Posts by Ascoli65

    - Do you think that that document is still important in order to evaluate the Ecat story and reality?
    Yes, but the main 'proof' document only covers the 'steam' versions

    - Do you still endorse the conclusions drawn in the last version
    Neither proven nor disproven : yes

    - Do you think that the set of the possible fakes taken into account is complete?
    Yes / probably

    - Are you going to issue a new updated version of that document?
    No -- Though I should wrap up the front page with comments similar to these

    Thank you for your answers to my questions.

    You started the "Proving the Rossi eCat is Real" document a few weeks after the first Ecat tests, at the beginning of 2011 (1). This document should have examined all the possible fakes that had been suggested on the web at that time to explain the incredible results of those tests. However, it completely ignores some well-documented flaws that show that the heat data were actually fake. For example, the incredible energy performances reported by the UniBo professors after demo on January 14, 2011 can be explained by 3 evident flaws, which have been described on physisìcsforum (2) at the end of March 2011.

    Now, I'd have some more questions for you.

    - Did you see that comment on pysiscsforum at that time?

    - If you saw it, why have you not included the discussion on those 3 flaws in your document?

    - In any case, don't you think now that those flaws should also be considered?

    - Do you agree that those 3 flaws provide a simple explanation of how the heat output of the first public demo on the Ecat could have been faked?



    I restricted myself to analyses of the various ecats. See, ...

    The qumbu page (1) contains links to your document "Proving the Rossi eCat is Real -- Version 4.30" (2) where you analyze many possible fakes of the Ecat tests carried out in 2011. The last version is dated March 2013.

    I would ask you:

    - Do you think that that document is still important in order to evaluate the Ecat story and reality?

    - Do you still endorse the conclusions drawn in the last version?

    - Do you think that the set of the possible fakes taken into account is complete?

    - Are you going to issue a new updated version of that document?



    Lewan not only documented but helped to design, instrument and perform the tests. While they were, as you say, well documented, they were very poorly designed to resist or reveal subterfuge and sleight of hand.

    No, I'm sorry, he didn't help to design the 2011 tests. This image may help you to remember:


    In 2011, Lewan has documented 4 tests. The setting of the two tests held in April was identical to that of March 29, documented by Essen and Kullander (1): "The device used was the smaller version of the energy catalyzer, which was first shown at a test March 29, 2011."

    The September 7 setting was designed before July 2011 in collaboration with UniBo professors. And the outer liquid loop, added in the October 6 test, was said to be an old idea by Levi, as reported by Passerini (2): "Mi sembra giusto sottolineare che trattasi esattamente del setting sperimentale che Giuseppe Levi, già a febbraio, mi spiegò di avere pensato per i test ufficiali sull'E-Cat programmati all'UniBO, setting in seguito convalidato assieme ai professori dell'Università di Uppsala." (please, translate yourself)


    Lewan failed to retain control over power input and wiring and most egregious of all, he, along with Kullander and Essen, failed to insist on using unfueled reactors and their own methods and instruments to calibrate the output heat measurement which was almost certainly wrong by up to an order of magnitude in favor of Rossi.

    In the first two tests, he only failed in assuming that the outflow was dry steam and in adopting the corresponding specific entalphy in evaluating the output power, thereby increasing the real output by a factor of 6+. This same wrong assumption was made by all the competent and respectable people (the American LENR experts and the European physics professors) who documented the exceptional excess heat produced in the initial four tests: from December 2010 to March 2011.

    In the other two tests, carried out on the so-called FatCat, he neglected the energy absorbed during the first period of electric heating, which was stored by an heavy mass of metal contained inside the device. But in doing so, he has simply adopted the same methodology already used by the UniBo professors (3).

    So, the scientific responsibilities of Lewan, a simple journalist, are quite low.


    It is also wrong that Lewan had little influence in the early acceptance of the ecats. His articles in NyTechnik were widely read, especially in Scandinavia and the rest of Europe.

    Yes, you are right about this. But he was only a messenger of such influence, not the source of the public credulity. In his first article in English he wrote (4): "The demonstration of the ‘energy catalyzer,’ as Rossi prefers to call it, was made in Bologna on the 14th of January, 2011, under the supervision of independent scientific representatives of Bologna University."


    Not that it matters, but how did these folks widely publicize anything? Most people had no idea who they were including many if not most, "mainline" scientists and science reporters.

    It wasn't necessary for them to be known personally. It was enough to mention their affiliations, as the plaintiff's attorney did at the opening day of the Rossi vs. Darden trial (5): "... representatives of the Bologna University, Uppsala University, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden conducted independent tests …".





    (5) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    Lewan's failure to ask Rossi in public why this was not done and to insist on a meaningful reply is inexplicable (though I expect Ascoli65to profer a reason). Surely, Lewan knows Ohm's law and the simple power rule!

    Sincerely I'm not interested neither in the Stockholm demo, nor in the role of Lewan in the Ecat affair. I'm more interested in understanding the sources of the public credulity in the Ecat. Lewan is not a main source of such credulity, he is just a scientific journalist, not an authoritative academician. He witnessed some tests in 2011, and described them in as many reports that were quite well documented, even if their conclusions were completely wrong. But I don't think that the people who believed for a while, or even until today, that the Ecat was able to produce XH, had been convinced by Lewan and his reports.

