Posts by Rends

Industrial Heat, LLC - Rule 506 - Notice of Exempt Offering of Securities

Quote

Regardless of whether securities in the offering have been or may be sold to persons who do not qualify as accredited investors, enter the total number of investors who already have invested in the offering: [14]

Total Offering Amount - $20,000,000 USD
Amount Sold $ - 11,555,050 USD
Total Remaining to be Sold $ - 8,444,950 USD

http://edgar.secdatabase.com/5…613000001/filing-main.htm
Phone Number 919-743-5727
111 East Hargett Street
Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

Quote

Rule 506 of Regulation D is considered a "safe harbor" for the private offering exemption of Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Companies relying on the Rule 506 exemption can raise an unlimited amount of money.

http://www.sec.gov/answers/rule506.htm
http://www.sec.gov/about/laws/sa33.pdf

by the way it is same phone number and address used by
JT Vaughn
919-743-5727
www.cherokeefund.com
[email protected]
www.cherokeechallenge.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/johntvaughn

111 East Hargett Street
Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

http://cherokeechallenge.com/w…ePressRelease_9.25.12.pdf

more related links:

http://www.bizjournals.com/tri…eats-116m-haul-takes.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/tri…kee-trying-to-cut-an.html
http://www.icebank.cn/news/detail_2.php?id=121
http://www.lenr.com.cn/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=6&id=151

Here some Information - ECAT Patent Application 2014:

Justin R. Nifong – Patent Attorney
http://www.nkpatentlaw.com/professionals/justin-r-nifong/

HOANG, TU BA - Patent Application Examinier
http://patents.justia.com/examiner/tu-ba-hoang

Transaction History

11-07-2014 Email Notification
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/p…ction_faqs.jsp#heading-11

11-06-2014 PG-Pub Issue Notification (Pre-grant publication (PG Pub)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…_publication_.28PG_Pub.29
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offic…olia/aipa/PGPubConOps.pdf
http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/pgpub_quickstart.pdf

06-16-2014 Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
"This means the application has been reviewed by the legal instruments examiner and all the papers have been entered into the Image File Wrapper for the examination by an examiner in the General Art Unit . The next thing that happens is the examination by the examiner who will issue an Office Action to either issue or deny or return the patent application for further information."

Andrea Rossi talks about E Cat validation and of competition

Andrea Rossi talks about E cat manufacturing and future electric production

Andrea Rossi about E Cat prices and warranties

... and some more videos:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC25bCzP7PrNNfGiJdk9vMFw

I think it is some kind of an exothermic stripping reaction (like for example the Oppenheimer-Phillips process), that would explain the transmutations taking place and solve our problem with the coulomb barrier:

http://books.google.de/books?id=vzorAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=Oppenheimer-Phillips+coulomb+barrier&source=bl&ots=OmTeKltAGI&sig=J8q1tOZQA4zHRvNI3jcv4GW3srg&hl=de&sa=X&ei=TZpTVJbMAcPvObaOgIAC&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Oppenheimer-Phillips

http://books.google.de/books?id=KCo2gG5fRaQC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Oppenheimer-Phillips+standard+modell&source=bl&ots=lPnz9vHb5E&sig=hJCbuwv39YIfrce6E1RdKaU-7JY&hl=de&sa=X&ei=CZpTVIzAGILyOIXegLgN&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Oppenheimer-Phillips

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…%E2%80%93Phillips_process

And what is about those "40-50Amps"?

In the chapter "4.3 Joule heating in the cables" (Page 13) they especially tested the current fed to the system by the power mains because "the current flow may actually be higher than 40 A".

Quote

The cables supplying power to the reactor are made of copper and are several meters long. In the present run of the E-Cat the current flow may actually be higher than 40 A. For this reason, it is expedient to evaluate what portion of the current, fed to the system by the power mains, is dissipated by the cables as Joule heat.

We have (C1-12.00 mm²)3·3m + (C2-12.45 mm²)6·2m = 21m of cupper wire, we dont know were PCE 830 B is placed in Curcuit C1, but could it be that C1 has a current of 40-50A and C2 of 20-25A, when the control system is switch on or regulated via the potentiometer?

