Is Cold Fusion Heating Up?

November 14th, 2011 by Silvio Marcacci

Could cold fusion technology revolutionize energy generation?

Editor’s Note: I wouldn’t bet on it…

Cold fusion is considered by many to be the Holy Grail of energy production: a contained, low-energy nuclear reaction that could theoretically produce endless, self-sustaining, and incredibly cheap energy. But, just like the Holy Grail, it has been more myth than reality.

Countless scientists have tried to successfully demonstrate cold fusion, and all have failed – until now. energyNOW! anchor Thalia Assuras takes a look at a technology that could change the way we think about energy. The full segment is available below:

Late last month, an Italian inventor named Andrea Rossi, claimed a successful test demonstration of cold fusion at the University of Bologna. His power plant, named E-Cat (for Energy Catalyzer), passed its biggest test yet, producing energy for over five hours. The test aimed to generate one megawatt, and averaged 470 kilowatts over the test duration, but fell short of its target because of a technical glitch.

Rossi says his technology succeeded where others have failed because he uses a secret catalyst to react with small amounts of nickel powder and hydrogen gas. The resulting reaction creates energy in the form of heat without any emissions, radioactive materials, or nuclear waste. The E-Cat’s energy output was measured by tracking water boiled off during the reaction, and Rossi says his test produced as much energy as 70 gallons of gasoline.

The E-Cat was built for and tested in front of an unnamed American company that intends to commercialize the technology, but questions still remain about the E-Cat’s viability. For instance, several reporters were allowed to witness the test, but only for a few minutes at a time. And, the E-Cat remained plugged into a power supply throughout the demonstration.

Nonetheless, Rossi says he expects the E-Cat to go into mass production soon, so time will tell if cold fusion has finally found a place in the sun.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: Andrea Rossi, Cold fusion, E-Cat, Energy catalyzer

About the Author

Silvio Marcacci Silvio is Principal at Marcacci Communications, a full-service clean energy and climate policy public relations company based in Oakland, CA.

Anonymous

The problem is that like many other beliefs, the idea of cold fusion is based on a lot of conjecture and armchair speculation, but no real hard evidence. So far not one single person or team claiming cold fusion has produce any credible evidence of fusion products such as helium being produced, not one in 32 years. Can you cite any that has passed peer-review in a reputable journal (for it’s respective filed) demonstrating helium (or another light element) having been produced?

In the end there is a reason why scientists are bad at detecting frauds like phony “psychics” and why magicians tend to be better at the task. Scientists tend to work from trust in their peers, magicians work from a position of “How can someone be fooled?”.

There is nothing so far described in this “test” that couldn’t be explained by a sufficiently powerful heating element and a hidden power cord. Heating water doesn’t provide evidence of fusion, it only demonstrates heat and/or vacuum. Producing helium without an outside supply being fed into the system…now that would be something to celebrate. It’s been 32 years but we still have no credible evidence of fusion byproducts except from hot fusion reactions, as much as I wish it were otherwise.
We’re still waiting…
Brad Arnold

There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/10th the cost of coal. Don’t believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate_touts_E-Cat_cold_fusion/

Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+K2CO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. Here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

According to Forbes, electricity will be “too cheap to meter” if the Oct 28 demonstration succeeds: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/17/hello-cheap-energy-hello-brave-new-world/

Here’s the latest, according to MSNBC it passed the test: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrNo9rJqwe4

By the way, here is a PowerPoint presentation by George Miley of the University of Illinois who has successfully replicated the LENR “cold fusion” reaction: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498ES%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems/Nuclear%20Battery%20using%20Clusters%20in%20Nanomaterials.pptx
- Anonymous
  
  Is there a sucker born every minute?
  - Brad Arnold
    
    Yeah, they are the ones who ignore the accumulating evidence that Rossi is legitimate, and instead cynically insist that tomorrow will be like today. Maybe we ought to close the patient office because everything has already been discover, huh Bob?
    - Anonymous
      
      Really…so then, where are the fusion byproducts being produced? That would be the real test of a nuclear reaction taking place, but it’s the one test that such “inventions” never try to actually perform. Where is the independent verification of elements( between helium to iron) being created?
      
      Instead we get one “test” after another were some people are shown a device (that they can’t look too closely at, for one reason or another) that heats water (or lights bulbs, etc). Usually an excuse is offered why it’s not running at full capacity. It’s declared a success, without any real testing. Then years later, after everyone has forgotten about the last one, a “new invention” is trotted out and the process repeats. It’s an old story.
      
