PLinus_2Linus Pauling (1901-1994) was a brilliant chemist who received a Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1954 for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and another for Peace in 1962 for his work against warfare resulted in the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which banned all the nuclear tests not underground. He also contributed to the medical discovery of his century, the determination of DNA’s structure, and it’s not so surprising that his formidable mind was captured, in the last years of his life, by the Cold Fusion.

I asked to Mr. Russ George, a 65 years old US consulting scientist for industry and government who knew Linus Pauling and started talking with him around 1990 (and continued until a year before his death, though much less as he neared the end) to answer some questions to remember the man, the scientist and this late passion:

Russ, how did you meet an already so famous person like Linus Pauling?

“I came to know Linus Pauling in Palo Alto, where I lived with my wife, working in the biotech industry. Linus had a large private institute and facility three blocks from my house. It was offices and labs where his substantial team studied many topics he loved, amongst them vitamin C. Pauling had long given up academia. Being so near, I walked into his office one day without any real hope of meeting him and to my surprise did. What a gentle man Linus was! Over the course of a few years while I worked on cold fusion in my Palo Alto garage lab – I was an autodidact in this field – I was lucky enough to be able to walk to his office many times to share my observations and chat with him. Brainstorming with Linus was science to the max, an extreme sport!”.

What Pauling, that at the time was in his nineties, has been for you, an eclectic and autodidact cold fusion researcher with no institutional overhead?

“He became a mentor beyond my wildest dreams not only willing but eager to encourage me, a Palo Alto garage experimentalist, to talk through my experimental observations and ideas. Linus was fascinated that I could produce in my Palo Alto cold fusion work results that confirmed that cold fusion is allowed in physics and encouraged me to forget about trying to satisfy the hordes of cynics and skeptics and just do the explorative experiments. He was a man of such brilliance that even as his body was so frail with age his still nimble mind was an incredible ecosystem of experience and wisdom. It was tough keeping up with him. It was also a privilege to be invited to do so. I remember that in one meeting he gave me some words of wisdom, reminding me that ‘in his experience frequently the most remarkable discoveries almost always came unexpectedly’”.


The gold medal of Nobel Prize for Chemistry, December 10, 1954, the first of two won by Pauling.

What was the attitude of Pauling towards cold fusion? This field flourished in 1989 was quickly abandoned by the mainstream scientific community…

“Linus had spoken favourably about cold fusion since its first announcement. He was a true judge of science and not afraid of controversy. He was on record proposing some ideas on how cold fusion was allowed in physics. Pauling tinkered around this topic with methods of prompting fusion with the idea to someday patenting them in the early nineties. His ideas lay fallow and a little over two years later, Linus passed away. He was 93. His notes, however, remain useful insofar as they contribute to the on-going conversation as to the possibility of cold fusion and of ways of facilitating hot fusion. Pauling’s thoughts on modern subjects such as nuclear fusion and cold fusion were also further evidence of an active and inquisitive mind even as he neared the end of his life”.

As suggested to me by Russ George, we can find some interesting notes and documents about Pauling’s thinking on cold fusion in the “Pauling Blog”:

“In 1989, after Fleischmann and Pons’ announcement, Pauling sent a letter to Nature magazine in which he suggested that the decomposition of small amounts of PdHx were responsible for thermal anomalies. During the following years, his interest on the topic of nuclear fusion, and particularly cold fusion, continued. In May 1992, while at home on his ranch in Big Sur, California, Pauling had a conversation with his grandson Barclay J. ‘Barky’ Kamb, during which he revealed his idea for a nuclear fusion invention. Pauling had taken note of the fact that many experiments reported a ‘liberation of neutrons or helions or other indication of nuclear reaction greater than the background count’, but that not all interested researchers had observed the phenomenon”.


The Pauling’s letter to “Nature”, April 24, 1989 (from the Pauling Blog, click image to enlarge).

In the same blog, we find also some a little more technical information on his ideas about cold fusion that I resume here for their historical interest:

“As revealed also with letters to his loved grandson Barky, Pauling had an idea for increasing the amount of energy within certain compounds, and came up with a few theories on how to maximize the amount of energy held by particles in order to achieve cold fusion. He hypothesized that ‘the stored energy in PdDx, x > 0.6, might be produced either by high pressure of H2 (D2 or T2) – heavier hydrogen isotopes – with Pd, Ti, or other metals’. Pauling speculated that an augmented detonation could produce shock waves that would accelerate particles, perhaps along channels in the metals, to prompt fusion by reaction. His proposed methods of increasing stored energy included shooting pellets of the compound into a heated chamber, utilizing plasma in a tokamak or focusing a detonation wave within conical metal or something similar”.

Finally, you can find a very long and beautiful interview with the late Pauling here. The following is an extract in which he gives advice to young students:

Pauling_catalogue“Even 50 years ago I was recommending to students in the California Institute of Technology – where I taught for many years –  who came to me for advice to do graduate work in chemistry rather than in biology, even if they were interested in biology. They could take some courses in biology, but they could do reading by themselves to learn most of biology. Genetics was already a good science in biology. I recommended taking a course in genetics. So ever since then, I have said to students: if you are interested in science, I think a good thing for you to get is as much training as possible in the basic sciences – mathematics, physics, chemistry, including physical chemistry. And then you can move on into these more applied fields”.

“I have always liked working in some scientific direction that nobody else is working in”.

Linus Pauling, Nobel Laureate

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

I received from Eng. Ventola this original contribute, inspired by a Swedish document online that seems to contain some interesting info about the “Rossi Effect”:

In 2011, the Swedish Defense Material Agency (FMW) has financed some very rudimentary experiments with nickel and hydrogen, trying to experimentally reproduce the excess heating power claimed by Andrea Rossi and prof. Sergio Focardi (Physics Department, Bologna University) in their paper “A new Energy Source from Nuclear Fusion” (2010).

This information is contained in an original document 25-pages long, titled “Experiments with Nickel and Hydrogen”, by Curt Edström and Jan Erik Nowacki. You can find it here. FMW, a government agency connected with the Swedish military, is the Sweden’s equivalent of DARPA (Defense Advanced Projects Agency) in the US.


Some vessels used by the Swedish scientists in their experiments on Ni-H systems.

The report is a short description of some experiments on the nickel-hydrogen line of research, in which 4 different forms of nickel (see the table below) were tested in contact with hydrogen at different pressures and temperatures. Some of the nickel samples also contained other metals as “catalysts” like lithium, potassium and iron.

In some of the samples the nickel was in micrometer large crystal grains, in other samples – for example, some powders provided by Brian Ahern upon request, because he had said to have powders that had resulted in some form of reaction – the nickel was in the form was in the form of nanometer grains embedded in zirconium oxide.


Examples of powders used in the experiments of the Swedish Defense Material Agency.

However this document is interesting not for the description of their experiments – as neither significant excess heat, nor any radiation indicating nuclear reactions has been detected by these Swedish researchers, likely due to a not extended experimental effort – but because the group received precious advice directly from Rossi.

Indeed, we read already in the first page of the report: “Contact were taken with many active researchers in the field, including Andrea Rossi, for guidance to find a functioning solution. Andrea Rossi could not reveal his catalyst for us but thought that we would get a small indicative response using just pure nickel and hydrogen”.

The other precious information contained in the Swedish paper is the following: “Rossi also mentioned that a hydrogen pressure of at least 200 bar and a temperature of 500 °C was necessary in order to see any effect without the catalyst”.

This is a news, because Rossi has never publicly stated that to reproduce his “Rossi Effect” the catalyst is NOT necessary. We have had a clue of this only from the recent Alexander Parkhomov’s successful replication of a Hot-Cat, but the powders used by the Russian physicist include also Lithium and Aluminum under the form of lithium aluminum hydride (LiAlH4), so in theory one of these two elements (or both) could be a catalyst.


A. Parkhomov has used a LiAlH4 powder as Hydrogen source, instead of a gas cylinder.

As, according to the prof. Sergio Focardi (that collaborated with Rossi since around 2008), the function of the catalyst probably was to transform the hydrogen from normal, or diatomic, into monatomic – so that it could penetrate into the metal lattice of nickel – it is reasonable that, at high pressures and temperatures, the catalyst is not necessary to make the hydrogen penetrate the nickel lattice, then showing a hint of “Rossi Effect”.

However, the words of Rossi should be taken with caution, since it is well known that at high temperatures nickel powders sinter together, probably making impossible the occurrence of Rossi Effect. It seems that also the Swedish researchers, in some of their experiments – probably for a deliberate choice – did not address this problem.

Therefore, presumably, the situation can be summarized as follows: at high temperatures a catalyst is not necessary, but rather an element or a substrate which avoids the sintering; whereas, at low temperatures, a catalyst – in the strictest sense of the term – is required to make the hydrogen monatomic. I prefer not to say more.

Regarding the values of pressure and temperature suggested by Rossi to the Swedish researchers, it is interesting to notice that the first Rossi’s international patent application for the E-Cat, filed in 2008 (WO2009125444A1), mentioned in the Abstract “a reaction between nickel and hydrogen atoms in a tube” having a pressure “preferably from 2 to 20 bars” and heated to “a high temperature, preferably from 150 to 500 °C”.


The two “allowed zones” for Rossi Effect on the Temperature-Pressure diagram.

