“There’s a mark born every minute, and one to trim ‘em and one to knock ‘em.” –David W. Maurer, The Big Con (1940)

But how could you tell? There’s lots of amazing science going on out there, and none of us can be experts in it all. Moreover, even when we think we know how things ought to behave, nature has a way of surprising us, and that’s usually via experiment, which is our first indication that our theories are incomplete.

Image credit: CERN, via http://home.web.cern.ch/students-educators/updates/2013/04/find-higgs-boson-lhc-public-data.

Image credit: CERN, via http://home.web.cern.ch/students-educators/updates/2013/04/find-higgs-boson-lhc-public-data.

So what do we do when a new experimental result comes out, contradicting our theoretical expectations? The first responsibility we have is to vet the quality of the experiment itself. If we don’t have a quality experiment, we don’t have something worth spending our time and energy on at all.

Image credit: from the Levi et al. paper.

Image credit: from the Levi et al. paper.

Where does the latest e-Cat test fall? Come find out here!

Comments

  1. #1 eric
    October 16, 2014

    If you were going to test this device to discriminate between the two options, what would you demand from the test?

    Complete design plans so that an independent team can build an apparatus of their own, and test it without any interaction or intereference by the inventor team at all.

    Without that, just forget it. No need for other criteria; you fail that one, it’s over. Even Pons and Fleishman allowed other people to build their own replicate devices, and many different independent groups went about testing it on their own…with no patent disputes that I’m aware of. The line about protecting patent rights is at this point, IMO, baloney. IIRC the patent has already been filed, and they can use all sorts of binding contracts with the indpendent test team so that they can’t legally claim the invention is theirs.

    So they’re claiming that the Nickel-58, 60, 61 and 62 are all being burned away somehow, and yet they’re providing no data on copper.

    Just a quibble: they report 99% Ni-62 by isotopic composition in the product. Without the actual amount values, it is impossible to tell whether they are implying that the Ni-62 was unaffected (i.e., they ended with the same amount they started with) or that they are implying some neutron decay, for example Cu-63 (p, 2n) Ni-62.

    Second quibble (or maybe it’s just an observation), I vaguely recall that many of these guys are on the same bandwagon as the older cold fusion guys in claiming that they’ve discovered a new non-gamma-emitting form of nuclear reaction. IOW, they acknowledge a lack of gammas, but instead of seeing that is disconfirming evidence, they view it as evidence of some new form of fusion.

  2. #2 BenHead
    New York
    October 16, 2014

    Makes me nostalgic for EESTOR’s claims about their ultracapacitors. At least those were vaguely plausible!

  3. #3 eric
    October 16, 2014

    I should add that the fact that we are having this discussion in 2014 after Rossi claimed to have a working device in 2011 is pretty strong evidence that his claim is bunk, in one way or the other. Either there’s no fusion or no working device which can (re)produce it.

    Last thought for the moment: Cu-64 has a 12-hour half-life. If they claim to be producing it, it would be trivially easy to give a sample of the copper to a different independent lab and have them stick it in a beta counting setup. Nuclear chemists and radiochemists worry about counting methods for things with millisecond half-lives. Particle physicists probably worry about microseconds. For both groups, testing stuff with half-lives in the minutes to hours range is a cakewalk. Its what you let your undegrad assistants do.

  4. #4 D. C. Sessions
    Socorro, NM
    October 16, 2014

    They also (at least in the coverage I saw) claim that the isotopic distribution of the lithium changes. Which, despite the low binding energies of lithim 6 and 7, is still a pretty high energy transition.

    That, or they’re claiming some sort of nuclear menage a trois. Which just dials up the “SRSLY?” meter by a range or twelve.

  5. #5 BobFromLI
    October 16, 2014
  6. #6 Sinisa Lazarek
    October 16, 2014

    @5 Bob

    that means China will make one in 8. hehe :))

  7. #7 Sili
    October 16, 2014

    What’s the story behind the first set of pictures?

  8. #8 Patrick Dennis
    October 16, 2014

    Why is this claim even worth a post?

  9. #9 Fill
    October 16, 2014

    Fraud. It was already covered elsewhere.

  10. #10 D. C. Sessions
    Socorro, NM
    October 17, 2014

    And now Lockheed Martin is claiming a fusion reaction that will power an aircraft in 10 years…wha???

    Aircraft carrier, not aircraft, but yeah. Breakthrough claimed is in magnetic confinement, though, not some sort of new nuclear chemistry.

  11. #11 daedalus2u
    October 17, 2014

    If patents have been filed, then secrecy is not an issue. The patent applications have to disclose enough information so that someone skilled in the art could replicate it. If the patent application doesn’t, then it is of zero value if it ever issues as a patent and it should not issue as a matter of law.

    The big flaw in this setup is how they did the thermal radiation calculations. Alumina is partially transparent to the thermal radiation the inconel resistors are giving off. That radiation is picked up by the IR camera. If you assume that all the radiation comes from the alumina surface with an emissivity of alumina from a table, then you will get the wrong answer.

    It is like trying to measure the heat flux from a light bulb by measuring the radiation coming off, and assuming that the emitter is the bulb envelope, with the emissivity of glass, and not the filament (with the emissivity of the filament).

    This was the same error that Pons and Fleischmann made. They used radiation heat transfer between objects that were partially transparent and used single point, lumped parameter calibration at a different temperature than the temperature the “excess” heat was measured at. You can’t get accurate results that way.

  12. #12 CimPy
    October 17, 2014

    Exposing a hoax is always a good thing to do, as it lives on ignorance and silence from those who can tell something on it.
    Good job in exposing this one, I appreciate your clean style.
    I would also remember this strange excuse they wrote about getting a “small” cop of only 3.6 whereas years ago Rossi claimed for 200 (and more!) that it was as they were only testing if an “effect” was present – while Rossi claimed he already sold and shipped a working 1MW plant in 2012 (which, of course, disappeared) to a secret customer (who obviously never came out).

    See you around.

  13. #13 Amanitin
    October 18, 2014

    I saw an awesome comment on this on slashdot.
    Anyone claiming to have a box that produces energy, phase sync it to the grid, hook it up, run your meter backwards and collect the checks. Then call me.

  14. #14 David Palmer
    October 18, 2014

    I left comments on the medium.com site. But basically, they are doing the thermography wrong (monkeying with emissivities) and at the recalculated temperature (~875 C vs 1400 C) there is no evidence of excess heat production.
    The picture of the dim-red-glowy device with the bright-yellow-hot Inconel wire coming out of it shows that the tube is at a much lower lower temperature than the wire (which itself is no hotter than Inconel’s melting point ~ 1400 C).

  15. #15 Axil
    October 18, 2014

    It was not too long ago as marked by the painfully slow march of science that Steven Chu won himself a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for his ground breaking research at Bell Labs in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light. His fame in this supreme accomplishment afforded him the privilege to serve as the 12th United States Secretary of Energy from 2009 to 2013. This Chu experiment produced a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC): a state of matter of a dilute gas of bosons cooled to temperatures very close to absolute zero (that is, very near 0 K or −273.15 °C). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale. But these days progress in science is moving so very fast that science cannot keep track of all the advances it is making by the hour.

    There is huge resistance from the scientific community being deluded in a religious fervor that a BEC is a state of matter that can only exist at extreme temperatures very near absolute zero. However what is little known among the rank and file among science is that polariton condensates have been experimentally demonstrated to persist at room temperatures as recent quantum nanoplasmonic experiments have shown. Unlike atoms, polaritons are malleable forms of the Electromagnetic force shaped and combined as a composite waveform of infrared photons and electrons involved in dipole motion.

    A great scientific breakthrough was demonstrated in the latest third party test of Rossi’s E-Cat. A polariton BEC was established for days at 1400C protecting the structure of the reactor from meltdown.

    This demonstration alone is worth a Nobel Prize. And yet science is ignoring this technical breakthrough. When science ignores this experimental feat, they are shooting themselves in the foot; they are also tossing away a paradigm changing demonstration of quantum mechanics, and worst of all they are showing how smart people can be the worst kinds of fools.

    In this new form of light/matter environment, a new quantum mechanical environment is created in which radiation is evenly distributed throughout the entire structure of the Rossi reactor. With science failing to pick up the ball here, it is now up to the engineers to make proper use of this new wonder.

    When the full extent of this dereliction of duty by the scientific community is finally realized by ordinary people, and you can be assured that it will be, there will be hell to pay among those who should have known better.

  16. #16 Stephan Pomp
    October 18, 2014

    Excellent work Ethan. You clearly formulate the requirements for a real test and show in an easy to follow and detailed way how the latest E-Cat report fails to live up these requirements.

    However, it will never help to convince the Cat-believers. It has become (or was from the beginning?) pretty much a religion. Even when Rossi admits manipulating samples his fans ask “so what?”.
    My take on this is here: http://stephanpomp.blogspot.se/2014/10/mr-rossi-i-admire-you.html and the comment section proofs the case.

    In addition I can say that of all the responses from E-Cat fans I have received (including “TPR” authors Bo Höistad and Hanno Essén) none is concerned about the technical and scientific issues raised but rather hold that “Rossi is trustworthy” or question my motives (ad hominem).

    It is furthermore pretty amusing to see that it is Rossi who goes out to defend the report but not the authors. So much for independence.

  17. #17 AlainCo (@alain_co)
    France
    October 18, 2014

    you express The usual conspiracy theory.

    first you deny the 150+peer review papers that report excess heat without much radiation, plus the one reporting tritium… (if you don’t have that tally, why do you talk about that subject ? for you naturwissenschaften, Journal of electroanalytical chemistry , JJAP are bunk journal?)
    if you apply scientific method, LENr is proven, and this is just an industrial claim.

    note that I am still waiting for a single article that is not refuted on current calorimetry knowledge that challenge F&P (just F&P, not even the McKubre, Miles, Bockris, Oriani, Spawar, NASA GRC, ENEA, Navy NRL,…) who confirmed.
    Beaudette who made a detailed review of that story, based on his mass of documents (donated to J. Willard Marriott Library of the University of Utah), listed 4 critic article, all debunked, by lewis, Hansel, Morrison, Wilson….
    Wilson debunk hansen and Lewis and confirm the excess heat. Morrison is too incoherent and is not maintained…

    the calorimetry is good and the only pretended debunking are simply
    – theory
    – failures

    most of the failures are today understood, by factors like loading, polarity, contamination by H, and metallurgy (parameters identified by ENEA recently, but everybody noticed success dependent on batch)…

    note also that if you were documented you would know that absence of energetic gamma, and neutrons is a coherent observation.
    either you challenge the scientific method, or you admit there is a new kind of nuclear reaction, based on collective behaviors probably…
    You could read the latest book of Ed Storms on LENR theory… he raise the same problems as you, but he simply use those constraints to reduce the possibilities to collective effect in an insulated quantum structure, the NAE.
    theory is still to develop but nothing else can be, or you deny scientific method.

    note that there was clear observation of “heat after death” which is what you call as device working alone. this effects , replicated by not easily reproducible, are basically ignored by critics, because it cannot be denied given the size of the effect. (except by conspiracy theory).

    so I could start by saying that you start by a denial of science.

    anyway E-cat is an industrial claim in that domain.

