Cold Fusion Experiment Maybe Holds Promise … Possibly … Hang on a Sec ….

Cold fusion has been called one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs that might likely never happen. On the surface, it seems simple – a room-temperature reaction occurring under normal pressure. But it is a nuclear reaction, and figuring it out and getting it to work has not been simple, and any success in this area could ultimately – and seriously — change the world. Despite various claims of victory over the years since 1920, none have been able to be replicated consistently and reliably.

But there’s buzz this week of a cold fusion experiment that has been replicated, twice. The tests have reportedly produced excess heat with roughly 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline.

The names involved are familiar in the cold fusion circles: Italian entrepreneur Andrea Rossi has been claiming for several years that his E-Cat device produces heat through a process called a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR), and puts out more energy than goes in. In the past, Rossi didn’t allow anyone to verify his device because he claimed his device was an “industrial trade secret.”

But a new paper published on arXiv last week says that seven independent scientists have performed tests of two E-Cat prototypes under controlled conditions, using high-precision instrumentation. Although the authors of the paper wrote that they weren’t allowed to see what was going on inside the sealed steel cylinder reactor, they did write in their paper, “Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.“

The team did two tests:

The first test experiment, lasting 96 hours (from Dec. 13th 2012, to Dec. 17th 2012), was carried out by the two first authors of this paper, Levi and Foschi, while the second experiment, lasting for 116 hours (from March 18th 2013, to March 23rd 2013), was carried out by all authors.

Previously, Rossi and his colleague Sergio Focardi have said their device works by infusing hydrogen into nickel, transmuting the nickel into copper and releasing a large amount of heat.

As expected, the paper – which is not peer-reviewed – and Rossi’s work have both been met with lots of skepticism.

Steven Krivit, writing in the New Energy Times said that the paper by Levi, Foschi et al doesn’t describe any independent test but that authors were just witnesses of a Rossi demonstration.

Ethan Seigel from “Starts With a Bang” said its just another magic trick of a charlatan that people are falling for, again.

The folks at the Martin Fleishman Memorial Project website – a group that facilitates the wide-spread replication and validation of things like LENR in an open and scientific manner – say they have an overall positive impression of the paper by Levi and Foschi.

“Our preliminary assessment among the team is that it is a generally good report with no obvious errors or glaring omissions,” they wrote on their website. “It is easily the best evidence to date that Rossi has a working technology, and, if verified openly and widely, this report could be remembered as historic.”

But they also don’t have total confidence in the paper. “It is unfortunate that there are some justified concerns about the independence of the test team, since many of the authors are names that we have seen before in the context of Rossi.” Plus, they are disappointed that none of the authors of the Levi and Foschi paper are willing to present their findings at an upcoming conference.

They also have several other technical questions and criticisms, as do many others.

Articles on Forbes and ExtremeTech are more enthusiastic.

It’s too soon to say if this latest buzz about cold fusion will amount to anything. Only time and more tests and scrutiny will reveal whether this is anything to get excited about.

131 Replies to “Cold Fusion Experiment Maybe Holds Promise … Possibly … Hang on a Sec ….”

  1. “Although the authors of the paper wrote that they weren’t allowed to see
    what was going on inside the sealed steel cylinder reactor”

    This has a huge stink. Typical the equivalent of the free energy proponents that claim that magnets have some magical properties.

    1. You should read the pre-conditions of the tests made. It is a black box test. Measure what goes in and what goes out. I strongly recommend you read the real paper, not just this web article. The output energy exceeds by far anything one would expect from a chemical process.

      1. The battery explanation again. Try something else. The unit glowed yellow for 116 hours. Which battery were you suggesting might be in the steel container. Other thinkers have tried a DC carrier for the AC input. I don’t yet see why that wouldn’t work and would hide the DC. But I strongly doubt it.

      2. This really stinks.

        “…the paper by Levi, Foschi et al doesn’t describe any independent test but that authors were just witnesses of a Rossi demonstration.”

        They witnessed a test. Were these scientists there for 116 hours uninterrupted?

      3. false, they make the test themselves, installed the instruments, designed the protocol, chosen the instruments, have access to all out of the boxes.

        many false statement are used by desperate pretended skeptics…

        The only serious hypothesis may be error, but 600% error is hard to swallow.

        and for most skeptic like the denialist of wikipedia, 1% anomalous heat validated is a revolution in physics…

        forget about the crazy arguments, the problems is to swallow the bird that since 24 years, consensus in science have been wrong and have used terrorist methods against dissenters…

        We should launch a Nuremberg cour about cold fusion… another story.

        just read that sub-forum to understd why it would be fair :

        (follow the tag ‘denial’ too)

      4. I am missing the electrical schematic how they tested in their paper. Where did they put the power meter? How were the wiring set up? How does this metal frame come into play? Does that frame carry electricity?

        I do not see an oscilloscope attached to the power and device that shows the voltages over the mains and device. Such a power meter would not detect cheating voltages.

      5. Olaf in on track. Note that the tests were conducted in Rossi’s facility. Power meters can be fooled if input power of a different not meter tuned frequency is applied. There is also the possibility of ground currents supplying energy. Never mind the simplest hidden wire possibility.
        All this could be avoided by just having MIT or some such test an e-kitty AT their own facility. A big institution could sign a promise not to “open” the box and has billions of $ in endowments that they could be sued for for stealing or revealing paranoid trade secrets.

      6. Starting with a know power supply that can be controlled not to provide more power than claimed would be a good start.

        Replace the wiring with controlled wires and let those scientists wire up the device themselves.

        Measure the power that gets transmitted through the Earth wire.

        Measure ALL currents and voltages. Also DC and outside the 50/60 Hz range. Not only relative to each other but also relative to the Earth just in case the wires carries a current on all wires at the same time that a meter would not detect.

