Mizuno Claims Production of Excess Energy that ‘Far Exceeds Input’ in New LENR Experiments

Thanks to Jones Beene on Vortex-l for posting a link to a new paper written by Tadahiko Mizuno of Hydrogen Engineering Application & Development Company in Sapporo Japan, titled “Observation of excess heat by activated metal and deuterium gas” and posted on the LENR-CANR.org website here.

This is a detailed paper with much data, and many details to digest. I’m sure it will be studied in depth, but here are just a few key points:


“Reports of heat-generating cold fusion reactions in the nickel–hydrogen systemhave been increasing. The reactions mainly involve nickel with other additive elements. The authors of these reports emphasized the importance of an extremely clean system in the electrolytic tests in which excess heat was generated. Therefore, we attempted to detect excess heat after reducing impurities to a minimum by cleaning the electrode carefully and then fabricating nano particles in situ in our test system, without ever exposing them to air. As a result, energy far exceeding input was continuously obtained. In the best results obtained thus far, the output thermal energy is double the input electrical energy, amounting to several hundred watts. The generated thermal energy follows an exponential temperature function. When the reactor temperature is 300°C, the generated energy is 1 kW. An increase of the temperature is expected to greatly increase the output energy.”

The reactor used was a stainless steel cylinder in which were placed two pieces of nickel mesh which were cleaned first with detergent, then with water, alcohol and acetone. There are two electrodes inside the chamber, one of which is wound with palladium wire. There is an aluminum ceramic heater in the center of the reactor which is wound with palladium wire. There is also a heater wound around the outside of the reactor.

After evacuating the heater, deuterium gas is added to the reactor at “several hundred Pa.” The reactor is then heated and held constant for a number of hours. High voltage is then applied to the palladium wire around the ceramic heater inside the reactor, which forms a plasma. There is then a cycling of heating, degassing and re-gassing, while increasing temperature, and finally the system is let to drop to room temperature.

High voltage is then applied to the palladium electrode, which releases D2 gas, and causes plasma to form on the electrode. Eventually this causes palladium to be deposited on the nickel mesh, and this, according to Mizuno, causes the condition that generates excess heat.

Mizuno writes:

“The excess power increases with the temperature rise of the reactor. For example, the excess power is 100 W at 100°C, 315 W at 200°C, and 480 W at 250°C. Excess power of 10 W and 20 W was generated even when the reactor was near room temperature.”


“We speculate that the excess heat would reach the order of kilowatts at 1/Tr = 0.001, i.e., approximately 700°C. We confirmed that the excess heat increases exponentially with reactor temperature.”


“Activation of the metal surface, that is, removal of the oxide, nitride, and carbide layers, is particularly important. Heating and discharge treatment in deuterium gas is an effective method of activating the metal surface. The use of highly pure gas and the thorough removal of released gas during the surface treatment are also important. “

Mizuno notes that since this experiment was carried out, that he has improved the conditions for excess heat production. Appendix A describes some of the changes, which includes not using detergents or other similar cleaners of the nickel mesh because they may introduce impurities. Rather, they polish the nickel with emery paper, clean with hot water, and rub palladium on the nickel. In this appendix he suggests that Hydrogen as well as Deuterium could work.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Nano-gap Hydroton Reaction Proposed by Ed Storms in New Video (Cold Fusion Now)

Ruby Carat at Cold Fusion Now has posted a new video on YouTube titled “Edmund Storms HYDROTON A Model of Cold Fusion”.

Here’s the description:

“HYDROTON A Model of Cold Fusion describes the nano-gap and hydroton theory with Dr. Edmund Storms, a nuclear chemist and cold fusion researcher now retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory .

“It picks up where Storms’ 2014 book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship between Observation and Explanation left off.

“He proposes a unique chain of hydrogen and electrons that would assemble in the nano-cracks and nano-spaces of materials, fusing through a slow resonance process where smaller bits of mass are converted to quanta of energy through coherent photon emission.

“If true, it would describe an extension of the 100-year-old conventional nuclear theory.

“Several of the Nano-gap Hydroton Hypotheses are now being tested for confirmation.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi: E-Cat QX Has ‘Zero’ Resistance

There has been a lot of discussion here recently about the resistance of the E-Cat QuarkX, and Andrea Rossi had said that he considered the matter of the electrical resistance of the E-Cat QX to be confidential information.

