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 $1m Conversation With Defkalion

February 18, 2012

The following post is Dick Smith’s. I place it here in good faith. While my skepticism is not as aggressive as his, I appreciate his efforts to bring this play to a head, one way or another. As I see it, his wish to keep things simple stems from the belief that there must be something hidden. That is harder to do and easier to spot if Defkalion just demonstrates the device they say they have in a manner that proves the point – no more, no less. I hope they can come to a mutual agreement to do just that.

As an aside: I have no business (or otherwise) relationship with Mr Smith and will not hesitate to disagree with him if something needs said. I was encouraged to learn that he gives a fractionally small chance that this could be real or he would not be interested at all. He will be tough, expects to be right, but wants to be wrong. For now, I’ll let him ‘speak’:

I am now in email communication with Alex Xanthoulis, CEO of Defkalion and also Symeon Tsalikoglou, director of business development.

Already there are problems !  Both men want to talk to me by skype or on the phone whereas I want all discussions in writing so there can be no later claim of misunderstanding and so everything can be open to everyone and published on this site as it happens.

I asked them to look at the offer I made to Rossi .I said my offer to them would be similar with only a six hour test and an accurate measurement of the input and output power. I also asked what input power they would be using (as I didn’t want an input power which was so low that there would be no real evidence the the unit was commercially viable) and also what COP they could achieve.

Alex then emailed back without answering or commenting on my offer and asked for a Skype discussion. Symeon then emailed, -once again did not answer my questions and stated that the test they would offer would  only be on one part -the bare reactors – not an actual operating Defkalion unit.  And the COP would be a minimum of three!

Now followers of this site will remember that Defkalion had been talking about COP as high as 20 and also how I had been informed on this site that an COP of 3 could be obtained from a heat pump with no need for LENRs. I will of course accept a COP of three but it will mean that the test will have to show that this comes from LENRs – not anything else . No doubt they are only offering a minimum of three because there are doubts the test may not show any higher.

Further emails followed where I asked again what voltage and current they would be using for the input and making it clear that I thought it highly suspect that they would only allow me to witness the test of just one part of their unit- the dry reactors – not an actual completed unit that could perform as they claimed and they were selling distributorships for.

I have also been advised by people with knowledge that measuring the dry heat of the reactor is pretty well useless and quite different to measuring heat output that could actually do something useful. If the unit is designed to heat oil or another liquid
why wouldn’t Defkalion be insisting that this be measured? In fact I only made my offer to Rossie on the condition the output be accurately measured.

Suffice to say none of my questions have been answered- just more requests to talk on Skype.

I can assure readers of this site I am genuine in my offer and I will agree with any reasonable test that confirms there is actually a Defkalion product that can provide their claimed amounts of low cost energy through LENRs. In the meantime don’t buy a distributorship.

If the administrator accepts I would be happy to place the existing and all further emails with Defkalion on this site in the interests of total transparency. I have one interest alone- that is discovering whether this is a giant scam or that Defkalion actually has a product that will change the world.  DS.

Here are the emails (hopefully in order):


> Alex Dick smith here
> My offer of $ 1 m for a successful demonstration of an LENR unit is
> confirmed subject to written agreement being signed.
> Please see the offer I made to Mr Rossi which is on ecat news site.
> My offer to you would be based on this.  I only require a 6 hour test
> with accurate measurements of the input and output power.  Please
> advise the input power you would like to test at and the COP you will
> be able to demonstrate?
> I will not be able to do any paperwork until my office is operating
> next Tuesday.
> When is the earliest you would like to do the test. ?
> Rgds Dick Smith


> Date: 17 February 2012 9:51:52 PM ACST
> To: Dick Smith
> Cc: Stsalikoglou
> Subject: Re: Test
> Dear Dick Smith,
> Thank you for your email.
> We wil require more information before we confirm anything.
> You can contact us via Skype on  ……    where we
> are online.
> Kind Regards,
> Alex Xanthoulis, CEO


From: Dick Smith
> Date: 17 February 2012 11:10:47 PM ACST
> To: Dick Smith
> Subject: Re: Test
> Symeon
> Most importantly I do not require the two reactor test as this will only increase the chance of “confusing the results”
> I simply want to test a unit which clearly provides excess heat by LENRs.
> Why can’t you set such a unit up on a table and show me the energy going in and the useful energy that comes out.  
> That’s what your organization has been claiming. So why not demonstrate it?
> DS


> From: Symeon Tsalikoglou
> Date: 17 February 2012 10:19:19 PM ACST
> To: Dick Smith
> Cc: “Alex. Xanthoulis”
> Subject: Re: Test
Hide quoted text> Dear Dick Smith, 
> Thank you for your offer and interest. 
> Please note the following as per our position to your request: 
> As described in our prior announcement and open call for verification of our technology, we provide testers with two bare reactors. These are not the final product but only the reactor. The reason for this is to avoid any possibility of confusing the results. One reactor is totally empty and the other reactor is filled with our industrial secret. 
> Energy is given to both, simultaneously. This is measured constantly, so total energy input is accounted for. 
> The data loggers on both show temperatures of both reactors, inside and outside. 
> You will observe the temperature of the active reactor rising much more than the empty reactor. 
> Your request for a COP greater than 3 to Mr Rossi will be met and surpassed. 
> The date is subject to your availability. Surely you will want to be present also. 
> We will provide two Greek public bodies as official testers. 
> You can provide your own witnesses as you wish. 
> We suggest a Skype conference call on Tuesday when you are back in your office. 
> Our Skype name is … >
> Kind Regards, 
> Symeon Tsalikoglou
> Director, Business Development
> Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies Global Ltd.


> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Dick Smith wrote:
>> Symeon. What happened to the COP of 10 which has been previously mentioned on your site?
>> I have been informed that a COP of 3 can be achieved by a heat pump which is clearly not LENR?
>> How is the energy given to each reactor?  Is it electrical energy?  If so what voltage and current is supplied ? Why don’t you mention this anywhere as it’s basic required information.?
>> If your unit is designed to heat oil why don’t we measure the increase in temperature of the oil?
>> The type of test you are talking about even to a layman like myself is highly suspect as it doesn’t test the practical and commercial application of the unit- that is that it can actually do something that will help mankind.
>> The Rossi March 2011 test did this in a simple it possible to do a similar test and if not why not?
>> You are selling agencies for units which presumably have a practical use- why can’t we test such a unit.
>> I am sure you will agree that these are all very reasonable questions!
>> In effect why would I want to test just one part of the unit- no reasonable person would accept such a test is valid.
>> Look forward to your open and honest replies.
>> Dick Smith


Posted by on February 18, 2012. Filed under Competitors,Defkalion,Drama,Hyperion,Media & Blogs,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

501 Responses to A $1m Conversation With Defkalion

  1. Stephen

    February 18, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    I appreciate many things of this Dick Smith and I am skeptical too… however he is behaving strange too. I think he should be a bit more cool and calm down. We are not short of unreasonable people here…

    Example. He is the one who asked for COP 3. They replied “sure, you can have 3 and it will be surpassed”. DS answer was…

    (1) what happened to your huge COP?! [My answer… ehm, nothing, you asked for 3, they just said you will get > 3]
    (2) ah, but 3 you can do with a heat pump [My answer… you asked for 3, com’on!!]

    In addition, I don’t see the need to call for a fraud just because somebody wants to talk with you on skype: you have voice recorders, if you want. You can even put them on a webcam and film them. It is even less obvious to falsify: try to demonstrate an email is real! Same thing with the 6h, 96h… sleeping, not sleeping, shifts, whatever…

    I am starting to dislike this DS: he is messing up.

    As usual in this LENR business everything and everybody is so disappontingly unreasonable. I am very bored of all this unreasonable people. Relax guys…

    • Tony

      February 18, 2012 at 6:46 pm

      I am very bored of all this unreasonable people.

      So am I.

    • Timar

      February 18, 2012 at 6:53 pm

      It’s the same point I have made before. And I’m afraid too that this is symptomatic of Dick Smith’s approach. At first I was exited that he stepped into this, but my appreciation for his effort has since then turned into annoyance over his foolish behaviour.

    • Peter Roe

      February 18, 2012 at 7:41 pm

      I haven’t seen anything yet that changes my initial impression that DS will try to impose conditions that seem reasonable, but will be toxic to any arrangement.

      However I have to admit that am also unhappy with DGT’s apparent insistence on discussing the matter off record, and their seeming inflexibility on the test procedure. For his million dollars I think Smith is entitled to ask (as he does) for calorimetric measurement of the assembled prototype, i.e., a demonstration of useful heat production in a working fluid along the lines of Rossi’s ‘desktop’ demo but with better instrumentation and data logging. If DGT haven’t managed to achieve stable and reliable operation at useful temperatures yet, they should keep quiet until they do, or we will just have another situation where any output is wide open to ‘interpretation’ (there you go JohnMaryGeorge – I’m doing your work for you).

      Frankly I would prefer DS to just withdraw his offer and butt out so we can watch the originally proposed tests proceed quietly and without interference.

      • georgehants

        February 18, 2012 at 7:51 pm

        Hi Peter do me a little favour and when you put “JohnMaryGeorge” add the Hoody bit or whatever as being cuddled up against mary makes me shiver.

        • Peter Roe

          February 18, 2012 at 8:02 pm

          Sorry George – in future I’ll try to find some other appellation not involving your name!

      • Lu

        February 18, 2012 at 8:02 pm

        It’s a question of bandwidth. Email is too slow to educate Dick Smith.

        • spacegoat

          February 19, 2012 at 1:44 am


    • Bob D

      February 19, 2012 at 6:24 am


      I’ ve read that Rossi’s last Demo only measured the Hot – Neutral circuit of a 3 wire plug. Why does Rossi always guarantee a COP of only 6? It is fusion, is it NOT?

      There are 4 conductors in Ross’s setup. Hot, Neutral, Ground, and Earth (or frame/chassis ground). Confused? Rossi is betting on it.

      Therefore, there are a total of 6 circuits, I.E., Hot-Neutral, Hot-Ground, Hot-Earth, Neutral-Ground, Neutral-Earth, and Ground-Earth.

      Apparently only Hot-Neutral was being monitored during the last test. 1 circuit out of 6!

      • Colin Connaughton

        February 19, 2012 at 2:46 pm

        Bob, I haven’t looked at this closely but at first look it seems to me there should be 15 possible combinations of 6 wires, i.e. 6 Choose 2 which is 6!/((6-2)!2!) = 6!/(4!2!) = 6×5/2 = 15.

        For each wire there are 5 other wires to choose to go with it which gives 30 permutations and then you have to divide by 2 because wire A with wire B is the same as B with A which gives 15 combinations.

        • Colin Connaughton

          February 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm

          Sorry Bob. It is 4 wires which gives 6 combinations. I tried to edit my mistake but the unfriendly editor timed me out.

          • Colin Connaughton

            February 19, 2012 at 2:53 pm

            I repeat the editor for this forum is unfriendly for editing posts!

          • Bob D

            February 20, 2012 at 3:35 am


            This forum is exploding with posts as people are beginning to smell the coffee. Pity, I was a believer on certain levels but this Duck its Smith character is really putting the pressure on the whole charade. I don’t think it will go on much longer.

      • Veblin

        February 19, 2012 at 2:58 pm

        That’s great. Now can you explain how this wiring produces gamma rays?

      • Colin Connaughton

        February 19, 2012 at 6:51 pm

        Well after my bit of silliness, I hope this is not so silly.

        It seems to me that there is also the possible complication of AC versus DC power. Of course, both AC and DC voltage and current produce power. But the meters would usually be either AC meters or DC meters. I believe AC meters usually ‘ignore’ DC and vice versa. You could have power going in as either AC or DC or any superimposition of both, and the meter(s) would only be measuring one of the two types, either AC or DC.

        If you have 4 wires going in, I believe the most economic and complete way to measure the power going in would be to simultaneously measure the 4 currents on the 4 wires, the 6 voltages between the 6 sets of pairs of wires, with both AC and DC meters used (pairs of ammeters in series, and pairs of voltmeters in parallel). I believe the power would be calculated by multiplications of 4×4 matrices, one for voltage and one for current, and one set of matrices for AC and one set for DC. So Rossi would not be able just to scribble up a bit of simple multiplication on a blackboard.

        If there is AC, there would be the complication of phase difference between the current and the voltage, but that would be in the direction of underestimating the ingoing power so it would favour the sceptics (such as myself).

        • Tony

          February 19, 2012 at 6:57 pm

          Isn’t the easiest thing just to take your own generator with you, and isolate completely?

          • Colin Connaughton

            February 19, 2012 at 9:11 pm

            I think you are right. There should only be 2 power wires allowed to go into the ecat. An earth wire would probably be needed to connect to the silver foil and casing etc. around the ecat for safety’s sake but that should be checked to ensure that it has no current.

            The silver foil seems a bit comical to me, aih, a bit like an early version of a bad sci fi tv program.

        • Bob D

          February 20, 2012 at 3:43 am


          I also considered your AC – DC scenario, rigged DVMM’s, unbalanced WYE – Delta schemes, even funky harmonics with the AC sinusoid. There are lots of possible ways Rossi could have done it- I just picked what was the easiest to explain, also easiest to pull off, and easiest for Dwad Smith to understand since he is from downunder.



  2. parallel

    February 18, 2012 at 6:33 pm


    Rossi claims the only proof that will be accepted is to sell units commercially and judge the results from the customer’s comments.

    I believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It is possible to publish fabricated test results too. Witnesses have been known to lie. How d you prove they are genuine?

    With people like you, it looks like Rossi may be correct.

    • Josh

      February 18, 2012 at 8:03 pm

      Rossi doesn’t have to sell anything to prove his product, but yes, he’ll need ‘customer(s)’ of reputation, using his product, to give me (and in my opinion, most intelligent people) enough proof to spend money on his device. I don’t buy any product that makes fantastic claims without seeking the opinion of others who have used the product.

      It’s only hard to prove a device like this if you make it hard. Many businesses give away or drastically discount their first sales just to gain people willing to share positive experiences.

      Rossi needs people using his product, but so far I’ve heard of no one using his products and in the pictures he shared, he doesn’t even use his product everywhere he could (seriously, what was the claim about using that lab infrequently – his product can produce heat so cheaply it wouldn’t matter if it ran year round).

      I haven’t called Rossi a liar ,but I think he’s made some pretty unrealistic claims and done some downright silly things. But only time will tell.

  3. ostap

    February 18, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Looks like the story approaches its end.

    There is an old scum in russia a bit similar to the lern(ecat,hyperion what ever). Vortex Boiler. For heating, water boiling systems. It claimed to have COP more than 100% (from some sources 200-700%). It had been shown on TV news in prime time. In reality that boiler is worse than a usual one. But still, in nowadays it’s produced, sold and promoted in search for stupid investors. First link I found:

  4. georgehants

    February 18, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    Pekka Janhunen You said —-
    “I’m afraid that giving someone all possible funds would actually slow down the process of developing it.”

