Posts by Ascoli65

    @ THHuxleynew,

    Interesting that Celani used this same method.

    That's probably where the idea of switching from the LT Ecat to the HotCat came from.


    it is in fact perfectly good when used with surfaces that approximate grey bodies, or when properly calibrated at temperature.

    A method that gives you an estimation of the heat flux proportional to the 4th power of temperature is only good for mixing up the results. Just the switching from a LT device and a mass flow calorimetry, to a HT device and such an indirect method, is quite suspicious.


    If Celani followed good practice IR measurement protocol, calibrating surface temperature against camera reading at all the temperatures used, I see no problem using this method.

    Celani used a few thermocouples placed on the glass tube of his cell. His method was even more simple and direct than using an IR camera. Notwithstanding, MFMP got a lot of problems when they tried for a couple of years to replicate the Celani's results using his method. At the end they decided to build a mass flow calorimeter.

    @ bocijn,

    Sounds very much like prior bias to me. did you actually read it?

    If you refer to one of the two hot-cat reports signed by Levi, the Ferrara's and the Lugano's reports, yes, I read them both, just one time, immediately after their respective release. In doing that I had for sure a strong prior bias, a negative one, with respect to their leading author, due to the prior examination of his 2011 report on the calorimetry of the Bologna's demo.

    What mostly struck me in the hot-cat reports was the adoption of a calorimetry technique based on the Stefan-Boltzmann's law. This method was already used by Celani and, after he presented his results in mid 2012, I already had the opportunity to see how it allows to exponentially multiply the effect of any mismeasurement.

    So, I decided not to waste my time any more in examining those reports.

    @ JedRothwell,

    The fact that I am quoted in a document is no indication that I read that document.

    Which document are you talking about?

    The subject of your previous reply (*) was a comment of mine (1), which was the last thing quoted by you. Immediately thereafter you did write "I have forgotten, or I never read that."

    I just reminded you that for sure you did read my comment (1), because you quoted it in your reply (2).

    Unless you are implying that you are able to reply a comment, without reading its contents!

    (*) Clearance Items

    (1) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    (2) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @ JedRothwell,

    I have forgotten, or I never read that.

    I don't know. For sure you had already quoted it.

    Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”


    I have studied this other paper more recently and with greater care:

    Have you found any significant errors in it?

    I can't say, sorry. I have already explained you many times the reason why I never took into consideration the Ferrara and the Lugano reports. For example here:

    Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    It's impossible to evaluate the correctness of a scientific report having doubts about the reliability of every single data or statement written in there.

    @ Shane D.,

    I think UOB has survived Rossi with their reputation intact.

    Yes, fortunately. For many years, UniBo has occupied one of the top 3 positions in all rankings of Italian universities, and is often the first ever. The Department of Physics also enjoys a great position among all the other departments. In world rankings they are usually between 150° and 250°. Not bad. However, there is ample room for improvement for the oldest university in the western world.

    I believe that the admission of any errors by scientific institutions can help to improve their reputation. As an example, we can consider another glaring case like that of superluminal neutrinos in which the authors took into account the objections raised about their first results, which they then corrected, explaining also the reasons that led to the error. I believe this behavior has increased the public's confidence in those institutions, because scientists are not required not to make any mistake, but to recognize and correct their mistakes as soon as possible.

    There is another advantage. The firm request of universities to their members to promptly correct their own mistakes would discourage those people who intend to use their names for inappropriate purposes.

    @ JedRothwell,

    Well, you have not pointed out any errors in that report. It has been a long times since I read it. I do not recall any, but perhaps I have forgotten. Anyway, if these errors you refer to are so readily apparent, please point out a few of them.

    Perhaps you have forgotten, or maybe you are training your rhetorical abilities.

    In any case, you can see (again) in the following link the three major errors (probe, pump, and duration) in the report describing the calorimetry results of the demo of January 14, 2011:…D/?postID=25650#post25650

    The pump issue should be updated as explained in this other link:

    Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

    As you see above, Paradigmnoia found a 6% error in another report. You need to point to a similar technical error is this paper if you wish to back up your claim.

    As explained in the first link, the combined error in the Bologna report is, as a minimum, 1500% for the power, and 3000% for the energy.

    @ bocijn, Hi

    Well you might as a member of the proletariat start by checking through paper 4391

    Sorry, I can't. No extra documentation is available on internet allowing to detect any errors on the calorimetry contained in the Mizuno's paper, just as it was possible for the Levi's report (n. 2179 of the Rothwell's list: ).

    In addition, Mizuno is a private researcher, employed by a private Japanese company, so I have little reasons to spend my time in checking his work. He is free to write and publish whatever he likes.

