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

Out And About

March 15, 2012

Please note that I will be travelling away from the coal face for the next ten days. As always, any important news will be posted, otherwise I will take advantage of the lull, enjoy reading your comments and see you on the other side of my trip.

Posted by on March 15, 2012. Filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

707 Responses to Out And About

  1. Mike

    March 20, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Dr George Miley appears to have reaffirmed his claim of substantial Cold Fusion power:

    extracts from an an interview with Steven Krivit:

    discussing Mileys presentation at the World Green Energy Symposium

    Krivit: Let’s start with the question I asked you in the e-mail. When you stated “At the moment, we can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts,” did you omit to state at the end of that sentence “per kilogram of material”?

    Miley: That was with 20 grams of nanoparticles.

    Krivit: So my question was, Were you actually running at several hundred watts output or several hundred watts per kilogram of material? Are you talking about a direct-power measurement or a power-density measurement?

    Miley: That’s watts per gram.

    From which I would read

    1) Mileys device produces a few hundred watts using 20 grams of powder
    2)The power density would be say 200watts divided by 20 grams equals 10 watts per gram of powder

    Miley explains that the data he has so far published does not include the device running at full power:

    Miley: All we want to disclose at this time is what is in the slides.

    Krivit: But during your video presentation, you said you could run continuously at several hundred watts.

    Miley: That is correct, but I didn’t show the data for it.

    The slide showing the temperature v time graph refers to the first 6 minutes of operation ie the start up period of the device during which it is not producing it’s full output

    So any power calculation like ‘8 watts for 100 seconds’ made from Miley’s published data is only an average output for this period and is irrelevant as a peak power calculation

    As Miley doesnt want to present the data referring to the peak output there are no data which anyone can currently check and we can only take his word on the power output at this stage

    All IMHO I’m not a scientist but Miley’s answers seem to be in fairly plain english to me

    • John Milstone

      March 20, 2012 at 6:59 pm

      1) Mileys device produces a few hundred watts using 20 grams of powder
      2)The power density would be say 200watts divided by 20 grams equals 10 watts per gram of powder

      200 Watts divided by 20 Grams is 10 Watts/Gram, which is 10 Kilowatts per Kilogram. That’s almost 30 times the “power density” Miley claimed.

      His numbers still don’t make any sense.

      • dsm

        March 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm

        The hope here for those of us who believe in LENR is that Miley is playing down his achievements in the expectation it would start a feeding frenzy if he claims the best or peak effect.

        There is good reson to believe that in the current eCat/Hyperion fiasco atmosphere, that all self respecting LENR scientists will talk cautiously and carefully and not set expectations too high.

        My confidence in Miley is that he has been working on a LENR reactor for use in space probes/vehicles and is steadily progressing his work. Miley has been working with and for NASA for some years. He was a key presenter at the US Army RDECOM Power & Energy TFT LENR Workshop 29 June 2010 …

        • dsm

          March 20, 2012 at 10:00 pm

          Just as a reminder, the US Army workshop in 2010 and the later NASA workshop at GRC in 2011, were triggered by this report in 2009 from the US Defense Intelligence Agency

          The above report triggered a lot more activity than just the US Army & NASA workshop activities but what has already been posted is enough to get the message across.
          Some people have tried to blame NASA’s Bushnell for allowing Rossi to get so much unwarranted attention but that is quite unfair as Bushnell was doing no more than any other interested agency in following the advice put forward in the DIA report of 2009.

          • GreenWin

            March 21, 2012 at 1:07 am

            Goodness. With all this guv’mnt activity, workshops, papers, presentations, etc. And Rossi’s name all over the lot of them – he must have bamboozled the top mil and NASA brass as well as everyone else – except us savvy pundits here.

            The latest whisper is he and a team from Italian Energy – are contracted by guv’mnt to do some very… hush hush type work. Hence the switch from NI to a secure instrumentation vendor.

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 10:46 pm


            Not quite so re Rossi. Yes he did attract attention with his claims and gets mentioned until by end 2011 / early 2012 one by one the agencies dropped him like a brick or he pulled out when the testing was to be finalised.

            That is what puts Rossi into a dark place.

            Talk of rumors in regard to what Rossi is doing next is unfortunately the only advances being made by him – rumor & no facts. After this rumor goes nowhere comes the next one and the next and the next.

            But we are all entitled to dream.


        • Ivy Matt

          March 21, 2012 at 6:18 pm

          My confidence in Miley is that he has been working on a LENR reactor for use in space probes/vehicles and is steadily progressing his work.

          Eh, that’s it? 😛 Dabbling in LENR isn’t half of what he’s done. I have tremendous respect for his many contributions to science, and I would count the fact that he spends time researching LENR as evidence that there may be something there. Still, I’m not sure I can say I have confidence in him. Retired and retiring professors sometimes tend to go down the rabbit hole. I sincerely hope that’s not the case with him.

  2. Barking Monkey

    March 20, 2012 at 6:51 pm


    So first let me say 1) hello to everyone on here; and 2) thank you for providing me with several months of entertaining and engaging reading (particularly those of you who consistently take the time to provide such critical and well-supported posts/arguments … if I could just get some of my students to do that, it might reaffirm my faith in university education 🙂 …. but I digress 🙂 ).

    Anyway, I tend to fall more on the skeptics side of things here for pretty much all the reasons posted (I’m eyeballing you right now, popeye 🙂 – ie. repeatability failures just seems “too” overwhelming to overcome rational doubt; Rossi and Dekaflion are … well … just too fraught with contradictions, etc.; however, there are two things to bear in mind here (which have been stated in various fashions before):

    1) LENR is oddly unique in that you cannot just compare it to every or any other unknown/pathological/groundbreaking/novel, etc. area in science. I know this is a little sacrilegious (scientifically speaking :-)), and you may want to dismiss this off the cuff as an “unscientific” statement, but modern science does not proceed in a social/economic vacuum. I do not believe their are boogymen and conspirators who control every peer-reviewed journal and direct all skeptical posters and control, but their are certainly vested interests that influence funding, control credibility and even smother/stymie evidence. You don’t have to go to LENR for examples of this – it is rampant (and documented) in pharmacology and medicine as well. Does this mean that all LENR research has been purged and tainted by the “Men in Black?” No, of course not, but it does have to be taken into account when making the “science is a level playing field” and “if there were a cure for cancer, we would know about it tomorrow” type of arguments. There is too much money and power at stake in this one to not recognize all analysis and commentary re: LENR has to be taken with at least a grain of salt. And, before everyone says, “well that doesn’t explain the shoddy results,” and “the truth will always out,” I can easily show how a little pressure here, a little defunding there, and a little shaming all around can easily alter the picture from one of slow and steady progress to understand a still unknown/misunderstood process to one of it all “just” falls short of sufficient and necessary. It doesn’t have to be extensive at all – as long as it is well-placed, it will be effective.

    2) As we delve deeper into our physical understanding of the universe and quantum realities, is it not just possible that “classical” experimentation and “classical” human brains (in their understanding of their environment anyway) could be missing something, which would explain why replication is a problem? In some ways, we have picked a large percentage of the low growing scientific fruit in physics. Are there observer/experiment interactions / other factors at play that may need to be taken into account in this and other fields. Take a basic Philosophy of Science course and one of the first things you run into is that there are actually limitations to the Scientific Method as we know and practice it. Just some thoughts. Flame away. :-).

    • daniel maris

      March 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm

      Some interesting thoughts, Barking…

      A couple of observations:

      1. I am not aware of any repeatability failures in the last 5 years. Not to say there haven’t been but I think most of the failures were from the early days immediately after Pons and Fleischmann. But in recent times even some of those have been represented as suppressed positives e.g. at MIT.

      2. Where you have a new area of discovery in science and technology the issue of control and replication is always difficult. There are plenty of examples with the separation of oxygen, the early days of electricity (when they didn’t understand that putting more power into a cable wouldn’t necessarily boost a signal), radium etc.
      I think in the NASA presentation it stated that many of the difficulties of control and replication had now been mastered.

      3. Indeed vested interests can influence governmental and commercial policy. How on earth is it that it has taken us 50 years of active cancer research to discover that dirt cheap unpatented aspirin has such an incredibly powerful anti-cancer effect (as now reported by the Oxford Uni team). We do know that Amoco’s science team confirmed LENR a long time ago (early 90s I think it was). There is no incentive for oil and gas companies to invest heavily in LENR research.

    • LCD

      March 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm

      Welcome BMonkey

      Your post is a breath of fresh air. A new LENR skeptic who fully understands both sides of the argument. I think your point on conspiracy theories and that LENR is not the same as “everything else” (popeyes trademark), are right on.

      While I agree with Daniel Maris on most of what he said I have to somewhat disagree with him on the replication.

      The very very best we can do with replication is nearly 80-100% according to Charles Beaudette and others, BUT the time it takes to see the effect may be months. This effectively reduces the replication rate to lower than 50% IMO from what I’ve read.

      But I agree with Daniel that the effect is essentially replicable in my view and 100% real. Now is it a straight coulomb barrier fusion “riddle”, some sort of condensate by-product, a lattice effect such as Klein Tunneling…I don’t know. I don’t think it’s enhanced chemistry though.

      I agree with Ransom and others that we are probably at a point now with nanopowders and metamaterials where we should start seeing an acceleration of anomalous heat claims in both Ni and Palladium based systems.

      HOWEVER, as long as this technology has a direct line to billions of dollars expect methodology to be in short supply and claims in abundance.

    • Ivy Matt

      March 21, 2012 at 6:57 pm

      I don’t know, I think the relegation of cold fusion to the backwaters of academia can be explained mostly by academic rivalry, without necessarily invoking intervention by the Powers That Be. And it was achieved by a relatively small number of people, though amplified by the press. The rest can be explained by social behavior and inertia. Most people don’t want to be seen as gullible. Unfortunately, the ostracism of cold fusion from mainstream academia created an underground of cold fusion researchers, many of whom have a siege mentality. I think it would have been healthier for mainstream academia not to have written cold fusion off so quickly. The way things happened led to reasonable charges of suppression.

      Regarding limitations to the scientific method, I couldn’t agree more. That said, a high level of replication is necessary if you want to build a cold fusion device worth selling.

    • Jay2011

      March 22, 2012 at 5:29 pm

      Great post, Barking, and good points by all.

      Regarding the scientific method, I agree that it is flawed. Not only for reasons of human social failings, but because we are reaching limits on what is experimentally testable.

      CERN could well be the last of the great accelerators. We will still be able to “perform” cosmological experiments, e.g. by looking at neutrino bursts from exploding supernovae. But those cannot always be replicated.

      Many recent “theories” including strings and M-branes, holographic universes, parallel universes, etc. may end up not being verifiable at all. Will we ever arrive at a picture that somehow unifies quantum mechanics with a general relativistic picture of space, time and gravity? It’s not obvious to me that we have the experimental tools to get that far. At some point we’ll be judging theories on their mathematical elegance but those theories will be entirely disconnected with our physical world. We’ll be like the cartoon characters who run off the edge of the cliff and keep on running. They only fall if they think to look down.

      So yes, the scientific method is flawed. But throughout human history, nobody has come up with a better solution yet.

  3. Loonyman

    March 20, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    Hi Guys, Just Swinging by, ( you might even say Trollin’ but I like to think of it as “checking if anyone has come to their senses yet”)
    George H, Mahron, Daniel, and all the others who have called me names and insulted me for being a little sceptical of Rossi’s claims…
    How is the e-cat turning out for yawl? off the grid yet? , or ready to admit you were wrong, and that I am not in fact a “psudosceptic” , but was actually just taking a clearer, evidence based view of the facts?

    • Ransompw

      March 20, 2012 at 8:22 pm

      You really think we have heard the last from Rossi? Somehow, I doubt that he fades into the sunset. But, either way, I am not sure (other than time) what recent evidence would prompt more certainty.

    • daniel maris

      March 20, 2012 at 8:40 pm

      Loonyman –

      I don’t recall insulting you. Probably confusing me for someone else. But if you were rude to me I MIGHT have been rude back. 🙂

      I certainly accept the needle has swung back to scepticism. But since you were around I think we also had the revelation that NASA had been granted an LENR patent in the US. So it’s not all one way – the needle swings back and forth.

    • JNewman

      March 20, 2012 at 9:00 pm

      Loonyman, I think the majority of Rossi supporters are simply worn out. He has provided little to be encouraged about for a very long time while whatever news that does appear seems bad. The apparent Defkalion fiasco did not help. At this point, this site seems to be mostly about LENR in general and that is a topic that is not likely to see any dramatic changes in the foreseeable future. I think the majority of posters here came to their interest in LENR because of Rossi and are now faced with making their way through a controversial and complicated area of science. Thus we have lengthy debates between physicists and attorneys and other odd pairings. However, we do have a more constructive atmosphere because we are mostly in the area of factual debate about scientific results rather than outlandish claims of an impending world-changing industry. It will be interesting to see how long this interest persists if there are no dramatic breakthroughs in the next few months. Time will tell.

      • Ransompw

        March 20, 2012 at 9:46 pm


        I agree there hasn’t been much to talk about from the Rossi perspective. Defkalion, well based on their last communication the tests won’t conclude till near the end of this month. I am not sure how the fiasco label applies, let’s see if they reappear in April, if not then I think you can start hanging that label.

        As for LENR in general, I think reports will continue and accelerate as we go forward.

        • JNewman

          March 21, 2012 at 12:01 am

          Ransom, I used the fiasco label for Defkalion because they issued a press release announcing a series of public and supposedly highly-visible tests following a protocol spelled out in great detail and then suddenly buried the whole thing in total secrecy. That was assuredly a fiasco. Whether they ultimately come forward with the goods is another matter entirely and we will have to wait and see.

          As for LENR in general, there is no particular evidence of acceleration in the field. People here keep quoting results from 1993 as the most promising. But there are presentations coming in the near future and perhaps the news will be eventful. One can always hope.

      • daniel maris

        March 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm

        I think that’s not unfair. In my own case I was interested in green energy to begin with. I am not sure that it was Rossi that first interested me – I think I came across the 60 minutes programme originally.

        Anyway, certainly Rossi is not delivering the informational goods at the moment. Same for Defkalion.

        I have refocussed on the more conventional science teams.

    • dsm

      March 20, 2012 at 10:51 pm


      I think there is a very strong awareness now that Rossi may not be the Santa Claus we all hoped he might be.

      I was very much a believer 2 months ago, in fact, have to admit to being an avowed Rossi apologist, but Rossi’s behavior plus some answers he provided to me on his JoNP blog got me seriously wondering about his claims.

      Then Dick Smith stepped in and we had some direct discussions re Rossi. Dick Smith has had 30 odd years of people asking him to invest in energy & other ‘great opportunities’. I humorously refer to him as the Scam-fu master from the Showmelies (Shaolin) Temple 🙂

      Irrespective of Dick Smith’s 1 $mill LENR Prize and Defkalions shutdown on news & testing of their Hyperion, it has become increasingly obvious that no one is ready to take up Smith’s offer. Dick Smith LENR Prize.

      It is a worry that there are no clear contenders. I am hoping Miley may get to claim it – it is a decent amount of prize money.


    • Mahron - A4 B2

      March 21, 2012 at 3:07 am

      Whaaaaaaat ? I’m second to George in the bad guy list ? WTF ? I don’t even recall arguing with you. Was it you I was pissing off about evidence being binary ?

  4. daniel maris

    March 20, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    Anyone care to comment on Broullion Energy? They appear to be claiming to be operating well above 100 watts with an average energy gain of around 65 watts.

    Their data presentation seems a lot better than Miley’s.

    • daniel maris

      March 20, 2012 at 9:13 pm

      Sorry – spelling: Brillouin Energy.

      • Jami

        March 20, 2012 at 9:40 pm

        Are you posting the list up and down, Daniel? Do you really want to know what people think about it or do you want it explained to you? Have you got the faintest idea what they’re talking about? Are you really interested in this stuff at all? And if you are – why don’t you say what you think about it rather than asking for comments from others? DO you think anything about it?

        Just curious.

