Rossi E-cat: Independent testing and Article in Forbes. Is this finally IT?

[PhysicsProf]

Rossi evidently allows independent testing.  My question -- why did they not do straightforward CALORIMETRY, as done with most LENR devices?? 

Here's the link to the scientific paper:  http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

Here's the article:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

Finally! Independent Testing Of Rossi's E-Cat Cold Fusion Device: Maybe The World Will Change After All
72 comments, 14 called-out
Comment Now
Follow Comments

Italiano: Schema della cella di Piantelli-Foca...

Back in October 2011 I first wrote about Italian engineer, Andrea Rossi, and his E-Cat project, a device that produces heat through a process called a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR).

Very briefly, LENR, otherwise called cold fusion, is a technique that generates energy through low temperature (far lower than hot fusion temperatures which are in the range of tens off thousands of degrees) reactions that are not chemical. Most importantly, LENR is, theoretically, much safer, much simpler, and many orders of magnitude cheaper than hot fusion. Rather than explaining LENR in detail here please see my original posting for a more complete explanation.

My next post on this topic was here on Forbes a few days later and, as the labyrinthine and occasionally ridiculous saga developed, I tried to sort fact from fiction in a series of posts (see the list at the end of this posting) which covered everything from unconvincing demos, through an Australian businessman offering Rossi $1 million to show independently tested proof, to other players in the LENR market showing interesting results.

I haven't posted about Rossi and his E-Cat since last August simply because there wasn't much to report other than more of Rossi's unsupported and infuriating claims that included building large-scale automated factories  to churn out millions of E-Cats (the factories still have no sign of actually existing) through to unsubstantiated performance claims that sounded far too good to be true.

What everyone wanted was something that Rossi has been promising was about to happen for months: An independent test by third parties who were credible. This report was delayed several times to the point where many were wondering whether it was all nothing more than what we have come to see as Rossi's usual "jam tomorrow" promises. But much to my, and I suspect many other people's surprise, a report by credible, independent third parties is exactly what we got.

Published on May 16, the paper titled "Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device" would appear to deliver what we wanted.

The paper was authored by Giuseppe Levi of Bologna University, Bologna, Italy; Evelyn Foschi, Bologna, Italy; Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér of Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; and Hanno Essén, of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. While some of these people have previously been public in their support of Rossi and the E-Cat they are all serious academics with reputations to lose and the paper is detailed and thorough.

The actual test reactor, called the E-Cat HT, was described by the testers as:

    ... a high temperature development of the original apparatus which has also undergone many construction changes in the last two years – is the latest product manufactured by Leonardo Corporation: it is a device allegedly capable of producing heat from some type of reaction the origin of which is unknown.

They described the E-Cat HT as:

    ... a cylinder having a silicon nitride ceramic outer shell, 33 cm in length, and 10 cm in diameter. A second cylinder made of a different ceramic material (corundum) was located within the shell, and housed three delta-connected spiral-wire resistor coils. Resistors were laid out horizontally, parallel to and equidistant from the cylinder axis, and were as long as the cylinder itself. They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator device which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an industrial trade secret waveform. This procedure, needed to properly activate the E-Cat HT charge, had no bearing whatsoever on the power consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the test. The most important element of the E-Cat HT was lodged inside the structure. It consisted of an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, housing the powder charges. Two AISI 316 steel cone-shaped caps were hot-hammered in the cylinder, sealing it hermetically.

Here's a picture of the E-Cat HT during one of the tests:

There were two test runs of the E-Cat HT (the emphasis is mine):

    The present report describes the results obtained from evaluations of the operation of the E-Cat HT in two test runs. The first test experiment, lasting 96 hours (from Dec. 13th 2012, to Dec. 17th 2012), was carried out by the two first authors of this paper, Levi and Foschi, while the second experiment, lasting for 116 hours (from March 18th 2013, to March 23rd 2013), was carried out by all authors.

The authors also note various assumptions they made about the test and that they weren't in control of all of the aspects of the process but they apparently didn't consider any of these to be egregious enough to be showstoppers.

And now, the big reveal ... the authors' conclusions are (again, the emphasis is mine):

    ... if we consider the whole volume of the reactor core and the most conservative figures on energy production, we still get a value of (7.93 ± 0. 102  10^2 MJ/Liter that is one order of magnitude higher than any conventional source.

