I have been trying to place myself in Rossi’s shoes.
He’s got a device that works. He has a whole lot of work to do to get it ready for commercial sales. He’s already got the first copycat competitor nipping at his heels. What motivation does he have to convince the scientific community, the world, that his technology is “for real”? Let’s see:
Reasons not to “prove it”:
- It gives Rossi a competitive advantage to leave the scientific community sufficiently skeptical that they aren’t all busily trying to do what Defkalion has done.
- Public demonstrations cost time that can be better used getting his product to the market.
- No matter what demonstration Rossi produces, public or private, it won’t settle the issue like an e-cat for sale at Wal-Mart will. Remember, nine major scientific institutions have already reproduced the Ni + H reaction, and the world’s response is? ”Rossi, prove it!” Why Rossi, why not SRI, MIT, USAF!
- Every demo so far has produced an barrage of armchair quarterbacks declaring that Rossi is stupid, or worse. Does he really need such abuse?
Reasons to prove it?
- He could get the glory today that he will get tomorrow anyway? Or would he. Remember the list of those within the scientific community that have failed to prove it to the world:
University of Missouri–Kansas City.
Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois
University of Siena, Italy.
USAF
SRI
National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy)
MIT
(For links validating each of these, and the other replicators, see: http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/)
Fact: Members of these respected institutions have publicly declared that they have achieved anomalous heat from the Ni + H reaction.
They are scientists first, Rossi is an engineer first. I say that these scientists have an obligation to prove their public statements. I say, get off of Rossi’s back, and get on the backs of these scientists. Let the burden of proof lie with them, or with Wal-Mart.
January 3, 2012 at 10:59 am |
You are very correct, there are lots of reasons not to prove it beyond a doubt – and you hit on them well. But aren’t those reason also all valid if you look at if from the standpoint of “why sort of prove it” like he has done so far? He hasn’t gained much except a few crazy critics, a few crazy supporters, and a lot of undecideds (which is where most were regarding cold fusion/lenr before they heard about the ecat).
Like you said, why not skip all of the drama and focus on development and then sales? (one possible answer: he needed a few crazy supporters to generate enough interest that he’s able to make a quick buck and continually put off the product. – Not saying I think it’s a scam, but it’s one possible explanation.) He could have taken the market by storm if no one knew he was working on it and he just introduced a working product – I mean, it’s not like it’s a hard sell (every person, almost every industry, everyone cheap wants heat/energy!). He could sell direct (after he proved it through a trusted source) or he could sell through retail (after he proved it to them).
Basically, I agree, there isn’t some huge reason for him to prove it, but I don’t see how what he has done (call it controlled proof) has helped his business either. If this thing is for real and sold at Home Depot later this year, he would have gotten just as much interest and press as he would have gotten without his controlled demonstrations.
January 3, 2012 at 11:14 am |
“He hasn’t gained much except a few crazy critics, a few crazy supporters, and a lot of undecideds”
Well, he has gained enough to get 10,000 of us willing to buy his home version product. He has gained enough to get interest from people like those at e-cat.com. He gained enough interest to sell over a dozen 1MW plants for a pretty price. And, if I understand correctly, he initially brought the e-cat out of hiding to honor his friend and colleague Sergio Focardi. He has primed up his marketing engine, a task that would have taken some time even after he had a finished product. While he has picked up the likes of Defkalion, (unfortunate and unintended for Rossi’s bottom line, but very good for the cold fusion world.) he has gained a lot too.
PS: On the topic of “undecided”, it seems that they are in a small majority. Check out the poll at the bottom of this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/12/31/2012-the-year-of-cold-fusion/ The findings are that only 10% of Forbes pollsters are undecided.
January 3, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
“Well, he has gained enough to get 10,000 of us willing to buy his home version product.”
And if he had skipped the drama and waited until he had product for sale… he would still have found 10,000 willing to buy his product. I’d bet he’d sell 10,000 a day for years. Also, he doesn’t have 10,000 willing to actually buy his product – he has 10,000 people who have expressed interest, only a small fraction of which would put real money down without credible proof of product (either a retailer willing to sell the product or credible customers).
“He has primed up his marketing engine, a task that would have taken some time even after he had a finished product.”
Cheap energy doesn’t need much of a marketing engine – everybody wants cheap energy and a product like his will generate lots of publicity once confirmed.
“The findings are that only 10% of Forbes pollsters are undecided.”
I’d argue that this statement would be more accurate if it said “10% of responses to an unscientific, online poll located on a page that is likely viewed largely by those already interested and informed about the topic are undecided.”
You made your point, but I don’t think it changes mine – due to Rossi’s approach, he’s gained an equal number of people who believe his claims vs those who don’t, and a few undecideds. Had he skipped the drama, he wouldn’t have given anyone a chance not to believe him.
“He gained enough interest to sell over a dozen 1MW plants for a pretty price.”
Maybe, but this is only according to Rossi.
“And, if I understand correctly, he initially brought the e-cat out of hiding to honor his friend and colleague Sergio Focardi.”
That could be a valid reason, I had not heard it before.
January 3, 2012 at 11:47 am |
I imagine one hurdle worth consideration is the certification of electrical component elements. Equivalent to UL testing and certification in the US. National Instruments seems to be on board; I think this would mean they are responsible for this process.
Another is nuclear regulatory agency approval. The two responsible for Ecat.com both have the respect and connections within the energy commissions of several governments (including the US) to offer a path for certification in the US for the Ecat.
If Rossi had not had the public demonstrations he would not have attracted these high powered, highly credentialed partners. Perhaps the fact that they are still with him is a sign that the Ecat works. I also wonder if he really has an Ecat (1MW) running in Florida? Are nuclear agencies required to investigate the safety of a nuclear reactor if you say you have one running here?
One thing you can say is the private demonstrations brought him a few of the best partners to scrutinize him. If he is moving forward, one thing you can say with certainty is he is under even greater scrutiny.
I believe Bologne University is under contract by Rossi to work on the scientific understanding of this (POSSIBLY) easily replicated and maintained LENR of nickel and hydrogen.
The UL approval process is hush hush.
The nuclear reaction approval process is possibly hush hush.
The contract for research at Balogne, results require approval by Rossi for publication. Sworn to secrecy till publication.
Rossi is most likely under intense self controlled scrutiny by folks who I believe will not tolerate deception. I also think Rossi and others on his team feel a need for expediency.
I applaud National Instruments involment and hats off to the honorable scientific and energy commission experts behind Ecat.com here in the US.
January 3, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
Originally I didn’t understand Rossi, but I have come to appreciate his style. He had defkalion as a partner and was on track for a nice smooth roll out, but when that went bad he had to scramble to recover. I think losing that partnership set him back at the engineering level very significantly.
If he gets too much publicity he will get many people to realize what a game changer the technology will be and will start throwing money at development. Getting buy with a somewhat low profile allows him to make progress without being on the potential Big competitors Radar.
In a way he has the government over a barrel. They won’t grant a patent because CF isn’t real, but they may try to regulate him as a nuclear device. They can’t have it both ways. In the end they will want to regulate. Having defkalion beat him to market and start selling in Greece or Italy will make it harder to deny him market access.
There are only a few cards to be played, but I believe Rossi is handling it very well.
On a side note, Sterling Allen said their were rumors of another company that was as far along or maybe further than Rossi. Anyone have an idea who that would be, I read about everything and haven’t picked up on anyone beside defkalion and maybe Brillouin.
January 3, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
Well Rossi has played another card and announced he will be selling the home E-Cats in August in the USA. And the big kicker is that he says Home Depot will be in on the US rollout. So much for proving anything to the scientific world – like his philosophy that man used fire for a long time before he began to understand it. Still to this day we are studying and trying to understand more about fire. I suspect the same process will occur with the E-Cat and all of LENR…
January 3, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
Oh, I forgot to mention they will be selling for under $1,500 US
January 3, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
The ossification of the scientific community, and the inability of our political leaders to adapt to a new paradigm are symptoms of a declining nation. The US is lucky an Italian businessman is trying to commercialize LENR, when the gigantic inertia of US institutions have been nothing but an impediment. Who knows how many future hurtles will have to be jumped to get it to market and show the dummies it works and saves them money.
Even the “Green” activistic organizations have been reluctant to jump on the LENR bandwagon when it addresses all their concerns. It is a small wonder that given all the resistence Rossi has encountered that he was forced to build a manufacturing company from the ground up.
January 4, 2012 at 8:49 am |
Brad you don’t have a clue. Nobody in science is against LENR. It’s just that it’s never been show to work, at least not reproducibly enough to make a real product out of it. There is some anomalous excess energy that can’t be consistently reproduced. That’s about it.
Now Rossi is making the extraordinary claim that he can use a LENR to produce useful energy, which nobody else in the world has been able to do in all these decades since Fleischmann–Pons made their claims. If Rossi really did it, why does he refuse to allow an independent 3rd party “black box” test of an E-Cat unit? That’s all it would take to get the world to believe that the E-Cat is real.
January 4, 2012 at 9:07 am
Brad, I am personally willing to give Rossi the benefit of the doubt on the BIG 5 1/2 hour reaction ability. There were a lot of skeptical science types around when he did several of his tests, including the 5.5 hour job. But a sustainable reaction for 12 months and control, a consumer product, I haven’t seen that. And yet he claims it. It is a far cry from a 5.5 hour reaction while jiggering with knobs and controls to a consumer product. It doesn’t hurt Rossi any for me to withhold my belief, and it does maintain my sense of having good sense.
And those Home Depot remarks, they sounded like the rantings of a manic-depressive in his manic stage. I hope that I am wrong. Rossi has served LENR and the World a great service, but if he lies and does not deliver, it will hurt LENR and the World.
January 4, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Mr Bird,
You have a funny way of deciding what is truth or fiction – perhaps the following will convince you. Frankly, it ought to satisfy any reasonable person, but then there are always those cynical obtuse people who simply doubt everything:
There is a new clean energy technology that is one tenth the cost of coal. LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
“Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical…” –Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center
“Energy density many orders of magnitude over chemical.” Michael A. Nelson, NASA
“Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA
According to Forbes, electricity will be “too cheap to meter” if Rossi’s Oct 28 demonstration succeeds: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/
Here’s the latest, according to MSNBC it passed the test: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrNo9rJqwe4
By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
January 4, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Brad Arnold, you must be addressing someone else because I am already up to speed on everything that you have said except I doubt that Rossi will have a customer ready product by August.
January 3, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
I voted don’t know because I don’t know; I don’t even know what he is claiming.
January 3, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
Hi Roger,
Maybe this will help:
http://www.coldfusionnow.org/audio/2011-12-29-Andrea-Rossi.mp3
Tha first minute or so is music, so be patient…
January 4, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
Actually just over 2 minutes of music. The actual interview with Rossi doesn’t start until minute 8:40.
January 4, 2012 at 8:40 am |
Surely you don’t really believe your reasons for not proving the E-Cat works?
If Rossi was trying to keep a “low profile” to keep competitors out of the LENR business, why has he made such a show out of multiple demonstrations and the October delivery of the 1MW plant? His actions contradict this point.
Will people really buy E-Cat products when there is no evidence they really work? Will reputable companies like Wal-Mart and Home Depot really sell such products? Remember there was no evidence he had a real customer for his October 1MW delivery. Who would really buy something that has never been shown to work?
