I’m sure that many readers here are wondering what the status is of the presentation that Andrea Rossi has been talking about for a few months now. Recently he has said that he was optimistic that it would be held in February, but now it doesn’t sound like he is so sure. Here’s a Q&A from the Journal of Nuclear Physics yesterday:
January 26, 2020 at 10:35 AM
January is coming to an end soon. Are you stil optimistic that the presentation in February will go on?
All the success with the ECat SKL testing!
Kind regards, Gerard
January 26, 2020 at 1:51 PM
We are working on it and still resolving problems. The time runs too fast, but I am still optimistic. If it will not be February, it should be March, but we are close.
What kinds of problems are they dealing with? Here is a Q&A between Rossi and Steven Karels on the JONP:
Steven N. Karels
January 23, 2020 at 6:06 AM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted “we always have problems coming up.”
Please clarify. Does this mean:
1. New problems are arising and must each be solved?
2. The SKL has problems getting started?
3. The SKL has reliability problems?
January 23, 2020 at 9:06 AM
Steven N. Karels:
We are working hard as usual and I still am optimist . Really optmist.
They are obviously not going to be holding a public product presentation until they are sure it works properly. Rossi is always optimistic, but it sounds like there are some issues that they are having difficulty resolving, and maybe expecting resolution by next month is not realistic.
Brilliant Light Power has just posted the validation report titled ‘Report on the Power Output of Liquid Gallium Suncells at Brilliant Light Power’ by Randy Booker, Ph.D. of the Department of Physics of the University of North Carolina at Asheville, published January 11, 2020
There are detailed descriptions, images and data in the paper; here’s some data from the paper showing results from water bath calorimetry, plus the executive summary:
Executive Summary: Brilliant Light Power has discovered a novel power source, the liquid gallium SunCell®, which produces a large excess of heat. These input power and output power numbers have been validated by me and are correct. I have been given access to the data files taken during the experiments for this validation. Also, as for the gallium, there is no chemical reaction at all responsible for this excess power. Testing shows that there’s 100% gallium before and there’s 100% gallium after in the cell. All the observed energy in these cases must come from the HOH hydrino plasma reaction occurring in the reaction cell. The power gain of the hydrino reaction determined using water bath calorimetry reported herein was 4.24 times at an excess power level of 296 kW. I am led to the conclusion that the generation of the large net excess power in the liquid gallium SunCell® experiment is real and reproducible.
Over the years there have been people who have believed that LENR phenomena are related to ball lightning. This seems especially true in Russia where they hold a regular “Cold Nuclear Transmutation of Chemical Elements and Ball Lightning Conference” that deals with LENR topics.
Today there was a question on the topic on the Journal of Nuclear of Physics:
January 18, 2020 at 11:46 PM
Dear Dr Andrea Rossi,
Can the plasma seen in
and described in
be someway comparable to the so called “ball lightnings”?
Thank you if you can answer,
Andrea Rossi replied:
January 19, 2020 at 3:33 AM
I’d say possibly yes. Ball lightning is a model I looked to when I had the initial idea.
As far as mainstream science is concerned, ball lighting seems to fall into the realm of unexplained phenomena. It occurs naturally only very rarely and is therefore difficult to study experimentally. An overview of the topic on Wikipedia is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning
Quote: “Ball lightning is an unexplained and potentially dangerous atmospheric electrical phenomenon. The term refers to reports of luminescent, spherical objects that vary from pea-sized to several meters in diameter. Though usually associated with thunderstorms, the phenomenon lasts considerably longer than the split-second flash of a lightning bolt. Two reports from the nineteenth century say that the ball eventually explodes, leaving behind an odor of sulfur. The actual existence of the ball lightning phenomena is not proven, but they appear in a variety of accounts over the centuries. Until the 1960s, most scientists treated reports of ball lightning skeptically, despite numerous accounts from around the world”
Andrea Rossi stated yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics that the 20 kW E-Cat SK heater (it does not generate electricity directly) that he reported had started operating in an unidentified industrial facility in November 2018 was still in operation, and that it was still using the same charge (i.e. fuel) that it had originally. Rossi stated that the charge “is lasting more than expected”.
In a follow-up question, JONP reader Gian asked about the satisfaction and performance of this E-Cat SK:
You can synthetically – with grades from 1 to 10:
1) Express your satisfaction with the services provided so far;
2) Express your perception of users satisfaction?
Can you provide a percentage of the ratio between regular operating time and the time required for stops due to assistance interventions carried out by you personally and by your team?
From the grades that Rossi provides here, it seems that there have been significant problems to deal with. If an industrial heater is down for 30 percent of the time, it is not ready for wide deployment.
Rossi has stated that industrial customers need to have a backup heat service available, so that there is no interruption to operations if the E-Cat goes down.
In another comment, when Rossi was asked what the percentage chance that he would make the E-Cat SKL presentation in February, his reply was “51%”
“ Final FY20 Appropriations: National Science Foundation
Low-energy nuclear reactions. The House report encourages NSF to “evaluate the various theories, experiments, and scientific literature surrounding the field of LENR,” which is most associated with the pursuit of cold fusion. It also directs NSF to “provide a set of recommendations as to whether future federal investment into LENR research would be prudent, and if so, a plan for how that investment would be best utilized.”
The article states that Congress has increased the budget of the National Science Foundation by 2.5% this year, to a total of $8.3 billion. Congress does not set the NSF budget or allocate funds to certain projects, but does provide recommendations to the NSF, and so LENR is one of the areas that Congress wants the NSF to provide some funding for.
We’re now into January, and on the topic of the E-Cat, I think the question on most people’s mind is what’s going on with the testing of the E-Cat SKL that Andrea Rossi said would take place this month, and when the projected Stockholm conference will take place. Steven Karels asked about this on the Journal of Nuclear Physics today:
Steven N. Karels
January 3, 2020 at 8:35 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
1. Given your plans for a presentation of the SKL next month, are SKLs already undergoing testing by the independent evaluator?
2. Are you still planning a Feb 2020 presentation
January 4, 2020 at 3:59 AM
Steven N. Karels:
2 so far, yes
Rossi’s first answer shows we aren’t going to be given any information about the testing until it is completed. I think the timing of the presentation is going to depend on how the testing goes, and how long it takes. Rossi has said that if the testing is negative that there won’t be a presentation.
So all we can do is just stand by and wait. If a presentation is announced then I think that is a good indication that the testing has gone well. It’s possible that a report will be issued before a presentation is announced, but Rossi has said he did not know if that would be the case.
It is unusual these days for Andrea Rossi to engage in discussion about his theoretical understanding of what is going on inside the E-Cat. Normally when questioned about theory on the Journal of Nuclear Physics he will cite his most recent paper and tell people to refer to it for answers.
But there has been an exception to this pattern in the following exchange with JONP reader Mattias Andersson who asks some specific questions about topics in his recent papers. I have included Rossi’s responses to each question below:
Some questions related to two of your papers:
1. In  you investigated possible transmutation paths of Li and Ni in the E-cat as a source of energy. Was this line of research abandoned in favor of the theories presented in ?
2. What are the benefits of the lattice-IPM model when reasoning about long range particle interactions (if any)?
AR: 2 Norman Cook’s lattice nuclear models, based on a pure electromagnetic interpretation of nuclear force, have inspired the hypothesis of a possible balancing of Coulomb repulsion between electrons in dense clusters by a Lorenz force generated by the Zitterbewegung currents
3. What is the significance of nucleon excitation states when reasoning about long range interactions?
AR: 3 The idea of interactions at picometric scale between electrons and nucleons open the door to an entirely new field of science ( pico-chemistry ) where the possible formation of new nuclear isomeric states cannot be excluded.
4. What is the significance of short range binding energies in long range interactions?
AR: 4 Accepting the ZBW model for the elementary particles, the range of the electro-magnetic binding energies is inversely proportional to the size of the ZBW current loops. For this reason, the short range nuclear binding energy should be at least three orders of magnitude stronger than in pico-metric aggregates. The orders of magnitude are:
1 eV chemistry, 1 keV pico-chemistry, 1 MeV nuclear chemistry
Thank in advance,
 Andrea Rossi. E-Cat SK and long range particle interactions, 2019.
 Norman D. Cook and Andrea Rossi. On the nuclear mechanisms underlying the heat production by the E-Cat, 2015.
There is a lot of complex terminology in this exchange, and one would need a lot of background in the subjects to make sense of it all, but if Rossi has what he claims, there’s going to be a lot for scientists to explore to explain how the E-Cat does what it does. Rossi seems to be partial to the Cook hypothesis of the lattice structure of the nucleus which is apparently not a commonly held position in the scientific community. Maybe the E-Cat, if finally demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, will spur a new way of looking at nature.
I found this comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics interesting:
December 26, 2019 at 7:39 PM
Mr. Rossi, would it be possible to use electricity-producing E-Cat as mobile charger for currently available on the market electric cars?
Would it be easy to create sufficiently powerful E-Cat generator that could fit into Tesla/Nissan Leaf/whatever trunk? This could mean end of the electric car range anxiety and offer possibility to charge car battery from the e-cat everywhere, and no new cars would be needed but something that exists on the market already (to design a new car many years are needed).
Andrea Rossi responded:
December 27, 2019 at 3:09 AM
Yes, that is an important lead of R&D on course.
This idea would mean that the E-Cat SKL could be incorporated into existing EV technology. If it could be made to work well, batteries would be charged continuously, eliminating the need for charging stations long charge times, and avoid putting extra strain on the grid as more people transition to EVs.
Still, it would probably be only a stop-gap measure if the SKL really is the real deal, as one would expect before too long, electric motors driven directly by E-Cats would be developed and the need for heavy and expensive batteries would be eliminated.