E-Cat World / LENR / Cold Fusion

Subscribe to E-Cat World / LENR / Cold Fusion feed E-Cat World / LENR / Cold Fusion
Updated: 1 hour 27 min ago

Rossi: Testing Multiple QuarkX Reactors for Presentation

Thu, 27/07/2017 - 15:46

The recently published Rossi-Gullstroem paper described a mew experiment with only one E-Cat QX reactor hooked up to the control box. Andrea Rossi is now reporting that testing is underway in which multiple QX units are being combined to increase the power output inside the heat exchanger. This would be an important test to make, because Rossi has always said that the overall plan with his QX reactors is to be able to make heating units as small or as large as needed by simply combining his QXs together.

Up to this point, it doesn’t sound like they have tested QX’s in clusters. Here are a few recent comments from the JONP by Rossi on the subject.

Paul
July 26, 2017 at 12:21 PM
Dr. Rossi,

I have been following your progress since your public demonstration will Dr. Sergio Focardi. Your progress has been amazing to watch.

You stated earlier: “Today we are making substantial improvements to raise the power of the apparatus that will be presented in the demonstration.”

1. Is this increase in power due to adding more QX reactors to the demonstration setup or due to a changes to the QX and its control system?
2. If due to increase in the quantity of reactors, do you have a ballpark figure for what you are shooting for on the output power?

Andrea Rossi
July 26, 2017 at 3:41 PM
Paul:
1- we are putting more modules in parallel
2- between 200 and 500 W
Thank you for your attention and sustain,
Warm Regards,
A.R.

==============================================

Mark
July 26, 2017 at 9:20 AM
Dear Dr. Rossi

You say that you are increasing the power. Is this be combining multiple E-CAT QX’s together. Could you give an indication of how many you will now show at the demonstration?

Andrea Rossi
July 26, 2017 at 3:46 PM
Mark:
We are piling up 20 modules.
Today we worked all the day on the apparatus for the demonstration, it is working.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

==============================

Steven N. Karels
July 26, 2017 at 6:43 PM
Dear Andrea,

1. How many in parallel?
2. All controlled by a single controller?
3. Still no phase change?

Andrea Rossi
July 26, 2017 at 8:04 PM
Steven N.Karels:
1- we’ll see. Our module at average, not risky operation, has a power of 10 W, now we are working to pile them up in a tiny space.
2- yes
3- yes, we’ll increase the flow to maintain the T below 100 Celsius degrees, just to make measurements simpler.
Direct current, liquid phase
make the test a simpler case
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Rossi has recently said that the maximum number of QX reactors that can be powered by a single control unit like the one used in the Gullstroem-Rossi paper is 100. It sounds like Rossi’s team are shooting for a higher output power at the demonstration, but are trying to being careful not to overload the system. Rossi has said that they have had problems in the past with heat from the QX being transmitted back to the control system via conduction along the copper wires, and destroying components, so I am sure that will be a concern with additional heat being generated.

Rossi has refused to say so far how much power is consumed by the control system. I think a more effective demonstration could be made if the output of the combined QXs was higher than the power consumed by the control system, and maybe that is why they are working on raising the output.

Categories: News

Patent Awarded to MagneGas for Systems to Make Molecules more Dense, Company Claims Energy, Transportation and Propulsion Applications

Thu, 27/07/2017 - 14:12

Thanks to Andreas Moraitis for pointing out this press release from MagneGas Corporation about a new patent that has been granted to the corporation by the US Patent and Trademark Office for

Below is the press release; here is the link to the patent which is titled “Method and apparatus for the industrial production of new hydrogen-rich fuels” http://patents.justia.com/patent/9700870

US Patent and Trademark Office Issues MagneGas Corporation Ground Breaking Patent

July 26, 2017
The First Patent Granted Surrounding the Theory of the “MagneCule” has application in Fuel Cells, Space Propulsion and Transportation

TAMPA, Florida, July 26, 2017 /PRNewswire/ —

MagneGas Corporation (“MagneGas” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: “MNGA”), a leading clean technology company in the renewable resources and environmental solutions industries, announced today that following an extended patent application and review process the US Patent and Trademark Office has issued a patent on the theory behind the “MagneCule”. This theory relates to the effect that the patented MagneGas™ systems have under certain conditions and feedstocks and the use of energy in a manner that changes the shape of affected molecules thereby changing their bonding mechanisms from a valence bond to a bond based on the magnetic attraction of nuclei. This in turn allows for a high density of molecules which are packed closer together to provide a greater energy footprint than those same molecules, particularly hydrogen molecules, than when using traditional valence bonds.

Numerous higher density hydrogen applications:

Fuel cells: Current fuel cells have significant range limitation based on the density of conventional hydrogen. The unique hydrogen produced under the MagneCule patent should be able to pack more energy into the same fuel cell. With certain feedstocks the production of our unique hydrogen would allow an increase in the range capability of current fuel cell technology with little or no development in the fuel cells themselves.

Rocket Propulsion: The significant increase in orbital and other rocket launches have limitations based on the space, density and compressibility of hydrogen and oxygen which limit cargo and add significant cost. The ability to pack more hydrogen energy into similar sized rocket modules could extend payloads and reduce the costs of the burgeoning national and private rocket industries.

Transport Industries: Fuel additives in the gasoline and diesel markets have become commonplace in order to improve combustion characteristics and reduce carbonization of combustion chambers. Hydrogen and oxygen treated in the MagneGas process has exhibited qualities that facilitate its addition to fluids which remain in suspension. This would improve combustion efficiency for these key fuels which are under pressure to keep pace with increasingly strict global emission standards.

“Following a lengthy process we are proud to announce that MagneGas Corporation has been granted a patent on the MagneCule theory,” commented Ermanno Santilli, CEO of MagneGas. “The theory and process of the MagneCule has been studied for years at MagneGas Corporation and we believe there are numerous applications in the energy, transportation and space industries associated with increasing the energy density of fuels or as an additive to currently used fuels. We believe that as these industries are under pressure to innovate, our newly released patented technology places us in an ideal position to provide value added innovation to numerous applications.”

“Given the magnitude of the opportunity and far reaching applications of this patent MagneGas Corporation will explore low cost proof of concept developments and licensing opportunities which in some case leverage our existing connections in the targeted industries of fuel cell, rocket propulsion and transportation.” commented Scott Mahoney, CFO of MagneGas. “We believe that an approach which is not particularly capital intensive would allow us to penetrate one or all of these industries and leverage our other existing patents in a far faster timeframe and at a lower cost with large, established corporate partners.”

About MagneGas Corporation

MagneGas® Corporation (MNGA) owns a patented process that converts various renewables and liquid wastes into MagneGas fuels. These fuels can be used as an alternative to natural gas or for metal cutting. The Company’s testing has shown that its metal cutting fuel “MagneGas2®” is faster, cleaner and more productive than other alternatives on the market. It is also cost effective and safe to use with little changeover costs. The Company currently sells MagneGas2® into the metal working market as a replacement to acetylene.