    I think it would be hard even for our scientific administration to slow Cold Fusion down beyond the 23 years they have already, but I agree most of them seem to be trying very hard to do so.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      February 18, 2012 at 7:09 pm

      Not necessarily hard, I’m not sure if one can in general accelerate fundamental discoveries with money.

      My original point was however more about the hopefully ongoing and forthcoming technical development. I believe that for every engineering project there exists some optimal resource level which gives the shortest development time. Putting too little or too many resources usually causes a slowdown. Rossi seems to know this and to act accordingly, probably also Defkalion.

  5. Burt

    February 18, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    A skype session could speed things up. For God sake, you can videotape the conversation and you would of course put on paper what you have agreed. It’s like the youngsters nowadays – the text to each other for hours when a simple phone call could have settled things in minutes.

    • daniel maris

      February 19, 2012 at 1:07 am

      LOL Burt!

      Good point…he keeps coming up with these ridiculous objections.

    • Brad Arnold

      February 19, 2012 at 3:04 pm

      OTH, if Smith wants written communications (i.e. it is my preference too), then hopefully Defkalion will oblige.

      I was suspicious of Mr Smith (as he is suspicious of Defkalion/LENR), but the above written communication helps salve my skeptic.

      Hopefully, Mr Smith and his spectacular offer will generate more publicity in the mass media (which thrives on controversy). I have no doubt Defkalion will succeed in passing a legitimacy test, else they are committing suicide with their independent testing regime.

  6. Dennis Moore

    February 18, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    DGT should respond to Dick with:
    Here is the proposed testing protocol, which has been available for some time at the DGT website. Accept this protocol or propose a new one.
    No more games.

  7. popeye

    February 18, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    It’s amazing that two entities are claiming devices essentially ready for the market that can replace fossil fuels, and yet there is persistent squabbling about whether the devices produce any heat at all. Tom Baccei has it right on that score. (I never thought I’d say that, and my view of it has not changed…)

    You don’t need experts to demonstrate that a propane stove can fry eggs or heat a tent. Why is it necessary to enlist experts to prove Defkalion really has a new source of market-ready energy. OK: It has to run long enough to exceed chemical energy density, so the observer has to know enough to recognize that. But with a factor of a million to work with, that should not be so hard.
    It’s the COP that’s the problem. I think that as long as a *new* or *free* energy claim involves a finite COP in a finished product, especially if the input is superior quality energy like electricity, it’s almost certain to be a hoax or a scam. It’s not just that a COP of 3 (thermal:electrical), for example, could also be provided by a heat pump. It’s that most electricity is produced from thermal energy at an efficiency of 1/3, so there is no reduction in primary fuel consumption at all. There may be a niche market, like for heat pumps, or to replace electric space heaters, but it will never save the world or power cars without very long extension cords.
    Similar objections apply to *any* COP that is not sufficiently high to allow the generation of enough electricity to power the input, which would give an infinite COP. If that were possible, it is inexplicable that they would not do it before going to market. The technology is well established, and it would be far easier than inventing a cold fusion source. So, if they don’t do it, it probably means they can’t, and that means, according to the 2nd law, the device is little better than a heat pump, and therefore will have little impact on the energy landscape. What it can do is fool a lot of gullible investors.
    When the input electricity is used to produce heat, so that the COP is basically thermal:thermal, then it is even more inexplicable that they would not use the output heat to to sustain the reaction, like in chemical combustion, for an infinite COP and a real shot at changing the world. The claim that additional heat is needed to prevent overheating makes no sense. If it is producing 9 units of power, say, and it needs one more external unit to maintain ignition, (COP = 10), then how did the first unit ever get it to ignite in the first place? It would be like a roaring fire dying when you pull away a match.
    So, if it were my million, I would (as I’ve said before), require a standalone, isolated device producing enough clearly measured heat to exceed the weight of the entire device in the best chemical fuel by a factor of 10. If their claims were valid, they could do that with their hands tied behind their back, and twice on Sunday. Then of course, they wouldn’t need my million.
    Of course, they’d ignore my offer, and we’d be no further ahead, so hats off to Smith. Just with a finite COP, and short test, in the context of a demo with the magicians present, you probably do need experts. Even if in the future, if they’re right, no experts will be needed to know their cars no longer need refueling.
    I’d say, insist on flow calorimetry, and output power in the several kW range. Multiple units with blanks seems like a good idea, but try to do it with more than 2, and to do it blind, using independent people to swap the blank and loaded cartridges, or whatevers.
    My prediction? Nothing will be resolved in the next month, but let’s hope that’s wrong.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      February 18, 2012 at 8:00 pm

      “When the input electricity is used to produce heat, so that the COP is basically thermal:thermal, then it is even more inexplicable that they would not use the output heat to to sustain the reaction,..” Although not knowing what happens inside, certainly the centre of the core is hotter than the coolant so using the output “heat” to heat the reactor from inside is not possible, hence they use electricity. They could in principle build a heat pump to do that and to improve the COP (i.e., use electricity to transfer some heat from the coolant back into the core). But maybe the complexity of the solution would outweigh the gains.

      • popeye

        February 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm

        If the heat is produced in the core, then it is available immediately to maintain the reaction; there is no routing it from the output to the input. It’s like chemical combustion. One can of course adjust the flow of coolant to control the core temperature and therefore, maybe the reaction rate.
        If the heat is produced outside the core, by thermalizing radiation in the lead, e.g., then it’s a matter of adjusting the insulation between the lead and the core to maintain the reaction. (But if this were happening, the radiation would be easily detected, and it wasn’t, even through holes in the lead.)

        • Pekka Janhunen

          February 18, 2012 at 8:22 pm

          Yes but we don’t know for sure if it behaves like chemical combustion in that regard. For example (this is speculation) it might require some heat flow through the lattice to produce heat.

          • popeye

            February 18, 2012 at 8:34 pm

            I don’t get your objection. Whether the heat is produced by nuclear reactions or an electric heater, it can be made to flow through the lattice. If it’s generated in the lattice, it has no choice.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            February 18, 2012 at 8:49 pm

            popeye: I agree that also nuclear heat (the part which is deposited in the lattice) must flow through the lattice before getting out. But maybe the reactivity zone would move in some unstable or undesirable way inside the fuel unless one puts in external heat to “define” the wanted energy flow direction(?). One complication is that we don’t know how locally the nuclear heat is deposited (although I would guess it’s within 0.1 mm).

            admin: I don’t remember where it came from, but perhaps consider lifting popeye’s “ban”?

    • JNewman

      February 18, 2012 at 8:19 pm

      Popeye, you are using sound reasoning and some knowledge of physics to make your points. You should realize that such things are not welcome here. This is all about good guys and bad guys and conspiracies to rob the world of its future. You have to realize that the difficulty with these devices is not their COP or functionality, it is the influence of skeptics.

      As for your prediction, I am sad to say that I agree with it but also hope that it is wrong.

      • popeye

        February 18, 2012 at 8:21 pm

        “You should realize that such things are not welcome here.”

        No need to tell me. I’m semi-banned here. (5 posts per day.)
        Damn. And now I’ve wasted one.

      • Timar

        February 18, 2012 at 8:36 pm

        Come on, JNewman – now you are getting into paranoia.

      • spacegoat

        February 19, 2012 at 2:05 am

        Re knowledge of physics:

        Respect to popeye but it was a long winded way of saying that the test must show energy output, preferably by by a wide margin, to prove the source cannot be chemical. This is exactly what is going to be done.

        Secondly, of course it would be better for the device to be pulled from the grid, but we have been informed that electrical energy is required to keep the reaction stable. Those who truly understand physics will not be troubled by this since the operation of subtraction will come to their aid.

    • daniel maris

      February 18, 2012 at 8:35 pm


      I’m not technically versed in all this, but it seems to me that there could be v. good reasons why it is not easy to maintain self-sufficient running. After all, a fire can go out if left unattended. It may be that it stop-start is a lot easier. This isn’t perpetual energy – this involves a finite amount of fuel (as with nuclear power).

      • popeye

        February 18, 2012 at 8:48 pm

        A fire goes out because of oxygen and/or fuel starvation, and is attended by rearranging the fuel to give it access to oxygen, or by adding fuel. One does not ordinarily attend to an already ignited fire by adding heat, or holding a match to it.

        The attending of the ecat that you suggest is to add heat. But lack of heat is clearly not the problem if it’s producing 10 times the added heat on its own.

        And that’s my 5 posts. Adieu.

        • daniel maris

          February 19, 2012 at 1:09 am

          OK Popeye,

          I don’t like censorship so I won’t take advantage of your inability to respond.

        • LCD

          February 19, 2012 at 4:44 am

          I don’t really think it’s very difficult to understand. Like Pekka said you must add heat into the core. That’s easily done with a resistive heater right at the core efficiently. A resistive heater is almost 100% efficient.

          In the Oct6th test we saw that energy production was anything but constant. It had spikes and dead periods. So constant reignition is not surprising.

          Also in self sustain mode there was no resistive heater being used.

    • runningman

      February 18, 2012 at 11:52 pm

      From my understanding of the reaction it’s not the heat from the resistance that initiates the reaction but the infra red radiation emitted from the heater. The radiation emitted from the reaction itself would be much higher energy and hence frequency so it may not be as useful to sustain the reaction. From what i’ve read Rossi has been known to turn on a frequency emitting device during self sustain mode.

  8. AB

    February 18, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    The 22passi meeting has ended. There were no real news, but I learned a few things I wasn’t aware of before. It was very interesting to hear Celani talk about LENR research.

    The project to send Celani and a few other tests to Greece to test the Hyperion is on ice. Defkalion’s proposed protocol was deemed unnecessarily complicated and difficult to work with due to lack of cooling. The Hyperion would have to be throttled quite heavily in these conditions. It would be possible to verify that a LENR is taking place but it wouldn’t be possible to make any conclusions about the commercial usefulness of the Hyperion. Nevertheless, Celani seemed convinced that they’ll let him test the Hyperion.

    Celani was surprised that CERN showed interest in LENR. He thinks it has something to do with his replication of Arata and his discovery that the temperature coefficient of resistance in a Ni-Cu alloy loaded with hydrogen changes and that this is associated with excess heat.

    Celani was asked about his secret spectrometric reading in the one e-cat test that he attended. He said that gamma radiation readings were off the chart of the instrument for a moment at about the same time the reactor started. He also took several other secret readings by pretending to go to the bathroom which was nearby. The instability of the emission was a good sign according to him.

    Back in 1989 the NASA did an interesting experiment but never published. Had they published, the P&F story might have gone differently. They wanted to see what would happen with deuterium gas and without current as opposed to the electrolytic P&F cell. The Hydrogen loading process matched the theory: when hydrogen was loaded into the metal, temperature increased, when it was unloaded temperature decreased. The deuterium loading process did not match theory: the loading produced heat and the unloading as well.

    These were the things that struck me as particularly interesting. I hope I made no mistake in understanding and remembering them. Anyway, somebody mentioned that the whole talk was filmed by a better camera than the one that streamed, so it should be up on youtube fairly soon, and hopefully with English subtitles.

    • georgehants

      February 18, 2012 at 8:17 pm

      AB thanks for your time.
      The one thing that hits me like lightening is —–
      “Back in 1989 the NASA did an interesting experiment but never published. Had they published, the P&F story might have gone differently.”—–
      Is this enough for science to put right this terrible injustice.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      February 18, 2012 at 8:19 pm

      AB, thanks for the report.

      By the way does anyone remember if Ni-D experiments have been done? Since Pd-D works, Ni-D might also.

    • harry

      February 18, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      Thanks. It was frustrating watching everything but to only understand “gamma” 🙂

    • daniel maris

      February 18, 2012 at 8:30 pm

      Isn’t this one of the most significant things to be posted recently:

      “Celani was asked about his secret spectrometric reading in the one e-cat test that he attended. He said that gamma radiation readings were off the chart of the instrument for a moment at about the same time the reactor started. He also took several other secret readings by pretending to go to the bathroom which was nearby. The instability of the emission was a good sign according to him.”

      Thanks AB.

      I think this could be v. significant. I think I may have read it a while ago, but in context, now, it is v. significant I feel. It shows that Rossi probably does have something. How good remains to be seen.

      • AB

        February 18, 2012 at 8:41 pm

        This has been known since last spring. It’s in the video interview with Celani here, starting at 20:10

        The info just drowned in the flood of maryyugo’s spam. If you meant the bit about the secret bathroom readings and the off the charts thing, yes those are new 🙂

        I also think I understand better what Celani meant with unstable emissions. It’s not just the burst of radiation, but also that background radiation was slightly higher after the experiment, which means that something must have created it during the experiment. So it couldn’t have been a piece of radioactive material placed inside the chamber.

        • AB

          February 18, 2012 at 8:47 pm

          Also in that video, after the Celani interview, Focardi once again mentions that he personally saw gamma emissions from running e-cats.

          So this is not a Dr Schön case where the rest of the team is never present when important work or discoveries are made.

          • Stanny Demesmaker

            February 18, 2012 at 8:55 pm

            This is idd old news. Since the day I watched that video, I knew that the E-cat was the real deal. It’s a very significant video.

        • Timar

          February 18, 2012 at 9:22 pm

          Sure, it’s old news, but he further elaborates on it and it’s good to be once again reminded of that fact, because, as Stanny said – it is a very significant one. It also shows the problem with some of the sceptics here, who are continuously ignoring important information on the subject. The feature which unites a certain breed of skeptics and believers alike is their mental laziness.

          • georgehants

            February 18, 2012 at 9:38 pm

            Timar, one does not I feel have to be “mentally lazy” to come to wrong conclusions, but simply to be unable to differentiate between known facts and opinion.
            Most people seem to lack this ability in their own analyses, or interpreting the analyses of others, especially if they feel the other person is so called, qualified ie. an “expert”

        • daniel maris

          February 19, 2012 at 1:13 am

          Thanks, clearly it bears repeating! 🙂

          I think it is a counter to a lot of the flak going on at the moment. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that a lot of reputable scientists think Rossi has something genuine. It’s up to Rossi to prove he has – and it’s up to DGT but it’s not absurd to think they have something game-changing.

          Best to keep an open mind.

    • Timar

      February 18, 2012 at 8:33 pm

      Thanks for the report!

      The details about Celanis clandestine gamma radiation measurements once again confirm that it is an unreasonable assumption that Rossi has nothing at all – as is the assumption that he has exactly what he claims.

      • Al Potenza

        February 18, 2012 at 8:47 pm

        Do you think it’s possible that, if Rossi is lying about the ecat, he knew in advance there would be a radiation detector and that he prepared to fool it deliberately at the start of his experiment?

        Otherwise, why have no other experiments revealed radiation? Detectors have been there along with an expert at all or almost all Rossi demonstration. They’re clearly visible in the pictures.

        • Timar

          February 18, 2012 at 9:08 pm


          I did not say this is the sole evidence for the thesis that Rossi has something. However, the evidence is adding up to a complex picture and this an important part of it.

