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

Mitsubishi-Toyota LENR Transmutation

March 29, 2012

A number of eCatNews posters have questioned the lack of attention given to the Mitsubishi -Toyota results cited in Celani’s recent CERN presentation. Given the date on the linked pdf (2002) and the pedigree of the organisations involved, it is curious that such (apparently) strong evidence of low energy nuclear transmutation (from Cs to Pr) has not given LENR-denouncers pause for thought. I place the link here to focus attention in the hope that our resident experts might help us understand why the evidence for LENR ( including these transmutation results and more) does not spark a change in attitude. Given such a change and considering where LENR could lead us as a species, surely it is criminally stupid not to give the field some real attention and public backing?

The pdf in question

[With thanks to Shane D and Spacegoat]

Posted by on March 29, 2012. Filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

204 Responses to Mitsubishi-Toyota LENR Transmutation

  1. daniel maris

    March 29, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    Yes, I invited comments as well. I hope we will get some now.

    As you say, even if the phenomenon here is minimal, then it is worthy of investigation.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      March 29, 2012 at 1:40 pm

      If transmutations is reported to occur, it shows that something nuclear has been going on, if one can also prove that the result was not due to some chemical enrichment of impurities. It would be helpful if they would tell more quantitatively about the level of the observed transmutation versus anomalous heat produced (number of transmuted atoms per energy).

      An accurate characterisation of the transmutation spectrum would carry information about the underlying nuclear process. For example, triple nucleon models of cold fusion that I have sometimes discussed here (p+p+Ni->Cu+p and D+D+D->He4+D) would generate transmutation by the produced 7 MeV protons and 16 MeV deuterons causing secondary nuclear reactions; significantly more in the Pd-D case than in the Ni-H case because of the energy difference. To verify these theories, one should measure the transmutation spectrum generated by 7 MeV protons and 16 MeV deuterons using a particle accelerator and compare it with the transmutation spectrum produced by CF experiments. If the results would disagree, it would falsify above-type triple nucleon models for CF.

  2. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Paul asks what can be discussed while waiting for news on our Wonderful E-CAT and Defkalion etc.
    There is one Topic that has everything to do with Cold Fusion that I have tried to highlight from the beginning. SCIENCE.
    Cold Fusion is all about Science, and it’s Good points concerning the subject and it’s Bad points.
    What can we learn from the Cold Fusion debacle, anybody who tries to deny or hide the unbelievable failures in science is as bad as any irrational skeptic.
    The question, should UFO’s be researched professionally and unbiasedly has everything to do with sciences failures with Cold Fusion.
    I do not wish to debate UFO’s but point out the Obvious –
    The Evidence for UFO’s is strong and indisputable but science continues to brainwash it’s members and the public to make many of them puppets that just parrot the official line that they are fed, just like Cold Fusion.
    Does anybody agree that the purpose of Science is to investigate the unknown and LEARN, if after investigation then like Cold Fusion it will either be shown to be True or False.
    If one does not seriously investigate and do the research on any subject then Science is a Clown, not to be believed or taken seriously.

  3. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    spacegoat, Thank you for spending the time on my questions.
    Hard to keep up with the page changes but I hope you find me here.
    We appear to agree in many ways but your belief that
    open-mindedness and being suspect of everything one is told and taught will lead to will only create “more magical thinking in the world.” and
    “There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the scientific method.”
    Could we stick to one point at a time please.
    “Magical thinking in the World” —
    What would you consider a single example of “Magical Thinking”.

    • Dods

      March 29, 2012 at 1:02 pm

      Ok being an atheist im going to stick my neck out and say religion is a good example.

      • georgehants

        March 29, 2012 at 1:12 pm

        Dods, sorry my question is for spacegoat only at the moment, I am looking for one highly intelligent scientist who preferable disagrees with my points to be willing to fairly debate with simple question and answers, that will save me wasting time with every fruitcake on this page.
        Is any scientist up to the challenge.