Rossi has every reason to want to prove the E-Cat really works. If he allowed multiple independent 3rd parties to do “black box” testing on a single E-Cat unit and publish their results the whole world would believe it works. He would get billions of dollars in “clean energy” grants from multiple governments to develop the E-Cat tech into real products. He’d also be able to get patent protection. As it stands his patents were rejected because there is no evidence such a LENR can actually work. It’s on the same level as a perpetual motion machine.
January 4, 2012 at 10:29 am |
The nickel hydrogen reaction has been replicated. Nano particles of metals were not available 20 years ago. The first cold fusion declaration has nothing to do with the present state of affairs. NASA has recenty been granted a patent for a LENR device that produces heavy electrons. Rossi was not trying to keep a “low profile”. Rossi gained enough attention, while maintaining privacy, to gain the confidence of a former president of the Skeptics Society (one of the founders of US Ecat.com) and National Instruments (formerly Texas Instruments). Not so far in the distant future… the next generation… will look back on our generation and know… without doubt… that the term “energy shortage”… was a term for unenlightened minds. Einstein gave a lecture late in his years ruminating that the general theory of relativity was an imaginary construct… he then spoke of the coloumb barrier and the plank constant as the primary culprits… imaginary numbers used to make the math work… imaginary constructs with no understood basis in reality… that will be elucidated and therefore discarded as we get closer to formulating a grand unification theory. Quantum theories and LENR theories both work towards understanding observed phenomenon that are not encompassed by Einsteins “general” theory which is otherwise known as “Einsteins’ incomplete works”. Note the differences in the phrase general relativity and the phrase grand unification and you begin to understand why Einstein will be oh so happy as we advance into understanding that makes presently utilized nuclear theories undergo massive rewrites. That which eluded Einstein is not beyond our comprehension.
January 4, 2012 at 11:20 am
Greg that’s all well and good. All Rossi has to do to be a multi-billionaire, win the Nobel Prize, and change the world forever is allow a few university physics or engineering departments to independently test a single E-Cat and publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. Science is based on evidence that can be independently verified, not silly desktop demonstrations. That’s what hoaxers do.
January 4, 2012 at 11:47 am
Dave, although I agree that Rossi could become incredibly rich and famous and loved but he is not acting accordingly, it is not true the hoaxers let heavy hitting scientists and skeptics crawl (but not control) all over their “demonstrations”. There are just too many nuclear physicists and other heavy hitters very close to Rossi and his demonstrations to discount Rossi out-of-hand.
January 4, 2012 at 11:27 am
Dave, “All Rossi has to do…”
All Rossi has to do is stay on focus, get his product to market and leave the scientists wondering why they didn’t figure it out. He’ll be a multi-billionaire, win the Nobel Prize, and change the world forever.
BTW, bunches of scientists have already produced the Ni + H reaction. Presumably they have published their findings in the journals. Are they be a multi-billionaires and winners of the Nobel Prize? Have they changed the world forever? Nope. They have been ignored. If Rossi follows the scientific route, what’s likely to happen to him?
It is by no means a certainty that following the rout of scientific “proof” would result in Rossi being a multi-billionaire, winning the Nobel Prize, and changing the world forever. Bringing it to market will certainly produce that result.
January 4, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Bruce show me one single experiment in which a researcher reliably got more energy out of a Ni+H reaction than they put in like Rossi claims he’s been doing for over a year now. It’s always anomalous energy that can’t be reliably duplicated. You can’t make a real product out of that.
LENR deserves research money, but don’t fool yourself into thinking anybody, including Rossi, has been able to do it in a way that could be turned into something useful.
January 4, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Dave, that is the question, reliability and sustainability. But as has been pointed out, Rossi has had some very impressive demos, and if they were not fraudulent, which is most likely, then Rossi has reliability and sustainability. Those demos were not rock solid hardcore independent tests, but they were inspected by hardcore scientists hovering around and observing carefully. The idea that they might be fraudulent demos is unlikely.
January 4, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
I am confused – Rossi did a number of public demonstrations of the E-Cat, and they all were successful. Also, virtually every expert who sees it work says it is legitimate. What did it get Rossi? People like you who need more proof. I submit to you that no amount of proof will satisfy critics – the only satisfactory way to prove it is real is to successfully commercialize it.
Independent confirmation as the silver bullet toward legitimacy? HA. The same critics would be criticising who the independent party is, how their verification was performed, who paid for the confirmation, and so on. No, just wait until factories are pumping those working LENR generators from their factories like sausages. That is the only proof that will satisfy the “critics.”
January 4, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Brad you’re 100% wrong. If just a few legitimate independent researchers verified that the E-Cat worked I would immediately say I was wrong to criticize Rossi and would completely accept that it really does work. Independent confirmation is the way science works, not demonstrations.
January 4, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Dave,
Placed in the context of a history of NiH successes, Rossi’s “demonstrations” don’t seem that far fetched. Yes, they were not rock solid independent tests. But if they were significantly better than the previous NiH scientifically valid tests, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And remember that Rossi doesn’t need to impress us.
January 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Dave says: “If just a few legitimate independent researchers verified that the E-Cat worked…”
First it is independent confirmation, now you say a few independent confirmations…how many?? Sounds like a slippery slop to me – first one independent confirmation, now a few, huh? You just proved my point sir. I bet if an “independant” confirmed it, you would question their credencials, and also question their funding, and also question their methods.
Yeah, “independent confirmation is way science works, huh? Science is built on repeatability, no doubt, but LENR has been proven by hundreds of experiments to yield more energy than it takes. Rossi has just made the known reaction more productive – and he is going to prove it in the only place where his “critics” can’t second and third guess him (in the marketplace).
January 4, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Brad if just one reputable independent researcher confirmed that the E-Cat really works I would believe Rossi up to about 95% certainty. If multiple researchers did it I would go to 99.99%. Nothing has absolute certainty, but that would be very close for me.
Yes LENR has been shown, but not anywhere near the level that Rossi claims he can do. A claim that extraordinary requires evidence, and demonstrations aren’t evidence.
January 4, 2012 at 2:12 pm
Dave, “if just one reputable independent researcher confirmed that the E-Cat really works…”
Lets see, we have a list of twelve who have produced an energy positive reaction from Nickel and Hydrogen (http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/) The list includes a number of very prestigious scientists from very prestigious organizations. So you are 99.99% certain that the Nickel + Hydrogen = excess heat reaction works, right?
If so, then you are saying that Rossi has caused these scientists to come out of the woodwork and declare their success, but you think he might be a fraud. Pretty good fraud.
January 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm
OK, let’s get this straight, according to Dave, independent confimation is the gold standard. Even one (assuming you deem him “reputable” – in my opinion a big if) isn’t enough, you would need multiple “researchers” validation to nail it down. On the other hand, you acknowledge LENR has been shown, but just not as efficient as Rossi.
Extraordinary claims requires evidence, but you say demonstrations aren’t evidence? How about the people that now surround Rossi – you disregard their validation too? Only “independent” “reputable” and “multiple” validation will be accepted by you as evidence?? BTW Dave, you are also saying without that rarified “evidence” you accuse Rossi of fraud? Wow – is that how you grew up, whenever teachers told you something incredible (like man landed on the moon), you didn’t believe them until multiple people (who were independent and reputable) testified to it? Since the astronauts were not independent, the TV coverage, the sight of the rocket launching into space, or the moon rocks they brought back just didn’t do it for you?? Did NASA commit fraud?
BTW:
“Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical…” –Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center
“Energy density many orders of magnitude over chemical.” Michael A. Nelson, NASA
“Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA
January 4, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Brad I don’t think you understand the difference between LENR research and what Rossi is claiming. Just because LENR is real doesn’t mean Rossi can use it to produce useful energy. If he can he must have independent 3rd party confirmation to give his extraordinary claims any validity. We obviously know that nuclear *fission* energy works, right?, but would you believe *me* if I said I had a fission device for sale for $1500 that could power your home? Rossi’s claims are even more extraordinary that this because nobody to date has been able to make a LENR power plant.
How do you know the people who surround Rossi aren’t either in on the scam or are themselves fooled by the demonstrations? The demonstrations look good, if you take Rossi’s power input and output calculations as valid. Maybe they just trust him too much.
When I was a child I had to take teachers’ word for things. Now that I’m a responsible adult I have to be skeptical and use my critical thinking skills.
January 4, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Dave wrote: “How do you know the people who surround Rossi aren’t either in on the scam or are themselves fooled by the demonstrations?” Most hardened skeptics are often socially challenged. This is why maryyugo, Craig Binns, perhaps you and many others don’t understand that the people around Rossi make us stop disbelieving and are either uncertain or believers. It is anti-Occamistic to think that the skeptics from Sweden and Levi and Focardi et. al. are are stupid or in on the scam. And how clever is Rossi that he would spin off Defkalion so as to make the scam look real. What are the chances that a bunch of scientists went insane all at the same time and all decided to destroy their reputations. And some of these scientists are quite young and can look forward to decades of being pariahs.
January 4, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Dave, “If he can he must have independent 3rd party confirmation to give his extraordinary claims any validity.”
Yeah, like where is that law written? Rossi has no obligation at all to prove it. And, and, you will believe it when it shows up at your local Home Depot or Wal-Mart, or when you talk to your neighbor who has one. No scientists required.
“He MUST have” is balderdash!
January 5, 2012 at 2:50 am
“Brad I don’t think you understand the difference between LENR research and what Rossi is claiming. Just because LENR is real doesn’t mean Rossi can use it to produce useful energy.”
I understand perfectly, just because LENR is valid doesn’t necessarily mean Rossi is. On the other hand, what I am trying to tell you is that the fact tha LENR is valid tends to reinforce Rossi’s claim because he has simply improved the efficiency, not invented an altogether new technology.
“If he can he must have independent 3rd party confirmation to give his extraordinary claims any validity.”
I disagree – Rossi has some validity. To say he hasn’t any validity because he hasn’t had a 3rd party confirmation is just plain wrong.
“We obviously know that nuclear *fission* energy works, right?, but would you believe *me* if I said I had a fission device for sale for $1500 that could power your home? Rossi’s claims are even more extraordinary that this because nobody to date has been able to make a LENR power plant.”
Rossi isn’t just claiming, he has held many demonstrations, and has many people around him who will testifiy that his claims are vaild, many of them professionals who would never participate in a fraud. As far as believing your claims, if it was certified by UL, then yes, and if I could have my experts confirm it works before paying you, then yes.
“How do you know the people who surround Rossi aren’t either in on the scam or are themselves fooled by the demonstrations? The demonstrations look good, if you take Rossi’s power input and output calculations as valid. Maybe they just trust him too much.”
Sorry, but convoluted frauds involving lots of parties is the least likely. So are 3 groups of science observers too stupid to recognize an obvious fraud. Also, there are enough other NiH results which suggest a LENR reaction. But to answer your question: I don’t know 100%, but I can judge that such a possiblity is extremely unlikely to virtually impossible, and frankly, I don’t understand how you can even seriously entertain such an unrealistic notion.
“When I was a child I had to take teachers’ word for things. Now that I’m a responsible adult I have to be skeptical and use my critical thinking skills.”
That is the problem Dave, your critical thinking skills aren’t very good, but your paranoia and criticism is in overdrive. There is being a reasonable person, then there is being a skeptic, then there is being obtuse.
January 4, 2012 at 10:48 am |
You’re confusing Rossi’s extravagant and huge claims for cold fusion/LENR with those of university researchers who observe subtle small effects which are hard to measure and confirm.
It would be easy to get irrevocable proof of Rossi’s device from any independent source– a government lab such as ORNL or Sandia, a reliable private company like Earthtech, or any major physics department of any prestigious university. That’s because Rossi’s claim is so much LARGER as pertains to power than any other.
