WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

Russia-German Pipeline May Break Europe’s Energy Union

Incongruities between Eastern and Western…

Alt Text

Why Did This Oil Company’s Share Price Go Up During The Oil Bust

David Einhorn famously criticized Pioneer…

Brian Westenhaus

Brian Westenhaus

Brian is the editor of the popular energy technology site New Energy and Fuel. The site’s mission is to inform, stimulate, amuse and abuse the…

More Info

Andrea Rossi Vindicated? Cold Fusion Takes Another Step Towards Credibility

Andrea Rossi Vindicated? Cold Fusion Takes Another Step Towards Credibility

Professor Alexander Parkhomov of Lomonosov Moscow State University has published a paper describing his successful replication of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat LENR or cold fusion device.

It seems Parkhomov managed to acquire enough working data from Swedish and Italian academics to execute an experimental replication that offers data showing 2.74 more energy out than put in. As well as the paper there is video, diagrams and photography.

Another attempt by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) to replicate Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, cold fusion reactor ended explosively last Thursday after the reactor heated to over 1,000º C.

MFMP has multiple efforts underway. For now the most interesting is the “Project Dog Bone” seeking to produce large amounts of excess heat as claimed by Rossi, most recently professor Alexander Parkhomov of Lomonosov Moscow State University and independent U.S. researcher Jack Cole as well as many others over the years.

The MFMP group is very much in the open carrying out all the research as publicly as possible. The experiment was available as a live feed. The video above scrolled up to 3 hours 47 minutes shows the reactor exploding and the team member’s reactions. While the video is tedious for three plus hours, there are a few ‘Wow!’ minutes after 3:47.

There are a couple of possible explanations. Its reported that the E-Cat generates hydrogen that could have ignited and/or the lithium aluminum hydride portion of the fuel is pyrophoric, meaning it can burst into flames in air. Skeptics are sure to seize on these points.

There are also reports the strong skeptic, Brian Ahern, a former U.S. Air Force senior scientist and once one of Rossi’s fiercest critics is also now attempting to replicate the E-Cat effect.

Meanwhile Jack Cole of the LENR-Cold Fusion website is continuing his experimentation with a relatively low power LENR experimental setup. His latest experiment shows results that seem to demonstrate excess heat from his system as well.

Mr. Cole has done a number of fuel based experiments using reactor fuel “mostly nickel powder (INCO type 255, 2.2 to 2.5 um), lithium hydroxide (LiOH), iron oxide-red (Fe2O3), titanium hydride (TiH2), and a small amount of lime based ceramic mix”.

E-Cat World is now listing replication attempts as they become aware of them.

For now the “scammers” as the skeptics like to view them are getting quite numerous and their efforts are now consistent. It getting harder for the naysayers to hold their credibility together.

What is most disappointing is the abundance of emotional reactions that have been precluding engaging the scientific method. From that, decades have been lost on a phenomena that defies strict physics or chemistry explanations – that exists never the less.

This is a fascinating point in history that when – if ever – the scientific method is broadly engaged may well revolutionize some critical sectors of research for centuries to come. These scientists who engage in demoralizing, dismissive and character assassination and destruction have done far more harm than any collection of ‘scammers’ anyone might choose to propose. It’s a huge embarrassment that’s been tolerated for far too long.

In the meantime . . . Rossi’s repeated assertions over the years that an independent scientific study of the E-Cat really was on the way has borne fruit.

Amazingly enough, last October a report appeared authored by, among others, researchers from the University of Uppsala and University of Bologna. Even more astoundingly, the Lugano results were completely positive.

Over the length of a 32-day continuous run, a 900-watt electrical input produced 2,800 watts of heat from the reactor. The 20-cm long E-Cat was run for an extended period to prove that the energy could not be produced by hidden batteries or other sources. “The total net energy obtained during the 32 days run was about 1.5 MWh. This amount of energy is far more than can be obtained from any known chemical sources in the small reactor volume.”

We’re at the tipping point. Four years ago Mr. Rossi was quite hard to believe. Now the flip looks to be underway. Now its very hard to believe any skeptics.