          The anomalous appearance of gamma radiation is actually in concordance in with published observations by many credible LENR researchers. There seems to be a complex multi phase nuclear reaction triggered by surface plasmons that needs a set of conditions (hence the issues with reproducibility). Only if certain conditions are met, the 511keV gamma is thermalized within the lattice. Generally, the stable experiments are those were (almost) no gamma above background is detected.

          • Al Potenza

            February 18, 2012 at 10:56 pm

            Right. But I was pointing out that gamma rays were not detected in any other experiments than the first, even though they were looked for in almost every experiment Rossi did in public (for safety reasons if no other).

    • Neil Taylor

      February 18, 2012 at 9:10 pm

      Thanks for the informative report AB.

      I Like George am dismayed as to why NASA did not release their supporting P & F experimental results in 1989, but instead allowed these two well known scientists to be so denigrated and literally run out of the country. Something really stinks here and I smell BIG OIL!

      Of course we now have the internet to help inform the world to these sorts of happenings, something that did not really exist, except in a small way, back in 1989…

      • daniel maris

        February 19, 2012 at 1:18 am

        Well there was also the Amoco team test. Have you heard of that? They also found cold fusion/LENR was real…but somehow their test results got buried as well. 🙂

        I don’t believe in crazy conspiracies but I do believe in real interests!

    • Peter Roe

      February 18, 2012 at 9:34 pm

      The fact that Celani could continue to make his gamma readings from several metres away (and presumably through a wall!) is a little scary. I wonder how sensitive his instrument was?

      • AB

        February 18, 2012 at 9:52 pm

        Well, I don’t know what he was measuring in the bathroom. He brought several different instruments. Check the interview.

        • Dennis Moore

          February 18, 2012 at 10:20 pm

          He didn’t bring a tape measure did he?

      • Dennis Moore

        February 19, 2012 at 12:35 am

        If Celani turns large and green when he gets angry, then we’ll know that LENR works.

    • dsm

      February 18, 2012 at 10:42 pm


      As always thanks for an informative, thoughtful and helpful post. We need more like you here.

      Doug M

      • daniel maris

        February 19, 2012 at 1:15 am

        Seconded – AB’s posts are v. helpful.

  9. parallel

    February 18, 2012 at 8:47 pm

    News of gamma radiation is a mixed blessing. The American population is paranoid about radiation – no matter that Central Station has much higher radiation levels than allowed in a nuclear plant because it is built of granite.

    It will give the vested interests a way to go after banning or limiting the use.

  10. Defender

    February 18, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    @Mr. Smith
    If DGT is trying to avoid testing, i would highly suggest to try to become a customer of Rossis 1MW plant with the same amount of money.
    As customer of Rossi you will be able to do all the tests you want and in case the system fullfills the specs, you even will get a 1MW unit.
    And if the unit fails to fullfill the specs, then you doesn’t lose anything, you don’t have to sign the contract and buy it.

    • Al Potenza

      February 18, 2012 at 10:54 pm

      The problem with offering to buy a plant from Rossi is that nobody who has can talk about it. How do we know any sales really took place? How do we know how long it would take Mr. Smith to obtain a megawatt plant? Mr. Smith’s concern, if I understand it correctly, is that during delays, more distributorships or other related investments may be sold to innocent people. And that those people might lose their money if Rossi turns out to be a fraud.

      • Antonella

        February 19, 2012 at 7:44 am

        >How do we know how long it would take Mr. Smith to obtain a megawatt plant?

        Just ask Dr Rossi nicely

        >is that during delays, more distributorships or other related investments may be sold to innocent people.

        if Mr Smith can tell his people about the 1M prize, he can as well tell them that he will buy a plant just to check it.

        my 2 naive cents

  11. AB

    February 18, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    Among them we mention NASA and John Bockris at A&M Texas, who started in July 1989 an investigation looking for occurring of usual Deuterium-Deuterium (D-D) fusion with emission of neutrons (i.e. strong force interaction). They did not find it but NASA detected unexplainable behaviour of Pd tube when heated at high temperatures (350°C) and Hydrogen (H2) or Deuterium (D2) gas were allowed to flow in and out. In short, the behaviour of energy production was as expected using H2 gas but completely unexpected with D2. Heat production was detected both in the incoming and out-coming phases of the gas: such effect was against any previous scientific experience! Such key results were not communicated immediately to the Scientific Community until, by chance, a report was found inside a drawer and wide-spread only in 2004. In December 2009 another similar experiment was performed, devoted to reconfirm the thermal anomalies found on 1989. The results, thanks to specific and improved instruments, were of even better quality. Again, the results were not made public until the document was found, by chance, on the web in August 2011. Recently, top level NASA Researchers are more “open” about their results produced “at home”.

    This is the ‘forgotten’ NASA experiment Celani referred to. The text is from Celani’s WSEC 2012 presentation.
    Now to find the actual papers on it…

    • georgehants

      February 18, 2012 at 9:43 pm

      AB, Jed Rothwell has published evidence that a document was purposely altered to show no excess heat.
      I do not remember in which organisation the document originated.

      • Neil Taylor

        February 19, 2012 at 12:35 am

        George, I believe that was MIT when they successfully replicated P & F xperiments, but those results were altered and reported differently in the publications which started the process of screwing P & F. I believe that the responsible MIT individual is now a big shot with our US Department of Energy – Lord help us!

    • Tony

      February 18, 2012 at 10:49 pm

      Thanks for posting comments from the Celani talk, and how the heck can such important documents remain hidden for so long? Presumably because the authors were afraid of the same kind of P&F backlash.

    • Neil Taylor

      February 18, 2012 at 11:51 pm

      Again thanks AB for you diligence and excellent reporting herein. It is unbelievable that a NASA research report/paper of this significance could end up squirreled away in a desk drawer for almost five years. Who caused that to happen? By the time it became known, five years hence, to the scientific community, P & F were labeled as outcasts and cold fusion had a pox on any external research and funding. This was/is a travesty for all mankind – somebodies are to be held responsible – someday?

      Mr. Smith, you should familiarize yourself with the Hyperion specifications, perhaps some of your concerns are buried in there…

  12. Jonny English

    February 18, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    I would suggest that you have a chat via skype with the greeks. Then i am sure a contract of sorts will be sent to you asap. Nothing wrong with skype, or phone alex direct if you want. Once the terms of the contract are agreed you can pay the million.

  13. Andre Blum

    February 18, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    Dear Mr Smith,

    In your offer you insist on the presence of experts like Kullander and Essen. Then why have you started personally negotiating with Defkalion about the test procedure, including ideas on calorimetry, largely based on garbage input from forum members?

    You were the one who brought up these experts. Your priorities should now be in getting them, or good alternatives, in the loop.

    I admire Defkalion for having the guts to take up this challenge. So should you. If you give everybody, including Defkalion and the experts, some slack and some stage time, this whole show would be so much more comfortable for everybody, including us, the innocent bystanders.

    Andre Blum

  14. Dick Smith

    February 18, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Game and match

    “…The project to send Celani and a few other tests to Greece to test
    the Hyperion is on ice. Defkalion’s proposed protocol was deemed
    unnecessarily complicated and difficult to work with due to lack of
    cooling. The Hyperion would have to be throttled quite heavily in
    these conditions. It would be possible to verify that a LENR is taking
    place but it wouldn’t be possible to make any conclusions about the
    commercial usefulness of the Hyperion….”

    Celani is described as a top Italian scientist who works at the Italian equivalent of Los Alamos- The National Institute of Nuclear Physics.
    If he reckons that with the proposed test. ” -it wouldn’t be possible to make any conclusions about the commercial usefulness of the Hyperion”. – it’s clear that my fears are with foundation.

    By the way I will award a prize to anyone who can obtain the most basic necessary information – that is what input voltage and current will Dekflion be using in the demonstration.  They won’t answer me
    I wonder why?

    Unfortunately looking more like a scam every day.

    • georgehants

      February 18, 2012 at 10:32 pm

      Mr. Smith, certainly not game and match, your position will be judged by future events.
      The Facts will determine the outcome and your reputation.
      I look forward to the next few weeks.
      Never prejudge.

    • Andre Blum

      February 18, 2012 at 10:44 pm

      You come up with a clear plan in an effort to get the truth out, then you pollute it with this kind of intermediate communication.

      You don’t even have the patience to sit out your own plan?

      I repeat from my earlier post: your plan involved experts. Get them in the loop and recognize them for the experts they are.

      In the meantime, please calm down a bit.


    • Veblin

      February 18, 2012 at 11:19 pm

      Mr. Smith if you would bother to read the spec sheet.

      Electric power preheating
      Heating element
      Volts: 24,
      Amps: 6,

      Maximum electric energy
      consumption per hour at ON

      • Veblin

        February 18, 2012 at 11:39 pm

        So what is the prize for being able to read the spec sheet?

        • Vic

          February 19, 2012 at 12:04 am

          You should find out soon enough Veblin, unless Dick Smith goes back on his word. 

      • Neil Taylor

        February 18, 2012 at 11:58 pm

        Good one Veblin, Let us know what your prize is…

        • Stephen T.

          February 19, 2012 at 3:01 am

          Yes, and let us know if the prize is paid by Mr. Smith or Ms. Yugo? I really doubt the identity of this supposed Mr. Smith.

          • Peter Roe

            February 19, 2012 at 10:07 am

            You should certainly doubt the identity of ‘Ms Yugo’!

    • Lu

      February 19, 2012 at 12:04 am

      I’ll throw this out as well. Celani said that the Hyperion will have to be throttled quite heavily under the conditions of the test. I’m not sure if I believe him.

      I did a calculation assuming a 4cm diameter x 10cm long reactor core (from the specs). If the reactor core runs at 1000C it will emit 2386W of thermal radiation (irradiation and convection) maximum. I used an emissivity of 1 and a convective thermal transmission coefficient of 10W/m^2K. 2386 W is about 1/2 of the necessary 5kW but it’s in the ball bark. If the core is actually a hollow tube we might get much closer to 5Kw. Also if the core runs at 1283C (not sure if this is possible) then it emits 5kW of thermal energy.

      This all based on a simple calculation similar to what someone did when they calculated the thermal radiation from Rossi’s 10 meter steam hose. This is not my area of expertise so I’m sure I’m off some (plus or minus) and maybe a lot but I would like to see someone’s calculations backing up the meltdown or throttle down scenario before accepting Celani’s statement.

      Or we can just wait till next week.

      • Stephen T.

        February 19, 2012 at 3:11 am

        @Lu, Your comment is very interesting to me. I have been doing some simple “kitchen science” tonight to get some practical idea how the bare reactor tests might be enlightening. Simply put I have run the kitchen oven at 200F and 500F while measuring associated temperature in a heavy covered metal pot set atop the insulated oven. At 200F the equilibrated temp of the air in the covered pot is 92F. At 500F oven temp the air in the covered pot atop the oven is 124F. The cycle time for the oven heating element is much higher at 500F than at 200F of course. Certainly, the more insulation or less thermal takeaway, the more “throttle back” will be required. Nevertheless, useful data can be obtained with the most rudimentary insrumentation when much energy is being radiated. Possible?

      • AB

        February 19, 2012 at 10:51 am

        The comments made about the throttling down and melting were made by people from 22passi who supposedly work for corporations that would be interested in the technology. It’s possible that they’re mistaken.

        However Celani has stated elsewhere that flow calorimetry should be the test to perform.

    • daniel maris

      February 19, 2012 at 1:21 am

      Er-no. Celani refers to commercialisation. You, however, are accusing them of fraud, of not having a working LENR or cold fusion device. An entirely different matter.

      I am afraid you’ve got to up your game a bit here. Weak argument from whatever direction isn’t tolerated here.

    • Vic

      February 19, 2012 at 1:56 am

      It seems odd that you quote Francesco Celani and tout his high academic achievements in an attempt to bolster your own arguments. This is the same Francesco Celani who says he measured gamma rays being emitted from an unshielded eCat device, which according to your perspective would surely be just more evidence of a scam. 

      So is Celani in on the scam Dick, and if so, why do you quote him as some sort of authority on the subject ?

      Also, perhaps you could ask Ian Bryce to explain to us all how mixed up mains wiring managed to produce gamma rays.

      Oh, and by the way, when does Veblin receive his prize ?

  15. Dick Smith

    February 18, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    George, yes it is game and match to any reasonable person about that particular test as Celani is a believer in LENR.

    You remind me of those who kept believing in Firepower and that their money was safe.

    • georgehants

      February 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm

      Mr. Smith I really do not care who I remind you of, I shall just look for facts and truth and your opinion will not sway me one way or the other.
      You are helping others to see that ranting fraud indiscriminately is ridiculous, let the EVIDENCE speak only.
      How much is “the prize” you are now offering, less than a million I will wager.

      • dsm

        February 18, 2012 at 10:46 pm


        Stop preaching my friend 🙂

        Just stay cool.



        • georgehants

          February 18, 2012 at 10:52 pm

          dsm, I do not understand your post, if you read Smiths reply to me I have answered his points only with my truthful response.
          If you consider “preaching” that I added that indiscriminate accusations of fraud are unethical then I will stay with my view.

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            February 18, 2012 at 11:01 pm

            Yes. As always you a preaching for ultra rationality. If I want to be optimist and only look at the bright side and say it is real today and then tomorrow look at the bad side and think its a fraud I should be able to do that without you popping up and stating the obvious that without evidence I should just wait and see. I reserve the right to alternate talking with my guts and then later with my brain. Thank you for your cooperation.

          • Tony

            February 18, 2012 at 11:12 pm

            Yep, I agree. I swing wildly between hope and pessimism

  16. Quijote

    February 18, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    This very clear that Mr. Smith has no intention of reaching an agreement with Defkalion … I think it is more than a professional faker

    Excuse my verbal aggression

    • Al Potenza

      February 18, 2012 at 10:52 pm

      I think you have to remember that it is Defkalion who is claiming they have a commercially viable LENR reactor. Therefore, it is up to them to prove it.

      Mr. Smith is more than generous with his offer. It is very reasonable to be cautious before awarding a million dollar prize!

    • Mike

      February 18, 2012 at 10:55 pm

      No. What is clear is that Mr. Smith will not be an easy target for a blatant scam. The man didn’t get where he is by being gullible.

  17. Tony

    February 18, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    Come on now Dick, you’re sounding more and more like George Hody / Mary Yugo with every comment.

    There are a lot of us that supposed your pre-determined scepticism would knock this on the head, and it seems to be the case.

    Come on, be different, and bend over backwards so that the test will be performed,

    If it’s crap, no money changes hands.

  18. georgehants

    February 18, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    Mahron – A4 B3, Your point is valid only for opinion that is marked clearly.
    If opinion is preached by Smith or anybody as fact then it is not acceptable.
    Any scientists first knowledge should be follow the evidence and facts that can always be checked, never opinion that has the whole of human frailty to distort it.

    • Mahron - A4 B3

      February 18, 2012 at 11:13 pm

      You have to be a bit more flexible. I don’t think he himself totally believes it is over. If that would be the case he would withdraw his offer. He is obviously in gut mode right now.

