We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Karl Venter • 2 months ago

I wonder if Rossi will let me enter the Australian solar challenge with a SKL and some solar panels for airconditioning ( possibly winning it)
If that does not get everybodies attention nothing will. May not be according to the rules of the race, but it will surely get people attention and the world attention?

Roland • 2 months ago

I watched Bob Greenyer's impassioned video response to Rossi's announcement of success with the SKL with great interest, and having thought Bob's points over for a while there are some comments I'd like to make on the highlights.

Rossi has had a 'deadman switch' in place for at least five years now and has made it publicly known that in the event of his demise, or any attempt to commandeer his technology, a full detailed account of how to reproduce his technology would be simultaneously released to the general public from numerous sources; in short Rossi didn't need Bob's advice on this issue and was ready with a strategy well before Bob ever took public interest in him.

Rossi has also made it clear well before his announcement that success with the SKL concept hinged on two essential markers of having achieved that threshold. The first marker was the direct production of a significant percentage of the output as electricity, which is now established at 70-80%; the second marker was repeatedly enunciated, permanent self sustain mode required closing the loop and making the SKL completely self contained. His announcement of success clearly means that he met these self imposed conditions despite Bob's interpretation of the text of the announcement as ambiguous.

Rossi is under no obligation to respond to Bob's characterizations or demands that Rossi immediately present further clarification. As another commenter noted Bob is in a competitive relationship with Rossi, and furthermore while Bob has made substantive personal political progress MFMF's direct technical initiatives are moribund while Rossi has made extraordinary progress over the same time frame.

Bob returns repeatedly to the theme that Rossi already has plenty of money and quotes the figure, $10,000,000, that Rossi received from Industrial heat almost five years ago. First of all an unknown portion of that money was spent to build and operate the Doral facility, secondly Rossi has probably spent over a $1,000,000 in the last year alone just on salaries for his team. Ten million seems like a lot of money until you run a serious research project, then it tends to evaporate with remarkable rapidity as witnessed by Google's $10,000,000 effort that resulted in no significant progress whatsoever.

In Bob's opinion the only way to attain rapid proliferation of the technology is to turn it over to the public domain so every hobbyist on the planet can build an SKL in the garage. Bob also points to the travails of raising large amounts of money for esoteric projects while completely overlooking the presence of Rossi's business partner in this equation.

Unlike all the negative examples Bob raises about the business failures of Papp and Shields et. al. Rossi has, as he puts it, a major global player in his corner already while Bob's examples stood alone in the face of adversity and were crushed. Rossi has learned from his earlier reverses and is definitely thinking ahead in this regard.

Rossi already has a very powerful business model in the deployment of the heat producing SK; sell heat, or in the case of the SKL electricity, not hardware.

Every contract to sell heat or electricity is instant collateral for bank financing, under excellent terms, and that financing will provide immense leverage given that the capital costs of producing more units is very low and the resultant net cash flow is very large.

The last point I want to make is that the political landscape has shifted dramatically since the days of Papp and Shields. There is an irreversible momentum to address anthropocentricly induced climate change, and greenhouse gas emissions, that has mobilized the world's youth who are now in the streets demanding a viable future. The Democratic Party, and centrist parties across the liberal democracies, stand to benefit from this movement and Rossi can and will garner the full support of the next American administration a little over a year from now, and with that support the rapid proliferation of his technology will be relentless.

Axil Axil • 2 months ago

There is one inconvenient issue with the assumptions behind this dead man switch approach. Rossi was employed by IH for a number of years. He gave IH all his IP and taught IH how to build his reactors. But IH was never able to get their Rossi type LENR reactors to work. This was the major reason why Rossi and IH parted ways.

Rossi has the LENR magic touch. Like Jo Papp, who build systems that no one has yet gotten to work even though his patens lay out his systems designs in great detail, they just don't work.

The same thing goes got Mizuno. Even though Mizuno provides an open source how to do it book on his reactor, they just don't work.

Holmlid has been producing ultra dense hydrogen for a decade. There has been only two people who have replicated the process and it took them three years to do it with Holmlid help.

LION produces micro diamond based LENR fuel for his reactor. He layed out how to do it in detail for all to replicate. But no one has yet succeeded.