      It shouldn’t be too hard if the claims are true, but we’re still waiting on Pons and Fleishman to produce the helium they promised a while ago too. It’s been what, 32 years now for them? We’re still waiting…
      
      Why are people chasing unverified promises (that have always turned out to be false so far) over proven renewable technology that is available today?
    - http://profiles.google.com/thejbills Jesse Williams
      
      It’s true Bob. Cold fusion has always been a joke in the physics community, and Rossi has been talking about his discovery for a while now but hasn’t showed anything to prove for himself. If it were true and he were a real scientist, he would patent, then publish, then get rich, and then win the Nobel prize.
      
      It’s not going to happen.
      - Brad Arnold
        
        Frankly, it shows your ignorance to think that a patient on LENR would be acceptable to the US Patient Office. Obviously, you haven’t read how the US Patient Office handles such applications. On the other hand, Rossi does have a patient in Italy.
        
        Furthermore, try publishing a peer reviewed article on LENR – it is handled the same way. There has been tons of articles written on how impossible it is to get a peered review article published on unconventional subjects.
        
        Finally, Rossi is doing the only thing he can do: build a manufacturing company from the ground up, and successful commercialize his “discovery” (secret “Italian Sauce”). It galls me that you utter truthiness as if it is truth – do you know how much pain the virtual boycott of patients and peer review publications is?? What a waste that Rossi has to do anything other than show results, as he has multiple times in public demonstrations that people conveniently ignore to avoid cognitive dissidence.
      - Anonymous
        
        There’s no problem getting a patent in the US for something like Rossi’s gadget. He just has to present a working model. Same as any other perpetual motion machine.
        
        No quality journal is going to publish a paper based on Rossi claiming that his gadget works. He’s going to have to allow it to be evaluated by a qualified neutral party.
        
        You’re just talking trash. Why is that?
      - Brad Arnold
        
        No sir, you are talking trash, claiming that if you present a working device to the US patient office that the patient will be automatically granted. By the way, it isn’t a “perpetual motion machine,” since it takes fuel to run, but your claim that the Rossi E-Cat is perpetual motion really shows who is talking trash here Bob.
        
        Also, “quality” journals publish papers all the time without a working device, in fact papers are usually published without the scientific dynamic put into practice through a working device. The hold up is that turning nickel into copper is outside of consensus reality, so scientific experts automatically eliminate the possibility as impossible because it would require the breaching of the Columb barrier at less than super-heated conditions. Do you know how many “qualified neutral parties” have screamed at me that what I was suggesting was preposterous based upon the argument that it was “against the laws of physics?”
        
        Why are you talking trash Bob? You are wrong on both counts, and please don’t make be cite numerous links to support what I am saying, because I will do it.
      - Anonymous
        
        No Bob isn’t saying that it’s a perpetual motion machine, just that it’s the same procedure. (Granted it could have been phrased a little better, IMO. No offense Bob.) There have been plenty of free energy machines and other dubious devices patented in the USA. If a phoney device that never worked can be patented in the USA then so can one that actually works, assuming for the sake of argument that the e-cat actually does work. That was Bob’s point.
        
        BTW I noticed you still haven’t answered the basic question of providing evidence of fusion products…why not? It should be easy for Rossi to prove if his device really works.
      - http://profiles.google.com/thejbills Jesse Williams
        
        Yep, it’s not a perpetual motion machine. It’s a pressure cooker. I was reviewing his “public demonstrations”, and he has a black box that is clearly a big pressure cooker. Then I was examining his interviews and I was almost in tears laughing.
        
        And Bob, you’re right about patents. Obtaining international patents is routine, though it may not be very easy. I work at a national laboratory in Japan and collaborate with companies in France. We obtain patents in many countries, including US. No biggie.
        
        Okay, this is my last post. One really shouldn’t waste too much time on shenanigans such as this.
      - Anonymous
        
        Brad, that is not what I said. I said that if you want to get something like a perpetual motion machine, which this resembles, patented then you have to submit a working model.
        
        Rossi’s gadget will be treated, most likely, as a perpetual motion machine because it portends to produce more energy than would be expected based on other energy producing machines.
        
        Quality journals have standards. If someone wants their extraordinary claim published then they will have to produce that the review community finds credible. Simply making steam while not letting an independent examiner measure input/output does not reach the level of credibility. Unusual claims require higher levels of proof than claims which are small steps from things already proved. If Rossi wants to be taken seriously by serious people he’s got to step up his game.
        
        Rossi is a non-physicist making a claim that the vast majority of physicists find highly suspicious/non-credible. The fact that he is avoiding tendered offers to evaluate his gadget by respectable labs destroys his credibility.
        