    The only thing I can make you notice is that his paper starts making reference to a couple of Focardi works, and ends by thanking Rothwell for his support. The last time I saw these two names supporting the same calorimetric results was for the demo held on January 14, 2011, whose calorimetric results are reported in the above paper n. 2179. That's not encouraging at all.

    Add to this that JR does not yet recognize the blatant errors contained in that same Levi's report:

    Did you find any calorimetry errors in this paper? What are they? I see some errors in the Lugano report, but I don't recall any in this paper.

    Back after the 2 weeks ... ehm, vacation.

    @ JedRothwell,

    When I say I am "familiar" with the literature I mean that I have 4,391 cold fusion papers on my disk. [omissis]

    (You can see most of the items in the EndNote database here:

    There are many papers that say the results were theoretically impossible. But as far as I know, there are no papers that show errors in the calorimetry.

    Sorry for my intrusion. Your database also contains this paper:

    So, I think that a more careful presentation of these papers should have been:

    - among the 4,391 cold fusion papers on the disk, there is at least one paper, written by reputable scientists and reviewed by many experts in the field, that is full of calorimetry errors, thanks to which it was stated that a tabletop device produced 12 kW of excess heat for 40 minutes;

    - but for all the other 4,390 cold fusion papers, written and reviewed by as much reputable scientists and experts, there are not, on the web, as many extra documents (videos, pictures, emails, interviews, etc.) that allow ordinary people to check on their own, and decide with enough certainty, whether the excess heat (usually much more exiguous) reported in these papers was correctly measured or not.

    @ Alan Smith,

    my long and documented comment has been substituted by this words of yours.

    The content of this post has been removed, since it contains nothing but thinly veiled attacks on Levi and UniBo, despite your assertions to the contrary. Do ir again and you may well be sanctioned or even banned.

    I'm very surprised of your decision to completely cancel my comment. Not greened, not moved in the Playground or Clearance Items threads, but immediately deleted. I think, it's the first time this happen in this abrupt way, and I don't see any reason for such a reaction. I didn't used offensive words, and I only reported documented facts.

    My comment was not a "thinly veiled attack", it was just a "open plain evaluation" of the apparent behavior of a public researcher at a public university which publicly claimed on many public media of having measured 12 kW of alleged excess heat generated by a table top device during the public demo held in Bologna on January 14, 2011. This conclusion of him was based on a couple of presumed data that I can't explain otherwise, except for an intentional misrepresentation of experimental data. If you have any other explanation, why don't you provide it?

    My comment was in theme. THH had just accused Levi of practicing "bad science" following a mistake in the emissivity used in the Lugano report. This aspect seems to be quite controversial and has given rise to hundreds, perhaps thousands of comments in recent years.

    On the contrary, the inconsistency between the pump capacity and the flow rate reported in the UniBo document issued on January 2011 is much more apparent and incontestable. In fact, Levi claimed to have calibrated the pump for 2 weeks, but on the front panel of that pump was clearly indicated a max output of 12 L/h, a value much lower than that one he claimed in his report (equivalent to 17.6 L/h).

    I can't understand why these considerations are not allowed in this forum. Which specific rules do they break?

    Your comment above breaks the rules of civilised behaviour just for a start. As -despite your denial- so did almost every line in your deleted post which actually contained a criminal libel (in some jurisdictions). Accusing somebody who is not a member here of (effectively) deliberate scientific fraud from behind your avatar is certainly worthy of a 2 week ban. And you just got it. Alan.

    @ Alan Smith,

    You have zero idea about Levi or his problems or the academic politics involved. I think it very unlikely he would engage with an anonymous poster on any of these matters. Kindly refrain from further slurs on a very upright man.

    The content of this post has been removed, since it contains nothing but thinly veiled attacks on Levi and UniBo, despite your assertions to the contrary. Do ir again and you may well be sanctioned or even banned.

    @ interested observer,

    Whether the 7+ billion other people on the planet are paying attention to what they should is an entirely different question, but if they are distracted, it ain't by Rossi.

    Exactly. As he is used to say: "All energy sources must be integrated, if we want to survive… and multiplicate. Warm Regards."

    The media sources are already at work since long.

    How many people could have given a look to this cover?


    And how many of them did read the internal article?

    @ can,

    He might have not used these exact words, but I think that's more or less what he's often suggested. Did I get it right Ascoli65?

    Not exactly. That's only one of the many possible and concurrent explanations, and not directly suggested by me, but insistently attributed to me by some readers on on the basis of the facts that I put at their attention in order to confute the "Rossi's scam" theory. Now that blog is no more available on internet, but, for what it's worth, an echo of that debate is present in some comments (1-3) posted last year on L-F, and which still reflect my position. Nothing to add about. Let's stick now to the plain facts.