        Use different types of measuring devices to make sure that it is not a measuring device error. Take care that the measurement itself does not add more power to the system.

        The claim is nuclear fusion, so some radiation must be detected.

        Replace the sealed cylinder with one that does nothing and repeat the experiment showing that without the sealed cylinder nothing special happens.

        Replace the element that is going to be heated with a fake one having a different chemical composition to show that nothing special happens.

        Show that once the experiment started disconnect from the power source and make it self-powered.

      7. Excellent comments – I am reaching the point where I cannot be bothered to comment anymore, so it’s nice to see you comment. All the controversy could be ended by demonstrating certain types of radiation which must be present if transmutation is taking place.

      8. about MIT, Brillouin reactor have been tested at SRI by SRI, and COP is 2 …

        about Rossi, the tester were able to bring a voltmeter with DC measurement… rossi had no control of that.
        this mean that he could not take that risk…

        al that circus is just like conspiracy theory… people unable to accept something inconvenient…

        basically the key is that LENR is said to be fake, and it is clearly not fake, but real and better controlled than before…

        all if normal if you accept the facts as they are.

      9. I agree with those “desperate pretend skeptics”. I’ll be patient and see how this story plays out. I’d be overjoyed if cold fusion were possible and replicable. I’ll wait until it is proven before blindly believing it.

      10. right, hard to swallow since :

        – they plugged some instruments on the same plug

        – they have access to all things before the controlbox of the reactor, meaning that Rossi would be afraid for them to simply test the current/voltage for DC component… Rossi allowed the testers to play with all except inside the boxes… this mean that stage fraud is restricted to the black box.

        any test done with freedom to test all outside the box, to use isntruments as desired out of the box, calcel the hypothesis of stage magician.

        magician don’t let spectators play alone with their tricks…

        with the long story of evidence of LENR,

        there is no required exceptional evidence about a nuclea reaction in hydride, no more than for a thermoelectric generator, a solar panel…

        second, it is the 3rd report of that type, so it is no surprise that heat can be produced at industrial level, and controlled… Just have to check, and it is checked.

        the skepticism is mostly du to the cognitive dissonance of mainstream scientists.
        The problem with LENr is that there is no theory.
        thomas Kuhn in “structure of scientific revolution” explain that anomalies in mainstream theory are ignored, rejected without any apparent rationality, until there is a total ell-encompassing theory of the anomalies and the other facts…

        without theory science will reject all facts… I just imagine that when it is industrial they will swallow the bird… but as usual it will take years if not decades.

        don’t panic, it is “normal science” as thomas kuhn say.

        for data see on, in JCMNS journal,… we have much data…
        — alainco, the techwatche of lenr-forum

      11. Olaf resist your temptation to just dismiss it and read the report. Your getting bits and pieces. It wasn’t completely a black box. Also a battery no matter how big would not do it

    2. Olaf2, the stink that you are smelling is the natural result of your own cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the norm when there is a scientific revolution. I suggest that you take 2 Vitamin-Cs, delve deeper, and call us in the morning.

      1. The stink is the sealed steel container. You can perfectly hide a battery or some other trick in it.

      2. Olaf2, that would be a heck of a battery to last 116 hours. I want one of those batteries. The total amount of energy is WAY too high for any kind of battery. Did you see the Ragone chart in the original paper?

      3. There are many other ways to insert energy. Hidden wires for example. e.g. a wire in a wire.

        116 hours, you are not going to tell me that these scientists were there for 116 hours uninterrupted. Some tricks might occur when they were not looking or when they went to the bath room or ate.

      4. Read the link posted by David Crossman above. You might it find it of some interest.

      5. I have been reading the paper and the sceptics post.

        * 116 hours is not 116 hours of producing excessive energy.

        * It would be nice to have a reference heat source on the same image to show that the camera has nor been tampered with.

        * This device contains heaters to heat up the material.

        * Fake wiring could explain it. It would be nice if they put a power meter on the wall socket to monitor excessive power.

        * 3 KW is very conveniently the limits of most household surges.

        * Was it Tesla that did not experiment by transmitting energy using the Earth? It could be a trick like that. In that steel casing some kind of current rectifier and capacitor when you transmit power through the ground or one wire only.

      6. Hi all

        In Reply to Olaf2

        I Draw your attention to the reply by one of the scientists involved in the Test of the E-Cat HT, it should help allay some of your fears:
        “Remember that there were not only three clamps to measure the current on three phases but also four connectors to measure the voltage on the three phases and the zero/ground line. The protective ground line was not used and laid curled up on the bench. The only possibility to fool the power-meter then is to raise the DC voltage on all the four lines but that also means that the current must have an other way to leave the system and I tried to find such hidden connections when we were there.

        The controll box had no con-nections through the wood on the table. All cables in and out were accounted for. The E-cat was just lying on the metal frame that was only free-standing on the floor with no cables going to it. The little socket, where the mains cables from the wall connector where connected with the cables to the box and where we had the clamps, was screwed to the wood of the bench but there was no screws going through the metal sheet under the bench. The sheet showed no marks on it under the interesting parts (or elsewhere as I remember it). Of course, if the white little socket was rigged inside and the metal scews was long enough to go just through the wood, touching the metal sheet underneath, then the bench itself could lead current. I do not remember if I actually checked the bench frame for cables connected to it but I probably did. However, I have a close-up picture of the socket and it looks normal and the screws appear to be of normal size. I also have pictures of all the connectors going to the powermeter and of the frame on the floor. I took a picture every day of the connectors and cables to the powermeter in case anyone would tamper with them when we were out.

        I lifted the controll box to check what was under it and when doing so I tried to measure the weight and it is muck lighter than a car battery. The box itself has a weight, of course, and what is in it can not be much.