To put that in perspective, the following graph plots the peak power of various energy sources against their specific energy (energy per unit mass). As you can see, gasoline is way out in front in terms of how much energy is available and how much power can be delivered but if this paper is correct, you can make that "gasoline was way out in front" because, as can be seen, the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!

Graph [UPDATED 05/21/13 @ 09:08] courtesy of Alan Fletcher

While a few commentators have raised criticisms concerning how the measurements were made and sources of error others have argued that the energy produced is so significant even knocking off an order of magnitude on either axis still portrays a process with insanely valuable output.

This is not, of course, the last word or even one anywhere near the end of this story but unless this is one of the most elaborate hoaxes in scientific history it looks like the world may well be about to change. How quick will depend solely on Rossi.

[PhysicsProf]

Here's comment from Steven Krivit, who while often favorable to LENR claims, certainly takes exception to Rossi's claims:

Steven B. Krivit 1 day ago

This is a partially independent measurement, performed on a device that was built by and controlled by Rossi, and located in Rossi's facility. The measurement was performed by some of the parties that have been involved in this scam since 2011.

The fact that the authors of the paper have stated that they have performed an independent test is a significant misrepresentation and would qualify as research misconduct by some organizations.

Steven B. Krivit
Publisher and Senior Editor, New Energy Times
Editor-in-Chief, 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia

[PhysicsProf]

Comments from Hank Mills - the following is particularly interesting IMHO:

Rossi has stated that the majority of heat produced in the E-Cat is not due to transmutation -- nickel being transformed into copper. Instead, it is another phenomenon that he will not detail.

Transmutation, or the reaction of protons on nickel to produce copper, I thought was the main claim for E-cat.  But what other phenomenon is there -- unless a process we sometimes refer to as "space energy" or "freedom energy"   -- because we do not yet know the source  of this anomalous energy input?

(Unless there are measurement or other errors of course...  I would like to see a straightforward calorimetric measurement of the E-cat, and also ANY gamma spectra which can be shown.)

http://pesn.com/2013/05/21/9602321_E-Cat_Validation_Creates_More_Questions/
You are here: PureEnergySystems.com > News > May 21, 2013

E-Cat Validation Creates More Questions

The Energy Catalyzer has been tested, successfully, yet again. However, the report has created more questions about the enigmatic technology, such as how can the E-Cat melt ceramic -- with a melting point of 2000 degrees C -- when the fuel of the E-Cat, nickel, has a much lower melting point?


The Hot-Cat test setup.

By Hank Mills
Pure Energy Systems News

To me, and probably many other people, the saga of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology has been long and tedious. The reason I feel fatigued is not because I have been waiting for the technology to be proven to produce excess heat -- that was confirmed long ago in my personal opinion -- but because so many details of it are still shrouded in mystery.

Due to intellectual property issues, Andrea Rossi has been forced to explain the technology in a way that would not reveal critical trade secrets to his competitors; and, by doing so, has kept the world in the dark about how this invention works. I had high hopes that a recent report describing three tests of the E-Cat might reveal more about how it works, but it has only created more questions -- in addition to another piece of confirmation that the technology is, in fact, real.

The report describes three tests that took place over several months. I am not going to describe each of the tests in detail here, but, in short, I will say that each one of them produced -- according to the authors -- a significant amount of excess heat. This heat production was far greater than could be attributed to any hidden power source: batteries, chemicals, gasoline, or anything else the cynics may claim was secretly powering the device. Also, although the exact amount of excess heat produced in the first test was not able to be determined, the power output was enough to melt the steel cylinders, the ceramic cylinders, and destroy the device, without releasing any measurable radiation. (An E-Cat does not seem to present any significant radiation hazards.) In the second and third tests, the power output was high enough to prove excess heat was being produced. There can be little doubt about this, because the power output was intentionally underestimated to make the experiment as conservative as possible.

However, regardless of the fact that the tests were successful and proved that excess heat is produced by the E-Cat, the report has generated more questions.

One of these questions is how can the E-Cat melt ceramic -- with a melting point of 2000 degrees C -- when the fuel of the E-Cat, nickel, has a much lower melting point? There is no way we can know for sure, due to the secrecy involved with the technology, but I see three possibilities. There could be more, of course.

One possibility is that the nickel is alloyed with a catalyst that gives it a higher melting point, such as tungsten. Such an alloy might be able to have reaction sites that are not destroyed at temperatures greater than the melting point of nickel. Another possibility, of course all of these are just guesses, is that the nickel may still be able to produce nuclear reactions while in the liquid form. Yet another possibility is that some other heat producing process is taking place that does not require nickel. I think this last possibility might be valid because Rossi has stated that the majority of heat produced in the E-Cat is not due to transmutation -- nickel being transformed into copper. Instead, it is another phenomenon that he will not detail.