    (1) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    (2) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    (3) Jed Rothwell on an Unpublished E-Cat Test Report that “Looks Like it Worked”

    @ maryyugo,

    Ok... thanks to explanation by others I sort of understand Aescoli's theme a bit better. This is all a conspiracy. To do what, exactly, I don't get. Discredit cold fusion? Promote hot fusion? What?

    Please, let's leave apart this kind of speculation. I'm talking about facts only, experimental and mediatic facts.


    Anyway, I do think Levi could be so incompetent as to claim a flow rate beyond a pump's capability.

    Come on, you are talking about the Ecat, without knowing the basic facts of the test that triggered all the interest for this incredible story. There is no incompetence that can explain the misrepresentation of the flow rate in the calorimetric report of the January 2011 test. The max output rate is written on the label placed on the front panel of the pump (1), and Levi declared (2) that he, and others (he said "we"), calibrated the pump for 2 weeks before the demo.


    It could have been a typographical error that worked its way into his calculations unnoticed or just plain negligence and incompetence.

    Could you explain which type of "typographical error" could have lead to attribute to a dosimetric pump a flow rate much larger than its capacity? Flow calorimetry is indeed very simple: just multiply the flow rate by the specific enthalpy increase. Those experimental data have been revised by many physicist in Italy, and US. Do you really think that none of them did care to verify the soundness of a couple of parameters, on which the astounding announcement of a tabletop device capable of producing 12 kW of excess heat was based?


    But IIRC, Levi's experiment written up in NY Teknik in early 2011 where he got 135kW …

    Please, let's give the priority to the January 2011 demo. This early test is much better documented that any other Ecat test. Later, if you want, we could reexamine the February 2011 test, which is also very interesting. But it is successive, and in order to understand a test you need first to better figure out the role played by the protagonists in the previous ones.


    I don't think we'll ever know unless we get a confession from Rossi or Levi.

    For the January 2011 demo, no confession is required. There is a plenty of documentation provided by the testers themselves, and by those who contributed to write and revise the reports. This test can be considered a test on the reliability of the Ecat people, rather than on the performances of the Ecat device.

    (1) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test (see detail C on the jpegs)

    (2) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

    @ THHuxley,

    Personally I'm unwilling to substitute deliberate malfeasance for incompetence when we are at such a distance, since incompetence is a powerful thing when combined with a charismatic figure leading one in the wrong direction. But it remains possible. those who know Levi seem to think not, but that again I cannot vouch for, and appearances can be deceptive.

    That's a laudable scruple. I'd like to see it applied also when every possible responsibility in the Ecat affair are imputed to only one and the same charismatic figure.

    However, we are now talking about public personae that, under the name of their scientific prestigious institutions, announced to the world that they did measure many kW of excess heat. In doing this, they did put themselves in the position to be scrutinized about their reliability by the same people that have been solicited to believe their claims. The estimation of the possible intentionality of their misrepresentations is preparatory for establishing how much credit should be given to any other thing they wrote or said. Doing some mistakes is human and acceptable even for the greatest scientists, but the scientific ethic requires to recognize them and to correct the wrong conclusions as soon as possible.

    Now, let's first solve your doubt about Levi: deliberate malfeasance or incompetence? Let's consider the most easily recognizable incongruence in his reported data: the claimed flow rate during the January 2011 demo (17.6 L/h) vs. the capacity of the yellow pump (max. output 12 L/h, but at 60% speed: no more than 7.2 L/h). Can you, please, explain me how this incongruence could depend upon incompetence?

    @ maryyugo,

    I think I followed Rossi and Levi pretty closely in 2011 and 2012 and I have no idea what that post means. Not even what the topic is. HELP!

    The topic is in the comment of yours, that I quoted before. You were speculating on who could have designed the October 6, 2011, test. I gave you the answer in accordance to a post published by a Levi's friend on the blog "22passi": "… this is exactly the experimental setting that Giuseppe Levi, already in February, explained to me that he had thought about official E-Cat testings programmed at Unibo …" (Google translation).


    I don't want to "guess why" -- EXPLAIN PLEASE.

    As you know, since the first demo in January 2011, many people on internet suggested the testers (I mean the academicians who did the measurements and reported the results) how to setting up a much more significant test. The main suggestion was to regulate the coolant flow rate, in such a way to maximize the delta T, but avoiding any phase change. The above excerpt from "22passi" shows that the testers did never had any intention to follow this simple suggestion. I think there is only one reason for this behavior.


