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

Defkalion Promises Flow Calorimetry For Additional Hyperion Tests

February 4, 2012

With proof of Andrea Rossi’s eCat likely some time in coming, eyes and hopes are turned to his competitor and arch enemy Defkalion GT. Promising to deliver a series of independent tests of their Hyperion systems, they appear to be painting themselves into a corner where the only way out is through the door at their back marked Stealing eCat’s Thunder. For that to happen, fuel for scepticism must be kept to a minimum.

Blows are already being swung, one common complaint being that without flow calorimetry, their test is meaningless (it is not).

Defkalion answered this ‘accusation’ in their forum, promising a series of steps that will cumulatively knock over all the pins.

We now have (we are told) official testing for certification, tests (commisioned by DGT) by independent professionals and bare Hyperion tests ) performed by independent qualified organisations (or individuals?).

To this we can now add the following:

marcodeleonardis wrote:Making hot water (not steam) with relevant temperature increase (about 50 °C) is the simplest way to measure production of energy and it is currently used all over the world.
This is not rocket science, it is common practice for thermotechnicals.
If someone complained about this method, this is insignificant.

We are considering Defkalion assertions as very relevant for the humankind future and we are not joking.
We are expecting Defkalion to do the best to let us trust these claims.

If Defkalion designed an alternative method for energy production calculation in the independent test, we kindly ask you to share the method.

Dear Defkalion, can you answer this question please?

Top
 Profile
   

Re: DGT Press Release -Invitation for Indepentent Testing*Defkalion GT*Post
*Posted:* Sat Feb 04, 2012 12:54 pm 

Site Admin
Offline

*Joined:* Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:56 pm
*Posts:* 447@marcodeleonardis

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 indepentent 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 LENR 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 nor 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 equipped with reactor(s) of the same technology and configuration. 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, system stability and overall safety can be also checked and measured.

Thank you for understanding our independent testing strategy.

It remains to be seen whether the results of the volunteer testers will be published any time soon or even when they will take place. As a first step, if that phase delivers, it may be all that is needed to burst the dam.

ETA… It is not clear if the DGT post is clarifying details of the commissioned tests or is indeed an additional layer of proof above the three sets already known. For most of us, it wont matter if the testers, the method and the results are credible and demonstrate their claims.

Posted by on February 4, 2012. Filed under Competitors,Defkalion,Hyperion,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

182 Responses to Defkalion Promises Flow Calorimetry For Additional Hyperion Tests

  1. Peter Roe Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 2:38 pm

    DGT have the enormous advantage of having seen in detail the skeptic’s (genuine, pathological and paid) accusations IRO Rossi’s flawed demos. While AR may have been engaged in gamesmanship in order to disguise certain problems, DGT now have no slack at all.

    If their tests are inconclusive, or can be seriously challenged on a technical basis in any way, the trolls and moles will have a field day, and ammunition which could be exploited to seriously damage the whole CF resurgence.

    What they are saying looks good – let’s hope (actually, pray) that they follow through a bit more professionally than Rossi.

    • CM Edwards Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 4:50 pm

      So, DGT is pretty much where they were before.

      You are very correct about them not having the luxury of playing games with their audience. Rossi has played that card to pieces, and if they need further delay before their first sale they would do better to simply say nothing at all rather than be seen copying Rossi’s worn out routine of obfuscation and lying. Beating Rossi to the punch on independent confirmation is their best chance to beat him in their target market.

      “We can’t tell you everything, but our competition can’t even tell you the truth.” That approach will get them through far better than any more petty wordplay.

      If Defkalion says “No Games,” they had better stick to it, though. People like reliable performance from their providers almost as much as they appreciate it in their appliances.

  2. Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    I really wonder if the military is watching all this and trying to get answers.

  3. Guru Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    I started Thread about Pool for date of publishing whatever. These bankrupt folks which has 250.000 Euros salary for floor cleaning ladies at state owned companies and 14 salaries per year (and state owe 350 billion Euros) banned me forever, because I was guessing 7 weeks until some 3rd party will publish whatever about Hyperion. So, folks take some holidays.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 2:49 am

      I posted into that thread too and was disappointed it was deleted. It is censorship, and that is a worrying thing.

      But I must admit it was a bit of a silly thread ;)

  4. daniel maris Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Sounds good.

    DGT have been gradually climbing the credibility pole since the Autumn, whereas Rossi has slipped a little. I want to see both get to the top!

  5. kwhilborn Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    Defkalion has shown us NOTHING!

    They have also openly lied telling us they were testing thousands of units and then saying they had a dozen or so to test.

    Go to their forum and and look for topic of lies.

    They issued a spec sheet with no photos except for a blurry photo of something in a box a computer mock-up.

    HAS ANYONE (EVER) SEEN A DEFKALION PRODUCT? If so and it is by a real person not a anonymous person, or employee of Defkalion. Olease respond to this and tell me.

    I have been following this drama since before Defkalion existed and have yet to even hear of anyone who has seen anything beyond an office in a building and Defkalion employees.

    MORE TESTING? I still am of the belief nobody has ever seen anything from them, so how can someone test?

    Please correct me if I am wrong. I want to believe Defkalion is legitimate. I believe in AR stuff, but he has low heat and low research potential.

    He (AR) sold his home to pay for research and developement when we need a billion or so dollars thrown at this. That is what I mean about AR having low research potential. In ten years he might be able afford the kind of research we would like to see done now by NASA or any rich philanthropist.

    Please show me a picture or testimony about a Defkalion product. Do not show me one of the 2 fuzzy photos used in their old spec sheet that they CLAIM is real.

    • JNewman Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 4:07 pm

      kwhilborn, Defkalion has indeed not shown us anything whatsoever and therefore there is no reason to accept any of their claims.

      However, they have also defined a specific set of events that they say will take place with regard to independent testing of their devices. If these tests in fact take place as described and yield the results Defkalion promises, then it is a whole new ball game.

      These promises of testing do not give Defkalion any increased credibility. But if the testing actually happens, that changes.

      We shall see.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 4:11 pm

      Kwhilborn, did you see the new iPad before it was launched? Do you already know what the next Toyota electric car will look like? Why do you think you are entitled to privileged access to what any business has in the pipeline?

      You know as much or as little as the rest of us, so try to assess the evidence for and against, and try especially hard to remain objective until either the promised tests have been carried out, or they either fail to materialise or prove nothing conclusively. Bleating and whining at this point will accomplish very little.

      • kwhilborn Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 1:07 am

        We never saw an ipad, but we also had seen years of MAC/Apple products.

        I can see Defkalion being a scam entity.

        They do not need to show their product line, but a single photo or any person who has seen a product from defkalion could put a lot to rest.

        Remember that in the entire life of the company not a single person can claim to say they have seen a defkalion product. Not one.

        I am optimistic but Defkalion also has a history of lying to us. They said to NYtechnics that they were testing thousands, and a month later they claimed to have a dozen.

        visit the defkalion forum to see the lies threads. Defkaion has issued very contrary statements.

        So. I would like to believe but really get upset that the websites following ecat news give them any credence.

        If I said I have a hunded ecats in my basement I have issued as much proof as them, and should be taken as seriously.

        I still have hopes for them but move it along Defkaion. Step up or quit air-bragging.

  6. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Reply to admin, regarding statement; “It remains to be seen whether the results of the volunteer testers will be published any time soon or even when they will take place. As a first step, if that phase delivers, it may be all that is needed to burst the dam.”

    Comment, I bet there will be non-disclosures to be signed. The problem with that is anyone allowed to test will be stopped from developing there own technology due to them viewing a product that does not have an issued patent.

    If there is an attorney out there maybe they could shed some legal light on this topic.

    • JNewman Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm

      Dale, I am not a lawyer but I have applied for and have been granted patents. We have covered this ground many times before. Product introduction does not wait for the issuance of patents. That can take years. What matters is the patent application. Once that happens, products can be introduced. It is known as ‘patent pending’.

      • Dale G. Basgall Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm

        J, I understand that about the patent pending phase, what this comment was supposed to question is that when a testor evaluates the process completely they will learn quite a bit about the technology.

        After that it’s simply off to someone who can build the next one, so, then would the IP gained from a testor prevent them or their company from further development of the “companies new” product line?

        • Al Potenza Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 4:46 pm

          “when a testor evaluates the process completely they will learn quite a bit about the technology.”

          Can you explain that please? Why would performing flow calorimetry on a sealed reactor reveal anything about it except its performance characteristics?

          According to Defkalion, there is no measurable radiation externally so that can’t be the problem.

          • Dale G. Basgall

            February 4, 2012 at 6:16 pm

            Al; if someone was testing for output emissions with a mass spectrometer they could evaluate quickly what is inside causing the observed thermal energy.

