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

eCat Scepticism And Defkalion Tests

February 20, 2012

My son asked me where I stood on the Rossi/Defkalion spectrum the other day. It was just after we found out that the 1MW plant was still in Bologna and had never been physically shipped anywhere. I told him then that I had taken a step back but that there was still plenty of room for hope because (among other things) National Instruments was still in the picture. With their direct involvement almost certainly a mirage (in other words Rossi was just a potential customer) that back foot has taken the lead.

On their own, the loss of confidence these two revelations bring to the puzzle is significant but when I examine my thinking with honesty, I recognise a pattern and begin to wonder if that pattern should be extended to other assumptions. It is often difficult to pin down a lie and when you do, it is easily rationalised away as a shrewd deception designed to shake off competitors.

When I started this site, I was far more sceptical than I have been in the last few weeks. Even so, I recently put myself at A3 B2 on the belief spectrum. In other words, I thought LENR was likely real but was a sceptic (a hopeful one) on the eCat. As a born optimist, that is where I am now – although my caution is sharper.

We still do not know the real story but I do give credence to all those people close to Rossi who (to a greater and lesser degree) lend him credibility. The Defkalion spin-off, Rossi’s long-term commitment (financial and time), his association with Focardi, Piantelli’s reported success with NiH and the series of demos (flawed as they were) continue to support the possibility that he has what he claims.

I promised in starting eCatNews that I would call it as I see it – good or bad. There is no way to paint recent events as anything but damaging. If people think it is my reporting that has changed, they are wrong. If good news comes our way, I will report it with enthusiasm. I will, however, be more circumspect with anything of significance if it comes from one of the protagonists without substance. I will not default to assuming a lie as I remain convinced that certainty either way is not possible.

For those who wonder why I have allowed Dick Smith to grace this site with his aggressive calls of fraud when I censure others for the same: He is not anonymous. He is not hiding behind a cloak to protect himself. He is bringing something tangible to the table and not merely parroting the same thing over and over. If any of you anonymous posters wish to reveal your identity and marry your accusations with something useful I will happily let you say your piece without interference.

My intention is to let both sides of the argument air without the discussion falling to shit. There are trouble makers among us and there are genuinely held, differing views written with passion.

For the record, I would prefer Dick Smith to negotiate with DGT without punching them in the face at the same time. I want that test and feel that he is spoiling the chance either deliberately or because he just can’t help himself. I hope I am wrong.

His technical arguments are reasonable. While Defkalion’s tests are a giant leap forward there are a number of unknowns that raise alarm bells for anyone going into the game assuming fraud. He is putting up a lot of money precisely because he thinks they will not deliver. There is no attempt to hide that and so addressing the worries before signing is reasonable.

In provisionally accepting the challenge, the company has signalled their wish to prove the Hyperion. If they have what they claim, there should be no problem in conducting what is evidently a simpler test. If I were to give you a boiler and tell you that it will cut your electricity bill to a fraction of your normal spend, you would not insist on getting two devices, removing the elements and conducting a scientifically sound experiment. You would plug it into the wall and check if the wheel on your electricity meter suddenly slowed in comparison to your current system. I am not saying that DGT’s tests are redundant (they are not) but that Dick Smith’s request for them to show him the goods in a simple fashion is a valuable contribution and a trivial way for Defkalion to win the day if they are genuine.

For Dick Smith (and perhaps Celani) the worry is that without a load, the device may have to be throttled back to prevent overheating and so its utility is not tested even if it proves LENR (this may or may not be so but it is a credible concern). For anyone who believes that cold fusion is real, it is not beyond bounds to wonder if the company can make such a demo without having a reactor ready for the commercial market in the power range they claim. It is like running your kettle dry, blowing air over it so that it doesn’t overheat. Such an experiment may be useful but making a cup of tea would be better still.

In writing the above, I am not accusing anyone of anything but trying to clarify the issues relating to the tests. No matter what happens, I look forward to the seven groups doing their thing and Defkalion proving all the worries misplaced. I also hope the company takes the opportunity to show that it has nothing to hide by taking Dick Smith at his word. Put him on the spot and prove him wrong. If you are genuine, there is nothing to lose.

Posted by on February 20, 2012. Filed under Competitors,Defkalion,Drama,Hyperion,Piantelli,Rossi,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

108 Responses to eCat Scepticism And Defkalion Tests

  1. spacegoat Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Dick Smith is irrelevant. It is too late to organize anything.
    The DGT protocol IS simple, the simplest it can be whilst maintaining effectiveness.
    DS test’s would have only muddied the waters.

    Unlike many posters here, I have read the DGT protocol. If the testers are independent and qualified, and if the outcomes stated in the protocol are met then I believe we will have “liftoff” of LANR.
    For me the protocol is good. The key question is the independence and qualification of the testers.
    Perhaps those who claim to have a skeptical approach can offer criticism in advance of the tests, to clear the way.

    By the way, you should all check out Pekka Janhunen’s achievement on http://www.electric-sailing.fi. He is a real inventor!

    • CuriousChris Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm

      Sorry Spacegoat, I have to disagree with you. the testing leaves much to be desired. forget whether you believe or otherwise and concentrate on what needs to be taken away from it. Defkalions test can only work if the output of the bare reactor is under 1Kw it will rapidly overheat otherwise and require cooling air blown over it which will nullify many of the readings. if the output is reduced to under 1Kw we are looking at a cop of under 4 in which case its hard to rule out chemical means. If you have read the specs the reactor is “chemically assisted” which means it potentially has some chemical based heating source.

      On the surface the test protocol sounds ok but it leaves a lot to be desired. I often wonder whether they have managed to fool themselves into believing they have a high cop device but in fact its not

      • SH Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm

        Chris

        You are clearly not paying attention.