        The fact that “qualified neutral parties” have screamed at you, that tells you nothing? You refuse to understand that there is a clear and easy route for Rossi to prove himself credible and he refuses to take it but falls
        back on lame excuses.
http://twitter.com/Citi5Fund Citi5 Fund

Video Inspections and Commentary of Rossi’s E-Cat Device, Brian Ahern to explain details of reaction Dec. 7th » Citi5 http://j.mp/tAex7K
Francy

Let’s see –

With no background in any science or technology, I can duplicate Rossi’s results!

IF – I am allowed to leave my “Device” plugged into the electric grid – I too can boil water!

And mine doesn’t even need a “Secret” catalyst! Or…. Maybe mine uses THREE “secret” catalysts – Yeah… That’s right… three – NO! – FOUR! “secret” catalysts. And mine does more than boil water – IT MAKES COFFEE!!!
Steve Robb

I have created a “We the People Petition” asking for a review of the Energy Catalyzer by the White House that you can sign by going here: http://wh.gov/j3P . Please pardon my misspellings on the petition.
- Anonymous
  
  Why?
  
  Rossi could get this thing evaluated by any number of major universities if he desired to. He’s pretty much telegraphed the message that he ain’t got nothin’ by running his in-house dog and pony shows and
  keeping legitimate evaluators at arm’s length.
  
  Plus there is no way for the US government to force a citizen of Italy (or any other country) to make their gadget available to for testing.
  
  This so reminds me of EEStor…..
  - Anonymous
    
    Rossi’s claims do remind me a lot of the “electron gyroscope” and other free energy claims from a while back. I do hope I’m wrong but without a more convincing tests with better verification it’s not looking good.
    
    Just to go into conspiracy mongering mode (for the fun of it), I have to wonder how many fruitless free-energy/cold-fusion claims are “encouraged” by the fossil fuel companies as a way to divert support away from proven technologies like solar/wind/geothermal etc. After all it costs them practically nothing and they know it will never be a real threat unlike the proven renewable technologies, but it saps time and money away from the real efforts to chase pipe-dreams.
    Maybe, maybe not.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_K7TNJJNBBSBH5XJ63HGHPE2UVU adam
  
  I’m not going to pardon a petition to the White House with misspellings, sorry not getting signed.
  - Steve Robb
    
    Once it is submitted it cannot be changed. Sorry for the misspellings.
Stupid

I think he would allow people to take a look at it, if he could get international patents, but since he can’t what’s there to say another scientist doesn’t just copy his machine and mass produce? It really is just about money
- Anonymous
  
  He “can’t” get a patent?
  
  Or he “hasn’t gotten” a patent?
  
  It’s not hard to get a patent. It’s not expensive to get a patent. He doesn’t really need a patent.
  
  A quality lab will sign a non-disclosure agreement that will protect his intellectual assets. He doesn’t even need to reveal what is inside his “thing”. He could secure one of his devices in a locked box and allow the lab to control only the inputs and outputs.
  
  All this patent stuff smells like scam….
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_K7TNJJNBBSBH5XJ63HGHPE2UVU adam
    
    The lab would not do a “black box” test, they would need to see details of the reaction taking place inside the machine to verify it is nuclear and not chemical.
    - Anonymous
      
      There is no need to open the box to determine if the reaction is nuclear vs. chemical.
      
      If the energy output exceeds what could be produced by a chemical reaction then Rossi would gain creditably. There’s only so much “battery” you can stuff in a given volume.
  - http://twitter.com/Citi5Fund Citi5 Fund
    
    We are confident that we know why there is a lack of patent application … the device works, but it appears he doesn’t know why it works.There isn’t anything in the “catalyst chamber black box” … the reaction is due to the particle size of the nickel powder. It appears that all matter processed between 3-12nm in size has unique nano-magnetic properties which are the source of the reaction.
    
    I have further details from Brian Ahern who discovered this effect in 1995 as the nano-materials expert for the USAF. He will be presenting the full details on December 7th at our Clean Tech / Economic event in NYC, details here on the science and event:
    
    LENR “Cold Fusion” nano-magnetism phenomenon details to be revealed December 7th in NYC » Citi5; Urban Sustainability Mega-Community Fund http://bit.ly/v5nBFw
    - Anonymous
      
      When applying for a patent there is no requirement to explain the physics behind your idea. Just describe your idea in enough detail to protect it from someone else replicating it and profiting off your idea.
      
      We do not know that the device works. Rossi has not allowed anyone to test his device.
      
      If Rossi’s device works and works due to “the reaction is due to the particle size of the nickel powder” and Rossi has failed to obtain patents he is a fool.
      
      (Please note the “If”.)
      
      If you’ve got something that works then you quickly get patents before other people figure out what you are doing. If you’ve revealed something about how it works without a patent then others are going to eat your lunch.
      This guy is operating like a scammer, not like an inventor.
      
