Monday, May 20, 2013


The much awaited report on the tests performed by a group of Italian and Swedish scientists was published this Monday morning, thus starting a week of discussions of still unpredictable extent.
Will the press (Press) react fast, will the dedicated Rossi killers counter-react fiercely or will they make intellectual seppuku as suggested; we will see.
For those few readers who have not yet studied the report here are the links:

The first to react probably was the excellent Swedish journalist Mats Lewan on his blog: but he has promised more details from the authors on Ny Teknik. My Swedish friend David Nygren has called me on Skype to announce the event.
The publication process seemed to be slow, but peer reviewing never was fast. It is still not clear where will be this report published in printed form, but after reading it, this seems not very relevant to me.

The essence of this report is this: Rossi obtains enhanced excess heat in his generator(s)
A certainty – you can see in my writings that I have stated this long ago. Rossi is on the way, long and with many obstacles from this first step which is his discovery to an energy source. Rossi being very secretive we cannot know if he has solved the problems of control as start-up, adjustment of heat level and instant shut-down etc, but we wish him the best.
I have paid a high human cost for my conviction that Rossi has demonstrated beyond any doubt intense excess heat even in his series of seriously “improved” dozen experiments from 2011-
I have lost the friendship of two individuals I have admired still then but now they became intolerant to contrary opinions. A third friend got angry with me both for this and for my support for Defkalion- who has the most creative thinking in LENR+, IMHO.
Defkalion has focused its initial R&D efforts on control, first of all
on start-up, a critical stage for LENR+.

The two experiments of the Professors lead to good levels of excess heat and to decent values of COP, 5.6 and 2.6 and this need to increased (3.0 is the minimum technological value taking in account that a unit of electric energy is 3 times more expensive than the same unit of thermal energy).

The difference between Excess Heat and a genuine Energy Source will be made obvious using the example of the thermo-radiant stones that have been used for heating the homes in the Arctic zones with active volcanoes. Those “heitt steinn” had to be mined, cut and have created some problems of logistics and of adjustment. Therefore as soon technical progress has arrived to those cold zones, standard gas, oil electric and other heaters were used replacing the hot stones.

Rossi’s zoology inspired approaches to viable energy sources are suggesting that he uses now a mouse for better start-up and control and goes on two different ways for scale-up: multi-cat and E-Tiger
The report is a victory for LENR+ and perhaps it can prepare the press and the open-minded public opinion for even greater victories that will come this year.



  1. Glad you kept to your beliefs Peter, it was much more than a lucky guess by you to decide that there was something amazing going on with this Rossi E-Cat LENR saga. But unsaid by you is how this paper also indicates that Defkalion may also possess a workable LENR Plus design. I can see how problems of insufficient R&D funds will go away as world interest zeros in on the greatest scientific wonder to be discovered in many years. I think that all of those following this story are happy with the results so far, I am confident that the independent report represents but the first step in an infinite journey for mankind.

  2. Thank you dear Nixter,

    I have kept my opinions because they were based on hard, objective
    thinking and facts. I have learned R&D not only from books.
    I have told here quite clearly that Defkalion is very advanced on
    that Way from Enhanced Excess Heat to the commercial source of energy.
    I think that a problem even more serious than lack of funding was
    and is lack of new ideas, lack of a radically new paradigm in the field.
    You see that the coming ICCF-18 is centered around the very cradle of CF and based on using the scientific method, and that
    specifically for LENR is both insufficient and impossible due
    to weaknesses in experiment. The Solution was hidden inside, but came to reality from Outsiders.

  3. congratulation for being ... stone headed ...

    now time to have fun, and first see the machine to deni try to invent good excuses...
    then see the rats escape the denial boat, trying to say they are the hero...
    will be fun !

