Cat, especially after he had collected probably well over $1 million from his investors?

    The “freedom” of the testers was constrained by Levi and Rossi. Essen made it clear afterwards that it was only Rossi and Levi who determined what could and could not be done and chose the test equipment and setup. Essen was just there to watch. I haven’t seen any evidence that the other “testers” did any more than Essen. At most, such a fraud would require just those two. I agree that it would be reckless for Rossi to pull this stunt on a credible and independent team (which is, of course, what HydroFusion forced him to do with disastrous results for Rossi), but if the “chief” tester was in on the trick, then it would have been easy to put on a show, using the other testers as props.

    FYI, the test meter in question (PCE-830) runs on batteries, so there would be no risk of having it destroyed by a DC bias. Of course, the “DC bias” argument is a straw man. The actual fraud was far simpler: Just power up the 3rd “hot” wire and run the neutral return line in the same sheath. No “DC bias”, no “high-frequency” anything, just take advantage of that 3rd wire that was supposedly dead. Any competent tester would have either cut the wire (why not, since it wasn’t doing anything?) or went out and bought a short extension cord, and tested the power going through a power cord that WASN’T put there by Rossi.

    Most significantly, if this “gimmicked wire” trick was being used, in what way would the report be different? I can’t think of a single line from that report that would change if Rossi was faking the results in this manner. Certainly the supposedly “excess” power would exactly match what they reported. If the test report would be identical for “real” results as it is for fake results, it’s worthless.

    And that’s why the True Believers have to pin their hopes on yet another test.

  55. Ascoli65 permalink

    @ maryyugo, John Milstone,
    excuse me if I would, but I think it is really absurd to criticize the results of the Third Party Report on the basis of alleged irregularities in the measurement of electrical power consumption. Criticizing what is written in TPR means to give it much more credibility than it deserved.

    The TPR does not deserve to be neither analyzed nor criticized, it should be simply ignored. And this for a very simple and obvious reason: The first author of TPR, the only one who witnessed all the tests that are described in it, has no credibility in this subject. He has already lost it in early 2011, after the first tests that he reported.

    Everybody can easily realize by himself that Levi used invented data in order to calculate non-existent and huge gains of power and energy in the public demo of January 2011, by overestimating the heat output of about 18 times and the energy produced of about further 2 times. This spell has been boldly performed in front of dozens of witnesses. Fortunately on that occasion, several images were issued on the web showing the many “Levi Test Incongruities” that were the true and only source of the excess heat.

    On the contrary, the TPR issued in 2013 describes the results of private tests with almost no image released in addition to those included in the report. There is no reason to be surprised for the apparent heat gain claimed in TPR. Who knows what new magics were put together this time. It may be that it’s no longer possible to infer, from the available information, what data have been invented this time to demonstrate the presence of an excess heat that, in accordance with the generally accepted physics and the common sense, can not exist. Since the first Levi Tests, physics has remained the same, but the magic skillness of the tester can have been improved a lot.

    In conclusion, for his last and next reports are taken seriously, it is first necessary that Levi does clarify all the manifest incongruities in his first tests. Otherwise, his words are no more credible than those of a magician.

    Credibility is a prerequisite.

  56. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @John Milstone
    1) To fix this, you make sure that you use your own cables. I t is unclear of the swedes did this and it is claimed (by Rossi / Levi) that Levi did this and it is unclear if all cables was switched, so it is indeed a weak point in the argument of Levi et all. But it is still probably good enough to put money on another test.

    2) As I understand the measurement system Rossi used was wrong for the hot cat and he perhaps tuned the system not knowing the error (He always tuned it to 6x in order to be on the safe side). After that debacle he switched the measurement gears and system so that this problem become fixed (This is well explained in the book). Of cause your point 2) is an indication that one need to be careful judging Rossis work.

    Anyway let’s await the report to see if they have ruled out these kind of flaws, they’re certainly on my list on things to be aware of.

  57. @millston
    – for the failed swedish test, Mats describe how Rossi was loose and stubborn, denying evidence, and not at all an efficient fraudsters

    about the 3rd line, since the testers have reinstalled the wattmeter, rewired all after inspection, and more than that could have rewired more, resinspected more, …
    the freedom of the testers is one of the best arguments that there could not be any trick in the electric or thermal part.

    note that the testers removed the earth/ground wire to avoid your kind of conspiracy theory.

    the good point is that because of all the conspiracy theories that were expressed, the testers have a long list of things to show to the public, to explain, to cross check.

    as the test was not abandoned few hours after starting, and the expectation are not 5 sigma like Higgs, but hundred of sigma, you can imagine that results are noticeable, from a breakthrough in science to a breakthrough in energy.

    anyway, as Thomas Kuhn and Benabou explain, evidence have nothing to do in making the reality be accepted. Or it would have been admitted since 1992.

  58. John Milstone permalink

    Alain, I’m the one who originally wrote the synopsis Mary posted below, and I stand by everything I said.

    You are certainly working overtime to try to deflect and obfuscate my points. I’m not going to waste my time debating you, but I would suggest that you (or rather, anyone who is actually interested in what actually happened), consider the two following points:

    1. Assume for a moment that Rossi had gimmicked that third “hot” line so that it wouldn’t show any current flow (as was well demonstrated in the so-called “Cheese Videos”). Assume that the other two lines are supplying the measured amount of power (2 leads * 33% duty cycle) and add in the additional current which would be supplied by the gimmicked 3rd line (1 lead * 100% duty cycle). The result is an apparent COP of 2.5 (2 * 33% + 1 * 100%), EXACTLY what the report claims. Also note that the “Cheese Videos” make it clear that the gimmick can be done entirely inside the electrical plug and wire, with no outward signs of tampering, and that it’s easy to provide bare connection points to test voltage.

    2. When the Swedish Technical Institute testers walked out on Rossi and HydroFusion, they not only said that they found no excess power, but that it was the INPUT that was 2-3 times as much as Rossi claimed. That’s the part that is supposed to be too simple to fake, but independent, impartial experts found it was faked. If they hadn’t found fraud, they would not have just walked out as they did. Since Rossi couldn’t undo that damage, he found himself more gullible (or corrupt) “testers” to accept such ridiculous things as an “extra” hot wire that Rossi claimed was just sitting there doing nothing.

  59. @marys
    don’t exagerrate to fool the innocent readers.

    theres is not dozens of way to fraud just because you control the resort, and the imaginative skeptics over the woprld mostly fouhnd only unrealistic conspiracy theory, and after screening the only remaining is DC offset, that could be detected with a simple voltmeter that any of the testers could have used.
    since they have unplugged and inspected the sockets and plugs, they could have also measured anything they wanted. the freedom that the testers had on the resort is a strong inducation that there was no fraud to detect on the electric and thermal part.

    moreover as I repeat, instruments were plugge on the same socket and they surely would have been destroyed if big DC offset was superimposed to a normal AC voltage.

    you, as usual, state as self-evident and dubious claim, trying to fool the innocent here.

    Second, the usage of a 3phase powermetter to measure monophased load is very common today, and they did it as you can expect for electrician.

    please stop trying to fool the innocent and non electri engineer here.
    You really more and more look like gary Taubes and Morrisson who invented frauds because of their incompetence, or more than their incompetence (it is hard to imagine them so incompetent) but by their desperate bias whic make them ignore the impossibility of their claims.

    your hypothesis about 3rd phase is just a sign of incompetence.

    your point 4, is simply showing you refuse to understand what is a black box test and that when you measure more heat out than powerr in, the story is written.
    one againyou try to fool the reader.

    the point 5 is simply that you refuse centiries of calorimetry, and the notion of error margin.
    200% and 500% anomalies are easily measured, and there is hundred of degrees of difference in temperature.
    moreover they used a blank to calibrate that hypothesis.

    Flow calorimetry would have been ok too, but I am sure that hard skeotics like you, who imagine DC offset,Microwave, triphase tweaking, woudl have imagine flow measurement problems, thermocouple placement, and anything that one cannot check after the test is done, to introduce doubt in the mind of innocents.

    once again you try to fool the innocents.

    6 is desperate argument…
    you are the kind of people who seing jesus walking of the sea would mona that it is because he cannot swim.

    people reading you shoul onserve how desperate, biased and incompetent you are , not personnaly, but when you desire to find an excuse not to swallow the crow.

    the more there is new evidence, the more you make the conspiracy bigger.

    The only weakess of that test is the possibility of a DC offset that was not measured…
    this possibility is low because of 3 arguments :
    – first the instruments plugged on the same socked would have been destroyed by a DC offset.
    – second Rossi, or his proxy, would never have let someone plug an instruments on the same socket, just in case….
    – third any tester could have used a DC voltmeter to check that hypothesis, and if rossi have frauded he would have forbid that possibility.

    so the only possibility is not serious.

    the rest is argument soup and sign of incompetence and bias.

    Beside that people should read Thomas Kuhn.
    This book summary is already fantastic:
    http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

    “Competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs.”
    “Moreover, proponents of competing paradigms practice their trade in different worlds—the two groups see different things (i.e., the facts are differently viewed).”
    “Like a gestalt switch, verification occurs all at once or not at all (150).”

    I just fall on that lines that you can match with Groupthink requirements as described by Benabou
    http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

    -There are no other professional communities in which individual creative work is so exclusively addressed to and evaluated by other members of the profession.
    –Other professions are more concerned with lay approbation than are scientists.
    –Because scientists work only for an audience of colleagues, an audience that shares values and beliefs, a single set of standards can be taken for granted.
    –This insulation of the scientist from society permits the individual scientist to concentrate attention on problems that she has a good reason to believe she will be able to solve.
    -Unlike in other disciplines, the scientist need not select problems because they urgently need solution and without regard for the tools available to solve them [note the important contrast here between natural scientists and social scientists].
    –The social scientists tend to defend their choice of a research problem chiefly in terms of the social importance of achieving a solution.
    –Which group would one then expect to solve problems at a more rapid rate?

    Clearly the observed groupthink is structural, and what Kuhn describe is a Groupthink.

    what is surprising is that non-scientists follow like lemmings.

  60. maryyugo permalink

    Please forgive my taking this liberty with Mats blog by copying this long post. I think it’s worth it and I hope Mats agrees. Below is an excellent summary of pretty much everything wrong with the Levi et al test and report. In my admittedly biased view, it would have been better if Mats had come up with a similar set of issues of his own and had quizzed Rossi about it. It’s still not too late! Rossi never seems to have anyone around who understands heat transfer engineering and physics. I suspect IH did not have a heat transfer expert either when they approved Rossi’s devices for purchase.

    That (lack of heat transfer expertise) has been a constant issue and one that I suspect Rossi makes sure persists. The original post is in this string:

    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2660&cpage=11#comment-66955

    John Milstone Reply:

    May 2, 2014 at 9:52 am

    “There is no sign of incompetence [in the report] “

    If you believe that, then you didn’t pay attention.

    Problems with the test report:

    0. The tests occurred in a facility controlled by Rossi. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of ways Rossi could have cheated. Rossi has claimed on numerous occasions that he has allowed independent testing outside of his control. But every time we’ve been able to check, it turns out that he was lying.

    1. The report claim that because the meter doesn’t show a DC bias, there couldn’t have been a DC bias (the appendix of the 3-rd version of the report). The instruction manual for the meter (later confirmed by the manufacturer) states that the meter only shows AC waveforms. If there were a DC bias, the meter would not show it. This shows that the 7 “world class scientists” were too lazy to read the instructions of their test equipment or too stupid to understand them. (I agree that a DC bias was unlikely to have been involved, although it can’t be ruled out, since it was Rossi’s facilities and Rossi’s “black box” controller.)

    2. The wiring was, at best, unusual, with one of the 3 phases apparently supplying no power (although “hot”). The “cheese video” clearly shows that it is trivially easy to send power through a wire and have it be totally undetected by a clamp-on ammeter. The 7 “world class scientists” simply accepted Rossi’s claim that the wire was not being used, even though they failed to do anything to prove that assertion. They were too lazy or stupid to cut the supposedly unused wire, or bring in their own extension cord and measure the current flow through that, to insure that it really was unused.

    3. If the most obvious fraud were being used (a gimmicked 3rd phase “hot” wire, a la the “cheese video”), and that 3rd phase was providing the same current as the other two phases but with a 100% duty cycle, the results would have been identical to the reported results. When the 7 “world class” scientists accept a test setup that makes the valid setup and the most likely fraud setup produce identical results, the report is a complete waste of time.

    4. The E-Cat is hidden from view, inside of the electrical furnace that is being powered by the dubious wiring described above. It is impossible to determine how much of the power is coming from the tube furnace and how much (if any) is coming from the E-Cat. The 7 “world class” scientists simply accepted this as a condition of the test, when a few properly placed thermocouples would have allowed them to directly determine whether the E-Cat was producing any heat at all. The 7 “world class scientists” were too gullible or too stupid to insist on any sort of direct reading of the actual temperature of the E-Cat.

    5. They used a “4-th power” equation to attempt to derive how much power was being radiated by the tube furnace (not the E-Cat), rather than using simple, direct measurements. This kind of measurement is only properly used when there is no other means of determining the power levels more directly. The 7 “world class scientists” weren’t too lazy this time, since doing the measurements correctly would have been much easier. They were gullible enough to accept a seriously deficient method to do a simple thing.

    6. They had test equipment that could measure the data in real-time and record it to an inexpensive SD memory card, but they chose instead to take photos of the meter (once per minute, IIRC). Again, this isn’t lazy, since doing it properly would have been much easier. This did insure, however, that any transient signals (such as when switching the hidden power line on and off), would never be detected.

    Items 1 through 4 could have been simple incompetence. But items 5 and 6 (and 0) point to intentional fraud on the part of whoever set up the “test”. Essen made it clear in an interview after the test that Levi and Rossi did all the work setting up the test, and that he was just there to watch (and drink the wine, I would guess).

    That’s off the top of my head. There are probably other problems I missed.

    None of the problems listed above have anything to do with “protecting intellectual property” or any other nonsense.

  61. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Abbe, that’s the usual expansion, e.g. terms
    I_0 + I_k exp(i 2 pi k w t), k= 1,-1,2-2,3,-3 … and the same for the voltage
    U_0 + U_k exp(i 2 pi k w t), k=1,-1,2-,2

    That’s the definition of an harmonic expansion and multiplying them will result in terms
    a_k I_k U_-k because when k != -l in Integral_0^T exp(i 2 pi k w t) exp(i 2 pi l w t) is zero for the period T of the signal. all this is standard mathematics of harmonics, if you know that theory you know what I mean, else you should consult some basic standard literature for engineers.

    What’s is evident from this is that there is two options to push power 1) If the true signal has half the ground period e.g. 25Hz, it can be invisible for measurements of harmonics 50HZ, 100Hz. 150Hz etc. But still push energy e.g. we need to know that we don’t get a hole in the lower end of the measurements on this edge as well. 2) The other option is in the high frequency part as discussed before. The math above suggest that AlainCo is right e.g. you essentially need a high frequency harmonic in both voltage and current in order to push significant power in high frequency, to see this consider an extreme case of constant voltage V and an alternating current I1 sin(2 pi w t), then you will just push and pull energy back and forth over the channel. To see this, alternating current means that in one part of the cycle, the current is working just similar as in any normal DC circuit with a resistor, in the other part it works similar as with a negative resistor hence one can interpret this second part as the opposite of consuming power e.g producing power.

    Am I off with this argument (this is not my field, but I have a studied it in my youth)

  62. @abbe
    you don’t understand how people work with harmonic, in requence scale.
    P=sum over each harmonic of Voltage amplitude of harmonic by current amplitude of harmonic by cos of phase shift between current and voltage of that harmonic.

    if voltage amplitude of that harmonic is null or tiny, power cannot be high even if current is noticeable for that harmonic.

    any electricty engineer know that.
    the problem is when the voltage is strongly deformed by a huge deforming current, but this simply shows that the deforming power is warming the cables ahead the meter, or saturating the transformer.

    It is common in overloaded installation with massive switched power like computer (old one, today there is active compensators) to have square or triangle voltage, sign of massive harmonics.

    we did not see that, showing that the power supply, the transformer was strong enough (have low impedance) not to be bothered by few kW of deforming power by a switcher.

    about fraud, Ok, the wattmeter cannot see it, but the video cam adapter pluggen on the same socke would have noticed it and alarmed the observers by exploding…
    if it was a fraud, the fraudster would have prevented to plug instruments on the same socket…
    like he would have prevented any uncontrolled instruments.

    by the way if we look at the backlog of fraud of skeptics, like the MIT team who recalibrated any excess heat simply because it could not exist thus the system needed recalibration…
    when people like Taubes refuse to admit his pathetic errors.
    when Morrisson dare to repeat his proven false claims to innocent Nobels
    when Huizenga facing tritium evidenc that he know could not be an artifact, invented an international fraud, launched 3 inquiry agains Bockris, who foudn nothing, not recognizing his errors…

    http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html
    http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1991/eirv18n37-19910927/eirv18n37-19910927_052-clearing_the_air_about_the_cold.pdf
    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf

    don’t you think we might rather be carefull about the claims of the skeptics, who as usual for people sure to be right and supported by consensus, fraud, lies, without any shame nor fear to be caught.

    You can see how the gang of nature and Science have protected those incompetent and those fraudsters from correction of their misdeeds.
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf

    just read the many mistakes, manipulation, fallacies, insults in Pomp&Ericsson paper, and you will lose any trust in those only nuclear physicist (thus logically incompetent in the subject).
    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

    From experience, the fraudsters are there.

    It is true that Rossi is a bit loose (and that elforsk test is much better than his), but compared to Morrison, Huizenga and taubes he is an expert.

    Don’t you think you apply double standards.

    at the origin of all there is simply people who cannot imagine that they theory is wrong, and who cannot imagine even more, that their theory is righ but they cannot find the trick that nature is using.

    that is the elephant in Rossi’s kitchen…
    Aristotelianism.

  63. Abbe permalink

    @Stefan I. To be sure of what you propose as the solution, could you please also give me the next two terms in the series of U and I?

  64. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Abbe

    Any periodic signal could be written as
    I(t) = I0 + I1 exp(i 2 pi w t) + …
    U(t) = U0 + U1 exp(i 2 pi w t) + …

    and then essentially multiplying and integrating a period and taking per time avarage power
    you get
    P = I0 U0 + a1 I1 U1 + a2 I2 U2 + …

    Then you see that the harmonics matches just as AlainCo says. If you don’t agrre on this you need to pinpoint the error in this argument.

  65. Franco permalink

    @ AlainCo
    “your rectifier theory do(o)nt’ work with an AC voltage…”
    What should “don’t work”? Of which “rectifier” are you talking about?
    I posted the result of classic and common switching of theTriac on the AC voltage and this works perfectly.
    Do you know the differences between this application compared with a “rectifier” function?
    If you are an electric/electronic engineers should understand easily. You did?
    Check also behaviour using applet at link (a=0.74):
    http://cnyack.homestead.com/files/afourse/fstriac.htm

    “DC current transfer no power if no DC voltage.”
    “I agree that PCE830 don’t measure DC, but clearly any teste could have done…”
    Let me highlight better this important point.
    As also you wrote is clear that PCE-830 was/is not able to detect any DC component but 7 professors (seven university professors), that signed TPR, ignore completely this fact and on the contrary they clearly wrote on TPR document:

    As far as voltage is concerned, the figures, considering that peak values are shown, clearly show that the waveform was sinusoidal and symmetrical, and that there were no levels of DC voltage– having it been already established that there were no other electrical connections.

    So did they ignore even the performances and capability of the instruments they used to test electric parameters? That’s incredible and really a delusion!
    None measure of DC had been documented in TPR therefore your statement “no power if no DC voltage” can’t be considered as fact.

    In any case again you wrote:
    any test(e) could have done
    that means “COULD” as your theory, fantasy, hypothesis… again NOT give test evidences and/or facts.

    “for the 500%, I use the biggest result.”
    if you read TPR should know that only to March test “seven professors” were present (not in November with COP largely greather (about 5.6) compared with that in March that only Levi/Foschi measured).
    The first test experiment, lasting 96 hours (from Dec. 13th 2012, to Dec. 17th 2012), was carried out by the two first authors of this paper, Levi and Foschi, while the second experiment, lasting for 116 hours (from March 18th 2013, to March 23rd 2013), was carried out by all authors.
    To be more accurate (and it’s not only a formality) all 7 professors should not signed all TPR document pages, but just those part of it and results that refers to tests where they were really all present and where they had witness tests and results.

    note also that the heat after death with ceramic melting is the best evidence.
    probably why you don’t discuss of it.
    Same for mizuno long experiment of heat after death.
    same of pre 89 F&P melting.

    Why again don’t stay to the facts? Not escape again from my question talking of F&P and so on…
    I’m still waiting for your detailed technical reply to my question.

  66. Abbe permalink

    @AkaunCo: I see what you state, but that does not make it correct. I can only reccommend you to read the basic literature of circuit theory and electrical engineering, because you have missed some of the fundamentals, like P(t)=V(t)*I(t)

  67. your rectifier theory doont’ work with an AC voltage…
    DC current transfer no power if no DC voltage.

    I agree that PCE830 don’t measure DC, but clearly any teste could have done…
    As I said a fraud cannot be based on something that can be easily tested, in absence of the inventor.

    for the 500%, I use the biggest result.

    note also that the heat after death with ceramic melting is the best evidence.
    probably why you don’t discuss of it.
    Same for mizuno long experiment of heat after death.
    same of pre 89 F&P melting.

  68. @abbe

    ah ah,
    you don’t understand what I say.

    simply if you see from the harmonic point of view, power is the product of the current and voltage amplitude of each harmonic…
    You also have for each harmonic to count only the current and voltage when in phase… if dephased, you correct with cos(phi)

    so if you don’t have any harmonic on the voltage, whatever the current harmonic is (like because of switching) you don’t care.
    on good regular sinusoidal voltage, harmonic current, like reactive current is simply heating the wires before the wattmeter.

    those error remind me the errors of morrison:

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

    “Gary Taubes is another prominent critic. He made many misinformed claims in his book, on the radio, and in the mass media. He may not be qualified to read journal papers, because he does not appear to understand basic concepts such as electricity. He claims people sometimes measure electrolysis amperage alone and not voltage, and he thinks that regulated power supplies put out more electricity over the weekend because factories use less power. He thinks some researchers measure tritium once, after the experiment, without establishing a baseline or taking periodic samples. His book is filled with hundreds of similar errors. Perhaps the most mind-boggling one was his statement that a cell might have huge temperature gradients, “say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other.” This is like asserting that you might stir a cup of coffee, drink from the right side and find it tepid, but when you turn the cup around and drink from the left side, it will be steaming hot.”

    it remind me the comment of Fioravanti talking about the fan of wet steam theory…

  69. maryyugo permalink

    “I am not saying that there is any fraud present. I still think that there is a big risk that Rossi is just fooling himself by not understanding the technology he uses, and thus doing basic mistakes in the measurements.”

    There is no need to give Rossi the benefit of all possible doubt after so much time and so many inadequate demonstrations. Rossi was told in early 2011 (!!!) how to improve the demonstrations of his old, small, simple, low temp ecat. He had to do calibrations with the electrical heater. He never made such data available. All Levi had to do was to repeat his February 2011 experiment with liquid flow calorimetry using calibration. He never did. He won’t talk about it.

    Rossi made grandiose claims and promoted obvious false promises (free power to a Scandinavian customer), lies (isotopes on the cheap, million unit factories, university endorsements) and he chose obvious crooks as distributors (Green in Australia and Schneider in Germany).

    Rossi’s hotcat experiments are not independent and he controlled the power source.

    Rossi’s history is Petroldragon, fraudulent gold trades, money laundering and the obvious fraud of DOD with thermoelectric devices that never existed.

    I think all of that adds up to fraud. Not mistakes. Nobody can make THAT many mistakes, all directed at profits.

  70. Franco permalink

    Sorry my previous link to graph fails. Hope that this one works:

    One main anomaly observed is the polarity/position between voltage (V1) and current pulse (I1) showed by TPR, Appenix (Figure 2 and 3), compared with this function graph.
    The Triac can’t become OFF (and current I1 -> 0) just in coincidence time when voltage V1 is increasing toward large voltage values.

    Note that, on the contrary, V2 and I2 showed in TPR can be assumed “roughly” in line with an expected behaviour.

  71. Franco permalink

    @ AlainCo
    I clarify the question in my last comment with a graph:
    if a Triac, part of Control Box, was in series with the heating resistances in order to chop and to control the input power, V1 Voltage and I1 Current should be as in figure at link:
    https://www.scribd/doc/220935826/Triac

    It seems to me that waveforms of V1 and I1 showed in Figure 2 and 3 of TPR, do not match this but are different and wrong. Can you explain to me why drawing also a working electrical schematic?

  72. Franco permalink

    @ AlainCo
    First:
    if you read the TPR should know that test of March, to which Appendix data provided refers, the declared COP (nominal) was 2.6 or 2.9 therefore an error less of 500% is enough to put in discussion overunity.

    Second:
    the overall bandwidth of instrument is limited by the operative bandwith of Current Probe used (1 KHz max), so 5kHz value you wrote (as high limit) isn’t correct.

    Third:
    stay to the facts, not to “could, could be, could be easy …” or your other hypothesis. None Authors on TPR wrote on that paper anything to testify that DC component has been tested and measured and as you should say the instrument alone surely was not able to measure this, as declared in written by the constructor, pay attention even the voltage parameter when DC, rather paradoxically they wrote
    As far as voltage is concerned, the figures, considering that peak values are shown, clearly show that the waveform was sinusoidal and symmetrical, and that there were no levels of DC voltage – having it been already established that there were no other electrical connections.

    Remember written remain, words fly.

    Da: “John Mulligan”
    A: “‘Giacomo Storchi'”
    Inviato: 22/05/2013 15:37:54

    Oggetto: AW: PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer
    Hello Giacamo
    Our PCE-830 can only read AC values.
    We don´t have the ability to help you in this case.
    Kind Regards

    John Mulligan
    PCE Instruments UK Ltd
    Units 12/13 South Point
    Ensign Way
    Hamble
    Southampton
    Hampshire
    United Kingdom

    and also confirmed here: https://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/update-of-swedish-italian-report-and-swedish-pilot-e-cat-customer-wanted/
    UPDATE: I have been in contact with a representative of PCE Instruments UK Ltd who has confirmed that the PCE-830 cannot detect DC tension. When connected to an AC source with an offset DC tension it will display the graph of the AC tension correctly but it will not detect the offset DC tension.

    Did you know it?

    Again, not dwell continuing to talk about cospiracy, F&P, Pomp&Ericsson and so on, stay to my question of before.
    You wrote: “switched waveform are normal in electrotechnics”, so I think that you could explain with enough technical details (giving a properly math justification) the phase relation between the Voltage and Current showed in Appendix, in particular V1 vs I1, V2 vs I2, and so on.
    Example, why I1 current peak exists just in corrispondence of AC sinusoidal V1 voltage null?
    I’m still waiting for your technical explanation.

  73. “if you cannot agree that Oriani , McKubre, Longchampt, %Miles and others have replicated F&P”
    I can agree they may have replicated same errors and delusion.

  74. Abbe permalink

    @AlainCo: Your reply seems to indicate some basic misunderstandings of circuit theory. There is nothing that says that the voltage and the current must follow each other in the case we are discussing. Quite the opposite as the measurements shows that they do not.
    And the concept of harmonics is totally uninteresting to the problem we are discussing here.

    I am not saying that there is any fraud present. I still think that there is a big risk that Rossi is just fooling himself by not understanding the technology he uses, and thus doing basic mistakes in the measurements.

  75. @cimpy
    if you canbnot agree that Oriani , McKubre, Longchampt, %Miles and others have replicated F&P, …ok you can also believe in 9/11 conspiracy.

    @Franco
    just read the spec
    “pce-830 power and harmonics analyzer” (oh , harmonics)

    Harmonics of AC current in %
    51 to 99º / 0.1% / ±35% of reading ±1.0%

    not fantastic precision, but can ruleout hidden power of 500%…
    moreover the harmonics, transport no energy if the voltage have few harmonics… since the voltage was normal, you could not find 500% of hidden energy above 5kHz…

    the 50-60Hz is not a constraint for power measurement but a mode to synchronise the clock to the grid frequency in classic A application. a powermeter can measure anything, any pathological current and voltage.. it is simply a U*I integrator… with a clock usually set at a huge multiple of the grid : 50 or 60Hz. here probably it is few hundred of the grid frequency. the probe bandwidth and the sampling frequency limit the capacity to capture power in high harmonics.
    however, note that the AC voltage measurement can have a good bandwitdh, and as I repeat if you have no harmonics in the voltage, you cannot transfer energy at high frequency even with huge current harmonics.

    switched waveform are normal in electrotechnics (I was measuring active rectifiers deforming power before F&P conference)… wattmeter todays are made to measure power of complex active rectifiers in triphase mode, of active phase compensators…

    now transfer energy through synchronous voltage and current much above 5kHz, avoiding subharmonics of the carrier and modulation by the sampling frequency, that will permit detection, without burning the cables because of skin effect, without killing many devices, without killing the camera installed on the same socket.

    moreover as I said before, any of the testers could have brought his own voltmeter, or scope (if there is no harmonic in voltage, not offset in voltage, not even a DC current or a HF current can transport any energy) to detect the fraud.
    With HF the detection is easy, even by a radio apparatus, or maybe by any electronic device that will suffer some interference.

    it cannot be the technology of fraud of a stage magician… stage magician cannot let the testers free to choose instruments and touch.

    even if the testers had brought wood instruments, as Rossi could not know, there could not be any fraud based on testable things.

    anything that can be measured by a voltmeter, a scope, and ammeter, inspection, removing of cables, an IR cam, a thermocouple, smell, … cannot be the fraud you desire.

    we are looping about old myth…
    Cimpy deny reality of hundreds or thousands of replications…
    Franco deny impossibility of the Pomp&Ericsson conspiracy theory…

    lost in denial.

    and sure the swedish testers have a frauded test that lasted 6 month.

    why such a NEED it is a fraud… because if cold fusion is not a fraud, this mean that many nobel price have supported the books of dishonest and incompetent pretended scientists who ruined planet earth for few more decade than required.

    As explained in Groupthink theory, when facing such an horrific conclusion, usual answer of a mind is to deny evidence, to refuse to update.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

  76. Abbe permalink

    @AlainCo: You are confusing sampling speed with measurement bandwidth. It is today simple to make a device that switches a load on and off att 100 KHz, which is far outside what this instrument will measure correctly. The measurements of the current that was done with this instrument indicates that something is strange, as the current is not sinusoidal. A competent scientist would immediate pick up on this and realise that the measurements must be validated before they can be published. Something that was not done.

    (The harmonic number is in this case totally irrelevant.)

  77. Explain? He does not need, like all those who believe…

  78. Franco permalink

    AlainCo wrote:
    “a wattmeter with a quite wide bandwidth, able to capture up to 100th harmonic…

    http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/power-anlayser-PCE-830.htm

    Really? Operation frequency of current clamps of PCE-830 is just 40 Hz … 1 kHz, in particular tested at operation frequency 45 Hz … 65 Hz
    (see bottom webpage) so no more than 20th harmonic as maximum.
    http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/clamp-meter-pce-holding-gmbh-clamp-meter-pce-830-1-det_56526.htm?_list=kat&_listpos=12

    Did You know it?

    “note that they observed the waveform, and it was quite classic”

    Really? Maybe Voltage not the Current that is a narrow pulsed type.
    Did You never look immages of Report, Appendix page 31? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3913v3.pdf

    Can You explain in detail the phase relation between the showed Voltage and Current, in particular V1 vs I1, V2 vs I2, and so on, each phases?

  79. AlainCo, it was NOT replicated, but you refuse it as you do believe…

  80. so what is the theory now ?

    a wattmeter with a quite wide bandwidth, able to capture up to 100th harmonic…
    can you explain 500% error?
    http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/power-anlayser-PCE-830.htm

    note that they observed the waveform, and it was quite classic.

    moreover the instruments could be different, or independent instruments could be used to control others detail, making a fraud easy to detect.

    why is it so important to be sure it is not proved ?
    I could understand that you claim a tiny probability of a problem… but why being so sure without the least evidence…

    ah because like on F&P some people conclude without the least evidence, against normal evidence…
    that is a pattern.

  81. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @AlanCo
    I think abbe is referring to pushing energy in higher frequency bands then the instrument handle, an issue that needs to be ruled out in the current experiments, of cause @Abbi indicate incompetence, but it is not easy to get away with such a scheme and therefore the former tests where fine enough to continue the study. Not ruling this issue out this time is of cause incompetent.

  82. Abbe permalink

    @AlainCo: No, I am not talking about DC power, but of measuring a load that is outside what the specific instrument used could measure. There is no need for any conspiracy theories, only common incompetence is needed for this.
    If the input power is not measured correctly, then you can not say anything about any potential energy production from a scientific standpoint.

  83. @cimpy
    it was replicated, but you refuse it. that is denial.
    What about Oriani, McKubre, Miles, Mizuno, ENEA,SRI,NASA…
    all a conspiracy?
    maybe the people caught in incompetence, in near fraud, like the physicist (not chemist, thus incompetent in that domain) who failed, are better candidate for general delusion ?
    as their failed experiments are less numerous than the thousands of following success… Normally few success prove a fact, and failure just prove incompetence or bad luck.
    Maybe Taubes, Huizenga, Park,Morrison who accumulated lack of honesty in not citing paper after 1989, only asking to opponents, claiming pathological explanations based on incompetence, using pathological logic incompatible with science, are better candidate to be member of a conspiracy… in fact not a conspiracy but a world joke, because their lies and manipulation are clear and old…

    why do you imagine that scientist who were recognized in calorimetry (and it is a calorimetry experiment, not a physics experiment) suddenly get crazy… while proven incompetent, dogmatic, dishonest, egotic critics are right ?

    the only reason why innocent people believe in the consensus is because they ignore all the stupid things that critics have said, the facts they deny, the incoherence of their critics…

    @mary
    Ok F&P is one thing, prove, Rossi is business… however it is clear for sentient being that the reason you don’t accept Levi&al test is only because it implies Cold fusion is real.

    @Abbe
    Your doubt is only based on a conspiracy theory, which is absurd because it could be detected by any of the 7 physicist with a DC voltmeter..
    moreover DC voltage able to pretend a COP of 6 would have destroyed some instrument plugged on the same cable.
    Moreover you cannot explain that a metallic resistor is able to heat ceramic to the point of fusion above the melting temperature of the resistor itself… neither the IR image showing that resistor was screening a hotter object inside.

    all is based on a conspiracy theory, which is a desperate escape not to admit cold fusion is real, and there was clear evidence since the beginning, and that there is today NO CHALLENGING ARTICLE AGAINST COLD FUSION CALORIMETRY (that have not been addressed).

    The F&P denial is the elephant in the kitchen of Rossi’s denial.

    I agree that previous demo were insufficiently documented, not even as some try to prove there was a lie, a manipulation…
    Levi&al test, running >100 hours, at huge COP, with testers having removed and checked the cables, used their instruments, having checked the boxes, sockets, plugs and cables, rule-out fraud.
    Given the COP which is based on more than 200C temperature différence, the COP1.01 it is proving cold fusion is real, and F&P have been victims of an epistemological fiasco, like Wegener, Shechtman, Semmelweis,Wright, adns hundreds of others.

    Not even exceptional. It is a usual phenomenon.

  84. Abbe permalink

    @AlainCo. Yes, including the last tests, as it here is impossible to know how much energy was supplied to the E-cat fom the power grid.

  85. “F&P have proven with calorimetry their excess heat”
    A pity they were not able to convince the world. A pity those who tried to replicate were not able to do the same. Really a pity they word is not enough, nor is Rossi’s or Levi’s or Piantelli’s or Youri Geller’s one. Really a pity.

  86. maryyugo permalink

    Alain, I don’t know and I don’t care whether or not P&F’s experiments were valid. We are not talking about them! This is mainly about Rossi and other high power claimants. And testing those jokers is VERY EASY — as long as it done correctly and in the right places. That has not happened.

    EVEN IF P&F WERE VALID, it is not evidence that Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, Nanospire, and Miley are telling the truth when they claim kilowatt power levels. I do not think they are. None of them has ever presented convincing evidence to make me change my mind. P&F are irrelevant to high power claims.

  87. @mary
    ok it is clear you are a nay believer.

    F&P have proven with calorimetry their excess heat. many time.
    that you and thousands of delusioned deniers don’t accept it without even needing 1 evidence is not their problem. NASA is not responsible of the delusion of Apollo deniers.

    You don’t believe in that, that is your problem.

    and now you deny simple and rough calorimetry because accepting them, would force you to admit F&P were right…

    that is simply it.

    no way, I’m talking to a believer, there is no hope…

    for the readers with an honest mind, please read Charles Beaudette book, and the cited papers, and please remind that despite huge opposition, THERE IS NO VALID WRITTEN CRITIC TO F&P CALORIMETRY. Not even doubtful…
    only 4 evidence of dishonesty and incompetence at stratosphéric level.

    I travel over skeptics blogs for a new papers, and on one way they deny reality of LENR, but on the other they have not the least argument agains F&P calorimetry, except those 3 refuted arguments, even ignoring that wilson, a skeptic have refuted them all and confirmed F&P despite his will.

    once you admit F&P, all is simple and clear, and even match old example of rejected evidence by academic science. no conspiracy, just repeated stories.