        • DvH

          March 29, 2012 at 2:09 pm

          probably spacegaot is busy thinking and writing down the simple questions.
          or was your invitation to a fair debate with simple questions and answers only the other way – YOU provide the question and the other gives the answer?
          was that a simple question?

          • georgehants

            March 29, 2012 at 2:14 pm

            DvH, I expect questions to me, again if spacegoat bottles out maybe you can fill his place.
            Just one intelligent scientist who disagrees with me is all it takes.
            Should be easy to prove what an idiot I am should it not.

        • Johan Börjesson

          March 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm

          In one way I would be glad to have a discussion with you. I am an experienced scientist. If I am “highly intelligent” I would say is a matter of who you compare with. Do I need to give you my IQ? I assume that you see yourself as highly intelligent, or?

          I am fairly sure I know what your position is in this area, after have read the most of your posts. Even if I partial agree with some of your points, I also know that our views on some things are very different and what “critique” I want to give you. Our views differs mostly on how Science works.

          I am afraid that if we should have a real discussion, it would be long and time-consuming. Therefore, I think it is best to have it done by email. My biggest concern is however you are open for other views? The reason is that after have read most of your posts and other people’s replies, it seems that you unwilling to change your views and opinions on anything. Hopefully my concern is invalid.

          Please let me know if you are interested.

      • Allen McCloud

        March 29, 2012 at 1:22 pm

        Agreed Dods, that is THE prime example of magical thinking. I’d call it delusional. When does one cross the line from magical to delusional or is there a difference?

        • georgehants

          March 29, 2012 at 1:28 pm

          Allen McCloud, if spacegoat bottles out I will be quite willing to debate with another candidate.
          Lets give him fair chance first.

    • spacegoat

      March 29, 2012 at 1:31 pm

      There are some posters who are interested in this site for the psychology (JNewman if I recall correctly)? Maybe they can contribute also.

      Magical thinking is the aspect of wishes and hopes of children, to encounter goblins and fairies in the garden and other such unreal phenomena. Whilst a source of pleasure, this juvenile discord with reality is carried forward into adulthood for most people. The reason I say that is:

      1.Very few of the 7 billion people on Earth have been lucky enough to have received a minimum high school education in science delivered by passionate teachers.
      2.Very few people have not suffered the magical influence of organized religion on their developing childhood minds: 6000 year old Earth, Armageddon any day soon, their religion is right without question, etc (I am a believer in God)
      3.Very few people have been raised by their parents to be critical thinkers (Richard Feynman, the Einstein of the second half 20th C was a product of this)

      As a result, overwhelmingly, most peoples thought processes are still operating in discord with reality. How they perceive probability and risk is a classic case.

      The point is open-mindedness has limits set by logical scientific inquiry . These boundaries only remain whilst there is evidence for them. To dispense with those working hypothesis boundaries completely, encourages magical thinking and is anti-science. This is not to say the evidence for the boundary should not be questioned. As you have implied many times, evidence is king.

      • georgehants

        March 29, 2012 at 1:43 pm

        spacegoat, your reply is elegant, insightful and informed but very few people reading this page are able to absorb more the half a dozen words at a time, plus long explanations leave room for misunderstanding.
        My awareness of every point you make is high, but for understanding could we reduce to elementary debate.
        Please choose your subject, we must be careful as I do not wish Paul to think I am trying to diverge from Cold Fusion.
        I have made the point, fairly I think that scientific thinking is in error and that is what has led to the terrible situation with Cold Fusion.
        I ask his indulgence as if you and I can debate these subjects then it keeps it away from the rest of the page.
        Would a belief in God be a good start.

        • spacegoat

          March 29, 2012 at 1:53 pm

          There is nothing to preclude science from operating on inner phenomena. Science reduces to a method of objective verification by other minds. As long as that is present, science is too.
          Mathematics: The Bridge to an Integral Science of Experience

          • georgehants

            March 29, 2012 at 1:55 pm

            spacegoat. I am not intimidated with scientific bullshit.
            the subject is a belief in a God are you willing to debate or not.

