Friday, October 24, 2014


Giuseppe Levi
Evelyn Foschi: unknown, please convey
Tornbjorn Hartman:
Roland Petterson:
Lars Tegner:
Hanno Essen:

Dear Authors,

For the sake of Science and especially for the New Paradigm
of the energy source called in present Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, it is necessary to get more essential scientific data
regarding the very important experiment made by you.
This is possible only via a collegial and mutually respectful
dialogue with you.
I have elaborated and described the principles for organizing such a dialogue here: 

The impact of my proposition was minor and I have received too many thorny and Krivitized  questions, unusable - therefore I have decided to write you in my own name and in the name of my Blog and to ask you the following questions:


1- Can you tell us more about the design of the Cell and the planning of the Test?

2- On which thermal and optical characteristics of the alumina used for the vessel, was the test based?

3- Can you give more data regarding the internal structure and the transport, transfer and transformation of matter and energy in the Cell?

4- What methods of stimulation (EM etc.) have you used to trigger the reactions?

5- In which extent the cell/process tolerates the presence of air and water?

Please remove any and all the doubts regarding the temperature of 1400C on the Cell ergo question 6 and 7:

6- How do you explain the survival (?) of Ni nanostructures in the close proximity of the melting temperature of nickel?

7- Is the device “calorimetrable” i.e. what is the effect of cooling, partial removal of excess heat?

8- Based on your two tests including the analyses of both fuel and ash what do you think about the reactions taking place?

9- Is there a complete set of analyses bound to the test- that can be used to work out understanding and theory/ies of the process?

10- -With whom from you can we discuss New Paradigm (theory)?

11- What your attitude toward replication of the test, new tests other actions in collaboration?

Please send the answers to the Blog (comments) or to
Thank you in advance,

Peter Gluck


  1. Peter, this has the right tone. I hope they can answer a question>\.

    1. where was the thermocouple located
    2. What kind of thermocouple was used
    3. What was the thermocouple data like? i.e. trace for multiple days.

    1. Festina lente as the Italians say, Such questions can come later if a
      working relationship can be established with the Authors.
      These question suggest guilt or negligence
      I have asked them to tell why are sure 1400 C is indeed 1400 C.


  2. We only really need ONE piece of information......was the E-cat with charge hotter than the E-cat without charge for the same current input.

    1. Three
      2 how much hotter it was
      3 what say the analyses about the reactions in the active core


  3. What's the purpose of an incomplete report? Bothering debunkers and collecting chickens?

    1. Why are you speaking about purpose? Its cause was protection of Rossi's IP and it is nothing so bad in this. We don't learn only to know, but also to know more than other people. Then we don't tell them all we have learned.


  4. purpose of an incomplete report is: The Cabal need continuation of misallocation of capital. It is 3+ Billions USD/per day business.
    Incomplete report with no self-sustain mode of operation = 1 to 2 Trillion USD/ per year waste into old obsolete technologies can continue.
    Bravo !! Mission accomplished.

  5. The Lugano test omitted accurate calibration of heat output over the entire temperature range examined during the actual experiment. This alone is a fatal flaw and more so if deception is considered possible.

    Every one of Rossi's demonstrations has had the same problem: none or insufficient calibration of the output heat measurement system. That means that we will never know if Levi measured properly in February 2011 when he got much more power than he gets now from the old small water heating ecat. We will never know if the demos witnessed by Kullander and Essen and Lewan were valid or represented Rossi fooling them. Was the steam dry? We won't know because there was no calibration. Did the heat exchanger measurements work right? Same answer.

    What is it about supposedly accomplished scientists that they forget to calibrate? And that's when there is convenient electric heater with which to do it in every ecat!

    So I suppose a good question to ask the scientists is why they didn't calibrate over the full temperature range. I don't buy the notion that the heater would have been damaged because it doesn't make any sense. Also because it was Rossi who said it.

    And also please ask why Essen and Lewan didn't calibrate in a single earlier experiment!

  6. Link to a proposed theory of how transmutation may occur in the Rossi eCat


    1. Thanks, I found it at e-catw and have stored it for examination tomorrow morning. It is a simple theory 1 theory and I think
      LENR needs more combined...will see what can be this one worth.


  7. On the last page of the report it states "Only a few granules of grey sample were possible to obtain from the ash and they didn’t look exactly the same."

    Could that entire sentence please be explained or expanded on?

  8. 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 the iconic 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.