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, however, Rossi gave a direct answer to a question on the subject:

August 10, 2017 at 4:21 AM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
Which is the internal resistance of the Ecat QX?

Andrea Rossi
August 10, 2017 at 2:33 PM
Warm Regards,

If this really is the case, then the E-Cat QX would be a superconductor — making it even more remarkable than “just” being an energy catalyzer/energy multiplier.

On a related note, when asked for a general update, Rossi today responded:

Andrea Rossi
August 10, 2017 at 2:32 PM
We are strongly reducing the energy consumption of the control panel.
Pretty good standing.
Warm Regards,

I hope that these developments can be verified somehow when Rossi makes the QX presentation, but I am not sure that we can count on that, based on what he has said so far regarding what to expect from the demonstration.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

The 2 COPs of the E-Cat

From what Andrea Rossi has been saying recently regarding the upcoming presentation, I think we have some idea of what to expect from the upcoming presentation. Rossi is not going to focus on the overall COP of the complete apparatus, which includes the control system and the circuit in which the E-Cat QX reactor(s) are located, his goal is only to demonstrate the COP of the

Andrea Rossi
August 3, 2017 at 7:15 AM
Jaroslaw Bem:
The COP is given from the ratio between the energy produced by the E-Cat and the energy consumed by the E-Cat, independently from the energy consumed by the control system.
The control system consume is made by the heat in which the flowing electricity is dissipated, that obviously cannot be accounted for the COP of the reactor.  The thermal energy in which the electricity of the control system is converted can be recovered itself, with a COP close to 1, if opportune, because the heated air can be sent in a preheater of the water before it goes to the reactor. It is just standard air/water heat exchange and it can recover practically all the energy dissipated by the control system. This, obviously, does not change the COP of the reactor.
To reach a COP>1 adding the energy consumed by the control system is enough 1 E-Cat QX.
Warm Regards,


He does note in the last sentence of this response that if there was only one E-Cat QX, that the whole system (including the control system) would have a COP higher than 1, which implies that the power consumption of the control system is less than 20W (the power rating he has provided for a single E-Cat QX. I have asked Rossi to confirm this, but so far he has not. If this control system can operate up to 100 QX reactors, then one would assume that the more reactors that are combined, the higher overall system COP would be

Michael S.:
First and foremost, thank you for your kindness and attention to our work.
Answer: the energy consumed will be measured AFTER the power source, which means between the power source and the E-Cat ! From where arrives the energy to the power source or IN it doesn’t matter to the COP: what matters is only the amount of it. If it arrives from a battery, or a series of batteries, or a multiple sandwich of batteries, or from a magician, or from the grid, therefore from a dam, or a nuclear plant, or a thermoelectric plant, or yourself in parallel and series with friends of yours rubbing frenziedly, even with the help of me hidden behind black courtains, a stock of amber sticks, it couldn’t affect the COP. What counts is how many Wh/h arrive to the E-Cat, not their origin.
About the plat you suggest, it will be fun when the E-Cat will go commercial.
Warm Regards,

Since Rossi states that the power consumed by the control system is immaterial for the purposes of demonstrating the COP of the E-Cat itself, and since he has also stated that he considers it confidential, I don’t think that we will see measurements of the control system’s power consumption in the demo. He has said that this will be a “technological” demonstration, not a commercial one.

However, when it comes time for commercialization, it will be very important for customers to know the power consumption of the whole system, including the controller and any other appended electronics, so they know how much money the might be able to save, and how much power the system will consume.  So the overall COP of the system is ultimately going to be most important when it comes to practical application of E-Cat technology.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

MFMP Claims Proof of LENR (Live Video Now)

There is a live video taking place right now in which the Martin Flieschmann Memorial Project is making what they consider to be an important revelation regarding LENR. I am trying to follow it at the moment, but it is regarding the production of neutrons. I think there will be more information following.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

October E-Cat Presentation to be a ‘Technological Demo’ of ‘1-2’ Hours

Here’s a Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics yesterday:

July 30, 2017 at 10:29 AM
Dr. Andrea Rossi,
The demo you will make in October will be the presentation of the product?