Rossi’s existing tests have been correctly criticized because they were too short, did not have blank/calibration runs, and the measurement techniques used were, in each case, arguable. The best run, that done by Dr. Levi last February, could not be either documented properly nor repeated because Levi would not cooperate!
Defkalion, on the other hand, has never shown anything anywhere to anyone who can speak about it.
So far, there is no proof whatever that either Rossi or Defkalion has anything worthwhile. They could change that perception overnight– either of them — and they don’t.
The idea that they can’t get patent protection is also silly. All they have to do is to file a proper application and they would be protected from the day it was filed. If the patent office refused to grant a patent for an obviously working novel invention, they would be massacred in court if Rossi brought a law suit.
As for selling to DARPA or some other government agency, there is no evidence whatever other than what Rossi wrote on his strangely misnamed blog. There is also nothing to suggest that Rossi or Defkalion ever applied anywhere to a regulatory agency for any sort of certification. You can’t sell nuclear reactors without it.
The objections to Rossi proving the device are nonsense. The best explanation is that it doesn’t work.
January 4, 2012 at 11:28 am |
We need proof now! We need proof now! Now! NOW!
Rossi isn’t, and shouldn’t be, in a hurry to prove it to your satisfaction.
January 4, 2012 at 11:31 am
It isn’t about *my* satisfaction. It’s about helping mankind with an energy crisis. It’s about helping Africans with clean water and better food supplies. It’s about having spent a year making nothing other than extravagant claims and bad experiments and proving nothing.
January 4, 2012 at 11:49 am
They were “bad experiments”. They were very impressive demonstrations, they were even experiments. But they were not absolute proof, that I will agree with.
January 4, 2012 at 11:46 am
Is not! The best thing Rossi can do to help Africans with clean water and better food supply is to hunker down, and make a market grade product. It is a waste of his time to be showing the thing off to looky loos.
January 4, 2012 at 11:39 am |
I regret to say that I find much merit in what maryyugo has said. However, Rossi and Rossi’s demonstrations have been surrounded by (but not controlled by) numerous hardcore physicists and skeptical science types. It is not absolute certainty, but it does look very much like Rossi has a reaction much more vigorous than “subtle small effects which are hard to measure and confirm”. Like all skeptics, maryyugo seems to be a little weak in the human side of things.
January 4, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Yet Rossi invited a former president of the “Skeptics Society” to demonstrations. That esteemed gentleman is purported to be the best skeptic in the world and he is presently hunkered down with Rossi supposedly bringing a product to market. It seems fair that requests for proof should be made to his partners as well as it could expose their investment to risk, Study the men behind Ecat.com study National Instruments operational officers and realize these people are not about to release anything until a certified unit is ready to market. US certification (UL and Nuclear) is recognized certification into most markets. The people hunkered down with Rossi can accomplish both and appear to be doing so…. quietly and with secrecy of course. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. gbgoble
January 4, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Greg Goble, that is all very hopeful. I must admit.
January 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
MaryYugo:
“Knowing that the effect has been widely replicated in hundreds of major laboratories puts everything in a different perspective.”
“Sorry, but convoluted frauds involving lots of parties is the least likely. So are 3 groups of science observers too stupid to recognize an obvious fraud. Also, there are enough other NiH results which suggest a LENR reaction.”
Mary, you look at the evidence and jump at the most unlikely of conclusions – that Rossi is conducting a convoluted fraud. That says much more about you than it does about Rossi. What is your game Mary??
January 4, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
This has elements found not in a skeptic but found in writings done by a professional discreditor, paid to obfuscate with purpose as seen by the MIT official who then went on to head the DOE obfsucating cold fusion quite profitably it seems to me.
January 4, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
Totally wrong!
He could lose everything as soon as someone else develops a stable version of what he has.
Defkalion publicly separated from Rossi in what they claim was his inability to run the reactor for 48 hours. Rossi allegedly lost 15 million of investment due to this inability from them.
So they parted ways.
Nobody has tried to refute the stability aspect of Rossi devices, as has been purported by Defkalion.
So basically all the “world” or anyone really knows is that he can produce heat for short periods of time, but nothing stable.
The first person to produce a stable ecat in their garage has a valid legal argument that they invented it..
Who invented the lightbulb?
Many people would be tempted to say Thomas Edison.
Thomas Edison only made a stable version of the lightbulb and there had been other versions of the lightbulb including swanns.
Andrea Rossi also does not know what causes the excess heat, so his patents are false or at least not 100% correct. It is sort of a happy accident.
I think that if Rossi could prove he could run an ecat longer than 48 hours he would if only for legal reasons. What is the current witnessed ecat record? 18 hours?
18 hours before you must cool it all down and start from scratch? How much energy is used in Nickel preparation as well?
Yeah! Rossi has started the race, but he does not have anything stable yet or he’d be eager to demonstrate it, as far as Defkalion goes, all we have seen from them is a fuzzy picture of “something”, and a computer rendered art of what a 9 reactor unit could look like.
Defkalion does not even have a product, or they would show a photo of it at the very least. As of today they can only get anonymous people to verify they even saw one from them.
January 4, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
kwhilborn, “Andrea Rossi also does not know what causes the excess heat, so his patents are false or at least not 100% correct. It is sort of a happy accident.”
I’ll leave everything else you said alone. This one, however, must be protested. Patent applications require NO scientific understanding. The application only requires that the inventor disclose his method sufficiently that one skilled in the art can reproduce it.
Now I know that the international patent office has suggested that Rossi’s product does not fit with the laws of physics. However, once he produces a prototype that others can test for days on end, this objection will die.
His patent can be perfectly valid and complete even if he has no idea how it works. He only must accurately communicate how to make one that does work.
January 4, 2012 at 12:59 pm |
Even if a million people replicated this experiment, it is worthless unless it can be made stable. The stability argument was totally left out of consideration for this article.
January 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
If over sixty units were demonstrated to be operating at the same time over a period of hours conclusions can begin to be drawn towards both reproducibility and stabiity.
January 4, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Greg,
Yeah. But now is the question of control. I doubt if a consumer wants to turn it on and have it on for 6 months.
January 4, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
Mary Yugo is right and the criticisms of her viewpoints seem to me unfair and frankly juvenile, here and in other fora. Let’s face facts rather than our hopes. Rossi has made claims, astounding claims, of a device that would change the world. And while he has impressive allies and compelling demonstrations they are not proofs. With claims as important as these we must have validation.
One path to validation is market validation, making working units and selling them. This will take a long time because of the certifications that the device will have to pass and offers him no more patent security than the second path.
The faster approach is to have the units independently tested by multiple parties such as a reputable lab (Sandia) or a first rate university. If these validations are successful then Rossi’s claims are proven and on his way to Oslo to pick up his prize he can see his patents approved and make his licensing deals.
None of us know if Rossi is a fraud and none know, with any certainty they work. Until one or the other validation path is followed to its conclusion we will all be waiting and hoping.
January 4, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
Michael, that is what we are doing, “waiting and hoping”.
There is something that some others of us are doing. People with the technical know-how and financial resources are trying to duplicate or even beat Rossi.
January 4, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
Michael,
You don’t know the history of Mary Yugo. She will slam Rossi and LENR without looking at the evidence. I don’t mind if people disagree with me, but don’t slam the whole idea without looking at the evidence.
January 4, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
Michael, Recall what happened to Fleishmann and Pons. The commercial route is much more certain, although much slower. Business people are much better at dealing with risk than scientists. I support Rossi taking the commercial route, although it can be frustratingly slow. He doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone, except his customers.
January 5, 2012 at 1:18 pm
‘He doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone, except his customers.’
Bingo, he doesn’t. But we also shouldn’t pretend that he has. We can all decide individually based on the evidence and/or our preconceptions whether we think Rossi can totally live up to his claims or not, but the fact is, only a few people can verify Rossi’s claims beyond a doubt – and none of them are independent at this point.
If you believe him, great. If you don’t, great. In the end, it doesn’t matter what any of us believe. It will either work as he claimed, or it won’t. And it appears we’ll know in less than 8 months.
January 5, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Josh, I think that some of those who have seen Rossi’s E-Cat in action and are saying that they believe him are independent. Celani, Levi, (not Focardi), the two Swedes, and several others.
January 5, 2012 at 12:11 am |
Michael Morrison, “Let’s face facts rather than our hopes.”
Cool, but lets face all of the facts. Facts you haven’t addressed in your post:
1 – A dozen different sources have declared success in producing excess heat from the Ni + H reaction. Some of these are major names in the scientific world.(http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/)
2 – These “scientific” sources have written hundreds of papers on LENR. A couple of years ago SPAWAR made a major push to get LENR recognized. They pointed to their own work. They pointed to their published papers. They pointed to people who replicated their work. The result — they were defunded.
3 – Despite the above facts, wikipedia continues to repeatedly refer to LENR as “pathological science”.
Why would any one beleive that one more university, or ten, saying that they tested the thing convince the world.
Oh, and then there’s this: http://nickelpower.org/2011/10/30/the-aha-moment/ ‘Seems that the U. of Bologna is happy to test Rossi’s device. It’ll only take them 2 years and 1/2 million dollars! By time they are done, my home will be heated with a Rossi, and I’ll be building my experimental gas-free car.
Bringing the product to market is the fast way, not the slow way.
January 5, 2012 at 3:18 am |
> – It gives Rossi a competitive advantage
No. It would allow him to file a patent, such making sure he’s the only one allowed to license or produce it. (Google grace period).
> – Public demonstrations cost time that can be better used getting his product to the market.
No. He apparently has a unit heating his factory, no? Let 3 people monitor it for some day, in a black-box test. That is almost no work for him.
> – No matter what demonstration Rossi produces, public or private, it won’t settle the issue like an e-cat for sale at Wal-Mart will.
The opposite is true. You really think Wal-Mart would sell a _nuclear reactor_ without scientific backing? Do you have any idea of the risks involved, even if it’s really working?
> Why Rossi, why not SRI, MIT, USAF!
Because he is the only knowing the “secret ingredient”
> – Every demo so far has produced an barrage of armchair quarterbacks declaring that Rossi is stupid, or worse. Does he really need such abuse?
Every demo so far was, pardon me, crap. There was no independent black-box test, noone bringing his own devices, no test for longer than some hours. And yes, I saw the videos, and heard about the “secret customer” who was “happy”.
There is no reason to not allow an independent black-box test, other than the whole thing being a scam.
January 5, 2012 at 4:08 am |
John please obfuscate further.
Gregory Byron Amir Sprout Goble
January 5, 2012 at 9:21 am |
That is really arrogance, John. You are the only one clever enough to see it was a scam, and all those physicists, the two Swedes, they are just too stupid to see that it was a scam. Or, I suppose they could be in on the scam. Occam is rolling in his grave because of your words.
January 5, 2012 at 4:01 am |
Eventialy each wiil find the end… of our speculations. Look right… carefully! Then look to the left… by that time the puck went into the goal. Woa… Yeah! Oh no… oh well… all is good… Ecat.com is poised for complete certification… or not? Or is Defkalon with a ‘follow behind’ patent application… going to pull ahead? First to market wins…. hats off to Ecat for capturing world attention first.
