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

The University of Illinois Cold Fusion Battery

March 3, 2012

Secrets and lies in the cold fusion community naturally lead to doubt and confusion. Defkalion’s recent moves do not instill confidence even if I do not share the tendency of some to assume the worst.  To date, they have demonstrated one major success by uniting the Italian inventor and the harshest of his critics in their belief that the Greek/Cyprus company is a front for fraud. Time will tell the truth of it. For now, it’s good to remind ourselves that valuable and open science marches on. The reality of LENR does not rest solely with Defkalion or Rossi but also in a small army of scientists who put their heads down and get on with it.

George Miley of The University of Illinois is one such. Working on LENR as a possible power source to replace RTGs in the space programme, he will be presenting his work on March 23rd at the 2012 Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting. The work is ongoing and we have seen much of it before. Even so, I’d like to highlight it as a reminder of the progress that is being made. In his presentation, Miley talks about LENR as a fact. He creates the conditions, measures the effect. They are repeatable and of real substance and demonstrate the potential for utility.

While I agree that the world will only begin to change when commercially viable devices are available, it is too easy to forget the giant leap that proving LENR alone would represent. Miley, it seems, does that and more, reporting proof of principle for creating a LENR battery at 350W/kg

My reading of that statement is that The 1kg refers to
the complete device
. If that includes thermal-electric conversion then the power density he is achieving right now is impressive. Miley writes of using 20g of ZrO2Pd35 nano powder in one of these experiments. If we assume the unlikely extreme of 350w/kg as representing only fuel then we  would expect around 7W from 20g. If however, the 1kg was referring to the complete device (likely) then Miley was getting a healthy return from his fuel that was far greater than 7 W. If anyone knows what the real output was, please share.

No matter what, Miley’s work is important and acts as a reminder of the real science behind Rossi’s claims. A few blinks ago we were talking about a non-existent effect and then an unimpressive (to some) mWs. From Miley’s double or triple digit output, the leap to cold fusion commercialisation no longer sounds like a madman’s dream.

Kudos to Miley and all the other LENR pioneers who continue the fight on our behalf.

This powerpoint presentation is from last year (the 20g sample size is taken from slide 48).

Details of the March 23rd talk is here (3.50pm).

And of the relevant Nuclear Battery work here.


Posted by on March 3, 2012. Filed under Competitors,Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

308 Responses to The University of Illinois Cold Fusion Battery

  1. groo

    March 4, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    to answer my own questions:

    (a) yes, but fringe acceptance (0.1 to <10% )
    (b) dubious, no intergroup replication of identical setups
    (c) yes, if given (a)and (b): 10%, unknown: 90%, disputed.
    (d) unknown. No theory.
    (e) fringe evidence of possible frauds/selfdeluded individiuals/groups
    (f) theoretically yes, practically unproven.

    This is a very positive assessment, which does not reflect the uncertainty, whixh ideally should progress multiplicatively down the decision-tree, which it does not.
    It is more complicated than that.
    A first step to get out of this mess.

  2. popeye

    March 4, 2012 at 11:42 pm

    JNewman at 5:29 pm

    Perhaps (a) is disruptive to the “edifice of nuclear physics”, but I think the field is resilient enough to withstand the disruption if it is the case. I really don’t buy the whole notion that if LENR is truly a nuclear process, then the world will be forever changed. There is much ground to cover before that happens. (a) to (f) in your analysis is a long way to go.

    Of course the field would withstand LENR being real. It would delight in all the new physics that would have to be figured out, and all the new benefits for everyone.

    But I do think the world would be changed if it were real. I can’t see a fundamental obstacle to scaling it up, and it’s difficult to believe that we could violate our previous predictions by 10^20, but not by say 10 ^21 or 10 ^22.

    LENR could be real but irreproducible, real but limited to being a tiny effect, real but uncontrollable, or real but unsuitable for practical use.

    Possible yes, but I think very unlikely. What other phenomena that gave fleeting indications of monumental benefits, proved to be real effects, that we have not been able to exploit? [Don’t cite muon-catalyzed fusion, because it was detected by radiation, not excess heat (which would be the fleeting benefit).]