Then this calcualtion on Page 14 would be different for the running E-Cat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control System OFF - Dummy - Current from power mains C1 19.7A - C2 9.85A
Heat dissipated by the first circuit is:
W C1 = 3(R 1I1²) = 3(4.375·10 – 3 ·(19.7)²) = 5.1 [W]
Heat dissipated by the second circuit is:
W C2 = 6(R 2I2²) = 6(2.811·10 – 3 ·(9.85)²) = 1.6 [W]
Total Joule heating = 6.7W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variant 1 - 40A
Control System ON - E-Cat - Current from Control System C1 40.0A - C2 20.0A
Heat dissipated by the first circuit is:
W C1 = 3(R 1I1²) = 3(4.375·10 – 3 ·(40.0)²) = 21 [W]
Heat dissipated by the second circuit is:
W C2 = 6(R 2I2²) = 6(2.811·10 – 3 ·(20.0)²) = 6,75 [W]
Total Joule heating = 27,75W

Variant 2 - 50A
Control System ON - E-Cat - Current from Control System C1 50.0A - C2 25.0A
Heat dissipated by the first circuit is:
W C1 = 3(R 1I1²) = 3(4.375·10 – 3 ·(50.0)²) = 32,8 [W]
Heat dissipated by the second circuit is:
W C2 = 6(R 2I2²) = 6(2.811·10 – 3 ·(25.0)²) = 10,5 [W]
Total Joule heating = 43,3W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from goax

A possible partial explanation could be in the E-Cat control system that itself consumes 360W, at nominal power (see p3), and this value is confirmed by the measurements of both PCE 830 (p5):

@ goax Good point, and in addition:

Quote

The E-Cat's control apparatus consists of a three-phase TRIAC power regulator, driven by a programmablemicrocontroller; its maximum nominal power consumption is 360 W. The regulator is driven by a potentiometer used to set the operating point (i.e. the current through the resistor coils, normally 40-50Amps), and by the temperature read by the reactor's thermocouple. (page 3)

It would be expected to have different value on PCE 830 A and PCE 830 B, whether the system controller is operating or not. But as Thomas pointed out, why is this 'error' (or may be better to call it circumstance) not reported, or discussed?

Let see what the testers will tell us.

All we can do is to ask the testers. I have placed the question in the - Ask questions to the Working Group - ECAT long-term test - Thread.

Ask questions to the Working Group - ECAT long-term test

That is a question that must be necessarily answered, because a further discussion makes no sense, if this is not 100% cleared up here.

...and thanks again for your patience!

How is it technical possible that in this 100% identical test environment for the dummy and the E-Cat an factor 1.68 increase of Consumption(W) from 486.00W for the Dummy to 815.86W for the E-Cat, leads to an factor 5.64 increase of Joule Heating(W) from 6.70(W) of the Dummy to 37.77(W) of the E-Cat?

Unfortunately are the comparable data of the dummy test scattered on different page of the report (Table 3 Page 17, (24) Page 19, first paragraph Page 20, (26)(27) Page 21).

But I have found them and added the data of the dummy test in table 7, to make the problem a bit more visible. And for me it is very astounding! On the one hand side they make a huge calculation for (more ore less unimportant) 0.4 W of emitted heat and on the other side they should not be able to notice the (obvious) 'lost' of approximately 30 W? I can hardly believe this!

I will again look at the all data of the report in more detail, perhaps we overlook something. But anyway, this is definitely a very good question to the testers!

(image changed - reason - joule heating (W) - corrected from rounded 7,00W to the correct 6,7W - for old image click here)

ok I got it, thanks a lot...

W tot.dummy = (C1)5.1W + (C2)1.6W = 6.7W is the calculated value for:

Quote

three copper cables exit the power regulator, one for each phase, three meters in length each, with a cross-profile of 12.00 mm². In order to allow the delta configuration connection of the resistors, each of these cables is connected to another two cables, 2 m in length each, having a cross-section of 12.45 mm² (Report Bottum of Page 13)

... so we have (C1-12.00 mm²)3·3m + (C2-12.45 mm²)6·2m = 21m of cupper wire in total and only 6·50cm = 3m of the (C2)wire are effected by this calculation 6·(7.028 · 10 – 4 · (9.85)²) = 0.4 W which represents the total amount of emitted Joule heating by the 3m copper cables that are running through the rods.