    1. Probably the denialists are groggy but surely not KO.
      They are more resistant and stubborn than we imagine and will attack irrelevant details.La Garde Meurt Mais Ne Se Rend Pas (la garde du Koalemos)
      It exists a sub-species of Homo sapiens who must avoid at any price questions to which it is NOT possible to answer
      with the simplest dualistic Yes/No.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Dear Mr Gluck

    A conclusive successful validation of lenr+ just as you dreamed of!
    Your wishes and dreams are coming true, I am very happy for you :)

    Love / DB

    1. Dear Bob,
      Very nice however what I want/dream is a source of
      energy, a generator that can be fine tuned, started
      shut down- something very practical,.
      This report is fine, it demonstrates (despite any present
      and future nit-picking, logical bias and other coming manoeuvers)thta Rossi has a system (more actually that
      give powerful excess power- excellent. Excellent for continuing to work hard and smart to makea useful source oof power/energy.

    2. Peter, before we can run we have to walk and before we can go to that place we had to get to this place.

      I suppose you rather wanted Defkalions name on the report but this brings added value their way around as well since they used to work with Rossi.


      *dancing dog*

    3. Dear Bob,
      This is a very positive for the entire emerging LENR+ field. A line that has to be continued and improved.

  6. You have to admire the bravery of the scientists that ran these tests and put out this paper. The enemies of the ideas that they purport to verify will try to destroy them.

    How much faith that one puts in a test is usually determined by the faith that one has in the people who ran the test.

    If a vested interest can destroy that credibility of the testers, then they can destroy the value of the test that they have conducted.

    I predict that this test will not advance LENR against the vested interests afraid against it because the vested interests are very strong compared to the maximum credibility that a single test can generate.

    More LENR tests are required to increase the forces of credibility. For those who can, who have the ability and know how, now that you know what can be done, your systems are still of great value in the replication effort.

    The fight has just begun. Looking past this time of euphoria, like any initial systems design, the Rossi system is still a poor system if viewed in absolute terms, so other more innovative LENR solutions have an increased value in the upcoming LENR fray.

    But what is most important is the absolute validation that something is happening beyond the current consensus of scientific thought.

    The first transistor looked very bad and did not perform well at all. But that flawed device inspired a vision of what could be done, and that there is great value in doing it.

    1. The test is more or less a start and this Group of bold scientists have a plan to continue. This system is not the best, that's true but if Rossi has teamed with a company
      thta has good experts in engineering (that's more than engineers)and able to understand LENR- there are great chances of success. The energy market is insatiable, in principle.

  7. I suggest that you read and carefully consider Ed Storm's comments on Vortex. They make a lot of sense. There is a lot of possibility for error here, both in the input power measurement and also on the output end.

    It would have been much better and easier to follow if these esteemed scientists had simply repeated Levi's original experiment with liquid flow calorimetry at low temperatures, using proper calorimetry techniques. Despite many requests to do this, somehow Levi never found the time even though it is now more than two years since the original was supposedly done.

    I think it is very likely that it will turn out that once more, Rossi cleverly performed some sleight of hand and pulled the wool over the professor's eyes.

    BTW, someone should ask Rossi who, from his shop, supervised these tests. In one test, the ecat was already running at the start. Who started it? I bet this will turn out to be not entirely independent from Rossi. I also predict it will not be replicated by another, entirely different team, not involving the original "players".

    Once more: please read what Edmund Storms writes and give it a lot of thought. His post is here:

    1. Dear Mary,

      Usually you come with your own ideas, this time your logical bias is appeal to authority.
      I have answered to Ed told him that he made you happy. Please look to my answer there. Ed is perhaps the mots knowledgeable in LENR but he still has to learn in LENR+ (the sort that works)
      You think Rossi was juggling >80 and over> 110 hours mesmerizing the Professors? Do you want com[;ete;y independent tests or correct results?
      Mary dear, you have interpreted well your role of Rossi killer, you are strong (as I have predicted in an other answer to comments) today, but slowly it si the time to be
      rational and to abandon the idea. LENR+ is stronger than
      the denialists.