        There are two testing rounds:

        The first is static calorimetry on a bare reactor.
        The second is flow calorimetry on the entire system with the coolant in place.

        These tests together are more than sufficient to get irrefutable proof of the claim.

        Capish?

        • CuriousChris Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm

          SH stop blathering. I know there is two rounds. One must ask why. If Defkalion have a working hyperion whats the purpose?. For clarity they say. Rubbish it muddies the waters.
          Like Dick smith said, They claim to have a working hyperion then why not show it?

          What they are doing is trying to convince the “early adopters” without providing any proof at all.
          So Shh sh

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm

      Yes. Pekka seems to be the badass quantum physicist around here.

    • LCD Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 4:03 pm

      I agree scapegoat. Chris it really depends on the physical setup of thetest. But you cannot say it won’t work. With enough vented air cooling its possible to run high power. That’s an air load and the equilibrium temperature ratio is then a LOWER LIMIT on the cop.

      • CuriousChris Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 9:55 pm

        Exactly my point. If you have read their test specifications they are only going to provide an airflow if it overheats. And there is no venting it is ‘isolated’ which I believe means insulated. it sounds like in a box as there is enough room around it for air flow.

        They would be far better off with a bare reactor in the middle of the room. the tests would be far more conclusive.

        The test they are talking about must mean they are able to modulate the reactor down from its ‘claimed’ level of 5 Kw to well less than 1Kw.

    • Roger Bird Reply

      February 21, 2012 at 3:49 am

      But how do we slow these spacecraft down, since the solar wind goes in only one direction?

      • Stephen Reply

        February 21, 2012 at 8:58 am

        I was sorely tempted to answer:’You wait for the evening to come…” but my more serious guess would be to reverse the polarity on the “strings”. Or a hard tack?

  2. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Admin posted “For the record, I would prefer Dick Smith to negotiate with DGT without punching them in the face at the same time. I want that test and feel that he is spoiling the chance either deliberately or because he just can’t help himself. I hope I am wrong.”

    This is a business proposition, and only if someone didn’t have what they claim is when the argument begins. No words should wave goodby to 1 million in cash, anyway it should be cash.

    Where’s the ego issue, 1 million to produce what you claim, that simple. Defkalion would grab that deal quickly and fly Mr. Smith over their dime to prove their claims but there not going to because they have not gotten there yet. No product no proof.

  3. AB Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    When I started this site, I was far more sceptical than I have been in the last few weeks. Even so, I recently put myself at A3 B2 on the belief spectrum.

    Out of curiosity, did you lower your LENR confidence rating (A) or just that of Rossi/Defkalion (B)?

    On a different note I have made contact with Valeria from 22passi in order to provide English subtitles to the Rome meeting with Celani once it is published.

    • Antonella Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm

      Hi AB, Anto from 22 passi. I would like to talk here, but my english is so simple that i can only speak in simple sentences and simple sentences are for simple thinking.
      I am very glad you are going to help with translation.

  4. Methusela Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    George Hant’s made a good point here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/19/science-scepticism-usdomesticpolicy?CMP=twt_gu

    In each case, legislation was delayed by years, sometimes decades, thanks to the activities of a variety of foundations – such as the Heartland Institute – which are backed by energy companies such as Exxon and billionaires like Charles Koch.

    These institutions, acting as covers for major energy corporations, are responsible for the onslaught that has deeply lowered the reputation of science in many people’s minds in America. This has come in the form of personal attacks on the reputations of scientists and television adverts that undermine environment laws. The Environmental Protection Agency, which is responsible for blocking mining and drilling proposals that might harm threatened species or habitats, has become a favourite target.

    “Our present crisis over the rise of anti-science has been coming for a long time and we should have seen it coming,” adds Oreskes.

    … snip …

    Her remarks are backed by a UCS report, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense, which was published at the Vancouver meeting on Friday. It chronicles the methods used by corporate businesses to attack their targets: harassing individual scientists, ghost-writing scientific articles to raise doubts about government research, and undermining the use of science to form government policy.

    You know, there is evidence that business uses mass disinformation tactics to discredit those who threaten their bottom-line.

    • WallyPalo Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm

      Regarding the Guardian article, I would imagine that the Sierra Club’s secretive acceptance of $26million from natural gas company, Chesapeake Energy, leaves the anti-science Global Warming movement with few legs to stand on. Perhaps you missed, too, the recently faked Heartland memo, dubbed “The Protocols of the Elders of Heartland” (see wattsupwiththat.com), about which a writer at the Atlantic says “Basically, it reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”

      I imagine that there is far more government funding lubricating anti-science movements than there is corporate funding paying to contest those movements.

    • Allan Kiik Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 7:13 pm

      You are talking about “FakeGate”, they (smogblog) had to fake a memo because stolen papers did not contain anything incriminating enough.

      NIPCC reports http://nipccreport.org/ are not “anti-science”, they are pro scientific method and against IPCC political “science,” read yourself and show us the anti-science part.

      Few words from Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP):

      “The Heartland Flap:
      Number of the Week: $24,700 Million (rough estimate): In May 2011, the General Accountability Office (GAO) reported that for the Fiscal Year 2010, that ended September 30, 2010, the US government allocated $8,771 Million for Climate Change Funding, of which $2,122 Million went to the category called climate science. This did not include the $26,140 Million of funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus bill) which was allocated generally over three years, but was not broken out by year. The figure also did not include the $7,230 Million allocated as tax credits for FY 2010. These are classified as tax expenditures.

      Assuming that only one-third of the funds from the stimulus bill were spent in FY 2010, the funding for climate change (including tax credits, etc) by the Federal government in FY 2010 roughly totals $24,700 Million. Putting it differently, Federal government expenditures in 5 minutes during FY 2010 were greater than Heartland’s annual expenditures for the three co-authors of the NIPPC reports who dare to present reports challenging the scientific basis used to justify the expenditures.