            Also if someone is sent as a testor that is educated in the art form of building conventional reactors and heat exchange systems they could easily observe the obvious physical elements exposed while testing and verifying safety, emissions, net output/input energy and the conversion.

            So by simply testing for verification purposes does give someone skilled in the art to get a really clear picture of whats really going on.

            So in the past experience, an example would show a large company as “John Deere” won’t even consider looking at your product invention until “after” a U.S. Patent is issued. This is due to their liabilities in the event they are working on a project with the same subject matter involved.

          • Al Potenza

            February 4, 2012 at 6:22 pm

            “Also if someone is sent as a testor that is educated in the art form of building conventional reactors and heat exchange systems they could easily observe the obvious physical elements exposed while testing and verifying safety, emissions, net output/input energy and the conversion”

            Well, that sort of creates a vicious circle, doesn’t it? Defkalion and Rossi can’t allow tests until the product is patented and it can’t be patented (in the US anyway) without tests that prove it works. How does that conundrum get broken?

            I suspect you will say it will be broken when Rossi starts selling. But then, can’t anyone grab one of the products and test them any way they want to in order to reverse engineer them? Is a little bit of lead time really that good as protection?

      • Peter Roe Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 4:51 pm

        Unfortunately it seems that in the US, patent applications relating to cold fusion devices will not be considered, as they are automatically deemed to have ‘no utility’. Presumably no patent can be ‘pending’ under such circumstances.

        • JNewman Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 5:22 pm

          I’ve seen reference to this alleged policy by the USPTO before and as far as I can tell, it is an urban legend. In fact, there are many many patent applications in various stages of evaluation related to CF or LENR. This link gives some attorney-persepective (and very pro-CF) commentary on a number of them:

          http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/author/david2468/

          At least one patent attorney and CF advocate seems to think that patents are possible. The USPTO being part of some great conspiracy makes for good storytelling, but unless somebody has some actual evidence that such a policy exists, it is nothing more than a good story.

          • Peter Roe

            February 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm

            I think you will find that most current pending applications refer to anything BUT cold fusion, and instead relate to ‘production of heavy electrons’ or similar.

            The myth, if is is such, appears to be supported by some evidence, in particular the apparent guidance document published (for example) here:

            http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?24938-United-states-patent-office-Group-220-classified-and-suppresed

            The specific issue of CF patents has also been examined in a book, “The Chemist’s Companion Guide to Patent Law”
            By Chris P. Miller, Mark J. Evans, which can be read here:

            http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vkHjDvYnFIAC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=us+patent+cold+fusion+%22no+utility%22&source=bl&ots=kMA82ikfW7sig=TrZXa7JzY2RUIO3__OAKSyoZ7mI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KHUtT8yEEciQ8gOo8Lz2Dg&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=us%20patent%20cold%20fusion%20%22no%20utility%22&f=false

            The authors’ finding is that there is indeed an ad hoc embargo on CF and CF-related patent applications in the USPTO.

          • JNewman

            February 4, 2012 at 11:33 pm

            Interesting. It is certainly more plausible that there is an ad hoc embargo as opposed to a real policy in effect (not that the result would be any different.)

            On the other hand, there is the example of the patent granted to Andrea Rossi in Italy. If one reads through that, it is quite impossible to understand what it is he is attempting to protect via the patent. If the claims of a patent do not lay out the details of the invention to a sufficient degree, then the patent really doesn’t accomplish anything.

            Somehow, at the end of the day, I doubt that patents are really the determining factor in this grand saga.

          • Peter Roe

            February 5, 2012 at 10:16 am

            “it is quite impossible to understand what it is he is attempting to protect via the patent.”

            Agreed – I’ve made the same point in other threads. I also agree that patents may not be that important, with the possible exception of the ‘breakthrough’ that apparently dispenses with a hydrogen bottle.

            It seems that many arrangements, combinations and variations may produce ‘CF’ energy, and protection of any specified device could probably quite easily be bypassed.

            Under these circumstances, Rossi’s business plan – ‘pile ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap’ – seems to be the most logical response.

          • Dale G. Basgall

            February 5, 2012 at 8:36 pm

            J, you said that; “At least one patent attorney and CF advocate seems to think that patents are possible.”

            Comment is that; many know without doubt that many patents will be issued for products allowing a reaction to take place in a sealed container. An inventor stops his possibilities of success by convoluting a clean improvement in an artform along with preventing many others from profiting from selling or using the invention.

            Simply let the Rossi’s and the Defkalion’s and the Oil Companies sell the fuel. They are already set up with all the correct facilities to produce the nickel/whatever mix.

            Geeze why do you think gasoline isn’t patented? A patent is a product otherwise a pipe dream without an issued U.S. patent and not a fuel, any company can patent their own recipe for the “better” fuel, but then what? Someone else will just patent one better for a named specific purpose.

            My point is that there is no problem patenting a “product” and not just a theory or anticipated product in virtual form.

            Thousands of patents will be issued for devices that use the fuel. Many versions of “fuel” and the “processes” will improve.

            Sell a workable product and your patent will be issued as long as you created it instead of copying someone elses “work” that has an issued U.S. patent.

            The best product for the least end user price including shipping and set up will be on the top selling list for LENR.

        • CuriousChris Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 3:03 am

          You can patent, and as long as you can prove it it will be granted. you only need to prove it if the examiner has doubts or that they even understand what you are talking about. That is why so many bad and troll patents are approved. its the examiner who doesnt understand and therefore rubber stamps it.

          • Peter Roe

            February 5, 2012 at 10:18 am

            But please see the example of a refused CF patent application cited in the second link I posted in my reply to JNewman above.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 2:54 am

      An NDA would be a prerequisite. Don’t forget how DGT got their technology. I am sure they wont let someone else do the same to them.

      But don’t say something like that on their forums, they trot the lawyer out pretty quick smart!

      As to the patent its based on the “filing date” first to file wins. which is why you should never tell anyone about an invention before patenting. if the person files first even without actually creating the invention they win. Its a corrupt system that rewards the wealthy.

      • Dale G. Basgall Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 8:55 pm

        Reply to CC, your statement;”As to the patent its based on the “filing date” first to file wins. which is why you should never tell anyone about an invention before patenting. if the person files first even without actually creating the invention they win. Its a corrupt system that rewards the wealthy.”

        The system is not corrupt as I see it, and experience is needed in the art of patenting and designing successful products, just like experience in life takes a person to to a more knowledgable mindset as experience is accumulated.

        A product is what you patent and it becomes a valuable patent if everything you precisely and without doubt specify in your claims actually becomes evident in physical form.

        I have been an independent inventor since 1978 and have learned time and time again that invention success is 10% product development and 90% paperwork. You can make anything but unless you can make a recipe to make a product allowing others to make one for themselves and use it for a purpose then you still have nothing but something no one else can use.

        In short, make something that works and is benefit to many people, write a patent for your design and explain your improvements, you win if all your paperwork was done prior to your success at selling the product patented.

        So the system you referred to as corrupt (USPTO)is in place to safegard the public from useless products like what is found in carnival prize bin’s.

        • CuriousChris Reply

          February 6, 2012 at 12:47 am

          “So the system you referred to as corrupt (USPTO)is in place to safegard the public from useless products like what is found in carnival prize bin’s.”

          Huh!. The problem is those carnival prizes ARE the ones being patented. As I said the problem is it is up to the examiner (previous comment). If you get a knowledgeable examiner you should be right. if you don’t it may be granted or refused based on the examiners ignorance. There are many cases of patents being granted to technologies where prior art is easily discoverable, where the actual patent is non inventive. For example software patents. People are allowed to patent algorithms, which would be obvious to someone experienced in the art (any programmer). Thus there are a large number of troll cases going on right now. purely because of the poor implementation of the patent system. So corrupt is the wrong word, duly chastised. But I certainly feel it is broken.

          There has also been some discussion saying the copyright and patent system has actually retarded inventiveness. Sorry I can’t find a link to the article I was thinking of at the moment.

          I admire you for being an independent inventor. I have never been brave enough to make the leap. I know how hard it is to market a product even if its a great idea. I guess I don’t have enough faith in myself to risk the the health and well being of my family for my ideas. So I remain a frustrated inventor..

  7. AB Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Flow calorimetry test planned? I hope that Celani will be attending that test since he insisted on flow calorimetry as requisite for his visit.

  8. arian Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Today i find a website that you can buy reactor from, i think we can use this commercial Reactors for lenr but they probably are very expensive.

    http://www.amarequip.com/non-stirred-pressure-vessels-tech-specifications.asp

    http://www.amarequip.com/photo-gallery.asp

  9. Ben Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Look at the list of advisers for JONP. Note the second one down, Prof. Michael Melich.

