Just had a look at ECW since a few months...WTF is going on there?!
Acland's blog became one single "put sentences in Rossi's mouth which he can answer with Yes or No"-filter bubble.
And the people over there celebrate each "Yes" like the winning of a world championship...
Rossi's answers read like he is sitting at home in a deep leather armchair sipping a good red wine in his left hand while laughing about his audience on his smartphone in his right hand...
This is encouraging stepping stone for industrial application of primary thermal energy source.
My bet is on the Uppsala crew.
What I heard is that the Uppsala crew is not to speak well of Rossi after the Lugano debacle
I suggest you ask Rossi whether the certification team will be able to test the device on their own, without needing his intervention.
Predefined answer: Yes
I have a strong suspicion that there are hired talkers for major companies and/or government agencies both here and on ecatworld, could just be my imagination though.
As long as Rossi is acting dubious and unprofessional like he did in the past. major companies don't have to fear anything. And thus have not to spent one single cent to hire talkers.
Your post containing my testing requirements did get posted on Mr Rossi's JoNP, but as of 1:45 EST it has been taken down
LOL, enough said...
JulianBianchi Thank you for this clarification 
Just found an article on a german science news site about a new approach to achieve nuclear fusion by quantum tunneling induced by x-ray lasers.
This sounds similar to Holmlids approach?
The research was done at theoretical physics institute at Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf.
The abstract:
QuoteWe consider deuterium-tritium fusion as a generic example for general fusion reactions. For initial kinetic energies in the keV regime, the reaction rate is exponentially suppressed due to the Coulomb barrier between the nuclei, which is overcome by tunneling. Here, we study whether the tunneling probability could be enhanced by an additional electromagnetic field, such as an x-ray free electron laser (XFEL). We find that the XFEL frequencies and field strengths required for this dynamical assistance mechanism should come within reach of present-day or near-future technology.
Display MoreFrom something I posted several days ago on ECW.
1) The identity of the testing organization must be made public before the test
2) Mr Rossi's instructions to the testing organization must be made public before the test
3) The testing organization is allowed to work out its own test with zero input from Mr Rossi and the testing regime is announce publicly before the test begins
4) The test will not be carried out on a Rossi-controlled property. The testing location to be announced after the test is over
5) Mr Rossi has zero contact with the tested apparatus throughout the entire duration of the test. If he does have to come in because it stops or something, then the entire test resets from the very start
6) The energy output of the test, over its entire duration, must be larger than the energy that could be derived from any likely conventional fuel source of comparable mass ... the mass consisting of the E-Cat, its control box, and any Rossi-supplied wires
7) The full report of the testing organization, every bit of it, must be made public at the same time as Mr. Rossi sees it
Real time streaming of the measurement to the internet would be great but the company might not be up to it.
This is a realy nice and important list of suggestions!
If Rossi wants to make his claims sound more believable he has to follow them!
But we all can imagine how this will end....Totally isolated test with some dubious "independent" people of a unknown testing lab doing what Rossi told them with some strang test equipment...
Hopefully sam12 will provide this list to Rossi and maybe we see a christmas miracle...
Btw. I am happy to see IOTA being mentioned here as I am one of the IOTA core developers
Ha! I knew I saw your face from your avatar somewhere else 
Nice to have you here!
Don't understand the relation between those two technologies?
Do you mean regarding the energy consuming proof-of-work consensus algorithms?
I'm sure other techniques like proof-of-stake of directed acyclic graph ledgers (like IOTA) will succeed in the long run.
We are asking to accept what is at least an EXTRAORDINARY claim (one can debate what constitutes the required proof) on the basis of nothing more than words. Moreover, people are being asked to wait months for proof of something that could be settled in hours.
I am happy to purchase this torch for the test in January, place it alongside the E-Cat SKL and see which device outperforms the other in 'closed loop'. I don't expect the test will last 700hours and I don't expect the E-Cat SKL with all its electronics is lighter than 170g, so the load needs to be much higher. I would suggest an inductive and a resistive load where the outputs can be known that you bring yourself and a power meter to put in line, since I have lights for my camera that have their own internal power source and are just switched on by the camera.
Furthermore, I would ask if the test in January will be conducted in closed loop mode, as otherwise, it will just be another case of "here is the calculations you are allowed to make and here are the points you are allowed to make them" and the test will be a waste of life for all that are using their mind time waiting and debating on it.
One of the best comments of Bob Greenyer since Months!
