One Mega Watt E-Cat Cold Fusion Device Test Successful!

Billionaire Sidney Kimmel to Donate $5.5 to Fund University of Missouri Cold Fusion Research

E-Cat World link to story

February 11, 2012 The Columbia Daily Tribune is reporting that Sidney Kimmel, Chairman of the Board of Directors and founder of Jones Apparel Group, Inc., is donating $5.5 million through his charitable foundation to fund studies in the field of cold fusion at the University of Missouri. The purpose of the gift is to try to understand the ‘pure science’ behind the excess heat that is generated in many cold fusion/LENR experiments. Kimmel’s gift will establish the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance, or SKINR, at MU.

This donation highlights the growing acceptance and interest in Cold Fusion, LENR technology. The money is specifically intended to fund Cold Fusion/LENR research.

Originally posted by RING0

Billionaire Sidney Kimmel to Donate $5.5 to Fund University of Missouri Cold Fusion Research

E-Cat World link to story

February 11, 2012 The Columbia Daily Tribune is reporting that Sidney Kimmel, Chairman of the Board of Directors and founder of Jones Apparel Group, Inc., is donating $5.5 million through his charitable foundation to fund studies in the field of cold fusion at the University of Missouri. The purpose of the gift is to try to understand the ‘pure science’ behind the excess heat that is generated in many cold fusion/LENR experiments. Kimmel’s gift will establish the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance, or SKINR, at MU.

This donation highlights the growing acceptance and interest in Cold Fusion, LENR technology. The money is specifically intended to fund Cold Fusion/LENR research.

Now that's what I like to hear. IMO there is more than enough justification for some rich goverment department or individual to put together some experiments with nickel-hydrogen gas heat engines + nanoparticle/powdered electrodes, and do the real science themselves.

The faux-skeptics here would have you believe that the burden of proof is entirely on Rossi. But they consistently ignore the fact that Rossi's reactor is actually very simple, and the vast majority of the design has been published. Any low-tech lab could reproduce the conditions and publish proper data. If it doesn't work, so be it.

reply to post by yampa

The faux-skeptics here would have you believe that the burden of proof is entirely on Rossi. But they consistently ignore the fact that Rossi's reactor is actually very simple, and the vast majority of the design has been published. Any low-tech lab could reproduce the conditions and publish proper data. If it doesn't work, so be it.

Nice try. But fact is that no one has been able to achieve the results Rossi (and Defkalion) are claiming with Ni+H. But maybe you have more info about the secret catalyst and the nickel processing method?

reply to post by yampa

The faux-skeptics here would have you believe that the burden of proof is entirely on Rossi.

Lets see here. I have a stock F-150 that will break the sound barrier in the quarter mile.
Should I have to prove my claim or should some one else have to prove me wrong?

reply to post by yampa


UTTER TWADDLE

as long as rossi`s alledged " secret ingredient " remains sectet - the only way to attempt to replicate his alledged results is to exeriment with every thoeretical combination - taking time and money that could be spent on something productive

because if rossi`s patent claim is upheld - then all that money and effort will have been wasted should rosi reveal his secret ingredient

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by yampa

 

The faux-skeptics here would have you believe that the burden of proof is entirely on Rossi. But they consistently ignore the fact that Rossi's reactor is actually very simple, and the vast majority of the design has been published. Any low-tech lab could reproduce the conditions and publish proper data. If it doesn't work, so be it.

Nice try. But fact is that no one has been able to achieve the results Rossi (and Defkalion) are claiming with Ni+H. But maybe you have more info about the secret catalyst and the nickel processing method?

Nice try to you, too. You have attempted two straw men in one go.

The 'secret catalyst' is Rossi's hyperbole for the RF device (or its specific frequency), and the nickel processing is not particularly relevant for anything except optimization of the process. Neither of these factors would be required to be known specifically in order to provide proof of energy amplification. I don't think it matters if the nanopartles are stimulated sonically (with the nanoparticles in a colloid), via laser photons or via radio frequency. I don't even think it matters if nickel is used: tantalum, silver, palladium, titanium, thorium, zirconium, and cobalt nanoparticles have all been used in existing experiments.