The Company also sells equipment for the sterilization of bio-contaminated liquid waste for various industrial and agricultural markets. In addition, the Company is developing a variety of ancillary uses for MagneGas® fuels utilizing its high flame temperature for co-combustion of hydrocarbon fuels and other advanced applications. For more information on MagneGas®, please visit the Company’s website at http://www.MagneGas.com.

The Company distributes MagneGas2® through Independent Distributors in the U.S and through its wholly owned distributor, ESSI (Equipment Sales and Services, Inc). ESSI has four locations in Florida and distributes MagneGas2®, industrial gases and welding supplies. For more information on ESSI, please visit the company’s website at http://www.weldingsupplytampa.com

Categories: News

Cold Fusion in KIJK Magazine

Thu, 27/07/2017 - 02:12

The following post has been submitted by Gerard McEk

An article in the popular science Dutch magazine ‘KIJK’ surprised me this week.

About two years ago KIJK published an article about hot fusion and they wrote as small remark in ‘Fusion Missers’ that fusion at room temperature has been proven impossible. Quite a few people made them aware that Cold Fusion (or LENR as it called now) is alive and that a lot of progress is made since Pons and Fleischmann. They promised to write an article about CF in the near future.

That was for me a reason to take a subscription then and I went to the redaction and offered them to help writing it. I got quite sceptical response and they said the article would not be written for the time being, so I cancelled my subscription after a year. To my surprise an CF article was published recently in the July/August issue (Nr. 8/2017). I bought it and decided to write a summary for ECW.

The heading starts with: “Is nuclear power possible at room temperature? THE NUCLEUS OF THE TRUTH”. (The question was already wrong: Of course it is, look to the fission reactors). They continue with another question: “Since the end of the eighties a small group of scientists think that they can initiate nuclear reactions at room temperatures. Many other academics totally ignore them, are they right?”  Mmmm… Promising, I thought.

Then they start to explain what Pons and Fleischmann (P&F) did in 1989. They talk about the need to overcome the repelling Coulomb force and the pressure and temperature you need to fuse hydrogen atoms and make helium and that hot fusionists were not able to do this during the decennia of research. But P&F found excess heat and they concluded that nuclear fusion took place. But in the three month after the publication no lab could find any of the effects P&F reported (like excess heat, gamma radiation and helium).

The article in KIJK also mentions that:

  1. P&F withdraw their article in Nature after feedback of Nature redaction and
  2. that they changed a picture drawn with metering data that had a fault and
  3. That the advocate of Pons would denounce a physicist that would publish that no gamma rays were found.

All quite negative toward P&F, whereas Eugine Mallove is more depicted as a conspiracy freak somewhere in the side-line of the article.

KIJK journalist  Jean-Paul Keulen talked with many scientists: dr. Jean-Paul Biberian (Aix-Marseille Université), prof. Dr. Graham Hubler (SKINR), dr. Roger Jaspers (TU Eindhoven), dr. Hugo de Blank and prof. Dr. Richard v.d.Sanden (both DIFFER) and a considerable list if literature including Edmund Storms’ ‘A student guide to cold fusion’.

Tree ‘important LENR papers, selected by Biberian were studied by some Dutch scientists’. They conclude:

  1. There is not enough detail in it to replicate,
  2. They are not consistent with each other,
  3. They do not refer to other (similar) papers
  4. The pro LENR scientist Graham Hubler confirms this quality problem with LENR papers

Nevertheless, although being sceptical one of the interviewed scientists does think there might be a possibility that there is something. “They can’t be all wrong, can they?”  The nano-cracks theory of Edmund Storms is mentioned, but Hubler thinks that the anomaly must be found in solid state physics and has no nuclear origin.

Rossi

The article mentions Andrea Rossi a few times. In a small side article called “Secret invention” he is pictured as “for many the most convincing example of cold fusion”. ‘Obviously’ it is mentioned that he was jailed for tax fraud and at another location again his “dim past” is referred briefly. The article confirms that independent researchers have ascertained that the E-cat seems to produce net energy and that the composition of elements changes. “Yet”, they continue, “Most scientist dislike Rossi because he does not want to reveal how his invention works” and “Biberian says: Rossi is a businessman who wants to earn money primarily. If he wants to gain support of the scientific world, he needs to publish all the required details”.

My conclusion: They have tried to write an balanced article, but were unfortunately too sceptical for this. Most people reading this will not become enthusiastic about the subject. A missed chance.

See: www.kijkmagazine.nl/artikel/koude-kernfusie

Gerard McEk

Categories: News

Circuit Analysis of the E-Cat QX with DC Exitation (Donald Anderson)

Tue, 25/07/2017 - 11:23

The following post has been submitted by Donald Anderson.

A photograph accompanied by much discussion in LENR blogs has been interpreted without regard to electrical circuit theory of voltages around a closed circuit.  The confusion is, I believe, because I believe that the E-Cat QX is an energy-producing device once excited, and that Andrea Rossi will withhold some knowledge until full demonstration and disclosure before the end of this October.

Consider the following statements which have been made by Andrea Rossi regarding the E-Cat QX, either in one of the papers published with he and Gullstrom in Arxiv on July 18,2017 or in response to questions in his blog:

  • The QX can produce a combination of heat (to 2600C), light, and electricity. If the total is say 20 watts (same as watt-hours per hour to the EE), it may include perhaps 10% electrical energy, perhaps 20 or 30 % light, and the rest is available as heat through a heat exchanger surrounding the lamp.
  • In the most recent paper, and as reported earlier, the energy source provided to ignite the “plasma” can be pure and simple dc, for example two 12V batteries.
  • The thermal output, by measuring temperature rise in a heat transfer oil in a heat exchanger surrounding the QX, and hence including absorption of any light, is stated to be 20 watts.
  • This heat transfer appears to be the temperature rise in 1.8 seconds.
  • Start-up occurs in perhaps a minute or so, and shut down can be in seconds.
  • Voltage measured across a one-ohm resistor is 0.105 volts, so the measured current is 0.105 amps or 105 milliamps. NOTE THAT THE SIGN OF THIS MEASURED CURRENT IS NOT OBVIOUS IN THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING TWO VOLTMETERS MEASURING ONLY ACROSS THE ONE OHM.

As an analog, suppose I were to construct a system involving a voltage source of 24 VDC, a one ohm resistor, and a tiny dc motor/generator attached to a tiny gasoline engine.  When used as a starter, if the motor has a very low impedance, nearly 24 volts would start to spin-up the motor.  The current would be limited to 24 amperes, and would decrease as rpm increase.  Given a fuel and spark, in perhaps a minute the current would drop as rpm built until-lo!- the engine starts at say 1000rpm.