    about your vision of levi as working for Rossi, of course since you know it is a fraud, you know it cannot be a scientist who simply have seen the e-cat work, and report the facts facing people like you who know without any evidence he is wrong.
    how would behave someone aware that this machine works ?
    your vision, a catch-22 is that anyone having worked on that subject is corrupted… recursive thinking.

    maybe one should stop here, since all is corrupted better not consider evidence ?

    let us assume all scientist are not corrupted, which is the simplest method to dismiss science, like 153 peer reviewed papers have already been dismissed… all fraud, no evidence required… is that science ? or conspiracy theory ?

    now about the hidden wire fraud in 1st test, notice that one tester report having unpluged the installation and checked the sockets and plugs were normal, plus behaved in a very skeptical way (searching hidden wires)… forget the coaxial cables…

    note also that you assume Rossi is stupid enough to let the testers touch and measure all they want, remove plugs, on so easy tricks ? first rule of stage magic is to control the observers. this theory ,and any that can be detected easily, cannot hold.
    same for DC offset, inverted clamps…

    of course you swallow the Pomp&Ericsson pamphlet which is well debunked by Bo Hoistad http://ecatnews.com/?p=2620

    note tha Stephan Pomp proudly said he was contacted to participate the 2nd test, and like Huizenga or others skeptic, he proudly refused saying he had something better to do…
    he refused to look into the telescope.

    strangely his coment on his blog disapeared…

    Charles Beaudette in Le Cri De Coeur chapter of Excess Heat explain that this is the usual behaviors, to flee lab.

    it is a shame, the kind of shame that you would like to debunk if you were not already convinced, and locked in recursive thinking?

    now the second test is much more independent (of course you already assume it is not, so easy answer it does not work)…
    but you imagine errors…

    more than that it is not Rossi, but Cherokee group, supported by Tom Darden, who send the reactors… your conspiracy involve many people in that company…

    the method by IR cam is classical for hot object, and someone recently explained very well that if flow calorimetry or any contact calorimetry would raise many more conspiracy theories…
    this method is simply the one which less the less doubt .

    the strongest evidence of the reality of the effect is the moment when power is changed from 800W to 900W and temperature jump from 1250 to 1400C (in fact it is the opposite, the temperature consigne was changed).
    for people who imagine conspiracy theories and assume incredible errors, and improbable situation, this change cannot be explained without a COP>1.

    the 800W/1250C period could be for skeptics used a a calibration period, and 900W/1400C is a test that is impossible with COP1

    even the assumption of clamp error on the two wattmeters are impossible to explain that way…

    add to that again the fact that Industrial heat could not be sure an error was made , and thus that the reactor was sure designed to work.

    you are incredibly gullible in defending that conspiracy theory.

    all of that is because you cannot accept that good old physics is more complicated in a lattice than what you already know…
    my semiconductor experience make me more aware of solid-state subtleties.

    just reanalyze you own vision as if you were debunking a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

    for a list of 153 peer reviewed papers on excess heat report
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf#page=6
    plus others on tritium (for those who don’t knwo , Gary taubes theory is a farud, a cherry picking, plus not matching observation, plus don’t apply to many others replications of tritium)

    for
    synthesis of current situation
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00114-010-0711-x
    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcoldfusiond.pdf

    for a good history synthesis, epistemology analysis
    and descriptionf the vacuum of skeptic argument
    http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=35
    note also page 359 in le cri du coeur, the description of how Huizenga refused to go in the lab, and how Harwin and Lewis have visited McKubre inspected all, and found nothing bad, saying nothing on that fact…

    are you so much in love with your old textbook that you dump common sense and scientific method like Stephan Pomp ?

  18. #18 dean
    October 18, 2014

    This demonstration alone is worth a Nobel Prize. And yet science is ignoring this technical breakthrough

    It will be ignored because there is no there there – it’s a scam.

  19. #19 DB
    October 18, 2014

    …”When We have the observations, your theoretical predictions don`t really matter.”

  20. #20 Vivek
    USA
    October 18, 2014

    A quibble about criterion 1: Can’t an external (input) power source be easily and reliably measured by putting the measuring apparatus *outside* the experimental setup? i.e., Before it reaches the input to the device, say by putting an ammeter in series with the input source?

    And note that having no external power sources should not strictly be a requirement — there may be legitimate reasons for this — e.g., the output power may not be stable enough to suit the current device.

  21. #21 Stephan Pomp
    October 19, 2014

    The funny thing with you, AlainCo, is that that you seem to argue that LENR is proven. Well, maybe.

    Then you seem to argue that E-Cat = LENR.

    But note: this blog post (and my comments about the E-Cat and Rossi make you furious) are about the E-Cat and how unscientific the tests are. The reports produced are of not only bad quality but many flaws and mistakes have been clearly identified. All that has been reported about “the” E-Cat (quotation marks since there is about a dozen different version and contradicting claims) shows that it is bogus! Both the claims about the Ni-62 and alsothe COP measurements.

    So, AlainCo, if you insist that E-Cat = LENR then LENR is as dead as the Cat.

  22. #22 Bruno
    ILLINOIS, USA
    October 19, 2014

    It would have been so easy to measure the thermal energy out. Run cold water over the in a manner with efficient heat exchange. Ensure that the temperature and flow rate of in going water is cold enough and large enough to preclude boiling (that way there are no questions about steam quality). Knowing the flow rate and temperature change will give you the thermal energy produced by the apparatus. Trying to measure thermal emissivity is difficult and hard to understand.

  23. #23 tyy
    Finland
    October 19, 2014

    Thank you, Ethan, for a very good and thorough analysis. I am glad you have time and motivation to debunk the E-Cat nonsense.

  24. #24 Dr Bob
    www.drboblog.com
    October 19, 2014

    Hi Ethan,

    I have two hypothetical question for you and hope you could consider finding time to answering them.

    IF you would be invited to participate in demos or tests on Cold Fusion apparatus in the future:

    * Would you consider doing that? Y/N
    (If Yes – Why?)
    (If No – Why?)

    * What would be your criterias for participating in a test / demo?

  25. #25 John Atkinson
    USA
    October 19, 2014

    Imagine the times when microscope was not there, everything was conveniently sized, the smallest things in the world were about an mm wide and everyone took it for granted that what one could see is all that’s there.
    The microscope opened up doors to an entirely new world, trillions of tiny creatures, particles and what not, alive and as complicated as other animals, our world was reduced to a tiny part of this vastness. The microcosm dominates, outnumbers and overwhelms our ‘normal’ world. STM simply shrunk our world further.
    Similarly, telescope opened up a grand universe, we were reduced to an absolutely insignificant speck of dust. The sizes and distances are beyond our grasp. Discovery of EM spectrum shows that we can see the universe only through a tiny keyhole called visible light. We can only experience a narrow range of temperatures with a few degrees compared to what exists.
    Discovery of electricity, magnetism and nuclear forces again shrunk our world and QM shows that we know nothing much and just scratched the surface of it all.

    Every one of such breakthroughs results in reducing our world, the perception of it, to nothingness. E-Cat would be the greatest of breakthroughs, the king of discoveries, imagine what it can do to our world view.
    Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. I know I have imaginations and thoughts, but I don’t know how I imagine and think them.
    I don’t read ghost stories. When I want to scare myself, I read quantum mechanics. Virtual particles, constantly popping into and out of existence everywhere? Quantum entanglement? Tachyons? Cats existing in a superposition of being dead AND alive? Teleportation? Slowing down and speeding up light? Neutrinos constantly flying through the whole planet and us as if we weren’t here? Adding chaos to a system to make it more orderly? Particles that know when they’re being observed? 90% of the universe being made up of stuff WE CAN’T EVEN DETECT???
    It’s enough to make a scientist soil his lab coat out of FEAR.
    And what the hell are magnets if not spooky??? I ask you.
    A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

  26. #26 Chaz
    World
    October 19, 2014

    Hello Eric,

    I had a question about this.

    ” 1) A device that demonstrably was generating its own, self-sustaining energy reaction, unpowered by an outside source of any type.”

    Would there be anyway to convince you that the E-cat is not fake and still use a small amount of power to ignite LENR process to gain more energy? Are there any scientific methods concerning only to requirement 1) to protect one selves from this deception? Tools, and measurements etc.

    If it’s true that there needs to be some electrical energy coming from an outside source based on the blue print of this technology. Wouldn’t then, all the replications that come after this won’t satisfy you because most of the replication procedure will call for the same method. And will any of the scientists have the means to make a heat to electricity generator to make a closed loop?

    I was also curious about your thoughts on hot fusion testing. They require huge amounts of energy to charge and then compress, smash, or push together to start the ignition. If we only focus about energy coming from an outside source. In particular to NIF (national ignition facility), which could be considered an over priced ray gun. I do know the differences of validity, with extensive literature, peer reviewed, and the theories are with in the limits with our current day physics. NIF technology wouldn’t pass your requirements correct?

  27. #27 Ingo Heinscher
    Germany
    October 20, 2014

    If Rossi and Industrial Heat are smart, they invite people like Ethan to do an additional, independent test that follows the outlined . People who are extremely skeptical, yet in theory willing to accept that there might be something we don’t know yet.

  28. #28 Trebor
    here
    October 20, 2014

    @Chaz#26
    With the amount of energy the E-cat is supposed to produce it would be trivial to be able to test this conclusively.
    Yet all we see are these badly done demonstrations, with very unsuitable testing equipment.

  29. #29 Wow
    October 20, 2014

    Ingo, that would only be smart if the product worked as indicated.

    It would be dumb to let that happen if it were a scam.

    The reluctance of Rossi to let anyone look at it properly speaks volumes.

  30. #30 Wow
    October 20, 2014

    Chaz, proving the device works requires testing to see that it doesn’t work.

    Piltdown man was “accepted” by European scientist as genuine and it was only after it was dissected critically that it was found to be faked.

    Skepticism and critical inquiry are part of science, which is why self-proclaimed “skeptics” of AGW are no such thing: the IPCC are all skeptics. But having investigated the claims have found most to hold up, and changed the ones that didn’t. AGW “skeptics” (i.e. deniers) never do either successfully.

  31. #31 Øystein Lande
    Norway
    October 20, 2014

    The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do.

    Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons said it started with an idea, a dream.

    And we noted then and now the theoretical physicists that likes to talk.

    Unfortunately, talkers are usually more articulate than doers, since talk is their specialty.

    But talkers have never been good doers. It’s the doers that change this world.

  32. #32 Per Nikolai Haukeland
    Norway
    October 20, 2014

    Alain report that it exist 150+peer review papers that report excess heat. Are all this reviews failures? If the answer is Yes, them I understand Ethel and Pomp standpoint. If the answer is No then Ethel and Pomp are extremely dogmatic.

  33. #33 eric
    October 20, 2014

    @26:

    Hello Eric,
    …Would there be anyway to convince you that the E-cat is not fake and still use a small amount of power to ignite LENR process to gain more energy?

    Sure. Use a detector to ensure there is no radioactive material in the room prior to turning it on. Stick germanium detector next to the device, turn the device on remotely, and see the gamma spikes predicted for Ni(p,gamma) reactions. Turn it off, and watch the gamma spikes go away. Then have an independent team take the device apart and look for any possible hidden gamma sources. If there are none, that would go a long way towards convincing me. Of course I’d still want an independent team to reproduce it.

    NIF technology wouldn’t pass your requirements correct?

    Well, first, the “self-powering” requirement wasn’t mine, it was Ethan’s. I actually don’t think its necessary, and in fact I think a set up where they try to meet the self-powering reqirement might make testing the fundamental science more difficult. My requirement was independent reproduction.