I have no idea which papers you have in mind which somehow disprove the anomolous energy interactions in nanoscale materials (they're wrong, if they exist), but I suppose I should ask the obligatory 'plz provide links to these papers' (even though you won't). I guarantee you will not find many papers which say "we explored nanoparticle heating, but concluded it was impractical to the scale this mechanism to useful levels".

Rossi is trying to sell a device, that device has nothing to do with the validity of the underlying mechanism. The job of science should be to explore that underlying mechanism, not provide reviews of consumer devices. Even so, it would not be hard to explore the potential for a large-scale power production, once you'd done the underlying work.

This type of investigation, specifically aimed towards tying existing work on nanoscale materials to harnessable energy amplification has not been properly done. That work simply does not exist. If you claim that has been done, where is it?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by yampa

 

UTTER TWADDLE

as long as rossi`s alledged " secret ingredient " remains sectet - the only way to attempt to replicate his alledged results is to exeriment with every thoeretical combination - taking time and money that could be spent on something productive

because if rossi`s patent claim is upheld - then all that money and effort will have been wasted should rosi reveal his secret ingredient

straw man to you too. I'm amazed that you're still posting here, given your utter inability to integrate any other futher knowledge of this subject into your closed mind. I think it would be extremely irritating to be thinking that same naive set of thoughts, over and over. Apparently not.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by yampa

 

The faux-skeptics here would have you believe that the burden of proof is entirely on Rossi.

Lets see here. I have a stock F-150 that will break the sound barrier in the quarter mile.
Should I have to prove my claim or should some one else have to prove me wrong?

If you were selling the device which was attached to the claim 'this thing is fast', then it would be up to you to prove to the buyer that it is indeed fast. If the world had never seen a rifle before, and you were simultaneously claiming that you had a) working first rifle and b) that it can break the the sound barrier. Then yes, that would be up to you to prove.

But Rossi is not claiming to have built the first rifle. Rossi is supposedly using existing ideas which have ample related published data across many fields. The case for nanoparticles doing some remarkable stuff is well established in multitudes of cutting edge materials research papers.

So, no, it is not up to Rossi to spoon-feed the world proof of the underlying mechanisms *and* prove that he can make a functional device out of it. It is the job of science to explore and clarify the parameters of observed phenomena - and there is a definitely vacuum of this work when it comes to potential practical energy production based on this phenomena.

That's why the intelligent, successful entrepreneur mentioned above is putting $5 million into the research - because it's worthwhile and sufficient research does not exist. But I guess you geniuses here think he's deluding himself, what with your special knowledge of this field and all.

Andrei Rossi and the E-Cat: Con Artist or Genius?

From: oilprice.com - article questions E-Cat integrity

From: oilprice.com - By James Burgess | Sat, 11 February 2012 19:53 In December Rossi approached Dick Smith, an Australian entrepreneur, asking him to invest in the E-Cat machine. Unbeknown to Rossi, Smith is a supporter of the Australian Sceptics group, and asked a fellow member, aeronautics engineer Ian Bryce, to investigate the machine. Good old sceptics can find an alternative theory to most things if they have a mind to, and so it is with LENR.,....

Steven Krivit, editor in chief of the Nuclear Energy Encyclopaedia and a journalist specialising in cold fusion, said that this is not the first time that the wiring of Rossi’s machine has been called in to question. Mats Lewan, a Scandinavian technology writer also admitted, after witnessing an E-Cat demonstration last year, that, “he failed to check all three wires, and he admitted the possibility (of faulty wiring).”

These negative reports may end up being helpful, Rossi may be forced to show more of his secret hardware to the public as a way of answering\countering his critics. If enough pressure is put on Rossi, it could actually speed up the revelation of the E-Cat core technologies, real or not.

Report #4: Rossi's NASA Test Fails to Launch

Steven B. Krivit' Blog

Feb. 10, 2012 By Steven B. Krivit Editor, New Energy Times
On Sept. 5 and 6, a private demonstration of Rossi's device in Bologna, Italy, took place before a group of visitors: Jim Dunn, the former director of the NASA Northeast Regional Technology Transfer Center and a close associate of Dennis Bushnell, the chief scientist at NASA Langley; John Preston, a Boston investor; and at least one technical expert. The objective of this demonstration was to perform basic due diligence that, if passed, would lead to a second chance at a full-fledged test by NASA. Despite the team's best efforts, its members were not able to confirm any excess heat from Rossi's device. The demonstrations on Sept. 5 and 6 both failed.