My interpretation is he means that the independent testing will be done first, then the same group that does the testing will be participating in the presentation with him, and it will take place by the end of January 2020. So a year after the previous one
By "independent group" you mean Rossi's crackerbarrel friends?
Everyone with any interest in the SAFIRE project needs to read the information they've posted earlier today at e-catworld... It is from "The SAFIRE Project" and can be found in the comments section at https://e-catworld.com/2019/11…he-global-bem-conference/ They've spilled a lot of very interesting information there that has not previously been made public.
Just to keep this saved in here too:
Display MoreFirst of all, I would like to thank everyone at the Global BEM for their efforts to pull the conference together. I wish I had more time to discuss details with both Mats and Bob, but there were so many people and so many conversations, I just couldn't keep up. It was truly a pleasure to meet you both. What I'm saying is that I just don't remember every conversation with each person... but I would like to have a one on one with you if you have the time - let me know.
I just watched the video above and would like to make a few comments and minor adjustments for the sake of your audience. We covered a lot of material and it was a lot for our audience to take in. We have enough material to do a 4-hour presentation and 1 hour is just not enough to cover all the details. We try to highlight the most important points and be as open to discussing as much as we can without compromising the IP. We need to raise $9m US for the next three years and do not want to scare off potential investors.
On the subject of temperature:
We verified that we got both thermal and non-thermal responses. For example, the optical spectra showed the normal Boltzmann's distribution of Mn we showed but we also discovered that at times some of the Mn relative intensities of the triplets were reversed. This means that although the Mn was being formed (for whatever reason) in the atmosphere of the plasma double layer shells it was not due to thermal or collisional reasons. It might be analogous to when one would want to separate H from O in water and bring it to around 5,000 degrees or one can use a 9-volt battery with electrodes. We had, as you could see from the optical spectra many other atomic emissions which we have not at this time-resolved for. Partly because quite frankly some of the eV numbers are so high there is no known reason why they should be there based on standard thermal excitation. We have some ideas rattling around in our brains, but we have work to do before we say anything.
The IR camera reported only a maximum temperature of around 1,600C. There were elements within the metal alloy (secret) that should not have melted, while other materials like the quartz should have shown thermal stress and even started to melt but didn't... what can I say... we have work to do. Some people have approached us telling us that Brown's gas creates similar responses, but I don't think this is quite the same.
We are calling these reactions Electric Nuclear Resonance (ENR) because there is evidence some atoms are being split (non-radioactive - at least for now) and some evidence there are heavier elements being made. In the particle physics world, they call this fission and fusion but we do not think the kinetic energy in the context of these known processes is what is happening. Again analogous to the 9-volt battery separation of H from O in water.
We just want to be damn careful not to make erroneous claims when in fact we don't know FOR SURE. There is enough bad science going on and there is just too much at stake.
On the subject of controlling the temperature of the anode and prevent it from melting:
We do have control over the melting of the anode but the reason it did is that we were running Design of Experiments (DOE) filter tests on power and other input factors to build a comprehensive DOE baseline. Regardless, we have run many experiments at full power and never had this happen before. Also, as I pointed out in the presentation there are other gas compositions that will actually take energy out of the reactions to the point it will have the effect of cooling the reaction. We may be able to use composition to assist in stabilizing the reactions. Regardless, if it turns out the anode will deteriorate and we can regulate this process then SAFIRE can use the anode alloy and the gas composition as fuel. This is why we talk about "efficiency" and not "zero point". What I can say is that the elements we are using are very abundant and not expensive. And as you can see from the results SAFIRE likes to make what we call "base elements" non-radioactive isotopes. It could be there are short-lived radio-active isotopes being made during the process, but we don't have evidence these are living very long IF they are occurring at all. We have work to do.
We are not calling SAFIRE an "over-unity" or "zero point" technology:
We are not denying that "over unity or zero point" technology doesn't exist. It appears SAFIRE would like to both create monatomic H and eat it as well as the elements in the anode alloy. But we need to confirm this - again we have work to do.
On the subject of "anode disruption":
We have patents on the anode design we have not fully implemented in the material we presented at the conference. What this means is that there is an opportunity (we think) to regulate the rate of "disruption" but this would be related to using the conversion of H2 to H to free H proton at the surface and cool the internal anode temperature down. Interestingly the anode did respond thermally as I predicted by melting from the inside out according to what is referred to in CFD as "Total Heat Flux" analysis as a CFD input factor in the model. This is good news for us because I think I can reverse engineer these numbers based on the thermal response of the chamber to get a better idea of the total heat flux in W/m^3 to the chamber response temperature - CFD people will understand what I'm saying here. However, if the majority of responses we see are "non-thermal" in nature all bets are off. Again, we have work to do.