      A scammer is going to shop their gadget around, looking for suckers. An inventor is going to lock up his patent and then approach a funding source to get it going big time.
      
      You got something that actually works, you go to a big corporation like GE
      and ask them if they want to be the largest company in the world while
      making you the richest person in the world.
      - http://twitter.com/Citi5Fund Citi5 Fund
        
        Your right about that.
        
        http://e-catsite.com/2011/11/17/rossi-rival-to-announce-cold-fusionlenr-findings/
        
        First hint of breaking story. Review http://www.citi5.org
  - http://profiles.google.com/thejbills Jesse Williams
    
    From wikipedia about his patent:
    
    The international patent application received an unfavorable international preliminary report on patentability because it seemed to “offend against the generally accepted laws of physics and established theories” and to overcome this problem the application should have contained either experimental evidence or a firm theoretical basis in current scientific theories.[1]
    
    Ref.
    1 Lisa Zyga (2011-01-20), “Italian Scientists claim to have demonstrated cold fusion”, Physorg.com
Lewis Larsen

As a 10-year participant in the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs), I myself have no opinion whatsoever on the scientific validity of the recent Rossi-Focardi work. Notwithstanding Rossi et al., I believe that LENRs themselves are real physical phenomena. Importantly, it appears that nanoscale phenomena on surfaces are vitally important to LENRs in condensed matter systems. Moreover, we have developed a body of rigorous theoretical work involving existing physics which successfully explains such phenomena that has been published in well-respected, mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals. According to our work, LENRs do not involve appreciable amounts of nuclear fusion — hot, “cold,” warm or otherwise. In particular, a 5-page, highly technical description of the physics ‘bedrock’ of our theoretical work was published in:

“Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces”
A. Widom and L. Larsen
European Physical Journal C – Particles and Fields 46 pp. 107 – 112 (2006)
Source URL = http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Widom-UltraLowMomentumNeutronCatalyzed.pdf
More recently, a 21-page “Primer” paper, which provides a high-level overview of the entire expanse of the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs from the microcosm (very high local E-fields on nm-to-micron length-scales on condensed matter surfaces) to the macrocosm (dusty plasmas and magnetic-regime astrophysical phenomena on large length-scales), recently published in an Indian Academy of Science journal as follows (much less mathematically intensive than EPJC in 2006):

“A primer for electroweak induced low-energy nuclear reactions”
Y. N. Srivastava, A. Widom, and L. Larsen
Pramana – Journal of Physics 75 pp. 617 – 637 (2010)
Source URL = http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/v75/p617/fulltext.pdf
The importance of nanotechnology and plasmonics to condensed matter LENRs is explained in some detail in Slides # 7 – 43 found in the following Lattice technical public PowerPoint presentation on SlideShare.net:

“Lattice Energy LLC – Could LENRs be involved in some Li-ion battery fires? LENRs in advanced batteries, July 16, 2010″
Source URL = http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/cfakepathlattice-energy-llc-len-rs-in-liion-battery-firesjuly-16-2010
Starting with the release of our first arXiv preprint in May 2005, the Widom-Larsen theory of LENRs has shown, using known physics, how energetic nuclear reactions can readily take place in ordinary chemical cells. According to W-L, key aspects of LENRs involve weak interactions that can occur in a variety of different laboratory and natural environments under relatively ‘mild’ physical conditions. Our theory posits that in condensed matter systems, many-body collective electroweak and electromagnetic effects allow the otherwise disparate chemical and nuclear energy realms to interconnect with each other in special, nano-scale regions on surfaces in which there is a breakdown of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation.

In various types of guises, LENR-related phenomena have been episodically reported in mainstream scientific literature for over 100 years. In the past, most such discoveries were either written-off as experimental error or simply inexplicable anomalous phenomena — scientific curiosities with no sensible theoretical explanation.
Unlike strong interaction fission and fusion, even substantial fluxes of LENRs in condensed matter do not typically produce large amounts of dangerous ‘hard’ photon or neutron radiation, or long-lived radioactive isotopes, so they could easily go unnoticed or sometimes even mimic prosaic chemical isotopic ‘fractionation’ processes — hidden in plain sight, as they say.

All of this prior 100-year history is understandable because LENR triggering mechanisms in condensed matter systems are very subtle, depending on multistep, nanoscale, many-body, collective quantum phenomena that are very difficult to reliably replicate unless one has mastery of certain key elements of nanotechnology and plasmonics that are required to do so. Indeed, the requisite technical knowledge and related fabrication techniques in nanotech that are crucial to conducting truly productive interdisciplinary R&D programs in LENRs have only become available within the past several years — they simply didn’t exist 20 or even 10 years ago. Today, they finally do.