      No wonder those who defend the orthodoxy are so outraged with Heartland. With a total budget of $4.6 million for all activities in 2011, Heartland is among the few organizations that have raised serious scientific objections to the global warming express and its massive expenditures. It frightens the defenders of the orthodoxy that the American taxpayers may realize that they are getting an extremely poor return for these enormous expenditures. The 2011 Heartland total budget is less than 0.02% of the Federal government expenditures on climate change in FY 2010. Yet, for that paltry sum, the science produced by NIPCC and many independent contributors present the vital balance to the biased science of the IPCC.
      http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/318556.pdf…

  5. CM Edwards Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Admin, your position is much the same as my own.

    I am unclear on something, though: Will the previously mentioned Defkalion test still happen Friday?

  6. georgehants Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Anybody’s position of where they “stand” is fine as a personal opinion, but does not in anyway effect the reality of Rossi et al.
    Opinions destroyed P&F and delayed Cold Fusion.
    Never let it happen again.
    Only the EVIDENCE counts.

    • JNewman Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm

      Anybody’s opinion of where they “stand” is fine as a personal opinion, but does not in any way affect the reality of Rossi et al.

      That is absolutely correct. Whether you are expressing skepticism about the latest bit of news or proclaiming it to be the salvation of mankind, you are just words on a blog. So stop demanding that one poster or another be banned. If you don’t like someone’s opinions, don’t read his posts.

      With Rossi and Defkalion conducting their affairs by blog post and with what has gone on here of late, this all has become a virtual reality game. However, there are real people involved and reportedly real devices under development. The answers will only come out of the real world, not from a blog.

      • georgehants Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm

        JNewman, why are you being aggressive when you seem to be repeating my exact point.
        Well done.
        Minor, error from you, please answer —Who have I asked to be banned today.

        • JNewman Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm

          My comment about asking for people to be banned was not directed at you. In fact, my comment in general was not directed at you. Since you made a valid point, I chose to point out its consequences. Aggressively, apparently.

          • georgehants

            February 20, 2012 at 2:13 pm

            JNewman, thank you, please be careful as you will clearly see you have responded to my post, I try to answer all comments to my posts.
            I except your apology.
            Thank you.

          • dsm

            February 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm

            JNewman

            Hang in there :) – voice of reason & welcome

            Doug M

  7. SH Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    • Methusela Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm

      That’s not surprising.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm

      Thanks. Seems like nothing will come out of this dick smith proposal. By the time they come to an agreement party will be long over. The tests start in four days. The question is who will attend ? and when and where will they speak out.

      • daniel maris Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm

        Yep – as I predicted at the outset.

        But I am really looking forward to DGT’s test. Not that it will really dispel any doubts – the machines could have been prepared in all sorts of ways to fool people – but it will be interesting to see how they are viewed.

        Rossi is right about one thing – only getting a product to market will prove the product. Anything less will not convince the skeptics and will leave the hopeful wanting more.

        • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 2:26 pm

          Not If he gave away the secret openly for everyone to test. If true a simple paypal donate button would make them rich in less than a year.

          As I already said before, just imagine this is real. A bunch of guys have the secret for cheap energy beyond anything seen before using a yet unknown phenomenon. They decide to build a device to make some money. Two years later the world realizes it is true and proper research starts. Sad story really.

          • georgehants

            February 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm

            Mahron – A4 B3 Be fair now, if main-line science and skepticism delayed this for 23 years and Rossi et al put up a working product is 2 years, who should we blame.

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            February 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm

            2 year to bring it to market after discovering the trick. Those 2 years would be on rossi.

            If it turns out P&F discovered the same thing as rossi more less, then the 23 years are on P&F for giving up. But nothing says any of the LENR until now is the same thing as what rossi is supposed to have discovered.

            Let’s let this stuff first be real and understood, then we shall see who was onto what at what time in history.

        • JNewman Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 2:29 pm

          People keep cautioning that various tests of these devices might not be decisive; that the tests can be set up in ways to fool people. Perhaps that is the case, but there is a problem with this way of thinking.

          There have been multiple references to the travails of the Wright Brothers on this blog likening the skepticism about powered flight to that about the eCat. The Wright Brothers saga took place at a time when something happening on the Outer Banks of North Carolina was far away and inaccessible and only newspaper accounts days later could report the news. However, for anybody who actually attended the events, there could be no doubt that the plane flew.

          So let us consider the eCat or Hyperion. These devices are purportedly capable of producing kilowatts of heat with only a small electrical input and are well on their way to commercial deployment. How can such a thing be ambiguous to demonstrate? We are told that once the machines are available for purchase, then their validity will be proven. What is it that the purchaser is going to do that proves these things actually work? Whatever that is, why don’t we just do that right now? Does it fly or doesn’t it?

          • Peter Roe

            February 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm

            Reluctantly, I have to agree.

            If ‘proper’ flow calorimetry is to be performed in ‘phase 2′ of the experiments, what is the point of the low output ‘hot core’ demo? Even if it is technically successful it will provide enough loopholes to allow the skeptics to carry on jumping up and down, so why not cut to the chase?

            A liquid calorimetry test, properly designed and conducted, would provide immediate proof of principle and demonstrate utility at the same time. What is the problem? (Skeptics please note, this is a ‘rhetorical’ question. That means I am not actually asking for a tirade of ‘fraud’ accusations).

    • georgehants Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm

      Sh worth printing in full.
      Below is a copy of our open announcement concerning Dick Smith, alsopublished on our website:—-
      So far we have not officially received (through atelephone, letter, fax or e-mail) any such offer published in different sites.If the offer and the “donor” are real, we will accept the challenge,performing a test under the protocol we have announced in our last PressRelease (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=926&start=210).
      In case this is a real proposal, we willaccept an official letter and a proof of donated funds from a prime bank beforeany such testing. Also note that our first independent official testsare starting on 24th of February 2012. No “donations” or any moneywhere required or offered for these independent tests.
      DGT
      Our online announcement was meant to initiate formal contact from Mr Smith.All subsequent communication was considered to remain private. Our aim hasnever been to gain publicity. Mr Smith apparently wants publicity (as witnessedby publishing our emails and getting others involved). First things first; MrSmith must first speak, discuss and agree with us. Publicity is later Mr Smith.
      We declare that we do not have any spokes persons or representatives.All announcements, discussions and agreements are taken only by us.
      Mr Smith’s first email to our CEO had no formal introduction, nor any professional courtesy:
      On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:56:05 +1100, Dick Smith wrote:
      Alex Dick smith here
      My offer of $ 1 m for a successful demonstration of anLENR 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 testwith accurate measurements of the input and output power. Please advisethe input power you would like to test at and the COP you will be ableto demonstrate? I will not be able to do any paperwork until my officeis operating next Tuesday. When is the earliest you would like todo the test. ?
      Rgds Dick Smith
      Sent from my iPad
      We requested for a Skype conference call with Mr Smith, similar to what he had requested from Mr Rossi. Mr Smith declined our offer. Strangely, when Mr Rossi declined Mr Smith, Mr Smith called Mr Rossi a scam. Should we considerthe same of Mr Smith?

      We look forward to receiving from Mr Smith (1) an official letter of his offer; (2) proof of dedicated funds from a prime bank for 1 million; and (3) proof of entity (corporate or personal). Upon receipt of the above, we are ready,willing and able to proceed with the challenge.
      Our protocol has been accepted by leading world authorities and we are undergoing tests under strict NDAs. Nonetheless, we are open to discuss variations such as a 6 hour test, still being able to prove a COP of over 20. But these are formalities to be discussed in private. Should we proceed, Mr Smith will be bound by NDA. He can receive all the publicity he wants after the test.
      Post Script:
      Mr Smith, we do not have a house to buy back; that was a nasty comment to Mr Andrea Rossi.

      • georgehants Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm

        Dick Smith a brilliant contributor to this site found that irrational skeptics will never answer a simple straight question.
        May I try again—-
        “Dick Smith you said you are “happy to piggyback” on an existing Defkalion test by third party’s, does this offer still stand.
        Thank you.”

      • spacegoat Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 2:29 pm

        ” Mr Smith apparently wants publicity ”
        Grandstanding is the word.
        As I said at the top DS is now irrelevant.

        georgehants you said evidence counts. My point at the top is What sort of evidence?

        DGT said “Our protocol has been accepted by leading world authorities … able to prove a COP of over 20. ”

        Who disagrees with this protocol and why? Skeptics, please chime in.

        • psi Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 2:55 pm

          Spacegoat, I could not agree more. Even if Dick Smith turned out to be correct to the crossing of every last t, and the dotting of every i, his grandstanding rudeness is inexcusable.

          • Stephen

            February 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

            Dear miss manner, be careful if you ever set foot in Australia. If you do, and stop in a liquor establishment in the Outback, make sure to adjust your tie after stepping up to the bar.

    • Al Potenza Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 3:09 pm

      Interesting, thanks SH. I wonder which testers are “world authorities”. Why doesn’t Defkalion say their names?

      “Bound by NDA” is OK about industrial secrets. But will it extend to results? And if it does, why does it?

      Isn’t it possible to test a Hyperion thoroughly without revealing any of the secrets inside it?

  8. Guru Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    I warning about this again:

    DGT will doing maximum to maximally delay any publication of any test data.

    They want to delay because they not want publishing no one row until they are ready for production.

    • spacegoat Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm

      I believe they said on their site results may be published by the testers, should they desire. The NDA must cover other aspects.

  9. un passante Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    I am an optimist so when Krivit tries to expose the supposed “fraud” in Rossi’s LENR machine by publishing NI e-mails I read with interests only certain parts.

    like this one:
    NI platforms can be used for Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) applications, particularly the National Instruments Reconfigurable I/O (RIO) platform that is based on FPGA (field programmable gate array) technology for the control and monitoring needs.

    We do think the field of LENR is a very intriguing research area that has potential to impact the energy crisis that is facing the world.

    Julia Betts – Corporate Communications and Investor Relations Manager – National Instruments

    If NI admits that they are working also for LENR researches and publicly state that LENR has potential I am happy.

    • daniel maris Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm

      I agree that’s encouraging. It’s also encouraging they haven’t suggested that Rossi was scamming. They could have said something like “NI are not in a position to confirm whether or not the device in question performs nas claimed by Mr. Rossi.”

      • georgehants Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 2:24 pm

        daniel, Defkalion have always shown great respect for Rossi, Rossi on the other hand appears unhappy with Defkalion.
        Thereby lies a story I think.

    • Stephen Reply

      February 21, 2012 at 9:09 am

      It’s typical marketing speechese, cut and paste! Hello! HELLO!

      • un passante Reply

        February 21, 2012 at 1:54 pm

        why are you so upset that NI endorses LENR that you’re desperately looking for ways to deny/belittle what is clearly stated?
        That attitude I’ll never understand.

        BTW it if is “cut and paste” than there must be an original source which states: LENR ok – potential.
        Or do you really think that Corporate Communications and Investor Relations Manager of National Instruments cuts random phrases from the net and pastes them into an official signed e-mail?

        • John Milstone Reply

          February 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm

          What those statements actually mean is that LENR researcher’s money is just as good as anyone else’s money.

          It doesn’t mean that they “endorse” LENR. I’m sure if someone decided to use NI instruments for, oh, say, water dousing (or whatever area you are willing to consider as bogus), NI would be happy to take their money as well.