          • spacegoat

            March 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm

            I assume you are not wishing to debate stories from organized religion.
            My true but short opinion on God is: Some believe and some do not, and no amount of intellectual inquiry can help with the whether to believe. However, experience lived does help.
            Sorry if that is BS to you.

          • Mahron - A4 B2

            March 29, 2012 at 2:58 pm

            God needs to be defined first. I find that in many debates, the core of the subject is not properly defined by both parties at the start, and that leads to a crappy discussion.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            March 29, 2012 at 3:07 pm

            Ideal science: set of falsifiable beliefs that are consistent with observations. Ideal religion: set of non-falsifiable beliefs that are consistent with observations.

          • spacegoat

            March 30, 2012 at 2:31 am

            “Ideal science: …Ideal religion.”
            Very interesting. But I think the dichotomy is explained by the magical thinking brain versus critical thinking. Being an environmental phenomenon, it could change in the future, such that most people adopt a scientific (as I defined earlier) approach to every question.

      • kwhilborn

        March 29, 2012 at 3:05 pm

        Judging a persons claims based on current science and human behavior is far from “wishful” thinking.

        I was early to believe Andrea Rossi for several reasons.

        A) He had been working for 4 years on this project with zero pay. He is a reknowned chemist if nothing else having been CEO of several companies one of which dealt with American President Jimmy Carter at the American White House, and sponsored a formula 3 race team. He also has working patents.

        B) He was pretty open about how it worked and came about. He was endorsed by Sergio Focardi among other great names in physics as having the real deal. He openly demonstrated the e-cat for a year, everyone attending demonstrations left satisfied it worked, but skeptics (and me) wanted more proof.

        C) He has moved his “production” to the U.S. where anti-fraud laws are more far reaching and stringent.

        D) Despite people saying he has investors I think he does not. He has never publicly asked for investment, and he might have got some of my money if he had sold shares.

        Common sense/Risk assessment/Human nature are far from belief in fantastical claims.

        Now we have LENR accepted worldwide. Ni-H LENR is replicated by at least 16 separate organizations, and 4-5 organizations claim they can control it.

        It looks like we were right to accept the claims of Andrea Rossi, although a pathoskeptic is what he/she is.

        • spacegoat

          March 30, 2012 at 2:49 am

          Any right thinking person hopes AR has the goods. Unfortunately many assertions can be knocked down:

          “He had been working for 4 years“
          What is the evidence?

          “He is a renowned chemist“
          What is the evidence?

          “having been CEO of several companies“
          Registering a company is no big deal. How many employees/turnover/legal problems were there?

          “with American President Jimmy Carter at the American White House
          What is the evidence he was at the White House and met J carter?

          “He also has working patents.“
          I know of the Italian LENR patent that most observers view as extremely weak. Maybe he also has some related to the thermocouple saga that failed?

          “endorsed by Sergio Focardi“
          A retired person. As already suggested by others, retired persons are not that concerned about their reputations any longer, and riding a potential new wave would be a great last blast for them.

          “He openly demonstrated the e-cat“
          Observations were closed except a few electrical and temperature measurements at a couple of positions. => Not open.

          “everyone attending demonstrations left satisfied it worked“
          Krivit and the Swede, significant observers, were not satisfied.

          “the U.S. where anti-fraud laws are more far reaching and stringent.“
          Maybe he is sick of legal trouble in Italy. He can move away from the US by plane anytime. The US has more speculative investors.

          “He has never publicly asked for investment“
          He explained in a Rossie Says communication that the license for Russia was still begging.

        • duecat

          April 1, 2012 at 5:40 am

          kwilborn_ Thank you for the refreshing post. Sure, People can yipp and yapp about “where’s the proof?” and jump up and down about fraud. I sometimes see their little red/inflamed faces as I retire for the day. I wonder, what drives people to think and write negative thoughts day in and day out. I like the way you cut through that crap and give your view. My thoughts on this issue were first formed by the strong evidence that LENR is real. In-spite of all the rant and rave to the contrary, my conviction that the phenomenon is real has only grown over the months of reading the bashing on this forum. Please keep up your common sense reality checks until we get some resolution relative to the big question of “proof” that there is now a workable machine ready for commercialization. This question should be resolved shortly. If we are disappointed that the commercialization of a LENR must wait for months or years, so be it. Some of us are patient.