The picture above shows the “allowed zones” for the Rossi Effect, according to the old patent application and the advice given by Rossi himself, 3-4 years later, to the Swedish scientists. I added in red the likely or reasonable position, on this Temperature-Pressure diagram, of the recent Parkhomov’s experiment, which would explain its success.

Moreover, it’s quite remarkable that 200-220 bar is also the typical pressure of gas in Hydrogen cylinders, used by Rossi in his early experiments. So, it would seem that, in the MFMP’s experiment trying to replicate Rossi’s “Dog Bone” reactor, the importance of the (right) pression inside the ceramic vessel has been largely underestimated.

The Swedish document also mentions, even if with not so many details, an interesting experimental result: “According to an e-mail conversation with Hanno Essén and Rossi, Rossi has received measured spectra of electron-positron annihilation at 511 keV”.

This is another “news”, because such annihilation, predicted in the Focardi and Rossi’s paper as a consequence of a possible reaction transforming a nickel atom plus a proton into a copper atom – later decaying back into nickel again with the release of a positron and a neutrino – was not detected in the public test performed on January 14, 2011.

Experiment_Jan_14_4The detector for gamma rays at 511 keV used on the E-Cat tested on January 14, 2011 (original photo taken by Daniele Passerini, slightly modified).

The failure to detect the phenomenon is in accordance with the recent Rossi’s answer given in an interview: “After these years of experimentation, testing, measuring and analysis, we noticed that the main source of energy in our reactor is not so much a fusion, but a shift of the isotopic composition of the atoms contained in the fuel charge”.

Finally, another important information given by Andrea Rossi is cited in the Swedish document at page 15: “As we have been told by Rossi, the powder had to be cycled several times to get “active” and as the power from a possible reaction would also come in ‘bursts’ (the length of these ‘bursts’ were however largely unknown to us)”.

For a description of what “to be cycled” means in practice, you can read the Sergio Focardi’s papers on his early experiments performed (on nickel rods and at pressures of the order of 1 bar) with Francesco Piantelli in Siena. One important difference: using high pressures, you do not need to use a vacuum pump, instead at 1 bar it was a “must”.

R. Ventola – Electrical engineer

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

I found very interesting, as possible research on LENR, the following article appeared some time ago on the Oil & Gas Journal – magazine published by the Pennwell Corporation – whose title is Rust Catalyzed Ethylene Hydrogenation causes Temperature Runaway. It was mentioned by a reader of E-Cat World in a comment to this post and I was intrigued.


I quote from the Abstract: “During early operation of one of Exxon Chemical Co.‘s ethane cracking plants, a temperature runaway in a small shell-and-tube heat exchanger upstream of the hydrogen methanator reactor resulted in rupture of the exchanger shell. Exxon has concluded that the overtemperature resulted from the exothermic heat of reaction of ethylene and hydrogen. This hydrogenation reaction unexpectedly initiated at a temperature well under 300 °C”.Hot_Spot

Then, I did some research on the web about this event and, as explained in a document linked here, I found that it caused “hot spots” with high localized temperatures (see photo).

Such hot spots, together with the runaway exothermic reaction, could be interpreted as a possible “signature” of LENR at work, stimulated by a highly active catalyst.

Indeed, it is known that LENRs occurr in microscopic spots on certain surfaces: these are localized micron-scale LENR-active sites on planar surfaces or curved surfaces of nanoparticles. In general, the hot spots are destroyed in a short time by intense heat: local peak temperatures can reach 4,000-6,000 °C.

So, a good candidate for the catalyst is rust (Fe3O4 or Fe2O3). For this reason, as Bob Greenyer revealed in a recent interview given to this blog, the Martin Fleishmann Memorial Project (MFMP) – the world’s first Live Open Science project focused on LENR – will check in future experiments also the effect of Iron Oxide based catalysts.

In this regard, I find interesting the paper, highlighted to me by Russ George and linked here, “A new look at the finer details of rust shows an assumed atomic structure has been wrong all along“, published on December 4, 2014 on ScienceDaily.

From the summary: “Scientists have been studying the behavior of iron oxide surfaces. The atomic structure of iron oxide, which had been assumed to be well-established, turned out to be wrong. The behavior of iron oxide is governed by missing iron atoms in the atomic layer directly below the surface. This is a big surprise with potential applications in chemical catalysis”.

According to such paper, “it is precisely above such places of missing iron atoms that other metal atoms attach. These iron-vacancy-sites are regularly spaced, and so there is always some well-defined distance between gold or palladium atoms attaching to the surface. This explains why Fe3O4 surfaces prevent these atoms from forming clusters“.

EtileneEthylene is a widely used hydrocarbon which has the formula C2H4 or H₂C=CH₂. It is a colorless flammable gas with a faint “sweet and musky” odor when pure. It is the simplest alkene, and the second simplest unsaturated hydrocarbon after acetylene. This hydrocarbon has four hydrogen atoms bound to a pair of carbon atoms that are connected by a double bond.

Perhaps, the experts can find useful information about some of the many processes involved in the following paper, Hydrogenation of Ethylene on Metallic Catalysts, by Juro Horiuti and Koshiro Miyahara (Hokkaido University, Japan), downloadable from here. It discusses in detail the investigations carried out, especially for the nickel catalyst, but not only.

Finally, on Vortex a reader wrote: “Ed Storms tells a story of how Rossi first got interested in LENR when he saw a thermal runaway in an oil waste process”. In my book, being his biography, you can read the real story about what can be considered a revolutionary discovery.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Emilio Del Giudice_2I decided to translate into English the story of Fleischmann and Pons experiment as told by the Italian theoretical physicist Emilio Del Giudice in his popular conferences, not only because I have had the pleasure to appreciate him in one of them, held in Florence a few years ago, but also because the topic is treated in an enlightening way for a general audience:

“In 1989, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, two eminent electrochemists – especially Fleischmann, who was so far considered one of the greatest electrochemists in the world and, for a his particular contribution, was also nominated for the Nobel Prize – in a press conference announces to the world that, with appropriate electrochemical methods, you can create the famous nuclear fusion that had been so vainly sought by physicists.

The fusion was obtained by Fleischmann and Pons through a chemical approach, within matter. And it was a search very cheap: a million times less expensive than hot fusion research. But what the two electrochemists did in their experiment?

Fleischmann and Pons took a metal, which in their case was palladium, because among the metals palladium seemed to absorb more deuterium inside its lattice. Indeed, at room temperature deuterium easily enters the palladium, but loading stops at an equilibrium value which is 2/3: that is, two deuterium nuclei for every three nuclei of palladium.

Then, when the concentration of deuterium loaded into the palladium exceeded a certain critical threshold quite high and difficult to reach – discovered by Fleischmann and Pons be equal to 1, that is, a deuterium nucleus for each nucleus of palladium – a process of so-called ‘cold fusion’ spontaneously starts, i.e. helium nuclei originate from deuterium.

The difficult part of the experiment was to reach this threshold of ‘1’, because it meant going far beyond chemical equilibrium. Fleischmann was a good electrochemist, so he could find an electrochemical method by which, within four weeks of continuous loading, he could bring his palladium cathodes to reach the critical threshold.

When such threshold was reached, into the cell of Fleischmann and Pons there was a production of excess energy, in amounts disproportionate to that producible by any known chemical process. Just to give an idea, the amount of energy released was of the order of 500 eV per atom, that no chemical phenomenon – binding energies are a few eV – can justify.

Moreover, the effect just described manifests only if was used deuterium – i.e. the isotope of hydrogen whose nucleus is composed of a neutron and a proton – while using normal hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of only one proton, nothing happened. Already these two factors alone – the great excess heat and dependence by isotope of the effect – made us suspect the presence of a nuclear process behind the results of the experiment.

On the other hand, Fleischmann and Pons were accurate enough to verify the process also emits protons, neutrons, etc., and found that the amount of protons and neutrons emitted was ridiculously low: about one-millionth of what could be expected based on the traditional nuclear fusion.

Lab_FP_2Dr. Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleischmann in their laboratory at the University of Utah.

In their article published in the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, the two electrochemists had clearly written that this was a new kind of fusion, not something attributable to the classical hot fusion. Paradoxically, for years some critics observed that these results were not consistent with expectations for a fusion of the traditional type. But Fleischmann and Pons had not used the results of such measurements to say that this was an old-style fusion: it was the contrary!

The second main criticism was that the Fleischmann and Pons’ experiment was not reproducible because a number of laboratories announced that they failed to reproduce the phenomenon in their attempts. But the corresponding articles of denial did not report the level of loading of deuterium in palladium: they had not bothered to measure it!

It can be concluded that, in physics, ‘no experiment can ever be reproduced provided it is reproduced with enough incompetence’. In this case, it was not incompetence but a deliberate misdirection, as we realized from many clues. But that’s another story, which is told in my book ‘The secret of the three bullets’, co-authored by Maurizio Torrealta”.

EMILIO DEL GIUDICE (1940-2014) was an Italian physicist who has worked in the field of condensed matter. Theoretical physicist and professor at the University of Naples and pioneer of string theory in the early Seventies, later became known for his work with Giuliano Preparata at the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN). It is also known for its excellent qualities of popularizer, in particular on quantum mechanics.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Rossi_Vessela_2In these days I did a long interview with Andrea Rossi. I would like to dedicate it as a special New Year gift to all those who bought, or will buy, my book “E-Cat – The New Fire”.