Lewis Larsen
President and CEO
Lattice Energy LLC
Chicago, IL USA
- Steve Robb
  
  But what do you say about Rossi and his invention? He claims it does not use Widden-Larsen theory. His energy balance from Oct 6 looked good to me and it is the main reason I accept what he and his associates claim. It is as if it is 500,000 years ago and he has discovered fire, but the other cavemen want a complete theory of chemical thermodynamics to explain this fire thing before they will let it into the cave.
  - Anonymous
    
    The difference is that one cave man could just point to the fire fire to show it. I doubt they asked for payment to feel a warm rock that they claimed was heated by this new source of heat, but could have just been lying out in the sun.
    
    We don’t need a complete description just credible tests by independent experts and some halfway decent evidence of an actual nuclear reaction (like reaction byproducts) instead of “Look I can make water boil, now buy my product on faith”.
    - Anonymous
      
      I watch very little TV, but I got stuck in Bangkok back in the spring and the room had a set in it. I watched a few shows where a magician demonstrated how common magic tricks are created. He would first show how you cut a woman in half and then turn the apparatus to show how the trick worked.
      
      People who believe in Rossi might be well served by digging up some on line sessions of this series and see how one can create something that looks impossible when, in fact, it’s fairly simple.
      
      Now, I don’t know if Rossi is a fake or not but I do know that there are plenty of fakes in this world who are trying to make a quick buck. And I do know that he is not allowing the sort of tests that would prove or disprove his gadget.
      - Anonymous
        
        I agree completely.
        As I stated earlier in my own posts, I would *love* for this to be true, but there is no credible evidence being offered. I felt the same way about the original “cold fusion ” announcement too, hoping it was true but doubting the claim without better evidence. Unfortunately I was correct that time as well.
        
        One of the reasons why I like magic tricks is because of how simple it is to fool people once you known the trick. Even when you know you are watching a trick a good magician can still fool your senses. It seems to be a common failing in human psychology that people tend to underestimate how easy it is for oneself to be fooled, even more so when it is something you *want* to believe in.
- http://twitter.com/Citi5Fund Citi5 Fund
  
  Lewis, please get in touch. I am working with Brian Ahern and also NASA’s OMEGA platform for Algal Biofuels …. the cat’s out of the bag! Too important for the world, the time is now to spread knowledge and truth.
  
  Video Inspections and Commentary of Rossi’s E-Cat Device, Brian Ahern to explain details of reaction Dec. 7th » Citi5; U… http://j.mp/tAex7K
Stonemushroom

Wow , how many commenter’s on this work for oil or gas companies. This is close to being the most anti e-cat site going in the last 12 months I’ve been following this, and I’ve read a lot Krivit
- Anonymous
  
  It’s not a matter of being “anti e-cat” as you claim, it’s a matter of being anti-scam. So called “free” and “cheap” energy scams have been around for a long time and it pays to be careful before giving such claims too much acclaim.
  
  As I said before, if it’s not producing helium (or some other element between helium up to iron, which is even more implausible) then it’s *not* fusion, period, end of story. By definition fusion converts elements lower in the periodic table to those higher on the table (mostly hydrogen to helium), if it is not doing that then nothing is being fused at all. That is the single most convincing test that can be performed to prove the claims of cold fusion, and so far every other such claimant has failed to produce such results in a way that can be repeated or independently verified. It should be easy for the “e-cat” to produce such independently verifiable results of helium (or another element) production if the claim of cold fusion is true.
  
  If it is actually generating energy at all (I’m not convinced of that from the description of the test given here it sounds like it could have been possibly faked) but there is no fusion of elements then we are dealing with another process such as a chemical reaction like the one that started the first incorrect cold fusion claim.
  
  Like I said before, I really would like the claim to be true, but from what little was discussed so far, it doesn’t “smell right”. If it’s true he should be able to give better independently verifiable results than something with out any real independent verification.
  - Anonymous
    
    for the record, it claims to be turning nickel into copper.
    - Anonymous
      
      Thank you for that, most of the descriptions are so vague as to be useless.
      
      The claim that he is converting Nickel in into Copper does raise another problem with his claims though. Iron is #26 in the periodic table. Nickel is #28 and copper is #29. The problem is this, all elements higher than Iron in the table are normally only created by fusion in a nova/supernova. Why? Because it takes more energy being put in than you get out to fuse elements above the production of iron.
      