    If you cannot admit that F&P paper prove excess heat, how a reader may trust anything you say ?

  88. maryyugo permalink

    @Alain

    So many mistakes in just one post. Let me address just a few.

    “mary, if cold fusion is proven and real, proven at COP above 150% by F&P,
    why are you so sure COP300% is false ?”

    I did not say cold fusion was proven by P&F. I said the opposite — they had every opportunity to prove it and failed. BTW, COP is the wrong term. That’s an air conditioner term! This thing is supposed to be a fusion reactor power source. The proper term is output/input power ratio. If that’s what you mean.

    I said I don’t make judgements about claims for small (tiny) power from LENR. It’s too difficult to know for sure. That doesn’t mean I believe P&F!

    “…some industrial results are already proven according to normal standards, but skeptics refuse to accept them, so proving to them is not so simple… like convincing a truther.”

    Garbage, Alain! Nothing like “truthers”. There are industrial results. Only silly claims for the gullible. Name just ONE Rossi customer who will demonstrate the megawatt plant they bought. Who is the anonymous “NATO Colonel”? (ROTFWL!)

    “if you accept cold fusion, there is no reason to ask for unusual evidence.
    No reason to doubt of kW level, or COP>3”

    The most fundamental reason for doubting it is that if someone made kilowatt level power which could be sustained, they wouldn’t need electrical heating to begin with. Not only does Rossi’s safety heater make no sense but the large band heater in his original ecats doesn’t even heat the reactor! It heats the cooling water! Why? Doubt me? Just look at the photos and diagrams!

    … the only problem is that true-deniers just refuse any evidence because they don’t want to admit cold fusion is real and they screwed up since 25 years.”

    Same old refrain. Try a new song for a change. The old one is boring.

    when it will be accepted, this mean never, we will be able to question the business evidence of the various actors, being reasonably cautious with business claims.

    …you cannot heat ceramic above melting point of ceramic, with a melted resistor…”

    I don’t know whether or not you can (I suspect you can) but where is the melted ceramic anyway? Who verified it?

    “It remind me the pathoskeptic answer to Mizuno report of having a heat after death lasting for days, with liters of evaporated water… Maybe not precise, but sure not chemical, and real…
    maybe the simplest evidence are simple…”

    Really? Where is the replication? Why is this not an experiment and demonstration done world wide every day? I don’t believe it really happened. At least not due to any nuclear heat source.

  89. @cimpy,
    I don’t say you hide anything …
    you are a victim of probably no more than 6 non influential incompetent and desperate liars, Lewis, Hansen, Morrison, taubes, Park,Huizenga…

    you are a sheep in the pack…

    you hide nothing, since the evidence are public. You just help others victims to believe in the myth as the Groupthink model explain
    http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

  90. By the way, Mats, any news from Levi?

  91. ” if cold fusion is proven and real, proven at COP above 150% by F&P”

    If.

    LOL.

    Not a matter that, but you and another couple of believers, the remaining whole world still does think F&P proved nothing at all? You are sure, thus it might be true: the great invention has been buried and kept secret by Cimpy, Ascoli65, maryyugo and some more horrible and mighty people like those ones…

  92. mary, if cold fusion is proven and real, proven at COP above 150% by F&P,
    why are you so sure COP300% is false ?

    is is so difficult to transform the fire from a stove into an industrial reactor ?
    it is not easy, but after some hard work it will sure be possible.

    note that the money behind that innovation justify hiding some detail.
    anyway there are many interesting result claimed from lab, but of course not accepted…

    some industrial results are already proven according to normal standards, but skeptics refuse to accept them, so proving to them is not so simple… like convincing a truther.

    if you accept cold fusion, there is no reason to ask for unusual evidence.
    No reason to doubt of kW level, or COP>3

    the only problem is that true-deniers just refuse any evidence because they don’t want to admit cold fusion is real and they screwed up since 25 years.

    when it will be accepted, this mean never, we will be able to question the business evidence of the various actors, being reasonably cautious with business claims.

    by the way, if Hotcat is not real, how can ceramic be melted like in recent elforsk test ?
    you cannot heat ceramic above melting point of ceramic, with a melted resistor…

    It remind me the pathoskeptic answer to Mizuno report of having a heat after death lasting for days, with liters of evaporated water…
    Maybe not precise, but sure not chemical, and real…

    maybe the simplest evidence are simple…

  93. maryyugo permalink

    AlainCo,

    As usual, you miss the whole point. It doesn’t matter if P&F were right and if there is such a thing as LENR at low levels. It does seem strange that there are not better experiments and data to prove it while we are quite certain about other subtleties such as the existence of the neutrino and “high” temperature superconductivity.

    But be that as it may, none of it justifies believing in high power LENR claims. Those should be extremely easy to demonstrate in clear cut, unchallengeable ways, and they should be replicable by anyone with the right equipment. But despite many grandiose and extravagant claims by Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, Nanospire, Miley and others to sustained hundreds of watts or kilowatts of power, no such demonstrations and replications have taken place. How hard can it be to do a convincing and iron clad demonstration or test when it’s such a high power level?

    That gullible individuals like you believe in high power LENR doesn’t make it so. Rossi has been braying about customers for almost three years. Where is JUST ONE, Alain? Where is a single university (officially) or national lab which has tested Rossi’s ecat or hot cat? Where is the free energy he was going to give a Scandinavian customer this winter? Where is his million unit robotic factory? What in Hades were Green (Australia) and Schneider (Germany) selling to “distributors”?

    YOU NEED TO BE MORE SUSPICIOUS AND CRITICAL. In the end, you, Josephson, Rothwell, Shea, the Swedish scientists, Vaughn, Darden, Mats and many others are going to look very gullible.

    Rossi gets away with a combination of instilling anticipation and promoting anxiety in his observers and testers. NOBODY who has ever asked Rossi the appropriate questions has been properly answered or asked to return. That alone should tell you volumes.

  94. Ascoli65 permalink

    @AlainCo,
    Not so sure your demonstration is credible.
    I don’t pretend to be credible. I just showed some images taken from the photos and the videos of the January 2011 demo that are in evident conflict with what Levi wrote in his report. People can trust theirs own eyes.

    It seems the answer of Mats [snip] does not satify you,
    I replied him (1). Everyone can read his subsequent replication (2), where, among the other non-answers to my issues, he wrote “LT2b — maxiumum according to the label (in my report) which doesn’t necessarily mean maximum in reality.” HE said that a datum (i.e. Max output 12.0 liters/h) that HE read on the pump label and that HE wrote in 4(!) of HIS reports “doesn’t necessarily mean maximum in reality”. I cannot find nothing in my logic that can fit with a sentence like this, except that we live in separate universes, or we have different goals (mine is to find the truth of this story).

    I note that you prepare to deny any report with Levi involved.
    For a researcher, who wants to demonstrate by experiment something in contrast with the general accepted physics, the credibility come first. It’s not tactic, it’s good sense, at least for me.

    (1) https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/heres-my-book-on-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/#comment-2337
    (2) https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/heres-my-book-on-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/#comment-2342

  95. @ascoli65
    Not so sure your demonstration is credible.
    You have a strong backlog of concluding on absence, missing data, ignoring answers…
    it is still controversial as
    It seems the answer of Mats
    https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/heres-my-book-on-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/#comment-2323
    does not satify you, but sadly it is not an information ans nothing even reality can satisfy you.

    that you still deny Levi&al test, already show you have problem with reality.

    It seems that the data were messy, with multiple reports and you took all that supported your theopry missing the rest…
    a bit like Pomp&Ericsson did.

    I don’t even say you are wrong, I just say that with the habits to refuse any challenging evidence, you lose any credibility.

    I note that you prepare to deny any report with Levi involved.

    Good tactic.

  96. @cimpy
    I know you brain cannot swallow it,
    but there is only 4 written critics against Fleischman&pons calorimetry,
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35 (chapter 1 is already enough for people unaware of facts, like most)
    one by Lewis shows he is incompetent in designing a cell that stir, unlike, Fleischman, and blame others of his incompetence.
    one by Hansen shows he is incompetent in mesuring recombination, unlike Fleischmann, and imagine others are like him.
    one by Morrisson is not even able to know basic science, electricity and calorimetry, and prove he can maintain his claims while proven wrong by even non LENR scientists.
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf (and see Morrison pathetic behavior in the Titanic artuicle http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 )
    one by Wilson, explain how the 3 others are wrong, then identify possible correction, but finally refuse to admit excess heat is proven anyway, even after correction. Wilson is in fact the only skpetic who proved cold fusion, without admitting it, thanks.

    in 1992 it was replicated by many chemist and one physicist having worked for a chemist and even the long time skeptic, Heinz Gerischer admitted it was confirmed
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf#page=2

    now given that in 1996, or today, no one was able to provide an experimental paper criticizing Fleischmann experiments, without making grandiose errors or misbehaviors, given the many replication done since 1991-1992, including some experience not sensible to any proposed critics (Oriani is Seebeck calorimetry with gas separation, McKubre is closed cell with recombination and isothermal flow calorimetry), or some proven transmutations (Miles+Bush He4 measurement, numerous Tritium founding)… can you admit that ther is a clear delusion by a handful of not even competent or recognized pretended scientists, who convinced competent and influential scientist who did not make the least effort to consider even the critics themselves, just swallowing the beloved conclusion.
    that is the position of Jed in the Titanic article
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

    I know those facts are not accessible to your consciousness.
    When I compare to 911 Truthers or creationist, it is not a random comparison, but fruit of my experience with conspiracy theoreticians.

    People seeing that debate should focus on evidence, on on the hopeless conviction of some desperate believers.

    just explain that recent experiment without a conspiracy :
    http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/news/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect-paving-the-way-for-a-potential-new-clean-renewable-energy-source/
    or that one
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/government/NASA/20110922NASA-Zawodny-GRC-LENR-Workshop.pdf
    or the many papers there, despite huge opposition by truthers.

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

    of course, as Mats describe well the unprofessional way Rossi have organized some of his test, and have made business decisions, one can fear epic failures for some test… but the general fraud is not one of the option… and if there is no general fraud, you have to admit it is proven since long, since some critics are based not on errors but on conspiracy.

    your theory is only based in a group fraud theory, done since 25 years by thousands of scientists, then recently by many dozens of businessmen, scientists and engineers around Rossi (and in NASA,SRI).

    This is why I maintain that you position is a conspiracy theory. it is self-evident. i don’t say everybody can see it, as groupthink theory explain how evident facts are ignored everyday.

    My only crime is classic, maybe to imagine technology can be industrialized quickly, trusting the competence of some businessmen, .
    Part of my dangerous optimism in that affair is that i face so much irrational critics, using conspiracy hypothesis, that i forgot more classic business due diligence, and classic hypothesis like desperate startup executives.

    If only I had rational opposition… I only have desperate denial of all evidences.

    the good point is that everybody know that you, Cimpy, are not admitting cold fusion evidence.
    This is enough to confirm how deluded and irrational you are. Mary did not admit it already and intelligently keep the subject uncertain not to lose credibility.

    Sometime like a dead clock, you may be right, but as you always oppose it is hard to know when you have good arguments.

    good luck.
    Wish you a good landing.

  97. Ascoli65 permalink

    AlainCo said:
    If the first demo were not giving enough clear evidence to the public, the Levi&al let as only possibility an unrealistic and probably even impossible conspiracy theory.

    Leaving apart any conspiracy theory, the first demo DID give enough clear evidence to the public that Levi DID use INVENTED data (1) in order to claim the production of excess heat.

    (1) https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/heres-my-book-on-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/#comment-2320

  98. “if you add to that that cold fusion is proven beyond any reasonable doubt since 25 years”

    Repeating this sentence one every two will not make it true. Cold Fusion is proven only in your dreams.

  99. @abbe
    not for the latest Levi&al/Elforsk test.

    however it is true that convincing people who are desperately opposing because it show a huge scientific fiasco since 25 years, is very very hard, and much above scientific or industrial evidence.
    It is more like convincing 911 truthers, or creationist. Hopeless.

    the more serious problem, and is being addressed is that when those “truthers” have official position in science, and when businessmen see interesting results, those businessmen feel modest and trust people in position unless they touch it themselves.
    This is why it is important to prevent business men to touch LENR, because they may be convinced. This is the key role to academic terror against lenr research that is well observed.

    What is required to convince people like big corps CTO is experiments that they can understand with their MSc/MBA, and a story telling they can understand to explain academic groupthink…
    because an MBA will trust an PhD in physics, but not in psychiatry and collective delusion (as it is the basic matter of business).

    In Mats book I noticed that two people having worked with Rossi (from far) in Petroldragon period, with synthetic waste oil, Cassandra Oil and Fioravanti, seems to trust him more than newcomers….
    Note that it is similar with TEG story, where you see a boss hire a man under pursuit, and keep his position after jail.
    It would be the reverse if he was a charming scam artist. The book is good in showing how loose is Rossi as businessman, as engineer, but also how unrealistic is the scam theory.

    If the first demo were not giving enough clear evidence to the public, the Levi&al let as only possibility an unrealistic and probably even impossible conspiracy theory.

    if you add to that that cold fusion is proven beyond any reasonable doubt since 25 years, that there is clear evidence of unethical behavior, frauds, hysteria, incompetence, lasyness, terror, to oppose cold fusion , for not even monetary reasons (it is clear it is a question of ego , fear, groupthink, and groupthink)… then the story is clear and simple…
    much more simple than the conspiracy that are to be piled up across the planet to justify the desperate Wikipravda myth.

  100. Abbe permalink

    @Mats: “Ok, I have read, and I think there are too many unknowns here.”

    This is exactly my point – that there are so many unknowns in the test, that it is impossible to say how much energy, if any, that the E-cats produced.

    And from the reports I have read, this is true for all the tests and demonstrations of the E-cat to this date.

  101. maryyugo permalink

    Hi Mats. Yes, one day we will know some of the story. I doubt that we will ever know it all. A good example to consider when talking about Rossi is Shaun McCarthy and Steorn. It is still a mystery why the investors have not spoken. It is still a mystery why two of the three engineers who originally gave credence to Steorn’s absurd claims still have not recanted (one has). And even as recently as last year, after every public test of Orbo had failed, Steorn received an additional million Euro in investment money!

    Rossi’s acquisition by Industrial Heat makes about as much sense to me as that.

    Be that as it may, Gary Wright reminded me that he did a thorough, very detailed examination of all the things Rossi said and wrote about the very critical issue of radiation inside and from the ecat. It’s another collection of gaffes which further undermine Rossi’s credibility. From here:

    http://shutdownrossi.com/e-cat-science/110-quotes-by-rossi-about-gamma-rays-and-transmutations/

  102. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Abbe
    Ok, I have read, and I think there are too many unknowns here.
    Pressure inside the plant cannot have been the same as at the outlet, because then water would have boiled at approx 101 degrees. The only way for the steam to be heated is to be super heated by pressure fall, if it’s dry. Maybe the pressure inside was slightly higher (although it seems strange) and water boiled at 102 degrees for example, then pressure decreased at the outlet, and temperature increased, which it can only do if the steam is dry or has become dry, otherwise the energy will first be used to evaporate remaining water droplets in the steam.
    If the pressure on the other hand was lower inside, water could boil at 100 degrees. Then when pressure increases at the outlet water drops might form, but temperature cannot increase, or?

  103. Abbe permalink

    @Mats: In short, for these types of ystems, yes it can. Please read the chapter I linked to.

  104. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Abbe
    Thanks — as I said, steam is complex.
    Your last statement is true and obvious. This means that if the steam has not been heated after having left the surface of the boiling water, it must have been produced under the pressure of at least 1.18 bars, right? (Since the boiling temperature at 1.18 bars is 104.5 degrees). What I thought then was that when pressure is decreased, the steam has to become dry, even if it wasn’t from start. Or can water drops exist in steam at 104.5 degrees and a pressure of 1.02 bars?

  105. Mats Lewan permalink

    Thanks for those thoughtful words Brian.

  106. Yo Hobie permalink

    Hi Mats,

    Thanks for the excellent book. I look forward to what comes in the next 6 months to a year – for or against Rossi’s claims. But regarding LENR in general….

    “but I often think about what Prof. Kullander used to say — that it’s too early to build theories, because in order to navigate among all possible solutions you first need more experimental data to guide you” (Mats)

    There is the catch-22! Experimental data will not be examined but dismissed out of hand AND experimentation banned because there is no theory. But a theory cannot be properly proposed without first more experimentation.

    A sad state of affairs indeed… that theory should trump experimentation and not the other way around – as is the proper responsibility of scientists. I guess the rule in the scientific community today is that if facts don’t conform with the theories then change the facts. LOL!

    I also wonder why people are so afraid of being wrong…. I am wrong quite a few times (more than I would like to admit!) – which is why I am somewhat cautious about what I write on the internet – my cyber-self is immortal. But then it is only when I am wrong and corrected that I feel a sense of joy from having learned something new!

    Brian

  107. Abbe permalink

    @Mats: Your statement “In any case, consulting various steam tables I found that pressure of saturated steam at 104.5 degrees is 1.18 bars, which means that if the pressure is lower, the steam is dry.” is not correct. Dryness of steam is not that simple, albeit it is not rocket science either. We can even use Project Gutenberg to get informed on the subject. If you study “Steam, its generation and use”, especially the chapter “Moisture in Steam”, you will find why the “measurements” of the dryness of the steam in Rossi’s experiment is regrettably very simplistic and without much, if any, scientific and technical merit.

    The book also makes it clear that the steam generated by a simple boiler, like that in the E-cat, must produce steam at the boiling temperature of the water at the pressure it is under.

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22657/22657-h/22657-h.htm

  108. Mats Lewan permalink

    Maryyugo, you might of course be right.
    One day we’ll know.
    Then, what you and I thought will all be preserved here.

  109. maryyugo permalink

    You know, Mats, it’s tempting to write a book describing all the infelicities of the Rossi story– all the contradictions, outright lies, bad faith, omissions, bad experiments, absurd claims and silly theories. But who wants to read that Rossi is, most likely, a crook? Believers buy books. Skeptical people tend to ignore claims like Rossi’s. They wouldn’t care about a book regarding Rossi’s failings.

    The *real* Rossi story is already very well documented and there is more to come about Petroldragon and the DOD thermoelectric scam. I am absolutely certain that Rossi never had a working thermoelectric prototype and claims that he made to DOD about it and about the involvement and approval of the University of New Hampshire were simply lies. He lied to get the $2 million. I am absolutely convinced that the only reasons DOD did not sue (or even prosecute) were the vagueness of the language of the contract with Rossi and that they did not want further embarrassment. Why else would they remove their own 150 page report from the internet?

    Anyway, most of the *real* Rossi story will end up being on Steve Krivit’s and Gary Wright’s web sites. Krivit did what a real investigative report should. He asked Rossi tough questions and followed up on them, collecting and documenting evidence. You can see it all on his web site if you have plenty of patience. And of course, Gary Wright is just getting started!

    His site is: http://freeenergyscams.com/

    I like you Mats. You’re smart, you write well, your intentions are good, you’re willing to travel and try experiments, and you work hard. It’s just unfortunate that you have been so uncritical of Rossi and his shenanigans.

  110. Mats Lewan permalink

    Well Cimpy, since you know my job so well, why don’t you do it? 😉
    Come on, become a journalist and write a book!

  111. maryyugo permalink

    “The only thing I care about is that it’s in general a process which is possible from a thermodynamic point of view, with some kind of nuclear interactions producing energy, and that experimental tests, although many of them unsatisfactory, have indicated anomalous heat production. Theories can come later. This usually makes the science community go mad.”

    That’s really not fair. Good replicated observations are accepted by the science community. On the other hand, when the tests leave gaping holes, I would not expect anyone to accept them.

    And how do you know the process is possible? From Rossi’s tests?

    Leaving out the hot cat for now, I can not understand how an investigative reporter did not:

    – press Rossi for calibrations of the energy output measurement on the experiments through October 2011

    – press Rossi to identify the anonymous “NATO colonel” who represented an anonymous customer

    – press Rossi to identify even ONE customer who could be visited, even if in secret, after two and a half years of selling a supposed megawatt fusion thermal generator in the US and elsewhere

    – ask how such sales are possible in the US without certification by the nuclear regulatory agency

    – press Rossi to explain “thermalized gammas” as the source of all the energy in early ecats

    – press Rossi to explain why he took more than $2 million from DOD (and caused them to spend at least that much on internal work) and delivered non-working devices. And why the prototype has never been found. And why Rossi has never identified anybody who would admit to testing the prototype thermoelectric device that he claimed was 20% efficient

    – press Rossi for a visit to his robotic factory

    – ask Rossi who his mysterious and anonymous “certificators” are– the ones who are delaying his home ecat more than two years.

    – ask Rossi what happened to the project to provide cheap thermal power in a Scandinavian country this last winter. What? No takers?

    – press Rossi for details on how he makes cheap nickel isotopes

    All of this can be done without endangering Rossi’s intellectual property in the slightest.

    Why in the world, Mats, did you not ask Rossi more before writing your book?

  112. Mats Lewan permalink

    No, that is what I expect.

  113. “But just try to show experimental data that are not backed up by theory and you’ll be damned”
    expecially if you show them the way Rossi’s circus did. Do you really find it strange? The “damned” piece, I mean.

  114. Mats Lewan permalink

    @maryyugo
    Neither me nor the physicists I have spoken to have been impressed by Rossi’s theories on his device or process.
    As far as I know there’s no confirmed theory on LENR anomalous heat, and I agree with late Kullander that we need much more expermental data to have a good chance to start building theories.
    The only thing I care about is that it’s in general a process which is possible from a thermodynamic point of view, with some kind of nuclear interactions producing energy, and that experimental tests, although many of them unsatisfactory, have indicated anomalous heat production.
    Theories can come later.
    This usually makes the science community go mad.
    When looking for Higg’s Boson no-one was upset. There was a good theory in line with the accepted existing paradigm. You just had to find something that looked like it, and when they did, they were awarded the Nobel Prize. Business as usual.
    But just try to show experimental data that are not backed up by theory and you’ll be damned.

  115. maryyugo permalink

    Dear Mats,

    The longer we reexamine Rossi’s claims, the more ridiculous they appear. The word “thermalized” can not be found in your book (I searched for it and for every mention of “gamma”). Yet, it is the method Rossi claimed for the original ecat’s energy production.

    “Dear Mr Paolo:
    I confirm, as always said, that the photons produced inside the E-Cat are thermalized inside. We make continuously measurements of radiations outside the reactor, and never found values above 0.2 microSievert/h….”

    “Dear Erik Ander:
    We produce gamma rays, and our energy comes from their thermalization.”

    “Dear Mr Alan Silverman:
    Tha radiations are not detected OUTSIDE the apparatus. Inside the apparatus we have the radiations which are thermalized.”

    “The shielding is necessary to allow the radiations to be thermalyzed: it’s from the thermalization of the gamma rays that comes the energy. The system is radiation free outside the reactor, and doesn’t produce radioactive wastes.”

    (all by Rossi from his bizarre blog misnamed the Journal of Nuclear Physics)

    Isn’t that lovely? And convenient? And you never asked Rossi to explain how gamma radiation is “thermalized” to produce kilowatts of heat in the small volume of the original ecat using approximately one centimeter thick shielding of boron and lead (another Rossi claim that is unverified)? And how this mysterious thermalization stops the radiation?

    I am no expert in particle physics but if you look up thermalization, you find it is a practical mechanism for converting SOME *neutron* radiation to heat by interaction with matter (with a VERY large mass of matter if large power levels are concerned). I found nothing about thermalizing gamma radiation, especially not at kilowatt levels of heat in small devices. Apparently, Rossi has made yet another Nobel Prize winning discovery to accompany his claim to be able to make cheap nickel isotopes by some yet undisclosed manner. He is certainly a genius.

    So, Mats, any idea about what Rossi means by “thermalizing” gamma? Is there any previous literature on this at the scale and in the sort of volume and thickness of shielding that Rossi is claiming? Isn’t this really pure bulldokey?

  116. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Abbe
    I wouldn’t pretend to be an expert in thermodynamics of steam, which isn’t an entirely trivial domain.
    However, I think I have some clues.
    The pressure was measured to be 230 — 240 mm water column at the outlet, corresponding to approx 1.022 bars, and the temperature 104.5 degrees Celsius.
    Look at these pictures of the megawatt plant: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece
    It looks possible to me that the pressure at the outlet corresponds to the pressure of the water in the tubes leading up to the edge of the tanks, about 2 or 3 decimeters above the level of the steam outlet. But we don’t know how accurate the pressure data was.
    In any case, consulting various steam tables I found that pressure of saturated steam at 104.5 degrees is 1.18 bars, which means that if the pressure is lower, the steam is dry.
    Now let’s say that the edges of the water tanks were higher than 230 – 240 mm above the steam outlet. If the system was closed, including the condensers, then the pressure should in that case have been higher. Yet, a pressure of 1.18 bars at the outlet would be enough to push the water about 1,8 meters above the steam outlet. So any level below 1,8 meters above the steam outlet would permit the steam to be dry, and yet let the water flow from the condensers to the edge of the tanks, assuming that the system is closed.
    Please correct me if I’m wrong.

  117. @Renzo
    Bem’s work is a prima facia demonstration that one can make horrendous errors with apparently good statistical methods. My math ability is not proficient enough to find the error and I do not want to plow through dense and interminable papers about “parapsychology” but I bet that others can and will disprove this hypothesis.

  118. @Stefan

    Well, I think that analogy between LENR and PSI is phenomenal, if not exact.

    I myself, would be delighted if either, or both of them, were even a little bit more than wishfull thinking.

  119. @Renzo

    Yes, Darryl S. Bem is among my favorite loonies. And I am not surprised you are his fan too.

  120. Abbe permalink

    @Mats: As having a degree in engineering physics, you should be able to do sanity check of the claims by some back-of-the-envelope calculations. With the basic knowledge of the system as having only one pump, a simple boiler without a superheater, the height of the outlet from the container, the height of the return to the water tank, and the approximate physical size, i.e. height, of the condenser, you could calculate if it is reasonable or not to conclude that there is pure dry steam in the outlet from the container.

  121. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @tty

    I do not think that a comparison of cold fusion and ESP and the like is fair. There has been quite a lot of decent research being done on the latter and they have not shown any evidence. But the whole cold fusion field research is hindered by a “ban” on doing research, so no real evidence that it does not work have been done as well. Most modern research have been done on a shoestring, ergo you get a lot of, low quality work and arguments from both sides. The main problem is that the effect of traditional cold fusion does not show up every time. This is not surprising, the palladium is a very complex material and clearly every sample is more like a unique specimen than a sample drawn from a homogen population. But to really prove that cold fusion does not work is really simple, it’s a bit expensive but not hard. But we don’t do that either and therefore calling it junk science is plain ignorant and a premature conclusion.

    The experiment to show it does not work,

    well the success rate is approximately known, also you will typically not see an effect if the experiment is done with plain water instead of heavy water, sol let a believer do a monitored double blind test not knowing the kind of water, if he can match the cold fusion effect with the kind of water, and do it with a statistical proper strength, then one can most probably decide if it works or not.

    As we don’t have these kind of tests done by either side of the cold fusion discussion, I can’t take both the pro or con side arguments that it “certainly work” or “certainly junk” as more then a way to win a discussion.

  122. Renzo permalink

    “Still some way to go, if looking forward to match an other epic fiasko in human thinking: parapsychology.”

    tyy, I still bet on Rossi if your luck is as good as your delusional opinions: a positive meta analysis of the replications of Daryl Bem’s experiment about precognition has been published just a few days ago: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2423692

  123. “I was present at the MW-test but as I state in the book it was difficult to make any observations at that occasion. Everything came down to whether you should trust Domenico Fioravanti or not.
    However, I believe it’s difficult to have any clear opinion about the fluid dynamics describing the flow from the condensers to the tanks without having more data and also knowing the exact constructions of the condensers. There are too many unknowns, a part from the fact that the over-all result of the test is basically unknown.”


    Unknowns indeed! Who is “Domenico Fioravanti”? What entity was “the customer?” How do we know there *was* a “customer”? EVER?

    In August 2012, Rossi wrote eloquently of Fioravanti. “He is making these tests as a Consultant of a military Customer of us… I knew Ing Fioravanti when he was a Student of the Politecnico di Torino… 1976 … he explained to me that he was a Colonel Engineer, expert of missiles tests… we had to choose a neutral Consultant for the test of the well known plant of 1 MW, I proposed Fioravanti, whom they knew very well, because he worked with NATO, with the Pentagon at the highest levels and always for engineering connected with thermodynamic tests ( mainly nuclear carriers’ heads tests).”

    Really? Did you google Fioravanti? The only return you get, apart from those related directly to Rossi or the ecat, are for an Italian champion swimmer. I think the name may be entirely fictitious. IIRC, at one time, Dick Smith had a substantial reward ($5000?) for anyone who could prove that Fioravanti was a real person and that reward went uncollected. I would think a reporter would bring all possible resources to bear to find out who this man is and where to find him. Gee, maybe you could have asked Rossi? What a radical thought. Must not be abrupt with Rossi! He might not ask you back!

    I think “Fioravanti” is a stooge for Rossi– an employee or a friend returning a favor. I do not think he is a “NATO colonel engineer with the Pentagon at the highest level”. If he were, there would be a record of his military career. There always is in the US. There would be command assignments, combat campaigns, achievements, awards and decorations, club memberships, charity affiliations, and so on. There is no such thing as a silent military career in the western military organizations! And what the pluck is an Italian officer doing at the highest levels in the Pentagon, pray tell?

    I think this person’s identity as suggested by Rossi, is a pure fabrication. If not, prove me wrong. Shouldn’t be all that difficult this day and age — not with a reporter’s resources! Or just maybe, someone could press Rossi for an introduction?

    Too many unknowns indeed. Rossi invited Mats and an AP reporter and several other dignitaries. Then, Rossi did not let them near the experiment for any appreciable time on the pretext of danger. Oh Wooooooooooooooo! Rossi produced NO RAW DATA and NO DOCUMENTATION for the test — not the flow circuit, not the temperatures and flow rates, NOTHING! And that’s before one gets to the honking big diesel generator that powered the whole mess the whole time. I’d say there were “unknowns”!

  124. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Abbe
    I was present at the MW-test but as I state in the book it was difficult to make any observations at that occasion. Everything came down to whether you should trust Domenico Fioravanti or not.
    However, I believe it’s difficult to have any clear opinion about the fluid dynamics describing the flow from the condensers to the tanks without having more data and also knowing the exact constructions of the condensers. There are too many unknowns, a part from the fact that the over-all result of the test is basically unknown.

  125. Mats Lewan permalink

    Dear Frederic,
    As you probably know there are many different proposed theories for LENR in general, often non compatible with each other. This goes also for NI-H systems, in which Rossi’s device should b included. Among those theories is the concept that Ni forms an environment where the reaction can take place, thus in some sense a catalyst and not a fuel. I don’t have enough knowledge in nuclear physics to have an opinion, but I often think about what Prof. Kullander used to say — that it’s too early to build theories, because in order to navigate among all possible solutions you first need more experimental data to guide you.
    This post: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/15/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post/comment-page-1/ discusses ideas with regard to Ikegami and Rossi which I mention in the book’s appendix.
    Otherwise Edmund Storms is often mentioned among LENR researchers to have a good understanding of possible theories.

  126. “the book of lewan is clear about citics of Rossi lack of rigor about tests, and bad management of extreme skepticism, but when you invest 12million you are skeptical.

    Previous test just says that Rossi organized unconclusive test with some forgotten details.
    the fact that some test even totally failed is for someone knowing how frauds happen, is an evidence to support E-cat reality. a fraud don’t fail, that is a rule. Only reality is hard to predict.”


    Just out of curiosity, how do you explain Steorn? The investors put in €21 million! They never did proper due diligence. They were hardly skeptical!

    And the fraud failed many times — at the Kinetica Museum, at the Waterways Exhibit, whenever experts were present. Even one of the infamous “three blind mice” engineers who thought the Orbo was real eventually realized his error. The “jury” said it found no excess energy in the Steorn device. Yet, after ALL of that, they still received an additional almost €1 million about a year ago!

    So obviously, you know nothing about how energy scams operate. You don’t have a clue. Rossi’s convenient failures always happened when the most competent people were present. He was simply afraid that they would do a thorough and appropriate test. It makes no sense for the ecat to fail while being demonstrated. Rossi has claimed he had HUNDREDS under test since at least mid 2011. I suppose he couldn’t locate one that worked? Absolute nonsense.

  127. Real inventions do not need believers. It just does not matter if anyone believes, because real inventions just work, they can be replicated and they can be industrialised.

    Somewhere behind this fact lies also the sad part of the fairytale: selfmade reality bubbles are actually capable of totally consuming your mind. And more.

    You people know who you are.

  128. @mary
    thanks to refocus.
    I confirm that I don’t talk of old test done with insufficient details for foreigner to be sure… You cannot even prove it was wrong…

    about Levi&al, the only question is about DC offset, and even, since there was instruments on the same plug that would be killed by high voltage required to push 5x the input energy without making the wired melt…
    However this question is answered by the protocol itself where testers were allowed to use a DC voltmeter, or any classic electri instrument to detect this kind of fraud.
    the risk could not be taken, and a stage magician would have controlled better the stage that what was done.
    This is a key reasoning, which is why you refuse it.

    note that participant to the teste for example says they removed the plugs, inspected the cables, freely.
    If there was a fraud like what you say, it would be forbidden.

    the book of lewan is clear about citics of Rossi lack of rigor about tests, and bad management of extreme skepticism, but when you invest 12million you are skeptical.

    Previous test just says that Rossi organized unconclusive test with some forgotten details.
    the fact that some test even totally failed is for someone knowing how frauds happen, is an evidence to support E-cat reality. a fraud don’t fail, that is a rule. Only reality is hard to predict.

    about Beaudette and F&P test, it is absolutely linked once you understand the psychiatry around that.

    For most of academic and zealots, cold fusion is impossible, thus any evidence of reality have tyo de denied by any mean, whatever is the ethical cost.
    E-cat is of no interest for zealots except that it is the evidence of cold fusion, which mean that physicist and academics, and journalist, and scientific editors, will be caught pant down.

    Once you KNOW that cold fusion is real, prove,, peer-reviewed, replicated, improved, … you can simply that practical application are not at al surprising, and there is no reason to behave unusually with rossi, compared to the lab that claim to have found new thermoelectric material, or new photovoltaic technology….

    current skepticism is a clear pathology linked to cold fusion denial. no more, no less.

    this is why many critics of E-cat refuse to admit they deny cold fusion, because people will discover they are simply conspiracy theorist and denialist.

    tell me sincerely you admit cold fusion is real, and thus that it is a question of engineering to make it practical, and I may consider you are just biased against Rossi because of his past as you imagine it and not simply in holy war against cold fusion.

    Considering cold fusion story without group psychiatry is not possible.

  129. Just to clarify for those who seem confused, like AlainCo:

    – In the early low temperature experiments, issues raised were that the steam was wet and in the larger ecat with the heat exchanger, the output temperature thermocouple was put too near the hot part of the primary circuit’s manifold, causing too high an apparent heat production. Both these concerns could have been fixed with a single calibration run each, which Rossi and Levi consistently refused to do for no adequate reason.

    – in the current series of experiments with the so-called hot cat, the output energy measurement, while not very precise, is probably in the ball park. The new problem is that the experimenters did not properly investigate and measure the *INPUT* power — all of it provided by Rossi.

    None of this is about P&F, Beaudette, or anyone else. It’s only about Rossi and Levi. Personally, I think Defkalion is just an imitator of Rossi’s shenanigans and Brillouin, Nanospire, Miley (Lenuco), Celani, MFPM and Swartz really don’t have anything in the way of HIGH POWER cold fusion/LENR. Do they have some very low power, very low level, anomalous phenomenon? I have no idea. I don’t think they’ve proven it. But even if all other LENR claims are real, it says absolutely nothing about Rossi’s claims.

    Once more, I don’t expect AlainCo to “get it”. This is for the other readers.

  130. 😀 😀 😀

    The LENR-saga is certainly providing a great entertainment factor. Still some way to go, if looking forward to match an other epic fiasko in human thinking: parapsychology.

    The resemblance of false logic in both cases is phenomenal though, dont you think?

  131. Frederic Maillard permalink

    Dear Mats,

    Thanks very much for your book.
    And many thanks too for all of us (mankind) for your subtle influence on Andrea Rossi to make a definitive but so much necessary test on his fabulous invention, the Swedish-Italian test of May 2013.

    I have the following questions. I would appreciate very much if you could spend some of your time answering them.

    On page 307 in the appendix of your book, you propose the explanation based on Ikegami’s works that Lithium could act as a catalyst inside Rossi’s reactor.
    On the same page, you say that copper found in used nickel was just “contamination powder from another source”, hence not the transformation of nickel atoms.

    Do you think that nickel in Rossi’s reactor is not a fuel but a second catalyst ?
    If so, would that mean that hydrogen (deuterium) is the fuel and probably the only fuel in the reactor ?
    If nickel is a fuel, what is nickel transformed into ?