    What does this MEAN please? I don't know-- does being extrasupercryptic somehow help?

    I don't find it so cryptic. Did you read the linked email? Did you see its title?

    It's just an example of what I already told you in another thread (1-2). But you keep on saying: "Misplacement of thermocouples seems to be a trademark Rossi move and is probably how he originally fooled Focardi and Levi with the first ecats."

    Hard to say who fooled who. The trademark of the Ecat affair, as well as of other CF/LENR initiatives, is the combination of academic (or equivalent) authoritative declarations, followed by opinion campaigns carried on especially in the blogosphere. Rossi by his own couldn't fool anyone. He was not credible since the beginning.

    (1) Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?

    (2) Is there evidence for LENR power generation of 100W for days without input power?

    @ maryyugo,

    And to create all new issues with carefully and purposefully misplaced thermocouples. Or one could speculate that it was designed by a moron. I guess you get your choice.

    No need to speculate. Announcing the imminent October 6, 2011 test, a privileged source revealed who, since February, thought about the setting, and who subsequently validated it:

    So, the intricate setting of this test is the answer of the academicians to all the critics and suggestions arisen after the first Ecat tests. Guess why.

    Now, let's give a "Look at the BIG PICTURE …":

    - Before the test, the academic boost: Levi > Josephson > CMNS > 22passi > blogosphere;

    - After the test, opinion makers at work: "… and you will see this is irrefutable proof" (1).


    @ Alan Fletcher,

    The entire cavity would have to be filled with LEAD to prove it Fake. Iron is marginal.

    Nearly 40 kg of iron (about 5 dm3, less than the volume of the inner box) added to the mass of container and fins, are sufficient to store all the heat necessary to explain the actual behavior of the Ecat test held on October 6, 2011.


    @ maryyugo,

    Sorry but, as usual, I am not sure what you're getting at. Are we rehashing all the possible methods Rossi could have cheated? He probably used a lot of different ones at different times. Unless he eventually confesses the details, we are never going to know exactly how he made the ecat appear to produce power.

    [Emphasis added]

    My point is that it's impossible to attribute all the responsibility to only one "HE".

    The method used to try to convince the public about the reality of the excess heat generated by the Ecat has not been some material tricks (hidden wires, stored fuel, etc.), but the bold misrepresentation of experimental data. The public confidence on these data relied exclusively on the credibility of the academicians who participated in the tests. These academicians chose some direct, and non orthodox, channels (usually by internet) to release their reports and/or declarations, where they stated and confirmed the production of huge quantities of excess heat. However, they always avoided the direct confrontation with the common people, because at this point they claimed to be questioned only by their peers. The task of providing the blogosphere with the interpretation of their astonishngly results has been carried on by some opinion makers, that obstinately defended the absolute reliability of the academicians involved in the Ecat tests, and the credibility of their statements. Can all this be caused by only one HE?

    For example, consider, please, the incongruity between the nominal output of the yellow pump in the January 2011 demo (max output: 12 L/h, effective output: no more than 7.2 L/h) and the value declared in the calorimetric report (17.6 L/h), which was used for calculating the excess heat. Do you really think it's possible, that the only person who was aware of this incongruity was Rossi (1)?

    (1) Prominent Gamma/L 0232 Flow Rate Test

    @ maryyugo,

    After the complete failure of Industrial Heat to confirm that the ecat makes power in the course of having the full rights to it for a year and Rossi's assistance as per contracts, what in the world leads you to think that Rossi's claims have the slightest whiff of credibility?

    Where did I say such a nonsense? In my previous comment, I wasn't talking about my credence. I was just referring to the credibility which JR did attribute to the results of the February 2011 test, as expressed in the letter he sent to Josephson and which was posted on physicsforum (1).

    Did you read it? In this letter to Josephson, JR excluded the possibility that the Ecat tests could have been magic shows carried out by Rossi, because Levi and his colleagues would have been capable of unmasking whichever trick. But we know that in reality the magician apprentice was Levi, not Rossi. Did JR ignore this hobby of Levi?

    On the basis of the above JR's letter, the Ecat testimonials can be subdivided in these 3 levels:

    1) The main protagonist, who, however, is considered unreliable: "People have said that Rossi might be a sleight of hand stage magician who fools people.";

    2) The academicians, who, on the contrary, are considered indisputably reliable: "No stage magician in history has ever fooled a thermocouple or flowmeter. Instruments are totally immune to the kinds of tricks they use. If Rossi has supplied the instruments we might imagine he changed them, but Levi brought them from the university.";

    3) The opinion makers, who suggest to the public how to interpret the claims made by the academicians, as well as their silences, and propose the final conclusions: "What stage magician would do such a thing? Why?!? It makes absolutely no sense. I think we can decisively rule out the chemical fuel hypothesis."