Andrea Rossi
July 30, 2017 at 3:09 PM
No. It will be a technological demo.
Warm Regards,

My interpretation of the difference between a “technological” and “product” demonstration is that Andrea Rossi is not expecting to demonstrate a finished product at the planned presentation. We have learned that he is only now starting to combine his individual 10-20 W E-Cat QX rectors (apparently 20 of them so far) to increase overall output. If he is planning to provide heat to be used on an industrial scale, one would expect that there would need to be thousands of them combined to make plants producing heat in the megawatt range. So it looks like the plan is to show what the E-Cat QX reactors can do, before production of industry-ready plants have started.

Another question regarding the duration of the test was posted today.

Oystein Lande


This begs the question: what part of the test will not be public? I would guess there will be time involved in setup and calibration, but perhaps Rossi is not planning to broadcast that activity.

It makes me wonder what the overall purpose of the presentation is — who will be the audience that Rossi is trying to reach? Obviously the enthusiasts/detractors who have been following the E-Cat for years will be playing close attention, but maybe this is not the primary audience. Rossi has stated that this demonstration is the opening salvo in his business plan, and maybe he is wanting to reach a wider audience — I expect potential customers will be his priority — who might not have the attention span of the old timers who can watch live streaming data for hour upon hour without getting bored.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi: Testing Multiple QuarkX Reactors for Presentation

The recently published Rossi-Gullstroem paper described a mew experiment with only one E-Cat QX reactor hooked up to the control box. Andrea Rossi is now reporting that testing is underway in which multiple QX units are being combined to increase the power output inside the heat exchanger. This would be an important test to make, because Rossi has always said that the overall plan with his QX reactors is to be able to make heating units as small or as large as needed by simply combining his QXs together.

Up to this point, it doesn’t sound like they have tested QX’s in clusters. Here are a few recent comments from the JONP by Rossi on the subject.

July 26, 2017 at 12:21 PM
Dr. Rossi,

I have been following your progress since your public demonstration will Dr. Sergio Focardi. Your progress has been amazing to watch.

You stated earlier: “Today we are making substantial improvements to raise the power of the apparatus that will be presented in the demonstration.”

1. Is this increase in power due to adding more QX reactors to the demonstration setup or due to a changes to the QX and its control system?
2. If due to increase in the quantity of reactors, do you have a ballpark figure for what you are shooting for on the output power?

Andrea Rossi
July 26, 2017 at 3:41 PM
1- we are putting more modules in parallel
2- between 200 and 500 W
Thank you for your attention and sustain,
Warm Regards,


July 26, 2017 at 9:20 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi

You say that you are increasing the power. Is this be combining multiple E-CAT QX’s together. Could you give an indication of how many you will now show at the demonstration?

Andrea Rossi
July 26, 2017 at 3:46 PM
We are piling up 20 modules.
Today we worked all the day on the apparatus for the demonstration, it is working.
Warm Regards,


Steven N. Karels
July 26, 2017 at 6:43 PM
Dear Andrea,

1. How many in parallel?
2. All controlled by a single controller?
3. Still no phase change?

Andrea Rossi
July 26, 2017 at 8:04 PM
Steven N.Karels:
1- we’ll see. Our module at average, not risky operation, has a power of 10 W, now we are working to pile them up in a tiny space.
2- yes
3- yes, we’ll increase the flow to maintain the T below 100 Celsius degrees, just to make measurements simpler.
Direct current, liquid phase
make the test a simpler case
Warm Regards,

Rossi has recently said that the maximum number of QX reactors that can be powered by a single control unit like the one used in the Gullstroem-Rossi paper is 100. It sounds like Rossi’s team are shooting for a higher output power at the demonstration, but are trying to being careful not to overload the system. Rossi has said that they have had problems in the past with heat from the QX being transmitted back to the control system via conduction along the copper wires, and destroying components, so I am sure that will be a concern with additional heat being generated.

Rossi has refused to say so far how much power is consumed by the control system. I think a more effective demonstration could be made if the output of the combined QXs was higher than the power consumed by the control system, and maybe that is why they are working on raising the output.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Interview with Andrea Rossi on Current and Future Developments of the E-Cat

I had a meeting over Skype with Andrea Rossi on July 20th 2017 in which I conducted an interview. Mats Lewan published an earlier interview with Rossi here which focused primarily on issues surrounding the recent litigation with Industrial Heat and the subsequent settlement which was done so well, that I felt it was not necessary to cover the same ground.

