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

7 Well Known Labs To Test Hyperion

February 6, 2012

Defkalion continues backing up to that corner. Hopefully, it is deliberate. Answers will not be in the mail tomorrow but verification (or otherwise) is creeping forward.

translated from the greek corner by “drew” (Thx!)

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).

[With thanks to Alain on Vortex]

Posted by on February 6, 2012. Filed under Defkalion,Hyperion,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

183 Responses to 7 Well Known Labs To Test Hyperion

  1. Pekka Janhunen

    February 6, 2012 at 7:21 am

    No new red flags here, and that’s the best one can have at the moment. In this phase, no news is good news.

    • Bob D

      February 6, 2012 at 10:48 pm

      Hyperion is the side show to the main attraction. I’ve noticed Rossi has cut back on the postings of his Journal. His blog has become a major liability. I’m certain the fact that his 1 MW plant never shipped has become a serious gaffe that he can ill afford to repeat.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        February 7, 2012 at 6:10 am

        Rossi reduced postings immediately when Defkalion announced. What matters for both is who gets there first, before that their public image is nearly irrelevant.

        • B Fast

          February 8, 2012 at 5:55 am

          There’s plenty of room for both of ’em. But Rossi must prove to be more than an inventor, he must also prove to be an entrepreneur, a CEO and an engineer.

  2. Timar

    February 6, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Here is a better translation of the 2nd paragraph:

    “We have received hundreds of applications from independent individual researchers from around the world. Obviously we can not meet all these requests from individual researchers within the period of the next two months.”

    • C M Edwards

      February 6, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      That’s much better. For a second I though it might be a Muppet Show reference. 🙂

  3. Guru

    February 6, 2012 at 10:37 am

    “Well known labs” are insufficient to comply to DGT propositions.

    DGT published these propositions i.e. defined as:

    “Internationally recognized organizations”

    • Timar

      February 6, 2012 at 10:48 am

      nitpicking (uncountable)
      1. The painstaking process of removing nits (lice eggs) from someone’s hair.
      2. (figuratively, by extension) A process of finding or pointing out tiny details or errors, particularly if the pointed-out details seem insignificant or irrelevant to all but the finder.

      • SH

        February 6, 2012 at 10:57 am


      • John Milstone

        February 7, 2012 at 8:55 pm

        I agree that the difference between “well known labs” and “internationally recognized organizations” may be a nit.

        However, I find it ironic that after this article and over 150 replies, the identities of these labs have not been revealed.

        I hope Defkalion follows through on their promises, and I realize that things can take time. But, unless and until they actually name the labs, they don’t count as “well-known”.

  4. georgehants

    February 6, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Lovely day, it must be fair to say that many serious organisations and maybe even a couple of respectable scientific labs will have applied to Defkalion for access for testing of their device.
    Defkalion are talking in weeks for the tests but if the delay is very long, those testers applying will start to complain.
    So the breaking point for the Hyperion cannot be far away.
    Defkalion have put themselves into an impossible to escape from position, and the end of our wait is in sight.

    • C M Edwards

      February 6, 2012 at 2:37 pm

      Escape is not impossible.

      Definitive, positive test results would get them over the hurdle.

      Those results can’t come right away, though. The tests in question take time to perform, analyze, and report. But they could support their claim by getting permission to publicly name a few of the institutions conducting the tests.

      And, of course, you’re right, George – Defkalion has put themselves on a track where indefinite delay is no longer feasible. But in my opinion, that is a logical course of action. If you’ve got a saleable product, sitting on potential fame and fortune, why would you want to delay any more than necessary?

  5. praos

    February 6, 2012 at 11:25 am

    Researcher equals institution if it has send him, isn’t it? What is an institution if not people who represent it? What’s the point of all this nonsense?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      February 6, 2012 at 11:49 am

      The test is 48 hours, a one-man team has the handicap that he cannot stay awake for that long to watch it continuously, while larger teams can. Maybe that’s one reason for making the distinction.

  6. Martin

    February 6, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Sounds great, I just hope all who attend report there finding on line

  7. georgehants

    February 6, 2012 at 11:57 am

    It must be fair to say, the fate of the Hyperion and E-CAT are intertwined, how that came about is yet to be discovered.
    Rossi has reported several “breakthroughs” in recent times from association with third party’s, Defkalion seem to be using their own engineers but appear roughly equal in progress.
    Proof of concept of the Hyperion will be (almost certainly) proof of the E-CAT.
    These truly are, for any person who cares about these things, wonderful and exciting times.
    These next few weeks could see the beginning of a new age.

  8. timycelyn

    February 6, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    I worry a little about these independent laboratories, institutions, whatever. It depends so much on who is applying to Defkalion, are the really big boys in there, or are we only talking about middle-range players and smaller.

    If it is only medium-sized players involved, then they are going to need quite a bit of courage to allow their names to become public. They run the risk of being swamped with enquiries about their findings, and run some sort of reputational risk as well – if the tesing goes sour it could kill their reputation.

    The temptation for them to remain ‘Anonymous’ will be great – I hope one of Defkalion’s selection criteria will be ‘Will you allow your company to be publicly identified as testing this equipment, and will you allow the report to be published?’ One might call this desire for anonymity the ‘Rossi – trap’.

    If a large scale player such as UL, is involved, then a very different dynamic happens. Issues for the lab would be:
    1. Who is paying for all this?
    2. We need to guard our reputation, so we are going to really want it all ‘just-so’
    3. We have a load of internal politics to go through – which will take time – before we can sign off on this (test protocol) and being identified with it….

    But of course – one or two pathoskeptic idiots excepted – clear positive test results from such a large institution would be QED.

    • Roger Bird

      February 7, 2012 at 3:05 am

      QED means “Quite Elementary Doctor Watson.” Not many people know that. (:->)

      Seriously, I used to end my proofs in my college analytical trig class with QEDW. The teacher gave me a D for not taking the course seriously after he found out what QEDW meant. (:->)

  9. JohnW

    February 6, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    Harnessing Disruption – Dealing with the Threat of Technology and Competition

    • GreenWin

      February 6, 2012 at 7:48 pm

      JohnW – a very interesting link. Should the energy establishment be counseled to accept the “disruption” headed their way – they could generate a valuable new income stream.

      A prudent investment in LANR Combined Heating and Power (CHP) technology would be the start. Someone has to manufacture, install and service these appliances. Who more familiar with energy than a major utility?

      “Harnessing disruption” suggests the utils are going to resist. In the face of this massive adoption of low cost energy, resistance is futile and will lead to BK. Wise utility execs will see the inevitability of energy appliances, the way manufacturers of refrigerators did in the 1920s.

      Transitioning from the fossil economy to the electric economy need not be cataclysmic. In fact there will be MORE jobs generated building, installing and maintaining energy home appliances, than in all centralized power systems.

      There are good times coming for all but those unwilling to let go.

      • Peter Roe

        February 7, 2012 at 9:19 am

        The dividing line is between large units (1MW plus) which can easily be accommodated within the existing infrastructure, and small home units, that would cause enormous disruption and devaluation of energy assets.

        I think Rossi may have begun with the intention of introducing large units only, as he knew that establishment opposition would be minimised in this case, but was forced to change track towards the much more disruptive smaller units when he realised that DGT was on his tail in this market.

        Home units were inevitable anyway, but by shortening the delay before introduction massive resistance on the part of losers such as the nuclear industry becomes inevitable. Other sectors will join in as soon as the implications of compact CF power are realised.

    • Roger Bird

      February 7, 2012 at 3:08 am

      GreenWin is right. The engineering differences between current energy systems and a LANR system are not that great.

  10. daniel maris

    February 6, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Unless the name of the institutions and results of the test are made public this all means nothing. But I am hopeful they will come good.

    • Peter Roe

      February 6, 2012 at 1:57 pm

      Yes that is the one ‘escape hatch’ available to DGT – a Rossi-style ‘The tests were successful but unfortunately none of the test participants wish to be identified for the present and their data is confidential’.

      I am sure that DGT must realise that anything of this nature would be massively damaging to them, and that they MUST produce strongly positive results confirmed by at least a couple of well known, or at least established and traceable, participants. As Timycelyn says, this would be the end of the naysaying except for the occasional very loosely wrapped nut job.

      • timycelyn

        February 6, 2012 at 2:40 pm

        Of course, an additional interesting wrinkle would be the “Men of Passerini” – Daniel Passerini’s bloggers consortium. If Defkalion accept them, their findings (if professionally executed) would have very high credibility in the blogosphere, but not out in the lands of the Great Uninformed (a.k.a. BBC).

        I guess that, plus a bunch of small names, would be the middle outcome, leaving a few pathoskeps soldiering valiently onwards……

  11. georgehants

    February 6, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    From Facebook with thanks
    Giuliano Bettini
    “Men of Passerini” want to try Hyperion.
    Sunday, February 5, 2012
    Operation MiG-22 (Updated)

  12. Egor

    February 6, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Lets hope MIT and NASA are among the testers. Or perhaps Pons and Flischeman can examine MITs appraisl afterwards.