  4. Jami

    March 29, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Does anybody here even understand what Iwamura is going on about? Probably very few. And if popeye takes the time and patience to lay it out – will more people understand it then? Probably not – but popeye will be ridiculed for spending the time in the first place with the usual “why do you do this? what’s your agenda? have you got nothing better to do?” In the end Daniel will post something like “So are you telling me that these wonderful scientists let a couple of Caesium atoms slip away undetected? Can’t be.”, george will say it needs massive funding as soon as all the scientists have found bigfoot and Tom will call us all pathoskeps.
    A waste of time – and it doesn’t even contribute to the “Hey, they claimed whole Watts of excess energy” pile. This hasn’t proven to be a good place for discussing decay patterns. But y’all have fun anyway.

    • georgehants

      March 29, 2012 at 1:14 pm

      Jami, you will be more respected if you stick to the Truth, I have advocated funding yes, but never as you accuse, “massive funding” I think the funding should be fluid in line with results and potential.

      • DvH

        March 29, 2012 at 2:16 pm

        if i would be nasty (i am not, of course) i would say: everything is fine with UFO research – current level of funding is fluid in line with the results.

        • georgehants

          March 29, 2012 at 2:18 pm

          DvH, we are giving spacegoat his chance, be patient if he bottles out you can be next in line for fair simple question and answer debate or will you bottle out to.

        • spacegoat

          March 29, 2012 at 2:22 pm

          Second, lets not irritate them by researching them. They might become nasty.

          • georgehants

            March 29, 2012 at 2:29 pm

            spacegoat, your constant attests to credited a subject with levity does not bode well for my request for an intelligent scientist but I will push forward with you and see how it develops.

    • Tom Baccei

      March 29, 2012 at 1:42 pm

      So Jami, you’ve got us all boxed in. Popeye will tell us what Iwamura means, you tell us what Popeye will do, you give our responses before we have a chance to do so ourselves. Gee, you sure are a whiz kid. For one thing I do not know why we should let Popeye tell us what Iwamura is “going on about”. His credentials and explanations are no more compelling than anyone else’s. The group of you who are endlessly skeptical have somehow appointed him the neutral “know all and See all” of the LEARN field. In my opinion he continually ducks the main salient issue of the large (and growing) number of credible researchers who report various anomalies not explained by current scientific dogma. He excuses ALL of them in basically one sentence – “the results are small, calorimetry (or measurement of transmutation or whatever) is very difficult, and these folks just keep making the same error of mistaking noise for signal.” Well, I for one, find that endlessly repeated accusation to be ludicrous on the face of it. To endlessly accuse a growing number of credible researchers as incompetent, based on his armchair, platonic musings is simply mad. But, I find that you already knowing he’ll go about discounting these claims even more hilarious!

      • spacegoat

        March 29, 2012 at 1:45 pm

        Great post and amusing too.

  5. AB

    March 29, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    I see the trolls are already at work. Before some of their nonsense sticks, let’s take an actual look at the paper:

    1) The spectrometer is built into the apparatus. The apparatus doesn’t have to be opened to perform spectrometry.
    2) Page 1 shows a graph with transmutation over time. The researchers are taking measurements as the experiment progresses.
    3) The same graph shows that as cesium atoms decrease in number, praseodymium atoms increase.
    4) The deuterium flux is towards the vacuum. The deuterium is not somehow drawing impurities from one chamber to the other.

    So let’s hear an actual explanation for how impurities could consistently create these results.