    The notoriety of Rossi and the Ecat ramped up at the beginning of 2011 thanks to the three first tests carried out and publicized by UniBo professors, as well as to the fourth test witnessed and documented by Essen and Kullander. Those professors are the only source of public credibility for the Ecat. All the rest is IMO a wasting of time.

    That is what is so interesting about all this. How Rossi fooled so many smart people so easily and completely and so long.

    Yes, they are (were) smart, and also very competent in LENR and/or physics, that's the reason why you can't say they have been fooled.


    Most are, however, no longer fooled.

    Or they had never been, and now they are simply silent. How can you know it?


    I have seen nothing to suggest malice or some nefarious conspiracy among those folks.

    Malice and conspiracy are tough terms, they entail an ethical level of judgment, thus preventing a fair and serene analysis of the role of these folks. There is no need to discuss about these engaging aspects.

    We should limit ourselves to analyzing only the factual and technical aspects. What happened, who did what, who knew what? If you carefully analyze the experimental evidences of the first tests, you will realize that many have contributed to setup those farces, and that all the people involved could and should have known that they were farces.


    They are simply the sort of people whose brains are wired to believe and trust without adequate evidence and that, for reasons beyond the scope of this forum, comprises the majority of humanity (for example: religion).

    That's true. We all are affected by many biases. We need to trust and believe in something. But this cannot be an excuse for the professors. They are well paid and respected because they have the duty to correctly inform the people, avoiding any bias. Otherwise, why common people should believe them?


    This and the rest of the quotes you provided are simply evidence of appeal to authority and reliance on other people's opinions rather than facts, observations, and replication of the experiment independently.

    Exactly. It is a legitimate appeal to authority of Essen with respect to the UniBo professors regarding the first 3 tests carried out by them. What I said is that these latter could not have done the same, because they were the testers and the reporters of the results.


    But they are very weak arguments, inasmuch as they are based on opinion rather than replication …

    Oh no, not on opinions. They are based on written and oral public statements by many competent and respected professionals, who have repeatedly declared that THEY have undoubtedly measured exceptional amounts of excess heat.

    AA: To ensure there was no trickery some other proprietary measurements must be made. This would be simple for a potential investor to do, so there is no logical reason to doubt the results

    So I've already pointed out that the implication here of trickery or working product is logically wrong: we can have a test setup with a false positive which Rossi through incompetence does not realise.

    THH, to be sure that it was a trickery product it suffices to positively demonstrate the occurring of a deliberate tricksty action. The test carried out on December 16, 2010, the first Ecat test which has been documented, provides the evidence that, in the middle of the test, the water flow has stopped (1). This fact requires a deliberate action by at least one of the people who were present at the test. This is a positive evidence of the awareness that the product was unable to produce excess heat.

    (1) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

    Scientists are often fooled by con men.

    But not so many, not for so long, not by a so controversial and discredited man.


    Scientists are not usually looking for deception.

    But they are usually looking for funds and celebrity.


    If, for example, a report says the input power was measured by a particular method and yielded a specific result, scientists will tend to take this as valid on its face and not suspect deliberate deception and cheating.

    What you says is applicable only to some Swedish professors with respect to the results of the 3 tests held in December 2010, and in January and February 2011:

    From:…energi/article3111124.ece , dated February 23, 2011

    NyT: What was your first thought when you read about this?

    Essén: What struck me were the differences compared with the past. There have been many failures in the context of fusion. It started with Pons and Fleischmann (a famous experiment in 1989 which could not be repeated) and more recently we’ve had bubble fusion, which also was connected with irregularities (in the scientific methods).

    So this area is very affected by such events. But what appeared to be different this time was that another physicist, Giuseppe Levi, was allowed to test the process independently, measuring input and output power.

    And it seems repeatable. And there is a device. And now it has been tested for a longer time. That’s a big difference that seems crucial.


    Mats Lewan: What is it that makes you think it may be credible despite the lack of some essential pieces of information?

    Kullander: ...

    Essén: What I think is important in this context is that for the first time, so to speak, there is a device which is made in many units and which is being sold, and has been tested by independent people -- input, output -- how much energy that comes in and how much that comes out, in circumstances which these people have controlled.

    And that has not happened before in this context. So the physicist Levi believes in this, and the physicist Focardi believes in this, and I believe (their credibility) is above all doubts. It is of course difficult to assess the inventor Andrea Rossi, but there are enough people involved, and enough good data and reports to make it look very seriously at this stage.

    On the contrary, what you said is not applicable to the professors who have claimed to have independently measured the input and output power, as reported by Essen in the above interview.


    I agree with that. I am still waiting for Levi, Lewan, Essen, the Swedish professors, Josephson and others who should have known and done better to admit publicly that Rossi is a crook and that they were wrong. I am not holding my breath until they do!

    OK. But until they don't do it, you should admit that common people like AA has some valid arguments to believe that the Ecat is capable to produce excess heat.


    On the other hand, far as I know, none is actively endorsing Rossi or defending his/their prior results any more.

    Unfortunately that's enough to keep the validity and effectiveness of their previous statements:

    Adrian Ashfield

    Jul 15th 2018 

    …. How many of the now hundreds who have witnessed a Rossi demonstrations, (apart from Krivit who Rossi reportedly caught trying to take a sample of the fuel) have complained or stated they were fraudulent?