      • Tony

        February 18, 2012 at 11:17 pm

        He won’t withdraw his offer – there’s such a thing as Aussie pride you know. It will have to be DFG that does that I think,

        • Peter Roe

          February 19, 2012 at 10:14 am

          He may if something DGT says or does can be interpreted as sufficient ‘reason’ to withdraw.

          He will simply claim ‘QED’ and say that no further purpose would be served by continuing to talk with such ‘obvious scammers’ (withe usual advice to nonexistent ‘mom and pop’ investors of course).

  19. georgehants

    February 18, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    I will thank you all and retire now.
    Varied opinions are valuable and fun when it is clear we are all stating opinions.
    Mixing opinions and facts can be very hurtful and unjustified.
    Smith could say I have at this time no clear evidence of fraud but personally I strongly recommend that nobody without professional knowledge invest in Defkalion.
    Is that so difficult.
    Thank you.

    • Mahron - A4 B3

      February 18, 2012 at 11:26 pm

      Yeah you do that. I will replace you. When someone does not put every of his fucking words in context and does not branch out every possibility in a comment I will point it out. You can go in peace.

  20. Sandy

    February 18, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    The real Dick Smith would not spend his time posting messages in this forum; he would go to Greece and meet face-to-face with Alex Xanthoulis, the chief executive officer of Defkalion. The Dick Smith who is posting messages in this forum is just playing with us.

    • Mike

      February 18, 2012 at 11:23 pm

      The Real Dick Smith won’t waste his time on such a meeting – he knows his limitations and what needs to be left to the real experts.

    • dsm

      February 19, 2012 at 2:21 am


      How do *you* know it isn’t ‘the real Dick Smith’ ?

      Have you been reading (following) everything here this week ? I think even the Admin phoned Dick & spoke to him. Is this a case of quick draw McGraw shooting from the lip 🙂


      Doug M
      (sorry for teasing but it was warranted)

  21. H. Visscher

    February 18, 2012 at 11:26 pm

    Mr. Smith, you sound very sour. Why did you want to test in the first place? You say

    ” It would be possible to verify that a LENR is taking
    place but it wouldn’t be possible to make any conclusions about the
    commercial usefulness of the Hyperion….”

    I read this as something positive. Is your glass always half empty? If so, why don’t you try to top-it-up together with DGT and your testers?

  22. Quijote

    February 18, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    I agree, I think Smith wants to play with us

  23. dsm

    February 18, 2012 at 11:55 pm

    Confessions of a true believer.

    2 weeks ago I might have put up bet money that either Rossi or Defkalion would deliver a demonstrable working LENR device by year end 2012.

    Now I would not be quite so willing to do so any more. So what changed…

    1) I talked to DS and realized he was dead serious about his concerns of a straight scam. But, that alone would not have swayed me. Then on reflection I thought about the 50 years Dick has built up multiple very successful businesses plus how often he has gone public on issues that were of national importance. Dick has never been shy about speaking up publicly be it health issues, food companies being taken over by overseas interests, airport safety at regional airports, and so on. His direct business experience trumps mine hands down although my business experience has been working with a very large multinational computer corporation. In my role there I never came face to face with fraudsters or con-men.

    2) Re eCat: I asked several significant questions of Andrea Rossi & was quite happy with his responses to the 1st 2 but quite surprise at how he reacted to the 3rd (that question triggered his ‘WANNABEE COMPETITORS” reaction).

    3) I have never been able to figure out how labs all over the world have spent 20+ years working on LENR research and still have no significantly saleable devices, then in one year (2011) 2 companies step forward claiming they have working LENR devices ready to commercialize.

    Rossi’s efforts I could reconcile to the years of work he put in and on being joined by eminent prof Focardi in 2007. But Defkalion didn’t exist before Jan 2011 & when they were formed their stated mission & purpose (& thus funding) was to sell value add extras for Rossi’s eCats. Initially a home heating add-on. This was still the position up to June 2011. Then inside a few weeks they parted company with Rossi, claimed they had their own device & began seeking out investors to buy rights to manufacture. If you look at information in the Hyperion testing protocols you will see that they describe the reactor has using powdered Nickel & Hydrogen. This is identical to Rossi’s eCat.

    There is some technical evidence I have read that highlights a packaging problem using powdered Nickel in a LENR core. If too much of it is packed in, the core becomes vulnerable to a meltdown which stops the reactor. also, it gets harder to heat (or pulse) the powdered Nickel evenly and an even heating (pulsing) of the powdered Nickel is essential to a stable LENR process. Rossi has talked about the many meltdowns he has had to deal with.

    I had wondered if Rossi’s answer to the packaging problem was to initially keep his eCat reactors small and to gang them together to create the higher output. I currently believe that this was why he put 125 eCats into a container to create his 1MW unit. I believe Rossi understands full well that there is a scaling problem but that he is confident that this issue can be resolved once he can get his lower rated home eCats manufactured and out the door.

    Re how Defkalion’s LENR device appeared. I can speculate a theory of how the hyperion came about. It is that Rossi entered into some kind of binding agreement with Defkalion when they were starting out and possibly failed to meet his side of it, and part of that agreement might have allowed them to take control of some Rossi assets that included an early eCat. They may have given him money for a result he didn’t deliver and this may have led to justification of any such seizure.

    When I asked Andrea Rossi if he believed Defkalion had ‘borrowed’ his technology, and if yes would he ever sue them if they tried to sell them or would he respond by under pricing and out producing them, he replied with that now famous capitalized WANNABEE COMPETITORS” ‘rant’ (for want of a better word. In a nutshell he said he knew his competitors didn’t have a real device but that he had adopted a strategy of low price and high volume, thus no hint of any legal action & Defkalion are acting as if they have no fear of a Rossi legal threat. In time the true story will probably emerge.

    Rossi’s WANNABNEE COMPETITORS response as I interpreted it is he wont be suing them (which would pose the “why not” question if one assumes that the hyperion is an eCat) but he will under price and out produce them. If Rossi does this, he will do serious damage to the Defkalion business model of selling manufacturing rights country by country. Anyone who tries to argue that the two could succeed side by side with these two approaches doesn’t understand big business & volume markets very well.

    I am still optimistic (still want to believe) that Rossi (despite his temperament & bedside manner & propensity for angering people) really has developed a powdered Ni-H LENR process that works acceptably enough that small units can be manufactured. I believe that having the support of Focardi and also Strammos counts. Also Celani & Levi seem to believe.

    I am not sure what Defkalion’s real status is but my speculative guess as stated above is that an eCat fell into their possession after some kind of non delivery by Rossi and, Defkalion having built up an organisation for the marketing of LENR related devices had no intention of seeing all their work and investment fall flat on its face and thus they decided to take on the challenge of doing their own eCat (the hyperion).

    Rossi’s animosity to Defkalion is certainly likely to be based on his frustration that he did all the leg work & they are trying to steal his unprotected ip. For Defkalion, I suspect it is that they were frustrated with Rossi & were in a position to obtain (legally in their minds) a powdered Nickel LENR unit from their temporary joint venture & now are going it alone.

    Rossi is convinced they can’t get it to work but even if they do his plan is to pull the marketing rug from under them. There is a ‘private’ war here. I am not sure Rossi is as confident as he claims, that the hyperion wont work.

    Do I think either is a scam ? – not yet in the Dick Smith sense (but as I said above, Dick Smith trumps me soundly in having seen & fought scammers in the past 50+ years).

    I still want to believe that Rossi or Defkalion will deliver a real if not low end LENR device that works and will do so in 2012 even if that slips into 2013.

    Doug M

    • JNewman

      February 19, 2012 at 12:27 am

      Doug, it is a pleasure to hear a reasoned discussion from a “believer”. You have your rationale for still thinking that Rossi and/or Defkalion have what they claim, and that is completely fair. Events will eventually play out as to what is really going on here. I suspect that it may take longer than we all would like because of the extremely idiosyncratic behavior of the principles.

      It would be interesting to hear from Dick Smith about the behavior of supporters of some of the scams he has uncovered in the past. What amazes me here is the intense emotional connection to Rossi (and to a much lesser extent, Defkalion) that many of the regulars here have. They lash out with astounding vitriol at anyone who questions the validity of their heroes. They create a “bogeyman” in the form of Mary Yugo, an extremely persistent critic who was banned from this site months ago but is still constantly mentioned. It is as if Rossi were a child or close relative, judging by how staunchly he is defended. One can only wonder how he earned this unquestioning loyalty.

      All of us here (with the possible exception of Dick Smith) are mere spectators, far from the actual field of play. But you couldn’t tell that from the intensity of the dialogue here. One can hope that calmer heads will prevail, but that appears to not be how things work around here. In any case, I do appreciate your attempts to lower the volume and decry the personal attacks that are so prevalent. Your presence here is valuable and I hope you stick around.

      • dsm

        February 19, 2012 at 1:00 am


        Thanks – just on the matter of past scams, dick has highlighted the Firepower scam.

        One early posted (a few days a go) posted words to the effect that “anyone could surely see it couldn’t work as claimed”

        That is the typical ip-so facto hindsight that ignores just how long the Firepower scam ran for.

        But, I don’t see the Firepower stunt as in the same league.

        The eCat does have some decent history.
        While NASA didn’t openly endorse Rossi’s eCats, they did comment that it looked promising and needed further investigation. The runins they had with Rossi don’t bother me. I am certain Rossi was hurt & smarting at that Defkalion got one of his units & he couldn’t stop them. He got quite paranoid about anyone getting near them at about the time Defkalion fell out with him.

        We all must know by now that Rossi is mercurial and can be difficult to deal with (just as Defkalion), But in a strange way I think Rossi’s background and life work actually gives him some credibility as an eccentric inventor capable of this device.

        I don’t believe Firepower had any eminent professors standing behind the technology. Rossi does. Also Piantelli & Italy were regarded in LENR research circles as leaders along with Japan in this research.

        Piantell laid down the framework by which Rossi got started. Rossi I believe, later thought up the notion of powdered Nickel prepared in a particular way and now (I think) pre-hydrogenated as he now does. Rossi’s early eCats used bottled hydrogen fed into the reactor. Today he either has a process that releases the hydrogen in the reaction or he pre-hydrogenates the Nickel in external preparation.

        Point here is I don’t see Firepower as quite the same as eCats.

        Doug M

        • dsm

          February 19, 2012 at 1:56 am

          A CORRECTION

          In a sentence above I said

          “We all must know by now that Rossi is mercurial and can be difficult to deal with (just as Defkalion),”

          but made a typo that I missed. It should have read …

          “We all must know by now that Rossi is mercurial and can be difficult to deal with (just ask Defkalion),”

          Unfortunately that little as=>ask slipup reversed the intended meaning.


          Doug M

          • Rends

            February 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm

            see buttom of the page …

    • Guru

      February 19, 2012 at 9:13 am

      No, real reason, why Rossi originally want produced and sell ONLY his 1 MW containers is:

      a) He originally NOT WANT sell this breakthrough devices to common folks, only to organisations/institutions which signed NDA, security etc.

      b) He had pathological fear to sell e-cats to common folks because he thinking such way: some 355th person/customer/buyer will Chinese agent, he dismantle e-cat, discover and copy my industrial secret and next month Shenzen manufacture No. 1127 will produced 2 million copy-cats per month for common people.

      This is one of his main reasons for five times changing statements about October 28 test will accompanied by small home e-cat etc etc etc

  24. Paul Z

    February 19, 2012 at 12:11 am

    Mr Smith has nothing to loose if he looses he wins because he already knows the principles and they will give him Australia to sell eCats, he is a eccentric with money this is what they do, his thing is alternative energy right now, its a WIN/WIN for Smith – he knows its real, he just wants to see it first hand.

  25. GreenWin

    February 19, 2012 at 1:15 am

    While the following might seem a bit off topic, it in fact addresses each and every issue suggested by the “$1Million Dollar Challenge!” episode.

    It is an insightful article written by John Francisco at Cold Fusion Now:

    • dsm

      February 19, 2012 at 1:45 am


      That is a good read.


      Doug M

  26. daniel maris

    February 19, 2012 at 1:28 am

    DSM –

    Your argument about it being suspicious that two outfits claim commercialisation after 20 years of not a lot happening is not a persuasive argument. Look at what happened with motor car development in the mid 19th century. There were lots of teams involved working on similar problems, along similar lines and then there was a kind of focus period of a few years where commercialisation was reached – in the late 1880s if I recall correctly.

    • dsm

      February 19, 2012 at 1:41 am


      A quick question, are you still at school ?

      Just want to better understand best way to respond to you



      (PS my curiosity was aroused when the other day you didn’t seem to grasp what ‘Civil Authorities’ were – even after an explanation & link were provided )

      • daniel maris

        February 19, 2012 at 2:33 am


        Er no, haven’t been in school for few decades.

        People don’t normally use the phrase “civil authorities” when referring to the judicial system. It’s normally used in relation to enforcement, monitoring and licensing action and often when one is putting down a demarcation between civil and military responsibilities. It’s not a phrase one comes across much these days.

        Are you a native English speaker I wonder?

        If you are, perhaps you are an ex military man.

        What logic leads you to the belief that because things have been experimented on for 20 years without commercialisation it makes it LESS likely that a claim of commercialisation is genuine?

        • dsm

          February 19, 2012 at 2:54 am


          Schooled in NZ, Aust, UK & some later training in USA.

          Yes was an Air Defence officer in the Airforce prior to joining very large global computer company.

          Authorities always came in 3 forms civil, military & church. The word Civil is used repeatedly in western countries – civil union (vs church union), civil authorities (courts & law) etc:

          Re 2011 and the 2 Powdered Nickel + H LENR devices.

          1. Rossi invents his
          2. Rossi (with assist from Prof Strammos of Greece) seeks a partner to commercialize his invention. Defkalion is formed exclusively to do just that. In mid 2011 Defkalion & Rossi have a *big* falling out. A few weeks later Defkalion says we have a hyperion & it is a Powdered Nickel + H LENR.

          What bit of the puzzle escaped you. 🙂
          Do I need to spell it out yet another way ?.



    • Mahron - A4 B3

      February 19, 2012 at 1:49 am

      This is not the 19th anymore. 16 year olds with no funding build fusion reactors.

      • dsm

        February 19, 2012 at 1:58 am

        LOL 🙂


    • spacegoat

      February 19, 2012 at 2:43 am

      Agreed Daniel Marris.

      Discoveries are often the result of what skeptics would call random luck and what others would call the grace of God.
      In this case I believe the discovery is very much like a simple recipe for baking. The correct flour (nickel powder), raising agent (catalyst) and heat (radiative or conductive).

      That recipe or “sauce” as AR puts it took thousands of iterations to get right. However, it is obviously so simple (once known) that DGT and AR know it will be replicated almost instantly they hit the market, which explains their paranoia.

      Regarding Dick Smith’s “game and match”, earlier in this thread I tried to get him to agree what acceptable results would be from DGT testing. I talked about demonstrating a COP very much higher than what would be possible chemically with a given mass. I said that engineering commercial products would be relatively trivial as the following phase.