        All these observations take away a number of ways to tamper with our measurements but there can still be things that we “didn’t think of” and that is the reason why we only can claim “indications of ” and not “proof of” anomalous heat production. We must have more control over the whole situation before we can talk about proof.

        Best regards,

        The above post was made in reply to an excellent sceptical post made by Ethan Siegel:

        I recommend it as the source for future arguments Ethan Siegel has excellent credentials

        Try to stay away from un-credentialed sources and the Ad Homonym attacks made by the likes of Steven B. Krivit, his website seems IMHO to be some form get your credit card and money operation, apparently all posts have to be approved by him too and the character maryyugo seems to have no proper identity or credentials, best to be sceptical about those who hide their identity.

        Overall IMHO those two come across as very dodgy repeating their fallacies just tars you with the same brush.

        Kind Regards walker

      7. I don’t care if Ethan Siegel has excellent credentials or if he is the pope.

        Maybe they should start to add a schematic how they tested to their paper and include the pictures.

        Disconnect if from the mains, connect it to a known limited source like batteries with a DC to AC converter. Let the testers rewire the thing with wires they brought themselves.

        Add surge protectors on every phase that will blow if it goes above the normal operation current.

        He does not recall if a wire connected to the frame.

        He does not describe measurement across the 2 heating elements or the voltage and current going through the 2 heating resistors.

        So far the test seems to appear to have only a power meter at the mains and a heat camera (+ watch) and that is it.

        Even though it “appears” to be not connected, that does not mean that you do not test that. The home point of an illusionists trick is to “appear” normal.

      8. Yeah, right. You know we talk about a group of people well aware of the critique to come. They are no dupes. There are no wires, batteries or freaking particle beams heating the core of that reactor. It is the LENR process in the core doing that.

      9. Awesome!.. Anybody have an estimate on when this magnificent breakthrough will be displayed to the World for all to see?.. And test? Those guys should be billionaires in no time! Cool!

      10. “It is the LENR process in the core doing that.”

        Um, no. That is what the current work tries to find out. But it has abstained from claiming “LENR”, and it hasn’t even undergone peer review yet.

        So such claims are taken out of someone’s ass.

  2. Apparently the device transmutes nickel into copper releasing energy in the process.

    Now I’m not a nuclear physicist … but it seems like common knowledge at least to astronomy fans that fusion producing elements heavier than Iron actually takes energy rather than releasing energy. It’s why massive stars go supernova – They hit Iron, insufficient energy is released to support the weight of the star. The star collapses and rebounds as a supernova. Some of the energy of the supernova goes into creating the heavier elements.

    If their device actually transmuted nickel to copper as advertised, if no external energy was provided, the device would get colder. – They’ve made the Cold Fusion Bomb seen at the start of the new Star Trek movie 🙂

    The device does receive external power … three phase electricity. It also has a lead out with one phase electricity.

    I am not an electrical engineer … but I say it’s just a phase converter and that when they said the electricity in and out is constant, they only reported one phase going in. The rest of the power heats the device.

    1. Its Ni + H = Cu so ‘on paper’ its vaguely feasible (I am not asserting it is practical though).

      I have to agree with the rest of what you say. There are just too many questions about the device itself to give any credence to this ‘technical demonstration’. It might as well have just been a Youtube video someone put together in their back shed.

      1. >There are just too many questions about the device

        There are also soo many infos on the web about it and about cold fusion (aka LENR). You can go to (forum) or to (more than 3000 papers about LENR with more than 1500 of it peer reviewed) for example

      2. And I won’t accept it until the details of the secret process are released so they can be independently tested by a process that allows for verification and refutation.

      3. Yeah, if they are scientist, it shouldn’t be industrial secret. If it’s industrial secret, stop teasing us and start mass-producing it.

      4. I have seen cases where someone has a process but they cannot find a way to scale it up for industrial use. They end up being stuck in a limbo with a great idea but no way to capitalize on it.

      1. yes, there are many theories, and none validated…

        This e-cat report ins only the 3rd independent report on a reactor designed by a commercial company. It is anyway the most formal.

        Stanford SRI have validated an experimental reactor of Brillouin, with a COP>2.

        Nelson, hired by a NGO but working at NASA, and having bashe Rossi in 2011 for loose tests, have validated roughly the Dekalion reactor at a COP around 3…

        the situation is very dynamic and many companies are playing chess.

        Few month ago I’ve made an executive summary :

        meanwhile some event happened.
        Defkalion announces a demo of their reactor at National Instrument NIWekk2013 in Austin, and a paper at ICCF18 in uni Missouri.

        Beside the reactor builders and the big corps, few startup start to organize themselves as an ecosystem : LENR-Cities, LENR-Invest, Kresenn… and they says they will present their project to Neuchatel swiss district and the city.

        AlainCo — the techwatcher of lenr-forum.

  3. “Steven Krivit, writing in the New Energy Times said that the paper by Levi, Foschi et al doesn’t describe any independent test but that authors were just witnesses of a Rossi demonstration”

    I believe that you describe mr Krivits reaction in a too plain and cautious manner. The language he has used has been very accusing. Personally I find mr Krivit to be a less than reliable source when it comes to relevant and unbiased information. After all, he claim to be a journalist, but appear more to be a man engaged in a vendetta.

    1. Freethinker, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Ever since he took the “whimpy steam” video (my name for it), he has written Rossi off hard. I must admit that I was somewhat rattled at his whimpy steam video also. However, Krivit is rather brave to pit his journalistic expertise against a team of very highly qualified scientists that are putting their reputations on the line.

      1. bfast, your handle seems familiar to me. Have I met you someplace before? (:->) I am here to do my part to reduce the total amount of suffering in the world. What is your excuse?

      2. I wouldn’t call him brave. Either he is paid, or he simply has an axe to grind. His rabid attitude in the interviews I have seen, some may construe as tenacity from a sceptic, but I don’t. I see a man with an agenda, not to find out the truth, but to flatly hunt down any discrepancy and debunk the whole thing. It is well known he is a champion of a competitor, based on the Widom-Larsen theory.