    • AB

      March 29, 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Regarding the “decay patterns” explanation put forth by Jami:

      1) Cesium-133 is a stable isotope. It’s not decaying.
      2) Praseodymium-141 is heavier than cesium-133.
      3) All of the transmuted elements described are heavier than their parent element.

      • Jami

        March 29, 2012 at 3:42 pm

        “Regarding the “decay patterns” explanation put forth by Jami:”

        Don’t be silly. You know full well that I’d be the last person who’d suspect a nuclear reaction playing any part in Iwamura’s observations. Decay pattern was just an example.

        • Ransompw

          March 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm

          But Jami aren’t you then admitting that for you theory is trumping observation which is an absolute NO NO for a scientist.

          • Jami

            March 29, 2012 at 5:04 pm

            No. I’m saying that Iwamura observed nothing like a nuclear reaction. The “decay pattern” was an example of things best not to discuss on a page like this. Not beacuse its not worth it or because people aren’t up to it but because the end of the discussion is clear (from my short experience on this blog) and going the tedious detour of scientific argument will only drag it out by a couple of posts.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      March 29, 2012 at 1:44 pm

      It crossed my mind that perhaps some impurities might diffuse along the hydrogen-filled Pd or Ni from the points where they are connected to something (support structure). I’m not claiming that this would explain transmutations, just a speculative mechanism that one should explain away at some point.

      • C M Edwards 9%

        March 29, 2012 at 2:36 pm

        It’s been my experience with Ni alloys that contamination like that only occurs on the surface of the immediate interface between the materials. It does not extend beyond the point of contact. Also, the species of interest are heavy metals with relatively high molecular weight. Their diffusion – if any – would be significantly slower than hydrogen.

        In that case, the extent of the contamination would not be sufficient to affect the result.

        Additionally, the result for one metal would not necessarily reflect the result for the other. The changes in Cesium concentration are in proportion to the changes in Praseodymium concentration. Contamination by diffusion or sputtering would not show a dependence. Nor would sensor drift.

        Mitsubishi’s result could be explained by a transmutation of cesium to praseodymium.

  6. spacegoat

    March 29, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    2009. “Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance,” Defense Analysis Report DIA-08-0911-003, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency

    Plenty of other references to transmutation here too from Russia, China, France, Ukraine, US.

    • spacegoat

      March 29, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      These citations by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency also weigh in on the side of a serious transmutation phenomena to be investigated.

  7. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    Bas Elshof
    Next scientific venue:
    “10th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals”
    10-14 April 2012 near Sienna.
    One of the organizers and sponsor is Francesco Piantelli and his company Nichenergy srl.

  8. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 2:09 pm

    From Facebook with thanks
    Rick Meisinger Here is the CERN reference: Scroll down to exploding wire experiments.

  9. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    spacegoat you said —-
    March 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm
    “I assume you are not wishing to debate stories from organized religion.
    My true but short opinion on God is: Some believe and some do not, and no amount of intellectual inquiry can help with the matter. However, experience lived does help.
    Sorry if that is BS to you.”

    I am assuming nothing, no facts are bullshit to me.
    You have not asked me a direct question so am I permitted to ask you one.
    A proviso of course is to be sure if the question is asking for Fact or Opinion.

    Can science in any way prove a creator does not exist.

    • spacegoat

      March 29, 2012 at 2:25 pm

      I think I answered that already. No. (disclaimer on all my postings: In My Opinion).
      It is postulated that consciousnesses is the fundamental substrate of the universe and physical matter/energy are a projection there from. If so, this higher dimensional level (that some call God) cannot be proved/disproved from a lower level.

      • georgehants

        March 29, 2012 at 2:31 pm

        spacegoat, sorry I can sometimes be very slow, would you mind repeating your answer for us.

        Can science in any way prove a creator does not exist.

        • spacegoat

          March 29, 2012 at 2:43 pm

          Second sentence of last post. Beginning with letter N and ending with o.