    Best regards,
    Frederic

  132. @mary
    it you have serious accusation about blank test, where is it written ?

    Pomp&ericsson ignoire that the calibration of the IR cam was done with thermocouple, as written in the report thay did not read seriously.

    it have been the sama about fleischman &pons since the critics were so incompetent and closed mind that they did not imagine that using a dead palladium was a blank.

    the controversy of blak, it’s complexity, the stupidity of the critics and thair general lack of ethic is well described in Charles Beaudette book.

    moreover, if I understand the calibration and blank run for an isoperibolic experiment at COP 1.15 or even 1.5, someone honest can consider that an absolute evidence of heat production of +500% is enough to be considered seriously…

    when you make an atomic bomb explode, you don’t make a blank run… you estimate the produced energy roughly and since the COP is very high you estimate it works.

    the lack of common sense, the evidence fear of reality, the usage of apparent scientific rusl in a formal way for far from Jeovah witness way, is … laughable.

    I remind to readers here that the >levi&al test showed few hundred degrees different between the blank and the active run, and that the IR cam showed calibration of 1-2degrees shift with thermocouple.

    what we see is desperate lawyers, not engineers.

  133. @AlainCo

    You won’t understand this but for those who do:

    “do you have any written paper that refute seriously, without a pathetic sign of general incompetence…:

    A pathetic sign of general incompetence could be a failure to perform a proper calibration on a heat measurement system which has been sharply questioned and has the potential to show way too high a result. See Grabowski et al for details.

    “… like lewis,Hansen,Morrison,Pomp&Ericsson, or a pathetic lack of honesty like …”

    A pathetic lack of honesty is taking industrial waste you have contracted to convert to fuel and dumping it into a public water way. That’s what Rossi did and it’s documented in Italian newspapers. See Gary Wright’s web site for more.

  134. @tyy
    You make me think about the IMF guys joking at Nouriel Roubini…

    My prediction is that when the evidence will be accepted, there will be a manipulation, as usual to make it looks like nothing happened.
    Because the people pretending that there was high temperature superconductors… that semiconductors like germanium could rectify current… were ridiculed, then they were forgotten
    It is well described in Nassim Nicholas Taleb book in chapter “History Written by the losers” and by thomas Kuhn.

    by the way if you are so sure, it is that you have evidence ?

    do you have any written paper that refute seriously, without a pathetic sign of general incompetence like lewis,Hansen,Morrison,Pomp&Ericsson, or a pathetic lack of honesty like ilson,Morrisson,Huizenga,Pomp&Ericsson,

    there is a trick, since I forget to cite one refuted critic… who is wrong anyway, and refuted in detail.

    If you know him, At least you will show you follow the subject instead of parroting consensus you don’t understand.

    people who want to have a serious opinion have to read the book of beaudette.
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

    that is a minimum not to be ridiculous.
    or course to make critics on the book, one have to find the cited papers and critics Beaudette interpretation and judgement… who is much more moderate than most I’ve read.
    Just comparing the date, the length of the citation of Beaudette Book, and of Park, Huizenga, Taubes “books”…

    now when honest observers see that there is no critics… that the pretended critics were based on incompetence and general lack of ethic and honesty, or by lack of any reading of the claims or critics… they can deduce at least that there is something rotten.
    so they can independently judge that the consensus against LENR have no more value than Lysenko support in USSR.
    the big error of western citizen is to imagine that we are much better informed than USSR citizen.

    now convinced that LENr is proven with much better confidence than Higgs boson (that LENR is not real will challenge all knowledge about calorimetry and electricity), one can observe the development of Rossi and others companies… Individually there are still uncertainties.
    Rossi is more probably having a LENr reactor than Higgs be real, but that it works perfectly is slightly less probable…
    Now if you follow the real history of real inventors, real technologies, of real scientists making real discoveries, you see that it always happens that way for big discoveries…
    -first the anomalies are ignored (LENr was observed in the 1950s by electrochemist and rejected, same for HTSC more recently)
    -then they are fighted as getting published (89)
    -science consensus grows against, and terror against dissenters is organized(90+)
    -academic dissenters are tortured but also locked in their old paradigm and cannot move practically (92-2010)
    -finally non-academic practitioners get around the blocking (2009)
    -history is rewritten with an invention done by some good-looking nearly academic inventor, and many academic to help him… (2015.)
    – school boys learn how genius were the academic and important the theoretical breakthrough (2020. see how semiconductors are declared as theory chliddren)

    for people who don’t know real science history (I mean not on wikipravda)
    http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html
    http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/Triana-fwd.pdf (in Antifragile book taleb gives a better more general version of that chapter)

    http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
    http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/
    http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf
    http://www.iccf17.org/popup/bio_5.htm
    http://blog.disorderedmatter.eu/2009/03/16/wolfgang-pauli-speaking/
    http://invention.psychology.msstate.edu/inventors/i/Wrights/library/WrightSiAm1.html
    http://www.flogen.org/ShechtmanSymposium/
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman-nobel-prize-chemistry-interview
    http://worldtraining.net/ConsensusMeme.htm

    take your vomit bag

    honestly Catholic church against galileo was more tolerant than academics today.

  135. I have been following the cold fusion debate for years now and find it extremely interesting. Not the claimed phenomenon itself, it is obvious junk science to me, but the human psychology involved.

    It will be a treat to follow, what will be the reaction of the believers, when Rossi is finally busted. Or maybe he is vindicated 🙂 and the world is saved.

    Win, win for me 😉

    I have had a lot of fun.

  136. Ascoli65 permalink

    @Mats Lewan, SHORTER:
    Sorry, you missed all the points, but does not matter.
    Now I know that you know, and, most importantly, many readers of you can know the same.
    Thank you again for your hospitality.

  137. “… that E-Cat doesn’t exist any more, as far as I know…”

    How sad! Things around Rossi and Levi have a way of disappearing.

    For example, nobody knows where the original ecat that heated the Bodena factory went. What a shame that this useful technological wonder is no longer producing energy almost for free.

    And where is Rossi’s original and world-shaking working Petroldragon waste to oil conversion device?

    And nobody has ever seen or reported testing his crowning achievement of a highly (20%) efficient thermoelectric device. And now Levi’s ecat is gone too, along with Levi’s data that Krivit asked for.

    If I may be allowed a little sarcasm, maybe Rossi is being followed by a miniature black hole all these things have fallen into. If it had been me, the original factory-heating ecat and Levi’s amazing 15 kW/18 hour desktop ecat would have first been sent to the University of Uppsala for official testing followed by enshrining in the Smithsonian Institute. Maybe Rossi is just too modest for such acclaim.

  138. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Ascoli65 SHORT:
    LT2a — you’d have to know if these 6% are per weight or volume, what such steam would look like, and if it’s probable to produce such steam from such a container and set-up. It’s easy to make calculations but you have to investigate if their plausible. As far as I have understood they are not. 65 might sound little but it may be beyond what you’d expect physically.
    LT2b — maxiumum according to the label (in my report) which doesn’t necessarily mean maximum in reality.
    Lt2c — I believe it fits
    LT3a — one liter per sec is not strange from tap water, and you need that flow if you don’t use phase shift for cooling. A flow meter such as the one used in October is intended for household flows and can easily handle that flow.

    I repeat, I don’t believe this is enough to claim data was invented.
    Now we have to move on.

  139. Mats Lewan permalink

    @maryyugo
    Read my answer again. And that E-Cat doesn’t exist any more, as far as I know.
    We’d better continue asking for control runs ahead.

  140. @Mats

    “We all wanted a control run. Everyone has pressed for that.
    Rossi might have had his reasons for not providing it. I explain in the book that he often doesn’t really take in what other people ask for. “


    This may be a classic example of how con men gain the advantage over scientists. (Obviously I can’t prove yet that Rossi is a con man but I strongly suspect it). I am sure Rossi had his reasons, the prime reason being that he was faking the results by a variety of methods. The faking would have been clearly revealed by running a blank/calibration/control (whatever you call it) run. JUST ONE. This was not even tried by you, Kullander, and Essen.

    The current batch of scientists (Levi and the Swedish group) could STILL ask for that using Levi’s original ecat that produced so much power during his 18 hour test. I can not understand why nobody presses Rossi to repeat that one, significant, important and SIMPLE experiment– but properly done.

    It seems as if everybody in your original group was being so polite and so afraid of rejection by Rossi that whatever Rossi mumbled was OK. Well, sorry. Not having a control run is NOT OK. It sets you up for being fooled.

    I know Rossi threw out NASA, Quantum and others who insisted on proper procedures. I know Rossi censored his blog removing critical posts about controls. The reality is probably that Rossi wrangled his way out of doing controls because he knew very well that his method of measurement overestimated enthalpy. I have yet to see you, Mats, acknowledge the calculations by Grabowski. It looks as if even a small amount of wetness to the steam would have accounted for the 6X power gain that you, Kullander and Essen measured on the old ecats. An obvious misplacement of thermocouples would account for the power gain of the larger ecat with the heat exchanger. You could have assured yourself that this was not the case with ONE blank run in each experiment but you allowed Rossi to talk you out of it. That is bad science. That makes your results not credible.

    “Supposing that the reaction really works well, very little H might be required to get it work, and it could be difficult to vent it out. In that case the control run would not be blank but active, and the result not correct.”

    That’s easy enough to determine. You could have asked for an experiment in which the pressure of hydrogen in the reaction cell is varied from very low to whatever is normal for Rossi (I think it was cylinder pressure). In other words, get a hydrogen partial pressure vs power out curve. Of course Rossi wouldn’t do that. It’s actually science! He only does “razzle-dazzle!”

    Or you could have used a powerful vacuum pump to outgas the reaction cell, alternated that for a few cycles with heating the cell in the presence of nitrogen or argon or helium. I doubt that nickel holds on to hydrogen that tenaciously. In any case, you could see if there was any appreciable power gain before calling the run a blank. A proper blank should have no power gain. That’s easy to check.

    The point is NOBODY TRIED to get this done. Absent calibration of the output power measurement, the experiment was virtually worthless. Rossi could have done anything to the ecat to make it seem as if it was producing excess power when it was not and you and your colleagues would not have known it.

    “Thus you would need a clean reactor that had never been used, but in that case you don’t know if that reactor is working as it should.”

    Forgive me but that reason is simply silly. First, Rossi always claimed his reactors were very reliable. Second, Rossi had lots of them. So take a new reactor without hydrogen, run your blank first to verify that the output measurement system works as it is claimed it does. Then add hydrogen and test for excess power. If you don’t get what Rossi expects, use another reactor and repeat. You don’t need to begin with a tested reactor. Again, you allowed Rossi to “get away with murder”.

    That seems to be his specialty and he is very good at it in my estimation.

    I understand being rushed and overloaded with information the FIRST time Rossi showed you his ecat under test. But I do not understand not pressing him for a proper test in the following opportunities. I don’t understand not asking for a repeat of Levi’s spectacular but botched liquid calorimetry experiment with the small ecat. I don’t understand allowing Rossi to fast talk his way out of a simple proper scientific experiment with a control, because “he doesn’t really take in what other people ask for.” That’s a recipe for being conned. I strongly suspect you were.

  141. Ascoli65 permalink

    @Mats Lewan,
    thank you for having begun to consider the 3+1 “Levi Test incongruities” that I reported. I try to explain them better.

    LT2a — could you please show med the evidence that this instrument was not present. I don’t recall any discussions regarding that.

    Thanks to Cimpy, you already have all the references necessary to understand this issue. From your answer to him, I guess that you are aware of this big incongruity. This is the largest one because it overestimates the output power of a factor of 6. I am amazed to read that you “are not troubled”. I know that “Worse things have happened in research”, but usually a good researcher corrects himself when somebody shows him an evident error. And in any case, we are talking here of the specific research told in YOUR book, and of the reliability of the academic sources on which it is based.

    LT2b — if I remember right it was shown that the capacity of the pump was larger than indicated on the label with specifications.

    In your April 2011 reports we can read: ”Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar”. We all know that “max” means “no more than”. May be the actual capacity of that pump (remember, it is a dosimetric pump) is few % more (or even less) than the indicated one. However, the discrepancies, we are talking about, are of very higher percentages. Levi in his report declared an output flow of 17.6 L/h, nearly 50% more than the maximum. Considering that the pump was run at 40% of its max. speed (hear the sound at the beginning of the video 2/3 linked by Cimpy), the real output should have not been greater than 7.2 L/h. So, the flow declared in Levi’s report leads to an overestimation of the output power of a factor of about 2.5. Also consider that that pump has a second knob which allows to regulate the volume per stroke from 0.4 to 2.0 mL, and I have assumed that it was kept always at its maximum level.

    LT2c — I’m not sure what you mean here. I had a look at the Levi-Bianchini reports document, and as far as I can understand Levi observed a preheating phase of 30 minutes, and then what he describes as the system in full power from 17.30 until 18.15, looking at the screen shot, which would be 45 minutes. Levi reports 40 minutes. What is it that you don’t find correct?

    Mats, please, look more carefully at the Levi’s report. A 30 minutes period is only cited in this sentence: “After approx 30 minutes a kink can be observed in the (Y)”. But it refers to the 1st Levi Test (LT1) held on December 16th, 2010, and it is just one of the “Levi Test Inconguity” of that test, as I can show you, if you want. The screen shot you mentioned is probably the one in fig.3. It also refers to LT1. In his report, Levi mixed up the figures: figures 1 and 3 refer to the first test (LT1), figures 2, 4 and 5 refer to the second test (LT2). Nothing in his report fits well. I would say that iit s very difficult to find something there that is correct. Anyway the screen shot of LT2 is shown at Figure 4, but it cannot allow to estimate any time duration because there is only one value on the time axis. That screen shot was taken from the video 2/3 at time 03:15, but a previous frame at time 01:36 shows the same diagram with more values on the time axis, from which one can easily deduce that the duration of the maximum power lasted only 20 minutes, the half of what Levi stated.

    ”LT3a — Again I’m not sure what you intend. The water flow of 1 l/min is what you’d expect to have when you want to obtain the same cooling effect as with boiling, without having phase shift. Since Levi had no pump with that capacity he attached the water inlet to the ordinary water tap. Flow was not constant, as can be expected from tap water, but sufficiently constant to give an order of magnitude.”

    Levi said 1 liter per second (!!), not per minute. This flowrate corresponds to 3.6 m3/h. It means a total of 65 m3 in the 18 hours the test lasted. Now, please, looks at this slide http://i.imgur.com/bMaQaQq.jpg . The details B1 and B2, showing the white flowmeter, are taken from 2 pictures of the February test (LT3). Unfortunately they don’t show the dial, but we know from your interview on NyTeknik, issued on February 23rd, 2011, that “counter information was recorded with a camera”. Levi never showed those images, so we had to rely on his word. BUT luckily, some videos of the October 6th test, show an identical flowmeter (details C1, C2, C3 of the jpg). The detail C1 shows a reading of only 7.26 m3(!!), one order of magnitude lower than expected if the instrument was the same used in February and if Levi was true on reporting the flowrate. We are not sure 100% that the two instrument are the same, but we know that in all the 2011 tests there was a tendency to reuse the same stuff, from the yellow pump to the blue bucket. So, unless Levi shows the images taken from the camera, we can think that the flowmeter used in October is the same of the one used in February and that the flowrate of 1 liter per second declared for LT3 was invented. I hope that it is now more clear what I mean..

    Mats, I understand that you have other discussions and investigations to dedicate your time, and we are approaching a long holidays period (at least here in Italy). Anyway, I hope that you will find in the next weeks the time to clarify these issues. Please, keep in mind that many of your readers could really believe that the invention of which your book speaks can really change the energy future of our world. Do not leave them too long with this illusion.

    For now, I wish you for a happy Easter and I thank you for the kind and fair hospitality

  142. Abbe permalink

    @Mats: Sad to hear that you are leaving the discussion as I would be very interested to hear your take on the function of the cooling circuit for the 1 MW test. Especially as you are one of the few who did see it for real and in operation.

  143. @maryyugo
    “As to why cold fusion has been rejected, it is because the papers in the field are bad, hard to read and understand, and generally poorly organized and presented. I have suffered with several which, according to guru Jed Rothwell, are supposed to be the best. In addition, in no place does an appreciable amount of power seem to be produced in a replicable fashion.”

    it seems you bias is able to swallow the refuted papers of Lewis, Hansen, Morrison, the pathetic books of Taubes, Park, but refuse peer-reviewed papers…

    can you consider the possibility that you are hugely biased ?

    for honest readers I remind the assertions of Beaudette, who studied the domain extensibley, and whose huge archive are donated (more than 8000 papers), and who was initialy skeptical (like most supporters).

    I willquote it, because i know most people refuse to read data and prefer to have opinions:
    “http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

    Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.

    The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.

    The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.”

    gioven that no skeptic succeeded in providing a non refuted critical paper, i can say that position is confirmed.

    I will add the terrific description of skeptics lik Morrison,Parks, taubes :

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4 (page 4)

    “When a scientist writes about cold fusion, he should be held to more exacting standards. He must not dismiss or condemn cold fusion without reading the journal papers, and without presenting a credible, technical reason for doubting those papers. Society relies upon scientists, lawyers, ship captains, and other professionals to make unbiased, informed statements about their areas of expertise. It is unethical for a scientist to endorse or condemn a claim he has not carefully analyzed.

    In rare cases, a few scientists have been guilty of even more unethical behavior. McKubre and other prominent cold fusion scientists have given copies of journal papers to prominent critics, including Douglas Morrison, Robert Park, and John Huizenga. The papers directly contradict assertions made by the critics regarding matters of fact, not opinion, such as the amount of energy produced by cells in continuous bursts, the percent of input versus output, or the amount of chemical energy that a mass 0.5 grams of palladium deuteride will release as it degasses. Morrison often claims the degassing can account for the heat produced during an experiment performed by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann gave him a paper showing conclusively that he is mistaken by a factor of 1,700. Morrison has been told about this mistake countless times, at conferences, in writing, and in a formal reply published in Physics Letters A. Yet he recently contacted a Nobel laureate and repeated the same misinformation. Fortunately, the Nobel scientist contacted me, and I was able to give him the correct numbers.

    Gary Taubes is another prominent critic. He made many misinformed claims in his book, on the radio, and in the mass media. He may not be qualified to read journal papers, because he does not appear to understand basic concepts such as electricity. He claims people sometimes measure electrolysis amperage alone and not voltage, and he thinks that regulated power supplies put out more electricity over the weekend because factories use less power. He thinks some researchers measure tritium once, after the experiment, without establishing a baseline or taking periodic samples. His book is filled with hundreds of similar errors. Perhaps the most mind-boggling one was his statement that a cell might have huge temperature gradients, “say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other.”
    This is like asserting that you might stir a cup of coffee, drink from the right side and find it tepid, but when you turn the cup around and drink from the left side, it will be steaming hot.

    Taubes wrote his book using the same methods employed by sensation-mongering reporters in 1912: he pieced together second-hand rumors and made wild guesses about a subject he does not understand. He described his methods in the introduction, footnotes, and appendices. The book is based upon interviews and telephone conversations with 257 people, listed in an appendix. He spoke with seventeen people who actually performed experiments. Four of the seventeen are implacable enemies of cold fusion, including the authors of the three famous “negative” experiments. Most of the remaining 240 are critics like Frank Close and William Happer, who deplore cold fusion, and have staked their reputations on its demise. They have attacked it in the mass media, the ERAB report, and in books. Although more than a thousand peer-reviewed papers were published by the time Taubes wrote the book, he did not reference a single one of them in the footnotes. His descriptions of the experiments are wildly at variance with the facts, in major and minor details, so it seems unlikely that he read a paper. Describing an experiment is an exacting task, even when you understand electricity, you read the paper, visit the lab, and ask the experimenter to review your description. When a scientifically illiterate person tries to imagine how an experiment works based on allegations made by people who despise the research, indescribable confusion and distortion result.

    Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it. When Robert Park attacked it with inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric, a room packed with hundreds of members of the American Physical Society (APS) applauded and cheered.

    Mistakes Caused by Culture, Denial, and Psychology One way to learn how to separate fact from fiction is to study the ways mistakes and disagreements arose in the first place, and why they remain in the historical record, seemingly impervious to correction. ”

    now you can avoid to talk of the Levi&al test which don’t use water, which show calibration, blank test, and measurement with testers instruments in the absence of rossi.

    Of cours like manu conspiracy theoris you say tha levi is a secret agent who ruin his career with 6 other young colleagues so that he is banned from a good job…
    as said in the book you shoul rather trust people who play football with their own bones… what nassima Nicholas taleb call “Skin in the game”.

    there is still people thinking that Apollo moon landing is a myth, and you who deny cold fusion.

    for readers, about theories there is many, none is confirmed and most are improbable…
    the best paper is from ed Storms
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf

    and what I prefer is the introduction (describing what is a good theory criteria) and the engineering part showing how an LENR+ reactor is to be controlled (explaining why COP is limited by stability challenge). the theory is probably wrong, yet probably the best direction (pep fusion is best candidate)

    I will add the quote of Focardi by Rossi, which is an evidence for anyone working in semiconductors or superconductors, or chemistry, or biology, or any experimental science :

    “They sustain that known Physics are incompatible with LENR just because they do not study enough the so called known Physics” Focardi.

  144. so “if I remember right it was shown that the capacity of the pump was larger than indicated on the label with specifications”
    the same way it was shown gamma thermalized inside E Cat? Or by same people?
    And
    “Levi didn’t say it was boiling for 40 minutes. He said maximum output heat lasted for 40 minutes”
    No film on this? Is not it a bit odd that we should accept Levi words while we are saying Levi is untrustable?

    But I will give you a bit of rest, as I do believe you are normally reliable. Less when you are near a huge magnetic field, of course…;)

  145. Mats Lewan permalink

    We all wanted a control run. Everyone has pressed for that.
    Rossi might have had his reasons for not providing it. I explain in the book that he often doesn’t really take in what other people ask for. Rothwell decribed his way of acting recently on Vortex. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg92816.html
    However, there might also be a technical reason which Celani and MFMP and others have discussed. Supposing that the reaction really works well, very little H might be required to get it work, and it could be difficult to vent it out. In that case the control run would not be blank but active, and the result not correct.
    Thus you would need a clean reactor that had never been used, but in that case you don’t know if that reactor is working as it should.
    Now it’s time to sleep in Europe… (and I believe that I have other discussions and investigations to dedicate my time to when I wake up).

  146. @Mats

    “I cannot see that these discussions add something essential to the whole picture.”

    I would appreciate an answer to this, which has been troubling me for years. You seem to be a smart individual and you know something about how to conduct experiments. How did it not occur to you to press Rossi and Levi to prove that the measurement of output power (enthalpy) was reliable? That would have been done by only one extra run. In that run, the reactor would be empty of hydrogen. Calibration heat for the output measurement would be provided by the large heaters built into the ecat.

    To make this perfect, Rossi would have been asked to provide two ecats connected to identical power and control systems. You would choose which of the two ecats would receive hydrogen and then both would be run in parallel.

    With all the issues about dry steam and wet steam, why did nobody on the team think to ask Rossi that? I am really mystified by it. Even as gullible a bunch as the people on the Vortex email list were asking for it. (this applies to all the early experiments before the “megawatt plant” and the “hot cat”)

  147. Mats Lewan permalink

    I addressed no 2 in my response below.
    I’m not sure number 3 is correct. Levi didn’t say it was boiling for 40 minutes. He said maximum output heat lasted for 40 minutes, and as far as I understand he meant that this started already during the heating phase, before water reached the boiling temperature.
    I cannot see that these discussions add something essential to the whole picture.

  148. “If this is the remaining point that worries you”
    this is a piece (and a small one) of what worry me.
    “write a book”

    Nice suggestment, but you (and many others) would not like it at all… 😀

    By the way: keep your time then remember this is not the only question raised on how tests were conducted and on measurements. For example, there are also:

    2 – The water flow written in the calorimetric report (17.6 L/h) is 250% greater than maximum estimated flow (7.2 L/h, at the pump speed audible in the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE)) of the dosimetric pump used in the demo (http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg (subsequent updating: http://i.imgur.com/2GanyYO.jpg);

    3 – The calorimetric report states that maximum output heat lasted for 40 minutes , the double of the real duration ( http://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg)

  149. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Cimpy
    Thanks Cimpy for helping Ascoli65. I will have to look at this and talk to Levi some day.
    If this is the remaining point that worries you, I would say that I’m not troubled. Worse things have happened in research that is never much discussed. I could say ‘try seeing the whole picture’, but I know that this is what you’re trying to do. So let me put it like this — write a book 😉

  150. “could you please show med the evidence that this instrument was not present”

    I answered. It is under moderation (lot of links to show it)

  151. “could you please show med the evidence that this instrument was not present. I don’t recall any discussions regarding that”
    This is easy, let me answer for him this way:
    Could you please show me evidence that this instrument (the probe) was present? As it did not appear in any video or photo. Another one appeared instead (see first link about “some comments” later here)

    E Cat probes:

    IAQ Monitor Delta Ohm HD37AB1347
    http://www.geass.com/html/Analizzatori_Gas/IAQ%20Analizzatori%20Portatili%20C0_CO2%20Delta%20Ohm.html
    or
    http://degre5.com/produits.asp?langue=fr&rechtxt=HD37AB1347

    HP474AC:

    (from http://www.3lco.biz/product.php?id_product=442)
    or
    http://degre5.com/produits.asp?langue=fr&rechtxt=HP474AC

    some comments on subject:
    http://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer
    (“A combined probe of the type HP474AC (Delta Ohm) was claimed to have been used, but the video shows a different probe which looks like an SPC C45 0500 BEX – probe. An HP474AC probe is not visible in any video. “)

    http://oggiscienza.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/un-giallo-canarino/

    http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2012/12/18/il-calzascarpe/

    http://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/cardone-5/#comment-14905

    Last: if ever it was there, it could not be used to collect that kind of data:
    https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49871.html

  152. “But then, on the other hand, if you put yourself in his situation, and presume that the technology is real, then you may conclude that it’s not easy to decide who you should trust or not.”

    Uhhun. Rossi shouldn’t and doesn’t need to trust anyone at all. That is exactly what patents are for. They completely remove any need for trust and they substitute for trust only the need for proper disclosure, research of past patents, and a first rate patent attorney to write the patent. With a device as valuable as the ecat, it should be no problem at all to generate funds necessary to write and defend the patent if infringement ever arose. A reasonable license fee schedule would make it unlikely that anyone would find it profitable to infringe. In civilized countries, anyway.

    “I never understood why academics should not investigate any phenomenon that they, according to their professional evaluation, find sufficiently interesting to study in order to gain new knowledge. Here’s a phenomenon that unfortunately has been rejected, most probably on scarce ground, since 1989. I believe it’s a good thing when academic researchers involve in gaining more knowledge in this area.”

    I don’t know anyone who says academics should not investigate Rossi. However, they should have the appropriate qualifications which, in this case, include electrical power engineering and heat transfer/fluid flow measurement methods as a specialty. Someone experience in detecting or performing deception should also have been present. Far as I know, nobody on the Levi “team” had any of those qualifications. If they did, they certainly didn’t show it.

    As to why cold fusion has been rejected, it is because the papers in the field are bad, hard to read and understand, and generally poorly organized and presented. I have suffered with several which, according to guru Jed Rothwell, are supposed to be the best. In addition, in no place does an appreciable amount of power seem to be produced in a replicable fashion.

    All high power claims (Rossi, Defkalion, Miley, Brillouin and Nanospire) are subject to serious question because of outrageous claims, poor demonstrations, lack of independent testing and in the case of Nanospire, simply insane claims about radiation injuries and health.

    When you get *official* endorsement from the physics department of a major university, for example Uppsala, that power in the dozens to hundreds of watts can be produced consistently and reproducibly, then you can claim cold fusion/LENR is real. I predict if this happened, everyone would accept it. Problem is, it has not happened.

  153. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Ascoli65
    Thanks for repeating your questions. I didn’t find all of them
    LT2a — could you please show med the evidence that this instrument was not present. I don’t recall any discussions regarding that.
    LT2b — if I remember right it was shown that the capacity of the pump was larger than indicated on the label with specifications.
    LT2c — I’m not sure what you mean here. I had a look at the Levi-Bianchini reports document, and as far as I can understand Levi observed a preheating phase of 30 minutes, and then what he describes as the system in full power from 17.30 until 18.15, looking at the screen shot, which would be 45 minutes. Levi reports 40 minutes. What is it that you don’t find correct?
    LT3a — Again I’m not sure what you intend. The water flow of 1 l/min is what you’d expect to have when you want to obtain the same cooling effect as with boiling, without having phase shift. Since Levi had no pump with that capacity he attached the water inlet to the ordinary water tap. Flow was not constant, as can be expected from tap water, but sufficiently constant to give an order of magnitude.

    Next — I never understood why academics should not investigate any phenomenon that they, according to their professional evaluation, find sufficiently interesting to study in order to gain new knowledge. Here’s a phenomenon that unfortunately has been rejected, most probably on scarce ground, since 1989. I believe it’s a good thing when academic researchers involve in gaining more knowledge in this area.

    Further — if some claim that LENR can replace oil, we’d better find out as soon as possible if that’s true. You cannot do that y closing your eyes and refute to investigate.

    Last — regarding new physics. Basically no researcher in this area believes that LENR / cold fusion requires new physics. That’s a misunderstanding. AlainCo could brief you more on that. There are several theories describing a phenomenon which obviously differs from plasma fusion, since there’s no plasma but condensed matter. One recent description can be found here: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/15/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post/
    Generally, however, I agree with late Kullander who always said that it’s too early to build theories. He said that you first needed more experimental data, otherwise there are too many possibilities to take a wrong turn.

    I would also repeat — there have been errors and weaknesses in all performed measurements. That’s natural, and they are being addressed. Not as fast as you would wish in a scientific environment — I agree — but if you read my book I believe you realize Rossi’s not a scientist but an entrepreneur with certain difficulties to listen to what others would expect. And he’s the one who sets the rules for most testing — even though he has been more and more permissive as time has passed. You could accuse him for being overly suspicious regarding people who want to do measurements on his device. But then, on the other hand, if you put yourself in his situation, and presume that the technology is real, then you may conclude that it’s not easy to decide who you should trust or not.

  154. “Let’s say that dryness was not measured in a correct way — this still doesn’t mean that the steam was as wet as some claim, or that such wetness was even possible given geometries and materials used at the setup. You could start investigating that. I have got experts telling me that it’s unlikely.”

    The issues related to this are first that Rossi never allowed repeat of the experiment with proper calibration and blank runs to establish whether or not the system to measure output heat was working properly. So all the discussions about wet or dry steam are pretty “moot”.

    I was impressed by two additional factors. One was Krivit’s analysis of your video, Mats. It was clear to me that Rossi was “goosing” the power to make steam come out. Also it seemed that he was very embarrassed and worried when he was caught. He looks like a “deer in headlights” in the video.

    Finally, you really need to address the Grabowski paper. It shows calculations that reveal that a 6% error in wetness of the steam (a very small and imperceptible amount) would fully account for Rossi’s claimed 6X power gain (which he erroneously calls COP).

    Those issues have been around for years. I have not yet finished reading your book but so far, I did not find them refuted in it.

    As for Levi, it would be nice if he would talk to Josephson and Krivit and would properly repeat the simple and elegant test he botched– the one from February 2011 which used a liquid cooling circuit and a “low temperature” ecat.

  155. “Now, let me ask you and Maryyugo and Cimpy another question.

    What exactly would you like to obtain as the best possible thing to happen right now regarding Rossi? That everyone agrees that what he does is impossible? Or fraud? Or that he is arrested? Or stopped in some way? Or that someone manages to prove, beyond all doubts, that he has tricked everyone?”

    Hi Mats. The “best” thing that could happen is that I’m wrong and Rossi was telling the truth. But that requires that he be insane because no sane person would develop the ecat the way he did. Anyone sane would hire the world’s best patent attorneys, provide the necessary information for US and international patents, and then would sell the invention for participation in its development — shares certainly worth billions of dollars.

    The next best thing that could happen would be for the truth to come out — for either Industrial Heat or Rossi to actually provide an ecat for truly independent testing.

    Just for the record, I have nothing whatever against Swedish science, Swedish scientists or Sweden. What I write about is that the scientists chosen by Rossi to “test” his device do not have the appropriate qualifications. They are not specialists in heat transfer/fluid flow measurements. They did not do a good job, especially of ruling out deception.

    You seem to think people who don’t believe Rossi would rejoice in the failure of his claim to powerful LENR. Nothing is further from the truth. Most skeptics simply don’t want Rossi to continut to make money from what seems to be very likely to be nothing but clever deception and fraud.

  156. Ascoli65 permalink

    @ Mats Lewan ,
    welcome back and thank you for the reply, although, unfortunately, it does not still respond to my questions.

    Let me first recall what they were. The documents and statements of dr. Levi (Bologna University) shows the following incongruities:

    LT2 – Levi Test on January 14, 2011 (2nd test supervised by Levi)
    a) the presence of the Delta Ohm probe;
    b) the water flow rate with respect to the pump capacity;
    c) the duration of the phenomenon.

    LT3 – Levi Test on 10-11 February 2011 (3rd test supervised by Levi)
    a) the water flow rate with respect to the flowmeter readings..

    Also for the 1st test supervised by Levi (LT1), held on December 16, 2010, his calorimetric report shows some incongruities, but for now let’s leave them aside.

    All of these incongruities appear to be due to invented data. If it was confirmed that the data are invented, the first tests held under the responsibility of dr. Levi would be nothing else than farces.

    To determine whether the data are invented, I had asked your opinion on these 3+1 Levi Test incongruities, that I showed in as many slides (jpegs). However, your reply speaks only of the incongruity LT2a, evading its specific objection: why Levi reported type, make and model of a tool that was not there?

    You have supervised other tests, such as the two tests in April. At the end of your reports, you have properly shown the list of the instruments. You were the guarantor of measurements in respect of your readers and I guess you have checked out by yourself the data and the characteristics of those instruments. Could you have reported those of an absent tool?

    Levi was aware of the fundamental importance of the measure of the steam dryness. In his report he wrote: ”The main origin of possible errors in [Test1] measure was that the steam was not checked to be completely dry.”. Is it credible that he did not checked out the characteristics of the instrument used to measure it? Where the information on Delta Ohm probe comes from? Is not it an invented datum?

    In your reply, I did not find any answer regarding the incongruities LT2b and LT2c. You have nothing to say about them?

    Regarding the last incongruity (LT3a), perhaps you did not understand my objection. It concerns the fact that the flow rate value declared by dr. Levi, ie 1 liter per second, seems to be overstated by at least an order of magnitude and thus invented. Please, look well at the jpeg. With regard to your reply, I can only say that it is not necessary to invoke new physical laws to explain behaviour that can be easily explained by the generally accepted physics, for example by means of the Joule’s law on the transformation of the electric power into heat.

    Now the answers to your questions.

    Firstly, I do not care Rossi, I do feel cheated only by the people of the University of Bologna. In your reply you talk about “something interesting” that could be happened. I agree. In Bologna at the beginning of 2011 a “very interesting” thing happened: at the presence of their headmasters some members of the Physics Department of Bologna University stated that a table top device produced a dozen kW of excess heat. I also agree with you that such an event is worth “to investigate”, and I think that such an investigation should be undertaken by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research to ascertain what happened in those days in the oldest of our Universities.

    Finally, let me answer your second question with another question. Sorry for that. It seems to me that many people are trying to convince the world public opinion that it is possible to replace oil with LENR. This belief will sustain, and even increase, the present level of consuption of the fossile sources and will anticipate their exhaustion. Look at this dramatic diagram (1). Then, what if it turns out that those people are wrong? Don’t you fear that the big dark area on the right side will indicate the darkness into which our civilization will fall sooner than we can devote ourself to happen?

    (1) http://www.lenrnews.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/lenr-cold-fusion-oil-age.png

  157. Abbe permalink

    @Stefan: I do not rule out that Rossi connects the E-cat to the measurement equipment, and then use those measurements to dial in the “operation” of the E-cat. The operating parameters that he can change is the voltage and the pulse structure of the heating of the E-cat. What then might happen is that he plays around with the pulse structure until he gets readings that seems to show that he has an operating E-cat, but what he really has done is to set the pulse structure to one that is mis-measured by the instrumentation. The correct way to do this is to continuously monitor the load time-structure by a sampling oscilloscope with a high bandwidth, and to make sure that the load is within the specifications of the power measurement equipment at all times.

    And this does not solve the issue of the 1MW tests for me. Having another look at the videos from the test it shows that steam outlet from the container is even lower than I remembered, which makes the theory of how the system operated more or less detached from physics. And then I am only talking of the cooling circuit outside the container.

  158. the readings from these are, from a technical standpoint, worthless

    Exactly, as per the probe matter.
    And now, step to flow meter, then to the pump and the water.
    And now tell me: do you trust Levi? Why?

  159. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Abbe,
    Incompetence, really?, So you suggest that Rossi managed by miss-take send the bulk of the power (many kW) at the frequency band at maybe above 10kHz with no significant low frequency components that could spook the testers. No in that case he should know what his doing and it is a clear fraud. Also the issue with high frequency components was known to Rossi. He had problems with it when developing the hot cat, it’s in the book, and claims to have been fixed it referring to expert help. So again, assuming no fraud the test was fine and a good indication for further study. You lift an interesting point though, will the folks at the test be able to write off this possibility of fraud.