  4. This smells like a scam, walks like a scam, looks like a scam and it probably is a scam, as others have mentioned. There are easy ways to protect proprietary technologies from others – this kind of technology (if it wasn’t imaginary) would be incredibly valuable, more valuable than other technologies that are protected from reproduction by others. This would be worth BILLIONS of dollars it it worked and it would be easy to raise the money necessary to commercialize this. To veil this in secrecy is a good reason to be sceptical.

    1. Kawarthojon, keep looking. I went into it as skeptical as you. But there are hundreds of labs that have duplicated LENR. And to believe Rossi, you may have to stick with him for a while and watch a bunch of videos. He is one very hardworking dude who is working way too hard to be a scam-art. For someone who is working as hard as he is, wouldn’t it just be easier to get an honest job?

      1. A honest job doesn’t give you notoriety and fame like inventing a cold-fusion device.

        There’s nothing wrong with working extremely hard to study a scientific field only to have it eventually dis-proven. The key is being able to accept that truth when it becomes consensus and understand that negative results are just as important as positive results – as long as you’re performing good science. It takes a lot of failed hypotheses for every sound scientific theory that emerges.

        After many failed demonstrations, there is a huge burden of proof on LENR investigators to show this technology works and that they really are performing good science. Considering the history of this field, accepting this paper at face value without rigorous investigation and replication is a surefire way to be lead down the wrong path.

        I don’t know if they’re right or wrong, my field is medicine not physics, but I do know how easy it is to get burned by early results. When the likelihood of a result is extremely low (like an effective LENR device), it’s going to take a whole lot of successful reproduction with less opaque methods to validate that finding.

      2. Hundreds of labs have replicated this? Why have these hundreds of labs not submitted this information to peer review? Where is the evidence? Why have these replication studies not been published? Why is this not being commercialized?

        I am not going to base my opinion of whether or not cold fusion exists on some videos on Youtube that show some guy working hard!

        I want to see peer reviewed journal articles about it. I want to see independent replication of this process. I want to see a power plant being run by this process. I want to see spacecraft powered by it. I don’t see any of this stuff.

        Hard working dudes are sometimes also scam artists too. It is not easy to pull off a scam like cold fusion.

      3. They probably did. Peer review and the US Patent Office won’t accept anything labeled “Cold Fusion”. So I guess you are just going to have to trust yourself and decide for yourself whether it is real or not. Remember while you are deciding that many scientists swore up and down even up to 1908 that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. That is the way with paradigm shifts, game changers.

      4. @roger_bird:disqus Remember while you are deciding that many scientists swore up and down
        even up to 1908 that heavier-than-air flight was impossible

        Could you give the published works that these scientists wrote claiming that heavier than air flight was impossible? kthxbye

      5. by the way,


        stop propagating errors as if they were true…

        by just saying that you just prove that you are IGNORANT !

        National Instrument is not ignorant… this explain NiWeek2012 and 2013… they answered you questions already.

        Please, people who read that article, stop hearing ignorant people, that is a pain.

        don’t use Wikipedia, which is controlled by a cartel of vested interests like over-funded NGO or truth-enforcers with more ego than brain.

        note also that LENR reactions are reliable with some sample, and more and more successful because the conditions re better understood.
        claiming lack of reproducibility deny existence is unscientific, and if you don’t understand that it is unscientific, don’t talk about science.



        Could you provide a link to, say, 2 of them? kthxbye

      7. There are no results of working, net energy producing, cold fusion processes to my knowledge. (Or it would be Big News.)

        So there is no “duplicated LENR” in the meaningful sense that it has been shown to work. These are the sero (0) number of peer-reviewed papers that everyone (except LENR advocates) refer to.

      8. you wil the medal of dishonesty.
        you describe probably a LENR scientist as someone that quote a LENR paper, so no LENR scientists is not quoting LENR paper…
        It is natural because doing so make you instantly fringe…


        about duplication, CEA grenoble replicated F&P with modern calorimetry (and validated it).
        Nasa reproduced it’s ignored experiment of 89 on 2008. like uni-Tsinghua and biberian
        Toyota reproduced Iwamura of Mitsubishi…

        anyway I know that no replication is enough, either too similar, or too different…

        we have tritium produced, heat, he4, transmutation, gamma, neutrons… and nothing is accepted…

        this lack of honesty is ridiculous…

        Explain me how Robert Duncan get convinced that LENr was real after being PAID TO DEBUNK LENR by CNBC…

        read the data read the data

      9. There are no results of working, net energy producing, cold fusion processes to my knowledge. (Or it would be Big News.)

        So there is no “duplicated LENR” in the meaningful sense that it has been shown to work.

      10. There is. You didn’t see it. Not my fault. Try Mike McKubre on YouTube. Try doing a little research before you pontificate.

      11. for science eviden there is a pile. ask Naturwissenschaften about their cold fusion review… ed storms may help you to understand…

        about industry :
        SRI validated an experimental reactor by Brillouin, COP2
        Nelson validated Defkalion reactor with a COP of 3 (in bad condition)
        and this one is the third

        the volume of data that most people who have an opinion here ignore is bigger than my own library.

        I tried to make many long post on, but it seems that people are illiterate, especially when patho-skeptical.

    2. So you flatly reject this as a scam. With a vivid description how this smell, walks and otherwise appear.

      Understand IP protection in this area is like REALLY hard as some organizations like UPTSO have flatly refused accepting such patents, not to mention approving them. Also, it requires a substantial amount of money to maintain and protect the IP after the approval. With this kind of disruptive technology, it would be a really rocky road. To veil some this in secrecy for the time being is necessary for the inventor/entrepreneur who which to secure the success of his venture.