Not so far in the future… the next generation in fact… will look back on our generation and know… without a doubt… that the term “energy shortage” was a term for un-enlightened minds.–gbgoblenow
January 5, 2012 at 4:50 am |
The Coulomb Barrier and the Plank Constant are both needed for the Theory of Relativity to incorporate Newtonian Physics with both nuclear and cosmological observed phenomenon. Hence, we have the brilliance of Einstein, and the quest for a grand unification theory. The theory of relativity will be overshadowed by new understanding of nuclear and cosmological phenomenon that bring us to theories that lead us closer to the grand unification theory. Nuclear theory is incomplete as long as theoretical constructs such as the Coulomb Barrier and the Plank Constant remain unexplained.
January 5, 2012 at 5:23 am |
Poetry Corner
An Ode to my Heroes…
Inventors, Free Thinkers, and Folks Finding Solutions…
DISCOVERY
It’s of great use to wonder
Why our minds wander in awe of it all
Being forever true! Seeking the new!
We are just now discovering that which has always been…
Impatiently awaiting us, craving our keen attention, and…
Hoping tor deeper understanding. Awesome is the…
Wonder of discovery… and the power of awe!
aw http://www…. my mind wanders in awe of it all.
gbgoble2008
January 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
It would not matter if he could produce ten thousand units. If they all shut down after 18 hours (longest demo so far), and then require cooling and cleaning and reset before operation again then the product is very poor quality.
This “stability” is in question, and whoever demonstrates a stable version first will get the accolades of Edison. We all know Joseph Swan had a unstable lightbulb, but Edison was credited for the invention because he made it stable.
@ Brucefast, (regarding Rossi patent)
Yes! Rossi may not need to know all of the science to achieve a patent, but he is claiming his product is stable. Nobody at this point in time has seen a stable product.
If some nutty professor builds a stable version in his garage, then his patent should override the unstable version.
Wikipedia quote
“Sir Joseph Wilson Swan (31 October 1828 – 27 May 1914) was a British physicist and chemist, most famous for the invention of the incandescent light bulb which he first demonstrated at a lecture in Newcastle upon Tyne on 18 December 1878 but did not receive patent until 27 November 1880 (patent No. 4933) after improvement to the original lamp. His house (in Gateshead, England) was the first in the world to be lit by a lightbulb, and the world’s first electric-light illumination in a public building was for a lecture by Swan in 1880.”
However Swan never got the real credit for the light-bulb, and any fifth grader will tell you it was Thomas Edison who invented the light-bulb. This was because he made the first “stable version”
Actually Edison is remembered for it because he made a public advertising campaign saying it, and Swan did receive patent credit in England. Swan may have received patent credit in the USA had he been more adamant.
This light bulb comparison strikes many resemblances to today’s LENR battle.
I just think it would be a smart move for someone to show their product can go the distance publicly. I feel the lack of this type of demonstration is because it is not yet possible.
If Rossi can go beyond 18 hours then he is a fool to hope people will just believe it on his say so, and whoever can prove they have a stable product will win the Patent race.
January 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
Rossi doesn’t yet have a market ready product. Why prove it now? Why not keep us waiting until the development, manufacturing facilities, and certification is complete on the product, then prove it?
What if Rossi actually has an 18 hour problem? Why admit it? Maybe next week he’ll solve the problem, and no one need to know. What if he doesn’t? (I honestly don’t believe that he does.) What does he gain by proving it now when he still can’t complete a sale?
January 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
Now for some fun. CNN has four articles telling us about the future of energy: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/01/05/energy-solutions-lithium-air-batteries/ Missing and even insulted slightly is LENR. One of these solutions is compatible with the E-Cat taking over the field of energy; can you guess which one? If you can guess which one, I will promise you a bright new energy future, compliments of Andrea Rossi, et. al.
I am enjoying feeling smarter than CNN.
January 5, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
Exactly! Rossi is doing the right thing if he cannot pass the 18 hour barrier. If he can pass that barrier and go for 36 hours as an example then that would prove it is now twice as stable as before.
I think it is a matter of how the courts will perceive his “success”. So far he “may” be able to prove he got an excess heat reaction for 18 hours.
If I was a judge awarding the patent I would need to consider who has the more stable product.
Rossi is acting perfectly for a man with a low stability product, but will likely lose patent rights to someone who can prove they have the goods.
Even if his product is not market ready, the first person to show a stable product will likely get the patent (unless identical). It should be a very important factor regardless of his “market readiness”.
Completing a sale is nothing compared with patent rights. In fact; he could be banned from the marketplace entirely, and may end up as a guy building bootleg blackmarket ecats.
I agree that he has probably passed the 18 hour barrier. Maybe even so far as 25-30 hours. Yet he has made no effort to show his product works beyond 18 hours, so that is his best “proof” to date.
It’s about legalities / Not sales.
January 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
kwhilborn, “I think it is a matter of how the courts will perceive his ‘success’.”
Kwhilborn, your ignorance is showing again. The courts DON’T CARE if there is a technical glitch. If he describes something that works AT ALL, and his claims cover some other person’s work, the fact that their work doesn’t have the technical glitch that his has WILL NOT register with any court.
January 5, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
I also think if the product was stable he’d already have sold over 1 million units. He cannot build units if they are just going to shut down everyday for maintenance. Every owner would want their money back.
January 5, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
You have never taken a product to market, have you. The amount of work that exists between working prototype (which is what has been demonstrated) and marketable product is HUGE. Blaming the time lag on “shut down everyday for maintenance” is absolutely not supported by those of us who have gone through this process.
January 5, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Brucefast,
You are absolutely correct, kwhilbornkwhilborn has never been through the process and it shows in his comment. A million units is an awesome number for a startup company to achieve in the short timeframes Rossi has set for himself – been there and done that with products myself and it is a formidable task – Go Rossi!
January 5, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
Incorrect!
We are talking about patents. AR has proved he has something. So can win a court battle if people want to start buying unstable products that need to be shut down and cleaned once a day.
Whoever proves they have a “ecat” that can run longer will likely get the patent however once they apply as they can claim the previous patent application was for a faulty device. It is common sense.
I have taken many college level law courses, and can tell you that most law boils down to common sense.
This entire aspect was neglected in the poorly written article I am commenting on, and legalities should be among AR first considerations.
So I am “ignorant” because I understand how AR ecat will be perceived legally. Let me give you a hint. The courts will have as much proof as we currently have. We will have testimonies from various professors and a lot of controversial and anonymous diatribe.
I stand by what I said. If Rossi could prove he could run an ecat beyond 18 hours then it would most likely be in his best legal interest to demonstrate it. Any mechanic can throw one together based on internet plans and get lucky with a stable model and beat AR to the working patent.
AR will only have his old unstable patent to fall back on.
January 5, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
Why did AR and Defkalion part ways? AR never gave a reason. Defkalion says it was because his product was unstable.
It is a FACT they were aligned as partners.
It is a FACT that Defkalion says they were prepared to give AR 15 million dollars if he could run it for 48 hours. It is a FACT that AR has not denied this.
It is a fact that nobody has seen any form of ecat run for 48 hours and swear to it, unless AR has.
I am all for this being the fuel of the future, and think AR should receive accolades, but I do think he needs to get the bugs worked out of his products.
I think we will have ecat cars, and in our homes.
I hate AR business model. He seems to want to build every ecat himself, and will be overwhelmed with black market devices when it hits.
Defkalion (although they haven’t shown anything) at least says they are willing to license manufacturers to build their products.
This is like inventing a car motor and then saying only he can build it. I don’t see billion dollar investments like I would love to see either. I see one guy working alone on Christmas Eve trying to stabilize his product.
According to Dennis Bushnell AR patents are claiming fusion as opposed to Beta Decay, and this chief Research Scientist at NASA Langley says AR has made the wrong claim on his patents.
I think that Piantelli or NASA stands better chances of getting more patent glory than Rossi.
I do think AR deserves some credit, but his antiquated and slow business policies are hurting the world. If he can prove it and does not then he is keeping the world in suspense.
He is killing starving children in Africa. He is supporting Oil Rich countries. He is helping to keep the world covered in smog. If AR can prove the ecat is real and does not then he is a money hungry coward. A real life “Mr Burns” from the Simpsons cartoon, and a similar appearance.
By proving ecat works he could
a) prove his patent rights by showing a stable product.
b) show the world that we are in a new era, and start research on all fronts.
c) start a business boom unlike any other.
buy not proving it he is?
readying his product for production?
Really?
In all honesty; if I had an invention this great that had the possibility of changing and saving lives I would stampede it into existence. Name a few schools after me and I’d be fine knowing I helped humanity so much in my lifetime. I would not be a profit monger and demand riches beyond that of Bill Gates.
Sure a few million couldn’t hurt, but he already has that. I’ve seen a Nickel/hydrogen reactor. It has no moving parts. I’ve seen more complicated items in my local dollar store. Yet we are seeing ridiculous price tags on these things. Did you see the first few reactors he built using tubes and an old radiator looking type thing. How much for a AR home unit?
My god! AR stopped being a saint a long time ago.
January 5, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
Where do I start kwhilborn? Defkalion parted ways when they refused to pay Rossi about 15 million euros on the pretext that his LENR device wasn’t proven to be stable. Rossi disagreed, and a rogue Defkalion board member said it was because they didn’t have the money. Who knows – Rossi is a bit eccentric. Apparently, Defkalion had a good idea how to make a working LENR generator without Rossi, so Defkalion’s decision to stiff Rossi might have been to conserve capital.
Rossi’s business model I break apart into two:
One, he decided to build a E-Cat manufacturing company from the ground up. At his first press conference last year in January he successfully demonstrated his working LENR generator, and said that the time for words is done, and the proof would be successful commercialization (not independent confirmation or successful demonstrations). So, Rossi is just being consistent. Besides, if you notice the outcome of his numerous successful demos and the number of experts testifying it works as Rossi claims, he only mostly skeptism and redicule for his trouble, so what do you think would have been the results of somebody testifying that they are independent and that they tested it and that it works. I bet the same thing – disbelief. Besides, Rossi doesn’t have patient protection (and I doubt anyone ever will), so it is understandable that he is a little protective of his trade secrets.
Two, he appearently decided to take high volume/low unit profit approach. While this is ambitious, and may delay actual successful commercialization, I think it shows what a humanitarian he is, because if he was selfish he could pursue a maximum profit model (or just sell his LENR formula to a gigantic oil company who would bury it never to be seen again).
Finally, I think you are being very harsh and unjust blaming Rossi for the world’s ills from the time he could have ideally successfully introduced his E-Cat to when he actually is successful. It is Rossi’s idea, and he seems to be trying as hard as he can. Morality can be judged by intent or consequence. Rossi also (inadvertently) is the “father” of Defaklion’s product, so he ought to get some credit for their eventually successful commercialization effort too. Do you blame Prometheus for a less than ideal introduction of fire? Not if he did the best he could, and didn’t fail.
January 5, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
Practicing patience is never an easy thing. Study helps pass the time. Explore the world of ‘patent process’ on Cold Fusion Now. Once you learn the ropes you can follow the patent process the E cat is undergoing. By the way, you make many many many statements that are a bit… well… enough said.
January 6, 2012 at 3:50 am |
Dave, Rossi does not need third party confirmation. At this point he needs a certified marketable product. Patent approval is for a unique device, it could be a useless device or a very valuable one. The patent process requires a device that is unique, and performs as stated. The patent process does not require scientific validation or theoretical proof. The patent process requires a device, that can be manufactured, that does what it is supposed to do. I, for one, believe that the route to patentability is much less fraught with hazards than the route to scientific acceptance. UL certification and nuclear regulatory approval are what will bring such a device to market…. not scientific validation.