    Now, nearly all agree that the chemical fuel hypothesis, along with the batteries one, was wrong, but many of us know that there are other much more reasonable and mundane explanations for those Ecat test results. We could deduce that what has been described in the JR letter is typical of magic shows, in which (n) possible explanations are proposed to the public, and then (n-1) of them are shown to be false, in order to let the people believe in the validity of the last remaining possible explanation, which in reality is even more impossible than the others. The base trick consists in not including the right explanation among the proposed ones.

    In conclusion, whoever is interesting in understanding the Ecat events should first reflect upon the roles and reliability of people included in the lowest two supporting levels, avoiding to be too much focused on the main protagonist.


    @ maryyugo,

    Jed Rothwell has repeatedly asserted that there is significant and credible evidence for an LENR device which sustains a 100W output for days without any input power. If the device runs at 100W for 10 days (240 hours), the energy it would output would be 86.4 Mega Joules or 8.64 * 107J.

    […] I would appreciate it if anyone can help me find either the paper I misplaced or a paper or report which describes a device that purports to do what Jed claims.

    […] Note: 8.64 * 107J seems like a lot but by comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains a bit over 108J.

    If you are looking for a document describing a long lasting, high power LENR test, with nearly no input power (ie in the so called self sustaining mode) the most significant, as you well know, is the one published on LENR-CANR (1) which summarizes the experimental data of the 18-hours test held in Bologna on February 10-11, 2011. That document reports that the Ecat device produced 16 kW for 18 hours, with no energy in input except a few tens of W for the control box. The resulting output energy (1,037 MJ) was equivalent to more than 9 gallons (26 liters) of gasoline. An absolute record for a CF/LENR test (except the 1 MW tests).

    If you need to be assured on the significance and credibility attributed by JR to these data, you can read what Josephson posted on March 2011 (2). Did you ever see it? It seems a private email by JR, which reveals several inedited details about the 3 tests held up to then by Levi and others.

    So, from the point of view of energy output, the February 2011 test still represents the absolute record for any other test carried on along the entire CF/LENR history, and, moreover, it was documented, analyzed, recommended, and strenuously defended (for years) by JR himself.

    I really can't understand which better evidence are you looking for. The Ecat tests had been carried out in order to demonstrate the industrial exploitability of LENR, but they only demonstated the lack of reliability of many people involved for whichever reason in them.


    Finally, it does strike me as strange that Jed, for whose good intentions and work ethic I have considerable respect, makes this claim and won't tell us where it came from.

    I does strike me, that it strikes you. His way of doing is evident since long.



    @ Shane D.

    I agree with most of what you say. The one exception is the "arrangement of JONP's BOD's not being in chronological order", and your assigning some significance to that.

    I've been misunderstood. I meant the order in the Ecat "Hall of Fame" compiled by Krivit (1). That order doesn't reflect anymore the true order, after the publishing of the following statement in April 2016:


    From…ng-a-lawsuit-in-lenr.html :

    "I heard how Mike became involved in starting to explore what he was doing. Rossi claimed to be closing in on producing a working LENR technology. He had American partners who had worked with the U.S. Navy and were familiar with the continuing interest of the Navy in energy technology. In late 2007 the company requested someone with technical interest and competence to view a demonstration."

    After this revelation, the Krivit's list should also includes somewhere the above cited "American partners". The previous excerpt mentions the 3 personae that should occupy the 3 top positions in that list, but we don't know in which order.


    I doubt there is any meaning there, other than Rossi is as sloppy creating a website, as he is in his demos.

    Whom, do you think, did Krivit allude, when he wrote about the registration of that website in March 2010 (2)?


    And I surely do not think any on JONP's BODs had anything to do with Rossi's scam.

    I never said that it is a "Rossi's scam". Can we, please, call it just the "Ecat affair", or something equivalent?


    Or the fact that some are affiliated with the government, means there is some conspiracy.

    I never talked about conspiracies, either. Please, I'd prefer to stick on documented facts.


    In fact, as you already know, Melich's (JONP BOD, and government affiliated scientist) wife wrote that article in her Infinite Energy Magazine when the lawsuit story broke, that "Rossi, enjoyed your company, nice guy, but you are not good for LENR and do not let the door hit you in the ass on your way out".

    I don't kwon why she wrote that article. It surprised me a lot, even if I always attributed a big importance to the JoNP's Board. Anyway, whichever was its purpose, that article is much more interesting for what it says about the "way in", rather than the "way out".