      The inventor aside. You have a pre print of a paper at hand. It show conclusively that some energy goes in, much more go out, and this is conservatively speaking. Regardless of what is inside the box, that is really all this paper is about.

      As final word of your so easily conclude scam: It may be that one man, a trickster, can fool some people some times, but he cannot fool all the people all the time. With that said, do you seriously think that the group of scientists (and they are infact exactly that) from two prestigious universities are so easily duped. It is not as they are not aware of the gravity of the tests they conduct. They have been left alone with the magicians magic black box.

      No, this is no scam.

      1. This is as independent as they get. The participants has made these tests and investigation on funds received elsewhere, not from the inventor. None of them have monetary stakes in the success of the invention.

        And frankly, what ever in this world would you then take for granted? Do YOU have the evidence to support that Higgs boson exists? That comet Ison will show up this autumn? That there is water on Mars? That there are infact remotely controlled vehicles riding around on Mars? That PI can be computed to infinite number of decimals? That we actually capable to fuse hydrogen to helium in a runaway process. An almost infinite number of assertions I bet you take for granted can be listed hereafter.

        You trust science to help in those assertions. Well good for you. Here you have scientists who are taking a sizeable risk to help people understand that this assertion is true: The device give more energy than it consumes, in conservatively speaking large amounts, by an unknown process. As the amounts are very large, nuclear processes has been suggested, either known or yet unknown nuclear processes, there are a number of theories.

      2. * “This is as independent as they get.”

        Nope. Independent will be when (and if) the complete process is disclosed. Until then it is only a tech demo, nothing more. I understand and acknowledge the requirement for corporate security, but this is not an independent scientific test.

        All the claims you listed can be independently tested by means that provide verification and refutation. They are therefore different to this tech demo.

        Rossi was offered $1 million in cash for a demonstration. All he had to do was rerun one of his tests with two of his previous independent scientific observers with one proviso: there also be present 1 observer of the donor’s choosing to act as his agent. Rossi refused saying he wasn’t going to engage in ‘clownery’. In other words, he refused to engage in a test with anyone present who wasn’t of his own choosing. This alone is just cause to have some doubt about him. The observer was not even going to open the black box, only assess the testing methods and procedures of Rossi’s own scientific observers. Simply astounding.

      3. You mix independent with what was tested. It was a black box test. There is no need to know how it works inside.

        What is one million compared to his device. It is worth trillions if it does not get copied.

      4. “Independent will be when (and if) the complete process is disclosed. ”

        Nonsense. Independence has nothing to do with what goes into that reactor. Check for instance here:

        “Simply astounding.”

        It is astounding how you manage to keep on going.

        The scientists performing the tests did not open the reactor because the scope of the agreement with the inventor was to test it as a black box. And a lot more energy went out as compared to what went in, even when being very conservative.

        Cognitive dissonance. Check it out. It is NOT OK to employ a group of scientists from two prestigious universities to do these tests but it is OK to accept $1Million from some rich guy to do basically the same. Is this what you say? How could that possibly be a better scenario?

      5. Strawman. Check it out. I did not say it is NOT OK to employ a group of scientists etc….

        I said this is a tech demo and not an independent test. He had the opportunity to have an independent observer present during a test and refused the offer. The person making the offer had been approached to put up seed capital for a regional distribution license and wanted to protect his investment by having one of his agents present during a test as due diligence for his investment. This is perfectly legitimate business practice. Rossi turned it down describing it as ‘clownery’. A clear demonstration that he does not want independent scrutiny.

      6. Strawman! Hilarious! 😀

        You are wrong in assuming that the $1Million offer was intended as seed for a regional distribution license. It was a dare and noting else. The inventor chose, wisely, not to play games.

        Again, you do not grasp the concept independent test. The paper is the result of an independent evaluation of the ecat in a black box context. Not a demo, never mind how many time you chant those words.

        Again, it give out far more energy, even by conservative measures, than you put in. No chemical process can explain it. Your cognitive dissonance can not change that.

      7. Yes. Strawman. I made not such claim.

        I also made no such assumption about the $1 million. In fact I made no such claim to that effect. So again, your argument is a strawman.

        I know perfectly well that that the cash component was a dare. ‘Demonstrate your claim in front of an independent observer and you get $1 mill’. Rossi refused. Smith then let his option to fund the regional license lapse because he had not been able able to gather evidence that would justify the investment.

        The refusal to allow an independent observer demonstrates that Rossi does not want independent scrutiny.

      8. That independent test did not cover every detail that proves that more power got out than that got inserted. It was connected to the mains. Connecting to a battery that can store a “known” quantity of energy is required in this case.

        That independent test dis also not demonstrate that the excessive heat was cause by fusion.

      9. This is one of the most extraordinary claims I’ve ever heard – that using a cold process (keeping in mind that this process normally occurs in stars at millions of degrees with incredible pressure), this guy can turn nickel into copper and produce huge amounts of energy (keeping in mind that this same process normally sucks energy from stars and causes them to go kaaaboooom!). This this is 10,000 times more energy dense than gasoline. More energy comes out than goes in. A device that small and simple with that much energy could end global warming, end the need for oil drilling, resolve international conflicts, allow us to easily travel to Mars, etc., etc….. Yeah, I’ll dismiss this outright until there’s some evidence for it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where’s the evidence? Numbers on paper are meaningless unless this effect can be reproduced by others independently. Then I will listen to the evidence and decide whether it is true. Until then, this smells like a scam.

  5. My interest is piqued, I will continue to pay attention to this. My jury will remain out.
    I like the independent checking, but what will be seen is if this quietly floats away, forgotten or something comes of it.