    • spacegoat

      March 29, 2012 at 2:42 pm

      ”no facts are bullshit to me”
      Scientific facts change according to evidence and ones understanding. A very amorphous situation.
      My question to you is: how to determine fact?
      Is it not by consensus and by reference to experts?
      UFOs is a subject that almost ranks as magical thinking. I have seen the youtube videos that abound. I have witnessed personally, scientifically speaking, a very close and strange moving object in the night sky. But until this phenomenon has a real impact I am uninterested in it as I am uninterested in Mayan predictions for 2012, for example. That is, not at all.
      A most interesting view on this subject comes from Paul Davies who suggest we look in the 98% of our junk DNA for coded messages.

      • georgehants

        March 29, 2012 at 2:46 pm

        spacegoat, I know everything of Paul Davies etc. and every other subject you mention which we can debate in time if you wish.
        Keep to the point and answer the bloody question. —
        Can science in any way prove a creator does not exist.

        Or admit you are incapable of posting without distortion and evasion then I can find somebody else willing to debate FACTS.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          March 29, 2012 at 3:19 pm

          George, he already answered your question and the answer was No.

          • georgehants

            March 29, 2012 at 3:24 pm

            Pekka, you are the quality of scientist I am looking for except you are in error, if he means NO then bloody well say No without all the bullshit around it.
            Would you like to debate science as regard to Cold Fusion and the connected philosophy of its understanding of what is science.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            March 29, 2012 at 3:31 pm

            George feel free to ask, I can try to answer. But spacegoat very clearly said NO, for some reason you didn’t see it.

  10. kwhilborn

    March 29, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    I didn’t think there were any LENR denouncers.

    Anybody who does not believe in LENR just needs their education updated as it is accepted worldwide and there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers and books that are also accepted. LENR is fact. There is not complete agreement as to what is causing LENR however. The excess heat is repeatable and well known.

    What is not fact is the ability to control it. We have 4 entities saying they can control LENR. Andrea Rossi, Defkalion, Dr George Miley, and now Brillouin.

    It is ONLY the ability to control the excess heat that is in question although there is not complete agreements as to what is going on during the LENR process.

    If LENR can be controlled the we have a very bright future.

    • Al Potenza

      March 29, 2012 at 4:05 pm

      We have four entities saying they can control LENR and that they can make lots of energy with it. The problem is that they have not proven those claims.

      Proof would lie in a strong and persuasive experiment, performed by independent scientists or organizations. We’ve been waiting more than a year for that and it hasn’t happened.

      • Ransompw

        March 29, 2012 at 4:36 pm


        The problem is if they do as you and others suggest and it is real, there will be hundreds making the claim in no time. As has been the case from the beginning, this is one fact that can point in either direction.

        • JNewman

          March 29, 2012 at 4:47 pm

          Of all the arguments made in this drama, that one makes me roll my eyes the most. So the people who chase after publicity for their LENR gadgets – posting videos, staging demonstrations, blogging, being interviewed, etc. – don’t want to prove that their stuff actually works because then everybody would be doing it too? If that seems plausible to you then we really don’t have enough logical common ground upon which to base a sensible discussion.

          • Ransompw

            March 29, 2012 at 5:58 pm


            Well, I think Rossi is beyond explaining, why he has done what he has done is difficult to explain from almost any angle in my opinion.

            As to the others, I think anyone in commercial product development is going to walk a tightrope between, no publicity and some publicity. In either case however, I think they would prefer the world in general doubt what they have is real or wonder, while confincing a few people they attract with their publicity.

        • Al Potenza

          March 29, 2012 at 5:00 pm

          I agree with J Newman’s remarks about this. I’d add two more thoughts.

          Protecting inventions isn’t a perfect discipline but patents generally do work pretty well.

          And independent testing of a high output LENR device properly can be done as a black box without revealing anything at all about how it works.

          You may argue that it’s simple and cheap to replicate Rossi without knowing what his secret sauce is but that clearly isn’t the case or we’d be awash in replicators already. Rossi can have his ecat tested and keep that sauce secret. Even monitoring radiation spectra wouldn’t give anything away because there isn’t supposed to be any external radiation. Finally, if Rossi has really sold 13 large machines, then the ecat is out of the bag anyway.

