Venture Capitalists tell us that they invest in the people involved in a project and not just the project itself. They might combine hard-nosed analysis with passion for an idea but most of us assume that they will always default to the bottom line before anything else. This is why I find the IH development interesting. It seems inconceivable that anyone coming from a VC background would not perform rigorous due diligence on something like the eCat. Could they really let their passion overrule caution?
I hope it is not the case. I do hope the company brought in independent and qualified personnel to test the eCat beyond Rossi’s control. Any observation regarding IH’s lack of expertise is neither here nor there. It would be trivial – considering the money involved – to hire the right people and with luck they did exactly that. Perhaps our hoped-for independents built the device on behalf of IH (as far as Rossi is concerned his partner built it). Perhaps this is why they do not have any problems with him making such statements on his blog. They have had the best part of nine months after all. If all of this is true and then they still decided to issue the press release, that is quite a strong statement.
Of course we can always turn the equation on its head. If we were to invest in IH, due diligence would force us to look at those involved. As far as I can tell these are good people – exactly the type I admire for their efforts to make a difference. It sometimes feels like we are stuck in a pit surrounded by money-men with no concern for others. But could it go too far the other way? Looking at JT Vaughn’s blog, I fear for the sequence of events that led them to invest. I pray (metaphorically) that the attitude expressed there was not dominant when negotiating with Rossi. Thank goodness people like Vaughn exist but in this case if he relied more on faith than science, I would urge them to think again. Could this be why Rossi keeps using the phrase “whether the results are positive or negative” in reference to current and future tests?
I hope my fear is unfounded but if not and Rossi is ever put on trial, he has prepared an interesting defence for himself. He has Nobel laureates as unwitting exhibits, scientists to the left and right who all agreed with him. He even let experts test it for themselves and cautioned that the results could be negative – he can also afford a good lawyer.
I am rooting for IH but would not invest in the eCat without substantially more proof. I hope they have that proof and make lots of money from making the world a better place. I may not be religious or share their faith but for once I would like the good-guys to win.
For some time, the inventor has been claiming he no longer has control over the strategic development of the eCat because he sold the rights to a company with deep pockets. He was obviously telling the truth. Industrial Heat LLC issued a press release confirming the acquisition and lending another layer of head-scratching credence to the eCat.
I remain sceptical for a number of reasons. However, I do not understand the absolute dismissal of this development any more than I understand the tendency by some to laugh at the Levi/Elforsk Report as a joke with no merit whatsoever. I agree without reservation that these things prove nothing and when we consider the fantastical nature of his claims, his propensity for embellishment or lies, his colorful past, the stream of overly-complicated demos and the money involved, it would be foolish to assume that this is the final piece of the jigsaw that will make everything whole. Scepticism is healthy and in the new energy arena, statistics are on your side if you assume that every new world-changing invention by a secretive businessman is covered in bullshit. You are more likely to be right than not but starting from the premise that Rossi is a fraud, working backwards and using this ‘fact’ to dismiss anyone saying anything positive about the subject is no more intelligent than believing everything you are told by a huckster.
Lets look at this objectively.
For all the reasons above, I’m not ready to jump ship to the believers’ camp. However, this Industrial Heat thing is interesting. I can easily see a group of businessmen getting the wool pulled over their eyes when they see dollar signs. In this case and at face value, these guys have a genuine interest in promoting green technologies that can make a difference and give a healthy return. It’s possible that they got ahead of themselves and failed to do due diligence but it is a leap to automatically assume that seasoned VCs – knowing the too-good-to-be-true nature of the beast – did not do their homework.
Out here, it is easy (and reasonable) for us to shake our heads at anything short of scientific validation but the list of people we have to assume as idiots or irrational just keeps getting longer and longer. Remember, these guys can read Rossi’s blog, too. They know what he is saying in public. He told us that his new partner built the eCat and tested it themselves. Let’s assume that’s bullshit. We have to then assume, they either didn’t see his comment, do not care about the lie or they have no argument with it. To some, the fact that IH’s press release makes no mention of this is a sign of… what exactly? It is quite reasonable to assume that they have not countered Rossi’s statement because there is truth in it. Be sceptical, yes, but let’s not start with assumptions and work backwards.