Again we have a negative article from Krivit, this type of negative publicity could force Rossi into revealing more information about his invention to regain credability.

Originally posted by RING0

Report #4: Rossi's NASA Test Fails to Launch

Krivit is not a good critic, everything he writes is designed to mislead. Whether you are a hard-skeptic or not, this guy is not a reliable source. I like that he keeps going back to his ridiculous video about the steam in the bucket - have you seen the way he's attempted to slow the frames down and whatnot?

There is a video out there of Rossi venting one of his reactors in an unregulated fashion (I think the e-cat steam output is supposedly regulated to 1bar?). That thing blew large amounts of very hot looking steam for a long time. There was a serious amount of heat and pressure in the unit.

It is telling that Krivit avoids talking about the actual mechanism of the reactor, attempting to hide the real story behind the LENR tag.

Originally posted by yampa


If you were selling the device which was attached to the claim 'this thing is fast', then it would be up to you to prove to the buyer that it is indeed fast. If the world had never seen a rifle before, and you were simultaneously claiming that you had a) working first rifle and b) that it can break the the sound barrier. Then yes, that would be up to you to prove.

But Rossi is not claiming to have built the first rifle. Rossi is supposedly using existing ideas which have ample related published data across many fields. The case for nanoparticles doing some remarkable stuff is well established in multitudes of cutting edge materials research papers.

AFAIK there is no known underlying principle which would explain Rossi's claim at all.

So, no, it is not up to Rossi to spoon-feed the world proof of the underlying mechanisms *and* prove that he can make a functional device out of it.

It is up to him to prove that his machine can do as he claims - to use your rifle analogy, if I have a rifle that I claim can shoot faster and further than any other rifle, then I still have to prove those claims, even though the basic principles behind rifles are well known and it obviously has a barrel and I put bullets into it.

To continually avoid independent and verifiable testing is to rightly raise suspicion that all is not as it seems.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

AFAIK there is no known underlying principle which would explain Rossi's claim at all.

I guess that is because you havent haven't paid any attention to anything written about nanoparticles or nickel hydrogen heat engines. I never said they were absolutely proven in Rossi's application, I said they are worth investigating as a general underlying principle for energy amplification. Nanoparticles are already well proven to be beyond useful in countless energy exchange experiments. How have you manged to ignore my mentions of this?

It is up to him to prove that his machine can do as he claims - to use your rifle analogy, if I have a rifle that I claim can shoot faster and further than any other rifle, then I still have to prove those claims, even though the basic principles behind rifles are well known and it obviously has a barrel and I put bullets into it.

To continually avoid independent and verifiable testing is to rightly raise suspicion that all is not as it seems.

It wasn't my analogy. It was a poor, deliberately misdirecting analogy made by someone else, which I cleared up. By ignoring what was actually written and defaulting to Rossi bashing you have just conflated the analogy again, well done.

There is a difference between selling something to a customer, and making claims about that product to those customers, and inventing a whole new class of material science and making claims to science that you have done something completely new. Rossi may very well end up cheating his customers, and that would still have nothing to do with the underlying science or its validity.

Investigation of the underlying phenomena taking place in nanoparticle electrode assemblies and their usage in heat engines has nothing to do with Rossi. If you don't think there is any underlying phenomena, then what do you think this person has just invested $5 million in researching?

Duncan talks ‘cold fusion’ at Saturday Science

Robert Duncan, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Missouri
Wikipedia, Robert Duncan (physicist)
SOURCE: Janese Silvey, Sunday, February 12, 2012 Columbia Daily Tribune, Columbia, MO

If a device said to create energy by fusing common materials goes on the market this year, Rob Duncan told a crowd at the University of Missouri he’ll be one of the first in line. “When they show up at Home Depot, I’m going to go out there with my credit card,” said Duncan, MU’s vice chancellor of research.