Now assume that the engine is governed to idle at say 1100 rpm, and this the “starter”is viewed as a “generator”, producing 24.105 volts DC at that rpm. .  Yes, the one ohm resistor does have a current of 105 milliamps, but it measures the recharge of the battery!

I offer thus a possible explanation in accord with all released information for the E-Cat QX  listed above:  The QX is like a fluorescent lamp or arc lamp which cold-starts in a time of the order of minutes when excited at 24VDC, with a maximum current perhaps approaching 24 amps given the ballast resistor limit.  When producing energy once “ignited”, it produces 24.105 volts and recharges the battery.  Just as an automobile draws very large starting current, the generator replaces that energy in the battery.

Compare this to the purported argument presented by Rossi that the energy from the battery continues to be V^2/R or I^2 x R, about 11 milliwatts.  This suggests a COP, or thermal output of 20 watts divided by at 11 milliwatts, of over 1800.  Rather, once ignited, the QX has a net negative energy input and is in the self-sustaining mode (SSM).

Donald Anderson

Categories: News

MFMP Video on ECCO Reactor Design

Sun, 23/07/2017 - 15:00

Thanks to Bob Greenyer for posting a link to a new video he has filmed during his and George Egeley’s last day in India visiting inventor Suhas.

The MFMP team did not get a chance to test Suhas’ technology (Bob has explained in previous posts and videos that the lab with all the equipment in had been locked by the bank in a foreclosure process), but Suhas has committed to continue to work together with the MFMP in the future to help them replicate his technology.

In this video Bob shows the design of the ECCO reactor.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/V7fBhV1ytr0

Categories: News

Interview with Andrea Rossi on Current and Future Developments of the E-Cat

Sat, 22/07/2017 - 18:48

I had a meeting over Skype with Andrea Rossi on July 20th 2017 in which I conducted an interview. Mats Lewan published an earlier interview with Rossi here which focused primarily on issues surrounding the recent litigation with Industrial Heat and the subsequent settlement which was done so well, that I felt it was not necessary to cover the same ground.

Below is a transcription of the interview.

As you look back over the last four-and-a-half years in which you were in partnership with Industrial Heat, what are you thoughts?

I have good memories of things I made positively with them, as well as, unfortunately also bad memories. It has been a very important, huge, rich experience, scientifically speaking.

What will be the effect of the settlement on your work going forward?

It affects a lot because, first of all, since we worked together beside Industrial Heat I made only a research and development work, because based on the agreement we had, they had the burden of the management of the business.

Now the situation is completely different for me because now I return to be, for all the world, not only the chief scientist of research and development, but also the chief executive officer of what will be the development of this technology in terms of its application in the industrial environment.

So my responsibility is changed completely. Also my freedom of movement. Now I am completely free to move around. Before the litigation I had a restricted area of behavior that was limited to my operation of a scientific and technological character. Now I have wider responsibilities – I think I am prepared for this.

Running a business and running a science and research program, for most companies, it’s not the same person doing that, right?

Well it is true, once they are already developed and consolidated, but in the beginning it is not true, because you think of the model of Microsoft. Mr. Bill Gates, at the beginning, I would say that he covered all the four bases, and was the pitcher and the batter, too.

To do what you want to do, which is to disseminate this technology worldwide is going to take huge resources, financially, would you agree?

Yes.

You’re a very small company at this point, as far as I can tell. So how do you get from where you are now, to where you need to be, as far as a business plan, or commercial partnerships are concerned?

My friend, does a general explain his strategy before the beginning of a battle? I am perfectly aware of my limits, and am perfectly aware of the fact that we need to move in a system, and I am working to find the right system to move in. I cannot tell you the strategy, but I can tell you the first move.

Our first move will be the presentation of the E-Cat QX that will be made around the end of October. That will be our first official, I think, strong move. And then the rest will come. I have a precise strategy; as with every strategy, it forsees many that things will change on the battlefield in the course of  operations, like when you play chess. You know the theme you are going to play, but you still don’t know where the music will lead you.

Let’s move to the E-Cat QX – What is the difference between the E-Cat QX and the early E-Cats?

I cannot tell you this now, because to answer properly to your intelligent question I would have to give an intelligent answer, and not a reticent one.  And I prefer to delay the description of the E-Cat QX to when we make the presentation.

I would say that the patent that we have covers the essentials of it, but there are substantial differences. The COP is higher, the efficiency is higher, and I am very proud of the work that my team has made on this issue. A proper description will be made when we make the presentation. A main difference is the dimension. The dimension of the E-Cat QX is extremely smaller, so the density of energy is very, very high which I think will lead to applications in fields like jet engines. But this is field of research and development that has to be developed.

If you are commercializing the E-Cat, you have to start somewhere. Which applications do you think it will be easiest to start with?

Production of heat for industrial applications. The industrial applications are necessary because it is where we have the certification. For the domestic applications we still do not have the necessary certification.  But, the production of heat in all industries where heat is basic for their production. For example: cement works, oil refineries, food industries, heating of the buildings of industries – simple heating – because in half the world you have to heat where you work for at least four or five months of the year. The most immediate product that we make is just heat. We can heat air, we can heat water, we can heat oil, we can heat whatever and we can also gain very high temperatures because the E-Cat QX reaches in its core very high temperatures. So basically, when you heat something you cannot overcome the temperature of the primary, we have a primary that has a pretty high temperature. We can have a primary of over 1000 degrees Celcius.

A heat exchanger has a primary and a secondary. The primary is where you have the heater. For example in a boiler you have a burner, and the smoke of the burner is the primary. The secondary is the water which is outside of the cylinder where the burning of the fuel happens. In our case we have the primary temperature of the burner, because a normal burner has a temperature of about 1500 degrees Celcius in the core of the flame, and we reach that temperature in our reactor.

A lot of people talk about the ability to generate electricity with the E-Cat because of concerns about carbon emissions and so forth. Does your technology have the ability to replace fossil fuels for the generation of electricity?

I hate the term “replace” because the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear “replace” is people who remain without jobs. So I would be very cautious about using this term. But I believe that it is opportune that all the energy sources integrate in time, intelligently. And for sure, the primary temperature that we reach in the E-Cat, we can heat the steam up to the 550 degrees Celsius that are necessary to have efficiencies of around 35-38 per cent with the Carnot cycle. So yes, we can be an intelligent source, without replacing anything. The planet will become always more and more thirsty for energy, so without burning jobs we can just implement our capacity to produce energy in an environmentally friendly way. Now the best available technologies for the burning of coal can allow for the burning of coal without pollution, and without creating desperation sites in places like certain towns in Pennsylvania that risk to become like ghost towns. I don’t think this is an intelligent way to do things.

You have said in the past that one of your goals, in addition to creating a new form of energy, is to create jobs.

Yes.