    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?page_id=2

    Prof. Sergio Focardi (INFN – University of Bologna – Italy)
    Prof. Michael Melich (DOD – USA)
    Prof. Alberto Carnera (INFM – University of Padova – Italy)
    Prof. Pierluca Rossi (University of Bologna – Italy)
    Prof. Luciana Malferrari (University of Bologna – Italy)
    Prof. George Kelly (University of New Hampshire – USA)
    Prof. Stremmenos Christos (Bologna University – Italy)
    Richard Noceti, Ph.D. (LTI-global.com)

    Also remember Paul Swanson from the Navy was present at the October 6 test. NASA chief scientist Dennis Bushnell also serves as an advisor for the US “intelligence apparatus,” as he puts it. Rossi has repeatedly indicated the customer for the 1MW plant was a military entity.
    Various branches of the U.S. Military and the Australian Department of Defence visit my site on a regular basis and I can imagine that this site and many others get similar types of visits.

    Yeah, I have not doubt “the military” is not only aware of this, they are watching it pretty closely.

    BTW, I think I put this comment in the wrong place. It was supposed to go under Mahron A4 B3 above

    http://ecatnews.com/?p=1998&cpage=1#comment-16013

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 6:24 pm

      Good, that’s a very good sign. That will most certainly be the first department to massively overhaul their infrastructure if this thing is real. Because they will simply have no choice. It will also save them a massive amount of money.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 6:53 pm

      Just out of interest, are there any regular visitors to your site from any relevant UK bodies, Ben?

      (very slow loading tonight – half of the US military must be here!)

      • Timar Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 7:16 pm

        Indeed governmental institutions have their own IP ranges. It shouldn’t bee too hard to analyse the statistics for visits from such IPs.

      • Ben Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 7:17 pm

        No Peter, there are not a lot of visits from UK Gov. entities, although there do seem to be a good number of visits from the City of London, which is the financial district I believe. Is that correct?

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 7:34 pm

          Hi Ben. Yes many banking headquarters are based in ‘the city’, but also quite a few multinationals. I’m not surprised that you are not seeing much .gov.uk traffic – in general we are governed and run by technical illiterates who wouldn’t recognise important new technology if it ran them over in the street.

          • Ben

            February 4, 2012 at 8:07 pm

            Well then Peter, it is probably the case that the banks and multinationals in “The City” are following this closely and then reportedly on it to their underlings in the government… :-)

          • Peter Roe

            February 4, 2012 at 9:12 pm

            ‘Many a true word is spoken in jest’…

          • monkey man

            February 5, 2012 at 12:44 pm

            I suspect it having more to do with a lot of UK isps having thier network border’s in London and no one bothering to update the geo-loc databases when IPs get reallocated.

    • georgehants Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 7:22 pm

      Ben it would be almost certain that some of the commenter’s who turn up on these pages will be the same as the professional groups who censor every report on Wiki-rubbish.
      They appear to work in teams trying to put down any threat to establishment domination.
      When one team fails to quieten a website another different pair turn up.
      Who finances and directs these people would be hard to find out.
      It is clear they have an agenda as no rational person would spend time defending the viewpoints that they put.
      For instance would any of these people who are out to save us from ourselves as we clearly cannot judge for ourselves good sense —–
      -
      What do they think of main-line sciences record regarding Cold Fusion.
      -
      I expect them to be filling the page with their o so good reasons why the establishment is not at fault, or they will stay quite.

      • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 8:12 pm

        Well they are not very good at their jobs, we are all still here aren’t we ?

        Tell us more about those shadow people which would have the influence to hold back a tech that would mean total energy independence for all countries on this planet. So basically be above national interest of all countries.

        • georgehants Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 9:32 pm

          Mahron – A4 B3, as predicted a circular answer.
          I asked —-
          “What do they think of main-line sciences record regarding Cold Fusion.” —-
          And as predicted, again you failed to answer, proving my point I think.
          Thank you.

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            February 4, 2012 at 10:01 pm

            If by “they” you mean “me”, I already gave you my opinion.

            No one until now was able to get were rossi is claiming to be now, and there is no way it is because of incompetence, fear of discredit, or obscure forces holding it back. Nobody understood it then, and no one does now, he simply got there first. Clear enough ?

            Now answer my question. How could have all the people around the globe have failed to make progress given whats at stake if it was so easy to figure it out ?

          • Pekka Janhunen

            February 5, 2012 at 10:42 am

            Mahron: yes, clear enough, well said

      • Peter Roe Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 8:59 pm

        I wonder if the forums dedicated to angel guides or bigfoot are permanently overrun with ‘skeptics’ pointing out the illogicality of their discussions and generally trying to show them the error of their ways and guide them towards the light?

        I think not. I wonder why that would be…

      • CuriousChris Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 3:07 am

        Do you have proof of this?

  10. Jerry C Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    Defkalion has shown NOTHING! they are vying for time and you can be certain that testing of the the so-called Hyperion LENR device will be individuals hand picked by Def-kalion to make sure this goes their way, we shall see shortly and I told you so.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 7:38 pm

      In general I try to be polite, even when commenters like you post pointless garbage, but I’ve had a couple of glasses of wine now, so – SOD OFF!

      And for future reference, the expression is ‘playing for time’.

  11. Timar Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 7:27 pm

    This is ROSSI SAID(tm) breaking news:

    ———————————————————————————————————
    Dear Franco Morici,
    I am very sorry to disappoint you again, but:
    1- I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor: as you have seen, many attempts of copies have been made, and, even if most of them are just clowneries with a mock up, as the ones of the …Kolions, some are dangerous, like NASA’s. We will be safe only when we will be on the market with our E-Cats at a very low price, due to the robotized production line we are setting up in the USA, but until then we have to be ermetically closed.
    2- We do not give anymore any information about the work we do regarding our R&D program and about with which University we do it. This is to avoid the storm of inopportune contacts that arrive wherever we go to work, really annoying because in great part orchestrated by the Puppetteers through their puppets. The highest level of comicity has been reached very recently, when a Puppetteer wrote me saying that , after the genial interview released from a Primadonna to a puppett of his, the same Puppetteer offered himself as a friendly and for free “validator” after the University of Bologna cancelled the R&D contract with us because we couldn’t pay 500,000 Euros for their work to be done.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ———————————————————————————————————
    http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=580&cpage=2

    So lots of talk about clowns and puppets – no surprise there. He more or less openly accuses Defkalion (“KolIons”, I guess) of running a scam.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 7:49 pm

      And appears to be saying that he couldn’t afford the half mil Euros for the UniBo work. Not quite the well fuelled battleship then? I wonder which particular ‘puppeteer’ he is referring to? Celini?

      Wonderful neologisms!: ‘clowneries’, ‘comicity’

      But it seems that our future discussion fodder will have to come from elsewhere.

      • Pekka Janhunen Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 8:30 pm

        Peter, “And appears to be saying that he couldn’t afford the half mil Euros for the UniBo work.” I understand his statement so that that sentence is still part of the “comicity”. Krivit stars as the Puppet, I’m not sure if I recognise the other actors.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 8:45 pm

          Pekka – yes, of course you are right (on both counts). Too much wine (family celebration) and too little care reading the statement properly…

      • Renzo Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 8:37 pm

        About neologisms: I think “Kolions” is a creative wordplay between Defkalion and the italian word “coglioni” that is an insult similar to the english “assholes”.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 8:49 pm

          Rossi is very clever with language – even when it’s not his own. I did wonder about ‘Kolions’ but it has no connections in English that I know of.

          • CuriousChris

            February 5, 2012 at 3:08 am

            Try Colon

          • Peter Roe

            February 5, 2012 at 9:03 am

            mmm – bit of a stretch.

          • Antonella

            February 5, 2012 at 12:18 pm

            Try with Spanish, “cojones”

        • Loop Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 11:20 pm

          I’m asking myself who was the “Primadonna” which held the interview?

      • Pekka Janhunen Reply

        February 4, 2012 at 8:53 pm

        A small curiosity, in the above Rossi said, he added the “in the USA” and the whole “comicity” part later. I know because I pressed Reload after reading it and saw it change. Although he gets many questions and sometimes answer them hastily, some answers like this he seems to edit for a longer time.

        • Frank Reply

          February 4, 2012 at 9:35 pm

          A similiar experience I had with the e-catworld.com blog.
          I recognized that the admin of e-catworld.com edited an ‘old’ blog entry, so that this blog-entry got ‘adjusted’ to some new ‘findings’. – But he never marked this modification as ‘update’.
          I discovered this ‘adjustment’ by comparing the actual blog-entry with the copy from google-webarchive.