          And it certainly doesn’t mean that Rossi (or Defkalion) must be legitimate.

          • Stephen

            February 22, 2012 at 12:13 am

            Exactly, thanks John for explaining. my Latin blood ALWAYS gets the better of me on this site…

  10. un passante Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    and when NI state that LENR has potential, the pseudoskeptics are saddened because they know that this is a positive boost to Rossi’s claims (not to mention the fact that the real argument of pseudoskeptics was and still is ‘LENR/cold fusion can’t be’ but they can’t state it clearly because of strategic thinking).

    That is because Rossi is not proposing an extravagant perpetual motion machine, he’s proposing a functioning LENR device with COP 6 (incidentally with the same basic ingredients of that coming from sources inside NASA).

    • StevenBr Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 2:25 pm

      I think that 98% of world’s population would wish LENT technology to succeed. Being skeptic doesn’t mean you are against it, just that you need more proof to believe. I don’t see what is wrong with that. Lucky thing is we will soon find out as Defkalion tests will start to unfold. Starting next week forward it will be make of break time for LENR technology. I’d be saddened if the whole thing fell through.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm

        I hope we will “find out as Defkalion’s tests will start to unfold”.

        But read Defkalion’s hard to understand forum post at SH’s link above. It’s difficult to tell from that whether we will get to see test results or whether they will all be under NDA.

        The post mentions world famous authorities but doesn’t say who they are. I hope we find that out at least!

      • un passante Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 4:45 pm

        I mentioned pseudoskeptics (and not real skeptics) for a reason. Pseudoskeptics are actually believers only in a negative way. they believe LENR/cold fusion can’t be because the science bible says so.

        I am a skeptic myself. I’ll really believe it when I see it, I mean, the working device.

  11. Kwhilborn Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    Dick Smiths promotion of faulty leads is NOT questioning Defkalion/Rossi but is saying LENR itself is pure fantasy.

    Dick Smith promotion of the faulty leads could seriously cost millions upon millions of research dollars from concerned philanthropists.

    It was only within the past month that the University of Missouri received 5.5 million dollars for LENR research from a philanthropist. What if this donor was exposed to the rantings of Dick?

    Nickel/hydrogen LENR has been confirmed by no less than 16 individual sources. Even if someone doubted Defkalion/AR, they should at least understand competence from The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), or Brian Ahern, or even NASA.
    That is only concerning nickel/hydrogen, if you want to look at LENR itself there are now hundreds of peer reviewed papers and at least 2 peer reviewed books on LENR . One of these books is published by The University of Oxford.

    I do not apologize for suggesting that Dick Smiths media campaign is potentially misleading many potential donors. It is as if he is questioning LENR itself.

    LENR is fact, but harnessing nano-nuclear reactions are tricky. What causes the nickel to get used only a bit at a time? Why wouldn’t it all burn up at the same time?
    Controlling LENR reactions so we can harness it safely is the real challenge. This is why AR has had problems demonstration for any length of time.

    Now Defkalion/AR suggest they can control LENR. This could remove all smog producing cars/trucks from our planet within a decade. We will have a fresh air world. Wars over oil can be averted. Starving nations can have clean water/food.

    We could use a few less Dick Smiths badmouthing proven facts, and insulting some great American Scientists.

    • StevenBr Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm

      Dear Kwhilborn.

      i really hope you are right! I want to start talking about the possibilities that LENR will bring to the world not continue gossiping as this is the only thing we can, in the absence of proof, do!

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 5:31 pm

      “t was only within the past month that the University of Missouri received 5.5 million dollars for LENR research from a philanthropist. What if this donor was exposed to the rantings of Dick?”

      I think there is a reasonable possibility that this is the whole point of the Smith/Bryce intervention – to try to deter any similar support for CF. Given their general demeanor I find it difficult (actually, impossible) to accept their claims that they act out of philanthropic desire to protect ‘true believers’ or ‘mom and pop investors’ from their own folly (Dick Smith included).

  12. georgehants Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Mahron – A4 B3 You say blame P&F.
    Would you after reading the below like to change your view.
    -
    ‘Incompetence and Delusion’

    Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of “the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann.” The audience of scientists sat in stunned silence for a mement before bursting into applause.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 3:37 pm

      Yes, I need to change now.

      The 23 year delay, supposing P&F and the paper they published was on the right track, is on P&F and all the guys cheering that day.

      • georgehants Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 3:46 pm

        Mahron – A4 B3, sorry if I am misreading, are you saying that the delay is still P&F’s fault.

        • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 3:52 pm

          Yes + all the others. Again, supposing they were on the right track, and that the paper was pointing in the right direction.

          If so, your massive incompetence theory would be right. Very unlikely in my humble opinion.

          • Wes Moore

            February 20, 2012 at 6:07 pm

            I truly hope Flieschman and Pons are given the credit they deserve. I would say the poster who would blame them for not continuing is not realistic. I believe they offered a genuine observation and were discredited by those who worship the religion called science.

  13. buffalo Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Thicket…if ur readin this thread,,.my question to you is this-is there an imbalance of the heat of adsorption/heat required to desorb cycle? Remember,H2 gas is expanding-contracting.expansion cools things down,we mite need less heat to desorb than we get frm adsorption. violation of second law?

    • Thicket Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 10:17 pm

      Buffalo

      I wrote a longer response about Nickel-hydrogen catalyst systems in the previous thread.

      The simple answer to your absorption/desorption question is that the chemical reaction is of hydrogen on nickel catalyst in a lattice is reversible.

      Note: For the science purists, it’s only totally reversible under closed system, ideal conditions. In the real world, there will always be some heat losses.

      There is no net energy gain. The laws of thermodynamics stay intact.