Rossi dead man switch just doesn't work.

Rossi must get his robot factory going, pumping out SKL reactors from an assembly line that manufacture functioning product with Rossi nowhere near that factory.. ASAP

Robert Loftus • 2 months ago

In 1966 Richard Feynman exposed Joseph Papp as a fraud.


Skip down to the section "R. Feynman on Papp Perpetual Motion Engine"

Robert Dorr • 2 months ago

All that Feynman proved is that he was an arrogant fool that shouldn't screw with other peoples devices. No matter how caviler his response was to the incident and the death of a man he paid a settlement and was, in my opinion, ultimately responsible for the death of a human.

James Andrew Rovnak • 1 month ago


Alan DeAngelis • 1 month ago
Roland • 2 months ago

That is also an assumption on your part; the assumption that Rossi's current designs lack robustness and replicability, events would contest that, besides which your assumption totally undermines the viability of Bob's position on the matter.

Axil Axil • 2 months ago

Rossi will not allow any replictions. That would compromise his IP.

_Jim • 2 months ago

re: "Rossi will not allow any replictions. That would compromise his IP."

The WHOLE point of PATENTS is to make a LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE position of one's IP: replication should NOT be an issue. Patents protect the marketing and sale of devices, not the independent, individual construction and replication thereof.

TRADE SECRETS, like the formula for Coca-Cola are a different thing altogether.

Per WIPO.int : In principle, the patent owner has the exclusive right to prevent or stop others from commercially exploiting the patented invention. In other words, patent protection means that the invention cannot be commercially made, used, distributed, imported or sold by others without the patent owner's consent.

Axil Axil • 2 months ago

re: "Rossi will not allow any replictions. That would compromise his IP."

On second thought, this is not true. Parkhomov replicated Rossi and went on to produce his own successful reactor. It was R. Mills that will take you to court if you try to copy any of his systems. This is what I have heard.

Roland • 2 months ago

The whole point of a deadman's switch is that its use is predicated on conditions where your proviso has become irrelevant.

Axil Axil • 2 months ago

My proviso is that only Rossi can get Rossi reactors to work. If Rossi is dead, then Rossi reactors will not work.

Frank Sedei • 2 months ago

That may be true in the past, but things have now changed drastically.

Roland • 2 months ago

You have no evidentiary basis for your statement other than IH's court room tactic to avoid payment of $89 million that they didn't have, sometimes people lie to avoid that kind of obligation. Besides it doesn't matter, what matters is the perception of the deployment of a deadman switch which was Bob's whole point.

Axil Axil • 2 months ago

Bob Greenyer tried many times to get a Rossi type reactor working but he never did.

Roland • 2 months ago

Bob has never had Rossi's complete designs to work from, more importantly Bob had no information about the field effects Rossi has used from the beginning, all he had was the 'fuel' analysis before and after and design basics from the Lugano Report.

Axil Axil • 2 months ago

I also listed Papp, Mizuno, LION, and Holmlid. You need to be very skilled in the art to be sucessful at LENR reactor building.

Roland • 2 months ago

I would suggest that when you're deploying production models you're well beyond the point where individual 'artistry' enters into it.

Axil Axil • 2 months ago

Well this is what I was suggesting. To protect Rossi/s legacy, he needs to deploy production models ASAP, nothing less.

Roland • 2 months ago

Ah, something we can agree on. But it is also very important that its done right straight out of the gate and we don't know what stage that planning is at, time will tell all. Further to that the SKL has been up and running, presumably, for a whole three days now, prudence suggests a longer base line is in order.

Frank Sedei • 2 months ago

Very insightful and worthwhile discussion and debate between two knowledgeable and respected contributors to this forum. Pick your side. Thank you.

Mark • 2 months ago

Too many of these scientist and inventor types seem to have too much respect for current scientific theory. I've seen this kind of attitude, before. I remember Shaun McCarthy claiming that he and his colleagues at Steorn tried, for months, to convince themselves that they weren't seeing what they were seeing, and that it had to be a result of some kind of mistake. Eventually, though, they grew to accept what became knows as "The Orbo Effect." Now we have a similar attitude from Rossi. The man actually made a point of saying that they did not violate unity, giving the impression that he was actually actively working to try to not violate unity, as if a violation of unity would have been a bad thing. Oh, well - even if it is not overunity, I hope that it can be made to keep accumulating energy from it's surroundings indefinitely. Isn't that what Mills is trying to do?