        • daniel maris

          March 20, 2012 at 10:03 pm

          No need to get shirty mate. 🙂

          My views if you want them are:

          1. A claim is just that without proof.

          2. Scientific experiments and peer reviewed publication do not really consitute proof. What constitutes proof is utility. With technology such as an LENR that really means getting the producte to market.

          3. Subject to 1 and 2 the Brillouin results are of interest because they are not operating in the milliwatt area. I think the chances of genuine error readings in energy measurement are pretty small when you get into hundreds of watts. So if the claim is true, that is interesting.

          4. As already indicated, I think the information seems to be presented in a clear way – in contrast to what we have seen from Miley.

          My reason for raising it here was to see whether anyone had any critique of the results or could offer supporting information for the claims.

          • Jami

            March 20, 2012 at 10:22 pm

            Had to look up “shirty”. No, I’m not – just wanted to know why you asked (still really don’t – but never mind). FWIW, I got as far as “Quantum Fusion posits that the energy in these fusion reactions is not the result of proton-proton interactions involving Coulombic force vs. the strong nuclear force but rather neutron accumulation” in the hypothesis before I gave up. I think its a load of hogwash.

  5. dsm

    March 20, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    This link is to an earlier eCat News story that deserves being looked at again.
    Piantelli is by nature very reserved & does not seek publicity. He is working quietly in the background (as Rossi should have done if he was not such an opportunist).
    eCat News:
    “For some time now, rumours have been circulating about Professor Focardi’s former collaboration partner, Professor Piantelli. Focardi and Piantelli were the first to show the true potential of Ni-H LENR. Preferring to work beyond the limelight, he is seen as a diligent scientist working methodically towards the goal of understanding and perfecting a method of energy production distinct from the Rossi-Focardi eCat.”

    • dsm

      March 20, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      Here is a link to the same story but as covered on eCat World.

      “We have recently learned of another company that has been established to commercialize technology based on a nickel-hydrogen reaction, Nichenergy. This company is founded by Francesco Piantelli and some of his associates and appears to be gearing up to compete with Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology.”

    • dsm

      March 20, 2012 at 10:37 pm


      For close on 4 days I have tried to post a link to the below comments as they highlight the distinct possibility that NASA have been working with Piantell since last year.

      Every time I put the link to the story that post disappears ???.

      Here is an excerpt …


      “NASA Advances Evaluation of Piantelli’s LENR Research
      Posted on September 28, 2011 by Steven B. Krivit
      Multiple sources have confirmed to New Energy Times that a team comprising NASA engineers and an investment group from the U.S. is expanding its interest in the low-energy nuclear reaction research of Italian biophysicist Francesco Piantelli. A meeting with the group and representatives of Piantelli will take place in the next few days.

      According to Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, NASA was working months ago on experiments based on Piantelli’s research.

      Piantelli’s work with LENR goes back two decades and includes two dozen scientific publications and conference presentations. Piantelli and his colleagues’ only significant challenge came from a group at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics, but Piantelli’s group published an effective rebuttal.

      The Piantelli group’s nickel-hydrogen LENR work remains the most promising demonstration of LENR technology. New Energy Times wrote two feature articles on Piantelli’s work in 2008. We also wrote a summary of the work in the Wiley and Sons Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia, excerpted as follows:
      etc: etc:”

      • Ransompw

        March 20, 2012 at 11:44 pm


        Why the constant posts about Piantelli. Obviously, he and Focardi were working with NiH systems before most others including Rossi. But always with Nickel or Nickel alloy bars, not nanopowder. Their papers even document that the reaction seemed to take place at the very surface of the bar.

        Rossi simply took what they were doing and started using nanopowder to increase the surface area. Seems very logical that he would have gotten a more vigorous reaction because of the increased surface area. It is also quite obvious that his change would have been an enhancement to their device.

        The idea Rossi stopped advancing his design when Piantelli stopped feeding Focardi info is way out speculation and inconsistant with the above known facts.

        • daniel maris

          March 20, 2012 at 11:50 pm

          I agree Ransom. We don’t know what’s happened – all we know is that accusations are flying around. I agree nanopowder seems a fairly obvious material to try. If Rossi was the first to try nanopowder, it makes you wonder…

          I know nothing of the science really but I would also wonder when electromagnetic radiation would be much more effective with a nanopowder…In other words Rossi might have gone up several levels at once in terms of output.

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 12:26 am

            Ransompw & Daniel Maris

            Just as I recalled – this again tells me that people either don’t read what gets posted here, or do read but don’t see, or read but deny. If this is what is happening (and it sure looks like it to me) then we are all so polarized we are simply wasting our time & effort putting up relevant information.

            There are none so blind as those who don’t want to see !


            “I analyzed carefully all of the content of the documents of the so-called [Rossi] patent and I did not find anything original; all already is known to begin from the use of a generic powder of Ni, used and noted since 1994. So the patent is not innovative and is not valid. All of the remainder was written from people who do not have even a minimal idea about nuclear physics. Between the other if it was true what they say (electron + positron reactions) already should be roasted. ”
            (ps I believe when Piantelli says ‘roasted’ a better translation is ‘cooked’ of burnt (from radiation))

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 12:44 am

            MORE ….

            “Fortunately an acquaintance informed me what was happening and from that moment I stopped reporting my ideas and the conclusions. In the patent it talks of nickel powder and they claimed like a priority, but they forgot that I had already spoken and published the use of powders in 1994. Now I know that this not completely valid because in reality it is not so much the surface area (which is important), but the density of active sites per unit volume, relating to a special structure, the lack of which renders even a large surface quite useless (and the earlier cause of failures and poor reproducibility). “

          • daniel maris

            March 21, 2012 at 1:05 am

            Your quote says “generic powder” – but is that the same as a really fine nanopowder?

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 1:30 am


            Your seeing eye dog needs glasses.

            So you want to keep shifting the goal posts. But doing so still doesn’t let Ransompw off the hook for his ‘nown facts’ claim.

            Can you prove it for him ? – no you can’t !


          • Ivy Matt

            March 21, 2012 at 7:12 pm

            If Rossi was the first to try nanopowder

            I believe Arata and Zhang have precedence on that.

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 9:36 pm

            Ivy Matt

            Yes there were several Pd+D LENR researchers who also tried powdered Pd in their experiments.

            Piantelli really was way ahead of the field in the 1990s.


        • dsm

          March 21, 2012 at 12:17 am


          Piantelli states he also used nano powder !
          back in the 1990s.

          What makes you believe Rossi did it first ?

          I’ll see where I can dig up Piantelli’s comment re this but am sure it was in the Piantelli letter to Krivit in Feb 2010.



          • Ransompw

            March 21, 2012 at 2:46 am

            According to those who know him, Piantelli doesn’t even use nanopowder now. Get your story right.

            Show me any of Piantelli’s papers or Focardi where nanopowder is mentioned.

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 4:49 am


            You stated it was “nown facts” (sic) that Rossi 1st used powdered Nickel.

            I am saying bullshit ! and showed you Piantelli’s statement.

            Now you fabricate another bullshit fact re Piantelli’s friends – ???

            Please prove it with a document link else you stand accused of fabricating statements of fact to suit your weak argument !

            The “nown facts” (as you put it) please ! – where ?


          • Ivy Matt

            March 21, 2012 at 7:27 pm

            From Roy Virgilio:

            Principalmente la sua tecnologia è basata sulla preparazione del nichel. Quindi dimensioni e geometrie della polvere e geometria di deposizione (una specie di multistrato).

            Google translation:

            “Mainly its technology is based on the preparation of nickel. Then dimensions and geometry of the powder and geometry of deposition (a kind of multi-layer).”

        • dsm

          March 21, 2012 at 12:39 am


          You said ?
          “The idea Rossi stopped advancing his design when Piantelli stopped feeding Focardi info is way out speculation and inconsistant with the above *nown facts*.”
          Where is your proof that Rossi was the 1st to use nano powdered nickel such that you will publicly state it is “nown facts”.

          The truth is – it is NOT a nown (sic) facts.
          It is one thing to express an opinion (such as mine that Rossi stalled after Piantelli stopped providing Focardi with data & experiments) but another to make statements of fact. Statements of fact require evidence so I am asking you to now provide yours that Rossi was 1st to use nano powdered Nickel ?



    • Ivy Matt

      March 21, 2012 at 7:08 pm

      Piantelli is by nature very reserved & does not seek publicity.

      He also prefers to communicate in Italian, not being confident in his ability to speak English. (I know I read that somewhere, but I don’t recall where. Sorry.)

  6. Zalaz

    March 20, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    How’s this for a dystopian future: Rossi’s device is adapted to power a hundred million Moller Skycars, forcing everyone to live in earth-covered concrete bunkers. The only good thing is I won’t be able to hear my neighbor’s dogs barking. Okay, time to man-up and go out in the shop to cut metal.

  7. Ghost Dawg

    March 20, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    Andrea Rossi just wrote on his blog that in fact he does have a Florida factory, it is under another name, but that he wont disclose it, “until the situation is like the present”… whatever that means

    So either Rossi is lying to the public or the Florida Dept. of Radiation….

    March 19th, 2012 at 4:17 PM
    Hello Mr. Rossi,

    I’m having a running disagreement with colleague. He contends that you don’t own a factory in Miami Florida, but perhaps have a subcontractor. I contend you have said you have a factory, implying ownership either by you or by your corporation. Could you clarify so I can be assured of my interpretation. Thank you kindly.

    Andrea Rossi
    March 19th, 2012 at 7:58 PM
    Dear Scott L.:
    We have a factory, but for safety and security reasons it is under another name and we will not disclose it until the situation is like the present. What counts for our Customers is that our products work well.
    Warm Regards,


    • daniel maris

      March 20, 2012 at 11:53 pm

      Does he read my posts? LOL I did suggest that a factory site could well have been leased under a different name by Leonardo/Rossi. It would make sense from a number of viewpoints.

      However, I am not special pleading on his behalf. Let’s see him come out with some convincing evidence about what he’s doing.

    • daniel maris

      March 20, 2012 at 11:55 pm

      It doesn’t contradict his statement to the FBRC – he was referring only to current production.

    • Zalaz

      March 21, 2012 at 12:04 am

      I could drive down to Miami and stake out his apartment to see where he goes…
      Just taking a quick break here after sawing through a piece of 1/2″ thick 316 SS. Whew.

      • RonB

        March 21, 2012 at 12:58 am

        Have you given any thought to how you will video/demo your setup once it’s getting AH.
        I had thought about that wrt to Rossi’s demo.
        IMO no matter what he did, someone would/could always find fault with it. That would frustrate me. Maybe Rossi just got frustrated and decided to forget that.

        As for me, I’d really love to see someone light up a cloud chamber with some LENR setup and video tape that.

      • daniel maris

        March 21, 2012 at 1:47 am

        You could…but perhaps he takes evasive measures – the old two cars in the secure garaged area trick for instance.

    • GreenWin

      March 21, 2012 at 12:42 am

      Hilarious if he was a government contractor with a mandatory non-disclose clause. Stranger things happen in guv’mnt.

    • Jami

      March 21, 2012 at 12:43 am

      We have to give him great credit for extreme cleverness. “under another name…” – such nerve – such cunning (and it WORKS – if you enter “Rossi’s ultra secret e-cat factory somewhere in florida” into google maps, it comes up with nothing at all…). Maybe he’s even got some clever disguise around it – like a “somebody else’s problem field” from the Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy – or an Island which, on the press of a button, unfolds itself and reveals an underground producion complex – with a little monorail transporting hundreds of cutely uniformed, faceless workers and gorgeous babes in short skirts over treacherous bridges leading across shark filled ponds like in an old Bond movie. Gosh – this is all sooo exciting.

      • RonB

        March 21, 2012 at 12:46 am

        Ok… after all the depressing news lately, a comic relief is welcome.

        Can you put in a smoke monster as well?

      • dsm

        March 21, 2012 at 12:54 am


        The person who finally bought the Australian eCat rights told me he went to Miami & met Rossi (this person is totally committed & trusts Rossi).

        Having agreed to pay over a large (6 digit) sum he asked Rossi could he see the factory (after all he was buying into its production). Rossi said he couldn’t allow it for ‘security’ reasons & this person (IMHO stupidly) accepted Rossi’s assurance !.

        Rossi later met him in Italy where this person says he did see the 1 MW eCat.


        • Quax

          March 21, 2012 at 1:53 am

          This man needs his head examined.

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 2:17 am

            He is the same person who bought two rights to license – one for another nearby country.

            In my mind he is doubly stupid but he is so sure we are the stupid ones for not ‘trusting’ Rossi.

            One thing I keep reading about Rossi is that he has an almost hypnotic charm – the Rasputin of cold fusion LOL 🙂


          • Frank

            March 21, 2012 at 5:52 am

            If Rossi was really able to find gullible people whom he could sell distribution licenses for significant amount of money, then you can expect what will happen next: Suddenly there will come up some troubles with getting UL certificates which will delay the ‘production’ of e-cats (forever). – ‘Big oil’ industries will get blamed for running a conspiracy against the e-cat, and the ‘true believers’ will even believe this story.

            If there was already a significant amount of money exchanged, then you have to ask yourself, how many ‘e-cat advocates’ may have benefited from that?

          • Ivy Matt

            March 21, 2012 at 7:34 pm

            Or maybe his secret factory will burn down.

      • daniel maris

        March 21, 2012 at 1:03 am

        Look at it the other way round…

        Assuming you did have a revolutionary energy device, but had no patent in the USA, would you not be concerned about commercial espionage? Would you not consider leasing a factory through another company?

        It’s not so outlandish.

        • RonB

          March 21, 2012 at 1:21 am

          Sad to say but it’s possible that since Rossi’e made it this far, it means he has nothing. If he really had something, he’d have been stopped long ago, and most probably by hush money.

        • dsm

          March 21, 2012 at 1:26 am


          Do you understand the principle that (other than in Italy when Rossi applied) you can’t get a patent for a device for which there is prior art ?

          Piantelli has stated that he has prior art. The only differentiator Rossi has over Piantelli’s prior art is his claim that he has an added ‘catalyst’ but he won’t disclose it so he can’t get a patent for that or the other aspects that are Piantelli’s.


          • daniel maris

            March 21, 2012 at 1:48 am

            DSM –

            I am not an expert, but I v. much doubt you can get a patent in Italy where there is prior art.

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 1:51 am


            Since 1998 you can’t but Rossi slipped his patent app in just before the law changed. !!!


          • Ivy Matt

            March 21, 2012 at 7:39 pm

            I believe dsm meant 2008. In most countries (and Italy since 2008) it’s part of the patent examiner’s job to conduct a prior art search. That doesn’t meant they’ll necessarily find any and all existing prior art. And if they don’t? Well that’s what the court system is for.

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 9:46 pm

            Ivy Matt

            Yes thanks for the correction on the dates. Backin 1998 Rossi was in trouble with the law
            “By April 1997, the local and regional governments were trying to figure out how to get the tens of billions of liras they needed for the cleanup. Rossi was supposed to have shown up for a trial, but he failed to appear, apparently fleeing the country.

            He was wanted as a fugitive, and in June 2000, when he came back to Italy, he was arrested in the Rome airport and sent to jail.”


            Rossi approached Focardi in 2007. He also got his patent back in 2008 as you say, just before the requirement to check for prior art was introduced.



            PS Must confess to getting pissed off at both Ransomepw & Daniel Maris for their repeated claiming of facts that don’t exist or that they never quote or link to.

            In the case of Daniel, he keeps stating again and again and again despite overwhelming documented evidence, that he believes Rossi could not have got his patent in Italy if there were prior art. Daniel has read the evidence posted about this but pretends it isn’t there.

            I’ll try to be more tolerant of these two who clearly lack the capacity to understand what documented facts are vs imagined ones.

            D 🙂

        • Jami

          March 21, 2012 at 2:01 am

          Yes, yes (nodding somberly). Rossi has every right to fear espionage. Let us not forget, that his e-Cats (just like the Hyperions, btw.) are protected by SELF-DESTRUCTION mechanisms (they both claimed that with a straight face and apparently not totally drunk – though in both cases that doesn’t seem to mean much these days). So, really, the only conceivable way to find out about Rossi’s secrets would be placing a spy in his production facility – because once the Self Destruction Mechanism is activated… (you catch my drift).