In what areas do you see your technology providing employment opportunities for people?

Apart from the manufacturing  of E-Cat, that will be robotized — robots make  low level work, but robots create high level jobs for young people that will have to reach a high level of instruction to have a job (I don’t think this is bad, I think this is good) – and if energy becomes more competitive, this automatically generates a cascade of jobs in every sector where energy is consumed.

So you are thinking about indirect employment as well as direct employment?

Sure.

You have mentioned in the past “robotized factories” – how advanced are your plans or progress towards robotized production of your E-Cat QX reactors?

It is very advanced. I have made a study with ABB, and we are very advanced with that, and when the industrialization will be made it will be made necessarily with robotized construction lines because the QuarkX can be conceived only with a robotized production line, because the QuarkX is a very small module, it is a module of between 10 and 20 Watts. So you need to be able to assemble many of them; it is unthinkable to do this job only with manual work. The basic assembly must necessarily be made with robots. I have also seen already a factory that has the kind of robots in operation to do other things, and you can see tens of thousands of pieces coming out. And also, and this has been a big pleasure, I have seen in this factory there are many guys working, guys that have to improve themselves, because now, instead of making a fatiguing work with risk also to their health, they make a work which is smart.

Can you tell me how much the materials would cost to make a Quark – just materials?

I would say, just raw materials, 1-2 cents per Watt.

This afternoon was the first time that I had become aware of a new paper that you have written with Carl-Oscar Gullstrom, that has been published on Arxiv.org.

It is an update that a paper that Oscar and I made several months ago, March if I remember correctly, because we gave that work to some peer reviewers who asked us to upgrade many points, and we worked again on it. Carl-Oscar Gullstrom is a very intelligent physicist, he is very young, and we will work with him. He is very strong, he is very intelligent, theoretically very prepared. He comes from a Swedish school of physics – I like him very much, I like to work with him.

The physics in the paper is very complicated, I do not understand much of it, honestly, but does what he describe match your understanding of what is happening in the E-Cat?

We have much more work to do for what concerns the theoretical issues. I think that path can bring to a theoretical explication, but as you have seen we consider this just the beginning of a long path because we are still distant to have reached a point where we can say we have found the theoretical explication of this effect.

In the past you have worked with Dr. Norman Cook

Yes, the work of Norman Cook is perfectly reconcilable with ours. Now, in this period, my friend Norman Cook, my supposition is that this litigation has kind of created in many persons a fear of making some mistake sustaining one or the other party, so many people decided to stay out of the ring and let the two boxers exchange punches of every kind, see the blood spit out, and say “let them fight, and we will go in the ring when all will have been finished”.  So my sense is that now the litigation is finished it will be easier for me to work with my friend Norman Cook.

I am sure you were aware that in the paper that was published this week was included a picture of your QX reactors. So now it’s not so much of a mystery what they look like. I noticed that two different ones were show, right? One with a heat exchanger, and one without.

The one without the heat exchanger is not an E-Cat QX. The E-Cat QX is the green one.

What is the other one?

The other one is a tool that I use to make experiments.

I see, so that is not what a QX will look like.

No, the QX will be smaller than bigger things like the green box you have seen.

There was a technical question regarding the measurement of the input power for the QX. You have a 1 Ohm resistor with .105 V input. Is that the only resistance that is measured – is there resistance in the reactor?

No. We have measured only that resistance [the 1 Ohm resistor] because that is the only resistance we have in the circuit. If the E-Cat has a resistance, that makes our calculations more conservative, because, as you well know, the resistance goes in the denominator when you make the calculus of the amps. You have volts as the numerator, and the resistance as the denominator. So the bigger the resistance, the smaller is the amount of amps.

To be conservative, since the datum of the resistance of the E-Cat QX is confidential, we just do not consider the resistance. Because correctly we should have to make the sum of the resistance of the resistor that has been put in the circuit, and the resistance of the E-Cat. So we should have amps = volts/R1 (the resistor)+R2 (the resistance of the E-Cat). But we do not consider the resistance of the E-Cat, we consider it as if it is a perfect conductor, and we only consider the one 1 Ohm to make the calculation of the amps.

To make the measurement very easy is the fact that the electricity is direct current; we use only direct current, so there are not all the complications connected with frequencies, etc.

Also in the photograph are shown two meters. What is each measuring?

We use two voltmeters to make a double check. The difference of the measurement is the margin of error of two different voltmeters ( several mV )

You talk about your presentation being your opening shot. You have said in the past that you can run the E-Cat QX from a battery producing direct current.

Yes, yes, we can run it with a battery – we need 24 Volts. So basically we can put two car batteries in series.

Well for the purpose of the presentation, myself and many other people think you need to use batteries to make things simpler than using AC from a mains source.

Okay.

Would that be easy to do?

Yes, absolutely. I am using batteries in my laboratory now. Luckily, the trial is finished — luckily it is finished, because it is not just the trial, it is the preparation of the hearings – 8, 10, 12 hours with the attorneys to do something that has nothing to do with my work. It was a pain. So now I am in my factory every day, and among the many things that I do is also do experiments with batteries. There is no difference at all, we can use batteries.

Okay, well I would recommend that because I think it would make a lot of people feel more comfortable.

No problem.

I have just one question about the settlement document. There was a section in there that talked about the fuel formula. It was restricted information for just a few people.

Yes.

In there it said there parts (a) and (b) for the fuel formula . (A) was hydrogen, lithium aluminum hydride, lithium and nickel (or other element in column 10 of the periodic table) — which are described in your Fluid Heater patent. And then there was b) which was an “Additional Element”, and there was no mention of this in the patent.  So what does this mean for your patent if you do not include that Additional Element?

Because a patent is valid when an expert of the art is able to reproduce an effect with the information given in the patent. Now there are many people who are expert in the art who have reproduced the effect using information in the patent. So my patent is valid, it has been validated practically in all the world for this reason, because replications have been made. And some very important replication, I suppose, is going soon to be disclosed. But also very important replications have been made from people who have just read my patent and reproduced. Obviously, this Additional Element increases the efficiency. In fact, all the replications that have been made started from Lugano had a COP that is between 2 and 3. The Additional Element makes the efficiency much higher. So this is a difference between a patent and the know-how.

So would you consider the Additional Element as a trade secret?

Yes. This is why we demanded that the settlement agreement had to be written so that all that must remain a secret.

What is the size of Leonardo Corporation, as far as the number of employees these days?

In these days employees of Leonardo are actually six persons. The dimensions of our factor at Doral are approximately 7000 square feet, there is another laboratory that is out of there – for now this is our dimension.

Let me say this, because I am proud to say this.  We are working pretty much on the 1 MW plant that has worked for one year, because probably you know that after the 16th of February 2016, the plant has been sealed by the parties, and it was in a land of nobody, like the land between the two Koreas. Basically nobody could enter there. We put our locks, they put their locks, and to enter, as in the safes of the banks, you needed two keys, etc., etc. So, it was tragicomic.