1) When you were a child, have you ever dreamed of inventing something that would changed the world? Who has been your “model”?

“I was fascinated from the character of Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of the penicillin. I was asthmatic at high degree, and my mother repeated many times that I was alive thanks to Fleming. I wanted to do something as he did. That has been my first model, apart my parents”.

2) In your family there were other people having a love for science or for inventions?

“Yes, my mother and my father mainly, and my grandfather. In particular my mother. I learnt from them that only with hard work you can do something valid. They were very hard workers and made me feel guilty every time I was doing nothing… so I had always to invent something to do”.

3) In the biography I wrote is mentioned your theatrical experience. Where does your passion come from and how do you reconcile it with your very different career path that led you to do this epochal invention?

“I was nineteen years old, and I loved theater, in particular Bertold Brecht. I had seen the ‘Santa Giovanna dei Macelli’ directed by Giorgio Strehler and I wanted to learn ‘regia teatrale’, i.e. theatrical direction, that was taught at the school of the ‘Piccolo Teatro di Milano’, in Milan. The director was Giorgio Strehler and the course was very interesting. I learnt many very useful things. It was a top level school: Gabriele Salvatores was in the same course I attended. We started together an experimental theater, ‘Teatro Popolare Zara’, but he continued and won an Oscar with the movie ‘Mediterraneo’, while I had in the same period the intuition of the process to make fuel from wastes and decided to follow this route of destiny”.

4) I wonder if your past business, oil from waste, has been of help to develop an appropriate strategy in this new challenge, regarding the E-Cat.

“Yes, it has, because I have set up an industry, managing R&D, manufacturing, sales. I learnt a lot, also in this case with a bumpy path of trials and errors”.

5) What memories do you have of Prof. Sergio Focardi, as a scientist as well as a man?

“He was very generous, as usually are professors, in transmitting his knowledge. I learnt from him many theoretical issues and rehearsed my mathematic skills: he was a very strong mathematic. He strongly believed in LENR and he was convinced that it was not necessary to look for exotic physics to explain them, it was enough to study well the existing Standard Model. He was extremely honest, sincere. We worked extremely well together when we set up the experiments in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011; in 2012 his health began to be critical, but the day before dying he was clutching with his hands the copy of the 2013 report of the Independent Third Party: he couldn’t speak, but was reading the report with the light of God in his eyes”.

Rossi_FocardiAndrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi (1932-2013), professor emeritus of Physics at the University of Bologna. He collaborated with Rossi on the development of the Energy Catalyzer, or “E-Cat”.

6) I imagine that in these years you have received many pressures and threats against your project, the E-Cat. If so, have you ever thought to give up everything?

“Until I will be alive I will work on this. Pressures sustained with threats, blackmails have on my work the same effect of tennis balls served against a tank”.

7) What was the best moment for you during these years of hard work on the E-Cat?

“The publication of the 2014 Independent Third Party report. For obvious reasons”.

8) Can you tell us the more funny story than happened to you concerning the E-Cat?

“Never happened anything particularly funny. It has been a continuous struggle against problems after problems. We did not get fun at all, like soldiers during a war. Our team has worked – and is working – with a focus that does not leave space to get fun. I am sorry, but I am thinking on your question and I am not able to find anything funny”.

9) Can you give us a comparison between the work on the E-Cat in Italy and in the US? What are the pro and con that you met in these two countries so different?

“Honestly, I worked very well in Italy as well as I am working in the USA, where I have continued the work started in Italy; the advantages here does not depend on me, but on the fact that here I found a Team that accelerated the evolution of this technology: a great team that is working very, very hard. Industrial Heat is the maximum level of help I could dream of, in any field”.

10) Having a team of engineers and physicists working for the E-Cat has relieved you from your work in some way?

“The team of Industrial Heat has allowed to accelerate the evolution and also the progress towards the diffusion of this technology in the market”.

11) What are the obstacles or difficulties that remain to be overcome so that the E-Cat can reach the ultimate goal, which is the market?

“As a matter of fact, the E-Cat has already reached the market. The 1 MW plant we are focused on right now is a plant installed in the factory of a Customer of Industrial Heat. From now on the performance of our plants will not be measured in scientific tests, but in real production of thermal energy that the plant makes for the production necessities of the same Customer. If the Customer will make with our plant the money he is expecting to make, the plant is good, otherwise will have to be corrected. Failure is not an option”.

12) Do you think the fact that there are competitors who engage in the LENR may ultimately benefit you to open a road otherwise bureaucratically difficult?

“I never comment the work of our competitors and we do not take into account any influence of our Competitors related to our work. We have to make our work at the best and reach our targets independently from what happens outside our reach”.

13) At what point is the theoretical understanding of the “Rossi Effect” and what percentage of your efforts is headed in that direction?

“I think I have all the equations ready to understand the theoretical fundamentals of the so-called ‘Rossi Effect‘. The publication is so far constrained within the particular situation regarding our Intellectual Property and its defense. I can only say that, as foreseen by Prof. Sergio Focardi, we are well inside the Standard Model. As Focardi said, it is just necessary to study it well to understand LENR, it is not necessary to go for exotics”.

14) What was the most ferocious criticism received over the years? And which was instead the most beautiful compliment?

“I have been disgusted of the fact that to fight against me our enemies have used the vicissitudes of my past, so that I had to defend myself, 20 years later, from things that have nothing to do with my present work. After the 2013 test of the Independent Third Party, Prof. Sven Kullander, Chairman of the Energy Committe of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science, said to me when I went to the University of Uppsala to prepare the protocol for the 2014 test: ‘The so-called Rossi Effect exists beyond any possible doubt‘. This has been surely the most important recognition I had so far”.


Prof. Sven Kullander (in the box) has been a member of the Swedish Royal Academy of Science (photo), the prestigious body that awards the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry.

15) Regarding the often personal and violent attacks to the numerous authors of the 2nd Third Party Report, there is something that you want to say?

“When Albert Einstein published his Theory of Relativity, he has been initially attacked and criticized as if Relativity was a clownery. Honestly, I didn’t read any critic worth an answer that has not been answered to properly, regarding the Third Party Report you mentioned. From now on the so-called Rossi Effect will talk only with plants in operation. The Customers will say if it works or not. The results could be positive, but also negative, who knows? We’ll see”.

16) What do you think of the replication of the ‘Rossi Effect’ made with a calorimetric system by the Russian scientist Alexander Parkhomov?

“It is possible that, with the data published by the Third Independent Party in the Lugano Report, a replication of the effect is made. I do not know the particulars, therefore I cannot comment; but, if true, congratulations to the Russian Scientist”.

17) What are your expectations for the New Year? And in particular about the work on the various types of E-Cats that you are doing?

“I think the 2015 will bring: 1- the consolidation of the technology of the 1 MW plant in operation in the factory of the Customer; 2- the gas-fueled Hot-Cat. We are working at the maximum of our skills to get these targets. With the help of God it may be that we will be successful!”.

Copyright © 2014 Vessela Nikolova for “Vessy’s Blog on E-Cat” – All rights reserved.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone


As almost all of us know, the 19th edition of the International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ICCF-19) will be held in Padua, Italy, on April 13-17, 2015.

The event is organized by TSEM SpA, the first private company to independently host ICCF. It is a leader, in Italy and not only, in developing know-how of excellence for the research, design and manufacture of innovative technologies in the fields of Healthcare, Energy and Security.

The website of the Conference is still under construction, but we can provide some information here. You can also sign up for their newsletter to receive updates.

Antonio La Gatta, engineer and professor, is the founder and President of TSEM, and the Chair of ICCF-19. He explains that “The purpose ofLa_Gatta ICCF-19 will be to discuss recent scientific findings as well as to encourage a more general public interest, encouraging a better understanding of the significance of this research and how it will impact society”.

The program of the Conference has not yet been published, but we know that there will be contributions on many areas: Calorimetry, Materials, Nuclear Measures, Theory, Technologies. The deadline for abstract submission is January 10, 2015. The time limit to enroll the Conference is February 15, 2015.

Interestingly, about four years ago, La Gatta led TSEM into the study of high bandwidth calorimetric measurement of palladium excess heat. Moreover, in the past his company has provided closed cell isoperibolic calorimeters to the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance (SKINR) – University of Missouri and collaborated also with Stanford Research International (SRI), The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and the Italian ENEA.

It is a real pleasure to read the history of the previous editions of ICCF in their website. The first edition, ICCF-1, dates back to 1990 and was in the USA (chair: Fritz), the second held in Italy (chairs: Preparata-Del Giudice-Bressani). Also ICCF-15, in 2009, took place in Italy, Rome (chairs: Violante-Lesin). Last edition, ICCF-18, was held in Columbia (USA).

Padua_MapPadua is a small Italian town located in the North-East of the country with about 209,000 inhabitants and since 1222 is home to a prestigious University that ranks among the oldest in the world.

The city of Padua has been called “the capital of the painting of the fourteenth century”, and we can find the most important pictorial evidence of this heritage in the Giotto’s series in the Scrovegni Chapel.

For the most avid of science, only 8 km from Padua are the Legnaro National Laboratories (LNL), one of the four big laboratories of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN). LNL have a leading position with regard to the study of the microscopic world known as “the structure and dynamics of the atomic nucleus“.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Mats-LewanI interviewed Mats Lewan, science writer and engineer, author of the book “An impossible invention”, who some weeks ago has published the second edition of his essay:

1) When and how did you start to be interested in the E-Cat and Andrea Rossi?

