eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

Cold Fusion Openly Demonstrated At MIT – Again

February 1, 2012

Cold Fusion Times is reporting that Dr Mitchell Swartz has performed an open demo for the students of Professor Hagelstein’s short course in cold fusion at MIT. With a reported gain of 10, this is yet another link in the chain destined to pull cold fusion from the junk-science mud. It appears that MIT has given itself a chance of redemption even if it cannot give back the lives of the two men who started it all.

Do not be tempted to attack this effort as done by Jonny-come-latelies desperate for a seat at the table. These guys are long-time experienced researchers in the field. Through their efforts, their risks and through others like them, institutions like MIT are moving forward.

You might think that such progress is bound to shake the tree. You may be right but don’t assume that it will be noticed. If the gain was 2.3 instead of 10 you might think it was just as significant. Right?. And yet that is exactly what happened in MIT in 2003 when Dr Swartz performed a similar open demo with that gain.

The truth is that we can assume nothing. Little notice was taken when NASA staked their claim or SRI or Sienna or SPAWAR or Arata or of Jet’s 2003 MIT demo or the many successes logged with Jed Rothwell’s excellent lenr-canr.org

Hey! You lot out there! Yes, you with the money. You who can choose war. You who can enslave your own. You who manipulate nations, who fear losing control, who choose power over change, who can change the world – look over here. It’s under your bloody noses. You just need to look!

None of this goes away even if the eCat does but who could blame an inventor for not wanting to play by the rules set by these people? Why would a businessman give the men with the levers the power to dictate image and timescales? Look at what they have done. Look at the battle guys like Hagelstein and Swartz have fought for years. And still, most of the scientific community thinks cf researchers are fruit cakes.

There is a sense that things are changing and maybe soon Rossi (or Defkalion) will make heroes of them all. If not, I think they will do it for themselves. Eventually. Another dragon is slain. They are falling and cf is rising.

The current MIT story is here. There is little detail but the 2003 Demo might fill in a few blanks.

[With thanks to georgehants]

Posted by on February 1, 2012. Filed under Hands-On,Media & Blogs,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

352 Responses to Cold Fusion Openly Demonstrated At MIT – Again

  1. georgehants Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 9:55 am

    For the skeptics I will repeat again, if Rossi et all turn out to be total frauds or insane he has already earned a special Nobel Prize for revealing the criminal and incompetent state of much of science.
    He has opened an on-line journal where true scientists who’s work was sneered at, abused and denied by the main-line journals (comics) can discuss and argue their case, freely and openly.
    Everybody must start to pass on the knowledge that irrational skeptics all have an AGENDA of their own making.
    To stop any advance in any area, to abuse and belittle, any tactics that most ordinary people shy away from and so they win.
    Ordinary scientists must Stand Up and fight for —-
    TRUTH,
    COMMON SENSE
    LOGIC
    Anything that does not fit these three maxim’s is bullshit and must be shown as the rubbish it is,

    • Pekka Janhunen Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 10:07 am

      At one institute in Finland which does energy research, they had a rule that individual scientists are not allowed to talk to media freely, but what they say must be blessed by the leadership. One of the employees went to a Parliamentary hearing, I think it was about peat energy, whence the institute later accused him of breaking the internal rules. It went to court and he won the case, the institute was ordered to change its rules and to apologise the employee. Media interest was moderate.
      To my knowledge, censorship rules are not typical in research institutes in this country, usually one can talk freely.

  2. georgehants Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 10:24 am

    As it is very quite I will make my point and it’s connection to the delay and still denial of Cold Fusion.
    It Paul feels it has no relevance and is off subject. please remove.
    Any scientist who does not feel a tingle of wonder at any report of new science is not a scientist. (a searcher for the truth in the natural World).
    If their is EVIDENCE for anything be it UFO’s or Cold Fusion a scientist wants an answer.
    To be palmed off by experts, skeptics, the media or DOGMA is immature.
    Science has been there since the earliest times to find out, do the bloody research, not hide in corners saying it can’t be true, it’s silly, it’s not known science. Do the bloody research.
    http://scifair.org/news/chemistry-news/genetic-telepathy-a-bizarre-new-property-of-dna.html

  3. georgehants Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 10:47 am

    From Cold Fusion Now, with thanks.
    by Ruby Carat
    UPDATE! – February 2 The NANOR used in the open MIT Demonstration is a ZrO2-PdD Cold Fusion/LANR solid state quantum electronic device – now ongoing for five days straight!
    http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/

  4. georgehants Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 10:58 am

    It would be good for science to have a sacrifice a skeptic day.
    It could be a public holiday where everybody can become aware of the damage they have caused.
    I suppose in this civilised age the sacrificial act would only have to be symbolic but would make the point.
    I cannot think who would be the first candidate.

    • DvH Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 11:46 am

      seems, you are talking nonsense here: ‘…. good for science to have a sacrifice a skeptic day’ .
      who decides who the ‘sceptic-of-the-day’ is? scientists themselves? which ones? all of them ? or only those of the ‘we are the rational skeptics’ ?
      or general public ? or media? or some secret circle?

      • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 12:00 pm

        The george hants justice league, who else ?

        • georgehants Reply

          February 3, 2012 at 1:29 pm

          Mahron – A4 B3, I am pleased you agree that justice is a good thing.
          You also feel that justice would be served if P&F are given a full apology I presume.

          • daniel maris

            February 3, 2012 at 1:43 pm

            Dont’ get “dizzy with success” George. Scepticism is vital to creating the good society.

            What we’ve seen over the last couple of decades has been less scepticism and more an organised attempt to smother and kill a fledgling science in the nest, so to speak.

            What the motive was remains to be established, but could included a number of vested interests: oil and gas (we know Amoco knew about cold fusion), the nuclear power industry, hot fusionists, the electricity companies,and enthusiasts for solar and wind energy.

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            February 3, 2012 at 2:14 pm

            Yes, just as the church owns an apology to the poor guys they burned on the stack for saying earth is not at the center of the universe. But pointing back at the past and portraying them as villains is taking things out of context as they Truly believed they were doing the right thing as pathetic as its may sound today.

    • Cliff Shaw Reply

      February 6, 2012 at 5:30 pm

      I have a perfect candidate for sacrifice: Michael Shermer, arguably the world highest profile professional skeptic, who has labeled cold fusion “pathological science”. It will soon be clear to everyone that unreasoned skepticism can be pathological when maintained in the presence of clear scientific evidence to the contrary.

      I therefor propose a brand new word to describe this kind of pathological skepticism: Shermerism. A pathological skeptic would be called a Schermerist.

      Example: By debunking Cold Fusion, the Shermerists are in large part responsible for the world’s continuing addiction to fossil fuels, pollution, and global warming.