January 6, 2012 at 4:45 am |
I know that I often seen patents for health food type products (not natural foods, which can’t be patented; I mean weight loose products and this sort of thing). Marketers try to use these patents to prove that their product is wonderful and should be bought because they are so wonderful. But the patents don’t prove diddly. They don’t even indicate anything.
January 6, 2012 at 4:21 am |
Oh, by the way consider this… After scientific validation (whatever that means… and however long that takes… or how contentious that may be) to bring it to market UL approval and nuclear regulatory approval needs to be met. Cut to the chase and succeed or dither and lose. Scientific approval is not required… as it was not required for Kleenex, the light bulb, or the airplane.
January 6, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
When a government, any government, stands up to the plate and deigns to, if not out and out support, at least acknowledge A.Rossi and his discovery (and the potential held therein), AND the financial markets take notice and begin to move due to the predicted fallout of what NFE(nearly free energy) means, then and only then will we have confirmation that LENR has the possibility to impact the world to the degree that we have discussed here.
When I wake up one morning and find that the USDCAD has busted down below $0.75, or that crude futures have fallen overnight by 20%, then I’ll fully believe in LENR and all of the hoopla and conjecture surrounding it. When the markets move, the world will take notice.
January 6, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
oops – upside down “USDCAD has busted down below $0.75″ should be $1.25 – a dollar twenty-five CAD to buy one USD.
January 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
So will I.
I’ve looked into nickel futures, they are presently at a 7 year low. $27 now under $10. Just out of curiosity of course.
If National Instruments has found fraud I think we would have heard of it. So if National Instruments is still on board they are most likely applying their expertise in gaining electrical safety certification; thereby beginning the process whereby the U.S. “government, stands up to the plate and deigns to, if not out and out support, at least acknowledge A.Rossi and his discovery”
If the folks behind ecat.com are still on board then they are most likely applying their expertise in nuclear regulatory clearance thereby increasing the the process of recognition possibly to the point of… “acknowledge A.Rossi and his discovery (and the potential held therein),
I agree with you completely in this…
“AND the financial markets take notice and begin to move due to the predicted fallout of what NFE(nearly free energy) means,”
I believe MIT seems to have a misplaced concern about the economic fallout of new technology and a need to protect the carbon infrastructure from economic ruin. You may agree…
http://web.mit.edu/annualreports/pres07/08.12.pdf
MIT Energy Initiative
http://web.mit.edu/energylab/www/pubs/el98-004a.pdf
ISSUES IN ENERGY AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Stephen R. Connors
M.I.T. ENERGY LABORATORY
From page 4
Those who argue for a gradual transition point out that there are many ways to increase energy efficiency and therefore energy sustainability even as we continue to use fossil fuels. Another reason for taking a gradual, evolutionary approach is that we need to balance the environmental advantages of a transition to renewable and inexhaustible resources against the economic and social costs of the transition.
“Our fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure represents a massive global investment in goods and services. As we make the transition to other sources of supply, we need to make sure that we do not squander our past investment in fossil fuel infrastructures.”
From page 11, Conclusions part IV
Governments, corporations and consumers must develop policies and practices that meet both financial goals and broader economic, environmental and social performance goals. Such transitions in both technologies and policies will require long, sustained efforts.
“Fortunately, incremental improvements in energy use are less disruptive to the economy and society-at-large, and offer many side benefits.”
From page 14, Appendix: Thoughts on Mapping: Scopes and Levels of Knowledge
“The scope of our energy-related research is certainly important (transportation, agriculture, residential, commercial, industrial//fossil, nuclear, renewable, end-use efficiency, operational efficiency), as will be the our ability to move ourselves, and our audiences up, the knowledge infrastructure.”
January 7, 2012 at 11:46 am
Greg, I would be slow to throw money at Nickel. I once calculated that if all of the energy we currently use were converted to e-cat energy, its nickel consumption would be about 50% of current nickel consumption. Nickel is unbelievably abundant. Nickel mines are set up based upon very tight criteria like ease of access to transportation, ease of access to the metal in the ore, etc. If we increased our nickel usage by 100 times, we’d still have no trouble at all finding good quality ore to mine.
As to MIT’s “lets take it slow” discussions, well, I am scared of them. They will not stop the e-cat from pouring into the marketplace because the world is a big place run by multiple governmental systems. However, it may slow the arrival of the e-cat into the “first world”. This will leave the “first world” nations at a distinctive disadvantage going forward. As I live in one of these nations, that scares me. I fear that “first world” will be a term that means “has been”.
January 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Useful site regarding the “melt” value of US coins. The nickel has been above parity for some years now. If you read “Boomerang – a walk in the new third world” you probably would have remarked on Kyle Bass and his purchase of $4 million of US nickels (20 million of them). His reasoning? The treasury, he believes, will be cutting the 25% of nickel metal found in the US nickel coin – in the next couple of years. A nickel is 25% nickel, 75% copper. Funny thing that – imagine a coin operated cold fusion jet engine. “Mommy, can I have a nickel for the jet ride?” “Here you go dear, try to be back by next Wednesday.”
Brucefast, a couple of topics that would be fun to discuss.
LENR’s impact on:
• Agriculture (nitrogen fixed fertilizers, Arctic green houses, desert oasis’ via desalination)
• Third world countries (economic, health, water)
• Impact on cities – why live there?
• Personal transportation
• Global warming, sure CO2 will ebb, but what of all that extra heat?
January 7, 2012 at 1:38 pm
Cities will be more livable, and more people will be able to live outside of the cities.
January 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Ha! Sorry – http://www.coinflation.com/
January 7, 2012 at 1:35 pm
I have been a health hobbyist for the past 40 years, so I guess I am an expert on the matter, although I don’t appear to be the smartest guy in this room.
Billions of dollars have been and are spent on the so-called war on cancer. So far, this war has been a complete failure. Currently there is a new idea of using vaccines to fight cancer. It looks very promising. If you know the history of the war on cancer, you know that it is mainly a war on anyone with a new idea other than chemo and radiation. So, if something gets the label “a promising new idea”, that is the kiss of death. The FDA will shut cancer vaccines down, one way or the other.
And the health treatments and preventions that get hit the hardest are those that violate the current theory of how things work.
This is the position of LENR currently. It is a threat to the establishment financially, and it violates their theory. So don’t be surprised if they try to shut us down.
January 7, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Anthony Mole, thanks for understanding what the primary mission of this site is about. About your list:
LENR’s impact on:
• Agriculture (nitrogen fixed fertilizers, Arctic green houses, desert oasis’ via desalination)
• Third world countries (economic, health, water)
• Impact on cities – why live there?
• Personal transportation
• Global warming, sure CO2 will ebb, but what of all that extra heat?
I have addressed each of the above topics within posts, but I have not made separate posts for them, except for global warming: http://nickelpower.org/2011/04/12/global-warming-solved/
You will find it an interesting read to check out: http://nickelpower.org/ebook-format/
Its a bit out of date, not including the most recent posts. But it is the text of all of the earlier posts.
I will endeavor, however, to make individual posts on your topics above. If you want, make your own posts, and stick them in the “post” topic. I’ll forward them up even though I have been a bit sluggish at forwarding other people’s topics up. (They are less “on topic” than your list is.)
January 8, 2012 at 11:44 am
my own computation,
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=725
using numbers from defkalion
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=836
is that
replacing all energy, by electricity produced from 25kW 5core Hyperion (33% efficiency) will consume 10% of todays nickel production.
building the Hyperions at 5500eur each, will lead to 15% annual GDP of investment (3% in 5 years)
maintenance at 200eur per year per 5core hyperion will cost 1Eur/MWh thermal
nickel 0.007eur/MWh thermal
investment amortized in 10y will cost 2,5eur/MWh thermal
multiply by 3 for electricity price
nuclear, the cheapest, might be around 40-100eur/MWh electric
the only market signat of belief of LENR will be :
- solar/wind get junk equities
- biofuel too
- oil future get moderates like 5 years ago
- oil engineering and prospection get crash but still valuable
- big geostrategic quake around middle-east, oily africa, venesuela
- all industry not concerned by those crash, get better future and equities
January 8, 2012 at 5:47 am |
While I will grant you nickel futures will not be greatly affected by LENR technology in the short run, it will be critical in the long run to secure nickel supplies. “Those that control nickel, control space.”
It is difficult now to visualize the amount of mass that is going to be boosted out of our gravity well in the next few hundred years. As the current main constraint on our economy (cheap and abundant energy) vanishes, the next constraint will be raw materials, and those will have to be found outside of our planet.
The amount of “wealth” outside of our planet is virtually infinately more than that on Earth, and the victors will get the spoils (and again, for those without nickel those spoils will be unavailable).
Again, those entities who wake up to LENR Ni-H first and seize nickel supplies, will be the ones to control the future.
January 8, 2012 at 6:41 am |
Nickel futures have decreased in cost from $27 to under $9 in seven years. Demand has decreased. (few countries now mint coinage) Supply has decreased slightly although can easily step-it-up and increase. There is a lot of nickel on the planet and it may triple in value (returning to previous value) if countries decide to mint coinage once again or…
thank you for this Brad
“It is difficult now to visualize the amount of mass that is going to be boosted out of our gravity well in the next few hundred years.”
I love Space X, a private company sending more payload into space than any government. Go to their site.
Imagine a Saturn 5
Three stages of hydrogen and oxygen… solid fuel… high power to weight ratio… dense.
With a small habitat and payload.
Reverse it.
Small power plant.
With all the rest of the rocket space and weight for habitat and payload. WOW. Possibly enabling us to get off this rock and onto another planet (Mars) Plasma jet… Ray Bradbury… or NASA.
see recent Nasa LENR patent.
A heavy electron stream may enable a plasma jet propulsion rocket.
Ecat produces heat while NASA recently filed patent for a LENR device creating a heavy electron stream.
Check it out.
The pictures of the 1MW Ecat… alot of space between the shelves. between the units, and in the aisle. Sure could fit in a much much smaller space.
January 8, 2012 at 10:20 am
Long view of nickel prices: http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/anonymole/NickelPrices_1997_2012.jpg Am I going to ask my bank to let me purchase $10,000 of nickels – no, not today. But if I had an extra $10k (or 100k) hanging around, maybe then, yes.
I personally would like to see a startram solution : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram which is a maglev type space launch solution. With a vast bank of LENgines charging UltraCap capacitors that then drive the magnetic field on the rail – we could be loading orbital and La Grange points with space station way points within 10-15 years.
January 8, 2012 at 11:46 am
forget about speculation on nickel.
you should rather sell renewable, and bet on work and industry.
January 8, 2012 at 2:03 pm
+AlainCo, I read some of your comments on Defkalion forum – sounds like you, like Brucefast, have spent a fair amount of time pontificating about the implications of LENR. Enjoyable reading – thanks.
I wonder what the likes of Azimov, Heinlein, Clark and other science fiction writers might have made of this development. No doubt many of our extrapolations of the future regarding NFE would fit well within this realm.
As to investing, I would think that land, marginal land, might be worth considering; marginal in both meanings: on the fringe as well as poor in quality. I would consider ideal land to be,
• within 10 degrees north or
• within 10 degrees south of each of the tropic lines,
• that is too dry to farm,
• but is seasonably pleasant to live within
• that is within spitting distance of a large body of water
• that has variability in its elevation
• that is within a moderate to progressive country
Land above and below the lines of the tropics generally are desert like. But the climate is seasonably tolerable. Picture Mediterranean, or Floridian but along the coasts of Mexico, West Sahara/Morocco, West Australia, Namibia, Peru/Chile. I’d gladly live in any of those locales provided I could help build vast communal agricultural communities where none exist today. All due to LENR’s promises.