“As I write in my book, I first heard about Rossi and the E-Cat through a tip from a reader of the Swedish technology weekly Ny Teknik, where I work as a reporter since about 15 years. The reader told me about blog reports on the semi-public demo of the E-Cat in January 2011″.

2) To write your book you’ve interviewed many protagonists of the story. What is the interview that eventually struck you the most and why?

“Most astonishing was maybe the very first phone call that I made after having learnt about the E-Cat demo to the Swedish physicist – and at that time also the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society – Hanno Essén, who surprised me by saying ‘this looks interesting’ “.

3) When and how did you guessed that the invention of Rossi was something real?

“Almost immediately I decided that it shouldn’t be excluded that the technology was possible. The basic principle was release of excess thermal energy through a yet unknown kind of nuclear reaction, and I couldn’t see any reason to believe that new knowledge in nuclear physics was impossible. But my assessment that there are good reasons to believe that the E-Cat works, grew slowly and gradually through my contacts with the people involved, through their testimonials and from my own measurements and observations”.

4) For your direct perception, in Sweden the story of the E-Cat was received more positively by the academic world and in the media, compared to other countries?

“No, I don’t think so. There are more people aware of the story in Sweden compared to other countries, and I dare to claim that basically the only reason for this is my reporting in Ny Teknik. But the general and academic opinion is very much the same as anywhere else — a great deal of curiosity, especially among people with interest in technology and energy, but above all a strong skepticism, particularly in the scientific community”.

5) On what do you base your assessment that the E-Cat probably works?

“It has been noted repeatedly that there are several possible sources of errors in all measurements that have been made on the E-Cat, and that is true. On the other hand there’s yet no evidence for these possible errors being real errors. But in the end, what makes me tip towards thinking that the E-Cat works, are several testimonials of when the reaction has gone awry. Yet, these are Test_October_6_Lewanonly testimonials, and you’ll have to trust the people behind them. Another influential event, however, was during a demo in October 2011 when the E-Cat worked in self sustained mode, i.e. with no external energy input, for almost four hours. And even though water was constantly being pumped into the E-Cat, and the casing was poorly insulated, it kept boiling inside, which I could hear and feel with my hands – and the external temperature remained at between 60 and 85 degrees centigrade. You would need a very powerful energy storage inside the E-Cat to achieve this without any heat producing process inside, and when the casing was opened at the end of the day, no such storage was evidently hidden inside”.

6) The Elforsk and Swedish licensee are very involved in the activities of Rossi. Do you think that Sweden is one of the preferential markets of E-Cat?

“I really don’t know. Rossi says he still has plans for some kind of center of production in Sweden, and his relationship with the licensee Hydrofusion seems to be good, but even if the technology really works, there are still too many unknowns regarding the market, the technology and Rossi’s business to answer this question. I think it’s a good thing though that Swedish entities move at an early stage, and I find it courageous by Elforsk to take this position”.

7) What is the more funny personal anecdote happened to you concerning the E-Cat?

When during one of Rossi’s demos in Bologna, three Italian supporters of Rossi from a small village in the mountains, 250 kilometers from Bologna, showed up in a car, opened the trunk and prepared a beautiful Italian ‘aperitivo’ with local delicacies from their region, accompanied with some excellent sparkling ‘Prosecco’ wine.

8) The history of the E-Cat is more intriguing than a novel, but at this time only a part of my information was disclosed in the book. Was the same for you?

“No, I have to admit that with very few exceptions I have revealed everything I have learnt and discovered regarding this story in my book, at least everything that I find relevant and with a reasonable degree of credibility. I find it interesting that you say that there’s a lot you have not been able to report at this point, and I look forward to hearing about those things one day!”.

9) How do you think this story will end?

“As I have stated in my book, there’s no generally accepted proof for the E-Cat being a valid technology, but my personal assessment is that there are good reasons to believe that it works. From a more general perBook_Lewanspective I can see that there’s strong scientific evidence for LENR, and I’m convinced that if the E-Cat doesn’t work, continued research will turn LENR into an important and useful new energy source anyway within a near future, that will dramatically change the world and solve a series of fundamental global problems, the climate crisis included.

10) So, you’re optimist about the energy future…

Yes, because, from an even broader perspective, Einstein’s well known formula E = mc^2 tells us that energy is incredibly abundant all around us, and that the only problem is to find better, more efficient and less dangerous methods than those we know today – exothermal chemical reactions and a few nuclear reactions, essentially fission and hot fusion – to turn mass into energy. I can see no reason why we couldn’t find many new such methods in the future, which would give us limitless energy. But first we have to discard the detrimental and absurd notion that we have already discovered all possible ways to transform mass into energy”.

MATS LEWAN is a technology and science journalist, author and speaker. He works as a staff writer at the Swedish technology magazine “NyTeknik” and previously has worked at CBS Cnet News. Lewan holds a Master of Science degree in Engineering Physics from the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, where he lives with his wife and two children. 

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Oil SpillRecently there have been many discussions on the effective role played by the 2nd Third Party Report (TPR-2), and by other news about the E-Cat, in the sharp fall in oil price observed in the world financial markets during the last two months.

I asked an Italian trader who in the past has invested in oil market, and who wants to remain anonymous, his opinion on the subject. Here’s his reply:

“In the last 10 years I have invested in oil more than in other commodities or financial indices/markets because I found the behavior of oil market much more predictable. This was until the end of 2011, when I was one of the first Italian investors to read about the E-Cat and to consider this technology a possible game-changer. I realized that sooner or later the oil price would collapse and then with regret I kept away.

In order to answer your inquiry, I had a quick glance at some public data and at analysis on the subject already published by others, and I found three clear ‘signatures’ on the charts – two of which are completely new, and one can be considered a ‘smoking gun’ – showing that the fall in oil price is closely related to the recent news about the E-Cat.

The three ‘signatures’ are well visible in the following pictures:

Fig. 1 – You can see, from the 10-year chart above, that normally on the long term there is a quite good correlation between the oil price and the stock market (here represented by the American S&P 500 Index), being the oil an increasingly scarce resource.

Oil_vs_StockComparison between the trends of the prices in oil and stock markets during the last 10 years.

I mean that the price of oil, in the last 2-3 decades, has always had a tendency to rise, except in times of great economic crisis (as in 2009, when collapsed). But at this time we are not in one of those periods, so the last sharp fall visible in the oil graph is due to an extremely powerful ‘exogenous’ factor. In the following graphs it will result quite clear what is this factor.

Fig. 2 – The more technical chart below, used by traders and first appeared on November 28 here in a post published in the Sifferkoll blog, shows in detail the strong correlation among some recent news regarding the E-Cat and the daily movements of the oil price.

Oil_E-Cat_Signature_1A technical chart of the Light Sweet Crude Oil futures (from the Sifferkoll blog, slightly modified).

We can see that the beginning of the fall in oil price coincides, on the graph, with the release date of the TPR-2, also known as ‘Lugano Report’, i.e. October 8, 2014. I have added this information on the chart because it was not provided in the original picture.

This is the most important event together with the article appeared the following day on the Elforsk’s website written by the CEO of such company, Magnus Oloffsson, and both are clearly responsible for the so-called ‘4 year channel breakout’.

We also see that the sharp cumulative fall of the oil price is, in reality, the sum of many sales on the oil market triggered also, in the following days, by the many other ‘minor’ news about the E-Cat appeared in the media and quite well illustrated on the chart by its author.

Fig.3 – As you made in your post on the E-Cat popularity, I used – to analyze the issue – Google Trends, which is very powerful tool, and I made a surprisingly discovery. I consider the latter a likely ‘smoking gun’ of the intriguing relationship between the most important recent news about the E-Cat and the sharp fall of oil price. It also gives us an idea of its strength.

If you type on Google Trends ‘Oil price‘ and, later, ‘E-Cat‘, you find (as clearly shown in the picture below prepared with your precious graphical help) that the number of searches for the first term is about 5 times greater, as I would expect, because searching that term are mostly investors, much more numerous than the fans who follow the E-Cat.

Google_Trends_Oil_4A comparison between the number of “Google Searches” for the terms “Oil chart” and “E-cat”.

Well, if now we compare the trends graphs relating to searches for these two terms – ‘Oil price’ and ‘E-Cat’ – in the last year, we find a clear spike in both the searches corresponding exactly to the same period: October 8-12. Since the fans of Rossi’s E-Cat are far fewer than world investors on oil, this means that investors were very careful to follow the release of the Second Third Party Report, announced long before, and they promptly sold”.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

I would thank my press agency in Rome for the excellent work… I hope you like it too!  😉

Video_trailerClick on the picture above to see the video clip on You Tube.

You can see this book trailer directly or on my You Tube channel, where you’ll find also the Italian version. Please share the video clip with all your friends!

I take this opportunity to thank all the people who in recent weeks have bought my book and sent their opinion, starting with Dr. Wouter Keller from Holland… 🙂


If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

The electrical engineer and freelance reporter Salvo Mandarà has just published, on his web TV channel, a 52-minutes long interview in Italian with Andrea Rossi, connected via Skype from Miami, USA. I’ve translated it for you.


The following are all – and only – the many relevant parts of the interview, being original with respect to what is already well known. I’ve adapted the questions, which in the original version were very long, and cut all the completely unnecessary parts in the answers:

1) What are the materials used by an E-Cat as a fuel?