Axil Axil • 2 months ago

I don't understand. How can a closed loop system that can run for 6 months without external input power not be overunity?

vibrator ! • 1 month ago

Strictly, "OU" = evidence of an unidentified source (as opposed to evidence of creation ex nihilo).

Rossi's saying he's identified the source; either a corresponding mass deficit, or entropy change.

IOW it doesn't preclude a non-classical source..

Axil Axil • 1 month ago

How do you think that "Neutral pico-metric aggregates" produce energy?

vibrator ! • 1 month ago

I take it only that they're involved in the energy production process, not that they necessarily 'produce energy' themselves; that said, is the energy release associated with an increase or decrease in the material entropy of the 'charge'? What is the form of the energy gain in the first instance; mechanical / thermal, or EM? All force mediators are bosons; a cyclic asymmetric interaction against any fundamental force loses or gains ambient quantum momentum from a surfeit of one sign over the other of its respective gauge boson, in units of h-bar.. that bashically describes all possible forms of OU, so..

If the clue's in the name then presumably clusters or clustering of un-charged masses are involved - some kind of negentropic gradient, perhaps?

We know we're dealing with neutron sources, but not fusion or fission, and it's some kind of endothermic reaction, but can't be gaining energy from classical-scale EM interactions, so must be some kind of time-asymmetric inertial interaction, would be my guess; gaining energy from the Higgs field or whatever the 'inertia' mediator is. Some kind of interaction that would be precluded between charged particles. Degenerate matter from neutron mergers? Some kind of strong interaction?

Basically a long-winded way of saying fucti fino, but if Rossi's saying "no OU" then he's solved the interaction to unity, to within a good few of zeros, anyway, whatever the source field.

Perhaps a good question to ask would be whether he's measured a corresponding mass / entropy change in whatever source field he's identified, or else, simply inferred it from QM assumptions? IE. maybe his solution admits vacuum potential into the source, in which case it would still be 'OU' in the classical thermodynamic sense, despite ultimately being an open thermodynamic system..

..but yeah, no, dunno mate. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Axil Axil • 1 month ago

Re: " All force mediators are bosons;" The energy format in LENR is carried by photons and/or phonons sonerimes shock waves, or charge separation in the case of the SKL.

Mark • 2 months ago

I don't understand, either. Maybe Rossi is using a different definition of the word "unity" (and, therefore, a different definition of the word "overunity") than I am thinking about. I was thinking about the meaning of the word "overunity" that would imply that it could be run as long as the parts don't break down, if self-looped. (and, theoretically, it could run forever if the parts could last forever) I have heard different definitions of the word "overunity," however, so maybe I should have been more precise.

Mats Lewan • 2 months ago

A question of definition.
Is a log fire overunity? Or a car engine? Once fired they run without external input power until the fuel is finished. The only question is where the released energy comes from. And for the E-Cat this has not yet been disclosed or described in a way that can be confirmed.

Axil Axil • 2 months ago

This goes to the question of the use of fuel or catalyst. A fuel is consumed therefore no overunity. But a catalyst is not consumed, therefore overunity.

Mats Lewan • 2 months ago

Although some hypotheses have been presented we don’t know yet for sure whether something is being consumed and in that case how. From my point of view, removing the external input power is no different from any power plant, fueled engine, or fire. You optimize the extraction of energy from the source and you use part of that energy for controlling the process.

malkom700 • 2 months ago

Ultimately, the question of how quickly such a technology can be implemented is complex. Economic, environmental, social, employment, legal, etc. can have effects. It is certain that a political decision must be taken to exploit the beneficial properties, as well.

Roland • 2 months ago

An excellent question that awaits Rossi's definition of overunity, I don't get it either.

Hhiram • 2 months ago

Steorn was unmasked as a pure investor scam, and the Orbo is a textbook example of a fraudulent "perpetual motion" device. Steorn declared bankruptcy and McCarthy is now earning a living by playing online poker. It is terrible to compare this to Rossi and the ECat, unless you are trying to claim he is a fraudster and scam artist (which he might well be).