  160. Abbe permalink

    @Mats: This is another one of the strange things about the measurements. They have used probes built to measure the relative humidity of air, but what should come out of the E-cats is pure water vapour, or 100% RH. Which is outside the measurement range of the probes, and thus the readings from these are, from a technical standpoint, worthless.

  161. >what if it turns out that you were wrong?

    Exactly, I am looking to seev if there ever could be a possibility that I ciuld be wrong.
    Matter is, if a probe was not there, and if it in any case was not the right instrument, how can you accept data from it? It foes not matter “they could be correct in sny case”, they are invented.

    Yes, Galantini signed. To add his reputation to Rossi & company joke.

    Anything to say on other great Levi performances?

  162. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Ascoli65
    I had a look at those old documents and discussions about steam dryness and instruments. I’m not sure if you mix up things or if you have other information. In any case, what I found is that Galantini (not Levi) confirmed that he used the HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm with the HP474AC sond, but that discussions went on regarding what you could measure with this instrument. He also confirmed that the instrument Testo 176 H2 0572 1766 was used when Kullander and Essén witnessed a test in March 2011.

    Now, you claim that the data presented by Levi was invented. Let’s say that dryness was not measured in a correct way — this still doesn’t mean that the steam was as wet as some claim, or that such wetness was even possible given geometries and materials used at the setup. You could start investigating that. I have got experts telling me that it’s unlikely.
    Furthermore, you’d have to prove that the data was invented, since this steam issue is still not resolved, and since you claim it.

    And no, I don’t believe that this is a farce.

    But the main point is that several tests have been done after this one, just because of one thing: It was a sufficient indication that something interesting could be going on, and it was therefore worth continuing to investigate. And the eventually, in Levi-Essén et al report, a quite well performed measurement was done, indicating anomalous heat. Hopefully the doubts that were expressed regarding that report, mainly concerning the electrical measurement, will be addressed in the report that is being prepared now by those who have supposedly done a new independent test in a neutral location.

    You say that the first test was a farce, and that as a consequence all following tests are farces, as long as Levi is included. I don’t agree. Errors have been made, and they are being addressed. Levi is assisted and controlled by other researchers.

    Regarding the last question, when you talk about findings going against generally accepted physics, this is addressed in my book. Nuclear science is a young science, and you surprise me if you believe that we have all answers already.

    Now, let me ask you and Maryyugo and Cimpy another question.

    What exactly would you like to obtain as the best possible thing to happen right now regarding Rossi? That everyone agrees that what he does is impossible? Or fraud? Or that he is arrested? Or stopped in some way? Or that someone manages to prove, beyond all doubts, that he has tricked everyone?

    Please tell me. Specify. I really want to understand.

    Then, as a second question — let’s say you manage to obtain exactly what you wish, based on you claims. Then, what if it turns out that you were wrong?

  163. “if the invention did not question our current understanding of how nuclear reactions work”
    Is that your only matter with this story? ‘Cause I do really believe there are still some other issues, like the past scams of the enterpreneur,the evidence of lies from that man (you do not need me to remember you how many times he changed derails of the story, do you? There is a whole site buikt on the lies of that man) and Levi and Galantini and even Celani (do you remember he measured those gamma no one else could?) , not to speak of the easiest thing of all: make a nuclear fusion on earth, with some nickel, a bit of heat and a lot of immagination….Oh,yes, it is all a matter of our insufficient knowledge of how stuff does work at nuclear level, there where only dragons can fly safely.Or might be Santa Claus….

    But let Mats answers, when he eill have time and data, to questions rised by Ascoli65 on flowmeter, on technical instruments, on data collected – thus on Levi AND on Physic Department of Bologna University scientific reputation – You do not hope to be able to change subject, do you?

  164. Abbe permalink

    @Stefan: I do not necessarily see fraud, rather I see incompetence. The last measurements on the Hot-cat very probably makes the mistake of using standard instrumentation on a very non-typical load, as it is pulsed with an unknown and secret pulse structure. This is a common mistake in another branch of high hope “new” science, the one of free energy or over unity machines.

    And the F-P experiments where not killed outright, on the opposite. Many labs around the world tried to duplicate them, but when they failed, it became very hard to convince the founding agencies to put money into the field. Especially as there is no solid theory to show that it should work.

  165. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Abbe
    As far as I can tell, and you get that impression from reading Lewans book as well, the old tests was not well thought out and perhaps not the best organized event. The last test by Levi et all is much better than the rest of the tests, and would classify as a proof of the Ecat if we could rule out a quite unlikely fraud. Actually if the invention did not question our current understanding of how nuclear reactions work, people would not be suspicious. In a sense one can deduce the degree questioning of the tests from how possible it is for physics to actually allow these assumed processes to happen. In a sense something very unlikely triumph the just unlikely and hence call’s for us to be open minded for any possible fraud from especially Levi.

    Previously, from the reporting of it, it was not easy to see if it was a fraud, if it was real or if it was a huge miss-take. Also note the word “indications” in the report by Levi at all. Really some or perhaps everybody would not like to write under a definitive answer that it worked at that time but concluded the results where interesting enough to continue with a more foolproof test this time. And every things indicates that they work much harder now. I know that people claims that a simple weekend test or such at a specific laboratory would be enough. But from my experience, having time is indeed important to make a high quality work, this especially means that normal scientists and not rock star scientist can do a good job at evaluating the Ecat.

    Personally I’m optimistic, I see the previous cold fusions findings as a good indication that we can have something going on here, and Rossi might have stumbled on a rare formula that makes this saga possible. Also in my current theoretical understanding of solid state physics and quantum mechanics, I can’t see why it can not be possible, unlikely yes, but not impossible. We simply do not know many body solid state chemistry well enough to certainly say no, therefore we need to be open minded about cold fusion in general and, when it comes to the Ecat, at least be hopeful.

    It’s a mystery to me that the society don’t agree on this point and accept that we do not know everything and that a miracle can happen, that we could produce a working cold fusion device. We should have spun on the Fleichmann and Pons fiasco and though that perhaps cold fusion might work, then try to engineer it, and search for a solution. Actually doing this is not wasted in any ways. You will train people to become good scientists, you will learn new things about solid state physics, perhaps learn how to simulate such systems with computers to a better degree than we can today, develop new products etc. It’s like the spin offs you get from big projects like going to the moon, trying to make hot fusion real, to explore the particle physics in cern etc. But no, we did not go that way. It has been impossible (well there are a few exceptions) for most young scientist to take that path. To get funding etc. This has been a closed road, and now it looks like we will kill the earth, what can I say, stupid stupid politics.

  166. And let me add that, for those who do not see the (clever) point of Ascoli65 and stick to the fraud, this resembles the “Nigerian” one, where the scammed are involved in the fraud itself, so that they cannot ask for the law to clarify situation. Exactly as it happened for Milan DFK, who has been convinced Hyperion was real, thus spent on it thinking to be sble to sell in all Europe. When it came out it was a mere scam, they were the ones who collected momey from other believers. Thus…they were part of the scam! What a pity!!…

  167. Ascoli65 permalink

    @maryyugo (sorry for the wrong nickname),
    I don’t think it is important what Rossi knows about the physics and heat transfer. He claims he found the magic powder by serendipity, he asked Prof. Focardi to confirm his results, and Focardi did it. That happend in 2007 and was the source of all his credibility in CF field. Lewan himself says that he was convinced by the involvement of professors at Bologna University.

    Rossi hides behind the scientific authority of the professors. In a recent statement he said: ”The Professors are collecting millions of data, I do not know the kind of complex calculations the Professors are doing and will do. They have more science than I do …”. For any possible challenge to the performance of his devices, he will be able to say that it was been certified by university professors. For all other statements, there are false excuses dreamed up by Rothwell.

    I know that each Country, US included, has laws against using lies to sell or promote investments. But I think it should be triggered by a complaint filed by the damaged parts. Are you sure that in this story there is a damaged part in terms of the law? I do not. To me, this story is NOT at all a scientific or tecnhological one, NEITHER it looks as a sell or investments scam. It seems to be pure propaganda at a global scale for a not well known purpose, but which has to do with the future of the energy sources, and with this respect it can affect each of us.

    However, these are matters of competence of other authorities who will intervene if they deem it appropriate. I can only say that I feel mocked by those who are revered and paid with public money to search for the truth, to denounce the false science and, at a more central level, to watch on the reliability and seriousness of the Italian research.

  168. “Levi is not an old retired scientist but have a career and playing with a fraud as you claim mean the end of his career”

    Are you joking, Mats? Levi is nit young enough to hope for a career. He can dream of, but he will never become anyone – and TPR is a good deadstone as it was formally wrong – to name the smallest of matters. Levi lied, and misleaded and that’s enough to say ge will go nowhere, in future – the only hope he has is a reward from friends – a pity they are only scammers…

    Mats, the E Cat is nothing else than a fraud, and even a macroscopic one – there is no way it could ever be anything of real, but I do understand that one who is still here claiming “Hyperion could have been working” despite the nice photo even Nevanlinna saw, can say really anything, even that Rossi is a scientist and that he will rewrite physic despite his own latest claims….

    Say Mats, did you lost it? Do you want me to send you that picture?

  169. Abbe permalink

    @AlainCo: My critique is serious. I see issues with each demonstration that has been done. Different issues with each one, as they are never much alike. I would have been closer to believe that the effect was real if each demonstration had been a refinement of the last, instead of being something completely else.

  170. My point was simply that if Rossi doesn’t understand the basic of heat transfer methods, he could not have invented a fusion reactor. This isn’t about a lie. It’s about a huge gaffe. Rossi said that a heat exchanger secondary’s operating parameters won’t affect temperature in the primary loop. It does. In a MAJOR way.

    Rothwell, as usual, is also wrong. In the US, there are stringent laws against lying publicly about one’s business. There are truth in advertising laws and there are laws against using lies to sell or promote investments. If there were not such laws, companies could tell investors anything. They can’t. If they lie, they risk law suits and government sanctions, fines and even jail terms.

    True, these laws are inconsistently enforced. But several scammers have been caught and punished recently. We can only hope that cold fusion scammers will be similarly treated.

  171. Ascoli65 permalink

    @ Al Potenza ,
    I can not understand why you and so many other critics give importance to the Rossi-says. In this saga, he was presented as inventor and entrepreneur. This allows the CF propaganda to justify anything he says with the excuse of its earnings expectations.

    A couple of years ago, Rothwell, its main supporter, wrote (1): ” There is no law against dishonesty in business, as long as you do not cross certain lines. Mostly arbitrary lines. If liars did not have the right to do business, Wall Street would not exist.” Could he be any clearer than that? The entrepreneur Rossi has “carte blanche”, he can say what he wants and then contradicts himself, he is always justified.

    His credibility comes exclusively from others. On the same message on Vortex, Rothwell said: ”I do not trust his test data. I trust other people’s test data taken from his machines, and independent replications of them. Since these other people are honest, that proves he is honest, too.” Who are these honest people? They are the academic “scientists”, mostly the professors at Bologna University. Take one of the many photos showing Rossi and Focardi together, remove Focardi, what is left? Only a man and his controversial past.

    As a rule, people trusts scientists and professors and considers them to be honest. In their most important ceremonies they dress up as judges, almost as ancient priests. Society attributes sacredness to science and to the seeking of the truth. That is the reason why professors enjoy honors and a good salary, which in Italy are also guaranteed for life. They have the privilege to dedicate their lives to the best job of the world, while their fellow citizens cultivate the crops, clean the streets, drive the bus, pay the taxes to finance the universities… and rely on them to know the truth.

    So, please, leave the Rossi-says to the frenzy of his believers and to the propaganda of CF promoters. What first deserves is to know the real reason why so many university professors have placed at his disposal the prestige and credibility of their academy, in order to convince the world public opinion of the reality of cold fusion. And why they have been allowed to do so.

    (1) http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg61965.html

  172. first mary, why are you nit picking of tiny details, trying to fix orthograph…

    what is said seems simple, if the flow is lower, at constant power the temperature increase on the hot side because the thermal resistance increase.
    now you can jump on the notion of secondary, playing with semantic like medieval philosophers.
    Probably when he says “secondary” he mean the hot side of the secondary circuit, which is common sense.

    moreover we don’t know what are the control loop, so please wait for more data .
    discuss on the previous test, of the pathetic errors of a nuclear physics theorists mistakes in experimental physics, that bo Hoistad have spotted, of you similar desperate hate of rossi…
    match that with the report of Ericsson desperate opposition to Rossi claims since the beginning.
    match that with the skeptic who refused to see in the telescope, giving a chance for Küllander to exert his skeptic competences and be convinced.

    it is ridiculous, just wait.
    and don’t overuse simple imprecision of talking.
    it is what we call in French: “hypercritical method” of negationist , playing with details not make people forget the key facts.

    the key fact is that there is no serious (Pomp/ericsson is an insult to science, ethic, and calorimetry) critic against the previous test, as there is none agains Fleischmann&pons/McKubre/Oriani/Miles.
    as said in the book of lewan, Levi is not an old retired scientist but have a career and playing with a fraud as you claim mean the end of his career…
    However there is clear pathetic oppostion, mistakes , evidence of incompetence in the opposition. It is clear and matching a long serie of such unethical and incompetent opposition.

    Businessmen are already convinced, and denialist will never be satisfied. that is usual history.

    Nature and science will admit the evidence after 1-2 years of industrial use , time for them to find an excuse for their behavior, to find an academic hero, and hide the evidences. When Nature&Scince will swallow the crow the todays skeptics will simply say they were right and follow the pope of science.

    meanwhile people interested in the real story should read the book, which contains much more details than said here, very useful for people having an independent brain…

  173. Ascoli65 permalink

    Mats, sorry again. Have a nice journey.

  174. While Mats travels and ponders Levi’s and Rossi’s past infelicities, let me bring you up to date on a fresh one. You have to understand heat exchangers and heat transfer a little bit to grasp it.

    Rossi was asked on JONP if he has reached the point where he can extract heat from the hot cat without undermining its operation (overcooling it). Here is his reply:

    “Andrea Rossi
    April 13th, 2014 at 2:05 PM

    Andreas Moraitis:
    The generated heat is withdrawn by means of heat exchangers, based on well known technologies. The reliability doesn’t depend on the heat exchangers. Obviously, the temperature of the secondary depends on the heat exchanger, while the primary temperature depends only by the E-Cat. The lower the flow of the secondary, the higher the secondary temperature, and vice versa. Warm Regards”

    The problem with this answer is that it’s completely wrong.

    What he is saying is that the ecat’s temperature remains constant, even if the “secondary” loop of a heat exchanger connected to it draws heat energy out. Of course, that’s impossible. Drawing heat out of the system is COOLING it. Given a limited heat generating ability and I believe the ecat has been said to feature constant heat generation, which is more limited than some bounded capability, then if you extract heat from the secondary loop, this will cool the primary circuit. IT’S WHAT A HEAT EXCHANGER DOES! The only way this would not happen would be if a) the ecat was able to make virtually limitless power and if b) the ecat was completely self regulating with respect to interior temperature. Nobody has ever claimed either of those conditions and neither is possible, even if you accept all of Rossi prior claims.

    Most believers won’t grasp this major error by Rossi but to those who understand, it proves he doesn’t know enough about heat transfer to design a camp stove, much less a powerful and safe, tabletop, nuclear fusion reactor.

    Past similarly ridiculous and funny errors by Rossi and Defkalion include their refusal of proper blanks and controls during demonstrations, protection of IP with constant telemetry and self triggered self-destruct mechanisms (ROTFWL!), the 1.6 Tesla field, the million unit robotic factory (Rossi had one of those in 2004 for his scammy thermoelectric converters too), and of course, the cheap way Rossi has of making nickel isotopes! I wish Mats had included these absurdities in his book. Well, there is always the next edition!

  175. Mats Lewan permalink

    Patience Ascoli65, I’m travelling this week. I wish I had all the time you seem to have 😉

  176. Ascoli65 permalink

    @ Mats Lewan,
    sorry, but your answer is taking longer than expected to arrive. Any problem?

    The issues related to the January test are old stuff. The 3 jpegs had been submitted to Prof. Josephson at the end of March 2011 as examples of obvious flaws in the way the excess heat was measured (1).

    The Nobel Prize laureate was convinced of the reality of the device on these basis: “Levi has provided the details of his investigation and concluded with his opinion as to what is demonstrated by the results (in the case of the 2nd expt., that chemical sources are excluded). In the first case there was a formal report. I’m not sure if there is a similar report for the second expt., but the Ny Teknik does contain direct quotes so it is not just the reporter’s opinion of the significance of the expt.”

    Josephson believed Levi, because he trusted in the seriousness of his historic university. He wrote: “how many of these have been checked out by university depts. as Rossi’s has (and he is willing to allow further investigations)?” Even then the whole credibility of Rossi rested on the teachers of the Department of Physics at Bologna University. So he quickly got rid of the 3 flaws such as “criticism”, without entering the heart of their matters. Maybe because it is too simple disputes for him: it is to recognize the differences between 2 objects, 2 screens or do very simple calculation.

    I hope you have more patience in examining them. I loved this sentence in your recent interview: “Because even though it might be a difficult truth, it might be things that are uncomfortable, it’s better to let the truth come out.” This is a good opportunity to apply this intention.

    (1) http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3219628 # post3219628

  177. Abbe permalink

    @Franco: As far as I can see, this gives that the condensers must have been totally filled with water for the water to be able to return to the tank. Which makes it hard to believe that the cooling circuit had the capability of moving 1MW of heat from the water to the air, as much of this heat exchange must take place in the pipe to the condenser.

  178. “Data confirmed here by Rossi on JoNP”
    That’s clearly a guarantee.
    But point is: where is the plant, nowaday? To whom is it giving 1 MW? And how is that with such a marvellous plant, you need to build another (different) version instead of producing that one for the market?

  179. Franco permalink

    @ Abbe / AlainCo

    About steam data, at output of 1MW Plant, in the steam output pipe (near the thermocouple where the temperature has been recorded) Pressure was:
    230-240 mm H2O column

    and the Temperature was: 104.5 °C

    Data confirmed here by Rossi on JoNP:
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=563&cpage=4#comment-142307

  180. “once you know LENR is real, you understand that “ Hyperion must work, Piantelli cell was not broken but Massa broke it, an Angel made the Shroud of Turin 1 thousand years younger opening Jesus tomb, and the tiny smoke you saw from first E Cat was a tornado. For sure.

    You know believers are asking to look forward and forget the past? Guess why…

  181. @mary
    you seems to be immune to what Bo Hoistad said.
    like that the structure of the article was the one of a conspiracy theory
    that the critics were incompetent and making huge errors, like not reading the report seriously, joking with emissivity, missing key points, and playing the fool with the notion of blackbox test.

    reread it…

    anyway pomp&eriksson report contains nothings, that is not bashed by common sens of detail from the report spotted by Bo Hoistad.
    the only serious critics by others, was DC offset, with some impossibilities like the presence of instrument on the same socket, and the fact that it could be detected easily in absence of Rossi…

    as said about pseudoskeptics, you have clear asymmetry in the burden of evidence… globally when critics are sent you check nothing.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

    “Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:[5]

    *Denying, when only doubt has been established
    *Double standards in the application of criticism
    *The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
    *Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
    *Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
    *Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
    *Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
    *Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

    He characterized “true” skepticism as:[5]

    *Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
    *No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
    *Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
    *Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
    *Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
    *Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found”

    pomp&eriksson match well pseudo skepticism with their crazy theories, their clear aggressivity and clear mistakes.

    Morrison, Taubes, park, taubes and in a lesser way Lewis and hansen, are of that kind too…

    people who can still think independently should read the book of charles Beaudette
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
    to understand how far was the delusion against cold fusion

    those article may help to get a feeling more quickly
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4
    http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhownaturer.pdf
    http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1991/eirv18n37-19910927/eirv18n37-19910927_052-clearing_the_air_about_the_cold.pdf
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-of-Isoperibolic-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

    but Beaudette books gives a wider view with less aggressivity.

    Now once you know LENR is real, you understand that fralick was right, like Miley, Piantelli, Focardi, and that Rossi just followed the same line…
    I will just add that if you want to screw investor, best way is to do green-business today, with solar, wind,biomass, not something that wikipedia describe as a scam.

  182. The first step when characterising an unknown load must be to measure the time structure of it, in order to be able to choose the correct instrumentation

    ….if it were a serious stuff.But it was not. If it were, there would have been tests to address issues before come out with a new Cat version. Changing Cat had the onky scope to not address matters raised by skeptics – and in any case, better do not repeat same trick too often.
    It is not difficult to understand why someone is already asking to forget the past and deal only with new Cats…at least, till next new one,of course

  183. Abbe permalink

    @AlainCo: It is 1 atm absolute pressure, not 1 atm above room pressure.

    And we are not discussing a typical industrial load, such as a motor, but a pulsed load with unknown pulse-structure. If the load pulses are too short, a standard power meter will give a faulty reading. The first step when characterising an unknown load must be to measure the time structure of it, in order to be able to choose the correct instrumentation. This has newer been done, or at least not documented, with the E-cat.

  184. “all you describe could have been checked by any of the tester, and maybe some are.
    most of your critics are simply usual hypercritical tactic.
    most is answered here
    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

    Did you actually read and understand the response, Alain? I doubt it! It does not speak to the criticism. Not at all. Not in the least. All it says in essence is “We’re right and the critics are wrong.” Talk is cheap. How about some data?

    Yes, the Swedish scientists could have asked for a proper blank run and calibration run. They could have asked to use their own wires in series with Rossi’s at the input and they could have placed hard wired current shunts in those wires. They could have used oscilloscopes at the input. They could have but they didn’t. I can only wonder at what mistakes they will make with Rossi’s next “configuration” of his equipment.

  185. Keep the focus, if you’re able:

    specifically answer the questions put to you by “Ascoli65,” regarding:

    a) The instruments.

    b) The flow rate.

    c) The time duration.

    avoiding to say: “already solved” as they are not – photos and data (and the absence of data) are all from “believer side of the river”.

  186. If you want all the claims of a fraud to blow away you need only to give a skeptic team the key to the test laboratory. Exactly as it happened in Milan in june – july 2013.

    Guess what? Rossi will never allow that. Have you heard about the next TPR? Sounds as if same people of the preceding one will be involved. Seems also as if at least for 30% of the time Rossi himself is there. Thirdy part, for sure, to himself…
    Do you think all people around are stupid, AlinCo?

  187. @abbe
    what is the problem of 1 meter compared to 1atm (differential I imagine)
    1 atm is about 10m

    @marry
    most of the measurement you doubt about are classic in industrial context…
    clamp works when managed by electricians.

    of course typical skeptics like Morrison assume “believers” and their “valets” are less competent than a kid of 5.
    as described here
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

    all you describe could have been checked by any of the tester, and maybe some are.
    most of your critics are simply usual hypercritical tactic.
    most is answered here
    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

  188. Here is Jed Rothwell’s assessment of Levi’s experiment, written or transcribed onto Brian Josephson’s page:

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3214604

    It’s from March 2011.

    Note: no mention of a blank run, no mention of a calibration run. WHY NOT? Those are absolutely standard in science and engineering! Levi is described as looking for fraud such as hidden sources of energy. But hidden sources are not needed! All that is needed in this all liquid cooled experiment, is for the thermal sensor (a thermocouple) which measures the output temperature to be malfunctioning or misplaced or deliberately altered. Why didn’t anyone check THAT? A simple calibration with the built-in electrical heater and with no hydrogen (or no nickel) in the reaction cell would have accomplished this rapidly and at no cost.

    Levi has had THREE YEARS to figure this out and to act on it. Why has he not? Why does he not take questions about it?

  189. If you review Giuseppe Levi’s CV, you find mainly papers on coffee makers! I suppose those do have to consider some heat transfer principles but they are hardly a recommendation for evaluating a desk top fusion reactor. In other works in which he is involved, he is last author or far down in the list, meaning the actual work was done by someone else!

    Mats wrote that he has no reason to doubt the credibility of Levi. I wonder if he considered any of the excellent reasons others have noticed.

    – Levi never documented his experiment with liquid cooling of the ecat which turns out to be the ONLY time, apparently, that this was performed. And despite innumerable requests to do so, he never reported repeating it in three years!

    – Levi never discussed BLANK RUNS and CALIBRATION RUNS for the ecat tests which involved Mats, Kullander, Essen and other Swedish scientists. None were evident until the last test when the enthalphy measurement was not where cheating was suspected. And even then, the calibrations were improperly done (not equivalent to an actual run).

    – Levi never questioned the use of an input power measuring device that uses error-prone clamp on ammeters, and has no high frequency or DC capability.

    – Levi did not persist in properly testing the much-easier-to-characterize small cooler ecats. At least, not that anyone knows of.

    – Levi won’t talk to anyone about his ecat work– not Krivit, not Josephson and most certainly not me!

    There is no reason to trust Levi. Either he is incredibly stupid and incompetent or he is hiding something. There are no other possible reasons I can think of for his very strange behavior about Rossi and the ecat over the last three years.

    So, other than that he seems like a nice guy, why should he be trusted, Mats? What about the specific issues I raised above?

  190. Abbe permalink

    @Mats: Another aspect of the tests that were not covered in you book is the mystery of the water return from the condensers in the test of the 1 MW container.

    In these tests the steam exited the container at approx. 1 m height above the floor at a pressure of 1 atm. From this the pipe went horizontal to the condensers, which cooled the steam and delivered water at the bottom, or floor level. From this went another horizontal pipe, which ended about 1 m up pouring the water into a tank.

    The mystery is how the water was rising up from floor level to where it poured into the tank, if the other side of the condenser was steam at 1 atm pressure. One solution is that the steam was at a higher pressure, but that makes it necessary to measure this pressure in order to be able to calculate the efficiency of the device. Another solution is if there is no steam in the pipe exiting the container, but only superheated water at pressure.

    Mats, how do you explain this?

  191. Ascoli65 permalink

    @ Mats Lewan ,
    I’m not talking about the credibility of Giuseppe Levi as a man, but about that of Dr. Levi as researcher at Bologna University, with regard to his statements about the story told in your book.

    You met him several times and got your respectable opinion. Krivit met him also, everybody can see the videos of his interview, and he got a totally different impression. However, I do not speak about “impressions”, but “facts” represented by images and statements that conflict with each other.

    Thank you for your willingness to examine these differences in more detail . You certainly have the knowledge and skills to properly evaluate them. I would ask you to consider, in addition to the 3 inconsistencies of the January 2014 demo, a fourth serious one relating to the liquid phase test held on February 2011, that I have already mentioned it in my second comment to this blog. You know the Italian language and so you can take also benefit from the jpeg and the text of this post: http://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/levi/ .

    Take your time to examine the details, but please let your readers know your conclusions. Your book “shows that the impossible seems to be possible, that the world faces fundamental change”. It talks about the energy future of our Planet. We can not deceive the people, and possibly misguide their Governments, on this point.

  192. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Ascoli65 @maryyugo @garywright
    First of all, for several reasons my assessment is that I don’t have any reason to doubt the credibility of Giuseppe Levi. That is based among other things on several encounters with him. Remember that you are talking of and accusing a person that no one of you have never met (as far as I know). In any case, I will look again at the pieces of information that you are putting forward. It was a long time ago now so I’ll have to go back and check the details again, and it will take me some time.

  193. [Gary Wright asked that I post this for him. -M.Y.]

    @Mats Lewan

    Hi Mats,

    I have personally communicated with Mr. Brian Josephson specifically about the 2011 tests and about Mr. Levi.

    Which I will publish at a later time.

    Mr. Levi was actively involved in every public demonstration put on by Rossi of an e-cat during 2011.

    Mr. Levi was directly involved in many published reports of private testing of e-cats up to and including the 2013 report on arXiv.

    Here on your blog “Ascoli65” has put forth some very specific charges that go to the very heart of the credibility of Mr. Levi. “Ascoli65” specifically charges that Mr. Levi had falsified data in a published report of a test of an e-cat.

    Now I am aware that all of the people who want to believe that Rossi has something real also want everyone to forget Rossi’s criminal Petroldragon history, Rossi’s and partners criminal Thermoelectric history, and all of the prior demonstrations put on by Rossi and Levi, except for the one on arXiv, of course.

    It seems strange when you claim to be neutral to make statements like this —
    “In any case, forget the steam issue and look ahead for upcoming reports and measurements.”

    If good and decent people did not think that the prior history of an individual was important to ongoing events and actions by that same individual than laws like the “three strikes” law would never get passed.

    These are not events that happened 30 or 40 years ago, they happened recently, and are part of the same project – the e-cat – you are all discussing on this forum.

    I add my voice to “Ascoli65” and all of the others that want answers.

    Please look at the questions put by “Ascoli65” from the point of view that you do not know who the players are, or even that this was a test of an e-cat. Look at his questions as if he was paying you (as an engineering expert, your specialty) to evaluate a report he had received that was the basis for some people to ask him for investment money.

    What would you tell him under those circumstances?

    Please specifically answer the questions put to you by “Ascoli65,” regarding:

    a) The instruments.

    b) The flow rate.

    c) The time duration.

    If you do not agree with “Ascoli65” concerning these issues, please clearly explain why you hold differing views.

    Warm Regards,

    Gary Wright

    freeenergyscams.com

  194. @Mats

    Two brief questions please.

    1- Have you read Grabowski’s (DOD) report showing that as little as 6% of the water not vaporized would account for a 6:1 error in enthalpy recorded in a Rossi simple ecat experiment (exactly the “COP” Rossi claimed)?

    2- Is there any believable reason that Levi did not repeat the simple and elegant liquid flow calorimetry experiment (average about 15kW for 18 hours!) that he claimed to have done with Rossi around January 2011? That was the same experiment that Krivit wanted the data from and which Josephson asked about– both without response from Levi.

  195. As said, is a matter of people. The whole Bologna stuff is on behalf of those people, and point is there are proves those people lied. Not only Levi, but also Galantini. We do not need to tell about Rossi, have we? He used to lie many times and each tome someone started saying: “it is to mislead opponents”. After three years of examinations of Bologna demos, it ended up as I told you: main excuse nowaday is “those were demos. True measurements have been taken somewhere else, far away from cams and microphone”. What a pity same people used to say those demos were wonderful proves in the first days…

    Now try to answer Ascoli65:
    Can you say Levi did not lied? The presence of Delta Ohm probe; was invented, or you cans how us it was there? Galanitini, who signed a paper saying it was that probe is believable?
    Water flow rate: there have been invented data, how could we even discuss anything based on invented data? How about the duration of boiling that has been doubled on papers?

    These are not trivial questions: we are arguing on data AND on people. The same people who swear it works as they measured it.

    By the way, Mats, as you keep on saying DFK Hyperion might have worked (you did not change opinion in the meantime, correct?), why not simply step -dressed as you were in that occasion and with the same stuff like microphone or Pc not too far – around a super magnetic stuff that could emit 1,6-1,8 Tesla field? So to know what it is really like, when you write of it as if it could have been present in the same room with you that day in Milan…

  196. Ascoli65 permalink

    @ Mats Lewan,
    thanks for your kind reply, but unfortunately it does not respond to my objections, which mainly concerned with the credibility of Dr. Levi.

    The “apparent deficiencies” of the test in January 2011 are of a very particular type, they are actually “obvious inventions” and this fact has a huge impact on the credibility of the whole story, including the last tests.

    I do not know who were the experts you have spoken with. Any expert in thermotechnics can easily deduce by the trend of T that the outlet steam was very wet. But that’s not the point. The problem is that the dryness was not measured and that the Levi report contains the DETAILED data of an instrument that was not there, therefore it contains invented data. The information on used instruments are also experimental data. In your reports of April you have correctly included the details of all the instruments. Levi did not, except for those of a non-present instrument. The presence of Delta Ohm probe was invented! Do you agree? Please, tell us.

    The same for the water flowrate. Only 3 months after the January demo, thanks to your April 19 report, we have learned that the yellow pump had a maximum flow rate of 12 L/h. In both the tests in April 2011, you used a proper way to measure the water flow and in fact its value was approximately 4 L/h, one-third of the maximum of the pump. Conversely, in his report, Levi certified a value of 17.6 L/h, almost 50 % more than the maximum capacity of the pump! In addition, from the shot frequency that can be heard at the beginning of the video 2/3, we can deduce that the pump rate was only 60 % of the maximum, and therefore the actual flow should have been less than 7.2 L/h, about 40% of the value declared by Levi. You have seen the pump in action, so let us know, don’t you believe that the flowrate of the January demo is also an “invented” data?

    And to complete the picture of invented data, what about the fact that the duration of boiling has been doubled from 20 to 40 minutes? Looking at the proper graphs of the video ( http://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg ) also a young student would be able to correctly estimate the true duration. Instead in the Levi report under the figure 4, it is written “Unfortunately the original date has been lost but the different evolution is evident.” Does not it seem strange that the data of a test that “could change the world ” have been lost and replaced by a photo taken just at the moment when the single time value on the X axis does not allow to estimate the real duration of the transient? Is it a simple “deficiency” or a evident “invention”?

    Thus, everybody can see that the results of the Levi report are based on deliberately invented data. It is not a matter of opinion. The pictures talk. The person who put his signature on those invented data is the same that testifies the episode of the “gone away reaction” that impressed you. Is it possible to believe him?

    The demo in January 2011 can not be forgotten. It is the episode where all the stories of this saga, including your book, start from: the roots of the tree. If the roots are invented, the last shoots will be also invented.

  197. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Ascoli65
    In brief — yes there were apparently deficiencies in the measurements of the dryness of the steam. However, that doesn’t imply that the steam was not dry, or that the data was invented. Experts have also told me that such a high wetness of the stem as has been suggested is improbable in the configuration and the geometry of the volume where the water was boiling. Lots of different opinions, thus.
    Then, I believe you have understood that you have to see the whole picture. Personally what has impressed me the most, a part from the latest Levi-Essén-et-al paper from March 2013, are, as I state in the book, the episodes when the reaction has gone awry.
    In any case, forget the steam issue and look ahead for upcoming reports and measurements.

  198. ThegiantCOC permalink

    “Rossi’s new tests, whatever they are, are some sort of smoke screen. The whole hot cat adventure is a smoke screen. Long term tests are smoke screens. NONE are necessary. THAT is what Lewan should have put in his book.”

    Convicted before a fair trial – that was done 25 years ago to fleischmann and pons.

    Your motives/agenda are highly questionable – whatever your real-self is. People with 1/2 a brain would figure that out.

    I don’t believe anything until I use it for years.

  199. “Thinking that scientists could not find a magicians trick when they control the tests is just ignorant drivel from your side.”

    That’s not what I wrote. My prediction is EITHER the scientists will not control the new tests, as they did not properly control the previous set of tests or they will get a negative result. If they do the tests properly, which may not happen if it’s the same incompetent set of scientists.

    “You have to be patient.”

    Really? Why? It takes a few days and costs practically nothing to prove that the original ecat works and exceeds all possible energy one could get from anything other than a nuclear reaction. So why should anyone be patient? The original ecat should have been tested thousands of times by now INDEPENDENTLY. And it has not happened ONCE in THREE YEARS because Rossi keeps refusing such a test. And everyone should be patient with that? Why?

    I will tell you again: if the concern is whether or not the ecat is real or fraud, the current series of so-called long term tests, EVERY ONE OF THEM, Penon and Levi et al, and the supposed current test, are absolutely and entirely NOT NEEDED. And they are way too long, too complicated and involve too many ways to deceive.

    If a tennis ball sized ecat with tiny amounts of nickel powder and no fresh “fuel” can make 10 kW for days or weeks, as Levi claimed in January or February of 2011, then no other proof is necessary.

    Rossi’s new tests, whatever they are, are some sort of smoke screen. The whole hot cat adventure is a smoke screen. Long term tests are smoke screens. NONE are necessary. THAT is what Lewan should have put in his book.

  200. Ascoli65 permalink

    @ Mats Lewan,
    here we are talking about your book, whose subtitle speaks of the destiny of the world. So you’re aware of its possible impact on the way your readers perceive the depletion of fossil fuels and the value of the remaining reserves.

    The public confidence in the reality of the “impossible invention” is based on the words of the witnesses, the main one of which is Dr. Levi. The book starts from the demo of January 2011 when Levi, in front of many of his colleagues at the University of Bologna, has taken the responsibility to assess the performance of the device. After a week, he issued a calorimetric report under the UniBo logo, in which he certified the production of 12.7 kW against an input of 1 kW. I have already reported on this blog (1) that his report is full of invented data, but you have not replied to these findings.

    I believe that many readers of your book, which follow this blog as well, want to know your opinion on the 3 major inconsistencies already mentioned, starting with the one related to the HP474HC probe.

    I briefly summarize this issue in favor of the readers. In Levi’s report, it is written that the dryness of the steam was measured by an “air quality monitor instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm probes with a HP474AC” but video images and photographs clearly show that the real probe was a simple and completely different thermocouple. Even more strange, the report does not report any information on the used instruments other than those of a not present one.

    You know that the steam dryness is the main parameter to determine the output power in that test. So let me ask you personally a few questions:

    1 ) are you aware that the estimated heat output contained in the calorimetric report of Dr. Levi on the January 2011 demo is based on invented data?