    2. I don't know how to reply, Peter. You don't address the problems with the measurements and you don't comment on why Rossi never properly tested much simpler ecats.

      I think this will end for you in bitter disappointment from both Rossi and Defkalion. This (Rossi's story) is not the way great discoveries develop. It's the way scams are conducted. My best opinion about this is that Rossi cleverly managed to fool the same people once again.

    3. So maryyugo,
      Do I understand you correctly when I say that Rossi could have rigged the amount of power that went in the device in the active run? In other words, the testers did not take enough preventive measures to exclude this possibility?

    4. Dear Mary,

      Just please tell exactly with courage what you think.
      You say the measurements are in complete error, the tests are surely a fake, deceiving naive people, Rossi's Ecat does NOT deliver a trace of excess energy, total scam and you know all these with absolute certainty? Add to this what you wish, call a spade a spede, please. No theories please just facts. Waiting!

      I have congratulate you as the bravest and fastest bravo,
      where re your colleagues?
      There wil be disappointment in LENR_ but just in the reverse direction than you predict it, I bet.

  8. Maryyugo,
    I suppose the side by test with the nonoperational cat as control wasn't adequate to provide a good enough level of assurance for you? Or was it that the tests only lasted only 4 or 5 days each. Come now - this is quite a group putting their reputations on the line. - My guess would be that you'll still be denying it works when some of us are heating our homes with it.

    1. No, the so-called side by side test is not good enough. The dummy run was done with DC heating while the actual run was done with a "proprietary" power supply of undetermined frequency and wave shape. That would be sufficient for the measuring instruments, which seem to be limited by the clamp-on ammeters to low frequencies and rounded waveforms, to make a substantial underestimation of the input power.

      Did you read and understand the report?

  9. Dr. Storms' comments on Vortex are unfair and I am banned from replying there (doubly unfair) so I will reply to him here. He says: "No matter what is said, Yugo and others will distort the comments to agree with their belief. If we accept Rossi, we are stupid and deceived. If we criticize Rossi, this is used to show that Rossi is wrong. They do not even attempt to understand what part of a claim may be real. They simply reject all claims that CF is real."

    In addition, I quoted Dr. Storms' comments directly and in no way did I distort them.

    I make no conclusion about whether or not "all claims that CF is real" are true or otherwise. I do conclude that Defkalion and Rossi behave in every way like investment scammers, something Dr. Storms apparently is not familiar with.

    I completely agree with his other remarks. Rossi never tests his gear in the proper manner. That also indicates that Rossi knows that if he did the tests correctly, they would show that he is a scammer. Otherwise, why not do them properly?

    Storms goes on to write: "The method of evaluating the energy described in the paper may be correct. However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature. I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from which the total power generated could be measured. These are not difficult or complicated things to do. Why are half measures repeatedly used? Why must we have to debate details that are easy to eliminate as issues?"

    I completely agree except that I know WHY we have to debate these things. It's because Rossi sets up the tests, whether conducted entirely by him or by surrogates, so they can not reveal the true facts about his machines.

    The difference between Storms and me is that Storms thinks it's possible that Rossi is only lying some of the time. I am reasonably sure he is always lying. The only argument I have with Storms is about whether Rossi has ever demonstrated anything conclusive or not. I am certain that he has not.

    If Dr. Storms wishes to debate with me about Rossi's previous tests, I'll be delighted to do so.

    1. funny...
      With some stockholm syndrome, like Strong and Rothwell, you maye be afraid to accept the mesh of evidences, and just claim there is a non-null risk of problem.

      with some lack of honesty and a strong negative bias, you may find some reason to be a little uncertain, not totally sure.
      however your totally certain position it is a scam is...


    2. Dear Mary,

      Dr Storms is a great personality of our field, possibly not inerrant however fair. Why should he wish to discuss
      with you the same things again an again. Words have limited power and influence, in a rather short time when
      LENR+ generators will be on the market the problem will be settled- have no suggestions for you what to do then.