It would be good to get a full explanation about this, but I doubt it will happen -- due to almost all detailed information about the E-Cat being confidential. There are other questions, however, that also need to be answered. One of these is why, in the third of the three tests, the temperature actually drops in self sustain mode.

This is a complicated issue. Originally, it has been explained to us that heat from the resistance heating coils produces a control effect, preventing the nuclear reactions from running away, and that radio frequencies stimulate the nuclear reactions. This made me think that in self sustain mode the radio frequencies would be constantly applied, and the temperature of the reactor would stay the same or increase. I also thought that when the temperature went too high, the resistance coils would be turned on, and the temperature would drop. But now, with the new E-Cat, this is not the case. Instead, during self sustain mode, zero power seems to be applied to the resistance coils that I think serve as the antenna for the radio frequencies. As soon as they are turned off, the temperature drops -- it actually increases for a few seconds -- and starts dropping until the resistance coils are turned back on, when radio frequencies start being applied again. At that point, the temperature climbs rapidly. I think what is happening is that in this setup, perhaps unlike other hot cats that could self sustain for hours, the radio frequencies are being applied at the same time as the heat. This way you have one mechanism stimulating the nuclear reactions and another mechanism controlling them, simultaneously. However, what is interesting is that even when the temperature is falling, according to the report, it is not falling as fast as it should -- apparently due to heat being produced. So the device is self sustaining, even when it seems to be sputtering out. It seems the newest E-Cat stays stable by every few minutes letting the reactions die off, instead of trying to keep them stable and continuous. Of course, this is just speculation, and I may be wrong.

I wish that the report would have shown a system self sustaining for a long period of time, at least an hour, without dropping in temperature. My thinking is that this could easily be done by simply applying the radio frequencies for the entire hour without applying the resistance heating coils. But this might create a situation like in the first of the three tests in which the reactor over heats, goes out of control, and destroys itself. I think it is clear that the enemy of control in the E-Cat is temperature, but at the same time the COP increases with temperature. So this creates an enigma -- how to increase temperature while maintaining control.

Personally, I wish the authors of the report would have included data from the first test. I know the data is incomplete, but I find it odd that they did not include it. The data could possibly show a system self sustaining while maintaining the same temperature, or even climbing in temperature, for more than a few seconds. This is not needed to prove that excess energy is produced, but it would have been absolute, irrefutable evidence that I don't think even the most die hard skeptics could ignore. I have wanted to see such data for a long time, and I guess I will have to wait even longer to see it.

I also find that there are no diagrams of the devices in the report. The scientists involved were able to witness one of these devices cut in half. They know how they are constructed, and I wish the scientists had taken the time to produce a few diagrams. Of course, they provided descriptions, but visual aids are an amazing tool that can aid comprehension.

Perhaps one of the greatest mysteries about this report is that the mouse and cat -- or activator and cat -- setup is not described. I thought this test (the third of the three) was supposed to be of a mouse and cat setup, but the authors only describe the central tube as having an active charge -- like in the ordinary hot cat. According to Rossi, the activator or central tube is only part of what creates heat in a mouse and cat setup. He claims that the cat or outer layer is what has a high COP. If the device used in the third test was the cat and mouse setup, the authors did not address the charge in the outer layers.

If the third test was indeed a test of the mouse and cat setup, we need to find out why the authors did not address the issue of the cat producing energy and not just the mouse. We also need to find out why the charge in the outer layers was not added to the mass of the charge in the central core.

All in all, I think, as a non-expert or engineer, the report was adequate to confirm the tech produces significant excess heat. And when tested at high temperature, can produce huge amounts of power. But at the same time, I wish the report had more details, more diagrams, and more explanations. My hope is that this report wakes up those who have been waiting for even more confirmation -- in addition to what already exists -- that the E-Cat works. The technology needs more development, but it seems to represent a solution to the energy crisis.

[EMdevices]

Very interesting.

Question:  since the E-cat reactor produces energy an order of magnitude higher than known chemical reactions, is this proof positive that it's a nuclear reaction?

Also, what happens to the powders inside after reaction?

[PhysicsProf]

Very interesting.