    2 ) can you believe that someone can unawares specify the exact type, make and model of a not present instrument?

    3 ) don’t you think that what has been presented to the world as a public demonstration of the existence of a new form of energy is nothing but a deliberate farce?

    4) don’t you believe that all the following tests attended by the same witnesses are nothing more than other farces in which attempts were made to disguise and make them less detectable the inconsistencies of the first demo?

    5 ) for what reasons should your readers believe what is said in documents signed by Dr. Levi and which are in contrast with the generally accepted physics?

    (1) https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/heres-my-book-on-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/#comment-2064

  201. Speaking of the book, Mats, and of what is not written in it:

    Glielo abbiamo detto, a Mats, che c’è un limite alle balle che può cacciare, perché come (NON) funziona l’Hyperion lo sappiamo tutti, e sappiamo pure che lo sa anche lui – e pure tu lo sai HT.

  202. “that test that you are describing has issues”

    So you do not want to listen at all? It is not the test by itself – it is people,

    people you ask to believe in while they proved they do not deserve it.

  203. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @maryyugo

    With time rock star scientist will test this if it works. You have to be patient. The tests is now claimed to be done in a independent lab, presumably in sweden but perhaps elsewhere. To let ones baby go that far you need to trust the other side, simple as that, there is a human connection between those parties. A better argument from your side is that these guys are professionals (most professioinals are unknown) but have dined together and is therefore not totally independent. The stage magician argument is silly, measuring the input and output with total control of the testers will hit a magiciance trick hard, really hard and show it in light. Thinking that scientists could not find a magicians trick when they control the tests is just ignorant drivel from your side.

  204. “What I was referring to was the last test that was actually really good, if all people have been present when all actions where taken and if the instruments have been controlled.”

    If? If!? Sure. And if my pink, invisible, flying unicorns could be seen, they’d make free energy.

    The rest of Stephan’s message entirely misses the point. If Rossi really had table top high power nuclear fusion and wanted everyone to believe him, all he’d have to do is have someone other than a few unknown Swedish scientist and one of his most bizarre associates (Levi) doing the measurement.

    Sure, we can see what happens next. Why not? But based on what came before, it will either be a negative result (ie. Rossi is a crook) or it will be a bad or fake test (ie. Rossi is crook). As for whether or not the Swedish scientists can detect every Rossi deception– why would they? Do you know how all famous magicians, illusionists and mentalists do their tricks? Of course not. But they sure look good on stage. Of course, you can’t warm you factory with them exactly the same way you can not and never could warm your factory with Rossi’s ecats.

  205. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Cimpy

    Yes that test that you are describing has issues, and as you said was glaring enough to call for some explanation. That test cannot be taken as a serious evidence. What I was referring to was the last test that was actually really good, if all people have been present when all actions where taken and if the instruments have been controlled.

    Lewans book also give the impressions that basically all but the last test had problems. And that is true if you can trust Levi, which I do because the new tests has been ongoing for since Januari and
    now everything speaks for that they did not find any serious problems with a trick. But to be sure let’s wait and see.

    To get any further with your issue one need to get Levi’s view of it, he seam to ignore it, maybe he did something foolish and are hoping that it all will go away. Again I believe that an actual scammer would have tampered with an instrument that should have been ok, this story can just have been a dirty fix to a problem with the measurement of a test that he believed in.

    So the best advice I have is wait and see what comes out of the new test, look up for any indications that the some critical task was done by Levi only by himself, like providing instruments, switching cables etc. Also something to make sure to check is that the measurement was continuously made and that the event was filmed, checks done just from time to time can be tricked by monitoring the test and act depending on if the check is done or not. And of cause make sure that the test is simple and transparent, that the measurement covers all possibilities of fraud like high frequency signals, DC etc. The testers have had enough time to really do all this and they know they will be accused of being incompetent and laughed at if they fail, also all issues found in the last test should be known to them. So I don’t find it difficult to take a positive stand.

  206. “we need to be careful to judge on weak evidences”

    You should reconsider this phrase, the weak, pretending to be evidences are the one those kind of shows bring to us.

    The point around the probe is NOT the matter of a single man in a room. First of all, Levi was not alone preparing setup and instruments- and do not forget Galantini signed for the name and the type of that probe.

    Second, the matter was not solely the probe was not that one. The matter was that even if the probe had been the one sworn to be present, it would not have been the correct probe in any case for the test of dryness.

    You have to know in subsequent tests (that is: NOT THE SAME TEST, not the same time) Levi gave another proof of how much reliable he is by reading a water meter multiplying the value so that all the decimal where intended to be integers – Ascoli65 show us that via frames taken by video the believer made.

    So the point is not the probe by itself, or the false certification by itself or the wrong reading by itself; but assembling all these evidences those shows bring to us, you must conclude the actors- including Levi but not ending with him – of the shows are not reliable.

    Told in another words, the actors in those shows lied.

    And you should know that as soon as those facts become undeniable, some smart believers and clever supporters started changing strategy. For example, Nevanlinna, one of the most convinced non dull people that Rossi must have stepped on something – even by mistake, if it must be the case, and despite all the lies Rossi said- stated clearly that shows you saw (and on which many started believing and other writing books) in bologna were exactly that: shows, piece of theaters to interest people (and get attention from some rich ones) , while true measurements must have been taken somewhere else as, of course, measurements you saw there were absolutely not serious at all.

    This same strategy has been recovered on 22 Passi by some believers and later even by one who pretend to be particular expert on phisic and even on chemical and nuclear matters – Alainco could know this one (Hermano Tobia is the nick), who – after two or three years spent on defending 2011 demos in Bologna, finally, as Hot Cat went out admitted they were simply spots as all the not credible mistakes done could not be explained at all.

    Guess what? You’re the last one standing on those demos, pretending they could demonstrate something different than how good (or not good at all, this is a point of view, of course) is the team (and not only Levi alone) to play a piece of theater show,

    (For those who are basing their believing in Rossi on Bologna demos, I strongly suggest to search the job Ascoli65 has done on those demos. And, after that, to follow suggestion of a believer on 22 Passi who knew about DFK, and asked by AlainCoe, suggested to start study a dance. More dance for all, as Bologna demos are not science at all)

  207. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Cimpy

    The probe spectacle is a very good information and from that experience we should be careful and demand that the work was not done only by a sole individual in the testing room by himself. The last report has that fallacy. But I also agree with @AllanCo that we need to be careful to judge on weak evidences. It’s really good that you bring the issues in light, because then people will not take decisions too early, (just prepare to act quickly and wisely when the results appear). On the other hand I don’t like the tendency here to question people for trying to argue the opposite side, it’s like putting the judge and lawyer in prison as well as the convict because they want a fair trail. There is a cost to not allow new things the light as well because it is uncertain. Also it is really hard to separate true inventions from the scammer. The scammer study the inventor and mimics it. And also I commend mats for providing a delicate balance in the book that I really enjoyed. Of cause we need to add the critiques observation to the book, but I’m sure we will not lack anything coing from that side so i’m not worried.

  208. It is a good starting point if you fully understand the trick under Hyperion and if you remember how much some prople of science and business -not simply you a supporter who trusted honorable men, nor even those who revealed to be far much less than honorable- trusted the invention to be real, and put their faces and their names, even repeating loudly PoliMi (that’s a University in Milan) and Pielli Labs (do you need me to tell you what it is?) abd Europe Resellers (we are not speaking of a Cina shop at the corner of a street), and 40 millions of Euro.

    Do not forget, and might be next time you will be luckier.

    Now might be you could even accept the fact that PoliMi and PirelliLabs had nothing to do with Hyperion.

    Might be you could start realising even Siemens and Google have nithing yo fo eith E Cat.

    Might be some days you will even understand the difference between borrowing a room at Mit to keep a meeting on cold fusion, having a couple of supporters there with a research of a kind in progress for a 1%000 of funds on energy subject and having the whole Mit looking for it with the Nation and the World looking carefully at results…

    by the way, the latter once happened, and we all know how it is ended: incompetence and delusion, but also a coiple of people who found a new job with new funds for years.

    Any news on Pons fusion results in Toyota?

    And -as you’re always reviewing things, AlainCo: I did not understand what you said about, for example theLevi-Galantini probe matter in E Cat Demo in Bologna – that is really difficult to dismiss as a skeptic invenyion, as photos and saying on probe being something else are all from believers and University researchers and professors…

  209. The problem Cimpy, is that we need evidence before ruining the reputation of a man or a company.

    Until we have evidence we have to recognize our uncertainty…
    ah the “Uncertainty Monster” is frightening many people, much more powerful than you and me.

    when i learned boolean algebra, i learned the phi … you cannot think correctly without the phi.
    most people either refuse to compute, or collapse the phi into 0 or 1.
    the worst is those who give some phi, refuse to deduce and generate phi, that they then collapse to 0.

    you understand the fallacy ?

    What defkalion do is not impacting E-cat, Brillouin, Ahern, Miley, Nanortech, Toyota, Mitsubishi.
    What is important is simply that LENR is real, because even if all startup fail, i know that engineers will harness LENR. We are of a strange kind of people who like pioneer, cannot stay behind the door, once we see the light through the keyhole.
    Many told us there was no light there, be trusted the wrong guys. Now, too many engineers are aware of the light. E-cat or not, Hyperion or not, HHT or not, we will blow the door.

    We just need few CTO, and we already have some, and not the least.

  210. “Are you aware that everything they said they did was false?”

    And, are you (believers) aware that all was based on the word of people you should trust, as they spoke of technicals, scientists and tests (“tested so many times we can exclude any error”). And there had been money collected and money needed to resell the WonderMachine. And it was all a… “Rossi says”, as we (dammned, dull skeptiks) keep on saying since we first saw not only Hyperion, but also that other boiler you hope it is not same stuff…

    Mats, write privately to AlainCo, and show him the Hyperion trick. You do not want him to keep on thinking one of the next (25 ) years Greek will come back to search Gamberale with a “truly working” Hyperion…You know it will never happen, tell him, as also you made him believe in that stuff…

  211. I’m just curious to know if any of you have actually followed what Defkalion, Xanthoulis, Stremmenos and now Hadjichristos have claimed. Did you read their old forum which they dishonestly removed? Do you remember what they said they had accomplished?

    Are you aware that everything they said they did was false? They have been unable to prove a single accomplishment! Don’t you see that they are consistent, total liars? Do you need some more examples of their year in year out prevarication?

  212. thanks,Alainco, to have kept the advice on DFK. Now,if only Mats (or someone you can trust, because this is the matter: who says what to who is listening) could show you same picture that (for example) Nevanlinna on Cobraf saw, and explain it to you, you would need no more proves Hyperion is a blunder and a scam.
    It could turn on some lights on a cloudy night.

  213. @mats
    thanks for the reference to thinking fast and slow
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/thinking-fast-and-slow-by-daniel-kahneman-book-review.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    About defkalion I’m currently suspending my judgement because of incoherent reports from various people, and many possible stories, involving individual and organizations.

    @cimpy&al
    about the Sauna effect that you&al imagine, this is not sure since the steam was send in an exhaust pipe. I start to feel concerned when a trusted witness, Mats, reported that water flow was looking much smaller than what my quick calculation were requiring, and that it was not sealed (even by a wet towel)…

    my computation is that to condensate the steam a flow of many liter per minute, matching a full open tap (I measured the flow of classic bathroom tap), was required. No sauna effect in that case.
    the cooling water would even cause an aspiration so pressure will be neutral.

    Alternative is that steam was sent in the pipe and condensed finally, but it should be closed, and pressure would be higher…
    So yes I was asking more information, and I repeated that this demo was proving nothing, but not a fraud either. “we need more details”, you remember.

    some people have a problem to suspend their judgement, and especially to stay uncertain on a fact, without being sure it is false.

    This cognitive problem is observed in many case, and it happened for nuclear physicist facing an unexplained phenomenon, that could not be ruled out either because the conditions were not known enough (lattice).
    their behavior was a streetlight fallacy, to imagine that what was happening was the same as in free space, which is their key failure.

    Another problem is when you hear various people saying opposite facts.
    Best predictor is to look at their behaviors (if you see a firemen run away, you should run away).
    But it is not evidence, it is reason to be cautious.

    Now following your advice Cimpy, I’m cautious on Defkalion…
    You should have been equally careful on Solartech which was running a consensual business.
    You should be cautious on all Cold fusion critics, since worst than defkalion, they have proven backlog of incompetence, unethical behaviors, manipulation of media and opinion leaders, lies to authorities, harassment , insults, and lack of any evidence.

    If you want to be sure of something it is that Lewis, Hansen, Huizenga, park, Taubes, Morrisson are incompetent in calorimetry, in epistemology, in logic, are dishonest, biased, defamatory.
    This is a proven fact, and I gave you the evidences.

    For Defkalion, the jury is out, and success is not to exclude, as failure is not to exclude.
    For Rossi, this is the 2nd trial for appeal and Rossi won the first one, and the attorney general (Pomp&Eriksson) was pathetic.

    For cold fusion, there was a Stalinist trial in 1989, and afterward attorney general carefully ignored the evidence not to rejudge the affair. No paper published against new evidence is a sign.

  214. And of course, Mats, you know nothing about DFK you could privately tell to AlainCo, so that -at least- he could avoid exposing himself citing what is reconnaised as a scam even by those who believe in (other kind of ) LENR

  215. Mats Lewan permalink

    😉 Don’t hide your intelligence Cimpy. Don’t disappoint me. Black and white belongs in the tales. In every sector on Earth there are exceptions, bad fruit, whatever you call it. You cannot judge everyone from one case. Etc etc. And don’t lend yourself to coming up with something on tales and LENR now 😉

  216. Mats, “don’t mix up the Defkalion case with LENR in general. There’s no automatic connection”
    You’re right: each time there is a different kind of trick

  217. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Alain, have you expressed something particular regarding Defkalion? I didn’t think so.
    @Cimpy — don’t mix up the Defkalion case with LENR in general. There’s no automatic connection.

  218. “@cimpy

    no conspiracy, it is USUAL groupthink.
    (…)
    by the way, what are you saying ? that we are part of a huge international conspiracy of zealots ?”

    To whom are you speaking? Never thought and never talked about “conspiracy”.I do believe world is full of birds (mostly chicken and few eagles), even if most of them are not able to fly. Maybe they’re able to dance…

    A pity Mats is playing this game hiding info he seems to have (if I understand Franco speech correctly) and thus maintaining myth upon science: you too will have a lot of birds on your shoulders, Mats…at least you could send AlainCo a private message trying to reveal him the facts we all -a part AlainCo – seem to know since July 2013 on DFK…

  219. Franco permalink

    Regarding Defkalion I believe new facts will be presented soon that should confirm my and others doubts, but let’s wait for those facts being presented.

    Never “new facts” will come out expecially from CF fans and believers about Defkalion, and more improbable from those people that are under the “greek’s NDA prison”.

    I take note of your new representations and promises, and I imagine that You, in the first person, right now, you’ll operate to diffuse facts and your real knowledge to the fans and most avid believer, like the well-known French and Romanian people, so they will stop to continue their unconditioned support and sustain toward these greek foxes.

    I am looking for real facts.
    Thank You for your attention.

  220. Mats Lewan permalink

    Wonderful paper Alain! (Groupthink).
    I suppose you have read also Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.
    It’s healthy to understand how little we think about our own biases, and also to understand our capacity to change our beliefs without even noticing it.
    I really like Arthur C Clarkes famous quote that I put at the top of chapter 20.

  221. “you’ve been posting for years on numerous blogs how cold fusion is settled science and that there is nothing that needs to be proven. Why is it that there are still only handfuls of zealots like you who agree? I know… the international conspiracy. Well, keep saying it over and over. As I recall, you actually think doing so will make a difference.”
    @cimpy

    no conspiracy, it is USUAL groupthink.
    http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

    by the way, what are you saying ? that we are part of a huge international conspiracy of zealots ?

    you using the term zealots is funny.
    you are the conspiracy theorist.

    Me, I just living in a real world know in finance, in research, in medicine… with usual public groupthink. so classic.

  222. Mats Lewan permalink

    No Cimpy, I don’t mean “NDA on skeptics test of Hyperion will be cancelled.”

  223. Do you mean NDA on skeptics test of Hyperion will be cancelled? For sure you would NOT get another written “Rossi says” by “thirdy party” (!) as something worth to be taken seriously…mean: IH soon to come report….

  224. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Cimpy
    I’m not waiting for a legal trial. I’m waiting for documents and testimonials that can be regarded as evidence, not in the sense of something that would be used in a legal process but that can serve as a credible basis for a report with more credibility than something that could be regarded as an opinion. I believe this is the way sincere reporting should be done, and I’m confident that these documents and testimonials can be produced soon.

  225. let’s wait for those facts being presented.

    If you’re waiting for a legal trial, you’re out of luck: they have been smart enough to make the victims part of the game itself – Gamberale will not enter any legal act, he simply flight away…
    But you could always ask believers to collect money to buy the new wonderful version of Hyperion soon on the market. Well, of course, you too would have to flihgt away like Gamberale and fellows…

    from http://oilprice.com/Interviews/Energy-at-Less-than-0.01-per-kW-An-Interview-with-Alex-Xanthoulis.html

    “Alex Xanthoulis: Defkalion Green Technology is now a Canadian registered company. The plan is to establish the first OEM manufacturing facility in Greece, but as we have received strong interest to also do this in other countries the plan is subject to revision in the very near future.”
    By James Burgess | Wed, 29 January 2014 22:56 |

    and of course, AlainCo does believe all the words. And this should make you think….

  226. there will soon be a second edition
    Mats, that is your hope (a second edition, I mean 😉 ).

    How is that we all knew about the DFK epic failure the same day they went on web and you who were there, half an year later come out with a version of the story like that one?

    By the way, how long did you say it would take to add a note in preface and conclusion at least to electronic version of the book?

    And, as you’re there: would you mind write it here Hyperion was clearly a BLUNDER for italian and swedish believers and a FRAUD from greeks?

  227. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Franco
    I’m aware of that my assessment of Defkalion has changed since the book went to print, with my doubts being strengthened. I actually think this is the greatest weakness of the book.
    I also admit, which I declared in Milan, that I was poorly prepared for the demo made by Defkalion. I was also careful in my conclusions at the time, stating “If you believe the values presented…”, but I could have been more clear about my uncertainty.
    Yet, I presented statements from Defkalion, e.g. the >1 Tesla claim, which in my eyes decreased Defkalion’s credibility. I though that was obvious, but could have emphasized that.
    You say what’s written in the book remains for ever. Well, I don’t believe my book will have that impact, and even if it would, there will soon be a second edition.
    Regarding Defkalion I believe new facts will be presented soon that should confirm my and others doubts, but let’s wait for those facts being presented.

  228. Franco permalink

    @ Mats Lewan
    about: “An impossible invention”
    You wrote in the book:
    Defkalion’s reactor might have been working during the experiment. I didn’t doubt it but the demonstration could not give me an equally convincing basis as the Swedish-Italian measurement on Rossi’s reactor.

    I am sorry I have to say, sincerely Mats an assessment of this kind, after your participation in the experiment, from you I would not have just waited.
    If you want to know the reasons placed here my old comment based solely on as documented by the movie shot in that demo

    “…. what You can see in the video [http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US/videos/25225397] from a technical point of view is disarming.

    More of (alleged) 30kW of energy products in the form of heat would dissipate within a room with the windows closed (the standard 3-4kW air conditioning visible in the video, the effect of which, considering the heat produced by people and instruments, gives a contribution absolutely insufficient cooling) without a single drop of sweat to be paid by these in hours and hours of testing the “reactor” activated at full power and in the midst of a torrid month of July those hot summer days.

    The “supposed” steam producted, it seems to me about correspond to 40 kg/h @ T 150 °C (who had no idea can let in proportion to this short video showing steam produced in quantities of just 7 kg/h [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_m3_uO7VhI ] and that you should condense into only a heartbeat through the small gray plastic drainage in which flows (perhaps) a limited amount of water, in comparison to the vapor, through a small duct that among other things (see per minute 1:13:40) displays the cutting off of the cooling water in closed position.

    Mats Lewan (the scientific journalist invited as tester-witness to the event), who from the top (hot air rises also in Milan) quietly observes and intrigued (a few cm together with one of the Greeks) open drain at the top, without burning the face or eyes to the strong heat that inevitably would be dissipated in the environment around the exhaust.

    The steam that, in those amounts (if real), through the pipe at a speed of 70 km/h, but no produces effects detectable (no zip/vibration), even of puffs or gurgling due to mixing with water, but only a slight breather maybe not even comparable to that produced by a flat-iron of few kW.

    The Greeks, “conservatively” (the justification was the value of the “uncertain of quality of steam”, but steam at T so high, it was around 150 °C with std environment pressures, isn’t a significant problem) inconceivably in their calculations on public display, by omitting to consider (completely) the contribution of enthalpy of evaporation, i.e. substantially most of thermal physical contribution to the alleged heat produced.

    The EU technical partners in Italy (hosts) that do not appear any more and absconded completely during all tests of streaming, conducted solely by the Greeks in person.

    For everything there is a single simple and trivial explanation, a staging in which the energy/heat produced was (to be generous) at least an order of magnitude lower than it should have been based on the parameters shown on the screen.”

    Moreover do not consider then the events subsequent to the streaming, and the concerns expressed publicly, by their partners and associates in Italy of Defkalion Europe (from CEO and CTO) after the event disappeared completely by advertising site of the Greeks, which together with the above should deliver substantial and srong doubts in You.
    The “claim” of 1.6 Tesla of Magnetic field measured by someone at 20 cm far from Hyperion and so on…

    Mats remember, the energy (if really there was) could not “magically disappear” without giving these simply physical evidences.
    You (like technician/engineer) should conclude easily that the “reactor” not working at all and not produce the energy they claimed.

    On ECW (a Blog) You, few days ago, expressed some doubts stronger, but what You wrote (or not wrote clearly) in this your book remain for ever.

  229. >agerar geologisk hammare och krossar stenen.

    that’s Carpinteri, you’re confusing miracles and Saints….

  230. (by the way: ” money from believers” includes “money directed toward research” like Countries (Europe) funds, and military ones, not only money you can collect mesmerizing some rich people on great gain they could achieve investing in a new miracle device “soon ready for the market” around three or four years ago)

  231. Stefan Israelsson Tampe, it was my fault: I am the one who, with Defkalion speak of a scam, a fraud, a trick, a game to get money from believer. But note that I am quite sure people in Milan were the believer that got scammed, not the ones who made the scam. Unluckily for them, they where used by the latter, thus adding upon their shoulders the payback of the joke they had suffered.
    Moreover, I am sure the Greek Cat and the Italian-Usa one share a lot of things, not only the same firts thinking-of-it mind.

    Ascoli65 always spoke of this story as a kind of joke, made by some smart guys who might have many goals but are not really interested in money from believers – and this is where Ascoli65 and I do not agree: I am quite sure the “few” money around this story are the central secret energy source of this game, as the floors in Miami sound promising, even if they are a drop in the sea of all the money the poor, unfortunate, not enough financed Cold Fusion seemed able to move till today – but in any case, Codl Fusion, as AlainCo constantly reminds us, is not only the story of the E Cat and of Rossi, who, to tell the truth is only one (even if he seems the most smart in using media and personalities) of many miracle men (and women, for parity).

    For example, ever heard of Carpinteri? He spoke of piezonuclear reactions via sounds vibrations or earthquakes. You should read how much innovative he is. And by the way, he is presented as “of the Politecnico di Torino in Italy”, where “Politecnico” is a University in Turin

  232. Ascoli65 permalink

    @ Israelsson,
    I never talk of “scam”. It is a word which presupposes a very specific purpose. I do not know the ultimate purpose of this story, however, and I am not entitled to discuss matters that may compete with other authorities. I can only talk about what the pictures show. They clearly show that there are numerous discrepancies between what Levi said and wrote and the facts. So it seems to me that this story is just an incredible farce. Given the importance of the energy issue, I would wish that the Ministry of Education investigates about the real nature of this story and properly informs the public.

    @ Maryyugo,
    I do not think that people believe in the “scientist” Rossi. The typical believers say: “Why do I believe Rossi has something? Well, mostly because of what other scientists who’ve actually witnessed the E-Cat working have said, including Levi, Focardi, and others at UNIBO ( names forgotten now),… ”

    They are right. At 6:20 of the video titled “Energy Catalyzer Bologna University 2 /3” Rossi says “Le persone che hanno effettuato questo test, che adesso mi daranno i numeri esatti di quello che è successo, sono professori dell’Università di Bologna.” (The people who carried out this test, who now give me the exact numbers of what has happened, are professors at the University of Bologna.)

    Only 10 months later, the University of Bologna issued a statement in which she said: L’Università di Bologna [omissis] precisa di non essere coinvolta negli esperimenti sull’E-Cat condotti dalla società Leonardo Corp. di proprietà di Andrea Rossi.” (The University of Bologna [snip] states she is not involved in the E -Cat experiments conducted by Leonardo Corp. company owned by Andrea Rossi) That is too little, too late, and at odds with what we saw!

  233. Arvid permalink

    Tack för spännande läsning! Århundradets historia på många sätt, förstås framförallt om det visar sig att Rossi et al verkligen har något, vilket jag också lutar åt. Det är förstås deprimerande att alla test och rapporter inte lett till större nyfikenhet i akademin, men jag tror faktiskt att fler tester till slut kommer urholka stenen. Det tar lång tid att vända ett skepp. Om Rossis kommersiella planer inte går som planerat står hoppet till att någon annan tar vid, och därför är urholkningsprocessen viktig, även om den inte blir viktig om Rossis kommersiella framgång agerar geologisk hammare och krossar stenen.

  234. Justin permalink

    @maryyugo
    In 2015 I’m ready to see the F-cat (freezing-cat version) where H2 will be supplied in liquid form.
    The electric heaters will benefit from superconductor’s effect.
    We’ll also see Levi and the rest of the team performing tests wearing heavy inuits clothings.

  235. Maryyugo, this is exactly the point: a device that could be build by a child selled as a marvellous machine only a genius could think about. And University Teachers and scientists and researchers looking at it like it was the Monolith or the Holy Grahal.
    While the plumber should be laughing all the time, this story really resembles the Motor Keely Company one, but with much greater supporters from USA to Europe….

  236. @Stephan
    The so-called ecat Rossi originally showed off is just what it appears to be. A piece of copper pipe with a huge electrical heater (actually, two of them IIRC) stuck in it. The rest is smoke and mirrors from misplacement of thermocouples, pretending wet steam is dry and other measurement errors and omissions.

    Which is exactly why Rossi had to modernize the scam to the hot cat. There was no way he could retest the original ecat the original way. Too many people, including Mats, had realized the inadequacies of the early tests — ALL of them.

    With the new more difficult to handle and characterize device, it was easier to find new way to cheat.

    I can hardly wait for the next test series to see how creative Rossi really is.

  237. A nuclear device made by hands via a hammer and a tape, that is really nice. It is similar to show you a wooden cabinet made by a self made craftman and assuring it must be a real teleport stuff as it is too bad done to be a scam….

  238. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @maryyugo

    No one is claiming that the stuff is state of the art plumbing. The lack of elegance of the device can be argued as a sign that it’s real, if it has been a scam Rossi should have been producing a nice looking box to show off, this … That picture is more in line with someone who continuously redesign the reactor changing the dimensions in a search for better performance by making sure the construction is quick and cheap.

  239. realist permalink

    AlainCo – you’ve been posting for years on numerous blogs how cold fusion is settled science and that there is nothing that needs to be proven. Why is it that there are still only handfuls of zealots like you who agree? I know… the international conspiracy. Well, keep saying it over and over. As I recall, you actually think doing so will make a difference.

  240. In fact, Levi lied on paper more thanonce, as you could see even looking at the revisions on TPR, which ended with a post script at tge third review to swear critics emerged on unclear input possibilities had been addressed….at the beginning, before first and second revision of the TPR itself – which fact (a last ending address of critics speaking of actions taken before, never mentioned across two revisions) is really unbelievable, as others pointed out in those times.

  241. Especially amusing was the discussion on the Vortex email list that Rossi used nanotechnology. Krivit took a photo of Rossi’s tool kit, used presumably to build the first group of low temperature ecats.

    The image is here:

    If you have any problem seeing it, please let me know and I will move it to an image serving site temporarily.

    Certainly looks like Rossi’s 93 year old technician can make a precision nuclear fusion reactor with those tools and pieces of junk, doesn’t it! Steorn is scammy but at least the stuff they show is pretty and has class. Rossi’s “devices”? Not so much!

    Said Krivit of his visit to Rossi’s lab or factory or whatever Rossi called the place at the time:

    “When I visited Rossi in June, 2011 in Italy, he said “welcome to my laboratory.” But this did not look like a laboratory to me – there were no lab benches, no glassware, no plastic ware, no tweezers, not even cabinets that might hold such things; nothing. It looked an empty industrial garage with an old wooden table or two and a few rented tables and chairs. The only tools I saw were a bag of plumber tools. This was neither a factory nor a laboratory.”

    I wish Mats had taken more time and space to address all the objections to Rossi’s claims rather than attending to such an extent to the unsupported and inconsistent claims themselves.

  242. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Cimpy,

    Thanks for the info. This information is interesting and I agree it ought to have been addressed, this info also explains better why people are suspicious of Levi.

  243. funny to see people argue on old experiment that was not convincing because it was flow/phase-change calorimetry…

    and few message before they were asking why Levi&al test funded by elforsk was based on IR thermometry, with 200-300C of error to explain, and no question of dryness of steam.

    maybe focusing on the experiment where ther is no question is a shorter path to knowing the reality…

    I resume:
    – Levi&al test :
    – test reviewed by Pomp&Eriksson who published proudly an uninformed pathetic biased critics.
    – no other written critics
    – only credible scenario is DC offset, but not credible as a fraud, since it could be detected by any of the testers with a cheap voltmeter, and would have destroyed instruments put on the same plug.

    – F&P test
    – strongly peer reviewed and criticized by 4 written articles challenging calorimetry
    – replicated by others (Miles, Oriani, McKubre, and hundred of others) and improved
    – all 4 critics refuted for clear incompetence and irrational bias.
    – Oriani paper
    – peer-reviewed positively according to the experimental setup
    – not published because taboo and no theory
    – McKubre
    – experiment done many times
    – address al critics against F&P
    – skeptic garwin and Lewis visited and inspected all… nothing identified.

    I think that the result is clear.

    I repeat for naive or incompetent readers that theory is not an argument to deny experimental results.

    for those surprised, groupthink is very common in science, and denial of reality is very common in history. Nothing challenging in current situation.
    the fact that people are not aware of that old history is well described by taleb, Kuhn, as an academic practice of revisionism, that you can consider in high-temperature superconductors, quasicrystals, fission, plane, PN junction…

    this is settled epistemology. 😉

  244. matter is: if you start stating “something has been said to confuse snakes”, you could justify everything and the contrary of everything.
    Back to the probe. As thanks to Ascoli65 and many others probe inconsistency saying with photos had raised and reached Levi’s team and friend, the answer has been a written declaration by Galantini, who sweared upon the probe being the one said.
    Main matter is not only photo clearly shows the probe is not that one but, more worse, if it were that one,it could NOT be used to ensure dryness of vapors.
    Epic fail, one should say.
    So, how could it ever be possible? Sounds exactly as if people were there to act in a show, where each one had to read his role, while truth had nothing to do with what was shown.
    It was a play, a game, a piece of theatre, a spot, a show, even a scam, one could say. Every thing you want, but for sure not a “public experiment ” as they tried for an year to sell to everybody. It took more than a couple of years, but at last some of the most convinced spammers of this garbage as svience started saying those demos were “only demos, shows to make pubblicity”. A pity they tried to convince people E CAT was a working device basing on those demos till the day before….

  245. Justin permalink

    I would love to put my eyes on all electrical bills payed by EFA for the 2011-2012 period at “via di eletricista” facility and compare them to all energy produced claims.

  246. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @maryyugo, Thanks for the photo, that looks like a grain of copper or two could make it to the ash, a question asked earlier. The book mentions that Rossi did spread out confusing information, so don’t trust everything you read or hear, i think that I didn’t have any problems filter your example out and took all this information with a good grane of salt.

  247. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @maryyugo

    True that the normal ECAT has good applications, but electricity is more valuable. If it’s going to
    be cheap you can expect that it will be used a’lot more than today. Basically a company that sells electricity cheap will out compete a company that produces only heat even if it’s a little cheaper.

  248. If you want a good laugh, look at the claims and discussions that were current in January 2012, more than two years ago. Rossi’s claims had been confirmed by prestigious Swedish scientists and skeptics and more than one hundred reactors were running in four countries. The fiction that Rossi was self financing was given as fact.

    “The reactor is enclosed in a lead shield” is another hilarious statement. Look at the “reactor” photo. It’s copper plumbing like you’d use to pipe a toilet. And it’s held in with galvanized steel brackets– the cheapest junk you can buy in a hardware store. And remember, it was put together by Rossi’s 93 year old plumber using the infamous tool kit immortalized by Krivit in an image on his web site. Let me know if you have not seen that photo and I will dig it up again. Meanwhile, have a glance at history (please read the comments too). It’s history Mats’ book seems to neglect. What happened to those hundred working reactors in four countries present since January 2012? Who has them? Where are they? What are they doing? Could they simply be fiction?

    See http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/05/swedish-skeptics-confirm-nuclear-process-in-tiny-4-7-kw-reactor

  249. @Ascoli65 and Mats

    It’s good to be reminded of that fiasco. Rossi and Levi calculated the heat output of the original ecat based on the heat of vaporization of water with the assumption that all of the water had been vaporized completely (dry steam). Ascoli65 mentioned the problems with the instrument used to make the determination (it would not do it).

    An additional and very important paper around that time was written by Grabowski et al. (for IICF16 and the US Navy). They determined that if the steam had been wet only a small amount, it would account exactly for Rossi’s claimed “coefficient of performance” (actually the ratio of power out to power in). Their neglected paper can be found here:

    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf

    They write, “If only 5.8% of the volume fraction being condensed water will cause one to BELIEVE that you have a 6X gain in power!” (see their last figure).

    They point out that additional errors include:

    – uncontrolled energy storage (that is why some ecats seemed to work without input power– what Rossi erroneously termed “self running”)

    – inadequate/insufficient cooling

    – lack of sensor calibration

    – lack of calibration with a known heat source

    – lack of sensor redundancy

    – and of course, carelessness regarding energy absorbed during phase changes

    Rossi made all those errors. Levi approved it. Was that all accident? I don’t think so.

    @Stefan
    You seem to like arguing non-existent hypotheticals and you have not kept up with what Rossi has actually done so I won’t clutter the forum any more by responding to that. However, it is important to respond to your suggestion that the ecat is worthless if all it can do it make heated steam at around 120 degrees C.

    That is so ridiculous it’s comical. First, it would be the first working high power (kilowatts) table top fusion reactor EVER. That alone would be a total breakthrough, a Nobel prize and billions (many) of dollars for Rossi et al. Why so much money? Because it would be a space heater which runs with the use of only tiny, negligible amounts of cheap “fuel”. Imagine what cold countries would do if they could heat living and working space almost for free! Minimizing the importance of certain aspects of claimed but fraudulent inventions is classical believer behavior. It indicates ignorance.

    Hey Mats, do you think your home in Sweden could use small, safe heaters that run at 120 degrees C into radiators, heat your house and hot water and maybe swimming pool and use essentially NO FUEL? Nah… you wouldn’t want something like that. If you were offered one at low cost, you’d turn it down, right? You’d wait until it could make electricity. ROTFWL!

    And yet, we’re asked by Rossi to believe that just such a device, dumping a MEGAWATT of power into hot water continuously has been available for purchase since October of 2011. And nobody has bought one who is willing to be identified and talk about it? No university bought one for research? Google, Tesla Motors, CERN, ORNL, and other CIVILIAN organizations never bothered to get one to do unclassified research? What absolute, complete, nonsense. Why do people believe Rossi about such obvious lies?

  250. realist permalink

    The protracted circus surrounding the new tests of the e-cat is truly a puzzle. Personally, if I were to find myself in possession of a kilowatt-level over-unity device, I would take it over to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory or comparable institution and have them run it through its paces. I would estimate that within 2 weeks, 10,000 scientists around the world would be working on nothing else but this new technology and I would be rich and famous. But I guess that is not how a “real scientist”, “real inventor”, or “real entrepreneur” would handle the situation That would be too easy.

  251. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Ascoli65

    I can’t answer your question, but I find it odd that the scam was done in this way, wouldn’t it be much smarter to manipulate the correct instrument.

    Also have anybody asked this question directly to Levi, does he know about it? you left that part out of your post as well.

    The deniers assume that the people in this saga are stupid scammers doing obvious really stupid mistakes and still none have caught anybody with the hands in the jam. The glaring fact showing up in your argument has to me at least strong similarities to conspiracy theories, there again ton’s of ‘severe’ facts are found and proposed to be glaring without any deeper thoughts. The fact is if you read the book you may realize that the possibilities to dig up things and strange occurrences are legio, it has not been the well organized event’s that one would want.