  6. Look; everyone should be excited, even if it is a hoax because it may spark even better research o the subject manner. Even though the research does seem a bit shoddy, the idea that a catalyst could control energy much like a transitor does( small voltage( low energy catalyst) controls lager input/output) does seem at least worth the research.

  7. Like a good magician, the authors never let you see the whole picture since there is a deception involved. This so-called experiment is not science. All of the methods and materials need to be fully discolsed such that anyone with the right equipment can reproduce the experiment in their own lab. There is no reason to hide details of their experiment unless they are being dishonest. Untold fame and a nobel prize awaits them if their discovery is real. I don’t buy the notion that they are hiding details of their work so that like Edison they can mass produce the technology and become insanely rich first. If that is the case, then all the more power to them (pardon the pun.) I am not going to hold my breath on this one, as I was not born yesterday.

  8. Quoting the paper, “Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.”

    This is just one area where experience with experimental design really comes
    into play and is clearly being overlooked by those disagreeing with many of the skeptical commenters. There’s a difference between measurement precision error, to which the authors are referring above and which can be teased out through statistics and review of the experimental design, and systematic measurement error, which can be invisible in a paper like this and only uncovered by truly independent validation in an different lab using different instruments.

    Then there’s the huge potential for intentional deception…

    Considering how little is disclosed about the actual device and its electrical components, it is absolutely right to be suspicious of the results described in this paper. This is not, by any means, an independent test. It’s a show. If the people behind this device didn’t have anything to hide then they wouldn’t. If they could explain exactly how the device worked they would, and I guarantee it would buy them a nobel prize. If the E-Cat was really poised to revolutionize the planet and not just net them some more income from investors through free advertising via news reports then it wouldn’t be shrouded in secrets.

    This scene has played out thousands of times before with pathological science and there’s a huge burden on the inventor to prove his implausible work, not on the scientific community to take him at his word. Maybe this is the real-deal, but at this point I’m not impressed.

  9. Even if they do describe an E-Cat device at those links, what we’re discussing here are the contents of two experiments published in this article and the exact devices and setups used to perform them. One point of publishing an experiment is to rigorously describe how it was performed so that it can be replicated by other investigators. The results of this experiment are non-reproducible until Rossi decides to divulge the contents of his mystery box. At this stage it’s more of a show than scientific experiment.

    1. The test was a “black box” experiment and it was only to see if the black box produces more energy than can be generated with a chemical reaction. Because no radiation could be measured it has to be something that is unknown in physics today. That is what the test is about.

      1. First off, since when is a “black box” test a good way to do? It’s principles are allowed in certain aspects of software development, but I’ve never heard of its legitimate use in the physical sciences.

        The problem with a “black box” is that it allows people to draw baseless conclusions like yours, that “because no radiation could be measured it has to be something that is unknown in physics today.” Or we can go with the most likely explanation, which is that either all of the input and output energy was not accounted for, or the measurements were not properly performed.

        Without an explanation for the mechanism, a black box test is absolutely useless as proof. AlainCo above claimed, “to prove an atomic bomb you don’t need to show the plan, you just need to vitrify a city.” While a successful detonation may be the ultimate proof of man’s ability to perform atomic fission, to reach that point it took a whole lot of good science and a very deep understanding of what was happening along the way.

        The scientists at the Manhattan Project didn’t just stumble onto fission, it was a very deliberate and stepwise process using every ounce of their knowledge of physics and chemistry. There were experiments and some trial-and-error along the way, but they knew what they were doing and how they were doing it from the very first Trinity detonation.

        Rossi actually creating an working LENR as described here would be like the Wright brothers completing a transatlantic voyage as their maiden flight from Kitty Hawk. Using their crude aircraft they flew for 12-seconds; a success, but barely.

  10. An “industrial trade secret”…… sounds like a recipe for Coca Cola!

    1. Just that is a trade secret for the best known energy souce that will change everything.

    2. And it is. Would you give that up? Know that patent organizations like UPTSO has for years automatically rejected applications in this field.

      1. True UPTSO rejects patents on cold fusion but ENECO (Energy Corporation) does accept them, makes you wonder who are the financial backers for the Energy Corp.?

  11. Until the device is demonstrated without being hidden by “black boxes” or other charlatan tricks, this article really belongs in “The National Enquirer.” Really, people, you should know better. Real scientists don’t hide their work. If they were worried about someone “stealing” it, they should patent it. Now, let’s move on.

    1. Scientist did not hide their work, and they did not: scientists wrote a paper, Rossi is not a scientist, he is an entrapreneur.

    2. But it has. You just fail to see it. Possibly it is your comment that would do best in National Enquirer.

      You don’t need to know the detail chemical composition of the powder or details of how the control is handling the process. The black box test will tell you that you get out a substantially larger amount of energy than you put in, conservatively speaking. And no, no battery or other source could mimic that. I strongly sense you have not looked into the pre-print. Do that.

      Also know that the people who did those tests are no dupes and know that LENR as an emerging technology is proven. The phenomenon is real.

      1. They aren’t doing the tests through. They are merely observing while others do the tests.

        I hope it is true. I will be celebrating as much as the next human if it is. They aren’t giving the evidence I need to make the informed decision to commence the celebration.

      2. no they did the test. they put the instruments, started and stoped…

        black box is normal.

        if heat produced is above chemical, ther is no clue.

      3. You don’t understand what I meant by ‘they did the test’. It was not an independent test using verifiable and refutable scrutiny. It was not scientific. It was a closed demo run, nothing more.

      4. what would be you dream blackbox test, compatible with the reality ?