  5. georgehants Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 11:53 am

    DvH, who would you think are the most qualified to nominate negative, repetitive, pointless deniers.
    Who would you nominate as the person who has harmed open-minded, unbiased, searching investigation into the unknown the most.
    Would you agree this clever guy must come close to the top of the list —-
    “In 1989, Steven E. Koonin attacked the characters of “cold fusion” discoverers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the American Physical Society meeting in Baltimore, Maryland.
    ‘‘We are suffering from incompetence and perhaps delusion from Fleischmann and Pons,’’ Koonin said.
    At the time, Koonin was a professor at California Institute of Technology; he is now the undersecretary for science at the U.S. Department of Energy.”

    • DvH Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 11:56 am

      i have no idea – YOU came up with that idea!
      ah – i could read your post before it was completed.
      so, you think this guy is on top of the list because he had different opinion? did THAT cause damage? or was it the decision of some fund/grant-giving circle which stopped the show?

      • DvH Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 12:05 pm

        was this Koonin-guy the ONLY suffering guy or was he the loudest? or the first? what about the other professors in the other universities? where they all silent? or not interested? or were they busy trying to repeat the F&P experiments?
        why is just HE your favorite??

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 12:11 pm

      Stop being so bitter man. Thing are the way there are. History will judge then. Going on a fucking crusade is pointless. As long as there are humans, than the same human mistakes will be repeated over and over. Humanity as a whole is either fit to survive with is flaws or will disappear.

      • georgehants Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 1:04 pm

        Mahron – A4 B3, a very defeatist opinion, I, if you don’t mind will believe that all humans are basically good, and wish to improve their children’s lives.
        Brainwashing from the establishment can lead very genuine people to shy away from reality.
        You use the word “bitter” a very cheap way of trying to justify your irrational stance.
        I am not “bitter” but sad and disappointed that so many people are willing to use their time and energy in clearly destructive endeavors.
        Every person should look to how to improve the World not opt out from reality.
        Our CHILDREN are entitled to be taught the TRUTH.
        Please answer my point about Rossi’s contribution to the scientific World.
        Thank you.

        • Ivy Matt Reply

          February 3, 2012 at 1:27 pm

          Crusades of revenge have a tendency to be destructive endeavors.

          • georgehants

            February 3, 2012 at 1:32 pm

            Ivy Matt, strange how justice suddenly turns into revenge when we are not attacking Rossi but a academic incompetence.

        • Ivy Matt Reply

          February 3, 2012 at 1:49 pm

          As an addendum, I can’t seem to find your point about Rossi’s contribution to the scientific world anywhere on this particular article, but I will give a response nevertheless:

          After a little over a year, I am still waiting for it.

          That is not an attack. That is merely the way things are right now. It could change in the future, for sure. In the meantime, Rossi is a businessman, not a scientist. Let’s not confuse our dreams for the future with what has been demonstrated so far.

          • georgehants

            February 3, 2012 at 2:01 pm

            Ivy Matt, for your benefit.
            For the skeptics I will repeat again, if Rossi et all turn out to be total frauds or insane he has already earned a special Nobel Prize for revealing the criminal and incompetent state of much of science.
            He has opened an on-line journal where true scientists who’s work was sneered at, abused and denied by the main-line journals (comics) can discuss and argue their case, freely and openly.
            Everybody must start to pass on the knowledge that irrational skeptics all have an AGENDA of their own making.
            To stop any advance in any area, to abuse and belittle, any tactics that most ordinary people shy away from and so they win.
            Ordinary scientists must Stand Up and fight for —-
            TRUTH,
            COMMON SENSE
            LOGIC
            Anything that does not fit these three maxim’s is bullshit and must be shown as the rubbish it is,

        • DvH Reply

          February 3, 2012 at 6:01 pm

          …’I, if you don’t mind will believe that all humans are basically good, and wish to improve their children’s lives.’
          if you change ‘all’ for ‘most’ we can agree on that.
          ‘Brainwashing from the establishment’…
          now, WHO is the establishment? if MOST people want the best for their children?
          (Lets put the simple answer ‘those without children’ aside…)
          when the ‘establishment’ indeed does brainwashing, they do it for the best of their children….
          and who should change it? and how?

        • Richard Pawley Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 11:11 pm

          I don’t disagree with your comments except perhaps your belief about the nature of mankind. Half the country, maybe more, believe that men (and women) have the potential to be good, but that human nature, in and of itself, is fallen. It was once pure, original, “unfallen”, but since the Garden of Eden, has been tainted. Since as a nation we have disavowed many of the beliefs of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution itself, is it any wonder that “good” men trying to do good, still make a mess of it? Still Edgar Cayce once said that all persons born in 1943 or thereafter had been exposed to the ‘truth’ at least once. I have often wondered how far physical beings could go, STAR WARS, STAR TREK, even a civilization free of all instrumentality as in FORBIDDEN PLANET, but sadly our morality has not kept pace with our technology and that is what has doomed most advanced cultures in the universe (the age old fight between good and evil). I was told once while praising God that the universe was filled with life but that it was very far away, the nearest sentient life being over 500 light years and the nearest life on a par with our own over a thousand light years, to far for us to ever reach but that they, in the distant future (not in the lifetime of anyone now living) might reach earth as they had become masters of space travel. Since at a speed of a million miles an hour that would take some 600,000 years they must have a power source far beyond what we have done anything but imagined. My point is that I accept this at face value and it points out that we haven’t begun to scratch the surface of what might be possible but only if we don’t let immorality (greed, lust, anger, ego, take your pick) overcome us. It has been said that much can be accomplished if we are not concerned with who gets the credit for it.
          The future can hold much potential but we must survive the present and be patient to get there. Jesus said that life on earth would end with uncountable NEO’s bombarding the earth although he used the vernacular of his day and I have often wondered if we would make if off this planet before that happened. Fortunately, as he told a woman in England about 80 years ago, our life here is but “a parenthesis in a sentence in a paragraph on the page of the book of (y)our life. Birth opens the parenthesis, death closes it, then back to real life-history”. (From one of 30 dozen short teachings he gave her in GOD CALLING, edited by A. J. Russell, one of the best all time books I’ve ever read).
          In any event I agree with most of what you have said. Regards, RP
          (I was, or course, replying to George Hants comment a ways back).

  6. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    Interesting information on “NANORS”, solid state LANR transistors.

    http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/ACS2011.pdf

    “Dr. Mitchell Swartz (JET Energy Inc.) gave two presentations on ZrO2(PdNiD) nanostructured materials. These materials contain deuterated metallic PdNi core islands electrically isolated by a zirconia (ZrO2) dielectric. The D loading is very high (up to ~3) and the material exhibits complex, possibly Zener-type, electrical avalanche breakdown behavior.

    Several nanostructured ZrO2(PdNiD)-containing LANR devices (NANORs) were constructed and interrogated by electric, magnetic and ultrasonic fields using 4-terminal conduction measurements and calorimetry. Swartz reported that NANORs in a LANR transistor configuration, driven by two applied electric field intensities, demonstrate LANR heat associated with low level near-infrared emission, controlled by two optimal operating point manifolds.”