          Anyway – it is common knowledge, that spys chasing the invention of the century, easily worth trillions, are easily fooled and will NEVER find Rossi and his ultra secret facility in Florida, because it doesn’t say “ROSSI” on the sign out front, right? Say, Daniel – are you serious???

          • NH

            March 21, 2012 at 2:17 am

            The technology is the core or fuel cartridge, the rest is easily coerced out of existing technology. I think that divesting production facilities would probably be the wisest method of security.

  8. RonB

    March 21, 2012 at 3:38 am

    Andrea Rossi
    March 19th, 2012 at 8:01 PM

    Dear Bob Norman:
    Thank you: our factory will be a model to defeat competition.
    Why do you want to use the E-Cat at 40 kft? Our Cat is not an astronaut!
    Warm Regards,

    You’ve got to love a man with a sense of humor!

    • dsm

      March 21, 2012 at 3:46 am

      Love ? 🙁

      Why isn’t he researching & developing instead of playing blogsie-blogsie ?


      I think I know why 🙂

  9. georgehants

    March 21, 2012 at 7:33 am

    The New Indian Express gets science reporting wrong
    Posted on March 20, 2012
    Two days ago, a weird article appeared in the New Indian Express’ opinions section, written by V Sudarshan, its executive editor (linked here). The article spoke about how low-energy nuclear reactions were “here to stay” without a single credible reference to a journal article or another report, and went on to assert that it was feasible in the tone of someone suggesting a long-awaited solution to the energy crisis.

    • GreenWin

      March 21, 2012 at 4:07 pm

      Why not just let people read the article.

      It is an opinion piece. Responded to in the solipsistic style of an anonymous Krivetonian. A creature attempting to defend the astonishing BAD (corrupt) behavior of science toward Pons and Fleischmann.

      • georgehants

        March 21, 2012 at 4:12 pm

        GreenWin, could have done that, but must be fair and show the badly written negative side as well.

  10. georgehants

    March 21, 2012 at 8:17 am

    From Facebook with thanks.
    Tom Law
    Interesting story here – hot fusion claiming gains of 1000 – some of the comments below are more interesting than the story itself – fights breaking out between hot/cold fusion supporters 🙂

    • GreenWin

      March 21, 2012 at 3:53 pm

      In the simulations, the output demonstrated was 100 times that of a 60 million amperes (MA) input current. The output rose steeply as the current increased: 1,000 times input was achieved from an incoming pulse of 70 MA.”

      Key terms: “simulation.” And “70 MILLION amperes.”

      • Ivy Matt

        March 21, 2012 at 8:32 pm

        A simulation is no substitute for an actual experiment, but it can suggest a promising area of research. And 70 MA may be quite a lot, but if the output is 1000 times the input, who cares?

        Of course, the big question is what kind of energy gain they can achieve with their current 26 MA setup. The article doesn’t really address that, saying only that they hope to achieve scientific break-even with it, which suggests that their simulations give them some reason to hope, but doesn’t state it plainly.

        The other big question, once they have achieved promising energy gains, is how they intend to capture the energy, and how economical such a reactor design will be.

        I’m not too sure about this particular concept, but I think the next three years or so will be interesting ones in the field of nuclear fusion research.

        • GreenWin

          March 21, 2012 at 9:11 pm

          Ivy, simulations are the downfall of many theories – AGW for example.

          The suggestion that 70Million ampere pulsed energy will EVER be made safe enough or small enough for home use – makes Rossi et al look like the Princes of Peace.

          Pure vaporware. Running scared.

          • Ivy Matt

            March 22, 2012 at 5:49 pm

            Plasma physics simulation can be tricky, but I’ll take it over climate modeling any day.

            Home use? Who’s suggesting this particular concept will be used in homes? Do you have a coal-fired power plant in your home?

            I understand the appeal of having an energy source that lets you live off the grid, but right now your options for that are solar panels or, if you live in the right area, geothermal. Or you can wait for Rossi to pull the rabbit out of his hat.

  11. georgehants

    March 21, 2012 at 8:57 am

    Cold Fusion 101 Demo Still Going (no link; just a quick f.y.i.) – I talked with Dr. Mitch Swartz of MIT yesterday, and he said that his demo that he did for the “Cold Fusion 101” class is still running, and has been doing so continuously for two months, at 7-times overunity. — (Sterling D. Allan; March 20, 2012)

    • Al Potenza

      March 21, 2012 at 4:49 pm

      I don’t think Dr. Swartz works for MIT or has any official connection to them. I think he owns and works for a private company.

      Also note that his doctorate doesn’t seem to be in physics or engineering, for whatever that’s worth.

  12. georgehants

    March 21, 2012 at 10:42 am

    American Chemical Society
    Cold fusion” moves closer to mainstream acceptance.
    SAN FRANCISCO, March 21, 2010 — A potential new energy source so controversial that people once regarded it as junk science is moving closer to acceptance by the mainstream scientific community. That’s the conclusion of the organizer of one of the largest scientific sessions on the topic — “cold fusion” — being held here for the next two days in the Moscone Center during the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS).

    • georgehants

      March 21, 2012 at 11:40 am

      Sorry about above, missed date.

      • buffalo

        March 21, 2012 at 12:02 pm

        u gota b kidding george.MIT demo stil running? Stil overunity?wtf

        • georgehants

          March 21, 2012 at 12:19 pm

          buffalo, I have simply put a report, please address your complaints to source and I am sure Sterling will take note of the proof you must have that he has been incorrectly informed.

          • Al Potenza

            March 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm

            No numbers, no evidence, no papers, just “hearsay” from Sterling Allan. Remember, Sterling published a link to a story which claimed Obama went to Mars.

        • GreenWin

          March 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm

          It’s a dollop of sacrilegious science isn’t it?

  13. Free Thinker

    March 21, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Regarding gamma rays and attenuation/mean free path in lead (that had someone worried earlier):

    A 7mm thick lead sheet would bring down all gammas in range 50-200 keV (which Rossi claims to the fed investigator is the range of energies involved in the e-cat) to virtually 0 in transmission.

    Reference: p.28 in below document:

  14. Ransompw

    March 21, 2012 at 12:28 pm


    Back to Piantelli:

    You cite as evidence for his use of Nanopowder, a hearsay statement allegedly made by him reported by someone else (Krivit) and disclosed after Rossi’s patent application about something you could easily confirm by looking at the actual patent he filed in 1994 and his papers. Go look at them and if you find anything about nanopowder come back and make your points.

    Focardi himself acknowledged in his interviews and talks that Rossi’s use of nanopowder was an inovation.

    • AB

      March 21, 2012 at 2:44 pm

      Piantelli’s 1994 patent does indeed mention powder, at least as possibility:

      Page 5

      [0041] With regard to the thermal power that can be obtained, the dimensions and form of the active core play an important role. The active core can have time [sic] form of a rod, lamina, separate and/or tangled wires, free or pressed powder with or without binder. For example, in generation chamber 2 of figure 1, the active core can be composed, rather than of metal deposited on tubes 5, of a plurality of bars placed in various points of the chamber itself. Alternatively, chamber 2 can be filled with metallic powder.

      Page 9

      33. Generator according to claim 25 wherein said core is a metallic powder present in said generation chamber.

      I believe this patent is expired now though.

      • Ransompw

        March 21, 2012 at 4:36 pm

        Thanks AB, that is actually helpful. Reading Piantelli’s 1995 patent application, he is proposing fusion of hydrogen. The metal (various types and not necessarily Nickel) are acting as a crystal lattice enabling the fusion process, under certain temperaturs and pressures.

        While he does mention metalic powder, it seems to be a suggested alternative, not a preferred one, or even a necessary one. It also doesn’t seem to matter what size particle in the powder.

        This actually confirms to me my various suspicions, ie, Piantelli had no idea in 1995 what process was involved in creating the anamolous heat (like everone else then and since) and was likely following the same process as Rossi and others followed. They are all following enhanced reactions by trial and error. Without a working theory that’s what is likely to continue.

        I also doubt if Piantelli actually tested with powders as his theory of reaction would not have required it. I also have read his papers and in them he didn’t use powders (at least the ones I have read) If however, researchers come to believe the Nickel is an active ingredient they might as Rossi suggested design a somewhat different system and Nickel surface area may be seen as more important.

        I am not a patent attorney and therefore will not speak to the Piantelli precedent, but I don’t think this supports Doug’s point. At least in 1994, Piantelli’s theory for the process seems to mirror P and F and his reactor was not enhancing the Nickel surface area to expose a greater quantity of active ingredient.

        • AB

          March 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm

          To me the inclusion of powder in the patent seems to be an attempt to “cover all bases” so to speak.

          It’s possible that later work brought more insights into the potential of powder but Piantelli still appears to be working with bulk metal.

          22passi had an article about the patent wars between Rossi and Piantelli that unfolded later:

          As for surface area, Piantelli claims that it doesn’t matter, it’s the number of active sites per volume that does (citing from memory which is a bit fuzzy at the moment, so it may be wrong, but the original text is in Piantelli’s letter to Krivit).

        • dsm

          March 21, 2012 at 9:53 pm

          Ransompw wrote “This actually confirms to me my various suspicions, ie, Piantelli had no idea in 1995 what process was involved in creating the anamolous heat (like everone else then and since) and was likely following the same process as Rossi and others followed. They are all following enhanced reactions by trial and error. Without a working theory that’s what is likely to continue.


          How can you make a statement like this “Piantelli had no idea in 1995 what process was involved in creating the anamolous heat” based on what has been posted in the parent link ???.

          There are quotes on the web to statements that say Piantelli does have a theory ? so yet again we have you making bold statements about Piantelli that fly in the face of the available evidence.


        • dsm

          March 21, 2012 at 9:56 pm

          Ransompw said “I also doubt if Piantelli actually tested with powders as his theory of reaction would not have required it. ”

          So Ransompw now it is ‘doubt’ and no longer “known facts”.

          You really are an insightful and articulate researcher.



      • daniel maris

        March 21, 2012 at 4:51 pm

        A powder is not a nano powder. Surely that is the difference.

    • AH

      March 21, 2012 at 3:29 pm


      Roy Virgilio confirms that Piantelli indeed wrote those words.

    • dsm

      March 21, 2012 at 7:36 pm


      It was you who came in on my post and stated that it was a know fact that Rossi 1st used Nickel powder and I said that Piantelli said he had covered it in his patent then offered the proof.

      My point to you was to prove your known fact & thaks you have proved you only ‘think’ Rossi used it 1st.

      Again my point is don’t fabricate “known facts” to make a case unless you back it up.

      In reality, you lied then wiggled like a hooked fish trying to avoid having to prove your fabrication. Then you switched to try to argue it was about non-particles.

      You really just proving that no matter what gets said some people are tottaly one-eyed about what they believe & that is unfortunate.



      • Ransompw

        March 21, 2012 at 8:03 pm


        This all started simply because I asked why you were constantly posting about Piantelli and how something he said or did proves something about Rossi. I still don’t get your point. I don’t think Piantelli used nanopowder. Given that, he nevertheless will contest any patent filed by Rossi assuming he ever has anything to sell himself.

        So what is your point? And I don’t like being called a lier. You are getting pretty nasty in a lot of your posts, maybe you need to take something.

        • dsm

          March 21, 2012 at 8:44 pm


          You fabricated a point. You are still wiggling.

          I said nothing about Rossi in that Piantelli post that you responded to (yet again you manufacture a strawman point with no quote to back it up !!!). When will you learn ?.

          I have been highlighting what Piantelli was doing. I have said in the past that Rossi’s patent was only novel in that he claimed he had a ‘magic catalyst’ otherwise Piantelli had ‘prior art’ by way of his earlier patent. The ‘magic catalyst’ was rejected because Rossi wouldn’t disclose it (some think it doesn’t exist but is Rossi’s ploy to imply a differentiator).

          What I said is factual and backed up by documented links. Both Piantelli’s comments and the patent itself.

          To avoid being dragged into this type of sh** fight, when you say something is a fact fer Je*** sake put in a link or a quote because in *your* case (as with Daniel too) not doing so shows you haven’t got the facts you claim or done any reasonable research.



          • Ransompw

            March 21, 2012 at 10:08 pm

            You said plenty about Rossi in earlier Piantelli posts.

            You put forth this elaborate scenario of Focardi getting info from Piantelli when Rossi was stuck and Piantelli pulling the rug out from under him when he learned of Rossi’s work. And then Rossi floundering without Piantelli’s guidance.

            That is what I was commenting on. My point to you was, I just don’t see it. I just don’t understand how you are connecting these dots. I still don’t. It is a given Rossi could start with Piantelli’s orginal patent, heck anyone could, it was a lapsed patent. If it worked, Rossi would have had to do nothing different. I suspect it didn’t work well enough to be used for a commercial product or there would be one on the market.

            Rossi is tinkering, so is Piantelli, so is anyone else until a real theory guides the way. Rossi’s use of nanopowder and his alleged catalyst may have enhanced the reaction, it certainly is possible. The notion nothing Rossi added has mattered is at best unknown and pure speculation. That was my point. I didn’t fabricate anything, I don’t think Piantelli worked with nanopowder and Focardi said the same.

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 10:38 pm

            Ransompw wrote “You put forth this elaborate scenario of Focardi getting info from Piantelli when Rossi was stuck and Piantelli pulling the rug out from under him when he learned of Rossi’s work. ”

            Hey Ransompw – I didn’t put forward that elaborate scenario – Piantelli did !!!. I merely quoted and commented on it. Here you go yet again !!!.

            In earlier posts I did express the very valid opinion that once Piantelli stopped supplying Focardi with information & results, that Rossi’s advances stalled – that opinion is every bit as valid today as when I 1st stated it.
            Just explain in simple words why Rossi failed to deliver to his own partner Defkalion, what he committed to deliver. Then explain why Rossi pulled out of every other test after 1st saying he had them lined up ?. In some cases he initiated the request for the test (Uppsala & NASA).
            You can’t explain it can you !. My belief that Rossi stalled is a far more logical explanation that you fabricating “known facts” that don’t exist.
            Also for once in your posting life here try including specific quotes or links so we know what real point you are talking to as again and again you dodge all over the place looking for bolt holes to defend from. As so often in the past you dig indefensible holes for yourself with your own tongue.

          • Ransompw

            March 22, 2012 at 12:20 am


            I am not going to sift through the internet everytime someone disagrees with my recollection of a years worth of developments on this subject. I neither have the time nor the desire to waste my time in that manner. I deem you one of those who wouldn’t agree with what was said even if the material was staring you in the face, so what would be the point.

            If something is new, I disclose it and have in the past posted links to the new information.

            My recollection of the dispute between Rossi and Defkalion is that it centered over a payment due from Defkalion. Rossi claims it should have been made and Defkalion didn’t make it. I seem to remember that Defkalion’s limited comment had to do with controlability, not with the reality of the ecat or its ability to produce O/I greater then 6. In other words the ecat was real but Rossi hadn’t met some defined function in the contract regarding controling the reaction.

            This fits with my general thought that Rossi continues to work the technology principally to achieve control and continuous operation which will be necessary for a commercial product. I have made this point clear many times. My thought is that Rossi could prove LENR but can’t keep his e-cat running without it stopping or control it sufficiently to move forward with his product.

            At this point given your beligerent attitude, I really could care less what you think.

          • dsm

            March 22, 2012 at 12:55 am


            1) When you challenge a post and make a statement that you claim is a fact back it up with a link or source. You have an appalling track record for using ‘facts’ that don’t exist to back up a challenge to another post.

            2) When you want to challenge a point just quote that point like all the other smart posters here do, that way we know what point you are dealing with and can avoid the inevitable scuttling around the floor trying to pin you down as to what on earth you really mean. This also avoids being accused of shifting the goal posts when you can’t back up your ‘facts’.