  14. georgehants Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    For anybody who has not read the history of the destruction of P&F and Cold Fusion by our wonderful scientists by denial, abuse and incompetent skepticism trying to maintain DOGMA
    Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion
    By MALCOLM W. BROWNE, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
    http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

  15. JNewman Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    Somehow our discussions often end up with outrage over the “suppression of LENR”. That is an interesting concept.

    Over the past 20 years, many scientists have made careers out of LENR research. Their names are treated with reverence here: Celani, Hagelstein, McKubre, Mizuno, Storms and so on. They are serious scientists doing serious work. Have these people been suppressed? Prevented from working on LENR? Have their results been less impressive or conclusive than they could have been if not for the naysayers?

    Clearly, LENR has not been funded at the levels the practitioners would like and this is certainly due in fair measure to the less-than-stellar reputation of the field. Of course, anyone who has actually done scientific research will attest that the area they are working in is always unfairly underfunded.

    But the point is that the workers in the field have not been prevented from obtaining better results. Would they have gotten better results with more money? Possibly. Or is the problem that these people are not good enough and suppression is preventing the really good people from working on the problem. I don’t think anybody believes that.

    If the results claimed by Rossi and Defkalion are even remotely correct, the funding shortfall will disappear rapidly. Unless that happens, “suppression” in the form of lackluster interest will continue as long as the results are more like those presented at MIT last month.

    • georgehants Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 3:29 pm

      JNewman, some good points. Question ——
      Would you agree, that the report I have posted above might just tend to have put off many young and established scientists from gambling their careers on such a taboo subject as Cold Fusion.

      • JNewman Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 3:53 pm

        I would agree that articles such as the one you cited discouraged people from working on Cold Fusion. But plenty of scientists were not put off by such negative press. Jed Rothwell’s massive database is proof enough of that fact. Whether having many more scientists working on the problem would have yielded significantly more progress over the years is simply unknown. Scientific research is not like shoveling gravel. Doing more of it does not guarantee progress.

        The experts in the field freely admit that LENR is fraught with questions and unsolved problems. It is simply unknowable whether twice as much work will solve the problems twice as fast. It is perfectly reasonable to contend that there should be increased work in this field. It is not reasonable to assert that the problems would have been solved if there had been more work. That is what scientific research is all about: exploring the unknown.

        • georgehants Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 3:58 pm

          JNewman, a very factual reply except —-
          “It is not reasonable to assert that the problems would have been solved if there had been more work.”
          -
          It is very reasonable to imply, but what the end result would have been is Factually impossible to say.
          Logically with clever scientific minds and funding they could have been years ahead of now.
          How many lives could have been enhanced for every year lost.
          Burying faults is not the way to put them right for the future.

          • JNewman

            February 20, 2012 at 4:05 pm

            I am not sure we are disagreeing.

            Of course it is possible that there might have been significant additional progress in the field had more work been done. It is also possible that we would be exactly where we are. And it is also possible that the work would have shown that LENR has no practical use whatsoever. As you say, it is factually impossible to say. That is worth repeating. It is factually impossible to say.

        • Ransompw Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 4:32 pm

          Newman, I think your word “plenty” refering to the number of researchers over the last 23 years is in the eye of the beholder. If LENR is verified soon, I think you can expert literally thousands of labs and tens of thousands of scientists working on the technology maybe more. That scale dwarfs the research scale the last 23 years. The money invested will likewise dwarf that previously expended and when I say dwarf I am talking orders of magnitude, ie 100′s to 1000′s of times more investment, more work.

          That is the legacy of Koonin, Lewis, Park etc. if this science is verified.

          I also disagree that the researchers won’t be better and more qualified. I am not going to belittle the courage of those that kept the flame burning for LENR, but to suggest that a field considered delusional and bad science drew the best of best to work its science is nonsense. The other thing likely to happen if LENR is verified is that the best of best will suddenly switch gears and start working in LENR. This will also raise the prospects of discovery and progress.

          • JNewman

            February 20, 2012 at 4:44 pm

            I see nothing to disagree with in your post nor does it contradict anything I said. I will stipulate to your concept of “plenty”. I did not claim that “the best of the best” were currently working in the field, however I will leave it to LENR proponents to assess their quality.

          • Ransompw

            February 20, 2012 at 4:56 pm

            Well, I do think the magnitud of investment and effort effects progress especially in engineering. There is always the law of diminishing returns, but I don’t think activity in LENR since 1989 approached that point.

            I will say however, that Nanotechnology is the most likely catalyst for commercial LENR technology and that is just starting to come of age, so the earlier work before the advent of this technology may have met limited success.

            We of course do not currently know whether the technology will develop commercially (although I think it likely), and of course we will never know the world absent the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann lynching.

    • Pekka Janhunen Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 3:44 pm

      There are almost no graduate students or young researchers in LENR which appears to be mostly a hobby of soon to retire or emeritus professors. If the field would be “legitimate” they would receive grants and the demography would different.

      • LCD Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 7:19 pm

        Well said

        • LCD Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 8:18 pm

          I would add that there is a surprising amount of private companies out there that for obvious reasons don’t share data. If sharing actually occurred it might bring about a commercial product.

          But sharing is what govt grants are for.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 3:56 pm

      LENR does not require LHC level funding. If Rossi and Defkalion are correct It will prove no big funding was needed.

      • JNewman Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 4:00 pm

        Yes, but just think about how many table-top reactors a few billion dollars could purchase. ;-)

      • LCD Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 4:05 pm

        But it will also prove we wasted 23 years.

        • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 4:12 pm

          Not if P&F were not on the right track. that’s what I was telling george.

        • JNewman Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 4:12 pm

          It would prove nothing of the kind. Inventions happen when they happen. Asking “why didn’t we do that years ago?” is pointless.