    Ransompw at 5:59 pm:

    I was really put off by the sceptics on this site in regard to Miley who is doing very good scientific work. I have friends at the U of I, living quite close myself and I hear about their work and how excited they are.
    When Miley says:
    “Indeed, such applications have already been explored in conceptual design studies by scientists at NASA Langley assuming Rossi-type cell performance. Their extremely encouraging results support the game-changing advantages of developing this technology. While our present test units are at lab bench power levels (multi 100s watts), scaling up to RTG power levels seems quite feasible using larger amounts of nano-particles and an improved heat management de-sign.”
    I think he deserves the opportunity to support these statements without the deniers criticizing his results before he even presents them.

    And without his supporters exaggerating the results.

    I was mainly criticizing the misrepresentation of his claims by you, admin, and yes by Miley too. If you have an in with the group, then maybe they can explain how they get hundreds of watts, but only 700 J of energy. Did the experiment run for just a few seconds? According to the graph, it ran for some hundreds of seconds, which would correspond to only a few watts of power.

    Based on that, the results do not represent a demonstration of utility, reproducibility, of 350 W, or of a battery.

    And I like his glib “neglecting unlikely chemical reaction contributions”, even while skeptics are not allowed to neglect unlikely nuclear reaction contributions. He neglects a factor of 2 unexpected chemical reactions and embraces a factor of 10^20 increase in nuclear reactions.

    These are definitely improvements on performance

    How are they improvements? Energetics has claimed higher power, higher power density, and more energy. Claims of hundreds of watts, and even kW were made in the 90s (some without power input), not including the Patterson cell. None of them convincing, but then Miley has been making claims for a long time, including at the 2010 ACS news conference; when is he going to publish some of the work so we can evaluate it in detail?

    • groo

      March 5, 2012 at 12:10 am


      please answer my questions in my decision tree.

      Stop at (a) if you feel inclined to do so.
      Think deeply on every step.
      Summon Your mental capacities!
      I do this also. So this is nothing asymmetrical.

      It hopefully makes You sleep better, and You do not have to write endless sermons about this and that.

      It is quite simple if you tackle the issue with a practical -mental- hand.

    • JNewman

      March 5, 2012 at 12:31 am

      Popeye, your view of all of this is quite interesting. If I read you right, then you are saying that If there is indeed a nuclear phenomenon taking place in some of the CF/LENR experiments, then it essentially must be exploitable in a big way. I don’t really accept that assertion. We are talking about a phenomenon that is essentially not understood in any meaningful way despite the plethora of imaginative theories said to address it. Given that state of affairs, I don’t see how anything can be extrapolated from the phenomenology alone. Perhaps it is some sort of self-limiting reaction that simply cannot scale. One can conjure up lots of other ideas. The point is, we are just conjuring. I still see no reasonable argument that a compelling existence proof for LENR, should one come along, implies that Rossi-like technology is inevitable or even highly likely.

      That being said, I appreciate your comments here. They are consistently aimed at the science and not at the people, which is a breath of fresh air.

      • Mr. G

        March 5, 2012 at 5:00 am

        Another example of verified measured energy that may never be scalable is the Casimir effect.


        • GreenWin

          March 5, 2012 at 2:51 pm

          Hmmm, casimir derives from the vacuum. The vacuum (aka universe) is infinite… So, scaling would be… impossible.

          • Mr. G

            March 6, 2012 at 1:23 am

            You have no idea what you are talking about Einstein. Click on the link.

            Some people including DARPA see a potential infinite supply of untapped energy. Sounds a lot like LENR to me.


    • Ransompw

      March 5, 2012 at 12:34 am

      So Popeye, who are you that you belong to a we that evaluates this work. What is your agenda, you obviously have one. Almost as though you have a legacy to protect, like Parks may have.

      The one little graph doesn’t represent the extent of Miley’s work, he hasn’t even published results since June. You know that and your posts are needlessly insulting. Tell us who you are.

    • Mr. G

      March 5, 2012 at 4:47 am

      Popeye said:

      ” I can’t see a fundamental obstacle to scaling it up.”