Now, I got my key, their keys also had been given back to me, I have opened everything, and now we are dismounting everything, opening all the reactors. The big ones that worked pretty well, and the small ones that never worked, because at the beginning they had many problems. Now we are going to open all of them to study. It will be very interesting, the analysis. Also the isotopic analysis of the powders of the four reactors that worked, and also the degradation that happened in one year. So now we will have precise data about how the powder became through one year, etc. In the small ones it will be very interesting to understand now why the heck they did not work, as if in some of them there was simply no charge. Because they were connected in a way that was necessary for coordination. So now I am disassembling the plant in thousands of small pieces to be analyzed because this is technology, this is how technology is made.

Ok, a change of subject. Do you have commercial interest – people who are aware of what you are doing, and interested in your work?

Yes, I do.

Let’s say I am an oil refiner and I learn about your technology from the presentation, and I think this is something that could make my process much more efficient. How do I incorporate it in my system – what’s the process?

Well the process is pretty simple. You buy the plant and the plant becomes yours, and you use it. We will put some conditions like parts that cannot be removed. Like sometimes the car makers make prototypes of cars where they put the seals in the box of the engine so that you cannot open it and they give it to you and say you go, and they give the car to you for very cheap.  So you go, and now and then you have to bring the car to them so they can test what happened inside the engine, etc., etc. We will make something like that. So basically our plant will be partially sealed where the charges are, for example, where only we will be able to put hands, and you use the plant, and we assist you.

By the way, probably you have some kind of magic capacity in your mind, some psychic capacity emanating from your brain, because the day after tomorrow I meet an oil refiner. So I don’t know you are some sort of (inaudible)

No, you mentioned it [oil refining] earlier in the interview.

Ah, that’s why you know!

Ok, what if you are a manufacturer, a technologist, and you wanted to manufacture products that incorporated your technology. Is it going to be possible for people to license this technology and pay you a royalty?

What do you mean, license the technology?

I mean you give them the formula and they go ahead and make their own products, and pay you a royalty.

I got it. Everything is possible, it depends on the agreement. You know we have just exited from an experience with a license, and we have learned the hard way how important it is to make proper agreements. Everything is possible, anybody can license anything – good contracts are necessary.  Now we have also a strong legal team, because in any case in this war we have selected a very good legal team, so now we have a legal team that is pretty much experienced in the field, and so the contracts that we are going to make will be less naïve than the agreement that I signed in 2012.

So would you say that you are open to cooperating with other industries in cooperative ways?

Absolutely.

I know that during the one year test and after that, you mentioned a few times that it had had an effect on your health. How is your health now?

Perfect. I had problems. I had problems for many reasons. Also consider that for one year I worked from 5:00 p.m. to 10:30 a.m. the next day, sleeping from 11:00 a.m. – you sleep a few hours, you have also to read, you have to make some sport, so you sleep 3-4 hours each day. For one year and with many other factors, yes I had something serious, but I am completely healed. The last analysis had shown that there is nothing left.

Categories: News

Analysis of E-Cat QX Setup Based on Available Information (Chapman)

Sat, 22/07/2017 - 14:54

Thanks to Chapman for posting this comment in the thread about the E-Cat QX paper and photo here. I thought it would be useful to feature it as a separate post.

I see a lot of folks that are asking the right questions, only to be shut down by a few well meaning folks insisting on some pretty wrong facts.

Ignore all the diagrams, the speculations, the guesses. Look at the facts we know, and the actual statements from Rossi.

1. There is a 1 Ohm resistor in series with the E-Cat QX reactor.

2. There are two meters hooked up in parallel reading the voltage across the resistor, but nothing is stated regarding the applied power source.

3. The use of two redundant meters is an issue of protocol, and protects the test from bad data due to meter failure or inaccuracy, which is also the likely reason they are two completely different makes and models.

4. During the test, in the frame sample provided, we see that the resistor voltage drop is 100 mV. From this we can calculate that the series current at that time is 100 mA.

5. After powered operation for a duration of 1.8 seconds, the oil bath surrounding the reactor showed a temperature increase that calculates out to 20 watts (per second) of generated heat.

6. Rossi says that the reactor has low/negligible/nonexistent resistance. It is not stated if that assumption pertains only to the operational state, or even when “cold”.

7. When taken as a whole, if the voltage drop on the reactor really is zero, the total power consumed by the ASSEMBLY (including ballast resistor) is just the resistors 10 mW. This results in an operational COP of 2,000.

8. If all the above is TRUE AND ACCURATE, then the COP is actually orders of magnitude greater, because the resistor is actually producing 10 mW of heat directly, and ALL of the heat from the reactor is FREE, and has no mathematical connection to input power level.

9. That means that the QX is entirely current dependent, and the circuit could just as well have used a .5 ohm ballast, reduced the voltage to 50 mV, maintained the exact same 100 mA current through the reactor, and exhibited an operational COP of 4,000. Go to a .25 ballast and you get a COP of 8,000. Because the voltage drop on the ballast has no direct bearing on the reactor, but it simply sets the current passing THROUGH the reactor. This is basic electronics…

I have seen so many people talking in circles and convincing each other that Rossi said something OTHER than what was printed right there before our eyes. And folks are changing their minds and saying “yeah, I guess that’s right”. WRONG. Read it again. It says what it says.

Now, if someone has additional actual FACTS to throw in, fine. But do not just have a group hug and decide that the paragraphs in the intro suddenly transformed or mutated. Rossi said very specific things. Stick with what we know. We can theorize about the MISSING facts, but we can’t just decide we do not like, and will abandon, the actual facts given.

Either there is something fundamental Rossi excluded, or the QX is a current dependent reaction chamber that utilizes the presence of a 100 mA current to stimulate the release of nuclear binding energy from a small reserve of an as yet not fully disclosed amalgam of Li dust, LiAH, and ???. The reaction is singularly dependent on the current passing through the reactor, and yet exhibits little to no independant electrical resistance, making it susceptible to unstable runaway conditions, which require an external driver/ballast resistor to clamp max current to within safe levels. The size of that ballast is dependent upon tolerance factors and power handling ability of the selected ballast. The smaller the ballast, the higher the overall COP of the circuit as a whole.

And you want to know what is REALLY wrong with this picture? There is ONE fact that makes me doubt these numbers, and the zero resistance of the reactor… If the reactor has zero resistance, then there is NOTHING keeping him from daisy chaining 100 of them in series with a single ballast resistor fixing a 100 mA series current flowing through ALL of them, and delivering a 2KW reactor running off a single AAA battery!!! That’s technically right, but at the same time SOOOOO wrong that there MUST be something missing.