      Having ignored that he now starts ranting about Celani and testing of commercial products.

      As we have repeated, Dick must study the protocols and relax about his “cheated mum and dad” scenario. Firepower was a chain top to bottom of cheats. Dick only has evidence of local scammers in Australia riding on the back of Rossi/DGT. There is no evidence of a top to bottom chain of cheats in this case.

  27. Omelet du Fromage

    February 19, 2012 at 1:47 am

    If Rossi is the real deal then DS is doing more harm than good. If Rossi’s aim is to start a true paradigm shift, it is vital that he reaches the customers with cheap and good engineered products without loosing the formula to big energy companies that are aiming to undermine a disruption of their power status. If Rossi is the real deal than he certainly has no interest in this offer. Rossi has stated that customers can return the E-Cats and get their money back according to the law if they are dissatisfied, plus he stated that he doesn’t accept any money from individuals or families as investments until he releases the E-Cats on the market and people can see the E-Cats for themselves. So what’s the fuzz all about? We will just have to wait and see. Nobody is loosing here. It seems to me Rossi is risking it all by himself and he seems serious like Tesla was back in the day. He also was ridiculed and being called a fraud beforehand. Tesla also had several failed projects next to succeeding inventions, but he was the real deal. With every statement about future prospects Rossi said he hoped to have working devices that would be safe/cheap by the end of 2012, but he never said it would by an instant revolutionary device, he talk about years before the device would be succesful. Capable replacing fossile fuel entirely? he said decades. For now it is just heating ur house, if that’s true than it is more than anybody could have hoped for in the past. People shall we just wait and see? We spend billions on fraudulent ringtones companies and the total money spend on Fusion research in the entire world is less than 1% of the spendthrift on ringtones. We run no risks with this CF/LENR so why all the fuzz? DS is biased and has an irrational attention to LENR. DS makes a fuzz about a yet small issue compared to the bigger risks in the world where more people are involved and they are risking their life and limb and savings. LENR has the potential to be world changing, yes if it’s real, if it’s a fraud it will be of minor importance nor will it do any harm to the people in the world. If Rossi is real, let’s not F it up by calling it a fraud beforehand? Nothing lost, Nothing gained.

    • Defender

      February 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm

      Excellent post.
      But i’m afraid your arguments do not fit into the games that are played from the ignorants.

  28. CuriousChris

    February 19, 2012 at 2:53 am

    Defkallion Quote: “> We will provide two Greek public bodies as official testers.
    You can provide your own witnesses as you wish. ”

    That’s not a test that’s a side show.

  29. C M Edwards

    February 19, 2012 at 3:40 am

    I’m disappointed to read this.

    Although I disagree with Dick Smith’s reasoning on test criteria (96 hours run time is not less reliable than 6 under identical conditions, a unit stripped down to its bare essential systems is inherently easier to test under rigorous controlled conditions than the market-ready Hyperion with all the bells and whistles, and power with fuel minus power without fuel is a very straight forward result), the fact is that it’s his money. Defkalion claims that their system can perform under the conditions Smith is asking for. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to ask that they show it doing so before awarding them the prize. Not doing so is damaging to their credibility.

    The only win for them in this situation is to do it anyway.

    They claim that they already have several tests scheduled, and – as long as they don’t expect his million dollars – Mr. Smith’s presence is not magically required for any of them. So, they should continue their test schedule. But they should ensure that it encompasses Mr. Smith’s proposed test protocol. They have not promised Smith yet – why make promises to someone who won’t even talk to you on the phone? But they have made the promise to their customers that Hyperion can meet those criteria. It will harm them not to make good on their word.

    Defkalion needs to just do it, prize or no prize.

  30. Sophareth

    February 19, 2012 at 3:40 am

    D Smith appears sincere. He has now my entire
    He should complete his computer by now very
    functional and able smart phones.

  31. Lu

    February 19, 2012 at 3:52 am

    News Flash:

    Looks like Sterling Allen’s statement that Rossi has had a fallout with NI is true.

    I cannot wait to hear what Rossi says about this (if his lawyers let him, LOL).

  32. Lu

    February 19, 2012 at 4:10 am

    Krivit’s blog claims Rossi no longer working with NI.

    “Leonardo Corporation/Andrea Rossi is currently not a customer, partner or distributor of National Instruments,” Betts wrote. Betts is a NI spokesperson.

    It was only one month ago that Rossi on the Scrarecrow Radio show indicated how well he and NI were getting along.

    Sterling Allen mentioned that there was a fallout between Rossi and NI. Looks like it’s confirmed.

    I cannot wait to hear what Rossi says about this (assuming his “lawyers” give him permission, LOL).


    I tried to post more information about this and it wouldn’t let me. Does Krivit’s blog URL get filtered?

    • Al Potenza

      February 19, 2012 at 4:14 am

      The way I read it, except for some talks about specifications, NI never worked with Rossi at all.

      • Lu

        February 19, 2012 at 4:23 am

        Here are some quotes from the Radio show (January 15th):

        AR: And with the help of National Instruments which is a wonderful, a wonderful supplier, because their philosophy is to teach to their customer to fish….

        AR: And about NI, national instruments, what I want to say is also this… They are exactly, they are very fast. You know, they are very fast in everything, and this is a good thing.

        AR: It is in modification, because we are preparing with National Instruments the new control system. And we had to make modifications to the system of gaskets, because you know that also in the report of the test, has been written that we had problem of leakages of the gaskets. And so we had to substitute, because the test has been judged positive by the customer. But with the reserve of the fact we had to change all the gasket system. But in the meantime we also have matured a new control philosophy with national instruments that is in execution right now. And we foresee that it will go in operation within a month, or a maximum of two. In the field of the customer.

        SA: Lets go and talk about the one megawatt system for a second. The one megawatt plant that I saw in Bologna that was purchased, can you give us an update of its present status. Is it in operation? Is it still in R and D? Are modifications being made? Where is it at?

        AR: It is in modification, because we are preparing with National Instruments the new control system. And we had to make modifications to the system of gaskets, because you know that also in the report of the test, has been written that we had problem of leakages of the gaskets. And so we had to substitute, because the test has been judged positive by the customer. But with the reserve of the fact we had to change all the gasket system. But in the meantime we also have matured a new control philosophy with national instruments that is in execution right now. And we foresee that it will go in operation within a month, or a maximum of two. In the field of the customer.

        Someone’s not telling the truth here.

    • spacegoat

      February 19, 2012 at 4:21 am

      Rossi now appears to stand alone. No borrowed authenticity by association with universities or corporations.
      Just blogging.
      Maybe his stunt is a book about blog induced mass hysteria?

    • Ransompw

      February 19, 2012 at 5:11 am

      Neither Rossi nor his corporation can introduce a commercial product to the market. If he hasn’t partnered with a company with significant resources his automated factory and million domestic Ecats is a pipe dream.

      Personally, I don’t think he has a partner, but if he does they may have the contract with NI and Krivit as usual would be right and as usual deceitful all at the same time.

      And of course Rossi would essentially not be lying since he always uses we when he talks about this stuff.

      Who knows. I am tired of speculating, what a soap opera.

      • spacegoat

        February 19, 2012 at 5:23 am

        Would NI deny any links to Rossi if there were indirect links through a partner company?
        I think they would say something.

        “I am tired of speculating, what a soap opera.”

        At least AR has honed his blogging skills through all of this. 🙂

        • Ransompw

          February 19, 2012 at 5:45 am

          NI might not answer if they were under an NDA. But even if they would, did Krivit ask and even if Krivit asked would he tell the whole story or just the part about Leonardo/Rossi?

          • John Milstone

            February 19, 2012 at 11:10 am

            If they were operating under an NDA, they would have said “No comment.”

            The fact that they specifically denied a relationship leaves no room for doubt.

            That’s assuming Krivit or his source isn’t making this up. That’s possible, but Krivit names a specific person and gives a direct quote. That’s not going to survive if it’s not true.

            This will certainly raise enough of a stink that NI will have to publicly confirm or deny. I would expect a press release from NI this coming week.

          • Tony

            February 19, 2012 at 11:50 am

            Of course, there is room for doubt. You say Rossi lies, but Krivit is also known to lie and misrepresent.

    • Tony

      February 19, 2012 at 8:06 am

      Krivit’s an unreliable agenda driven scumbag.

      • John Milstone

        February 19, 2012 at 11:12 am

        And Rossi is a con man with several criminal convictions for fraud, who has already been caught lying about his relationships with legitimate organizations (University of Bologna and Uppsala) in order to “borrow” some credibility.

        • Tony

          February 19, 2012 at 11:51 am

          I note you didn’t disagree with my assessment of Krivit. Very telling 😉

          • John Milstone

            February 19, 2012 at 12:50 pm

            Krivit certainly has his own bias, but this article names a specific individual and directly quotes her.

            So far, Krivit has been far more honest than Rossi, and I seriously doubt that he would flat-out lie about this.

            It doesn’t really matter. I’m sure this will generate enough heat that NI will have to release a statement clearing things up within the next few days.

          • Tony

            February 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm

            Well, That is debatable. Krivit is known for misquoting sources 🙂

          • John Milstone

            February 19, 2012 at 1:04 pm

            Krivit has made a clear, unambiguous statement that will be trivial to confirm or deny. I don’t think he’s foolish enough to lie in this case, but maybe I’m wrong.

            However, NI will almost certainly have to issue a press release clearing this up. We shall soon know the facts.

  33. dsm

    February 19, 2012 at 5:00 am


    This is becoming more intriguing by the day. More petrol on the fire I’m afraid …

    Am trying to think up a way of doing a for/against analysis that helps us understand some of the deeper issues & claims made thus far.

    Over the next day or so I’ll try to collate a list of all of the claims made in favor of the eCat & Hyperion & post alongside the claims what came of them if anything.

    BUT, The thing I am picking up on here is that Defkalion appear to want to do a demo that really only mimics what MIT did but with Ni+H when MIT let SRI run their recent class at MIT. There is a world of difference between a dry reactor test that show energy gain, vs a working device (wet) that delivers 6 months energy in the order of kilowatts and is good enough to justify selling manufacturing rights country by country, for 40Mill Euros each. Who in the world asks for such massive investments for a device still not seen working at commercial levels. Who ?.

    Baseline: the Defkalion agencies are being offered to people who still have not seen 1 commercial ready LENR device. They might see a device that shows LENR works, but LENR working in a lab & in a device “ready for commercial sale” is a big difference. Defkalion are selling a promise.

    So if my alarm bells are starting to ring it is because investors are being sought & today no one with scientific credibility has yet seen a *commercial ready* LENR device. All anyone has seen are low scale weak powered demos that prove LENR might be a good basis for investigating large scale deployment.

    I will repeat here, commercial ready LENR device.

    More later

    Doug M

    • Ransompw

      February 19, 2012 at 5:19 am

      Ask any mainstreet scientist and they will tell you LENR really doesn’t exist. I know I have. If they really thought it existed you would have so many ready investors throwing money at this it would make your head spin.

      So what has happened to shift the focus from “wow wouldn’t it be earth shattering to have some definitive test of LENR that is indisputable” to “well if you don’t have a commercial product your scamming someone”. Amazing really.

      • LCD

        February 19, 2012 at 5:32 am

        Totally agree Ransom.

    • Veblin

      February 19, 2012 at 5:49 am

      I can only go by what DGT gas said.
      I think you have somethings wrong there.

      Defkalion is not mimicking the MIT experiment. The reactor they are running is a substantial metal object that would only get warm to the touch from the approximately 150 watts of electrical power being applied. For this reactor to get to 650 degrees C. is going to take a large amount of LENR energy.

      They are basically only doing a 5KW test of this reactor for this first test but claim that when the reactor is fully used it can create 45KW of heat energy.
      Far more than the 80mW MIT experiment.

      That is useful energy and should be shown in the second set of tests of complete Hyperion systems that are to follow. This first set of tests of 7 groups doing 4 days of tests each will take at least a month to complete.

      As for licensing, the 40 million Euros is for rights, a factory settup and producing 300,000 units per year. As far as I know no one is paying anything until a working product is demonstrated, certified and factories are ready to be deployed.

      • Veblin

        February 19, 2012 at 7:30 am

        Defkalion GT Sat Jan 21

        We have already announced that we have contracts with more than 60 companies from different countries to proceed with Hyperion local production and support, based on OEM and know how transfer agreements. The list of such companies will be announced following their successful testing on Hyperions, which is a prerequisite for the activation of such contracts. Following this procedure, there are different time schedules applied for each country.

        • John Milstone

          February 19, 2012 at 11:15 am

          Rossi “had contracts” (or so he said) with the University of Bologna and with National Instruments.

          He never exercised the first (preferring to borrow some credibility from them without actually doing anything to deserve it), and we have now discovered that he lied about the second.

          Just because someone says something on their web site doesn’t make it so.

          • Tony

            February 19, 2012 at 11:52 am

            Indeed. This also applies to Krivit, of course.

          • Veblin

            February 19, 2012 at 12:55 pm

            Some people here are complaining about money being collected from some unknown scam.

            I am asking where is the scam if contracts are not activated until successful testing of Hyperions is completed?

          • John Milstone

            February 19, 2012 at 1:01 pm

            Veblin: Rossi has been collecting money from investors. That’s his target. He doesn’t want or need actual customers.

            This whole Dick Smith story started when an eager and gullible Australian investor tried to get Smith to invest in a “franchise” to sell Rossi’s gadgets. Rossi was expecting $200,000 from these suckers, er, investors, and Dick Smith threw a monkey wrench into the scheme.

          • Veblin

            February 19, 2012 at 1:46 pm

            You are mixing Rossi and Defkalion and calling them the same thing. Not all requests for investors are scams and you have not proved this one to be either.

            The scam I see was Australian Sol scamming “Mum and Pop”.

            Rossi was dealing with investors and thought he was dealing with a legitimate one in Byron New Energy Trust. Rossi didn’t know that was really scamming Sol.

    • Timar

      February 19, 2012 at 8:51 am


      I have always appreciated your input on this blog. However, the contact to Dick Smith seems to have a negative influence on your ability to objectively assess the facts. You are beginning to write convoluted posts, containing virtually zero new information or worthwile arguments. Please take a deep breath and read the the first page of comments to this article. There are some very importing points adressed in some of those comments, which I’m affraid you may have missed. Don’t give Mr. Smith to much authority in areas where he has shown very obviously that he doesn’t have any.

      • JNewman

        February 19, 2012 at 4:46 pm

        Suddenly Doug is writing convoluted posts, containing almost zero new information, not making worthwhile arguments and not being objective? Really? The only change I detect is that his skepticism has increased somewhat compared to, say, a week or two ago. I guess that is all it takes for one to no longer be a valuable contributor to the discussion. Apparently open-mindedness is an entirely one-way concept.

    • Josh

      February 19, 2012 at 11:07 am

      At least you have stopped with your “Kriviting” attacks. It seems you start to realize Rossi may have fooled you, and you in turn have made a fool of yourself by your religious faithful fanaticism.