    But I digress. NIF is actually a scaled-up version of multiple, independent, prior systems, so yeah, it’s basic principle (shoot lasers, produce x-rays in a holhram, get some fusion) passes the reproducibility test. NIF’s products are also fully consistent with what we understand of nuclear physics. A D-T reaction in NIF produces the same signature radiation that D-T reactions at other facilities produces, and that we predict from the math, so it’s reproducible in that way, too.

  34. #34 Con + Fusion | Donal
    October 20, 2014

    […] The E-cat: cold fusion or scientific fraud? (Synopsis) […]

  35. #35 Eric Albers
    sudbury,ontario
    October 20, 2014

    I have been following this for some time, it happens that discoveries can be made by ‘independent ‘ armature scientists, however, this is clearly a case of fraud most foul.
    Most Foul, because it taints peoples vision of the scientific method, but perhaps a ‘good’ fraud, in that it can be used as a educational exercise to show a magician and his tricks to the public.
    I would ‘love’ for this to be true, however, even the most simple of people who love the scientific method would laugh at the parade of sillyness presented as fact.

  36. #36 Eric Albers
    Sudbury,ontario
    October 20, 2014

    To those who are concerned about ‘sparking’ the device….
    You must understand, a combustion engine requires a battery to ‘get started’, but there is NO DOUBT that it is the fuel which delivers the power.
    Here we have the opposite, posing as the fact. Yes, he could have a ‘heater’ spark the reaction, but at some point, you must unplug your generator from the grid and show that its the gasoline which powers your house…if you cannot unplug, your a fraud.
    I own 3 generators which are powered by gasoline, I must use a battery to start them, BUT, the battery is FULLY charged very quickly by the engines, and I have watt-hours to show for the gasoline spent.

    Where does this E-Cat unplug? WHEN does it?

    Steam to electric is not that hard to make, even in small scale, If this Rossi guy wants respect, build a steam to electric generator, (or buy a existing one) small scale, and show us how after ‘sparking’ his reaction, it self sustains for more than a hour or so….PROVE your claimes as Occam would say, else, occams razor says, you are a lie and are a frauld.

  37. #37 RetiredEE
    Ontario, Canada
    October 20, 2014

    If these researches were given the task to determine the number of trees in the forest, they would count the number of leaves in the forest, then divide by the number of leaves on an average tree. An ordinary person would just count the trees.

    1. The best way to run this experiment is to keep the reactor tube at a constant temperature, using a simple feedback control circuit. The temperature transducer would be attached to the outside of the tube, in the middle, in plain sight.
    2. Why not do two 24 hour dummy runs (no fuel in the reactor) at 1200 and at 1400 degrees? These runs would provide baseline data and verify the correct operation of the temperature control circuitry.
    3. With the tube at a constant temperature and the ambient room temperature constant, the heat loss mechanism simply DOES NOT matter.
    4. With the tube at a constant temperature, there is absolutely no need for the pages and pages of heat loss calculations provided in their report.
    5. With the tube at a constant temperature, a reduction in the heater power would be a direct measurement of the heat (power) produced by the reaction.

    With the constant temperature regime, it would be instantly, unambiguously obvious if the fuel generated heat. The temperature feedback would reduce the heater power in order to maintain the set point temperature.
    I find it difficult to understand why the investigators chose this complex method, unless, of course, they hope that pages of bafflegab about emissivity and convection losses would deter any detailed verification.
    I can’t help but wonder, what was the purpose of the experiment?

  38. #38 eric
    October 21, 2014

    I find it difficult to understand why the investigators chose this complex method,

    Well, as you say, the investigators may not have chosen such a method because their intent may be to make it harder to confirm, not easier to confirm, what is going on.

    But I’ll take a bit of issue with your proposed process. *I* would not use it as an independent investigator because heat is not a direct indicator that there is any fusion going on. Heat could be explained by novel chemistry. If I, as the investigator, am really focused on testing the claim of whether nuclear fusion is ocurring, I’m going to spend most of my effort looking for gamma rays, and my controls are focused around eliminating potentially fraudulent sources of gammas (such as a smuggled in source, or someone hacking the detector software). To be honest, I’m probably going to discard the heat data altogether because I really don’t care whether this reactor reaches break-even point or not. That is, as far as I’m concerned, a problem for future engineering development. I’m far more concerned with testing whether they’ve actually achieved desktop fusion.

    I can’t help but wonder, what was the purpose of the experiment

    My guess? To spur/increase private investment.

  39. #39 axil
    October 21, 2014

    Eric: I can’t help but wonder, what was the purpose of the experiment

    Elforsk is a cooperative research and development institute that is made up of utilities and other energy companies in operating in Sweden. Elforsk’s CEO Magnus Oloffsson wanted to know if LENR realy worked so he paid for the test.

    Eric: If I, as the investigator, am really focused on testing the claim of whether nuclear fusion is occurring. I’m going to spend most of my effort looking for gamma rays

    This is a bad assumption. A high temperature boson condensate of Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) mitigates gamma radiation through super-absorption following the N-squared rule.

    You should concentrate on looking for evidence of boson condensation.

  40. #40 eric
    October 22, 2014

    axil:

    A high temperature boson condensate of Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) mitigates gamma radiation through super-absorption following the N-squared rule.

    Okay, show me independent evidence of a high temperature bose-einstein condensate of SPPs. Show me your experimental test of their gamma-absorbing properties.

  41. #41 axil
    October 22, 2014

    The evidence is in the test.

    The proof is isothermal temperature distribution and superfulidiy demonstrated in the test. The surface temperature of the reactor was maintained at 1420 C for days and the nickel particles did not melt at the core of the reactor as shown by their pictures. The temperature at the core should have been 1600C, but it didn’t exceed the melting point of nickel. The temperature of the core and the reactor’s edge was isothermal due to superfluidic temperature distribution..

  42. #42 eric
    October 22, 2014

    axil:

    The evidence is in the test.

    No, that’s circular and not independent. Try again. What independent evidence do you have that high temperature BECs can form and absorb gammas?

  43. #43 Axil
    October 22, 2014

    Proof of high temperature formation

    http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/136/3/10.1063/1.3678015

    Quote:

    Within the optical cavity, the photons acquire an effective mass as determined by the cut-off frequency of the cavity that can be 6–7 orders of magnitude less than mass of an electron. Depending upon the density, this allows for a BEC transition temperature that can approach room temperature. Polaritons are also ultra-light quasiparticles that are known to condense in systems composed of a semiconducting quantum well sandwiched between two reflective mirrors. 2–6 In this case, however, the polaritons act as hard-core Bosons and scattering at high density allows for a rapid thermalization of the gas.

    Note: the temperature of condensation of polaritons is proportional to the density of the polaritons and so is their effective mass. The Ni/H reactor produces a huge density of coherent polaritons far greater than what a single Nano-cavity can produce. The effective mass of the polariton can drop into the millivolts.

    Within the Ni/H reactor’s reaction, there is a positive feedback mechanism in place that converts nuclear energy into infrared photons and electrons from more vigorous dipole motion. This energy infusion pushes the density of the polaritons to extreme levels causing the condensate to establish at ever higher temperatures.

  44. #44 Axil
    October 22, 2014

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140822/ncomms5705/full/ncomms5705.html

    This is the theory of suoerabbsorbtion, This is the mechanism were by high frequency photons are reduced in frequency via the N-squards rule through .the ladder of Dicke states of an N boson system.

  45. #45 Axil
    October 22, 2014

    Electrons are trapped in the structure and this confinement can be exploited to enhance their capacity to interact with light at given frequencies much lower than the laser frequency at which they are excited: the system emits light by interacting with “vacuum fluctuations” that permeate space, according to quantum theory.

    Fano resonance takes to frequencies and mixes them together to forn a third intermediate frequency, just like mixing cold water and hot water will produce warm water.

    This resonance behavior is a property of whispering gallery waves,

    See

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whispering-gallery_wave

  46. #46 D. C. Sessions
    Socorro, NM
    October 22, 2014

    But talkers have never been good doers. It’s the doers that change this world.

    Two words: Michael Faraday.

  47. #47 eric
    October 23, 2014

    Your citations at @44 and @45 are theoretical. They may be right, but then again they may be wrong; lots of theoretical papers turn out to be wrong when they are tested. So, they are not evidence at all, let alone independent evidence. At best, they give a possible explanation, but that is all.

    As far as I can tell you are completely misreading your reference @45. Whispering gallery effects do not allow for some system that would usually absorb (e.g.) visible photons to absorb gammas, what they allow is for an unusual propagation of the photons they normally absorb. Claiming you have some whisper gallery effect in your chemical system would not make the compounds be able to absorb gammas, any more than an actual, acoustic whisper gallery converts human voice into radio waves. Not to mention that, once again, you have no independent evidence that the device sets up a whisper gallery-type system. If you want to provide evidence for that, isolate the subsystem you think is creating the effect and test it separately, then publish the results.

    Look, you understand the difference between scientific evidence and scientific hypotheses, right? I’m asking for evidence and you’re giving me hypotheses.

  48. #48 axil
    October 23, 2014

    I now provide these nanoplasmonic experiments done with laser irradiation of gold nanoparticle as scientific evidence of how nanoplasmonic light stimulation of nanoparticles can induce nuclear reactions.

    The use of lasers alone have no nuclear effects.

    here This experiment shows how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission.

    See references:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276&ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAg&usg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQ&sig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUA&bvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ

    Other experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below:

    “Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water”

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830

    Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf

  49. #49 maryyugo
    October 23, 2014

    Eric, the device is extremely crude. It is nothing but an electrical heater. There is nothing in it that could do what Axil suggests. Furthermore, the temperatures supposedly reached were erroneously measured for a number of reasons discussed at length elsewhere. In brief, the alumina used was semi-transparent at the temps reached, allowing the thermal camera to see the filaments. Therefore the emissivity value *and* the surface area used to calculate the temperature were both wrong and wildly overestimated it.

    Strangely, there was claimed to have been a thermocouple inside the reactor but no readings from it were made available in the report (IIRC).

    Finally, the so-called dummy (blank) run was deliberately crippled by Rossi by limiting it to comparatively low temperatures so that this error mode could not be tested.

    Thoroughgoing incompetence on the part of the testers.

  50. #50 axil
    October 23, 2014

    High Mary,

    I am attempting to persuade the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project: MFMP to use air flow Calorimeter to replace the current method of energy production measurement in their Rossi reactor replication effort

    Your vast experience in this area may be useful in determining the value of this suggestion before I get too invested in it..

    For many reasons, there is major reluctance from many quarters to believe the Calorimeter remote sensor based acquisition data provided by the 6 professors.

    I suggest the use of an Air Flow Calorimeter with a computer interface installed as a useful LENR capability to develop for the Rossi reactor as currently configured.

    This is how it is built

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZKDqWQNEdw

    Here is how the software looks

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eAtki8LjQU

    Mary, would you be king enough to render your opinion?

  51. #51 maryyugo
    October 24, 2014

    Well, here’s the thing. The device looks reasonable to me but I didn’t see any way to assess its accuracy for a Rossi type experiment from the video. The proof of its adequate function could be obtained from calibration with a resistive heater within a device similar to that which would be used in an active test.