By. Brian Westenhaus of New Energy and Fuel


Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Xam Takorian on February 12 2015 said:
    This looks very promising. I hope this tech doesnt get surpressed. We are neck deep in the age of corruption right now.
  • Ken on February 12 2015 said:
    The author's stance on this is refreshing. He acknowledges that there isn't a theoretical explanation for LENR and that it shouldn't be possible, yet there are positive experimental results. The most recent ones, specifically, have been more convincing. Furthermore the article places faith in the scientific method and disparages emotional response to experimental results. If this is a scam, replications can't keep coming forward. If it isn't, the ramifications of the E-cat and other LENR devices for society and humanity are massive.
  • bachcole on February 12 2015 said:
    I have been watching this story for years. I am hardcore about there being verifiable evidence. I am not a unicorn thinker.

    It is real.
  • David on February 13 2015 said:
    LENR FORUM Summary : Who is actually doing a replication attempt?

    5 groups

    Current known replicators:

    @Alexander Parkhomov (already two successful runs with published data)
    Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (in preparation)
    @brian ahern (in preparation)
    Jean-Paul Biberian (in preparation)
    An italian group (in preparation)

    http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/1094-Summary-Who-is-actually-doing-a-replication-attempt/
  • decent on February 13 2015 said:
    This LENR has become a modern day perpetum mobile.
    While there is no explanation frome where energy comes, more and more people are trying to convince public that it actually works. And the pattern is the same. Secretive, public events trying to convince, while there is no commercial product resulting from these endless experiments.
    For example, Guglielmo Marconi started to produce radiosets immediately when it was clear that it is possible to send signals over atlantic while there was no scientific explanation for phemomena.
  • Gary on February 13 2015 said:
    As much as one would like this to be true... the '32-day experiment' was very amateurish and the 'results' are of little value. Some details were almost embarrassingly foolish, like measuring the tube temperature with an IR sensor.

    I hope all readers of this forum are aware that not only is it impossible to measure a temperature with an IR-sensor (yes, they are very often used for that, but either under special circumstances or just to fool the ignorant), but in this particular case that was especially badly suited.

    I still hope it is true, anyway.
  • BILL on February 13 2015 said:
    its time for the big guns. Folks like the US dept of Energy should step in at this point and either confirm that this actually works, or debunk it as junk science
  • maryyugo on February 13 2015 said:
    None of the cited reports are credible because none uses correct methods of calorimetry. For an example of a credible method of calorimetry which works at the temperatures and heat flux levels compatible with the cited experiments, see

    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/misura-del-calore-emesso-da-una-lampada-ad-infrarossi-da-2kw-tramite-calorimetria-a-flusso/

    The article translates nicely with Google/Translate or in the Chrome browser.

    When the supposed Rossi effect is demonstrated with a calorimeter of this type by a major university (officially) or a major government test lab, then the story of LENR at high power will be credible. Until then, the possibility that it is some sort of measurement error (in the case of the recent investigators) and rank fraud (in the case of Rossi and Defkalion) is overwhelming.

    The fact that five experiments done incompetently and by an improper methodology reveal vaguely similar results should be little comfort to believers.
  • Jonathan Quimbly on February 13 2015 said:
    At this stage, I'd say the world awaits a consistent chain of evidence, over many experiments, showing that the energy release from an e-cat style device is more than the chemical energy potential of the ingredients going in.

    Have there been many LENR e-Cat experiments that attempted to measure ionizing radiation? What results? I see claims that LENR won't, as in should not, produce anything but heat, however those claims seem specious.

    Can it really be considered a form of fusion if there's no ionizing radiation or neutrinos?
  • pixelsnbits on February 13 2015 said:
    You have a choice.

    You can do what the skeptics want you to do and stop thinking about it.

    Or you can use your own mind and review the source material for yourself.