Chapman

Categories: News

E-Cat QX Picture Posted in New Rossi-Gullstrom Paper (COP of 2000 reported with Calorimetry)

Thu, 20/07/2017 - 19:56

Thanks to Observer for pointing out a new paper that was published has been added to the Rossi-Gullstrom paper that was published on July 18 on Arxiv.org here. The title of the article is “Nucleon polarizability and long range strong force from σI=2 meson exchange potential”

It is a very involved theoretical paper for the most part. Here is the abstract.

“We present a theory for how nucleon polarizability may be used to extract energy from nucleons by means of special electromagnetic conditions.
Also a new theory for a long-range strong force is introduced by enhancing the role of the σI=2 meson in nucleon-nucleon potential obtained
through isospin mixed σ mesons. The novelty in the idea is to let an imaginary mass exchange particle be enhanced by absorbing only
one particle in an entangled state of two particles. The imaginary mass particle is not intendent to be free and contravance the law of physic; it is merely included as a binding exchange particle in a system with total positive invariant mass. In order to validate part of the theory, we introduce an experiment that in many ways have motivated this study”

At the end of the paper is an appendix which reports on two experiments, the first has already been reported in a previous paper, the second is one that has used calorimetry as the measurement system.

“The system is displayed in figure 5. In the figure, the yellow thermometer measures the temperature of the oil inside the heat exchanger. In the left in the figure there is two voltmeters that measure the mV of the current passing through the 1 Ohm brown resistance.

Calculations of the calorimetry made by the heat exchanger:
efficiency of the heat exchanger:10%
Primary heat exchange fluid: lubricant oil ( Shell mineral oil )
Characteristics of the lubricant oil: D = 0.9 Specific Heat: 0.5
Calorimetric data of the fluid: 0,5 Kcal/h = 0.57 Wh/h
Flow heating: 1.58 C / 1.8″ x 11 g
Resulting rating: 20 Wh/h
Energy input: V=0.1 R=1 Ohm → W=0.01
The COP of the system with the calorimetric measurement is substantially conciliable with the measurements made by the Wien’s equation and the Boltzmann equation.”

On the last page is an image of the experimental setups.

Categories: News

What to Expect at the E-Cat QX Presentation

Thu, 20/07/2017 - 04:44

Turning our attention away from the court case/settlement for a moment, and looking towards October, when Andrea Rossi says that his presentation of the E-Cat QX will take place, here’s a Q&A on the Journal of Nuclear Physics this evening gives us an idea of what to expect if and when Andrea Rossi makes the planned presentation.

Rick
July 19, 2017 at 1:41 PM
Dear Andrea Rossi,
The measurements you will make on the Ecat QX during the presentation of October will be based on the Wien and Boltzmann equation as the ones described in the Gullstrom-Rossi paper?
Thank you,
Rick

Andrea Rossi
July 19, 2017 at 9:13 PM
Rick:
No, It will be plain and simple calorimetry. We will have a flow of water that will not change phase, well below 100 Celsius degrees, a measurement of the water flowing through the plant and a measurement of the delta T and of the electric energy consumed by the E-Cat QX. Plain and simple.
Warm Regards,
A.R

in the experiment described in the Gullstroem/Rossi paper, the temperature was measured using a spectrometer, and therefore it was necessary to employ the Wien and Boltzmann equations to determine the energy output of the reactor. The calorimetry experiment that Rossi describes should make things much simpler.

Now, I am sure that like any other test that has been published over the years, there will be a great deal of critical analysis of this test. The key data in this test will be the input power (electrical) and output power (heat), and it will be very important that they are calculated correctly. Rossi, or whoever is taking measurements, will need to have accurate, calibrated measurement instruments, and the reporting of the results will need to be clear.

As preparations are made for the test, maybe Andrea Rossi and/or others involved would be reading threads like this, so it might be helpful if readers posted any suggestions or advice in the comments.
.

Categories: News

Experimental Particle Research Suggests Standard Model Violations

Wed, 19/07/2017 - 04:39

An article in Scientific American reports that recent experiments carried out in the United States, Switzerland and Japan suggest that three particles: electrons, muons and tau leptons maybe violating the Standard Model, which scientists say could lead to a huge and revolutionary shakeup in the world of physics

“The evidence comes from electrons and their more massive cousins, muons and tau leptons. According to the Standard Model, these three particles should behave like differently sized but otherwise identical triplets. But three experiments have produced growing evidence—including results announced in just the last few months—that the particles react differently to some as-yet mysterious influence. The findings are not yet conclusive, but if they hold up, “it would be a complete revolution,” says California Institute of Technology theorist Mark Wise.”

More information can be found here:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lawbreaking-particles-may-point-to-a-previously-unknown-force-in-the-universe/

Categories: News

Rossi – IH Settlement Published: Rossi Gets Back All Rights to E-Cat, IH no Longer Involved

Tue, 18/07/2017 - 15:31

Thanks to Mats Lewan who has posted an interview with Andrea Rossi about the settlement between Rossi and Industrial Heat on his An Impossible Invention blog.

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2017/07/18/heres-the-settlement-getting-the-license-back-was-rossis-top-priority/

Mats has also posted the settlement document which he states is from “An Undisclosed Source”:

https://animpossibleinvention.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/settlement-agreement.pdf

More analysis to come.

Categories: News

ECCO Testing: First MFMP Update from India

Mon, 17/07/2017 - 20:29

I haven’t had time to listen to this yet, but this is Bob’s first audio report from India; from the description it sounds like it is not plain sailing:

“After a gruelling journey and two nights with little sleep, we arrive with all equipment intact only to face more difficult challenges, people.”

Also: “ECCO day one – stupidity rules the world”

Summary:

Bob Greenyer and George Egely’s flight to India was delayed, but the finally got to India. They say they have trouble with the inventor and the bank. While they were in transit they got notification that Suhas had been visited by bank officers, who had put a padlock on the door of the laboratory. Bob Greenyer and George Egely went to see the bank manager who refused to open the lab.

The bank told MFMP that they found out that Suhas was doing research, and they did not support that, they were only interested in supporting production. MFMP tried in vain to negotiate access to the lab so they could do testing. Bob says he tried “literally everything” to get access to the lab.

They made an offer to rent the lab for 3 days, but the bank manager said that offer would have to come from Suhas. Bob says they will try again tomorrow. In the meantime they are having technical discussions with Suhas about his technology.

Categories: News

Always Open Thread

Sun, 16/07/2017 - 13:50

After many years of faithful service, it’s time to retire the original Always Open thread, as the number of comments (over 7000 now since October 2013) seems to be affecting the loading time. So this thread will just be a continuation of the original thread, but a fresh start.

Just as a reminder, the Always Open thread is a place for readers to post relevant and interesting news, links, thoughts that are relevant to the scope of the site, but may be off-topic for some of the other active threads. Users can treat this page as a general chat box, but E-Cat World’s posting rules will apply.