    Quote from JedRothwell apparently around late 2010?

    I posted the entire mail sent to Vortex on January 22, 2011, a week after the January 14 demo and on the eve of the publication of the calorimetric report.


    There may be no reason to doubt Levi and the others' truthfulness but there are plenty of other reasons to doubt.



    Honest people can be fooled and obviously, Levi and the others were fooled by Rossi and many people still are.

    Obviously? How can you say this? How is it possible that a controversial philosopher could have fooled for many years so many experts in the LENR field and professors in physics?

    In any case, common people - including AA and many others here on L-F - have not been fooled by Rossi, because no one has never trusted him. On the contrary, they trusted the "respectable and competent" scientists who have publicly supported the calorimetric performances of the Ecat, and that have refused to publicly inform the honest people that they were wrong.

    Not JONP, but Hydrofusion-managed (I think)

    Thanks. Anyway JR wrote "Rossi later published it on his web site." But, as already said, this is not the main point.

    Here everybody is criticizing AA for his faith in the Ecat results. But AA has a very good argument when he says that his faith is based on the declarations of the LENR scientists who supported the Ecat claims, and that were never withdrawn.

    So, it's absolutely useless keep on telling AA that Rossi is not credible. That was known from t=0, as shown by this example:

    Monday Update to Release Information on Self Sustain Mode
    Jed Rothwell Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:12:48 -0800

    This is important! Rossi is saying that on Monday, they will upload a report by Levi et al. describing a self-sustaining run. This is the Holy Grail of cold fusion: a self-sustaining device that produces commercially useful levels of power.

    People may have some doubts about Rossi's credibility, but I think there is no reason to doubt Levi and the others. If they say they saw the thing self-sustain, I for one will believe it. As I said before, this development is not all that surprising. There is plenty of supporting evidence from other experiments. There is no reason to doubt that a scaled up machine can be built.

    It is a little surprising that the breakthrough came with Ni-H. The temperatures and power density with Ni-H have usually been low in the past, as far as I know. Pd-D has achieved greater power density.

    - Jed

    JR is talking about a "self-sustaining run". We now know that this is the test carried out on December 16, 2010, labeled [Test 1] in the calorimetric report. We also know how the test was manipulated in order to give the appearance of self-sustain.

    Now the question is, how many people, among the many LENR experts and professors who contributed to its publication, were aware of the many misrepresentations and invented data included in that calorimetric report? How many of them did realize of these inconsistencies shortly after the publication? Why they omitted to promptly and properly inform the public, so inducing people such as AA to believe in the incredible Ecat's performances?

    Rossi later published it on his web site. Before the lawsuit, he delivered it to I.H. as proof of his claims. So, what I say is true. Perhaps you were not aware of the facts.

    Could you please provide the link to the JoNP page where the Penon report was published? I haven't found it.

    Anyway, the main point is that the calorimetric report of the 1-year test at Doral is by no means the only, or even the best, evidence of the inconsistencies of the Ecat performances, as you keep on saying in your effort to postpone their appearance after the big fundraising.

    The best evidences came immediately after the first public test in Bologna on January 2011, when it was clear to many people – just looking at the videos - that there was something strange in that obvious farce (1), but it wasn't for you (2), even if you were in close touch with the testers.

    Now, it is funny that you criticize AA who is using (3-4) exactly the same arguments you widely used in 2011 to support the credibility in the Ecat. Why don't you explain him why those competent and respected scientists (LENR experts and professors) were not credible from the beginning?



    (3) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    (4) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion

    The Penon report is more complete and detailed than anything on his blog, or Lewan's reports, or any other material that you claim is persuasive. It is right here:…/01/0197.03_Exhibit_3.pdf

    Tell us what you think, or admit that you are a coward and a hypocrite who refuses to look at the "best evidence" for any Rossi claim. Not just the best, this is the only evidence that Rossi himself ever published.

    Not true. FWIK, the Penon report was not published by Rossi on JoNP, but appeared as an Exhibit of the Rossi vs. Darden case.

    The only report published by Rossi, which also contains the best evidences of how the tests and results of the Ecat were faked, was the calorimetric report issued on JoNP on January 24, 2011, on behalf of the "THE BOARD OF ADVISERS OF THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS" (1-2-3).

    I find it strange that you ask AA to look at a late report in which he hadn't any role, and you refuse to look at the first report which triggered all the Ecat farce and in whose preparation you played a pivotal role (4).

    (1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…360&cpage=5#comment-20117



    (4) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

    @ lobseRvable, hi!

    and those persons are ?

    Here is some of them:



    MR. CHAIKEN: Your Honor, […]


    To create fusion, to create fusion energy, you have to

    break the bonds in atoms, and that takes a tremendous amount of

    force. That's why the big government fusion projects have to

    use massive lasers or extreme heat, millions of degrees

    Centigrade to break the bonds. Breaking those bonds at much

    lower temperatures is inconsistent with the laws of physics as

    they're now known.

    However, the E-Cat, that's the device that Dr. Rossi

    has created, has been tested extensively by an independent

    committee of Swedish and Italian scientists. Published reports

    of such tests place its coefficient of performance -- that's a

    term you are going to hear throughout this case. Coefficient

    of performance, COP, and I will explain what that means.