    • Dale G. Basgall Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 2:41 pm

      Reply to Shaun, regarding statement; “Interesting information on “NANORS”, solid state LANR transistors.”

      In the comments back in 2011 June or July on this site I wrote about those just to see what others would pic up on and we already knew the direction was to the micro industries.

      These transistor-like cans are all self contained, need no external hydrogen and are controlled by your lap top for heat. Just plug them into the usb port and away you go, cheap safe and reliable. No large mechanical reactor at all, just heat sinks and simplegrown inside reator parts.

      It appears biology and machines will be married together this year for efficiency.

  7. georgehants Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    For Paul, I am now defending my view from several irrational skeptics who are using every trick to belittle and abuse me.
    If it’s OK. with you I will defend the rational point of view, that does not make me a TROLL, but somebody concerned with not letting these irrational attacks succeed.
    Thank you.

    • Stephen Reply

      February 8, 2012 at 9:07 pm

      Get a hobby, George, your blood pressure will thank you.

  8. georgehants Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    daniel maris,you said —
    “Don’t’ get “dizzy with success” George. skepticism is vital to creating the good society.”
    another insult, thank you.
    I am not a scientist and have never put a word against rational skepticism.
    I am helping to fight the battle that scientists have totally failed to win, against closed-minded, biased, Dogma dominated expert’s and administration.
    I give my time for improving science and it is not my intention to sit around if that causes distress to you or web-site owners.
    Remove these crazy insulting individuals who can not write two words in a row of fair debate and argument without which science will die.

    • daniel maris Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 10:56 pm

      George –

      Some people like being in a minority of one…that’s fine, but don’t project that wish on your own part on to others. I’ve been supportive of your interventions up to now.

      To go from promoting the reality of cold fusion/LENR (which I fully accept) to “let’s have a day dedicated to the sacrifice of a sceptic” is a leap of unreason.

  9. georgehants Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    Mahron – A4 B3 You said ——
    “Yes, just as the church owns an apology to the poor guys they burned on the stack for saying earth is not at the center of the universe. But pointing back at the past and portraying them as villains is taking things out of context as they Truly believed they were doing the right thing as pathetic as its may sound today.”

    I say—-
    Good point but you are in error the church did not believe that the scientists such as Giordano Bruno,(who they burnt for saying there where other Worlds)where wrong, they burnt him for going against DOGMA dictated by the establishment.
    Being wrong is no sin, it is part of progress, but trying to force a Dogma such as “Cold Fusion is impossible” is not a mistake is is a crime on humanity.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm

      We always come back to the same thing. You think they are 100% agenda driven(selfish in their reasoning at some point) when it comes to acknowledging new stuff, I don’t. What are hard core evangelists defending other their version of truth ? What do they gain from not accepting evolution ?

      • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 3:25 pm

        My point being, you can be irrational and closed minded without being up to something. It is just the way humans are wired.

  10. spacegoat Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    georgehants said:

    “Ordinary scientists must Stand Up and fight for TRUTH, COMMON SENSE, LOGIC”

    I understand your drift george and I am completely sympathetic with your criticism about the direction of science. Secondly what area of human activity can be said to be going in a good direction?

    The issues are very deep, and referencing TRUTH, COMMON SENSE and LOGIC does not help because these terms are too generic, disputed and quasi-religious (religious as in a faith-dogma schema).

    More concrete and effective pistes to address would be: democracy, responsiveness and responsibility of scientific authorities, and freedom of information in science.

    • georgehants Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 2:50 pm

      spacegoat, thank you and of course you are right the World is far to difficult for any individual to comprehend and hold in mind, so we must just do our best.
      No solution will be complete until we progress beyond the mentality we are presently capable of, maybe the Savant syndrome could hold the next step of evolution.
      But one must start somewhere and without going to philosophical interpretations —
      TRUTH COMMONSENSE and LOGIC (in there common meaning)
      must be better than the present confused uncertain doctrine.

      • spacegoat Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 3:09 pm

        What I am suggesting george is that you will not advance far on a platform of TRUTH COMMONSENSE and LOGIC, because common meaning = generic meaning, imprecise with a wide scope for completely different interpretations.

        However, attack on the basis of democracy, responsibility and freedom of information and progress will be made.

        I am just this moment struck by the closeness of what I just wrote to the open systems movement, that of course started with freedom software, Gnu, Linux. Which has now branched out into open hardware, open government, open whatever.

        These movements are directed in a progressive way because democracy, responsibility and freedom of information are built in. Global communities can contribute (democracy, freedom of information) and because they are open, the directors of any open movement tend to bevahe responsibly.

        So TRUTH and COMMON SENSE are derivative from openness as I have described. The problem for us today is that science is closed, with commercial locks, military locks and political locks.

        Openness is the key to the features you cite.

    • DvH Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 6:22 pm

      COMMON SENSE and LOGIC are completly flexible and changing things. a guy from amazon jungle, a new york taxi driver and a chinese politician have completly different ideas on COMMON SENSE and LOGIC.
      and so have a child, a teenager, a 23 year old student and a grown up adult…
      the ideas of a lawyer and an engineer about COMMON SENSE and LOGIC is another example.

  11. JNewman Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    To summarize today’s sermon:

    Open-minded is good; dogma is bad.

    Anybody who disagrees with me should be eliminated.

    Amen.

    • spacegoat Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 3:11 pm

      :-)

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 3:17 pm

      Amen. Now donate to your new open minded god.

      • Camilo Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 4:12 pm

        I am always amazed, and amused, because I really like it, how all “free energy” forums always end being a place in which phylosophical debates take place with different levels of depth and quality, which is nonetheless something to behold and cherish.

        • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

          February 3, 2012 at 4:24 pm

          You don’t take this sentence seriously do you ?

          • Camilo

            February 3, 2012 at 4:38 pm

            I’m just having fun Mahron, if I may. I don’t judge anyone for what is written. This whole issue is interesting not only by itself, but also for the reactions it generates. I really hope Rossi’s turn out to be not delusional or a scammer, or mistaken. But I reckon it can be either. So meanwhile I enjoy the ride.

            About LENR as a general matter my stance is that it requires to be recognized in order to receive proper funding, “in case Rossi does not deliver”, and because is truly fascinating as a science by itself.

            Regards!

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            February 3, 2012 at 5:15 pm

            Ok, just checking. You may resume having fun. :)

  12. Camilo Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    characteristics attributed to pseudoskeptics:

    The tendency to deny, rather than doubt

    Double standards in the application of criticism

    Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate

    Presenting insufficient evidence or proof

    Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof

    Making unsubstantiated counter-claims

    Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

    Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for completely dismissing a claim

    True skepticism is characterized as:

    Doubt rather than denial; nonbelief rather than belief
    An agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved

    Maintaining that science need not incorporate every extraordinary claim as a new “fact”

    Lack of a burden to prove anything

    Upon discovering an opportunity for error in an experiment, taking the position that such an experiment is less evidential and usually unconvincing, and rejecting the claim that the experiment was “airtight” against error, but not assuming that the possible error disproves the anomaly claim

    These are Truzzi’s words, not mine, but I agree and consider myself a true skeptic along these lines.