Below is a transcription of the interview.

As you look back over the last four-and-a-half years in which you were in partnership with Industrial Heat, what are you thoughts?

I have good memories of things I made positively with them, as well as, unfortunately also bad memories. It has been a very important, huge, rich experience, scientifically speaking.

What will be the effect of the settlement on your work going forward?

It affects a lot because, first of all, since we worked together beside Industrial Heat I made only a research and development work, because based on the agreement we had, they had the burden of the management of the business.

Now the situation is completely different for me because now I return to be, for all the world, not only the chief scientist of research and development, but also the chief executive officer of what will be the development of this technology in terms of its application in the industrial environment.

So my responsibility is changed completely. Also my freedom of movement. Now I am completely free to move around. Before the litigation I had a restricted area of behavior that was limited to my operation of a scientific and technological character. Now I have wider responsibilities – I think I am prepared for this.

Running a business and running a science and research program, for most companies, it’s not the same person doing that, right?

Well it is true, once they are already developed and consolidated, but in the beginning it is not true, because you think of the model of Microsoft. Mr. Bill Gates, at the beginning, I would say that he covered all the four bases, and was the pitcher and the batter, too.

To do what you want to do, which is to disseminate this technology worldwide is going to take huge resources, financially, would you agree?


You’re a very small company at this point, as far as I can tell. So how do you get from where you are now, to where you need to be, as far as a business plan, or commercial partnerships are concerned?

My friend, does a general explain his strategy before the beginning of a battle? I am perfectly aware of my limits, and am perfectly aware of the fact that we need to move in a system, and I am working to find the right system to move in. I cannot tell you the strategy, but I can tell you the first move.

Our first move will be the presentation of the E-Cat QX that will be made around the end of October. That will be our first official, I think, strong move. And then the rest will come. I have a precise strategy; as with every strategy, it forsees many that things will change on the battlefield in the course of  operations, like when you play chess. You know the theme you are going to play, but you still don’t know where the music will lead you.

Let’s move to the E-Cat QX – What is the difference between the E-Cat QX and the early E-Cats?

I cannot tell you this now, because to answer properly to your intelligent question I would have to give an intelligent answer, and not a reticent one.  And I prefer to delay the description of the E-Cat QX to when we make the presentation.

I would say that the patent that we have covers the essentials of it, but there are substantial differences. The COP is higher, the efficiency is higher, and I am very proud of the work that my team has made on this issue. A proper description will be made when we make the presentation. A main difference is the dimension. The dimension of the E-Cat QX is extremely smaller, so the density of energy is very, very high which I think will lead to applications in fields like jet engines. But this is field of research and development that has to be developed.

If you are commercializing the E-Cat, you have to start somewhere. Which applications do you think it will be easiest to start with?

Production of heat for industrial applications. The industrial applications are necessary because it is where we have the certification. For the domestic applications we still do not have the necessary certification.  But, the production of heat in all industries where heat is basic for their production. For example: cement works, oil refineries, food industries, heating of the buildings of industries – simple heating – because in half the world you have to heat where you work for at least four or five months of the year. The most immediate product that we make is just heat. We can heat air, we can heat water, we can heat oil, we can heat whatever and we can also gain very high temperatures because the E-Cat QX reaches in its core very high temperatures. So basically, when you heat something you cannot overcome the temperature of the primary, we have a primary that has a pretty high temperature. We can have a primary of over 1000 degrees Celcius.

A heat exchanger has a primary and a secondary. The primary is where you have the heater. For example in a boiler you have a burner, and the smoke of the burner is the primary. The secondary is the water which is outside of the cylinder where the burning of the fuel happens. In our case we have the primary temperature of the burner, because a normal burner has a temperature of about 1500 degrees Celcius in the core of the flame, and we reach that temperature in our reactor.

A lot of people talk about the ability to generate electricity with the E-Cat because of concerns about carbon emissions and so forth. Does your technology have the ability to replace fossil fuels for the generation of electricity?

I hate the term “replace” because the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear “replace” is people who remain without jobs. So I would be very cautious about using this term. But I believe that it is opportune that all the energy sources integrate in time, intelligently. And for sure, the primary temperature that we reach in the E-Cat, we can heat the steam up to the 550 degrees Celsius that are necessary to have efficiencies of around 35-38 per cent with the Carnot cycle. So yes, we can be an intelligent source, without replacing anything. The planet will become always more and more thirsty for energy, so without burning jobs we can just implement our capacity to produce energy in an environmentally friendly way. Now the best available technologies for the burning of coal can allow for the burning of coal without pollution, and without creating desperation sites in places like certain towns in Pennsylvania that risk to become like ghost towns. I don’t think this is an intelligent way to do things.

You have said in the past that one of your goals, in addition to creating a new form of energy, is to create jobs.


In what areas do you see your technology providing employment opportunities for people?

Apart from the manufacturing  of E-Cat, that will be robotized — robots make  low level work, but robots create high level jobs for young people that will have to reach a high level of instruction to have a job (I don’t think this is bad, I think this is good) – and if energy becomes more competitive, this automatically generates a cascade of jobs in every sector where energy is consumed.

So you are thinking about indirect employment as well as direct employment?


You have mentioned in the past “robotized factories” – how advanced are your plans or progress towards robotized production of your E-Cat QX reactors?

It is very advanced. I have made a study with ABB, and we are very advanced with that, and when the industrialization will be made it will be made necessarily with robotized construction lines because the QuarkX can be conceived only with a robotized production line, because the QuarkX is a very small module, it is a module of between 10 and 20 Watts. So you need to be able to assemble many of them; it is unthinkable to do this job only with manual work. The basic assembly must necessarily be made with robots. I have also seen already a factory that has the kind of robots in operation to do other things, and you can see tens of thousands of pieces coming out. And also, and this has been a big pleasure, I have seen in this factory there are many guys working, guys that have to improve themselves, because now, instead of making a fatiguing work with risk also to their health, they make a work which is smart.

Can you tell me how much the materials would cost to make a Quark – just materials?

I would say, just raw materials, 1-2 cents per Watt.

This afternoon was the first time that I had become aware of a new paper that you have written with Carl-Oscar Gullström, that has been published on Arxiv.org.

It is an update that a paper that Oscar and I made several months ago, March if I remember correctly, because we gave that work to some peer reviewers who asked us to upgrade many points, and we worked again on it. Carl-Oscar Gullstrom is a very intelligent physicist, he is very young, and we will work with him. He is very strong, he is very intelligent, theoretically very prepared. He comes from a Swedish school of physics – I like him very much, I like to work with him.

The physics in the paper is very complicated, I do not understand much of it, honestly, but does what he describe match your understanding of what is happening in the E-Cat?

We have much more work to do for what concerns the theoretical issues. I think that path can bring to a theoretical explication, but as you have seen we consider this just the beginning of a long path because we are still distant to have reached a point where we can say we have found the theoretical explication of this effect.

In the past you have worked with Dr. Norman Cook

Yes, the work of Norman Cook is perfectly reconcilable with ours. Now, in this period, my friend Norman Cook, my supposition is that this litigation has kind of created in many persons a fear of making some mistake sustaining one or the other party, so many people decided to stay out of the ring and let the two boxers exchange punches of every kind, see the blood spit out, and say “let them fight, and we will go in the ring when all will have been finished”.  So my sense is that now the litigation is finished it will be easier for me to work with my friend Norman Cook.

I am sure you were aware that in the paper that was published this week was included a picture of your QX reactors. So now it’s not so much of a mystery what they look like. I noticed that two different ones were show, right? One with a heat exchanger, and one without.

The one without the heat exchanger is not an E-Cat QX. The E-Cat QX is the green one.

What is the other one?

The other one is a tool that I use to make experiments.

I see, so that is not what a QX will look like.

No, the QX will be smaller than bigger things like the green box you have seen.

There was a technical question regarding the measurement of the input power for the QX. You have a 1 Ohm resistor with .105 V input. Is that the only resistance that is measured – is there resistance in the reactor?

No. We have measured only that resistance [the 1 Ohm resistor] because that is the only resistance we have in the circuit. If the E-Cat has a resistance, that makes our calculations more conservative, because, as you well know, the resistance goes in the denominator when you make the calculus of the amps. You have volts as the numerator, and the resistance as the denominator. So the bigger the resistance, the smaller is the amount of amps.

To be conservative, since the datum of the resistance of the E-Cat QX is confidential, we just do not consider the resistance. Because correctly we should have to make the sum of the resistance of the resistor that has been put in the circuit, and the resistance of the E-Cat. So we should have amps = volts/R1 (the resistor)+R2 (the resistance of the E-Cat). But we do not consider the resistance of the E-Cat, we consider it as if it is a perfect conductor, and we only consider the one 1 Ohm to make the calculation of the amps.

To make the measurement very easy is the fact that the electricity is direct current; we use only direct current, so there are not all the complications connected with frequencies, etc.

Also in the photograph are shown two meters. What is each measuring?

We use two voltmeters to make a double check. The difference of the measurement is the margin of error of two different voltmeters ( several mV )

You talk about your presentation being your opening shot. You have said in the past that you can run the E-Cat QX from a battery producing direct current.

Yes, yes, we can run it with a battery – we need 24 Volts. So basically we can put two car batteries in series.

Well for the purpose of the presentation, myself and many other people think you need to use batteries to make things simpler than using AC from a mains source.


Would that be easy to do?

Yes, absolutely. I am using batteries in my laboratory now. Luckily, the trial is finished — luckily it is finished, because it is not just the trial, it is the preparation of the hearings – 8, 10, 12 hours with the attorneys to do something that has nothing to do with my work. It was a pain. So now I am in my factory every day, and among the many things that I do is also do experiments with batteries. There is no difference at all, we can use batteries.

Okay, well I would recommend that because I think it would make a lot of people feel more comfortable.

No problem.

I have just one question about the settlement document. There was a section in there that talked about the fuel formula. It was restricted information for just a few people.


In there it said there parts (a) and (b) for the fuel formula . (A) was hydrogen, lithium aluminum hydride, lithium and nickel (or other element in column 10 of the periodic table) — which are described in your Fluid Heater patent. And then there was b) which was an “Additional Element”, and there was no mention of this in the patent.  So what does this mean for your patent if you do not include that Additional Element?

Because a patent is valid when an expert of the art is able to reproduce an effect with the information given in the patent. Now there are many people who are expert in the art who have reproduced the effect using information in the patent. So my patent is valid, it has been validated practically in all the world for this reason, because replications have been made. And some very important replication, I suppose, is going soon to be disclosed. But also very important replications have been made from people who have just read my patent and reproduced. Obviously, this Additional Element increases the efficiency. In fact, all the replications that have been made started from Lugano had a COP that is between 2 and 3. The Additional Element makes the efficiency much higher. So this is a difference between a patent and the know-how.

So would you consider the Additional Element as a trade secret?

Yes. This is why we demanded that the settlement agreement had to be written so that all that must remain a secret.

What is the size of Leonardo Corporation, as far as the number of employees these days?

In these days employees of Leonardo are actually six persons. The dimensions of our factor at Doral are approximately 7000 square feet, there is another laboratory that is out of there – for now this is our dimension.

Let me say this, because I am proud to say this.  We are working pretty much on the 1 MW plant that has worked for one year, because probably you know that after the 16th of February 2016, the plant has been sealed by the parties, and it was in a land of nobody, like the land between the two Koreas. Basically nobody could enter there. We put our locks, they put their locks, and to enter, as in the safes of the banks, you needed two keys, etc., etc. So, it was tragicomic.

Now, I got my key, their keys also had been given back to me, I have opened everything, and now we are dismounting everything, opening all the reactors. The big ones that worked pretty well, and the small ones that never worked, because at the beginning they had many problems. Now we are going to open all of them to study. It will be very interesting, the analysis. Also the isotopic analysis of the powders of the four reactors that worked, and also the degradation that happened in one year. So now we will have precise data about how the powder became through one year, etc. In the small ones it will be very interesting to understand now why the heck they did not work, as if in some of them there was simply no charge. Because they were connected in a way that was necessary for coordination. So now I am disassembling the plant in thousands of small pieces to be analyzed because this is technology, this is how technology is made.

Ok, a change of subject. Do you have commercial interest – people who are aware of what you are doing, and interested in your work?

Yes, I do.

Let’s say I am an oil refiner and I learn about your technology from the presentation, and I think this is something that could make my process much more efficient. How do I incorporate it in my system – what’s the process?

Well the process is pretty simple. You buy the plant and the plant becomes yours, and you use it. We will put some conditions like parts that cannot be removed. Like sometimes the car makers make prototypes of cars where they put the seals in the box of the engine so that you cannot open it and they give it to you and say you go, and they give the car to you for very cheap.  So you go, and now and then you have to bring the car to them so they can test what happened inside the engine, etc., etc. We will make something like that. So basically our plant will be partially sealed where the charges are, for example, where only we will be able to put hands, and you use the plant, and we assist you.

By the way, probably you have some kind of magic capacity in your mind, some psychic capacity emanating from your brain, because the day after tomorrow I meet an oil refiner. So I don’t know you are some sort of (inaudible)

No, you mentioned it [oil refining] earlier in the interview.

Ah, that’s why you know!

Ok, what if you are a manufacturer, a technologist, and you wanted to manufacture products that incorporated your technology. Is it going to be possible for people to license this technology and pay you a royalty?

What do you mean, license the technology?

I mean you give them the formula and they go ahead and make their own products, and pay you a royalty.

I got it. Everything is possible, it depends on the agreement. You know we have just exited from an experience with a license, and we have learned the hard way how important it is to make proper agreements. Everything is possible, anybody can license anything – good contracts are necessary.  Now we have also a strong legal team, because in any case in this war we have selected a very good legal team, so now we have a legal team that is pretty much experienced in the field, and so the contracts that we are going to make will be less naïve than the agreement that I signed in 2012.

So would you say that you are open to cooperating with other industries in cooperative ways?


I know that during the one year test and after that, you mentioned a few times that it had had an effect on your health. How is your health now?

Perfect. I had problems. I had problems for many reasons. Also consider that for one year I worked from 5:00 p.m. to 10:30 a.m. the next day, sleeping from 11:00 a.m. – you sleep a few hours, you have also to read, you have to make some sport, so you sleep 3-4 hours each day. For one year and with many other factors, yes I had something serious, but I am completely healed. The last analysis had shown that there is nothing left.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

E-Cat QX Picture Posted in New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (COP of 2000 reported with Calorimetry)

Thanks to Observer for pointing out a new paper that was published has been added to the Rossi-Gullstrom paper that was published on July 18 on Arxiv.org here. The title of the article is “Nucleon polarizability and long range strong force from σI=2 meson exchange potential”

It is a very involved theoretical paper for the most part. Here is the abstract.

“We present a theory for how nucleon polarizability may be used to extract energy from nucleons by means of special electromagnetic conditions.
Also a new theory for a long-range strong force is introduced by enhancing the role of the σI=2 meson in nucleon-nucleon potential obtained
through isospin mixed σ mesons. The novelty in the idea is to let an imaginary mass exchange particle be enhanced by absorbing only
one particle in an entangled state of two particles. The imaginary mass particle is not intendent to be free and contravance the law of physic; it is merely included as a binding exchange particle in a system with total positive invariant mass. In order to validate part of the theory, we introduce an experiment that in many ways have motivated this study”

At the end of the paper is an appendix which reports on two experiments, the first has already been reported in a previous paper, the second is one that has used calorimetry as the measurement system.

“The system is displayed in figure 5. In the figure, the yellow thermometer measures the temperature of the oil inside the heat exchanger. In the left in the figure there is two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance.

Calculations of the calorimetry made by the heat exchanger:
efficiency of the heat exchanger:10%
Primary heat exchange fluid: lubricant oil ( Shell mineral oil )
Characteristics of the lubricant oil: D = 0.9 Specific Heat: 0.5
Calorimetric data of the fluid: 0,5 Kcal/h = 0.57 Wh/h
Flow heating: 1.58 C / 1.8″ x 11 g
Resulting rating: 20 Wh/h
Energy input: V=0.1 R=1 Ohm → W=0.01
The COP of the system with the calorimetric measurement is substantially conciliable with the measurements made by the Wien’s equation and the Boltzmann equation.”

On the last page is an image of the experimental setups.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi – IH Settlement Published: Rossi Gets Back All Rights to E-Cat, IH no Longer Involved

Thanks to Mats Lewan who has posted an interview with Andrea Rossi about the settlement between Rossi and Industrial Heat on his An Impossible Invention blog.


Mats has also posted the settlement document which he states is from “An Undisclosed Source”:


More analysis to come.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged