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

A Visit To Defkalion

February 14, 2012

Deviating from the return leg of a trip to S Africa, Sterling Allan of Peswiki dropped in on Defkalion GT’s Greek offices. His report is worth the read. Although he did not witness any tests or see their lab, he was able to gain an impression of a group of competent people doing business. Such anecdotal reporting is welcome and the article is interesting but as someone who visited Steorn a number of times I can safely say that such observations should not sway anyone one way or the other.  I am encouraged to hear that preparations for the magnificent seven testers are well under way and I thank Sterling for bringing us this report as we wait the main meal.

As an aside: At the end of the article the subject of industrial espionage comes up. Hank Mills who has been a recent and frequent contributing writer for Peswiki resigned over Sterling’s support of DGT without tackling what he sees as the potential IP theft issue. No accusations are made but Hank at least wanted Sterling to ask for answers. Hank took a stance and resigned on principle. I admire that and wish more people had such a keen sense of integrity.

That said, I also agree with Sterling. This thing is too important for the world. Assuming this is not a double twisted delusion, it is always possible that Defkalion used the knowledge they learned from studying the eCat to come up with something as different from it as the eCat is from Piantelli’s work. We just don’t know. It sticks in my throat a little because if Dr Rossi has kick-started this thing then he deserves to be recognised and rewarded for it. However, I do not see the two as mutually exclusive.

There is plenty of room for both (and more) to profit and after P &F, Rossi’s recognition should surely follow.

Any industry needs competition and as long as they produce the goods, I welcome the Greeks and hope they and Rossi make good.

[With thanks to Veblin]

Posted by on February 14, 2012. Filed under Close Up,Competitors,Defkalion,Hyperion,Media & Blogs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

196 Responses to A Visit To Defkalion

  1. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 8:49 am

    FUD. Deleted by Admin.

    Paul

    • Maurice Daignault Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 8:23 pm

      One day someone will verify if Defkalion Green Technologies has copied Andrea Rossy’s ECAT formula.

      If they did, I suggest that they should then change their name to:

      DEFKALION STOLLEN TECHNOLOGIES

      Maurice Daignault
      B.A., B.Sc. Physics, M.B.A.

  2. GP Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 9:28 am

    Self destruct mechanism???
    Your Hyperion, should you choose to accept it…

  3. DSM Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 9:29 am

    If you believe in virgin birth and resurrection you might also believe that the Defkalion hyperion miraculously appeared before Defkalion people some time after Dr Rossi began discussion with them to manufacture value add to his LENR devices.

    Does anyone seriously want to hypothesize that with 20 years of research and mixed results that in 2011 two identical LENR devices appeared separately in two adjacent countries and that this miracle occurred after the inventor of one was in serious discussion with the so called inventor of the other ?.

    Defkalion have a lot of miracles to explain. They tried to harness the Piantelli name as if he did their design but that hasn’t transpired and is just too cute a way around their ‘miracle’ acquisition of their technology.

    So if a legal battle explodes just as Defkalion try to get their 40 Million Euro licensees into production, we can be sure there will be a lot of angry licensees wanting blood after they signed up for the rights to the miracle hyperion LENR device.

    Love or hate Rossi as you will but appreciating the situation he found himself in with his 1st major partner, does anyone wonder why he became so reluctant to show anyone the core of an eCat again ?.

    Doug M

    • charles sistovaris Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 9:52 am

      I think you should take it the other way around : Defkalion is the only reason I still believe Rossi might hold something and therefore, I think, they’re his best chance (and the world’s, incidentally).

      As Jed Rothwell pretty well put it on Vortex a few weeks ago, Rossi is the last person you’d want to make business with. Defkalion always left the door open to Rossi, but his personality is not fit for something as important as what he may have discovered…

      If Defkalion comes up with a serious/undisputable test result, Rossi will be the 1st to benefit from it.

      • Timar Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 1:25 pm

        That’s exactly what I think too.

      • Stephen Reply

        February 16, 2012 at 7:46 am

        I agree. In the eCat system the self-destruction mechanism is AR himself. A very effective one.

        I share your opinion, was it just for AR I would have said this is 200% scam. Just a sure thing. But Celani believes he has something too. Something real seems to exist in LENRs. Plus the NASA people. Plus now Defkalion people say they have a product. Can all these people be scammer or delusional?

        Maybe yes but sounds strange.

        As usual… the story is SO weird!

        • Stephen Reply

          February 16, 2012 at 7:55 am

          However… this guy writing the paper is reviewing very strange technologies in his website. I had a quick look, there are magic generators where there is not explanation of what is the energy source and general working mechanism… this is a bit embarassing.

    • prometheas Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm

      Where does one demark intellectual property If Defkalion made this work and Rossi did not? After all A Rossi himself said Defkalion has nothing. Nothing is good with me if they got it working.

      And assuming that Rossi has significant claims on this so do the initial LENR researchers who where so shamelessly ostracized. And if we one goes down that path then there should be but only one airplane manufacturer in the world : “The Wright Brothers airplane” company . Big things don’t need a petty view.

    • Lu Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 4:51 pm

      The same can be said for Rossi and his sudden invention of the E-Cat when taken in the context of the 20+ years of scientific research since F-P that is still ongoing. Still there are a lot of differences between the two inventions. Besides the COPs, Defkalion according to Sterling is claiming Gamma rays. Rossi has been inconsistant in claiming Gamma’s and recently claiming one will never see them.

      I believe Rossi if anything pointed Defkalion in the right direction: NI+H, NI in near nano-particle form, some sort of catalyst for the separation of the H2, some sort of electromagnetic wave for control, etc. Both seem to have an inordinate fear of being copied so whatever works is probably very simple.

      They also may be very similar in another area–they both may not work. I am not convinced that either functions as claimed and won’t until each is independently tested. The big difference here is that Defkalion seems to be well on the road to verification and production while Rossi has been all talk now since his inconclusive demos and doing things in a manner that I can only describe as scrambling.

      We shall soon see.

    • Roger Bird Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 7:23 pm

      Don’t care. Don’t give a $h1T. All I care about is the product coming to market, reducing pollution, raising the standard of living for every person on Planet Earth, and raising the standard of living of my family without any of us having to earn any more money. That’s all I care about.

      • Roger Bird Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm

        Ethics is their problem. The health and welfare of all mankind and my family is my problem.

  4. Per Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 10:21 am

    If this turns out to be true. What is the probability that Defkalion after a couple of months associating with Rossi indepentently came up with a device that works as good, or better as his? Noone else have reached similar results in the world.

    Either the whole story is a fake or if its true Defkalion has with all certainty stolen its technology.

    When will people start wake up and instead of shouting “it’s the best for mankind” understand that behind every invention is a man that struggles for years often to achieve something noone though possible. The next second he achieves it he is copied by the same people that spoke against him.

    We don’t take well when your local thugs steals from people in your neighbourhood. Why is it then “the best for humanity” when an inventor get robbed of his ideas? If you instead supported inventors right to their ideas we would have a much more creative world where people are not afraid to invent anymore.

    • LCD Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 3:28 pm

      Ehh Rossi benefited from everyone before him, including and specially Piantelli and Focardi. He’ll get his just due, but by no means did he figure this thing out on his own.

      Also I think everybody should remember that advances in energy harvesting to the degree we’re talking about are akin to developing a new way to make lots of gold. You would simply be stupid to go around and show everybody how you did it. You’d want to keep it to yourself at least for a bit and profit from it.

      Anybody who doesn’t understand that is simply living in an unrealistic world.

      Having said that I don’t believe that Rossi nor DGT has the control they need to have a product last 6 months before it stops working. I don’t even think it can last a week. But I do believe Focardi when he says the reaction power/energy output is real.

      • Per Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 9:44 pm

        Rossi benefited from knowledge already in the public domain and from Focardis work that, he paid for, which is alot different from probing a technology to get its secrets despite agreements. Defkalion are thieves! There is no other word for it.

        Stupidity never motivates theft. If a man goes around showing his fortune on the street it may lead to his robbery. But there is still a moral, that theft is theft. You can give up and say that he brought it on himself or you can condemn it and aid him.

        Anybody that doesn’t understand that have given up the ambition to live in a free society based on law and rights. You may have access to free energy but you wouldn’t have freedom and respect for individual rights.

        • LCD Reply

          February 15, 2012 at 2:11 am

          Per. Defkalion got information from a spectroscopic analysis that Rossi paid to have done is my understanding.

          They then ALLEGEDLY figured out another way to do the Nickel reaction.

          In the end if the accounts are true, it was really Rossi’s own fault for putting DGT in that position. DGT asked for a longer validation test of the ecat before handing over final payment, Rossi agreed but didn’t do it.

          You can believe or disbelieve either side all day long, ultimately until somebody writes a book about it or makes a movie we won’t know.

          I do hope one of them has an actual commercially viable device. My parents want to buy a 30K solar water heater and I keep telling them to wait.

          They’re not going to wait forever.

        • spacegoat Reply

          February 15, 2012 at 4:10 am

          Intellectual property (IP) defense stifles innovation. It is anathema to science and to traditional cultures that recognize ideas cannot and morally should not be privatized. The Open Source movements of the last 25 years have proven what can be achieved if the market competes on Service rather than through lawyers fighting over such “original” inventions as a One-Button-Buy element on a screen (Amazon).

          The case usually rolled out to justify patents are the pharmaceutical companies that spent “millions” developing drugs, that end up poisoning us (Whitney Huston, Heath Ledger) all.

          DGT and Rossi are trial and error inventors with plumbing accessories and metal powder who may have reached a concrete result, but this was achieved on the back of all others who preceded them.

          I do not begrudge them financial reward, but the self-destruct mechanisms are really over the top. Whilst they perfect maximization of financial reward, the world suffers for lack of energy through starvation, lack of basics such as water, electricity, and the impending regional/global nuclear war over lack of energy starting in the Middle East.
          There are 25 guys working at DGT and they sell the franchises at 41 million each. How many times over do they wish to be millionaires?

    • Roger Bird Reply

      February 15, 2012 at 11:11 pm

      Still don’t give a $hlt.

    • Stephen Reply

      February 16, 2012 at 8:04 am

      If AR really has something… he’s the worst manager EVER. As a potential scammer he’s a genius, but as a PR of a potentially genuine invention he’s just as bad as I can imagine. The eCat does not contain any self-destruction mechanism: it does not need it as it is provided by its creator’s day-by-day actions.

      Anyway, at this point this is really secondary: I would really just like to understand if there is anything real in all this or not.

  5. michael Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Rossi himself always said that Defkalion never had free access to the reactor technology. So how could they have stolen the technology? Wouldn’t he be the first to stand up and shout “SNAKES!” ??

    It is probably just trial and error after they found out about the key ingredients and interviewing the people around Rossi. (decide for yourself if this is intellectual theft). Another guy from the “open-source-ecat-project” claims to have found out by himself.

    I also fully agree with one comment above: Rossi himself is not very credible. I agree that the demonstrations were very intriguing, but final proof is still missing and some facts even remain irresputed, which clearly contradict the claims (Krivits steam volume calculations are quite straightforward; the isotope analysis results make no sense).

    In all, the way Rossi communicates and continues to make “adventurous” claims is simply too excentric to be credible (to me). But if – on the other side – Defkalion manages to substantuate their claims unambiguously, this will change the whole story, also in favor of Rossi.

    I will just sit back and see what shows up in the stores and then decide for myself (in this I fully cuncur with Rossi).

    I only hope that I can sell my oil stocks in time before the news shakes the world :-)

  6. Peter Roe Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 11:21 am

    Sterling Allan’s attempted impromptu speech indicates someone who may have watched one too many movies. It probably also expresses the over-enthusiasm of a man who has had his hopes dashed many times but is now convinced that a winner is on the home run, and everyone needs to know about the coming salvation. Such messianic gestures may be understandable, particularly when in a country like Greece that is being systematically destroyed by bankers in Germany and France, but of course are completely futile.

    CF may well be the coming salvation of many of our economic, political and environmental problems, but unless people are actually aware of the preamble (as a few blog followers such as ourselves are privileged to be) then the average man or woman will be completely unable to take such a possibility on board. I know this to be true, as before I learned better I tried to explain to a few people what seemed to be brewing, only to be met with blank expressions and attempts to make jokes or change the subject. I stay away from the topic now.

    This ignorance, perpetuated by the mainstream media, is still one of the strongest cards in the hands of the people who desperately want the introduction of CF devices to be delayed for as long as possible, using any means available.

    As the details continue to filter into public awareness, almost exclusively through online publications of one flavour or another, it is quite clear that this halcyon (for the opposition) state of affairs cannot last forever. This means that new lines of defence must be drawn up, and we are already seeing the early drafts in the form of greatly increased attempts to paint Rossi as a fraud, plus at least one attempt to make CF seem potentially dangerous. This is happening both in blogs such as this one, and in online news and opinion publications, where heavily unbalanced and intentionally derisory pieces are being published with apparently increasing frequency.

    Some blog posters such as Shaun Taylor (who is probably the Shaun Taylor who is Head of Energy Sector at Franklin + Andrews (Mott MacDonald) – a major nuclear industry contractor) even attempt both simultaneously and seem completely unable to see (or simply don’t care about) the utter illogicality of such mixed arguments. That hasn’t stopped this particular individual from taking literally every opportunity available to promote the idea that LENR is a potential ‘nuclear’ disaster waiting to happen.

    Taylor’s attempts to propagandise are crude and blatant, but that doesn’t mean they are not potentially damaging to any safety certification processes, either directly, or in the hands of someone wishing to drop a spanner in the works. Taylor seem to be alone at the moment, and has probably chosen this line of attack off his own bat, or at most in collusion with a small group at his place of work, trying to ‘protect’ the nuclear industry. However his efforts may be the vanguard of what could become a concerted effort to introduce fake ‘safety concerns’ over CF, just as soon as silence, ridicule or accusations of fraud have clearly had their day.

    • Ben Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 3:28 pm

      Bravo. Well said Peter.

    • M. Hat Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 9:30 pm

      Just an aside. How do you destroy Greece by giving them billions to pay their debts? Instead of gratitude you riot in protest? Give me a break!

      • sdritsas Reply

        February 15, 2012 at 5:02 am

        Funny question :)

        When we entered the deal with our friends from Europe, we had a government debt of 120%, and very small private debt.

        Even today, if one compares them together, we are in much better fate than Germany, England, Italy etc. But then again, government debt is what our friends are interested on, the private sector is supposed to be swimming in debt for some reason.

        Now, two years in this “solution program” we are being informed that our friends from Europe hope that by year 2020 we will again have a government debt of 120% a private debt to the sky, the public property sold, gas and oil excavation rights gone, our wages about 60% down, health and education system destroyed, plus they want acropolis and some islands for being nice.

        It’s good to have friends, don’t take us wrong, we are not ungrateful, we are preparing to return the favor :)

  7. mimi Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 11:36 am

    Just found this:
    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Physicists-Meet-at-CERN-to-Discuss-Progress-Made-on-Cold-Fusion.html

    Looks like not only NASA, but also CERN are taking LENR seriously.

  8. AB Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 11:44 am

    Krivit is making explicit accusations now.

    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/13/rossis-australian-investment-opportunity-falls-through/

    “In this demand, Millin provided Smith with bank instructions to wire funds to Millin’s account and an attachment with an invoice from Rossi with bank account numbers and instructions to wire 100,000 Euro directly to Rossi’s Leonardo Corp. account.”

    Source of this document seems to be Dick Smith.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm

      If Rossi decides he needs to raise his profile at any time, a court action against Krivit would do that nicely!

      • John Milstone Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 1:44 pm

        That could be a dangerous move for Rossi, since the court could require him to demonstrate that his E-Cat actually works.

        That’s what happened to the Sniffex company, which was selling a fraudulent bomb detection device to the military. They sued James Randi for libel, but dropped the suit when the judge required them to actually demonstrate that the device worked in court.

    • Ransompw Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm

      Krivit is the “Master of the Half Truth” and now I see he even makes up facts to suit his crusade. As I have mentioned previously, this is not Journalism, Krivit doesn’t have that training and it shows. He is a business student parading as a journalist in hard physics. He neither understands it nor cares to write professionally. Anyone reading his nonsense should beware.

      • John Milstone Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 1:49 pm

        If Krivit’s lack of “training” in journalism is a problem, then why isn’t Rossi’s “diploma mill” degree?

        • LCD Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 3:34 pm

          John other people got their diplomas from the same place and they are respected individuals. Bottom line is you don’t know what he studied or how he did it and it really becomes a case by case basis. It may be a diploma mill but that does not necessarily mean he didn’t deserve the diploma.

          Also I guess by deduction you believe that the credibility of Levi and Focardi is not good enough for them to see they were getting duped?

          You really believe that?

      • psi Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm

        I have to agree. The more one follows Krivit, even without any special training in physics or chemistry, the more prejudicial his coverage looks. That is not to deny that he may sometimes find a grain of corn.

    • Timar Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 1:47 pm

      One more example of Krivit beeing mischievous. He seems to take every opportunity to attack people he doesn’t like – now he is after Bushnell.

  9. John Milstone Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    HERE is an article by Sterling D. Allan about the wonderful new “self-powered” electric car “invented” by Carl Tilley. Allan is very enthusiastic about it.

    HERE is a link showing how this criminal fraud played out.

    You would be a fool to believe anything written by Sterling Allan.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 12:30 pm

      Thanks for the alert johnmarygeorge.

      • John Milstone Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm

        Thanks for the snarky (and wrong) remark. I have no idea if Mary and George are really different people, but I’m not either one of them.

        You could actually read the two links I provided, but I guess that’s too much effort for you.

        • Tony Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 1:32 pm

          I’ve read the remarks before; as I’ve also mentioned, I’m not surprised that Rossi distanced himself from Sterling’s website fiasco, and neither am I surprised that he didn’t call Sol “Joe Cell” Millin’s arranged meeting with Ian Bryce + ‘Dickhead’ Smith.

          Actually, Mary Yugo + George Hody ARE the same person – only a tiny bit of investigation by Google proves that to be the case! There’s no ‘IF’ about it!

          • John Milstone

            February 14, 2012 at 1:47 pm

            Sterling Allan has been Rossi’s “lier in chief” for the last year. If you trace back any statement about the E-Cat that turned out to be wrong, it almost certainly originated on Allan’s blog.

            Whether Allan is complicit or just gullible is still an open question.

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 5:16 pm

          “I’m not either one of them”

          Sorry George – don’t believe you. Style, content and pet phrases too similar.

    • Timar Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm

      Of course Allan is one of the most gullible persons around, even in the “free energy” community, which is is not exactly short of gullibility.

      I see, however, no reason not believe what he specifically wrote about Defkalion (without taking everything at face value of course).
      The photo is proof enough that he actually was there, and Defkalion didn’t deny his visit. The details are consistent with the information given by Defkalion and by other visitors.

      So if it is a fraud, the article at least gives evidence that it is a very, very elaborate fraud ;)

      But as I wrote in the Defkalion forum: even a blind hen may sometimes find a grain of corn…

    • LCD Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 3:38 pm

      Sterling Allan is not credible, so what? Listen to what he has to say and take it with a grain of salt.

      Krivit is also not credible but in a much more complicated way. So what? Listen to what he has to say and take it with a grain of salt.

      Make up your own mind.

      • Peter Roe Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm

        Well said – but make that a spoonfull at least in both cases!

        • LCD Reply

          February 15, 2012 at 2:12 am

          lol

  10. Jerry H Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Right now Sterling has his own problems .. he collected 6K in a fund drive to go to South Africa to see and buy a device costing 6K, some how the guy gave him the device now Sterling is sitting on 6K collected on Paypal – then Sterling conveniently flys to Athens and writes this glowing report
    on another group of crooks – what a show.

  11. Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    At least we now have someone that went there and looked then in the face…Let’s wait for the test results now…

  12. Timar Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    PESWiki seems to be offline.

    A DoS attack!? Who did it? Defklation, Rossi, Prof. Stremmenos, Krivit, NASA, the CIA, Shell, Gazprom, the Illuminati? :)

    • JNewman Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:26 pm

      They probably just ran out of energy.

      • Timar Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 2:36 pm

        Yeah, probably they shouldn’t have let their servers run on that nifty new 5kW perpetual power generator from South Africa.

  13. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Admin,

    So now you have imposed censorship on this forum? If you have an issue with what I post, how about emailing me first to discuss it. BTW you have got my intentions VERY wrong. I have a very detailed and in depth knowledge about what is going on. I take no sides. I just report on what I know and have investigated.

    I posted a quote from Sterling Allan where DGT was saying their Hyperion reactor emits Gamma radiation and they will used the emitted Gamma radiation to prove there is a Nuclear Reaction occurring in their Hyperion core. You deleted that comment. Why? I did not make it up. I quoted what Allan said DGT said.

    You and others need to accept LENR reactors are Nuclear Reactors, they do emit Gamma radiation and they have a history of exploding and killing people. That is fact and in the historical records.

    That said, with proper engineering, UL and EPA certification LENR reactor will probably be deemed safe enough for public use. But if you believe Rossi and DGT that all this will happen in 12 months, well I expect you will be disappointed.

    Lets see what you do when the Kullander analysis of the “used” Ecat fuel powder Rossi gave him is published. You will not like it. This is what Daniel Passiat was referring to earlier as very bad news. Some are trying to hush it up but prelim copies have leaked out and will surface if Kullander is stopped from publishing his data.

    Shaun

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:14 pm

      Why don’t you tell us what’s in the report ? Are you waiting for us to Beg ? Please Sir, one little info for the night !

    • John Milstone Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm

      Lets see what you do when the Kullander analysis of the “used” Ecat fuel powder Rossi gave him is published.

      That would be the “detailed isotopic analysis” that was supposed to be released before last Christmas?

      Presumably, if that analysis supported Rossi’s claims, it would have been released with great fanfare. The fact that it has apparently been buried is very telling.

    • Timar Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      Stop posting such BS. I always try to refrain from paranoia, but if you continue to grind out that kind of inconsistent rubbish even I might start to assume that you have some agenda.

      • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 2:34 pm

        Why would anyone with an agenda wast his time here ? As if we had the power to influence anything.

        • Timar Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 2:44 pm

          Shhh! I’m trying to threaten him!

  14. psi Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    If Shaun Taylor is, as Peter Roe speculates, a highly placed administrator in the nuclear energy industry, then this should be confirmed and exposed. This is a good opportunity for one of the regular e-cat bloggers to do some gumshoe journalism. The conflict of interest is pretty obvious to anyone – if the theory is correct, Taylor should be forced to acknowledge his own conflict of interest or have it be made more generally known.

    As for the alleged safety problems with gamma rays, I note that Mr. Taylor’s post immediately above this one is fraught with innuendo. There seems to be little to zero evidence that such gamma radiation, if it exists, poses any health risk.

    • JNewman Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 3:02 pm

      I have no clue nor interest as to who Shaun Taylor “really is”. However, it seems to me that if a highly-placed administrator in the nuclear power industry was tasked to make trouble for the safety certification of LENR devices, he would be spending his time trying to influence UL or the CE people, not yakking on a relatively obscure blog site. Just a small dose of realism.

  15. Peter Roe Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    “LENR reactors are Nuclear Reactors, they do emit Gamma radiation and they have a history of exploding and killing people. That is fact and in the historical records.”

    It seems that Shaun Taylor expects to be banned and is now simply determined to plant as much FUD as he can in the time left to him. The above is probably the most outrageous example yet.

    • psi Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:22 pm

      Peter, let’s start a little internet revolution shall we? Its very simple. Everyone time we encounter a statement like the above (“LENR reactors are Nuclear Reactors, they do emit Gamma radiation and they have a history of exploding and killing people. That is fact and in the historical records.”) we say,

      “yes, the reaction appears to be nuclear and emit gamma radiation. Gamma radiation is easily shielded against and poses zero health risk to the public. LENR researchers agree that, unlike dangerous nuclear fission power plants, LENR reactions do not pose any known risk of runaway reactions. The difficult with LENR is, in fact, the opposite, of getting a reaction going and sustaining it. We have seen no credible evidence that LENR devices ‘have a history of exploding and killing people.’ The writer is making up tall tales about explosions in laboratories under experimental conditions, the causes of which cannot be ascertained, long before today’s levels of replicability and theoretical understanding. In short, he’s blowing smoke in the attempt to obfuscate and spread fear. Don’t fall for it.”

      • Timar Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm

        In fact the only fatal exlosion, which killed a man in Micheal McKubre’s laboratory at the SRI, was an ordinary hydrogen explosion, certainly not attributed to any kind of nuclear reaction.

        • Camilo Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 3:07 pm

          I was going to say the very same thing. The explosions always involve poorly contained hydrogen, have never anything to do to the nuclear reaction itself. At worst, the “runaway reaction” causes the reaction to stop once the lattice melts.

          • John Milstone

            February 14, 2012 at 3:50 pm

            At worst, the “runaway reaction” causes the reaction to stop once the lattice melts.

            What temperature is that?

            I see that Nickel melts at 1453C, so that is certainly hot enough to cause significant problems. Note that steel starts softening and losing it’s mechanical strength at as low as 500-600C.

            Does a Nickel “lattice” melt at a much lower temperature?

          • Alain

            February 15, 2012 at 1:00 am

            @John Milstone

            locat temperature a the nanometric scale, as told by electron microscopy of electrods, have shown that the teperature was above 5000C,
            voporizing even tungsten…
            however it is local, since LENR are surface and sporadic reaction.

            they talk about that here
            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/slides/2009June25LatticeEnergySlides.pdf
            page 68 for exemple, but look also page 59, tungsten cathode craterized…

      • Peter Roe Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 5:35 pm

        psi – good idea. A pre-written standard response would save a lot of time.

        Re my ‘outing’ of Taylor, here is the Linkedin entry I posted in the previous thread: http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/shaun-taylor/18/79b/1a7. I note that he has not so far denied that it is his.

    • AB Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:24 pm

      On the bright side, it seems that we’re entering the “but it’s too dangerous!” stage of opposition.

      • LCD Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 5:34 pm

        John I’m not sure how the Steel melting helps your point much, but Nickel does also lose structural integrity at lower temps. Unclear if that makes much difference for micropowder.

        Anyways as Pekken has mentioned once the nickel melts the reaction stops producing heat. So there is an upper limit on the temp/pressure/force on the outer wall. So you design for that and mitigate against it.

        It’s not like a Fission reactor. Don’t think like that.

        Probably the levi explosion did not design for these types of things, it’s a prototype unit. That’s pure speculation though.

        However since we don’t know the theory one could say that there may be a state (set of conditions)where the reaction produces a different set of byproducts that could cause a dangerous reaction. This point cannot be ruled out but history suggests it’s unlikely if history is accurate.

        Ultimately that point above would give me pause if I was an underwriter. I know that’s not what everybody wants to hear but it’s undeniable. It’s also the reason why I thought Business to Business sales of the ECAT were a better route until the theory is developed.

        Can you imagine the carnage if we later find out that by changing the frequency of the RFG attached to the core we can produce lots of dangerous gammas? Along with a wonderful new tool, we’d have a whole new set of problems on our hands.

        But this is much too early to worry about.

        • John Milstone Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 7:05 pm

          John I’m not sure how the Steel melting helps your point much, but Nickel does also lose structural integrity at lower temps. Unclear if that makes much difference for micro powder.

          They have to make the E-Cat out of something. I’m assuming that it will be steel. It can’t be anything too exotic if Rossi is going to sell them for $600-$800.

          My point is that even steel won’t contain an out-of-control reaction if it runs up to over 1400C. I’m not aware of any household item that can potentially get up to this temperature. And, if that’s the critical temperature for stopping an out-of-control LENR reaction, then it’s doubtful that they’ll be allowed in people’s homes.

          It all comes down to what the melting temperature of this “Nickel lattice” really is. Rossi will have to prove that the process can’t get so far out of control that it won’t destroy the integrity of the housing. He doesn’t have a good theory, and his personal experiences with it aren’t going to help. He will either need a lot of independent experimental data (years worth, I would imagine), or a generally-accepted theory to explain the maximum possible danger from such a device. He isn’t close to having either.

          • Ivy Matt

            February 14, 2012 at 7:26 pm

            I believe the E-Cats have been made of copper, which has a melting point of 1084.62 degrees Celsius. That’s high enough for normal use, but not to contain a hypothetical runaway nickel reaction.

            On the other hand, if they were made of nickel….

          • LCD

            February 15, 2012 at 2:20 am

            yeah but what exactly is dangerous about the core reaching 1400 degrees, melting, and then fizzing out. Fire?

            That’s not going to stop a good engineer from making it safe.

            That’s my point.

            I’d be worried about a high pressure H2 explosion but if the steel starts losing integrity then the seals become leaky which releases the H2 and lowers the pressure so the steel melting becomes a benefit.

            That’s my other point.

            The only thing that would be dangerous is radiation of some sort IMHO.

    • John Milstone Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm

      LENR reactors are Nuclear Reactors, they do emit Gamma radiation and they have a history of exploding and killing people. That is fact and in the historical records.

      It seems that Shaun Taylor expects to be banned and is now simply determined to plant as much FUD as he can in the time left to him. The above is probably the most outrageous example yet.

      Lab Explosion Kills Cold-Fusion Scientist

      1) Rossi has stated that the rated output for one of these reactors is 27 kilowatts, but for safety purposes during testing the devices will be throttled down to 1/3rd of that. The reason for this is that in self sustain mode E-Cats can “run away.” This means that the output can become unstable, and can increase higher and higher. In torture tests, the units can explode. (Google cache version of Peswiki page, since Peswiki appears to be down at the moment).

      Rossi also claims that it’s the release of gamma radiation that is producing the heat.

      So, which part of Shaun Taylor’s statement is FUD?

      • Timar Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 2:47 pm

        Lab Explosion Kills Cold-Fusion Scientist

        Seems I have to repeat myself constantly here:

        “In fact the only fatal exlosion, which killed a man in Micheal McKubre’s laboratory at the SRI, was an ordinary hydrogen explosion, certainly not attributed to any kind of nuclear reaction.”

        • AB Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 3:02 pm

          The New York Times reports this incident being caused by a malfunctioning pressure relief valve though.

      • Tony Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 3:07 pm

        FOR GOD’S SAKE!!

        THERE ARE GAS EXPLOSIONS ALL OVER THE WORLD VIA DOMESTIC BOILERS!!

        THERE ARE CARBON MONOXIDE POISONINGS!!

        THERE ARE CASES OF ENTIRE FAMILIES DYING WHILST CLEANING THE LOCAL CESSPIT!!

        STOP SPREADING FUD!!

        • John Milstone Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 3:53 pm

          Yes, but all of those things are well understood.

          Rossi’s E-Cat, assuming it’s not a fraud, works through poorly-understood means. In particular, the scant evidence we do have seems to contradict Rossi’s claims about how it works.

          There is a huge difference between selling a conventional boiler, which has been throughly understood for centuries, and selling a LENR reactor for which the experts can’t even agree on the basic operating theory.

          • fumanchu

            February 14, 2012 at 4:22 pm

            I’m unclear that cavemen had an agreed working theory of fire when they started cooking their meals with it.

            If the product can be produced, the real issue isn’t who does it first. Even at 1M units a year (starting), the world’s hunger/need for this will entail building factories that are building e-cat/Hyperion/ACME factories, not just the units.

          • John Milstone

            February 14, 2012 at 4:31 pm

            fumanchu said:

            I’m unclear that cavemen had an agreed working theory of fire when they started cooking their meals with it.

            Yes, but cavemen didn’t have to deal with the labyrinth of government agencies dedicated to protecting the consumer from harming themselves.

            No one has a valid working theory as to how the E-Cat works. As long as they don’t, the fact that Rossi hasn’t blown up Bologna yet is not sufficient to declare it “safe”.

            Of course, this is all academic unless/until Rossi actually makes an E-Cat available to someone. So far, all we have to judge it is comments posted in Rossi’s blog.

        • Alain Reply

          February 15, 2012 at 1:06 am

          I support you, and you are rational. gas is dangerous, and wood or coal even more (wood is cancerigeneous too)…

          but in our society, amplified by press that use our stupidity to sell paper, new rare danger are frightening, and old frequent no…

          in fact if you hear of something in the news, it is that it is uncommon. otherwise, not in the news!
          so rationally one should not fear what is in the news, but only what is in his personal circle.

          I know a couple dead of CO because overriding safety system in a furnace (during tempest)… many suicides with gaz…

      • LCD Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 4:19 pm

        John you really need to investigate your facts before posting. You are becoming increasingly non-credible.

        Are you at all trained in any type of physics? Some of the conclusions you make are not well though out but you post with the confidence they are.

        As I’ve told popeye, and thicket in the past, they need to qualify their opinions so they are not stated as facts. Don’t make that mistake. If you don’t know something for sure then say so.

        • John Milstone Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 4:26 pm

          All I did was post some links: one to a New York Times story, one to a quote by Rossi himself?

          Which of those do you consider non-credible?

          • LCD

            February 14, 2012 at 4:33 pm

            Your use of the article to promote your erroneous viewpoint.

            Explosion kills -> associated with LENR reaction -> associate with dangerous reactor.

            In reality it’s mishandling of hydrogen that kills. Hydrogen mishandling kills period, regardless of what it’s being used for.

            That’s just one example.

          • LCD

            February 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm

            Did you know that if you take the radioactive element in your smoke detector and grind it into small pieces and eat it, it is very dangerous.

            There is a smoke detector in kids rooms around the world.

            There are ways to deal with danger issues but we don’t unnecessarily go around saying the sky is falling.

      • Rick Meisinger Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 4:50 pm

        Rossi’s fuel cartridge for home use comes preloaded with a couple of grams of hydrogen. Not enough hydrogen to make a noticeable explosion.

        • LCD Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 5:14 pm

          At what pressure Rick? The hydrogen is not the problem it’s the resulting shrapnel? Right?

          But that can be mitigated by design so I agree with your overall opinion.

        • John Milstone Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 5:23 pm

          Rossi’s claimed that the fuel cartridge for home use comes will come preloaded with a couple of grams of hydrogen.

          There! Fixed it for you.

  16. LCD Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    I finally read the story.
    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/02/13/rossis-australian-investment-opportunity-falls-through/

    Krivit must have two separate sources that will corroborate his story. I’m not sure he does. He seems to be dancing pretty close to libel?

    Anyways the article is another perfect example of how Krivit operates on the subject of the ecat. He has made it his personal mission in life to spread half-truths as facts on this subject. After the Bushnell fiasco I would not trust him on anything of substance.

    Having said that I don’t understand why Sol would be that optimistic about Rossi’s ecat. However giving money as an investment is only part of it, you have to take a look at the performance clauses to see the real risk. None of that is reported and a lawsuit for simply not investing just doesn’t make sense. Another sign that Krivit is just twisting facts.

    Other than that I think Bryce’s report was fair except for the earth wire part, which I think is just a new way of pulling crap out of the air. Just simply say he could have a hidden power source and recommend a performance clause on any deal.

    My two cents.

    • Ivy Matt Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 5:47 pm

      Regarding the relationship between Dick Smith and Sol Millin, Krivit’s story agrees substantially with this story from nearly a month ago:

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/lure-of-cold-fusion-backfires/story-e6frg8y6-1226246813122

      Regarding the libel statement, are you referring to libel of Rossi, or of Millin? Why does Krivit need two separate corroborating sources to clear himself of a libel charge? I wasn’t aware U.S. law had such a requirement. At any rate, while he could be more clear about his sources, I think it’s pretty clear that his main source is Dick Smith himself. (I’d say Sol Millin, but he appears to be an indirect and initially unwitting source.)

      • LCD Reply

        February 15, 2012 at 2:28 am

        Ivy my fault, this

        Krivit must have two separate sources that will corroborate his story. I’m not sure he does. He seems to be dancing pretty close to libel?

        was suppose to be a question or this

        Krivit must have two separate sources that will corroborate his story? I’m not sure he does? He seems to be dancing pretty close to libel?

        actually should have been more clear
        Shouldn’t Krivit have two separate sources that will corroborate his story. I’m not sure he does? He seems to be dancing pretty close to libel?

        I don’t claim to be a lawyer and I am not sure what the laws are here. Ransom?

        I was referring to the differing accounts by Sol and by Sol on Rossi.

  17. LCD Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Lastly I would just like to add that Sterling, I hope you don’t really believe that any serious person takes you seriously the way you report events.

    You really have to do a better job of building credibility when you write anything. Your reports are exceptionally biased towards the improbable without any indication that you have appreciated the improbability of your viewpoint.

    You are a step below entertainment at this point.

    I’m sure you’re a good person but I’m just providing some honest feedback.

  18. Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Can you say at this time if your theory of how eCat works, fits with the Widom-Larsen theory or does your and Prof Focardi’s theory offer a different approach ?

    It has nothing to do with the Widom Larsen theory ( which I fully respect ).

    • LCD Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 5:16 pm

      Whom are you asking?

      • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 5:19 pm

        Sorry, that was from the FAQ on ecat.com

        Q : Can you say at this time if your theory of how eCat works, fits with the Widom-Larsen theory or does your and Prof Focardi’s theory offer a different approach ?

        Rossi : It has nothing to do with the Widom Larsen theory ( which I fully respect ).

        • LCD Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 5:40 pm

          My two cents. I very much doubt that he knows what he’s talking about or that he’s even close to right.

          The W-L theory is not perfect and just as hard to swallow as coulomb barrier penetration, but it at least has mechanisms to explain the lack of dangerous radiation, it uses surface plasmon’s which seem to be related to the reaction, and it is still within the standard theory of physics.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            February 14, 2012 at 7:45 pm

            Could you explain at some time, in your own words, how WL theory works? Because to me it makes no sense.

          • Alain

            February 15, 2012 at 1:09 am

          • LCD

            February 15, 2012 at 2:38 am

            Pekka I did a post on it before. I can’t seem to find it. Maybe Paul can pull it up.

            If I recall I think it essentially (to my understanding) transfers the issue from coulomb barrier penetrating kinetic energy to constructive interference in the layer of oscillating hydrogen ions on the surface of the Nickel. (The heavy electron part is still not clear to me)

            A strong enough plasmon oscillation can impart enough energy to the proton – heavy electron combination and poof – Ultra low momentum neutron with a huge wavefunction that essentially means 100% chance of interaction with a nucleus.

            Any resulting gamma radiation gets absorbed by the other not yet combined heavy electrons.

            That’s the extent of my knowledge at this point.

            I actually like the Bose-Einstein condensation theories a bit more. I’m starting to let’s say “appreciate” how this may actually happen.

  19. LCD Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    I forgot I want to respond to Popeye’s earlier rant about the 2004 DOE report.

    http://physicsworld.com/blog/2008/05/coldfusion_demonstration_a_suc.html

    “However, there have been surveys to suggest that scientific opinion is more likely divided. According to a 2004 report by the DOE, which you can read here

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

    , ten out of 18 scientists thought that the hitherto results of cold-fusion experiments warranted further investigation.”

    So once again Popeye keeps stating opinions as facts. What he doesn’t know is that this is the overall thing everybody remembers, that’s what he’s ranting about but he forgets or doesn’t know how the game really went down.

    Another tidbit from another report that cites more reports:

    “For the most part, due to limited funding and personal ridicule, progress has gone at a snail’s pace, yet some progress has been made. Take the Dept. of Energy report in 2004 [2] as a case in point. 10 out of the panel of 18 anonymous scientists that reviewed available LENR literature stated that LENR experiments warranted further investigation. This caused the DOE to promise funding for key experiments and research. However, after attacks from Scientific American and others, pressure caused the DOE to renege on its promise.”

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm

    Some of those scientists were likely from the Academy of Sciences but their identities are anonymous so you can’t know for sure. Sounds like Duncan had some inside knowledge, I don’t know, maybe he just made a mistake. Hardly a point of contention for the reality of LENR.

    Anyways that’s Popeye for you.

  20. SH Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Dick Smith offers one megabuck to Andrea Rossi for a march 2011 repeat demo:

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg63241.html

    • Tony Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 5:34 pm

      My initial reaction is: it’s a trap.

      • Tony Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 5:35 pm

        Given Dick’s initial attack via Bryce.

        • Timar Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 6:42 pm

          You may have noticed that Mr. Smith wisely didn’t suggest Ian Bryce in his proposal as an examiner, but Essen and Kullander!

      • John Milstone Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 5:41 pm

        By “it’s a trap” do you mean that it would expose Rossi’s E-Cat as a fake?

        It’s hard to imagine how duplicating a previous test, and accepting the conclusion of the sympathetic scientists who were at the original test, could be “a trap”.

        At the very least, if Rossi turns it down, he either doesn’t want to risk being exposed as a con man, or he has plenty of money and doesn’t need the $1 million. If it’s the later, we shouldn’t accept any excuses from him that he doesn’t have enough money.

        • Timar Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 6:39 pm

          I have to agree with John here. How could this possibly be a “trap”? A trap for whom or what?

          • Tony

            February 14, 2012 at 8:27 pm

            Same thing I posted on e-catworld:

            Reason’s why Rossi should say no:

            1. Dick Smith is responsible for the Ian Bryce report.

            2. Dick Smith is communicating to the world via Krivit – why not choose 22passi, vortex, or direct via a more trustworthy source?

            3. Rossi doesn’t need the publicity or one million dollars (peanuts in comparison).

            4. Dick/Bryce/Krivit expect Rossi to say no – this is what the offer is intended for, as there is ZERO chance that Rossi will take this up if Krivit has been involved.

            The whole thing is designed to create bad publicity and should be met by silence from Rossi.

  21. Pekka Janhunen Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    Concerning Sterling Allan’s writing, the claim that the core temperature can be up to 900 C is a new one, previously they said at least 620 C. If true, it’s very good news for aerospace applications (satellites and airplanes), of course in addition to improving the efficiency of electricity generation.

    • Alain Reply

      February 15, 2012 at 1:10 am

      this mean, that, like show their test video, that they work to optimise the reaction…

      far from rossi level…

  22. Timar Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Now THAT’S finally some interesting news from Krivit:

    Smith Offers $1 Million Prize for Successful E-Cat Demo

    • Karl Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 5:48 pm

      With the minor reputation Krivit may still have he continue insist on heading on Rossi. One may wonder who is paying Krivits bills?

    • Timar Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 6:01 pm

      That’s really a nice move by Dick Smith, isn’t it?

      If Rossi is going to reject this offer, my remaining confidence in him will be very much exhausted. He hasn’t got anything to loose by doing such a demonstration now that Defkalion has announced their test programm, quite to the contrary – Defkalion has placed the ball in his court and he can only profit twice by accepting Smith’s offer.

      • Tony Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 6:07 pm

        Why? Maybe he doesn’t need a million dollars, or want any more publicity?

        Would’t it be more sensible for Dick to buy a 1 megawatt plant?

        • Timar Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 6:15 pm

          The point is that as soon as Defkalion is out of the closet with their Hyperion, he will have the publicity anyway.

          And it’s certainly a much better deal for Rossi to get $1M for a simple test than $1.5M for a 1MW plant.

          So there is no rational(!) reason for Rossi not to accept.

          • Ransompw

            February 14, 2012 at 6:25 pm

            Sure there is a rational reason not to accept, IF (BIG FAT GIANT IF) Rossi has a commercial product, a U.S. Partner financing him and they are on schedule to produce and sell Products (Ecats) on THEIR timetable. One Million is chicken feed if this is real and if I were his U.S. Partner I’d tell him to tell Smith to drop dead.

            It would ruin the splash, I as his U.S. Partner had planned.

            Now ask me if he really has a commercial product, a U.S. Partner and a timeline for manufacturing his 1 million Domestic Ecats and I would say slim chance at best.

          • Lu

            February 14, 2012 at 6:39 pm

            Rossi’s reply will be:

            1) I don’t need the money as I am well funded.
            2) I am done with tests. I am working on a robotized factory …
            3) It is another trap by the snakes.
            4) I only guarantee a COP of 6 and not 8.
            5) I am too busy.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 6:46 pm

          “Would’t it be more sensible for Dick to buy a 1 megawatt plant?”

          The problem may be the delivery schedule. Smith wants this done as quickly as possible to resolve the issue. The test could be done much faster than a new megawatt plant could be delivered, especially if Rossi is telling the truth and he is back ordered 14 units of those.

        • John Milstone Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 7:12 pm

          Would’t it be more sensible for Dick to buy a 1 megawatt plant?

          That would also be the most reasonable use for part of that $5 million grant from the earlier story.

          The only problem is, there is no indication that Rossi has sold any E-Cats, or has any available for sale. The one he supposedly sold to his “secret” customer is still sitting, unused, in his warehouse.

          • LCD

            February 15, 2012 at 2:43 am

            No there is truly no way of knowing this.

      • Pachu Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 6:12 pm

        If its a true email, Rossi should not refuse the offer its important for his public image, a direct challenge.

        Dick wants to know who has the biggest ….

    • LCD Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 6:05 pm

      I just read the offer.

      I like Dick Smith’s offer, simple, direct, no strings attached. He’s gained my respect.

      Rossi may or may not take him up on the offer, we’ll see. Bottom line is that as soon as everybody knows for sure the reaction is real, Rossi may not like the results.

      In other words he may be better off flying under the radar.

      However if DGT is doing it then he also must and this is a damn good offer.

      My only recommendation to Dick is that he specify a smaller ecat, and that he insist Focardi and Levi tell him to his face the reaction is 100% real. I doubt they would lie to him.

      • Tony Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 6:09 pm

        He’s speaking via Krivit. That engenders no respect.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 6:44 pm

          A million dollars in escrow is all that is needed to engender respect.

          Rossi should rush to get the testing done. If he doesn’t need the money, there are plenty of charitable causes who do in the current state of the world economy.

      • Timar Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm

        However if DGT is doing it then he also must and this is a damn good offer.

        Exactly my point!

      • AB Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 6:54 pm

        Dick Smith is member of the Australian Skeptics which produced an article trying to paint Rossi in a bad light.

        This proposed test however seems fair.

        Rossi will have to do something anyway to counter Defkalion’s independent testing. Unless he has better plans, he should accept this proposal. Actually, he should accept and invite a few more independent observers.

        I’m wondering though why Smith wants to repeat a test with phase change and insists on a cop of 8 given that Rossi only guarantees a cop of 6.

        • John Milstone Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 7:08 pm

          I’m wondering though why Smith wants to repeat a test with phase change and insists on a cop of 8 given that Rossi only guarantees a cop of 6.

          Rossi claimed a COP of 10 for that test, so asking for a COP of 8 is not excessive.

    • Ransompw Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm

      It would seem to be an interesting offer and for the sake of all those who have followed this patiently for a year, I hope he accepts.

      However, depending on whether Defkalion is for real and will demonstate the technology shortly and he probably should know, proving the Ecat now may still be too early for his business partners (assuming he has any). In other words the greater the likelihood Rossi has a commercial product and has a U.S. Partner funding his operation, the less likely they would let him accept. It may be a lot to all of us but in the scheme of things 1 million is absolutely nothing.

      Of course the greater the likelihood he has nothing, the more likely he will refuse.

      • Tony Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 7:25 pm

        And this is exactly what Dick, Bryce, and Krivit want to achieve. They EXPECT him to say no, so that they can use this to provide more bad publiicity.

        The best thing Rossi can do is not respond.

        • Timar Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 8:17 pm

          LOL! There’s absolutely no difference between saying “no” and not responding.

          • Tony

            February 14, 2012 at 8:29 pm

            There’s a world of difference. Ask a lawyer!

  23. Karl Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Krivit seem to have an obvious mission to discredit Rossi at any cost, even with the minor reputation he still has. One wonder who is really paying his bills?

    • Tony Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 9:54 pm

      Larsen of Lattice Energy. The clues are right there: advocacy of Widom Larsen theory.

    • LCD Reply

      February 15, 2012 at 2:47 am

      Yeah even after his latest report, which I suppose was suppose to be the shock and awe report to end all reports, he still has not made a convincing case.

  24. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Regarding admin, statement opinion; ” if Dr Rossi has kick-started this thing then he deserves to be recognised and rewarded for it.”

    Comment; I feel that’s pretty clear that Dr. Rossi in fact came in with not only a kick start but shoved the technology off the cliff.

    That is important to any technology however look what he most likely knew he would be facing, after the P&F and all the good names that followed for the researchers of “cold fusion”. It’s just the name that was associated with the experimentation.

    We were discussing this last night in fact, designing, building, and promoting a technology with the potential world impact as LENR. There are few scientists, physicists, mathematitions, that would “admit” to feeling this is an honestly divulged technology. It takes deep thought to make it obvious to others especially if you have not perfected a device using the concept.

    I for one am very greatful of Dr. Rossi and his energy expended in promoting the field of nickel and hydrogen reactions in the way he claims.

    His name went on a short whiteboard list in our lab of referenced physicist’s that are on the Nobel Prize recipient list that had made substantial contributions in their prized fields to allow a working formula for this LENR to be written.Even though he was at the bottom and the last I questioned as to how he fit into the other physicists whos work was referenced on the list.

    There are several physicists that are higly respected today that also have the name Dr. Rossi noted but not quoted for theory or formula.

    So it seems Dr. Rossi may end up with a Nobel after this LENR is developed and available to the public.

  25. Neil Taylor Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    I know I’m dreaming, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if Rossi and Defkalion buried the hatchet, renewed their partnership, and collaborated jointly to get these products out into the world and help humanity and our environment over the devastating energy problems we all face.

    Major wars, world economic collapse, people starving are facing us right now while this invention could be and probably is the answer to many of these world problems – cannot the major players (Rossie & Defkalion) see that?

    This is just too big a deal for the ego’s of a few to foulup. I agree that Rossie, P & F, along with several others known researchers who have been persistent in studying this phenomena over the past twenty years deserve their just recognitions and financial rewards for their contributions, but somehow our planet and its suffering peoples deserve a good result too – now rather than later!

    Sure wish I had a magic wand and could tap a few heads…

    • Pachu Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 6:32 pm

      I dont think it would be wonderfull, competition is needed.

      • Timar Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 6:48 pm

        Yepp, competition never hurt any business.

        This story is already much more exciting because of Defkalion’s independent activity.

        • Pekka Janhunen Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 7:50 pm

          It even crossed my mind that Rossi whoknows let break off with DGT partly to create an independent competitor to get a motivation for himself to work harder.

          • Timar

            February 14, 2012 at 8:23 pm

            Who knows, maybe he’s paying Krivit too for undermining his credibility in order to avoid major attention ;)

          • John Milstone

            February 14, 2012 at 9:14 pm

            I’ve always assumed that Rossi and Defkalion would wait until they couldn’t withhold real proof any longer, then they would start suing each other to tie things up in court.

            They could stall for years that way, without it being obvious that they were working together to avoid facing the day that they would have to “come clean”.

            But, we will see.

          • LCD

            February 14, 2012 at 9:37 pm

            yeah a perfect scam would be for DGT and Rossi to be working together but making it seem like they are competitors … “see there are two people with the same concept ready to go to market” everyone would say.

            But that involves just way to many people and does not seem very likely at this point.

      • Neil Taylor Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 8:50 pm

        I agree about the competition thing. However, the point here is; it has been “implied” that Rossie’s IP has been stolen. If these two (Rossie & Defkalion) get into a court battle of some type that could possibly deprive the world of these inventions – at least for now – who knows the outcome and duration of something like that? The competition will undoubtably arrive at some point and that is a good thing. Right now we need to see these two old partners work together, rather than sue each other, to get this technology out the door and running so that the world is a better and kinder place – what is the big problem here with that idea? I for one would rather see the world benefit of this rather than have the lawyers come out on top here…

  26. Bob Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    Honest question….why do you refer to him as Dr Rossi? Where did he get his PhD?

  27. daniel maris Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Sterling Allan may be a fool, or a Holy Fool, but this is a most encouraging report.

    Remember, it wasn’t that long ago, that DGT seemed to be a completely phantom organisation with no buildings, no staff…

    However we now know there is something there and they have a machine ready for testing, with published results. Of course, it won’t of itself disprove a scam, but the greater the elaboration, the less likely the scam.

    And if DGT is for real, so is Rossi.

    I think we will all await the test results with great interest. It’s good they are starting with the Greek government – that is reassuring.

    • John Milstone Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm

      Keep in mind that Sterling Allan made this stop on the way back from seeing a perpetual motion “magnet motor”, which he seems to be very enthusiastic over.

      Perhaps Allan has found a new con to follow (South African perpetual motion gadget) and he will forget about Rossi.

      It wouldn’t be the first time that Allan threw his support behind a scam: Tilley

      • daniel maris Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 8:53 pm

        Well Allan isn’t the Greek Government. Let’s see if the claim that the Greek Government will be the first to test the machine stands up.

        The Greek government is desperate for something will generate export earnings. Equally they won’t want to get involved with anything that compromises their reputation.

        So, this could be interesting, along with the other 6 tests.

        • John Milstone Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 9:16 pm

          Let’s see if the claim that the Greek Government will be the first to test the machine stands up.

          Links?

  28. daniel maris Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    The Dick Smith offer is pure snake oil.

    Why is this guy so impatient? He’s only got to wait a year or most to see if Rossi has something ready for market. But he wants to go backto testing prototypes. Very odd.

    If Rossi accepted the offer I predict there would then be a lot of chit chat about test protocols, after which Smith would announce that Rossi refuses to follow proper scientific protocols (= giving up the recipe for his secret sauce).

    • AB Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 7:57 pm

      > If Rossi accepted the offer I predict there would then be a lot of chit chat about test protocols

      Well, the offer explicitly says just a repeat of a test Rossi has already done, but this time with checking wires which Smith mistakenly thinks could have been used to fake the results.

    • John Milstone Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 8:14 pm

      Smith specifically said he was willing to treat it as a black box. But my guess is that he will want to properly test everything going in to and out of the E-Cat, which will surely be a deal-killer for Rossi.

      • Tony Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 8:31 pm

        Same thing I posted on e-catworld:

        Reason’s why Rossi should say no:

        1. Dick Smith is responsible for the Ian Bryce report.

        2. Dick Smith is communicating to the world via Krivit – why not choose 22passi, vortex, or direct via a more trustworthy source?

        3. Rossi doesn’t need the publicity or one million dollars (peanuts in comparison).

        4. Dick/Bryce/Krivit expect Rossi to say no – this is what the offer is intended for, as there is ZERO chance that Rossi will take this up if Krivit has been involved.

        The whole thing is designed to create bad publicity and should be met by silence from Rossi.

        The deal killer is Krivit AND they know that!

      • daniel maris Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 8:55 pm

        JM – but what if Smith is doing what people claim Rossi is doing – making a claim to reel people in and then change the rules.

        I just don’t think he will give up a million bucks for a simple demonstration test. He will want to take the thing apart.

        It would be crazy for Rossi to get sidetracked into this, and he is far too astute (whether he be a scammer or an entrepreneur) to fall for this.

      • John Milstone Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 9:32 pm

        Well… I’m not saying that Rossi should say “No.” I’m saying that he can’t say “Yes.”

        Properly measuring everything going in to and coming out of Rossi’s device would demonstrate that it isn’t really generating any excess heat at all.

        Any magician knows that you can’t repeat the same trick over and over without having the audience eventually figure it out. Rossi is in the same boat.

        That’s why he will reject the offer.

        • LCD Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 9:40 pm

          Okay John then honestly if you already know the answers why are you still posting here. Get on with your life.

          • Tony

            February 14, 2012 at 9:42 pm

            Because it’s Mary Yugo syndrome.

          • John Milstone

            February 14, 2012 at 9:58 pm

            Okay John then honestly if you already know the answers why are you still posting here.

            How else are you going to learn? ;-)

          • LCD

            February 14, 2012 at 10:24 pm

            Look you can be a jerk about it or you can post responsibly. Post less quantity and more quality.

            I’m not desiring for you to be banned or ignored. Love to hear what people have to say but your not introducing useful knowledge to the conversation at this point.

            You have in the past though.

          • Tony

            February 14, 2012 at 10:52 pm

            LCD, I keep imagining Mary Yugo under either John Milstone or JNewman. Mary is definitely a new man; and Mary is very definitely a mill stone.

            Peter is correct about Milstone’s phrasing being similar.

            As you say, his/her volume of posting should be lowered. But it won’t be – this is the problem!

            Good God George, you’re obviously an intelligent man – find something else to do with your time!

            Methinks that you’ve been bitten by something in the past, quite badly, that’s colo(u)ring your vision.

          • LCD

            February 15, 2012 at 2:47 am

            Tony you may be right.

        • Tony Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 9:43 pm

          No, he can’t say yes as he can’t trust Smith. Anyone who continues to deal with Krivit cannot be trusted.

        • daniel maris Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 10:22 pm

          And why would it demonstrate that, given that LENR is now an established fact, with NASA being granted a patent and many teams claiming excess energy production? – particularly given that Rossi worked closely with Focardi, a leader in the field.

          It’s more plausible he has something, perhaps something that isn’t as good or reliable as he claims.

          • John Milstone

            February 14, 2012 at 11:53 pm

            particularly given that Rossi worked closely with Focardi, a leader in the field.

            THIS Focardi interview (translated by Rossi), seems to suggest that he hasn’t been working all that closely with Rossi.

            At about 7:45, Focardi says that his main contribution was determining safety issues, things like how much lead shielding they ought to need.

            At 11:05, Rossi adds that Focardi doesn’t know how the reactor is built.

            It may be that Rossi is using Focardi just as he used the University of Bologna: to bolster his credibility without any real collaboration.

  29. buffalo Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    place ur bets guys.50bux says rossi is gona say NO THANX to smith…

  30. popeye Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    In response to the rant by LSD:

    I represented the opinion of the two DOE panels by actually quoting them directly. Maybe you didn’t see the quotation marks. This is what they look like: ” . The quotations contradicted Duncan, who claimed the 2004 panel recommended that cold fusion experiments be funded, and that this was different from the 1989 panel. In fact (not opinion), both panels recommended against directed funding for cold fusion based on what had been reviewed, but that proposals should be considered within existing programs.

    You, on the other hand, quoted second hand reports from people that sound as if they didn’t read the reviews either. More importantly, considering that the “cold-fusion experiments warranted further investigation” is not the same as recommending that funding be allocated for the purpose. The second part of your second quote (“… caused the DOE to promise funding for key experiments…”) is simply not in the report. Your unnamed source made that up. So, if the DOE and its peer-reviewers did not receive any competitive proposals, then they reneged on nothing.

    You should read the actual reports from the 18 reviewers. To say that 10 of 18 thought more investigation was warranted is a kind of positive spin.

    —-
    Here’s what the *most positive* reviewer (#13), who felt nuclear reactions had been proven, said:

    “In response to charge 3), yes, I think it is important to get to the bottom of the science that is going on, not with some massive attack on it, but in considered support of well conceived proposals submitted to address the scientific issues.”

    Even this reviewer did not recommend allocating funds, but that proposals should be submitted.
    —-

    Here’s an example of a more typical sympathetic reviewer (#3):

    “Have the authors provided convincing evidence that the Pd/D system is worthy of continued investigation? The answer is clearly yes. Have the authors provided evidence that LENR exists? Maybe! Should DOE establish a sizeable program to investigate LENR? No. Should DOE consider individual applications for financial assistance for research on the Pd/D system? Yes. Such applications should be considered on their merit.”

    Again, applications should be considered. No funding specially allocated.

    Here’s a more negative reviewer (#5):

    “My feeling is that there should be no funds set aside for support of CF research but, if the DOE receives a proposal in this area which suggests some definitive research which settle some of the issues, it should consider it for support as it would any other proposal.”

    Even though this report was largely negative, I’m sure whoever counted to 10 included it.
    —-

    Finally, a strongly negative review (#6), which was probably still counted as suggesting more research was warranted:

    “I find nothing in the articles that I’ve read that convinces me that the new anomalies reported are not experimental artifacts. Exposing or disproving experimental artifacts is far more difficult than generating them. Better experiments could be done, however.”
    —-

    As for getting the agency wrong, it’s not a big deal. But even if Duncan knew some members of the panel were members of the Academy of Sciences, that surely doesn’t validate the claim that the NAS recommended funding.

    I identified the error because, first, it suggests Duncan didn’t read the report, because if he had, it seems unlikely he would confuse the agencies. Rather he likely got fed an error by a mistaken source. He’s a VP Research, for heaven’s sake; he is presumably dealing with these agencies all the time. They’re not like obscure acronyms to him. And second, because he was described as unimpeachable, and this shows that he can get things wrong that should be at the fingertips of a VP Research establishing a CF lab, and so it’s not surprising that he would could get the recommendation wrong too, especially if it’s fed to him by a CF advocate practiced at misleading.

    • Ransompw Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      Who is LSD or is that what gives you your inspiration?

    • LCD Reply

      February 15, 2012 at 1:49 am

      Popeye do me a favor go to this link
      http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm
      and read the statement at the bottom of the page.

      Please explain to all of us what it says and then what it means to you in the context of our conversation.

      “Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 …

      Also while you are at it please explain the papers submitted by SPAWAR, refereed and PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL that show with very good detail and a high degree of confidence that nuclear byproducts are being produced by LENR reaction.
      http://www.livescience.com/3426-hope-controversial-cold-fusion-power-source.html

      • popeye Reply

        February 15, 2012 at 6:57 am

        Please explain to all of us what it says and then what it means to you in the context of our conversation.

        Well, it appears to be the abstract from an internal presentation at NASA, from a group of electrical engineers without PhDs that thinks cold fusion is real. If NASA wants to study nuclear physics, can they not afford to hire people with advanced training in nuclear physics?

        What it means is that not everyone who works at NASA is a god. And the linked powerpoint presentation shows that even NASA engineers can make ridiculously cluttered and impenetrable slides.

        What it means is that contrary to the lament of cold fusion believers, the research is being supported by government funds.

        But if NASA feels they have proved that cold fusion is real, there is nothing stopping them from presenting the complete results in detail to the public to be subjected to the usual scientific scrutiny from peers. Instead we get internal slide shows or pathetic blue-sky videos from maverick employees posted on their web site, with almost no testable content.

        Despite 20 years of NASA involvement in cold fusion research, the public and the scientific mainstream is scarcely aware of it, let alone convinced by it.

        If the best rebuttal you’ve got to my suggestion that cold fusion research is low quality, is a link to an abstract of an internal powerpoint presentation at NASA, that speaks for itself.

        Also while you are at it please explain the papers submitted by SPAWAR, refereed and PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL that show with very good detail and a high degree of confidence that nuclear byproducts are being produced by LENR reaction.

        First, no peer-reviewed replications of these results have been published by any other group.

        Second, the results have been challenged in peer-reviewed publications. It seems there is a good chance they are due to artifacts.

        Third, Krivit’s pretentiously named Galileo project, involving several groups, failed to confirm the results.

        Fourth, the neutron levels claimed are orders of magnitude too low to explain the claimed levels of heat.

        Fifth, they are published (mostly) in a multi-disciplinary journal (Naturwissenschaften) that even cold fusion advocate Josephson calls obscure. It has an impact factor of 2 and change. This is not insignificant, but the point is that if the results were significant, much more prestigious journals would be fighting to publish them.

        Naturwissenschaften had its glory days the better part of a century ago, when it still published in German, when Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger published there. But it lost its influence as the language of science shifted to English, and of all the notable physicists from the last 40 years I checked (Gell-Mann, Weinberg, Glashow, Feynman, Hawking, von Klitzing, et al.) none have published in it.

        Sixth, if the confidence in the results is so high, then why is SPAWAR (allegedly) shutting the research down?

        And finally, as above, the SPAWAR research shows that contrary to the lament of cold fusion believers, the research is being (or has been) supported by government funds.

        • LCD Reply

          February 16, 2012 at 3:42 am

          Your a hooot Popeye. Here’s what I read

          blah blah blah blah

          The neutrons level was too low to account for the amount of heat generated.

          blah blah blah

          Where did the neutrons come from Pops?

          Low neutron flux is consistent with LENR.

          • popeye

            February 16, 2012 at 4:07 am

            LCD: “The neutrons level was too low to account for the amount of heat generated.”

            … suggesting the observations are not related to cold fusion, and probably the result of artifacts, consistent with the published challenges, and the failures of others to reproduce.

            You should work on your reading skills, blah blah blah.

          • LCD

            February 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm

            So let me clarify for everybody, you made it a point to point out that the excess of neutrons is not interesting for you because it doesn’t jive with Hot Fusion which nobody in the LENR community believes should.

            Gotcha.

          • popeye

            February 16, 2012 at 6:04 pm

            No. It doesn’t jive with any nuclear reaction that produces the claimed heat. That, and the evidence for neutrons at all is not compelling, and has not been independently replicated.

          • LCD

            February 16, 2012 at 6:48 pm

            Not compelling to you. Doesn’t jive because it’s not an obvious reaction.

            SPAWAR responded to Kowalski then wrote another paper that further enhanced their conclusions

            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2010/2010BossP-ComparisonOfPDD-DT.pdf

            Also Kowalski et al. did not disprove SPAWAR merely dismissed their own data as non-producible by other means except by how SPAWAR did it and suggested more data was needed. But they never really to my satisfaction address the control experiments by SPAWAR that showed no neutrons.

            To you I’m sure it’s easily dismissible because you are convinced before you see the data.

          • popeye

            February 16, 2012 at 7:17 pm

            It’s not obvious in the sense of a cold fusion researcher claiming heat must result from nuclear reactions because it doesn’t jive with any chemical reactions. Getting thousands or millions of MeV per neutron is unlikely.

            You said there was a high degree of confidence in the SPAWAR results, but such a thing can’t be said of results that have been challenged in in the literature and that no one else has reproduced and that others have seen resulting from chemical artifacts. And even if they were right, no one knows how they could explain the observed heat. That’s why no one is really paying much attention to them; including their own sponsors.

          • LCD

            February 16, 2012 at 7:43 pm

            Their own sponsors are waiting to see what happens with the commercial sector. No need to prove it’s nuclear if Rossi/Defkalion/Piantelli are going to come out with commercial devices. Why don’t you wait and see instead of pronounce judgment.

            No it does not jive with known nuclear processes. The heat produced does not conform with heat solely from nuclear processes. NOBODY ARGUES THAT.

            The energy density DOES SUGGEST A NUCLEAR PROCESS or the most energetic chemical process known to man surpassing compressed hydrogen oxygen combustion.

            The exothermic branch in these LENR reactions are not conventional and the challenge is to figure out what they are.

            But for you the challenge is to do mental hurdles to convince yourself that excess heat is generated over and over again simply as a consequence of error.

            This is why you post here POPS to see if your 22 year old belief system is still intact because you don’t understand why smart people keep telling you that there is something here you should be looking at.

          • popeye

            February 16, 2012 at 8:58 pm

            > Their own sponsors are waiting to see what happens with the commercial sector. No need to prove it’s nuclear if Rossi/Defkalion/Piantelli are going to come out with commercial devices.

            Systematic scientific study will become much *more* relevant if it’s proven to be practical. Not less.

            > Why don’t you wait and see instead of pronounce judgment.

            You asked for my judgement on the SPAWAR results. I gave it.

            And the initiating issue was about about public funds for research. I was representing the prevalent view that evidence to date does not justify support. That might change when new results come along. But Rossi’s results are a long shot. A very long shot.

            > The energy density DOES SUGGEST A NUCLEAR PROCESS or the most energetic chemical process known to man surpassing compressed hydrogen oxygen combustion.

            The *claimed* energy density. The evidence for the claimed energy density is not sufficiently compelling in any of the experiments so far. Least of all in Rossi’s experiments.

            > The exothermic branch in these LENR reactions are not conventional and the challenge is to figure out what they are.

            You mean, the claimed nuclear reactions are contrary to all understanding of nuclear reactions gained in the last half century, which is consistent with reactions in hot plasmas, cold gases, hot and cold liquids, and the solid state at any temperature, and so people are trying to invent new nuclear processes to explain what is more likely the result of experimental artifacts.

            For those who believe the results, the challenge should be to design one experiment that gives consistent and compelling evidence that nuclear reactions are happening. Nothing close to that exists, and if the claims were real, it should be easy. Radiation is just about the easiest thing to measure at trace levels, and yet cold fusion produces it at levels even below that; the only claimed byproduct commensurate with the heat being non-radioactive helium, which is present in the background. Coincidence?

            If there’s no radiation, then at least show us an isolated device that simply generates heat indefinitely. Like pure radium. No one could dispute such a thing. But instead there’s always inputs that have to backed out or differential equations to solve.

            In 23 years, a simple demo would have been possible if the effect were real. As it is, the field will fade away only as quickly as the current generation of believers retires. Rossi has produced a blip among the gullible and uneducated, but it won’t last.

            > But for you the challenge is to do mental hurdles to convince yourself that excess heat is generated over and over again simply as a consequence of error.

            Those hurdles are far lower than the ones you have to clear to explain it by nuclear reactions.

            > This is why you post here POPS

            I can’t remember who it was, but someone once advised me not to state my opinions as facts. Hmmm.

            > to see if your 22 year old belief system is still intact because you don’t understand why smart people keep telling you that there is something here you should be looking at.

            What smart people? Like Bob Park says: the people doing cold fusion research just aren’t that impressive.

            And the reason I post here, in case you missed it, is because I’m paid to by big oil, big fusion, and the scientific establishment that hates the thought of cheap, clean, and abundant energy.

          • LCD

            February 17, 2012 at 5:30 pm

            Systematic scientific study will become much *more* relevant if it’s proven to be practical. Not less.

            Research in which direction, with what system, what are the priorities for the research, application or basic science. Honestly it’s not that hard to comprehend.

            My goodness you act as if condensed matter physics has solved all the mysteries. For crying out loud we’ve barely begun to scratch the surface on superconductivity, B-E condensates, and Graphene type lattice effects. You are one overconfident individual.

            Listen Popeye I’m not going to try to convince you that Rossi/Defkalion has a device because I don’t know that myself. I’m just hopeful.

            I’m also not going to try to talk to you about LENR because you don’t want to believe it even exists and for us to have valuable conversation for me you would actually have to open your mind up to a world where we don’t know everything, the real world, not the world you live in where every mystery has been solved.

            You continually ignore and pass over the data I present you with comments like, “engineers are stupid”, and “it’s most likely artifact” when it clearly is not. Comments like “in 23 years a simple demo would have…”, clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the difficulty and competitiveness associated with LENR. Honestly it’s not fun to argue with somebody that treats the field as if they are allergic to it.

            I’m arguing with you and obviously some personal vendetta you have against LENR or something because even when I was a LENR disbeliever I was never that close minded.

            I think you are an intelligent individual as I’ve stated before but when you finally realize you are wrong about LENR and we all learn of the underlying theory your world is going to be rocked.

            And yes if somebody finally proves to me that on average 20% of the time massive excess heat generated (energy density wise) is actually simple chemical energy potential calculation errors my world will also be rocked.

            Meanwhile have fun in a world where dark energy, dark matter, the great attractor, superconductivity, gravity, mass and other phenomena we don’t fully understand is just measurement error.

          • popeye

            February 17, 2012 at 10:32 pm

            > My goodness you act as if condensed matter physics has solved all the mysteries.

            Don’t be ridiculous. Being quite certain of certain aspects of *nuclear* physics, or any other branch of physics, doesn’t say we are quite certain of all aspects of all of physics, or of all aspects of condensed matter physics. No one, including me, believes that physics in any field has solved all mysteries. This is especially true of establishment science (which nevertheless largely rejects cold fusion); otherwise, they would stop doing science.
            —-
            We are both quite certain (to re-use an old example), that if a golf ball were released on mars, it would fall to the surface, even though we’ve never done the experiment. Because that aspect of gravitation is very well understood, and the likelihood of some new phenomenon contrary to that prediction is vanishingly small.
            —-
            To take a slightly less obvious example, (most) cold fusion scientists are dogmatically certain that chemical reactions cannot produce the sort of energy density they claim to observe. That dogma is based on a long history of chemical experiments, measured bond energies, and reaction enthalpies, and a theory that fits it all. And based on that theory, which is pretty familiar to you and me, they exclude the possibility of chemistry as responsible for anything more than some kJ per gram. But imagine someone completely ignorant of science at all. Such claims would seem ridiculously over-confident and dogmatic. What makes you think you know everything about chemistry? Maybe BECs or quantum dots or (my favorite) quantum entanglement allow MJ or GJ per gram chemical reactions. That’s how I think nuclear physicists think of most cold fusion scientists. They just don’t understand nuclear physics well enough to know that the golf ball would almost certainly fall to the ground.
            ——
            In fact, I think cold fusion scientists and supporters are among the most dogmatic people I’ve encountered. They believe in an extremely unlikely phenomenon based on the flimsiest of evidence, just because they really, really want it to be true. Look at how they argue on-line. Someone suggests Rossi’s results can be produced by chemical reactions, and a half-dozen will insist: “that’s impossible”. Impossible? Gee, I thought we’re supposed to keep an open mind. Someone (me, e.g.) suggests a mist goes through the hose to explain the disappearance of liquid in the Lewan demo and believers (ransompw, e.g.) insist it’s *impossible*, without any evidence that it’s impossible. Mist through a hose is *impossible*, but H-Ni fusion, or some other radiationless nuclear reaction? Sure, why not?
            ———

            > For crying out loud we’ve barely begun to scratch the surface on superconductivity, B-E condensates, and Graphene type lattice effects.

            Exactly. And nearly all the people working on those ideas are members of the scientific establishment, which is so soundly criticized by the cold fusion community for being too dogmatic. Clearly they’re not. You’ve admitted it yourself. And yet, nearly all of them consider the evidence for cold fusion to be without merit.
            ——-
            And these phenomena, by the way, are all electromagnetic phenomena. Not nuclear. They are highly complex because of the long-range forces involved and the many-body nature. But nuclear forces are extremely short, and a million times stronger. Chemistry can influence nuclear reactions in a few very well-understood cases, but nuclear reactions are almost entirely independent of the local chemistry. Nuclear physics is not completely understood either, just like gravity is still being studied. But for someone well studied in nuclear physics, radiation-free nuclear reactions in a nuclear-stable system like H-Ni triggered by chemistry, is almost literally, a golf ball *not* falling to the ground on mars. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t diminish the significance of their certainty.
            ——
            Furthermore, the phenomena you mention did not contradict theory or expectations in any significant way. BEC were predicted (long) before they were observed. SC (esp high Tc) was more unexpected, and still not completely understood, but was never in violation of any theory. But nuclear reactions in D-Pd or H-Ni triggered by chemistry is *contrary* to well-understood physics. That’s a difference.
            —–

            > You are one overconfident individual.

            No more confident than the vast majority of scientists, including most of the ones who discovered or predicted and are studying all those phenomena you argue demonstrate open-mindedness. The fact that I waste time arguing about cold fusion probably means I’m less confident and more open-minded than most of them, who would surely consider this to be a waste of time.
            —-

            > I’m also not going to try to talk to you about LENR because you don’t want to believe it even exists

            Not true. You’re expressing an erroneous opinion as if it were fact again.
            ——

            > and for us to have valuable conversation for me you would actually have to open your mind up to a world where we don’t know everything, the real world, not the world you live in where every mystery has been solved.

            Well, then you should be able to have a valuable conversation with all the scientists studying things that still mystify them. Try it sometime. See how many scientists still uncertain about superconductivity give cold fusion the time of day.
            ——-

            > You continually ignore and pass over the data I present you with comments like, “engineers are stupid”,

            I have not said this. It is true, however, that electrical engineers don’t know much about nuclear physics, and I wouldn’t trust their ideas about the subject any more than I would trust a nuclear physicist to diagnose heart disease. And engineers without PhDs are less well equipped to keep an open mind than PhDs are. The NASA engineers don’t seem to be open to the possibility that their measurements represent artifacts.
            ——-

            > and “it’s most likely artifact” when it clearly is not.

            “Clear” to whom? The CR-39 results were challenged in the literature, other groups found similar results from chemical artifacts, and no one has been able to reproduce them. And it doesn’t even explain the observed heat. How is it clear that it is not an artifact?
            ——-

            > Comments like “in 23 years a simple demo would have…”,

            Claims of heat without input lasting days have been made. Some of them tens or more watts. If those were true, then isolate the ignited metal, and watch the temperature go up. That should be easy.
            —–

            > clearly demonstrates your ignorance of the difficulty and competitiveness associated with LENR.

            What does competitiveness have to do with it? I’ve read a lot of CF papers, and the experiments are easy, and if the claims were true, simpler demos would be easy. It’s difficult, of course, to find or explain other people’s experiments, but the best approach is to ask what else should happen if the proposed interpretations were true. In cold fusion, it never does.
            —-
            It is characteristic of pathological science that the more people work on it, the better the experiments get, the smaller the effect becomes. That is what has happened in cold fusion. (The exception to this might be deliberate cases of fraud, which may include Rossi, Mills, and Dardik; I also think Widom and Larsen are not honest. But in Rossi’s case for certain, the experiments are certainly *not* better; they are much worse.)
            ——
            It is characteristic of real phenomena, that they become more pronounced as more people work on them, whether or not they are understood. But the evidence for cold fusion is no better today than it was in 1989. Worse, I’d say.
            ——

            > Honestly it’s not fun to argue with somebody that treats the field as if they are allergic to it.

            No one’s holding a gun to your head.
            ——-

            > I think you are an intelligent individual as I’ve stated before but when you finally realize you are wrong about LENR and we all learn of the underlying theory your world is going to be rocked.

            Sounds a little like the sort of religious statement you accuse other closed-minded people of making. Anyway, it’s the kind of rocking I would welcome.
            —-
            I could be wrong about LENR, but as you know, I doubt it. Not because there’s no theory, so much, but because if it were right, proof would not be so elusive.
            ——-

            > And yes if somebody finally proves to me that on average 20% of the time massive excess heat generated (energy density wise) is actually simple chemical energy potential calculation errors my world will also be rocked.

            This is not that hard to believe. Look how long people thought they were seeing repeated evidence for homeopathy, n-rays, polywater, aliens, the loch ness monster, planet vulcan, the luminiferous ether and so on.
            —-

            > Meanwhile have fun in a world where dark energy, dark matter, the great attractor, superconductivity, gravity, mass and other phenomena we don’t fully understand is just measurement error.

            Again, all these things are establishment science, and are not considered to be error by the very same scientists who think cold fusion is. Go figure.

          • LCD

            February 18, 2012 at 2:42 am

            Now you make me feel like there is still hope for you Popeye. Goto my website and sign up. We’ll then exchange emails and we can talk in private. I cannot type everything I want to say. I can’t keep up.

            One thing this right here

            I could be wrong about LENR, but as you know, I doubt it. Not because there’s no theory, so much, but because if it were right, proof would not be so elusive.

            Where on God’s green earth would you get the idea that proof would not be so elusive. IT MUST BE. If LENR were easy to achieve we’d see it in nature more often and worse we may spontaneously combust.

            lol

          • popeye

            February 18, 2012 at 4:16 am

            Where on God’s green earth would you get the idea that proof would not be so elusive. IT MUST BE. If LENR were easy to achieve we’d see it in nature more often and worse we may spontaneously combust.

            Sorry, that doesn’t follow. There are plenty of phenomena that are not observed in nature that are (were) nonetheless easy to prove.

            Superconductivity was dead easy to prove, once they had liquified helium, and certainly doesn’t occur in nature. And high Tc SC, once demonstrated, could be reproduced unequivocally in classroom demonstrations.

            Plastics like polystyrene or PVC are synthetic, but easily reproduced.

            Transistors don’t occur in nature, and while making them was finicky for a few years, they were being mass produced after 1/100 th the amount of effort already spent on cold fusion.

            Lasers don’t occur in nature, and yet were relatively easy to prove once the first claims of success were published.

            In fact, I would say the erratic nature of cold fusion claims — the multiple different conditions under which observations are claimed, from Pd wire (after various treatments) in D2O electrolysis, to Pd powder in pressurized D2, to nickel beads or nano powder or rods in H2 under pressure — and the inability of anyone to specify a single recipe that always works, suggests poking around in the dark, and that makes its occurrence in nature far more likely. A single, reproducible, configuration would make it easy to prove, and would not have to be one that is likely to occur in nature.

            I just can’t think of a precedent in science for this scale of phenomenon, which was so difficult to prove conclusively, after the first claims were made… well, except for phenomena that turned out not to be real, like perpetual motion, n-rays, etc.

          • LCD

            February 18, 2012 at 4:38 am

            Sorry Pops, wrong and you know it.

            Again here you are trying to draw parallels to incongruent things. None, not one of those things you mentioned have anything to do with energy harvesting. Energy harvesting has a lot to do with biological systems, evolution and natural selection i.e. Nature.

            We don’t readily see this therefor it is not simple.

            The topic here is energy harvesting not electronics.

            Oh and by the way your examples have parallels in nature anyway so they aren’t even that good.

            Come on your slipping.

          • popeye

            February 18, 2012 at 5:19 am

            None, not one of those things you mentioned have anything to do with energy harvesting. Energy harvesting has a lot to do with biological systems, evolution and natural selection i.e. Nature.

            You’re grasping. Nature is about a lot more than harvesting energy. Biological systems produce complex materials, but never PVC. Biological systems transmit signals electrically, but not using silicon. And so on.

            And we can produce energy reproducibly from fusion in bombs. That doesn’t happen naturally on our planet. We can also harvest energy reproducibly from Pu-238, made from U-238 by D bombardment. That does not occur in nature. And it sure didn’t take 23 years to figure out.

            The topic here is energy harvesting not electronics.

            Just because something doesn’t occur in nature, doesn’t mean it’s hard to observe. Unnatural does not mean difficult. That’s the point. Contriving some kind of special case for cold fusion isn’t gonna do it for me.

            The only reason you say cold fusion *must* be difficult to prove is because no one has been able to do it convincingly and reproducibly. But that would also be the case if the phenomenon were not happening at all.

            Oh and by the way your examples have parallels in nature anyway so they aren’t even that good.

            Yea, and nuclear reactions occur in nature too. What’s your point?

            (And what’s a natural parallel to optical lasers?)

            Come on your slipping.

            What about my slipping? (Hint: It’s a contraction you’re after.)

          • LCD

            February 20, 2012 at 10:52 pm

            You do realize you strengthened my point right?

  31. JNewman Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    An interesting day’s debate about Dick Smith’s offer and Rossi’s options. Some say he should take the offer while others say Rossi should just concentrate on selling ecats and avoid being “trapped”.

    Here’s the problem:

    1) If Rossi want to sell ecats, they have to be certified. Of that there is no dispute.

    2) In order to be certified, Rossi MUST deliver working units to independent test labs for them to do whatever they want without interference from Rossi. Of that there is also no doubt.

    So his strategy of not letting anybody near a ecat is simply incompatible with his strategy of sell first, prove later.

    • Lu Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 10:45 pm

      Certification means that it is safe and that is what UL will be testing. At least that is my understanding and as we all know, electric heaters have been around for a while. The big question is does it perform with a COP of 6? I don’t think UL will be checking that.

      • John Milstone Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 11:35 pm

        My father was an engineer, specializing in getting U.L. listings for manufacturers, for over 25 years, so I have some background knowledge about U.L.

        You’re right that they only care about safety. They couldn’t care less whether the E-Cat does anything useful, as long as it won’t injure or kill people or destroy property.

        They will also be happy to develop new standards for new technologies. But the customer has to pay for that development work. The benefit to the customer is that they have more input in those new standards.

        There is no way they will approve a product like the E-Cat unless they are confident that it can’t blow up or set things on fire. It won’t be good enough for Rossi to say “It’s worked OK for me.” They will need either a generally-accepted theory to justify a listing, or some serious independent testing.

        Rossi’s claims about the E-Cat violate established physics. Perhaps it really does, and established physics needs to be thrown out. But if that’s true, it won’t get a U.L. listing until a new physics which properly explains the E-Cat has become the dominant, generally-accepted theory. And that won’t happen for many years.

        • JNewman Reply

          February 15, 2012 at 12:32 am

          John, of course you are correct about UL certification. They indeed don’t care if the gadget is useful, they just want to make sure it’s safe. However, I assume you also agree that Rossi is not going to get such certification based on anything less than handing over one of these things for independent testing. And that should be interesting indeed.

          • John Milstone

            February 15, 2012 at 12:45 am

            U.L. will require one or more devices (presumably more than one for something as unique as an E-Cat), which must be built using the same materials and techniques as the production version. For example, they will accept a hand-built prototype, but they can’t use screws if the production version uses welds.

            They will do their own testing, without Rossi’s direct involvement. They will test everything that they normally test (electric, heat, pressure, water exposure, etc.) and will have to presumably develop new test procedures for radiation. Since there is no generally accepted theory to cover LENR, I would guess that they will fall back on existing theory, which will probably kill any chance of the E-Cat getting a listing.

            They aren’t going to accept Rossi’s assurance that the E-Cat is safe, and they aren’t going to accept an unproven theory. My guess is that they will simply reject it as impossible to prove safe.

          • JNewman

            February 15, 2012 at 1:02 am

            And yet both Rossi and Defkalion keep claiming that certification is underway despite the fact that neither has indicated the remotest willingness to let one of their gadgets out of their sight. Quite the conundrum .