Italian engineer Andrea Rossi invented the Energy Catalyzer, or E-Cat, which he claims produces energy by fusing nickel with hydrogen to produce copper, a reaction he says releases excess energy. Because Rossi is trying to profit from his invention, he hasn’t let other scientists review his data. That’s why many have denounced it and suggested Rossi’s device is a scam.

Duncan has been interested in the phenomenon since CBS’s “60 Minutes” asked him to serve as an outside skeptic for a 2009 episode on work being done at an Israeli lab. Duncan took the trip and concluded that something — he was careful to not conclude what — was creating heat. Some scientists still scoff; others even get emotional about it, Duncan said. To them, he says: “Get over it.”

Poster at Vortex, says that Rob Duncan will use some of the money to obtain 2 E-Cats for testing.Vortex site

Re: [Vo]:Rob Duncan comments on Rossi

Peter Gluck Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:17:08 -0800

Excellent news! A bit more precisely, half of excellent. It is 50% settled Rob Duncan wants to buy 2 Ecats. The other 50% depends on Rossi and perhaps we will see how he reacts- agrees or "snakes"

Rob Duncan is a known commodity in the Physics community, his comments show where he stands on LENR, he thinks that the Energy gains are real, and worth investigating.

Rossi Responds to Billionaire Australian E-Cat Critique

February 12, 2012 E-CatWorld.com article

Last month we reported how Dick Smith, an Australian entrepreneur and member of the Australian Skeptics group had promised to give $200,000 to the Byron New Energy Charitable Trust if he can be convinced that the E-Cat was a valid technology. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Andrea Rossi was to appear via Skype to discuss his technology at a community meeting in Mullumbimby, New South Wales. Apparently the Skype hookup did not take place. Smith had assigned Ian Bryce, an aerospace engineer to investigate Rossi’s technology, and Bryce remains unconvinced about the E-Cat. Bryce is now hypothesizing that a faulty wiring connection could have been the cause for an apparent energy gain in the E-Cat demonstration last October. When this critique was brought to Andrea Rossi’s attention on his Journal of Nuclear Physics blog, he responded with a trademark all-caps response:

Thank you for your comment, because it gives me the chance to make clear that:

1- I NEVER APPROACHED THIS DICK SMITH, I DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHO IS HE.

2- HIS REMARKS ARE SIMPLY RIDICULOUS, JUST GO TO CHECK ALL THE REPORTS MADE ON OUR TESTS, JUST GO TO NYTEKNIK TO READ ALL OUR TESTS, IN PARTICULAR THE OCT 6TH TEST AND YOU WILL SEE THAT ALL THE WIRING HAS BEEN CHECKED. ALL THESE WANNABE VALIDATORS SIMPLY INSULT THE SCIENTISTS WHO MADE THE TESTS, LIKE THEY COULD BE SO NAIF NOT TO CHECK PROPERLY ALL THE WIRING CONNECTIONS. BY THE WAY: THE ENERGY CONSUMED HAS BEEN MEASURED NOT ONLY AT THE WIRES TO THE PLUG (ALL OF THEM, WIRE BY WIRE), BUT ALSO TO ALL THE CABLES CONNECTED INSIDE THE E-CAT !!!! ALSO THE PLUG ( THE ONLY ONE USED) HAS BEEN DETECTED, TO CHECK THAT THERE WERE NOT ANOMALIES!!! I REMEMBER THAT THE 6TH OCTOBER TEST HAS BEEN ATTENDED FROM SCIENTISTS FROM ALL THE WORLD, AND THAT THE 28TH OCTOBER TEST HAD BEEN MADE INDIPENDENTLY AND WITH INDIPENDENT INSTRUMENTATION BY A COLONEL ENGINEER OF AN ARMY AND THAT HE, USUALLY, WITH 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, TESTS THERMODYNAMIC PLANTS AND MISSILES HEADS OF NUCLEAR CARRIERS.

3- I DO NOT THINK THIS GUY IS A SNAKE, I THINK HE HAS BEEN MISINFORMED FROM SOME PERSON WHO SAID TO HIM STUPIDITIES.

4- WITHIN ONE YEAR WE WILL START TO SELL OUR E-CATS IN MASS, SO ALL THE SKEPTICS WILL BE ABLE TO BUY ONE AND TEST IT. END OF DISCUSSIONS. WARM REGARDS, A.R.