    The COP, the published reports state that COP had been

    between 2.6 and 5.6.

    Now, a COP is a very simple mathematical equation.

    Simply power out divided by power in. So if the power in was

    one unit of energy and the power out was 5 units of energy, you

    would have the COP of five. Five times as much energy produced

    than went in.

    In December 2012 and March 2013, representatives of

    the Bologna University, Uppsala University, and the Royal

    Institute of Technology in Sweden conducted independent tests

    of high temperature E-Cats. The published report of the tests

    concluded that E-Cat has an energy density beyond any known

    battery, fuel or chemical. The E-Cats created excess energy

    three to five times as much. In a published report of the

    March 2014 test, indicates the E-Cat produced a COP over 3X

    over the 32-day period.


    AA is right in saying that discussing about the reasons why so many scientists did publicly support the capability of the Ecat to produce excess heat is better than babbling against Rossi and his web supporters.

    To clarify the wording above: I did acknowledge that the trend in the graph could indeed be interpreted as the water flow getting interrupted and that there's not enough information in the report allowing to tell that it [the flow] didn't [get interrupted].

    No need to shut the door angrily.

    Sorry, your wording was cryptic. I thought that "it didn't" meant "the report had not enough information for concluding that the flow stopped". Consequently, I was really discouraged, not angry at all.

    However, if you acknowledge that in the December test the water was stopped, it also means that at least one of the testers was aware that the Ecat was unable to operate as claimed. Now, if you wish, we could go on with the subsequent tests.

    I don't know whether there's "no possibility at all", but I'm afraid that there's not enough information in the report to confidently state that it certainly didn't.

    I wonder which kind of information would you have expected from a document where it is reported that "… the original data has been lost …".

    Sorry, I have no more argument for you. If the temperature graph of the Decembre 16 test is not convincing enough for you, I'm afraid that I will not be able to find more convincing arguments for showing you the flaws present in the January 14, and February 10 tests.

    Thank you for the all the nice graphs you have prepared following my indications.

    Ha! I did not recall any of that. Merciful amnesia perhaps.

    Yes, most likely. It's probably a selective amnesia, triggered by topics connected to the Bologna demo (1). But don't worry, fortunately the Vortex mail-archive helps us to refresh our memory.

    Btw, your reportage from ICCF16 is really very interesting. It shows that the results of the Bologna demo have been widely discussed between you, Melich and Storms, and considered "a definitive triumph" even in case "there was a only a tiny bit of steam".

    Your reportage also mentions Test 1: "Levi remarked somewhere that he felt confident in the machine after the Dec. 16 test [Test 1] and also when he saw it run with no input, in heat after death." As you can see in this same thread, for some days I'm discussing with *can* on the interpretation of the few experimental evidences that appear in the calorimetric report, including the photo with temperature curves taken from a PC screen, mentioned also in this phrase of yours: "The data acquisition system failed, as noted by Levi in his report, which is why they had to use a photo of the screen."

    Until now there are two possible interpretations (2). The one described in the official calorimetric report, which states that the Ecat produced almost 10 kW, initially with an input power of 1120 W, and, later, in self-sustaining mode during the last 15 minutes. My alternative explanation is that in the middle of the test the water flow has stopped. Well, since you have some experience in calorimetry and T-probes, can I ask you which one of these two interpretations appears more realistic to you, or if you have a third possible alternative to suggest?

    You also wrote at the end of your reportage: "People such as Melich and Levi, who know the most about this machine, seem to have the highest confidence that it is real." These are very important opinions, considering that they both have a PhD in physics, and have long been teachers at high-level universities. In addition, the first is one of the maximum expert in LENR, while the second was a member of the American Skeptic Society, and was trained in LENR by one of the fathers of the Ni-H technology. They were probably the most talented and informed members of the two groups A and B (3) that in January 2011 collaborated in the drafting of the UniBo calorimetric report. So, I would ask you, could they have been cheated for so long by someone like Rossi on the calorimetric performances of an alleged LENR device?


    (2) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

    (3) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

    ... Seems to me instead a better description would be that a couple people on Vortex, said those doing the testing (Group B...UOB scientists) were well respected, and qualified, so they trusted their findings.

    I thought the same thing at the time. When the Kullander/Essen jumped on board a few months later, it looked to many around the world, that this Rossi guy had something real. When did you start getting suspicious?

    Quite soon: http://www.energeticambiente.i…ala-11.html#post119167978

    The meaning of the above comment is the same as summarized in the first jpeg submitted to Brian Josephson a couple of month later:…hp?p=3219628&postcount=83

    For the most part your facts are correct.

    Fine, that's a good starting point.


    I take exception with your description of "Group A"; the American select few leaders who you claim strongly supported the tests results on the internet. You have referenced some posts in the past, from the obscure website Vortexmail. I do not think that qualifies as "supported on the internet". Almost no one reads that site.

    Not only Vortex. This site was the main gatherer of these supports, but in almost every site on internet where the Ecat tests were criticized there was an almost immediate intervention to defend the reliability of the results (1).

    Moreover you should not forget the JoNP, the main propagandistic tool of the Ecat initiative. Krivit suggested that its domain had been registered by an American, and provided the hints to identify him (2).