        • LCD Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 5:47 pm

          LOL, sorry. Have either one of you ever done research!?

          Try something new, get unexplained phenomenon, investigate it based on risk/reward among other things, and get to the root cause.

          Risk – a little money (200 Million is a drop in the bucket compared to Hot Fusion with the same reward and the same risk i.e. it could go on forever)

          Reward – new power source that changes the world.

          I would say WE WASTED 23 YEARS is a very defensible statement.

          • JNewman

            February 21, 2012 at 1:19 am

            Only for about 25 years during which I was issued seven patents. But you know best, I guess.

      • Wes Moore Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm

        I would say that the many people sacrificed to oil wars might disagree with this if they were able to speak

  16. georgehants Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    JNewman, Mahron – A4 B3, I will finish now, can I suggest you both read your last reply’s to see you are grasping at straws to maintain a view.
    Your reply’s are stand alone opinions with no reference to the reality and facts of Cold Fusion.
    I would not like to be tried by a jury with a need to cling to an opinion beyond the limits of common sense.

  17. JNewman Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    Sorry George, but I am not grasping at straws. The only view I was maintaining is that inventions are not done on a timetable. Most things that have been invented could have been invented sooner. Once the incorporated technology exists, inventions based on that technology are possible. By that reasoning, the powered airplane could have been invented at least 50 years sooner than it was. High-temperature superconductivity could have been discovered in 1950. The fact that F&P observed a phenomenon taking place with palladium and deuterium in 1989 does not mean that somebody would have found something using nickel, hydrogen and a mystery catalyst in 1990, or 2000, or ever, for that matter. Inventions happen when they happen.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 5:55 pm

      I think you are puposefully evading George’s central point that due directly the deliberate and engineered vilification of P&F, that CF became in effect a ‘taboo’ non-subject, meaning no grants, no support and career suicide for anyone venturing into the area. That is why most research has been carried out by scientists approaching or past retirement age, who had rather less to lose.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 6:00 pm

      I had intended to go on to say, an influx of keen young researchers would almost certainly have led to much earlier development, that did not occur because of the activities of Koonin, Lewis, Park et al.

      ‘puposefully’: Admin – edit function?

      • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm

        No george is the one avoiding the question I will repeat for n’th fucking time. Always going around saying people don’t answer when they actually do, when he himself doesn’t answer shit.

        How can all the labs, individuals, and military research around the world not come up with anything useful related to LENR for 23 years after the P&F publication given what’s at stake ? This is not a rhetorical question.

        • georgehants Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm

          Mahron – A4 B3, I have answered your question a hundred times, LCD has answered it below your comment,Peter has answered it above your comment.
          Perhaps a little more reading and less swearing would be good.

          • Mahron - A4 B3

            February 20, 2012 at 6:37 pm

            No. you just pasted a sentence from koonin or whatever and something about people applauding.

          • LCD

            February 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm

            Mahron your under the impression a lot has been done. That’s not true.
            Example SPAWAR was on a shoestring budget, with very focused objectives, find nuclear byproducts. A lot of people trying to replicate, and understand. Few people trying to actually improve it or try some new version. All with shoestring budgets.

          • Peter Roe

            February 20, 2012 at 7:46 pm

            Plus little chance of publication in mainstream journals even when they did succeed.

    • LCD Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      Wow! sorry JNewman that is about the most erroneous view of innovation I have ever heard.

      There are plenty, plenty of things that when you throw money at them (scientifically speaking) innovation occurs faster. Electronics, Telecom, etc. That’s also the basis of many govt pilot programs.

      Now there is also a lot of programs that don’t see much innovation even when you throw money at them (i.e. fuel from corn, carbon tax, hot fusion… that’s a bit subjective though because we’ve gotten other benefits from that research).

      But to say that throwing money at research topic to better, and more quickly understand it is a waste, well that notion is absolutely wrong. You don’t know that for sure.

      What you are actually referring to maybe is that inventions are the children of problems and without problems to solve inventions don’t generally occur on a timetable. Take the laser as a prime example. It was not discovered on an efficient timetable. It was actually touted as a solution looking for a problem when Maiman finally invented the ruby laser but the physics of the laser were already known for probably 20 years. Of course we laugh about that today but it’s true.

      But LANR is a solution for many problems.

      It’s really simple. It’s about probability. The more eyeballs you have on a problem the faster it gets resolved.

      That’s my rant for today.

      • LCD Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 6:39 pm

        So im implying here we didn’t really try with LANR, and had we, we would have bet on a winner and we would know that thanks to Rossi. So we wasted 23 years.

        In this case the risk/reward calculation should have forced good funding levels. Why it didn’t would be the basisfor a Hollywood movie.

      • JNewman Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 9:33 pm

        LCD, I hope your rant was cathartic for you. However, it did not accurately reflect my stance on this issue. Of course increasing the amount of research on a topic increases the chances of progress. Of course inventions are the children of problems.

        The position is reject is that if a bunch of money was dumped into LENR in 1989, that would somehow had guaranteed that the invention attributed to Rossi et al would have happened much earlier. We simply don’t know that. Rossi says he has been working on Cold Fusion for 20 years. Why didn’t he discover the ecat in 1995? Who knows? You can’t schedule innovation. You can enhance the prospects for it and you can provide a nurturing environment for it. But that’s it. At the end of the day, inventions happen when they happen. If that is the most erroneous view of inventions you have ever heard, you should become a consultant for research labs and teach them how to invent things more quickly.

        • LCD Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 10:51 pm

          I think my argument is pretty sound JNewman. 1000 more Rossi’s would surely have found a solution much faster. That’s not a stretch of the imagination.

          • JNewman

            February 21, 2012 at 1:24 am

            The thought of 1000 more Rossi’s has stretched my imagination to the breaking point. Now that we are straying into the infinite monkeys with typewriters reproducing Shakespeare trope, I think we have exhausted this not very useful topic.