Not much ambiguity there, Rossi makes certain that his feelings are known on this subject.
I think this episode is a result of an offer made to give Rossi 200,000 dollars if he could prove that the E-Cat worked, Rossi never agreed to this test, and somehow this event morphed into the story that Rossi asked the Skeptical Billionaire for the money.

Smith Offers $1 Million Prize for Successful E-Cat Demo

NewEnergyTimes posts letter from Smith to Rossi
Letter is too long to quote in its entirety, read all of it by following link.

Smith Offers $1 Million Prize for Successful E-Cat Demo To: Andrea Rossi From: Dick Smith Dear Mr Rossi Re: USD1,000,000 for Successful Repeat of E-CAT Demonstration Dick Smith is my name. I am writing to you from Sydney, Australia. Possibly the best information in relation to my background is on Wikipedia – see HERE. en.wikipedia.org... ,...edited,...

As Mr Millin and I do not seem to be getting anywhere on this issue, I have determined a way that we could possibly break this nexus, i.e. I would like to offer you USD1,000,000 for a successful repeat of the March 29, 2011 demonstration. One million US dollars will be made out to you as a Bank cheque or will be held in an escrow account if you desire. I do not want to know how the unit operates, nor to have a share in the profits from any sales. My satisfaction will come from knowing that if the unit is successful, then some of the world’s greatest problems – especially in relation to climate change – will be solved. ,... edit,...

My offer is very simple, which I will restate: I ask you to repeat the March 29, 2011 demonstration purported to show that your E-CAT unit had an output power of many times the input power through LENR (low energy nuclear reactions). As the sole judges as to whether this can be repeated correctly, I suggest we use the two Swedish scientists, Kullander and Essen, as they attended the March 2011 demonstration and wrote a report. I would be happy to cover any reasonable cost of having them flying to Italy to attend the repeat of the demonstration. They can then check the wires (because, as you know, there have been claims that the wiring may have been misconnected) and also the power output of the unit in relation to both the heated water and the steam.

I would be happy, with Kullander and Essen as the sole judges as to whether the unit has the power output you have claimed, to hand you an irrevocable Bank cheque for USD1,000,000 made out in your name if the demonstration is successfully completed. If Kullander and Essen are not available, I am happy to agree with you on two other individuals of similar expertise to attend the new demonstration as the judges. I am sure we can come to an agreement as to who would be suitable and independent. It would also be necessary to have a third person – who you and I can agree on – to assist with the type of measuring equipment and its accuracy so there are no doubts that the scientific community will accept the results.

,.....edit ,..... Well, there it is. It’s quite simple. Successfully replicate the demonstration showing the power gain from LENRs of March 29, 2011 with the two Swedish scientists, Kullander and Essen (or two other individuals we agree on), and USD1,000,000 will be yours. Also, of course, you will receive attention from around the world and a well-deserved Nobel Laureate. I will consider I have had value for my money as the person who actually proves that your unit works (or doesn’t) – an issue which will be resolved for all time. My offer is open for you to accept until close of business Monday 20 February 2012. I look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully Dick Smith

INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT, this Smith character is putting pressure on Rossi, but Rossi has said that "There will be no more testing!", will the Austin Powers like offer of, "One MILLION DOLLARS!", change his mind?

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

AFAIK there is no known underlying principle which would explain Rossi's claim at all.

I guess that is because you havent haven't paid any attention to anything written about nanoparticles or nickel hydrogen heat engines.

you shouldn't guess so much - that way you can avoid being wrong as often.

I never said they were absolutely proven in Rossi's application,

I didn't say you did.

I said they are worth investigating as a general underlying principle for energy amplification.

no you didn't - you said, and I quote from www.abovetopsecret.com... -

Rossi is supposedly using existing ideas which have ample related published data across many fields. The case for nanoparticles doing some remarkable stuff is well established in multitudes of cutting edge materials research papers.

So, no, it is not up to Rossi to spoon-feed the world proof of the underlying mechanisms *and* prove that he can make a functional device out of it.