      Sombody’s talking out of their depth.
      NASA could really use you in the lab. What are you doing wasting your time here.


    • LCD

      March 8, 2012 at 7:02 am

      The experiment can last a lifetime Popeye all we care about is the time it took for the energy to be released. If Miley decoded that timeframe was over a few seconds then that is an accurate estimate of power last time I checked.

      Judging by his graphs that’s exactly what it looks like.

  3. dsm

    March 5, 2012 at 1:03 am

    eCat story to date.

    (as I understand it)

    Doug M

    1990s: Piantelli (incl Focardi) apparently leading the world in experimenting with LENR using Nickle & Hydrogen. Repeatedly publishes results showing higher bursts of energy that other researchers are not able to match.

    Late 1990s: Rossi gets interested in LENR energy. 1997 Rossi approaches Focardi and asks him to join his company as an adviser. Focardi accepts.

    By 2009 Rossi has begun experimenting with poawdered Nickel + Hydrogen plus includes another granulated metal that allows him to produce more consistent bursts of heat with high output levels.

    Rossi’s issues include:-
    – That he can only successfully build small reactors
    – That the powdered Nickel needs special care in its production
    – That too often his reactors runaway and melt the cores (thus setting a boundary for size)
    – That he needs even application of heat to fire up the LENR process
    – He has difficulty running the reactors in self-sustain mode when he scales beyond a fairly small unit
    – That the method of heating the core at start up has problems (due to the powdered Nickel and how it gets packed into the core)

    Then Rossi decides to announce & commercialize his LENR reactor after publishing this paper ..

    Defkalion gets founded after Stremmenos briefs the Grrk Govt on Rossi & Focardi’s claims.

    Defkalion designs a family of products named hyperion that will use Rossi eCats as the energy core as a plug-in

    Rossi wants a seperate company to control the manufacture of eCats.

    Defkalion are ready and waiting to take eCats and sell their hyperion home heaters

    Defkalion become frustrated at lack of activity from Rossi in 2011. Rossi is also busy performing demonstrations of his eCat. Rossi builds a claimed 1 Mw eCat that is in fact 100-125 smaller eCats in a container. The customer for this unit was Defkalion who were to pay for it after succesful demo.

    Defkalion start making claims that they will go it alone if Rossi doen’t come up with the goods

    Defkalion & Rossi split & Stremmenos resigns from the board of Defkalion

    DEfkalion then claim they have their own reactor and carry on activity as if they will do it all without Rossi but they switch their position to that of producing LENR reactors & use the name hyperion which orginally was their home heater using an eCat reactor

    Rossi responds with a barrage of claims how he will carry on without Defkalion, that have mostly not materialized but in essence says he will go to war with Defkalion by producing cheap home eCats and says he will build a plant that produces 1 million+ per year and that no one will be able to catch up with him.

    This saga staggers on ….

    • dsm

      March 5, 2012 at 1:05 am

      Itt was 2007 that Rossi approached Focardi to join him.

      Rossi founded Leonardo Corp in 1996.

      Doug M

  4. GreenWin

    March 5, 2012 at 1:21 am

    Looks like the short on uranium strategy will pay off for astute Wall Street investors:

    Who needs uranium if you got nickel and H2.

    • Ben

      March 5, 2012 at 1:57 am

      I wonder how much investment Dick Smith has in uranium mining concerns in Australia?

      I think the two of the most interesting articles of the past week concerning the cold fusion saga have been in the investment blogs Seeking Alpha and
      Pie Economics

    • Ben

      March 5, 2012 at 1:58 am

      I wonder how much investment Dick Smith has in uranium mining concerns in Australia?

      • dsm

        March 5, 2012 at 2:51 am


        I doubt he would be interested in Uranium shares. After Fukushima, am surprised anyone would be 🙂

        General mineral mining is still booming here even if there are repeated warnings that China’s growth can’t be sustained at current levels. The issue for Australia is the India is also on the rise.


        Doug M
        (PS I am aware that DS is holidaying in Europe so don’t expect to many responses from him)

        • daniel maris

          March 5, 2012 at 2:58 am

          Is DS going to visit Bologna?