The original thread will be accessible here: http://e-catworld.com/2013/10/26/always-open-e-cat-world-thread/

Categories: News

MFMP Plan and Proposal Regarding ECCO Device

Fri, 14/07/2017 - 01:05

Below is a summary written by Ryan Hunt of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project of the Hangout meeting that was held this afternoon.

Summary of Live Hangout on 7/13/17

MFMP has been planning to do a validation test of the ECCO device in Mumbai for a few months now. We have known for over a month that Suhas, the inventor, has a loan guaranteed by the real estate for his lab and all the equipment and the bank is in the late stages of foreclosure now. We have learned, now, Suhas has just in the last few days made a deal to sell his ultrasonics technology to a company that has a very specific pipe cleaning application for it.

The deal includes the foundational tech and the prototype ECCO apparatus. This would very likely result in no further open work on his LENR device. This deal will be finalized at the end of July and includes some ongoing consulting to implement the pipe cleaner in an industrial plant.

Suhas has been relatively open about how the fuel for the ECCO device was made and how the device is constructed. He has sent Bob samples of the raw material, the finished fuel and the ash, all of which were tested and reported on. Suhas has stated his interest in making his technology open on several occasions. Unfortunately, Suhas had to find a way out of his financial predicament.

Next week, Bob Greenyer and George Egely will fly over to do the long awaited test with a lightweight set of instruments and will try to do the tests live on video. If the tests look positive and convincing enough, Ryan Hunt will fly over and join them a few days later with live data streaming test equipment like what was used in the AURA tests in May.

If the tests still positive and convincing, we will try in earnest to work out a deal to allow us to work with the technology in cooperation with Suhas. Such a deal could take several forms, but most will require some form of bridge financing to help make them happen. Towards that end, MFMP held an on-air hangout that was recorded on youtube. In the hangout, Bob Greenyer, who has been the MFMP contact with Suhas, explained the situation and our need to gauge the interest and capability of the crowd to help make a deal happen if we can come to an agreement.

Some of the potential deals discussed or suggested by viewers include:

Raising $320K in donations to buy the assets, including the real estate. Then we would sell the real estate and pay back the donors within 90 days. This would require appraisals, good local lawyer services in Mumbai, and solid agreement between all the players. Then the assets would be available for research in a different lab.

We could arrange a license or split the technology purchase with the other company. This would not recover the capital till we made copies of the reactor for sale to research institutions.

The technology is not patented, so we could wait for Suhas to finish his obligations, or split his time with the company buying his technology before we work with him. Replicate the reactor on our own – we are very reticent to take this path as it is likely to require a huge amount of research and funds to catch up.

There may be other options that supporters will come up with, too. Most of this will have to be dealt with in person after we find out if the reactor performs as claimed. To help be ready for that discussion, MFMP has put together a survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ECCO-Bridge for potential supporters (or detractors) to fill out. If the support is strong, we can go into any dealmaking with more flexibility to help us secure this technology to be developed openly.

The long term vision is to kickstart the LENR industry. Once a valid LENR technology has been publicly and openly tested like this, we envision creating many copies of the device and distributing them to research institutions around the world for subsequent validation and further research into the phenomenon.

The research agreements would include ongoing protections on the openness of the science. The end result would be a large mass of open knowledge of the underlying physics and at least a few embodiments that would be available for use in thousands of new products.

Written by Ryan Hunt

Categories: News

“Do We Really Want the New Fire?” MFMP Live Hangout Now on Air

Thu, 13/07/2017 - 04:43

UPDATE (July 13, 2017)

The live hangout is now streaming — see the links below. I have had a bit of heads up about the topics of this meeting and it should be quite interesting. Some important issues connected with the MFMP are to be discussed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDBC96OZT3c&feature=youtu.be

====================================================================================================================
Bob Greenyer has informed us that on July 13 (Thursday) there will be a live Hangout on Youtube sponsored by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial The subject will be: “Do we really want the New Fire?”

The MFMP has been planning for some time to carry out testing of the claimed “Free Energy” device called ECCO, developed by Indian researcher Suhas Ralkar. I haven’t heard yet just when this testing is supposed to take place, but I am sure that topic will be addressed in the hangout tomorrow.

The timing of the event will be at 3:00 p.m. US Eastern time. So far there is no URL provided but I will post it here as soon as it is available.

Bob tells me the event will be recorded for later viewing.

Categories: News

What’s Next for the E-Cat? (Final Name: “E-Cat QX”, Presentation ‘Within October’)

Sun, 09/07/2017 - 13:13

UPDATE: Not that it makes any difference to the technology, but today Andrea Rossi posted this today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Andrea Rossi
July 11, 2017 at 6:10 AM
JPR:
Also today the E-Cat QX is in good standing. By the way: this is the final name: “E-Cat QX”
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I guess that Rossi does not want to get away from the E-Cat name, for which he has a trademark, and this seems to confirm that this is not something brand new, but simply a development, or variant of the E-Cat technology he has been working on for many years now. I later put a question on the JONP about the reason for the name, and Rossi responded:

Andrea Rossi
July 11, 2017 at 9:26 AM
Frank Acland:
Sure. Because “E-Cat” is a strong trade mark, already registered in America and Europe and because I consider the QuarkX an evolution of the E-Cat.
“QuarkX” has been used just as the name of the project: “quark” because ir is very small and fundamental and “X” because it had not a name, so we put a variable.
Now we decided it is our lead product and it will be the E-Cat, while QX will indicate the type of E-Cat.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Another Q&A on the JONP was about the planned presentation of the QuarkX:

“Congratulations to the concilliation, very positive. You said that you should delay the demonstration of E-cat QX to after the trial, probably to september. Is this still the plan?”

Andrea Rossi
July 11, 2017 at 9:20 AM
Nils Fryklund:
Thank you for your kind words.
Yes, the E-Cat QX will be presented within the end of October.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

**********************************************************************************

As we move into the second half of 2017, and the court case begins to diminish as we look into the rear view mirror, I start thinking about what is coming next in the E-Cat story. Andrea Rossi has said that he is now back in the lab full time, working with the QuarkX, and it sounds like, as is typical, he’s working on improving and refining his product. Hear are some Q&As from yesterday on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Frank Acland
July 8, 2017 at 1:22 PM
Dear Andrea,

A few questions, if you don’t mind:

1. What needs to be accomplished before you can bring you QuarkX to market?
2. When do you expect to start production of QuarkX devices for customers?
3. Are you currently working with outside partners in the development of the QuarkX?
4. Will there still be a joint statement released from both parties in the litgation regarding general terms of the settlement?

Andrea Rossi
July 8, 2017 at 2:53 PM
Frank Acland:
1- more R&D
2- possibly this year for industrial plants. Probably next year. For non industrial I do not know, because the certification issue does not depend on us, while for the industrial applications we already have the certifications
3- no
4- my attorneys told me so
Warm Regards,
A.R.