... but is the calculated value - W tot.dummy = (C1)5.1W + (C2)1.6W = 6.7W - emmited Joule heating of the copper wire really the same value as in the row - Joule heating (W) - in table 7 ?

... and what is about table 4.

In your first post of this thread you have written:

Quote

The measurements I'm going to look at are those for Joule heating in the wires feeding the reactor, and those for total power delivered to the reactor from the control unit. Both sets of measurements are made by the same instrument - a 3 phase power analyser. The Joule heating is calculated from the feed wire (mostly copper) resistivity and the measured RMS current in the wires. The total input power is derived from the power meter.[..]

The report contains the following measurements for the three cases of dummy test, 1250C test, and 1400C test.
[your table follows]

... but what you call 'measurements' in the headline of your table are not measured values of joule heat caused by the electrical resistance of the copper wire (see Page 19):

Quote

In the previous paragraph, we have seen that the copper cables running through the rods emit a total of 0.4 W through Joule heating. This value should be subtracted from (24) because, contrary to the power calculated with that equation, it does not derive from heat generated by the reactor and transmitted to the rods by conduction, but from electric power supplied by the mains. However, as it is a very small value, it may be considered part of the error associated to (24). https://de.scribd.com/doc/2422…topic-changes-in-the-fuel

... so we have calculated values in your table, and for these values the report additional pointed out (see page 14):

Quote

It is obvious that the heat emitted by the rods (which shall be calculated in detail in the next paragraph) is only in the least part generated by the cables running through them: on the contrary, that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods.

Therefore, I doubt that these values are suitable for a cross-check, because for this are in my view exact measured values necessary.

And please don't misunderstand me, I am also very interested to disclose all discrepancies of the report, but I don't think that the evidence of this cross-check is so high (because it is not based on measured values and we don't have enough details concerning the measurement method), that all the conclusions of the report concerning the COP can be refuted.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Forgive me but you are using Joule heating in a different way from me. Joule heating is heat generated internally (in the wires) from electrical current. Not heat conducted from elsewhere.

Forgive me, but that's exactly what you(!) are doing, the 'W tot.dummy= 5.1 + 1.6 = 6.7W' of emitted heat in your table, that you are using for your cross check is a combination of two values (Page 14 of the report):

1. Joule heating heat generated internally (in the copper wires) from electrical current = 0,4W
2. Heat conducted from elsewhere.(here it is 'heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods')= 6,298W

Quote

It is obvious that the heat emitted by the rods (which shall be calculated in detail in the next paragraph) is only in the least part generated by the cables running through them: on the contrary, that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods. Page 14

So all three values in your table row - Joule heating power in leads/W (6.7W, 36.8W, 41.7W) - are not the heat generated exclusively by the current of the copper wires, on the contrary, that amount of heat by the electrical resistance of the copper wire is only a least part because 'that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor'.

Someone can calculate how the emitted heat of the copper wire will increase when you instead of 486W sent 796.7W, or 912.4W through the wire, but copper is a such a good conductor (and this is exactly the reason why its used in electrical engineering), that the emitted heat of the copper wires (0,4W at 486W supplied) will only increase marginally and certainly not from 6.7W to 36.8W or 41.7W.

Thanks for your explanation, but have you consider this statement of the report in your calculation?

Quote

For each of the six 50 cm lengths of copper cable, the relevant resistance is 7.028·10 – 4Ohm From (10) we see that the heat dissipated inside the rods by the copper cables is = 6· (7.028 · 10 – 4 · (9.85)²) = 0.4 W, that is to say, about 6% of the heat emitted by all the copper cables together. It is obvious that the heat emitted by the rods (which shall be calculated in detail in the next paragraph) is only in the least part generated by the cables running through them: on the contrary, that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods.

That means the heat emitted by all the copper cables together is only about 6% of the value you have in the row - Joule heating power in leads/W :

Quote

Now, practically the wire joule heating Qjw is not significant, it is much smaller than the other components. But it provides a cross-check of Qi.

then your check would no longer be valid, because we have a new variable:

joule heating from copper wires (Qjw) (6% of 6.7W = 0.4W)
joule heating of rods by the heater (Qrh) (94% of 6.7W = 6,298W)

and if we calculate with these variables and use the 0,4W of the copper wires, then the data table changes from your version

to this one:

.