          So, keep in mind that the owner of a blog (e.g. JONP) could always modify old posts in case he doesn’t deem them ‘opportune’ anymore.

          • Tony

            February 5, 2012 at 10:26 pm

            Amusing. So *the government* couldn’t possibly alter a blog entry / news story if they thought it would help their cause?

    • Frank Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      Another ‘good one’ from Rossi:
      —-
      Jim
      February 4th, 2012 at 1:08 AM
      Just wondering how you have time to answer all of these questions, take orders yourself, and set up a manufacturing facily to produce 1 million e-cats a year.

      Andrea Rossi
      February 4th, 2012 at 7:57 AM
      Dear Jim:
      Working 16 hours per day, but with some exception, for example yesterday I worked 26 hours straight ( of which 11 on an aeroplane). Stakanov was an amateur.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.
      —-

      It seems that one looses awareness of reality due to lack of sleep :-)
      Probably makes also one prone to the Kruger-Dunning syndrome. ;-)

      • Carl White Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 10:13 pm

        26 hours? It sounds like he was crossing timezones while airborne so it extended his day. So a bit of humor, not delusion.

  12. Zalaz Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    I want to believe!

    Avid follower of cold fusion from 1989 until Gene Mallove was murdered. Lost interest after that. Last October someone mentioned the eCat on Universe Today (they were ignored).

    Got really excited thinking Rossi was “hiding in plain sight”. Read everything I could find for a couple of months to verify Rossi’s rather obvious “secret catalyst”. Only one common substance matches all the hints, yet is never mentioned in CF/LENR circles.

    Started collecting chemicals, pressure regulators, 316 Swagelok fittings and valves, thermocouples, etc. Already had 200 g of INCO type 123 nickel powder I’ve been carrying around for two decades.

    I’m a retired Sr. Prin. Eng. with the necessary background to do these experiments. When it’s set up and running, I will publish everything on a website with lots of detail, photos, etc. Unless I get tremendous excess heat, that is!

    • Quax Reply

      February 6, 2012 at 3:54 am

      That’s the spirit! Godspeed and best of luck!

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 6, 2012 at 8:42 am

      That is the beauty of Rossi’s discovery – from the clues it looks possible for anyone with the right knowledge and some inspiration to replicate, in the true spirit of individual inventiveness. I also hope you succeed, and wish you good luck!

  13. Roger Bird Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 9:56 pm

    This could definitely be a game changer for the game changing technology. The most immediate benefit for us will be the opportunity to make patho-skeptics eat crow shit. I am looking forward to this with extremely keen anticipation.

    I have always put my money, metaphorically speaking, on Defkalion. A team working together can accomplish way more than 1 guy who doesn’t play well with others.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 10:57 pm

      “The most immediate benefit for us will be the opportunity to make patho-skeptics eat crow shit.”

      Really, Roger? This is your considered opinion of the most immediate benefits of LANR technology to the world?

      Perhaps you could tone it down a bit? Crow shit?

      Does someone have to “eat crow shit” if it turns out for one reason or another that Defkalion can’t deliver on their promise yet?

      • Roger Bird Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 6:55 pm

        I did not say that the most immediate benefits of LANR technology would be patho-skeptics getting their come-uppance. I said that the most immediate benefits of the successful tests at Defkalion would be patho-skeptics getting their come-uppance, or words to that effect. (:->) Obviously, by the time we are getting benefits from LANR, the patho-skeptics will be no where to be found.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 3:12 am

      That’s an insult.

      Without sceptics your morning bowl of breakfast would be a bowl of water which once contained a minute particle of a corn flake. but because the water “remembered” the corn flake its just as filling. Hmm I wonder if the same water “remembers all the P!55 and 5h1t that has gone through it.

      • Peter Roe Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 9:09 am

        LOL :) – thank you for that thought! Now I’ll have to spend some time trying to get it out of my head before I can eat my breakfast.

    • Pekka Janhunen Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 10:06 am

      Roger Bird: I agree, it’s hard to overestimate the importance of this Defkalion offer, because unless the testers teams are all sloppy, they can reach 100% certainty of large and beyond-chemical energy production.

      Different tester teams don’t know of each other. Therefore, those teams who plan to publish (i.e. the academic ones) have an incentive to publish fast, in order to be the first.

      At earliest, the first measurement campaign might take place at end of February, although March or even April is more likely, taking into account that academic groups are usually not very fast. In the best case they might put out the preliminary results within a few days, although writing up the full analysis would take at least a month.

  14. georgehants Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    Peter, don’t worry the truth will always win now that the Internet allows the establishment coverups to be seen.
    In the past lies and deceit where easy by our masters but now the establishment huggers are on their last irrational gasp.
    Note in my comment above, ask them a straight question and they collapse in a heap of circular rubbish and avoidance.
    All their tricks have been seen, just don’t fall into the trap of trying to talk sense to them.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 4, 2012 at 11:42 pm

      the establishment that gave us the internet. The establishment must be pretty fucking stupid to want to hide stuff from the masses and at the same time provide it with a global instant com system don’t you think ?

      • Tony Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 6:55 am

        The establishment that wants to control the internet via SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA under the guise of copyright law? Never…

      • Peter Roe Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 9:23 am

        The establishment didn’t ‘give’ us the internet – it simply failed to act in time to control its explosive growth.

        As Tony says, this may change soon. The US government and others are now starting the process of stuffing this particular genie safely back in its bottle.

      • Quax Reply

        February 6, 2012 at 4:00 am

        The Internet was an accident. The establishment was backing AOL, Compuserve etc. MS had a near death experience when they realized they backed the wrong trend and had to put out Netscape.

        Are you too young to remember or really a patho-sceptic :)

  15. DSM Reply

    February 4, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    Slightly away from Defkalion (but they too may have been approached if as Rossi says, he was) …

    I read this Q&A on Rossi’s eCat site & am wondering what others here make of it !!!

    ### QUOTE ###
    Have you ever been approached by “certain global powers” requesting you to hold back on your planned time-line of goals?

    (Asked by Ecat.com 1 week ago production development)

    Yes. But we did not accept. Probably new series of attacks will arrive from the puppets, but are totally irrilevant in front of the industrialization of the E-Cats.
    ### END QUOTE ###

    Doug M

    • Frank Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 12:07 am

      You are asking what others here think about that – here is my personal opinion: Pure nonsens.

      • DSM Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 12:57 am

        So is Rossi making this up ? – any reason you have for saying so ?

        Tks

        D

        • Frank Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 1:41 am

          Why I think so?
          Because Rossi – as usual – doesn’t provide any evidence for that; no names who allegedly (according to ‘Rossi says’) wants to suppress his ‘world changing invention’.
          Let’s assume for one moment that Rossi has made such an invention and he gets approached by some ‘powers’ to hold back his invention, but he refuses.
          Wouldn’t it be in this situation a good idea to collect some evidence for this attempt and go public with this evidence; reveal to the public that certain ‘powers’ work against the interest of the common people?
          Wouldn’t that be the best insurance for him to protect him from further attacks from this ‘evil powers’? – And it would even support the credibility of his claims (that his e-cat produces excess power), when he could show proof that ‘big oil industry or whatever other power’ attempts to suppress his invention.

          • DSM

            February 5, 2012 at 6:51 am

            Thanks for your opinion.

            Anyone else with some thoughts on this ?

            Cheers

            D

          • Pekka Janhunen

            February 5, 2012 at 8:46 am

            DSM: yes, snakes come in different flavours

          • Peter Roe

            February 5, 2012 at 9:30 am

            It is logical to assume that those whose financial interests would threatened by cheap power would approach Rossi and make tempting offers, as a first step (or second if you count offline news management and online trolling).

    • CuriousChris Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 7:35 am

      I am leaning towards Franks reply. I am struggling to take anything Rossi says at face value.

      But and this is my quandary. If Rossi has been deceptive. Then it seems logical that Defkalion are not straight up either.

      The timing is where my problem is. CF research is 23 years old. In that time only slow progress has been made, that’s not unusual, if we look at hot fusion its been going a lot longer with many more billions thrown at it (why isn’t big oil stopping that?) and so far the results are impressive machines but no COP > 1 for even a millisecond I think the best COP is about 0.7 (JET)

      So after years of incremental advancement in CF where the best researchers seem to only get very small output power (apparently MIT’s recent showing was in the milliwatt range [source krivit unconfirmed]) Rossi comes along and claims KW from a single unit. He then partners with a company for production and distribution purposes, only to break up because they say they are going it alone with a better product they already had in development.

      At least we know who Rossi and Co is. We also know he and his friends have a history in CF research. Who in DGT is their lead researcher? Where did they do their research? They don’t say they just talk about some on their board, and none of those are qualified in the prerequisite sciences.