    • JNewman Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 5:11 pm

      There is so much demonizing of skepticism here that is often way off the mark. Science is entirely a product of skepticism. WIthout it, we would be worshipping the sun god and bleeding people to cure them of illness. And skepticism is not something to be feared unless one fears the truth. However, if you never want to hear answers you don’t like, you can’t ask too many questions.

      Of course there is such a thing as pathological skepticism. Denying the moon landing, the link between smoking and cancer, and the Holocaust are all prime examples. What distinguishes this sort of skepticism as pathological? It is skepticism in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

      If anyone seriously contends that there is overwhelming evidence for the validity of the ecat and its brethren, they are seriously delusional. Until such evidence is obtained, it is only appropriate to question the validity of these claims. It is indeed doubt rather than denial; non-belief rather than disbelief. And attacking anybody who asks questions does not serve any useful purpose.

      • B Fast Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 6:04 pm

        Is there a difference between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism? Or does the title pseudo-skepticism merely a description of the skeptic with an appended negative connotation?

        I see true skepticism as an exploration of the data with a “convince me” mentality. I personally have a lot of respect for true skepticism.

        I see pseudo-skepticism as a content declaration that something is not true, therefore absolving the pseudo-skeptic of the need for exploration. This kind of skepticism has done absolutely nothing to promote science.

        A lot of the comments on this site look pseudo-skeptic to me. They lack anything evidentiary. They lack any sense of the author having explored the evidence.

        I manage http://www.nickelpower.org. It gets a lot fewer comments than this site does, however, I think the comments are more thoughtful over all. Simply, pseudo-skeptics are very strongly challenged on that site to look at the evidence.

        Looking at the evidence, on both sides, discovers truth — not denialism.

        • daniel maris Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 11:48 am

          You might be right… this is the mudpit of debate here. It’s lively. LOL

        • Stephen Reply

          February 8, 2012 at 9:14 pm

          So, people who do not have the time or the funds to do the research are not allowed to be skeptics? And don’t tell me they can go “and look it up on the internet”, we can all see what this has done for a few posters here…

      • Tony Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 6:06 pm

        And I must say that the blaring headline from the MIT thing:

        “Going on for 5 days Now!!!”

        has me puzzled. I still can’t find out what went on there in the first place in terms of of hard numbers. I’d like to know what is still going on for 5 days. If they truly have something in some sort of running mode where the COP is as claimed and you have 5 continuous days of run time, we should be seeing all kinds of real, verifiable data streaming from the scene of the crime….er….I mean……..experiment.

        Tony2

      • Ransompw Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 6:45 pm

        “Science is entirely a product of skepticism.”

        That statement is absolutely ridiculous. That may be this ages notion of science but only because we live in the age of pessimism.

        Science should always insist on evidence to explain anomalous findings, but science shouldn’t be skeptical, it should be open minded, embracing every possibility and discounting none, with the eye to prove the possible is true. That doesn’t mean it should accept a theory without proof, it should always insist on proof, but it should never start with the notion something is impossible, unlikely, or doubtful. Just the opposite, it should start with the proposition that everything is possible but shouldn’t be treated at true untill adequate proof is developed. In other words don’t believe until we have proof but never disbelieve.

        Also, while I dearly loved Carl Sagan, his often used quote, “Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidince is also nonsense. Any claim requires sufficient evidence to prove the claim, no more no less. And what is sufficient shouldn’t be affected by our emotional bias, either way.

        • JNewman Reply

          February 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm

          Apparently you have never worked as a scientist or have seen scientists at work. Scientists indeed start with the proposition that everything is possible and for that reason try darned near everything under the sun to discover new things. Once they think they have found something, they present their results to fellow scientists who subject them to the most skeptical scrutiny there is: if we can’t get these results too, then we don’t believe them. Sorry, but that’s how it works.

          • Ransompw

            February 3, 2012 at 7:56 pm

            I really could care less how you think it works or even how it currently works, I am telling you how it should work in a world not consumed by negativism, ie the age of pessimism.

            Don’t you understand, there was once a time when we as a species were certain that things would only get better, that our knowledge was limited and every day we would discover something new. The renaissance, industrial revolution, the age of discovery. There are also times like now when people think things will get worse. Principally beacuse experience is telling us they don’t get better. The dark ages for instance. That sense, which is the very fabric of society effects everything we do and how we think. The age of pessimism has been with us for some time and is going to end. With it will end your goofy idea about how science is supposed to work or does work. Science should let reality speak for itself, Science shouldn’t speak for reality. That’s dogma.

            I hope you are ready for the change, I know it is going to be hard for some of you.

          • JNewman

            February 3, 2012 at 8:13 pm

            Ironically, I agree with most of what you say. It’s only your characterization that it is a goofy idea that scientific results have to be reproducible to be valuable that I don’t fathom. Optimism is wonderful but really is not the issue when it comes to evaluating the validity of scientific claims. I can think all the positive thoughts in the world but flapping my arms will not make me fly.

            As for being ready for “the change”, if this boundless source of energy stuff turns out to be the real deal, I’ll be celebrating as hard and long as I can.

            Now go use your own boundless energy to try to make your dreams happen instead of fighting with people who don’t share your beliefs.

        • Thicket Reply

          February 3, 2012 at 9:16 pm

          Ransom

          You’re a lawyer, and I presume a good one.

          You’re not a scientist. The ridiculous statements you make about what *you* think science should be make that excruciatingly obvious.

          Of science you say ‘embracing every possibility and discounting none’. I think this is total hogwash.

          For example, there are numerous scams out there claiming to use water as fuel, usually in cars. Any scientist familiar with the properties of water knows that these claims are garbage. They should not ‘embrace the possibility’.

          For a scientist, this is obvious. For a lawyer, I’m not so sure.

          • Ransompw

            February 3, 2012 at 10:42 pm

            Thicket:

            There is a difference between embracing the possible and putting any effort or money into it. And I also agree that science over time can arrive at conclusions about certain possible technologies. Unfortunately for our society anomalous heat discovered by Pons and Fleischmann wasn’t one if them. My comment was a generlization and of course not being able to debate a generalization you seek to answer with the specific. Sorry that’s an old debating trick but as a lawyer I’ve seen it and it is non responsive. My general comment as above holds, try to refute it if you can.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          February 3, 2012 at 10:35 pm

          “Science should let reality speak for itself”

          Reality is rarely that accommodating. That’s why scientific experiments have to be clever and very carefully designed and executed.

          Well thought out and conclusive experiments are something I don’t think we’ve seen yet from Rossi or Defkalion.