    Finally, an incredible number of supporting sites appeared on the web in a few months (3). Were all of them spontaneous initiatives?




    Well, that's Macy's perspective.

    Not only Macy's.…

    Comments by Duncan, Celani at ICCF16

    Jed Rothwell
    Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:59:42 -0800

    Rob Duncan was supposed to give one of the keynote addresses. Unfortunately, the blizzard in the U.S. shut down Chicago and he was unable to come. He e-mailed his comments and they were read by Melich. They were excellent. I hope to get a copy soon. Anyway, one thing he said was that the heat in many of these experiments is "definitely real." I think he also said it is definitely not chemical.

    Rossi's work was discussed by Celani and then Melich.

    Celani's description of the demo was more critical than his discussion with me, yesterday. He was quite upset that they did not let him make nuclear measurements, and I suspect that has colored his thinking. Rossi told him "we can't let you take a gamma spectrum because that will tell you exactly what reactions are going on, and we cannot reveal that information until we can get a patent." That remark alone is revealing, isn't it!

    I am not good at taking notes while listening to a lecture, but here are some of my notes from Celani's talk.

    This was not a typical cold fusion experiment, especially in the choice of materials, which was nickel plus two other unnamed mystery elements. It is "conceptually mistaken" to call this Ni cold fusion. Celani believes these other elements are the active ingredient and the Ni assists the reaction in the other elements. [I have the opposite impression; that the other elements are dopants which enhance the Ni reaction that Piantelli and Focardi discovered years ago.]

    There were many problems with the demonstration. The device was working a lot better on January 13. Unfortunately, on the day the people assembled, the A/C heater failed "catastrophically" and then some other parts were acting flaky. The audience become restless and upset. When they finally got it going, they were only able to reduce control power down to 400 W, and it was not as steady as it had been in recent tests at U. Bologna. On Jan. 13 and in some previous tests they could bring it down closer to 100 W, which is more impressive, with a "gain" of 30 - 40. [I quibble with use of the term "gain" in this context.] Celani referred to the 100 W level as the "self-sustaining level." In other words, almost heat after death.

    The hygrometric probe [RH meter] was not reliable and the readings were not continuous.

    There was the sound of steam but it was not loud. There was a lot of noise in the crowded room.

    The data acquisition system failed, as noted by Levi in his report, which is why they had to use a photo of the screen.

    Celani thinks there were "questionable assumptions" about the dry steam. He showed a graph of the estimates made here about 1% of the steam by volume reducing the enthalpy by a large margin. (Storms says that estimate is wrong -- the reduction is much too big.)

    Celani thinks the outlet temperature probe was too close to the body of the machine.

    Celani reiterated what he told me yesterday, that calorimetry by vaporization is problematic, and it would be better to increase the flow rate and use water below 90 deg C instead.

    Levi and Rossi are preparing a more detailed report about the recent set of tests. (The Levi report now uploaded is a rush job, as I think anyone can see.)

    After the talk, Celani mentioned that he held his hand over the exit pipe, which I think is rubber. Someone asked if he touched it. He said it was too hot. That would put it at about 50 deg C, as the person pointed out. That's very hot.

    Melich, Storms and I feel that some of this is nitpicking. Celani did not address the most important issue, which is that even if there was a only a tiny bit of steam, that means the water temperature was close to 100 deg C, so there must have been massive excess heat, on the order of 400 W in, 1,800 out. You can ignore the steam altogether. In most cold fusion experiments this much excess heat would be considered a definitive triumph.

    McKubre remarked that Rossi presence in the room during the test "weakens" the claim. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

    Melich followed with a shorter discussion, without viewgraphs. He was more circumspect because some of the work he based his discussion has not been published yet so he cannot reveal full details. He is confident that it will be published. He agreed that Rossi's results are still somewhat "fuzzy" but warned people not to judge a project by a one-off test on one day, especially a test with 50 impatient people in the room. That is bound to be somewhat chaotic.

    Levi remarked somewhere that he felt confident in the machine after the Dec. 16 test [Test 1] and also when he saw it run with no input, in heat after death. Levi's judgement does not rest entirely on the Jan. 14 demonstration [Test 2]. People such as Melich and Levi, who know the most about this machine, seem to have the highest confidence that it is real. That is a good sign.

    - Jed

    How do you explain this?

    There was no discussion of Rossi at the conference.

    No they are not documented facts. They are mainly imaginary facts dreamed up by you, or exaggerations. I was at ICCF16, and the proceedings are here:

    One paper mentions Rossi.

    You looked at the wrong document. Of course the proceedings of a conference started on February 6 couldn't have mentioned the results of a public demo carried out on January 14. The only paper mentioning Rossi was from Jacques Dufour, who was in touch with Rossi since at least April 2010 (1). There you can really find a lot a "imaginary" and "dreamed up" facts, as well as the usual "exaggerations".


    The word Ecat does not appear anywhere in the proceedings.

    It couldn't have been there, not even in the Dufour's paper, because the name Ecat was announced for the first time during the Bologna demo.


    There was no discussion of Rossi at the conference. As far as I know, most of the people there never heard of him.

    No doubt that most people there never heard of him until the beginning of the conference, but I guess that after the conference they knew even his shoe number!