    Actually, although there are a lot of ways for Rossi to cheat with the radiation measurements used by the Swedish scientists, I have no problem with MFMP using that as a first approximation. That’s because I think they’re probably honest.

    One reason the Swedish test looks bogus is because the calibration temperature range did not cover the operating temperature range. (another is because the experimenters did not properly limit and measure the input power to the heater during an active run) Also, that there was no valid reason for the calibration temperature limit other than it was what Rossi dictated.

    If MFPM wants to use the imaging camera for a first look WITH PROPER CALIBRATION from a resistive heater over the entire temperature range used for the active runs, then that would be fine with me and it’s much easier than air flow calorimetry.

    Jed Rothwell correctly pointed out that air flow calorimetry can be difficult to do accurately and in a stable manner. However, with all the power that Rossi’s reaction supposedly makes, it would be easier than for a low power system.

    Also worthy of consideration is liquid flow calorimetry using silicon oil or if that won’t reach the desired temperature, liquid metal, but the complications and costs of that may be excessive for MFMP.

    Hope that helps.

  52. #52 Roseland67
    Chicago
    October 25, 2014

    If the isotopic ash is what they said is,
    And was in fact produced by/in the reactor,
    FIND OUT, HOW and WHY.
    This is the first, last and only test that needs to be verified, duplicated and peer reviewed.
    The heat transfer measure, the COP etc. are mute.
    The global engineering community will enhance the process to take full advantage of “excess heat”.

  53. #53 Barry Kort
    United States
    October 26, 2014

    Shortly after the report became public, a number of reviewers independently discovered a serious error in the energy budget model. The experimenters assumed the heat could all be accounted for by an isothermal black body radiation model. But that model requires that the alumina case be 100% opaque. Unfortunately (as can be seen in this photograph), the 3mm thick case is translucent, thus invalidating the black body radiation model.

    Here are the gory details:

    In the iconic photo of the device under test, one can see the apparatus with the red-hot glowing wires visible through the translucent 3mm thick alumina casing.

    This is a significant observation, because it’s the principle source of evidence that the thin alumina shell is translucent and not 100% opaque.

    Why does that matter? It matters because the IR camera equipment that is used to reckon the heat coming out of the device assumes that the alumina shell is an isothermal black body radiator operating at the emissivity of alumina at that temperature. But that conveniently simple energy budget model breaks down if the alumina casing is not 100% opaque. As can be seen in the photograph, some of the photons from the interior apparatus are being transmitted through the translucent shell, rather than being absorbed by it. When those directly transmitted photons impinge upon the IR camera, which is calibrated for the emissivity of alumina, the calculation model incorrectly assumes the alumina shell itself is glowing red hot in accordance with a black body radiation model. This results in a sizable systematic error in reckoning the heat being produced by the device.

    Imagine looking at an ordinary household light fixture with a typical translucent shade around the bulb. The filament inside the bulb is at an incandescent temperature, but it also has a very small surface area. When you look at the light fixture with the translucent shade in place, you see those same photons, but now they appear to come from the large surface of the translucent shade. If you imagine the shade to be the originating source of those photons, in accordance with a black body radiation model, you (incorrectly) deduce that the shade itself is glowing at that same incandescent temperature. Since the shade has orders of magnitude more surface area than the filament inside the light bulb, you end up concluding (incorrectly) that an enormous amount of heat is being produced.

    In short, the experimenters have to reckon the translucency of the 3mm alumina shell that encases the apparatus, and adopt a corresponding energy budget model. Since that’s not practical, they need to encase the entire apparatus in a fully opaque isothermal shell, so as to be able to properly apply their isothermal black body radiation measurement technique to the system.

  54. #54 axil
    October 27, 2014

    Roseland67 – Post 52

    Russian researchers (D.V. FILIPPOV) have developed a phenomenological model for interpreting the low-energy nuclear transformations seen in high energy LENR experiments(exploding metal foils in a liquid) as follows:

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

    Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole

    Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev**
    *Fondation Louis de Broglie, Paris, France
    **RECOM, Kurchatov Institute, Moscow, Russia

    The Russians have embodied that model in a computer program that matches resident input and output LERN reaction products against all applicable conservation laws so that the production of excess energy produced by the reaction is minimized.

    The product of this model and its associated computer program was verified against experimental transmutation results observed in the outcomes of the experiments on the electric explosion of metallic foils in liquids.

    In these extensive series of exploding foil experiments, the atomic composition of both the foils and the liquids were systematically varied over a wide range of materials. The phenomenological model that produced the resultant transmutation predictions was adjusted until the program described perfectly the entire extensive experimental data set.

    See

    http://uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e05.pdf

    On the possibility of nuclear transformation in low-temperature plasma from the viewpoint of conservation laws

    D.V. FILIPPOV, L.I. URUTSKOEV

  55. #55 axil
    November 3, 2014

    The mechanism of LENR unmasked

    http://phys.org/news/2014-11-electromagnetic-fluctuation-plasmas-analogous-so-called.html

    Electromagnetic fluctuation forces across plasmas analogous to so-called weak nuclear interaction forces

    New theoretical results tie EMF to processes that effect the dynamics that occur inside the nucleus as a expression of the weak force. This is exciting stuff for the LENR theorist. Mesons control what goes on inside the nucleus. Mesons are just a kind of plasmons that exist between two or more solids at very close distances. One example where this condition applies is the situation that exists in the very small plasmon filled spaces between nanoparticles. This implies that mesons are condensing virtual particles pairs that are equivalent to condensing virtual particle plasmons or sheets of realized positions/electron pairs formed at high energy caused by the Casimir force born in the small distances between nanoparticles.

    I guest at this all along. Its good that it has been discovered.

    See:

    Casimir forces in a Plasma: Possible Connections to Yukawa Potentials

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1032v1.pdf

  56. #56 axil
    November 6, 2014

    http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.193002

    Quantum Fluctuations Affect a Row of Distant Ions

    The quantum vacuum teems with particles flitting in and out of existence, with small but measurable effects on matter. A team of Israeli researchers now show that virtual photons produce a tiny collective energy change in a row of trapped ions even when the ions are micrometers apart.

    This action at a distance is a hallmark of the LENR reaction. Greatly enhanced virtual photons strength function in LENR to stabilize radioactive byproducts of fusion reactions.

    The influence of virtual photons in the quantum vacuum was first seen in frequency shifts in the fine structure of the hydrogen spectrum. The discovery of this “Lamb shift”—named for the Nobel-prize-winning experimenter Willis Lamb who first measured it—inspired a new description of the electromagnetic field’s interaction with matter: quantum electrodynamics (another Nobel-prize-winning effort.)

    In this latest research, physicists have used atom-trapping technology to show how the vacuum’s effects grow when many identical emitters interact. For example, in “superradiance,” the total emission increases because virtual photons emitted by one atom stimulate emission by the others. The corresponding “collective Lamb shift” of the energy levels has previously been measured for emitters that are closer than the light wavelength, so their dipole moments interact directly.

    Atoms are bosons and when bosons all communicate so that they work in unison, greatly enhanced super-radiance resonance results. Polaritons are strongly coupled through dipole thermal vibrations. A collection of polaritons will quickly reach a state of condensation to a common resonant quantum configuration. The virtual particles produced by this condensate is super-radiant meaning those disturbances in the EMF field will be greatly amplified and there effects will be felt at a considerable distance from there point of origin.

    Not only the magnetic anaplole fields produced by polariton solitons will be greatly amplified by super-radiance but also the associated virtual particles derived from disturbances in the vacuum in which the polariton solitons condensate rests will also be greatly amplified.

    In such a situation, a very quick or even instantaneous stabilization of radioactive nuclear waste products from fusion reactions will result.

  57. #57 Bill Jenkins
    Buffalo NY area
    November 14, 2014

    Many, if not most, of the lenr detractors/skeptics base their viewpoint on a position that lenr can’t work because it contradicts the laws of physics. But from what I am reading it is obvious that we still have a lot to learn about just what these laws are, as new discoveries are still being made that can impact on the basic understanding of physics as a science. Furthermore, there are many observations that physicists label as mysteries. Surely physicists should be able to realize that the state of their science is in enough uncertainty that for them to dismiss a discovery like lenr is really not possible. Their own “Uncertainty Principle” should be enough to cause them to have a more open mind.

  58. #58 Bill Jenkins
    USA
    November 14, 2014

    What happened to my earlier comment??

  59. #59 David Sligar
    Oregon, USA
    November 26, 2014

    I concur with most of the mentioned requirements for proper verification. Rossi’s refusal to permit independent testing does not prove but certainly implies fraud. To all you critics who insist on classical fusion indicators — why bother? The essential point is not whether “fusion” or “nuclear events” are taking place. The essential point is whether there is COP greater than 1. Understanding the mechanism is secondary — nice, but not nearly so important. I could care less whether there are gamma rays or isotope changes. Input energy less than output energy is the only requirement. Understanding can come later. Rossi’s insistence on nuclear reactions doesn’t help his cause, in my opinion.

  60. #60 Wow
    November 28, 2014

    Many, if not most, of the lenr detractors/skeptics base their viewpoint on a position that lenr can’t work because it contradicts the laws of physics

    No we don’t.

    We base it on that there being no theory, no independent testing and multitudinous claims for what is going on indicating that not even the numpties themselves understand what their “experiment” is showing.

    We base it on skepticism for amazing proclamations with no supporting amazing evidence.

    We base it on many things.

    But you can’t rail against them, so you pretend the claims made by others are ones you can berate, rather than the ones in actual evidence.

  61. #61 axil
    December 4, 2014

    Talk about Lenr suffering under the weight of many theories, that’s nothing compared to the many dozens of theories that now attempt to explain where subatomic particles come from and where they get their mass. Yes, we heard the the Higgs mechanism was the answer after the 60 year effort to successfully describe how a particle gets its mass. Particle Physics just does’t like the lite weight of the Higgs Boson. The particle guys feel free to invent dozens of alternative theories that are still competing with the still top of the heap Higgs theory. These theories are grouped under the title of “The Technicolor Higgs” theories. These theories purport to explain how the weak force works as a more fundamental theory than the Higgs theory now is. The Higgs boson is now a composite particle comprised of N numbers of Techo-Higgs particles.

    Those physicists are hypocrites when they criticize Lenr for not being well grounded in a single theory and Lenr has been at it for only 25 years. The Higgs theory is more than 50 years in the making with no end in sight.

    See:

    The Technicolor Higgs in the light of LHC data

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.2097.pdf

    Shocking! CERN may not have discovered elusive Higgs Boson particle after all

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/19802/20141108/shocking-cern-may-not-have-discovered-elusive-higgs-boson-particle-after-all.htm

    Maybe it wasn’t the Higgs particle after all

    http://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html

    Technicolor (physics)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor_(physics)

    Alternatives to the Standard Model Higgs

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_the_Standard_Model_Higgs

  62. #62 Wow
    December 5, 2014

    Lets put it this way, on the subject “E-cat: cold fusion or scientific fraud?”, it ISN’T cold fusion.

  63. #63 axil
    December 9, 2014

    Rossi likes the book “Models of the Atomic Nucleus” by Prof. Nornam Cook, That particular book is in the particlez.org book list at: http://www.particlez.org/about.html.