          • Ransompw

            February 3, 2012 at 10:46 pm

            Sorry, but my comment is often defined as the essence of science. Please look up the definition of science.

      • daniel maris Reply

        February 3, 2012 at 11:11 pm

        Hmmm…it’s a bit more complex than that.

        Should we be sceptical about the idea that the Sun will rise tomorrow? We’ve no real reason to believe it will given our state of ignorance about cosmic disasters. We are constantly being surprised by pretty sizeable objects coming close to us. There are dark energy fields…are we sure there is nothing there could either destroy the sun or earth or move either out of its established orbit?

        However, does it make any sense to be sceptical about the sun rising tomorrow? I think not, not in any meaningful sense.

        We’re in the realm of Rumsfeld’s Law of unknown unknowns.

        Or should we be sceptical about existence of “laws of physics”? We know there is regularity – or we think we do (is the speed of light really a speed limit?) – but does that justify belief in a “law”?

        How sceptical should we be about the laws of physics or the laws of nature?

        And what does it mean to be sceptical? Can’t we have a mental reservation and yet adopt a pragmatic view? Is saying “This Rossi fellow might be on to something – a lot of what he says seems to have been confirmed? – why not wait and see and listen to what he says” any different in principle from saying “OK, no one has ever isolated a “law of physics” but these laws have served us well and seem to work – there’s not much point in questioning them even if there is little evidence for their existence.”

        • JNewman Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 1:58 am

          This endless philosophical debate about the nature of science and the nature of skepticism and so forth is truly ludicrous for the matter at hand.

          If we were discussing UFOs (and some among us would surely love to), then we are faced with a difficult dilemma for the proponent and the skeptic. The skeptic cannot sensibly ask the proponent to produce a UFO on demand. Thus all than can be debated is the veracity of people’s accounts.

          In the matter of a device that is said to be ready for manufacturing and capable of producing significant amounts of useful energy, the skeptic has no such constraints. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of individuals fully capable of testing such a device in an unambiguous matter to the satisfaction of any sensible observer. Once such a test is performed, if the results are as promised, then there is really nothing more to debate. Until that happens, nothing is going to change.

    • Ivy Matt Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 6:28 pm

      Ah, the Tao of skepticism.

    • daniel maris Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 11:50 am

      Yes, a very good gathering together of the differences. I think one might say it’s best to be an open minded sceptic.

      • JNewman Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm

        I think you are absolutely correct. Open-minded means receptive to new ideas and the opinions of others. Skepticism means doubting and questioning things stated as facts.

        Now, exactly how should an open-minded skeptic behave? Seriously, in what manner can such skepticism be properly manifested? Does it have to be kept a secret? Does it have to be mentioned but coyly dismissed when one speaks? Being an open-minded skeptic is surely the most rational course to follow. So how is it done properly?

    • Rockyspoon Reply

      February 10, 2012 at 4:48 am

      True. We must always be “true skeptics”–we must question with boldness, but be teachable, even to the point of enthusiastically teaching others what we have learned and know (or at least think we know). Many heads make for a quick solution whereas a single head may not. I’ve gained much valuable insight reading the discussions here.

      But “evil skeptics” (or your term “false skeptics”) use their position to do all the negative things you’ve listed.

      March on. Fight on. Question with Boldness. Think!

  13. Timar Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 6:26 pm

    Since I know this website, I’ve always taken the time to read through all of the comments, because sometimes they contained very interesting new information. After reading through the 270+ comments from this news item however, I feel a great exhaustion – virtually zero new information, but endless off topic debate. This forum has very much become a georghants one man show. The enerving thing about the “patho-sceptics” isn’t that they don’t have valid points to make but that they manically repeat their criticism over and over again, regardless whether it fits within the context or not, severly degrading the signal-to-noise ratio of the forums they parcipate in. I have realized by now that avid “believers” can be equally distracting.

    • Daniel de França MTd2 Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 6:55 pm

      That’s the same problem with Mary Yugo… George and MY are very similar.

      • Stephen Reply

        February 8, 2012 at 9:22 pm

        The opposing lips of the bell curve?

  14. Al Potenza Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    Hi Ransompw,

    “Sorry, but my comment is often defined as the essence of science. Please look up the definition of science.”

    OK. I looked up “Science should let reality speak for itself” (with quotes) and Google returned nothing. There are various definitions of science but a brief and good one from dictionary.com is “a systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”

    And, I might add, through calculations. So where does that leave your version? And what does it have to do with Rossi’s work?

    • Ransompw Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 11:56 pm

      Ok sorry, look up the definition of the “scientific method”, and try my phrase in google without the quotes.

  15. Loonyman Reply

    February 3, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    I quote …… That’s the same problem with Mary Yugo… George and MY are very similar.

    except MY promoted common sense… George Hants promotes whatever he has in his hat at the time….

    ( Sorry George, but sometimes your Rants make you seem like a loon )

    I AM a Loon.. in name and nature, however I remain disappointed with the level of “off grid” or “free energy” that I find around here… can anyone give me a delivery date for ONE of these fuck@£$€.. I mean e-cat suppliers…?????

    • Timar Reply

      February 3, 2012 at 11:32 pm

      Yes, they’re similar. You’re not. You are worse.

    • Daniel de França MTd2 Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 12:11 am

      MY, aka, George Hody lacks common sense just like George Hants. They both don’t know when they should shut their fingers. They both spam everything and makes all discussion nonviable. Specifically, George Hants is the reason of why I stopped coming here more often.

  16. Camilo Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 1:57 am

    I know Krivit is not very popular down here, but his latest blog refers to the demo from Swartz and Hagelstein. Krivit claims to have been informed that the power ouput was 18 mW, stating that is typical of LENR experiments. If this is true (we know that Krivit some times makes misleading statements), then the demo is interesting but not in the watt range as the Cold Fusion Times article states.

    Krivit Blog link Here:

    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/03/swartz-makes-misleading-claim-of-lenr-excess-heat/

  17. Camilo Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 2:31 am

    Completely off topic, but this is at the same time amazing and sad:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usTpnCwN8cc

    10 year old girl discovers new molecule (A Dr. in Chemistry thinks it has a high potential for batteries and explosives), and the first thing she thinks to do about it is “selling it to the military for money”. Really sad.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 2:50 am

      I don’t think she meant that as a super serious comment, more like some funny thing to say. Anyway, she is 10, give her a break.

    • Peter Poulsen Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 12:55 am

      indeed it was a joke…. relax please…

      she is 10.

  18. spacegoat Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 5:31 am

    Whilst we wait for real ecat news …let me hijack this thread with my pet subject. A negative example being:

    Australia attempts to enact scientific dictatorship at universities by banishing alternative medicine courses.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/034857_Australia_scientific_dictatorship_alternative_medicine.html

    The only answer to abuses (above) and the true-believer/pathoskeptic extremism is openness, which results in accountability. Open science … open education, open government, open “whatever”.