      I am not saying they don’t have a product, I am not saying they are acting fraudulently I am saying the timing is very coincidental.

      • Timar Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 8:42 am

        Chris,

        it’s not that there haven’t been large amounts of excess heat observed by various researchers. We have reports by reputable scientists of “out of control” CF cells producing enourmous amounts of excess heat:

        “In one of the most dramatic instances thus far, reported by T. Mizuno, a palladium cathode weighing a hundred grams generated an excess heat of several watts for a month, producing 12 megajoules excess in total. It grew hotter and hotter, until it was generating well over 100 watts. Mizuno naturally became alarmed. The cell was palpably hot, and it would not cool off even after it was disconnected from the power supply. It was producing what is called “heat after death.” Mizuno placed the cell in a bucket of water to cool it down. The first bucketful of water evaporated overnight, and was replenished the next morning. It evaporated again, and was replenished once more. In all, 37.5 liters of water were evaporated over an 11-day period, before the cell finally cooled to room temperature. It takes 85 megajoules of energy to vaporize that much water. During the experiment before electrolysis was terminated the cell produced 12 megajoules, so over the entire experiment the cathode produced at least 97 megajoules.”

        Quote from Jed Rothwell, Cold Fusion and the Future, 2004, p. 14.

        The problem so far has been the combination of both useful scale and stability: either the experiments produced large amount of excess heat but ran out of control – like this one or the explosion Arata experienced with a cell based on nickel powder – or they ran stable but produced only minute amounts of excess heat.

        IMO it isn’t so far stretched to assume that Rossi and/or Defkalion may have found a way to combine these aspects in their devices.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 9:40 am

          Good post – thanks for the info Timar.

          @CuriousChris: “..why isn’t big oil stopping that?”

          As you point out, hot fusion has never come near viability as a power source, so we have never had the opportunity to see what would happen in that case.

          However, the main difference is that hot fusion requires billion dollar investments, and even if successful would therefore stay safely under the control of corporations and governments. In contrast, CF threatens to deliver devices that can be made for a few tens of dollars and will be directly available to the masses – an entirely different matter.

          • Ivy Matt

            February 6, 2012 at 2:47 pm

            However, the main difference is that hot fusion requires billion dollar investments

            Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on the confinement method.

        • CuriousChris Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 10:13 am

          Your right. I did also forget the tale of one experiment that exploded. but that may have been chemical in source. I guess it would have been more accurate for me to say “controllable”.

          Nonetheless no-one else has got anywhere near commercial (and reported it). If it was two companies on opposite sides of the world, I’d be more inclined to believe it. So I still think the timing is an extraordinary co-incidence.

          • Peter Roe

            February 5, 2012 at 1:07 pm

            I suspect that we may all be ‘mushrooms’ and that the semi-coherent pictures we have pasted together (depending on viewoint) are probably very wide of the mark. Possibly Rossi (and maybe even DGT as well) are in effect just front men for what may now have become a very elaborate game. I haven’t got a clue what it might be about though.

  16. Tony Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 10:01 am

    Just to remind you what underpins our ‘modern civilisation’:

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

  17. Pekka Janhunen Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Andrea Rossi, February 4th, 2012 at 4:27 PM
    “Dear Tom M.:
    I doubt this tech will be useful for something in the aero-space sector within 50 years, honestly.”

    Might become a famous quote in 50 years, who knows where it will be written…

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 10:50 am

      CF powered freight and passenger airships are petty inevitable once cheap heat is available for both propulsion and lift control. If non-radioactive helium transmutation from hydrogen is possible, that would be useful too!

      I guess Rossi just means he can’t see any way that CF devices could ever develop power outputs comparable with jet turbines, size for size. As you imply, he might be wrong about that too, once the phenomenon is fully understood and the technology is developed.

      • Pekka Janhunen Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm

        For example Airbus A340 maximum fuel capacity is 125000 kg, maximum range 15000 km and duration 17 hours, from which one can estimate average fuel consumption 2 kg/s i.e. 88 MW thermal power. Defkalion says their container-type plant is maximum 5 MW thermal. If one assumes that its mass is 5000 kg as in Rossi’s case, 88 MW capacity would weigh 88000 kg, which is less than the A340 kerosene load.

        Thus it seems that in terms of power density (W/kg), the Rossi and Defkalion products are already in the right ballpark for commercial long-distance aviation.

      • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 12:18 pm

        It could also simply go back to having propellers. Longer flights but cheaper. And probably more silent and luxurious as they don’t need to pack so many passenger for to the flight to be viable.

        • dsm Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm

          You have it. NASA presented on this matter in 2011 & basically said that the energy generated & converted to rotational power would allow subsonic travel. There is a device called the Moller Skycar. Paul Moller has spent 50 years trying to get one (& derivatives) to fly reliably but the fuel powered engines are always his let down. Too much to go wrong. The idea of a LENR energy pack to power the engines makes the concept far more probable. It could be by heat-to-electricity or it could be in the form of a Stirling engine converting heat to motion. Ford (in recent times) had an efficient high performance Stirling car engine but shelved it when hydrogen cells looked like they would take off. Its fault was it still relied on liquid fuel (kero, petrol etc:).

          Uni of Cleveland have a working model of a Stirling engine that will use a LENR energy pack to provide the heat differential that Stirling engines run on. NASA have been using Stirling engines in space for close on 30 years. LENR heat is exactly what they need to work. NASA often show diagrams and photos of the Cleveland unit.

          Doug M

      • DvH Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 12:26 pm

        folks, shouldn’t we wait to see a blue container producing warm water for 6 months in autonomous mode before speculating about CF-powered passenger flight?

        • Pekka Janhunen Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 12:30 pm

          No because an airplane engine doesn’t have to run for 6 months continuously.

          • DvH

            February 5, 2012 at 12:41 pm

            of course not.
            what i mean – before dreaming up all kind of applications for CF – isnt it too early to do so? WHEN the blue container delivers warm water THEN you/we can start to find technical usages for this stuff.. – not now.

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            February 5, 2012 at 1:00 pm

            It is hard to resit really as it now seems very likely it’s going to happen.

          • Peter Roe

            February 5, 2012 at 1:19 pm

            Besides, if we can’t have a bit of fun speculating here, then in the absence of any actual developments we would all have to go back to doing something useful instead!

  18. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Mahron – A4 B3 —You said
    “No one until now was able to get were rossi is claiming to be now, and there is no way it is because of incompetence, fear of discredit, or obscure forces holding it back. Nobody understood it then, and no one does now, he simply got there first. Clear enough ?”
    -
    “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.”

    You are either not very observant as I have put this showing of Fraud and Incompetence up several times, or you have an irrational agenda.
    The establishment is criminal in it’s denial and debunking of Cold Fusion and you trying to whitewash a clear case of science at it’s historic worst is a thing of the past, the deniers will no longer get away with conning the public.
    If there was a conspiracy then I have no fear of using the word, there is going to have to be a defense of that charge by the establishment sooner or later.
    Any attacks of abuse or debunking against Rossi are irrational and immature.
    Let the evidence come.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 12:11 pm

      Koonin was just one guy in one country, hardly enough for all scientists world wide to have laid down their instruments just because he pronounced a few words. Anyway, if rossi delivers, all eyes will turn towards the field and its history, there will be no hiding. We will then see what those who did not believe in it, or prematurely judged it have to say. I seriously doubt any of them had an agenda. If it was a conspiracy or a world wide display on incompetence, then you can give me your address, I will send you a box a chocolate.

      • georgehants Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 12:29 pm

        Mahron – A4 B3, There “will be no hiding” for the establishment if fraud and conspiracy are proved.
        You said–”I seriously doubt any of them had an agenda.”
        That is your personal opinion and is worthless, the TRUTH will emerge as it is doing now based on EVIDENCE and not opinion.
        Like Rossi, Defkalion and UFO’s I will judge by the EVIDENCE and not your opinion.
        I am sure you like the rest of us want the TRUTH.
        If you do not want the TRUTH please say so clearly.
        A simple question for you —-Do you want the TRUTH.

        • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 12:44 pm

          LoL. yeah I like truth and evidence. But I have none of that right now. In the mean time I have an opinion.

          You want TRUTH and EVIDENCE but you seem quick to judge without any of it.

      • georgehants Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 12:34 pm

        Mahron – A4 B3, you did not answer what your opinion of Koonin’s statement is, as a now presidential adviser he is not “just one scientist”
        A simple question —- what is your opinion of his statement re P&F.

        • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 12:48 pm

          It was not smart at all, but people say stupid things some times, maybe he regrets it, maybe not. Maybe he his the closed minded, incompetent, not worthy of his post man you claim him to be. It that case the wrong man was chosen, shit just happens.