“The materials used are relatively common and therefore with a very low cost. The basic components of the fuel, in fact, are nickel, lithium and hydrogen. The hydrogen is produced not through electrolysis but through a thermal process. The hydrogen, in fact, is contained in a molecule, practically in a tablet. With the rising temperature activated by electrical resistors, it is released and then is used in the course of the thermal reactions. Then, when the temperature is lowered again, a good part of the tablet is recomposed, so the hydrogen is recovered”.

2) How the excess energy is produced by an E-Cat?

“The physical process by which the E-Cat works is a process of so-called ‘Low Energy Nuclear Reactions’ or LENR, that is, reactions which take place in the nucleus of an atom at temperatures ‘low’ compared to those normally required for a nuclear reaction, which does not need to be a fusion. In fact, after these years of experimentation, testing, measuring and analysis, we noticed that the main source of energy in our reactor is not so much a fusion, but a shift of the isotopic composition of the atoms contained in the fuel charge. The origin of the thermal excess energy is due to the fact that in such process there is a very small loss in mass, that is transformed into energy according to the famous Einstein’s equation E = mc^2”.

3) Can an E-Cat operate in self-sustained mode?

“Yes. The reactor can be self-sustaining for periods of time long enough. However, also for safety reasons, it is necessary that there is always ready to intervene an external source of energy, that we call ‘drive’. In 24 hours of operation, the system can run in self-sustained mode for about 3/4 of the time, i.e. for 18 hours run in self-sustained mode, but for 6 hours the drive is used. When the reactor is operating in self-sustained mode, its COP is very high for obvious reasons, but also when operating in driving, i.e. with the external power source, there’s always a COP greater than 1”.

4) If there were no safety concerns, could a reactor run without an external drive, i.e. using only the self-produced energy?

“No, for reasons of control of the reaction there must always be the drive, i.e. an amount of energy ready to intervene to moderate the operation of the plant. And having a drive to do with the security, it cannot be intrinsic, that is, cannot depend on the same equipment but must be external. So it is not true that, if there were no safety concerns, the reactor could run in a stand-alone mode”.

5) In a more or less near future, could we dream of having an E-Cat on a car?

“The application of this technology to the automotive industry is extremely complex. I spoke with the CEO of Volvo and with other automotive technicians who were intrigued by this possibility. In the automotive field, there are huge problems from the point of view of safety certification. According to the CEO of Volvo, from the time when technology was ready for automotive application, it would take from 10 to 20 years to complete all the cycles of testing and certification”.

6) When will we see an industrial production of E-Cats?

“As a matter of fact, I would say that the industrial production has already begun, in the sense that now there will be a year of very careful study of a first industrial plant that has been provided to a customer of Industrial Heat. And my job will be stay there 15 hours a day to verify a whole series of details. Indeed, it is the first time that I can finally see a machine in operation continuously for a long period – that is, for one year – and then discover all the problems due to a prolonged use”.

7) When will we see a real mass production of reactors?

“Regarding the real mass production, I can say that mass sales will begin after this year’s audit. Indeed, in this way, when many machines will be delivered, we will be very sure of what will happen to the customer, while now we are still studying above. When I made the first prototype in Italy, I was able to use it only for a few hours, because there were problems, even on the authorization side, to keep in mind. Now I can, finally, work seriously!”.

Translation and adaptation – Copyright © 2014 Vessela Nikolova. All rights reserved.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

logoboboblog_2I interviewed “Dr. Bob”, nickname of a young Russian nuclear engineer creator of the popular website Dr.BoBlog, which addresses the Cold Fusion themes in a very original way:

1) Dr. Bob, can you tell us how did you get interested in science?

“My father was a chemist and since I was a child he approached me to the science. When I played with little cars or build something with Lego, I always dreamed to build flying cars because my father had introduced me to the “Fusion” concept. I imagined that within 100 years everyone would have flying cars. But I took it a step further, dreaming that I could have some fusion-based device installed in my bed. With this technology, whenever I was sad, I could go to my bed and escape from my problems: I could go anywhere! Sometimes, I went with my father to the University where he carried out his research. Often I answered correctly to his scientific questions and a candy was the sweet reward. On those occasions, sometimes he allowed me to ‘play’ with the computer”.

2) When did you get the idea of a website on Cold Fusion?

“The idea for a my website was born much later, influenced by the paranoia of a manager I worked for: a capable character who saw me much promising. He treated all his workers very bad, especially me because in his mind the most important aspect of business was the ability to handle rejection and obey authority. One day, as he took me into his office to offence me, I turned on an audio recorder: you would not believe the things that came out of his mouth! He was so paranoid that he thought I might put the audio recording on a webpage for revenge. At that time, I had just been able to confirm Cold Fusion, so my reasoning was that creating a t-shirt on this theme – and if this technology had gone on the market – I would have had the chance to earn millions”.

3) Once had this “inspiration”, did you try to implement it?

“Yes. The idea grow on me, but I decided that instead of creating just a t-shirt I would create a brand that could compete with Andrea Rossi and his E-Cats. So, I started to plan an elaborate marketing puzzle, which starting from my Bobblog_3website might have been spread thanks to web marketing and social media, possibly reaching a global dimension. After recognizing that my goal was almost unachievable, I decided to try it anyway because I could achieve some results pointing to a higher goal than to limit myself to something more modest. Even if I had failed to prove that anything is possible, and that every idea can open up a world of possibilities, I might just inspire others capable to go farther than me”.

4) Which kind of difficulties have you encountered, if any, in communicating to the public a sensitive subject as the Cold Fusion?

“The problem is that there is no group thinking! Humans think to be so smart, but they’re not. Our collective behavior, our dependence on fossil fuels, our denial of the impact that our way of life has on the world we live in, are all very similar to that of an addict slowly killing himself by injecting heroin. Most people do not question authority. Actually, most people never question themselves either; and when we do, we tend to do so within a very small frame of reference. We all believe whatever we want to believe, no matter if it’s true or not. On a larger scale, positive thinking tends to take us farther compared to the negative thinking, so if people started to apply this attitude to themselves, we would all together make faster progress”.

5) How much time do you dedicate to your website? And do you make all the graphic work by yourself or someone helps you?

“The website is only the ‘top of the iceberg’ of what we do. Indeed, most of the time is spent on efforts ‘under the table’, that you don’t see directly. I’m not the only one working on this project: it’s a team effort. If you think that we’re just building a blog, wait and see!”.

6) Surely, you have a continuous feedback from the visitors of your blog. What kind of people is made up your audience?

“The readers of our blog are people who follow very closely the development of the technology. Among our greatest fans there are people from the space industry, a few billionaires, Nobel Prize winners, etc. About 200 visitors a day enter in our website just to see if we have posted any information about Miss Hannah Minx. As it happens on other technology blogs that deal with the Cold Fusion, many of the visitors do not leave many traces”.

7) The involvement of the female figure in popularizing science – as you do in an excellent way – surely works. But do you have a your quantitative estimate of how much?

Tokamak_2“In Russia there is a famous saying that says: ‘If women ruled the world there would be no war, just many countries not speaking to each other!’. Women are clearly underrepresented in science and this leads to a lot of aggression. I tend to think that an open dialogue would much smoother if there were more women holding influential positions in our society.

Personally, I work very well together with females, so I try to surround myself with as many as possible. Therefore, I would not give here specific numbers: let’s just say that one of the few benefits of being in the field of Cold Fusion is that women appreciates to see men who fights for a noble cause”.

Thank you Dr. Bob, I wish you great success!

In the picture: Dr. Bob reading with great attention the instructions for a Tokamak fusion reactor.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

I received from Eng. Ventola the following second article on the E-Cat technology: in this case, focused on a “Type II” design of the Hot-Cat reactor tested by third parties:

The picture here below, published in a skinny version in the patent application filed by Industrial Heat on April 26, 2014, shows a layered tubular reactor device (Fig. 4), also represented in cross-sectional view (Figg. 5 and 6). It can be described as Energy Catalyzer HT, where HT stands for “high temperature” and it is the second of three different embodiments described in such patent application, so hereinafter I’ll indicate it as “E-Cat HT – II“.


Diagram of a reactor device E-Cat HT “Type II design”  (from IH’s patent, slightly modified).
You can use this image provided that you leave its attribution and a proper link.

This reactor, with the powder charge widely and uniformly distributed along the central axis of the reactor, was used in the second of the three tests, or “experiments”, described in the first Third Party Report (TPR-1). Such experiment consisted in a 96-hours run of the device continuously powered – i.e. never operating in self-sustained mode – and was performed, successfully, on December 13-17, 2012 in Ferrara, Italy (see table below about the TPR tests).


All the tests described in the Third Party Reports released from the scientists Levi et al.

According to the dispersive description given in the cited patent and widely integrating the information contained on this issue in the TPR-1, the reactor device (200) used in this experiment was a layered cylindrical device having an inner tube (210). Such inner tube, made of AISI-310 steel, had a 3 mm thick cylindrical wall (212) with a 33 mm diameter.

Two cone-shaped end caps (214) made of AISI-316 steel were hot-hammered into the longitudinal ends of the inner tube, sealing it hermetically. Cap adherence was obtained by exploiting the higher thermal expansion coefficient of AISI-316 steel with respect to AISI-310.