Nanoparticles are already well proven to be beyond useful in countless energy exchange experiments. How have you manged to ignore my mentions of this?

Nano-particles are useful for all sorts of things, but that is not what you were claiming - you were claiming that the"underlying principles" that allow Rossi's machine to generate this energy are well known. And AFAIK that is simply not true at all.

It is up to him to prove that his machine can do as he claims - to use your rifle analogy, if I have a rifle that I claim can shoot faster and further than any other rifle, then I still have to prove those claims, even though the basic principles behind rifles are well known and it obviously has a barrel and I put bullets into it.

To continually avoid independent and verifiable testing is to rightly raise suspicion that all is not as it seems.

It wasn't my analogy. It was a poor, deliberately misdirecting analogy made by someone else, which I cleared up.

I didn't say it was your analogy - I used one entirely of my own and the previous analogy was utterly irrelevant except that you took exception to it - and you weer still wrong.

You are saying that the underlying principles of how nano-technology enables Rossi's machine to generate power are well known - and that is simply not true - if there are such underlying principles tehn they are still being researched.

It is dishonest to say that htey are well known when they are not.

It would be honest to say - "We don't know how it is happening, but apparently it is".

By ignoring what was actually written and defaulting to Rossi bashing you have just conflated the analogy again, well done.

I did not default to "Rossi bashing" - I pointed out YOUR error.

And then finished with a perfectly reasonable observation that continued refusal to allow independent testing raises suspicions. that is not "bashing" Rossi - it is pointing out the bleeding obvious!

Investigation of the underlying phenomena taking place in nanoparticle electrode assemblies and their usage in heat engines has nothing to do with Rossi. If you don't think there is any underlying phenomena, then what do you think this person has just invested $5 million in researching?

To say that "it has nothing to do with Rossi" is a sophism - the underlying principle, if it exists, is EXACTLY what Rossi is selling so how can researching it have nothing to do with him??

Rossi replies to Smith 1M dollar offer

Rossi Blog - Journal of Nuclear Physics
Question to Rossi from reader

Archibald Fields February 14th, 2012 at 5:57 PM Dick Smith Offer Dear Andrea, Australian millionaire Dick Smith has written an open letter to you offering more than $1,000,000 unconditionally if you can successfully repeat March 29 demo. This is easy money and you have till 20 Feb to accept. Kullander and Essen can be validators. This will provide you with easy and much needed funding. What good reason is there to decline this offer? Yours Faithfully, Archibald Fields

Answer from Rossi

Andrea Rossi February 14th, 2012 at 6:23 PM Dear Archibald Fields: This is a Clownerie. If this guy wants to test a 1 MW plant and has 1 million to spend he can buy a 1 MW plant, with a regular contract, that gives him all the necessary guarantees and to us the logic financial guarantees. Our plants Are tested by Our Customers and the Consultants they choose. I have not time at all for this clownery. Besides: when Our E-CATS will be in the market, this “millionaire” will have the chance to buy for few hundred dollars an E-Cat and test it as he wants, so why waste money? I do not need his money. Warm Regards, A.R.

Rossi does not want to participate in the challenge, this will add fuel to the doubters fire. As Rossi says, he will sell an E-Cat to Smith, so there is a possibility that Rossi and Smith will continue their interactions

If this guy wants to test a 1 MW plant and has 1 million to spend he can buy a 1 MW plant, with a regular contract, that gives him all the necessary guarantees and to us the logic financial guarantees.

In other words: pay one million dollars first, and if you aren't satisfied, you can attempt to get your money back.

That's quite a different deal from get paid a million dollars only after I am satisfied.

Originally posted by yampa

But Rossi is not claiming to have built the first rifle. Rossi is supposedly using existing ideas which have ample related published data across many fields. The case for nanoparticles doing some remarkable stuff is well established in multitudes of cutting edge materials research papers.

Nano particles doing remarkable stuff, yes. All chemical reactions.

Nanoparticles catalyzing nuclear reactions at a macroscopic rate which still do not emit any ionizing radiation? Never.

It's like saying "gee these wheels made out of aluminum are pretty useful, a guy won the Tour De France on them", and then thinking that justifies a claim that an aluminum wheel will let somebody fly at mach 28 with no fuel.