    I agree with what you said about Levi being the author of the first HT report in Ferrara. Although Ferrara has survived scrutiny so far as I said, that does not in my mind dismiss the fact that Levi was it's main author, and his role in this affair is still very much in the air.

    It's obvious that Levi is the lead author of the Ferrara report, that's not what I meant.

    I wanted to stress that the first requisite for a report to be scrutinized is that the authors, especially the lead one, be all credible with respect to the subject treated by the report. In order to be considered a credible author on LENR, Levi should first explain why he used invented data to calculate the alleged excess heat reported in his January 2011 document. Until then, any scrutiny on his Ferrara's test report, as well on the Lugano's, has no meaning at all.



    @ Shane D.

    However, try as we may to put Rossi behind us, I think he is going to be the center of attention for a long time to come.

    That's will be true for the common people as long as will last the public debate on LENR. But what I meant is that, in order to understand the essence of this story, the Ecat should be kept distinguished from Rossi, and that addressing his oldest initiatives, as well as the last RvD litigation, is not very helpful, and sometimes it appears intentionally misleading. The Ecat has been the natural outcome of the CF history, not of Rossi's.


    Not because of Doral, as that was an obvious ruse, but because questions still remain as to his early years with Focardi.

    Yes, exactly, many questions remain about the early years of this last CF adventure, even before the involvement of Focardi. But, are we sure that all this Ecat affair started with Rossi? Krivit keeps on his site a very interesting page titled: Chronology and Dramatis Personae in Andrea Rossi's Confidence Game. The first 4 personae are the JoNP spokesman and 3 members of its Board of Advisers, but, in accordance to the more recent revelations, they are not listed in the right chronological order. First question: what should be the right sequence?


    Also, the first Hotcat test in Ferrara has so far stood up against the critiques.

    IMO the main critique to that report is that its lead author issued also the calorimetric report on January 2011 demo. That should suffice.


    And one can not help but wonder if IH did get a little something in a few of their attempts. After all, even Dameron told the Boeing guy (Childress) that he saw something interesting.

    Something? Uhm ... very similar to "It -- the results were there looked like there was something going on."


    Then there are the possible replications of the Hotcat by AP and Songsheng, […] me356 […] MFMP […]

    I guess they are only replications of Ecat-like demonstrations.


    So yeah, we can talk about whether or not LENR is real, but Rossi is not going anywhere. By the time we are done with him, he will be a legend...if not already. Just the way he wants it.

    Yes, he is already a legend, and he wants it. Maybe he has been predestined to this role. Who knows? But if you want understand a legend, you have to look at its foundation.

    @ Bob,

    I answer you here because the subject has nothing to do with the pump issue.

    When will supporters ever have actual support from Rossi himself, instead of having to defend him with conjecture?

    Sorry, but I'm not interested in the debate pro/cons Rossi, especially with respect to IH. The recent RvD litigation led to the polarization of the LENR debate around this diatribe, but it looks to me a pantomime, because both parts are supporting, one way or another, the validity of LENR, whereas, IMO, the real debate should be about the reality of CF/LENR as a whole.

    @ IH Fanboy,

    You haven't answered my assertion that the pump rate at zero bar back pressure can be much higher than at 3.5 bar back pressure.

    I thought I did it in my previous comment. This above assertion of you is similar to those I already answered. The sense of my answer was that I don't care of every possible misfunctioning of the pump. They can be put forward for the Doral test, but not for the Bologna demo, because in this case the pump was calibrated by Levi himself, who said in front of the public that the flow rate was 12 L/h (ie the max output of the pump), but then he wrote in his report that the same flow rate was 17.6 L/h, and in the meanwhile he claimed in an interview that the flow rate remained constant since the end of his calibration up to the end of the test. This is an internal inconsistency.

    If you want to know more about this incongruity, I suggest you to ask JR, because he was in contact with the "people in the project", asked them the model and the data of the instruments, and he strenuously defended the competence of the testers and of their results. JR was following the CF since many years, he already knew about flow calorimetry, so I imagine he asked Levi how it was possible that a dosimetric pump delivered nearly 50% more than its capacity, while running at only 60% of its maximum speed.


    Investing public funds into LENR research and development is a much safer and better way to spend tax dollars than to flush it down the toilet on hot fusion research, always 50 years away from anything useful. I suspect you will take great umbrage at this statement because maybe you have some kind of connection. Sometimes the truth hurts, but it still needs to be stated.

    This is the usual rhetoric scheme used to explain the failing of CF/LENR, but it doesn't apply to me. And it's not even true (1).