EVERYBODY likes to quote my 93% screw up on our model prediction!!! What can I say, yes, I did not expect to see the thermal responses we got. The CFD model cannot resolve for these ENR's causing the thermal rise in temperature over time. But it wasn't just me who got this wrong, it was Tommy M. and Lowell M. who did their own separate thermal calculations which showed all of the three of us were within about 50C of each other. It just means as I said - we have work to do. I am certain I can harvest enough of the thermal energy to assure the reactor doesn't melt. Saying this, I would like to engage you in a conversation about what we need to do over the next three years which I already know you can very likely help us.
Regarding Ni
We are not saying or saying we are using Ni and we don't know yet if the elements we are using are being consumed and transmuted into other elements - not yet at least – but the evidence indicates this is happening. We have to keep the alloy and gas composition we are using quite for IP reasons - at least for now. I'm sure your audience understands why but I empathize with them - everyone wants to know the ingredients of the "secret sauce". We are telling everyone as much as we can, and we are being told by certain agencies we're telling people too much already. We're trying to find a balance.
Regarding pressure changes:
I did discuss this in a prior lecture/talk - we do see very severe pressure changes of many Torr and high EMI but we have relatively good pressure/vacuum control so we can maintain the necessary environment for the plasma to be stable and run continuously.
Regarding the Sun being positive:
Bob - I love your explanation!!!!!!!!!! The best explanation I have heard yet. The Electric Universe (Wal Thornhill) and Electric Sun (Don Scott) I'm sure would love to talk to you at the next EU conference this coming year in the US. I have said to them that you do not need the Sun to be "plugged" in as Crooks discovered using Rubies and that if you have enough matter coalesced into a large "blob" it will be positive relative to its environment. But your explanation is so much better!!
For Safire, we just plug the darn thing in to get it to be positive. I have much more on the E-field structure (Michael is not preferable to the term structure - yet) prior to and after the plasma has ignited and self-organized. By the way, the self-organization is contingent on a number of factors we do not discuss - part of the "secret sauce" IP.
Anyway, because of the strict Design of Experiments methodology, we use we can resolve for second-order interactions (feedback loops or catalytic interactions) at the atomic level!
On another but related topic:
I think I got to this level of discipline when I worked for Magna International with so many Germans at the engineering level where I was taught and later excelled with them – even as a Canadian and earned they’re very hard to get respect. They promoted me to the highest level within the company as far as a “Canadian” could go. At the time it was a pretty hard environment to work in – Germans don’t put up with any B.S. – it is either “precise and sqvare” or it is “nicked guod”. As a Canadian working with these hard-core Germans, I got a German hair cut. By the way, my wife is German descent – ugh – she told me a few years ago – “if you were a weaker man, I would have left you long ago” – we’ve been married for 42 years now. My ancestry dates back 1000 years into the British midlands. Imagine a German square head for a wife and a British Terrier as her husband. She’s my sweetie pie and I love her so much it hurts… what can I say… I’m still in love after all these years. She accepts nothing but the best from me – a very good thing indeed. She is everything I’m not and I’m everything she is not a great mix if we don’t kill each other. Thank God.
Let’s see if we can take The SAFIRE project to its full potential – and maybe, just maybe we can do some good in this crazy world.
Blessings to all of you,
Monty
As noticed by gerold.s
This e-cat world article
https://e-catworld.com/2019/10…producing-fusion-at-will/
cites this podcast interviewing Prof. Yet Ming Chiang of the MIT Department of Materials Science and Engineering about the work of the Google-sponsored research team.
I'm confused why this is not making huge waves in here?
Isn't this fantastic?
Coincidences
Interesting. Here the link:
Yes, i'm missing attention of Francesco CELANI 's work too. He seems to have some rock-solid experiments and noone is interested?
I would like to see Alexander Parkhomov assisting scientists of a huge Russian scientific institute (e.g. university of moscow or something else) to replicate his reactor.
The knowledge, if it exists, has to spread within the scientific world to give it more traction and credibility.
Joining did no work....
Joining is not done automatically. You have to ask Alan Smith for an invitation. Then you will be added to the user group which has access permissions.
To be clear: this part is a closed non-public forum!
If you are already a member of the forum you don't have to do anything!
You just need to ask Alan Smith if he lets you in 