            3) Why would Defkalion fail to pay Rossi when they had spent 8 months building up a business to sell value-adds using eCat energy modules. Both parties stood to take on the world and make billions !!! – it is simply naive to say they wouldn’t pay Rossi even though Rossi had produced the required plug-in eCat. Where is it ?. Nowhere !.

            The only eCats Rossi has even today are experimental modules in his 1MW plants !!!. That is FACT!. Rossi never produced the plug-in eCat the original Hyperion device was designed to accept. Naturally Defakalion wouldn’t pay him. Naturally !!!. They were not as gullible as the Rossi believers today are who paid for home eCat rights *without* ever seeing one let alone a pre-production home eCat unit (you know, the one UL are testing !!! – yeah).

            Rossi did not have and still noes not have a commercial ready eCat and that was what he was supposed to deliver to Defkalion, who in their anger decided they had as much chance as Rossi did of producing a LENR reactor that worked.

            Defaklion was a very pissed off partner & people choose to ignore this and why. Every other Rossi collaboration usually results in pissed off people. Don’t you see this. It even goes back to his PetrolDragon days. Trails of pissed of people and governments.

            Soon it will be anry distributors wondering when his factory will start production.

            Rossi can’t sue Defkalion because he had nothing original he could sue them over and Rossi has *NEVER* said he would or could sue Defkalion. I asked him that question directly on JoNP earlier this year and he wouldn’t publish my question but gave a rambling answer about protecting his IP from pupeteers, chatterers and copycats (which if he has any original ip he is entitled to do – if he has any).


          • Ransompw

            March 22, 2012 at 3:34 am

            Error in post

          • Ransompw

            March 22, 2012 at 3:47 am

            The above is nothing but your opinion, most of which is based on speculation. Certainly not facts and I see you didn’t post a single site in your rambling post. To respond to some of your points.

            *** The only eCats Rossi has even today are experimental modules in his 1MW plants !!!. That is FACT!.***

            That isn’t a fact, it is your opinion based on what you here in the peanut gallery have seen.

            *** Rossi never produced the plug-in eCat the original Hyperion device was designed to accept.***

            Again nothing but opinion. Worse, opinion based on nothing. Show me the Rossi-Defkalion contract. Where does it say Rossi was supposed to produce a plug in for Defkalion? Come on post the site with a copy of the contract, I’d like to see it. I am laughing at you Doug, in case you can’t tell. How dare you claim to know the rights and obligations of parties to a contract you have never seen. You have no idea what that contract says. Rossi from day one said he was building a 1Mw plant for Defkalion, which he would deliver in October. Defkalion was the one claiming they had the Greek Government testing the hyperion and that was back last summer and was obviously a lie.

            Worse for all you know he might have produced a plug-in that worked up to the contract requirements and Defkalion didn’t have the funds to pay him or stole the core design and decided to cut him out. No one here knows let along Doug.

            ***Defkalion, who in their anger decided they had as much chance as Rossi did of producing a LENR reactor that worked.

            Defaklion was a very pissed off partner & people choose to ignore this and why.***

            Where is you link for this nonsense. Defkalion showed Rossi nothing but respect, never showed any anger, constantly complimented his work and claimed to have verified the performance of the Ecat which they claimed to have tested. And let’s not forget Stremmenos who clearly said it was Defkalion that had failed Rossi. And lest you think I don’t have a site to back up my point see below.


            ***Rossi can’t sue Defkalion because he had nothing original he could sue them over ***

            So where did you go to law school or is this just another Doug opinion based on his vast lack of legal experience.

            In short Doug I spent way too much time on this post but you sir have no class and NO idea what you are talking about.

          • dsm

            March 22, 2012 at 8:28 pm


            Just read this from Defkalions original web site (before they removed it).

            In the past month they have revamped all documents but I saved the original which I have posted here …


            EXCERPTS (Ransompw just read these for once ) …
            Defkalion Green Technologies s.a. was established to manufacture and market products based on the E-Cat, which was invented by Andrea Rossi. We are undertaking a path from invention to industrialization on a global scale. There is no government financing involved.
            Its head offices are in Athens with multiple manufacturing sites located in Xanthi, in northern Greece.
            Defkalion possesses the know-how, technical support and rights to manufacture its products for the whole world.
            Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies (Global) Ltd. is based in Cyprus; it owns the contract signed with Rossi regarding the industrial secrets with right of first refusal to sell globally, except in the US.
            These two companies work towards preparing an efficient and competitive market entry of its products (Hyperion) initially into the Greek market, and then with maximum efficiency to the Balkans and worldwide.
            Defkalion Green Technologies has taken the Andrea Rossi E-Cat and created its products
            around it. Our products produce heat only – not electricity. Our current product line
            ranges from kW units (5 – 30kW) to MW units (1.15 – 3.45 MW). The actual E-Cat forms
            only the kernel of our products; it is the black-box so to speak. Building around the E-Cat,
            we have developed a complex unity of machinery and electronics that comprise the
            overall product, which we have named Hyperion.
            Here is a simplified schematic of the kilowatt-level Hyperion product architecture:

            The second factory is scheduled to be built in Xanthi within 2012, comprising of 12,000 m2 for a larger assembly line. A third factory, belonging to Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies (Global) Ltd., will operate as the producer of the industrial secret in the products’ kernel.

      • AB

        March 21, 2012 at 8:53 pm

        From the information that is available it is Piantelli’s word vs that of Focardi. Focardi says Rossi came up with the innovative idea of using powder to increase surface area. Piantelli does mention powder in his expired patent but not in relation to increasing surface area (he mentions several possible configurations including wires). Piantelli also says that Rossi gained secret knowledge through Focardi – however Piantelli appears to continue to use wafers and not powder. If in the meantime he has figured out that powder is the key, why is he not using it? Or on a different note, if Rossi is faking a device as Piantelli seems to by implying, why is Piantelli complaining about Rossi stealing his secrets?

        To me this looks more like Piantelli is taking Rossi seriously as competitor and that while writing the letter he had an emotional moment when faced with the prospective that somebody might beat him in R&D. Piantelli certainly deserves credit for noticing the anomaly in Ni-H systems.

        • dsm

          March 21, 2012 at 9:13 pm

          “Piantelli does mention powder in his expired patent but not in relation to increasing surface area (he mentions several possible configurations including wires). ”

          What do you think the purpose of using powder was for then ?

          If Piantelli wrote about it in his patent app don’t you think he knew that powder increased the surface area ?

          Have you looked at other patents involving powdered Pd because they too mention the advantage of powder for the very reason it creates larger surface area. I believe it is a given.


          • AB

            March 21, 2012 at 9:29 pm

            Have you looked at other patents involving powdered Pd because they too mention the advantage of powder for the very reason it creates larger surface area. I believe it is a given.

            It’s fairly obvious that powder increases the surface area, yes. In Piantelli’s 1994 patent it’s not given that this is an important element though. Along with powder, he also mentions wires, tangled wires, rods, laminas as possible configurations for the core. Powder is not given special importance for any reason, it is included to make sure the patent is as broad as possible.

          • Ransompw

            March 21, 2012 at 9:35 pm


            Then why even bother with wires and bars and plated copper. You can’t read Piantelli’s 1995 patent to place any real importance on powder. It is an afterthought, a way of saying yeah it would work that way also. But that is not what he is recommending or suggesting as the best method. And from his various papers, I don’t get the idea he even tested powders.

            Piantelli is grasping on that issue and I don’t see his position as valid on that point.

        • dsm

          March 21, 2012 at 10:01 pm

          AB said “Focardi says Rossi came up with the innovative idea of using powder to increase surface area.”

          Can you provide a link to Focardi saying this ? – tried to find one but wasn’t able.



          • AB

            March 21, 2012 at 10:18 pm

            I’m pretty sure it’s in the TEDx talk.

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 11:01 pm

            Where’s the TEDx talk ?



  15. GreenWin

    March 21, 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Remember that whisper? Carefully dripped (leaked is such a pejorative) by useful asset Wired Magazine:

    “Darpa, the Pentagon’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, has been quietly pursuing LENR for some years. Its budget plans for next year, released earlier this month, listed some significant achievements: “Continued quantification of material parameters that control degree of increase in excess heat generation and life expectancy of power cells in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy. Established ability to extend active heat generation time from minutes to 2.5 days for pressure-activated power cells.”
    “Race for cold fusion: Nasa, MIT, Darpa and CERN peer through the keyhole,” By David Hambling, 27 February 2012, Wired Magazine UK

    This is all adding up to the disturbing disclosures scheduled at CERN tomorrow. Is there no stopping this train??

    • daniel maris

      March 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm

      Popeye will be chagrined to read that.

    • NH

      March 21, 2012 at 5:14 pm

      We have thread, fairly credible, that Rossi has been intertwined with the US government for some time, good or bad, he has. His actions and motives, not always well understood are a balancing act, which can be understood. (Speaking out loud here) protecting the release for a world changing product. When do you think we will move out of this stage of discreditation “hoaxer” / “scammer” when there is this huge amount of attention being placed on him and others for this new science? How can he possibly scam anyone, knowing these things?

    • Peter Roe

      March 21, 2012 at 8:04 pm

      The usual fair summary by Wired of where we are (or at least where we were three weeks back – as it was published at the end of Feb it obviously doesn’t include the DGT fiasco.)

      The bit quoted by Greenwin above is very interesting. The reference to DARPA working with the Italian DoE is new isn’t it? I haven’t seen anything before on this (but then I have been paying rather less attention lately).

      With DGT slamming down the shutters immediately after Greek (read EU?) gov’t types were in attendance at a test, the obvious interest (partnership?) of the US military, and the involvement of the Italian energy dept., it begins to look to me like high yield Ni/H CF has now moved completely out of the commercial/public domain – regardless of what is supposed to be happening with home units in Rossi’s parallel universe.

      • GreenWin

        March 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm

        Peter, the most public funding of LANR is happening now at University Missouri – wide open and fully available to commercial applications. And Miley’s work is public though aimed at civilian NASA applications.

        “Seven different major research groups in two colleges and in two major inter-disciplinary centers at MU are planning to participate in this effort to determine the physical origin of the AHE,[Anomalous Heat Effect]. We will use a wide range of measurement systems that have not been conventionally used in these studies to determine the physical origin of the AHE. Our approach is adaptive, in that we will follow the Scientific Method as we design new experiments based upon our experimental results to test future hypotheses.”
        Dr. Rob Duncan, Vice Chancellor Research Univ. Missouri
        Sidney Kimmel Inst. Nuclear Renaissance

        • GreenWin

          March 21, 2012 at 10:47 pm

          BTW, by “public” funding I mean non-military/government. U Missouri’s program is fully funded by a real philanthropist, Sidney Kimmel.

          If other “philanthropists” wanting spotlight gave money to LANR higher education research – they too would get spotlight.

        • Peter Roe

          March 22, 2012 at 8:05 am

          Greenwin – Yes the initiative you mention is good news, but it feels a bit like trying to find out how to make a new ball, after the kid you were playing with took his home!

          • GreenWin

            March 22, 2012 at 5:41 pm

            Yes! But come every Spring, a new season begins. Hence the loyal fans of the Chicago Cubs.

    • dsm

      March 21, 2012 at 9:07 pm

      These are all good points and a good counter to Popeye’s one sided attacks on the ‘deluded’ LENR researchers he implies openly, are chasing ‘pathological science’.
      In any peer reviewed publication the originator gets to refute/counter/respond. That is fair and honest to both sides (if there is no editorial bias applied). That doesn’t happen here.
      I have long believed here (eCat News) that anyone, esp a scientist, who attacks LENR researchers in this forum when they aren’t here to counter or refute the attacks, is being dishonest in that they (the posters) know only their side gets to be put because most of us here are not LENR researchers who can counter so they are knowingly trading on a deliberate bias in their favour.
      The above point doesn’t mean that any discussion on past papers shouldn’t occur but it does mean that attacking a LENR researcher (i.e. calling them deluded/sloppy/dishonest etc: ) is *grossly unfair* if that person isn’t here to defend, because, it becomes a one way biased attack.
      The only caution I have for anyone here is not to confuse belief in LENR to belief in accepting Rossi’s claims when so many of them have proven to be deceitful. One really big criticism I have of Rossi, among many, is that he approached NASA to certify his eCat, agreed on a very modest payment to them of $50,000 then when they met to finalise, he switched to asking them to buy his design for $15 million !!!. i.e. If it didn’t work he had his big payment so he was home and hosed and the results didn’t matter. IMHO he knew they would get erratic results.
      We can brush off again and again the contradictions in what Rossi says, but the bottom line is he has not let *anyone* including Uni of Bologna, Uni of Uppsala evaluate his eCat even though they were enthusiastic about doing so. Also we have to ask why he failed to deliver to Defkalion when he was instrumental in them being set up just to sell his eCats in their value-add devices !. We have to reach a point where we say enough is enough, we can’t keep apologizing for Rossi’s failures and evasiveness especially when he took money from people all around the world for the right to resell his home eCats that none of then have seen!. That alone is a very big alarm bell even if we ignore the NASA, Bologna, Uppsala & the Defkalion non delivery charades.

      • GreenWin

        March 21, 2012 at 9:43 pm

        Yes Doug, disclosure is moving along on schedule – CERN presentation tomorrow, Drs. Kim and Miley for NASA on Friday. Frankly anyone with a trade secret as valuable as Ni+H2 would be insane to disclose it prior to full IP protection, production and distribution of product e.g. Apple.

        History on E.C. Segar’s black and white cartoon is here:

        • dsm

          March 21, 2012 at 10:24 pm


          The problem with getting full ip protection can be a catch22

          – There must not be any prior art to a particular claim

          – Up until now (but this may be changing) perpetual motion & cold fusion were automatically excluded unless the patent could be explained using known science theories (which was why NASA over 3 years researched Widom-Larsen theory and adopted it (no new science) as the basis for the LENR related process they filed for)

          – Piantelli already has established prior art for Ni+H and his patent includes use of powdered Ni
          From what I am seeing, Defkalion once Rossi failed to deliver his side of their deal, opted to do exactly what Rossi was doing built a LENR device based on Piatelli design & Rossi went ballistic calling Defkalion a whole lot of names (as did Stremmenos) but Rossi has never specifically stated he believed he could sue Defkalion (by name) for claiming they had a powdered Ni+H reactor.

          Rossi very cleverly says “our attorneys will protect our patents” with the *implication* he will go after Defkalion, but the reality is he can’t …

          a) The Rossi Italian patent has not been tested against prior art and this is vulnerable to a challenge &

          b) Rossi’s claim of a catalyst was rejected, thus not patented, because he would not disclose it and thus it can’t be patented until he does

          In any other jurisdiction Rossi has to deal with the prior art issue that he got away with in 2008 in Italy by filing in advance of a change in patent law that subsequently required investigation of prior art.

          The ip side of the Ni+H LENR is a quagmire and looks like it will remain so unless Piantelli is able to make some advances and if Piantelli files new patents (which I *think* he has actually done – am sure I read it somewhere this week).
          What ever happens I sure hope we get top see some real advances that are accepted in regard to the upcoming LENR presentations at NASA and CERN.

          • NH

            March 21, 2012 at 11:35 pm

            Don’t you think that once Rossi is in production that he will then throw some bones out there for any disgruntled parties?

          • dsm

            March 21, 2012 at 11:58 pm

            If he gets into production & his behaviour todate sapped all my confidence that he will.


            No one seems at willing to tackle this glaring hole in Rossi’s eCat life.


          • dsm

            March 22, 2012 at 7:57 pm

            Yup there are more Piantelli patents – it will interesting to see how Rossi’s patents stand up against these but we don’t know the content of the 2 newest ones –

            Piantelli group patent apps in recent years (2 are not yet published)

            Quote from here …

            “The Piantelli group filed an Italian patent application, “Method for Producing Energy and Apparatus Therefor”, on November 24, 2008, which was published on May 25, 2010. More recently, on April 26, 2011 they filed an Italian patent application, “Method and Apparatus for Generating Energy through Nuclear Reactions of Hydrogen Adsorbed by Orbital Capture to a Metal Crystalline Nanostructure”, which is due to be published on October 27, 2012. And then last week they filed a third patent application, the title of which is not yet known, and which should be published in January of 2013.”