  34. LCD

    February 19, 2012 at 5:29 am

    Dick do skype and then write everything down and have them confirm.

    Also a heat pump does not have a real COP of 3. It moves hot stuff to cold places via some method.

    If you measure the total input energy (including the hot stuff) and output energy the ratio (out/in) would be no greater than 1. Additionally you need a hot place and a cold place.

    This type of “trick” should be easily spotted in a bare reactor type test.

    Also I don’t know where people come up with the idea that measuring only the temperature means nothing. Specially with the two bare reactor tests at high output power

    Look maybe I’m wrong here but one bare reactor is probably a simple resistive heater. The electrical input energy is the upper limit on the thermal output energy. So you can calculate that and you have the temperature that will correspond too. That’s T1.

    To verify they are not dumping energy, simply bring your own resistive heating element, measure the equilibrium temperature after using their electrical feed and verify it’s about the same as what you’d expect with that electrical input power (presumably you’ve done this beforehand and know what temperature that electrical input would correspond to on your heating element). If it is close to what you’d expect then there is no funny business going on.

    Now look for the active reactor to simply have a Temperature T2 that is 3x or whatever, 20x the temperature of the bare reactor. Assuming the thermal mass difference is negligible wala you’re done, that temperature ratio T2/T1 is a good lower limit to the COP.

    Yes you need to be sure the bare reactor has nothing fancy inside it that could lower the temperature below what it should be such as a TE cooler shunting heat to some other place etc, but I think it’s a reasonable request to make since no magic powder is inside. Also the bare and active reactors must be almost identical in weight and dimensions,etc.

    I don’t know maybe it’s late and my brain is not functioning but I think it can be done.

  35. spacegoat

    February 19, 2012 at 5:33 am

    The DGT test objectives were known several weeks ago:

    Test Objectives
    1.Measurement of excess heat produced by reactions within Hyperion reactors
    2.Measurement of “bare” Hyperion Reactor COP (i.e. total energy consumed versus energy produced)
    3.Measurement of radioactivity during testing
    4.Measurement of reactor’s stability using its control mechanisms

    It does not include testing a commercial product. Calorimetry of a working product is later.

    In the introduction to the protocol they state:
    “sustain such a reaction with results exceeding a COP of 20 and with temperatures capable to exceed 650 degrees Celsius.”

    They do not disabuse us of that expectation further in the document.

    Therefore, if the above objectives are met, this would be quite sufficient to convince any investor. I would invest.

    • spacegoat

      February 19, 2012 at 5:45 am

      If Dick Smith refuses to study the protocol and finds it unacceptable because the gadget is not packaged in coloured plastic then how sorry that would be.

      • spacegoat

        February 19, 2012 at 6:22 am

        On 23 Jan DGT stated
        “We announced expected reactor’s COP ** far more than 20 **, not 20. ”

        If this is proven to 7 teams of independent scientists who bring their own measurement equipment and who are able to look inside after the test, then this is an incontrovertible test.

        The hot air speakers (including Dick Smith) about this testing protocol are uninformed.

  36. spacegoat

    February 19, 2012 at 6:30 am

    Some DGT site information to allay other fears:

    The minimum structure of every test protocol in the world is the following:

    1. The testers, the observers (if any), the location and the date of the test
    2. The objectives of the test.
    3 Tester equipment/instrumentation and their calibration procedure
    4. Safety limits and precautions
    5. A detailed list of scheduled/expected procedures for every step of the test
    6. Expected results
    7. The results/ measurements and possible remarks on every step of the test
    8. Methods of valuation and calculations on test data
    9. Results or remarks of the testers
    10. Signs of testers and the observers

    This is typical structure for any lab or product test all around the world and we have not any reason to change it. So far, we have described in brief #2, 3, 5 and 6 of the above list through our last Press Release in a way that every non-expert can understand.

    We have stated that we will publish the detailed protocol before testing. That includes in detail:

    1. The testers, the observers (if any), the location and the date of the test
    2. The objectives of the test.
    3 Tester equipment/instrumentation and their calibration procedure
    3. Safety limits and precautions
    4. A detailed list of scheduled/expected procedures of every step of the test
    5. Expected results

    So, you have a very clear answer: Testers will be pre-announced, if testers have no argument on this.

    In any case, after the test all the above structured protocol filled with data and remarks has to be published by the testers in the media they choose. We are going to release it also through our site upon signatures of the testers and the observers on it.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      February 19, 2012 at 9:43 am

      spacegoat: side remark, I get it that you are a space enthusiast of some sort, like myself. If you follow the link behind my name you might find it interesting. We are developing a method (E-sail) for moving in the solar system with 100-1000 times higher efficiency than previously. It’s “mainstream” and about 30 scientists and engineers are working on it in Europe at the moment. First test satellite (ESTCube-1) will be launched next year. Sorry for advertisement and off-topic posting.

  37. AB

    February 19, 2012 at 8:19 am

    There is conflicting information being spread in regards to Defkalion’s first testing protocol. The 22passi delegation says one thing, the document by Defkalion another. I cannot figure out who is right.

    Either way, Celani wants flow calorimetry being performed which will have to wait for the second series of tests. I think this may reflect that Celani needs no convincing that LENR exists, he just wants to know the exact COP and stability of the device. If I understand it right, the first series of tests is meant to show that LENRs are taking place in the Hyperion.

    • Timar

      February 19, 2012 at 8:39 am

      Why should we doubt Defkalion’s protocol? It is the officially announced protocol the test will have to follow.

      Remembering the argumentative mess the 22passi troup wreaked in the Defkalion forum (culminating in the justified banning of Mario Massa) I don’t have much confidence in them anymore. I suspect they are too amicable with Rossi to give Defkalion a fair shoot.

  38. Tony

    February 19, 2012 at 9:21 am

    Steve Krivit’s article is a real hatchet job.

    He runs New Energy Times on a full-time basis, where does he get his money from?

    • AB

      February 19, 2012 at 10:11 am

      I also find it puzzling how much time and energy he is investing in the Rossi story when he was convinced almost right from the start that it was a hoax. He says he’s done with the story but is churning out articles every few days.

      And not a word on Defkalion ever since they broke up with Rossi.

  39. Dick Smith

    February 19, 2012 at 10:47 am

    I would reckon that 80% of the posters on this site are angry with what I post.

    Hopefully this may have a positive outcome as I have the impression from reading many of the posts that more and more are having slight doubts but just can’t bring themselves to believe they may have been so effectively conned.

    I issue a challenge.  Why not make up your own list of all of the claims that have been made by each party and then list what has panned out. For example I understand Defkalion claimed last year that they were regularly testing reactors with outputs of 20KW.and
    Rossi last year I understand claimed he had sold a 1MW unit. Then on your list show the evidence that is now available to support the claim. Your list should have twenty or thirty separate issues covered.
    Then  put on your best objective thinking cap and decide whether it’s normal to have so little evidence and so many claims fail or change.

    Commonsense alone should create concern to whether it is normal for inventors to make so many claims where there is little or no evidence forthcoming and they are requesting large amounts of money.

    This was also the pattern of Firepower International.

    And despite all your accusations my only interest is to quickly get to the truth so genuine people do not lose their savings.

    • Peter Roe

      February 19, 2012 at 11:02 am

      The issues you mention have been chewed over endlessly in the continuous scuffle between the different parties here and on virtually every other blog concerned with CF. Doing some more of the same would serve no useful purpose at all.

      If you are going to involve yourself and your money, please bring something new to the table. Any anger you detect will not be generated by genuine proposals to test an LENR device, but by rehashing old stuff, using half truths as Krivit does and/or by stating opinion as fact. We have plenty of posters here who already do all of these, ad nauseam.

    • Timar

      February 19, 2012 at 11:15 am

      I have to agree with Peter. Those facts may be new to Mr. Smith, most of us have already chewed them over and over.

      For example I understand Defkalion claimed last year that they were regularly testing reactors with outputs of 20KW

      Defkalion later stated that those claims were related to Rossi’s reactors they were working with at the time. When Rossi didn’t fulfill the contract with Defkalion, they were forced to develop their own reactor technology. That’s their explanation for the delay of several months.

      I’m not saying that I buy into this. I’m just saying that there is another reasonable explanation besides running a fraud scheme. The break between Rossi and Defkalion is an undisputed fact.

      • dsm

        February 19, 2012 at 8:23 pm


        Do you see what you just said ?

        Put another way. Defkalion (who we know from their initial company filing) were founded to sell value-adds to Rossi eCats.

        You commented “Defkalion later stated that those claims were related to Rossi’s reactors they were working with at the time. ”

        Then you said “When Rossi didn’t fulfill the contract with Defkalion, they were forced to develop their own reactor technology.”

        So how did Defkalion invent a near identical Powdered Nickel LENR unit inside a few months (Rossi said he started in 1996), other labs around the world are still strugling to produce LENRs that do more than prove LENR works.

        There is only one pair of conclusions that any rational person can come to about the hyperion (unless one believes in miracle babys – which put simply, is what the hyperion is)- think carefully !.

        Either Defkalion stole Rossi’s invention or the stole his scam.

        If it was the former then why does Rossi do nothing. ( I asked him directly).

        If it is the latter then we are in for pain as we face up to the consequences of our faith.

        Doug M

        • Tony

          February 19, 2012 at 8:44 pm

          How about that one is legit, and the other designed to take the ‘heat’. That’s DFG, at the mo. Perhaps it’s a double blind, but they keep switching…

    • Peter Roe

      February 19, 2012 at 11:24 am

      I’m afraid that I also see your purported motivation for involvement as suspect. Most of the followers of this blog and others like it do so out of hope. That is the hope that finally there may be an answer to some of the worlds problems. Perhaps you have misunderstood this and interpreted the continued interest, despite obvious contradictions, as a desire to make money by investing in the technology as soon as a chance is offered to do so?

      My ‘investment’ will be the purchase of one CF heater as and when such a device is available to me. I’m guessing, but I think this would be true for the overwhelming majority of those in the ‘hopeful’ camp.

      As for the ‘skeptics’ – they mostly seem to claim some kind of sick fascination with watching the antics of the gullible little people, ‘amusement’, or the heartwarming desire to protect the rest of us from our folly. Their real motivations for spending so much time and effort spamming here will obviously depend on their personal agendas. You wear the ‘skeptic’ badge on your sleeve so that much is clear, but I think quite a few people are beginning to wonder whether your offer is really made in good faith.

      • H. Visscher

        February 19, 2012 at 9:04 pm

        Well said Peter. I’m on the same level as you; a hopeful bystander

    • LCD

      February 19, 2012 at 6:50 pm

      Dick in my industry ( R&D ) people exxagerate claims all the time. Doesn’t normally mean they are scamming just that they haven’t gotten all the issues worked out. I’m quite certain neither defkalion nor Rossi have worked out all the kinks.

      If they are for real of course.

      Don’t give up on agreeing to a protocol.

  40. Dick Smith

    February 19, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Another point.  Imagine you were an inventor and world wide very damaging publicity was given to the claim that you had made an error in the wiring of your invention or the measurement of steam output and your invention may not work as you have claimed.

    Surely you would grab the unit from under the bench, connect it up and make a video showing an independent well known professor checking the current in each wire and showing that all water was turning to steam.

    Then you would whack it on u tube. 

    Now what could be the reason you would not do this?

    Could it be because your invention does not work as claimed?

    • Peter Roe

      February 19, 2012 at 11:25 am

      I think you have just officially joined the ranks of the spammers.

    • AB

      February 19, 2012 at 11:29 am

      Mr Smith

      Surely you would grab the unit from under the bench, connect it up and make a video showing an independent well known professor checking the current in each wire and showing that all water was turning to steam.

      Then you would whack it on u tube.

      Now what could be the reason you would not do this?

      No test will ever convince a true skeptic (at least no test he cannot attend himself). Only commercialization will.

      One can always find fault, or make up fault, in a test or in the testers.

      • H. Visscher

        February 19, 2012 at 9:10 pm

        Why not? Because there would never be any progress. True skeptics will never be convinced. If you objective is to start selling your product, you work towards that. Convincing skeptics is just a distraction and does not get you anywhere. There are still people believing the lunar landings never happened, hack there are still people believing the earth is flat! What is the point trying to convince them…

    • Josh

      February 19, 2012 at 11:31 am

      Your acts contradict your words.
      If you’re certain something isn’t true, you shouldn’t invest time to prove it.

      If you aren’t certain yet, then please, act proffesionaly, and negotiate the protocol, without all the prior public attacks.

    • John Milstone

      February 19, 2012 at 11:31 am

      Absolutely right. Rossi has no interest in proving that his gadget works. He’s only interested in making it plausible enough to attract gullible investors.

      Actually, he is better served by keeping it from becoming too credible. If it looked credible enough, then people who would see through his con would take an interest. It’s best to make his claims outrageous enough that it only attracts the attention of the people who already eagerly follow every other “free energy” scam out there (people like Sterling Allen).

    • Tony

      February 19, 2012 at 11:33 am

      True, but John Milstone would still declare it fake!

      • John Milstone

        February 19, 2012 at 11:44 am

        Only if it was a fake.

        Think about all the people and organizations you have to declare “liars” in order to believe Rossi:

        University of Bologna
        University of Uppsala
        National Instruments

        Now, think about how little actual independent confirmation we have of Rossi’s claims:

        No customers
        No factory
        No “NATO Colonel”
        No independent tests
        No “detailed isotopic analysis” as promised by Kullander

        • Josh

          February 19, 2012 at 11:50 am

          U of Bolonga and NI had denied relationship with AR already.
          NASA never had and never claimed as of having.


          • Not New Josh

            February 19, 2012 at 12:45 pm

            Apparently there are now two Josh’s. I guess I should have been more creative in my naming convention.

          • John Milstone

            February 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm

            From THIS article:

            According to a post on the E-Cat Report blog site, Italian inventor Andrea Rossi was in Sweden on July 4 and 5 to enter into an agreement with Uppsala University to perform research on the underlying physics of an invention by Rossi. He claims that his device produces clean nuclear energy.

            Professors Sven Kullander, retired from Uppsala University, and Hanno Essén, with the Royal Institute of Technology, endorsed Rossi’s claimed technology in a news story on Feb. 23, 2011, before they had seen or inspected the device on March 29. According to his Web site, Essén is the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Association, a nonprofit education group well-known in academic circles.

            New Energy Times contacted Senior Press Officer Anneli Waara of Uppsala University today in an attempt to confirm the story. Waara sent our inquiry to Kullander and Essén.

            “According to Professor Kullander, there is no such agreement or preparing for an agreement as suggested by that information,” Waara wrote.

          • Tony

            February 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm

            Again, you’re relying on what Krivit says.

            We can neither rely on Rossi nor Krivit.

            We’d be better off relying on non involved third parties – of which there appear to be none!

            So, perhaps the logical thing is that we all need to shut up about this (as if).

          • John Milstone

            February 19, 2012 at 1:09 pm

            Again, you’re relying on what Krivit says.
            We can neither rely on Rossi nor Krivit.