        Scientist with total freedom to choose their tools and to measure what they want out of the boxes?

        sorry, it is done

        you ask for open box ?

        some pretended skeptic, knowing that something are impossible, precisely ask that…

        when LENR was a lab toy they asked a tea kettle, now they ask a lab test with full access to trade secret…

        They also as publication in Nature or Science, who have an explici policy to forbid any LENR paper, like a cartel of other journals…

        Of course Naturwissenschaften who does not ban LENr is excluded from the list of serious journals…

        some ask autonomy, while the current engineering still don’t allow it…

        I see the same trick of argumentation in conspiracy groups…

        don’t forget that if the scientist have found a stage tricks while testing the installation, rossi would have been toasted… and since they were not constrained to test out of the box, with any instruments, it could happen…

        If rossi was not sincere for the test :

        – the first reactor won’t have melted but worked like a charm

        – the COP would have been fantastic

        – the tester won’t be able to choose their protocol

        moreover it is the third company with similar third party test, with many scientific results…

        the only reason to doubt on that is that LENR is not recognized by mainstream science, but it is clear incompetence if you know the corpus of various data.

        in fact it is not incompetence, but over-competence during a paradigm change… missing the elephant in the livingroom.

        current physicists are like pterodactyls… too optimized for the old world, to survive in the new one. Exactly the lesson of Kuhn.

      5. Enough with the magical “black box” crap. If they refuse to provide details on how it actually works so it can be independently duplicated, then it won’t be taken seriously. For all we know there could be gerbils on a spinning wheel in there. Or in this case, a cat.

      6. don’t mix problems. testing is testing.

        to prove an atomic bomb you don’t need to show the plan, you just need to vitrify a city.

        or is it just another desperate tentative to escape reality…

  12. Here is an analysis of the experiment. How to fool the power meter.

    I am wondering if the mains plug could be tampered with and maybe provide a DC current component on both wires and then use the earth to lose it. A power meter does not detect this.

    Or the mains plug could be tampered with a high frequency AC current component on both wires relative to Earth with some electronic device in the sealed box containing a capacitor.

    Other power tricks might alter the phase shift so the power meter measures the mains power incorrectly. You could cheat with the Cos Phi.

    Maybe it is a combined trick. Hidden power source (electrical/chemically) in the sealed container + additional power sneaked in through the mains.

    In order to test the power we need to separate the device from the mains power and feed it a very controlled power to it. Using batteries, a electrical generator, closed loop once it started or maybe a 220V to 12 V and then hook a 12 V to 220V converter.

    More tests needs to be done.

    1. That’s actually what I do to confirm the power draw of some of my experiments. lol

  13. It is worthy of examination, yes. Unfortunately the examination is being refused by the proponents.

  14. There are only two legitimate ways to go with this: 1) submit the device or plans for normal peer review or 2) sell it to someone to do something practical outside Rossi’s carefully controlled environment, in which case the market will quickly decide if it works or not. Mr. Rossi, if you act like an illusionist, why are you surprised that people think it’s an illusion?

  15. Rossi needs to send a couple e-cats to major engineering schools for black box tests on their own sites. That way all the legitimate concerns of messing with power frequency, ground currents, etc. could be put to rest. Have engineers, not scientists run the tests. Engineers don’t have strong investments in the theory inside the box and are more practical taking black box measurements and as hands on real world practitioners less easily fooled. With controlled power input, the heat gain, if any, produced by the e-cat could easily be quantified by simply heating a quantity of water up so many degrees. Measurements taken, device proven, or not, beyond doubt.

  16. It would be of interest to know your opinion as to why G. Levi, E. Foschi, T. Hartman, B. Hoistad, R. Pettersson, L. Tegner, & Hanno Essen’s submission was not peer-reviewed?

    If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, snake oil salesmen have been around since Hans the mathematical horse another fraud which no doubt duped some scientists in it’s heyday. Andrea Rossi has a very checkered background he comes across as a likable rogue but nonetheless remains a white-collar criminal:

    Would you buy a second-hand car from Rossi and his adherents even if it had an energy catalyzer?

    1. He isn’t that bad:
      The authors are going to publishing it in a peer reviewed journal. (if it gets accepted). Because that is going to take a while they published it on Arxiv first.

  17. I’d be willing to bet that the teams that make equipment for top illusionists could replicate this work. They should take it on.

  18. Does it keep a man’s beer ‘cold’?

    Seems to me from reading your posts in here. It is incomplete. More ‘exact’ testings seems to be needed.

  19. no, it is industry not benevolent .

    Rossi ask a black box test, and you are simply unable to accept the result which is clear…

    even if rossi have found pixie dust or alien antimatter, it works, and if it is chemical, it is alien chemistry …

    the choice to sell to someone is funny, because it is only a way not to face reality for you…

    of course you will lose nothing if you are wrong. for a real decision maker like a businessman or a politician gaining 1 year of engineering and public relation to know that next year few trillion of asset in energy will have no value, and GDP will be happily reduced annually by 10% for fuel cost, and increased by 6 month GDP of machinery to build meanwhile…

    some people have to know the reality as soon as possible, and not only when there is no way to deny it…

    note also that no company today may be willing to be visited by spy of all the planet, plus conspiracy theorist.

    the plain fact is that, after peer review by scientist (in progress, some detail may be adjusted), the test will be another clear evidence that rossi have a prototype of LENR reactor that works more or less…

    The 3rd company to have such a test, and the most undeniable test…

    the other test are solid too, but not formal enough to force conspiracy believers to swallow the bird.

    There is however not the least chance that physicist accept LENR as a reality, until there is a theory. Thomas Kuhn have proved that… their arguments (even if LENR would have been false) were so stupid and unscientific that there is no point in caring of their position. at most we can try to find some real arguments, but there was few (and lesson were taken, as you learn reading past scientific papers). It is like asking the Pope about preservatives.