    This does not mean money cannot be made. Open source software is worth US$ 387 billion around the world. Google, Ebay, Facebook, IBM, … their business is all based on openness (in this case software)

    Openness is against the privatization of ideas. Financial return comes from delivering quality ** services in a competitive market. This is the opposite of the Western development approach for the last few hundred years.

    Rossi’s product is developed in this old style. Worse, he is an admirer of monopolies, Microsoft. Celani on the other hand is to be admired for trying to bring the LANR mechanism into the open:
    http://e-catsite.com/2012/01/06/celani-group-zeroes-in-on-lenr-markers-mechanism/

    • CuriousChris Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 6:07 am

      What would you prefer, Non science based medicine?

      As for the relentless attack on sceptics. Sure there are plenty of examples of sceptics getting it totally wrong Ha Ha. but for every wrong sceptic there are one thousand “true believers” who are happy to believe anything. their choice I know. but when they start pushing it onto others they are worse than sceptics.

      Lots of street corners have them bellowing at you.

      Lots are asking you to take tests to see how you need help only their brand of pseudo religion can help you with (at a cost of course).

      Spend a couple of hours reading about overunity claims, you’ll be shocked (possibly) at what people believe and try to sell you.

      If it wasn’t for sceptics standing up and saying this is rubbish and this is why its rubbish then many more people would be sucked down the ‘vortex’ of lies and false claims..

      Some laughs (with a moral)..

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

      • AB Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 7:28 am

        > What would you prefer, Non science based medicine?

        I would like to comment on this part. People not familiar with alternative medicine frequently make the mistake of assuming that none of it is scientific and throw everything that isn’t mainstream into the junk bin. The term alternative medicine encompasses a very wide range of techniques and some of them are based on science but are simply not mainstream. Another part is based on clinical skills of the doctor and years of observation of patients. Then of course there are also a large number of strange and exotic techniques that are dubious.

        Example: many interventions used in orthomolecular medicine are based on studies of biochemistry.

        Disclaimer: I suffer from recurring gastrointestinal problems and treat them with Vit. A megadose and it works great. The effect of Vit A on the mucosa is well known, yet it is considered alternative medicine and often mistakenly called unscientific.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 9:44 am

          There currently seems to be a ‘war’ on herbal and nutritional alternatives to mainstream drugs, that is being conducted largely behind the scenes by many western governments. The Australian government in particular seems determined to make access to herbal remedies and even knowledge of them, a thing of the past.

          The reason for these moves is of course the fact that herbal medicine is becoming increasingly popular, and so is perceived as damaging the profits of big pharma. Most cannot be patented in order to generate profits, so the remaining option is to suppress their use. The safety of plant based medicines also brings into sharp contrast the often dangerous side-effects of many drugs.

          This industry is now using its bought ‘influence’ to introduce fascistic suppressive legislation virtually everywhere, under the guises of ‘harmonisation’ and consumer safety, as anyone who uses herbal remedies regularly will know.

          To a large degree, the lumping together of any curative interventions that aren’t ‘mainstream’ (i.e. dependent on patented synthetic drugs, closed-shop medical ‘expertise’ or expensive machinery) is deliberate, and a part of the suppression process. In this way any procedures that work as well as or better than conventional medicines (for example intravenous megadose vitamin C for cancer, or olive leaf extract for MRSA and related infections) can be suppressed by association with ‘fringe’ practices with no scientific basis.

          • AB

            February 4, 2012 at 10:47 am

            I agree Peter. Those who have money determine the perception of what’s real and effective in our society.

            Presumably this relates to the suppression of cold fusion as well.

            My doctor (a friend who works in a hospital emergency room) would agree with your points as well. He told me that instead of the cheap 1 euro/vial magnesium sulfate, they use a synthetic drug that’s 100 euro/vial instead… not because it’s more effective, but because the protocol says so.

          • Rockyspoon

            February 10, 2012 at 5:00 am

            And that’s sad. Many if not most of the first pharmaceutical drugs were altered chemical compounds that mimicked natural substances.

            Drug companies take a natural substance, alter the chemistry just so (by adding a radical), patent it, run toxicity tests on it, determine the detremental impact to humans, get the FDA to approve it, push it out to the doctors to push it out to their patients, and in many cases end up as defendants in class action lawsuits because of the deleterious effects on those that take it.

            I’ve taken both allopathic and homeopathic remedies and prefer the natural–but here’s an interesting measure of how “beneficial” most prescription drugs are: If you’re taking three or more prescription drugs and you try to get an individual health insurance policy from another carrier, you’ll typically be denied.

            Why? Because the insurance companies know the drug only handles the symptoms and the side effects (along with potential drug interactions) don’t improve your health–they just make it worse. If these drugs really helped a body, they’d have no problem with them, but they have big problems with them.

            And as a licensed health insurance agent, I know this to be a fact. (Or ask your own agent if you doubt what I say.)

        • CuriousChris Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 12:06 pm

          I am familiar with alternative medicine. alternative medicine that works is called medicine. I like my medicine proved by science not by celebrities. Did you know that magnets can destroy credit cards? Yep bleed you dry till your broke and your credit card doesn’t work anymore.

          • AB

            February 4, 2012 at 12:23 pm

            > I am familiar with alternative medicine. Alternative medicine that works is called medicine.

            It’s a nice catchphrase but such a simplistic black and white world view is usually a sign of profound ignorance, so I very much doubt that you know anything at all.

            A closer look at the example that I cited earlier would immediately reveal to you that the catchphrase is wrong. Vit A was used until the 70′s and synthetic forms are still used today (isotretinoin). Its use in natural form gradually declined and treatment with it is very much considered alternative medicine today.

          • Peter Roe

            February 4, 2012 at 2:02 pm

            Did anyone mention celebrities? And what do you mean by ‘science’ – do you mean the carefully selected and manipulated research results that pharmaceutical companies use to justify licensing of their products? (like thalidomide, vioxx and gardasil)

            If you don’t know how to go about doing the necessary research or could not understand it if you did, or if ignorance, closed-mindedness and total reliance on corrupted establishment medicine is your choice, then thats’s fine. I would just point out though that while ignorance or misunderstanding of say, CF development is more or less without consequence, that refusing to take responsibility for your own health and wellbeing is potentially life-limiting, if not life threatening.

            What I object to is the state being manipulated by financial and power interests in an attempt to deprive me and millions like me of the freedom to make our own health choices based on information, not propaganda.

  19. arian Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 6:05 am

    Until now almost all of the reliable replication of Ni-H experiment that i studied use raney nickel with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide for activation raney nickel .with what i understand this activators don’t have any effect on ordinary nickel.only use of this activators is dissolving aluminium out of raney nickel that left behind a large surface area with high catalytic activity.

    replication of Ni-H experiment by Rowan University

    http://www.rowan.edu/colleges/engine…les/paper7.pdf

    article about raney nickel from wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel

    as you know rossi profession for 30 years was manufacturing vegetable oil. Raney Nickel catalyst is essential for process vegetable oil. so you can be sure that he have 30 years of experience using Raney Nickel .

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 10:01 am

      Hey Arian, can you check your Rowan Uni link – it is dead at the moment.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm

          Got it thanks. Very interesting that Blacklight have commissioned university research on their system – maybe Rossi wanted to go down a similar route some time earlier in the eCat story. It is significant that the BL research was moved to a secure environment. I wonder if Rowan charged for the research and if so, how much?

          So, more conclusive proof (if any were needed) that Ni-H CF is real, and that Blacklight is a ‘player’. And this from 4 years ago, long before AR hit the bright lights. Yet as usual the findings made at Rowan appear to have sunk without trace.

  20. Rends Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 10:23 am

    … not only at MIT, the U.S. is waking up …

    United States Patent Application 20110255645
    Kind Code A1
    Zawodny; Joseph M. October 20, 2011
    Method for Producing Heavy Electrons

    Abstract
    A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The material system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment. A structure is formed that includes a non-electrically-conductive material and the material system. The structure incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a surface thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result, heavy electrons are produced at the electrically-conductive material as the surface plasmon polaritons propagate along the structure

    Inventors: Zawodny; Joseph M.; (Poquoson, VA)
    Assignee: USA as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington DC

    [0002] The invention was made by an employee of the United States Government and may be manufactured and used by or for the Government of the United States of America for governmental purposes without the payment of any royalties thereon or therefor.

    [0006] Heavy electrons exhibit properties such as unconventional superconductivity, weak antiferromagnetism, and pseudo metamagnetism. More recently, the energy associated with “low energy nuclear reactions” (LENR) has been linked to the production of heavy electrons. Briefly, this theory put forth by Widom and Larsen states that the initiation of LENR activity is due to the coupling of “surface plasmon polaritons” (SPPs) to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride. The theory goes on to describe the production of heavy electron that undergo electron capture by a proton. This activity produces a neutron that is subsequently captured by a nearby atom transmuting it into a new element and releasing positive net energy in the process. See A. Windom et al. “Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surface,” European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields, 46, pp. 107-112, 2006, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 issued to Larsen et al. Unfortunately, such heavy electron production has only occurred in small random regions or patches of sample materials/devices. In terms of energy generation or gamma ray shielding, this limits the predictability and effectiveness of the device. Further, random-patch heavy electron production limits the amount of positive net energy that is produced to limit the efficiency of the device in an energy generation application.

    [0019] The present invention is a method for making a device that can produce heavy electrons where such heavy electron production can be used in a variety of applications that includes energy generation. In addition, the present invention is the device made from the disclosed method as well as a system that uses the device to produce heavy electrons. The present invention allows an entire device surface or volume to produce heavy electrons as opposed such production in small random regions of materials/devices. Thus, devices/systems constructed in accordance with the present invention will have performance that is predictable and maximize heavy electron production that results in, for example, [b]maximum energy production for a given device/system [b]or predictable efficiency and effectiveness of a gamma ray shield.

    [0032] The advantages of the present invention are numerous. Devices/systems made in accordance with the present invention control the frequency of the SPP resonance and its uniformity over large surface or volume regions. This will allow an entire device to participate in heavy electron production and ensuing energy generation. The present invention is adaptable to a variety of physical states/geometries and is scalable in size thereby making it available for energy production in a wide variety of applications (e.g., hand-held and large scale electronics, automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, electric power generation, rockets, etc.)

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20110255645

    • Camilo Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 10:53 am

      LOL Rends, this is old news around here.

      • daniel maris Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 11:01 am

        But we still like to be reminded about it every few days! LOL

    • John Milstone Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 12:56 pm

      But, if you’re going to bring up Zowodny, you should include his comments on the state of LENR (LINK):

      As for what people are trying to read into this video, specifically my use of the word “demonstrated”, it is my professional opinion that the production of excess energy has been demonstrated when the results of the last 20+ years of experimentation are evaluated.

      I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable. If any of those other terms were applicable I would have used them instead. If anything, it is the lack of a single clear demonstration of reliable, useful, and controllable production of excess power that has held LENR research back.

      There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works.

      In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.

      Every attempted demonstration of a LENR device that I am aware of has failed to meet one or more of these criteria.

      • Rends Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 2:06 pm

        Exactly:

        Zawodny: “I did not say, reliable, useful, commercially viable, or controllable. If any of those other terms were applicable I would have used them instead. If anything, it is the lack of a single clear demonstration of reliable, useful, and controllable production of excess power that has held LENR research back. I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy. Every attempted demonstration of a LENR device that I am aware of has failed to meet one or more of these criteria.”

        … and the same scientist submits a LENR patent which claims the exact opposite. The (his) device is working, under full control, scalable, ready for energy production and adaptable for a wide range of applications.

        United States Patent Application 20110255645
        Kind Code A1
        Zawodny; Joseph M. October 20, 2011

        [0019] The present invention is a method for making a device that can produce heavy electrons where such heavy electron production can be used in a variety of applications that includes energy generation. In addition, the present invention is the device made from the disclosed method as well as a system that uses the device to produce heavy electrons. The present invention allows an entire device surface or volume to produce heavy electrons as opposed such production in small random regions of materials/devices. Thus, devices/systems constructed in accordance with the present invention will have performance that is predictable and maximize heavy electron production that results in, for example, maximum energy production for a given device/system or predictable efficiency and effectiveness of a gamma ray shield.

        [0032] The advantages of the present invention are numerous. Devices/systems made in accordance with the present invention control the frequency of the SPP resonance and its uniformity over large surface or volume regions. This will allow an entire device to participate in heavy electron production and ensuing energy generation. The present invention is adaptable to a variety of physical states/geometries and is scalable in size thereby making it available for energy production in a wide variety of applications (e.g., hand-held and large scale electronics, automobiles, aircraft, surface ships, electric power generation, rockets, etc.)

        • Rends Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 3:03 pm

          … and why this Zawodny – LENR patent (Assignee: USA) now ?

          http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf

          Defense Analysis Report DIA-08-0911-003 – 13 November 2009

          Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions

          Increasing and Gaining Acceptance Scientists worldwide have been quietly investigating low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) for the past 20 years. Researchers in this controversial field are now claiming paradigm-shifting results, including generation of large amounts of excess heat, nuclear activity and transmutation of ekments. I ‘ 2,3 Although no current theory exists to explain all the reported phenomena, some scientists now believe quantum-level nuclear reactions may be occurring. DIA assesses with high con fidence that if LENR can produce nuclear-origin energy at room temperatures, this disruptive technology could revolutionize energy production and storage, since nuclear reactions release millions of times more energy per unit mass than do any known chemical fuel.

