January 26, 2014 – Andrea Rossi, the “minstrel” of cold fusion technology has sold the rights to his low-energy nuclear reactor (LENR), branded the Energy Catalyzer or E-Cat, to Industrial Heat, a North Carolina company located in the Research Triangle Park area of the state.
JT Vaughn, the manager of Industrial Heat stated when asked about the acquisition, “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.”
Vaughn cited two multi-day tests by European scientists as evidence that Rossi’s E-Cat device actually works. In two tests, one in December 2012 and another in March 2013 independent researchers investigated E-Cat technology at Rossi’s own lab (see image of the testing below). The investigators charged reactor tubes with hydrogen, nickel powder and some other additives. The E-Cat required 360 Watts of power input per hour. Energy output was measured by calculating the thermal output which was determined to be equivalent to 2,034 Watts in the December test and even higher in the subsequent test in March. For December the power output to input ratio was 5.65:1.
The authors of the study have concluded that E-Cat energy output is a “magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.” So that led me to ask what are conventional energy source ratios or EROIs?
Data from different sources has given me a range of figures which I am sharing here with you:
- Hydro – ratios vary from 205:1 to 43:1.
- Nuclear – from 59:1 to 15:1.
- Coal – from 29:1 to 7:1.
- Natural gas – from 26:1 to 5:1.
- Solar – from 12:1 to 3.7:1.
- Wind – from 80:1 to 6:1.
Based on this data I question the statement made by the E-Cat testers.
Nevertheless Vaughn’s company intends to support the cold fusion technology and has started preparing patent applications for submission, something that Rossi was unsuccessful at doing in the past.
Vaughn is the founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge, an environmental start up incubator working out of the Research Triangle Park area. And Industrial Heat has found private equity investors focused on environmental plays who see a future for E-Cat.
As I have often stated about cold fusion technology – there continues to be more talk than substance. I will be most interested to see if Industrial Heat can successfully commercialize Rossi’s invention and prove that my many doubts were unfounded. Apparently Chinese officials have expressed interest in E-Cat but have yet to make an investment. I guess like me they are waiting for further proof.
Related articles across the web
Related Posts
Another Potential Battery Breakthrough That Uses A Water Electrolyte
Safe and Efficient Charging Is Needed to Support the EV and Carbon Transition
XPrize Launches Desalination $119 Million, 5-Year Competition
Decarbonization Conversations: Using Seaweed to Store Carbon on The Ocean Floor
U.S. Using A Supercomputer To Help Communities Model Climate Risk
The Saga of Honeybee Colony Collapse is Being Questioned
Was Carl von Clausewitz Right Describing War as a Form of Policy?
Can Kinetic Energy Harvested From Human Activity Help Save The Planet?
((Nevertheless Vaughn’s company intends to support the cold fusion technology and has started preparing patent applications for submission, something that Rossi was unsuccessful at doing in the past.))
It’s a pretty safe bet that Vaughn’s company has no intention of demonstrating to potential investors the ecat’s lack of capacity to melt a garbage can of cracked ice with over unity energy production. Credibility imust be expressed in negative numbers.
It seems to me that there is a misanderstand.
1.56:1 is not the ‘EROIs (energy returned on invested) E-caT, but the COP (Coefficient of Production), which is quite different, is not it calculated the ratio of the price of money invested to generate THIS EQUIPMENT (and its energy input) and the price of energy output, but simply the performance of the unit in which give 1 and get 5.6, as no reaction such as chemistry get.
[…] View original post here: Headlines: Rights to E-Cat Cold Fusion Reactor Sold to North … […]
[…] Andrea Rossi has found a U.S. backer for his E-Cat cold fusion device after testers give it the thumbs up but maybe overstate output claims. […]
Thanks to cover that subject with reasonable positon, without factual errors (unlike some who may face libeling case).
people aware of what is in process know that the test was funded by Elforsk, the Swedish equivalent of EPRI/ENEA/CEA. After fundint the test, acknowledging it’s sucess as press release, they published an article in their corporate magazine Elforsk Perpektiv
http://www.elforsk.se/Global/Trycksaker%20och%20broschyrer/elforsk_perspektiv_nr2_2013.pdf#page=4
Rossi is only one of the 5 technologies that Mickael McKubre have replicated for … Darpa.
http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/leading-researcher-says-he-has-replicated-at-least-five-lenr-technologies-for-us-government-admits-working-for-darpa-2
There are many more business , big and small, that are preparing LENr revolution
http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/
If you could interview Sunrise securities, Cherokee fund…
For those who still believe the fairy tale of 1989 cold fusion being debunked, you should read the very documented book of Charles Beaudette : Excess Heat.