    1. “Rossi ask a black box test, and you are simply unable to accept the result which is clear…”

      That test is incomplete. Too many different ways left to tamper with it or have incorrect measurements.

      e.g. the glowing element has 2 resistors at both sides. What is not measured is the voltage difference between the left and right resistor to determine that there is a current from the left to the right resistors and makes the glowing element a 3rd resistor.

      e.g. Two different wires hooked to 2 different grounds can carry a current when there is a potential difference between these 2 ground spikes.

      e.g. The device was not hooked to a controlled and known power source. A battery would be good with a DC to AC converter because we know that there is no tampering and mysterious hidden currents.

      e.g. Disconnecting the device from the mains and let it run on itself.

    2. I’m not assuming “industry” is benevolent. To the contrary. What I am saying is that for something to be useful, it has to work. Simple. I am all for cool, new discoveries, and if this contraption stands up to further testing–i.e, if the thing actually works–I’m all for it. Until then, as the saying goes, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” So far, this looks more like smoke and mirrors to me.

      As to physicists requiring a theory to accept something–total nonsense. There is nothing that a scientist would like more than to have solid evidence on which to build a new, revolutionary theory. It’s called a “Nobel Prize”.

      To put it more succinctly. albeit crudely: “Black box, my a–!”



  20. I’m not mixing anything. This is a tech demo not an independent scientific test.

    The 1 million did not involve opening the box. It only involved having an observer there under the same conditions as the other observers, nothing more.

  21. Anyone guess how this was faked? Its an enormous claim so anything short of full disclosure isn’t going to seem credible – just because it ‘stinks’ of fraud, doesn’t mean it’s so!

  22. Scams do not provoke more research. They scare investors away and, therefore, the money for research dries up.

    1. there is no evidence of any fraud. He have not even been condemend except for gold smuggling (probably escaping money from brankruptcy induced by legal change).
      petrodragon process was real and have been sold to a US company that use it today to synthesize oil.

      you have simply no evidence, the only reason some think it is a fraud it is because they are not convinced because of some loose demo, and much bias…

      this report let no doubt and the last attach that are not already cleaned are not realistic because of the uncontrolled protocol.

      people wanting to know if it is real or not, shoul read the data, and it is long.
      They should also use their human factor brain, and be honest…

      you will probably have a negative bias because LENr is said to be a myth, but check the peer-review papers, and learn…

      no truth without work, sorry.

      1. Exactly, when we say LENR is a myth is because we know from the papers it hasn’t been shown to work. But when people tend to describe it as a done deal, a tested fact, it becomes a myth.

        Rosssi being a con man is not a myth, that is a fact.

      2. rossi as a con man is amyth… he is messy, not an angel, but he was not condemned, because the charges were illegal.

        once again read the data, and stop parroting.

        this is the 3rd report, by a 3rd company, and the most formal.

        about LENR it is proven since long, and the only reason not to accept it is lack of honesty and pathology of paradigm change…
        people that cannot open their eyes because of the theory that say there is nothing.

        again, read the data

  23. As I pondered this cold-fusion thing. In today’s energy market financially speaking. If done correctly with manufacturing the product in every conceivable area. Trillions would be made in record time. Clean pure energy. Earth would smile.

  24. About every ten years or so we hear about the latest ‘end of the world scare’ and/or get reports of successful cold fusion or even zero point energy generators. Who’s nose, one day some whacko amateur scientist may stumble on something strange in his garage lab that will change the whilrled?

  25. oh my god, how many times you have to hear it? IT IS NOT a blackbox if a single wire connects it to the outside world. IT IS NOT a blackbox if you are unable to measure every electromagnetic frequency that could supply energy to the device.

  26. An extraordinary claim need extraordinary evidence, and this is not it.

    As a Swede I’m a bit ashamed that so many swedish scientists turns up as useful idiots helping the known scammers (see eg LC’s comment; and IIRC Rossi has made other scams in his long history.)

    However, it is simply a result of a national energy sector that has long been perverted by political and other ideological interests. Nuclear energy proponents and later detractors, combined with a rather non-criticized “green” sector, has opened up for crackpots even at university level.

    Some famous example are looking for “peak oil” for example (which models of both fields and economics have shown are incorrect – and that before frakking became viable), or these cold fusion proponents.

    The national critics are lining up in response however. So hopefully we will see some science peer review of this before long.

    1. why is it extraordinary ?
      it is LENr and LENR is proven since long…
      It is the 3rd machine of tha kind .
      It is already supported by some serious people like Aldo Proia .
      Defkalion have a board of director full of tycoon.

      … The extraordinary evidence are on the fraud accusation side.

      by the way, please read the data . You simply seems uninformed, I mean informed by liars like wikipedia and MIT.. if you doubt, read the data… I have spread them. or get to lenr-forum.

      read the data read the data… and don’t parrot liars.

  27. Hi, there is 20 years of history on papers, as Alan said a lot of them are peer reviewed, in special those from Piantelli, Focardi and Arata for mention few, if you want to check them go look for the authors or go to the library:

  28. “Skepticism and Belief are just two sides of the same coin. To believe in one idea is to be skeptical about another and vice versa.”
    Regular people usually see only what they want to see and believe only what they want to believe or what befits to them.
    In this way, logic and rationality rarely win in the field of human common sense without a steep uphill battle.
    Fortunately, humanity has progressed in many areas thanks to imaginative people who have not given up their dreams, and not thanks to mediocre folks who tried to dissuade them.

  29. After reading the paper, three things:
    1) It heated up to 860C. After it was turned off, how long did it take to cool?
    2) The experiment looked for energy. The device “produced” not just energy, but energy AND COPPER. So a true proof should be easy: show the nickel going in, and the copper coming out.
    3) I’m less impressed with a “glowing cylinder” than I am with a stamped-steel rack that can hold it for four days at 860C.

  30. If the experiment ran for 30 days, then I’d believe they might have something beyond a battery.

    1. Or if someone else could independently recreate it without ANY input from Rossi.

  31. If it works, the Chinese will steal it. So why worry? Just patent it, make what you can, move on.

Comments are closed.