          • georgehants

            February 5, 2012 at 12:56 pm

            Mahron – A4 B3, my respect for a fair and honest answer, nobody could rationally come to any other conclusion.
            A question —-
            Do you agree science needs to remove any other administrators that hold any opinion like Koonin’s on any subject.
            Do you feel science can only progress efficiently and honestly with open-minded, unbiased investigation of all subjects regardless of worthless personal opinions.

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            February 5, 2012 at 1:41 pm

            Well if your not fit to do your job properly you should be removed, especially at such high level of government. Being open minded is probably the most important quality for someone which is responsible for a department linked to science in any way. As I said, if he hasn’t become wiser in the mean time, then it is likely the wrong choice was made, If they find someone better, great, if not it won’t stall mankind’s progress.

        • DvH Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 12:56 pm

          george, seems, again you start talking nonsense. on one hand you say ‘that is your completly worthless personal opinion’ – and now you insist than someone gives HIS worthless opinion about somebody else’s worthless opinion??
          how worthless is that? and how worthless is YOUR opinion about mahron’s opinion??
          cool down and try to be more logic….

          • georgehants

            February 5, 2012 at 12:59 pm

            DvH, AS I have said I try to put things as simply as I can for the slowest of minds.
            That is why I make such a distinction between fact and opinion.
            As long as one clearly states one or the other, that is fine.
            Only when irrationals confuse opinion with fact do they make themselves look very foolish.

          • DvH

            February 5, 2012 at 1:06 pm

            @georgehants:
            ‘Only when irrationals confuse opinion with fact do they make themselves look very foolish.’
            probably you cannot imagnine how welcome that insight of yours is….

      • CuriousChris Reply

        February 6, 2012 at 12:56 am

        Conspiracy theorists make me laugh.

        Greed, Pride, Incompetence. These are the things that make me cry. Sadly when added together they make it look like a conspiracy.

        • Alain Reply

          February 6, 2012 at 6:38 am

          +1
          emerging apparent conspiracy from independent, unsupervised stupidity, laziness, greed cowardliness…

          don’t imagine that my big boss know the reality. my boss know, laugh, and nobody will dare to talk, by fear of irrational violence of hierarchy…
          and so emerge conspiracy of stupidity and delusion

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 6, 2012 at 8:55 am

          If say one multinational atomic energy corporation tries to use its ‘influence’ to subvert a national government’s policy in a way that favours it’s interests, that is business (or corruption to be more precise).

          If the CEOs of two such corporations have a private chat and decide on a joint strategy then that is conspiracy. Is it really so hard to believe that such a thing could happen?

  19. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 10:40 am

    A little TRUTH, nobody has proven Rossi or Defkalion wrong.
    The rational skeptics are saying wait and see the evidence as it comes, prejudgement is pathetic.
    The irrational skeptics are saying Rossi et al are frauds, they debunk and abuse and twist evidence to try and make their case.
    They are wasting their time, only Evidence counts, as with every subject debunked by incompetence science.
    Factually everything said about a subject before clear evidence (beyond making clear they are giving a worthless personal opinion) is illogical and pointless.
    The time of distorted DOGMA by the establishment is finished, either UFO’s or Rossi are reality or they are not– follow the Evidence is the only rational course in all cases.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      February 6, 2012 at 1:04 am

      An extra little bit of TRUTH. Rossi and Defkalion haven’t proved their claims (yet).

      The irrational believers are trying to twist the incomplete evidence to make their case.

      Until such time. “Believing it is so, doesn’t make it so” .CC
      Belief without proof is irrational, it is the realm of faith. not of science.

      • Alain Reply

        February 6, 2012 at 6:47 am

        like on good justice, the notion of proof is complex.
        in fact correlation of numerous facts, profiling, motivation analysis, is much more reliable that pretended factual proof that always can be discussed or faked.

        hyperciticism is one way to ignore real facts, pretending the proof are not enough.
        it is used even to critic evident fact like moon landing. I’m tired of hyper criticsm and other irrational belief.

        cold fusion is scientifically proved according to scientific method, corrected by the usual pathologic human factor.
        Rossi and defkalion have behavior that give evidence, connected evidence, that there is a pair of working reactor design.
        Rossi clearly is paranoid, making errors and lies, but he had a working yet unstable reactor. the graphs showed it. defkalion corner themselves in a way that is only coherent if they have a reactor. they answered question that show that they have studied deeply the design of their machine, which is not coherent with a scam.
        Profiling Defkalion board of director call of a gang of business men with a strong network to transform real cold-fusion in big industry…

        everything else is hyper-criticism.
        no conspiracy. I’m tired with stupid explanation of simple facts, just to avoid the clear truth. Every morning I shave the news with Occam razor.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 6, 2012 at 9:21 am

          “Every morning I shave the news with Occam razor.” Works on several levels – brilliant!

          Thank you Alain – your post is a perfect statement of exactly how many of us see the CF story at this point, and expresses a general weariness with the perpetual subversion of reality to suit various agendas which I share.

          • Alain

            February 6, 2012 at 11:11 am

            yesterday I had to explain cold fusion to someone that is however convinced that 9/11 is a CIA+Mossad complot, Apolo a big scam, and GSM wave cause cancer…

            I’m tired.
            It seems that removing religion from our mind, call it to me replaced by fear and conspiracy theory.

          • Peter Roe

            February 6, 2012 at 8:27 pm

            .. often resulting from attempts at manipulation from all directions.

  20. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 11:12 am

    From Cold Fusion Now.
    The Graph that Changed the World, by Ruby Carat
    A wonderful analysis with Evidence of the failures and history of Cold Fusion.
    Establishment huggers can whine all they like but I prefer to follow the TRUTH and not official or amateur DOGMA worshipers.
    http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/the-graph-that-changed-the-world/

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 11:37 am

      What has puzzled me about that graph since I first saw it is the sudden fall in temp at the end of the excess heat episode. As the reaction vessel was thermally insulated by a vacuum layer and by a heat-reflective surface, then this result implies that the system must have suddenly become endothermic for some reason. In other words – where did the heat go?

      • DvH Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm

        indeed, thats a puzzle. they try to explain what causes the increase, but the temperature-drop is not discussed.
        the reason for this (the temperature-drop) is as interesting and useful as the temperature-rise.
        this ‘opposite effect’ is surprising. and so is the lack of a sentence discussing it…
        it makes this report (dont know if its an original or a citation) a little bit ‘imprecise’, imo.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 12:26 pm

          I have no wish to come over like one of the ‘pathoskeptics’, but to me the graph suggests a bad contact (loose, resulting in higher resistance?) introduced into the thermistor wiring during one ‘topping up’ process, that is reversed a few top-ups later. In that case of course, the blue line would be an accurate reflection of a steadily rising cell temp – much easier to accept.

          As you say, the lack of discussion of the apparent fall in temp is odd.

          • DvH

            February 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm

            that was my idea too: measurement error. can happen, no problem. then they should have repeated the experiment or written ‘ignore that part of the diagram with the strange temperature-behavior’…
            but no – they publish it like this and years later some folks take it as plain TRUTH…

          • MK

            February 5, 2012 at 1:08 pm

            As far as I can see from the diagram, the “event” lasted roughly 2,5 days. A “sudden” increase or decrease of temperature could have happened within 1 or 2 hours but still appear as a step on this time scale….

          • Peter Roe

            February 5, 2012 at 4:42 pm

            @MK. I take your point, but the reaction cell is in effect a thermos flask, so no significant cooling should have occurred for much longer than a couple of hours. If that was not the case then the whole data set would be seriously flawed, as the degree of excess heat production would have been seriously underestimated by not accounting for such losses.

            Also, a downward curved trajectory might have been expected, as increasing temperature differential (inside/outside) resulted in a correspondingly greater rate of heat loss. As the line is straight, good thermal insulation can be inferred.

      • CuriousChris Reply

        February 6, 2012 at 1:14 am

        Good thought, but not entirely impossible. As the ‘action’ that has caused the exothermic reaction collapses, it flips to endothermic until it stabilises. Think of compressed gas (exothermic) being released through a valve at which point it becomes endothermic, and the valve and immediate surrounds cools down.

        The above is just a viewpoint. nothing more

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 6, 2012 at 9:35 am

          If something like that was to prove to be the case, it would have pretty profound implications for any related CF systems. It would mean that in effect, the burst of excess heat was only ‘borrowed’ in some way and has to be ‘repaid’ during the endothermic phase.

          If the ‘excess’ heat has already been removed from the semi-closed system by a coolant, you might predict that the reaction vessel would then become very cold as it seeks to ‘take back’ the lost energy. It’s an interesting idea, but I have never come across any observations that might support it (unless this what Rossi has been running into after a few hours of eCat operation!).