    This repository of work describes an alternative to the standard model of particle physics which comes from the thinking of a few workers out of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. This model states that the electron is the fundamental unit of Particle Masses. The electron is a base level quantum of magnetic energy which retains its resonant coherence based on that basic energy level of about 70MeV. A meson is double that energy at about 140MeV. If the proper amount of energy is pumped into the vacuum, a particle will spring into existance out of the vacuum.

    A “Muon Mass Tree” with α-quantized Lepton, Quark and Hadron Masses

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-ph/papers/0607/0607233.pdf

    Abstract

    A “muon mass tree” is displayed that contains the excitation systematics for accurately reproducing the masses of the six Standard Model quarks (u,d,s,c,b,t); the heavy leptons; the proton; the phi, J/Psi and Upsilon vector meson thrshold states; the Bc meson; and the mass-averaged W and Z gauge bosons, using a unified mass formalism based on the electron ground state. Multiples of an alpha-quantized 105.04 MeV fermion mass quantum reproduce the states below 12 GeV, and multiples of a doubly-alpha-quantized 14,394 Mev fermion mass quantum reproduce the W-Z and t states above 12 GeV, where alpha ~ 1/137 is the fine structure constant. Masses are additive, and the overall mass accuracy for these states is in the 1% range. A similar “pion mass tree” based on an alpha-quantized 70.03 MeV boson mass quantum accurately reproduces the pseudoscalar meson masses. The mass alpha-quantization follows from a corresponding experimental alpha-spacing of the long-lived particle lifetimes, which occur in well-defined lifetime groups that are each determined by a dominant Standard Model quark substate.

    Most of the other particles are some modules of this fundamental magnetic energy quantum. I like this idea. This idea is operative in my concept of the LENR reaction where magnetic energy catalyzes pions out of the vacuum. These pions are disruptive to the workings inside the nucleus.

    One concept that is pleasing is that the strong force is really electromagnetic. Also, this imply that the Higgs field is wrong and mass is an resonant EMF quantum based emergent property. To my way of thinking, properly understanding LENR might mean a reworking of the standard model of particle physics.

    Rossi might be barking up the right tree, but how high as he climbed up that tree? Not too high I think since Rossi still embraces whole heartedly the standard model of particle physics.

    By the way, one of the workers at BNL got to his 30 year anniversary. THEY haven’t expelled him from science yet so there is still some hope for the righteous pursuit of truth in science.

  64. #64 Wow
    December 10, 2014

    Of course, the Bible also has an alternative to the standard model of nuclear physics.

    Doesn’t mean the bible is right, however…

  65. #65 holycrapbatman
    USA
    December 10, 2014

    My first trip here to this forum. Here only at the suggestion of a friend who swears by Ethan’s blog as if it’s the Holy Grail. What can I say, but some folks are easily impressionable. Not here for argument, plenty nuff of that here already.
    Just a question as a new visitor here.

    Ethan, what are you going to do IF E-Cat/LENR/LANR/CECR/cold fusion/whatever name we hang on it, turns out to be valid science?

    You going to apologize to investors for robbing them of their opportunity to invest?

    Are you going to reimburse them of their lost possible opportunity to earn potential returns on their investment that you just now dissuaded them from making?

    Are going to apologize to Rossi for funding he may not receive due to your not entirely informed observations here today?

    What is your responsibility in this, or are you like so many other minions today, who like to shift the responsibility for your actions to others?

    New here and just curious.
    No need to welcome me.
    Doubt you’ll here back from me again.

    Be good,
    do good.

  66. #66 Sean T
    December 11, 2014

    holycrapbatman,

    I know you said you won’t be back to this blog, but I must respond anyway. In what way has Ethan prevented anyone from investing in the E-Cat if they so chose to do so? All Ethan did was present the currently accepted science and show the deficiencies in Rossi’s “experiments”. He also outlined how Rossi could fix those deficiencies, but Rossi has not done so.

    If you have better information as to why Rossi’s system is scientifically valid, why not post that information instead of criticizing Ethan? If you believe so strongly in E-Cat, what’s stopping you from investing?

  67. #67 Holycrabpatman
    USA
    December 11, 2014

    Sean,
    I’m back because my buddie who suggested this site emailed me a link to it today and I clicked on it to verify it’s the same. ta da.

    But the truth is, I agree with all the scientific methods suggested by Ethan and am very disappointed with how poorly the demonstration was put together. This is science after all and scientific methods should be followed and verifiable and Ethan is spot on in his observations.

    But..
    I just don’t agree with the editorializing and claims of snake oil and all that entails. It makes the whole thing seem sleazy, I mean after my visit here I felt like I’d just been to a titty bar. Well, maybe not.;^)

    My point is, what if it does work? Did edison’s light bulb work the very first time? The tenth? The thirtythird? This is science. We should grow and gain insites from our failures. It’s how we learn. So I don’t think the ridicule is necessary.

    If five years from now, we still don’t have an E-Cat, or a Brillouin controlled electron capture reactor water boiler, or a Blacklight catylist induced hydrino transition cell or suncell, well then, there’s a pretty good chance that cold fusion truly isn’t valid science. But if we do end up with any one of these technologies, then I for one, will be very grateful that someone had the courage to go down this road instead of sitting in front of a terminal poking fun at those that do.

    Sorry not a.

  68. #69 -
    December 21, 2014

    I cannot believe this is STILL a debate. Despite the possibility of Rossi posing some trickery onto people and maybe even intimidating researchers.

    WHAT makes it so hard for a set of scientists to propose a methodology and testing environment with respect to their requirements for a sound and validated test AND with respect to the Intellectual Property Rossi wants to preserve.

  69. #70 axil
    December 24, 2014

    It looks like SUSY is not doing too well:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc

    Popular physics theory running out of hiding places

    Without supersymmetry the theory behind the unification of the four standard model forces into one super force is blown out of the water. Finding these supersymmetric particles were one of the fundamental reasons why the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was built, all 10 billion dollars of it.

    On the other hand, experimental results in many fields of LENR indicate that the super force (lets call it the LENR force) is formed and act in LENR to combine many light atoms into on heavy atom(cluster fusion), and the weak force is supercharged in eliminating radioactive isotopes and radioactive decay.

    There is every possibility that particle physics will ignore LENR experimental results and subtle along for the best part of the next century inventing more mathematically based illusions of reality. Let reality be reality.

    LENR has experimentally demonstrated the unification of the three forces: electromagnetic, electroweak, and strong. Progress in understanding particle physics is going no further until LENR is added to the knowledge pool of humankind.

  70. #71 DB
    www.drboblog.com
    December 24, 2014

    Your Christmas present will be a bit late this year
    But I believe the waiting is worth it

    Merry Christmas from Bob and friends

  71. #72 Wow
    December 24, 2014

    But..
    I just don’t agree with the editorializing and claims of snake oil and all that entails

    What, however, is that? Editorialising.

    And claims of snake oil are far less extraordinary than the various claims over e-cat, whilst there are actual reasons for the claims, whereas e-cat is lacking in that department.

    Your feelings have little to do with evidence or facts. Please remember this.

  72. #73 Wow
    December 24, 2014

    “If five years from now, we still don’t have an E-Cat”

    e-cat is older than 5 years. Either you did not know this or your assertion is disproven by evidence provided today.

  73. #74 jetmech
    florida
    December 24, 2014

    I do not understand how this is going over your heads!
    The Rossi Ecat is a scam pure and simple!
    What that has to do with LENR is anyone’s guess!
    What the point is (ITS A SCAM) has to do with

    “LENR has experimentally demonstrated the unification of the three forces: electromagnetic, electroweak, and strong. Progress in understanding particle physics is going no further until LENR is added to the knowledge pool of humankind.”

    or with

    “five years from now, we still don’t have an E-Cat, or a Brillouin controlled electron capture reactor water boiler, or a Blacklight catylist induced hydrino transition cell or suncell, well then, there’s a pretty good chance that cold fusion truly isn’t valid science. But if we do end up with any one of these technologies, then I for one, will be very grateful that someone had the courage to go down this road instead of sitting in front of a terminal poking fun at those that do.

    Sorry not a.”

    It is a SCAM!
    They are NOT “going down ANY road to prove anything”!
    Just suck in more investors! To get Richer!
    END OF STORY!

    What does fooling people have to do with LENR anyway?

  74. #75 jetmech
    December 24, 2014

    If you want to know how people more connected than “Rossi” get richer just watch the so called “History Channel”!
    “Ancient Aliens” watch the weird hairdo guy connect the dots!
    To me you followers are no more discerning than watchers of “Ancient Aliens”
    In fact you seem to be more gullible!

  75. #76 axil
    December 24, 2014

    I base my faith on the types of experiments listed here in post 48, not Rossi. If science wants to unify the forces of nature, all they need to do is get themselves a laser and some gold dust in water. This experiment is far cheaper than a 10 billion dollar atom smasher.

  76. #77 Wow
    December 24, 2014

    Except it’s the Rossi experiment you’re blathering on about being real.

    And the ones you’re NOW blathering on about don’t exist.

  77. #78 axil
    December 26, 2014

    On Christmas day Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project had announced on their Facebook page, quantumheat.org ‘Prjoect Fedora’ which will involve working with Italian scientist Francesco Piantelli, a pioneer in the field of nickel-hydrogen LENR research, and former collaborator with the late Sergio Focardi.

    They state: following over two years of reach out and a concerted effort this year, the MFMP is to work with the consummate scientist Francesco Piantelli, the Father of the Ni+H New Fire to realize our primary goal.

    One of the significant things about the MFMP working with Piantelli is he has been awarded a patent by the European Patent Office for his LENR process, and this legal protection could encourage Piantelli to share details about his work. Piantelli does have a company called Nichenergy — but there is little information available about the company’s activities. It has been reported (unconfirmed) that Piantelli is able to achieve considerable excess heat with his process, been able to create self-sustaining LENR cells that operate for months at a time.

    If this is accurate, and if Piantelli is forthcoming with details about his work, there could be a real opportunity here for the MFMP to achieve their major goal, which is to demonstrate to the world unambigious excess heat from the New Fire.

  78. #79 axil
    January 4, 2015

    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2014/12/30/second-hot-cat-begins-howl/

    A Russian scientist has reported on his success at reproducing the Rossi HOT CAT

    Dr. Alexander Parkhomov reports on his success in fully independently replicating the Hot Cat experimental set-up as reported in Rossi’s recent Lugano paper Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel authored by a group of Italian and Swedish scientists testing Rossi’s technology.

    Parkhomov writes of his knock off design saying that “the reactor is capable of generating a lot of heat in excess of electric heating”. With his E-Cat replica testing at temperatures between 1200°C-1300°C, the device provided a COP of about 2.6. That’s 2.6 times more heat than expected.

  79. #80 asic_cliff
    United States
    January 4, 2015

    The e-cat is said to use excitation in the 5 to 30 TeraHz range. This puts the excitation directly in the Infrared band. Maybe that’s why the infrared cameras measured so much energy. They expect something close to black-body radiation, and the excitation provided direct light.

  80. #81 axil
    January 23, 2015

    Reference:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-01-analysis-self-propel-subatomic-particles.html

    Welcome to the new physics…

    We can manipulate the waveform of a stationary subatomic particle by using a phase mask to increase its energy up to the speed of light. This process uses the theory of relativity to convert the stationary subatomic particle into a spread-out waveform with lots of energy applied against the size of the waveform. The size of the elementary particle as defined by the extent of its waveform is increased by time dilation where energy is increased by extending the tail defining the waveform of the elementary particle to satisfy the momentum conservation laws. In quantum mechanics, waves and particles are considered to be two aspects of the same physical phenomena. We can mondify the properties of a subatomic particle by manipulating its waveform.