    3. MY in your world every company in the universe is an investment scammer.

      Have you ever run a company that provides products?

    4. maryyugo:

      The fact that you cite Storms' criticism only shows that you didn't read the paper - as much as Storms obviously didn't read the entire paper when he wrote that criticism.

      If you had actually read the paper you would have known that they DID USE thermocouples for calibration. It's all in there... just READ IT!

    5. Right, my error.

  10. maryyugo like me you have not read that test report with focus and experience.

    Jed Rothwell has read the material with intense interest and expertise three time so far; and this is what he has said:

    Edmund Storms wrote:

    However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured temperature.

    Jed Rothwell responds:

    They did that. See p. 18, QUOTE:

    "Various dots were applied to the dummy as well. A K-type thermocouple heat probe was placed under one of the dots, to monitor temperature trends in a fixed point. The same probe had also been used with the E-Cat HT2 to double check the IR camera readings during the cooling phase. The values measured by the heat probe were always higher than those indicated by the IR camera: this difference, minimal in the case of the E-Cat HT2, was more noticeable in the dummy, where temperature readings proved to be always higher by about 2 °C. The most likely reason for the difference is to be sought in the fact that the probe, when covered with the dot securing it the surface, could not dissipate any heat by convection, unlike the areas adjacent to it."

    The word "dot" is defined earlier in the paper:

    "Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2’s coat of paint. For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras (Optris part: ACLSED)."

    I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from which the total power generated could be measured.

    As I mentioned before, I think the device might melt again if they did that. I would fear that.

  11. Continuing:

    I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing I wish they had checked but did not.

    In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account.

    Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote:

    "The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves."

    They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round that up to 1 g.

    They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat producing reaction in addition to the electric heater.

    I like it!

    1. Hi Axil,

      In fact, I did not notice the temperature dots. I was focusing on Storms' asking why some sort of envelope calorimetry was not used. It's a valid question.

      I am also puzzled by what they call the "dummy" run by which I presume they mean calibration or blank run. It's a good idea but then they go and change from pulsed power for the experiment to DC for the dummy. Why?

      I don't pretend to know how Rossi cheated THIS time. I'm pretty sure I know how he cheated in the past and I'm pretty sure he's cheating again.

      Note who he chose to do the experiments. See this excellent brief interview by Krivit with Essen:

      I am still reasonably confident that Rossi is committing fraud. Exactly how, on this particular occasion, remains to be seen. I suspect it will be discovered in time. Or the lack of any other credible developments in the future will put this set of tests in perspective as very unlikely to be valid.

      There is unlikely ever to be a credible customer with a product to show to the public and the press. And, in my opinion, it is unlikely that a truly independent "black box" experiment not involving Rossi's lab or Levi's equipment will ever be done.

      What a lot of people don't realize is that I would love to be wrong. Real high power LENR would be much more interesting than Rossi shenanigans. But I don't think I am wrong. I think a lot of people want Rossi to be real so badly that they are excessively gullible.

    2. Rossi is a hard guy to like or trust. I almost joined you in expulsion for a post I wrote about Rossi’s character flaws.

      I think I see how Rossi does LENR and it is very exciting. Few people will be able to understand how it is done because it is a wonderful maze of quantum mechanics that is just now being untangled.

      Sometimes unpleasant people win the lottery. They get lucky. We must accept this quirk of destiny and make it a plus for the benefit of all mankind.

  12. Axil, I don't know your background but I spoke about Rossi's latest exploit with someone expert in heat transfer and fluid flow. He told me that it is madness to take a source of large amounts of thermal energy and simply hang it in ambient air! Heck, it doesn't even cooling fins!