          • CuriousChris

            February 6, 2012 at 11:03 am

            “the burst of excess heat was only ‘borrowed’ in some way and has to be ‘repaid’”

            I thought that myself while making that shit up. But its still a possibility, say if the reaction drops to a level where it can no longer support itself. the remaining reactions revert to their natural state reabsorbing the heat they were in the process of giving up. Don’t forget the reaction doesn’t start until a certain amount of heat has been applied. So the reaction does require heat.

            Nothing scientific about my thoughts, just musings.

          • Peter Roe

            February 6, 2012 at 8:32 pm

            Nor mine – I’m an ex-microbiologist, a profession generally adopted by people with almost no understanding of mathematics or physics!

  21. arian Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 11:26 am

    How many researchers or research centres have announced participation for independent checks that the company intends to do?

    Defkalion GT

    So far we have received such requests and we are in the process of preparing independent tests with seven well-known research centres or institutions from Greece and abroad.

    We have received several hundreds of requests from independent individual researchers from around the world. Obviously cannot meet all requests made by researchers within the next two months.

    The process of determination of available testing dates of research centres and protocols of each test-instrumentation research centres/organisations, require sufficient correspondence and consultations (possibly more time-consuming than expected, due to their bureaucracy and internal).

    Thank you for your interest

  22. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 11:28 am

    I try to keep my points to the lowest possible common denominator so that even the slowest of minds can follow, but I cannot account for the usual reply’s telling me that they had a visit from Martians in their dreams last night who assured them that Rossi and Defkalion where Frauds.
    They have been instructed to attack them in every conceivable illogical way and they will be rewarded with a flight in a Martian spaceship to a World where Truth and Logic just don’t exist.
    They believe this will be some kind of Utopia.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 11:40 am

      “a World where Truth and Logic just don’t exist.” I believe its called moletrap.co.uk!

    • CuriousChris Reply

      February 6, 2012 at 1:20 am

      Ha Ha Of course. You know because the Martians actually visited you to say they gave the technology to Rossi. Sceptics don’t believe in Martians, or had you forgotten that?

      Actually people often say that there is no such thing as time travel. The proof is there are no time travellers coming back to save us from our mistakes. But we now have proof! its time travelling Martians who gave Rossi the key to commercial LENR to save the world from global warming.

      /tic

  23. Guru Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    From one unnamed company (which banned thread about 7 weeks until whatever test publication) from one unnamed bankrupt country
    (translate by Google):

    How many researchers or research centers have opted for independent audits that intends to make the company?
    .

    So far we have received applications and we are in the process of preparing independent test with 7 well-known research centers and organizations from Greece and abroad.

    We have received hundreds of applications from independent individual researchers from around the world. Obviously they can not meet all these requests memonomenon researchers within the space of the next two months.

    The process of determining the available testing dates of research centers and protocols of each test-instrumentation research centers / organizations, require much correspondence and understandings (possibly more time consuming than we thought, due to their internal bureaucracy).

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 12:38 pm

      As several people have already pointed out, we only have a couple of months to go before we find out if DGT have what they claim, or are full of it. The factor that leads me to be optimistic is that I can’t conceive of any purpose that would be served by offering objective testing, then failing to deliver. Perhaps I’m just not imaginative enough.

      • timycelyn Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm

        I share your perspective, Peter. The interesting thing with Defkalion compared to Rossi, is Rossi has – at least publicly – the appearance of a somewhat eccentric one man band, and therefore among the list of explanations (It’s what he says it is; It’s some sort of scam; etc…) is”He honestly believes this, but is deluded”.

        Well, it’s pretty thin given the number of other parties that have some oversight of parts of what he is doing, but it is on the list.

        In the case of Defkalion, being an organisation with apparently a number of key people, and some quite impressive external oversight, an attempt to propose some sort of ‘Collective delusion’ alongside ‘It’s a scam’ and ‘It is what it says on the box’ on that list of reasons gets – in my opinion – vanishingly far fetched.

        So yes, if an organisation paints itself into a corner like that, there seems to be only a very short list of explanations….

        PS Loved your reply to ‘Jerry C’ towards the top of this thread! ROFLOL. ;-)

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 6, 2012 at 9:54 am

          Jerry C reply: I repent of that, it was very rude even if partially justified, and definitely a bit boorish. In retrospect, just a simple ‘go away’ would have been quite enough (but nowhere near as satisfying!).

          • timycelyn

            February 6, 2012 at 11:06 am

            Just a bit therapeutic…..

  24. Tony Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html

      NOT AS SMART AS A FIFTH GRADER
    Numerical Analysis of Steven Krivit’s Lastest Rants

    February 5, 2012 – There he goes again.  Just when cold fusion scientists thought it might be safe to emerge from their laboratories, along comes major mischief-maker Steve Krivit (‘New Energy Times’) to spin facts into fiction.  Known by many for his serial, unqualified “analyses” and his intense advocacy of a knock-off theory, Steve Krivit has now been over-shadowed by fifth grade level logic regarding both the magnitude of numbers AND how he failed to even read a graph correctly.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 1:41 pm

      The author has done a very good job on Krivit, but of course he will just come back like a rubber ball with a new load of slurs, misrepresentations, innuendos and outright lies. Its just unfortunate that so much effort has to be diverted into debunking the debunkers.

    • Ransompw Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 3:21 pm

      Honestly, what do you expect from the “Master of the Half Truth”. I have rarely seen a more deceptive person masquerading as a journalist. Read Krivit at your peril.

    • AB Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 3:39 pm

      I wonder, does Krivit misrepresent all LENR research that’s approaching the “potentially threatening to big oil” status?

      Is he a mole sent to sabotage LENR while masquerading as LENR enthusiast and reporter?

      Or is he just married to the WL theory?

      • Pekka Janhunen Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 3:57 pm

        “Or is he just married to the WL theory?” In that case, since Krivit is the Puppet also known as Puppet Snake, who plays the Puppeteer? Larsen?

    • dsm Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      Tony
      Thanks for that link. The writer sure rips into Krivit.

      I have posted here already my own transformation from seeing Krivit as a LENR hero to some weird warped biased loose cannon who may be doing more ahrm to LENR/CF than any good.

      Krivit seems to be able to bring out the worst side of many issues & the post he wrote where he & Larsen all but accuse NASA of IP theft is just such a story. When I read it I concluded that Zawodny must be an evil person. But the more I read Krivit, the more I want to hear NASA’s (& Zawody’s) side of that story.

      So I am now believing that Krivit is quite dysfunctional & has a warped mind that sends him on missions to attack others he decides he doesn’t like. The list of people he attacks is quite long.

      Doug M

    • Ivy Matt Reply

      February 6, 2012 at 3:29 pm

      I think he was just in too much of a hurry to publish something.

      However, using the the logic of the typical Rossi apologist and applying it to Steven Krivit, I propose that Krivit littered his two blog articles with intentional errors (Come on, who ever mishears “80″ as “18″?) in order to “force” Swartz and Hagelstein to produce their actual data. The proof is: it worked. ;-)

  25. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    What a wonderful debate on “the graph” good sense, no abuse, just analysing the evidence.
    How long before some clown takes it over and adds their irrational tripe to the subject.

    • Ivy Matt Reply

      February 6, 2012 at 3:33 pm

      Twenty-six hours, twenty-two minutes. ;-)

      By the way, I think you have a very selective abuse detector.

  26. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    DvH, you said—-
    @georgehants:
    ‘Only when irrationals confuse opinion with fact do they make themselves look very foolish.’
    “probably you cannot imagnine how welcome that insight of yours is….”
    -
    I am glad you have seen the error and silliness of the irrationals ways.
    Question —
    Can we look forward to good logical common sense from you in future that clearly differentiates between pointless (but fun) opinion and facts.

    • DvH Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm

      george, please, read my post again…

      • georgehants Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm

        DvH, sorry if I am missing something please make your point again clearly and logically and I will try and answer.

      • JNewman Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 2:11 pm

        DvH, you are pushing on a rope. George is not big on the concept of irony.

        • georgehants Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 2:18 pm

          JNewman, Ah. one of the nasty irrationals, who use the lowest of skeptic tactics.
          We are all now waiting for JNEWMAN to say something sensible, logical and worthwhile.
          I predict that it will be a very long wait and this person should be removed from these pages to allow reasoned debate to continue without inane interruption

          • JNewman

            February 5, 2012 at 2:31 pm

            Please George, preface your comments with “In my worthless opinion:”

  27. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    After a long history, science is still in the infantile state of not distinguishing between opinion and fact in their statements.
    Without a clear distinction only garbled rubbish emerges.
    One can get a closed-minded incompetent fool saying UFO’s cannot exist and the lower parts of science actually believing that this ridiculous ignorant opinion is some kind of fact.
    Any opinion is worthless against fact and only research will show facts.
    Science needs to address this incompetent omission.