    In a time dilation trade off, the lifetime of the elementary subatomic particle is lengthened to increase the energy of the particle.

    The key to this manipulation of the waveform is the Phase mask.

    The specially prepared nanometer sized dimpled surface of the nickel micro particles in the Rossi reactor serves as a phase mast to accelerate stationary particles to a ultra high energy wave shapes in the particle’s frame of reference but the particle remains slow or even stationary in the reactors frame of reference.

    In nanoplasmonics, it is the dark mode surface plasmon polariton that absorbs infrared photons. So the “hole” / photon hybrid of the dipole must be the subatomic waveform that is being modified to light speed even when it is embedded inside that nickel lattice of the surface of the micro particle.

    http://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/7

    Big Twist for Electron Beam

    One question that was hanging in the magnetic theory of LENR causation was how a strong magnetic field could be produced by an irregular surface, I have just become aware of a potentially new spin (magnetic) amplification process that fits in well with the magnetic theory of LENR and helps explain how a properly formatted nano surface feature on a metal surface could lead to LENR.

    A beam of electrons rotating in a highly constrained vortex can have the strength of their spins multipled by hundreds of times. These vortexes are produced by a surface mask where the waveform of the electron is modified by constructive and destructive interference.

    Just like a dipole where a vibrating electron is always paired with a hole, and every vortex has two ends, paired SPP has bright SPP paired with a dark SPP. It is the Dark SPP that is both magnetically and LENR active.

    For example, the wavelength of infrared light is about 700nm to 1000nm. If the vortex that the Hole/light hybrid is circulating around in is 1 just nanometer, the spin of the SPP is multiplied by 1000. A dark mode Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP) with a spin of 2 will have an effective spin of 2000 if rotating in a dimensionally small SPP vortex.

    In addition as described above, when the tail of the waveform of the electron or hole is expanded by the time dilation energy uncertainty principle trade off which accelerates stationary subatomic particles to the speed of light, even more spin multiplication will occur, how much…a lot.

    These two new quantum mechanical principles of condensed matter subatomic particle waveform manipulation can now explain where the huge strength of atomic level magnetism comes from.

  81. #82 axil
    February 1, 2015

    A new updated report from Alexander Parkhomov has been published which includes information from an earlier report he published in December, plus new information and details from further experimentation he has carried out.

    The new report can be found here

    https://docviewer.yandex.com/?url=ya-disk-public%3A%2F%2FymuhQkXSD6eVmYUi1bHP87eU8G5wmG0yyk9iMhKEiyo%3D&name=29_01_2015_%D0%A0%D0%A3%D0%94%D0%9D_%D0%9F%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B83.pdf&c=54cd15d858dc

    in the original Russian. Translation of the text from Russian into English has been provided by Bob Higgins and Peter Gluck below:

    https://www.scribd.com/doc/254323365/ParkhomovPaper-20150129-English

  82. #83 Bill Jenkins
    USA
    February 5, 2015

    First of all I want to thank axil for his efforts.
    Call it what you will, I have been a believer in lenr ever since 1989 when it was called cold fusion. The evil in the world simultaneously reared its head causing this 25+ year delay in bringing it to mankind. And we still don’t have commercialization.
    I had trouble following the first translation of the Parkhomov work, finding it confusing. But I have shortcomings that may explain my confusion. I have yet to look over the updated report.
    Both with this and the Lugano test, it seems a lot has changed. In the past, neither lithium nor aluminum were mentioned while copper was. At that time, the impression (Correct me if I’m wrong on any of this) was that a stream of hydrogen gas was caused to pass over the nickel powder in a tube in the presence of a mysterious catalyst. And while copper was reported as a product earlier, it now seems only higher isotopes of nickel result. This would seem like the technology and possibly the science has changed significantly with these last two (the Lugano and Parkhomov tests). Now as an organic chemist, I’m no stranger to lithium aluminum hydride although I’ve never used it in my own work. In chemistry its a powerful reducing agent and acts as a powerful donor of hydrogen. I feel I’d be naive in assuming its only purpose was to provide a convenient source of hydrogen, even though it decomposes at temperatures way below the COP affective temperatures of these most recent tests.

  83. #84 Wow
    February 6, 2015

    The evil in the world simultaneously reared its head causing this 25+ year delay in bringing it to mankind.

    Yeah, right, it’s SATAN making sure that “The TRUTH!” doesn’t get out.

    Pfft. Lame.

  84. #85 Bill Jenkins
    February 6, 2015

    To Wow:
    Unfortunately, what you say is, in my opinion, exactly what the situation is. Satan, mainly in the form of big money and power interests, has done everything possible to protect his own interests.

  85. #86 Wow
    February 6, 2015

    Well, another theory, Bill, is that e-cat doesn’t work and is a scam.

  86. #87 dean
    February 6, 2015

    You have to admit Wow, that Satan would have a lock on the “deep below the surface” fossil fuel market if we got to the point of needing it. He’d stand to make more money than god.

    If he were real, that is.

  87. #88 Wow
    February 6, 2015

    “if he were real”

    Which one?

    😛

  88. #89 dean
    February 6, 2015

    If he were real. ….. Which one?

    That’s what you picked up on? Nothin’ for the “more money than god.”
    (I know – which one.)

  89. #90 Bill Jenkins
    February 7, 2015

    Per Wow “”” Well, another theory, Bill, is that e-cat doesn’t work and is a scam. “””

    well if that theory is true then the results of Parkhomov, Lugano, Piantelli and others must be bogus as well. Are you saying, Wow, that all these reported results are scam as well??

  90. #91 Wow
    February 7, 2015

    If they claim the same thing, Bill, yes.

  91. #92 Bill Jenkins
    February 7, 2015

    You mean you’re not making yourself aware of all this other work where there are reports of excess energy similar to e-cat?? This seems to be the case, and makes me wonder why your comments should be given credence.

  92. #93 Wow
    February 7, 2015

    Note that the claims from the first dude are not consistent with Rossi’s claims.

    a) Not the same device
    b) Apparently not a problem with patents

    so quite how they think that Rossi gave enough info away to replicate his device when Rossi himself insists it must be kept secret remains another mystery.

  93. #94 Wow
    February 7, 2015

    Lugano appears to be for a place, not a person.

    So quite how a place is supposed to have written a paper or done an experiment and reached a personal conclusion remains a mystery.Nearly as big a mystery as how Bill figures that they could…

  94. #95 Wow
    February 7, 2015

    I can get a net positive energy balance easily. Add distilled spirits to cloth, add some heat to get it going and poof, extra heat over that inserted.

    This isn’t, however, warm fusion.

  95. #96 Wow
    February 7, 2015

    Bill, given you ascribed a personality to a place, not knowing that it was a location not a scientist, do you wonder why it’s thought the whole thing a scam? Did you not even check up on names before throwing them out there?

    And does this not explain why people don’t bother to check names of every shithead plopped out by the rectum of humanity as “proof” that cold fusion works? Make up some other names and don’t say what they say but demand everyone do your bloody homework for you! THAT’S THE WAY TO DO IT!!!!

    FFS.

  96. #97 Wow
    February 7, 2015

    “That’s what you picked up on?”

    Which one is real? Satan, God or cold fusion?

    Trick question. None of them are real!

  97. #98 Bill Jenkins
    February 7, 2015

    You, Wow, are the one who needs to do the homework.

  98. #99 Wow
    February 8, 2015

    No bill, I don’t.

    You didn’t.

    But this explains to everyone else why you aren’t getting anywhere in your holy crusade (over 25 years and counting, cf axil’s “it’ll be done in five years1!!!”)

  99. #100 axil
    February 10, 2015

    The Standard Model has worked beautifully to predict what high energy experiments have shown so far about the basic building blocks of matter, but just about all physicists recognize that it is incomplete.

    This backbone theory of physics requires new particles to solve a major problem with the Standard Model – fixing the mass of the Higgs boson. If the theory is correct, current physics says that supersymmetric particles should appear in collisions at the LHC.

    So now Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a required make or break extension of the Standard Model that aims to fill those nasty theoretical gaps. SYSY now predicts a partner particle for each particle in the Standard Model.

    In its early days, the Standard Model seemed to predict that all particles should be massless, an idea at odds with what we observe around us. So theorists have come up with a mechanism to give particles masses that requires the existence of a new particle, the Higgs boson. However, it is a puzzle why the Higgs boson should be so light, as interactions between it and Standard-Model particles would tend to make it very heavy. The extra force carrying particles(Bosons) predicted by supersymmetry would cancel out the contributions to the Higgs mass from their Standard-Model partners, making a light Higgs boson possible. The new particles would interact through the same forces as Standard-Model particles, but they would have different masses.

    But most importantly, supersymmetric particles would unite both electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces together to form a new fundimental force all at the exact same strength and at very high energies, as in the early universe. A theory that unites the forces mathematically is called a grand unified theory, a dream of physicists including Einstein.

    Supersymmetry would also link the two different classes of particles known as fermions and bosons. Particles like those in the Standard Model are classified as fermions or bosons based on a property known as spin.

    Fermions all have half of a unit of spin, while the bosons have 0, 1 or 2 units of spin. Supersymmetry predicts that each of the particles in the Standard Model has a partner with a spin that differs by half of a unit. So bosons are accompanied by fermions and vice versa. Linked to their differences in spin are differences in their collective properties. Fermions are very standoffish; every one must be in a quantum different state. On the other hand, bosons are very clannish; they prefer to be in the same state. Fermions and bosons seem as different as could be, yet supersymmetry brings the two types together.

    Finally, in many theories scientists predict the lighest supersymmetric particle to be stable and electrically neutral and to interact weakly with the particles of the Standard Model. These are exactly the characteristics required for dark matter, thought to make up most of the matter in the universe and to hold galaxies together. The cosmological constant that we have now also requires a boson that has a very small mass.

    Physics have not found this cosmological constant particle or the dark matter particle yet even though its mass range would be easily detected in any modern particle accelerator. The Standard Model alone does not provide an explanation for dark matter. Supersymmetry is a framework that builds upon the Standard Model’s strong foundation to create a more comprehensive picture of our world. Perhaps the reason we still have some of these questions about the inner workings of the universe is because we have so far only seen half of the picture. CERN and the remainder of standard science is ignoring LENR to their great peril and pain.

    Here is the scientific dilemma in a nutshell. The May issue of Scientific American has a very good cover story by Joe Lykken and Maria Spiropulu, entitled Supersymmetry and the Crisis in Physics

    Here are some excerpts:

    “It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world’s particle physicists believe that supersymmetry must be true—the theory is that compelling. These physicists’ long-term hope has been that the LHC would finally discover these superpartners, providing hard evidence that supersymmetry is a real description of the universe…

    Indeed, results from the first run of the LHC have ruled out almost all the best-studied versions of supersymmetry. The negative results are beginning to produce if not a full-blown crisis in particle physics, then at least a widespread panic. The LHC will be starting its next run in early 2015, at the highest energies it was designed for, allowing researchers at the ATLAS and CMS experiments to uncover (or rule out) even more massive superpartners. If at the end of that run nothing new shows up, fundamental physics will face a crossroads: either abandon the work of a generation for want of evidence that na­­ture plays by our rules, or press on and hope that an even larger collider will someday, somewhere, find evidence that we were right all along…

    During a talk at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Nima Arkani-Hamed, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., paced to and fro in front of the blackboard, addressing a packed room about the future of supersymmetry. What if supersymmetry is not found at the LHC, he asked, before answering his own question: then we will make new supersymmetry models that put the superpartners just beyond the reach of the experiments. But wouldn’t that mean that we would be changing our story? That’s okay; theorists don’t need to be consistent—only their theories do.