    • bill

      February 13, 2012 at 5:26 am

      You would reserect the almost dead Pons/fleishman duo?

  13. spacegoat

    February 6, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Rather getting ahead of themselves on, don’t you say?

    “Free Energy gives us a chance to make another DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. (I should do an entire article to embellish that point.) Free Energy technology has the inherent propensity of granting independence from the powers that be — literally — everywhere around the world. Free Energy disempowers the powers-that-be by rendering them obsolete and unnecessary. Free Energy is going to win, notwithstanding its present ragtag appearance. God, goodness, and destiny are on its side; and the timing is right.”

    But yes, the future maybe back to the past, where people and societies were more smaller scale and independent. That is, provided it comes online before the nanny states render their populations totally dependent and agoraphobic.

    • Mahron - A4 B3

      February 6, 2012 at 3:33 pm

      Even with quasi free energy it wont be possible to detach oneself from the global community without a serious drop in quality of life (in the materialistic sense), not even talking about the security issues.

      Some people really don’t seem to understand the complexity of the world they are living in.

    • Mahron - A4 B3

      February 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm

      One thing cheap energy would cause is massive growth and the inflation that will come with it. Bringing us one step closer to a world were currency is no longer required.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        February 6, 2012 at 5:45 pm

        Unless you wanna buy something.

        • Roger Bird

          February 7, 2012 at 3:12 am

          Nice, Iggy.

      • GreenWin

        February 6, 2012 at 7:52 pm

        Like an ecat??

      • Stefan

        February 7, 2012 at 1:37 am

        >Bringing us one step closer to a world
        >were currency is no longer required.

        Sure deal, just a little work left to get there… it has been always the case anyway ;o)

    • GreenWin

      February 6, 2012 at 8:02 pm

      pesn – is overly dramatic. But their general observation that centralized energy will be unnecessary is correct. Eventually. Grids and their 660,000 miles of transmission towers and wires will be slowly dismantled. Large and medium sized industry and business will remain customers for a while – until GW level LANR is proven.

      But global benefits will soar. Emerging nations will quickly be able to afford clean, plentiful water via massive desalination. Poor towns and villages will get reliable electricity. With abundant water comes abundant food production.

      Will population explode? According to trend, higher standard of living decreases child birth. Since kids are expensive for middle income families.

      PESN is right on one theme: LANR means a global Declaration of Independence is in store.

    • CuriousChris

      February 6, 2012 at 10:12 pm

      PESN. Like that’s a source of anything credible.

  14. Dale G. Basgall

    February 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Regarding admin statement;” Hopefully, it is deliberate. Answers will not be in the mail tomorrow but verification (or otherwise) is creeping forward.”

    Comment; I assume you are reflecting the “statement quote” as “it” and that “Answers” are to be the viewable results from the private testing of the 7 chosen testors.

    Why would that matter at all?

    Simply making the product and selling it should be proof enough that it works right! Anyway until something emerges brewing a cup of coffee and heating my pastry in the morning electricity seems to be a viable alternative to produce heat.

  15. Stephen

    February 6, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Nice… but…

    … we still just have a bunch of words. On top of words. This is exhausting. Words which we cannot check. We cannot write to laboratory X and ask if they really applied to do their test the day Y. All this secrecy reminds me of somebody else. Not a good memory… I hope things will take a clearly different direction soon, with open tests, open reports, open reporters’ name.

    So far, we are still in the boring intial hamletic position: to believe or not to believe? who knows if all this stuff is real or not? I don’t.

  16. Neil Taylor

    February 6, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    On a positive note to all of this – those universities, laboratories and scientists who do the testing and prove this to work with a good outcome, will undoubtably acquire quite a bit of international fame – instantly! So why not go public with the results if the outcome from the testing is good?

    • Peter Roe

      February 6, 2012 at 5:47 pm

      The trouble is that there would need to be ‘something in it for me’ on the part of the organization or company that goes public with positive results – enough to compensate for the paralysis of their communications lines that would inevitably follow. But if that ‘something’ is obvious, then the pathoskeptics will cite it as a motivation to lie. A slightly ‘Catch 22’ situation – it will be fascinating to see who gets chosen.

      • JNewman

        February 6, 2012 at 6:24 pm

        A serious question: do you honestly believe that this story is not mainstream news and that the world at large is not excited about this because of the actions of “pathoskeptics”? I’m not picking a fight with you. I am just curious.

        • AB

          February 6, 2012 at 6:55 pm

          Pathoskeptics play a very large role in maintaining the status quo in which cold fusion is perceived as junk science.

          • JNewman

            February 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm

            Perhaps that is so. However, another factor in that perception is the quality of results and the manner of their presentation. And that is entirely up to those obtaining and revealing those results without any help from skeptics of any stripe.

          • Roger Bird

            February 7, 2012 at 3:21 am

            You should have said, “Pathoskeptics play a very large role in maintaining the status quo.”

        • Peter Roe

          February 6, 2012 at 7:08 pm

          Your question seems to be rather a non sequitur – I can’t see any way that my comment could have been taken to imply that I think that a successful test of a CF device would not be mainstream news (IF of course the results of such a test were actually published in mainstream news media, which remains unlikely).

          Unfortunately I think that the proportion of ‘the world at large’ that is currently aware of CF developments in general, and the promised Hyperion tests in particular, is probably still very small. In all likelihood only the followers of blogs like this one will be aware of these matters. As far as this contingent goes, opinion still varies widely and unless the tests are such that the outcome can’t be reasonably questioned, then noise generated by pathoskeptics could continue to influence opinions as it almost certainly does now.

          I’m not sure I have fully understood your question, so if I’ve missed the point of it, I apologise.

          • JNewman

            February 6, 2012 at 7:23 pm

            That’s fine. I understand your position.

            As other posters have said today, Defkalion appears to be painting themselves into a corner. If events take place in the manner that they promise, the results will either be very good for us all or very bad for them indeed.

          • Al Potenza

            February 6, 2012 at 8:04 pm

            “If events take place in the manner that they promise, the results will either be very good for us all or very bad for them indeed.”

            Maybe so. However, at present, they say their first tests will only involve comparing the temperature of a test reactor with a non-working one. That sort of test may be neither very good nor very bad but instead, it may be very arguable.

            I don’t understand why they don’t just start with flow calorimetry. Done right, it’s pretty hard to argue with at a 35 kW power level!

          • JNewman

            February 6, 2012 at 8:16 pm

            Al, for clarification, I was referring to the full sequence of events discussed by Defkalion including flow calorimetry on their product. Until that point, as you say, there will grist for lively debate. And as for their choice of how this all should proceed, there are no good answers. Just more weirdness.

          • Timar

            February 7, 2012 at 7:18 am

            @Al Potenza:

            Flow calorimetry or not – this test should leave no room to argue with as well. The promised COP is > 20 (“by far exeeding 20”, to quote DGT). That’s not exactly subtile.

      • B Fast

        February 6, 2012 at 7:35 pm

        There must be a “something in it for me”. However,what may be in it for “me” is the privilege of going down in the history books as the organization that broke through the dam of skepticism. Further, there may be personal benefit from putting one’s name out as “first on the block.” In it for me doesn’t need to be hard, immediate cash.

  17. Neil Taylor

    February 6, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    B Fast,

    Precisely correct! That is how I see it at this point. Lets hope the testers/researchers do too?

  18. dsm

    February 6, 2012 at 9:22 pm

    An assessment of probabilities as I see them. Put another way – some 2Cent opinions.

    1stly, some assumptions:
    – that Rossi and or Defkalion aren’t deluded or lying
    – that neither can get a patent in the US in the short term

    2ndly some realities
    – that anyone producing a LENR heater will see it reverse engineered very quickly
    – that any LENR unit producer will only focus on heat generation to start with
    – that it will be years before LENR heat to alternate energy is refined (i.e. electricity)
    – that it will be even longer before anyone can come up with a LENR that directly creates electric current (without a conversion unit)

    Probability 1: Get to market asap. Rossi knows (as he has stated) that his only chance of getting any return on his efforts & investment, is to get get to market asap with a highly saleable basic heating unit. Rossi will rely on 3rd parties to add value by way of heat to alternate energy add-ons.

    Probability 2: Rossi’s device will be reverse engineered withing a very short period despite any claims by Rossi that he has developed a process to prevent this.

    Probability 3: That once others discover what Rossi did that gave him consistent & greater energy output, that understanding will accelerate introduction of alternative versions to the nickel hydrogen process used by Rossi & Defkalion.

    Probability 4: That assuming Rossi does produce eCats and successfully starts selling them, we will see further highly scalable units from other labs that can be made to produce far greater energy and on a larger scale that Rossi’s eCats. These will be targeted at industrial & aeronautical markets.

    Probability 5: Oil futures will nosedive 🙂

    Probability 6: The price of nickel will rise markedly 🙂

    Probability 7: Nuclear fission & fusion research funds will dry up 🙁

    Probability 8: The US will find a way to lock up the bulk of patents for LENR processes

    Probability 9: That apart from a heat-to-electricity add-on the most popular heat-to-motion add-on will be based on various designs of Stirling engine (some of these designs already exist complete with design for the LENR heater).