    Good starting points are:
    lenr-canr.org
    e-catworld.com
    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject
  • NorEastern on February 13 2015 said:
    Ridiculous! If you want to see a simple example of a small amount of electrical energy causing a huge release of chemical energy simply apply a static electricity spark to a balloon filled with hydrogen gas. Proper experimental technique will expose this as incompetent experimental design in a heartbeat. Some people will believe almost anything.
  • Gregory on February 13 2015 said:
    I'd like to see those loooong faces from OPEC and likewise oil barons from around the world lose their opulent houses. Sooner the better . And oh by the way. Mary Yuuuuuuugooo girl not so girl kinda shills sent to corners for having misbehaves for so long...so much bad mouthing.. hahhaha. I just can't wait..
  • JoeyV on February 13 2015 said:
    To NorEastern

    If you have been following this story or even cared to read the second to last paragraph of this article, you would understand that the example in your comment is incorrect. It states that the total energy output far exceeds what is possible from any sort of chemical reaction, within the volume of the small reactor. Meaning, that the measurable output of energy from the known volume within the reactor, far exceeds what is capable from any sort of chemical "reaction" energy. That is why there is such excitement about this.
    To use your example, it would be, as if your balloons known quantity of hydrogen gas, produced 2.5 times the amount of thermal energy then just by igniting the gas. A known volume of a known flammable gas produces a known amount of energy per its mass. What is unexplainable, and trying to be reproduced by these outside parties, is where and how is the excess energy coming from. I for one do not believe almost anything. But you need to better explain yourself if you want join the discussion.
  • Keith Pickering on February 13 2015 said:
    Yikes. With 900 W(e) input they're creating 2800 W(t) output? So if you use that heat to run a heat engine with typical 35% efficiency, that 2800 W(t) becomes 980 W(e) out from 900 W(e) in. Or, in other words, an EROI of no better than 1.09, not even accounting for the embodied energy in the device itself.

    Let's all hope civilization doesn't have to depend on this.
  • maryyugo on February 14 2015 said:
    Keith, you're missing the point. Any device which makes three times the energy required to start it can "self run". All you have to do is to use some of the heat it produces to keep it hot. One of the reasons that Rossi's ecats are not credible is that they do not self-run. Not only do they require a constant source of electrical energy from the mains, but in the early ecats, the large band heater heated only the cooling water! Now how does that make any sense other than that the device was a fraud? Rossi's excuse that the heater is for safety makes no sense despite all the convoluted and ridiculous explanations advanced for this by enthusiasts. The PROPER way to control an exothermic reaction (ANY exothermic reaction) is with controlled forced cooling. Rossi's hot cats are notable for specifically NOT including a cooling system (they rely only on cooling by radiation and a little convection).

    None, NOT ONE, of Rossi's early tests included any sort of calibration or control run. The last two do but it is an inadequate one which does not reflect actual operating conditions. Rossi is not credible and Defkalion is even less credible if that's possible. Anyway, they disappeared, didn't they?

    In addition, Keith, your basic supposition that you need a thermal engine to use the ecat, if it worked, is wrong. Suppose the ecat did make three times the power you put in, simply as thermal energy. You could use it as an effective and efficient space heater in all the millions (if not billions!) of environments in which humans need additional heat for comfort. And imagine the amount of energy which would be saved. It would revolutionize the world *if* it worked which unfortunately, it rather obviously does not.
  • Merchantsofdoubt on February 14 2015 said:
    Maryyugo and Keith,



    You guys should check out this link:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyff-review-the-documentary-merchants-of-doubt/

    As I think you guys are employed or affiliated with such entities that attempt to spread doubt and derail technology that could save us all. Tell me, do you deny that LENR has been achieved since the 1980's? Or better yet... Call it whatever you like that there is a process that is cheap, clean, and produces more energy than it takes in that currently exists today ?