  252. Ascoli65 permalink

    Israelsson said ”normal sane people find it very strange that Levi would be a scammer”. I have to agree: it’s normal that people expect that university professors and researchers behave properly, report the actual data and derive the right conclusions. Sometimes this does not happen. They, too, can make mistakes. But, in this case, an honest researcher normally recognizes them and corrects himself as soon as possible, apologizing for the incident

    In the demo of January 2011, Levi reported information which does not correspond to the truth, as everybody can see here: https://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/heres-my-book-on-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/#comment-2104 .

    The most glaring inconsistency concerns the probe for measuring the dryness of the steam at the outlet. Levi knows that it is the most important parameter for the estimation of the produced heat. Assuming that a very humid steam is dry does mean to artificially increase 6 times the real heat output. The measure of the steam dryness has been entrusted to an external technician. Per se, this fact is very suspicious for a Physics Department, which should have the means and the knowledge to measure all physical quantities. However, in that demo, Levi was the warranter on behalf of the University of Bologna for the correctness of ALL the data, including the instruments. Yet he wrote in his report that the dryness of the steam was measured with an “air quality monitor instrument HD37AB1347 from Delta Ohm probes with a HP474AC” . Anyone looking for HP474HC on Google sees that this probe is different from the one that appears, in videos and photos of the demo, on the top of the so-called reactor. It takes 5 minutes to check it out. It is not difficult, no knowledge in physics is required, it is just a matter of recognizing that two objects are very different each other.

    So, why Levi wrote in his fundamental report that it was used a tool other than the real one? Why did he not correct himself, despite the subsequent numerous warnings? How can it be defined his behavior? Levi is credible? His TPR is credible?

    I know that the CF propagandists evade uncomfortable questions like these, but I’d like to know the answers of true believers or possibilists. For example, I ‘d like to know if Matts Lewan is aware of these irregularities, if he spoke with Levi or with other players in this history and his opinion about.

  253. Mats Lewan permalink

    @maryyoghurts
    I have no detailed information about the test or the instrumentation, but I would expect it to be more accurate and well implemented on the electrical side than any test before, since this have been the most weak point where possible errors have possibly been hidden in previous tests.

  254. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @maryyugo

    Again, I think that you make good points.

    Letting the heater on all the time is suspicious and should be noted. But if you are not a flow expert and have no good ability (knowledge) of controlling the water flow with a control algorithm, keeping the cooling flow steady and then keeping the heat on constantly would produce a controlled setup. Not optimal as you suggests but something that is simple and something that can be put to use for months without too much maintainance of the actual control. This is where Rossi comes from. Then the progression from that is to start varying the heater and try by arguments you make to remove it completely. I don’t think that the experienced heat experts is especially impressed by the setup as you say, I think for example that if you let top notch heat flow experts loose on the Ecat they would be able to control it so well that runaways is no problem and you would get an infinite COP.

    If there is safety issues, it can be wise to try to cycle the control so that one can restart and
    reuse the method of control. This means that you can issue a simple control and that you have measures to counteract if the system deviates from what expected, you have control. Under this assumption reusing the produced heat is difficult. But if we can do it as you suggested and maintain the controlabililty, then yes you can reuse the heat. We must note that the supposed process has an internal state that is not measured, this makes the control much more difficult and you need really good control experts e.g. probably phd’s in control theory where you by experiments identifies mathematical models that includes hidden variables representing internal state, from this one might then deduce a control algorithm that probably is something much more advanced than simple PID regulators.

    I don’t get it, just above boiling water? If you want electricity you need really high core temperatures. And getting electricity is the holy grail to really get interests. I disagree here. The hot cat is the main path when it comes to the future.

    Having a control is of cause very good, and I do hope that the current testers does a better job of that, we’ll see.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like that you take the opposite stand on these matters, it’s even ok to rant a little from time to time. On the other hand you need believers as well to show the alternate truth of matters otherwise humans would not move a dent forward.

  255. maryyoghurts permalink

    Hi Matt
    When, do you think the current Hotcat test report due for released? Rossi said the professors are using 2 PC830 power analysers and other instruments to monitor input power. I suspect they also use 2 shunts and 2 oscilloscopes to check for any Dc current, one Pc830 and shunt would be Before the control box other Pc830 and shunt would be on the return lines. This configuration will allow them to do continuous differential mode and work out exact power consumption of the cat. any phase shift between in and out will also be detected.

  256. maryyugo permalink

    @Stefan

    “The main difficulty might be a need to heat pump up the temperature to the degree needed and then focus it in the core. Remember that the core temperature is higher than the temperature of the water flow.”

    I think, with due respect, you are not looking at this thing correctly. Consider only the old ecat– the new hot cat is simply a distraction.

    Imagine you put a reactive mixture of hydrogen and nickel into the reactor chamber at room temperature. But let’s say it only reacts between 150 and 200 degrees C. Then you use the electrical heater to warm the mixture to the point it starts reacting WITH THE COOLANT OFF and the chamber insulated.

    Remember that Rossi consistently tells us that the reaction is exothermic and puts out six times the power you put in.

    Obviously, as soon as the reaction begins, the temperature in the chamber rises! What else can it do? Then, when the reaction is well under way, shut off the heater. If you leave everything alone, the temperature will rise indefinitely until the heat flow through the insulation, radiated to the air, equals the power produced by the reaction and the whole mess reaches equilibrium. That’s simple physics. It can’t do anything else.

    If that equilibrium temperature is too high and might melt the reaction mixture or the vessel, you can start the cooling fluid flowing and adjust the rate until you have a new equilibrium at the desired temperature. If the cell’s heat output drops, just lower the coolant flow rate. If it stops altogether, stop the coolant and run the electrical heater but only enough until it restarts. Rossi, in every test of the small ecats I’ve seen, ran the heater continuously. Why on Earth is that needed if the reaction makes six times the heat that the heater does. Remember that claim?

    Rossi claims his ecats run for months so I have no idea why heat production would falter EVER but I am trying to bend over backwards here. Note that you do not need any piping back of heat from output to input. With no coolant flow and the reaction chamber insulated, most of the heat, generated “in volume” by the nickel-hydrogen reaction, stays in the chamber and acts to raise its temperature. You only extract SURPLUS heat with the coolant and you should NEVER have to use the heater again.

    Of course the core temp is higher than the coolant temp. What else would you expect? How does this justify a heater? (Hint: it doesn’t)

    “Also it seams that the cat and mouse thing Rossi is working on might be someway to go halfway in the direction you suggest…”

    There is no cat and mouse thing Rossi is working on. Other than that he’s the cat and the investors and believers are mice.

    “I also don’t find the Hot cat a stupid approach, it is a natural first step in the path to get electricity out of it. It’s a simple setup. The rule in research is KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. “

    Perhaps you think a glowing red hot tube furnace is simpler to work with than a small reaction cell running just above boiling water temperature? If so, I wonder if you’ve ever been inside a lab and actually worked with any equipment. There is almost nothing easier to measure than a simple heat generating cell in a liquid cooling circuit. Of course, you have to verify that temp and flow sensors are properly placed and accurate. That is the purpose of a blank run (no hydrogen, for example or helium instead of hydrogen) . Also it’s the reason you need accurate calibration but that extremely easy because of the honking huge electrical heaters Rossi builds into all his cells. But Rossi NEVER allowed anyone to run a blank and poopoo’d the idea when I suggested it on his blog. After that, he censored all my questions. Do honest people do that? He also ran no calibrations and I fault Kullander, Essen and Lewan for not INSISTING on blanks and calibrations after so many people, including believers on Vortex, had asked for it.

    Levi et al did a blank run on their published experiment however they did it badly. And by this time, Rossi had no problem with it because he wasn’t cheating with the output measurement (it’s hard to cheat with infrared temp measurements). He was now gaming the power input, in my guesstimation.

    Please, Stefan, start using your own head and remember heat transfer principles you learned (or should have learned) in pre-university physics classes. If you don’t remember them, please review. Do NOT accept and repeat all the bullpuckey Rossi is feeding the believers. It’s simply inconsistent nonsense.

  257. @tyy
    what is the absence of evidence ? the evidence that are published, peer reviewed, criticized by 4 papers which show the incompetence and dishonesty of their author ?

    did you read the paper Charles Beaudette cite ?

    you are simply like most people unebale to admit data that challenge you beliefs.

    These are evidence,a d you have to find valid critics, not simply chat …

    all chatting, no discussion of facts except to focus on absences, on secrets conspiracy… only wild guess that are presented as claims.

    In general, skeptics display the following habits.
    1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review.
    2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along side the practitioner (as does the critic).
    3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when they are merely guesses.
    4. Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of the claimed observation.
    5. Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.
    6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation law.
    7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a source are acceptable

  258. maryyugo permalink

    @Allan
    I don’t lurk much at the Vortex email list. It’s way too fanciful for me. And I don’t follow Roberson’s models. I don’t know much about modelling and I don’t think Rossi’s tests provide enough detailed moment to moment data and an adequate description of the apparatus on which to compare a model.

    “Radiative cooling + convection is not fundamentally different from liquid cooling”

    I have no idea what you mean by that. Radiation, conduction, and convection are the paths for heat exchange in all systems. But liquid cooling takes advantage of the large heat capacity of liquids and the controllability and measurability of fluid flow, none of which you get when you simply hang a tube furnace out in air.

    “… and from Levi et al test we have some temperature data showing precisely the expected behaviour – heater induced temperature raise does not level off but accelerates abnormally. “

    I don’t recall that but suppose it’s true. All it means is a transient additional in volume heat source is present which turns on later than the main heater. That could be chemical or even another electrical heater. How would you know? Rossi provides the device, input power, the measurement method for it and all the wiring!

    And has been amply pointed out, the so-called blank run didn’t include the pulse power source and there was no assurance it was comparable to the experimental run because… well… all the input power came from Rossi.

  259. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Cimpy
    Scritto bene 😉 (Ocasapiens)

  260. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    @Maryyougo,

    I have also wondered why one is not using the output heat in a loop to reignite the process, my understanding is that it’s difficult to get that working and was seen as an optimization for later models. The main difficulty might be a need to heat pump up the temperature to the degree needed and then focus it in the core. Remember that the core temperature is higher than the temperature of the water flow. Also it seams that the cat and mouse thing Rossi is working on might be someway to go halfway in the direction you suggest, again future versions might be able to close the loop. but for testing and seeing the potential and start getting attention from investors and science the model his claiming should be enough by a wide margin. And perhaps that’s why that is the path taken.

    I also don’t find the Hot cat a stupid approach, it is a natural first step in the path to get electricity out of it. It’s a simple setup. The rule in research is KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. Piping a lot of water cooling is what you need in a final product sure, but to see if the process can generate the needed temperatures this is a good natural first step. Then when the technology has been verified, one need to put quite a lot more work to make it generate electricity both in equipment and man hours. That will take quite a capital. But first things first, does it work?, how efficient? etc. Also that setup is ideal to study if there is a nuclear process going on and to prove it. It’s a simple setup to check.

    As you say, Rossi and Levi has managed the setup and if we can’t trust them then we don’t have a conclusion. But normal sane people find it very strange that Levi would be a scammer, but of cause anything is possible. And that together with accepting that cold fusion is possible, from the indications by Pons’ and Fleichmann …, that we just can’t do proper calculations in many body QM/QED problems to study in theory needed aspects, and that there are some mysteries left in solid state physics that we can’t explain theoretically good enough like high temperature super conductors, even after a huge effort indicating that our abilities of understanding QM in solid state is lacking. All this just means that I’m optimistic that we will get a good confirmation that the Ecat is real.

    I would expect that the current testers use their own measurement devices, that they swap all the cables etc. If the testers are worth their salt they have done that by know. They have been perfecting all this since Januari, they still continue to test/write a report, not stopping early because they found the trick. Considering this I don’t find myself being too optimistic.

  261. Roger Bird permalink

    No tyy. There is a huge space between belief and disbelief, where “I don’t know but I am willing to look at the evidence” and “I don’t know but I don’t have time to look at the evidence because I am busy doing other things” resides. When there is no huge space between belief and disbelief, people start calling each other crooks and incompetent and skeptopaths and shills.

  262. Allan permalink

    “With no cooling system whatsoever. How does THAT design feature make sense, in your estimation? Care to explain?”

    Radiative cooling + convection is not fundamentally different from liquid cooling and from Levi et al test we have some temperature data showing precisely the expected behaviour – heater induced temperature raise does not level off but accelerates abnormally. This is not how simple joule heaters work, there is something more going on, obviously some heat is generated in addition to initial heating. But you know this already, I guess, because you are still lurking in vortex and this was discussed in long row of posts, including Robersons fairly successful attempts to model the behaviour with SPICE.

  263. maryyugo permalink

    Sorry — change “fusion” to “fission” in the prior message — I need a bit more kawphy!

  264. maryyugo permalink

    “I have tried to explain this “safety heater” thing to maryyugo on other sites too, but obviously without much success. Possible explanation for the great difficulty to control the reaction is the huge difference in timescales between nuclear reaction times and heat removal & temperature measurement times, more than 20 orders of magnitude.”

    You have had no success explaining this because the explanation makes no sense. You need to speak to a heat transfer specialist.

    The time scale is no issue. The thermal inertia of the device evens out very rapid changes in “nuclear heat” and those make no difference. There is actually evidence for that. Rossi’s own temperature measurements from his reactor cell show it. There are no rapid fluctuations at all. There is no evidence that he uses the heater to control the reaction. Power input, in low temperature ecats, does not change during the experiment. NOT AT ALL. Please examine the data or ask Mats about this since he was there and did some of the measurements.

    Rossi has never claimed and has never shown any “great difficulty” in controlling the reaction but if there were some, it would not be solved with a large electrical heater at the input! Suppose that the heater was the controller. What happens when the output heat exceeds the desired maximum and the heater is off? Thermal runaway of course. The ONLY way to prevent that, if there is a nuclear heat source, is with proper cooling. This is why proper cooling is so important for fusion reactors and why they melt down if it is not available! Nobody would ever suggest controlling a fusion reactor heat source with an electrical heater. It’s beyond absurd!

    Most of my remarks apply particularly to the old ecat. The new design is so silly, it’s hardly worth commenting on. It’s just an obvious, electrically heated tube furnace. With no cooling system whatsoever. How does THAT design feature make sense, in your estimation? Care to explain?

  265. Allan permalink

    “Rossi doesn’t need an electrical heater for safety or control. In fact, it’s a terrible method to use to control or make safe an exothermic (heat producing) reaction.”

    While I agree about “terrible”, it still makes sense as a control method, when you don’t have fast and precise control over the reaction and you try to have the reaction run in repeating bursts, because continuous reaction is (in current implementation) impossible to control. So you start the burst with the heater and as soon as reaction is started, quench it with cooling. And start over again.

    I have tried to explain this “safety heater” thing to maryyugo on other sites too, but obviously without much success. Possible explanation for the great difficulty to control the reaction is the huge difference in timescales between nuclear reaction times and heat removal & temperature measurement times, more than 20 orders of magnitude.

  266. maryyugo permalink

    @Stefan
    “On the other hand if the process burns out you need to initiate the process again by transferring more energy to the process. This can be done by reducing the cooling or by heating. If the burnout is so severe that the coolant is still and still removes too much energy you need to heat it.”

    It seems as if you, Mats and many others have not thought this out. Rossi has always claimed that his process puts out at least six times the thermal energy that it requires in order for the reaction to be sustained. They mistakenly call this output/input ratio “COP”.

    If the 6:1 ratio is true, then all that is needed to sustain the reaction is for 1/6 of the heat produced to be retained (or rerouted) to the reactor core. A simple modern heat pipe (like the ones used to cool processors in home computers) can do the rerouting. It’s trivial. But even that isn’t needed. The reactor vessel of the original ecat is small. Simply insulating it (outside of the coolant channels) would accomplish the same purpose– to retain at least at least 1/6 of the thermal energy for the device when the coolant flow is low. There is NEVER any need to input more power after the reaction is started. NEVER. Under no circumstances would any an honest person design the system to require electrical power when it has a “COP” of 6 or larger, as Rossi has always claimed for small ecats. On the other hand, a deceitful person would use an electrical heater!

    I don’t know if you have followed “free energy” as, for example, claims of magnets and motors providing it. You can find dozens on Sterling Alan’s ridiculous web site, PESN. But all those devices ALWAYS have batteries. Why? This is similar. A heat engine doesn’t require an external heat source! It requires controlled cooling. That is elementary heat transfer physics engineering!

    “For the hot cat, as I remembered the process was in runaway, no heater was used, “</I

    Your memory is not correct. The so-called hot cat is nothing but a tube furnace with a GIANT electrical heater. It does not "run" without power. Maybe it can coast a bit from its thermal inertia but I did not see any power off tests by the Swedish scientists.

    And because the power source and the power wires were all supplied by Rossi in EVERY test, nobody knows how much power was really supplied to the hot cat. The instruments and methods used by the Swedish scientists and actually supplied and designed by Levi and Rossi, could not rule out extra power which had not been measured.

    If Rossi's ecat really worked, it would be easy to demonstrate, under proper controls and with good measurement methods by independent scientists, that it can run without any input power indefinitely. If Rossi claims that is dangerous, fine. Do it out in the desert somewhere in a place where they test rockets and bombs. That should be safe. Rossi has never done that. But the reality is that with a properly designed cooling system, the ecat, especially the low temperature ecat, should be perfectly safe with no input power. And because its heat source is claimed to be fusion, it should run weeks or months without power or fresh nickel or hydrogen.

    Note again: the hot cat HAS NO EXTRINSIC COOLING SYSTEM AT ALL! If it is indeed an efficient generator of heat from fusion, that is simply insane. Complete nonsense. NOBODY who knows anything about heat transfer, would design it that way. Every evidence suggests that the hot cat is nothing but a simple, electrically heated, tube furnace and that it makes no difference at all that Rossi claims to put in nickel and hydrogen.

  267. In absence of real evidence, it does.

  268. The experiment is replicated,
    what do you have to challenge that material result.

    please Cimpy don’t try to revert logic.

    once an experiment is confirmed, it is up to critics to find refutation.

    maybe you are not so dishonest, but simply you have problem with scientific method.

    You should read the chapter 10+ in Charles Beaudette books, on validation.

    Today people have problem that facing facts : they ask for theory to change or they refuse the facts.

  269. you’re still trying that trick, AlainCo? It is the one who claims the new phenomenon, the new wonderful machine, that has to proof it is true, not the contrary….

  270. let us cool the debate and naming people with birds names (sorry roger).

    Dear skeptics, beside missing data on old demo, do you have a constructed written critic, than can be peer reviewed on key experiments :

    – on Fleischman & pons experiments
    – on McKubre experiments
    – on Oriani peer-reviewed paper
    – on Miles calorimetry and Bush double blind He4 analysis
    – on Report 41 DeNinno
    – Levi&al paper

    I mean affirmative papers, not just claims of unknown factors…
    Not claim of conspiracies involving more than 5 people…
    Not refuted claims breaking known knowledge of calorimetry or logic.

    By the way among skeptics how many/who agrees that Cold Fusion is proven ? (I don’t ask if possible, I ask if proven)

    Just to detect denialist, i can ignore as delusioned (ok I will never ignore a delusioned guy, I’m humanist)..

    once you admit F&P have been peer-reviewed with success, replicated, cross confirmed, and never challenged, the industrial claims on the LENR startups are to be judged like startup claims in cutting-edge science…

    Back to the basics.
    Cold fusion is a scientific phenomenon, and all critics are evidence of groupthink, a known phenomenon too.
    Fascinating how Science as a concept and as a method have been productive, and how Academic community is broken, and how it is documented (yes it is documented).

    All the rest is business, uncertain business, uncertain as whether a cat will kill a mouse. One only know that one day one cat will kill a mouse, and that one business will industrialize LENR.

    Is it so interesting, except for the fact that it can change our lives and our economy?
    Science have done it’s job, even psychiatrists.

  271. Susan permalink

    >Susan, as long as you come off treating us with disrespect
    Oh my gosh, I’m soooo sorry. Please accept my most sincere apologies.
    Now, can we address these question? Please, can you try to skip the my irony and get the big picture?
    Can we have the pleasure to hear your opinion about copper contamination of these samples?

  272. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    Maryyougo

    You make a good points here.

    Why not cool it by changing the coolant flow. As you say this is not a good way to control if the process behaves monotonically. On the other hand if the process burns out you need to initiate
    the process again by transferring more energy to the process. This can be done by reducing the cooling or by heating. If the burnout is so severe that the coolant is still and still removes too much energy you need to heat it. You could perhaps solve this by having a higher temperature of the incoming water but I don’t know how practical that is as well. I would not be surprised, if this technology works, that they end up controlling the process just as what you say, by a control that is working by cooling it. Anyway heating it does also work in the case of burn outs and that is how Rossi choosed to solve the control problem. For the hot cat, as I remembered the process was in runaway, no heater was used, but as you say an independent person needs to observe it in order to use it as evidence, I fully agree here and therefore it is a bit of cheating by suggesting this as an evidence.

    I also agree that the input energy is the weak part of the Levi et al report. I dont find it devastating though the result was interesting enough and hard enough to cheat to motivate further tests. And that was actually the task that the swedes had on them, to do a sanity check. The new tests have been ongoing now for a couple of months and most probably the testers will try harder to control the input. For sure they have not discovered any cheat by know and that is remarkable.

  273. Roger Bird permalink

    Susan, as long as you come off treating us with disrespect we will continue to ignore you and treat you with disrespect. It is as simple as that. Phrases like “how can we buy this statement”, “magic powder”, etc. are your way of being insulting. As long as you continue to treat us believers like we are a bunch of idiots who need to be corrected by you, you will learn nothing and continue to set yourself up for looking like a complete idiot when Rossi and Industrial Heat start saving money for some power utility.

  274. maryyugo permalink

    “Using energy to control energy can of cause be used by a scammer. On the other hand I don’t find it especially strange as well if the process can run away. That too is not especially damning. Again this is something less knowledgable people would take as a good argument for a fraud. But it isn’t.”

    Rossi doesn’t need an electrical heater for safety or control. In fact, it’s a terrible method to use to control or make safe an exothermic (heat producing) reaction.

    What Rossi needs is a decent cooling system which can handle extra surges of energy and react by increasing the flow of coolant or lowering coolant temperature or both. Or he needs to be able to throttle the reaction, for example by introducing an inert gas. Rossi has never shown any control device or method at all. The only reason why Rossi could possibly need an electrical heater running after startup is to deceive.

    If you doubt me, ask a good process control engineer who specializes in heat transfer and fluid flow. Mats should have done that!

    As for runaway, no low temperature ecat has ever been shown in public to exhibit thermal runaway. Rossi says some have exploded. I asked him on his blog to show a video and naturally, he didn’t reply and censored the question… because it never happened.

    Of course, Rossi’s tube furnace he calls a hot cat did melt down. What’s the mystery there? It runs nearly red hot from the electrical heater during normal operations. All Rossi has to do is increase the power input and it will certainly melt down BECAUSE IT HAS NO COOLING SYSTEM! Notice that? Rossi;s high temperature nuclear fusion reactor is not cooled except by natural radiation and convection– very inefficient and a lousy way to cool something which makes energy. Best answer: the hot cat doesn’t make energy other than what Rossi puts in electrically.

    So why did the Swedish scientists measure extra heat? Because Rossi deceived them, probably with the measurement of the electrical input which was extremely inadequately done.

  275. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    Maryyougo

    The video is hillarious, I’m sure Mats can explain to you how bad journalism it is to edit a movie like that and create a message whatever the message you would like to put forward just by controlling the information flow. It hinders an independent interpretation and forces the editors message on the viewer and that’s why I’m very suspicious of the movie. What’s important is if the turning on and of the flow to the bucket is important for the measurement of the energy out minus the energy in, and that is not explained very well or proven. But of cause people with less experience and brain will think “oh my good it must be a hoax, clearly there is a conspiracy”.

    Using energy to control energy can of cause be used by a scammer. On the other hand I don’t find it especially strange as well if the process can run away. That too is not especially damning. Again this is something less knowledgable people would take as a good argument for a fraud. But it isn’t.

    On the other hand stories of runaway processes is playing the other direction e.g. if you haven’t verified it by yourself it can be planted. And it is also a kind of argument to get the straw man on board the ship. But sure if you believe the teller then it’s one hell of an argument for that you get plenty of energy out, that the process can run away and that you need to control energy with energy.

  276. When a skeptopath stops punching me in the face, then I will stop shunning him/her
    and no matter if a probe of the wrong type is in the wrong place doing the wrong job, or if a flowmeter is read multiplying value for a thousand, or if copper does materialize from nowhere, and all the stuff like these. The important point is that skeptics (patics) are rude and usually laugh out loud when someone said that Galantini signed, thus that was the probe, no matter what photos show…

  277. Roger Bird permalink

    Dear realist, I am sure that you enjoyed using the word “acolytes” because it made you feel epistemologically superior, but we have already been through all of the issues that they are bringing up and have answered all of their questions for ourselves. But instead of respecting that possibility, they coming charging at us with the assumption that they know it all and that we are a bunch of true believing idiots and calling us true believing idiots and acolytes and acting like we didn’t very carefully follow the evidence. It took me 19 months to believe Rossi. I criticized him and dismissed him for a long time, saying things like “Rossi says” and “hot air” etc. etc. When you walk up to a person and punch them in the face and then ask them why they aren’t being reasonable, is that being reasonable? When a skeptopath stops punching me in the face, then I will stop shunning him/her.

  278. maryyugo permalink

    Sorry, that should have been in response to Mats’ question, not Krivit’s. It’s Mats’ video.

    Another response I made is being held for moderation, presumably because it contains two links. Basically, it points out that the sample Rossi originally provided for Kullander was almost certainly just nickel to which Rossi simply added some copper powder. Rossi is pretty artless at defrauding. I am amazed at how badly people want to believe him which is why he is able to get away with it. Rossi is particularly good at focusing his efforts on those hopeful if gullible people.

    And of course, he has been extremely lucky. Some day, hopefully soon, and maybe with proper scrutiny by Industrial Heat or Cherokee, I expect Rossi’s luck to change. Mats’ book may actually accelerate that event by focusing more interest on Rossi and his incredible claims.

  279. maryyugo permalink

    Yes, and how about Rossi’s ridiculous, absurd “safety heater”? This idea goes against all usual reactor cooling practices. If Rossi’s original ecat were real, it would have a proper cooling system which would be designed to cope with any amount of heat expected from the reaction.

    Electrical heating power might be needed for initial startup but there is not and has never been any reason for a heater continuing to require energy after the start of a highly exothermic reaction, as Rossi claims. This one issue almost by itself, makes Rossi a liar. And for some reason, it has never been properly addressed by any experimenter who tested the ecat. The ecat should not require ANY electrical heat input to run once it has been started.

    Rossi claims the electrical heater is required for stability but he has never said why or how that works. It makes absolutely no sense. There is nothing to suggests that Rossi uses the heater for anything other than faking a high output.

    None of Rossi’s supporters have properly explained his behavior with Krivit when Rossi obviously changed the heater power in order to make more impressive steam. And look at his expression when he got caught. It is like a deer in headlights! And his response to Krivit’s question about how things are going is classic: “Stable… stable.” Yah shoore.

    See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uviXoafHWrU

    This is the clearest evidence available that Rossi cheats with the power controls rather than using them for “safety”. And the funny part of this is that Krivit’s analysis and remarks are done with Mats’ video!

  280. “that was cruel, unsubstantiated, and unwarranted”

    Ok. And now, what about copper and thermalizing gamma?

  281. Roger Bird permalink

    Hmm, that was cruel, unsubstantiated, and unwarranted. I am still looking forward to my copy of the book and I still think very highly of Mats Lewan and you just got tar on yourself for fighting with the tarbaby.

  282. Susan permalink

    >… was most probably contamination from material in the reactor…
    Thanks Mats and sorry to bother you again but how can we buy this statement?
    Contamination from what? Wasn’t the magic powder confined in a sealed steel chamber? How did Copper, in the amount shown by Uppsala team analysys, reach the Nickel hashes?
    I think, Mats, you should be willing to seriously investigate on this matter. If (please note the “if”) copper was added by hand, it’s a deliberate (and cheap) attempt to fool Sweden scientists.
    Does any bell started ringing now?

  283. maryyugo permalink

    @AlainCo
    What do you think Hoistad’s answer was? How about this:

    “Presumably there is still a long way to go before we can confirm or deny the operation of the E-Cat reactor”

    From: http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

    @Mats
    Thanks for allowing dissenting opinions here. It is the clearest evidence that you are honest and mean well.

    As to the evidence of copper in the spent fuel from Rossi’s original ecat, there is only Kullander’s original analysis and that showed the same distribution of copper isotopes found in nature. This is NOT what would be expected from a nuclear reaction between nickel and hydrogen. On the other hand, it is exactly what would be expected if Rossi cheated by simply adding some copper powder to the material he provided to Kullander.

    Unfortunately, the late Dr. Kullander did not do a new analysis on new material from Rossi’s newer ecats as he had promised and did not say why not. Or if he did, he did not provide results. Perhaps his health prevented it but it would have been helpful if he had at least said that.

    And to support my contention that “Angus” (a professor emeritus of physics at a major university), Henning Dekant (a qualified engineer with a particular interest in all types of fusion) and I were prepared to properly test Defkalion’s Hyperion, here is a discussion which Dekant hosted:

    http://wavewatching.net/fringe/do-you-think-you-know-what-a-good-lenr-test-protocol-looks-like/

    Both Angus and Dekant contacted Hadjichristos and were unable to make appointments. Angus went personally to the Defkalion offices in Canada and the office was closed when he arrived, in mid day. Not encouraging for a “world class” company, as they once described themselves.

  284. Roger Bird permalink

    Dear Mats, I hate it when you keep shaming us with your openness, sweetness, and patience. LOL. Really. Truth be told, it upsets me when someone so virulently disagrees with me when I know that A = B and they keep saying that A does not equal B. So I just ignore them. But kudos for you for continuing with your openness, sweetness and patience. It will sharpen your intellect and presentation. And we both know who will eventually win. You are a better human being than I am.

  285. @realist
    what are you talking about ? never called for banning anybody (just being banned 2 times, and moderated a handful)
    you are trying a strawman?

    My strategy is
    1- spread the facts
    2- point the skeptics errors.
    3- note weak point there there is not enough data to convince (like a stopped clock, sometime skeptic show the right time, thanks Cimpy)
    4- ask real critics on important point

    for example I could ask you:
    -a paper that is not refuted, proposing a serious challenge of Fleischman & pons calorimetry, of McKubre calorimetry, of Miles calorimetry, of miles/Bush isotopic analysis, of Oriani calorimetry,
    -a paper claiming non laughable challenge of Levi&al calorimetry.

    Since i discovered in Beaudette book
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
    that there was only 4 written critics in 1996 (and no more in 2001) and that all were refuted without much honor, and all abandonned, i have asked skeptics to bring calorimetry papers that challenge F&P and the replications…

    No skeptics did even bring the least, even a (the) refuted one.

    Do yo have one?

    Pomp&Eriksson is a joke after you read Bo Hoistad answer.
    A stage magic straining is also a good way to understand Levi&al is not such.

  286. Mats:
    (…)the copper in the powder that he handed to the Uppsala team was most probably contamination from material in the reactor. If this reaction is real and nuclear, and if transmuted copper was produced, you should expect to see small traces attached to the grains of nickel. I’m not sure now, but I think they observed that copper was present in separate grains, which would have been incompatible with a transmutation process.(…)

    Do you mean the genius of Rossi and the science of Focardi both in the expert hands of Levi did not recognize at a glance it was impossible? And thought it transmutated nickel, but taht was not the case? Doh!…And, while you’re looking for details, how about thermalizing gammas? Anything to say about them? Will we discover out they are impossoble too, inside the Cat? And about the mu metal preventig you to lose your keys, watch, coins and microphone in the neighborhood of the Hyperion during Milan demo? Will you find out after some future research that it will prove to have been impossible? Have you evere been near such a magnetic field, Mats? Are you still of same idea, that “Defkalion’s reactor might have been working during the experiment. I didn’t doubt it”. Truly? And so, if “the demonstration could not give me an equally convincing basis as the Swedish-Italian measurement on Rossi’s reactor”, I must think you treally believe gammas in e cat are a lot, but they all do thermalize, is not it so, Mats?

  287. realist permalink

    A suggestion for the long-term Rossi acolytes like Roger Bird and AlainCo: instead of spending all your time trying to have critics banned from websites, how about addressing their specific criticisms?

  288. Joakim Nygren permalink

    It was a great read Mats, well done. So good to finally know the behind the scenes actions that went on during this time, where news was hard to come by. I think regardless of what you think about this issue, the fact that we are plowing so much money down in ITER and nothing on good alternatives is a testament that we have let the theoretical scientist take way to much place in the world, after all, they have provided us with little of use compared to the experimental ones, and the more freely working inventors. Theory is awesome, but to let existing theory determine what is possible or not is a very silly conservative outlook, saying that existing theory is perfect and nothing else exists.

    I hope for a new wave of time where scientists can more freely explore phenomena again, leading to the waves of innovation that happens in the IT sector at times for example.

    Det vore nåt det!

  289. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Susan
    Rowan Atkinson would be a good choice 😉
    As far as I have understood, the copper in the powder that Rossi handed to the Uppsala team was most probably contamination from material in the reactor. If this reaction is real and nuclear, and if transmuted copper was produced, you should expect to see small traces attached to the grains of nickel. I’m not sure now, but I think they observed that copper was present in separate grains, which would have been incompatible with a transmutation process. I need to check details though.

  290. Susan permalink

    @Cimpy, @Mats

    The Copper issue, in the whole story, is the one that is intriguing me most. Rossi himself with his last “theory”, asserted that no more Nickel transmuted to Copper. The energy comes from a conventional but still undisclosed physical phenomena.
    So, let put it straightforward and try us to be frank: where the heck Rossi got the powder handed out to the Uppsala team?
    IMHO from the reactor but not before manually having added some extra Copper “just to be sure” since, at that time, he was so confident in the today “deprecated” R&F Paper.
    At this point we could spend few words about the spectrometry analysis performed in Padua but I don’t feel to pour more salt into the wound.
    Mats, this three year old story could have been written and directed by Rowan Atkinson even better. Doesn’t it?
    Probably it’s my problem but I swear I’m not really able to take it seriously.
    Cheers S.

  291. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Cimpy
    I don’t know what you think I should have written regarding transmuted copper. I don’t think anyone believes in that hypothesis now. In the Appendix of the book I write:

    “As in the Fleischmann and Pons experiment, in Rossi’s device initial phenomena brought to mind fusion, including the discovery of copper in the nickel powder used as fuel. In this case, it could be the nucleus of nickel that had reacted with the nucleus of hydrogen, consisting of a single proton, which then formed a new nucleus, copper, because copper has one proton more than nickel—a fusion reaction that in itself would release energy if it occurred. But analysis of the used nickel shows that the copper was simply a contamination powder from another source.”

  292. “Che figura” not a so big matter: any italian speaker would understand it is only a typo. The lack of the trasmutated copper story is a bigger one…

  293. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Cimpy
    Aaaarghh! Che figura! Almeno era giusto nella versione italiana del primo capitolo sul sito…

  294. “and I guess I simply heard wrong.”

    Oppsss…. seen only now (!)
    Do not forget
    collazione colazione
    and
    capuccino cappuccino

  295. Susan, it should be a typo, it must be Fulvio Testi – and might be also the parallel street “viale Sarca”.
    I do not remember a “Pesci” in Milan and even google maps does not know it…

  296. Mats Lewan permalink

    Thanks fr your support Marko, and for your advice. Regarding the blog I believe that the discussion should be open also for those who are most critic.

  297. Mats Lewan permalink

    Thanks for this comment Susan. You’re most probably right. I believe I checked most of the material in the book carefully, but I never checked the name of the road Rossi mentionned, and I guess I simply heard wrong. I’ll have to update this in the next edition!

  298. Susan permalink

    I’m reading the book too. I’m quite familiar with Milan area but I’m having hard times to locate Viale Fulvio Pesci 🙂 did you mean Viale Fulvio Testi?
    Anyway these former big steel plants as Falk, Breda and so on wasn’t located along that road.
    If it was existing a Viale Fulvio Pesci you would have fond the fish market instead.
    As a from long time follower of Rossi’s story, I’m not finding so many news but I can tell you that your book is extremely hilarious.
    Besides others, the funny story of the long trip in car to Uppsala and the even longer wayback with this pissed and tired odd couple was almost killing me 🙂 Thanks!

  299. Stefan Israelsson Tampe permalink

    Marryyougo, we are all subject to blind spots, on both sides, but I think that Lewan have
    concluded that the overall observation is that Rossi just is such an unlikely con man.
    You have to agree that a con man that produces a 1 MW unit (A hell of a lot of work) must
    by crazy and such a con have not happened before. It is also very unlikely that Levi should be a
    con man as well, his biased though because he believes it, but’s that’s fine All science is
    driven forth by believers and being steered in the right way by peer critiques, which really should be a friendly discussion. Also it is a fact that if you dig in a history like this, you will find issues
    as you point out, and you can paint them in black or white whatever you choose. To conclude anything I would wait for the new tests to be presented. Why I am optimistic is that in my understanding of QM I don’t find it impossible to engineer nuclear reactions, we just don’t know
    enough how QM works. Also one can question how well QM can be applied to many body problems, maybe we should adopt Randi Mill’s theory (skip his hydrinos) and then try to find a theory to help us engineer cold fusion, it might work and i totally agree with Mats here.