    Doug M

    • Ransompw

      February 6, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      The one thing everyone needs to keep in mind is just how inexpensive (relatively) the testing of alternatives will be for LENR. The low cost of doing follow on research and development will entice more then a few companies to set up programs. Further, it might be capable of enhancing virtually every product which needs or could use energy. (I would predict the # of companies interested as too many to count) Also, the testing can be done rather quickly.

      That is a formula for rapid technological progress.

      If LENR is real and someone demonstrates a product, I think almost everyone will underestimate the rapidity of the advancement that will follow.

      • Alain

        February 6, 2012 at 10:19 pm

        yes, first we will use LENR to enhance old product, and use them the old way…

        then new usage will appears, new choices… that we don’ even imagine, even if it is clear simple (think about computer, internet, mobile phone, mp3).

    • JNewman

      February 6, 2012 at 9:46 pm

      Please explain why converting heat to electricity would require years of development. Apart from hydroelectric plants, wind turbines and photovoltaics, just about all electrical generation in the world is based on converting heat to electricity even including nuclear power plants. We know how to convert heat to electricity. So what is the problem?

      • Alain

        February 6, 2012 at 10:15 pm

        Defkalion tested it already.

      • CuriousChris

        February 6, 2012 at 10:22 pm

        Converting heat to electricity *efficiently* is the issue. If you look at something like the green turbine. Its a supposedly high efficiency steam turbine for exactly this size of power source ~200c. But it has an efficiency rating of 9%. and thats when everythings perfect (I have the spec sheets). At that efficiency most of the energy you produce is wasted. The bigger turbines are more efficient because of their size and the much higher input energy. steam is usually around 500c+. So yes hook it up to a Stirling engine but don’t expect much return out of it.

        • Tomas Douting

          February 6, 2012 at 11:00 pm

          I wouldn’t be too certain that high efficiency is as much of an issue in the conversion to electrical energy given a heat sourced from LENR. In many things efficiency is important because of the cost of the energy source. If the energy source costs drop, so does the impetus for chasing the last decimal of efficiency.

          There is still the cost of the conversion device, and its concomitant costs of maintenance, but with the cost of heat dropping the engineers will find ways to keep the new cost balance in the crosshairs.

          This is one of the many places where the creativity and innovation of entrepreneurial types will prevail.

        • Alain

          February 6, 2012 at 11:12 pm

          at 400C like what old hyperion can do (maybe new version raise to 600Cmax) the efficiency should be better…

          anyway for a house the needs are the following :
          – 5 kw for hot water, stored in a 50l tank
          – 20-40kW for warming the house (maybe same for cooling too)
          – 5kW for electricity (no heating)

          CHP is not perfect because it couple heating with electricity. it need a grid to share the electricity, and produce no electricity in summer…

          for me the perfect device is simply a generator, that waste heat (with outside convectors) when not needed, use it to warm water or house, and even stop generating if more heat is needed…

          complex control, but perfect us of energy.

          Trigen CHP mode can be nice too, if your electricity is bought by the grid honnestly

          • GreenWin

            February 7, 2012 at 3:47 am

            Alain, your numbers are WAY too high. Honda has been making CHP systems for years. They recently introduced their EcoPOWER 1.0 designed specifically for residences. They produce only 1kW electric and 2.5kW thermal – servicing about 70% homes at 92% efficiency.

            Of course Honda’s system uses NG for its fuel. The heating module could be replaced with a LANR (ecat-type) reactor.


            A little background on CHP from our Friends at Forbes:


            The pieces are in place. All we really need is stable LANR heat.

          • GreenWin

            February 7, 2012 at 4:10 am

            BTW, CHP requires no grid connection whatever unless you want grid backup or you want to sell your excess electric to the utility company. Since utility companies are not needed by distributed energy – why use a grid? They are messy (they want your “analytics” personal data), inefficient, ruinous of landscape, expensive and highly vulnerable to weather.

            Centrally generated grid delivered electricity was fine for the first century of electric usage. Their time is drawing to a close (unless they adapt.)

      • dsm

        February 7, 2012 at 3:11 am

        Problem is that someone has to get an eCat. Then work out a way to employ it to convert heat to electricity. Then come up with a working design, then produce them & obtain all the required approvals to sell them.

        I think it would be 100% naive of me if I said I could do this by year end 2012 let alone by end 2013.

        My bet is it will be an existing Stirling engine design that someone adapts to use an eCat as the heat source. There are some examples of this type of machine already around. But 1st we have to get a Rossi eCat & figure out how to marry it to an existing Stirling engine. It seems probable to me that Rossi will be asked to come up with a modified eCat that can be clamped straight into a Stirling engine based electricity generator.

        Words on this effort are easy. The effort itself is nowhere near as easy nor as predictable.

        Doug M

        • bill

          February 13, 2012 at 5:58 am

          At present Stirling engines are way to inefficent. A cross between a rankin cycle and Stirling cycle may be usefull If the regenritive part of the cycles is developed. First we need the Nickle/Hydrogen reaction proven and robust. Lets not jump from step 1 to step 50.

    • Alain

      February 6, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      I agree quite with your vision, but there is mistakes according to my vision

      first Hyperion is already an enhanced copycat, not by retroengineering but by parallel reengineering.
      many different e-cat will be invented quickly. it seems very easy for professionals like defkalion.

      second nickel wont get high price because the needs are small compared to world production today. all planet energy coulbe covered by 10% nickel production and 5%GDP investment in reactors in one year… easy and cheap.

      no patent will be able to block LENR . ther will be only good tricks that you can patent for better result.

      the real winner with LENR is not nickel owners, nor patent owner, but workers, clients, small industry, and poor countries…

      very good for the social structure. much better than oil, or even nuke (which is work intensive, but too big , asking for big corp structure).

      lenr can be easily build, copied, reinvented, optimized without huge capital or competence. no monopoly is possible. investments is low, and return is high.

      heat to electricity will be ready in 1 year, since defkalion already tested it… maybe 3-6 month after heat. they work on absorption refrigerator (heat to cold), chaining reactors for electricity production…
      LENR is very compatible with many todays device.
      technologically it is not disruptive… just a smaller and more efficient electric heater/boiler…
      temperature are juste not very high (400C…600C?), but with research on solar energy and biomass burning, we have technology for low and medium temperature. moreover nuclear energy is in the same range of temperature… so compatible.
      retroffitting will be easy.

      this domain will be massively competitive and in 1-2 years there will be high COP, heat, CHP, electricity, cold, boiler, furnace, AC, at home and industrial quality level. at the same time first prototypes of car, small planes…
      5 years for car to be mainstream (like hybrid), for cargo, factories, big power plants;
      10-15 years for planes because of safety.
      strong work to use LENR for nuclear incineration of nuclear waste, fruit of dismantling in process (20years)… maybe also used as gamma wall because lenr should absorb gamma is Widom-Larsen is right ?

      oil price will lower quickly because of anticipation, prospection and expensive oil will disappear, but it will take time to stop gazoline/diesel/kerozen usage for transport…
      but slowly … oil price will raise again, but it won’t be important…

      is seems the stirling engine have big structural problems.
      I think that there will be strong evolution in turbines, and less in stirling.
      maybe a new kind of engine, will emerge if micro-turbine are not good enough…
      clearly stirling are not good todays. bad reliability, bad efficiency… need work. it will be solved.

      if not, maybe thermoelectric devices, like nanother TE recently invented, could be a fair device to replace bad engines…

      • CuriousChris

        February 6, 2012 at 10:28 pm

        If and it is still a big IF we don’t know we arent being taken for a ride yet. but if this goes mainstream and high tech gets involved I expect a slew of new inventions based on the tech. In fact in 5 years we may wonder how they managed to get such a low tech device to work.

        But and I stress this, there are some very big IF’s hanging around the claims of Rossi/Defkalion.

        Chickens and eggs come to mind.

      • Tomas Douting

        February 6, 2012 at 11:10 pm

        I think the industry timescale for consumer passenger vehicles will be closer to 10 years – that’s the length of the engineering pipeline in the large manufacturing realm (and that is indeed safety driven). Aircraft for commercial passengers will arrive 5 years further out after that at the soonest.


        Experimental vehicles, and experimental aircraft will be driven and flown within 5 years, and for the brave and the hobbyists these will be available as the first designs are proven and licensed. Commercial fleet vehicles will likely arrive sooner than the passenger vehicles because of the cost savings.

        The other applications are more difficult to predict because the pressures on the market from innovators of smaller and more static systems may overcome the regulatory gauntlet more easily than for the vehicles. But more than that – we are all unlikely to be able to predict the innovations that will arise. Would Marconi and Bell have envisioned the iPhone?

      • dsm

        February 7, 2012 at 12:13 am


        Why do you say that about Stirling engines ?
        Do you have any links to info that explains your POV ?

        Below are various links I have assembled that point out a wide variety of uses of Stirling engines esp not the NASA unit used to generate electricity in space.