    In the "Overview of ICCF16 in India" written by M.Macy (2), Rossi is cited 30 times versus the 16 times of an old glory of LENR as McKubre (including the caption under the first photo).

    There have been even a special section dedicated to Rossi (3).

    (1) http://www.journal-of-nuclear-…p=168&cpage=1#comment-209




    Conspiracies are very hard to accomplish. The more involved, the harder it gets. Especially so when you are talking about, in most cases, older, well established scientists with little to gain, and everything to lose.

    I agree, and I never talked in terms of conspiracy. Many others here like to use this word, improperly.


    There was no conspiracy, plan, coordination, or organized attempt by the UOB scientists, and the select few leaders in LENR to cover up, or ignore these test results, in order to attract funding for the field.

    You have mixed too many words in a single sentence: too many alternative definitions, for different groups of protagonists, combined with too many common objectives. This sentence is not appraisable. You should deal with a few aspects at a time, starting from simpler facts, and avoiding challenging words like "conspiracy". A simpler word as "initiative" could help to better understand the possible relationships among facts and people.

    Let's take for example the facts from December 2010 to February 2011, which we are discussing now.

    EVENTS - In this period there have been some important events:

    - on December 16, the private test on the Ecat, documented as Test 1 in the UniBo calorimetric report;

    - on January 14, the public demo in Bologna, where an Ecat was tested in the presence of many experts and journalists, and whose results were reported as Test 2 in the UniBo calorimetric report;

    - on January 23, the publication on internet of the UniBo calorimetric report, which reported 9810 kW of output with an input of 1120 W (or even zero) for Test 1, and an output of 12886 W with an average input of 1022 W for Test 2;

    - on February 6 to 11, at ICCF16 in Chennai (India) the attention was focused on the Ecat tests and the calorimetric results reported on the UniBo document..

    PROTAGONISTS – The main protagonists of the above events belongs to two main groups.

    - Group A (as Americans), formed by the "select few leaders in LENR" that contributed to the preparation, verification, and review of the UniBo calorimetric report, and who strongly supported on internet and inside the LENR community the results reported on it, and the competence and reliability of the people of Group B;

    - Group B (as Bologna), formed by "UNIBO scientists" who publicly assumed the responsibility for the Bologna demo, performed the measurements, got the experimental data, wrote the calorimetric report in collaboration with the Group A, allowed the issue of this report, and finally, in the subsequent months, always confirmed the reported calorimetric results in tens of occasions: interviews broadcasted by radio and TV stations or diffused by videos on internet, letters addressed to major newspapers, participation in public conferences, etc.

    The two groups collaborated between January 14 and 23 in order to reach a common but limited objective, the issue of a calorimetric report which stated that, in two tests carried out under the scientific supervision of physicists of a prestigious University, a table top device was capable of producing 10 kW of heat, with an input power of 1 kW.

    The above are documented facts. Aren't they?

    As for speculations, there is no reason to believe that Groups A and B have acted on the basis of the same broad and mutually shared plan. It's probable that the final objectives of the two groups were different, but that the issue of the aforementioned report was functional to the achievement of both their separate objectives.

    Isn't it simpler this way?

    If Levi intentionally shut off the water tap to produce falsified data, that would be scientific fraud.

    You are going too far. For the moment, we are discussing whether the water flux halted, or not.


    The Tin sensor was located in the vicinity of a metallic inlet tube located close to the portion of the device where the apparently anomalous reaction supposedly occurred (where the H2 inlet ends in). I would expect the sudden additional heat (reported ~10 kW vs 1.1 kW of the heaters) to be conducted to surrounding parts of the setup. See attached images.

    Oh yes, me too. In case of a sudden onset of genuine or fake additional 10 kW, the external surface of the Ecat should have become much hotter, so I would have expected a quite rapid and evident increase of Tamb, but it didn't happen, it remained nearly flat.

    On the contrary, I wouldn't have expected any increase of the temperature measured by a sensor inserted in a rubber hose many cm upstream from the closest metallic part of the Ecat, and immersed in the coolant flowing at few cm/s.

    In any case, the experimental evidence shows that Tin was asymptotically approaching Tamb. There is no possibility at all that this very specific trend can be induced by a heat flux emanating from the Ecat. It is the clear sign that the temperature of the water inside the tube is going to equalize the temperature of the surrounding ambient, and this can happen only if the water is still. This is the more simple, straightforward and congruent explanation.

    I haven't still understood if you exclude it, and, in case, why, and which specific alternative explanation you propose.

    McKubre said in his ICCF21 speech, the LENR community does *not* collaborate, coordinate, and communicate now, nor have they ever.

    In the occasion of the ICCF19 held in Padua, he wrote a series of 5 posts dedicated to the history of ICCFs ( ). Very interesting. Unfortunately they are no longer available on internet, I hope you have saved a copy. Text and photos gave the impression of a very well integrated and solid group of people. So, I don't know what he was referring to at ICCF21.


    Yet you are saying they did exactly that in 2010/2011 to turn a failed Ecat test, into a "success".

    Not exactly. Let me clarify a couple of things.

    First, about the "failed Ecat tests", I didn't say they had failed, I'd rather say they were faked. It's different. You have a failed test when you expect a positive outcome, which doesn't occur. This was not the case with the Ecat tests. Consider, for example, the Test 1 I'm discussing with *can*. If the water flow was stopped in the middle of the test, but it was reported that it flowed until the end, it means that it was well known in advance that the tested device was not able to work as claimed.