          And are you his amanuensis Doug?

          • dsm

            March 5, 2012 at 3:14 am


            Are you ?


      • GreenWin

        March 5, 2012 at 2:55 pm

        Who cares? If he’s a fraud.

      • GreenWin

        March 5, 2012 at 3:18 pm

        Ben, it appears it’s not just uranium that’s gonna crash. This quote includes a link to speculation on

        “How Likely is Another Oil Price Crash?”

        The Wall Street Bears seem to be getting ready to feast on the carcass of old energy.

  5. dsm

    March 5, 2012 at 4:33 am

    This is for popeye and other folk who have commented on the Miley experiment and its low Joules output.

    In the above paper from 1998 put out by Prof Piantelli and friends, they claim they produced 600MJ & 900MJ (yup megajoules) excess energy for 300 or so days. The claim is here …

    “Summary. — Evidence of a large heat excess produced in Ni-H systems and details of
    the calorimetric measurements are reported in this paper. Two cells which ran for long
    periods (about 300 days) produced an energy excess of 600MJ and 900MJ, respectively.”

    This looks pretty durned impressive to me and I am wondering how you interpret it, as to the best of my knowledge it was this paper that so impressed scientists in the US as to how advanced Italy was in LENR research esp Ni+H.

    Now the paper explains they used Nickel rods (not powder) and they used bottle fed H. They talk about doing gymnastics with the heating of the rods (raise, lower, sharply raise etc ) to fire the LENR process off.

    popeye, in a nutshell, was the paper by Piantelli mistaken ? – it looks pretty impressive to me.

    Doug M

    • dsm

      March 5, 2012 at 6:18 am

      Popeye et al

      An additional paper published in 2004 that summarizes their 12 years of work and in particular adds details in regard to evidence of ‘cold fusion’ (please allow me to use ‘dirty words’ here without argument – we all know what I mean, I do admit though that CF is still my preferred term over the ‘politically correct’ LENR which to me represent what we in Australia call ‘polly talk’ or better still ‘weasel words’ and yes this is an emotive statement and I accept that).


      This is an overview of our experimental activity during the last twelve years. We have been studying the Ni-H system at temperatures of about 700 K. Our investigations have revealed several interesting effects:
      a) energy production for long time
      b) neutron emission
      c) γ-ray emission
      d) charged particles emission
      e) appearance of elements other than Ni on the surfaces of Ni samples.
      These experiments were performed in several laboratories: the greatest part in Siena but also in Bologna, Colleferro and Pavia. A new laboratory in Colle Val d’Elsa (Siena) will become operative in the summer 2004.”

      Doug M

      • dsm

        March 5, 2012 at 6:29 am

        Table 1 is very relevant to the discussion and really gets to the heart of issues to do with consistency and repeatability but from what I see in *no* way diminishes the reality of the achievements of the original 1994 successes.

        Some of the variance can be related to changing test parameters such as the hydrogen loading. The greatest energy gain was always with a high loading of H *and* when a nickel plating was used.

        Doug M

      • dsm

        March 5, 2012 at 6:42 am

        The ignoring of Piantelli’s ground-breaking work

        The above is a sympathetic commentary on the apparent reality that Piantelli’s achievements were pretty much ignored by mainstream science and that there isn’t an adequate way of explaining this.

        Doug M

  6. dsm

    March 5, 2012 at 4:53 am

    Popeye, also for you

    looking at pages 3-6, where do you believe Rossi & Focardi were making a mistake ?


    Doug M

  7. Igor Ivanovitch

    March 5, 2012 at 8:24 am

    Can I order domestic e-cat from ebay with paypal?
    It’s too risky to paid in advance to Rossi.

  8. Jami

    March 5, 2012 at 8:35 am

    I don’t get it, Doug. The “Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems” paper is anecdotal. I’ve read it twice now and still don’t see what they’re talking about. Calibration is nice (something Rossi feels he doesn’t need) but as I read it, their calibration is completely omitting the “triggering process”. They describe that as:

    “After several loading cycles, the sample was ready and it was possible to trigger the exothermic process. Such an operation can be performed by lowering the input power, waiting for the sample temperature to decrease down to about 300 K, then suddenly restoring the previous power level. After this operation an increased equilibrium temperature, as shown in fig. 4, is obtained: the cell is producing an excess heat. Another way to trigger the process is to provoke a pressure step-like variation, as shown in fig. 5. After the triggering procedure, the production of excess heat is maintained for months.”

    Not exactly a precise description. Not a word about how that process may or may not have an effect on any of the measurements. External factors, pressures, resistances, post-calibration, error estimates etc. were either not done/measured at all or simply summarized using broad terms such as “room temperature”. No wonder the paper isn’t quoted anywhere outside the LENR community. Kill me for being a LENR sceptic, but I’d say this was sloppy work.

    • AB

      March 5, 2012 at 9:00 am


      This has a better overview on the Piantelli Ni-H cells.

    • Dsm

      March 5, 2012 at 9:13 am

      Can you please go google Piantelli’s experiments to find a version that satisfies you else I am not sure what you are saying ?. I am sure you are not saying that Piantelli & crew produced a useless paper ( which is a little bit the way your post comes across)


      Doug M

  9. Jami

    March 5, 2012 at 9:26 am

    “I am sure you are not saying that Piantelli & crew produced a useless paper”

    That is exactly what I’m saying. If there are better papers about the same experiment (where?), why did you link this one?

    • Dsm

      March 5, 2012 at 9:31 am

      Because it was seminal

      So rephrased, you are saying they produced nothing and their conclusions as eminent scientists are meaningless – because you say so ?

      Doug M

    • Dsm

      March 5, 2012 at 9:40 am

      Just to clarify, I’m damned if I am going to spend hours trying to find a Piantelli paper that you decide you like. The challenge to you is to go do your own research and if at the end of it you can come back and say you found nothing that convices you that Piantelli achieved anything. After you reviewed ( please list the papers) then we can debate that.

      Doug M

      • Jami

        March 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm

        Look. You linked a paper and labeled it “seminal” while I specifically pointed out what’s missing from it. If you have a problem with that – fine – don’t believe me. Believe instead that what I’m saying is irrelevant and that Piantelli thought so, too. Or believe he didn’t think it was irrelevant but couldn’t be bothered to include the information in his paper while eventually doing so in another version, some supplemetal material or in a completely different paper which you and me can’t be bothered to search for. That’s ok.

        But I’d rethink the “like” thing when it comes to scientific papers, if I were you. Don’t think its much of a useful yardstick – at least not outside of the LENR community.

        • dsm

          March 5, 2012 at 9:02 pm

          Correction please, I labelled it seminal *after* you posted your put down of Piantelli.

          This quote of yours was way out of line

          “No wonder the paper isn’t quoted anywhere outside the LENR community. Kill me for being a LENR sceptic, but I’d say this was sloppy work.”

          The original document is an established summary of work done by Piantelli and it is fair (and honest) to say that Piantelli (unlike how you so rudely characterized him) was and is an eminent and esteemed professor and for you (an unknown nobody) to attack his work as sloppy here in this forum 18 or so years later is pathetic.

          You post clearly shows you know little about Piantelli or his work but that lack of knowledge didn’t stop you from putting him down. Who needs scientists when we have you 🙂

          Doug M

  10. Mahron - A4 B2

    March 5, 2012 at 10:21 am

  11. buffalo

    March 5, 2012 at 10:23 am

    we must remember that if the tiniest hole,or even a slight oxygen/air permeability is present in any glass container of any H2 gas loaded nickel or palladium electrode, its gonna release slow heat for months due to slow catalytic combustion 2H2+O2=2H2O. This can really screw up results big time when ur calculations was for a nuke reaction

    • buffalo

      March 5, 2012 at 10:32 am

      and this is why not just anybody can replicate this lenr experiments without fairly expensive air-tight equipment

    • RonB

      March 5, 2012 at 3:52 pm

      There’s no way a leak is going to create
      neutron emission
      γ-ray emission
      charged particles emission

  12. Ivy Matt

    March 5, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    Am I the only one who interprets Miley’s references to Rossi as a gentle reminder to his (Rossi’s) fans that he (Miley) is openly publishing scientific results obtained on a device that is distinctly different from Rossi’s? (Hence all the claims of Miley “replicating” Rossi were misleading.)