          Outlook and Implications

          If nuclear reactions in LENR experiments are real and controllable, DIA assesses that whoever produces the first commercialized LENR power source could revolutionize energy production and storage for the future. The potential applications of this phenomenon, if commercialized, are unlimited . The anomalous LENR effects seen in these metal lattices containing deuterium may also have as-yet undetermined nanotechnology implications. LENR could serve as a power source for batteries that could last for decades, providing power for electricity, sensors, military operations, and other applications in remote areas, including space. LENR could also have medical applications for disease treatment, pacemakers, or other equipment. Because nuclear fusion releases 10 million times more energy per unit mass than does liquid transportation fuel, the military potential of such high-energy-density power sources is enormous. And since the U.S. military is the largest user of liquid fuel for transportation, LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power.

          Prepared by: Beverly Barnhart, DIA/DI, Defense Warning Office. With contributions from: Dr. Patrick McDaniel, University of New Mexico; Dr. Pam Mosier-Boss, U.S. Navy SPAWAR/Pacific; Dr. Michael McKubre, SRI International; Mr. Lawrence Forsley, JWK International; and Dr. Louis DeChiaro, NSWC/Dahlgren.

          - disruptive technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
          - revolutionize energy production
          - nuclear fusion releases 10 million times more energy per unit mass than does liquid transportation fuel
          - the military potential of such high-energy-density power sources is enormous
          - LENR power sources could produce the greatest transformation of the battlefield for U.S. forces since the transition from horsepower to gasoline power

          … a key technology with this potential in the hands of a foreigner like Rossi ? No way !

  21. Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Adobe HQ get another 400 KW of Bloom energy servers.

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/adobe-adds-400-megawatts-more-of-bloom-fuel-cells/

    So many of these techs will be rendered useless if rossi holds his promise, its almost scary.

    • Stephen Reply

      February 8, 2012 at 10:05 pm

      Solar panel models get obsolete in 3 to 6 months. The Earth still spins the same way, remember, we are the “discard” generation.

  22. georgehants Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    From Defkalion
    We have already answered this question, at least twice. Even though please note again the following:
    Our decision to ask first for such “bare” reactor indepentent test before any full product tests (including flow calorimetry) is based on the knowledge and experience gained from previous similar tests in other CF/LENR devises in the past. If someone tries to prove everything in one test (excess heat energy from LENR and performance and stability and functionality etc), the tested system and its testing becomes complicated and skepticism survives.
    What we ask to be mainly checked/confirmed through this first series of “bare” reactor tests is very simple:
    Do Hyperion reactors stable/controlled produce excess heat energy, that is LENR and not chemical or from any “hidden source” originated, or not?
    Following several expected third party independent positive confirmations on this rather simple question, then we have scheduled a second series on tests with flow calorimetry on Hyperion complete systems. Conditions for such flow calorimetry (ie hot water or steam, measure the primary cooling system or the secondary or both, etc) will be upon the requests of the independent testers of such second series of tests. There the COP of the Hyperion system as well as its functionality and safety can be also checked and measured.
    Thank you for understanding our independent testing strategy.

  23. georgehants Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    • admin Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 1:35 pm

      Thanks, George.

      I did get the DGT thread (post on the way) but had not seen this op ed. Excellent overview.

      Paul

    • dsm Reply

      February 10, 2012 at 3:41 am

      Saw very similar item on Jan 30th here http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-if-Low-Energy-Nuclear-by-Christopher-Calder-120103-869.html

      But from the newer link, and in particular I love this bit.

      QUOTE
      #####
      Several well-done Theories exist and have been put forward, but none have received any acclaim… and all have been generally met with either silence or open hostility. It would seem on the surface, that for decades LENR was a mostly “forbidden subject”, not much different than “Galileo’s Telescope” in the eyes of the 15th Century Church. In this case, the “Church” is the mainstream scientific community, and the “Telescope”" that they have often strangely and steadfastly refused to “look in to”" is a clean and safe energy producing technology that would spell the end of 100 years of unbridled fossil fuel use, greatly helping to free us from many social, economic, geopolitical, and ecological problems that now plague our world.
      #####

  24. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    To admin, reply to statement in original post;
    “Hey! You lot out there! Yes, you with the money. You who can choose war. You who can enslave your own. You who manipulate nations, who fear losing control, who choose power over change, who can change the world – look over here. It’s under your bloody noses. You just need to look!”

    Comment; what power over what change, just a question?

    Who are you referring to “who can change the world – look over here.”, are you suggesting you know someone that could “change” the world?

    What do you propose as “the change” you are suggesting that is needed? Just another question.

    Is this the same admin we know as Paul? On this topic has anyone found the MIT report where 10+cop is reported?

    • John Milstone Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      On this topic has anyone found the MIT report where 10+cop is reported?

      According to THIS report, the peak power was 18 milliwatts.

      No signs of any other actual facts.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm

      Yeah ! He went george hants all of a sudden on this one.

  25. AB Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    From vortex:

    Google insights shows a burst of interest in LENR

    http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=lenr&cmpt=q

    From January 2011 onwards, interest is steadily increasing. From October 2011 onwards, the pace of growth increases. Most of the search queries come from Italy and the USA.

    “rossi lenr” is the most popular search term.

  26. Dr. Georgio HidyhoHody Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Edited by Admin

    This thread is dead. I do not want personal attacks by anyone about anyone else on this site. You are taking this conversation in direction and tone towards moletrap instead of away from it. You are anonymous and attacking a specific person based on innuendo and indirect, flimsy evidence. I do not care if you are right or wrong. This type of thing does not belong here.

    Paul

    • AB Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm

      Googling that leads you to a page that is absolutely not safe for work by the way.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm

      “I would figure one or both are another Moletrap/Hody avatar.”

      There is a great deal of overlap in phraseology and general style between ‘Mary Yugo’ and ‘John Milstone’ and I am pretty sure that the latter is also Dr Hody in a new guise. IP check, admin?

      Re moletrap, every time I visit that cesspit, I feel I need a shower afterwards.

    • Tony Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 3:31 pm

      I’m pretty sure that John Milstone is George Hody / Mary Yugo. Same scorn, same volume of posting.

      • Tony Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 3:35 pm

        Yes, the “maryyugo+ixtractor” is a cracker. Also posts hugely on the sensibleerection.com website.

        Obviously that isn’t safe for work, and the search results will not show up unless you turn off Google safe search.

        Some of the images are quite salacious…

        • Timar Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm

          Wow, that’s disgusting.

          Several of the pictures show the same elderly man – a set of them shoot on board of a sail boat*. He’s fondling three girls, barely full age. No wonder George is “obsessed with privacy”.

          *remember the mail which exposed him? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62566.html

  27. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 10:47 am

    Seems Dr. Swartz’s real results are just a bit less than the original claims. The data has now been published, 80mW output, 1 deg C temp rise with 10mW input and excess heat period 3 minutes.

    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/04/lenr-researchers-reject-significance-of-swartzs-claim/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>