    Proper design would require a coolant jacket using either high temperature oil or if needed liquid metal. In addition to allowing much more heat production without destruction compared to the current design, this would also have the advantage of built in calorimetry. To determine output enthalpy, all one would need to do would be to measure the flow rate of the coolant and the delta T. He could not understand why Rossi, if he were for real, did not do that! Even the comparative amateurs doing the MFPM Celani "replication" project know enough to cool their cell and to measure the heat transfer by calorimetry. Apparently Rossi and his crew of experts don't. Strange.

    1. when someone make flow calorimetry as you aks you claim fake... when thermometry ... fake...
      phase change ... fake ... no phase chnage ... fake...

      I'm fed up.

      no way to please you patho-skeptic.

      there is no rational way to hide tricks as you say with the protocol and checking done.

      Like with Defkalion independent test, the key point is that the testers were free to play in the playground... a magician never let his victims alone with his tricks...

      In don't hope to convince any pathoskeptic, idealist or scientist...

      However any engineer, any magician, any mentalist, any businessman, will know that it is the BEST EVIDENCE ALL IS NO FRAUD.

      Rossi's lack of cooperation with Nelson was suspect, but once the magician let the tester alone with the toy, it is that there is no trick to be found...

      Beside that evidence, the paper seems to address all the point you raise... but that is not important...
      There is no way you cannot imagine another untestable hypothesis...

      end of the game.

      Time to build an industry.
      Let the serious guys work.

  13. On the other hand, there is advantage in extreme simplicity. I am impressed by a stainless steel pipe glowing red hot with a few thin gaged copper wires coming out of it.

    How could a rod just a few centimeters thing produce such high energies, unless the reaction is nuclear like a nuclear fuel rod. And no radiation is detected. This is impressive to the common man.

    It’s so naked in its simplicity; it is so compelling and historic.

    These pictures of this red hot reactor cannot help but impress the most died in the wool LENR critic.

    Be honest about it; you are impressed greatly?

    1. Yes, I am impressed greatly but not in the way you mean. I am impressed that Rossi goes to great lengths to *avoid* truly independent evaluation, that he never names a customer (not ONE), that he never repeats a demonstration (typical for sleight of hand cons), that he never does a clean demo with proper calibrations and methodology, that only his close associates, friends and people he has clearly duped before are allowed near his tests, and that everything he does is certain to create controversy rather than to settle it.

      If you are impressed by a pipe glowing red, perhaps you've never seen a simple tube furnace. They do that just as well as Rossi's. And they also connect with a pair of pretty thin wires.

      No, this latest buffoonery doesn't impress me one bit. I am, however, curious as to exactly how Rossi fooled the scientists because I really can't see how. Yet. On the other hand, I usually can't tell how a good stage magician does illusions. I suspect it's a similar situation here. Rossi's hot cat is, in my opinion, some sort of illusion and for now, a reasonably good one.

    2. you know dude when muon catalyzed fusion (formerly called cold fusion) came out people like you were so common that somebody wrote a story about it

      "Unlike the thermonuclear bomb contained in the Pod (which is used to destroy the Barrier) they can become temporarily disabled by 'concentrated disbelief' that cold fusion works."

  14. @Jed Rothwell:

    Now who's not reading? You wrote on Vortex: "> It is unclear whether the same emissivity was used in the blanco and the real test and thus whether the blanco was analysed in exactly the same way.>

    I think it says that it was. They used the dots and thermocouple in both cases."

    That's true but they used DC from the magic box when they ran the blank and they used some secret wave shape when they ran the experiment.

    "The electrical power to the dummy was handled by the same control box, but without the ON/OFF cycle of the resistor coils. Thus,the power applied to the dummy was continuous." (page 18 of the PDF) I assume that meant DC but actually it is so imprecise, it's not possible to know!

    God only knows what else was different because the experimenters had no access to the inside of that mystery box and seemed to have forgotten to bring their oscilloscope.

    1. It does not matter the input power measuring apparatus was upstream from everything.

    2. Of course it matters. Rossi had control of the mains. He could have put anything on what the experimenters believed to be a conventional power line.