    Second, about the role of the LENR community in the Ecat affair. It's clear that only a few of them have actively participated in the organization and promotion this initiative, not the entire community. But after the Bologna demo, and for a long time later, it was very difficult to hear a voice of skepticism or disagreement coming from the LENR community that denounced the inconsistencies of those incredible proclaimed data.

    The support of some, and the silence of the others, helped the Ecat initiative in getting the financial success that now provides the major economic help to the LENR community.

    Your analysis throws away the possibility of chemical heating and input power mismeasurements which as a skeptical explanation are far more likely than the large-scale scientific fraud-collusion-conspiracy that you've been suggesting since 2011.

    First, I'm not skeptic. Skepticism entails doubts, and I have no doubts that the Ecat, as any other LENR device, never produced any excess heat. Sorry. Second, I don't understand the connection between the shutting off of a water tap in the middle of a test and a "large-scale scientific fraud-collusion-conspiracy".

    We are discussing now - since a week - a well precise and much more limited argument, that is how to interpret the few experimental evidences available for the December 16, 2011 test, known as "Test 1". This topic was introduced by you (1), and you expressed your lack of understanding about what went on (2).

    I provided you a possible explanation based on this evidence:

    Thanks to your nice othogonalization of the original photo, everybody can see that at about 17:46, after having reached an almost stationary level, Tout (yellow line) starts to sharply increase again. Contemporary, also Tin (blue line) starts to increase, approaching asymptotically Tamb (red line). This behavior can be easily explained with a stopping of the water flow.

    I already asked you if you have other hypotheses that could explain these trends. Now you are talking about "chemical heating and input power mismeasurements". Fine, I'm curious. Can you tell me, please, how they could have determined the Tin increase?


    Chemical reactions can also be ignited and self-sustain; I'm not sure why you find these terms funny.

    I didn't say they are funny, and I was not referring to alleged "chemical reactions". They were excluded, as any other already known energy source, by the conclusions of the calorimetric report:

    From :


    The amount of power and energy produced during both tests is indeed impressive and, together with the self sustaining state reached during [Test 1] could be an indication that the system is working as a new type of energy source of unknown origin. The short duration of the tests suggests that is important to make more long and complete experiments. An appropriate scientific program will be draw.

    (1) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

    (2) Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

    I think the main question is why setting up (also with Levi's collaboration) such a sloppy yet precise test when there would have been much more convincing ways to describe one that produced abundant excess heat from LENR?

    This is also an important question which deserves some attention, but the "why" comes after the "what". One thing at a time, please.

    A few months ago I told you that this story is like a very complicate puzzle with many missing pieces and even more fake ones (1). To figure out the whole picture we have to assemble small subsets of good pieces, throwing away the bad ones. Now we have assembled two alternative subset of pieces that could be placed on the December 16, 2010 zone. One subset contains pieces like "LENR device", "fully ignition of the reactor", "self-sustaining operation". The pieces of the other subset are "water boiler", "joule effect", "flow stopped to keep boiling the water as long as possible". Before trying to enlarge it by adding more pieces on its contour, we have to place within the frame one of these two subsets. Which one do we chose?

    (1) Rossi-Blog Comment Discussion


    You freely use terms like "false data", and "fake report", and we know without saying who , and what you are referring to. Not Rossi for those tuning in.

    "False data" and "fake report" are judgments on things (data and report), not persons. Furthermore they are scientific evaluations, not legal. You know how many times harsh legal judgments on persons (well, just on one) appeared on this forum, I never used them.


    As I said before, I do not believe there was any intent to alter data. so I am not willing to go there with you.

    OK, I understand, that's a prudent behavior in your role of moderator. It is also the best one to be adopted for anyone else that has not enough background for scientifically evaluating the many evidences available for these first tests.


    However, you appear to be making a solid case the data was wrong...therefore the tests conclusions were also wrong, along with some odd blips, or two.

    I would say more. The tests were manipulated, the main data were invented, so the test conclusions were faked.


    So unless some of those here with the background refute what you are so well demonstrating (with Cans help), I will assume the tests were simply failures as you say they were.

    OK, thank you for your trust on my conclusions, but I need to better specify my thought. I didn't say they were failures, I said they were successes. You know, it depends on the purposes, and there is no doubt that the Bologna demo was a big success for the aims of many people of the LENR community which supported the Ecat initiative.

    EDIT: so here's the graph with the updated labels.


    OK, thanks again.

    This final version of the graphs describes quite well my present interpretation of what happened in the evening of December 16, 2010 in Bologna. It's an alternative explanation with respect to that one described in the calorimetric report issued as an official UniBo document on January 23, 2011, and whose steps are summarized in this image:

    And now the old and big question. Is one of these two alternative interpretations quite convincing for you, or you have a third explanation of what happened in that occasion?

    For what it's worth, roughly 11 minutes passed between updates in the other two channels.

    They are not real updates, that is modifications of the values of the recorded data. There was not been any recording between 16:40 and 17:24, and hence no update. Those two jumps are only the effect of the discretization of the representation of two lines on the pixel matrix of the screen. So the instant in which one represented line jumps from a pixel line to another depends on its inclination. The same happens for the Tout curve, where the line was more inclined, so that there are many jumps, at a constant pace.