Dear Thomas,

the following is written in the Report concerning the dummy, where you get your table value 6.7 for Joule heating power in leads/W. (Page 14)

Quote

Measurements performed during the dummy run with the PCE and ammeter clamps allowed us to measure an average current, for each of the three C1 cables, of I1 = 19.7A, and, for each C2 cable, a current of I1 / 2 = I2 = 9.85 A.

The evaluation of heat dissipated by the first circuit is:
W C1 = 3(R 1I1²) = 3(4.375·10 – 3 ·(19.7)²) = 5.1 [W]

For the second circuit we have:
W C2 = 6(R 2I2²) = 6(2.811·10 – 3 ·(9.85)²) = 1.6 [W]

By adding the results, we have the total thermal power dissipated by the entire wiring of the dummy.
W tot.dummy = 5.1 + 1.6 = 6.7 ~ 7[W]

Power supply (W) 486 ± 24 | Joule heating (W) 7 | Actual input (W) 486 – 7 = 479 ± 24 | Output (W) 446 ± 10

Display More

The other values for the active E-Cat in your table are the mean values of the measurement page 22 Table 7.

Quote

For each of the 16 thermography files recorded (ca. two days of test) we have, subsequently: average power consumption of the E-Cat, power emitted by the E-Cat by radiation, power emitted by convection, sum total of the last two values, sum total of watts emitted by both sets of rods by radiation and convection, power dissipated by Joule heating, COP, and net production.

Furthermore, in the report the following statement is made on Page 14 of the report:

Quote

For each of the six 50 cm lengths of copper cable, the relevant resistance is 7.028·10 – 4Ohm From (10) we see that the heat dissipated inside the rods by the copper cables is = 6· (7.028 · 10 – 4 · (9.85)²) = 0.4 W, that is to say, about 6% of the heat emitted by all the copper cables together. It is obvious that the heat emitted by the rods (which shall be calculated in detail in the next paragraph) is only in the least part generated by the cables running through them: on the contrary, that heat originates almost exclusively from the reactor, which, by conduction through the short lengths of Inconel cables coming from the caps, transmits it to the rods.

We unfortunately don't have, as Michael McKubre suggested, any data from calibration steps of the dummy, but the data used by you is not about heat resulting from current resistance, hence my question of understanding is: is it possible to handle the data you have in your table alone by calculations with the radiation of heat towards the rods coming from the heating element inside the reactor, or are other factors more important, such as the isolation of the reactor core in the region of the heater?

Since I in this area thoroughly understand your criticism of the report, I would be glad if you could go there a little more in details. Thanks a lot.

Dear Dr. George Lawrence Hody MD, I wanted actually engage in a substantive discussion with you, but what I've found in a quick search about you as a person, does not permit it.

I have no problem if someone choose to hide his identity and is therefor using pseudonyms like you, Al Potenza, Mary Yugo, maryyugo, etc,. But what I do not respect, is when someone steals the identity of another person, like you did it with this Facebook account https://www.facebook.com/maryyugo . Not only that you missused the name of that Spanish women, you additionaly added some of her family members as friends and joint her spanisch school group to cover your trace. (By the way, that violates the terms and conditions of Facebook, which you accepted, so you commit a breach of law)

But how sick is this behavior for an educated and more than 70 years old man like you?

And you really think, that you are the right person to discredit the personal integrity and reputation of those scientist?

What I dont understand is, why a medical doctor and 'a vice president of a company which has made and sold advanced and sophisticated thermal instrumentation of many types for decades', a person that claims to be very credible, act in this case like an incompetent 12 year old child with fantasies of omnipotence playing secret agent?

What you are doing has nothing to do with credibility!

Do you have a mental desease, or other problems with your identity or gender, or is your life as a pensioner so boring and the sail boat is also no fun anymore, that you spend your whole time in role playing the secret defender of the faith and truth, a saint on a crusade against all evil in the world named Sniffex, Ecat, Rossi and so on?