  16. LCD

    March 21, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Interesting part of Krivit’s article

    Miley’s expertise is in nuclear measurements. He has not been well-recognized in the field for calorimetry. His current calorimetry work may be poorly documented, but much of his earlier LENR transmutation work provided seminal contributions to the field, as I explained in my interview for IARPA. On request from New Energy Times, Lewis Larsen, one of the developers of the Widom-Larsen ultra-low-momentum neutron theory of LENRs, provided a comment about this work.

    “Miley’s transmutation work in the mid-1990s was brilliant and was responsible for my entering the field,” Larsen said. “In my early due diligence before I formed Lattice Energy LLC, I showed Miley’s five-peak spectrum to two senior scientists with a major Department of Energy laboratory. I had asked them to assist me with my due diligence of the field. They concurred with my assessment that Miley’s five-peak transmutation spectrum was real.

    “In 2002, my company sponsored research by Miley and his group at the University of Illinois and by Andrei Lipson and Alexei Roussetski at the Institute of Physical Chemistry with the Russian Academy of Sciences and at the Lebedev Physics Institute. They performed crucial calibrations and measurements of high-energy charged particles in light-water electrolytic cells that formed a benchmark for solid-state nuclear track detector (CR-39) measurements performed by numerous LENR researchers in the last decade.

    “Miley’s unique light-water five-peak transmutation spectrum was mirrored by Tadahiko Mizuno’s heavy-water data. The set of data allowed Allan Widom and I to develop our theoretical model, which shows that the five-peak mass spectra was a unique signature of ultra-low-momentum neutron absorption.”

    • Daniel de França MTd2

      March 21, 2012 at 5:18 pm

      Isn’t Krivit shooting his own foot? Without good calorimetry, it is a much harder case to show that transmutations were not result contamination, given that there is no effect to look for in first place.

      • Al Potenza

        March 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm

        Swartz and Miley are looking very sketchy from what I’ve seen recently. Broullin’s (sp?) stuff is very hard to figure out. Can’t someone just make a few hundred watts with LENR for a few weeks and show it clearly and convincingly so anyone with a bit of scientific appreciation can see it’s true?

        • LCD

          March 21, 2012 at 5:32 pm

          I don’t think Miley’s sketchy, his paper and comments seemed in line to me and to most people I talk about them with.

          • Al Potenza

            March 21, 2012 at 6:11 pm

            I tried to respond to this but the response was flagged as spam. Maybe because of links. Will try again later.

          • Jami

            March 21, 2012 at 6:21 pm

            “his paper and comments seemed in line to me and to most people I talk about them with.”

            Really? So what do you and the people you talk to believe he measured? Should be easy to answer if Miley wasn’t sketchy.

          • LCD

            March 23, 2012 at 4:34 pm

            I think krivits article explains what he meant and again makes Krivit look bad.

  17. Al Potenza

    March 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    Amazon buys large robot company. Too bad. Rossi missed a chance.

    • Frank

      March 21, 2012 at 5:42 pm

      Siemens buys for €460 million a British firm specialized in underwater power cables for the oil and gas industry.
      Too bad for Rossi – Siemens doesn’t seem to be convinced that his e-cats (together with a Siemens turbine) will revolutionize power generation and make oil and gas obsolet.

  18. Jami

    March 21, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    I think its funny how Rossi managed to draw attention to his home-cat and the secret robot factory. While this is all very – ahhhh – interesting, it completely covered what he told us to expect a couple of months ago. At that time, he was going on about building 1 MW units in ugly shipping containers. One was supposed to be sold already and twelve or so were “already ordered”. Nobody talked about home units and robot factories at the time, because Rossi didn’t talk about it. So now we’re babbling about his factory (knowing its pure fantasy) and Rossi already loads the next bullet which he’ll fire as soon as it becomes too obvious that there will never be a home-cat: Big power plants approaching GW range. On the sideline he keeps his fans busy with irrelevancies like speculating about whether Siemens or Greenpower will deliver the turbines (he never talked about anything but heat last year) and who will build the electronics. Almost nobody seems to ask, what ever happened to the twelve containers (his first commercial step, so to say) and I’m sure in half a year nobody will talk about the robotized factory because by then he’ll have moved on to the next BS. How long can he keep that up – and what will come after the big power plant? What ever it is – I think it’ll originate from his blog and places like this. Rossi doesn’t need his own fantasy to dream up the next diversion – we seem to be doing that for him.

    On a smaller scale, this too works for what some like to think of as the legit LENR research. Searching through the last decades, you find literally hundreds of supposed breakthroughs that were all hailed for finally proving cold fusion – only to be forgotten a few years later and never followed up upon or replaced by something totally different from a different group which now REALLY proves… etc. pp. ad nauseam.

    • dsm

      March 21, 2012 at 11:27 pm


      My guess (Ransompw please note the word ‘guess’ this is no statement of any facts) is that 1 or 2 things will happen re the home eCats
      1) Rossi will delay and say it is due to getting certification then due to some other complication and the supporters will say ‘of course, its only fair (for each excuse)’ but it will be a delay (just as Paul Moller kept delaying year after year after year etc: etc: etc: )
      2) Rossi will produce a box he calls the eCat but it won’t perform quite as he claimed but enough for him to claim he delivered. As Rossi has said, if people don’t want it they don’t have to buy it.

  19. LCD

    March 21, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    Krivit: People have asked me about your claims of several hundred watts of excess heat. What am I supposed to tell them?

    Miley: Tell them that I haven’t disclosed the data and I won’t until I publish it in a reviewed journal and I’ve finished all the experiments. If I disclose it now, I’m doing it prematurely because we haven’t finished all the experiments.

    Krivit: But it sounds like a take-back because you got people all excited with these news stories about you getting hundreds of Watts of excess heat and now you’re saying this. It doesn’t sound like you’re being fair to people.

    Miley: I think I’m being fair to people because I don’t want to disclose things until I have completed the refereed paper. We’re looking at hydrogen as well as deuterium, and all these things require finding the sweet spot to control long continuous runs, and we’re working at it. It takes time, especially when you have no funding.

    Now all of the sudden Rossi doesn’t seem so much like the dodgy character Krivit makes him out to be because George Miley has 1000x more respect from me than Krivit.

    It’s not understandable to how clueless Krivit seems to be in a world of internet blogging.

    I certainly appreciate Miley for informing us of his non-official progress and if there is an error in his student’s calculations I’m sure we would have heard. Otherwise it’s just hearsay which is not above Krivit.

    • Jami

      March 21, 2012 at 6:38 pm

      I don’t get it. What are you saying here? I too think Krivit’s got an agenda – and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about – but what does that have to do with the stuff you quoted?

      • LCD

        March 21, 2012 at 7:04 pm

        Yeah i should have pasted more but essentially what I’m saying is that as he interviews him he is making Miley look very Rossi-ish.

        In other words it reminded me of when he talks about Rossi.

    • John Milstone

      March 22, 2012 at 12:12 pm

      Rossi doesn’t need Krivit’s help to look like a dodgy character.

  20. LCD

    March 21, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    ROSSI!!! Where are your 12 MW Plants!!!!!

    There Jami I asked him. I also agree with you that payment on those are due if you know what I mean.

  21. Pachu

    March 21, 2012 at 6:47 pm

  22. Pekka Janhunen

    March 21, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    A (supposedly more or less) true story from 65 years ago, appeared in Finnish news today. It has some similarities with Rossi:

    (The name of the inventor was Virtanen which is the most common last name in Finland, so google translates it as Smith…)

    The google translation is rather bad, but in a nutshell the story is as follows. There was a Noble prize winning chemist Virtanen who was known for an agricultural invention. Besides his main invention, he also invented how to get butter to preserve a long time by adding some salt. The invention was kept secret for 14 years (the secret salt formula was stored in a safe), only known to Finnish dairy industry whose success in the world market during that period was largely based on that invention.

    • Peter Roe

      March 21, 2012 at 8:24 pm

      There is no end to the greed of inventors. So for 14 years Virtanen had the magic secret of preserving butter for next to nothing, while anyone who didn’t buy his product either had to go out and buy an expensive refrigerator, or eat rancid butter if they couldn’t afford one. All that suffering, just so Virtanen could live the high life – it’s utterly reprehensible.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        March 21, 2012 at 8:33 pm

        But according to the article, to keep it secret was mainly the idea of the Finnish government, and also the formula was stored in a safe of the Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters. It was more like national greed (=patriotism) rather than personal.

        • Peter Roe

          March 21, 2012 at 8:44 pm

          Sorry Pekka – just my poor attempt at irony. It’s a very bizarre story, but we are used to those here I think!

    • Tomas Douting

      March 21, 2012 at 9:10 pm

      What a fabulous story. Surely no one would ever attempt that in modern times where behaviors driven by greed and avarice have been banished from proper society, where the world is one and all endeavor for the common good selflessly.

  23. AB

    March 21, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    By the way, this video by Edmund Storms is a good rebuttal to popeye’s criticism towards LENR in general. Storms takes on the role of the skeptic here. While I do not have a physics degree, it does come across as very convincing.

    • Stephen T.

      March 22, 2012 at 3:22 am

      Enjoyed it again and the Y.E. Kim portion is in there too. The 2009 U. of Missouri program is chock full of good stuff.

  24. Stephen T.

    March 21, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    For those who may be interested I remind there is a live webcast at 10:30 AM Thursday morning (USA East Coast time) from the CERN Colloquium regarding LENR. Here is the abstract that shows what will be talked about:

    And here is a link that will get you to the live webcast in the morning:

    Hope I don’t get flamed if we overload them. Peace.

  25. Jay2011

    March 21, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    On another topic, GreenWin wrote:

    PS, what do you think of Dr. Kim’s newest paper:
    “Cryogenic Ignition of Deuteron Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles”?

    I read this paper, and if I were asked to provide a peer review I would have to admit right off the bat that I’m not qualified to do so. I’m distantly familiar with Kim’s Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) theory for LENR, which is a competing theory to W-L, Hagelstein, Chubbs, etc. But I am more of an experimentalist than a theorist. In fact, I don’t know of anyone in the LENR community who would be qualified to provide a peer review on this paper with the exception of maybe one or two of the other LENR theorists. And almost certainly, having already developed competing theories, they wouldn’t like Kim’s BEC theory. If I were a journal referee I would probably send this off to one of the folks who performed one of the ultra-low temp gas BEC experiments. And they would probably say that BECs are extremely fragile and difficult to maintain, and not likely to be able to survive sustained nuclear fusion activity assuming that deuterium condensates could be formed in an ion trap in the first place.

    So being able to offer little in the way of a useful opinion, let me just say a few general things about physics theories. A good theory should accomplish at least three things: 1) explain the new data or phenomenon that caused need for a new theory, 2) not be in contradiction with all of the mountains of old data, and 3) be verifiable in the sense that it offers testable predictions. Extra credit if the theory is also simple and elegant. Kim claims to be able to do all of the above with his theory. I’m not so certain, especially on count 2). I think the entire theory rests on a shaky starting premise. With this premise, the problem of coulomb repulsion disappears. This feels like a magician’s trick to me, but I’m really not qualified to pass judgment. Quantum physics is really difficult as soon as one tries to calculate many body problems, especially in nuclear physics where perturbation methods don’t really work. Theorists like BECs, because once you make this assumption it then becomes a problem of statistics rather than a multi-body QE problem. But BECs are very difficult to maintain experimentally, and the ones that have been formed are generally at nano-Kelvin temperatures. He4 superfluid is an exception at 4C, but only a small percentage of the He4 is actually in a BEC state (I think).

    I give Kim several stars, however, for coming out with some verifiable predictions. That’s more than many theorists will do.

    • Stephen T.

      March 21, 2012 at 9:41 pm

      I think progress can be made by proposing testable theories and working hard to test them. That we are seeing so much activity in this area lends hope to the hopeful.
      Facts will prevail.

    • LCD

      March 21, 2012 at 10:04 pm

      Jay I will try to read and comment.

      I may add that the BEC Temperature (To)is also a function of density to the 2/3 power (salinas 10.11) so if you can increase density you can increase the temperature at which a BEC occurs.

      Not exactly sure if that applies though, will read.


    • GreenWin

      March 21, 2012 at 10:35 pm

      Thanks for the comments Jay. I find Kim’s premise non-intuitive – in that cryo-ignition requires temperatures antithetical to production of anomalous heat. However, like you, I have little knowledge of BECs.

      Dr. Kim sent me his paper after I suggested he was a good candidate for ARPA-E funding.

    • dsm

      March 22, 2012 at 12:31 am


      As a non scientist am interested to understand some of the terminology & its implication in the LENR effect.

      The following are impressions & may not be a good description but here goes …

      In particular I read of ‘Bose–Einstein condensate’ as being relevant in describing a gas loaded into a lattice – what I am trying to understand is that from all I have read, one has to cool the gas quite a bit to have its particles achieve a condensed state and that this condensed state gas when loaded into a complementary lattice of the right structure, traps the gas and opens the way for triggering energy release (am going to assume fusion is the description).

      What I am wondering is that in all the tests I see with Ni+H, a gas is 1st loaded into the metal (it is hydrated) then heat is applied to the hydrated metal and surface anomalous heat can occur. But I don’t ever see mention of freezing the gas/metal prior to hydrating it ? – that is my question. Is cooling the gas needed in order to ‘load’ (hydrate) the metal and is ‘Bose–Einstein condensate’ related to this ?.


    • 123star

      March 22, 2012 at 3:08 am

      I guess one would need bosons (as deuterons, i.e. nuclei of deuterium) to achieve BEC in a lattice. That would exclude hydrogen (I’m thinking of Ni-H LENR), unless… Cooper pairs? Haha 🙂

    • Jay2011

      March 22, 2012 at 4:08 am

      Sorry for the typo above. I meant 4K, not 4C. But that’s still wrong. That’s the boiling point for He4, but it doesn’t become a superfluid until 2.18K.

      Here’s another link to a ppt presentation of Kim:

      However, from this presentation it seems that Kim himself is calculating that at 300C there’s an inadequate percentage of deuterium in a BEC state to ignite fusion. So I’m not clear that this theory can account even for reported D/Pd anomalies. And Chris is right, it doesn’t work at all for H/Ni since H is a fermion and not a boson like deuterium. There are indeed examples of BECs created from paired fermions. In fact, He3 is a fermion but becomes a superfluid at 1 or 2 mK, supposedly due to “cooper-pair-like” fermion coupling. But the required temperatures are even lower in this case. Doesn’t seem like a plausible explanation IMO.

      • 123star

        March 22, 2012 at 12:14 pm

        Jay, thanks for the insight. I haven’t read the papers yet, but I have a question. Can we treat deuterons (or protons) inside a lattice as Bloch waves, after all? If so, are there any caveats?
        Cheers (btw my name is not Chris :))

      • Jay2011

        March 22, 2012 at 4:54 pm

        @123, Pekka et al.

        123, sorry about the name! As long as I’m in over my head already, might as well swim on. Maybe someone with more knowledge about BECs can throw us a lifeline.

        Rather than compare with an ultracold gas, it seems best to compare with the case of the He4 superfluid. At least in this case the densities (as LCD mentioned, this is an important parameter for BECs) are roughly the same.

        But there are a few differences to consider.

        First, in the case of the He4 superfluid the only boundary conditions to consider are the vessel walls that contain the fluid. In the case of deuterons in a lattice, one has the periodic nature of the lattice to consider. If I look at Kim’s Hamiltonian in Eq.2 , the Coulomb term representing the periodic lattice seems to be missing. Putting it in would in fact change the ground state wavefunction to appear something more like a Bloch wave as 123 suggests. But unless the lattice is really cold, it would seem to me that this term would also tend to destabilize a BEC.

        Second, the He4 atom can be considered to be neutral for the purposes of BEC calculations. Deuterium in a lattice is ionic, although it will pull some of the free electrons along so it can be considered to be at least partially screened. The electrons in a hot lattice will also carry a thermal energy that might suppress collective coherence.