  300. Roger Bird permalink

    I think that Mats is practicing with maryyugo and cimpy. He probably figures that if he can withstand their whithering onslaught and stay patient and reasonable, he can withstand any opposition.

  301. Marko permalink

    Mats; Like the book and look forward to the second volume after things break loose. You do need to clean your blog off. Some goons have badly cluttered it up with the same old negative loops that have gotten them tossed off other blogs. In the Twentieth Century they would have carried baseball bats, but in the Twenty First Century they use a keyboard.

  302. “it’s well written and your English is perfect”
    As a side note, Mats:
    colazione and cappuccino and not collazione or capuccino

    But do not take this as an excuse not to answer to maryyugo, who really estimates you. As you’re there, do not forget to tell something about the copper transmutation story I asked about: why are not there analysis results on Rossi transmuted copper? Not interesting documents?

  303. maryyugo permalink

    Hi Mats. I did not read the entire book yet, just pieces. When I can, I will try to do it justice and to read it all. Although I disagree with it, it’s well written and your English is perfect.

    “Rossi went to Uppsala. Unfortunately the E-Cat broke at that occasion, but that doesn’t take away his aim to offer an independent test at a neutral facility (The Svedberg Laboratory in Uppsala).”

    With all due respect (and believe it or not, in many ways I think you are inspiring and adventurous and do good work), you are exhibiting a typical believer blind spot here.

    Of course it takes away his aim! It was a sham! I am embarrassed for you to have fallen for it! It’s a very common part of con schemes — the device doesn’t work the day someone qualified and equipped to test it is present.

    The E-cat broke? Really? Rossi couldn’t fix it? Couldn’t fly in parts? Couldn’t reschedule the test in three years? Couldn’t find another university to do an independent official test in its facility?

    It’s like when Levi’s dog ate his data books? He couldn’t open them to Krivit? He couldn’t repeat the simple and elegant experiment which if done properly and independently would have REMOVED ALL DOUBT about the reality of the ecat back in February 2011? Really? Levi couldn’t be bothered to redo it for/with Krivit or someone else independent, for example Josephson?

    Actually it’s exactly like when Steorn, a bunch of scammers if there ever was one, put on a “demonstration” at the Kinetica museum. It was a lame looking “Minato Wheel” which of course couldn’t run by itself. Steorn claimed its bearings broke. And they couldn’t replace them. In more than a week! Of course nobody believed it just as almost everyone doesn’t believe Rossi.

    Forgive me but I do not believe a word of it.

    The ecat never worked when properly equipped and knowledgeable testers were there– for example, NASA and Quantum who visited Rossi in Bologna. The ecat didn’t work during the two days they were there either. That despite the fact that Rossi had earlier exhibited multiple (at least three, probably more) ecats that seemed to work fine when nobody critical was around. I find that strange. Rossi couldn’t find a single working ecat in his expansive “factory”? Guess he said not.

    The ecat only seems to work when the visiting scientists are largely uncritical and do not insist on their own test setup and methods. It only works when power is provided by Rossi. It only works when no specialists in heat transfer and fluid flow are present. For most of the tests, it would only work when there was no blank run and no calibration. It truly is a unique device!

    While we’re on the subject of Rossi’s aims, where is that plant Rossi was going to use to heat a factory or school for free (in Sweden I think) this past winter, working with Hydrofusion? Was there a very warm winter so it was not needed? Who are his customers he talks about all the time (ANY customers)? Who (that we can interview) has bought his megawatt plant which has been available for more than two years with a 4 month delivery time? Nobody in education, civilian research, or industry wants a nuclear fusion power plant? None who want it can afford $1.5 million? Nobody wants to be the first university in the world to experiment with one? I really hope you don’t believe *any* of that, Mats. It just does not make sense and when things don’t make sense, one needs to be very suspicious that one is being bamboozled!

  304. Mats,
    “Read my book”
    I am reading – slowly, as spare time is needed.

    “Rossi has in my eyes maybe been to(o) careful with who he would let doing measurements on the E-Cat. Or maybe not”
    Not for sure: he never allow a serious test, at least the reading of devices and setup chosen by himself or some “thirdy part” like Levi. That’s enough to say no thirdy part at all get even closer to test anything.

    “In the case his device is real”
    Are you kidding? If it could ever been real, he would not have to run from a Country to another, to do shows and spread interviews via YouTube or so many little sites…In case it could ever been, you did not need to hide, for example, the copper transmutation wonderful story – or did you simply forget about it? Or should I search better in your book?

  305. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Cimpy Free is minimum level here. Payments create difficulties. Read my book. Rossi has in my eyes maybe been too careful with who he would let doing measurements on the E-Cat. Or maybe not. In the case his device is real, I wouldn’t have wanted to be in his position, trying to understand who I should trust.

  306. Mats Lewan permalink

    Maryyugo, did you read my book? Rossi went to Uppsala. Unfortunately the E-Cat broke at that occasion, but that doesn’t take away his aim to offer an independent test at a neutral facility (The Svedberg Laboratory in Uppsala).

  307. maryyugo permalink

    “I can see this divide at the Uppsala University where there are strong discussions regarding whether you should look into this or not. The critics say it’s fraud, and you shouldn’t touch it. I find that strange as an opinion from a researcher. Then why are you a researcher? Those who made that famous report on Arxiv together with Levi in March 2012, on the other hand, are not convinced one way or another. But they want to know more. Should they be criticized for that?”

    I agree with all of that. Nobody should be criticized for wanting to know more! But there are other grounds to criticize the Swedish researchers.

    In fact, if Rossi had ever made an offer to have the Uppsala University test the ecat on their facility, with their best heat transfer/fluid flow physicists and engineers using methods that those people developed and their instruments and power source, I’d have no problem with the results. I would only ask for one replication elsewhere. Just one.

    But as we know, Rossi has made no such legitimate offer. Instead, he writes garbage on his misnamed blog about associations with large companies, customers, the military and oh yes, the universities of Uppsala and Bologna. But no university has ever officially tested the ecat and no customer of any sort has ever emerged for interviews. You should have dwelt on that in your book!!

    And it is no coincidence that you are unable to find Domenico Fioravanti (nor can anyone else despite several offers of money for it). The man is probably a “shill” — a plant or a stooge — who is an old friend of Rossi’s indeed, probably from some past criminal enterprise.

    As for the researchers who reported on Arxiv, I do not critize them for investigating Rossi’s ecat, being present at the test, or writing a report. I do fault them very much for this:

    – not admitting that they do not have the necessary qualifications and experience to properly investigate deception and fraud

    – not having a member of the team who is a world-class expert in fluid flow and heat transfer engineering and physics

    – not requiring Rossi to allow them to use their own lab, their own power supply, their own measurement methods, their own calibration methods and entirely their own instruments

    – not insisting that Rossi show them a low temperature (older) ecat that they could test using ordinary all liquid flow calorimetry which is vastly easier than what they had to do with the so-called hot cat.

    And by the way, a very long test has no scientific significance whatever. It only needs to be long enough to clearly rule out non-fusion energy sources. Endurance tests are not science. They should be done by whoever intends to manufacture ecats, if there is such an entity (which I doubt). More important than length would have been adequate control and that was sadly lacking.

    But I fault them most of all for allowing their report to be used widely to support Rossi’s claims. I suppose they actually do say they are not convinced one way or another yet they offer no objections when their work is erroneously referred to as conclusive “indipendent” proof that Rossi tells the truth. I object when their work is called the “Elforsk test”, suggesting that the full power and knowledge of that huge company was behind the work. It’s not!

    What the authors of the report should do is to post and repost in blogs such as e-catworld.com that they are not certain that Rossi’s claims are real, that he could possibly be being deceptive and that more tests are required and Rossi is not allowing the best tests to take place. That would be closer to the truth and they never say it. You never seem to actively correct the ignorant enthusiasts either, Mats. Silly people like Roger Bird for example. Why is that?

  308. Roger Bird permalink

    Mats, I don’t respond to maryyugo, so don’t feel that I and many, many others don’t support you. I believe that he/she is mentally ill. And you have our support and good will and appreciation for all that you have done.

  309. Mats, “The critics say it’s fraud, and you shouldn’t touch it.”
    You sure? You should speak with these people: they would test an E Cat for free (free, Mats – no need to pay half a million euro like in the broken contract with Bologna University) if anyone could simply let them reach a single model of the device. You know what, Mats? Seems as if it is not possible at all. Guess why…

  310. So, AlainCo, the past is past and the new is better than the past?

    Let me quote something that even you should consider at least a bit:

    “You will notice that Andrea Rossi NEVER will allow a second test on the same device and method. A second test on the SAME device using the exact same methods with the only changes being those that would address all of the complaints of the critics. Rossi ALWAYS comes up with a new test that is different in some manner then the previous tests. There has never been a low temperature e-cat tested that works as claimed and that passes the smell test by all of the critics, including questions that cannot be answered by the scientists involved when questioned.”

    Noticed something in your statement about “old test are old test”? Why the need for a new one (or a new model of Cat) before the previous could be replicated with a truly different team?

    As Ascoli65 wrote: “Tests were many, more or less old, but the credibility of a researcher is one, always the same”. Why not give a try with another kind of team, instead of a different kind of Cat?

  311. Mats Lewan permalink

    Maryyugo — you, Krivit, Wright and a few others may actually not represent most critics. And I have spoken to several people who really says they “know” it’s fraud. In the sense that they’re absolutely convinced.
    I can see this divide at the Uppsala University where there are strong discussions regarding whether you should look into this or not. The critics say it’s fraud, and you shouldn’t touch it. I find that strange as an opinion from a researcher. Then why are you a researcher? Those who made that famous report on Arxiv together with Levi in March 2012, on the other hand, are not convinced one way or another. But they want to know more. Should they be criticized for that?

  312. maryyugo permalink

    Hi Mats, in your interview with Frank Ackland, you said:

    “But the funny thing is that most often, those people who know that it’s a fraud, they have never been close to it and they have never been interested to look into it — they’re just convinced.”

    Really? Most often? That does an injustice to those of us who have followed this saga and investigated it in some instances more thoroughly and certainly more cautiously than you have. That includes Wright, Krivit, and me and others. Of course, none of us had the opportunity to actually test a Rossi ecat like you well… sort of did. But at least in my case, it was not for lack of trying. Rossi simply would not allow the simple but careful protocol that I evolved with the cooperation of Jed Rothwell (or if he prefers, that Rothwell evolved with my suggestions).

    Similarly, although Hadjichristos claimed (on Peter Gluck’s blog) that he wanted me to test his Hyperion, when I assembled two highly qualified colleagues and they contacted him about visiting Defkalion, he was magically out of town on the days they were able to schedule. Nor would Hadjichristos respond to a detailed and elaborate test protocol which we developed and posted on Henning Dekant’s web site.

    So in my case, at least, there was no lack of “interest to look into it”. Many other critics of Rossi and Defkalion have followed their progress since at least early 2011. Your characterization of “most often, those people who know it’s a fraud” is very unfair.

    Finally, very few people *know* it’s a fraud. What they say is that Rossi and Levi behave in every way as if it were a fraud. They rigorously evade any attempt at a proper, reliable, well executed and truly independent test. Honest people wouldn’t do that. Do we know it’s a fraud? No. Does it look in virtually every way as a fraud? Absolutely. I just don’t understand how you fail to see that!

  313. Roger Bird permalink

    Levi’s credibility is as sound as the Rock of Gibraltar with me because Industrial Heat is not bitching about getting screwed out of millions of dollars. When Industrial Heat starts complaining about Rossi, I’ll start worrying about Levi.

  314. maryyugo permalink

    “maryyugo, I just can’t resist this opportunity to tell you that I NEVER read your vomit because you are a sick puke.”

    That’s classy! You think it promotes your cause? That’s OK Roger. I mainly don’t write for you because you have amply demonstrated your inability to understand anything, even when written for elementary school students.

  315. maryyugo permalink

    Roger, if those are bad, sloppy or otherwise insufficient “observations”, it doesn’t matter how many people made them or what they cost. I have to keep repeating this:

    If Rossi had had ONE good test properly designed and conducted along the lines of Levi’s February 2011 liquid flow calorimetry, had had it done truly independently, by a prestigious lab or university, and if it has been repeated just once more by another independent group with similar qualifications, we’d now be neck deep in every possible version of the ecat, everybody except morons would believe it was real, and Rossi would a multi billionaire or more. Assuming, of course, that the results were, as you seem to think, strongly positive.

    But it didn’t happen that way. EVERY test was done mainly by Rossi or Levi in Rossi’s facilities and with his equipment (or identical equipment) and methods. NO truly independent test exists. EVERY test witnessed by outsiders has been open to questions and problems. THAT is the problem– not that people “disbelieve”.

    I don’t expect that you and other believers will ever understand that. I hope Mats gets it but sometimes I have my doubts.

  316. Roger Bird permalink

    maryyugo, I just can’t resist this opportunity to tell you that I NEVER read your vomit because you are a sick puke.

  317. Roger Bird permalink

    Disbelieving, no matter how hard, does not make observations by scores of people with millions of dollars and their own reputations at stake unreal.

  318. Ascoli65 permalink

    Tests were many, more or less old, but the credibility of a researcher is one, always the same.

    Levi was the investigator of the first public test, in January 2011, and signed its calorimeter report . He was also the principal investigator of the tests described in the TPR and appears as the first author of the report. His credibility undermines the whole saga, from the first test to the last report.

  319. maryyugo permalink

    “…the recent test with 7 physicist is solid.
    again attack that test, not the previous less independent tests, with many missing data that let you hide conspiracy and lies inside.”

    Sure, happy to.

    First, the “seven” physicists presumably include several who are not accomplished/distinguished physicists and one is a personal friend and long time confidante of Rossi’s (Levi). None of the Swedish scientists who participated in Rossi’s latest fiasco have any believable credentials or noteworthy publications in heat transfer and fluid flow physics or engineering which are the main areas of interest here. So basically, they are absolutely the wrong people to be evaluating Rossi’s claims.

    Second, the tests were done in Rossi’s lab using equipment identical to that which Rossi used in a previous test. The tests were designed and mainly conducted by Levi. That’s the guy who couldn’t properly document a simple liquid flow calorimetry experiment nor be bothered to repeat in three years. This makes the tests unequivocally NOT “indipendent”.

    Third, the power source for the input heater was entirely under Rossi’s control. Nobody bothered to break the connections and insert a short segment of their wire in series with Rossi’s. Rossi’s wires could easily have been rigged to mislead as to power input in accord with several suggestions published and demonstrated on Youtube and elsewhere.

    Fourth, an unnecessary three phase current source was used and one phase was not operating (or not measured) correctly– one possible way to hide extra input power.

    Fifth, the instrument used to measure input power had limited bandwidth and did not respond to direct current. It inappropriately was used with clamp-on ammeters, not intended for situations where deception needs to be ruled out.

    And, Alain, a polite suggestion for you. I don’t try to write in French or Swedish. If you need to write in English, please get someone to help you. Much of what you write is very hard to understand and to make sense from, even in your own terms of reference. I could give you more targeted answers if I had a better understanding of what you write. As it is, I am mostly guessing. The same remark applies to other contributors who either don’t speak English well or have problems writing clearly in English! And I am not speaking about typographical errors.

    Alternatively, write in your native language or one you know better than English and we’ll make do with Google translate if we don’t speak it. Take an example from Mats. His English is faultless and always perfectly comprehensible.

  320. old test are old test.
    Given you honesty the claim that “it was the same” is to be taken with more caution than a claim of rossi.
    the recent test with 7 physicist is solid.
    again attack that test, not the previous less independent tests, with many missing data that let you hide conspiracy and lies inside.

    even for someone very skeptic, your claims are not more credible than the one of Levi or Rossi.

  321. Believing, no matter how hard, does not make fairytales real.

  322. I do believe AlainCo should at least try to answers on tests strange facts raised by Ascoli65, who analyzed in depth videos and pictures of the demo pointing out many non obscurable details….

  323. no conspiracy please against Mary or cinpy… that is self delusion…
    they desperately seek for zone of lack of data to introduce doubt in gullible minds, adn carefully don’t comment the real evidence.

    the fact is that after you were moaning agains water flow as you do here, Levi used an IR cam with no water to talk about… and this does not please you becaus ethere is less things to critic…

    note if you read the data that I god on il coriere della siera you will have noticed that after Rossi get sued and his asset seized with calims of pollutions, some tanks were sabotaged polluting the river….

    why ? rossi interest is not to be cause of pollution, with need of depollution and associated costs!
    this is not the interest of local people to have their river polluted ?
    not the interest of green activist who were already happy to have stopped Rossi…

    it was the only interest of the depolluting companies…
    who in that zone were one by one controlled by…
    by …
    by Mafia.

    about the critics agains rossi for pollution, his defense was that it was “to be recycled” wastes, which were legal under the previous laws.
    while he was ruined, the judge of the highest court judged that there was no violation of the laws, since it was legal when it was done and laws changed afterward.

    moreover thais does not challenge
    – the fact that Levi and 6 new scientsits from 4 universities from 2 countries, confirmed it was producing heat. and some as you should know tyried to detect fraud, so were not innovent sheep.
    – the fact that LTI boss hired Rossi despite petroldragon bankruptcy
    – the fact that LTI boss after the failure of TEG and the jailing of Rossi for tax fraud trial, continued hiring him

    the worst I suspect is that Petroldragon process was not working so well and that the results were containing too much PCB for latest norms.

    note that Petroldragon was producing oil for industrial use, not for cars.
    note also that Rossi was running waste management company (Dragon) with many incinerators built… He was a local tycoon, not a carpetbagger.
    Note that those criticizing his phylosphy degree, could note that he was raised in a technology family… and that even if he is a scam artist, his scam ask for much engineering competence to fool physicists…

    you theory is void.
    refuted for many reason (incoherence with levi&al result, for LTI boss behavior, for DoD behavior, for italian justice behavior) , and more generally for lack of evidence.

  324. maryyugo permalink

    “Or I’m wrong because you have received money (hired) to sway public opinions on the subject – then it your jobs to sway regardless of the truth.”

    Sure! I get millions of dollars from the oil companies every year to suppress cold fusion news by writing my remarks and comments on obscure blogs like this with a few dozen participants at most. That makes sense just as it makes sense that if Rossi really had a table top fusion reactor that made kilowatts for months on tiny amounts of fuel, a few internet bloggers could prevent large companies from buying it– companies like Siemens, General Electric, Google, Elon Musk, Bill Gates’ foundation, the US military, General Motors, builders of nuclear power plants and nuclear ships, and well… hopefully even with possible language barriers and my sarcasm, you get the picture.

    If Rossi were telling the truth, which is extremely unlikely, NOTHING could stop him.

  325. Nagasaki and Hiroshima have been heavy proves of fisdion being real.
    The Levi word is not so heavy. To tell the truth, Levi word after 2011 demos isn’t worth a penny. Less than for you.

  326. Roger Bird permalink

    Dear Yamamodo, I am here because I am retired, semi-lame, excited about LENR, want to help push it forward, and am intellectually lonely. The skeptopaths are here because they have psychological problems.

  327. Ascoli65 permalink

    The story told in the book is not about a single invention, but a lot of inventions, inventions of “data”. Those relating to the 3 main parameters of the output power in the test of January 14th, 2011 was already shown in my previous comment. Another one is the water flow rate in the 18 hours liquid test of February 10-11st. Levi declared, in mail and interviews, that he measured a large flow rate of 1 liter per second for the entire duration of the test. This value gives a total volume of 64 m3. In June 2011, Levi promised Krivit to send him all the documents relating to this test, but he did not. Therefore, there are no public visual feedback on the flow data claimed by Levi.

    But, one flowmeter identical to that used in February was used during the subsequent October 6th test. Before the test, the dial indicated a total volume of 7.26 m3 only (1). This suggests that the flow rate during the test in February was a tenth (or even much less) than the value repeatedly declared by Levi. This also explains why that kind of simple test has not been made in public and has never been repeated.

    This story is full of such incredible data. Many of these appears in documents signed by Levi (University of Bologna). In my opinion, all of these documents have the same credibility: zero.

    (1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhvD4KuAEmo&t=3m

    To Yamamodo Kenji,
    I pay taxes in Italy. This money is used to finance our public research and universities. I wish they serve to bring forward the true knowledge and not to mislead public opinion, damaging the international credibility of Italian science. I would like that the University of Bologna, or the Ministry of Education , will explain to the people all the inconsistencies in the CF documents where the script “University of Bologna” appears for whatever reason.

    To AlainCo,
    I heartily wish you that the Polytechnic of Paris and the French CEA replace as soon as possible the Italian universities and public research centers in the role of world avant-garde for cold fusion research.

  328. @cimpy
    the lack of a working device is normal since it takes time,
    and indeed you deny the anomaly that there is a working device tested by Levi&al which is not industrial but real

    moaning that it is not industrial is a fallacy, the tea kettle fallacy.

    would you deny fission and Fermi reactor because you don’t have a PWR fission reactor publicly in production ?
    your argument is absurd and dishonest.

  329. “What purposes do you serve?”
    Aside pure amusement and a seeking for science and where the truth is in it, I am also moved by my personal bias: ate frauds and scams.
    I am quite sure on the opposite side at least first two goals will provide to be the same, while I expect the third be something like a disregard for “obscurantists” and the like…

  330. “don’t invert my sentence I ASK YOU EVIDENCE, not absence of evidence”

    LOL , man , that’s REALLY GREAT!!
    Guess what? Here there is a BIG LACK of evidence…Of a working device…!!

    Give a working device to a skeptic team, and should it ever work, fusion would be all around the world in two seconds. Matter is: there is not a single working device…

    Do you know Piantelli cell, claimed working for sure, had been tested by a skeptic and, as it immediately stopped producing excess of heat, Piantelli said it has been broken by heatmetry in progress? And of course, Piantelli claims he could measure the excess of eat before, and after he stated he built new and improved cells. But never let that skeptic measure a single time one of that. Questioned on the story, one of the closest supporter (and co-worker in the lab of Piantelli), closed the thread where the story was debating…Do you believe in the Piantelli cold fusion? He is one of those who patented something like a theorical (and quite fatasy) way to get cold fusion…

    How is that devices works only when skeptics are far away from experimental setups, flow-meters, heat-meters, probes and so on?

  331. Yamamodo Kenji permalink

    I enjoy the book. Thanks the author

    questions

    Why are you guys spending so much times on the internet arguing “Rossi is a cheat and the professors are gullible” and “Rossi is not a cheat and the professors have done a proper job” ?

    What are your both sides motives? Do you guys work? or have a family to feed? kids to school?
    What purposes do you serve?

    Or I’m wrong because you have received money (hired) to sway public opinions on the subject – then it your jobs to sway regardless of the truth. In that case, I’m out of your western values, the truth will speak for itself. The longer the truth is kept, the more dramatic/violent the consequence will be.

    Yamamodo Kenji

  332. “it took me 2 hours to find that Rossi was declared innocent by italian justice”

    You mean that same kind of justice that let Tucker out of jail? Do you know the story?
    from here:
    Tucker pipe has been assessed as useless, but judgment took too much time, thus “mr Tucker” would pay nothing at all. Is to be noticed that the bosses of the factory were trying to obtain a legal victory (which would have meant the Tucker pipe was not a fraud, while it is settled it really is, unluckily too much late) based on many aspects – formal and technical. That is : knowing how justice usually works, they were trying to demonstrate by legal way that the fraud was a working device.

    Stated it was a fraud, how it could ever be bosses tried to win saying it was not? And how it was that it took so much to find out the truth? Do you know bosses still claim for justice?
    This should make you think about why Rossi was declared innocent. For example, in the “La Chiarella” case: do you know the number of factories involved in the scam?
    from here
    “DUE ANNI DI LAVORO E QUARANTA MILIARDI PER SVUOTARE LE CISTERNE DEI VELENI STOCCATI DA ANDREA ROSSI”

    two years of work and 40 billion of lire (around 20 million euro) – for sure you do not believe that was all Rossi alone responsibility – there must have been lot of people involved, don’t you think? And night be the “italian justice” had to choose between stating Rossi guilty or avoid heavy consequences for – say. a couple of thousands of workers in a hundred of small factories in more than a single Region, and some VIP of those places …what would have you decided, if you were the judge?

    It’s an old trick, used in lot of scams: involve as many as you can, expecially important people, and you will not be buried in a jail. Do you want another example?

    here:

    The story finally broke in December 1983. The junior Secretary for the Treasury publicly accused Beck of forfaiture (“abuse of authority”) for destroying the documents. The same week Pierre Péan published a complete history of the story in the satirical magazine Le Canard Enchaîné, apparently tipped off by government insiders. The new president, François Mitterrand, seized on the story to attack his predecessor for his involvement in the “cover up”, going on to claim that they had destroyed all of the documents. Giscard d’Estaing responded on television, brandishing another copy of the report which he had in his own possession, and claiming that its existence proved that the entire affair was simply a case of political maneuvering.

    This proved to be a bad idea; the report was seized and subsequently published in full. On 2 January 1984 it was released live on television by the new Prime Minister, Pierre Mauroy. Mauroy sarcastically accused Barre and Giscard of trying to cover up the embarrassing story. Giscard appeared on television a second time, attacking Mitterrand for “having allowed his predecessor to be attacked”. The Economist claimed that Mitterrand used his influence to have a public investigation into Giscard quashed.

    Answer me: can you tell how many years of jail the italian scammer Bonassoli got from the severe french justice?

  333. @Maryyugo
    don’t invert my sentence
    I ASK YOU EVIDENCE, not absence of evidence

    Levi is maybe a friend, a trusted relation for sure, and probably no more.
    However the 6 others are independents…
    only one is enough to detect a scam.

    but ion your world the 6 others physicist are too annoying to remain in tyour reality…
    like the thermocouple…
    like the boss of Rossi at LTI…

    evidence that dissent disapears and a replaced by absence of evidence that allow wild guess which are transformed in conspiracy theories, that are EVIDENT…

    your mechanic is classic among conspiracy theorist, and was much used by taubes, Morrison, Huizenga, and by many tinfoil hat and denialists.

    please give evidence. not wild guess… at most ask questions, ask more data… don’t conclude before having the data.

    “In general, skeptics display the following habits.
    1. They do not express their criticism in those venues where it will be subject to peer review.
    2. They do not go into the laboratory and practice the experiment along side the practitioner (as does the critic).
    3. Assertions are offered as though they were scientifically based when they are merely guesses.
    4. Questions are raised that concern matters outside of the boundaries of the claimed observation.
    5. Satire, dismissal, and slander are freely employed.
    6. When explanations are advanced for a possible source, ad hoc reasons are instantly presented for their rejection. These rejections often assert offhand that the explanation violates some physical conservation law.
    7. Evidence raised in support of the claims is rejected outright if it does not answer every possible question. No intermediate steps to find a source are acceptable”

    Charles Beaudette in Excess Heat
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf

    3,4 clear
    5 clear
    1, ok that is internet
    2 – compare with mats behavior
    6 – sometime when 1-5 not enough
    7 – ah, the big method

    a description of hypercritical method.

    people reading here should learn about that tactic, which is not specific to cold fusion denial, but to many conspiracy&denialism infoxication.

    It is a schema, a pattern, a method.

  334. ” it does not change the fact that the Levi&al test proved that the E-cat reactor was 200-300C hotter than what the electricity could cause.

    the problem is that since the test cannot be attacked easily, you try to attach the man, and since you have no evidence, you transform your lack of evidence as an evidence of conspiracy”

    Man, please, come to your senses!
    It is really easy to simulate that excess, and the case of DFK should have shown you at least a trick to do so without the need of any special device, only using a small pipe even after the flowmeter. Do you want another way of thinking? it is enough to find a way to let you believe there is more water than how much is there, and to measure resistance heat not fully under water instead of fully covered by it. You do not need to put more electricity -but might be you should put less,not to melt down resistance. That is something that could simulate small period of self sustaining working of device…

    A test under real control of Rossi is NOT one that “cannot be attacked easily”, but on the contrary one that is really difficoult to make acceptable as an evidence of somethig. And by the way, Levi & al remain a NON THIRDY PART group. Do you know what it means? Do you have any explanation for the HP474AC probe stuff mentioned by Ascoli65? Or any strange fact saw by him and by million of pepole (less you) in the Rossi et Al. shows?

    Repeating those tests *were fine* will not make them be better than what we all could see since the first time we saw them.

    You really should explain how could it ever be possible – if really cold fusion had been proven “since 1992, replicated, published, improved” – that not a single cold fusion device is nowaday working adn generating energy for each (at least rich) Country, and why Japan (nd not only it) is still under the threat of hundreds of Fukushima-like situations. OIr even simply how is it possible that more than 20 years could be not enough to get rid of what should be old oscurantists that should have been able to make planes not flying simply saying it is impossible for them to leave the ground…If it were true cold fusion could generate overunity, there would be no skepticism able to stop that revolution, and plasma cells would have been the souces of the power of cellulars and (later) of smartphones. Guess what? They still rely on “old” batteries. Sorry, no cold fusion at all, not even to boil water to coock spaghetti.

    Improve your dancing, Alainco…

  335. maryyugo permalink

    @Mats
    Here is a crucial passage from the book and a critical question for Mats:

    “Rossi ,Focardi an d L evi h ad t ol d m e t h at t h ey per f orm ed
    t est s wi t h ou t boi l i n g wat er , wi t h on l y h eat i n g , an d
    i n t h at case t h e probl em wi t h t h e st eam was
    i r rel evan t . Su rel y I h ad at l east t o t ru st L evi an d
    Focardi , di dn ’ t I ? Rat i on al l y , t h ey h ad n ot h i n g t o
    g ai n by l y i n g . Cou l d Rossi t h en h ave t ak en t h em
    f or a r i de som e ot h er way ? I h ad t rou bl e bel i evi n g
    i t . Moreover , I st i l l cou l d n ot see an y credi bl e way
    i n wh i ch t h e f rau d cou l d be perpet rat ed. Wh et h er
    t h e pu z z l e cou l d be u n ravel ed or n ot , t h e
    u n cer t ai n t y abou t t h e st eam rem ai n ed. ”

    Mats, if you knew that tests had been done using liquid water instead of steam, why on Earth did you not ask that such a test be repeated, be run for a long time, be run with proper blanks and calibration, and be done in front of a highly reputable heat transfer specialist?

    I will bet you that Rossi would have refused! When I wrote to him about running control tests using argon or nitrogen instead of hydrogen in his cell, he wrote back on JONP that there was no need for it because he already knew what the result would be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! After that, he simply censored out my replies and comments. Is that really what an honest investigator does?

    I just don’t see how you let him get away without redoing the liquid coolant tests with proper documentations and controls. It would have been so easy and so determinative. What a colossal oversight!

  336. that’s not a surprise, Roger; and I am quite sure you know it makes no difference to me: I will keep on saying what I see looking at E-Cat: a scam – and even a ridiculous one, the kind of scam that could trap exclusively children.
    You’re right, better not be bored by my silly eords, better keep on playing in the garden waiting for Rossi to save the world with his (next) genially machine – within 3/6/18 months soon on market…

  337. maryyugo permalink

    @Roger
    Very classy.

    @Cimpy
    Levi is difficult to figure out. Either he’s dishonest or he’s incredibly naive or gullible. I don’t think we have enough information to determine which it is. Maybe someday he will tell us. Or some documents will leak out / people will talk.

    My current thinking is that he is has to be dishonest. NOBODY is stupid enough not to properly repeat the liquid calorimetry that he performed (the so-called 18 hour test) in early 2011 with a simple, water-cooled small, low temp ecat.

  338. Roger Bird permalink

    Give it a rest, Cimpy. I, for one, don’t give a shite what you think.

  339. And, moreover, you can tell whatever you want, AlainCo, but Levi is NOT a “thirdy part” in this story. He was heavily involved in those drmos where we had ghost instrument and uncertain water floiw (yo name only a couple of matters)

  340. as usuam mary you behave like any 9/11 elevel conspiracy theorist.
    You interprete lack of data accessible to you as evidence of fraud.

    anyway whatever it is, even is LTI is a scam company and Rossi was employed to implement the sam, it does not change the fact that the Levi&al test proved that the E-cat reactor was 200-300C hotter than what the electricity could cause.

    the problem is that since the test cannot be attacked easily, you try to attach the man, and since you have no evidence, you transform your lack of evidence as an evidence of conspiracy.

    classic tactic of hypercritical method
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9thode_hypercritique
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FM%C3%A9thode_hypercritique&sandbox=1

    you should complete the article, since you are competent.

    there is many thing we ignore, many thing not available on internet, but that is not a reason to say there is evidence of anything…

    I concede you can suspect, but your story have to be coherent.
    given that Rossi was an employee of LTI, that E-cat works, that Rossi was freed of any fraud or environmental charge in Italy (only charges were linked to evading the bankruptcy caused by pursuits), your theory is hard to swallow for somone rational.

    given that Cold Fusion is proven since 1992, replicated, published, improved, it is not at all surprising that an inventor do what inventor did during all human history : be more creative than academics

    the only reason you desire to believe that Rossi is a fraud is that if he is not, then it will be the biggest scientific fraud on earth since long ago, done my APS, AAAS, DoE, nature, Science, MIT, Caltech, Harwell,…

    it is indeed so. it is proved, documented.
    unlike your theories based on absence of data.

  341. maryyugo permalink

    “…anyway this does not change that the Levi&al test prove much heat above anything chemical.
    stop trying to fool the gullible public with your conspiracy theories, and talk of evidence…”

    So, Alain, let me be sure I understand you. You don’t like EVIDENCE? What do you prefer? Rossi bulldokey?

    The Levi test proves nothing. Because it was done with Rossi equipment and methods in Rossi’s lab and most of all, using his badly configured three phase power supply. Three phase power isn’t needed for this experiment. Many believe it was used to hide unmeasured input current/power. The scientists who participated in the test did nothing to dispel this possibility. They failed to use an oscilloscope on the input wires and they also failed to substitute/insert their own power wires in series with Rossi’s. This oversight would easily have allowed Rossi to cheat.

  342. read the text I gave to you.

    Rossi was not alone…

    anyway this does not change that the Levi&al test prove much heat above anything chemical.
    stop trying to fool the gullible public with your conspiracy theories, and talk of evidence.
    Push a paper, and better than the kitchen towel of Pomp&Eriksson.

    it is incredible how lack of information is an evidence for you.
    on internet lack of information is normal.
    and even more information ones refuse tosee…
    like when it took me 2 hours to find that Rossi was declared innocent by italian justice, while Wikipravda refused to admit it and preferred to delete the page than swallow the crow.

  343. maryyugo permalink

    “According to the Military Report, The prototype was a success. Rossi had Succeeded.
    Production Versions were Not successful. This did not depend on Rossi. Problems involved Impurity of available materials. Material Costs. Manufacturing Quality, as maintaining precise contact at the junctions. To much or to little joining material had major impact on functional efficiency.

    It was recommended By the Army Research Center to their superiors that Research be halted/delayed until Material Science developed better, Cheaper more Pure materials.”

    Alain, where do you find garbage like this? None of it is true! None of it is in the report! WHO ever saw Rossi’s efficient “TEG” (thermoelectric generator)? WHO at any university was involved in testing it? WHERE are the actual data from any test on such a device? Certainly, these are not in the 2004 DOD report. Anyone can read it –no thanks to the originating agency which removed it but thanks to Krivit and a few other people who preserved this documented waste of tax payer dollars on a scam.

    Rossi supplied ALL the non-working modules to DOD. Gary Wright has determined where Rossi bought them (he did NOT make them):

    “Hi-Z Technology, Inc of San Diego, California is the only known US commercial manufacturer of thermoelectric materials, devices and systems. Other sellers of thermoelectric modules and systems in the US seem actually to be remarketers of modules produced in Russia. While this cannot be verified, the authors of this study have purchased thermoelectric modules from both US and Russian companies. In all instances other than Hi-Z, the modules were identical in every way.”

    “We contacted Hi-Z Technology, Inc in San Diego, California. At first they were hesitant to answer our question if Rossi or Leonardo Technologies Inc. had in fact purchased any modules. After awhile they did confirm that Rossi had purchased a few modules from them.

    It is our position that not only did Rossi purchase enough working modules to make his device that he tested at the University of New Hampshire but he also purchased enough factory rejects to build the 27 modules, but from Russian sources.”

    There is much more about this incredible fiasco but you won’t find it in Mats’ book! You have to look instead on Gary Wright’s web site here:

    http://freeenergyscams.com/the-thermoelectric-scam-of-andrea-rossi-part-3/

  344. I will need a bit of (more) spare time to read it all…

  345. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Cimpy Mi fa piacere 😉

  346. Oh yes, of course. I will kill it slowly.

  347. Mats Lewan permalink

    Cimpy, did you order the book yet?

  348. It certifies that an electric input of 1 kW was able to generate an “impressive” heat output of 12.7 kW for about 40 minutes.

    This apparently astonishing result can be easily explained with the sum of three major shortcomings:
    1 – the HP474AC probe mentioned in the calorimetric report, used to state the dryness condition of the steam, does not correspond to the probe used during the test (c1);
    2 – The water flow written in the calorimetric report (17.6 L/h) is 250% greater than maximum estimated flow (7.2 L/h, at the pump speed audible in the video (a2)) of the dosimetric pump used in the demo (c2);
    3 – The calorimetric report states that maximum output heat lasted for 40 minutes , the double of the real duration (c3).