It is at least very questionable, why a man like you behave so silly and dishonest? With me you have lost all credibility, I'll just ignore you in the future.

Un très bon article de critique:

Pierre Langlois - E-Cat et LENR : c’est très sérieux! Le scepticisme excessif nuit à la science.

http://www.vehicule-propre.eu/…cessif-nuit-a-la-science/

Giuseppe Levi Bologna University, Bologna, Italy
http://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.aspx?UPN=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it&View=CV

Curriculum Vitae
1990: Graduates with full marks (110/110) at the University of Perugia. Dissertation title: Muon spectrometer project and development of a new detector for the study of fundamental interactions up to the TeV scale.
1991: Awarded one of 25 “National Institute for Nuclear Physics” (INFN) scholarships for recent graduates; second highest score on a national basis.
Contributes for about six months to the “Borexino” project for the development of a solar neutrino detector at the Gran Sasso National Laboratories.
1992-95: Ph.D. student at the University of Bologna. Visiting Student at the Hamburg DESY Laboratories in view of his dissertation; contributes to the ZEUS experiment.
1995: Awarded Ph.D. Dissertation title: “Installing the ‘Wall' detector and identification of forward J/psy's at ZEUS”.
1996: Affiliated to the Bologna chapter of the INFN where he joins the AMS experiment group for an orbital space spectrometer, working both in R & D and as a systems analyst. Teaches lab classes (Laboratorio 2) to 4th-year students and is part of the examination board.
1997-98: Awarded 2-year post-doctoral fellowship by the U. of Bologna.
1999: As of Oct. 1st, 1999, Assistant Prof. in Nuclear and Subnuclear Physics (tenure track position awarded by public contest) at the U. of Bologna.
2000-06 Assistant Prof. ( Ricercatore ) at the U. of Bologna; takes part in the AMS2 experiment, and teaches classes as part of the “Experimentation in Physics 1” and “Laboratory 4” courses.
2001: Holds exercise classes in “Physics II” at the Cesena campus, Degree Course in Information Sciences.
2002-07: permanent tenure as Assistant Professor conferred.
Courses & classes taught:
- Full course: Complex Systems Physics (Cesena Campus course in Information Science) for Academic Years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005.
- Lab course (Esercitazioni di Laboratorio III), Degree Course in Physics (Bologna Campus).
- Classes in Nuclear and Sub-Nuclear Physics, Advanced School for Health Physics, 1st year.
Co-referee to various dissertations, and referee for one dissertation in the Degree Course in Information Sciences.
2007 to present: Continues his research within the AMS while also pursuing other lines of fundamental and applied research in Physics.
In charge of the AMS02 Montecarlo production for Bologna.
In charge of the DASIPM Bologna group for the development of silicon photo-multipliers (position held up to 2009 under the DASIPM2 program).
In 2010 he initiates his collaboration with Prof. Casali's group, porting the tomographic reconstruction algorithm to parallel processing on a Microsoft HPC cluster. The case was selected by Microsoft and published on the MS site. Results were published.
Using a cluster installed by himself in Bologna, he works at a genetic classification project with Prof. Daniel Remondini.
In the course of Academic Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 he has been teaching Parallel Programming and Distributed Systems for the Degree Course in Information Sciences and Technology in Cesena.
In 2011 he has also been working in the field of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Dep. of Physics University of Bologna, Italy
Dr. Evelyn Foschi - Fields of Research - Physical Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Bo Höistad, Professor at Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nuclear Physics
Roland Pettersson, Senior lecturer at Department of Chemistry - BMC, Analytical Chemistry
Lars Tegnér, Professor at Department of Engineering Sciences, Division of Electricity

Hanno Essén Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Hanno Essén received his Ph.D; at Stockholm University in 1979. The thesis was titled Topics in Molecular Mechanics and touched the approximate separations of nuclear and electron motion and the vibrational and rotational motion of molecules. He continued his research as a postdoc at Oxford University, England, for one year, and then two years at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. After some years as a temporary lecturer at the Physics Department at Stockholm University and at the Quantum Chemistry, Uppsala University, Essen got permanent employment as a lecturer at the Mechanics dept at the Royal Institute of Technology in 1988. Since 1990 he has been Director of undergraduate studies (Studierektor) at the Department of Mechanics, Royal Institute of Technology. He is member of the Editorial Board of European Journal of Physics since September 2006 and was Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society for three years (from 19 April 2008 to 2 April 2011).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanno_Ess%C3%A9n

Those scientist and specialist on their field are in charge for this report http://amsacta.unibo.it/4084/

... And 'Mary Yugo' who are you, what is your scientific background, that enables you to judge these persons?