Question:  since the E-cat reactor produces energy an order of magnitude higher than known chemical reactions, is this proof positive that it's a nuclear reaction?

NO.  This is a classic blunder IMO, to assume that if "it's too much energy to be chemical, it MUST be nuclear."  (I argued this point with two chemists back in 1989... that they should not call it "cold fusion" unless they could prove it was really FUSION!)

  How about some other form of energy, perhaps a hitherto untapped source of energy?  Or -- do "we" really know ALL the energy sources which the universe has to offer?  are there NO SURPRISES LEFT?

Just 120 years ago, nuclear energy as a source of commercial energy would have been a complete surprise.  Today, it is understood and no longer exotic.

I spoke to this point at the University of Missouri in Oct. 2012, in an invited seminar there. 

[PhysicsProf]

  Another publication, open-minded reporting IMHO:

Third Party Tests Prove Rossi's E-Cat HT2 Works

By Brian Westenhaus | Wed, 22 May 2013 21:55 | 0 
Benefit From the Latest Energy Trends and Investment Opportunities before the mainstream media and investing public are aware they even exist. The Free Oilprice.com Energy Intelligence Report gives you this and much more. Click here to find out more.
An independent test report of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat HT2 is available at the Cornell University Library archive.  The team, seemingly led by Hanno Essén of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden included four collaborators from Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden with Mr. Rossi's old friend Giuseppe Levi of Bologna University and Evelyn Foschi of Bologna Italy.

The team collected data over two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively.  Anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments.  It would appear fairly conclusively the E-Cat HT2 works.


Using the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is energy production still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources and could be as high a three orders of magnitude.


E-Cat HT2 Test Apparatus March of 2013.

Related article: What's Happened to Andrea Rossi and his E-Cat?

As noted the independent test was run with people quite familiar to Mr. Rossi.  This is no particular surprise.  It is in fact to be expected, both the need for expertise as well as familiarity.  None of the real world circumstances are going to satisfy the skeptics, critics and naysayers.  But the report paper is generously offered to anyone who cares to look and offers a quite thorough look at the protocols and procedures with worthwhile insight to the device and its performance.

The test is also noteworthy in that the financial support for the team came from and is credited to the private Alba Langenskiöld Foundation and commercial firm ELFORSK AB.  This too is not a surprise as close watchers have noted that the Swedes are following closely and have begun their effort to commercialize the technology.

The test set out to determine if the E-Cat HT2 is a net energy producer.  The test design is patterned on an open flame method where the measurements are of radiated heat rather than immersion in water for a convection transfer.  This method makes no assumptions about the nature of the E-Cat HT2 reaction or the contents of the reactor.  Thus no conditions are made for the presumed LENR or Cold Fusion activity, the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated cylinder or a gas flame combusting inside a cylinder.

The test result paper has come out a little over a month after the event.  The test took place at Rossi's facility in Italy.  The apparatus used was provided by the test team.

It's a pretty clean test.  Of course lots of folks can poke holes, but the team, its financial backers and interested commercial interests got what they wanted.

Related article: Nuclear Fusion – Possible at Last?

The cleanliness is important.  Using the test to determine the source of the energy output would only complicate the protocols.  The point wasn't how, rather a simple "does it or does it not".  Why bother with the how until you have a concrete "it does."

That leads to the news that the next test experiment, which is expected to start in the summer of 2013 and last about six months, is to be a long-term performance test of the E-Cat HT2. That test will be crucial for further attempts to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observations.

Rossi has enough prescience to grasp that commercial use has to lead the science research needed to gain understanding.  Surely the established science community is watching, but established science works on well, established science, where expertise and depth of understanding can delve further into the particular fields.

Cold Fusion got blown as soon as labels were applied from familiar fields, which threatened the established knowledge.  It's a sorry situation when human nature needs to associate the new with the old fails and drag the wholly new into science oblivion.

Cold Fusion, LENR or other labels are all addressing a basic truth – it's a new field, fantastically exciting, packed with potential, and the most compellingly interesting thing since germs and radiation.

By. Brian Westenhaus

Some excitement noted here as these tests unfold.  Maybe I'll be convinced yet...  Very glad that Rossi has backed off claims that it "must be nuclear (LENR)".

[Centraflow]

If I may ask a question, is it a must that there is radiation to have an LENR happening? I here both arguements of yes and no? most confusing. I would think personally, NO, unless you are using radiating elements or "possibly" created one. I think it is an area where at the moment nobody really knows!!