            The key difference is that Krivit actually names his sources. If he was misquoting them, they would certainly call him on it.

            Rossi, on the other hand, makes up “secret NATO Colonels” and lies about contracts with respectable organizations to try to fake credibility.

          • Tony

            February 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm

            What actually needs to happen, is that N.I. provide a press release hosted at their site, so we can verify whether Krivit is misrepresenting the facts or not.

            So, again, you’re relying on Krivit. A known unreliable source..

    • Timar

      February 19, 2012 at 11:38 am

      Now what could be the reason you would not do this?

      Of course I would do. Every reasonable person would. Rossi is the opposite of a reasonable person, as his reaction to your offer has clearly shown. That’s the reason why I’ve given up on him.

      However – considering all the knowledge I have obtained on the subject of LENR in general and on the subject of LENR reactions in Ni-H systems in specific (I surely could write a book about it) plus the involvment and testimony of half a dozen university professors, I can only draw the conclusion (with a probability bordering on certainty) that Rossi has something that involves nuclear reactions. He may be a bungler and fraudster – but he has something.

      That’s the fundamentel difference to the Firepower scam. There wasn’t any credible scientific background to their “invention” at all. There weren’t any university professors – among them some of the most noted experts in this specific area of science – testifying their claims.

    • daniel maris

      February 19, 2012 at 11:46 am

      Equally if you had a genuine product you were taking to market yourself, might you not be glad of this negative publicity at this point to put competitors off the scent? There’s no need to prove anything at this point if you have a genuine product. Of course, it’s different with DGT because they are not claiming to be manufacturing the product themselves, so they do need to prove there is a product if they are going to sell licensing rights.

    • Ransompw

      February 19, 2012 at 1:23 pm


      That point has also been debated. If I had a working LENR reactor that had commercial possibilities, I would do whatever I could to NOT prove it until I was ready. In fact IF Rossi was legit, I suspect he’d give you a big hug for confusing the issue.

      Duplicating these tests costs squat, the whole reactor costs squat. If LENR is verified thousands of labs will be working on this in the blink of an eye and the only thing holding that back is doubt. Believe me when I say if I were Rossi I would be very happy with you.

      Now do I think he has a commercial product? NO

    • Bob D

      February 20, 2012 at 5:40 am

      “Could it be because your invention does not work as claimed?”

      I can think of no other reason.

  41. Dick Smith

    February 19, 2012 at 11:31 am

    Peter. That’s just the point. There is no need to bring anything new to the table.
    This type of scam has no doubt gone on for centuries.

    Yes I agree many of the points I bring up have been discussed before however they were never satisfactorily answered.

    It’s almost if you just have to believe in this because you so want it to be true.

    Many are hoping the evidence is just around the corner.

    I reckon it’s here today and very clear.

    • Tony

      February 19, 2012 at 11:37 am

      I think many of us were hoping that your team would actually attend the test and the properly either invalidate or validate by evidence rather than rumour and conjecture.

      • AB

        February 19, 2012 at 11:44 am

        I want concrete information based on reality, not having one more skeptic content to declare this an obvious scam. No offense Mr Smith, but I do not think you’re in a position to make accurate statements about the Hyperion or the proposed testing protocol.

    • Peter Roe

      February 19, 2012 at 11:46 am

      The evidence **is** just around the corner, in the form of the already-proposed tests suggested by DGT. I suggest that it might be a good idea if you parked your suitcase full of money for a few weeks, i.e. until the tests in both phases are complete.

      If the tests flunk, then we have all been screwed – end of story. If they are borderline, by all means come forward with a Randi-style prize for anyone who can demonstrate irrefutable COP x for y hours. If they incontrovertibly demonstrate useable power output, then we will all have our answer.

      • Timar

        February 19, 2012 at 11:49 am

        Well put, Peter.

      • dsm

        February 19, 2012 at 8:54 pm


        You do need to qualify what you mean by ‘the tests’

        If ‘the tests’ are carried out by independent qualified people (such as eminent professors from recognized research or educational institutes – Kullander & Essen, Celai, Levi, Strammos etc: ) or carried out by groups of people who are not widely known in LENR circles and have nothing (reputations, positions) to lose if they fail to test adequately.

        So one alarm bell I am hearing is that Defkalion are ‘cherry picking’ the test teams and that not one name of an eminent Govt backed researcher has yet been put forward.

        The other alarm bell is that Celani (a highly qualified LENR researcher) has already said the tests proposed by Defkalion are inadequate.

        Again, I have been wanting Rossi’s eCat to be real but the more I read of Rossi claims that keep failing to materialize the louder the alarm bells ring. The appearance of Defkalion’s ‘miracle baby’ has always escaped me.

        One other reality we must face here is that if Rossi’s eCats don’t work, then neither will the miracle hyperion.

        Then come back to the reasons being put forward as to why Defkalion supposedly broke with Rossi – that reason is being repeated as “Rossi’s eCat failed to perform to specs”

        So where are we ? – in a state of claim & counter claim & still no acceptable testing authority or any sight of a commercial ready LENR device.

        Doug M

    • daniel maris

      February 19, 2012 at 11:49 am

      Dick Smith,

      I think we are all entitled to take a view. It doesn’t mean we are naive.

      Lots of products are developed in secret until ready for market. Personally I prefer to keep an open mind whilst at the same time being perfectly honest about my enthusiasm for LENR, especially since NASA and other bodies have confirmed its reality.

      As a real and (effectively) unlimited energy source, the only question is whether it can be commercialised. I’m surprised you as an electrics store owner aren’t a bit more interested in it from that point of view.

  42. Dick Smith

    February 19, 2012 at 11:42 am

    AB. That’s rubbish and you should know it.

    A true skeptic will accept well reasoned evidence.

    I am a skeptic but I accept the Americans did land on the moon and that the second law of thermodynamics still holds true.

    I also accept lots of things without evidence as long as most reasonable people I know accept them.

    In the case of Rossi and Defkalion most reasonable people I know do not accept their claims and say some proper evidence is necessary before they will.. That’s also my view.

    • AB

      February 19, 2012 at 11:50 am

      While it’s true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we’ll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful hindsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered.

      Josiah C. Nott (Mosquito transmission of Yellow Fever, Malaria)

      Fought an uphill battle against the “toxic gases from swamps” theory of Malaria, etc. His theory was ignored for three decades, then championed by C. Finlay and others, who were ignored an additional two decades (ridiculed as “mosquito men” self-deluded crackpots,) finally Walter Reed penetrated the disbelief ca. 1900, yet still years later the same scoffing halted the eradication of mosquitos during construction of the Panama Canal. See:

      Ignaz Semmelweis (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )

      Semmelweis brought the medical community the idea that they were killing large numbers of new mothers by working with festering wounds in surgery, then immediately assisting with births without even washing hands. Such a truth was far too shameful for a community of experts to accept, so he was ignored. Semmelweis finally ended up in a mental hospital, and his ideas caught fire after he had died.

      Wright bros (flying machines)

      After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about “The Lying Brothers.” Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local “crazies” who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.

      …and many more examples, including recent ones. Taken from

      • Tony

        February 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm

        How wonder much of that would have come to pass in this land of instant internet hate?

    • Thicket

      February 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm


      As you have realized, the believers on this forum have few critical thinking skills. They are wired to believe Rossi/Defkalion and minimize/ignore all the evidence against them.

      You are trying reason and logic to convince them. It will not work. Some of the believers have even deluded themselves into thinking they are open-minded skeptics.

      I doubt many have bothered to look up the Firepower scam. That one had more ‘credibility’ than Rossi/Defkalion ever did. Even parts of the Australian government supported Firepower. And the product? A pill to increase fuel mileage by allowing easier combustion of heavier hydrocarbon molecules!!! It just shows how incredibly gullible and naive investors can be. $100 million on such an obvious fraud!! (Note: As a chemical engineer with over thirty years in the energy industry, it’s very obvious to me.)

      I think you’re hoping to convince some folks that Rossi/Defkalion are bogus. Perhaps you will succeed with forum lurkers and casual posters. You don’t stand a chance with the woo-woo cadre of believers. They are close-minded with a cult-like belief based on fantasy and ignorance.

      A simple example is the current revelation that National Instruments have no relations with Rossi. In the past, believers waxed prolific about Rossi’s credibility in attracting such a well-known and respected company to help with the eCat. It’s now obvious that National Instruments is just the latest casualty in Rossi’s fraudulent ‘credibility by association’ gambit. He’s done it before with the University of Uppsala, University of Bologna, MIT, some American politician and NASA.

      The believers are and will remain mostly silent about National Instruments. They’ll move on to their next fantasy confirming, in their minds, the truth and wisdom of their fanciful beliefs.

      • Tony

        February 19, 2012 at 1:56 pm

        Actually, we still need to wait for official confirmation from N.I.

        As stated earlier, neither Rossi, Defkalion, or Krivit can be believed.

        Therefore, you are wasting your time producing masses of text based on what amounts to a pile of misinformation.

        • John Milstone

          February 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm

          And if NI does issue an official statement saying that they have no relationship with Rossi, will you then admit that Rossi is a fraud?

          If NI does come out and publicly state that they have been working closely with Rossi (as Rossi claimed numerous times), then that would be very strong evidence that Rossi is legit.

          But don’t hold your breath on that happening.

          • Tony

            February 19, 2012 at 2:09 pm

            Of course, if N.I unequivocally state that they have never worked with Rossi, then it’s “another nail in his coffin”.

            But if we find, and note that Krivit’s article is framed in terms of the present, that N.I have worked with Rossi in the past, will you admit that Krivit is a majorly skewed and unreliable source?

      • H. Visscher

        February 19, 2012 at 9:27 pm

        I think that there are less “true believers” than their are skeptics here. Most of us – I think – are just “hopeful dreamers”. I think that there are very few people 100% convinced (at least I am not). There are quite a few skeptics on this site, however, whom I predict will never be convinced. No matter what kind of test is preformed.

  43. daniel maris

    February 19, 2012 at 11:43 am

    The story’s moving on – Krivit alleging that Rossi is not in a customer relationship with National Instruments…what will Rossi’s response be one wonders?

    • Peter Roe

      February 19, 2012 at 11:53 am

      Probably a Krivit half-truth, but if NI is no longer involved at all I would be very concerned (unless some other party is taking the load).

      AR spends too much time blogging to be doing all the work that would be required – only the involvement of another (large) partner would be able to carry things forward as claimed. If not NI – who?

      • Josh

        February 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm

        Rossi constructed his blue box without the help of NI, probably from parts purchased in Wallmart, and that’s all he needed.

        You don’t need actual construction to sell lies.

      • Timar

        February 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm

        Let me risk a prognosis: despite having some technology that does more or less what he claims Rossi is unable to make it work stable. Worse than that, he screws everyone who could bring in competent engineering to solve the problems. He will end up with nothing.

        It’s a Fortune that we have Defkalion.

  44. CuriousChris

    February 19, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    People don’t like their hopes dashed. they always try to shoot the messenger. You cant win on this one Dick.

    The way I read it defkalion are weaseling out. the dry test they insist on can easily be faked. simply modulate the power so one runs hotter than the other. you could even build it in to the reactor so that when you swap active canisters one unit changes its duty cycle to increase or lower the power throughput.

    The dry test they insist on is also very dubious. it may work well enough for low power units which only run for a short period of time but the heat buildup in a 5kw unit over time would start to melt the stuff around it and the room would become intolerably hot unless it was well vented. with a distance of only 50cm between the reactors the ‘cold’ reactor would heat up and start to provide erroneous measurements.

    No one in this forum has the guts to put a million on the line. When someone does they start acting like its their money and you should accept less than optimal results. If Defkalion has a real commercial ready working reactor then they should make it available for proper testing. If they don’t then what are they selling? hopes and dreams?

    I was sincerely hoping this would play out another way. but I guess that’s the dreamer in me.

    • Tony

      February 19, 2012 at 12:10 pm

      The whole point is that if Dick had been politer and more professional in his approach, then their “weaseling out” would really have been conclusive.

      Also, there may have been more chance of his team being there to assess it properly.

      Now, there seems little chance.

      Thanks a million, Dick!

      • CuriousChris

        February 19, 2012 at 12:19 pm

        That’s a bunch of absolute rot. What dick offered and requested was reasonable.

        • Tony

          February 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm


        • dsm

          February 19, 2012 at 9:02 pm


          Gotta agree with you there.

          Tony, it is unbelievable that you could use Dick’s ‘politeness’ as a justification for a company weaseling out of a test ?

          Do you accept that LENR when proven to be real is a global matter that affects the population of the planet ? – if yes then a petty issue of who wasn’t polite enough (to who) has no place in establishing that something world changing is real or isn’t.


          Doug M

    • Timar

      February 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm


      everywhere you go, you are spreading your BS (ever heard what a control experiment is? Probably not. Ever heard about the Boltzmann law? Probably not.). I’m more eager then ever for the results of the Defkalion tests. I hope they will reveal your ignorant drivel as what it is.

      • Peter Roe

        February 19, 2012 at 1:28 pm

        Unfortunately, what Chris is demonstrating is that the live/control hot core experiment that is being proposed will not settle the issue as far as the skeptics are concerned, even if calculations prove excess heat. That means the noise continuing as usual.

        Like Rossi’s steam/vapour loophole, calculated heat loss by radiation and convection, plus the possibility of ‘over temperature’ forced-air cooling cutting in at some point, leave room for exploitation by those whose minds are made up, and who don’t want to be confused by facts.

        Personally I’d like to see the same pair of units, each attached to a simple system that circulates coolant from/to a 2-500 litre insulated water tank, and run like this for say 10 hours. At the end of the run, it would be very simple to work out the energy transferred to the water minus the power input, and only a complete loony could still question the test’s validity (so just 3 or 4 ‘regulars’ on this blog). 🙂

  45. Rends

    February 19, 2012 at 12:11 pm

    I can not understand that anyone still doubts into a working LENR technology. Even the U.S. government, with its NASA has filed a patent application. Of course all scammers!!! Dick Smith should maybe offer that $1,000,000. to the NASA.

    We should actually be much further in the discussion and deal with the impact of this technology to the world, instead we are dealing with old people, having too much money and too little future.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    • CuriousChris

      February 19, 2012 at 12:14 pm

      Patents prove nothing, there have been many patents for devices that dont work. While lenr is gaining acceptance the outputs are still very low and hard to create. what Rossi and DGT claimed was many orders of magnitude over anybody else. Very dubious just from that.

    • Peter Roe

      February 19, 2012 at 1:40 pm

      “instead we are dealing with old people, having too much money and too little future”

      C’mon Rends – less of the ageism. I’m fairly ancient (although without the money) and I know that quite a few of the other long term contributors are not in the first flush of youth either! (Most of the current CF researchers seem to be in the same age group too.) That hasn’t stopped many of us indulging in speculation about how cheap power will change the world in the short term, and in our children’s lifetimes. Look back through the threads – there was one specifically dedicated to speculation of this kind.