        Now Pekka makes an important point. Kim seems to have his cake and eat it too (this is the magician’s trick I referred to) by simultaneously suppressing the Coulomb repulsion force while still having the nuclear force responsible for fusion. In the He4 superfluid, having a preponderance of atoms in the same ground state, i.e. having a BEC, means (I think) there is some coherence in energy and momentum states that suppresses collisions. I don’t think that means that there is necessarily a high probability for two He4 atoms to occupy the same space at the same time. That would seem counter-intuitive with suppressing collisions. And counter-intuitive with having the Coulomb term in the Hamiltonian. So how is it for D/Pd that we get the nuclear force responsible for fusion but the Coulomb force and associated Gamov factor disappear? I don’t know the answer to this.

        Sorry for this collection of random, semi-coherent thoughts. I guess I’m not in a good BEC state this morning.

        • 123star

          March 22, 2012 at 11:10 pm

          Ok, Jami, thanks for the answer, I had a look at the paper, he considers just a isotropic harmonic potential to model a single “trap” contained in a nanoparticle. No fully-fledged lattices then.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      March 22, 2012 at 7:37 am

      Since BEC is good enough to suppress collisions in superconductors and superfluids, maybe it can also suppress Coulomb repulsion.

      That said, it worries me a bit how nature would know to suppress only the electrostatic Coulomb repulsion between nuclei in a many-body state, but leave the nuclear force unsuppressed. Because in principle there is a continuous transition between the two, as a function of the internuclear distance. But maybe the approximations used by Kim to finding the ground state of his N-deuteron system enclosed in a trap break down already at larger than 1-10 fm distance.

  26. GreenWin

    March 21, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    For those here who are interested in real science and papers being given at the world’s largest scientific research center – CERN – European Center for Nuclear Research will be streaming live Dr. Francesco Celani’s and Dr. Yogendra Srivastava’s discussion of LANR. CERN, the home of FTL neutrino theory and the impressive CLOUD experiments (putting AGW to sleep) streams online:

    Program time and overview here:

    Don’t forget to tune in to Dr. Miley and Dr. Kim’s presentations on Friday at the NASA sponsored Emerging Technologies for Space conference:

    Disclosure continues apace.

    • dsm

      March 21, 2012 at 11:22 pm


      Thanks for all these useful links

      Good reading & good effort.


    • Quax

      March 22, 2012 at 5:35 pm

      Does CERN archive these webcasts for later viewing?

  27. dsm

    March 21, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    Found this document which makes an interesting read. I can’t vouch for its quality but anything that provides another perspective should be helpful.

    It attempts to describe a solution based on ‘Deflation Fusion’ (seems to me to be similar in ways to Mills hydrino theory).

    “Deflation fusion is a process whereby a ground state electron bound close to a hydrogen nucleus for attosecond periods, but with small wavelength, the deflated state hydrogen, makes breaking the Coulomb barrier feasible. Though the deflated state of hydrogen exists briefly, it exists frequently. The electron kinetic plus potential energy remains at the energy of the electron in the chemical environment in which the hydrogen resides, i.e. the sum of kinetic plus potential energy is the same in both the deflated and chemical states, as they are degenerate
    forms of the same state.”


    Cold Fusion Nuclear Reactions
    Horace Heffner December, 2009

  28. GreenWin

    March 22, 2012 at 4:49 am

    A political look at the repercussions of corruption in mainstream science:

    House cleaning is inevitable.

  29. georgehants

    March 22, 2012 at 8:24 am

    I asked Rossi how long it took him to find the working catalyst, I cannot remember how many years he said but if we say ten, then if fairly you take twenty reductionist establishment scientists (who cannot think beyond steam engines)to equal one Rossi, then if my math is correct main-line science could achieve the same goal with 200 researchers in one year.
    If we allow another 23 years for them to think about it then they should catch Rossi up in 2036.
    Add a couple of years for peer review and publication as it is something beyond Newtonian knowledge and must be rejected at all costs, then the big year is 2038 for the establishment to end up where Rossi et al are now. (if he is genuine).
    Only joking but point made.

    • lenrman

      March 22, 2012 at 9:20 am


      I admire your undying loyalty to Rossi but he isn’t a scientist. He is a silky smooth entrepreneur who knew which scientists to befriend & how to exploit them. Good for him if he delivers something for his efforts.

      Steve Jobs was a great example of a determined person who knew what value to place on things his brilliant friends & associates came up with.


      • georgehants

        March 22, 2012 at 9:36 am

        lenrman, good morning, your logic is in error, even allowing that you are just giving an opinion.
        – A scientist is a person who investigates the unknown, academic qualifications etc. are totally irrelevant.
        If Rossi is legit he will become one of the most successful scientists the World has ever known.
        Petty abuse as if somebody with a degree etc. means they are a scientist is very short-sighted, most qualified people never even think of investigating the unknown let alone discover anything, and all the while the establishment forces scientists to follow closed-minded Dogma it will remain that way.
        Time for all “scientists” to rebel against Dogma and establishment dictatorship that stifles new knowledge.

        • General Zaroff

          March 22, 2012 at 5:03 pm

          You really, really misunderstand science and the scientific process.

          Fortunately for you, no matter how this Rossi thing works out you will feel vindicated. If he delivers you win, and if he doesn’t, well, that is because mainstream science and the man stopped him.

        • Quax

          March 22, 2012 at 5:29 pm

          By your logic a psychic was a scientist as they clearly investigate the unknown.

          I suggest a different definition:

          An experimental practitioner of natural science is someone who follows the scientific protocol of probing nature for answers, and describes his/her results formally and in detail so that they can be repeated and tested by other scientists.

    • John Milstone

      March 22, 2012 at 10:45 am

      Of course, Rossi was serving a prison sentence for bankruptcy fraud 10 years ago. (Rossi sentenced, October 2000, Conviction still in place, November 2004)

      I’m not aware that many prisons have chemistry/nuclear workshops for their inmates to try to perfect LENR.

      • georgehants

        March 22, 2012 at 10:50 am

        Morning John, yours is an important comment and really shows your understanding of the points being made, well done.

        • John Milstone

          March 22, 2012 at 11:04 am

          Sarcasm isn’t an effective argument against facts.

          If Rossi told you that he was doing experimental work ten years ago, he was presumably lying to you, since the records indicate that he was serving an eight-year prison sentence during this period.

          Isn’t honesty a minimum requirement of a legitimate scientist?

          • georgehants

            March 22, 2012 at 11:24 am

            John, as I plainly said in my comment I guessed how long Rossi said and when, your point is pointless and even if you are correct, does being in jail stop one thinking, Your comment is irrational.
            Would you like to comment on the actual points being made and come back from your strange circular, closed world.

          • Frank

            March 22, 2012 at 12:07 pm

            Couldn’t it have been that during nightime some aliens beamed Rossi up into their UFO and explained to him the secrets of LENR and the secret catalyzer. 😉

            The inside of the premise, which Rossi himself calls ‘my laboratory’ doesn’t show any evidence for excessive testing of various prototypes, nano-powders etc.

            Don’t let yourself be fooled. Not every story one get told is true …
            (if you are looking for some fun, then watch it till the end)

      • daniel maris

        March 22, 2012 at 1:18 pm

        2000 is ten years ago? Since when?

        Your attention to detail does not encourage us to have confidence in your pronouncements.

        • John Milstone

          March 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm

          He was sentenced to 8 years in prison in 2000.

          In 2004, that conviction was still standing.

          That covers the period between 12 and 8 years ago.

          That includes 10 years ago.

          You’re an idiot.

      • Anonymous

        March 22, 2012 at 1:22 pm

        I’ve read your links and all the other Italian articles on Rossi’s conviction that I could obtain from Google.

        I believe that Rossi did less than a year in prison. The majority of the conviction was overturned except for a book-keeping failure in the accounting for the waste stored and disposed of.

        The Italian press seems to have a sensationalist streak, and prefers to quote the sound bites of their prosecutors to make good copy. Look at the fiasco around Amanda Knox.

        I’d like to find an Italian government archive on-line that has the official legal rulings in all the cases — not this second hand newspaper reporting by a press motivated to sell advertising.

        • Thicket

          March 22, 2012 at 1:47 pm


          You nailed it when you say ‘I believe’. It would be more appropriate to say ‘I want to believe’.

          You see the evidence from multiple media sources but you don’t ‘want to believe’ it. You criticise the media for sensationalism yet you pull a one-year prison time hypothesis out of thin air.

          You have no words for the few media that sensationalize Rossi’s inept demonstrations of his fraudulent eCat technology. You ‘want to believe’ that those reports are true.

          You talk about convictions being overturned.I have seen zero evidence of that. I think ‘overtuned convictions’ is a believer fantasy from Rossi apologists. What I have seen is charges that were dropped in the 1990s. There is nothing ‘overturned’ about that. Folks can come up with all sorts of theories why charges were dropped, but I’ve seen no concrete evidence. Believers will say that they were unfounded charges.

          I think a more reasonable answer is that the prosecutors were successful in getting five convictions including two jail terms in the 1990s. They likely dropped the 50 or so other charges because they had their man behind bars and didn’t want to waste time and money on further convictions that would probably result in concurrent prison terms. In any case, I’ve seen no public information, other than the words of pathological liar Rossi, supporting any theory on why charges were dropped.

          There was a third prison term for Rossi when he returned to Italy from the U.S.

          I find it interesting the lengths that Rossi-apologist believers will go to, to rationalize and minimize the criminal record of a convicted and incarcerated felon.

        • John Milstone

          March 22, 2012 at 1:49 pm

          The 8-year conviction for bankruptcy fraud was the longest sentence Rossi received, and after the Petroldragon-related charges were dropped, that one was still in force (as of 2004).

          I spent a considerable amount of time searching for and reviewing every Italian news story about Rossi I could find. There were no further stories about Rossi, which suggests that he didn’t “get off” of this charge. The second article I posted mentions that he spent 6 months in prison for the Petroldragon convictions.

          I don’t know anything about Italian criminal process, so it’s possible that he was allowed to stay free during the appeals process. That strikes me as unlikely, since he was arrested as a fugitive prior to this particular conviction. If he had already demonstrated a willingness to “flee” to the United States, it’s hard to believe that they would give him the opportunity to do so again.

          Since Rossi has demonstrated a willingness to lie about everything else, I’m not going to take his word about this.

        • John Milstone

          March 22, 2012 at 4:35 pm

          Look at the fiasco around Amanda Knox.

          I’m not aware of any mainstream Italian newspaper lying about whether or not there was a conviction, or of how long she was sentenced.

          That’s what you would have to believe in order to accept Rossi’s version of events.

          And, of course, it’s foolish to simply accept the word of someone regarding the details of their own convictions, especially when they were for something like fraud.

  30. georgehants

    March 22, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    This is the reason that Rossi from the beginning has said only a working unit, commercially on sale will bypass these alleged criminals.
    If Rossi or Defkalion are frauds it changes nothing regarding Cold Fusion.

    23rd Anniversary of The Announcement of Cold Fusion and its Coverup (HEAVYWATERGATE)
    To “celebrate” (actually, to continue their unwarranted, unfounded, corrupt actions) the 23rd Anniversary of Cold Fusion and its Coverup, at least four individuals in the USPTO continue to destroy/remove/redact/hide submitted peer-reviewed publications and reviews of cold fusion science and engineering, including those involving DTRA, the US Navy, and the entire involved scientific community who are ‘skilled in the art’; and then lie about the entire matter on federal documents.
    On the 23rd Anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion, given 23 years of solid scientific results, it is time for Congress to act and answer the following:
    Who in the USPTO encourages such crime, if not treason? Why?
    Where is their own money ‘parked’? Oil stocks? Foreign competing companies?
    Where is the accountability at the USPTO, given the US Constitution and security, previous Congressional directive, and the obvious salient economic, funding and honesty issues involved.

    • Ivy Matt

      March 22, 2012 at 7:57 pm

      I wish Dr. Swartz would give some context and documentation for stories like this. Otherwise it sounds like he’s communicating primarily with himself, and the rest of us are mere bystanders.

  31. georgehants

    March 22, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    From Facebook with thanks. I think it is saying that everything is Quantum.
    Per Kylemark
    Could be relevant: “As metallic particles near about 10 nanometers in diameter, classical physics breaks down. The particles begin to demonstrate unique physical and chemical properties that bulk counterparts of the very same materials do not.”

  32. Quax

    March 22, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Found in the LinkedIn Quantum Physics group. Best explanation of cold fusion I’ve seen yet, could be straight out the Hitchhiker’s Guide through the Galaxy:

    Since you are interested in the limitations of math and logic, you must be familiar with Godel’s incompleteness theorem. This prevents there from being an absolute theory of everything (TOE).

    One can still have a theory of practically everything by bringing Godel’s theorem under control.

    One must start with just an hypothesis, since a theory is an hypothesis that has already been verified. One then has the hypothesis of practically everything (HOPE). Theories without this hypothesis are, of course, HOPELESS.

    One can bring Godel under control by invoking logical indeterminacy instead of just having the inconsistency that is associated with completeness.

    When asking whether two things are equivalent the answer can be MAYBE as well as YES or NO. The major practical application is in explaining cold fusion.

    The energy barrier that prevents the hydrogen atoms from fusing in conventional physics is MAYBE not there, thus allowing one to explain the observed phenomenon.

    Having started by modifying Aristotle, one can proceed to make major revisions in the theories of Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and Heisenberg.

  33. dsm

    March 22, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    For the record – patent filed by Piantelli in 2008 & published in 2009.

    (Ransompw & Daniel Maris take note – read it again and again & remember it).

    Itay filing PI2008A000119 24.11.2008 IT
    International Filing Date: 24.11.2009

    (EN) A method and a generator to produce energy from nuclear Reactions Between hydrogen and a metal, comprising the steps of a) Determined production of a quantity of micro / nanometric clusters of a transition metal, b) Bringing into contact with said hydrogen clusters ITS and controlling pressure and speed, preferibilmente after Applying vacuum cycles of at least 10-9 bar Between 35 ° and 500 ° C for degassing the clusters, c) creating an active core for the Reactions by heating at temperatures up to the clusters That Is higher than the Debye temperature TD of the metal, at temperatures close to preferibilmente temperatures at Which Occurs in sliding of reticular planes, in order to adsorb hydrogen as the clusters in the H-ions, d) by triggering the Reactions to mechanical, thermal , ultrasonic, magnetic or electric impulse on the active core, causing the atoms of the metal ions to capture the hydrogen, with liberation of heat, preferibilmente in the presence of a gradient of temperature on the active core, e) removing the heat Maintaining the temperatures above TD, preferibilmente in the presence of a magnetic and / or electric field of predetermined intensity. The active core can comprise a sintered material of micro / nanometric clusters, or clusters in Collected powder in a container, or a deposit of clusters onto a substrate of predetermined volume and shape, with at least 109 clusters per square centimeter of surface, obtainable by Such methods of means-as sputtering, evaporation and condensation of metal spraying, epitaxial deposition, by heating up to approaching the melting point and then slow cooling, Such methods Followed by quick cooling for freezing the cluster structure.


    • dsm

      March 22, 2012 at 8:35 pm

      Ransompw – just to rub your nose in it here is your post again …

      previously posted by ransompw
      “According to those who know him, Piantelli doesn’t even use nanopowder now. Get your story right.

      Show me any of Piantelli’s papers or Focardi where nanopowder is mentioned.”


      So Ransompw – any more “nown facts” (sic) you wish to present ?



      • Ransompw

        March 25, 2012 at 3:23 pm

        Man are you dense. Look at the NASA powerpoint I showed you. The stuff you are pointing out is after Rossi. Why should we necessarily believe what Piantelli is saying after Rossi’s claimed use of Nickel Powder.

        Why believe Piantelli, he obviously has an agenda. That is all I am saying. The 2008 patent was amended in 2010, I can’t tell if the powder reference was from 2008 or 2010, can you? Either way his 2008 patent was filed after Rossi. None of Piantelli’s published work prior to Rossi used Nickel Powder, review them they all describe Nickel Rods or wires. Read the NASA powerpoint I posted it has a detailed history of Piantelli’s work.