Mike

[EMdevices]

I personally think these types of reactions, I.e., utilizing hydrogen and metals, are really a form of chemical reaction.  Hydrogen embrittlement breaks down the strong metalic bonds and releases energy, so it's an exothermic reaction.

So this reactor is no different then a wood stove burning wood in an oxygen atmosphere.  In the E-cat reactor, the fuel is the nickel metal flakes or powder and the gas is hydrogen, and since the metalic bonds store such huge amounts of energy, it releases orders of magnitude more energy.  Utilizing a metal powder, instead of a solid chunk of metal, increases the surface area, so the reaction is stronger.

Perhaps this is the fuel of the future, metal !

EM

PS. Just watched another video where Rossi calculates energy on the paper pad, an he gets a COP over 6, which is awesome.  I double checked his calculations and they are correct. 

I think we should build such a device to warm water, and it would be nice to also generate the Hydrogen from water

[PhysicsProf]

EMDevices:

Hydrogen embrittlement breaks down the strong metalic bonds and releases energy, so it's an exothermic reaction.

Can you be QUANTITATIVE?  I've heard such arguments before IIRC -- but the amount of energy released is much less than actually observed.  Wouldn't hurt to check again.

If I may ask a question, is it a must that there is radiation to have an LENR happening? I here both arguements of yes and no? most confusing. I would think personally, NO, unless you are using radiating elements or "possibly" created one. I think it is an area where at the moment nobody really knows!!

Mike

LENR = low energy NUCLEAR reactions.  So there must be SOME PRODUCT that would reflect a change in nuclei, to be LENR.  

To say that the anomalous xs heat effect is nuclear in origin requires finding nuclear products that arise at the same time and in the same quantities, correlating with the xs heat. Otherwise, one cannot definitively say that the xs heat is nuclear in origin. It is better to say it is 'anomalous', for now, until experiments clearly determine the origin of the xs heat phenomenon.

There is also a small d-d fusion effect observed in some experiments (including ours at BYU years ago), but this does NOT mean that the xs heat is nuclear in origin!  The evidence suggests that these are two distinct and separate phenomena, not even occuring at the same time (in general).


I wish to re-emphasize that I find data for anomalous excess heat (without evidence for commensurate fusion products) to be compelling at this time in some experiments (such as the NRL experiments).

Back in 1989, I tried repeatedly to get Pons&F to drop their claim that the "excess heat" was due to d-d fusion, to no avail at the time. In fact, my insistence on this point -- that the anomalous xs heat was NOT due to d-d fusion, earned me some enemies it seems.

In recent years, many if not most researchers in the field have come to share this view (it's not d-d cold fusion, but something else!). Even Fleischman admitted it was not d-d fusion, before his passing.


 

[Centraflow]

EMDevices:

Can you be QUANTITATIVE?  I've heard such arguments before IIRC -- but the amount of energy released is much less than actually observed.  Wouldn't hurt to check again.

LENR = low energy NUCLEAR reactions.  So there must be SOME PRODUCT that would reflect a change in nuclei, to be LENR.  



 

I agree with that, I meant radiation of some type if we did not have radiative elements to start with. Basically we would be making radioactive elements!! or is it just a short lived byproduct from a transition, like heat from a chemical reaction. Ni to Cu via atomic hydrogen, does H1 emit radiation? has an extra event taken place by the introduction of RF waves as a form of catalyst? Rossi seems to be injecting RF via the heating coils, "his special drive circuit?", Hmm thinking about it there are not an awful lot of possibilities.

What do we have? Ni, H2, initial heat and "RF?" I am still thinking  about this and will post more when I can get my head around it a little more.

Mike

[PhysicsProf]

  It is unlikely for a nuclear reaction (normal or "cold") to proceed without production of radioactive isotopes; but possible.

d-d fusion results in n+3H3 AND p+triton (which is radioactive)
d-t fusion results in 4He +n, but the tritium in the fuel is radioactive

proton-capture on nickel (e.g., Rossi's claims) would produce at least some radioactive isotopes - I see no way around this.

[PhysicsProf]

 Today from pureenergyblog.com:  http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/05/26/1232/8502322_qa-with-hanno-essena-regarding-recent-e-cat-test/

Q&A With Hanno Essena Regarding Recent E-Cat Test
May 26, 2013 - Demonstration, Free Energy, LENR, Top 5 - Tagged: Andrea Rossi, Cold Fusion, E-Cat, free energy, Hanno Essen, Hot-Cat, lenr   - no comments   
110329_Andrea-Rossi_cold-fusion_Sweedish-Skeptics_600

Hanno Essen is shown on the right during his March 28, 2011 visit.