Solyndra, Madhoff, Steorn and thousands of other cautionary examples demonstrate the countless ways in which otherwise intelligent people can let themselves be fooled. For this and many other reasons, it’s always possible that IH has been tricked too. That said, it is one thing to recognise that possibility and another to start from the assumption and add the VCs to the burgeoning list of actors who do not know their arse from their elbow.
$11.5m is a droplet. Maybe they are just fishing. Maybe a lot of things. Beware though, of doing what you accuse believers of – twisting the order of logic to fit your conclusions.
I for one will be paying attention to what happens next.
On Andrea Rossi’s blog today, the inventor implied that Hydro Fusion (the Swedish licensee) has found a company to act as a showcase for the 1MW eCat and that it is one he approves of. While I do not pretend to understand why this is needed, I do find the development interesting. There have been too many disappointments in the past but I have no reason to suspect Hydro Fusion of being anything but legitimate and if the sale goes through, it may shine a much-needed light on what is going on. Something must change if the credibility logjam is to be broken.
Dear A.R. is it possible that the same choice made in sweden can be replicated in Italy by Prometeon? It would be a great & good chance, for the italian industry, to know LENR and your tecnology for a great future!
The Swedish formula depends on the Licensees, not from us. Leonardo Corp sells the 1 MW plants, and the owners of the plants can use them the way they prefer: if they want to invest in a plant to sell energy, they can do it. We just make a due dioligence on the final Customer who buys the energy, before accepting the solution. Our Swedish licensee has proposed to us a Customer we like, therefore they are free to buy a plant to put it in the concern of their Customer and sell the energy. We gave them green light, but this is an initiative of theirs, not of ours.
Donning a positive cap and taking a giant leap by assuming the eCat is real, it is fun to consider what company or organisation might fit the bill. Given their obvious interest, available funds and their positive comments regarding the HotCat tests, the R&D consortium of Elforsk would be the perfect candidate. If Hydro Fusion pulls of such a feat with them (or a similarly credible) body, I for one will applaud and immediately reassess my position. In that spirit: Good luck, Hydro Fusion.
The following Q&A is posted on Rossi’e blog. While I am wary of trying to figure out what we can take away from his numerous proclamations, I find his comments regarding the test conditions interesting. In various post-test author comments, it is evident that there were more checks undertaken than those published in the paper. Here, Rossi says that the testers performed various cautionary moves (such as providing their own cables) that I find reassuring. I have no reason to doubt this as – with so many authors involved - the statement would (I hope) be challenged by one or more of them.
Other comments of note include two further tests and an admition that things are not likely to speed up. As with all such postings, we must remind ourselves to treat them with caution. For some, that will mean dismissing them and for others, perhaps, provide another meta-data point for the Rossi enigmaCat.
Dear dr Rossi,
we are interested to ask you a short interview. We leave here the questions. Thank you in advance for your readiness
Roberta De Carolis on behalf of NextMe.it
The independent test results confirm the scientific validity of the Hot E-cat equipment. As it has been reported on the publication report, the performance has been verified successfully. But how could you explain the difference between the COP you stated in the past (11.6) and the results obtained on E-cat HT (5.6) and E-cat HT 2 (2.9)?
Which are the main differences between E-cat HT and E-cat HT 2? Are you agree with the explanations provided by the researchers about the difference observed in the COP values?
The tests are essentially based on the measurement of the incoming and the outcoming energy, so they could not prove the reaction mechanism. Why should we be sure that this is a nuclear reaction?
Hot E-cat is co-generation thermal-electric system, and you stated that production of electricity has been committed to Siemens AG, developing a suitable turbine to be coupled to the reactor. Could you confirm this collaboration?
Do you believe that this important result could speed up the certification procedures for security? Could you estimate the timings?