      In other words it should be consuming, not producing, energy to convert nickle into copper. Lets’ assume for the sake of argument that somehow you can produce fuse nickle and hydrogen to produce copper and create an energy surplus in the process. This still should be easily testable for and raises the question why not make that the centerpiece of the test since it would not only prove cold-fusion, but re-write some of physics in the process. The Noble Prize and lucrative commercial (and government) contracts would be a sure thing.
LENR4you

I don’t think steam cars will win.
I think there will be a LENR reactor insight a Stirling engine and that produces electricity to power the eCar.
And the best: Cars change from energy consumer to an clean green energy producer. eCar with LENR-Stirling Engine will supply electricity to your homes and the grid.
Your
LENR4you
Dewaynecurry

“the E-Cat remained plugged into a power supply throughout the demonstration.”
How dumb are these people?
Any two-bit technician could tell you how easy it would be to verify the power output of the power supply attached to the system. Apparently they could not afford an ammeter.
What is amazing is they found some poor rube with lots of money to waste.. maybe.
One thing these cons like to do is fake their investors too in order to create a gold rush effect.
Quick we all better buy up some of that Cold Fusion before its all gone!!!
- Anonymous
  
  and the power supply was a generator so you can’t just ask the power company how much power he drew for the experiment. Scammy as hell
  - Anonymous
    
    All I’ve seen was that he produced steam while continuing to be plugged into a power source.
    
    There was no measurement of the pressure/amount of that steam. He just made steam.
    
    It would be pretty easy to test his apparatus. Put a meter on the incoming power line. Recirculate water from a free-standing water tank through the gadget. Measure the temperature change in the known volume of water.
    
    It’s not like he needs to lease the Large Hadron *Collider to get the data.*
    Some people really, really want to believe in the unlikely….
Matt is duhh

Matt, it is not a mystery why the bumble bee flies. The way a bumble bees wings creates lift was demonstrated over a decade ago. That is still an irrelevant and fallacious attempt to divert attention from the real point. This is not a case of trying to describe or understand the physics of a living organism but an application of engineering and physics. Obviously you are unfamiliar with science and the term pathological science. If this person was reputable, they would have detailed experiments others could reproduce and verify. This is a scam and unfortunately you are not intelligent enough to realize this and when nothing ever comes of it you will simply dismiss the failure as “big science” covering up the work the brilliant Rossi.
http://twitter.com/MarkGoldes Mark Goldes

Nickel Hydrogen systems have great promise but are not necessarily nuclear.

See CHEAP GREEN on the Aesop Institute website for an example that generated substantially more energy than was needed to power the system – in tests that were part of a USAF Small Business Innovation Research contract with Thermacore, which patented the technology in 1993.

Thee are now a few competitors entering the arena. More about them can be found on the same website.
- Anonymous
  
  Mark, when you see a major corporation investing in one of these ideas then get excited.
  
  Until then, best to stay on the skeptical side of the highway….
  - Anonymous
    
    Respectfully, even a major corporation or two can be fooled.
    Especially if the CEOs are looking at something outside of their field of expertise (often business).
    
    I’d wait until you see it being seriously discussed by leading experts in the field.
    - Anonymous
      
      True, but I meant wait until you see a major corporation going big time with this technology. Something more than just signing a licensing agreement.
  - Brad Arnold
    
    Is that the “side of the highway” you find yourself on all the time Bob? You call it skeptical, and I call it cynical.
    - Anonymous
      
      I call it “experienced”, Brad.
      
      I’ve seen this sort of stuff appear and fade away many times. Feel free to be a true believer. Most of us are going to wait for a legitimate test of Rossi’s gadget, but we won’t hold our breaths while waiting.
      
      Godot is likely to show up first….
      - Brad Arnold
        
        Here is a link to Rossi’s bio. Please note the number of “successful” public demonstrations he has conducted: http://ecatfusion.com/e-cat/andrea-rossi-biography-the-e-cat-fusor-story
        
        Plus, here is a MSNBC link calling the 28 Oct demonstration a success: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45153076/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TrNo9rJqwe4
        
        I wonder what you would call a “legitimate test?” Perhaps because all your experience is negative you are unable to take yes for an answer.
        
        “Sorry, but convoluted frauds involving lots of parties is the least likely. So are 3 groups of science observers too stupid to recognize an obvious fraud. Also, there are enough other NiH results which suggest a LENR reaction.”
        
        By the way, here is a Defense Intelligence Agency report (two years old) that details teams from all over the world getting over unity results from LENR experiments: http://coldfusion3.com/blog/intelligence-report-indicates-pentagon-believes-in-cold-fusion
      - Anonymous
        
        That still the same old argument though.
        All of the old “free energy and “cold fusion scams in the past had a similar list of similar “demonstrations”. I remember watching a public demonstration of a “electron gyroscopes” (IIRC) in a sports stadium full of people on the Tonight Show (I think Carson was still hosting back then). It never worked out.
        