        NASA use Stirlings in space & have done for 30 years. NASA are again highlighting advanced Stirling engine development for space but using LENR energy.
        1987 example =

        New NASA design =

        NASA uses Stirling engine to generate electricity in space =

        Stirling engines have been used in submarines for many years =

        An NZ company has been producing Stirling engines for use in homes & boats etc; for many years =

        Ford Motor Coy dveloped a Stirling powered car in the 1970-80s =

        Doug M

        • dsm

          February 7, 2012 at 12:20 am

          Actually, my last link above sums up all the other links plus a lot more, in one Wiki article. That article could be updated to reflect the potential from LENR energy.

          Enjoy 🙂

          Doug M

        • dsm

          February 7, 2012 at 12:27 am

          Another very informative link where someone has listed current top 10 uses for Stirling design and then top 10 all time uses

          Very informative & helps put them in perspective as to why I believ they have a key role in the evolution of LENR energy.

          Doug M

        • dsm

          February 7, 2012 at 4:47 am

          3 images of NASA’s experimental (NASA GRC & Cleveland State Uni) – A Stirling Engine based on LENR heat energy. This is a real device & not simply a drawing on a bit of paper. It is still quite away from packaging into a spaceship. Other (non LENR) Stirling engines have been for many years.

          Doug M

          • Peter Roe

            February 8, 2012 at 11:14 am

            Very interesting links. I think you’ve conclusively made your point that Stirling engine derivatives would be a viable choice for using with a CF heater!

      • Pekka Janhunen

        February 7, 2012 at 6:39 am

        For microturbines, noise is one thing. Can one make them quiet enough for continuous home use?

    • Roger Bird

      February 7, 2012 at 3:33 am

      I doubt if nickel futures will rise. People will discover very quickly that it doesn’t take much nickel to run these things. However, nano-sized nickel prices will jump.

      • GreenWin

        February 7, 2012 at 3:52 am

        Correct Roger. And proprietary nano-structured nickel will drive the LANR “fuel” markets. Some will simply produce more, stable heat than others.

      • dsm

        February 7, 2012 at 4:54 am

        Nice to trust the world to let Nickel stay cheap 🙂 – (said with good humor)

        Just wait until the Hunt brothers hear about the potential 🙂 – many folk here now may be too young to remember this event 🙂 – enjoy …

        but this is more recent …

        There are many more & yes most failed thank the lord 🙂

        Doug M

        • Roger Bird

          February 9, 2012 at 12:48 am

          dsm, there is a big difference between cornering the market on silver and cornering the market on nickel. Give me a shovel and I can shovel enough nickel to keep my family supplied with energy for a long time (assuming that Hyperions or E-cats actually work.) It is the correct form of the nickel that will be the marketable item. Sort of like oil. A barrel of oil is not that expensive; gasoline is way more expensive.

    • kwhilborn

      February 8, 2012 at 10:49 pm

      Reverse engineering would be hard to police. You are wrong about nickel prices though. Nickel is far too common an element to be swayed in an ecat society. It is the fifth most common element on the planet.

  19. B Fast

    February 6, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    I love the direction this thread has taken. Its nice to see people thinking about the LENR driven world. I know we won’t figure out exactly what the future will hold, but we can get some serious idea. One thing will be sure, innovation will boom!

  20. Shaun Taylor

    February 7, 2012 at 3:01 am

    Looks like DGT finally realized the proposed bare reactor test can’t measure COP as they originally claimed was to occur:

    Remember when Steorn announced they were inviting independent testers?

    Rossi claims to be doing UL certification on the home 10 kW Ecat. Can someone ask on his blog, doubt he would answer me, what UL certifications the home Ecat will carry? I’m sure the whole world would like to know what tests the unit will need to pass as it will be the world’s first Nuclear Reactor certified to work in a domestic home.


    • Lu

      February 7, 2012 at 3:46 am

      Not so. They are only saying you cannot determine the COP of a Hyperion SYSTEM using the bare bones Hyperion. There is nothing in the Defkalion’s response nor a change in the independent testing publication that would indicate this.

      And why don’t you ask Rossi yourself about UL certification? The question is a reasonable one, but frankly, the whole world (generally speaking) could care less about what UL certifications the home E-Cat will carry, only when they can buy one (if it proves to work as explained).

    • GreenWin

      February 7, 2012 at 3:58 am

      Are we to believe their are “Nuclear Reactors certified to work in a NON-domestic home?” Maybe that’s why the French wear those odd-looking berets.

      • Peter Roe

        February 7, 2012 at 10:00 am

        Irrational fear was always going to be a primary propaganda tool in attempts to head off the development of small scale CF units, once denial and ridicule had failed.

        Looks like Shaun is going to nobly carry that particular flag here (and probably elsewhere – I can’t really be bothered to check).

        Edit – reading down, I see Spacegoat has already made this point.

  21. Roger Bird

    February 7, 2012 at 3:45 am

    I hope that this testing deal with Defkalion doesn’t turn out to be a big fat dud like Rossi’s October 28th test. I told strangers that the world was going to change in a few days (October 28th).

    I am sure that there are any number of people reading this blog who would be happy to buy an Hyperion and test it for us. Patho-skeptics need not apply.

  22. spacegoat

    February 7, 2012 at 5:38 am

    Shaun Taylor keeps repeating the words “Nuclear” and Nuclear Reactor in his posts.

    These are bogey words designed to scare the public. No doubt, if LANR products are demonstrated to work, there will be a Goebels onslaught by the media to put LANR back in the box, or at least retain it as a government toy. If we truly want LANR to succeed then I suggest modulating the use of these terms.

    1.The element in use, nickel-28, is one of the most stable and lightest elements.
    2.By contrast, the “Nuclear” that the public is familiar with involves bombarding highly unstable heavy elements, uranium-235 or plutonium-239, with high energy neutrons.

    Bundling the two phenomena together is ridiculous. Especially, as it appears that nature routinely harnesses quantum and LANR like phenomena. See previous thread about the humble chicken and look-up nature/quantum on Google.

    In my opinion, LANR and chemical reactions are almost equivalent in risk. Both are mainly the result of electromagnetic interactions at very low energy compared to nuclear fission. In the case of LANR there appears to be a low energy weak interaction involved as well. Who knows, maybe classical chemistry will eventually take on board modifications, incorporating a weak interaction factor, in the same way that Newtonian physics was modified by Relativistic physics.

    I think the best term is LANR – lattice assisted nuclear reactions, with the explanation that everything is ultimately nuclear, even chemistry, and that chickens do it! Will government elf N safety then ban chickens?

    • CuriousChris

      February 7, 2012 at 6:03 am

      “and that chickens do it! Will government elf N safety then ban chickens?”

      LOL do you believe everything you read?

      • Dsm

        February 7, 2012 at 7:15 am

        Why can’t chooks transmute magnesium into calcium ?

        I don’t think it is a naive case of believing all you read it is more a case of the credentials of those who kept showing that chooks transmute and so do crabs. While we are on the topic have you listened to either Mills or Larsen talk on the topic of biological transmutations.

        Keep that clever mind of yours open – we live in amazing times.

        Doug M

      • spacegoat

        February 7, 2012 at 8:13 am

        There is very solid evidence that chickens harness this phenomenon by a respected French researcher who looked into this and similar phenomena in nature over decades, but your lazy-skeptic (new type) comment means I can’t be bothered to dig out a reference for you.

        • CuriousChris

          February 8, 2012 at 2:17 am

          “Very Solid evidence”

          No there isn’t. There is a limit to the bullcrap one can entertain.

          You are referring to Corentin Louis Kervran. not that hard to find really. It is potassium to calcium, not magnesium to calcium.

          He did get a nobel prize though in 1993. An ig nobel prize.

          His ‘tests’ left a lot to be desired. did not come anywhere near ‘scientific method’ and have never as far as I know been replicated.

          If you have “Solid Evidence” please provide it! don’t be a lazy believer.

          One can choose to believe the things one desires to be true. This is called faith. It is the realm of religion not of science.

          I don’t ‘believe’ Rossi, I don’t ‘believe’ DGT. but I believe there is enough evidence to keep an open mind about their claims. Hence I follow with the interest of an open minded sceptic. And I find any scrap of evidence I can either way. Rather than blindly declaring my beliefs based on wishful thinking.

          But whatever rocks your boat.

      • timycelyn

        February 7, 2012 at 8:14 am

        I’ve not looked at my 300 chickens quite the same since I learnt about the postulated transmutation to calcium!! Why is it I have to keep giving them sacks of oyster shell grit for the eggshells, then…?

        Having read into the background I’m highly skeptical of the proposal – the experiments seemed to have left large vital areas uncovered – but in light of everything else that is coming to light in the LENR/LANR area, I’m firmly in the ‘Never say never’ camp…..

        • Timar

          February 7, 2012 at 9:00 am

          Although I am convinced that LENR is real, I consider it to be highly unlikely that Kervrans hypothesis is right. Consider the amount of calcium a chicken had to produce for its egshells. It’s several grams a day – that would inevitably produce megawats of excess heat. The chicken would blow up instantaneously!