http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf
He resume well the source of our uninformed faith :
“The upshot of this conflict was that the scientific community failed to give anomalous heat the evaluation that was its due. Scientists of orthodox views, in the first six years of this episode, produced only four critical reviews of the two chemists’ calorimetry work. The first report came in 1989 (N. S. Lewis). It dismissed the Utah claim for anomalous power on grounds of faulty laboratory technique. A second review was produced in 1991 (W. N. Hansen) that strongly supported the claim. It was based on an independent analysis of cell data that was provided by the two chemists. An extensive review completed in 1992 (R. H. Wilson) was highly critical though not conclusive. But it did recognize the existence of anomalous power, which carried the implication that the Lewis dismissal was mistaken. A fourth review was produced in 1994 (D. R. O. Morrison) which was itself unsatisfactory. It was rebutted strongly to the point of dismissal and correctly in my view. No defense was offered against the rebuttal. During those first six years, the community of orthodox scientists produced no report of a flaw in the heat measurements that was subsequently sustained by other reports.
The community of scientists at large never saw or knew about this minimalist critique of the claim. It was buried in the avalanche of skepticism that issued forth in the first three months. This skepticism was buttressed by the failure of the two chemists’ nuclear measurements, the lack of a theoretical understanding of how their claim could work, a mistaken concern with the number of failed experiments, a wholly unrealistic expectation of the time and resource the evaluation would need, and the substantial ad hominem attacks on them. However, their original claim of measurement of the anomalous power remained unscathed during all of this furor. A decade later, it was not generally realized that this claim remained essentially unevaluated by the scientific community. Confusion necessarily arose when the skeptics refused without argument to recognize the heat measurement and its corresponding hypothesis of a nuclear source. As a consequence, the story of the excess heat phenomenon has never been told.”
This book also raise point about epistemology, about what is replication is real complex science like chemistry, catalyzed chemistry, semiconductors, biology… to compare with easier nuclear physics.
It is time to reexamine the evidences, with an old eye, based on facts and not on hearsay.
One good point that Reaudette reminds is that many anti-LENR books were citing very few articles, and none after 1989.
And good experimental results took more than one year to came. That was the problem too.
best regards, and thanks again.
((It is time to reexamine the evidences, with an old eye, based on facts and not on hearsay.))
NO! It is time for any proponent of LENR over unity energy energy production to actually melt a grabage pail of crushed ice in the presence of a HS physics class. Melt the ice and get back with us skeptics. Both Rossi and Defkalion perfectly well understand melting the ice is the simple conclusive test, yet they consistently avoid it. Is your sense of smell;dead?
Niccolo5, I think that you don’t know what you are talking about. Try to remember this in the coming years so that you can learn some humility and stop being arrogant. It is very unappealing.
LENR+ and the E-Cat are real. I know that this is unprecedented. Get over it. This is the greatest technological discovery in the history of the world.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.3913.pdf
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/25/1272371/-This-Is-The-Year-LENR-Changes-The-World
http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/leading-researcher-says-he-has-replicated-at-least-five-lenr-technologies-for-us-government-admits-working-for-darpa-2
I’m well aware there are many who belive in the “virgin birth” of Jesus. I’m unashamed to admit my disbelief of that improbable proposition as well as the even more improble proposition of useful overunity energy from either Rossi’s or Defkalion touted LENR gadgets. Just link me to the legitimate demonstration of melting the cracked ice, and I’ll not only believe, but also happily eat my hat in public without any gravy.
I will stipulate the academic community incompetently treated Pons and Feishman’s report first published in the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry. After the report was sensationalized in the national media, about 60 days passed before I got over to the University of Houston Library to read it. To my astonishment I found it in the journal stacks unopend still in its original mailing wrapper. It seems that all the critical commentary from the UH Physics Department came from persons who didn’t even bother to read the report. The report did not provide all the information that would be needed to duplicate the experiments, so all the negative reports from various investigators claiming to have run the same experiments seem highly problematic.
Pons and Fleisman did not claim they had discovered any useful over-unity energy source. My impression was their report was a cleverly crafted plea for access to super heavy water (at the time entirely controled by major nuclear weapon nations), so they could conduct more promising experiments. Seems doubtful they ever obtaind any significant amount of super heavy water.
.
“Based on this data I question the statement made by the E-Cat testers.”
No, actually you did not question the statement, you did not even express what questions you might have. You made no effort to answer any questions you might have. You only made a wholesale rejection of their statement. That is quite different, and shoddy.
Joe,
EROI from almost every other energy source is far greater than production numbers from the LEN-R testing. The testers make a claim that is unsubstantiated by the facts.