    If you do belong to some group who's intent is to hold back technology by injecting artificial doubt... And ultimately holding back humanity from life changing/ life saving inventions ... Then you deserve pubic and private shame from all who know you and if you are part of the misinformation machine ...its despicable to think that forum trolling and spreading misinformation is a real paying job... Luckily, it's all coming to light ???? and you slaves will get exposed
  • Thinksforself on February 14 2015 said:
    I see George the cross-dressing conspiracy theorist aka maryyugo has already weighed. He/she wants everyone to believe that it is a scam that dozens of people are in on. The problem with this conspiracy theory is that scams of such magnitude generally revolve around making money and no one is accepting money in this case. Various ways of measuring the output of these devices has done including using a method calorimetry suggested by maryyugo/George the Cross-dresser. The boiling off of water used by professor Alexander Parkhomov is a method suggested by maryyugo to test Rossi years ago. Now that it has been done and shows a positive result he/she is moving the goal posts once again. This is typical of a paid fake skeptic whose whole purpose is to fling FUD in order to collect a paycheck.
  • Andy Eppink on February 15 2015 said:
    "Yikes. With 900 W(e) input they're creating 2800 W(t) output? So if you use that heat to run a heat engine with typical 35% efficiency, that 2800 W(t) becomes 980 W(e) out from 900 W(e) in. Or, in other words, an EROI of no better than 1.09, not even accounting for the embodied energy in the device itself.

    Let's all hope civilization doesn't have to depend on this."

    Per an earlier poster. It's true that as a coefficient of performance that's not so hot but it's a thermal input required from whatever source. It needn't be electrical with the daunting conversion loss. It conceivably could be just heat inputted from a conventional combustion source or, as things sophisticate, from the LERN(?) itself, the obvious desired result and in which case the specific energy/power density will be good indeed. There's a lot of handwaving, unexplained, not understood physics/chemistry going on here which will hopefully become apparent as time goes by. The optimal fusion would be the P-P Rxn firing very advanced combined cycle units (say > 66% busbar efficiency or so) with condenser reject heat recovery for adjoining greenhouse heating, building heating etc. VERY pie-in-the-sky, I admit. But that's the optimal.
  • maryyugo on February 15 2015 said:
    "The boiling off of water used by professor Alexander Parkhomov is a method suggested by maryyugo to test Rossi years ago."
    *
    No I didn't. If you think I did, please cite the link and the quote you think says that. I am positive that you can't because I never suggested it.

    Parkhomov's "method" is crude, inaccurate, and grossly unsafe, especially when performed with apparatus purloined from the living room and the kitchen! Parkhomov is lucky he didn't end up with a house fire.

    When the ecat was first announced in 2011, LENR and calorimetry enthusiast Jed Rothwell and I discussed by email test methods we could offer to perform for and with Rossi. We specified that *if* steam were to be generated, it would have to be completely "sparged" (condensed) in an insulated container or a heat exchanger so that the energy in it could be properly measured. We also said that a liquid flow calorimetry method such as the one Levi supposedly performed in 2/11 would be preferable where no steam is involved at all. In either case, we would have required a blank run and a calibration run where the reactor is made inert and the heat measured is generated only by an electric heater whose input is carefully measured. Of course, Rossi, Defkalion, Parkhomov, and "the professors" at Lugano do NOT use these methods. Rossi would not allow even as well known a proponent of LENR as Jed Rothwell and his "team" to test the ecat in Italy. One has to ask why all the claimants for high power LENR prefer convoluted and error prone techniques such as infrared temperature measurement with improper and inadequate calibrations.

    It speaks volumes about critics of my comments about Rossi that they never address my specific objections to Rossi's claims and my revelations about his crooked history, Petroldragon and the cheating of DOD/CERL with thermoelectric devices that did not work, both very expensive and nasty scams. Rather, they espouse conspiracy theories and conjecture about my "real identity" or who is paying me (and the other Rossi critics). Any intelligent person considering Rossi's claims should take note of the quality of "support" of this sort which he receives!
  • mike on February 15 2015 said:
    I'd be more impressed if a person video taped their electric bill statement going down because of their device.
  • Pweet on February 15 2015 said:
    For more than a year, the guaranteed performance of the supposed energy catalyser (e-cat) was a coefficient of production (COP) of 6.
    For the last year or more, the 'inventor' makes no claim of a COP value other than "the results could be positive or negative".
    In 2011 the claims were of COP's of up to 200. then 30, then a "guaranteed COP of 6. The most recent tests indicate there may be a COP of just over 3. This is assuming the test methods are valid and accurate, and there is room for much doubt and debate over that.
    In 2011, the claim was that a device had been heating a factory for two years and was 'ready for market', and orders were being taken for home heaters. Three years later not so much as one single e-cat is in use heating a home or factory unit anywhere in the world. None of the so called pre-orders has been filled, supposedly because of the inability to get safety certification. There has never been any evidence or pictures published of a finished home heater e-cat product ready to submit to any authority for the issuance of a safety certificate.