As such, the inner tube constitutes a vessel sealed against ingress or egress of matter, including gaseous hydrogen. This represents a distinction of this type of reactor over previous reaction vessels (normal E-Cat or, if you prefer, E-Cat LT, where LT stands for ‘Low temperature’), that were preloaded with pressured gases such as hydrogen (see the previous Patent Application WO 2009125444, international extension of an Italian patent filed in 2008).

E-Cat_Type_II_3The E-Cat HT “Type II design” before the Third Party test performed on December 13-17, 2012.
You can see the black paint and the power cables to the three internal resistor coils.

The inner tube contained a powder reaction charge (216) uniformly distributed along the axis of the device, and consisting of a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder. However the fuel was, more precisely, a mixture of nickel, hydrogen and a catalyst consisting, according to the TPR-1, of some “additives” pressurized with the hydrogen gas and not disclosed being an industrial trade secret (I hope to discuss this topic in a future article).

A silicon nitride cylindrical outer shell (222), 33 cm in length and 10 cm in diameter, was coated with a special aeronautical-industry grade black paint (produced in the N-E of Italy), capable of withstanding temperatures up to 1200 degrees Celsius. A cylindrical inner shell (218), which was made of different ceramic material – corundum – was located within the outer shell.

The inner shell housed three delta-connected spiral-wire resistor coils (220), which were laid out horizontally, parallel to and equidistant from the center axis of the device. The three resistor coils essentially run the interior length of the device and were independently wired to a power supply by wires (230) that extended outward from the reactor device (see Fig. 6).

The resistor coils within the reactor were fed by a Triac power regulator device (302, see Fig. 7) which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate the power input with a controlled waveform, which is an industrial trade secret waveform. This procedure, needed to properly activate the powder reaction charge, had no bearing on the power consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the experiment.


The experimental setup of the second test on a Hot-Cat reactor described in this article.
You can use this image provided that you leave its attribution and a proper link.

Due to the failure in the first test performed in November 2012, when the primer resistor coils were run at about 1 kW, in this second experiment the continuous power input to the reactor was limited to a much lower value, 360 W, so the E-Cat HT’s hourly power consumption was 360 W. The E-Cat HT’s power production was almost constant, with an average of 1609 W (Fig. 8).

A wide band-pass power quality monitor (320) – a PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer produced by PCE Instruments – measuring the electrical quantities on each of the three phases was used to record the power absorbed by the resistor coils. It was connected directly to the reactor device resistor coil power cables by three clamp ammeters (326) and three probes (328), respectively for current and voltage measurements.

Finally, an IR thermography camera (306), model Optris PI Thermal Imager, was used to acquire a thermal image on a display (312) and to measure the surface temperature of the reactor device with a 2% precision of measured value, in order to make an infrared thermographic calorimetry. The thermal camera was positioned about 70 cm below the reactor device in order not to damage the camera itself from the heat transferred by rising convective air currents.


The almost constant radiative thermal power of the tested reactor, useful for estimating COP.
You can use this image provided that you leave its attribution and a proper link.

The Coefficient of Performance (COP) of the reactor device was obtained as the ratio between the total energy emitted by the device (radiated power + the power dispersed by convection) and the energy consumed by its three resistor coils. The resulting COP, with many conservative assumptions, was 5.6 +/- 0.8 (would be 4.5 taking into account only the radiative energy).

R. Ventola – Electrical engineer

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

I tried to cheTrend_2ck the popularity of the E-Cat and of LENR objectively with the help of Google Trends, a powerful analysis tool launched by Google in 2006. Google Trends allows to see how often specific search terms are being entered into Google search engine over time.

With Google Trends the popularity of up to five terms can be compared. And you can also view queries that contain either or two terms, using a vertical bar “|”. More advanced queries can be done as well. Google also puts markers next to major news events that are about that search query, helping to explain surges. Data can be sorted by time, language, geographic location, etc.

The results obtained by this approach seem to be quite interesting for many aspects.

The most searched query about the E-Cat is “E-Cat Rossi” (100), followed by “E-Cat news” (35), “E-Cat fusion” (30), Andrea Rossi (25) and “E-Cat Andrea Rossi” (25), while the simple “E-Cat” (15) is only seventh. Germany results the country most interested in LENR (100, see figure below), followed by Italy (95), USA (93), Canada (70), United Kingdom (53), France (47).

Popularity_by_country_3The countries most interested in web searches on “LENR” and on “E-Cat Rossi”. The results of the two searches agree with each other, but not if you search for the word “E-Cat”!

These are very useful information, through which I discovered that the simple word “E-Cat” can’t be used for checking trend statistics because this expression, especially in some countries as Czech Republic, refers also to completely different things. Indeed, if you check the popularity by country, you find that “E-Cat” is most popular in Czech Republic, but it is not our E-Cat!

So, I made my further analysis of the trends over time only on “E-Cat Rossi” instead of “E-Cat”.

In the picture below you can see compared the number of “Google Searches” and of “Google News” for the two search terms “LENR” and “E-Cat Rossi”. I have added on the graph the main events regarding the E-Cat to explain the most prominent surges.

Lenr_vs_E-Cat_4The comparative number of “Google Searches” and “Google News” for the terms “LENR” and “E-Cat Rossi”  (data from Google Trends appropriately processed and integrated).

It can be noted that the interest for LENR normally follows that for the E-Cat, as you can see from the time-shift between the quite similar red and blue curves.

You can see in both case – LENR and E-Cat – a clear overall trend of decreasing interest, probably due to the fact that the public demos and tests have not been considered conclusive and that the corporate communication was not appropriate to the “hostile” environment. This means that the destiny of LENR, also in terms of reputation, is strongly linked to that of the E-Cat.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

book_sargDr. Stoyan Sarg kindly sent me its last and interesting book titled “Structural Physics of Nuclear Fusion”. So, I could appreciate his original work and here’s my review for you.

In his long career, Dr. Stoyan Sarg paid particular attention to “fringe science”, which is sometimes mistakenly confused – by the uninformed people – with borderline science. But this certainly is not the case of Dr. Sarg, who just focused his attention on some unsolved problems in Physics.

He investigated the history of physics and scientific publications from different fields, and arrived at an original idea about the relation between matter, space, time and gravitation. As a result, he developed a treatise, called “Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory” (BSM-SG), based on a concept of the physical vacuum that had not yet been investigated.

In his book, Dr. Sarg remarks that “quantum mechanical models of the atoms, based on the planetary model of Bohr for hydrogen, are not real physical but mathematical”. Moreover, the remarkable advances achieved in Cold Fusion experiments cannot be explained from the point of view of current physical understanding of nuclear fusion.

This is an obstacle to endorsement and investment in this field. A supporting theory is needed.

The present book – which is quite technical, but it is natural – suggests a new approach for analysis of the results and offers practical recommendations based on the physical models of atomic nuclei derived in the BSM-Supergravitation Unified theory (BSM-SG).

The book, essentially, provides to the reader: (a) a method for analysis Sarg2of the LENR experiments using the BSM-SG atomic models (see the image); (b) a selection of isotopes suitable for a more efficient energy yield with a minimum of radioactive byproducts; (c) practical considerations for selection of the technical method and the reaction environment.

Then, this book is a very good read for all researchers in the field of LENR, both for experienced experimental scientists and for business-oriented newcomers in the hope of getting quick results.

Paperback, ed. 2013 – Pages: 212 – Price: 35.55$. You can buy the book on Amazon here.

About the Author

Dr. Stoyan Sarg – Sargoytchev, a Bulgarian-born Canadian, holds an Engineering diploma and a PhD in Physics. With his 35 years of interdisciplinary work at different scientific institutions, he gathered experience in different fields of physics and technology. He has over 70 scientific publications, popular papers online, four US patents and four books.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Bob_GreenyerI interviewed Bob Greenyer, eclectic entrepreneur and cosmopolitan ideas man who was part of a group that launched the “Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project” (MFMP), the world’s first Live Open Science project, made possible by the creation of a startup focused on LENR research. Here’re his answers:

1) Bob, when and how did you have the idea of a “Live Open Science” project? And what is the main goal of your efforts?

“I had always been frustrated by the way important science seemed to be done. I wanted science to be engaging for the wider public, so they could be part of the discovery process. The kernel of the idea occurred to me when I wrote my degree thesis some 21 years ago following exposure to the collaborative power of the early internet, but it wasn’t until early 2012 that I saw the opportunity for its application. The name came later, after the formation of the project to describe what we were doing. Our main goal is to show to the world there is a new, practical, primary energy source we call the New Fire”.

2) Your replication attempt of the Celani’s experiment with a surface modified constantan wire reactor began in 2013. What was the target and what results have been obtained?

“Our target was to replicate the claims of excess heat made by Francesco Celani at National Instruments Week, USA, and ICCF-17, Korea, both in 2012. It was a truly courageous thing of Francesco to release his part explored work. The target was to seek truth. We found excess heat signals of up to 12.5%, but that was below Celani’s findings which was disappointing. We later discovered oversight and other aspects of Celani’s original experiment that retrospectively adjusted his output to be in line with our own, which was satisfying”.

3) Can you tell us something about the other types of experiments going on right now? Can you say in a few lines what results they aim to achieve?