Preface by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

According to Wikipedia, Hanno Essén, born September 27, 1948, is an associate professor of theoretical physics and a lecturer at the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society.

He was was one of the people involved in the third party testing of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat that we reported on a few days ago.

He gave the following responses to a questionnaire, posted here with permission of the person who posted it originally at the ChemFan forum on May 24.

He said:

    I asked all of the authors of this paper (except Evelyn Foschi, whose
    e-mail I could not find anywhere) several questions.

    Only Hanno Essen answered so far.

Here is the dialogue:

[Centraflow]

  It is unlikely for a nuclear reaction (normal or "cold") to proceed without production of radioactive isotopes; but possible.

d-d fusion results in n+3H3 AND p+triton (which is radioactive)
d-t fusion results in 4He +n, but the tritium in the fuel is radioactive

proton-capture on nickel (e.g., Rossi's claims) would produce at least some radioactive isotopes - I see no way around this.

Thank you Steven for the reply, I'm still looking into this. I would like to try this but I do not have any means of radiation detection. The build would not be complicated from what I have seen, the secret ingredient mixed with the Ni might be! or it is a process of elimination, I have my ideas on that one. The delta wired heating coils could be a type of induction running at the resonant frequency of hydrogen so breaking the H-H bond (thinking allowed here).

We know H1 is highly reactive and as so is short lived on it's own in  monatomic state. Ni is used a lot as a catalyst, but here it is used up, no transformed, in the reaction, and what is this secret ingredient doing?  keeping the hydrogen in monatomic state long enough for it to do it's work on the Ni, and what are the products?

Well I need to do a lot of reading up on atomic physics, and I thought chemistry was bad enough

Mike

[Centraflow]

Here's a little something to consider.

A molecule may switch hydrogen-bonding partners either 1. through thermally activated breaking of a hydrogen bond that creates a dangling hydrogen bond before finding a new partner or 2. by infrequent but rapid switching events in which the NHB is a transition state, (NHB none hydrogen bond).

Mike

[EMdevices]

Rossi is such a funny looking guy, he makes me laugh!    And it's so entertaining just to listen to him speak with that heavy accent.

[PhysicsProf]

Update from PESN:

    "This is a major milestone in this 3-year long E-Cat saga we've been following -- perhaps the biggest yet. And it's a great day for the LENR world, colloquially called 'Cold Fusion' in general. It's also a vindication of this technology that we've been featuring in our Top 5 Exotic Free Energy Technologies listing nearly as long." -- Sterling D. Allan


Industrial Heat, LLC was incorporated in 2012 and is based in Raleigh, North Carolina.

On January 24, 2014, perhaps pressured by their outing by E-CatWorld.com, Industrial Heat LLC published a press release announcing they had

    "acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi's Italian low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat). A primary goal of the company is to make the technology widely available, because of its potential impact on air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and biomass.

    ""The world needs a new, clean and efficient energy source. Such a technology would raise the standard of living in developing countries and reduce the environmental impact of producing energy," said JT Vaughn speaking on behalf of Industrial Heat (IH).

    "Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi's LENR device after an independent committee of European scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi's facilities in Italy."

    "Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi's LENR device after an independent committee of European scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi's facilities in Italy.

    "The published report by the European committee concluded, "Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources" [referring to energy output per unit of mass]. The report is available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913. In addition, performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of IH personnel and certified by an independent expert.
    "Since acquiring Rossi's technology, IH has engaged in a broad-based effort to protect it by preparing numerous patent applications related to the core technology as well as associated designs and uses.
    "Tom Darden, who co-founded Cherokee Investment Partners, a series of private equity funds specializing in cleaning up pollution, is a founding investor in Industrial Heat. He is one of a small group of like-minded investors who are supporting this technology because it could significantly address a number of social and environmental challenges. They have committed to make it broadly available because of its potential for impact. IH is considering partnerships with industry participants, universities and NGO's to ensure the technology is developed in a thoughtful and responsible manner.
    "JT Vaughn manages Industrial Heat. He is the founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge, an accelerator for environmental startups, and a leader in the startup community in the Research Triangle.
    "Companies or organizations interested in partnering with Industrial Heat should reach out to JT Vaughn at info@industrialheat.co."