    Every test which has been performed, particularly the earlier ones, had glaring deficiencies and probable errors which could have been so easily cleared up and dispensed with by a simple repetition of the same test with those concerns addressed. A re-run of the same test with the possible errors addressed was never done.
    Any later test was a different test using different methods, usually of a different device, and with just as many areas of possible errors, some of them glaringly obvious. There has to be a reason for that.

    It's difficult to believe that someone allegedly smart enough to come up with such a great new technology is not smart enough to do a simple COP evaluation accurately. Every air conditioner on the market comes with its COP measured and stated to at least one decimal place over a number of operating ranges. After more than five years work, the COP of the so called 'e-cat' is still unable to be reported in a provable and repeatable manner any more accurately than "the results can be positive or negative".
    The fact that there has never been any indisputable demonstration of any of these devices showing a COP of anywhere near the previously claimed 200 or 30 or even 6, after so long a time frame is clear indication that it is one big scam.
    It's not as if it's a difficult job. It's a simple procedure and it's performed routinely hundreds of times a year on all sorts of devices, and yet there is always some lame reason given why it can't be preformed on this device.

    After watching this current episode in 'cold fusion' for four years, it appears to be going backwards.
    If the world is relying on this for its answer to global warming and CO2 'pollution', we are in serious trouble.
  • Herman on February 16 2015 said:
    Hi Mike,
    It is easy to manipulate the energy bill at the consumption side in order to get a power reduction after a certain date when u supposedly installed this energy saving device..... Usually the energy meters are reliable.
  • Steve S. on February 16 2015 said:
    Has anyone looked at the research of Prof. John R. R. Searl and his SEG machine, if this works it will be a game changer, no energy consumed to produce electrical energy, just magnetic forces in play. Am I being nieve or could this really work?
  • Phil C. on February 18 2015 said:
    The elephant in the room - what if it is all true? If low oil price is disruptive, what would happen if the entire oil industry was put out of business? Last June the bottom fell out of oil price - is this market manipulation or a fire-sale?
  • Alaister on March 03 2015 said:
    What is it they say,a prophet is never appreciated in his own land (time).99.9 % of the population is naysayers until they see.Then they tell you it was their idea all along.Its just human nature.
  • Brad Arnold on March 09 2015 said:
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Low-Energy-Nuclear-Reactio-by-Christopher-Calder-Andrea-Rossi_Energy-Policy_Industrial-Heat-Llc_Lenr-141013-530.html

    "There are many companies now racing to bring Low Energy Nuclear Reaction products to the marketplace. One notable company is Solar Hydrogen Trends, which claims to have accidentally discovered a way to use LENR to produce hydrogen gas from water at the energy equivalent of producing pollution free oil for about $5.00 a barrel. Their hydrogen gas producing reactor has been independently tested by two well known companies, AirKinetics, Inc. and TRC Solutions. Both companies found that the reactor works as promised, and the TRC Solutions PDF report is quite shocking. Solar Hydrogen Trends claims that their technology can be scaled down to power automobiles or scaled up to power jet aircraft, ships, and entire cities."
  • larry annis on April 07 2015 said:
    this could solve the water problems in california by desalinating sea water.
  • Stuart J. McIntosh on June 27 2015 said:
    Early ECAT showed high temperatures and a HOT spot and melted we are told.

    The catalysts ( plural ? ) are applied in a certain way , that may be varied ?

    External Cooling via cooling fins in an air duct , fan driven may allow calibration of heat delivery ?

    At some point it must become self actuating .... but THEN , how do we turn it off ??

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News