“Other than the on-going Celani experiments in Switzerland and France, in the US, Ryan Hunt’s team has completed the first phase of testing of our new generation of powder cells using Nickel powders with Hydrogen, so far we only saw low single digit excess percent, which is of little interest. Second phase is to include Iron Oxide based catalyst and Lithium Hydrides. The Tesla technology based electrical discharge cell inspired by Stoyan Sarg will first test Ahern powder + Hydrogen before adding Lithium Hydrides. In France, Mathieu Valat continues to collaborate with Jean-Paul Biberian on Mizuno style cells”.

4) What can you tell us of your most recent project of E-Cat replication just started, “Project Dog Bone”, and of the setup of such experiment?

“Well, firstly, it cannot be a replication as we are not party to all of the facts. Initially, the so-called []=Project Dog Bone=[] will test the thermal characteristics of a reactor made from similar materials to that tested in Lugano, this study will add valuable data for others to consider. We will then take a best guess at what is in the reactor and how it is controlled and attempt to re-create the effect. Even if we do see something similar, it may still not be considered a replication, it may be another approach that produces a similar effect”.

5) Nobody is the owner of the IP of what you’ll find, right? But this could delay a LENR product to the market. What’s your opinion about it?

“The old fire serves all of humanity, directly or indirectly, every day, regOpen_Science2ardless of IP, so it will be with the New Fire. Since the New Fire promises to be better in nearly every way, once clearly demonstrated, I see no problem with delivery other than by deliberate obstruction by vested interests. Good companies make billions on cars and smart devices and the basics of the internal combustion engine and Linux are open. Furthermore, the extreme importance of the New Fire would make international bodies force IP holders to provide affordable licensing of the technology to all”.

6) Your target is to raise 500.000$ to pay for equipment, the materials and anything else. In which forms and ways can a person contribute?

“Firstly, people can contribute by openly collaborating with us or by following what we do, spreading the word and scouring the literature for useful insights. Also, donation of time and equipment is very helpful. In fact we have 3 research groups wishing to join our effort and we need resources to help support them. Our work is primarily made possible by donations and individual donations of up to $1000 can be made via, or if people are able to contribute more they can contact us via the same website. We really want to accelerate our work, support new teams, improve our website, build rich media for better LENR communication and take on more permanent lab hands, so today we are announcing our new initiative called the ‘Fusion Fund‘”.

7) Already the name “Fusion Fund” sounds nice… What is it, exactly?

“It is a match fund and has 3 components:

1. Quantum Heat Inc – a 501.c.3 US charity registered in California;
2. Big ticket donation pledges that provide matching funds;
3. Donations by the crowd, either directly on the website, or to the US charity.

We are looking for philanthropic individuals or organizations to pledge $10,000 or more to the 501.c.3 that will be called upon as matching funds. When any other donations are received, they catalyze a reaction causing fusion with a matching fund, the smaller donor sees their contribution doubled and a match fund provider, depending on their tax rate, could see up to a quadrupling of their effective donation – this is a COP of 4!”.

8) Definitely an original idea, but I know that there is another little scoop for the readers…

“Yes, we hope to secure a number of match fund pledges, but the great news is, that for next year, we have already received two pledges of $20,000 or more which, when triggered by crowd donations, will yield $80,000. Of course, we need the small donations to make this happen, so the crowd is the key! All donations under $1000 since October 8th 2014 will be matched in this way. Thank you to every contributor – we’re lighting the New Fire together.”

BOB GREENYER holds a bachelor of Engineering and a Manufacturing Engineering degree from Brunel University, London. He co-founded Quantum Heat C.I.C., a not-for-profit Community Interest Company registered in United Kingdom.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

I received from Eng. Ventola the following article specifically focused on the E-Cat technology: in this case, on a “Type I” design of the Hot-Cat reactor tested by third parties:

The picture here below, published in a skinny version in the patent application filed by Industrial Heat on April 26, 2014, shows a layered tubular reactor device (Fig. 1), also represented in cross-sectional view (Fig. 2). It can be described as Energy Catalyzer HT, where HT stands for “high temperature” and it is the first of three different embodiments described in such patent application, so for sake of simplicity hereinafter I’ll indicate it as “E-Cat HT – I’“.

Fig1-2_Patent_2Diagram of a reactor device E-Cat HT “Type I design”  (from IH’s patent, slightly modified).
You can use this image provided that you leave its attribution and a proper link.

This reactor, with the charge non evenly distributed but concentrated in two distinct locations along the central axis of the reactor, was used in the first of the three tests described in the first Third Party Report (TPR-1), performed in November 2012 (see the table below about the TPR tests on Hot-Cat reactors). Such test failed, due to the overheating and melting of the steel cylinder containing the active charge and the surrounding ceramic layers.

Tests_TPRAll the tests described in the Third Party Reports released from the scientists Levi et al.

According to the description given in the cited patent and integrating the info contained on this issue in the TPR-1, a sealed steel inner tube (110) included a cylindrical wall (112) that extended between two end caps (114). The inner tube contained reaction charges (116) in two distinct longitudinal locations. A first cylindrical ceramic shell layer (118) surrounded the inner tube.

Each of 16 resistor coils (120) extended the length of the interior of the reactor device between the inner cylindrical ceramic shell layer and a more outer cylindrical ceramic shell layer. The resistor coils were circumferentially distributed around the inner cylindrical ceramic shell layer to produce uniformly distributed heating when electrical current was passed through the coils.

According to the patent application, the resistor coils were operated continuously at about 1 kW to perform experimental investigations of heat production. Once operating temperature is reached, it is possible to control the reaction by regulating the power to the coils.

IR_ImageAn IR thermal image of the November 2012 test device. Area 1 is at 793 °C. The temperature dips visible in the diagram on the right are shadows of the resistor coils, projected on the IR thermal camera lens by a source of energy of higher intensity located inside the device.

The reactor device was charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder. However the fuel was, more precisely, a mixture of nickel, hydrogen and a catalyst consisting, according to the TPR-1, of some “additives” pressurized with the hydrogen gas and not disclosed being an industrial trade secret (I hope to discuss this topic in a future article).

The E-Cat HT-I is a further high-temperature development of the original apparatus described in detail in the old patent application WO 2009125444, which has also undergone many changes in the last years. As in the original E-Cat, the powder charge activated by heat produced by the resistor coils produces excess heat from some type of reaction.

As said before, the reactor was destroyed in the course of the experimental run.

Before melting, it looked just like in the picture below, where you can see the shining charges distributed laterally in the reactor and the horizontal darker lines, corresponding to the shadows of the resistor coils, projected outward by a source of thermal energy located further inside the device, and of higher intensity as compared to the energy emitted by the coils themselves.

E-Cat_HT_I_2The E-Cat HT “Type I design” during the Third Party test performed on November 20, 2012.

This is evidence of an exothermic reaction that occurred within the inner tube.

The test was fruitful also because it demonstrated in a more direct way, i.e. completely destroying the entire reactor, a huge production of excess heat, which however could not be quantified. The device had similar, but not identical, features to those of the reactors used in the December 2012 and March 2013 TPR-1’s runs, which I’ll illustrate in detail in my future contributes.

R. Ventola – Electrical engineer

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

bill-gates2Bill Gates, co-founder and main shareholder of Microsoft, but also the richest and perhaps the most influential person in the world, has been interested for a long time in the activities in the field of frontier research.

Indeed, Gates has come a long way from when he was a teenager prodigy obsessed with writing computer codes, at the beginning of a four decades career leading to a digital revolution. Now, the “Bill Gates 2.0”, left Microsoft some years ago, can work full-time together with his wife Melinda giving his money away – he has a 67 billion dollar fortune – to make the world a better place, and he thinks that inventions are the key to success, a way to accomplish this goal.

In the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, there are over 1100 employees to help them decide which programs to fund, but Gates still visits sites around the world to see what works and what does not. And now one of Gates’ boldest and – as he says – most important adventures is to build a new kind of nuclear reactor. It would burn depleted uranium making it cleaner, safer and cheaper than today’s reactors. He hopes to have a prototype around 2022.

Gates_reactorBill Gates illustrating to a US journalist the great advantages of “his” nuclear reactor.

But he’s an optimist and still looking for new ideas and challenges.

So, it is not a surprise that Wednesday, after a meeting with the Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, Gates visited the ENEA, i.e. the former Italian National Agency for Alternative Energies, which in 2009 organized the 15th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-15) in Rome, last year sponsored ICCF-18 held in the USA, and was engaged in the field of LENR also with an agreement signed in 2010 with the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) and with many collaborations involving American Institutions and Universities.

Accompanied by the new head of ENEA Federico Testa, Gates toured the labs located near Rome, in Frascati, for a few hours, giving to its researchers – as prof. Vittorio Violante, who is the LENR Research Coordinator at the ENEA headquarters and responsible for the ENEA Task Force for Energy from Metal Hydrogen Systems since 2011 – the opportunity to describe in detail the research carried out by the Institute, which now is close to an economic agreement about funding by Bill Gates or by his Foundation for some research projects.

According to the present journalists, Gates first heard a presentation of the ENEA’s activities and then focused on cold fusion, frontier research in the field of nuclear fusion, sector in which these laboratories represent a center of excellence. Indeed, this is one of the world’s leading centers in nuclear fusion research, laser sources and particle accelerators since the ’50s, among the first to build a sophisticated machinery for fusion studies: the Tokamak Upgrade.