    It seems to me instead that there were missing Tout readings and the software (Testo Comsoft Basic 4) interpolated the missing measurements linearly from the last valid sample. Quick demonstration of the same behavior with LibreOffice Calc:

    Why would Tout have increased linearly like that, anyway?

    For the same reason you said before. Probably we are saying the same thing with different words.

    Imagine that when the system was started, the acquisition timestep was already set at 1 hour or more. The system took immediately the first record, where all the temperature were at the ambient value. Then it didn't take records anymore, until it was realized that it was not indicating any increase of temperature, notwithstanding the heaters were powered on. At that point the timestep was set at 10 s, and the system took its second record, and began to take all the others at a 10 s pace. From the first record to the second one the system drew three lines, of which the Tout one is the only evident.

    It seems to me that it is a much more straightforward explanation than "the sensor might have been disconnected for some reason after the acquisition device was first turned on."

    Anyway, this is not a big problem. If you prefer, the mark at 17:24:30 could just indicate the "Beginning of the real data" or something similar.

    Shane, thank you for your opinion, but, for sake of frankness, let me reassert mine.

    Since Doral, I do not believe any publicly released result from a Rossi demo. That includes the two tests at UOB being discussed.

    Nobody believed any result from an Ecat test thanks to Rossi. The tests being discussed were not "at" UniBo (they were carried out at a Rossi's warehouse), they were "of" UniBo, i.e. carried out under their scientific responsibility. They have been documented by UniBo, their results were guaranteed by the competence of UniBo personnel, and whoever believed those results trusted UniBo, not Rossi.


    Neither do I think Levi, and those assisting him, ever expected their results to be taken as the final word either.

    But this is not a justification for having diffused false data. The fact that a test is only preliminary does not authorize to use invented data in reporting its results, especially if this report is prepared with the scope of releasing it as an official document of a University. It was well known that that report would have been spread throughout the world in order to propagandize the existence of a technology that, if real, would have resolved the most severe problems of the humankind. All the people involved at whichever title on this activity should have had managed those information with extreme care and scruple.


    They proposed further testing, …

    Oh, yes, this is well known. Those further testing should have been financed with 500,000 Euro promised by Rossi. Is this a good reason for a University to issue a faked report?


    … which they accomplished first at Ferrara with the Hotcat, and again at Lugano.

    No, the Ferrara and Lugano tests were not the tests that, at beginning of 2011, were foreseen to be carried out with the official involvement of UniBo. They were private tests, carried out after the official withdrawal of UniBo from the contract with Rossi in January 2012 (too late, unfortunately). They were for private purposes, with the participation of some academicians from a couple of European Universities, who used their affiliation to give more credibility to the published results.


    Lugano was a clear bust, and since it was a follow-up to Ferrara, I must conclude Ferrara was a bust also.

    I'm sorry, but an inference reasoning doesn't work this way, it should start from the beginning, from the Bologna demo. This first public appearance was not a bust, that is a failure of a fair attempt, it was instead a success, an incredible successful deception. The Bologna demo and the previous December test were clearly deceptive, so it should have been concluded, in lack of any explanation about the reasons of these deceptions, that any other successive test (including Ferrara and Lugano) should have been considered deceptive as well.


    Even though no one has determined yet what particular trick Rossi pulled there.

    Once again, why do you attribute the sole responsibility of the tricks to Rossi? How do you know it?


    I do not think there was any intentional attempt during any of the tests, by those from the UOB to manipulate the data.

    I don't know. A scientific test does not only include the few hours during which the specimen is operated and the data collected. It also comprises the earlier preparatory phase, and the subsequent reporting activity. Do you think that the experimental data have been reported correctly, and with the correct interpretation?

    As for the acquisition time step set to 10s, couldn't it be that instead they/Rossi simply forgot to connect the NTC Tout sensor, given that Tin and Tamb changed value at least once at different times before that, while Tout never changed since the data logger was presumably turned on?

    No, sorry. The Tout sensor was connected since the activation of the data acquisition system, otherwise there wouldn't be any initial straight line, because the plotting program wouldn't have had any starting point to draw it.

    As for your explanation, if you are talking of the apparent values on the screen, all 3 temperatures changed. Tout changed its apparent value (crossing the pixel lines) many times at a regular pace, which denotes its linear trend. The other two, Tamb and Tin, changed only one time, as you noticed, so we have only 2 horizontal segments for each curve. This behavior is also compatible with a straight line, even if it is not sufficient to confirm it.

    I take the opportunity to suggest you some further improvements of the last two graphs. It could be interesting to add also the mark lines in conformity to the interpretation given in the UniBo report. You can take advantage from this image:

    In order to avoid any confusion with my interpretation, the UniBo descriptions could be superimposed to the upper graph, possibly with a different color of the text.

    As for the present scripts in the lower graph, let me suggest some more modifications:

    - instead of "water flux calibration" it would be more appropriate saying "water flux setting";

    - for what has been said above, "Tout NTC sensor connected" should be modified in "Acquisition timestep set at 10 s";

    - being my own interpretation, I would remove the question mark from "Water flows stops?";

    - just for completeness, I would also mark the reduction of the power and its complete switching off .