January 8, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
Thanks Anony Moe,
Wow StarTram is a great read.
which led me to this…
Institute for Advanced Studies in the Space, Propulsion and Energy Sciences
MISSION
Integrating the sciences toward rapid advancements in basic research that will lead to new developments in the SPACE, PROPULSION and ENERGY SCIENCES toward new earth and space uses, with a eye on their applications for the exploration of space beyond present day visions.
http://www.ias-spes.org/index.html
Then to a conference they co-hosted in May 2011.
http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/COFE4Review.htm
Where we find NASA speaking on this again…
Following the award ceremony was our special banquet speaker and former COFE2 speaker, Dr Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center. His amazing talk entitled “The Frontiers of Energetics and Space Propulsion” was filled with validations of many theories and hypothesis that IRI has supported for the past 10 years, including acknowledgement of zero point energy utilization and LENR, with the latest Rossi Experiments.
The Frontiers of Energetics and Space Propulsion;
The “Responsibly Imaginable”
Abstract: Presentation surveys the Frontiers of Energetics going forward and considers potential applications to space exploration and propulsion. The basis of space utilization and exploration, beyond the current positional “Earth Utilities” and small robotic science studies, is Energetics. Obviously we have reached the plateau for Chemical Propulsion. Beyond Chemical lies a territory which is partially known [fission Nuc] and largely unknown. Brief considers this “terra incognita” including SBER, LENR, Metallic H2, Aneutronic IECF/ P-B11, Atomic species, “Cold Fast Compression”, Isomers, “Compact Reactor and Positrons. Also considered is the emerging option[s] of energy beaming, separating propulsive mass [which can be scavenged insitu] and stored/ beamed energy. Methods which might reduce the beam divergence issues are considered, as is High Thrust MHD. Overall – a large and growing number of options should be seriously studied and triaged to determine their efficacy including their real performance possibilities, operability, cost[s] and safety. In the NASA TRL Parlance these are mostly still at TRL 1 [or less], require investment/ evaluation – to enable Space writ large. Dennis M. Bushnell
Chief Scientist
NASA Langley Research Center
dennis.m.bushnell@nasa.gov
I cannot find the full brief only the abstract. Can anyone provide me a link?
January 8, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
Why should Rossi prove it? Good article. I agree with all your points. Plus the fact that Rossi is a smart, competent entrepreneur, he realizes he must also win in the market place for his invention to make the impact he wants.
January 9, 2012 at 1:56 am |
By the way, lately Francesco Celani has written a series of emails to 22passi blog explaining what he will talk about during WSEC 2012 at Geneva in the next few days and answering related questions that people made on that blog. This was the important bit of the full abstract available there:
In these weeks our group, working with long and thin wires having the surface coated with micro-nano-particles, get re-confirmation of a phenomenon, by us, seldom observed in some previous experiments: the specific alloy used (Cu-Ni), that usually has Positive Temperature Coefficient (PTC) of the resistance, if absorbs large amount of Hydrogen, changes to Negative TC. Such phenomenon is correlated to anomalous heat production and increases as the anomalous heat increases. If such key phenomenon will be kept under full control, because its behaviour can be observed with simple instrumentation, it can be open the door to systematic work, worldwide, to find the “optimal” material and operating point.
1: Original post about the World Sustainable Energy Conference 2012 (partially in English)
2: Post containing an important excerpt from Celani’s abstract to his talk (partially in English)
3: Post regarding the WSEC conference (downloadable press conference in English)
4: Celani answers some questions and clarifies a few things (I) (in Italian)
5: Celani answers some questions and clarifies a few things (II) (in Italian)
There’s also been a short discussion about this on Vortex-l mailing list.
January 14, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
Mr Moho, thanks for the links. the negative resistance is most interesting. I think its a marker and evidence with what is happening when the reaction occurs. We just need to understand it. Seems like the evidence is piling up, hopefully someone makes the mental jump to figure it out.
January 10, 2012 at 11:36 am |
This doesn’t disprove anything any more than “Rossi Says” items prove anything, but it certainly doesn’t seem like a positive change. My company green-washes everything it does, so if the e-cat works as advertised, I can’t believe the mystery company wouldn’t want to shout their ‘green-ness’ from the rooftops.
Andrea Rossi
November 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM
Dear Herb Gills:
Today we sold in the USA a 1 MW plant which will go to a normal Customer. This installation will be visitable by the qualified public.
We wait to have completed the contractual procedure through the attorneys, then we will give communication. It will be in the North East of the USA, where I have been in these days.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
——————————
eCatNow!
January 8th, 2012 at 10:50 PM
Dear Mr Rossi,
I know I have asked you this question before, but I wondered if the situation has hopefully changed over Christmas and New Year. Are you able to publicly name the company who is the second customer of one of your 1MW eCat systems?
The last I heard from you was that it had to go through some legal hurdles first.
Thanks,
Craig
———————————
Andrea Rossi
January 9th, 2012 at 4:55 AM
Dear eCatNow!:
I did not say absolutely that we had to go through any legal hurdle! I just said that our Customers want not to be exposed to the tsunami of contacts and emails that usually rain upon our Partners of any kind when we give their names: therefore we had to sign “non disclosure agreements” regarding anything we do with them.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
January 10, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
and the beat goes on
January 15, 2012 at 10:49 am |
Be well…
I like this… everyone would rather know sooner than later.
Mullumbimby, helping to save world
Nicky Phillips, Philip Chan
January 13, 2012
“The entrepreneur Dick Smith has sent a consulting aerospace engineer, Ian Bryce, who has a science background, to assess the machine on his behalf.
If Mr Bryce, who as a member of the Australian Skeptics has experience testing the scientific veracity of all sorts of weird and wacky things, gives the technology the thumbs-up, Dick Smith will give the group $200,000.
Dr Rossi, who works for the US based Leonardo Corporation, claims his E-cat machine can take a small amount of energy and drive a reaction between atoms of hydrogen and nickel which can, through an unknown process, produce a large amount of energy, far exceeding the initial energy input.”
From the Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/mullumbimby-helping-to-save-world-20120112-1pxj2.html#ixzz1jPEuM365
Oz skeptic offers prize if Rossi’s E-cat works
Presentation in hippie-ville
By Richard Chirgwin
12th January 2012 23:10 GMT
From the Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/12/smith_offers_ecat_prize/
“Australian entrepreneur, philanthropist, skeptic, aviator and eccentric Dick Smith has offered $AU200,000 for proof that the Andrea Rossi “energy catalyzer” actually works.”
Warm regards and electrifying anticipation,
gbgoble
January 15, 2012 at 11:00 am |
200,000 Australian dollars is WAY too little to tempt Rossi to stop his work and cater to some skeptic. If the E-Cat is real, then Rossi should not bother with the $200,000; he should get on with developing it. If the E-Cat is fake, then Rossi would not dare to bother with the $200,000.
January 15, 2012 at 11:12 am
Roger, Rossi should take him up on the $200,000 offer just for the chance to show the world that the E-Cat really works. The fact that he won’t accept the challenge should be all the evidence you need to conclude that Rossi is conducting a hoax/scam.
It’s like how people who claim to have psychic powers won’t accept James Randi’s $1 million dollar offer to anyone who can show psychic ability under test conditions.
January 15, 2012 at 12:34 pm
It would require some investment in time for Rossi to prove to this skeptic guy that his units work. Although $200,000 might be worth it.
How do you explain the fact that Rossi refuses money from the likes of you and me?
I am sure the backdrop to all of your opinions is the Coulomb barrier ideas. I don’t have that backdrop because I assume that LENR is not based upon a hot fusion paradigm. He even admits that his business is risky; how do you explain that. A real con would assure you that it was a certainty.
January 15, 2012 at 11:16 am
RSVP and listen to the discussion on Skype. I look forward to it. Rossi may just win the $200,000 with words alone… not a test… not a demonstration… not a stop work order… perhaps a convincing discussion on the physics behind the Ecat fusior. Awaiting with “baited breath”. Go Rossi! Loves a challenge I imagine… or not?
January 15, 2012 at 12:37 pm
I love this discussion. I have been a student of the edgy and scientific revolutions my entire life.
My feelings are 90% for Rossi. My head is exactly unsure. It is hard to believe. If an energy engineer were to have a wet dream, it would be an E-Cat.
January 15, 2012 at 12:39 pm
What discussion on Skype? And what is Skype? I heard the discussion from yesterday. I prefer Aussie Guy’s synopsis: shorter, easier to understand, more to the point. But Rossi does have one of those very cute Italian accents.
January 15, 2012 at 11:21 am |
p.s. As I read it Rossi does not get the money… If convinced, the money then goes to the Australian investment group…
January 15, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
Money going to someone else, yes, I remember, you are right, Greg. So why should Rossi bother? He has more important things to do, like change the world.
Anyway, my experience with hardcore skeptics is that I wouldn’t want to be in the same room with one. And if I were, I’d have to take a shower afterwards.
January 17, 2012 at 4:42 am
Exactly, Roger! You perceive opponents as “unclean”, the way a Nazi regards Jews or Slavonic sub humans. Or a high caste Brahmin forced to mix with unclean untouchables.
This is typical of belief-based exclusive cults. Dissidents from the core set of irrational dogmas are rejected, and finally perceived as evil or even physically polluting.
January 17, 2012 at 10:07 am
Craig, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You may be addressing me but are responding to someone else. I have done that one occasion.
January 17, 2012 at 3:37 am |
Some people here believe Rossi, some people think it’s a fraud. I fall between the two – I think he has had occasional (but not independently verified) success in producing excess power, but that he has problems in reliably starting and controlling the process. His public or filmed demonstrations of the eCat seem to me to be inadequately instrumented and thus too flawed for scientists to accept as unequivocal. His early claims of >200 power excess have diminished to 5-6 and now 2-3.
This is a problem, since he needs acceptance of his design in order to get enough funds in order to complete his development. His work is based on the granted patent by Piantelli in 1990 that claimed an excess power of around 20%. Rossi’s published design is still based on Piantelli’s, which has inherent problems if it were to produce a large amount of heat – getting that much heat from a powdered core will give wildly different temperatures at the centre of the core to that at the outside, making meltdowns highly likely if the control systems do not measure and react quickly to those temperatures. Rossi’s control systems appear to be simply adjustment of the heat input using a knob on the blue box. Not ideal.
This is the sort of project that needs a multidisciplinary team of engineers and a few theoretical and practical physicists to have a decent chance of getting something running in a reasonable time. I can understand Rossi’s reluctance to disseminate his working knowledge among a larger group (more chance of losing the idea to someone else as with Defaklion), but this is what he really needs to set up. He frequently states that he is working 16 hours a day at the moment to get the commercial version produced – this would not be necessary if the design was correct and reproducible, since he has built a few by now and should know the methods off by heart. I infer thus that his design is not optimal, and that he needs to change it to improve the heat transfer paths and the control systems.
In summary, I think that Rossi’s public demonstrations have failed to start a reaction due to his inadequate understanding of the underlying processes, but that he does have something that sometimes works. I wish him every success in getting the bugs ironed out, but I fear that his approach means that this won’t happen this year, and that someone else (NASA?) may beat him to it in getting a system that works reliably enough to sell to the general public.
January 17, 2012 at 4:15 am |
Gosh, where do I begin?
“His early claims of >200 power excess have diminished to 5-6 and now 2-3.” Nonsense. He never made an early claim of <200 power – that was only experimental notes, never a claim. Furthermore, it has never diminished to 2-3 (his first 1MW contract stated over 6).