          • georgehants

            February 7, 2012 at 10:29 am

            Timar, would you agree that only the Evidence counts and if unsure, do the research.

          • timycelyn

            February 7, 2012 at 12:33 pm

            Timar, now I’m getting some very odd pictures in my head! Dare I go in my henhouse?

            Actually, if biotransmutation of elements does occur, here or elsewhere (and that’s IF in big, red capitals, underlined) it is not axiomatic that energy has to be released as in the case of our beloved nickel+hydrogen transmutation.

            As much as this shadowy science is understood, I’m pretty sure I’ve read that there are lots of transmutations possible that are not nett energy generators. Fundametally, it’s all down to good old E=MC^2. Add up all the mass that goes into the transformation (M1). Add up all the mass that comes out of it (M2). Be sure you got the lot! If M2<M1 the missing mass has been converted to energy according to the famous equation. So in the case of the proposed nuclear chickens, the transmutation would have to be one with no nett change in mass, thus enabling me to continue to enter my henhouse in safety.

            I'm afraid that I am very sceptical of Kervrans hypothesis, as it seems no more than a cop-out when he actually failed to exclude other reasonable explanations.

            Specifically, he observed that hens laid soft shelled eggs with a potassium and calcium free diet, but then laid hard shelled eggs once potassium was reintroduced. From this he hypothesised that the potassium was being transmuted to calcium within the hen.

            A less exotic explanation is, of course, that potassium is needed to enable a metabolic pathway that allows the hen to deplete its skeleton of the calcium needed to make eggshell. Potassium levels tend to drop quite quickly if not maintained by diet, so you can easily see that if it is witheld, any pathway reliant on it would become impaired in time.

            The experiment that needs to be done would be to repeat this test over a prolonged period. The laying cycle of a hen is around 250 eggs, do it through a whole cycle. That would equate to around 500 – 750g of eggshell in total. If it is skeletal calcium, long before the laying cycle ends the hen would either: 1. Lay soft shelled eggs; 2. Stop laying; or 3. Die.

            Great care would have to be taken excluding all calcium from the diet. I'm not doing it, that's for sure…I like my eggs 😉

    • Pekka Janhunen

      February 7, 2012 at 6:48 am

      Strong interaction is involved in all nuclear processes, including LENR, and it has the potential to be clean, such as boron-11 or helium-3 hot fusion. Weak interaction, on the other hand, is associated with radioactive beta decay. To call weak interaction clean and strong dirty is completely odd from the physics point of view.

      • spacegoat

        February 7, 2012 at 8:20 am

        Yes, I understand the strong nuclear process can be cleaner. As in thorium fission that China is developing, 30 times cleaner if I recall correctly.

        The clean/weak … strong/dirty terminology simply comes from the fact that bombarding the nucleus in fission reactors ends up producing nuclear waste that we can’t “wash away”.

        Yes the weak interaction is associated with radioactive beta decay, but that is that the only domain of this force? Widom-Larsen theory says not.

    • Peter Roe

      February 7, 2012 at 10:24 am

      Leaving aside the chickens thing for a moment, Spacegoat is highlighting something important – an attempt by someone of dubious motivation to try to form an association between CF (or whatever term is used) and nuclear fission, in order to introduce a ‘fear factor’.

      If this is an isolated instance then it is unimportant, but if say someone like Gibbs (Forbes mag) runs with the idea, or worse, if articles making this association appear in the previously silent mainstream media, then we will be seeing the next move in a propaganda war.

      Such irrational fears could probably do little to actually prevent the introduction of home CF ‘boxes’, but what they could do is lay the ground for official control of CF production and distribution through a licensing system, on the basis that the technology is potentially very dangerous.

      Once such a licensing and control system is in place, this would open the way to massive taxation, most probably using some ‘green’ justification. It is taxation, rather than any intention to stifle the technology that seems most likely to subvert a future of cheap energy within the industrialised nations, at least in the short term.

      • georgehants

        February 7, 2012 at 10:38 am

        Peter, is not the only antidote to all these things the Power of the Internet, where at last people can see the deceit and manipulation and react against it.
        There is a strong conspiracy to stop that Power being used by institutions and individual’s but like any battle, fight the good fight.

        Opinions have caused more ills than the plague or earthquakes on this little globe of ours.


        • Peter Roe

          February 7, 2012 at 1:47 pm

          Voltaire – Yes, especially ‘opinions’ that have been deliberately engineered using lies, half truths and spin to alter the perceptions of the uninformed.

    • Ivy Matt

      February 7, 2012 at 1:36 pm

      Here’s an idea: in order to allay public fears regarding all things “nuclear”, perhaps the cold fusion scientists should agree to call the phenomenon something like “unusually potent chemical reactions”. 😛

  23. Timar

    February 7, 2012 at 7:29 am

    A comment to the discussions regarding possible reputational issues for organisations involved in this tests:

    If a single, small institution would carry out such a test it may risk its reputation by publishing positive results. According to Defkalion, however, we are talking about “7 well-known research centers and organizations”. The results will be published JOINTLY after all test have been finished. This is important. It’s easy to accuse a single report of beeing erroneous, but not seven or more. The quantity of distinct test and organizations involved will be the best possible affirmation for both DGT and the testing institutions.

  24. Brad Arnold

    February 7, 2012 at 7:33 am

    Looking at other disruptive technologies that have recently come out (i.e. cell phones, P2P file sharing, VOIP, or the genomic revolution to name a few), they were not successfully suppressed, and they caught on like wild fire.

    To me the most disruptive aspect of LENR is de-centralized extremely low priced power production. It essencially by-passes monopolies, and renders a good chunk of our modern economies obsolete and worth much much less.

    Still, I am looking forward to an economy whose main constrain is no longer cheap and abundant energy. Given the relationship between prosperity and the price of energy, we ought to see tremendous economic growth as LENR starts to bring the price of energy way down.

    The next step is space travel, because after cheap and abundant energy, the next main constrain will be the availability of raw materials, particularly minerals, which exist in abundance in outer space. The main constrain on space travel was energy since it takes about 7 million calories to boost a pound of mass up and out of our gravity well – so it ought to be obvious what the multi-national corporations will be doing with their time.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      February 7, 2012 at 8:21 am

      I agree about your conclusion although for somewhat different reason. With abundant energy, the problem of raw materials could largely go away, because one could e.g. separate silicon, aluminium etc. from ordinary stones without traditional mining. In any case, the planet’s real estate won’t increase so I agree that as soon as LENR proliferates, attention will turn to the direction which is open and where expansion and development are possible, i.e. the solar system.

      • GreenWin

        February 7, 2012 at 6:54 pm

        We should also consider the idea of controlled transmutation. Should the LANR effect reveal a potential to transmute more than Ni -> Cu, the opportunity for “making” elements becomes plausible.

        But, it would be far more fun and adventurous to travel to the far reaches of the galaxy.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          February 7, 2012 at 7:07 pm

          Possibly yes, but by energy arguments the transmutation is likely to be inefficient, just because there is so little nickel fuel to begin with compared to the amount of energy produced. Already now, we could in theory utilise the medium-heavy elements made by fission reactors because not all of those isotopes are radioactive, but we don’t do it. It’s probably cheaper to use the CF produced energy to separate out the needed rare elements from ordinary rocks (as a byproduct of using their common elements for other purposes), or from seawater as a byproduct of desalination. But in any case, it doesn’t seem that one would run out of materials.

          • LCD

            February 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm

            There is also the much loftier possibility that LENR reveals something new and unexpected about physics. And that this changes everything above and beyond cheap energy implications.

            Of course it would just be nice to get closure on the ecat one way or another.

    • spacegoat

      February 7, 2012 at 8:34 am

      I concur with all you say Brad. In addition, there are 2 billion people living without basic essentials. “free energy” will mean water and food and very cheap building materials.
      Decentralized energy, yes, but the main aspect I am interested in is the movement towards decentralized society. Western society has condensed into cities creating tension, pathologies and alienation. With decentralized energy, factories can be located anywhere and populations can disperse again, back to more human scale living … town size or lower.

      But it is of note that even though 80% of US working population are “knowledge workers”, communications and IT have not led to large scale teleworking. I have never understood why “the powers that be” who bang on about CO2 almost as a poison, have not encouraged telework with tax incentives. Vehicle C02 is what 40-50%? Such a scheme would be far better than carbon trading schemes. However both schemes are mute one does not believe in man made global warming. (I do not)

      • GreenWin

        February 7, 2012 at 7:06 pm

        Ah, spacegoat, you overlook the affliction of power in human authorities. To lord it over the monkeys, is fuel for the power hungry ego. To allow “workers” to remain aloof, outside the centralized office, means a loss of authoritarian power.

        OTOH, face to face teamwork is a constructive, creative endeavor. It is often more rewarding to employer and employee, to build a great team and have them work together.

        LANR will decentralize work areas. There may be no reason why new manufacturing and knowledge centers could not be in remote, attractive areas, near mountains or lakes – since energy will not be a limiting factor.