    Instead, in this case, I partly agree with you: CF(LENR) is safer than HF, because even if their final results will be the same (no excess heat from CF and no exploitable energy from HF) the research on HF is much more energy and material consuming, and generates a lot of contaminated stuff.

    But the millions/billions of public money wasted in these two mirages are not the real problem, there are many other economic sectors in which much larger amounts of taxpayer money are wasted in no-way activities. The real problem is that these chimeras are used to influence the public about the possibility of finding viable alternatives to the already known energy sources. This involves the highest levels of the decision chain, the Parliaments, and the Ministries (Departments), even here in Italy. The misrepresentation of the validity of these technologies risks to mislead the decision makers in taking the wiser decisions in such a delicate issue as the managing of the residual energy sources, with serious consequences for everyone.

    (1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…cpage=190#comment-1253897

    @ IH Fanboy,

    I don't know where your evidence is that the pump was operated at less than 60% of its "max" speed. We don't know its maximum speed at zero bar back pressure.

    You can hear the pump pace at the beginning of this video:

    The frequency is lower than 1 stroke per second, ie < 60 stroke/min, while the max speed for that pump is 100 stroke/min. That's a big difference, that an ear can immediately catch. Having spent weeks in calibrating that pump, Levi could have easily recognized that the pump was running at a speed much lower than its maximum. So he knew that the real flow rate was much much lower than the value he wrote in his report. With the help of the above video, everyone who knew the pump model were aware that the pump was delivering a water flux much lower than the values, which circulated on the web since the first days, but nobody warned the readers about this crucial aspect.


    You presume that the real flow could have been "much lower, even close to zero," while I postulate that the real flow was probably much higher, since the stated maximum of 7.2 l/h requires a 3.5 bar back pressure.

    Let me be frank. I'm willingly answering your questions, but I know that I can't convince you. It's just a polite exchange of different opinions. You can postulate what you prefer, it's not my problem. My problem deals only with the reliability of the people paid by the taxpayers in order to correctly inform the public about the validity of the possible future energy sources.

    @ IH Fanboy, @ Alan Fletcher,

    once established that the P18 (not J5) was the model of the yellow LMI pump used in all the tests carried on in 2011, let's answer your other questions.

    Here is what Levi said in the "Ecat UniBo test" video:

    "Right now I think 12 l/h but after I give you the exact number."

    So he is not committing to a hard number in the video. He is giving an oral presentation off the cuff.

    The first video of the Bologna demo shows that he was answering to a question from the public. He was just describing the scene on the monitor, addressing the yellow pump on the lower left corner, and he said that its flow was already measured. At that point someone from the public asked him which was the measured value, and he gave him the value of the max possible output of the pump: 12 L/h.

    He had spent the last two weeks calibrating the pump in the actual test condition, so he was well aware of the performances of that pump. Moreover, he seemed embarrassed, as if someone caught him off the guard. If you hear the original Italian speech you can better notice his uncertain tone. Then he immediately dropped the pump argument, starting to talk about the nuclear instrumentation. Why?

    A possible answer, is that he was aware that the max output of the P18 pump was not sufficient to reach the target already established for that test. Which target? Well, we could ask JR, but it's better asking the web. In his mail to Vortex (1), sent the day before the demo, he informed the vortician that "Focardi is holding a press conference to show a 15 kilowatt heating module". He made reference to an article on an Italian newspaper, but the article didn't mention the output power, so we don't know how he got that number, and I doubt that he will tell us. (Edit: JR just forwarded a message of Brian Ahern. I apologize.)

    Anyway the 15 kW target was a big problem for the tester because, even letting the people believe the dry steam condition at the outlet, the max power for unit flow was about 0,722 kW per L/h (*). So having a pump with a capacity of 12 L/h, it was possible to demostrate at most a total power of 8.7 kW, nearly the half of their target.

    As Alan F. has shown, the flow rate can vary (i.e., increase) significantly (beyond the stated "maximum") when dropping down to effectively 0 bar back pressure.

    Lower that to effectively 0 bar back pressure, and your pump rate could probably meet or exceed the measured ~17.6 l/h stated in Levi's report.

    the manufacturer also warns about maintaining sufficient back-pressure.

    an actual physical pump serial # 12345 COULD deliver MORE than the rated specification. Levi correctly calibrated the ACTUAL performance, and therefore has no need to downgrade his results to the nominal specification value

    People is free to imagine whatever flow rate they like for the Prominent pump used in the Doral test, because the actual condition are unknown. But for the January 2011 demo the calibration of the LMI pump has been done by the testers themselves, and the one responsible for the calorimetry said: "I think 12 L/h".