    • spacegoat Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      George, the subject UFO’s seems to be a focus for you.
      On one occasion my brother and I witnessed a “UFO” (= something undefined) over several minutes, with various means to judge altitude and distance of our observations, but afterwards, one is left with the attitude of “so what”? The phenomenon is totally ephemeral and beyond our control, whereas other phenomena such as LANR, and a favorite of mine, consciousness scientific research are within our grasp.

      What would your program be to actually research UFO’s? By that, I do not mean sleuthing for cover-ups within governments. What science can be done?

      • georgehants Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 2:34 pm

        spacegoat, sorry I do not mean to get on to the subject of UFO’s I use that example because it causes the most distress to brain-washed individuals.
        I cold use a hundred other examples of subjects irrationally ignored, abused and debunked by supposedly intelligent people.
        My point is clear on any anomaly that there is EVIDENCE for, do the BLOODY research.
        Denial is not scientific, find a scientific principal or method that says O dear I don’t like that subject, let’s close our eyes ears and brains and hope it will go away.
        The only purpose of science is to research the unknown, not listen to DOGMA or irrational experts saying the Placebo Effect is myth.

  28. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    From Facebook with thanks.
    Alex Drose
    NOT AS SMART AS A FIFTH GRADER: Numerical Analysis of Steven Krivit’s Latest Rants

    http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html

  29. Johan Börjesson Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    George,

    The number of scientist that say that there cannot exist any unindetified flying objects, is probably rather small. Even the number of scientist saying that it cannot exist any aliens that have visited us here is probably also very small.
    However, probably a large number of scientists will say that there is not enough conclusive evidence that all or any of the UFOs are aliens. And by conclusive I mean evidence that can’t be explained in any other way (Maybe you would say that there is,or?)

    As a scientist I get quite offended by your constant attack on the whole field of science. You say that one need to do research. Maybe you do not know this but research is an activity scientists do. What comes out from scientific research is knowledge. This knowledge can then be used to make predictions and avoid doing the same things over and over again. If you have problems to se the difference between opinion and fact, maybe its because you lack knowledge?

    You use CF and UFOs as examples, but do you know how many other scientific fields there are? Do your critical statements apply to all of the thousands other scientific fields?

    • georgehants Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 2:46 pm

      Johan Börjesson, thank you, if the number is small and I agree and can prove it why are you not saying — why is the professional research not being done, the excuse of not enough evidence is in error, for example the French have officially recognized UFO’s as a major problem and asked NASA for help.
      Their request has been ignored.
      -
      I am sorry you are offended that unfortunately will not alter the TRUTH.
      Of course knowledge comes from research ( i cannot have made that plainer) my point is that it must come from all areas, not just those deemed exceptable by closed-minded administrations.
      I clearly have no problem seeing the difference between opinion and fact and your reply is illogical as I am advocating that science learn the difference.
      Question — do you agree that opinion has no place in science, only facts must rule and this is not made plain in scientific debate.

    • JNewman Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 2:49 pm

      Johan, best of luck! I don’t know how familiar you are with English literary references, but you are surely headed down the rabbit hole.

  30. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    JNewman You said—-
    “Please George, preface your comments with “In my worthless opinion:”
    Paul if you do not feel this person must be removed then I have no comment to add.

  31. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    Is their anybody else who would like to come on and talk about reality and not myth.
    I am defending Rossi and Defkalion against the horrific abuse and attacks that like P&F they have been subject to.
    Having been proved many times in the past that denial and debunking only hurts and delays true scientific discoveries like Cold Fusion, there is no excuse for it to ever happen again.
    Debate, yes, argue, yes, but only the evidence matters and until that is final leave them to it.
    Attacking Rossi hurtfully and not constructively is like attacking Einstein before the evidence of his theories is shown correct or in error.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 3:26 pm

      No, I give up. The rabbit bit my ass, I’m going to the hospital.

    • Quax Reply

      February 6, 2012 at 4:11 am

      The attacks on Einsteins never went away. No matter how much evidence was accrued to support relativity.

  32. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Defkalion GT

    damian wrote:
    How many researchers or research centers have opted for independent audits that intends to make the company? .
    Defkalion reply —
    So far we have received applications and we are in the process of preparing independent test with 7 well-known research centers and organizations from Greece and abroad. We have received hundreds of applications from independent individual researchers from around the world. Obviously they can not meet all these requests memonomenon researchers within the space of the next two months. The process of determining the available testing dates of research centers and protocols of each test-instrumentation research centers / organizations, require much correspondence and understandings (possibly more time consuming than we thought, due to their internal bureaucracy). Thank you for your interest

  33. georgehants Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    From New Energy Times, with thanks.
    LENR Researchers Reject Significance of Swartz’s Claim
    Posted on February 4, 2012 by Steven B. Krivit
    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/04/lenr-researchers-reject-significance-of-swartzs-claim/

    • JNewman Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 3:58 pm

      New Energy Times seems to have confused things once again. If you look at the data, it is clearly taken on January 22, 2012. The MIT test was on January 30. So it is not the same experiment.

      However, Swartz has posted that data on his own site

      http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

      and the previously-reported 18 mW output was indeed what was observed.

      Make of it what you will. Those are the facts as currently known.

      • JNewman Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm

        Actually, the data is a little more confusing that that. Perhaps it is more like 80 mW being reported on the 30th as well. It also appears that the duration was something like 45 minutes or so, but that is a bit murky as well.

        I will leave it to the experts to interpret these results.

        • JNewman Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 5:56 pm

          For the more technically minded, what do people make of the first plot on Swartz’s site? Apparently the red line represents the temperature change per watt of input power and the value shown is 200 deg/W.

          Now what is the input power? For that I guess we have to look at the bottom curve, since the top curve is normalized in some fashion. As I read it (the blue line), the input power is on the order of 5 mW.

          So, what the temperature curve is saying is that for this reactor, a temperature change on the order of (200x.005) = 1 degree C was observed.

          Does anybody get anything different from this data?

    • MK Reply

      February 5, 2012 at 4:08 pm

      my reading is ~118 minutes for the 80milliWatts. What is wrong here???
      3426-1645 x4[s]=7123.9[s]=118.7[minutes]

      • MK Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 4:22 pm

        forget about the xxxx.9[s]->typo

      • JNewman Reply

        February 5, 2012 at 4:31 pm

        MK, you are looking at the 1/22 data, and that looks correct.

        The 1/30 data is more complicated since the output is highly inhomogeneous. Looking at it again and doing the math correctly (!), I guess the overall operation was more like 113 minutes, although the operation around 75 mW was only for about 20 minutes. (Geez, is it so difficult to plot seconds instead of “counts”??)

        • MK Reply

          February 5, 2012 at 4:54 pm

          JNewman,
          you are right, that was the 1/22 data.
          Regarding the 1/30 data my readings are very close to yours.

          • Al Potenza

            February 5, 2012 at 8:49 pm

            If Rossi can make megawatts, why is anyone bothering with 75 milliwatts?

          • Ivy Matt

            February 6, 2012 at 3:43 pm

            Rossi isn’t teaching classes on cold fusion, and he’s keeping his secrets, whatever they may be, very close to his vest.

  34. honorsuperhomnia Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    I hope that both Rossi and Defkalon get to make a gazillion bucks. If one or both succeed, we all win.

  35. Harry Perini Reply

    February 5, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    I hope that both Rossi and Defkalon get to make a gazillion bucks. If one or both succeed, we all win.

    I agree. Look at Zuckerberg whose Facebook is now worth $100 billion. Rossi deserves at least as much because his invention will be more useful to mankind.

  36. vbasic Reply

    February 6, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Patents? Do they really mean anything? Karl Benz had patented his first automobile, but it didn’t prevent hundreds of automobile companies from sprouting up in the United States or Daimler from developing his engines and Mercedes cars. Thankfully they later merged, to form Daimler-Benz and so we have Mercedes-Benz today.
    I like Rossi’s approach. Sell 1MW machines to satisfied customers. If Defkalion came up with their machine with only a short working relationship with Rossi, it must be an easy to reverse engineer.
    This all reminds me of the history of the Personal Computer. Steve Jobs goes to Xerox Parc and sees the Alto with its GUI, networking and 3 button mouse. Apple later comes up with the Lisa and Mac. Microsoft later incorporates their developments into Windows.
    So I say just go ahead and make your products and hope you came up with the winning combination with or without patent protection.
    I don’t think it really makes a difference.

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>