        • LCD Reply

          February 15, 2012 at 2:00 am

          The UL can certify the ecat without theory.

          They would have to test it under stringent conditions for the lifetime of the product (core) in the absence of a theory to justify it’s safety.

          They don’t care how it works and they do care if it’s safe, but what they really care about is if they can successfully defend their decision in court if something goes sideways.

          Months of stringent test data can back that up. And if it indeed works they’ll be pressured to make it happen.

          Here I’ll repeat. Business/Utility ecats are a much safer bet than domestic ecats.

          • LCD

            February 15, 2012 at 2:49 am

            I should clarify this is just my opinion.

  32. LCD Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    POPEYE SAID

    Here’s what the *most positive* reviewer (#13), who felt nuclear reactions had been proven, said:

    “In response to charge 3), yes, I think it is important to get to the bottom of the science that is going on, not with some massive attack on it, but in considered support of well conceived proposals submitted to address the scientific issues.”

    Even this reviewer did not recommend allocating funds, but that proposals should be submitted.

    WHO CARES POPEYE whether they voted against direct funding. That’s not what I stated. Read what I wrote.

    But they did vote for funding period.

    Here’s what you wrote

    Contrary to what Duncan said, the DOE didn’t recommend well-controlled experiments be funded. They recommended “funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV.

    WHAT THE FLIP IS THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE HERE???

    They didn’t vote against ANY funding that’s the point. Who’s spinning what POPEYE?

    Then you talk about proposals reviewed but not accepted. So we are to believe that nary a scientist could design a well though out experiment that would get funded. And given the magnitude of the importance it wasn’t good enough to compete with other experiments. When you actually say that in your mind doesn’t your brain become ashamed of thinking that’s actually true?

    It’s ridiculous logic Pops. And you should be ashamed of even posting such nonsense. Experiments were not funded because it was considered bad science period and nobody wanted to ruin their careers. This is why the reviewers were anonymous to begin with but anonymity has it’s limits. The DOE panel’s original comments were essentially washed out by things like the SciAm backlash. All that was left in anybody’s mind was “Cold Fusion debunked, end of story”

    I don’t have the time to argue every point with you so maybe others might like to chime in BUT CLEARLY you and anybody could interpret the report almost any way you like so it’s subjective and I’ll admit that but for you to act as if it is black and white is again irresponsible and I again question how you call yourself a scientist when you continually make opinion’s out to be seen as facts.

    I just pray to god that you are not actually in charge of any serious research and development projects for the public as I’m sure we would be studying Hot Fusion for the next 100 years and damn the opportunity cost.

    • LCD Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 10:21 pm

      I suck at using the stupid blockquotes I’m reposting

      POPEYE SAID

      Here’s what the *most positive* reviewer (#13), who felt nuclear reactions had been proven, said:

      “In response to charge 3), yes, I think it is important to get to the bottom of the science that is going on, not with some massive attack on it, but in considered support of well conceived proposals submitted to address the scientific issues.”

      Even this reviewer did not recommend allocating funds, but that proposals should be submitted.

      WHO CARES POPEYE whether they voted against direct funding. That’s not what I stated. Read what I wrote.

      But they did vote for funding period.

      Here’s what you wrote

      Contrary to what Duncan said, the DOE didn’t recommend well-controlled experiments be funded. They recommended “funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV.

      WHAT THE FLIP IS THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE HERE???

      They didn’t vote against ANY funding that’s the point. Who’s spinning what POPEYE?

      Then you talk about proposals reviewed but not accepted. So we are to believe that nary a scientist could design a well though out experiment that would get funded. And given the magnitude of the importance it wasn’t good enough to compete with other experiments. When you actually say that in your mind doesn’t your brain become ashamed of thinking that’s actually true?

      It’s ridiculous logic Pops. And you should be ashamed of even posting such nonsense. Experiments were not funded because it was considered bad science period and nobody wanted to ruin their careers. This is why the reviewers were anonymous to begin with but anonymity has it’s limits. The DOE panel’s original comments were essentially washed out by things like the SciAm backlash. All that was left in anybody’s mind was “Cold Fusion debunked, end of story”

      I don’t have the time to argue every point with you so maybe others might like to chime in BUT CLEARLY you and anybody could interpret the report almost any way you like so it’s subjective and I’ll admit that but for you to act as if it is black and white is again irresponsible and I again question how you call yourself a scientist when you continually make opinion’s out to be seen as facts.

      I just pray to god that you are not actually in charge of any serious research and development projects for the public as I’m sure we would be studying Hot Fusion for the next 100 years and damn the opportunity cost.

      • popeye Reply

        February 14, 2012 at 11:33 pm

        LCD:

        WHO CARES POPEYE whether they voted against direct funding. That’s not what I stated. Read what I wrote.
        But they did vote for funding period.

        No they didn’t. That’s the point. They said proposals should be considered. It means nothing, because that’s what funding agencies already do.

        A panel like this, if they found merit in the research, would be expected to suggest x amount of money should be allocated for the field. It happens all the time. Then a “request for proposals” would go out, and the money would be divided up among the proposals based on merit and need.

        The panel did not find sufficient merit in the field to do that. They simply recommended that people should apply within existing programs. Like I said before. It was a sop; nothing more.

        WHAT THE FLIP IS THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE HERE???
        They didn’t vote against ANY funding that’s the point. Who’s spinning what POPEYE?

        See above for the *very* important difference.

        I did not say they voted against funding. I was showing that Duncan had it wrong when he said that they recommended funding . They didn’t. They recommended *applying for funding*. It sounds similar, but there’s a world of difference. One is a commitment of funding; the other isn’t.

        And I was showing that Duncan had it wrong when he said the 2004 recommendation differed from the 1989 recommendation. They both recommended proposals be considered within existing programs.

        Then you talk about proposals reviewed but not accepted. So we are to believe that nary a scientist could design a well though out experiment that would get funded. And given the magnitude of the importance it wasn’t good enough to compete with other experiments. When you actually say that in your mind doesn’t your brain become ashamed of thinking that’s actually true?

        No. I think it’s true. Look, not one positive claim of cold fusion has made it into PRL, Science, or Nature. And if there were any merit to any of them, you couldn’t keep them out of those journals, because of the magnitude of the importance. For the same reasons that referees for those journals reject cold fusion papers, referees for funding agencies would likely reject cold fusion proposals.

        The panel complained about the poor quality of the submitted science presented to them, and advocates like Nagel have similarly complained about the low quality of cold fusion research. I suspect they put their best foot forward in their submission to the panel; it was a huge opportunity. And what they came up with was soundly criticized. I just don’t think there’s enough competence and/or substance in the field to generate a credible proposal.

        Experiments were not funded because it was considered bad science period

        Right. Isn’t that what I said? And it’s consistent with the recommendations of the panel.

        …so it’s subjective and I’ll admit that but for you to act as if it is black and white is again irresponsible and I again question how you call yourself a scientist when you continually make opinion’s out to be seen as facts.

        I haven’t called myself a scientist. And it is a fact that the DOE panel did not recommend funding. They recommended that interested parties should apply for funding consideration. That’s not an opinion.

        • Ransompw Reply

          February 14, 2012 at 11:42 pm

          Popeye:

          I don’t get your point, so the panel may have been stupid if “cold Fusion” proves out and they may have saved the taxpayer money if it doesn’t. I think we are going to know pretty soon which it was.

          But let me say that anomalous heat should have been researched even if there were only occasional reports of the anomaly. That is what science is supposed to do, not establish dogma that says the anomaly MUST be a mistake.

          • popeye

            February 15, 2012 at 12:23 am

            The reason I weighed in (regrettably, now) was to correct the misconception that somehow the DOE was acting against the recommendations of the 2004 panel. They’re not. Duncan got it wrong. It’s probably not the first or last time.

            As for knowing pretty soon if “cold fusion proves out”, well, people have been saying that for 23 years. Last October, you insisted we’d know within days. Here we are 4 months later, and now Rossi’s got a 1-year horizon. It was always thus. And even if he flames out, belief in cold fusion will persist for many years to come, is my prediction. In another 20 years, there will still be a few people insisting it’s been proven, but there just isn’t enough control to be able to exploit it. That, and the conspiracy is keeping it down, because — don’t you know — nobody wants cheap, clean, and abundant energy. Especially not scientists.

            You know, if you read about radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG), that’s LENR: it’s solid state, it’s (relatively) low temperature, it’s nuclear reactions. And they can identify and describe every product and isotope to ridiculous trace levels. In cold fusion, after 23 years of “science”, they can’t identify a single nuclear reaction, or consistently produce and identify a single byproduct with any confidence at all. It’s a joke, really.

            Yes, we know you think science should investigate cold fusion. So, do you think the current system of peer-review should be abandoned, and we should instead consult lawyers, or perhaps commenters on blogs, who don’t know the first thing about nuclear physics or science? And anyway, science has investigated cold fusion. By some guesses, $200M has been spent on this small-scale, bench-top experiment involving (usually) electrolysis and calorimetry. And nothing more has been learned than what P&F learned after spending the first $100k or less.

  33. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 14, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    PSI wrote:
    “As for the alleged safety problems with gamma rays, I note that Mr. Taylor’s post immediately above this one is fraught with innuendo. There seems to be little to zero evidence that such gamma radiation, if it exists, poses any health risk.”

    Rossi has stated the Ecat produces 511 keV Gamma rays. He also states he has measured them.

    Now DGT say they will show there is a Nuclear Reaction occurring inside their Hyperion core by showing 511 keV Gammas being emitted.

    They are produced when an electron and positron (anti matter electron) annihilate each other during the fusion of an Hydrogen and Nickel atom to produce an Copper atom.

    So for each atom of Nickel that turns into Copper 2 x 511 keV Gamma rays rays are emitted. As for the health effects I suggest you do a little research.

    Oh BTW, the 2 cm of lead shielding that is around the Ecat reactor will not stop 511 keV gammas. Rossi has said it is there to stop other particles and thermalize (turn them into heat) them.

    Others have reported 511 keV Gammas are released if the reaction is initiated and the lattice is too cold. Seems a hot lattice is require to thermalize 511 keV Gammas.

    Would be nice if someone knew how the 511 keV Gammas are stopped? I’m sure UL and the EPA would also be keen to learn how this happens.

    I’m not the Shaun Taylor you have suggested. I do not work for or have anything to do with the Nuclear industry.

    Shaun

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation

  34. John Milstone Reply

    February 15, 2012 at 12:03 am

    And Rossi says “No!”

    According to THIS link, Rossi says he doesn’t have time for this “clownery”.

    • John Milstone Reply

      February 15, 2012 at 12:10 am

      Rossi also suggests that Smith could just buy a Megawatt E-Cat.

      So, now both Smith and the University of Missouri are in a position to buy an E-Cat, assuming that Rossi will actually sell one.

      I hope at least one of them take Rossi up on his offer, and actually try to buy and E-Cat. And I hope they let us know how that goes.

  35. ChemE Reply

    February 15, 2012 at 12:07 am

    Shaun,

    Please show me the evidence for your statement:

    “Now DGT say they will show there is a Nuclear Reaction occurring inside their Hyperion core by showing 511 keV Gammas being emitted”

    Neither DGTs forum or their specs show what Gamma/other spectrum is emitted.

    Are you just quoting some web blogger to make your points? You sound like you know what reactions are happening inside? Even the Physicists don’t agree yet you seem very positive in order to further your personal rant.

    • LCD Reply

      February 15, 2012 at 1:31 am

      Yeah I second that. 511. That would be big news. Show me that link please.

  36. Roger Bird Reply

    February 15, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    I have thought more about the Rossi-Defkalion dispute. It is impossible for us to know who did and said what to whom, just like in a divorce. People show a public face, and then there is their face in a relationship, in this case the relationship between Rossi and Defkalion. It is fun to feel oneself to be morally superior for taking sides, but we don’t really know who said or did what to whom. It is a he said, they said situation. Should this get in the way of retarding the emergence of the New Energy Order? I say absolutely not. Let Rossi-Defkalion fight it out with either hot air or in court. It is not my concern. It does not help my bottom line. It does not help my neighbor. It does not help the villager in Senegal who doesn’t have clean water to drink.

Leave a Reply

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

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