  18. Tom Baccei Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    Why doesn’t this supposedly well intended Dick Smith put his $1M in escrow right now, and prove that it is there, and announce an “LENR Prize” eimilar to the “X prize” and several others that have been offered (and won) in the aviation / aeronautics arena?
    That way the appearance of a hatchetman attempting to ridicule, and expose supposed frauds, can be replaced by the sppearance of a constructive and positive minded humanitarian trying to promote a potentially world saving technology. What do you want to bet this (aka?) Dick Smith will put short shrift to this possibility. Bah! Humbug!

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 7:51 pm

      Inevitably. That wouldn’t fit his agenda at all.

      Anyway its a lot less risky to talk about putting your money where your mouth is, than to actually commit to it in any realistic way.

  19. un passante Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    JNewman read here
    http://e-catsite.com/2012/01/27/nasa-and-lenr/

    “Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat during loading and unloading deuterium into bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability.”
    NASA Glenn Research Center Website – link (at the bottom of page)

    As the above quote indicates, NASA conducted limited LENR research at Glenn Research Center in 1989 following the announcement of Dr. Martin Fleishmann and Dr. Stanley Pons. According to the report, anomalous heat was observed but no discernible discernible neutrons were detected above background levels. The experiment apparently was conducted to look for neutrons as evidence of fusion, and the anomalous heat was a secondary finding.

    Lots of years wasted because of NASA not “thinking” that finding “anomalous heat” was deserving of more research and funds.
    not to mention the fact that they did not come out saying what they found to defend P&F work from the lynching.
    that is unexcusable. that was deliberate.

    After discovering that, Celani said he was furious for quite some time over the implications of NASA not saying a word.
    a lot of years wasted.

    • LCD Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 7:36 pm

      Yeah like I said the basis for a hollywood movie at some point in the future if Rossi/DGT are successful.

      The people will want to know why we took so long to make this technology a reality.

      There will be a day of reckoning. Starting with me.

      I will want to know why LANR wasn’t available as a subject when I first started school.

      LOL. There may even be some extremist people who will want to sue MIT and Koonin et al. for damages. Who knows.

      • un passante Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 8:03 pm

        or Piantelli or NASA or Ahern or Celani or whoever.

        you can bet that it will be the basis for a movie if (or should we say when?*) LENR go beyond showing an intriguing anomalous heat (certainty) and enter the industrial world and our homes. :)

        * I’d bet it’s a matter of when rather than if.

  20. Harold Baker Reply

    February 20, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    I see now the wisdom of Andrea Rossi rejecting this DS character. He is just wasting everybodys time.

    • LCD Reply

      February 20, 2012 at 7:24 pm

      The relationship just started. I still have hope for DS

      • Peter Roe Reply

        February 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm

        I think you may be in a minority of one, LCD, at least outside the skeptic camp. The portents are ominous!

        • LCD Reply

          February 20, 2012 at 8:08 pm

          Ahh I know but the comment was made that DS wants it to be true and if that is true I say there is some hope.

          Still with the Feb 24th demos I’m hoping DS won’t even need to come into play.

  21. Brad Arnold Reply

    February 21, 2012 at 7:35 am

    Let me make a prediction: no independent test that Defkalion could do will fully convince. I sure wish that this wasn’t true, and I initially didn’t believe Rossi when he said that only proven commercial of LENR will convince.

    OTH, I can’t wait until independent tests verify that Defkalion is legitimate. I equate it to man walking on the moon in terms of history (perhaps retrospectively), and couldn’t come at a better time because of the gasoline/oil price spike. Fertile ground for mass media reporting, with the consequencial start of the migration of money and effort toward LENR.

    • John Milstone Reply

      February 21, 2012 at 11:51 am

      Let me make a prediction: no independent test that Defkalion could do will fully convince.

      If I had a device that could produce 10′s of Kilowatts of excess power for months at a time, I would have no trouble providing a demonstration that would convince everyone.

      The fact that Rossi (and probably Defkalion, but we’ll see how the promised tests turn out), won’t or can’t do that is suspicious all by itself.

      • un passante Reply

        February 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm

        easily said than done. you make a demo, 2 demos, 3 demos, and people start to object this and that, they will ask whether inside the core of the reactor lies a trick. ultimately to convince all of them you’ll have to show how it works, the ingredients and the secrets behind the functioning of the device.
        but you don’t want to do that if you’re an entrepeneur who wants to make money out of it and you’re not yet patented.

        Brad Arnold is right. we will know if the e-cat really works and how only when there will be a commercial device being sold.
        Things could be different if the inventor was a scientist whose interest is only the glory and a nobel prize.

        Just look at NASA they’re trying to develop their own LENR device and remain carefully quiet about it (the real thing, not generic mentions of LENR having great potential).

        • John Milstone Reply

          February 21, 2012 at 5:21 pm

          easily said than done.

          Not at all. It takes 3 simple steps:

          1. Allow a test in a location he doesn’t control. That eliminates the possibility that he is feeding extra energy into the device (i.e. mis-wired outlets, gimmicked water supply, etc.).

          2. Have trustworthy outsiders measure everything going in to, and coming out of, the E-Cat.

          3. Run the test long enough to eliminate internal “hidden” sources of energy.

          None of these things risk revealing his “secret” catalyst of any other technical secrets of a legitimate device. However, they would preclude any fraud.

          Notice that Rossi has never done any of these things. If he wanted to prove that the E-Cat worked, he could have easily done so any time in the last year. The fact that he has consistently refused to do so suggests that he can’t do so.

  22. M. Hat Reply

    February 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Defkalion tests tomorrow. We’ll soon know everything.

Leave a Reply

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

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