    This unshakable fidelity to supersymmetry is widely shared. Particle theorists do admit, however, that the idea of natural supersymmetry is already in trouble and is headed for the dustbin of history unless superpartners are discovered soon…”

    The authors go on to describe possible responses to this crisis. One is the multiverse, which they contrast to supersymmetry as not providing an answer to why the SM parameters are what they are, although this isn’t something that supersymmetry ever was able to do. Another is large extra dimensions as in Randall-Sundrum, but that’s also something the LHC is not finding, with few ever thinking it would. Finally there’s the “dimensional transmutation” idea about the Higgs.

    If this approach is to keep the useful virtual particle effects while avoiding the disastrous ones—a role otherwise played by supersymmetry—we will have to abandon popular speculations about how the laws of physics may become unified at superhigh energies. It also makes the long-sought connection between quantum mechanics and general relativity even more mysterious. Yet the approach has other advantages. Such models can generate mass for dark matter particles. They also predict that dark matter interacts with ordinary matter via a force mediated by the Higgs boson. This dramatic prediction will be tested over the next few years both at the LHC and in underground dark matter detection experiments.

    A report from the APS spring meeting includes the following about Spiropulu’s talk there:

    Supersymmetry and dark matter have become so important to particle physicists that “we have cornered ourselves experimentally,” said Spiropulu. If neither is detected in the next few years, radical new ideas will be required. Spiropulu compared the situation to the era before 1905, when the concept of ether as the medium for all electromagnetic waves could not be verified.

    Their conceptual ROAD BLOCK is LENR. It is joyful to see particle physicists and Cosmologists squirm.

    There is more than one way to build a particle. We don’t need a particle accelerator to build a particle, we can do it using quantum mechanics. Condensed matter and nano physics have done so already and are building new particles by the day. They have discovered that light and matter can come together because of the duality of particles and waves in quantum mechanics. These hybrid waveforms called polaritons are bosons with spins of 1 (bright) or 2(dark). They form under special conditions when the energies of the particles: both electrons and protons and photons of light merge together under special plasmonic engineering.

    They can be nearly massless in their ground state or become massive as they gain energy as a collective soliton forms. Polaritons are an ideal candidate for the SUSY particles.

    Physcis has a hard time with predicting energy levels and particle masses.

    The energy needed to unite electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces into a primordial fundamental force all at the exact same strength is a matter of opinion. This force may not need be at very high energies if the nearly massless electron polariton is involved or the super massive dark mode polariton soliton that involves protons may supply all that energy needed to get to all the forces of nature unified.

    The many miracles of LENR point to the operation of a single all purpose fundamental unified force at work in many types of LENR experiments and transmutations. Why is physics ignoring this wonderful clue about how the universe works?

  100. #101 Collin Merenoff
    February 21, 2015

    Why does the world have to play by Rossi’s rules? Why can’t a real independent team break into the lab, kidnap Rossi and his assistants, and do a real test?

  101. #102 Wow
    February 22, 2015

    Because that’s a crime, Colin. And the scam isn’t worth the trouble and effort.

    Suckers will be sucked in.

    Hypsters will pump and dump and pollute science blogs to get more suckers in the pot.

    And it will collapse, leaving (hopefully) some of the suckers wiser.

    But the next round of the scam will turn up again and the same idiots will drum up support…

  102. #103 axil
    February 23, 2015

    Alexander Parkhomov (see post #82) is the new darling of LENR developers. He has Russian financial backers and is open source. There are a dozen new experimenters getting into the new LENR race with planed replications with more coming to LENR everyday. It won’t be long now.

  103. #104 CimPy
    March 6, 2015

    Another piece of story is falling down:
    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/tpr2-calorimetry-of-hot-cat-performed-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/

    “Conclusions
    The MFMP experimental data are in agreement with those reported in the literature and confirm that the procedure and the Emissivity values, used by the TPR2 AA for measurements by the thermal imager, are incorrect. The GSVIT experimental test further showed that the pure Alumina Spectral Emissivity, in the reading field of the camera used to testing the Hot-Cat, is greater than 0.90. These data are very different from those plotted and used in the TPR2 by the AA that appear to be those related to Alumina Total Emissivity. In the 1200-1400°C temperature range, the TPR2 Plot1 considers an emissivity of about 0.40 while, according to the literature, the Spectral Emissivity, in the camera reading field, is stable around values close to 0.95. This kind of error can lead to a significant overestimation of the surface temperature and to an overestimation of thermal Power by a factor 2 or more. An error of such proportions (which appears likely in the light of the measurements) makes not reliable, in our opinion, the TPR2 measurement results of the heat produced by the Hot-Cat; on the contrary, a simple Mass Flow Calorimetry, similar to the one shown in a previous Post of ours, would have been feasible and most accurate.”

  104. #105 axil
    March 10, 2015

    Russian science is far less arrogant than their counterparts in the west. Here is an example of their open minded attitude. Is a Sputnik 1 moment of shocked awakening once more ahead for western science as these cocky and swollen-headed western practisioners wallow in their supposed superiority.?

    N.V. Samsonenko

    Scientific leader of the All-Russia seminar “ Cold Nuclear Fusion and Ball Lightnings, PhD in physical and mathematical sciences, decent of the Chair of Theoretical Physics and Mechanics Russian University People’s Friendship, Moscow

    The presentations of A.G. Parkhomov from 25.12.2014 and 29.01.2015 9both can be found on the site: http://www.lenr.seplm.ru) have shocked the Internet not only in Russia but also abroad.

    At the regular session of seminars from 26.02.2015 has specially participated Bob Greenyer from G.B. the main coordinator of research projects of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. The basic purpose of his visit was to meet with A.G. Parkhomov.

    Parkhomov is quiet, modest, shy, clearly not a public person, a typical representative of the solitary talented experimenter.

    Parkhomov was not waiting such an effect. In connection with this I want to remember you an instructive story of the discovery of the Nuclear Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons to not repeat their main error- badly reproducible results based on reliable scientific data. Now we already know that the same authors of the discovery, a real effect, later even in much better conditions were not always able to reproduce it.

    In connection with those shown above, considering my many years (more than 30) collaboration with Parkhomov, the redaction of this journal has asked me opinion/attitude toward the consequences of his work.

    The results obtained by Parkhomov have divided scientists of many countries (first physicists and chemist), engineers, inventors (sometimes lacking specific education) and also

    Simply curious people- all these dedicated to new ecologically clean energy sources- in two camps.

    The optimists have received the opus of Parkhomov with genuine enthusiasm, firstly because it was opened the “black box” of Rossi with its “secret catalyst” (this was not found there) and it became possible to repeat its experiment by any competent engineer and not more only by a genius having an amazing intuition- as the unique Rossi. Even more because the properties of powders as LiAlH4 and Ni are well studied and described in detail in the Internet and can be bought relatively cheaply on the Internet in any quantity and taken home. It is completely obvious that in the near future we will see hundreds, possibly even thousands of replications of Rossi’s reactor.

    As it was shown above the “effect” in different forms of manifestation was observed experimentally in tens of laboratories of the world (look to the site http://www.lenr.seplm.ru and our paper ’Catalytically induced D-D Fusion in Ferroelectrics’ then to the sitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroelectric_fusion)

    But in the majority of cases with bad reproducibility

    Therefore, according to Parkhomov the best proof of reality of the effect will be to build a really working cheap useful device.

    It seems the same opinion is held also by Rossi because all his presentations were initiated by himself in person. Moreover he avoids publicity and this is like he not only hides the secret of the materiel composition but also important experimental details.

    The pessimists are convinced (justified) that still does not exist a single breakthrough.

    On the entire world there is no one working laboratory device, producing excess energy in such a quantity that is greater than the energy used for driving it and to assure self-sustaining. To work independently/autonomously from external energy sources. Moreover if you consider the total energy consumed by the cell of Parkhomov from the very start of the experiment when the cell is heated very slowly

    5 hours up to 1100 C (this is necessary for the release of the hydrogen from the LiAlH4 (LiAlH4 = Li+AL+H4) followed by its regrouping in the crystalline lattice of nickel) and during this period it is not produced any supplementary energy (only expenses). To this adds the energy necessary for maintaining the high temperature of the cell and excess energy is obtained only for short periods of time, than it is obvious that we obtain COP under 1. The situation will be even worse if we consider the energies consumed for the preparation of chemically active powders of nickel lithium aluminum hydride.

    Thus from the point of view of a new source of energy, there still is not anything sensational.

    Fortunately, the author himself is well aware of this and he is decided to add to the tables of 25.12.2014 and 29.01.2015 the above shown evaluations of total energy. Of course in long term regimes of work (months and more) of the device at temperatures around 1100 C the initial period of energy expenses can be neglected in comparison to the productive time and the COP will be greater than 1

    It is regrettable that such long periods of functioning cannot yet be attained due to incontrollable local overheating that lead to the interruption of the feeding and even to the destruction of ceramic tubes.

    The elimination of this disadvantage, according to Parkhomov is difficult- there are no resources for it. It seems that the most important problem, the stable functioning of the reactor was solved only by Rossi and it is possible this is his basic “know-how”

    I have deliberately not mentioned the attitude of the theorists

    Toward Parkhomov and Rossi and earlier Fleischmann and Pons and their thousands of followers. Some of the theorists are already actively implied in the discussion of the latest results. If you look a bit broader on the problems. now there are offered too many theoretical models, that means there is no adequate rational theory of the phenomenon (and there can be even more different phenomena).

    It were discussed the acceleration model of Tsarev, nuclear molecules of Barabanov, the erzions of Bazhutov, the fluxes of Rodionov, the dineutrons a relic (?) neutrino of Muromtsev, the electron-ionic nuclei of Laptukhov, the oscillating charge of Sapogin, the hydrino of Mills, the micro-atoms of Barut-Vigier, the light neutrino magnetic monopoles of Lochak-Rukhadze- Urutskoev. There are also more sophisticated models of Vysottski, Gareev, Kopysov, Ratis, Tymashev, Tsyganov, Holodov-Goryachev and many others to whom I apologize for not mentioning them due to bad memory.

    As conclusion, the author of this brief note tries to be objective stating that to the present day there are no physically significant reliable results in the examined domain in of low energy nuclear reactions.

    I have in mind the possibility of replication with positive results of any experiment, in any laboratory, in any place, at any time of the year and of the day by any independent or critical (that is even better) group by professional experts… I consider myself an optimist.

    It is possible that Parkhomov gave those impulses that will move this problem (LENR, CNF, CMNR) in the necessary good direction.

    YU.L.Ratis, Doctor in Physical_Mathematical Sciences, Professor Institute Of Energetics with special significance, town Samara

    The work of A.G. Parkhomov is advantageously distinguished from all the other works on the problems of the so-called “Cold fusion” because in it there are precisely described all the details of the experimental set-up, the method used in the experiment and the chemical composition of the e-cat- this being kept secretly by Rossi from all those who wanted to replicate his reaction.