    If Miley had spent the past few months, if not the past year, on E-Cat-related forums, however, he would have realized that such subtlety would be lost on Rossi’s fans.

    • John Milstone

      March 5, 2012 at 12:22 pm


  13. Dale G. Basgall

    March 5, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    From the mechanical view while reading this statement by admin on this topic; “Kudos to Miley and all the other LENR pioneers who continue the fight on our behalf.”, makes me wonder why no one published all the information that didn’t work over the past 20 years.

    In a mechanical frame of interest quite a few questions regarding efficiency are gained by absolutely knowing “what doesn’t work” and then deducing the actual “what does work” in specific.

    Why don’t they publish all the stuff they tried that didn’t get any results? Then the new guy’s trying it out would at least have facts to work with. Oh well that’s just dreamin thinking someone would just publish their LENR shop notes on the for sure things that will kill a LENR experiment.

    It’s like car racing, motorcycle racing or bike racing, all have the same old time saying. “You never know how fast you can go, unless you first know how fast you can’t”

    Just a thought for the morning.

  14. GreenWin

    March 5, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Okay, clearly Wall Street is getting nervous about the introduction of LENR, but THIS article about the fed suppressing innovation is a bit much. Just because LENR works in the lab doesn’t mean it’s going to replace old energy monopolies. That requires pundits who have seen the future and know old energy is dead.

    I mean really… “Orgone Energy Motor?”

    • JNewman

      March 5, 2012 at 3:22 pm

      Key quote from that blog:

      “It seems likely that some of these inventions of new energy sources actually work as claimed and are suitably practical for worldwide deployment.”

      I guess there are so many of them that there have to be some winners by the law of averages.

      • Ivy Matt

        March 5, 2012 at 3:28 pm

        There must be a pony in here somewhere.

        • GreenWin

          March 5, 2012 at 3:40 pm

          Interesting Ivy, that this anecdote illustrates optimism. Yet, the pessimist could reasonably claim, “No, it’s just a dung heap.”

          The challenge now is to manage the sell off. Isn’t it.

          • Ivy Matt

            March 5, 2012 at 7:08 pm

            I would suggest that there are such things as ponies, but that, if one wishes to find one, a heap of manure might not be the best place to look.

  15. GreenWin

    March 5, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    To make matters worse, there is now speculation that the natural gas boom will be a huge BUST. Do some of these pundits and specialists know about LENR? Who would’ve thot NG would end up in the ICU?

    “…key reasons why natural gas exploration and production stocks are currently dying, and why the outlook isn’t getting better any time soon.”

  16. 123star

    March 5, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Hi Jami, I appreciate your criticism about the Focardi paper. Have you read ? What do you think about it?
    Some time ago I wrote that if we assume that a hydrogen-loaded nickel rod gets a higher thermal conductivity than a unloaded rod, then the hydrogen-loaded nickel rod, once heated, will get a higher temperature than the unloaded rod (at steady state, same conditions, and no nuclear sources of power). This is related to heat conduction of two different materials in series, check for example
    This could be an explanation of why in Focardi’s experiment the nickel rod gets hotter than expected, without need of extra nuclear sources of power.
    Can you say something about this?

    • buffalo

      March 5, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      npe.higher heat conductivity means higher heat dissipation.try heat a tea cup and a metal rod in a oven nd then take em out..the tea cup gona stay hot much longer.evrythings gona b the same temp in the oven

  17. dick smith

    March 6, 2012 at 12:50 am

    Unfortunately no Uranium shares.
    remember all someone has to do is purchase a Rossi unit and get the Uni of NSW to say it works and they can share the $1 million.

    mssg from Ulan Bataar

    • dsm

      March 6, 2012 at 6:32 am

      Dick – keep away from those pretty girls with the dark eyes 🙂

      Hope trip is going well.