Quote from barty

The Comment is now back online!

... and changed in some parts... so we now know thats the cat is a tomcat

Interesting what is cited in https://register.epo.org/application?lng=en&number=EP12816683 . There is obviously a lot of movement in this area and it is very likely, that we will (beside the scientific 'battle') see a heavy patent war, where the outcome is totally unclear.

[X] WO2010058288 METHOD FOR PRODUCING ENERGY AND APPARATUS THEREFOR - PIANTELLI FRANCESCO [IT]
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=WO&NR=2010058288A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20100527&DB=&locale=en_EP

[A] WO9520816 ENERGY GENERATION AND GENERATOR BY MEANS OF ANHARMONIC STIMULATED FUSION - FOCARDI SERGIO [IT]; HABEL ROBERTO [IT]; PIANTELLI FRANCESCO [IT]
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=WO&NR=9520816A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=19950803&DB=&locale=en_EP

[A] WO2009125444 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS - PASCUCCI MADDALENA [IT]; ROSSI ANDREA [IT]
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=WO&NR=2009125444A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20091015&DB=&locale=en_EP

The main problem with the whole discussion around this report is the mix-up of legitimate criticism of the design of this experiment and the subsequent development of the scientific reports of Levi et.al, with the personal story of Andrea Rossi and the always assumed conspiratorial intent to defraud.

A factual substantive, rudimentary scientific discussion is simply not possible on this basis. The insinuation of conspiratorial intent to defraud is a killer argument and it is irrelevant and makes no difference whether this assumption due to Rossi's history as inventors and entrepreneurs are justified or not. Who's ever ridden on the never-becoming-finished 500km long highway construction site from Naples to Reggio Calabria and has lived a few months on Sicily, can understand Rossi's version of his story.

But what a role plays Rossi's history in this case?
We have measurements that are unique!

Every scientist who has doubts of this measurements is invoked to propose a test-design for further scientific reviews of the measurements. And as I wrote here Sifferkoll: Why are Pomp, Eriksson, Ekström and Håkansson Making Fools out of Themselves in Ny Teknik? , of course it is all about to protect the intellectual property of the invention, we need to understand Rossi and his investors and it is more than logical, that they did not disclose all the design features of the reactor, as long as it is not absolutely necessary for the collection of measurement, in other words, it would be very stupid if they did not protect the core of the invention.

The only important question now is if WIPO and the EPO accept this experimental evidence as sufficient to grant the patent, or not. If the answer is yes, it would allow Rossi and his investors(behind those are already considerable financial resources, so why further fraud?), the immediate possibility to enter the production, then anyone can buy a E_Cat and scientifically test it up to the end. And the insinuation that all investors and commercial supporters, such as Elforsk, are involved in the suspected fraud, or are all unprofessional or/and to stupid, is simply not credible.

I am only wondering how weak the ability for a differential culture of debate is among many scientists and how little those are able to see the big picture, but, to the detriment of all, instead immediately bite, in a totally irrational manner, in each calf, that is stalled them.

I would hope that there would be a clear separation, which enables us to discuss the scientific facts on the one side and the sociological factors and if necessary, also the persons and companies involved on one other side.

Think it out on a large scale, what if the LENR effect is actually working with a COP 3-4 or more? (I have already found this one text, unfortunately only in German, so an automatic translation):

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lenr-forum.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%2FThread%2F692-ECAT-Report-2014-und-die-m%25C3%25B6glichen-Auswirkungen-auf-die-Welt-Teil-1%2F&edit-text=

When it was all a big scam, some will wake up with a large hangover, a few rich people have lost a bit of money, but the earth continues to rotate either way.

But we are very likely at the beginning of a new era of mankind, that in my opinion would deserve a bit more civilized behavior and dignity.