        The greatest boon to residential economies will be the $200-500 monthly home owner income that will not go to a utility. Remaining in savings or local circulation.

  25. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 9:39 am

    From Facebook with thanks
    Giuliano Bettini
    Hagelstein, MIT.
    arXiv:1201.4377v1 [physics.gen-ph] 20 Jan 2012.
    “In experiments performed by the Piantelli group, hydrogen is absorbed in nickel
    samples at elevated temperature, resulting in a thermal effect (consistent with energy generation) [17],[18], low-level nuclear effects (gamma and neutron emission [19],[20]), and the appearance of new elements [21].”
    Andrea Rossi is never mentioned.

    • James Pelsor

      February 8, 2012 at 3:08 am

      I get lost in the math but if the calculations are further validated this appears to be a really promising path. Can someone within NASA or Navy start to verify if this path is as promising as it appears.

  26. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 9:46 am

    From International Business Times AU
    Acoustic Fusion Touted as Green, Cheap, Virtually Inexhaustible Energy Source

  27. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 9:51 am

    It must be true that the 1mw unit that Rossi still has in his possession, purchased by the first customer, because of the new breakthroughs that Rossi has announced is being totally retrofitted with all new units, if progress continues this could keep happening and delivery could take a long time.

  28. Timar

    February 7, 2012 at 9:53 am

    It’s really puzzling where all this global warming paranoia comes from. All the people posting here accept the fact that our dependency on fossile fuels is a most desolate affair (otherwise they wouldn’t be here). Yet many of them rather believe the paranoia and disinformation spun out by Big Oil to discredit the solid science of climatology than the thousands of scientists who have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that our dependency on fossile fuels is indeed a most desolate affair – as it is the cause of manmade global warming.

    • georgehants

      February 7, 2012 at 10:23 am

      Timar, science is reaping the now common knowledge that it is deceptive in many areas for political and financial reasons and to maintain Dogma.
      Trust needs to be rebuilt.
      Evidence shows that most of the recent past has been dominated by ice-ages, but only now are some clever scientists taking this into account.
      Evidence shows that Solar activity has a great bearing on climate.
      Evidence shows that the effects of the sun and Planets have an effect on climate.
      Until science looks at the whole picture without dismissing important Evidence because it does not fit Dogma they cannot be respected.
      the Gaia hypothesis has some merit in that the Earth has maintained a life supporting climate throughout it’s history, balancing itself against massive disruption at times.
      A little bit of a coincidence that just as man-made warming is possible dangerously affecting the planet along comes Cold Fusion to balance things out.

      • spacegoat

        February 7, 2012 at 11:36 am

        Wow, you provide a flood of really interesting articles today. The last article on consciousness is ground-breaking. Will follow this up and check out the evidence, as per your instructions. 🙂

        • georgehants

          February 7, 2012 at 11:52 am

          spacegoat, thank you, some other commenter’s see nothing interesting in them.
          O well each to their own I suppose.

        • CuriousChris

          February 8, 2012 at 2:35 am

          Quantum biology is not nuclear chickens, you are drawing comparisons where there is none. It has been suspected for a while that quantum effects could be at play in biology. Not a subject I have followed so that’s the limit of my knowledge. There s no inference from that article that there is a biological transmutation process occurring or even hinted at.

    • JNewman

      February 7, 2012 at 12:57 pm

      I was wondering if anyone else had noticed the extreme irony in that, Timar.

    • georgehants

      February 7, 2012 at 2:01 pm

      NASA Satellite Shows That Global Temperatures Continue Their Plunge Into Record Cold

  29. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 9:55 am

    My guess for the first by customer or Defkalion announcement of the testing results of a Hyperion —
    March the 31st.

    A World record on Cold Fusion sites 90+ comments and not one totally crazy, pointless entry.

  30. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 10:45 am

    Sorry Paul, could not resist, but good knowledge for everyone.
    Placebos and Distraction: New Study Shows How to Boost the Power of Pain Relief, Without Drugs

    • Brian K

      February 7, 2012 at 11:22 am

      George, and all posters (me too), to the world of ‘false dawns .org’
      Let’s all dream on, at least for now!

      • georgehants

        February 7, 2012 at 11:26 am

        Brian K, sorry cannot understand your point, please clarify, thank you.

    • AB

      February 7, 2012 at 11:40 am

      I’m not sure what you want to tell us by frequently bringing up certain subjects. I do not find this article particularly remarkable. Can you elaborate? What may appear as self-evident to you doesn’t necessarily appear equally evident to others.

      • georgehants

        February 7, 2012 at 11:46 am

        AB, with respect I can only suggest you read the evidence and draw your own conclusions.
        If you do not find the almost total denial by main-line science of a proven fact affecting the whole population a little disturbing then I can only wonder.

        • AB

          February 7, 2012 at 12:16 pm

          > If you do not find the almost total denial by main-line science of a proven fact affecting the whole population a little disturbing then I can only wonder.

          Denial of what?

          • georgehants

            February 7, 2012 at 12:56 pm

            AB, How about Cold Fusion and Quantum computers.
            A little research always helps when commenting, to back up your denials.

          • AB

            February 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm

            > AB, How about Cold Fusion and Quantum computers.

            How are these related to the placebo effect?

            > A little research always helps when commenting, to back up your denials.

            What am I denying? I asked you to clarify what you’re trying to say so I can understand your position.

  31. Mahron - A4 B3

    February 7, 2012 at 11:30 am

    • georgehants

      February 7, 2012 at 11:41 am

      Mahron – A4 B3, science spent decades debunking and denying Quantum computers just like Cold Fusion.
      Only mathematician eventually proved it’s possibility and even now many establishment huggers cannot let go of the Dogma and denial as with many other subjects.
      Try this for the next research and evidence to be hidden as deep as possible.

      • Mahron - A4 B3

        February 7, 2012 at 11:52 am

        They should run the experiment in “auto mode”. locked in a room. starting and stopping at random. And then with a room filled with people. That should settle it. If we collapse the wave by looking at them results should not match. That’s What they did apparently. We will see, maybe they are on to something.

        • georgehants

          February 7, 2012 at 1:03 pm

          Mahron – A4 B3, do anything any ideas of experiments must be good and listened to with respect.
          Just don’t close ones eyes and try and deny it, do the research.
          What wonderful knowledge is being delayed and lost by dumb science.
          If it is not real then fair enough but only open-minded unbiased experiments will show that.

      • Mahron - A4 B3

        February 7, 2012 at 12:00 pm

        But I doubt no one thought of that before. Unless the prospect of it made them shit there pants, so they did not try it out.

  32. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    AB, you said —
    February 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    AB, How about Cold Fusion and Quantum computers.
    How are these related to the placebo effect?
    A little research always helps when commenting, to back up your denials.
    What am I denying? I asked you to clarify what you’re trying to say so I can understand your position.

    I say —
    AB you are using a cheap irrational trick of circular argument.
    You are making no sense.
    You are displaying a very low mentality.
    You have spoilt the clean sensible record of this string.
    I suggest you are removed from this site as a disruptive waste of time.

    • AB

      February 7, 2012 at 1:47 pm

      There is nothing wrong with my behavior so far. Yours on the other hand is rapidly getting out of hand for no reason.

      • georgehants

        February 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm

        AB, what is your opinion of the Placebo effect and main-line sciences denial of it.

        • AB

          February 7, 2012 at 2:14 pm

          My opinion is that neither mainstream science nor medicine deny the placebo effect. It is common practice for doctors to knowingly use it in certain cases. Double blind studies including a placebo are considered the gold standard when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of pharmaceuticals.

          Since these are well known facts that you’re surely aware of, I’m left somewhat confused about what you’re trying to say by bringing the subject up.

          • georgehants

            February 7, 2012 at 2:18 pm

            AB, your answer is evasive,
            I asked you a simple question please answer —
            AB, what is your opinion of the Placebo effect and main-line sciences denial of it.
            What is your opinion of medical practitioner or scientists who deny the effect for which experimental proof is overwhelming.
            Why do you think they are trying to cover it up.

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            February 7, 2012 at 2:21 pm

          • JNewman

            February 7, 2012 at 2:31 pm

            This is like watching a train wreck. I know it’s wrong, but I can’t help myself.

          • AB

            February 7, 2012 at 2:54 pm

            > AB, your answer is evasive,
            > I asked you a simple question please answer —
            > AB, what is your opinion of the Placebo effect and
            > main-line sciences denial of it.

            The placebo effect is an improvement in health caused by a change in mental attitude of the patient rather than any real medical intervention. It is usually temporary, does not work in all people, and the effectiveness varies with the type of disorder or disease.

            I have given a sufficient answer to the second half of your question and the two after that.

            Now would you mind answering my original question? About what you’re trying to say by frequently mentioning the placebo effect.

          • JNewman

            February 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm

            AB, you are not going to make progress here. You have answered George’s question quite explicitly and in some detail. You even couched your answer as being your opinion rather than asserted it as fact. You are in no way being evasive. However, you are providing an answer that George does not agree with. Therefore, it is deemed to be irrational and non-responsive. There is nothing you can do or say to change that result.