  18. Jami

    March 6, 2012 at 7:25 am

    Doug wrote: “The original document is an established summary of work done by Piantelli and it is fair (and honest) to say that Piantelli (unlike how you so rudely characterized him) was and is an eminent and esteemed professor and for you (an unknown nobody) to attack his work as sloppy here in this forum 18 or so years later is pathetic.”

    Whatever. It is a bad and worthless paper. If you think his other work somehow exonerates him or the assessment that he is an “eminent and esteemed professor” somehow puts him above professional sloppiness, then that only proves that you don’t know anything about science in general or professors in particular. Did you not go to university yourself? Never did gruntwork for one of them? These are human beings, not scaled down versions of god.

    Anyway – your blind belief in somebody’s work based not on your own thoughts other than “oh my god – he’s a professor – he must be brilliant, thorough, honest and consequently right” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you’d consequently follow that fruitless line of thinking, you’d inevitably come to the conclusion that Piantelli is a crook. After all, almost every other physics professor in the world thinks the Coulomb barrier can’t be overcome by mixing hydrogen and nickel… and “who needs all of them when we have YOU?” See? Its guff.

    • dsm

      March 6, 2012 at 8:35 am


      You totally missed the point of the post and misrepresented it.

      You made an ass of your self by attacking Piantelli.

      The paper was not post for peer review – esp yours. It was a reference to work done in the past.

      If your intent was to take attention away from who Piantelli is you did a great job with your ‘peer review’.

      You are trying to dig your way out of a hole you chewed open with your own mouth.

      Next please !


    • dsm

      March 6, 2012 at 8:42 am


      yup I get it now (I did strongly suspect)

      You are a hot fusionist who has no problem insulting any scientist no matter how esteemed who dares to challenge conventional science with experiments that defy your cherished rules.

      Why do you bother coming here? is it just to attack anyone here + the reputations of researchers who think LENR may have something behind it.

      You pathetic sorry sad man


      • Ivy Matt

        March 6, 2012 at 9:35 am

        I believe what Jami is saying is that, if you want to play the “esteemed professor” card, there a lot more “esteemed professors” who don’t agree with Piantelli than who agree with him. The balance of “esteemed professors” would quickly reduce Piantelli’s ideas to insignificance, so you’re probably better off not resorting to that kind of appeal to authority at all.

        I’m not quite sure what he means about overcoming the Coulomb barrier by mixing hydrogen and nickel. The problem there is not so much the ingredients as the action. If he really is a hot fusionist, he ought to know that, sufficiently accelerated, a proton will most likely fuse with a nickel nucleus.

        • Ivy Matt

          March 6, 2012 at 9:42 am

          And, along those lines, I see that the Australian Skeptics still haven’t corrected or clarified the statement they attributed without quotes to Peter Ekström. I was hoping Ian Bryce would take care of that.

          (See the full press release.)

          • Dsm

            March 6, 2012 at 9:48 am


            Why dont you ask him ?

            I dont have contact with him but am sure you can track him down (why did you bring it up ?)

            Cheers D

          • Ivy Matt

            March 6, 2012 at 3:29 pm

            Maybe I’m the only one who cares, but I think it doesn’t look good for people who call themselves skeptics to use specious arguments to argue against cold fusion. Perhaps I have delusions of grandeur, but I’d like to keep both sides of the debate as honest as is reasonably possible.

            For reference, the quote is as follows:

            Some scientists have remained rightly skeptical, such as Professor Peter Ekstrom of Lund University in Sweden. He says that nickel, hydrogen and copper are everyday materials that cannot be involved in a nuclear reaction.

            Peter Ekström is a senior lecturer in nuclear physics. I would expect him to know better (and from a paper written by him, to which the Australian Skeptics referred in the press release, he apparently does know better), so I think there must have been some kind of communication error or something.

            If Dick Smith or Ian Bryce would like an educated opinion on the statement I quoted above, I would suggest they consult an astrophysicist, although I’m sure Ekström himself could tell them what’s wrong with it.

            For an inkling of what the problem with the statement is, see here. Also, look up the term “nucleosynthesis”.