    Nothing in that test indicates that the output heat was greater than that one coming from the electric power dissipated by the normal Joule effect.

    We all know it was a piece of theatre. Matter is when someone tries to sell it as something of real. I would not expect too much from Mats book, but I might be wrong, let me see from something we all know for sure (except AlainCo, of course):

    Even Franco Cappiello and Luca Gamberale, president and chief technology officer for Moses srl—the Italian company with which Defkalion run the development office in Milan as a joint venture—had unanswered questions after the survey and they decided to put all commercial activity on hold until Defkalion could carry out a measurement that dispelled their doubts.
    Defkalion’s reactor might have been working during the experiment. I didn’t doubt it but the demonstration could not give me an equally convincing basis as the Swedish-Italian measurement on Rossi’s reactor.

    Thus, Mats, your nerves are all burnt and you do not feel heat at all. And you’re deaf, too, you do not hear noises. Oh, yes, and mu metal around hyperion does truly work to stop 1,6 T field and above…

    Nice.

  349. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Cimpy Scusa, ero in fretta…

  350. “Spero al meno in italiano entro l’anno. Avevo iniziato di tradurrlo ma era già abbastanza di fare la versione svedese e inglese contemporaneamente…”

    Mats, what happened to your knowledge of italian language? (…!)

  351. AlainCo, you’re incredible. Ever thought it could have been all prisoners are innocent and all Judges are guilty? It is really possible, you know?

    Do you really believe Rossi himself spent 2 thousands hours in building by his proper hands a wonderful device no one else in the world could replicate?
    Whow, thatìs really amazing, like Spider Man or better, like : this one. For sure he should be a genius, like tat one, should not he be?

    …”It could be”, oh my god! It could be Rossi can fly blowing enough strong. Or might be he is able to move ears very fast, who knows? It might be…

    By the way, what a pity every wonderful stuff he built has proven to be not cloneable even by chinese or Naples people….

  352. Mats Lewan permalink

    @fpmml Spero al meno in italiano entro l’anno. Avevo iniziato di tradurrlo ma era già abbastanza di fare la versione svedese e inglese contemporaneamente…
    In English: Yes I hope to have an Italian translation at least during this year.

  353. Uscira anche in lingua italiana o francese?

  354. about the TEG the fact they were broken not simply standard is a good point that they were result of failing developement and not of simple fraud (where providing working TEG would be easier).

    maybe you misssed the official version,
    “”Rossi sent 27 thermoelectric devices for evaluation to the Engineer Research and Development Center”
    Nope.
    Note This Project was of an Investigative (Feasibility Study). They contracted LTI & Rossi. LTI & Rossi was only 1 of several concerns working on this project. There was also some University people involved who helped determine the most likely/best materials to use.
    1st.- It was to determine whether Thermal Electric devices could be built with upwards of 20% efficiencies.
    Rossi- Built Only One Thermal Electric Prototype Device. It reached efficiencies of up to 19%. It was able to maintain 17%. His Device worked. But hand built took a couple thousand hours.
    2nd. To determine whether they could be mass produced Cost effectively.
    The 26 additional devices were farmed out to (2) different manufactures to see if they could be mass produced cost effectively & functional by the Army research center. Part of them to a U.S. concern. Part to an Italian concern. The report didn’t say how many by who. But they were NOT built by Rossi.
    Some produced nothing. Bad contact junctions. Some damaged during shipping. Only a few reached up to 4% efficiency.
    According to the Military Report, The prototype was a success. Rossi had Succeeded.
    Production Versions were Not successful. This did not depend on Rossi. Problems involved Impurity of available materials. Material Costs. Manufacturing Quality, as maintaining precise contact at the junctions. To much or to little joining material had major impact on functional efficiency.
    It was recommended By the Army Research Center to their superiors that Research be halted/delayed until Material Science developed better, Cheaper more Pure materials. And Further more, to Allow Manufacturing time to develop better Manufacturing processes with better quality & precision control.
    Originally, They new Materials costs would likely be high, But it was thought that if high efficiencies could be reached & Mass production was feasible, Cost/Benefit “May” be attainable.
    The research was not a failure. It provided answers.
    Yes. Efficiency could be attained. No. Costs exceed any benefit.
    Rossi’s task was successful. That which did not depend on him were not.
    Yet a few people pick up unreliable bits of information and Slander Rossi with False facts. Do as I did. Read the Entire 150+ page Army Report. It’s kind of dry, but Accurate.
    This is Not something Rossi pushed on the Military. This is a Project they approached LTI & Rossi with.”

    you can now check if that claim is possible or not.

    I know you don’t want to admit it, but it is possible according to the data we have.

    all you do is usual conspiracy theory, not to swallow the crow.

    moreover it does not challenge the Levi&al test.
    your tactic is simply to muddy the water like pomp&eriksson, like Morrison, like Huizenga, like Taubes, without any real data transforming you wild guess and your prejudice and ignorance into pretended “it is evident”

    Nothing is evident note credible in your story.
    Even when you are right, and we share the same buzz with Matt, you like me have no evidence.

    You have to understand the difference between your feeling, the hearsay, that something is possible, and that it is proven.

    E-cat is proven.
    TEG fraud is not proven, and there are evidence it is not a scam from client and boss behaviors.
    Misconduct agains cold fusion by Morisson, Taubes, Huizenga, Nature, Science, is proven.
    Cold fusion calorimetry, He4, Tritium, is proven.

    Many others results are possible.

    Fraud of MIT against cold fusion is not proven but possible.
    Incompetence of MIT, Caltech and Harwell replication is proven, like is proven Lewis, Hansen, Huizenga, Morrison, Taubes incompetence.

    life is complex.

  355. ‘Yoghurts,
    you could play a bit better even if you’re trying to support the absurd… naaaa, you’re right, you do not have anything better…

  356. maryyoghurts permalink

    “Mary ” goes round and round, round and round.. All day long..

    Row row your boat…

  357. “they says they were dysfunctioning… not non-existent…”
    That’s incredible! You are really incredile, AlainCo!

    I want to tell you a short thing happened to a fellow.
    He saw a nice Tv on eBay. The feedbacks of vendor were few but good. He decided to buy it. the deliver was due in a couple of week. Within ten days he recieved a letter from vendor via eBay, stating he soon would have received the Tv, only he should have to wait a bit longer.
    Guess what:
    first, no tv arrived
    second, as he received something from the vendor, customer care of eBay said he could not state nothing had been sent to him, thus it could be the object he was waiting and he payed for.
    So, he spent around 300 euro in order to receive a letter. And could not say he did not receive an object.

    Read : “they were dysfunctioning” or you could say Tv where sent, but were all filled with bricks instead of transistors. Or you could say that TEG were sent. But they DID NOT WORK, not only as expected, but even as normal TEG.

    I really cannot believe you still can think Rossi made a single working extra efficient TEG. Or even that he could really produce oil 20% or 30% cheaper than anyone else in the world from garbage.
    Or that a joke like the E-Cat from such a scammer could have a chance to work…

    By the way, do you still believe Hyperion could be something different from a scam? Could you please find Gamberale for me? Or even the Italy site of DFK (you know, the resellers for the whole Europe…)

  358. Ascoli65 permalink

    The book starts with the presentation in Bologna on January 14, 2011. The videos show the involvement of many academicians : the presence of both the directors of the local Physics Department and INFN Section (a1), the “exact numbers” provided by the Bologna University professors (a2) and the choral final applause (a3). The heat excess was confirmed in the calorimetric report issued with the UniBo logo (b). It certifies that an electric input of 1 kW was able to generate an “impressive” heat output of 12.7 kW for about 40 minutes.

    This apparently astonishing result can be easily explained with the sum of three major shortcomings:
    1 – the HP474AC probe mentioned in the calorimetric report, used to state the dryness condition of the steam, does not correspond to the probe used during the test (c1);
    2 – The water flow written in the calorimetric report (17.6 L/h) is 250% greater than maximum estimated flow (7.2 L/h, at the pump speed audible in the video (a2)) of the dosimetric pump used in the demo (c2);
    3 – The calorimetric report states that maximum output heat lasted for 40 minutes , the double of the real duration (c3).

    Nothing in that test indicates that the output heat was greater than that one coming from the electric power dissipated by the normal Joule effect.

    It is inconceivable, how even a student can gather such an “impressive” sequence of errors and/or omissions. Despite of this, none of the academicians who witness that demo, as well as the dozen of the subsequent tests, has ever expressed any doubt regarding the energy gain of the apparatus.

    Meanwhile, many Members of Italian Parliament have asked the government to support public research on cold fusion. I hope this book will help in preparing an adequate response, first by ascertaining how it was possible such an involvement of the world oldest university in this sensational farce.

    (a1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-0WvK2b7dU
    (a2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE
    (a3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmHZrhTQhUc
    (b) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395
    (c1) http://i.imgur.com/YC4W0Ax.jpg
    (c2) http://i.imgur.com/vu0bW93.jpg (subsequent updating: http://i.imgur.com/2GanyYO.jpg )
    (c3) http://i.imgur.com/kaHK3GV.jpg

  359. maryyugo permalink

    “I hope you are not just a fossil paper work boy so we can have some discussions about quantum mechanics or supper [sic] symmetry or string theory in an objective way.”

    Oh good! A food fight! Greece and Turkey, maybe?

  360. maryyugo permalink

    Mats, if you think I am writing too many posts on your blog, just let me know to back off.

    But I am amazed at what I read in your new book! In some places, it seems as if you have simply taken everything Rossi told you and presented it as fact! For example:

    “Rossi invited Bob Gentile and an LTI researcher,
    Richard Noceti—like Gentile, with a DoE
    background—to Eon’s Bondeno lab. He had
    replaced the burner in the premises’ boiler with an E-Cat and said he had heated the building with it
    for months—an alternative way to estimate the
    heat-energy output, since you could compare output
    with the gas burner used before..”

    (sorry, I don’t know why the PDF copy formats so weirdly)

    Mats, you have a degree in engineering or physics, right? Do you have any idea how incredibly dumb this statement is? If you do, why did you not mention it? If you don’t know why don’t you?!?!?!

    Heating a building is not an alternative way to measure heat output of a device. Didn’t you (or Rossi) have any access to anyone who works with heat transfer and fluid flow measurements? It’s a very well established discipline and not “rocket science”!

    There are a lot of excellent ways to measure heat output — all are variations of calorimetry. NONE involves heating a building! Nothing could be sillier!

    In addition, why did you not ask to see this heater? Take photos of it? Make measurements on it? Surely, it should be in the Smithsonian Institution, should it not? If an ecat could heat a building, why are Rossi and Focardi always shown apparently freezing from cold despite heavy coats while running their ecat tests? Why does Rossi’s lab use conventional gas heaters? Why does a reporter not ask these questions? Why does a report simply repeat the absolute nonsense that Rossi said?

    OK– time to lighten up. Did you see these captioned photos making fun of Rossi’s lack of heat in his ecat lab?

    http://www.moletrap.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Rossicaptions

  361. maryyoghurts permalink

    @Realist
    Are you a qualified hot fusionist? Are you happened to involved with Tokomak designs? How is Iter going? I hope you are not just a fossil paper work boy so we can have some discussions about quantum mechanics or supper symmetry or string theory in an objective way. Rather than subjective arguments like “Mary” goes round and round all day long. So tell me how do you stabilize the plasma in a Russian Tokomak?

  362. maryyugo permalink

    Here is what Rossi said about Fioravanti on his blog (via e-catworld.news):

    “After 35 years (!!!) I received an email from him in the blog of the Journal, in which he congratulated for the E-Cat, and for me has been a delighting surprise to hear from him again. I contacted him privately and he explained to me that he was a Colonel Engineer, expert of missiles tests. One year later, when with our Military Customer we had to choose a neutral Consultant for the test of the well known plant of 1 MW, I proposed Fioravanti, whom they knew very well, because he wrrked with NATO, with the Pentagon at the highest levels and always for engineering connected with thermodynamic tests. So we all have been glad to choose him.”

    Really? Worked with NATO and the Pentagon at the highest levels and nobody can find anything about the person on the internet? NOTHING at all except what Rossi fan sites provide. And that doesn’t arouse Mats’ reporter instincts? Why don’t you find this person, Mats, and interview him? Instead of simply citing in your book every silly thing Rossi says about the guy?

    See:

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/11/the-cures-effect-will-it-help-or-hinder-the-e-cat-cause/

  363. maryyugo permalink

    Thanks, Roger. You’re a perfect of example of how the believers never address the issues but instead attack the critics.

    Mats doesn’t do that. I think he’s honest, means well and is hard working and smart. The problem with his view, in my opinion, is that he is not skeptical enough. He doesn’t give enough consideration to deception. He and the others who examined Rossi’s demos and got favorable impressions lack the ability to detect deception, sleight of hand, and deliberate misleading.

    Here’s another example from Mats book. Mats mentions “Domenico Fioravanti” as a representative of Rossi’s “military customer”. But there is no evidence anywhere that this man even exists under that name. There is nothing whatever to suggest that Rossi ever had a military customer or that he ever had ANY customer or sold ANY ecat to an end user! ALL OF IT is just “Rossi-says”. THAT is what Mats should have reported!

    I think that the book, from what I have read of it so far (about 25% by browsing various parts) is simply a puff piece. I am guessing that Mats will eventually regret having written it– that he will regret every association with and implicit endorsement of Andrea Rossi and anyone favoring his claims.

  364. Roger Bird permalink

    maryyugo, don’t feel bad. There is no reason to believe that crow tastes any worse than chicken. It is merely the idea of crow that “tastes” bad. But you’re not a chicken are you? You’re not afraid to admit that you have been wrong all of this time, are you? That would be chicken of you. Is this why you are going ballistic, because you are too chicken to admit that you have been wrong and you don’t want to admit it and have to eat crow. Be brave, everyone has to eat crow now and then. It is a part of life. You have merely prepared a MUCH larger portion of crow than anyone in a very long time. Bon appetit.

  365. maryyugo permalink

    Man! Where to start on this Believer’s Delight of a book! Take this for instance:

    “I beg an t o bel i eve t h at n o t est ,
    n o resu l t an d n o m easu rem en t , h owever wel l
    im pl em en t ed, wou l d h ave si g n i f i can t pu bl i c
    im pact . On l y wh en t h e t ech n ol og y was
    com m erci al l y devel oped, i f i t work ed an d was
    avai l abl e i n ret ai l st ores, cou l d i t arou se pu bl i c
    i n t erest , I t h ou g h t .” (sorry if the formatting is bad)

    This is the classic and completely silly view of believers. The reality is that ANY PROPER TEST done independently of Rossi by ANY ONE OF MANY national and international organizations could be very convincing if done by open, transparent, and correct methods. THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED. The “work” reported by Rossi’s “indipendent” scientists is extremely weak. The tests were done in Rossi’s lab, with his equipment (or identical equipment), by his friend Levi (who messed up prior tests) and by some unknown scientists with no record or ability in heat transfer measurements or electrical engineering. The tests fail woefully to properly characterize the input to the system.

    Should a proper open test ever be done by Oak Ridge National Lab, Sandia, CERN, Google, GE, GM, or any MAJOR university OFFICIALLY with their reputation behind it (for example MIT, Cal Tech, UCLA, and so on), then everyone would believe it– especially if it were at least TWO institutions which got the same result.

    As long as all of Rossi’s proof comes from what is essentially in house research and claims, nobody has any valid reason to believe it– especially because EVERY test Rossi has allowed has had major deficiencies of one sort of another!

  366. maryyugo permalink

    @AlainCo

    Read the report. I did. Carefully. I can not find any mention of ANYONE other than Rossi and his people, who actually saw a working prototype of the thermoelectric prototype. No valid reason is ever given for Rossi not giving the design information to the DOD who paid him more than $2 million. Rossi claims in his idiotic defense, that it took thousands of hours to make the prototype. Fine. Make another one. It’s the sort of incredible machine that has never been seen. It would make headlines worldwide if it were real. Nobody would stop work on this sort of device if one had ever really existed. It would make no sense whatever. Rossi’s protestations about this are simply the braying of an old con man.

  367. maryyugo permalink

    Mats wrote in the book:

    “What will all vocal critics of Rossi and his technology say if it turns out that it works?”

    I can’t speak for all vocal critics (LOL) but I know what I will say in that incredibly unlikely event. That Rossi messed up. He “screwed the pooch”. He unnecessarily held back a world changing invention for more than seven years. That Rossi behaved like a crook and a mad man.

    If Rossi’s claim (directly written on his initial patent application) of heating a factory in 2007 with an ecat were true, he could have shown that heater at the time, obtained an international, US and Chinese patent, and by now, the world would be awash in LENR machines and Rossi would easily be a billionaire. He could help all those children with cancer he talks about and has never given anything to.

    But that didn’t happen did it? It didn’t happen because Rossi never properly applied for a patent, disclosing the details of the technology sufficient to allow someone else to build one. That is REQUIRED for a patent. It didn’t happen because Rossi never properly tested his ecats. It didn’t happen because Rossi never allowed a trusted major lab or organization to test his ecat properly and truly apart from his or his friends’ participation. It didn’t happen for mundane reasons such as Levi not answering emails from the prestigious and friendly Dr. Brian Josephson. It didn’t happen because Rossi could not prove to Steve Krivit, to NASA, to Quantum and to many other people and organizations who bothered to investigate it in person at Rossi’s location, that the ecat works.

    If Rossi’s ecat really works, that behavior is simply vile, evil and insane. That’s what I’d say.

  368. @maryyugo
    about TEG module, that nobody have seen them…
    it is not what was reported in the report…
    they says they were dysfunctioning… not non-existent…

    I’m interested by EVIDENCE

    you can be prudent on someone in the absence of evidence, but you cannot shout FRAUD without any EVIDENCE.

    that behavior is exactly the behavior oh Taubes and Huizenga, who facing something they could not accept, simply said:
    – since I judge it is impossible
    – and since there is no evidence of any fraud, of any artifact
    – thus it is a hidden fraud

    since the levi&al test, you have to admit Rossi have reasonable evidence and you have NOTHING.

    the same as taubes, Morrison, Lewis, Huizenga, hansen, who simply have EVIDENCE of their INCOMPETENCE and their BIAS.

    if Levi run out of his lab and claim all his fraud, that Elforsk break it’s relationship, that Cherokee fond sue Rossi, I will change my position.
    for now it is unscientific to claim Rossi is a fraud.

  369. @cimpy
    not a single working device is both false, and irrelevant.

    you argument is called the tea kettle, you ask for an industrial/usable device to prove a scientific phenomenon.
    it is unscientific.

    moreover it is false, since you have a tested device, tested by Levi&al.
    It is not yet a factory, but do you mean you will stop believing in high temperature superconduction until we can use it in practical application ?

    if you talk of device able to warm a teak kettle, David Nagel have warmed some tea with his warming balls… you sure know the story.

    COP aboce 1.5 are measured regularly by SRI/NRL/ENEA ins thei joint effort to understand the condition to cause LENR in F&P cell
    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36833/ExcessPowerDuringElectrochemical.pdf?sequence=1

    we have the working device, even if they are still scientific and pre-industrial.

    please don’t use thos broken arguments, challenge the tests, don’t try to fool the mom&pop.

  370. CuriousChris permalink

    @Alainco. I have known you since DGT forums. Remember those the ones they promised to reveal the results of the 7 independent tester within weeks. and instead closed the forums and ran away to a poky little room above a shop somewhere in Canada.

    You may recall I came on as a supporter. Excited about this new development in Cold fusion and what It would bring to the world.

    Unlike you though I actually look at the evidence before me, My initial excitement gave way to scepticism and doubt. DGT was not honest (provably so) Mats even wrote how they tricked Rossi and inspected his device behind his back, not the actions of a honest company.

    Their claims of numerous scientists were never backed up by any shred of fact and years later they put on a lame show that only cool aid drinkers could swallow. Once again those who had the opportunity too afraid to ask probing questions.

    Now lets turn our attention to Mr McKubre. He was one of if not the major reason why I was so excited about the resurgence in CF/LENR research. I actually respected him. Sadly his image was severely tainted by the fact, and it is fact. Provably so. That he doctored test results. A scientist never changes results without a full explanation and evidence to backup the reasoning behind the changes. But no when he was called out he only gave excuses.

    My faith was already shattered and the whole Rossi – DGT saga was unraveling. Then McKubre did something that would prove beyond a doubt to me he had no credibility. He publicly declared based on nothing but anecdotes that the Papp (a proven fraud) plasma engine must be nuclear in nature and may be another form of LENR. There was no longer any reason to trust anything this person laid claim to.

    As to the various other so called replicated experiments. You obviously failed to understand what I actually said.

    I said no experiment had been replicated. That every experimenter had done their own independent experiments and had occasionally got similar results. Some saw neutrons, some did not, some saw gamma radiation some did not.

    The only thing every one of those experimenters had in common (excluding DGT and Rossi) is that their results fitted within experimental error.

    So If you want to continue crowing about the brave new world expecting serious people to take you seriously you had better come up with something a little more substantial.

    Perhaps a working device! In your own words they have had the last 22 years to do so.

  371. ! AlainCo, you are really amusing; you wrote:
    “you claims are false, and it is not an interpretation.
    You try simply to lie hoping it can convince the people who don’t want to admit the reality.

    If you had a simple unrefuted paper you would have waved it at me.
    all you have is theory papers, some particles papers, and no calorimetry that is not debunked.”

    You surely forgot the quotes, as the above IS part of what skeptics say to believers – false claims, hope to convince people lying, papers refused (or not standing peer review process, or published on Donald Duck Tales magazine). It is expecially nice the “no calorimetry” sentence.Only thing, man, you forgot to extend it a bit: “not a single working device in the whole world, unless ones working by pure claims force”.

    Claims force, the (not so much) new physic of Cold Fusion. Working since at least 25 years.

    😀

  372. Realist permalink

    Glad to hear that gamma rays don’t bother you. I guess the devices can only be sold to people like you. Hehehe.

    By the way, do you know more physics buzz words? It’s really fun to hear you list them.

  373. maryyoghurts permalink

    Hehehe! That doesn’t bother me. Hehehe!
    Quantum tunnelling diode, protons tunnelling and negative resistance have been around for ages.

  374. realist permalink

    Since you are inventing new physics, please explain where those pesky gammas go. It seems like they could be troublesome things to have pouring out of your handy heater.

  375. maryyoghurts permalink

    I think, during the Rossi effect, the hydrogen protons come very close to the Ni lattice protons but not close enough to overcome the couloum barrier such the way hot fusion reaction would work. Instead they get really close and sort of grindding each others to produce gamma rays and heat in the confined spaces within the lattice. QT allows this- like two cars travel in opposite Direction and scrape one and another, the result is not one lump of fused metal but two cars with bits and pieces falling off everywhere, those are heat and gamma rays. The particles will lose momentum after The grindding and so external heating is required to speed them up again. If one can increase the entropy and degree of freedom of the process that will increase the effect.

  376. realist permalink

    maryyoghurts, if you are a physicist, you must be a very special one indeed – the kind who doesn’t know anything about physics.

  377. maryyoghurts permalink

    Hi Matt
    Nice book, I love it
    I’m a physicist and I believe the Rossi effect is real and it has something to do with quantum tunnelling. Rossi has some how increased the internal system entropy and degree of freedom therefore making the effect more reliable and also amplified .

  378. maryyugo permalink

    @AlainCo

    Far as I can determine, NOBODY but NOBODY other than Rossi ever saw his prototype thermoelectric module work. And the modules delivered to DOD were junk– probably rejects from Russian factories which make Peltier cooling devices. Anyway, none worked even normally, much less in the superlative manner Rossi had promised. Less than 20 devices were delivered. Many were open circuit and did nothing. Read the report not what Rossi claims.

    So it’s not about the “industrialized” product. Rossi never showed a working prototype inasmuch as can be delivered. All he did, it seems, was lie.

    @Cimpy

    I think I got your message– let’s not clutter Mats’s blog with personal communications. Anyone who wants to write me personally, address it to maryyugo [at symbol] yahoo.com.

  379. moreover all your conspiracy theories have nothing to challenge the Levi&al test, not the reality of LENR since 1992.

    house of cards.

  380. @maryyugo
    nice manipulation of the mind mary
    about Petrodragone… OBVIOUSLY???
    this is the term you say when you have no evidence, like the justice did when they admitted it was just caused by retroactive laws…

    and notice that Rossi US employers is not at al afraid to employ who you call a fraudster, and DoD is not moaning either…
    note that what happened in DoD with TEG was classic, and is still tried… just trying to industrialize anisotropic structure of TEG is a permanent dream…
    he just get employed after getting out of jail…

    your theory does not match facts.

    for those unlike mary who are interested in evidence, and about Rossi’s versions of the story
    http://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum/showthread.php?2384-History-of-Rossi-E-cat&highlight=finger

    most of the myth around Rossi is linked to lack of information.
    that is the secret of conspiracy theories, transforming missing data into evidences…

  381. The thermoelectric story is rally nice: ir ended up in a classic italian style: a fire disrupted the factory and unluckily there was no way to build again working devices. But you should read “there was no way to make the scam become something else”…

    Did a message reach you, marryugo?

  382. maryyugo, a common friend should have dropped a mail to you. Maybe.

  383. Bill Antoni permalink

    “Who knows what will happen? More is to come. You, the reader, will play an important role in determining how these matters evolve.”

    How will readers play an important role in that happening?

  384. maryyugo permalink

    PS: What had to be looked for was not only, as you mentioned, “sources of error”. What really needed searching for was deliberate deception, cheating, and similar crookery which it turns out Rossi had done before, first with Petroldragon, of which he is OBVIOUSLY guilty and later on when he cheated the US DOD out of more than $2 million in direct cost and at least another $3 million in overhead and construction of a test facility of their own– all for thermoelectric devices NONE of which ever worked and which were purchased on the basis of OBVIOUSLY falsified claims and data.

    Gary Wright is still in the process of using the Freedom of Information act to get those reports, investigate what role if any the U of New Hampshire had, and to prove Rossi’s fraud. DOD was so embarrassed by their participation in the debacle that they removed all mention of it from their web site! In the past, it was here:

    http://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdf

    Now, that link leads to a 404 “not found” error.

    However, their report, which is public property, paid for by tax payer money, is still available through the perseverance of Steve Krivit here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/2004Army-ApplicationOfThermoelectricDevices.pdf

  385. maryyugo permalink

    Hi Cimpy. I don’t think I know anything about you but that’s OK too.

    Interesting quote from Mats’ first chapter:

    “It’s not particularly difficult to measure heat energy, especially such large amounts. You simply let the energy source heat water and then use straightforward formulas to calculate how much energy is required to heat that water from a certain temperature to another. If the water boils into steam, there is a simple formula for that, too. For physicists, either process is usually a breeze. But in this case the result was so controversial that everyone involved looked anxiously for all potential sources of error. What could possibly have been missed?”

    What could have possibly been missed? Where do we start? It depends in which charade of a demonstration we are talking about because like any sleight of hand artist, Rossi rarely did the same thing twice!

    Early on, what was missed in Levi’s all liquid experiment, was that Levi’s results probably resulted from misplacement of the output temperature thermocouple too close to the heater resulting in too high an estimation of heat. My guess is that Rossi misplaced it on purpose. Remember that Rossi, not Levi, set up all the experimental equipment related to the ecat itself. It’s proprietary, don’t you know?

    Later on, what was messed up was the estimation of energy output from vaporization of steam. In a clear paper, Grabowski ( http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf ) showed how a modest error in estimation of the dryness of steam could lead to a huge error, more than large enough to account for all of Rossi’s extra heat and more.

    Later on, each demonstration by Rossi had huge holes in procedure. None of the early ones had calibrations or blank runs although Rossi was asked to do this again and again. Strangely, Kullander and Essen (and you Mats) never pressed Rossi on ANY of these issue– at least not in public. I got the impression that you were more concerned with being invited again and with not angering Rossi than you were with properly measuring what the guy was doing.

    I am still trying to decide whether to read this whole book. Maybe if you tell me each and every concern I voiced above is answered in it, it will help me make up my mind to buy it.

    Sometimes I think I should write a book of my own about all the bizarre claims, reports and the lack of proper testing and performance in the entire field self-named LENR. Early on, I had email dialogs with Jed Rothwell as he tried to arrange a visit to PROPERLY test Rossi’s claims with OUR equipment and OUR methods. Rossi steadfastly refused. This was before Rossi had any idea that I was a skeptic and certainly Jed’s reputation is one of being a friend to cold fusion and LENR. I suppose if I had visited Rossi or Defkalion or McKubre and Brillouin personally, I would be more motivated to author a book of my own. But the opportunity never arose. None of them want to be properly tested, in my opinion.

  386. Hi maryyugo.
    🙂

  387. Mats Lewan permalink

    @Maryyugo — Krivit and Wright are part of the book. I suggest you read it 😉

  388. maryyugo permalink

    Well, Mats, that will limit the readership. I know you work hard and I wish you well but have you followed:

    – Rossi’s own incredible, contradictory and often ridiculous claims on his own blog which he misnamed The Journal of Nuclear Physics (ROTFWL!)

    – Krivit’s careful, consistent, damning condemnation of Rossi’s actions over the years, including Rossi’s interactions with Quantum and NASA? And Krivit’s interaction with Levi? And Dr. Brian Josephson’s unanswered emails to Levi?

    – Gary Wright’s admittedly difficult to follow and very long web stories about Rossi’s misrepresentation of his marketing efforts and recently, about Rossi’s lies to DOD regarding his thermoelectric devices in the early 2000’s?

    I hope (but doubt) that those are also covered in your book.

    Anyway, I will be happy to buy it when it reaches amazon.com.

    Best regards,

    M. Y.

  389. Mats Lewan permalink

    Hi Maryyugo,
    I will probably put the book everywhere sooner or later, but for now I have chosen to be in full control of everything, offering it fro my own website.

  390. maryyugo permalink

    Hey Mats,

    How about putting the book on amazon.com so any comments buyers write will actually be seen by real people instead of just fan types?

    If you’re not familiar with how, you can get help here: createspace.com

  391. NB: there is an error in my claims, but since you ignore the facts you won’t notice… just time, not results. find them.

  392. @curiouschris
    Despite you blindness it was replicated in 1992…
    by many including McKubre, Miles/Bush, Oriani, Bockri, Longchampts.

    despite the harsh opposition no critics survived.

    please stop spreding errord.

    you behave like Morrison :
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

    “McKubre and other
    prominent cold fusion scientists have given copies of journal papers to prominent critics, including Douglas Morrison, Robert Park, and John Huizenga. The papers directly contradict assertions made by the critics regarding matters of fact, not opinion, such as the amount of energy produced by cells in continuous bursts, the percent of input versus output, or the amount of chemical energy that a mass 0.5 grams of palladium deuteride will release as it degasses. Morrison often claims the degassing can account for the heat produced during an experiment performed by Fleischmann and Pons. Fleischmann gave him a paper showing conclusively that he is mistaken by a factor of 1,700. Morrison has been told about this mistake countless times, at conferences, in writing, and in a formal reply published in Physics Letters A.Yet he recently contacted a Nobel laureate and repeated the same misinformation. Fortunately, the Nobel scientist contacted me, and I was able to give him the correct numbers.”

    the part on taubes is even worse:

    “Gary Taubes is another prominent critic. He made many misinformed claims in his book, on the radio, and in the mass media. He may not be qualified to read journal papers, because he does not appear to understand basic concepts such as electricity. He claims people sometimes measure electrolysis amperage alone and not voltage, and he thinks that regulated power supplies put out more electricity over the weekend because factories use less power. He thinks some researchers measure tritium once, after the experiment, without establishing a baseline or taking periodic samples. His book is filled with hundreds of similar errors. Perhaps the most mind-boggling one was his statement that a cell might have huge temperature gradients, “say fifty degrees hotter on one side than the other.” This is like asserting that you might stir a cup of coffee, drink from the right side and find it tepid, but when you turn the cup around and drink from the left side, it will be steaming hot.

    Taubes wrote his book using the same methods employed by sensation-mongering reporters in 1912: he pieced together second-hand rumors and made wild guesses about a subject he does not understand. He described his methods in the introduction, footnotes, and appendices. The book is based upon interviews and telephone conversations with 257 people, listed in an appendix. He spoke with seventeen people who actually performed experiments. Four of the seventeen are implacable enemies of cold fusion, including the authors of the three famous “negative” experiments. Most of the remaining 240 are critics like Frank Close and William Happer, who deplore cold fusion, and have staked their reputations on its demise. They have attacked it in the mass media, the ERAB report, and in books. Although more than a thousand peer-reviewed papers were published by the time Taubes wrote the book, he did not reference a single one of them in the footnotes. His descriptions of the experiments are wildly at variance with the facts, in major and minor details, so it seems unlikely that he read a paper. Describing an experiment is an exacting task, even when you understand electricity, you read the paper, visit the lab, and ask the experimenter to review your description. When a scientifically illiterate person tries to imagine how an experiment works based on allegations made by people who despise the research, indescribable confusion and distortion result.

    Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it. When Robert Park attacked it with inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric, a room packed with hundreds of members of the American Physical Society (APS) applauded and cheered.”

    You can try to fool people who don’t have data, like yourself, but please stop trying to fool us here now.

    Cold fusion is an observed calorimetry phenomenon proven about 1992 asn heinz Gerisher , one of the top calorimetrician of the periode, like Bockris and F&P.
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GerischerHiscoldfusi.pdf#page=2

    Charles Beaudette explaine it well in excess Heat
    “Unfortunately, physicists did not generally claim expertise in calorimetry, the measurement of calories of heat energy. Nor did they countenance clever chemists declaring hypotheses about nuclear physics. Their outspoken commentary largely ignored the heat measurements along with the offer of an hypothesis about unknown nuclear processes. They did not acquaint themselves with the laboratory procedures that produced anomalous heat data. These attitudes held firm throughout the first decade, causing a sustained controversy.

    The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.

    The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.”

    you claims are false, and it is not an interpretation.
    You try simply to lie hoping it can convince the people who don’t want to admit the reality.

    If you had a simple unrefuted paper you would have waved it at me.
    all you have is theory papers, some particles papers, and no calorimetry that is not debunked.

    You are a Taubes, a Morrison, a Lewis a Hansen of science.
    evidences are much enough and replication/publication match the usual standards of science.
    Critics don’t even match the minimal requirement of popular science.

    NB: I talk theatrically for the audience, no hope to convince because groupthink is a hopeless disease. 8) People here should read, and use the arguments to send back to hell the clown that claims lies hoping to convince.

  393. maryyugo permalink

    Dear Mats,

    With all due respect, I think you chose the wrong name for your book. It should have been “Hook, Line and Sinker” and the tag line should have been “…or how Andrea Rossi and some silly Greek con men pulled the wool over my eyes.”

    I strongly suspect that any enthusiasm you have for high power claims about LENR by Rossi and Defkalion (and also Brillouin, Nanospire, Swartz and Miley) is very premature, at best.

    I suggest you read Gary Wright’s and Steve Krivit’s web sites more regarding Rossi and the Moletrap regarding Defkalion. And that you read fan sites less. If you do that, it may make you more cautious.

    Having said that, I have to decide whether to buy and read the book. The issue is whether you can provide more useful and accurate information than the already published articles and conversations on the internet. Can you? If so, why and how?

    Also, will you submit the book to amazon.com where it can accumulate appropriate reviews?

    Best regards,

    M. Y.

  394. CuriousChris permalink

    “Settled since 1992”
    And yet no-one can replicate it in a scientific environment.

    “maybe we should only trust what engineers have confirmed, treating academic consensus like Vanity fair article.”

    I agree provided the engineers that do the confirmation can independently replicate the confirmation. Sadly this has NEVER happened with CF. Just independent people making independent and occasionally similar claims.

    Add to that all the wool pulling and profiteering off an unvalidated claims and you have nothing more than pathological science.

  395. “Hope my hope are confirmed and my fears not. “
    Might be it could sounds strange but you know what? I’d like my beliefs were disrupted by a working Cat. A pity there is none in sight even in these days and there has never been since Cats appeared in 2010…

  396. Must say this book is staring on the right foot

  397. “By the way–just as I’m writing these words I’m receiving new information on events that strengthen some pieces of the story in the book, and also some information that add to my doubts regarding certain stakeholders.”

    I can just share the same position.
    Hope my hope are confirmed and my fears not. Anyway the main line is clear, and the science is settles since 1992, and consensus is pathological since 1989.

    About old history, basic science: Matt did you read that
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

    beside the bible of cold fusion, the book of beaudette
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-of-Isoperibolic-Slides-ICCF-17.pdf

    Seing how science can swallow and parrot incompetent unproven claims, is frightening.
    If people relize that, many may doubt irrationally of all what science have confirmed.

    maybe we should only trust what engineers have confirmed, treating academic consensus like Vanity fair article.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Bill Gates investiert in "Kalte Fusion" (LENR)
  2. Oktober 2014: Neuer E-Cat Testbericht in Kürze erwartet
  3. A few more researchers who were never recognized | Mats Lewan: The biggest shift ever.
  4. A few more researchers who were never recognized | AN IMPOSSIBLE INVENTION

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: