Tag Archives: Tests & Demos

Second HotCat Test Report – Updated

Posted on by

Update 22 Oct 2014:

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the debate. Rossi continues to deliver even if it is not what he promised. Despite many sceptics deriding the man as a third rate showman, I tip my hat to his ability to keep this show going.  It is too easy to label anyone in his camp an idiot. That would apply to too many otherwise intelligent scientists. There are many lessons here but most of them revolve around human nature. We can pore over the minutia  of the report but the lack of genuine third-party scrutiny makes me suspect foul-play. Rather than provide clarity, he has once again failed to step up to the mark.

After all this time and solely as a nod to all those otherwise intelligent beings, I cannot proclaim this a fraud with certainty. However, I do lament the waste of all that talent. A child could prove that this is real and an independent lab under NDA could take a prep’d and sealed tube and attest to its reality without compromising the IP. The latest test appears to be designed to convince someone but I doubt the target is the scientific community. Without the ability to replicate, too much has to be taken on trust – something Rossi forfeited many lies ago.

The warning on this site still stands.

End Update

———————————————-

 

 

The long-awaited 2nd HotCat report is now available, although there appears to be some delay or problem holding it from arXiv.
It is lengthy and as is my usual practice, the aim is to report its appearance ASAP to let others discuss it. It is a pity that it appears to have been conducted by the same researchers – for no other reason that if there was any doubt about the veracity of the first report, that would have been mitigated by the performance of new actors.

According to the abstract, the test was performed over a period of 32 days and the fuel examined before and after for isotopic changes. Recording significant energy release beyond the capability of chemical reactions for the volume and significant isotopic changes, the authors declare the test a success. It will take some time to study and do it justice but I look forward to the more capable among us giving their initial impressions. While I sympathize with the disappointment regarding a lack of ‘fresh blood’ to the fight, please refrain from making unjustified attacks on those involved. I have no doubt that the material itself will provide enough meat for criticism. Make it constructive.

[[With thanks to Frank in the comments section]]

Industrial Heat And Due Dilligence

Posted on by

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.

 

Breaking News

Posted on by

To anyone wondering why I only post ‘significant’ developments regarding the eCat, please note that at this point, I consider the eCat/Hyperion arena a giant waste of time. I admit to being baffled and cling to fading hope that the 7 scientists involved in the HotCat test have not been duped or worse. I sincerely hope that my radar is broken – the world needs a miracle more than I need to be right.

Despite the best efforts of our hardest sceptics, there is still a slim chance that Rossi’s bizarre behaviour is symptomatic of a lone genius riding a tiger. Unfortunately, apart from that one report, almost every other ‘fact’ supports the tentative conclusion that he is mentally ill or a fraud.

I give even less credence to Defkalion. The recent demo was impressive while you can suspend disbelief but that is only possible if you ignore that they too seem to be working to the beat of Rossi’s strange business philosophy. A child asked to test a furnace capable of multiplying heat energy with a COP of six or more could prove it absolutely and with ease without revealing what’s in the box. After years of failing to do so and given the extraordinary nature of their claims, if you do not wonder why, you are better at suspending that disbelief than I.

I could list a litany of clues informing my best guess but it’s all in the comments for those willing to look.

I have a keen interest in the dynamics of co-operation and thank all of you who have taken part in the discussion here and elsewhere. You may not have seen it as co-operating but in probing all corners and comparing what has been said with the reality of later events, we are able to build a better picture and recognise our own weak arguments for what they are. It is sometimes difficult to differentiate a troll from a person who simply disagrees with you. That problem is compounded when money is at stake. Emotions run high and conspiracy theories rampant. If fraud is indeed at the centre of this story, it is hard to believe those involved would not pepper the conversation with multiple personalities disguised as sincere believers.

For now, I will leave the discussion open. I continue to ask you to keep emotions in check and hold back on the tendency to call the peripheral players in this saga idiots or worse – these are real people and you do not know them.

To the hard sceptics, do not let the certainties that drive you cloud your thinking. I was disappointed in the quality of many of the rebuttals regarding the HotCat test. You do not need to exaggerate or throw shit at everyone involved – your arguments are strong enough without that nonsense and diminished with it. While my best guess puts me at your side, I do not believe that we can discount the Levi paper as insignificant. The jury is out whether its significance lies in the incredible dynamics of human behaviour or in the future history of the world. I know where my bet would lie. It’s a bet I’d gladly lose.

 

Edited to clarify that this post refers to the eCat and its like. Although, we cannot predict the outcome of such research, I do not consider LENR to be a waste of time or its researchers anything but scientists trying to find the truth.

Defkalion’s Demo Winds Down

Posted on by

DGT’s demo is in its final stages. I watched it from start to wind-down. This is simply a quick summary of my first impressions.

I was surprised by the level of detail and the apparent freedom given to those present. That said, I was disappointed to see that only Mats Lewan stepped up to the plate to stick his nose in on our behalf. I think we all owe him for doing that. {Thank you, Mats}. Where were all the other sceptics? As far as I can tell, this was not DGT’s doing but until we know more, we cannot be sure.

We are told that the complete video set will be available online presently. For now, the salient points are that an inert run was made to check calibration of instruments and gauge system parameters using Argon. The journalist (with a degree in Engineering Physics, I believe) was allowed to roam and measure, which he did. This included him causing a fuse to blow (we will have to await his account on that) when checking the input power. The control run was ended, the Argon purged and replaced by Hydrogen. After preheating, a plasma was struck by switching on the HT input and an apparent energy gain (mostly between approx. 2.5 and 3) and sustained with an input a little under 2KW and output hovering under 6KW.

I do not want to go into all the details at this late hour. For me, the bottom line is this:

 

If there was no cheating, this was an important day for LENR and perhaps the world. Unfortunately, we cannot conclude that. I am open to persuasion but DGT’s past let-downs have put me on guard. Any demo conducted on their own premises by a company making grand claims starts off with a giant handicap. I accuse them of nothing except leaving the barn door open after putting so much effort into this day. Those unconvinced will see hidden tricks and that will come as no surprise.

To give an example (and please, I am not proposing this is a credible mechanism): The display on the wall was generated by data fed from a computer. During the blank run this was reasonably checked with reality. However, it is easy for software to fudge things and for the fudge to hop around depending on what was being measured at the time. For instance, we only really care about delta T on the second run. How do we know it represented reality then? I doubt such a clumsy trick but that’s not the point. As scientists, the DGT guys know that is how things will be viewed by other scientists. Any demo conducted on-site is up for criticism. Period.

The big question therefore is: Will this be enough to persuade investors? I think it might for some. While I hang on to my scepticism until they present convincing third party results performed by qualified testers, I do bow to admitting that they delivered more than I expected and I now look forward to hearing more. In particular, I would be intrigued if they use this time to reveal the third party results they promised last year.

As with Rossi and his eCat, I hope to have my scepticism dashed. This was interesting but cannot be called proof.

 

The videos should appear here.

 

ICCF-18, Missouri University, Credibility & Defkalion GT

Posted on by

For the last 2 1/2 decades, cold fusion has been considered a fringe science. Placed alongside UFOs and the Loch Ness monster, it has been easy to attack this controversial subject. A common tactic is to denigrate those involved as idiots, incompetent, fraudulent, or merely misguided. There is a logic trap here. When a scientist dares to take a serious look and concludes that there is something worth investigating he or she is then labelled an insider and therefore suspect. Such was the fate of Prof Robert Duncan, now Vice Chancellor of research at the University of Missouri after he investigated cold fusion at the request of CBS’s 60 minutes. Thus we are reassured that the status quo is reinforced and that newcomers looking through the window can be certain that only freaks live there.

Slowly, slowly things are changing. Although the science is hardly settled at least there are signs that low-energy nuclear reactions are beginning to be taken seriously as a field to be studied. Since Duncan’s conversion, Missouri University has received a $5.5 million grant from philanthropist Sidney Kimmel to open a cold fusion research centre. Today, if you visit the University homepage you will be greeted with a large image advertising ICCF 18, this years annual cold fusion conference to be held there next week. The accompanying article does not hold back by using weak language. It is written by someone unafraid of the brick bats and stones lesser men would pelt him with.

Duncan says of LENR, “It has been undervalued and treated as a pariah science in the past, but now the world is beginning to realise how important it is.”

This is a welcome development. The University is to be congratulated and I agree with everything Duncan says. I also fully understand why a company such as Defkalion GT with their extraordinarily claims might be invited. However, that comes with a caveat. I sincerely hope that my scepticism is misplaced but the announcement of a demonstration by DGT would have been welcome long-ago. Now I cannot help but recall the previous promises that came to naught. Their presentation at National instruments last year was a complete disappointment and the audience were too easy on them IMHO. Confident talk about theory on the far reaches of credibility was a poor substitute for a believable demonstration. Perhaps next week’s announced demo will tick that box and my fears will prove unfounded. Those who have worked so hard to bring the science in from the cold should be wary of giving it all away too easily. Defkalion has much to gain by associating themselves with the likes of NI and ICCF but the benefit will only go the other way if the company steps up to the plate and delivers more than words or views of mock hardware.

Are we about to see something remarkable from Defkalion? I’ve given up expecting anything worthwhile from them but this is their chance to prove me wrong. I truly hope they do.

 

 

 

Professor Bo Höistad Answers Critics

Posted on by

Following the negative critique given to the Levi HotCat paper, the Italian magazine, IB Times, conducted an interview with Bo Höistad, one of the seven members of the test team and signatory to the paper. This is an appropriate choice because Ericsson and Pomp are Nuclear physicists at Uppsala. As a peer at the same establishment, Höistad is understandably miffed at the criticism and takes a pot-shot at them in return for their unprofessional attack. I have some sympathy for this. While they made some valid points it was obvious that their own paper was full of non-scientific observations reflecting their determination to find fault.

There is little new information but it is interesting to see Höistad come out fighting and standing by their findings. He does confirm that one of Rossi’s technicians started the eCat but otherwise he and Rossi left them to it. One other interesting snippet is that it is true that they did not get to see Rossi’s surgery to remove the’fuel’ but in his opinion this did not effect their conclusions because the results were in excess of ‘any’ known chemical fuel.

The article is here and the following is a Google translation:

There is no peace for Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat. The publication of the now famous independent third-party testing on the E-Cat high temperature seemed to represent a turning point in the story starring the Italian engineer and his creature, which promises to revolutionize the world of energy.

But even the new test came in the middle of strong controversy, carried out by an article made ​​by Professors Goran Ericsson and Stephan Pomp, nuclear physicists at the University of Uppsala, which is highly critical of the test and puts openly questioned the results.

The criticism of Ericsson and Pomp – Published on arxiv.org , the platform of Cornell University on which they were made public also test the E-Cat, in their report Ericsson Pomp and question the real independence of the testers noting that some of them had already participated in previous demonstrations organized by engineer Rossi. Is also criticized their own qualifications to perform these tests because they do not have adequate preparation for the test to “black box.”

Ericsson Pomp and wonder how testers can be assured that inside the reactor there is nickel and hydrogen if they have not been able to open.

Furthermore, the same reference to “trade secrets” about the “fuel” the reactor brings down a veil of shadow over into the real operation of the reactor itself overshadowing the possibility that it could be used a second source of energy.

This accusation stems from the fact that Ericsson Pomp and do not share the choice to perform the tests in the laboratories Leonardo Corporation made ​​available by engineer Rossi. The two scientists also point out that in both tests the reactors were put into operation by authorized personnel by engineer Rossi and not by testers themselves.

Regarding the measurements, according to Ericsson and Pomp, the December test must be invalidated because no data have been reported on emissivity. For the test in March, the two critics claim to have been able, through the COSMOL (a simulation tool used in physics) to replicate the same results without the involvement of any abnormal heat. The two critics consider that there is no data were provided on the reactor outlet (“dummy”).

Test indipendente
Independent test

The conclusions of the report of Ericsson and Pomp were harsh: accuse their colleagues have done prevail their hopes on the scientific rigor and, based on all the observations reported prior, express the conviction that no truly independent test was performed on the E -Cat. Ericcson Pomp and therefore conclude that neither the test published on Arxiv or elsewhere has never been proven to be a “abnormal production of energy.”

The answer of Professor Bo Höistad – This is clearly a very heavy report in which, not only doubt is cast on the operation of the E-Cat, but also the reliability of the same scientists who have carried out two tests in December 2012 and March 2013 so as to explicitly accuse them of having followed a typical method of “pseudo-science”, that is to be skipped to extraordinary conclusions without first having sought explanations in traditional physics.

We therefore decided to contact Professor Bo Höistad, a nuclear physicist and professor at the University of Uppsala and one of the authors of the famous independent testing, to allow it to replicate and to explain its position on the target of criticism by Ericsson and Pomp.

IBTimes: Dear Professor Höistad, Ericsson Pomp and bring into question the independence of the tester, especially Professor Levi and Petterson. How do you respond to this charge?

Bo Höistad: First, let me point out that the article of Pomp and Ericsson is written with a provision very negative towards Rossi and tried to find all the possible arguments to support their idea that Rossi there is cheating. As a result they are very critical about our results tentatively positive. Their paper, instead of directly discuss our findings in a scientific manner, focuses on a number circumstantial issues that have no relevance to the primary outcome ie if our results are correct within the errors estimated. For most of us give different statements that are false. Also there are many deliberate omissions, unwarranted opinions and false claims. Finally, their article is written in a polemical style tended to insult and ridicule rather than bring clarity to a complex scientific controversy.

On the question of independence, is an obvious contradiction that the result of our measurements may be rejected only because one of our authors (Levi) and Rossi know. Our result should be judged on scientific grounds and not on the basis of insignificant relationships.

IBTimes: In the report of Ericsson Pomp and it is also said that neither she nor the other authors of the study have the appropriate skills to carry out a test “black-box”. Is that so?

Bo Höistad: How researchers in experimental physics, chemistry and radiology with a long experience in advanced techniques of high precision our expertise is evident. It should be noted that both Ericsson Pomp that are nuclear physicists, while our group includes a much broader field of science.

IBTimes: We come to criticism “technical”, the fact that the tests were carried out in the laboratories of Leonardo Corporation puts into question in any way the results published by you and your team?

Bo Höistad: We used our experimental tools. Rossi has only provided his E-Cat reactor with its electrical box. It also allowed us to use his laboratory we have carefully inspected before testing. Rossi was not involved in the test in any way. One of his technicians helped us to operate the E-Cat, but then did not take part in any way to the measurements.

IBTimes: The report some questions that are addressed in the study. As you know that inside the reactor is nickel and hydrogen because you could not open it? Because the reactor was put into operation by technicians assigned by Rossi?

Bo Höistad: We were there when Rossi emptied the reactor fuel, although we have not seen him doing it. We have also implemented a fuel analysis after the operation of the reactor. But strictly speaking we can not be 100% sure that the fuel that we have analyzed is the same that was present in the reactor. However, this has no relevance to the main result of the measurement that has produced a large excess heat compared to the combustion chemistry of ANY substance (see story)

IBTimes: What can you tell us about the “fuel” and “trade secrets” that surround him? Is it really possible – as suggested in the study by Ericsson and Pomp – which has been used a second source of energy?

Bo Höistad: If you are referring to some form of hidden energy to cheat, we have made ​​every effort to unmask an agreement of this kind.

At this point of our investigation does not make sense to make assumptions about the nature of the excess heat produced by the reactor fuel. In particular, any hypothesis on the prevalence of a nuclear reaction is understandable only if a nuclear transition can be localized, and so far has not been so.

Note that we communicated in the “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder” (the title of the third-party testing, ed), and our results should certainly be controlled by more comprehensive studies. Our current results are interesting enough to continue these studies. Presumably there is still a long way to go before we can confirm or deny the operation of the E-Cat reactor (I made this observation to the Swedish newspaper Ny Tekink, New Technology, and Ericsson and Pomp know).

IBTimes: How do you respond to criticism on the measurements for both the December test for the March?

Bo Höistad: Their conjectures about the difference in the excess heat produced between the test in December and March are incorrect. Just look at our article.

IBTimes: Finally Ericsson Pomp and argue that in tests made ​​by you will encounter a typical attitude of pseudo-science, which is extraordinary steps quickly to conclusions rather than trying to find explanations in the physical standard. It is a very heavy criticism: How do you respond?

Bo Höistad: It is very unfortunate that Ericsson Pomp and resort to bad comments and mischievous. Accusing colleagues with a long and distinguished series of hundreds of scientific articles published in the most important international journals in physics be hired to pseudo-science is simply an insult severe and beyond any reasonable level of a decent academic behavior. Frankly speaking I am ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that you refrain from personal attacks of such a low level.

Here the abstract and full text of the study of Ericsson and Pomp

Here the abstract and full text of the independent third-party testing on the E-Cat

[With thanks to Delio77]

 

ETA – OT for this post but worth highlighting that Cold Fusion Now points out that the US Navy (Pamela Boss et al) has been awarded a patent involving transmutation through LENR. I reserve comment until I’ve studied it except to say that it is an interesting development given that their lab was closed down. Of course, a patent guarantees nothing – even so; US Navy Granted Cold Fusion Patent makes for a good tabloid headline.

After scanning the patent, I see it is for generating particles as reported in reference to their earlier CR-39 results. As with all things LENR, these were attacked at the time (what’s new?). With an application date of 2007, it makes no direct claim for CF or LENR but it is there in f9rm and explicitly references many cold fusion papers and claims].

Levi et al eCat Paper Critiqued

Posted on by

A constant refrain among members of the LENR community is that papers are not accepted by traditional scientific journals. Subsequent criticism by the tougher sceptics citing lack of peer review as evidence for lack of credibility has therefore seemed circular to me. For that reason, I welcome any rational critique from members of the scientific community in a position to judge. Rather than shy away or act defensively, LENR advocates would do well to study and address the issues. When your work is being torn apart, it has (ironically) been taken seriously enough to warrant the time and effort taken to study it. This is the way of real science. Normally peer review is conducted behind the scenes and authors are given the opportunity to rebut criticism. Due to the public-facing nature of arxiv, we get to see behind the curtain.

I admit to being torn. I agree with many (but not all) of the criticisms levelled at Rossi and his ‘tests’ but abhor the often nasty tone in which some of the discussions are conducted. With all that in mind, the publication of a paper by two nuclear scientists from Uppsala University is a useful development. It appears to be dispassionate even as the conclusions fall against the claims made in the Levi HotCat test paper.

We have heard most of the arguments here and elsewhere. They come down to the lack of true independence, the non-neutral testing ground, Rossi’s imposed restrictions, missing data and apparent lack of rigor when taking measurements in an environment where trickery cannot be assumed absent. While all of this has some truth to it, unless you assume fraud or gross incompetence among all participants, the observations diminish the power but do not kill the paper. The authors at times seem to pick problems that (to my mind) demonstrate their determination to find fault. Instead of highlighting the problem with the December IR test (due to insufficient knowledge of emissivity) they seem to dismiss it completely. They also claim the November test worthless and go on to imply that you cannot perform a black box measurement of energy balance when the device has already been switched on. IMHO such nit-picking could diminish the power of their critique. It is unnecessary as they have some valid points to make and make them well.

In all the biting and scratching we see on the forums, it is common among certain pundits to assume guilt is proven simply by casting doubt. I am sceptical of Rossi’s claims but it is important to recognise that just because you show that fraud has not been excluded, you cannot claim this as proof of fraud. The tendency by some to claim that there is no evidence for Rossi’s claims demonstrates their lack of understanding of the word. There is no proof but when 7 scientists witness, measure and report such evidence, that in itself is evidence. Taken in combination with previous demos, we can see that evidence exists to take the eCat seriously even as we recognise that proof is far from sight and doubt a reasonable stance. To a scientist, it is as if a group of people visited a magician’s workshop to witness a woman sawn in half. They are allowed to measure everything except what lies beneath the two halves of the table. When they then write a paper explaining how they proved to themselves that the woman was indeed halved and yet lived, they had better be prepared to be taken to task. This is not personal but common sense given the nature of the miracle and the history of tricks in the sector.

In the case of Ericsson and Pomp’s paper, I believe they fell short of proving the Levi paper worthless but did well to catalogue the problems with it. To me, three interesting points are worth highlighting among others:

  • Given the Hydro Fusion input measurement controversy, why wasn’t every effort taken to prove the integrity of the input beyond reasonable doubt? In particular, if the purpose was to use science to lend business credibility to the claim, why not bring an expert specialising in electrical power measurement to the party (eg from an independent testing facility)?
  • The second point of interest (to me) relates to the claimed power density. Ericsson and Pomp wonder at the lack of comment regarding power density which, at approximately 100 times that of a commercial fission reactor, is so out of the park as to be worthy of special scrutiny. In this case, they (Ericsson and Pomp) take the extreme of 0.3 g as their Nickel fuel mass. Remembering that we are talking about a (claimed) unknown process, it is a little harsh to compare it to fission instead of fusion. Taking 1g as the mass and energies akin to that of fusion, we can easily take out a factor of ten. Even so, it is still worthy of note.
  • The final point worth highlighting here is that the shape of the thermal waveform can be reproduced by assuming resistive heating on its own (but not the claimed scale of output/input).

There is much more to be said but this post is already too long. It’s worth remembering that, as a defence lawyer might cloud the issue with reasonable doubt to free an innocent (or guilty) client, in science you are guilty until proven otherwise.  It is always easy to find fault but the truth is that The Seven were there and Ericsson and Pomp were not. Even as I hold on to my scepticism, I remain astonished by Rossi’s performance. Ericsson’s paper is useful but does not destroy Rossi’s game. They show the test was not perfect – fine, but let’s not assume fraud just because you can imagine it. Make no mistake; his is an incredible feat. He let a group of seven scientists study the beast up close and personal for nine days when he was not present and then they went on to proclaim the lady halved and yet alive. You have to respect that even as you shake your head in wonder.

 

[Edited to change title from 'Peer Reviewed' to 'Critiqued' as - while it is reasonable to mention the lack of peer review and welcome this as a useful cousin - it is also reasonable to argue that this is not 'Peer Review' in the accepted use of the term in the scientific world.]

A Murderous Fraud

Posted on by

A few days before the HotCat test was published, British businessman, Jim McCormick, was sentenced to 10 yrs for fraud. As I urge you to watch the following BBC clip, I also urge you to stop yourself jumping to conclusions. The purpose of placing this here is not to attach McCormick’s guilt to Rossi but to counter the tendency we have to fall to simplistic views of what is likely and what not.

Too often, I have found myself thinking that there are too many people involved with the eCat for it to be a scam. Too often, I lapse to the lazy idea that pictures Rossi as a man suffering unjust criticism. Surely the scale of this thing is beyond any charge of deception? If this is a scam, it must be the biggest ever perpetrated. None of that is true.

Before I continue, please be aware that I genuinely do not know what is going on. Unlike many sceptics, I found enough meat in the recent report to question my worry that this is all BS. Indeed, I was dismayed to read so many intelligent people give such a poor account of their objections as to bury useful comment among the crap. I truly hope that the eCat is about to change the world and that I will be able to say my worries were misplaced. I look forward to doing that someday but until then, I cannot balance the countless warning signs by making assumptions based on thinking there are too many people involved or that the fraud has to eventually be uncovered someday so, who would do such a thing?

It is not enough to believe that the signals do not make sense. In something like this, we simply need to see the device work repeatedly and divorced from Andrea Rossi’s influence before we can know for sure. We need to stop making decisions based on emotions and start using our heads.

When we do, the argument for and against eCat’s reality goes something like this:

  • If Rossi’s claims are true, they will change the world
  • He is selling licences
  • He has performed a number of interesting demonstrations that have persuaded some clever people and not others
  • The HotCat test results are compelling. If they are not fraudulent, most other concerns are redundant

The following beggars belief but there are others I could have used as examples. Selling primarily to security forces and police, McCormick’s device was used in over 30 countries and was likely responsible for many deaths. A scientific nonsense, he used BS and bribes to sell thousands to the Iraqi forces. The scam went on for over ten years and even when it was uncovered, the British police initially took no action. When they did, the International nature and the fact that his ‘detector’ was used in over 30 countries, meant that getting a guilty verdict was not as simple as you might think. All of this despite the fact that he bought a plastic gimmick that sells in the US for around $20, rebadged it and sold it for between $2,000 and $40,000 each.

One of my worst fears is to accuse an innocent man and so I repeat that I have no idea if the eCat is real or not. Before the HotCat report, my bet was on the negative. However, after years of following Rossi’s antics, I have to admit to being surprised by recent developments and will once more give the subject a cautious watch. In my opinion, the report can be considered credible evidence that falls short of proof. Given the enormity of the claims, the commercial potential and history of failed promises, we need to kill the notion that this would be the biggest scam ever (and therefore can’t be) as much as we fight against unjustified criticism of the report (there are some valid ones).

I hope that all those who are signatories to the paper were truly involved to a depth that gives credit to the weight their good names lends to it. To me, it is their association that leads to hope - that this time the world has beaten the odds through the genius of Andrea Rossi. Until we know for sure, remember that Jim McCormick is only one of countless such men. We are easier to fool than we think.

More Meta Data On HotCat Test

Posted on by

The following is a rough translation from Google of what appears to be a presentation published as a pdf at Borderlands.de. Borderlands seems to report on fringe science and the Swiss company Transaltec AG – an eCat licensee is among the links on their homepage. The pdf is here and includes some familiar images. I put this here for your info before studying it myself. It’s late!

 

“Peer reviewed Tests” the E-Cat technology of Ing A. Rossi and LENR: International energy markets feared earthquake-like shifts

On 14 Th December 2012 visit to the editors, managing director of TransAltec AG (Swiss distribution license holder of the E-Cat technology), the new large labora-tory of the Leonardo Corporation in Ferrara. There they were there, the measurements shown are from four inde-pendent professors evaluated the results of the international energy market far more dread than Andrea Rossi, as the following report shows.

Do not fear the measuring resultaten! The visit, the results and objectives can not be publizert, was held together with Swiss and German business partners TransAltec AG. Andrea Rossi showed all participants, inter alia, a measurement setup from the Hot-E-Cat (500 degrees). These measurements are “peer reviewed” analyzes of four independent professors. After measurements were carried out for seven days, according to A. Rossi, would the measurement setup the next day – ie on 15 December – down and the measurements evaluated. He did not fear the results, he said, but the editors: “I’m the measurement results in each case publish whatever they may be, too!”

However, he informed the editors neither who the measurements where the still-led evaluation yet when and where they will take place det published. The reason is simple: he does not know it ourselves! Let the experts take care (which he has entrusted himself), which perform the measurements, credibility and confidentiality until the end. But one thing is certain: Andrea Rossi himself has done for months or years of measurements, before he was ready to independent mea-surements It must therefore be assumed that the measurements confirm his own results!

As is known, it is the E-Cat technology is a nickel-hydrogen reaction in which hydrogen by ionization in the metal lattice of the nickel crystals difun-dated and in different Folgepro processes via nuclear excitation or transmutation of energy into thermal radiation is converted. This means that with this method, without fuel, with little (recyclable clierbarem) nickel and hydrogen and sixth electrical power supply – that is, with a COP of 6:1! – A 1 MW plant (10 kW heating systems and later) are operated.

Visit to a reference system only after the signing of a LOI! Several 1-MW turbines were sold in November 2011 and are in operation in the United States. From the end of February / beginning of March is a 1-M plant visits are the can in Italy with an Italian energy company. At the meeting of 14 Andrea Rossi December 2012 made it clear that he wants to make sure position-ing that no inquisitive access the service. The condition for a tour of a plant ge is therefore only possible if inter-ested previously signed a Letter of Intent LOI, which they obliged to buy a plant, once they have seen on the spot that the reference system works and they could speak with the operator of the 1 MW plant.

The organization of the tour runs through the instruction of the respective licensees Sales-sorganisationen: in Germany, it is the E-Cat-Germany GmbH under the leadership of CEO Hartmut Dobler, in Switzerland it is the company TransAltec AG under the leadership of Adolf and Inge Schneider. For this purpose also see the presentation of the E-Cat technology in the Congress “Technologies for Energy Transition” of 11-12. May 2013 in Königstein (page 18). In Switzerland, will take place on 22.2. the next E-Cat meeting place for partners, in Germany already run training courses for distributors and sublicensees. For more information on the websites 1.2

The energy industry fears earth-shaking turmoil! While engineer Andrea Rossi feels relatively sure of the results of independent measurements, fears have already used other around. Several insider websites such as Feng Shui News Blog reports circulated by which major oil companies such as BP, Shell, Exxon and others have begun their investments in oil fields around the world to sell. The backgrounds would serve that the E-Cat & LENR-technologies would provide plenty of swirls behind the scenes.

Thus, these circles would with voltage for February announced the review for the latest E-Cat development, the so-called “Hot Cat” expect. We hear what the editors from our own experience of already know:

“An independent science team also de-December 2012 has tested the LENR reactor of the Italian inventor Andrea Rossi and pre-sented in brief the results in a scientific journal (peer reviewed) of the world public. Will this finally release the long awaited ‘LENR hype’ in the mainstream media? ”

Would for some industries, so here is everything at stake: First of all, it is about nothing less than the promise of a- ner inexhaustible energy source that will provide future every human on earth, and perhaps far beyond our planet with clean energy rer. No oil, no coal, no “nuclear power” would the more needed for energy, and wind power and solar energy would disappear from the screen surface. Why? Because on “Low Energy Nuclear Reac-tions” (LENR) energy gained hardly consumes resources and therefore costs almost nothing.

But it really depends on the pre-vious lack of independent testing by A. Rossi, that LENR research and the development of relevant applications in the public consciousness so far only permanent Schattenda is-a? Certainly not. Rather it is the societal conditions and grown over the years, closely intertwined with each other economic, political and media structures that hold the interest of “Cold Fusion” for years small or scientists to ridicule award-tion, although in hundreds was already shown by laboratories around the world that LENR works.

Already last year, the MIT, one of the world’s most renowned scientific institutes, LENR-tested a small reactor with the name “Nanor” the size of a Tupperware publicly. Admittedly, the amount of energy generated Ing Andrea Rossi (left) is (besides Prof. Sergio Focardi) although with his E-Cat technology-the most successful, but by no means the only protagonist of cold fusion and LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). January / February 2013 NET-Journal Vol 18, Issue 1/2 15 was small with about 78 milliwatts. However, the fact that the reactor for months generated 12 times more energy than was plugged back into it, provide long for worldwide headlines in popular scientific magazines. But nothing has happened.

Even Toyota, Mitsubishi, StMI-croelectronics, Amaco, the U.S. Navy and NASA have not played now officially confirmed that they are off on LENR topic and have achieved in their own laboratory investigations promising results. You ask yourself seriously: If all this does not reason enough to get together physicists worldwide to finally understand the LENR phenomenon and to make available to mankind, as billions more to Forschungsgel countries in projects of “hot fusion” to sink?

As for the persuasiveness of “scientific arguments”, Max Planck, one of the fathers of quantum theory, once gbeschrieben very aptly: “A new scientific truth does not enforce in such a way that their opponents are convinced and agree as instructed, but much-more by the fact that their opponents die out gradually and that the growing generation is familiarized with the truth from the beginning. “Even if the scientists themselves in self-defense hard to do with the acceptance of technologies such as e-Cat devices so but can the international press, such a development no longer ignore, because not scientists, but “ordinary people” are the main part of their readers – and is already too big of Rossi hype.

Turbulence in gear! If you are thinking that the expected review will immediately lead to turbulence in the international energy markets, has obviously followed the financial news of recent weeks not particularly attentive. For this turbulence is already well under way! First oil companies have understood it. It says “oil-producing tower burning – E-Cat & LENR responsible for earthquake-like shifts in the international energy markets?”

Or: “Burning oil förderturm: symbol for the beginning of the decline,” It is as mentioned a fact that the big oil companies such as BP, Shell, Exxon and others have begun their oil fields for sale around the world (s . news.cnet.com). Petrobras has spent a decade so that, majority stakes in a large-Texas oil refinery need to acquire. Now they are desperately like to get rid of it and take even large discounts in buying

Nuclear power plants and Ölmul-ti at the end? Nuclear power plant owners in the U.S. cancel their investment projects and are preparing their equipment to progressively close out. All these companies give reasons, which seem plausible in itself, but in this global massiveness allow connection to only one conclusion: We are in the midst of dictation th through free energy technologies, energy revolution! Who does not believe, here are more examples of the “diversification and divestment strategies” of the oil companies who have a different background:

BP:   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business- 20527045 http://www.bp.com/genericarticle. do?categoryId=2012968&contentId =7081129 http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do? categoryId=2012968&contentId= 7080956 http://indrus.in/articles/2012/11/29/ rosneft_and_bp_to_develop_new _arctic_oil_fields_19411.html

Shell http://www.hydrocarbons-technology. com/news/newsshell-divests-stake- nigerian-oil-asset

Exxon http://www.fool.com/investing/general/ 2013/01/13/exxon-and-the-world- of-foreign-oil.aspx http://www.newsystocks.com/News/41 08444/Weak-Demand-Outlook- Forces-Exxon-Mobil%E2%80% 93XOM%E2%80%93to-Sell-Its- Japanese-Unit http://www.reuters.com/article/ 2012/ 11/07/us-iraq-exxon-idUSBRE 8A60Y420121107

While the general public of the true background of the shifts in the international energy markets practically knows nothing, many scientists stuck still their head in the sand, maintain their dogmas and let the representatives of politics and media, their themes dictated by the economic , there are a growing number of people, their hope of a better and fairer world to the breakthrough free energy technologies – not to mention the e-Cat technology! – Socialize. This breakthrough is unstoppable, as well as a many-explicit contributions in this book show!

Sources: www.everyday-feng-shui.de http://www.lenrproof.com/ http://world.std.com/~mica/nanor- technology.htm

Websites www.ecatschweiz.com www.e-cat-deutschland.de

Dr. Peter Hagelstein,

 

[With thanks to Claudio C Fiorini on Vortex]

Andrea Rossi NextMe eCat Q&A

Posted on by

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
    Kind regards
    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?

 

 

  • Andrea Rossi

    Redazione NextMe.it:
    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!
    Andrea Rossi