The delivery of three plants of 1 MW E-Cat in the U.S. is now official. However, in an earlier statement you mentioned customers, but now we came to know that they are industrial partners. Could you tell us if this delivery is just preliminary to the real one and when this will happen?
We know that that a US client representative attended the test. Could you tell us whether he is the client buying the plant? Could you communicate to our readers the satisfaction degree expressed by him about the testing?
1- COP depends from temperature and many other factors. The Examiners also considered all the margin of errors in the worst situation against us, to be conservative at maximum. They wanted to be sure beyond any possible and reasonable doubt. For example: they wanted a wood plan to put on all the electric and electronic devices, they wanted to use their own cables of their own measurement devices, they wanted to lift and seat themselves any conponent to be sure no other cables or any kind of contact was there…combining all the margin of error against us we lost a lot of efficiency, but it is fine, since the scope of the test was not commercial, it was merely scientific: the Professors wanted to know beyond any reasonable doubt if there was an excess of energy or not
2- Yes, I substantially agree. The differences are described in the report
3- Because of the 1st principle of thermodynamic. See also the Ragone diagram
4- We are under NDA
5- No, I do not see any nexus. The certification for the industrial plants has been granted, though
6- We delivered to our US Partner. He will deliver to his Customers
7- Wrong: the test of the Indoipendent Third Party, made in March, has nothing to do with the test made by the US Partner on April 30 and May 1. The test made by the Customer has made possible for us to continue to work for the Customer. It has been better than expected, we got results better that what we has guaranteed.
Good Luck to your magazine!
One of the bodies funding the HotCat report – the Swedish Energy Research Organization, Elforsk – has issued a statement on its website, lending their name in a direct way to its credibility. This is a potentially significant development as it weakens the slurs trying to paint the testers as a small band of incompetents, dupes or fraudsters dancing to Rossi’s tune. While associating their name with the report, they fall short of ratifying it (I would expect nothing more). Even so, they obviously take it seriously and by extension, its authors. Attacking Levi et al seems to be a common theme among many commenters on various tech and scientific blogs. With luck, this will help steer us away from such facile arguments and concentrate on the paper itself.
The following is Google’s interpretation:
Swedish researchers have tested Rossi energy catalyst – E-cat
Researchers from Uppsala University and KTH Stockholm has conducted measurements of the produced heat energy from a device called the E-cat. It is known as an energy catalyst invented by the Italian scientist Andrea Rossi.
The measurements show that the catalyst produces significantly more energy than can be explained by ordinary chemical reactions. The results are very remarkable. What lies behind the extraordinary heat production can not be explained today. There has been speculation over whether there can be any form of nuclear transformation. However, this is highly questionable. To learn more about what is going on you have to learn what is happening with the fuel and the waste it produces. The measurements have been funded by such Elforsk.
Cooperation between electricity companies, manufacturing companies and public authorities is important for work within Elforsk. There are 800 places on Elforsk’s advisory and decision-making bodies. These places are occupied by experts from electricity companies, manufacturing industries, public authorities and other interested parties. Programme teams within Elforsk draw up the strategic approach for the programme area in question. New R&D programmes are launched when interested parties decide on funding based on offers from Elforsk. Under the agreed programme, the interested parties then decide how funding should be employed for specific activities during the programme. A key task for Elforsk’s staff is to ensure that decisions are implemented in time and with the required quality. Another, equally important task is, together with interested parties, to formulate new research programmes and implement the results from these so that they are of benefit. This approach creates effective cooperation between business and industry, society and the academic community.
If, like me, you struggled to hear the Zurich live feed over the weekend, you will thank Sterling Allan for the following videos. There are two but I will only embed one in fairness to Sterling and to encourage you to visit his site. Even though I watched the whole thing on both days, I found the quality of this version outshines that of the live stream and I caught some interesting detail here. It struck me how often Rossi mentioned that the hotcat tests are ongoing and unproven as yet. It may be projection on my part but, did he have something on his mind at the time in this regard? When asked why Magnus Holmes was not present, Rossi said that he was otherwise busy but was there in spirit (or words to that effect).
Some of the highlights are as follows. Please note that I often paraphrase and be warned that my interpretation may be wrong. If something is important to you, check for yourself (and correct me in comments if required). Lengthy as it is, I advise you to watch the complete thing if you have the time and inclination. At the end, Sterling does a paparazzi stalk on Rossi. This was entertaining and led to a surprise answer right at the end as the Italian was getting into his taxi (1.21.00).
Q from audience members and A from Rossi.
Q – Would AR please run a workshop to allow us to run the 10KW eCat for at least 10 days to help us convince customers and investors?
A – Not 10 days but we have already reports for three months and six months which we will release soon.
Q – What is the ratio of Ni to Cu conversion?
A – Although we get this happening we are no longer certain it is the main process but a side effect of the 10-100KeV Gammas that are emitted.
Q (40mins) – Is there any … for you to go ahead?
A – I am not strong and not intelligent – it is all down to God
Q (42.15) – Why is Magnus Holmes not here?
A – He had some important meetings in Stockholm and excuses himself. All his content was in my presentation. I am sure his heart was here.
Q (43.45) – When will 1MW certifications be granted?
A – Already have safety certs for industrial plants but not domestic. Industry is easier because they have procedures etc to ensure proper use and conformation to liabilities. But for domestic… someone drunk in house can cause problems… Will be long time with good stats in industry before get safety certs for domestic.
Q – (46.05) When gas eCat safety certs
A – It should be no problem…
Q – (49.00) Any future problem with nuclear authorities regarding safety certs?
A – No. We got the safety cert because we could give guarantees that we do not use radioactive materials, produce radiative materials and no radiation is emitted outside the device during operation. Yes, we produce radiations to make heat but also microwave ovens do this. Laws already exist for their regulation and the microwave radiations are in the same range as ours. .. blah, blah, phones etc. Cert says we do not use radioactive materials or produce then…etc. Therefore they enter into the same category as the devices in your house, your pocket etc… think television – to have command of television [remote].
Q – (52.30) Where has certification taken place. Is it in Europe and is it CE or E Cert?
A – Swiss company, SGS. Valid for all Europe. Allows us to put CE mark on our industrial products. This is a safety certification. It is a voluntary certification. The law does not impose a safety certification. By European laws you can also take the safety liabilities by yourself. You are not bound by law to make a safety cert by the likes of SGS or UL etc. You can put the CE mark by yourself. But doing it this way it is difficult to get authorization. Industrial plants must also get permissions from local authorities. If you want you can go to an Internationally recognized cert company and request a safety cert from them on a voluntary basis. We changed the design to conform to their suggestions. We learned from them. They made a myriad of modifications. We had to also take our liabilities because they say: “I certify you, if what you say is true.” “I certify you if you fix what we say.” “If you say something that is not true and make something different from what I say, then… well.” We also changed the instruction manual on their advice. They made it in our favour.
Q (49.05) Is the 1MW plant already running some months?
A 1MW is running very well in a military concern. A civil plant we are ready to deliver has been used just to check it. Soon it will be delivered and after 2 or 3 months of consolidated operation it will be visitable.
Q (59) The COP seems low in HotCat…
A – The COP we quoted is a minimum after taking all the conservative calculations. We aim to have at least a 6 COP. The most important thing for the professors and the military engineer is not the COP but the position of the dot in the Ragon graph. Is it a nuclear effect? Can we rule out chemical? When we reach 1050 Celsius we will be able to operate in self-sustain for 50% of the time. (then talks about thermal camera etc in hotcat).
Q (1.21.00) What do you say to those who want to invest?
A – Don’t do it. We are still developing the technology. We need to sell our 1MW plants and keep developing until ready. When our plants have been in operation for a long time that will be when to invest and not before.
After listening (with difficulty) to yesterday’s live-stream from Zurich, my first impression was that we had learned nothing new. On reading the subsequent report regarding the tests conducted on July and August at Bologna, I have to revise that assessment. I still feel that jubilation is premature – there are far too many questions and we need truly independent verification. This is not a criticism of those who conducted the tests but standard fare for such a contentious arena.
As I read the report, I could not help questioning the assumption that the inner surface irradiation would match the outer. It seemed obvious to me that it would not. Although this is addressed honestly in the errata and I am no expert, it is a perfect example of one issue that needs further investigation and an indicator pointing to potential unknown complexities that could smack us in the mouth later.
No-one should take these tests as proof. I would contend that the results are interesting and default to a respect for the engineers in question. I see no reason to doubt their integrity or expertise. We are all human, however, and it is easy to miss something that later becomes obvious.
I am encouraged that they released raw data and detailed information of the step-by-step process of the test. This will allow experts in the field to spot any problems and pin upper and lower bounds to the results. If these match the published results, we only have to worry about sleight-of-hand, mismeasurement or misplaced assumptions. That is a start.
That three engineers were willing to put their names on the line is encouraging but once more we need to remind ourselves to take one step at a time. Steorn did the same and as far as I can now tell, the company’s claims were nonsense.
I look forward to expert commentary on the results. If you do so here, we all appreciate your thoughts. I just ask you to leave the emotions at the door.
There are many things that puzzle me here (and raise red flags) and I have to admit that the gain in optimism (although real) is tempered by experience. I will look at these after today’s proceedings and following some time to reflect on them. For now, I welcome the report and hope we might get some more meat today.
Unsurprisingly, there is a schism between those who started out sceptical of Rossi’s claims and those with a tendency to believe him when we look at the responses to today’s Zurich play. I was neither disappointed nor surprised. Andrea Rossi had prepared us to temper our expectations and then delivered as promised.
I really wish the hard sceptics would behave with a little humility (and some of the believers lay off their own abusive attacks) but I have to agree with them that nothing of substance was demonstrated. That does not mean that this is a scam but it does mean that anyone thinking of investing should jump every time they hear an alarm bell.
To be fair to the conference; they do not exist to satisfy our demands. This is business. We may be surprised tomorrow but I am not counting on it. For me; the break-point will be the delivery (or otherwise) of the University validation as promised by AR after they study the eCat in October. I will give them a short time for the report to be compiled and then make a decision. I am not as hopeful as I would like to be but this site will not exist on the day I hold no hope at all.
From my perspective and taking into account the poor audio and language difficulties, the main takeaway was that there was a lot of talk of basic stuff that is easily available to anyone on the Net and it seemed to be mostly filler. This gave me the impression that the licensees present may not know very much. That could be absolutely wrong and it is not meant as a criticism – it is merely my subjective response to what was presented.
To those among you calling Rossi’s engineer fat, you are being cowards. You would not do so to his face. He is likely much stronger than you. Lay off the personal insults, it reveals your bias and dampens the impact of anything you say that might be worth reading.
Rossi spent most of his time talking about the hotcat. I’m not going to give details here because until there is some evidence that it is real, I do not wish to propagate misinformation (should it turn out to be so). Full details are to be posted on Frank’s site over at e-CatWorld. I was interested to see that he put a strong caveat on the hotcat. Given that this was his first presentation to licensees as a collective, it was curious that he spent the time giving unverified details of a new product he says is too risky to invest in. I would have thought the audience might be more interested in hearing about what they had backed and not a blue-sky dream that might be viewed as a distraction from the tangible promises made to get them to invest in the first place.
I want to stress that I share many of the concerns the hardest of sceptics display here and elsewhere but deplore the scatter-gun insults that paints anyone in their anonymous sights as scammers, idiots, gullible, morons or any of the other descriptors from the bag of insults they wear slung at the ready. Not all sceptics behave this way (I try not to and others manage it, too. Thank you, all). Unfortunately, such poor behaviour is evident in some from the other camp and reading the resulting spat is unproductive, boring and leaves a nasty taste. Being right (in your own eyes) on an Internet forum is not worth the bile you are sending through your system or the damage you do to those who have done nothing to you.
Stop the mudslinging. If it means that this site dies, so be it.