        The point is that it’s very easy to fake such a “public demonstration” when you control all aspects of the testing and don’t allow anyone to get a real close look. Especially when all you are doing is producing heat in conditions that aren’t independently controlled (or at least monitored) to prevent cheating. All we are asking for is real testing, and actually showing that a fusion byproduct is being produced. Why is that so hard?
        
        Why does your side only offer arguments from authority and excuses for why real tests and peer review have not been done? It’s the same old story that has been going on for at least decades.
Matt

Technically …aerodynamically, a bumble bee should not be able to fly. Yet it does…why?

Peer review, and scientifically validating the reactions causing the production of heat are an afterthought and only worthy for those armchair physicists.

What really matters is what Rossi IS DOING…using the system of capitalism / commercialism to produce and spread his cold fusion device to the masses. That is the best, most efficent way of obtaining his goals.

His customer was happy with the results, and bought the first unit.

Now other buyers will come out (apparently they have already) and buy more units.

Scientific validation is a moot point…. let the engineers begin streamlining the process and in that course, scientific validation will be achieved.
- Anonymous
  
  The Emperor loved his new clothes Matt.
  
  Rossi is making extreme claims and only the foolish are going to take him at his word.
  
  Rossi has nothing to lose by allowing an independent lab to evaluate his approach. Except, perhaps, his scam if that is what it is.
  - Duhhh
    
    He has everything to lose as he does not currently have a worldwide patent.
    - Anonymous
      
      He can get a patent. He’s had way more time than needed to get a patent.
      That’s a 100% bogus excuse.
      
      Even if he had a patent for only a few countries and he had a real solution he would be the richest person in the world in a few years. If he controlled nothing but the US power market he would be richer than Bill Gates.
      
      Sorry, Duhhh, that dog don’t hunt….
      - Doc
        
        He asked for patent in Italy and got it, he asked international patent too but they didn’t give him yet. He hope that with the start of commercial selling they will aknowledge his work and give finally the patent so he can let scientist do all the experiment they want without worry of get his technology stolen. It looks like he is not doing this to win a nobel but to become rich, shame on him. But it can still be a scam, only strange thing is that he is not asking for money from people and is not financed by anyone, not even the university, he sold his house to make the 1 MW plant.
      - Anonymous
        
        Then he could still have experts review it in Italy, it also doesn’t explain the lack of proper peer-review since it would only strengthen his legal position.
        
        A possible explanation is that the difference in standards for patent applications is why his application was denied. The USA for example has a notorious history of allowing patents on ridiculous “free energy” devices that could never work and couldn’t be patented elsewhere.
        
        Meanwhile a quick google search shows that he is being paid and is collecting “orders”. Just a reminder, if it is false (for the sake of argument) it would be very easy to fake for very little money so it wouldn’t take much money to get started.
      - Anonymous
        
        People should engage their thinking caps.
        
        If Rossi has “the” answer to energy production he is on route to being the richest person the world has ever seen.
        
        Why is he getting investors to buy one of his rigs rather than selling a small amount, say one percent, of his corporation for enough money to hire a herd of patent attorneys and have them push patents through everywhere? I’m sure there are many countries where he could pay a “special fee” and get his patent overnight.
        
        Smells like a small time con artist at work….
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_K7TNJJNBBSBH5XJ63HGHPE2UVU adam
    
    The people who bought it got a full test, and they still paid for it. I doubt that any one is going to put money down on this thing unless they have undeniable proof that it is working, since this “scam” has been attempted many times over. He has no patent yet, and he stands to make a lot of money if he protects this idea. He at least deserves cautious optimism, not out right denial.
    - Anonymous
      
      People reply to emails that someone they have never heard of before wants to give them millions of dollars for no particular reason.
      
      They give the “donor” their banking information or wire them large sums of money.
      
      Rossi is not being given denial, he is earning it. If he’s got something then there are legitimate routes to prove it. Rossi is acting like a scam artist, if he wants respect then he needs to step up his game.
    - Anonymous
      
      “Free” and “Cheap” energy scams have been around for much longer that any of us have been alive. They all involved almost identical “tests” that have no independent verification and they all make the exact same claims while avoiding peer-review to support their claims.
      They also all claimed that their backers got the “full test” and were convinced.
      So far “e-cat” has been no different.
      
      Ever ask your self why there is no peer-review since it would only strengthen Rossi’s legal status for any patent suits? Not to mention it would get his claims far more coverage and financial support.
      Why are no fusion products being tested for since that is the “ironclad” way to show a nuclear reaction and not a chemical reaction (as in the original cold-fusion claim)?
      
      As for people who bought it getting a full test? How do you know this is actually true? Were the people who paid qualified to properly evaluate such a test, or were they given a suspiciously specious test like the one mentioned here? Again it sounds very familiar.
      