        It is possible Piantelli started using Nickel Powder before Rossi, but I think the evidence is stronger that Rossi was first and Piantelli reacted to this reported success. Focardi reported the same thing as did Nelson who knew both men.

        • dsm

          March 26, 2012 at 1:50 am

          Not according to this …

          It was you who came in on my post re Piantelli’s work and said Piantelli *never used powdered Nickel* stating as you did a lot higher in this thread that it was ‘known facts’ – which I just proved was not at all true.
          So now you try to switch the point to an opinion that Rossi was doing it before Piantelli with no mention at all that it is clear Piantelli was using powder. Also your point ignores that Rossi only got into LENR in 2006 and in 2007 asked Piantelli to join him but Piantelli declined so Rossi went to Focardi in 2007 who accepted the job of consultant.
          My issue with you is you do this claiming things are facts or known facts when they aren’t. You rarely back up such claims of ‘facts’ with links or quotes as that would give you some authority if true but all we find is you make up your facts again and again.

          Then when you get shot down you change the story just as you did here, from Piantelli never did powder to “oh well you nailed me on that fabrication, I will switch my story to that I think Rossi did powder before Piantelli”. But even that is yet another characteristic twisting of the obvious evidence.
          It is known that Rossi slipped his patent app in knowing via Focardi that Piantelli was going to file his new powdered Ni+H patent, & Rossi rather deviously (can’t think of another word) did it prior to the law changing in July 2008 where all future patent apps would be rejected if there was prior art.
          When Rossi tried to file the same patent internationally in Aug 2008 & later for a 2nd go in 2009 he got rejected 100% on all 15 of his claims because of Piantelli and other prior art.
          Methinks you are a master at devious debating tactics 101. Never let the truth get in the way of an invented fact or the opportunity to shift the goalposts. Or the chance to spin the obvious evidence away from where it clearly leads.
          Cheers DSM

        • dsm

          March 26, 2012 at 2:00 am

          Here it is in Piantelli’s own words

          He Piantelli was using powder before Rossi – I posted this info many times but as always you ignore it. It is more factual than any “I Think” scenario that you fabricate.
          From Piantell –
          “After receiving some news from Focardi, they built a similar cell to the one documented in [my] the old patent [application] (lapsed as the fees were not paid) using for the active core one of the components covered in the patent (the powder) to increase the active surface. The purpose, to obtain more energy. So the [Rossi] patent is not valid because the system had already been published and there is no novelty. Now the pirates want to defraud someone by trying to sell the (counterfeit) patent. ”


        • dsm

          March 26, 2012 at 3:34 am

          Lets look at the ‘known facts’ (but with links & proofs) re who did what when re powdered nickel.

          1995 Piantelli files his 1st LENR patent app and includes an option of powdered Nickel as a means of increasing surface area. (This is prior art for powdered Nickel).

          2008-apr-09 Rossi files patent app.
          2009-oct-10 The patent is published
          (Rossi makes no mention of Piantelli’s work or priority)

          2008-nov-24 Piantelli files Patent PI2008A000119
          2009-nov-24 Piantelli files international patent (priority granted to PI2008A000119 2008-nov-24)
          2010-may-25 Piantelli international patent is published


          What we know is that Focardi was in 2007/8/9 passing details of Piatelli’s advances to Rossi. Piantelli says so and that letter has been published here repeatedly.
          In 2008 & early 2009, Piantelli did not know Focardi was ‘betraying’ his research details & only found out after Rossi’s 2008 patent application was published on 10-oct-2009. Piantelli was kept in the dark.
          So whilst Rossi was ‘deviously’ slipping his patent app through in Apr 2008 prior to the Italian law change in July 2008. Piantelli oblivious to what Focardi & Rossi were up to, kept on experimenting and talking to Focardi throughout. Then in Nov 2008 Piantelli filed an international patent where he detailed the results of his 2006/7/8 experiments that specifically included experiments with powdered Nickel right down to the nano-particle atom count. Focardi knew what Piantelli was doing & was slipping this info to Rossi. Again Piantelli has told us so.
          Piantelli filed his 2008 patent not knowing that Rossi had filed a patent in 2008 nor what Rossi had written in it because Rossi’s patent wasn’t published until 10 oct 2009. So there is NO evidence that Piantelli’s 2008 patent was in response to anything Rossi was doing BUT there is a clear path to Rossi from Piantelli via Focardi as to what Piantelli had been doing.
          So, Rossi knew via Focardi what Piantelli was doing in 2007/8/9 and thus had the opportunity to try to steal the thunder from Piantelli in early 2008. Rossi knew that having a patent would allow him to seek funding from investors so getting a ‘credible’ patent became his prime goal and it can be argued that the 2011 demos were all attempts to get evidence he could present to the international patent org. But despite all his efforts they rejected both his 2008/2009 International patent applications citing many critical reasons but among them the prior art issue.
          As of today, Rossi has no accepted patents outside his ‘slippery’ April 2008 Italian patent that was granted without any checks for prior art as held by Piantelli and as he has stated.

    • dsm

      March 22, 2012 at 8:43 pm

      To reiterate (NOTE “the words A further critical aspect” …
      From the patent detail …
      “A further critical aspect is the core sizing and design to attain a desired power.

      In DE4024515 a process is described for obtaining energy from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen isotopes, in which the atoms are brought into contact with clusters that contains from three to one hundred thousand atoms of a transition metal, and in which the clusters are obtained by cooling finely subdivided metal particles.”

      and …

      “Advantageously, said step of prearranging is carried out in such a way that said determined quantity of crystals of said transition metal in the form of micro/nanometric clusters is proportional to said power.”

      and …
      “- adsorption at the grain edges, by trapping the ions into the lattice defects; replacement of an atom of the metal of a clusters may also occur.”

      and …
      “Preferably, said transition metal is Nickel. In particular, said Nickel is selected from the group comprised of: natural Nickel, i.e. a mixture of isotopes like Nickel 58, Nickel 60, Nickel 61 , Nickel 62, Nickel 64; – a Nickel that contains only one isotope, said isotope selected from the group comprised of:

      Nickel 58;

      Nickel 60

      Nickel 61 ; – Nickel 62;

      Nickel 64;”

    • dsm

      March 22, 2012 at 9:25 pm

      The below extract of the revised 2008 patent refers back to Piantelli’s prior art (his 2005 patent)

      The 2008 patent points out the problems of working with Nickel bars & why the Nickel in one form of the invention needed to be in nano clusters below referred to as …

      ‘finely subdivided metal particles’
      ‘The step of preparing the determined quantity of clusters can provide collecting a powder of clusters into a container, i.e. collecting a determined quantity of clusters or aggregation of loose clusters’
      ‘a powder of clusters collected within a container, said convex envelope limited by a container of said powder, for example a container made of ceramic’



      From the description portion of the 2008 patent …
      “Field of the invention The present invention relates to a process for producing energy by nuclear reactions between a metal and hydrogen that is adsorbed on the crystalline structure of the metal. Furthermore, the invention relates to an energy generator that carries out such reactions.

      Description of the prior art A method for producing heat by nuclear reactions caused by hydrogen that is adsorbed on a Nickel active core has been described in WO95/20316, in the name of Piantelli et. al.. Improvements of the process are described in Focardi, Gabbani, Montalbano, Piantelli, Veronesi, “Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems”, in Il Nuovo Cimento, vol. IHA, N.11 , november 1998, and bibliography therein.

      A problem that was observed during the experiments was the preparation of the cores on which hydrogen had to be adsorbed and the reactions had to be carried out; such cores were made of Nickel and had the shape of small bars.

      One of the various critical aspects of the process was the choice of a suitable method for adsorbing hydrogen and the quality of the hydrogen matter, as well as the repeatability of the triggering conditions of the process.

      Other critical aspects were how to clean the small bar before the adsorption of the hydrogen, as well as how to optimize the optimal bar surface conditions and the method for triggering and shutting down the reactions. Due to such problems, the set up of the process and its industrial exploitation turned out to be somewhat difficult.

      A further critical aspect is the core sizing and design to attain a desired power.

      In DE4024515 a process is described for obtaining energy from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen isotopes, in which the atoms are brought into contact with clusters that contains from three to one hundred thousand atoms of a transition metal, and in which the clusters are obtained by cooling finely subdivided metal particles.”

  34. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:01 am

    daniel maris on March 18, 2012 at 10:40 pm:

    You were clearly implying that in the same way reputable scientists had backed the E cat so had other reputable scientists backed perpetual motion machines.

    The perpetual motion comparison was intended to show that you don’t have to know exactly where someone has gone wrong to be skeptical of their claim. And that this can go on for centuries.
    If you want examples of peer-reviewed work that is also largely rejected by the mainstream for a century, look at homeopathy; I’ve given the references before.

    You seem not to understand how things go in a totalitarian state. Even if the totalitarian state wants a free debate they can’t get it because people are afraid. If the boss backs
polywater, you back polywater, and when the regional leader of the Academy of Sciences backs it, people in the region back it, and when it becomes a matter of the state’s international prestige everyone backs it.

    I don’t believe that sort of pressure was any different in military-neutral science (like polywater) in the USSR than anywhere else, and I don’t think we’re gonna resolve it without some input from people that were there. Zedshort’s response to your previous prejudiced statements were apt, I thought. Anyway, we know that many cases of fringe or pathological science have sprung up in the West: N-rays, homeopathy, and so on.

    As for the West, I am saying that the sort of formal science that has grown up in the last 50 years does seem to have some totalitarian tendencies and these are being reflected in the wider community. The debate over climate change is a good example – with “climate change denial” becoming a kind of thought crime.

    First, it’s a very lucrative thought crime, since you can get well-paying consultancy jobs with Exxon, and I’m told they pay you to present at conferences and publish papers.
    Second, the sort of thing you’re arguing again is for conformity, and that works against you in the case of polywater, because conformity there would have *discouraged* disruptive ideas like polywater.

    Similarly anyone who speaks out against mass multiple vaccination of infants is liable to find it a career ending move.

    If you’re referring to Wakefield, who was caught red-handed in unethical and fraudulent medical research, his career deserved to be ended. But of course it wasn’t, because playboy models and other gullible parents looking for someone to blame rallied to his defense and ensure he continues to live in the style to which he has become accustomed.

    My position is quite simple: we should have free speech in debate on scientific matters as well as political matters. The peer review system has become corrupted.

    No one disagrees with the first sentence. The peer review system is not perfect, but I have not seen evidence that it is getting (has become) any worse.

  35. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:03 am

    daniel maris on March 19, 2012 at 1:40 am:

    Popeye’s comment: “For example, it’s a fact that Cs-137 has a gamma ray at 661 keV, and that it’s used as a calibrant in gamma ray spectroscopy, and that that is the only gamma ray reported in Piantelli’s experiments.”
    Is the implication there that Piantelli has misread contamination from a spectrometer as evidence of gamma ray production? Can someone explain??

    The gamma ray spectra of every possible isotope has been carefully cataloged, and the only isotope that has a gamma ray in that range 661+/-1 keV, and no other is Cs-137. And Cs-137 is present in every university physics lab as a common calibrant.
    Piantelli admits that they searched the database for the origin of the gamma and found none that would be plausibly produced by transmutation. He mentions a couple of isotopes, but discounts them because they have other gamma rays not observed. Oddly, he doesn’t mention the almost perfect match to Cs-137, even though he must clearly be familiar with it. It is also odd that they wouldn’t have made more of an effort to get the energy more accurately. If they could have differentiated the energy from that of the Cs-137 line, then that would make the result a little more compelling.
    It’s a bit like someone claiming their house was invaded because they found a drinking glass was used. When the DNA from the glass was analyzed, it turned out to be the claimant’s own (or maybe one of his children). It kind of takes the wind out of the claim.

    The Widom-Larsen theory seems to have an explanation:
    “In operating LENR systems, therefore, hard gamma ray photons in an energy range between 0.5 MeV and 10.0 MeV (often created during absorption of ULM neutrons by some, but not all, atoms/isotopes) are locally absorbed by heavy-mass electrons before they can escape [8]. Those electrons then convert the absorbed gammas directly into raw heat in the form of benign infrared photons that are also locally absorbed. LENR systems have what amounts to built-in gamma shielding during operation, a remarkable property by any standard. ” [link removed]
    I am not claiming any technical knowledge, but I am wondering whether Caesium is just one of many elements that can produce gamma rays in this range?

    Not within a keV of 661 keV, and no other gammas. But I don’t get how WL give an explanation. They say the gammas are all absorbed, but here we’re talking about one that was not absorbed.

  36. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:04 am

    daniel maris: “Piantelli is also claiming LENR in the hundreds of watts by the way.”
    Popeye: “Could you provide a reference for this? I have not seen it.”
    maris: This below refers to his new machines being ready by Sept 2011 and being capable of produce hundreds of watts up to Kws. [link removed]

    So, no reference then. The link you gave is somebody quoting Piantelli speculating about future experiments. Speculating is not claiming.

  37. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:05 am

    Quax on March 19, 2012 at 1:44 am:

    But he also makes the case that the current crop of LENR researchers are all old and hence moribund, so that this problem of “pathological science” will solve itself biologically. This certainly does not fit this guy nor NASA’s Joseph Zawodny

    That’s why I said it would fade away asymptotically. There are a few younger people. The two you refer to do not seem to be very heavyweight. I doubt that in 20 years, they’ll be able to keep the field alive. What’s more likely to keep it alive is the fact that it is such a fertile area for fraud. There are close to a dozen companies based on a phenomenon not yet proven, and not a single product anyone can buy. (There are several companies based on small-scale hot fusion ideas too; the potential of fusion is so attractive, that people find ways to overcome ethical barriers to making unjustified claims.)

    This LENR puzzle is getting really long in the tooth. It has been dragging on for almost a quarter century now.
    This lingering scientific controversy needs to be conclusively settled. That’s why I would love Popeye to focus his laser sharp mind on the specifics in published papers rather than making the more general case. The latter will always be circumstantial and no amount of posting will make it conclusive.

    The only conclusive settlement I can imagine would be on the positive side, because it’s easy to conceive of an unequivocal demonstration of cold fusion, and that would of course be fantastic for everyone. But, since cold fusion is probably bogus, and it is very difficult to conceive of an experiment that could prove that, I don’t see a conclusive settlement on the matter in the near future. It’s too hard to prove a negative, and the will to believe is too strong.
    There is no way that critical reviews of every paper written (which won’t happen) could make a difference, especially since the advocates already don’t accept critical reviews of Piantelli, whether from here or from CERN. Since most of the people here are persuaded by the general idea of a lot of scientists claiming positive results, a general argument about how that can happen even if the effect is not real, and an indication that far more scientists are not persuaded by the same results seems entirely appropriate to me.

  38. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:08 am

    Shane D. on March 19, 2012 at 12:46 am:

    As always, you bring up a lot of good scientific points about cold fusion experiments. And also, unfortunately, you so laden those welcome observations with a degree of contempt and vindictiveness to other viewpoints, that I find it difficult to lend you any credence, or the respect you deserve.
    May I suggest you refrain from being so dark and confrontational, drop the condescension, and stick to a more higher ground?
    Trust me, if you are as brilliant as you sound, and you don’t poke us, or your colleagues, with a stick, you’ll get far more respect than your present course will get you.

    You’re probably right. I am often too blunt, because I simply call it as I see it, but I apologize if I’ve offended your sensibility. Still, I haven’t called anyone a nincompoop, even though I’ve been called that and worse. Why are skeptics held to a higher standard?
    But if I were looking for respect, I wouldn’t be popeye, and if you were interested in the truth, your sensibility would not be so fragile.

  39. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Quax on March 18, 2012 at 10:33 pm:

    I’d love to see a review of yours of some of the more recent papers e.g. 2010BossP-ComparisonOfPDD-DT.pdf
    Maybe you have addressed some of the issues before but a comprehensive review would be appreciated.