    The results of this work beyond any doubt should become public- and known not only by the scientists.

    The disadvantages of the work are:
    1.Using as e-cat of lithium aluminum hydride, a compound that acts as catalyst of the exotic nuclear reactions only at high temperatures
    2. The total absence of t any attempts to interpret theoretically the results obtained.

    These drawbacks are not lowering in anyway the great methodological value of the works as well as its role in the process of paradigm shift in the modern nuclear physics.

  105. #106 Wow
    March 10, 2015

    Russian science is far less arrogant than their counterparts in the west.

    Meaning they don’t think you’re full of shit, right?

    Pretty arrogant of you.

  106. #107 axil
    April 18, 2015

    Open source LENR is getting up to speed with a replication of the Parkhomov experiment that had of COP of 3.5. Parkhomov is guiding the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project replication effort in the replication in Italy at the International Conference on Cold fusion. So far bursts of gamma radiation have occurred as the the reactor gets up to the 1100C operational temperature. These bursts are seen in a cold reactor during startup. To avoid a reactor explosion, the temperature must be brought up to operational temperature slowly over 12 hours. Right now in the ongoing demo, the temperature is at 860C.

    The pressure of the hydrogen gas drops to below 1 bar when the reaction sets in.

    See the reactor, the live experimental data and procedures all live. Watch it all happen live at stream 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWaigmpCvu0#t=1384

    A comment thread is found at

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/17/iccf19-day-1-april-13-2015-live-thread/

    FYI: Bob Greenyer is the on site experimentor.

    There are many replication efforts going on now in the open source cold fusion experimental community. If you are interested in getting up to speed in experimental science into fusion, join the cold fusion community for the next big thing in science. All information is open source and no information is withheld.

  107. #108 karl0ssus
    May 24, 2015

    I came here hoping t feel smug about some hippies spouting pseudoscience, but now I just feel sad. Uncharitable entrance aside, I feel like I should say some things.

    Axil, you make a lot of noise, but scarcely any of it is relevant to the point at hand, verifying the legitimacy of the Rossi device. Instead youre citing papers and experiments that you likely scarcely understand in an attempt to defend the idea of cold fusion, even though it isnt really on trial here.

    If Rossi has truly come up with a functional device for creating low cost energy, then why isnt the company he is associated with cranking them out by the thousand? The only possible reasons are a) it doesnt work or b) the man is so consumed by avarice that the concept of losing potential royalties is outweighing his drive to give humanity the clean fuel breakthrough we need.

    To be honest, I have no idea which of those is more likely, all I know is we have never seen proof that this device can be operated when it is tested independently. Which really doesnt speak well to its potential as a scientific breakthrough.

    Oh, by the way, sputnik was not a wakeup call for the western science, Id suggest you read the wikipedia article on sputnik if you want to know the actual reason the US were not first to space.

  108. #109 axil
    June 19, 2015

    The problem that is keeping the Rossi type reactor off the market is control of the reaction. 9 out of 10 reactor modules explode before they startup. Rossi might have solved this control problem though a micro computerized control system. He is now testing this system in a 350 day test at an industral site. This reactor is comprised of about one hundred 10 Kilowatt reactors configured in a cluster. The COP of this cluster is between 40 and 80. Industral Heat, the company that Rossi sold his IP to and for whom he works for has the R&D money to see this product development process through. Time will tell.

    I might not be as smart as all you good fellows but an open mind counts for alot.

  109. #110 Wow
    June 19, 2015

    So it can’t be because it’s a load of bollocks for why?

  110. #111 dean
    June 19, 2015

    It would be on the market if only it didn’t keep blowing up

    Vs

    It will never go to market because it’s just another scam by rossi to bilk idiots.

    Let’s see, which is the more plausible reason? I know which I’ll pick.

  111. #112 eric
    June 19, 2015

    @111: consider it a grand sociological experiment. We hold the physical parameters constant and observe how the excuse varies over time.

  112. #113 axil
    June 19, 2015

    It took the US goernment 20 years to develope the fission reactor and this reactor type still melts down or explodes from time to time.

    The fusion reactor is 60 years in the making and its is still not on the market.

    It takes time to design and build a fail safe nuclear reactor, and Industral Heat is commited to do it. Rossi does not call the shots anymore.

    The open source LENR community is making progress with a number of replications accomplished and there are other commersial competitors like Airbus in the mix.

    Elforsk is a swedish R&D consortium, organizing research and development for electric companies, industrialist of the domain, and public authorities. They are funding research into LENR.

  113. #114 Wow
    June 19, 2015

    I still see nothing saying that it isn’t the fact that it’s a fraud or scam that is keeping it from being released in the real world.

    Only assumptions that it isn’t.

  114. #115 eric
    June 19, 2015

    @113: there is a big difference between “I hope to achieve fusion in the future” and “I have achieved it, but I won’t show it to you.” Rossi claimed to have a working model in 2011; he’s in the latter camp. Mainstream fusion researchers are in the former.

  115. #116 eric
    June 19, 2015

    I should add that hot fusion without power production is eminently reproducible. It gets reproduced in accelerators by different, independent groups probably every day. Internal confinement fusion probably gets reproduced at the NIF several times a year, again by different, independent groups. So in some respects, the mainstream fusion community is the position of “we can achieve it without power; here, let us show you exactly how we do it and how you can do it too.” This is, again, a big difference from Rossi.

  116. #117 axil
    June 19, 2015
  117. #118 Wow
    June 19, 2015

    Still nothing about how it can’t be that it’s not available because it was a scam….

  118. #119 Wow
    June 19, 2015

    Skipped right to the last five minutes.

    Claims that this is showing evidence of DD/DT fusion, which in the other thread on e-cat axil claimed that there wasn’t any DD/DT fusion going on, explaining why there were no neutrons to be missed.

    It’s purely a sales pitch.

  119. #120 axil
    June 19, 2015

    @119

    There wasn’t any DD/DT fusion going on because there wasn’t any DD/DT used in the system. The Ni/H system is a light hydrogen system. Do you understand the difference between heavy and light hydrogen?

  120. #121 Wow
    June 20, 2015

    That’s not what the video you provided said, axil.

    So you’re lying or they’re lying or you’re both lying.

  121. #122 axil
    June 21, 2015

    Andrea Rossi
    June 21st, 2015 at 7:56 AM

    Pietro F.:
    Our strategy is the only possible one, based on the necessity to have consolidated results of the industrial operation of out first industrial plant put at work in the factory of a Customer and on the necessity to defend the IP to allow serious investments necessary for an actual massive production. You say that 4 years have been spent from the first public demonstration: right, and 4 years are nothing respect what can be expected for the development of a revolutionary technology in this field, so difficult. Think to the Hot Fusion prototypes, funded with tenths of billions since 50 years ago and still not productive and make a comparision. To talk is easy. To work and get results is not.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  122. #123 Wow
    June 22, 2015

    Proof of their claims by showing their claims?

    And what there proves it’s not a scam?

  123. #124 axil
    June 25, 2015

    I still think that the e-cat is a source of energy.

    But let us assume for a moment that it is an investment fraud and think about the consequences of this assumption together with all that Rossi has shown to us.

    Am I then right to think that the E-cat is actually one of the biggest Investment frauds of the last years?

    What could be Rossis cheating strategy? Right now people can send “unbinding inquiries”. And what would be the purpose of the “1 year E-cat test” then? Maybe just getting enough time?

    I think that if it is an investment fraud then Rossi and Industrial Heat are working together to cheat the people. If it is, I think that the probability that Rossi is cheating Industrial Heat is very low. Since they gave him 11 million USD he could have popped off after that.

    So probably Rossi and Industrial heat are working together to cheat the people if it is a fraud.

    Furthermore, they spend money to bribe Essen, Hoistad and Parkhomov (who was probably the cheapest to bribe). Or just promised them to give them a share of the stolen money.

    Then Rossi was definitely anxious to build a lot of dummy devices and make photographs for many years and paying someone to write on his blog.

  124. #125 Wow
    June 25, 2015

    “I still think that the e-cat is a source of energy.”

    Go ahead.

    Just about everyone else thinks it’s a scam, most of whom have good evidence for it.

    But you’re allowed to think what you like. Just don’t pretend it’s your faith.

  125. #126 axil
    August 14, 2015

    Recently, I was watching an easy to understand lecture on YouTube titled “ER = EPR”, or “What’s Behind the Horizons of Black Holes?” given by Prof. Leonard Susskind, director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. He was explaining how he resolves the AMPS paradox about the limitation a entanglement to explain manipulation of energy inside a black hole through wormholes.

    His explanation related to Black Holes explains perfectly how energy from a fusion event is sent into a SPP(an acoustic EMF Black Hole) as a consequence of entanglement. Susskind said that it would take science 100 years to recognized that his theory was true or not because there was no way to experimentally test it.

    He also explained how a black hole sends out entangling photons from black hole evaporation. This wormhole base energy transfer mechanism must also happen with SPPs. All this EMF from SPP evaporation must create an totally entangled environment inside a LENR reactor. This might explain why Rydberg matter is superconducting.

    I thought to myself that this energy transfer happens as a fundamental mechanism in LENR that can be experimentally verified. Susskind can resolve the structure of space time and connect quantum mechanics to general relativity and prove it experimentally using a LENR reactor. If only one of the LENR experimentalists would let down their proprietary dress and work with black hole science. Just imagine how far our understanding of the universe will move forward when science and LENR are reconciled.

  126. #127 Wow
    August 15, 2015

    “His explanation related to Black Holes explains perfectly how energy from a fusion event is sent into a SPP”

    No it doesn’t.

    You’ve ret-conned it. Odd how after the fact you manage to get a “perfect explanation” (as long as you forget to look where it doesn’t fit).

  127. #128 axil
    August 16, 2015

    Wow, were doesn’t it fit?

  128. #129 Wow
    August 16, 2015

    Everywhere, axil. There is no place it fits.

  129. #130 kirk
    October 1, 2015

    Oh No! Rossi has obtained a US Patent for the E-Cat
    Oh No! Piantelli has obtained a European Patent describing a nuclear process…
    Oh No! Tom Darden of Cherokee and Industrial Heat interviewed in Fortune Magazine
    Oh No! Woodford , a $7B investment company invests $20M in Indusrial Heat…… all fooled by the master scammer? Who is being delusional here???
    O

  130. #131 dean
    October 1, 2015

    @130:
    The patent made no mention of LENR or cold fusion.

    Just another step in the scam, yes.

    Fortune is a scientific journal? When did that happen? When did PR discussions constitute research? Still no evidence of substance.

  131. #132 Wow
    October 2, 2015

    “Oh No! Rossi has obtained a US Patent for the E-Cat”

    Someone got a patent on swinging using a circular motion.

    nuff said.

  132. #133 Nick
    Canada
    January 11, 2016

    Thank you Ethan for the article.
    I saw a lot of video and photos for this demonstration and never saw some device for power measurements rather than multimeter. Right now I am struggling with AC power measurements (job related). There are no way to measure AC power just using multimeter because of the phase shift between voltage and current. A good device for that purpose looks slightly different and much more expensive.

  133. #134 Denier
    United States
    April 11, 2016
  134. #135 PJ
    Perth, west Oz
    April 11, 2016

    Duh ……… who woulda thunk ?

New comments have been disabled.