It’s quite funny that “Mr. Microsoft” was interested especially in LENR, a small research field also for the ENEA, whose activity is now directed mainly towards the development of technologies for magnetic and inertial confinement fusion, being involved in the project ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), so giving contributions in the fields of superconductivity, new materials, neutronics, security, remote handling and plasma physics.

Leonardo_Da_Vinci_CodeBill Gates seems very attracted by the Italian genius… here is showing his Da Vinci Codex.

Surely, Bill Gates 2.0 could better satisfy his deep curiosity towards inventions and Cold Fusion with a trip in Raleigh, USA. In 1994, he bought for $30 Millions the Da Vinci Codex – one of about 30 scientific paper left by the Italian genius Leonardo Da Vinci – which now is in his private office and is shown proudly to the guests. I wonder if Bill Gates’ recent and strong interest for LENR was just inspired by another Italian genius, but this is another story… 😉

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

Cover_Panorama2I was very pleased to see that my book E-Cat – The New Fire, not more than a few days after its publication, is on the main Italian magazine!

Indeed, a detailed newspaper article on the E-Cat, fruit of a long interview with Andrea Rossi and including a wide review of my book, has just been published on the latest issue of “Panorama” (November 12, n°47).

The title of the article is simply: “An ingenious physicist?” (the Italian original title is “Un fisico geniale?”). The author is the journalist and writer Raffaele Panizza.

With a circulation of 303.422 copies (in June 2013), Panorama is an Italian weekly magazine of current events and politics published by the most important publisher of books and magazines existing in Italy: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore SpA, better known as Mondadori.

This magazine addresses world and national news, political analysis, society, economy, health, science and technology reviews, and can be considered the Italian equivalent of the weekly Time in USA, of Der Spiegel in Germany or of L’Express in France.

The interview with Andrea was a real scoop for the skilled journalist author of the article, because now Rossi only very rarely (to say the least) gives interviews to Italian newspapers.


The beginning of the long article on Andrea Rossi, the E-Cat and my book.

Here’s a translation of the article summary published in the highlights of the last issue that you can find in the Panorama’s website: “Andrea Rossi is a much discussed entrepreneur: he was able to prPage3_small2oduce nuclear energy at low temperature. His project, the E-Cat, that for the first time realizes the cold fusion, has received the imprimatur of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. And the license was sold to a start-up in North Carolina, which in one year should put on the market the first megawatt plant: the price is $ 1 million“.

Finally, only a couple of brief excerpts from the positive and well-documented article:

“Andrea Rossi from Caponago saw rewarded his Faustian perseverance. A Prometheus which, for stealing the fire from the gods, accepted that the eagle gnawed his liver for two decades”, and “Also the Relativity of Einstein was considered a joke for a long time. Here it is no longer science. It is frontier”.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

My photo that showed Rossi’s lab seems to have caught the attention of many people, hundreds of whom have visited this website. The image was literally passed to the “X-ray”.


I read the comments appeared on various Italian and international blogs and forums, so I would like to summarize here the most interesting observations. I think that makes sense, given that many of the measurement instruments seem identical to those used in the 2nd independent test.

According to andrea.s, an engineer who writes also on Cobraf: “A 3-phase supply is applied in a star configuration (3 phase 4 wire) to the 3 Hot-Cats”, but “each Hot-Cat is powered by one phase line and connected to a common neutral daisy-chained from one Hot-Cat to another. Wiring is so long, and neutral wiring length so uneven, that there can be no “electromagnetic pulses” other than the 50 Hz sinusoid fractioned by the AC regulator thyristors”.

The electrical engineer Bob Higgins, on Vortex, is substantially of the same opinion: “Each Hot-Cat is connected with 2-wires only: each is connected single-phase! This probably means that the Hot-Cat only relies on heat-up, not magnetic field interaction – certainly not rotating field interaction. So replication does not need to use a 3-phase heater coil inside the Hot-Cat because there is no need to simulate an industrial environment”.


A reader on E-Cat World points out: “The use of 3-phase power during testing inadvertently sidetracked many independent observers when in reality it was just a convenience for management or equipment reasons”. And AlainCo writes on LENR Forum: “It is designed for industrial application where phase balance is important. As soon as you consume few dozen kW, the electric company asks you to use 3-phase and to balance your consumption”.

On Vortex Bob Higgins adds, about the gray box in the photo: “The gray box controller is controlling the energy to all 3 Hot-Cats via the red 3-phase SCR controller in such a way as to control the temperature of each Hot-Cat independently. This gray box controller is designed to control each Hot-Cat solely based on 1 temperature measurement per Hot-Cat”.

Higgins also clarifies its function: “The temperature controllers mounted on the gray box are probably each controlling the set-point of each Hot-Cat (i.e. they are not being used just as temperature meters). A microcontroller in the gray box may read each meter (RS232) and then sets the SCR angle for that phase to control the power to each Hot-Cat”.


The engineer Gerard McEk on E-Cat World instead focuses his attention on the little yellow paper on the bottom left corner of the table (see the image above): “It shows the shape of the currents due to the triac control. It seems that Andrea Rossi is also interested in that shape. If the triac controller was just installed to control the heat input, you would not be very interested in the shape of the currents”.

Finally, ThomasM observes, like many other readers elsewhere: “When I look at the electrical installation on the walls it’s an American type installation, not Italian sockets”. And Andre Blum adds: “Also the extension cord / splitter on the ground is one found typically in the US”.

Better than Sherlock Holmes! 😉

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone

I intervieweAndreuccettid Piero Andreuccetti, an experienced Italian nuclear engineer who has always worked in the energy sector and follows the LENR for many years. Here he exposes us his interesting personal view and position on the subject.

1) Dr. Andreuccetti, do you remember when and how did you get interested in LENR for the first time?

“In mid Nineties, by chance, I heard of Randell Mills researches on ‘Hydrino’. His activity seemed to be connected with the 1989 Fleischmann & Pons’ announcement about Cold Nuclear Fusion obtained at (almost) room temperature by means of electrolysis experiments. But while in 1989 I had not been so excited by F&P discovery, because I had not seen a possibility to turn it into a readily available new energy source, when I heard of Mills discoveries I get more interested, also because of some contacts I had in Westinghouse at those times, confirming that some excess heat had been provisionally measured on Mills’ device”.

2) You followed the recent developments in the LENR sector. Do you think that we’re on the edge of an energy revolution?

“Not yet on the edge, but something is going to happen in a few years. Because too many signs are starting to find their way to emerge from the realm of the so called ‘junk science’ and acquire a new dignity among mainstream researchers. Just for instance: Brian Ahern is obtaining results with his LENR experiments at MIT, the same Institute that dismissed as ‘heretical’ F&P results 25 years ago… But one thing is sure: if an energy revolution will take place, it won’t be by a Government decree or Academia move: market battlefield will decide, if and when some LENR devices will have proved their economic convenience, their safety and dependability”.

3) Today would you recommend to a small company with no experience in this field to invest in research on LENR?

“Right now LENR is still a slippery field, because of several reasons: LENR phenomena are difficult to replicate, powers generated by these experiments – Rossi’s E-Cat excluded – are still too small to be of industrial interest, and poor understanding of the physics underlying LENR on the one hand prevents from an effective assessment of risks associated with a massive research activity in this field, while on the other does not allow a R&D effort that ‘makes sense’ in order to scale lab devices up to marketable apparatus… Public support would be strongly needed to absorb risks, but it is largely impeded by the adverse Academia lobbying”.

4) What do you think are the main advantages of a technology such as that underlying an E-Cat compared to the renewables?

“Renewables, I mean photovoltaic and wind energy, are quite dispersed and basically not-depenEnergydable. Up to date, feeding an extended and highly demanding energy system by only means of renewables is simply impossible: as a matter of fact, fossil energy sources are unavoidable. Well, a marketable E-Cat – and I make the point that Renewables and LENR are to be regarded as integrable rather than as alternative – would enable a credible exit strategy from traditional energy sources… such a scenario that presently is difficult also to simply figure out”.

5) Do you think that there are now enough available information to have a good chance of independently replicating an E-Cat?

“The last Independent Third Party Report (ITPR) about an E-Cat long lasting test has shed more light on how this device is made and actually works. Evidence of Nickel and Lithium isotopic changes throughout the test allows for a deeper analysis of the physical processes taking places in the E-Cat and, consequently, paves the way for a possible independent replication. In this respect, let’s consider that the first public tests performed on the E-Cat had been done on Andrea Rossi’s made devices, while the last ITPR has been conducted on an Industrial Heat’s made apparatus. This is already a replication, though not completely independent”.

6) If you owned the IP of the E-Cat, would you risk to lose it allowing to third parties an isotopic analysis of fuel and ash?

“As far as IP protection is concerned, my opinion is that allowing a completely open and independent third party isotopic analysis of fuel and ash is risky enough… I understand scientific method needs, but real industrial world need adequate self-defence measures. And I repeat: E-Cat success, if any, will not happen by a general consensus decided in a number of Academia congresses… market will decide, and going on the market imply IP protection, engineering, marketing, etc. Epistemology, though important, will come after”.

PIERO ANDREUCCETTI, Nuclear Engineer, is the Property and Technical Services Manager at CESI SpA, in Milan, Italy. He has a Ph.D. in Safety of Nuclear Power Plants obtained at the University of Pisa, and a Maitrise en Management at the Université libre de Bruxelles.

If you want to share it...Share on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someone