***********************************************************************************

Andrea Rossi
July 8, 2017 at 2:55 PM
JPR:
After the tests of today with my QuarkX I was probably the happiest man in the world.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Frank Acland
July 8, 2017 at 5:54 PM
Dear Andrea,

Can you tell us something about why you are so happy with the QuarkX today?

Andrea Rossi
July 8, 2017 at 9:13 PM
Frank Acland:
Today I invented a new particular that makes the E-Cat QuarkX simpler: first day full time with my toy since a long, long time with the brain focused on the litigation.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
July 8, 2017 at 9:23 PM
Dr Joseph Fine:
I was in good mood because I won for the first time after 35 years a tennis match with my wife: 7-5 ( one only set: after one set, when they are more tired than me, they are usually buried ).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
P.S.
I have also strongly simplified the E-Cat Qx making it much easier to make and it worked very well

So it sounds like typical Rossi, lots of work, lots of modifications of the E-Cat, and one wonders when the lab work will end and he moves into the manufacturing stage. Rossi has said that he intends to hold a presentation event for the QuarkX this year, but as far as I know no date for that has been set.

It’s interesting that he says that he is not working with any external partner now. I doubt that any serious entity would want to have gotten involved during the period of litigation, and we still don’t know anything about any possible continuing relationship with Industrial Heat that was part of the settlement. We also don’t know anything about the level of funding that Rossi has available to move into the commercialization phase, but certainly starting any kind of production level is going to take considerable amounts of money.

Categories: News

Video: Tom Darden Reflects on Life in Environmental Cleanup, LENR Businesses

Sat, 08/07/2017 - 12:29

A reader sent me a link to a video which he recorded at a Clean Tech Summit at the University of North Carolina held in March 2017 of an address by Cherokee CEO Tom Darden, where he discusses a lifetime working in the field of investing in brownfield cleanup and in supporting LENR research, and some of the lessons he has learned.

He refers to talking to many top researchers in the LENR field, and initially investing in about a dozen. At the time of this talk, he states that there are about three of them that they still felt were promising (not naming any names). He makes no mention of the Rossi v. IH lawsuit which was going on at the time.

https://youtu.be/mFUPyhefiiY

The audio quality is not great (it’s really quiet), but with my headphones on and turned up I can hear it fine.

Categories: News

Settlement Good News For E-Cat Development

Thu, 06/07/2017 - 13:09

I can remember well first getting the news about Andrea Rossi filing suit against Industrial Heat et. al. In early spring 2016, Rossi had previously announced that the 1-year test was over, and followers of the E-Cat story were anxiously awaiting the release of a report about tests performance.

Then on April 6, I got an email from an attorney representing Andrea Rossi containing this press release announcing that the test had been a success, but that Rossi was suing Industrial Heat for breach of its license agreement, and misappropriation of intellectual property. I was shocked, as I know were many others. What could be one of the most important technological advancements in history would now be tied up in court for an unknown period of time, and who could predict the effect on the dissemination of E-Cat technology?

Since that day, we have been following closely the unfolding events and debate surrounding the lawsuit. The discussion hasn’t always been pleasant, to say the least, and personally I have tried to avoid joining the fray.

As far as I am concerned, the most important issue has always been that the E-Cat gets deployed in the real world and gets put to use in the service of mankind. So I was delighted, and very surprised, to learn yesterday that case had been settled.

I think it was the best possible outcome, and something I had hoped would happen, although I admit I was not convinced that it would, given the fierceness of the battle at times. Regardless of the verdict in this trial, I felt there would almost certainly be an appeal from whoever lost, and the whole suit would have to be fought again, sapping more money, time and energy.

Regardless of the terms of the settlement, in my mind one immediate benefit is that Andrea Rossi is now able to return to doing what he does best — the development of E-Cat technology — without being distracted by legal issues.

Andrea Rossi wrote yesterday, “I will never anymore talk about the issues of the litigation. They belong to the past. The war is over, now we must build a constructive future.” A constructive future is what the E-Cat needs. My hope is that these developments will hasten the public unveiling of the QuarkX, and its eventual commercialization. I’m sure there will be future problems to deal with, but I felt that this lawsuit was dark cloud overshadowing the whole field of LENR, sucking positive energy from it. I’m glad it’s gone.

Categories: News

Rossi vs. IH: Case Settled (Rossi: “Satisfied” with settlement, Joint Statement to be Issued)

Wed, 05/07/2017 - 17:46

Thanks to Abd Lomax for posting the following on his Cold Fusion Community website:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net/rvd-settled/

“All claims and counterclaims withdrawn. Jury dismissed. Agreement, if any, was private. Full details, such as I have, when I get home.”

What an interesting turn of events. We don’t know how things will pan out going forward — does this mean that IH and Leonardo are again partners, or was there an agreement to part the ways with certain terms settled on? I hope we will find out, but it does mean a new chapter for the E-Cat has opened.

We will certainly be following this news, and reporting on any developments, but since the details are private we may never know the terms.

Thanks to Engineer 48 for this:

From LENR Forum:
PAPERLESS Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga:
Jury Trial completed on 7/5/2017.
Case settled.
Total time in court: 48 minutes.
Attorney Appearance(s): Francisco J Leon de la Barra, Rodolfo Nunez, Christopher Rebel Jude Pace, Erika Stephanie Handelson, Bernard P. Bell, Christopher Martin Lomax, John William Annesser, II, Brian W. Chaiken, John Charles Lukacs, Court Reporter: Stephanie McCarn, 305-523-5518 / Stephanie_McCarn@flsd.uscourts.gov. (cmz) (Entered: 07/05/2017)

UPDATE: Here is a comment from Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics:

Andrea Rossi
July 5, 2017 at 5:53 PM
Gennady:
The terms of the settlement will remain under NDA for ever, as per request of the Attorneys of both Parties.
Personally, I am glad to be free to return to work full time for my E-Cat.
I will never anymore talk about the issues of the litigation. They belong to the past. The war is over, now we must build a constructive future.
From now I return to talk with our Readers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

UPDATE (July 6, 2017)

Some Q&As on the Journal of Nuclear Physics

Prof
July 6, 2017 at 6:25 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
1- will you make the presentation of the QuarkX within this year? AR: Yes
2- are you still preparing the manufacturing of the E-Cat in the USA and in Sweden? AR: Yes
3- are you satisfied with the settlement? AR: Yes
4- will the general terms of the settlement be explained in a joint release from the attorneys of both parties? AR: Yes
5- will remain under NDA the economic terms of the settlement? AR: Yes
Thank you if you can answer,

Prof

So it sounds like we can expect a joint statement from attorneys of both parties — should be interesting reading.

Categories: News

Pages

Scholarly Lite is a free theme, contributed to the Drupal Community by More than Themes.