"…he needs acceptance of his design in order to get enough funds in order to complete his development." Nonsense. It is the results that matter, and he is seems to have enough funds already (he isn't soliciting more investors, at least publicly).
"His work is based on the granted patent by Piantelli in 1990 that claimed an excess power of around 20%. Rossi’s published design is still based on Piantelli’s, which has inherent problems if it were to produce a large amount of heat." Nonsense. Did Piantelli get over COP 6? As far as the "device," – it is the core that matters, the rest is plumbing. As far as the shell handling a lot of heat – I noticed the 1MW LENR power plant seemed to handle the heat just fine.
" He frequently states that he is working 16 hours a day at the moment to get the commercial version produced – this would not be necessary if the design was correct and reproducible, since he has built a few by now and should know the methods off by heart. I infer thus that his design is not optimal, and that he needs to change it to improve the heat transfer paths and the control systems." Nonsense. The device has already been submitted to UL for certification. Did you ever build a new manufacturing plant from the ground up?? Do you think he is building those e-cats with his own hands??? Of course any design can be improved (for instance Rossi's team has eliminated the hydrogen canister under pressure and now the H is gained from within the reaction chamber).
"I think that Rossi’s public demonstrations have failed to start a reaction due to his inadequate understanding of the underlying processes…and that someone else (NASA?) may beat him to it in getting a system that works reliably enough to sell to the general public." Nonsense. NASA is going to design and produce LENR generators?? And beat Rossi to the punch??? And that Rossi's public demonstrations have failed to start a reaction???? Rossi is planning to produce 1 million units in an automated factory starting fourth quarter of this year. NASA is not in the business of business – just study the what the acronym NASA means – besides it is a government agency, not a commercial group. But the thing that is really absurd is the statement that "Rossi's public demonstrations failed," WTF have you even been paying attention????
My suggest is that you stop, and restart from the beginning again. You seem to have it all wrong. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts, and you seem not have a good grasp of the rudimentary facts here.
January 17, 2012 at 6:39 am
Brad: Good post, i do not have the patients you do, I guess that is why they are called super skeptics.
January 17, 2012 at 8:51 am
Brad – I sincerely hope I’m wrong and that Rossi does do what he says he can, but I stand by the comments above. The publicised videos available on the web fall short of being conclusive, though I believe he has had good test runs that have not been videoed.
Distribution rights are one way of raising money – look at the cost of these on Rossi’s site. The core and its control method are key to making the device work, and the problems of getting the heat out of a powdered core are the reason why a 1MW eCat is made up of around 130 units plumbed together. As you say, the rest is just plumbing.
I must have missed the announcement of UL certification submission – this is a major step forward and, once gained, should be sufficient in itself to stop people saying it can’t work. I already think it works, but not yet reliably.
NASA need something for long-distance spaceflight power sources. Fission reactors need too much heavy shielding to be useful on, say, the Mars mission, so it is definitely something that they would develop if they can. Once it is developed, of course, it would be passed on to someone else to commercialise it, like a lot of other NASA technology.
When these devices are actually on sale I shall buy one. It will be good if Rossi is the first to make them available since he has put a lot of work into it, but I’m not betting on it being this August.
January 17, 2012 at 6:31 am |
Are you suggesting we need another trillion dollar program like the ITER project, good luck!
January 17, 2012 at 9:02 am
No Bernie, I think that a lot of small teams trying out different methods is the way forward. So far, it has been largely regarded as bad science and as a good way to destroy your reputation to even accept that LENR is possible, let alone try to build one. If Rossi gets something out there that works, then there can be no question that it is real and useful, but in the meantime there remains a large number of skeptics who simply say it can’t work.
Given that it does work, a trillion-dollar program might prove to pay for itself within a year or two, given the price of oil at the moment….
January 17, 2012 at 10:33 am |
We, “believers all”, probably admit, if only to ourselves, to a tiny pocket of doubt tucked back in the dark there somewhere. Despite the religious fervor displayed at times here and on other sites, LENR is science and still much in discussion; and as such, healthy skepticism of any science is just that – healthy.
However, disregarding the technology for a moment, I find that Rossi’s, Defkalion’s and even NASA’s handling of public information, news worthy announcements, and general media exposure leaves much to be desired. They all appear to be bumbling the job. NASA’s 2 minute afterthought video, Rossi’s audio interview on “SmartScareCrow” radio (fringe at the extreme), Rossi’s personal management of his own forum and email, these all speak, to me, either 1) fumbling amateurs or 2) subterfuge.
This is the “New Energy Frontier”, let’s have some solid, credible reality enter the scene. We can debate the hearsay and speculation ’till we’re blue in the face. And in the end, as of now, y’all must admit that much of what we “know” IS hearsay and speculation.
In the interim, we can, as Bruce has intermittently instructed, explore the future world of NFE. What might abundant NFE mean to the people and the planet?
Here’s a thought – will all non-flood-control dams be decommissioned? What will this do to the fisheries? Will species like salmon return to pre-industrial numbers? Do we really need Hoover Dam and the Glen Canyon Dam? Will we pump desalinated sea water from the coast to Las Vegas now? Will the mighty Colorado River run once more into the Sea of Cortez?
January 17, 2012 at 11:21 am
I regret that I can see no reason why artificial fertilizers and additives and pesticides will NOT be decreased by Rossi’s E-Cat, assuming that Rossi is telling the truth. In fact, since organic foods are more labor intensive, there is a chance that non-organic foods will become cheaper more than organic foods, and people will be more tempted to buy the non-organic foods rather than the organic foods. This will further increase the cost of organic foods.
January 17, 2012 at 4:40 pm
When re-engineering the Ecat for market, the expertise and reputation of both National Instruments and the partners behind ecat.com is something worth considering.
Rossi’s audio interview on “SmartScareCrow” radio (fringe at the extreme) discloses some nice improvements (resulting in a re-engineered Ecat ready for market). Rossi also disclosed that his partners expertise is being utilized to design a factory for mass production. Both are in line with what one would expect from his partners.
UL certification requires a finished product submitted for electrical compliance. Rossi says National Instruments is moving along at a nice clip with this. I believe him.
These things take time. He and his partners are are fast tracking the Ecat. It seems monumental to achieve what they are out to achieve in less than a year.
The health and safety approval may also include a nuclear regulatory stamp of approval as well as certification of any pressurized container, I reckon his partners are having the appropriate agencies on board with this process as well.
I was delighted by Rossi’s audio interview on “SmartScareCrow” radio (fringe at the extreme).None of which needed to be disclosed to us at all. It seemed to me to be directed to those who have been following the Ecat developments and not aimed at the marketplace. If so, he chose an appropriate venue.
Think how cold Sweden and Switzerland are with such long winters and virtually no daylight for months.(neither have any of the north sea oil) I imagine his two Scandinavian partners of ecat.com would be mightily screaming mad at any fraud on Rossi’s part… including any false statements in his recent interview. I also believe they want this to brought to market as quickly as possible and will spare no expense.
Anyone doubting this perhaps should join the local Skeptics Society where one can learn rules of skepticism and see if my reasoning is completely unsound.
Do ya really think the devise is unstable?
With warm regards and electrifying anticipation…
By Autumn…. impressive work by Rossi and his esteemed partners.
January 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm
This is getting more and more ridiculous by the month. Rossi is going to get UL approval and mass produce something he’s never shown to work? It’s all more “Rossi says.” None of it is confirmed.
It’s like the E-Cat/LENR is a cult, and you’re all Rossi’s brainwashed followers. I’m just waiting for the Jonestown ending.
January 18, 2012 at 11:47 am
Dave, your belief that Rossi and his E-Cat are bogus is no more proven than is our 90% certainty that Rossi and his E-Cat is real. So, you risk looking like a fool just as much as we risk looking like a fool. Just because something is not proven does not make it false; just because something is not disproven does not make it true.
January 18, 2012 at 7:33 am
Dave, “It’s like the E-Cat/LENR is a cult” Actually e-cat might be a cult, but LENR is science. I know it is impossible for you to figure that out — if Rossi is a fraud, then all of LENR is a fraud in your little mind.
January 18, 2012 at 8:10 am
brucefast I would say that people who think LENR is anything more than fringe science are members of Rossi’s E-Cat/LENR cult. All we’ve ever gotten from LENR are reports of anomalous excess energy that can’t be replicated and can’t be explained by existing theory. We should continue to research it, but anyone who thinks Rossi or anyone else can make a working product right now from LENR is incredibly gullible. Nothing real will ever come from Rossi’s E-Cat claims.
January 18, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Dave, your statement that LENR has not been replicated is not true. It has been replicated.
January 18, 2012 at 8:19 am
Dr. Brian Ahern of Ames National Laboratory says, “This 5 watt excess is very much less than Rossi, but it is a real and repeatable experiment There was no radiation above the background level.” SPAWAR has stated that the undergrads at UCSD have replicated their work for 3 years running.
You are right about one thing, LENR is fringe science. That, however, is the problem! The very fact that it can’t be explained by existing theory is the main reason it shouldn’t be fringe. The fact that LENR could transform the world, and NASA says that it could, should also be plenty reason enough to put LENR on the front burner of the majority of energy-focused science labs in the world. Even if Rossi is a hoax, if LENR gets the level of energy it deserves, it won’t be long and it will be optimized.
January 17, 2012 at 10:27 am |
Roger
“Craig, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.” But yes, you know perfectly well what I am talking about. I am talking about you not wanting to be in the same room with people who disagree with you, and wanting to take a shower afterwards. That’s quite obviously what I’m talking about!
January 17, 2012 at 11:16 am |
Craig, you are some kind of mind reader. That is very impressive. Perhaps this is why you think that Rossi is a crook, because you have read his mind.
Now that you reminded me, I remember. I did not say “disagree”. I said something like “skeptical science type” or some other reference to people who refuse to look through Galileo’s telescope and then persecute him as a heretic. Yes, I don’t want to talk to those kind of people.
But I admit that the shower bit is a little over the top. I think the cleansing necessary is my own resentment due to other people’s profound and deliberate stupidity.
Craig, you don’t get flak from us because you disagree with us. Dave and Peter continue to have my good will. I give you flak for ONE and ONLY ONE reason, because you won’t look at the evidence.
January 17, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Hey Roger Bird,
oops… meant to post below yours but I posted above yours.
Sorry ’bout that… with warm regards and electrifying anticipation.
January 18, 2012 at 9:32 am |
Can we cease the derogatory statements going both ways please. Nobody bloody knows what’s going to happen with all of this. Let’s just wait and see shall we? And in the mean time dream and explore of what it COULD mean for the world, its ecology and its peoples. Please.
January 18, 2012 at 10:36 am |
Anony
OK, but how long to we wait? This is not a trivial question. I have discussed it with brucefast, and we in general terms concur that people should be held to the timetables they set down themselves, and that they should produce some sort of results.
We must continually examine Rossi to see if he is meeting these criteria. By any standard of reasonableness he is not! Brucefast appears to have persuaded himself otherwise, I admit.
But if we say, wow this will (IF IT IS FOR REAL) be very important to the world, so let’s be patient forever, and not ask him to produce anything at all, then we will get nowhere. That is the state of mind that scammers try to induce – for very obvious reasons – in their potential victims.
Also, Rossi tells lies, as even Brucefast admits, and he has a criminal record for energy swindles, gold smuggling and tax evasion.
All this looks like a swindle. But in any case, it is up to Rossi to show results, and that means info about the operation of the allegedly marketed units. But he won’t tell us anything about this.