      Why demand someone pay money into project for the “full test” for something that is so important to the world, when such a policy limits the coverage and financial support it would receive if verified? Again still sounds like the same old song-and-dance.
      
      As Bob_Wallace has already mentioned it is the speciousness of Rossi’s claims and tests (not to mention the “curious” financing path he’s taken) that is causing justifiable skepticism of the claim. Personally I would love to be wrong about this and for the claims to be valid, but I’m not setting aside my rationality and common sense to support something just because I wish it was true. The question is why are others so willing to do so when there are already workable renewable technologies?
- Anonymous
  
  From Matt:
  
  Technically …aerodynamically, a bumble bee should not be able to fly.
  
  Sorry Matt but that is an old legend clung to by those trying to justify their irrational belief of the moment, and it a little annoying that people still cling to that old line.
  That story started when a scientist was asked during an interview to explain how they fly and after trying a few quick off the top of his head calculations he stated that he didn’t know. He later retracted the claim. Scientists have known about the aerodynamics of bumblebee flight for *decades* now.
  —–> Insect Flight- Basic Aerodynamics
  The claim that they still don’t know is completely bogus.
  
  As for peer review being for armchair scientists… No, sorry but it’s a fundamental part of the process of real science and a necessary step to eliminating false/mistaken claims. If we followed your belief we would still be talking about perpetual motion and “N-rays”.
  
  From Matt:
  
  What really matters is what Rossi IS DOING…using the system of capitalism / commercialism to produce and spread his cold fusion device to the masses
  
  Or more likely (based on previous such claims with similar “testing methodologies”) separating fools from their money.
  
  Like I said , I would love for the claim to be true, but everything is too vague, and there is no independent verification of any fusion byproducts which is necessary to substantiate the claim of cold fusion. He should easily be able to verify such claims in any country that he has patents for (to protect him) and the peer-review process would only strengthen any legal position by providing scientific documentation and validation of his claims, if they are true.
Anonymous

Rossi, once again, bent spoons.

Rossi will not allow scientists to examine his “machinery”. He sets up a demonstration and declares it a success.

What Rossi does is nothing different than the stage magician at the county fair. Until he allows objective examination he is nothing but a carnival show.

The fact that Rossi continues to pull these stunts makes me believe that he’s got nothing and all he is doing is fleecing his “investors”.
- Jeremy Knowles
  
  There have been over two dozen such demonstrations since the ’70s where the “inventor” or “researcher” claimed a shining success for cold fusion yet would not allow examination or give technical details. Where are ANY of those now? One dead give away that this is a fabrication is the level of success Rossi is claiming with his prototype. Nothing does this well under the very first stages of experimentation. Look at the first internal combustion engines, the first aircraft, the first nuclear reactor to generate electricity. They all demonstrated that the concept worked but were colossally inefficient and unreliable compared to models built only a few years afterwards. He claims this device meets all his original target energy goals except for a single technical glitch? It’s amazing how many people don’t recognize a con man overselling to generate interest. It’s the lack of critical thinking holding people back in this country, not the lack of support for thieves and cons.
Anonymous

Unless it’s producing helium, I seriously doubt the claim of it being cold fusion.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love for it to be true, but considering how many scams there have been it is going to take more than such vague claims and tests to be compelling. Anything that creates heat (or a sufficient vacuum) can boil water. This test (as it is described here) doesn’t in any way support the claim that cold fusion was taking place. Let’s see tests monitored by reputable independent experts that demonstrates the products of fusion, and preferably covered in peer-reviewed journals, then I’ll be convinced.
- http://pulse.yahoo.com/_K7TNJJNBBSBH5XJ63HGHPE2UVU adam
  
  Fusion does not need to produce helium, any fusion reaction that produces an element lighter than iron will produce energy.
  - Anonymous
    
    Obviously, as was already noted elsewhere in the thread by myself, but helium is by *FAR* the mostly likely element to be produced due to the physics of fusion, and due to the fact that the process allegedly is using hydrogen for the reaction. It is why most of the fusion reactions in the universe also produce helium (for the most part) until the stars start running out of hydrogen.
    
    The point is that *any* nuclear reaction (fission, fusion, or nuclear decay) must produce detectable by-products. So far not one single claim of “cold fusion” has produced any credible evinced of fusion products. Is the inventor of the “e-cat” is serious in the claims that he should be providing independently verifiable evidence of such elements having been created in the reaction, not boiling water in a non-closely observed test that could possibly be easily faked as so many others have in similar tests in the past.
    
    So where are the fusion products?
    Where is the peer-review?
    Where are the credible controlled tests by independent experts?
    Why do so many rush so support such specious claims and unverifiable “tests” when we have workable renewable technologies today?