    This public declaration is not reconcilable with what is reported in his interview to Macy, where he said that he calibrated the pump for two weeks, than he left the pump setting untouched, and that this flow rate remained constant throughout the demo. If he really had set the output at a value greater than 17 L/h during his calibration, he should have answered instead: "I think around 17-18 L/h"!

    So HIS two declarations, before and after the demo, are in contrast each other.

    This only fact speaks loud about the MPF of the people involved in that demo, and raises many other questions about those facts.


    (*) Can be easily deduced by the Levi's report by dividing the alleged values of the heat output and of the flow rate.

    @ IH Fanboy, @ Alan Fletcher,

    First of all, I'd clarify the pump model issue.

    You then apparently make a guess as to what pump Levi used, and you go with the LMI J5 series, which has a stated max output of 7.6 l/h at 1.4 bar back pressure.

    But wait, there's more. Why did you select the lower performing LMI J5 series pump when the LMI Series P Pump looks just like it, but has a higher performance. This particular pump can pump 7.6 l/h at 3.5 bar back pressure.

    Here we go again : Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED] The LMI J56D is also a diaphragm pump:

    The following jpeg, featuring the J5 series of the LMI pumps, was prepared in English in order to be submitted to Brian Josephson.


    This jpeg was first posted on physicsforum on March 30, 2011 (1). At that time, no Ecat tester had released any specific information about the model and performances of the yellow pump. The J5 model was chose on the basis of a couple of hints, about maker and maximum flow rate, appeared on the web (2-3), and because its aspect resulted nearly identical to the pump used in the Bologna test.

    The next month, in April 2011, Mats Lewan witnessed and described two more Ecat tests, and in both his reports he listed the data of the pump, reporting for the first time the max output of 12.0 L/h. So, at that point, the J5 model was no more a good candidate for the pump, and the best choice resulted to be the P18 model.

    As a consequence, the first jpeg in English was updated and, being the thread on physicsforum been closed immediately after the cited previous comment, I translated it in Italian and posted on an Italian forum around the end of April 2011. This is the new version:


    This model, LMI P18, resulted to be absolutely identical to the Bologna pump. It has 2 knobs which allow to regulate the speed (up to 100 strokes/min), and the volume (up to 2 cm3/stroke).

    The P18 capacity is larger than the J5 one (12.0 vs 7.6 L/h), but considering that it was operated at less than 60% of its max speed, the expected outflow was only 7.2 L/h, even less than the value indicated in the first (in English) jpeg. It should also be considered that the 7.2 L/h value requires the max volume per stroke, but we have no information about the actual position of the volume knob, so the real flow could have been much lower, even close to zero for a while.


    I'll answer later on the other issues.

    @ IH Fanboy,

    Please source your accusations. You have provided no evidence.

    Please, no accusations, we are here just to understand the facts, I'm bringing my contribution.

    The flow rate is the most important parameter in flow calorimetry. Even a journalist like Lewan understood this, and in fact he put the pump on the top of the list of instruments in all his reports on the Ecat tests: "Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar."

    Do you think that the many colleagues of Levi which were present at the January 2011 demo, all of them with a way longer academic experience, and many of them involved since the beginning in the CF/LENR field, were less aware than Lewan of this crucial parameter of the flow calorimetry?

    The Levi's colleagues were only part of the people who participated in writing and revising the calorimetric report, the others have been revealed by Krivit (1). Do you think that these people were less aware of the importance of the pump capacity?

    JR was in touch since the beginning with the "people in the project", typed up the first "brief report" on the test, and asked them to "add the name and model numbers of some of the instruments" (2). Can you really believe that he didn't ask to know the name and the model of the pump?


    @ THHuxleynew,

    Ascoli: not being all knowing I'm slow to decide motivations of others, and always aware that cock-ups can look, from a distance, like conspiracies. I'm also not in a position to allocate responsibility between Levi and Rossi for the test designs.

    I fully agree. I have no intention to talk about "motivations", "conspiracies", or "responsibilities", apart, for these last, those which are strictly related to the duties of any academic member with respect to the public, and that can be directly derived from their declarations.


    But the details of these experiments are factual and undeniable, which is why it would help some people here for you to go over the Levi pump flow rate issue from those early tests with links to source.

    I already did it. See, please, the above video, it has English subtitles. At about 9:40, Levi reveals the max output of the pump. Now compare it with what he declared in its interview to Macy, that I already quoted above, and think how they can fit.

    For those who wish to know more about the factual aspects of the January 2011 demo, I prefer to link here below a couple of my old posts:…s/?postID=24942#post24942…D/?postID=25650#post25650