Imagine … Edison sells light bulbs. Can we meet a satisfied customer? Of course. Can you please switch it on for me? Of course. Rossi, on the other hand … It’s ludicrous! It’s time for him to put up or shut up.
January 18, 2012 at 11:48 am |
Craig, In 1989 Pons and Fleischmann announced that they had achieved fusion in a bottle. In the same year Nasa announced that they had reproduced it. Now there are over a dozen sources, some very prestigious scientific institutions who have achieved this phenomenon with Nickel + hydrogen — two inexpensive and abundant materials. Yet the scientific consensus remains to be that LENR is “pathological science”.
How long do we wait for the world, including the scientific world, to figure out that LENR, and specificially Ni + H LENR is real.
Craig, how long do we have to wait for you to express an educated opinion on Ni + H LENR?
Rossi is beside the point.
January 18, 2012 at 2:22 pm
brucefast, keep in mind that many of those who announced that they were able to reproduce P&F’s cold fusion results later said their results were caused by errors. NASA might be one of those, but I don’t know.
Here’s the bottom line because I don’t think I’m going to waste my time posting here anymore. LENR is a fringe science. There is some promise, but nothing has been shown to work. More research is needed, but don’t think anyone can make a real product from it yet. Rossi is obviously conducting a hoax/scam. ALL of the evidence points toward this conclusion. I wish the E-Cat really worked, but I know it doesn’t beyond a reasonable doubt.
January 18, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Dave, you have no more proof that Rossi is a scam artist than we have the Rossi is for real. The difference is that we know that Rossi has not yet made his case, but you don’t mind shitting on a person’s name without positive proof.
If Rossi is such a bad guy, how is it that you know this via the internet and the legal authorities in Italy haven’t arrested him.
January 18, 2012 at 2:32 pm
I hold the fact that Nasa continues to keep the report on their website without a rider as proof that Nasa continues to stand by their 1089 statement.
“Here’s the bottom line because I don’t think I’m going to waste my time posting here anymore. LENR is a fringe science…”
Dave, please feel free to not post here anymore. You are obviously above us. You are obviously above:
Dr. Brian Ahern, Ames National Laboratory
Dr. Joseph Zawodny, NASA
Quintin Bowles, University of Missouri–Kansas City.
George Miley, University of Illinois
Piantelli, University of Siena, Italy.
Mike McKubre, SRI
Francesco Celani, National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy’s equivalent of Los Alamos)
and
M. Swartz, MIT
It has been an honor to bask in your tutelage even for this short period of time.
January 18, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Unfortunately, Dave’s tutelage is without consistency and integrity.
January 18, 2012 at 7:18 pm
Roger, “Unfortunately, Dave’s tutelage is without consistency and integrity.”
What are you talking about Roger! Dave knows more about the science of LENR than the fine list of physicists I provided for him. Don’t you realize that yet? We have been sitting at the feat of the great master.
January 18, 2012 at 7:31 pm
But brucefast,
Dave and Craig Binns do not apply the same evidence standards to Rossi’s character as they do to the reality (or lack of reality) of LENR. You can’t go around calling someone a crook with even less evidence than there is for LENR.
If Rossi is such a crook, why aren’t criminal charges leveled at him? I’m not holding my breath.
Dave and Craig are inconsistent because they don’t have the same standards for Rossi as they do for LENR. Dave and Craig are lacking in integrity. Part of integrity is knowing that you do not know. I am absolutely certain and comfortable with that certainty that I am not certain, and I will remain so until such time as more and better evidence comes forth. In the mean time, my feelings are very hopeful that Rossi’s E-Cat is for real. My left brain is uncertain; my right brain is 85% sure.
January 18, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Roger, you don’t seem to be following what I am saying. I am saying that Dave is a narcissist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narcissist).
January 19, 2012 at 6:04 am
Why a narcissist? If not looking at the evidence is narcissism, then I guess he is a narcissist. Is there something else I missed?
January 19, 2012 at 7:33 am
Roger, in not even bothering to look at what my list of scientists has to say, Dave is declaring that he is superior to those scientists. In fact he is declaring that he is way superior to them, to the point where they don’t deserve a hearing. What do you call that?
January 19, 2012 at 9:10 am
brucefast, he could also be so insecure that I didn’t want to confuse himself with uncertainty.
January 18, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
Craig – There should be no doubt, if you read the documentation at NewEnergyTimes and LENR-CANR.org (and NASA), that LENR is real science. Both you and Dave are getting sidetracked by Rossi’s past and the way he has run his demonstrations. It also doesn’t help that everyone else in the LENR/CANR/Cold Fusion group have something “just a few months” away – and some of them are asking for investors, distributors etc. – a classic scam scenario.
This is real science, yes, but it’s also relatively new and not-well-understood. It needs a lot of work to find the right configuration to make it function as advertised, and technical setbacks will be frequent. It is therefore understandable, at least, that Rossi has been behind his schedule, since you can only plan when you know all the variables. At the moment I think no-one knows enough about it, but of course I could be wrong.
We’ll see this year. Maybe.
January 18, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Simon Derricutt, you are relatively new here. Craig Binns will NOT look at any evidence concerning LENR.
I realize that that probably is sort of astonishing, but I somethings think that the stupidity of Craig Binns to refuse to look at the evidence of LENR is even more amazing than is the claims by Rossi.
Why Craig can say that we semi-believers are foolish to believe the soft evidence that we get from Rossi and the hard evidence from LENR, yet he is unwilling to look at ANY evidence whatsoever, it is just amazing. (sorry about the grammar).
January 18, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
Craig,
This book will help you research the duplicated experiments.
Table 2 in the Storms’ book “The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction” show close to 200 independent replications of excess heat. There are also over 100 replications of tritium.
For the year 1990, see:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/WillFGgroupsrepo.pdf
Enyoy.
January 18, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Greg Goble, you are also new here, bless your heart. Craig Binns will not be reading any books that support the idea of LENR, no matter how compelling you say that the evidence in the books are.
Craig Binns deliberately and knowingly avoids any material that may support LENR or Rossi. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is being paid to trash LENR and Rossi. This makes him a paid liar, if true. The evidence that he is a paid liar is at least as good as the evidence that Rossi is real.
January 18, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
Greg
You state, oddly, “Think how cold Sweden and Switzerland are with such long winters and virtually no daylight for months.(neither have any of the north sea oil)”
Greg, Switzerland is cold in winter because of its high ALTITUDE, not its high LATITUDE, so it has a perfectly normal amount of winter daylight. On 8 Jan 2012, sunrise in Berne was at just after 8 am and sunset at about a quarter past 5 pm. Just as on the same latitudes in neighbouring France, for example.
But perhaps Big Science is hiding this fact in order to suppress support for Rossi and his world changing e-cat!
January 18, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
Craig
oops.. Sweden is the one with less sunlight… At least I got part of it right though. Both are cold.
I don’t understand your last sentence… could you explain what you are meaning to say… maybe in a different way?
January 18, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
Greg
I was just trying to be funny. As you know, some Rossi supporters perceive conspiracies among scientists to suppress LENR. I was fantasising about these scientists interfering with Swiss sunrise and sunset times for similar nefarious purposes.
January 18, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
Craig, “As you know, some Rossi supporters perceive conspiracies among scientists to suppress LENR.”
Yes we do! I don’t know if “conspiracy” is the correct term, its more like a conspiracy of ignorance. As with you, Dr. Peter Thieberger, who dares to publish his opinion on LENR theories, have maintained your ignorance on LENR.
I repeat
In your opinion, what is the likelihood that the “Nickel + Hydrogen = over-unity heat” phenomenon is a valid phenomenon?
January 18, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
Brucefast
I’ll give you a more considered reply tomorrow, but I consider it to be very implausible. In stars energy production by means of fusion stops at Fe, as fusion of iron or heavier elements absorbs rather than produces energy. This is the mechanism that induces supernova explosions once the cores of stars have been transmuted into iron.
We also have the problem of the alleged products of the reaction, which consist mainly of copper, seemingly in the isotope ratios observed in nature. This is quite extraordinary, to say the least.
But more to come.
January 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
Craig, “I’ll give you a more considered reply tomorrow.” I’ll hold you to that. Please, Craig, start by following the links that reference real scientists at http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/
January 18, 2012 at 1:23 pm
brucefast, please don’t hold your breath on that one.
January 18, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
May I add that my rejection of the reaction applies only to the supposition that it is nuclear. That is, CF or LENR. If you mix powdered metals with hydrogen under pressure and heat it by wiring it up to the local power supply then all manner of things may happen. Chemical and physical things. But these are trivial and won’t change the world, green the deserts or provide you with steam powered snowmobiles.
They might produce enough whiffs of wet steam to fool a few visitors to your laboratory, however! Assuming they don’t demand to measure the gamma ray flux, that is.
January 18, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
They also do not prove that Rossi is a crook.
And the lack of gamma rays does not prove that something other than fusion or fission is not happening.
January 18, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
I don’t begin with the supposition that the phenomenon is “nuclear”. However, I am rather sure that the scientist cited are smart enough to eliminate known chemical reactions.
I don’t know about you, I know about me. My focus is purely on the reality of the phenomenon: Nickel + Hydrogen = anomalous heat. I bet my scientific understanding is equivalent to yours, but I choose to conclude that as a theory analyst I simply don’t qualify.
January 18, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
Craig – sporadic emissions of gammas and neutrons above background have been observed – read the various papers. They are much lower level than would be expected for a classic fusion scenario, and are not particularly correlated with energy production, but they are there.
Note that a neutron has no Coulomb barrier to overcome, and that its capture cross-section gets bigger the slower it is. In a hydrided metal we have a lot of protons at thermal energies held in the metal lattice, and we have plasmons (groups of electrons acting together, like a wave in the sea) that can donate their collective energy to one of their number (as suggested by Einstein in 1951 or so to Sternglass) and thus make a very slow neutron. This slow neutron then wanders the lattice and, in a few atoms’ space, gets captured by the nucleus and thus makes it heavier. The energy released is given off, most likely as a gamma that is absorbed by the plasmon and transferred to the lattice eventually as heat. This is basically a restatement of the Widom-Larsen theory in words.
It’s a nuclear reaction, just not in the plasma method that we are reasonably happy with since we see it in stars.
January 19, 2012 at 9:19 am |
Calling a pattern at the quantum level a “law of physics” is like saying that tossing dice long enough and getting snake eyes roughly 1/36 makes getting snake eyes 1/36 of the time a LAW. If I punch an officer of the law in the nose, I will get arrested 100% of the time(, and probably be very happy that that is the worst that happens to me.) That is a law.
What I am trying to say is that these quantum “laws” were derived from a lot of trial and error, not from principles. If we can’t see at the quantum level, and if we try to see at the quantum level we change what is happening anyway, then I don’t see how we can call them hard and fast laws. And all of these so-called laws were derived using particles going close to the speed of light, and we know that things get “funny” close to the speed of light.
March 8, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
Canadian classifieds ads…
[...]Why should Rossi prove it? « nickelpower[...]…
May 24, 2013 at 5:46 am |
If you prove it.
Any difficulty patenting these sorts of things in wider markets goes away.
The risk of someone else publishing break through proof and getting credit is eliminated. Historically inventions have often been a race to get credit as well as a race to finalize good design.
We have big important problems that can largely be solved by clean energy so ethically if you have a key insight getting as many resources working on it as possible would be good.
So past the question of what he really has what is his real motivation? How rich and how much power does he want to wield and what kind of world would he wield it in?