        • CuriousChris

          February 8, 2012 at 2:42 am

          Did I miss something? Science doesn’t deny placebo effect. Never has and uses it quite a lot. Double blind tests are designed to limit the placebo effect.

          Now your just making stuff up.

  33. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    A journal that would not try to hide Cold Fusion.
    Dear Readers,
    Journals, like people and other living things, undergo a biographical
    process. You can read “Ten Years of NeuroQuantology: A Long and Narrow
    Thanks for the continuing interest in our work,
    Sultan Tarlacı, M.D.
    Dept of Neurology, Assoc.Prof.
    NeuroQuantology Journal

  34. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    AB, re your above you did not answer my question so please do not make out you did, distortion is the trick of an irrational.
    To answer your question that would be very clear to any thinking person —
    The connection is that any subject that science is hiding the same as Cold Fusion is relevant to highlight the terrible state of an institution who’s sole purpose is to research, investigate and report the TRUTH to the population.
    Any instances of failure in that profession should be seen by you and anybody as a crime against humanity.

  35. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    JNewman, re your above, he has not answered my questions “quite explicitly” and your ganging up on me will not alter the situation.
    If you wish to constructively add to the very low level debate please answer the simple question—
    What is your opinion of the proven Lies Distortion and incompetence of main-line sciences handling of the Cold Fusion subject.

    • JNewman

      February 7, 2012 at 3:54 pm

      George, I am not going to indulge you in another one of your charade debates.

      Please look carefully at your question to me:

      “What is your opinion of the proven Lies Distortion and incompetence of mainline sciences handling of the Cold Fusion subject?”

      This is what is known in the logic business as a “loaded question”, in fact, one of the most egregious I have ever seen. To enlighten you further:

      “A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt. Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda. The traditional example is the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the ‘fallacy of many questions’ has been committed.”

      I know you love this rhetorical technique, but until you learn to wield it with even the most minuscule degree of subtlety, I will decline to respond and will rather allow you to hurl insults at me and demand my removal from the site instead.


      • georgehants

        February 7, 2012 at 4:00 pm

        JNewman,Your whole answer is irrational inaccurate and evasive. The question is only loaded to somebody with a motive to make out they are incapable or unwilling to commit themselves.
        I will ask the question again —-
        What is your opinion of the proven Lies Distortion and incompetence of main-line sciences handling of the Cold Fusion subject.
        To help your memory —–
        “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.”

        To any reasonable person I have given you enough to not evade the question.
        Could you answer a little quicker please as I wish to cut my toenails.

        • JNewman

          February 7, 2012 at 4:05 pm

          I think you should cut your toenails.

    • admin

      February 7, 2012 at 4:36 pm


      My historical countryman, Robbie Burns, had a saying we should all take note of. To paraphrase:

      Oh would God the gift to gie us,
      To see ourselves as others see us…

      We are often blind to our own faults. The problem with a forum such as this is that – with antagonists to the left and right – we interpret any criticism as contrived and inherently suspect. For that reason, let me state clearly that I believe that society dropped the ball on cf and it is likely that unthinking (or designed) criticism is causing a similar effect in other areas. As far as that goes I agree with you. However, I have asked you again and again to stop obsessing on off-topic subjects. It is rude to brow-beat others; calling them irrational and their opinion worthless just because it differs from yours. It is rude when the pseudo-sceptics do it and it is rude when you do it.

      AB said the following…

      ” My opinion is that neither mainstream science nor medicine deny the placebo effect.”

      You are not a parent chastising a naughty child. As far as I can tell, AB attempted to answer your question honestly more than once. You appear blind to your own faults and the fact that I agree with some (but not all) of what you say is irrelevant.

      The fact that you apologise when posting on your placebo (or UFO) obsession indicates that it is not a slip but a compulsion. I ask you once again, with the greatest of respect and in sincere politeness, to stop this behaviour.

      When things are quiet it is natural for the conversation to wander and that is not a problem. The problem arises when you repeat the same thing again and again in a manner that attempts to squash any opinion but yours. Do you recognise such a pattern when it is used by others? In technique, it is a mirror of MY.

      Believe me, I look forward to joining you and the rest of the world in a toast should Rossi come good and I do not side with the pseudo-sceptics. That said, we will learn nothing if this becomes a one-sided site that only allows a single viewpoint. No matter which side of the fence that view comes from, I will not let that happen.

      Please help me by respecting the guidelines.


      • georgehants

        February 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm

        Paul thank you, you judge that these people not answering a fair question but continuing to press a view is reasonable.
        I disagree, but your word must be final as you are the referee.

  36. georgehants

    February 7, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Sorry to be still sitting on the page but I am simply showing the totally irrational Tripe that these people use to try and distort and confuse an issue.
    Many of the silent majority will turn away and that is exactly what these people want.
    Time for these time-wasting irrationals to be seen off.
    If anybody thinks I have not patiently and with best efforts attempted to lead to a fair debate then please say so.
    If I am wasting my time then let me know.

    • AB

      February 7, 2012 at 4:32 pm

      > If anybody thinks I have not patiently and with best efforts attempted to lead to a fair debate then please say so.

      You seem to suffer from some kind of disorder that’s distorting your perception of reality. Assumptions and fears about my person are one thing, my actual behavior is another and you seem to be unable to distinguish between the two.

      • georgehants

        February 7, 2012 at 4:36 pm

        AB the post was not for you or JNewman, I think I have done enough for today to show your hollow content.
        It is for the rational readers and I am happy to hear from them or Paul their decision on your contribution and mine.

        • Timar

          February 7, 2012 at 5:18 pm

          You seem to own to the attribute “rational”, don’t you?

      • GreenWin

        February 7, 2012 at 7:26 pm

        AB, to interject a hopeful modicum of humor here… What is “perception of reality?” Would not George’s “reality” be only his perception thereof? If so, how would it be a distortion?

        • AB

          February 7, 2012 at 7:42 pm

          It’s a distortion in the perception of reality when it goes beyond reasonable limits of personal opinion and interpretation.

          • GreenWin

            February 8, 2012 at 5:52 am

            And you are the judge of “reasonable limits?”

          • AB

            February 8, 2012 at 10:37 am

            Yes I feel confident in saying that georgehants behavior is going past reasonable limits.

            Just to make sure, you did follow the discussion from the start? It started with the placebo article.

            I took a barrage of insults for asking a reasonable and harmless question.

          • GreenWin

            February 9, 2012 at 2:36 am

            AB, the old saw is, “It takes two to Tango.” It occurs to me should you not have some incentive, why engage with one you so disagree with??

            He who fans the flames, must take the heat. And judging others’ opinion, regardless of “reasonableness” is the endeavor of the self-indulged.

    • Quax

      February 7, 2012 at 6:17 pm

      George, I think there is a simple rule: If you try to force somebody to answer a question they do not want to answer then you are wasting your time.

      Do it once and let it speak for itself. Trying to chase after an answer usually does not add to the discussion.

  37. Dale G. Basgall

    February 7, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    It appears that words from the above posts catalyzed and turned into heat, more heat and a higher COP than LENR/LANR at present.

    As a reason is interpreted by the teller and the excuse interpreted by the receiver so are these posts. The poster has a reason for posting and then whoever interprets it finds something offensive.

    There are all types of people that keep things stirred up most of the time but just think if they were not here posting, but your next door neighbor.

    I find all comments interesting and basically it seems all of us benefit from the posts. Everyone has the same right to say just what they want and it becomes a problem when others interpret in a way that reflects their own lives. Why would annyone get upset on a forum? Insanity, a grudge, thinking there opinions are better, who knows but it is an embarasement to be on a forum where people use names like psudo-skeptics,and other, can’t we step above the other forum plates and just all comment without using descriprive names that reflect our attitudes on life!

    • JNewman

      February 7, 2012 at 6:49 pm

      Dale, it is human nature that people would rather call somebody a pseudo-skeptic or some other epithet than either try to find fault with their arguments or just admit that they are pissed off because somebody disagrees with them.

      • GreenWin

        February 7, 2012 at 7:35 pm

        Mr. Newman, I believe the “epithet” you refer to is “patho-skeptic.” The “pseudo-skeptic” is used by Susan Anderson types in defense of climate change alarmism. Different script J.

        • JNewman

          February 7, 2012 at 7:44 pm

          Not sure I can fully decrypt your message, but whatever you say.

        • Ivy Matt

          February 8, 2012 at 10:33 am

          I’ve seen both epithets used in the context of the Rossi debate.

      • B Fast

        February 7, 2012 at 7:44 pm

        Skeptics, those who explore the data with a cautious mind, are respectable. You dialog with ’em, you show ’em data, they show you data, you all learn. They may end up at a different place than you do, but both parties have the respect of the other.

        Pseudo-skeptics avoid the data. They declare that they know something, but strongly resist looking at or commenting about data you present. Everything you said about wanting to use an epithet rather than “trying to find fault with their arguments” doesn’t apply. When there is a refusal to look at the presented data by either one of the parties, it is an absolute discussion killer.