      Unfortunately, every time such discussions get under way we seem to be deluged with spam from the ‘usual suspects’.

      • Rends

        February 19, 2012 at 1:55 pm

        “That hasn’t stopped many of us indulging in speculation”

        Why speculate, the genie is out of bottle and being old is not a problem, if (like you) those are taking care about the future of our children. But beeing old and (just because of having al lot of money) insulting and describing people, that take care about the future, as a crooks, is something completely different.

        • Peter Roe

          February 19, 2012 at 2:10 pm

          OK – that’s agreed! But there does still seem to be too much distance between proof of principle and the first practical application (product). Like many others here, I want to see that gap closed asap, before I have an anxiety-induced heart attack.

    • dsm

      February 19, 2012 at 9:15 pm


      There is a difference between does LENR look real and is Rossi/Defkalion delivering it.

      I would argue that even the most conservative poster here will accept that LENR is real and NASA’s view refelects that.

      But todate noone has put forward any device that justifies the claim that it is a production ready LENR device.

      The debates we are now having are focusing on the claim that 2 companies are making to have commercial ready devices.

      Rossi says he and his backers (we don’t know who they are) are building a factory ‘somewhere’ in the US & ‘soon’ we will be able to buy an eCat from it. No one has seen a prototype let alone a working (to acceptable international standards) a pre-production unit.

      Defkalion say Rossi failed to ever deliver on his claims. Defkalion claim they then (from mid 2011) found a miracle LENR device that outperforms what Rossi was offering.

      My alarm bells are ringing that Defkalion may well be meaning our hyperion out scams Rossi’s ecats.

      Doug M

  46. georgehants

    February 19, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    From Defkalion
    “Compared to a car or a plane or what else, a LNER-heater like a Hyperion is a very simple machine.”??

    Talking on the engineering level, the answer to the above raised question is Yes, Hyperions are much more simpler than a car or a plane. This is obvious if you read the Hyperion Spec Sheet, already released in our site (
    This statement does not stand when we are moving one level bellow the “engineering” or the materials level. Hyperion electronics and algorithms (in their software)-that have a role in triggering and control the reaction, are more advanced compared, for instance, with modern car electronics. The same stands with the special designed for LENR lab instrumentation we had to build in order to monitor the reactions in real time in our labs for further improvements.
    In any case, Defkalion R&D and product designers believe in simplicity.
    “Less is more” (this stands sometimes for posting too).
    Thank you

    • Pekka Janhunen

      February 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm

      Reasonable text. Speaking of simplicity, hopefully they would try to follow Rossi in at least one thing, namely eliminating the H2 bottle.

  47. Ransompw

    February 19, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    By the way with now 370 posts in this thread, it is hard to read through them, has there been further communications between Dick and Defkalion then those shown by Paul in the body of the report? For someone justing starting the day.

    • Tony

      February 19, 2012 at 1:42 pm

      Don’t believe so, just Dick’s comments about the Celani stuff.

      • Ransompw

        February 19, 2012 at 1:50 pm

        Then why the posts by Dick about Game Over? Dick are you still paying attention, what are your intentions going forward? I for one am not impressed so far that you had added any clarity to the situation one way or another.

        • Tony

          February 19, 2012 at 1:53 pm

          That’s in response to the 22passi men saying they aren’t sending anyone for the first round of tests.

  48. spacegoat

    February 19, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Some here are completely prejudiced no matter what the test, and avoid actually reading the protocol and understanding it. Let me repeat for their benefit again:
    On 23 Jan DGT stated
    “We announced expected reactor’s COP *** far more than 20 *** , not 20. ”

    7 teams of independent scientists will bring their own measurement equipment and will examine the inside after the test. Scientifically at COP 20 is an incontrovertible test. If the result is positive the scam purveyor blather will be blasted away and Dick will have egg on his face. If the result is inconclusive then the scam purveyors will continue their evidence starved senseless attack. If the result is conclusively negative, they will be vindicated, as will 99% of posters on this site who have remained neutral. However, I do not think that DGT would have painted themselves into a corner by organising this test if they had nothing. Running the gauntlet of 7 scientific teams.

    There is no evidence that DGT/AR are involved in raising money from mum and dad investors. The isolated case in Australia is regrettable, but it is directly not connected to the companies involved, unlike Firepower which was a chain of cheating from top to bottom.

    So, to use an Australian phrase here: “No Worries”. We just have to wait.

    • Josh

      February 19, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      There’s also no external confirmation of “independent tests”.
      Where are the details? names? organizations?

      I wouldn’t be much surprised if the Defkalion story turns to be a branch of Rossi’s hoax.

      • spacegoat

        February 19, 2012 at 2:27 pm

        If you read the protocol, or my previous post on the subject of tests, you would know that the names and details will be announced prior to the tests. Obviously. Neither tester nor tested are beholden to ecatnews.

      • Veblin

        February 19, 2012 at 2:46 pm

        Testing starts February 24. Two branches of the Greek govermment are in the first group of testers. Seven groups will be testing taking over a month. Watch the web site for infomation instead of just giving your opinion about a possible hoax.

        The minimum structure of every test protocol in the world is the following:

        1. The testers, the observers (if any), the location and the date of the test
        2. The objectives of the test.
        3 Tester equipment/instrumentation and their calibration procedure
        4. Safety limits and precautions
        5. A detailed list of scheduled/expected procedures for every step of the test
        6. Expected results
        7. The results/ measurements and possible remarks on every step of the test
        8. Methods of valuation and calculations on test data
        9. Results or remarks of the testers
        10. Signs of testers and the observers

        This is typical structure for any lab or product test all around the world and we have not any reason to change it. So far, we have described in brief #2, 3, 5 and 6 of the above list through our last Press Release in a way that every non-expert can understand.

        We have stated that we will publish the detailed protocol before testing. That includes in detail:

        1. The testers, the observers (if any), the location and the date of the test
        2. The objectives of the test.
        3 Tester equipment/instrumentation and their calibration procedure
        3. Safety limits and precautions
        4. A detailed list of scheduled/expected procedures of every step of the test
        5. Expected results

        So, you have a very clear answer: Testers will be pre-announced, if testers have no argument on this.

        In any case, after the test all the above structured protocol filled with data and remarks has to be published by the testers in the media they choose. We are going to release it also through our site upon signatures of the testers and the observers on it.

    • Peter Roe

      February 19, 2012 at 2:16 pm

      “We just have to wait.” Yes, that was the idea before Dick’s sideshow hit the road. It seems pretty clear (at least to me) that the ‘suitcase’ offer is not sincere, so maybe we can now just quietly go back to awaiting new evidence (fat chance).

  49. JNewman

    February 19, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    And so the endless cycle continues:

    1. Rossi announces something on his blog.

    2. People cheer and proclaim it to be the news they have been waiting for and that the world will never be the same.

    3. Other people ask pointed questions and are attacked for being negative and having hidden agendas.

    4. A month or three goes by and nothing happens or the original claim is shown to be false.

    5. The source of the negative news is attacked until it is corroborated so then the significance of the negative news is marginalized.

    6. Some people point out that the claim didn’t pan out and are immediately attacked for bringing up old news and being repetitious.

    7. Return to step 1 and repeat.

    • Tony

      February 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm

      Let us amuse ourselves with this: whist we’re waiting.

      Thanks to fznidarsic on vortex 🙂

      • Peter Roe

        February 19, 2012 at 2:24 pm

        Great stuff – copied straight to my HD for future use!

      • Mahron - A4 B3

        February 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm comments section will never pass 400 it would explode.

      • John Milstone

        February 19, 2012 at 2:39 pm

        And when you’re done reading that, here are some links about previous investor scams that sound an awful lot like Rossi and Defkalion:

        Keely had an “engine” that used energy from the “aether”. He kept his scam going for a quarter of a century, never once producing a working product or an independent test. After he died, it was discovered that he had all sorts of gimmicks built into his “factory” to fake his impressive results.

        Tilley supposedly had a “self-charging” electric car. He conned “mom & pop” investors out of millions of dollars without ever producing a working product. He has several seemingly impressive demonstrations, and convinced many, including Sterling Allan that it was real. (LINK)

        Madison Priest supposedly invented a way of sending high-def video over ordinary phone lines. He conned investors, including Intel, General Dynamics and Blockbuster Video, out of millions of dollars, using nothing more than a DVD player and a modified power cords that contained a hidden video coax cable. From the article: “Engineers have tested the box — engineers hired by Zekko, by Strong, by General Dynamics — but they could never prove it really worked. Labs have tested the box — reputable labs that run tests for Intel, Sony and Yamaha — but never without Priest running the tests. Over eight years of deals and contracts, none of Priest’s major investors has ever possessed a working unit.”

        • Tony

          February 19, 2012 at 2:45 pm

          You’re such a party pooper 🙂 still, at least we’ll get past 400 comments now 😉

        • Bob D

          February 20, 2012 at 7:16 am


          You did not mention Stanley Meyer or Paul Pantone who also bilked investors for years with 100 mpg carburetors. Meyer died unexpectedly while dining at a restaurant when he reportedly leaped to his feet and shouted “I’ve just been poisoned!” His final words or so it was reported.

      • dsm

        February 19, 2012 at 9:23 pm

        To be fair to the other side of the question, where is the wiki list of famous scams in history.

        I guess they could start with the sale of the Brooklyn bridge but the list is going to be so long it can’t fit on 1 web page let alone 100.

        So which list trumps which ?



        Doug M

    • Peter Roe

      February 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm

      Yes, its a pretty pointless game if you genuinely have absolutely no hope of the emergence of a workable CF device from any quarter. I just wonder why you continue to play it in that case?

      • JNewman

        February 19, 2012 at 2:39 pm

        Peter, your question exposes the real puzzle in this affair. Why it is that having a genuine hope for the emergence of CF technology requires the abandonment of critical reasoning? Isn’t it possible to want this technology to succeed but still require the same basic criteria for evaluation of information as used everywhere else in life?

        For the past four months, AR has made claim after claim in his blog and not a single one has been verified or even hinted at by any external piece of evidence. Yet people are willing to accept them all as fact and defend them vehemently as it were their own personal reputation.

        Why do some of us “play the game”? Perhaps we too hope this is real, but if it is, it has to pass the same tests as other parts of the real world.

        • Ransompw

          February 19, 2012 at 2:58 pm

          Wow a minute, Rossi started this by allowing people to see demonstrations. They were not conclusive in any respect but they were interesting. That is why this is being followed. And the real problem with deciding one way or another is at the heart of this. One can make a legitimate argument that Rossi or anyone else would not want it to be clear they have a working reactor until they had developed a commercial product ready for sale. To do so would invite a rush of testing the likes of which hasn’t been seen before.

          Just think, we (the world) spend years and billions on hot fusion just to produce a few tests. The Rossi type device is so simple and inexpensive, that same effort would produce thousands of tests a week starting almost immediately. Even a pseudoskeptic can understand the dynamics of this. If LENR is real and is demonstrated in an indisputable manner the flood gates will open and progress and development will be breathtaking. Anyone wanting to make money better be ready to ride the crest of a tidal wave.

          Defkalion is saying (of course they may be lying) they want to do incremental tests to prove LENR and demonstrate their device. There is nothing wrong with that and so we wait to see. They may be lying and they may not. Place your bets.

          • JNewman

            February 19, 2012 at 3:13 pm

            Ah, the ultimate rationalization: Rossi doesn’t want to prove that his device works because it would open the floodgates before he can make his fortune. Really? Then why the hell is he making so much noise? Robot factories, Home Depot, $500 ecats, National Instruments, etc. etc. If he doesn’t want to spill the beans, why doesn’t he just shut up about what he is doing?

            Folks, I think things are absolutely backwards here. If I was a pathological skeptic hellbent on suppressing LENR, the last thing I would be pushing for is unambiguous tests of ecats and validation of Rossi and Defkalion’s claims. On the other hand, if I was someone who is convinced that this was the answer to our energy needs, I would be screaming at Rossi and Detkalion to prove that they have done it and not accept any bullshit excuses.

            Isn’t it ironic that it isn’t working that way?

          • Ransompw

            February 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm

            Well Newman (remember seinfeld), I am personally in favor of tests and I absolutely will scream for them if you think it will do any good.

            Why would Rossi not keep a low profile under my rationalization, well most likely because he is a scammer or nuts, take your pick.

            The problem is it is fine to take sides on this issue, it is another thing to have clarity. Dick Smith may be right, but then again, he can’t know with certainty, if he claims certainty he is a liar.

          • JNewman

            February 19, 2012 at 3:32 pm

            Ransompw, I hope you didn’t say “Newman” in that tone of voice…

            Yes, despite protests to the contrary, every single one of us has taken sides. It is human nature. And there is assuredly no clarity to be had at the moment.

            As for screaming, no it won’t do any good. But it will continue anyway.

    • Josh

      February 19, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      You forgot a step:
      6.1. Replace “Rossi” name with Defkalion.

    • Timar

      February 19, 2012 at 2:38 pm

      Who cares about Rossi these days?

    • Thicket

      February 19, 2012 at 5:35 pm


      Your ‘endless cycle’ post was funny. True as well.

  50. Dennis Moore

    February 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    If you don’t like DTG’s proposed test protocol, then give the reasons why (scientific reasons) and propose your better test protocol.
    To do this, you will need to talk to them, because you clearly don’t know what they have or claim to have. Skype would be the most efficient way to figure out the details and you could record it. Or if you prefer a slower and less effective means of communication, you could insist on using e-mail. Then you write up the agreed protocol and sign.
    All I want is a clear test protocol with clear acceptance criteria. Independent observers who are allowed to measure anything they want with their own calibrated equipment (as agreed to in the protocol) and published results. At this point DGT appears to be offering this.
    I don’t need someone saying DGT wants a COP of 3 when that is simply not true. I don’t need someone saying that the fact that they want to talk over skype to hammer out the details is evidence fraud.

    Game, set, match? You haven’t even served yet, all you have done is offered to play the game.

    • Peter Roe

      February 19, 2012 at 2:22 pm

      Very well put. Over to you, Dick…

    • Timar

      February 19, 2012 at 2:44 pm

      Many rational poeple have made the same points over and over whenever Mr. Smith choose to pop up on this blog. He can’t have missed all of those comments – I myself have repeated all of this many times.
      He never condescended to replied to them – never! If I were georghants, I would probably say that he isn’t interested in the Truth 😉

      Yet this can’t be repeated often enough, especially in such eloquent words.

    • Al Potenza

      February 19, 2012 at 4:56 pm

      “give the reasons why (scientific reasons) and propose your better test protocol.”

      “you clearly don’t know what they have or claim to have.”

      We know what Defkalion claims. They wrote it up all over their blog starting last June. They have a nuclear fusion reactor with a typical output ten times the input or more. It makes more than 20 kW continuously for months. It has a liquid coolant, closed cycle system using some sort of high temperature oil.

      The best way to test it is to use the whole system including the coolant loop. The method to use is liquid flow calorimetry.

      That is NOT what Defkalion is proposing.