            Perhaps I will track Ian Bryce down if I have the time and inclination, but I thought since Dick Smith shows up here from time to time….

          • Ivy Matt

            March 6, 2012 at 4:02 pm

            Oh, and also, I recall Ian Bryce posting a comment here sometime around February 13th that he would be updating the press release.

  19. Jami

    March 6, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    “I’m not quite sure what he means about overcoming the Coulomb barrier by mixing hydrogen and nickel. The problem there is not so much the ingredients as the action. If he really is a hot fusionist, he ought to know that, sufficiently accelerated, a proton will most likely fuse with a nickel nucleus.”

    True. However according to Piantelli, this is a piece of cake, really. Alle you have to do is to (quote):

    “… wait for the sample temperature to decrease down to about 300 K, then suddenly restoring the previous power level.”

    Whoever couldn’t replicate Piantelli’s results (despite this exhaustingly precise description of the action) probably just didn’t do it quite “suddenly” enough…

    • dsm

      March 6, 2012 at 8:04 pm


      The way this Piantelli spat unfolded, it did seem to me a case of a long time single malt scotch whisky drinker walking into murphy’s pub in the wild west (these forums) intent of having a go at anyone who likes Irish whisky. There are 2 ways to do it, persuasion without offense allowing points to be made and recognizing little may change, or pulling out your six gun and shooting the best Irish whisky bottle off the top shelf.

      I believe you chose the latter & from that point on it was only likely going to be a gun fight. Esp when the pub contains a lot of fennians.

      I think we understand each other better now & also it is time to end this spat. I am willing to call it a draw & lets move on.



  20. dsm

    March 7, 2012 at 12:01 am

    This 1995 paper is worth a read. It starts off addressing the accusations against CF ‘The “pathological” Science of Cold Fusion’

    Then talks of “Curing the “pathologies”: QED coherence in matter”

    What makes it a worthwhile read is that Preparata attempts to address the concerns of that branch of science that sees CF as pathological.

    No doubt it will not sway the committed but it is one serious and honest scientists approach to the problem.


  21. Quax

    March 7, 2012 at 5:52 am

    Happy to reveal the fist LENR ecat sentiment survey based on the voting of the posters on this forum.

    Find it at


  22. man666

    March 11, 2012 at 8:00 am

    Cold fusion for me is just cold battery charging
    and should increase the specific gravity and
    runtime charge of the local chargable battery
    every time.
    First, you get an air expansion cone and connect
    two dc fans that fit on it for expansion so when both fans run the air flows from the little end
    of the the cone to the large end(a little fan and
    a big fan that runs in the direction of expansion
    for environmental stability instead of speed, dumbo).
    Then you need two ac/dc converters to power the fan and charge the battery. Negative(ground) cold
    charging is done first to increase the specific
    gravity of the battery, and then positive cold
    charging is done next to put some extra run time
    charge in the battery.
    One dc converter is connected to the battery for
    regular charging with a voltage from the dc
    converter being about one or two volts greater
    than the voltage rating of the battery. For example, for my 12 volt car battery I charge,
    I use a lttle one amp 14 volt 14 watt ac/dc converter to charge the battery and hook it
    up for regular charging. And, then for negative
    cold charging, the other ac/dc converter with
    about the same amps, volts and watts runs the small
    fan connected to the cone. And the large fan works like a dc generator and the positive wire is connected to the battery and the negative wire is
    connected to the negative wire running the small fan. This makes the negative side and plates
    inside the battery cold and builds up the positive
    plates inside the battery. And the negative wires
    connection for the small fan is cold. This increases the amount of “stuff” inside the battery.
    Then after a few days, you switch to positive
    cold charging by hooking the big fan generator negative wire to the battery and hooking the positive big fan generator wire to the positive
    wires connection on the small fan. This makes the small fan wires connection “cold”(cold fusion cold, dude) and increases the runtime charge
    in the local battery when done for a few days.


    March 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    My question is: ZrO remains inert in hydrogen atmosphere or is reduced ? If reduced that reaction may be exothermic? What is then the role of Pd? (hydrogen spunge).