Mark • 2 months ago

I'm not as convinced that it was a scam as you seem to be. Greg Daigle did some tests with Orbo Power Packs on this website:


Do you think that Greg is a scammer, too? Anyway, it doesn't matter. You missed my point. I was talking about the MINDSET that so many mainstream scientists and inventors are in, like Rossi and McCarthy. It doesn't matter whether their inventions actually work or not for the point that I was making. I was complaining about their MINDSET.

BadgerWI • 2 months ago

AWESOME!... Now prove it.

Robert M 34 • 2 months ago

Fortunately this claim should be simple to prove or disprove. Since it is self sustaining an isolated unit could be metered for energy production. Depending on its Size it could be determined what amount of energy production would exceed any possible energy output from fossil fuel/chemical.

In this instance it could be a black box (protecting Rossi secrets). As long as the black box is isolated and produces enough energy it could be a persuasive presentation.

Example, Electric pickup truck with unit in back driving across country with no recharge.

BadgerWI • 2 months ago

Exactly, it should be simple, so hopefully we will be living in a world where the Ecat or the science behind it is an accepted fact this time next year. :)

Kruz4r • 2 months ago

So at 70-80% electric you would plug in a heater vs using it as a heater :-)

Bob Greenyer • 2 months ago

Plug in a heat pump

Iggy Dalrymple • 2 months ago

But if you only need heat, then use the direct heat. Use heat pump for air conditioning. Rossi says that the customer can control the ratio of heat production vs electrical (within limits).

LENR G • 2 months ago

It is very important at this stage that Rossi not allow this technology to go public. He must chain these electricity generating boxes together into a coherent substation that can power an entire city -- well, at least a small city or town. Only he and his team alone are capable of doing this while maintaining his industrial secrets. In order to maintain a reliable funding stream though he should give a presentation and demonstration that is just good enough to bring in additional funds from one or maybe two angel investors but not catch the attention of bigger players that would squash him. In order to thread that needle the presentation should be done in an ad hoc and ambiguous manner, preferably with some puppets. Above all else he must not license this technology to industrial partners and disseminate the world-changing benefits of the E-Cat before it is ready. Yes, it could have changed the world five years ago if shared with universities or other labs, but that would have killed the business baby in its crib and capped Leonardo's valuation at a trillion instead of the 10 trillion it should be. So let the man work; he thanks you for your sustain.


Janko Walski • 2 months ago

Does AR really need a 10 trillion? Show me the one who does. Are there any limits?

Omega Z • 2 months ago

Valuation. Uber IPO valuation between 80-100 billion dollars. Lost 11 billion dollars since. Has NEVER made a profit. Has lost about 50% of it's value currently valued at about 50 billion dollars. Valuation has little to do with money in hand. Welcome to the real world.

Elon Musk is worth about 15 billion dollars, but is cash strapped. What his valuation does is allow him to borrow money to keep his many operations going. Tesla cars, solar city, SpaceX ect. His valuation is mostly already spoken for. Same can be said for all the wealthy of the world.

What all this wealth does is allows them to dictate when and where the proceeds of this wealth is directed while a portion is directed to rebuilding the ever destruction of wealth. Yep, wealth is fleeting. Always needing replenished or it will desolve into nothingness.

Yes, the system may seem unfair, but without wealth, everyone would end up with far less.

Enginer01 • 2 months ago

The first step should be to apply for a new patent or a revision of the current granted patent, as this is the basis for profiting but not slowing up overall social value.

Dusty • 2 months ago

Your comment is spot-on :-D

malkom700 • 2 months ago

We have to be careful about our position because to date AR has never promised to allow an independent test and then distribute it worldwide. It is also important that he understands the importance of spreading his invention in the present state of the world.

oldrolledgold • 2 months ago

' How will Rossi Capitalize'? I'd imagine he could charge anything he wanted for a talk/lecture? Some make $200k plus per talk? He'd make as much or more.

Kruz4r • 2 months ago

He should stick with his original plans and mass produce in such quantities to stifle any competition.