        • JNewman

          February 7, 2012 at 7:48 pm

          If someone presents some data as part of their argument and their opponent refuses to look at it, the opponent has ceased to argue just as reverting to name calling is ceasing to argue. In your words, either one is a discussion killer. Unfortunately, silence doesn’t always ensue.

          • B Fast

            February 7, 2012 at 10:53 pm

            Silence rarely ensues.

          • Peter Roe

            February 8, 2012 at 1:18 pm

            Actually, compared with the usual volume of posts, its pretty close!

  38. Thicket

    February 7, 2012 at 9:15 pm

    I’m not sure if this has been mentioned previously.

    M.I.T. professor Hagelstein had the following to say about Rossi.
    When asked if his presentation of the Francesco Piantelli NiH work would include much discussion of developments set forth by Andrea Rossi, Hagelstein noted, “I would expect to mention Rossi briefly. But my part of this is intended to be scientific, and there is very little available from Rossi that is of scientific value. For example, there is no useful description of the experiment. There is no reliable data. There is no reliable assay of samples before and after. There are no scientific papers of high quality that I can direct people interested to.

    • SH

      February 7, 2012 at 9:29 pm

      He was also quoted in a interview with cbs news:

      “There is not sufficient reliable information available about the E-cat for a rational opinion to be made yet, in my view,” Hagelstein told Life’s Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. But because of these consistencies, “I am of the view that Rossi’s claims probably should be taken seriously until such time as we have sufficient information that provides confirmation or refutation.”

      The last part of that snip is a very good advice for you, Thicket. And for the rest of us aswell.

      • SH

        February 7, 2012 at 9:50 pm

        Sorry, this is all of the Hagelstein section:

        Rossi has not published any details about the inner workings of the E-Cat because the device is not patent-protected, but other cold fusion researchers have theories as to how the process works. Peter Hagelstein, an MIT professor of electrical engineering and computer science and one of the most mainstream proponents of cold fusion research, thinks the process may involve vibrational energy in the metal’s lattice driving nuclear transitions that lead to fusion.

        There are several close connections between the E-Cat and other recent experimental results, Hagelstein said, noting that the excess power seems to respond to lattice spacing in both experiments, vacancies within the lattice (e.g., spots where the nickel atoms are missing) seem to be important in both, the excess power seems to increase with operating temperature in relevant operating regimes and other connections.

        “There is not sufficient reliable information available about the E-cat for a rational opinion to be made yet, in my view,” Hagelstein told Life’s Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience. But because of these consistencies, “I am of the view that Rossi’s claims probably should be taken seriously until such time as we have sufficient information that provides confirmation or refutation.”


        • Peter Roe

          February 8, 2012 at 11:37 am

          SH, kudos for placing Thicket’s highly selective quote in context. The full version shows that Hagelstein is simply a ‘reasonable skeptic’ whose views do not in fact support Thickets agenda. In fact he cites the ecat as being consistent with other current work in the field, and simply notes that it is scientifically unproven at this point.

          So just partial truth in the service of attempted perception management, as is standard currency for pseudoskeptics (regarding earlier exchanges, I use the term pseudoskeptic to mean people who are aware of the facts but chose to misrepresent them for their own reasons, as opposed to pathoskeptics, who are genuinely unable to process information without massive internal bias resulting from personality issues.

  39. Enrique Ferreyra( aka Pachu)

    February 8, 2012 at 12:52 am

    Anyone point out this (from DGT forum):

    5). It has been suggested that your output energy occurs in bursts that are controlled by the above trigger and is not a continuous function of the kernel temperatures. Is this a true statement? If not, explain the process if you would be so kind.

    This is a true statement. LENR energy within Hyperion reactors is produced in “bursts” that are controlled by the above triggering procedures (and the safety electronics controling the triggering procedures/mechanisms, monitoring also the reactor’s inner conditions). The frequency of such “bursts” is also contollable (within certain limits), defining the actual COP of the Hyperion reactors and the Hyperion systems. Every such “burst” (or “spike” as it is also called) is the result of what we have called a “multistage set of reactions”. We will not explain at this stage the whole triggering process or the dynamic system of the multi-stage set of reactions triggered, as our patents are under preparation, a lot of people are trying unsafly to replicate LENR reactions based mostly on simple speculations or their understanding in forum posts (like the present) rather than following any safety policies or methodologies in scientific research and development, etc…

  40. kwhilborn

    February 8, 2012 at 3:33 am

    Defkalion has shown squat and has had promises before.

    Maybe their “testers” will remain anonymous or have as much scentific standing as Bozo the clown.

    I’ll keep this short as I hope Defkalion is not just pumping wind at us. I do hope to see some result.

    So what is their timeline. 2 months? I think that means 3-4 months in their jargon.

    I recall Defkalion arriving on the independant scene. They said they will startle the world in a few weeks. Then a few weeks later still nothing. Then the November 30 spec sheet. The one with the fuzy photo and computer rendered drawing. yeah that set the world on its butt.

    I just have less faith in Defkalion than I once had.

    I will cross my fingers.

    • Dale G. Basgall

      February 8, 2012 at 5:54 am

      Reply to kwhilborn, statements; “Defkalion has shown squat and has had promises before.”

      Comment; Defkalion has shown the ability to take someone elses knowledge and because of shortcomings in the inventor Rossi’s professional ability as a business man take what he had shown them for the sole purpose of shaking a bad apple ( the impossible to deal with mad inventor Rossi)and growing a new apple tree for themselves.

      Quite frankly experienced ceo’s and young scientists is what Defkalion must be based upon. Rossi is a little short at business and dealing politely with other people. It’s like the bull in the china closet, Rossi is going to convolute everything that has to do with business, he doesn’t know when to shut up.

      Most inventors are like that, the people side is doh. I was the exact same way after inventing a really great product and finding out when millions of dollars and thousands of people are involved, it becomes easier for a company to say “I am making something entirely different than what the inventor said he made”.

      That’s wrong and I am calling out Defkalion to fess up to taking what Rossi said and claiming their young scientists have come up with something, but not like Rossi’s device at all.

      Rossi, and all the others including Pons & Fleishman should know they rock. Stuff it right into the I did and I told you so catergory.

      Salute to Pons & Fleishman and Rossi and others pioneering this field. For others following I am also appreciative of. But Defkalion cannot say they didn’t get the concept and ideas from Rossi.

      If Defkalion actually makes the statement they had the idea and concept prior to meeting with Rossi I would be greatly surprised.

      • B Fast

        February 8, 2012 at 5:58 am

        I’m kinda with kwhilborn on this one. Defkalion has shown much less than Rossi has. They pretty much blew the November announcement. I’m still expecting Defkalion to come through, but they aren’t off to the best start.

        • Alain

          February 8, 2012 at 11:25 am

          it depend on what you consider as meaningful.

          in fact for an engineer defkalion give much more data, and credibility, than rossi.

          rossi even spread doubt by his behaviors, his clear mistaces, his clear hiding of problems.

          defkalion by a classic corp behavior, insightful answer to some engineer question, have proven that they have a reactor, and more than that, they master it and it’s safety…

          of course, they don’t know how to make show, how to answer trace secret question.

          their behavior, their board of drector, their silence and answer, speak much than half baked demo (who speak much, but for doubt).

      • CuriousChris

        February 8, 2012 at 7:48 am

        “Comment; Defkalion has shown the ability to take someone elses knowledge and because of shortcomings in the inventor Rossi’s professional ability as a business man take what he had shown them for the sole purpose of shaking a bad apple ( the impossible to deal with mad inventor Rossi)and growing a new apple tree for themselves.”

        They actually haven’t shown that at all.

        They refuse to say who their lead researcher is and in such a small field either they have someone who is well known OR they copied Rossi’s product (and perhaps improved on it )

        As kwhilborn says they have shown squat. So until they actually show something rather than the crappy video they put out then they have nothing. No one to date has put up their hand to say we are testing the device, Who are the 7 Respected labs?. Instead respected researchers are avoiding being associated with Rossi and appear to be ignoring DGT alltogether.

        Like everyone else I am impatiently waiting on the third party tests. But I am concerned that it will be a repeat of Rossi’s test, DGT’s failure to allow calorimetry tests in the first round is very suspect. Why not allow proper tests?

        I can jump to a few conclusions!

      • kwhilborn

        February 8, 2012 at 10:57 pm

        Don’t forget Defkalion has yet to produce a single person who can verify that they even have a product. Sure they have given blurry photos and a video of foiled up pipes, but have yet to produe a singloe person who has witnessed it.

        If I claimed to have 100 ecats in my basement then I should in theory be on equal acceptance with them. AR (Rossi) has at least demonstrated and had professors witness it.

  41. dsm

    February 8, 2012 at 7:49 am


    Very interesting last sentance.

    I too would be amazed if Defkalion said they had a Ni-H LENR unit working before they met Rossi BUT if they can sell me a working unit I will probably buy one if I haven’t already bought an eCat.

    We live in nteresting times

    Doug M