    I have addressed the CR-39 results before, and I’m not motivated to do a detailed review of the paper. I think general considerations (below) are enough to dismiss the results as insignificant, but there is a pretty detailed critique of the results at (thanks to ivy), who tried replicating, and wrote up a detailed report on it. Here’s their conclusion”

    Our results do not provide a positive identification of the origin of SPAWAR pits. However, they do show that chemical origin is a distinct possibility and therefore that nuclear origin is not a certainty. The accelerated etching rate observed for CR-39 that has soaked in TGP electrolyte for several weeks proves that there is a chemical interaction. The observation that SPAWAR pits are visible before etching shows that they are unlike the tracks made by ionizing particles. The observation that SPAWAR pits are stopped by a 6 micron Mylar film is consistent with a chemical origin but only proves that they cannot be due to nuclear particles which would penetrate such a barrier (e.g. alpha particles of energy >1 MeV). The rest of our observations, such as the invariance of the result when the electrolyte is changed from heavy water to light water, are less conclusive but are still consistent with chemical origin of SPAWAR pits.
    It has been suggested that SPAWAR pits are a mixture of chemical and nuclear pits. This is a difficult hypothesis to evaluate. Frankly, the idea of trying to identify pits which “look nuclear” is not very appealing from an objectivity standpoint.

    (They have tried many other replications, too — all negative.)
    Here’s a summary of my view of the SPAWAR results (again):
    – First, they’ve been doing this experiment for more than 5 years now, and no peer-reviewed replications of these results have been published by any other group.
    – Second, the results have been challenged by Kowalski in peer-reviewed literature. It seems there is a good chance they are due to artifacts.
    – Third, Krivit ran a little project (pretentiously called the Galileo project) in which several groups tried to reproduce. It turns out the results were highly dependent on the manufacturer of the foil, subject to chemical artifacts, and several groups concluded there was no evidence of neutrons (including the earthtech group quoted above) , while others said the results were inconclusive. Krivit tried to put a positive spin on the thing by saying everyone saw something, but don’t know what, but to me it all looked like a complete bust.
    – Fourth, the neutron levels claimed are orders of magnitude too low to explain the claimed levels of heat. I know the argument goes that any radiation is evidence for nuclear reactions, which are not supposed to happen at all. But if they don’t correlate with the heat, then once again, it’s an amazing coincidence that the level should be right at the marginal level of detection.
    You know, they are claiming at most 5 to 10 neutrons (detected by triple tracks) per foil, after a 2 week experiment. From what I’ve seen, experiments with these foils typically have thousands of tracks per sq. cm, and background can be in the range of hundreds. What they’re claiming is not just 10 or 100 or 1000 times below levels commensurate with say one watt of power; it’s like a million billion (10^16) times lower or something. Now, at 5 or 10 neutrons, if it were 10 times less, it wouldn’t be observed. Ten or a hundred times more, and they might have something. So, power levels which would not be observed if they were 10 times lower, and now neutron levels 10^16 times lower but again would have been missed at 10 times lower. What are the odds?
    (And then, in other experiments, where helium is measured, which is the only ash that is even close to being commensurate with the heat, the levels are again near background. Again, 10 times less, and it would be lost in the noise.
    – Fifth, if the confidence in the results are so high, then why is SPAWAR shutting the research down?

    • Jay2011

      March 27, 2012 at 5:29 am


      I don’t know if anyone, including you, is still watching this thread, but I thought I’d respond in case there are any diehards left. I have some familiarity with the SPAWAR experiments, having attempted something similar myself. I have a few things to add to what you stated, and some words of warning for others attempting to replicate this type of experiment with CR-39.

      First, I believe some of the “pits” observed by the SPAWAR group and other “Galileo” experimenters are not pits but mesas. CR-39 immersed in electrolyte in the vicinity of the cathode will get chemically etched, probably by hydroxide ions (or deuteride ions) that get formed. Recall that CR-39 is “developed” by immersion in NaOH or KOH. Shadowing effects with CR-39 in contact with the cathode can leave mesas.

      It’s best not to immerse the CR-39 but to shield the CR-39 film with mylar or some other thin film material, as some of the later experiments did.

      Second, a lot of the real CR-39 tracks in these types of experiments are caused by radon and its daughter products. So it’s important to have good control runs, exposed at the same time and for the same duration, to compare to. If you’re really trying to be careful, you might take more active measures to eliminate radon from the experiment.

      Third, the background rate of fast neutrons from cosmic rays is actually pretty high. So if you’re looking at a handful of “triple track” events supposedly from high energy neutrons, it’s again important to have good control runs. In the papers I’ve seen, there is no mention of control runs at all.

      Finally, I think it’s important to be up front about possible problems with one’s experiment. The history of the reporting from this group leaves me wondering. For example, at one of the SPAWAR presentations there were some spectra taken with a Ge gamma detector, with a promise that the data would be published after some additional data analysis. But these gamma detector results seem to have been shelved with no further mention.

      Also, to my knowledge there was never any retraction or reassessment of the original experiments for which the CR-39 film was immersed in the electrolyte. I personally have a problem with redirecting attention (e.g. with the triple track events) without re-addressing the initial claims.

      None of this means that the SPAWAR group hasn’t seen something interesting. But I would like to have seen more effort in improving the experiments. And if mistakes were made initially, I would appreciate if the group were more forthcoming about this.

  40. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Ransompwon March 19, 2012 at 12:50 pm:

    Why? You think because Carl has a great thought all his thoughts are great. Every claim requires adequate proof, nothing more, nothing less. What is adequate will depend on the proof, not the claim.

    Proof is never absolute in science. And the nature of the claim does influence the level of evidence needed. That’s just common sense, was not invented by Sagan, and has been part of scientific thought expressed by thinkers from Pascal through Truzzi.
    Evidence for more extraordinary claims has to more effectively exclude extraordinary alternative explanations. If nuclear reactions are a highly implausible explanation for transmutation (e.g.), and no one can predict the degree or nature of the transmutation, then the possibility of contamination makes the evidence unconvincing. But if an experiment is done in an accelerator, and predicted transmutations are observed at exactly the predicted level, then the possibility of contamination does not significantly weaken the evidence.

  41. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Ransompw on March 19, 2012 at 2:45 pm:

    My proof remains the same, for that matter it is the same as yours. The only difference I see is you seem to need to conclude without definitive proof. I speculate without proof and try to predict, you conclude.

    Most skeptics don’t conclude anything; they just consider the likelihood of cold fusion to be very small without good evidence. If, in the absence of claims, it is considered to have a likelihood of a part in a billion, then the evidence presented so far does not change that view significantly.
    You seem to give it something like a 50/50 chance based, as nearly as I can tell, on the fact that people are claiming it, and you really want it to be true, and your lawyer’s instinct.
    It is the believers in cold fusion (though perhaps not you) that make the absolute statements in this forum. There are many here who have frequently said they are 100% certain that cold fusion is real.

  42. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:27 am

    Shane D. on March 19, 2012 at 2:00 pm:

    At this point in the cold fusion debate it all comes down to which scientists one believes. We laymen don’t have the tools to judge the data, experiment integrity or equipment quality of the hundreds of cold fusion experiments and demonstrations that have taken place.
    Instead we rely on those within the scientific community to peer review the data, present their case and we the jury can make a choice as to who has the better argument.

    That’s probably the way it works for some, but it strikes me as wrong. If the people can’t (or won’t make the effort to) understand the evidence, then it’s not clear that their judgement of the arguments carries much weight. They are going to be subject to their own prejudice, and what they want to be true.
    If there is a clear consensus among experts, then I can’t see a good argument that that consensus should not form the basis for public policy. It’s obviously not perfect, and expert consensus has been famously wrong in the past, but I can’t think of a better alternative. Can you?

    Of course, in a real peer review those conducting the research would have their say in response to the crtics, unlike the one sided argument we usually have here.

    But this is not peer review. This is simply supporting arguments based on publicly available information. This is an open forum and it is populated by people on both sides of the argument. And both sides are citing or criticizing literature to support their views.

    Too bad some of those cold fusion pioneers aren’t here so we, the peanut gallery, could watch the spirited exchange that would ensue after popeye calls Arata, Piantelli, Focardi, Miley, Ahern, at least two teams of NASA scientists and far too many others to mention here… idiots and that they don’t know their c137 tracks from their alpha/betas.

    I have not called anyone an idiot. And most scientists are quite used to having their work criticized. It comes with the territory. It would also be nice to have all the DOE panel members here to help with the criticism of the cold fusion papers.

    Most of these cold fusion researchers have lived a life of experiments. That is their forte. When doing hundreds of experiments over decades it still seems to me that they do know what they’re doing and can tell whether they have the right equipment and know when they have recorded anomolous heat.

    But again, the people who have criticized their work, and I’m talking about the DOE panels, and the referees who have rejected articles for major nuclear physics journals, have also lived a life of experiments. It is also their forte. They have also done hundreds of experiments over decades, and they also know what they’re doing, and can tell when others do not have the right equipment or procedure, or have made an incorrect interpretation.

    Maybe they are weak in the sub-atomic realm as pointed out, but heat output versus input seems pretty high-schoolish making it hard for me to believe that these exceptionally bright guys screwed that up also.

    Well if they didn’t, then far more exceptionally bright scientists screwed up their evaluation of the cold fusion results. And what makes you think they are exceptionally bright.

    So sorry popeye, jay123, you make some great scientific points, but I still find it hard to believe that so many other smart scientists are wrong in something so simple as excess heat production.

    But you have no difficulty believing that far far more smart scientists are wrong in their evaluation of these simple experiments on heat production?

    Cold fusion is a real effect… I think.

    But that is not the consensus of experts. On what basis do you choose to believe a self-interested fringe group over a consensus of experts?

  43. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:42 am

    GreenWin on March 19, 2012 at 6:41 pm:

    Peer review is conducted by actual “peers.” Scientists who are expert in the science under scrutiny. In this case nuclear fusion, fission, plasma, electro-chemistry, etc.
    Fortunately, we have now three teams at NASA – Marshall Space flight Center has joined Langley and Glenn Research. Not to mention the Japanese, Chinese, Germans and Italians (working with DARPA.)
    We agree, all these working scientists know more than black and white cartoons!

    No one except the advocates is claiming that arguments presented here are peer reviews. I certainly haven’t, so I feel no need to claim that I am a peer.
    Whether I’m smarter than all those cold fusion researchers is not relevant. My arguments are intended to stand on their own merits, and I don’t think very much expertise is needed to understand them. If you are looking for views to accept based on authority, then don’t look to popeye. Look at the researchers, sure, but also look at the expert panel reviews, look at what gets into the better journals. Views against cold fusion are not expressed publicly very often these days, so it’s not surprising that casual observers get caught up in the potential of it, but be assured that most of the expert opinion believes the reality of cold fusion is extremely unlikely. I’m trying to argue the merits of the subject, and nothing I use to support the arguments depend on my own credibility to be believed. They are a matter of record. Anyone can look them up.

  44. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:45 am

    Quax on March 19, 2012 at 7:21 pm:

    Obviously he is biased …

    Exactly how is it obvious? Bias is favoring one side of an issue for reasons other than the merit of the case. I have only argued the merits of cold fusion, so how can you determine that there are reasons other than the merits of the case that I favor one side of the issue?

  45. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 9:54 am

    LCD on March 19, 2012 at 2:12 pm:

    Lol I don’t read your stuff NOW, but I read plenty of it before and anybody can see the arguments we’ve had with the magic of google. It’s published.

    Fine. Then feel free to criticize the stuff you’ve read. But criticizing the stuff you haven’t read based on other stuff you have is still presumptuous, impolite, and closed-minded.

    #2 you seem to ignore the counterpoints I make and just go off on new ones.

    That’s not my recollection. I think I addressed all your points. It was you who ignored most of my arguments.

    If we want to analyze papers let’s pick one and all of us read it and then decide a time to argue them. I can’t just arbitrarily argue random points in a blog without more time in the day. I am 100% confident I can poke holes in any argument you make.

    Well that sounds like work. But I’ve already expressed opinions about a few papers here. You’re free to find fault in the opinions. And if you express opinions here on other papers that I disagree with, I may chime in.

  46. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 10:08 am

    LCD on March 19, 2012 at 7:34 pm:

    I’m sure Popeye will make the claim everybody in the paper is a flaming idiot (paraphrase of course)

    That’s not fair. I’ve criticized very specific faults in some papers, and gave reasons why I thought they represented weakness. If doing a poor experiment makes one a flaming idiot, then all scientists qualify.

    And it may be the case that the experiments have serious holes.

    Are you suggesting that some cold fusion researchers are flaming idiots?

    It’s tough to make bulletproof papers on LENR budgets

    P&F budget was 5 M per year for a decade. That’s a far bigger budget that say the people who discovered high Tc superconductivity, and their paper was bulletproof. And heat is a pretty simple quantity. It should not be hard to make a bullet proof paper, if the claims people make are valid.

    but I think we can show that the skeptics opinions do not amount to undisputable evidence that the paper conclusion is wrong.

    See, if that’s what you think skeptics are aiming for, you’re already laboring under a serious misconception. I keep saying this, but it seems even the self-identified technical types don’t seem to grasp it:
    Cold fusion is not expected to happen to begin with. So, if the results of an experiment can be plausibly explained without invoking nuclear reactions, then that experiment does not constitute convincing evidence for cold fusion. And absent evidence, cold fusion remains unlikely. That is not proof that cold fusion isn’t happening. It’s just failure to prove that it is.

    Of course the end result will likely be another experiment will be needed to address this and that as it should be…

    That is as it should be to understand things better. But it is possible to conceive of a simple experiment that would give unequivocal evidence that cold fusion is happening, and where more experiments are not needed to establish that. Such an experiment does not exist in the prevailing view.

  47. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 10:18 am

    daniel maris on March 19, 2012 at 10:35 pm:

    I would accept some of those points in relation to the milliwatt range but we have Focardi, Piantelli and Miley all claiming to be in the hundreds of watts and beyond.

    No, we don’t. We have Piantelli quoted as speculating that he might get over 100W, and we have Miley vaguely saying he might have got hundreds of watts, but is not ready to talk about, even while he talks about it, and we have Focardi teamed up with Rossi claiming kW, but unable to prove it.

    Furthermore, a lot of the experimentation that “disproved” P &F back in 1989 appears flawed now.

    A lot? You mean there are accusations against the MIT stuff. But the negative replications are not even relevant after 23 years of failure to demonstrate unequivocal evidence for the effect.

  48. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 10:39 am

    daniel maris on March 20, 2012 at 2:29 am:

    Piantelli was claiming 57 watts for 20 days back in 1993.
    Sounds like progress has been slow but steady.

    How do you figure? In 1998 he got 20W and 40 W, and since then, only promises. That’s not progress.

  49. popeye

    March 26, 2012 at 10:39 am

    Mike on March 20, 2012 at 6:45 pm:

    I’m not a scientist but Miley’s answers seem to be in fairly plain english to me


    Krivit: Let’s start with the question I asked you in the e-mail. When you stated “At the moment, we can run continuously at levels of a few hundred watts,” did you omit to state at the end of that sentence “per kilogram of material”?
    Miley: That was with 20 grams of nanoparticles.

    What is the antecedent of “that”? Is he saying that they got a few hundred watts with 20 grams of material, or is he saying they got a few hundred watts per kg of material with 20 grams of material? It’s not at all obvious to me, and they mean very different things.

    From which I would read
    1) Mileys device produces a few hundred watts using 20 grams of powder

    But that’s in the range of 10 kW per kg, more than he has claimed anywhere. That can’t be right.

    Krivit: So my question was, Were you actually running at several hundred watts output or several hundred watts per kilogram of material? Are you talking about a direct-power measurement or a power-density measurement?
    Miley: That’s watts per gram.

    *What* is watts per gram? Several hundred watts per gram? That would be several hundred kW / kg. Again, far higher than any of his claims before. Maybe he just means it’s an energy density. It sounds like he is being intentionally confusing so he can’t be pinned down later.

    Miley: All we want to disclose at this time is what is in the slides.

    And yet, he is claiming 100 W output, which is clearly *not* in the slides.

    Krivit: But during your video presentation, you said you could run continuously at several hundred watts.
    Miley: That is correct, but I didn’t show the data for it.

    Which, again contradicts the claim that he doesn’t want to disclose anything not in the slides.

    He’s being deliberately evasive. And I don’t mean Krivit.