          So basically, there’s a huge cognitive dissonance between claiming that Rossi is keeping a low profile to avoid premature competition and observing what Rossi has already done. He’s been quite promiscuous in showing his ecat. The problem is that he won’t do or allow others to do definitive testing!

          • Ransompw

            March 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm


            Anyone with a product ready to sell is going to prove it. But anyone working to develop it is going to wait until their product is ready. They will only prove to a few if they are looking for financing.

      • GreenWin

        March 30, 2012 at 1:43 am

        We’ve also been waiting 60 years for hot fusion claims to produce something, anything that can be used to supply energy to the public that has paid 100s billions $$ for the R&D.

        The facts are hot fusion has made promises since 1951 and to date have not met those promises. Yet here we have the drumming of little fingers from pathoskeps demanding near-zero funded LENR science deliver “proof.”

        Eff that. I want “proof” that hot fusion will produce useable unity or better energy in 5 years. No? 10 years?? No? How bout 15 years?? Double standards confirm the inconsistent argument of pathos. IF they demand near term proof from LENR scientists – they must also from the hot fusion cartels.

        When that occurs, patho’s LENR complaints may carry ten cc of water. Okay 20.

  11. John Milstone

    March 29, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    Since evidence of transmutation is a clear sign of LENR, it’s a shame that the “detailed isotopic report” that Kullander promised would be available prior to Christmas 2011 still has not been made available. (LINK)

    Almost makes one think that they have something to hide.

    • Ransompw

      March 29, 2012 at 4:32 pm

      Maybe they do have something to hide, but as usual we can only guess both at whether they do and what it might be.

      • John Milstone

        March 29, 2012 at 4:37 pm

        Isn’t it funny how much of that is going on?

        One failed promise after another, and each time, we just shrug our shoulders and give them the benefit of the doubt.

        • Neil Taylor

          March 30, 2012 at 8:13 am

          Are you referring to both the hot and cold researchers as your statement could well apply to both camps…

          • John Milstone

            March 30, 2012 at 10:26 am


            Both are, so far, complete failures.

  12. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    From Wired.
    Teleportation Beams From Sci-Fi to Real Science
    Wired News
    In a paper published in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters, researchers showed information about a quantum state can be transported via teleportation, which they define as “a term from science fiction meaning to make a person or object …

  13. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Mahron – A4 B2 you said —
    “God needs to be defined first. I find that in many debates, the core of the subject is not properly defined by both parties at the start, and that leads to a crappy discussion.”

    Shortly when spacegoat proves himself to be a non-factual paper-tiger I will be looking for another INTELLIGENT scientist who preferably disagrees with me to show everybody what a fool I am.
    If spacegoat does not answer my simple question then perhaps you may take his place.

    • Mahron - A4 B2

      March 29, 2012 at 3:11 pm

      I am not a scientist and also no a believer. A “creator”, in the man in the sky sense, who would have created earth in six days is pretty much debunked at this stage though.(if that’s what you want to know)

      • georgehants

        March 29, 2012 at 3:15 pm

        Mahron – A4 B2, please be patient I only wish to debate with one highly intelligent scientist.
        I think spacegoat has done a runner but give him a chance.
        I do not want to dominate the page.
        One intelligent scientist willing to debate and show me up as a fool will do.

  14. Mahron - A4 B2

    March 29, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    Ce que je pense,
    Ce que je veux dire,
    Ce que je crois dire,
    Ce que je dis,
    Ce que vous avez envie d’entendre,
    Ce que vous croyez entendre,
    Ce que vous entendez,
    Ce que vous avez envie de comprendre,
    Ce que vous croyez comprendre,
    Ce que vous comprenez…
    il y a dix possibilités qu’on ait des difficultés à communiquer. Mais essayons quand même…”

    ― Bernard Werber, Encyclopedie Du Savoir Relatif Et Absolu

    • georgehants

      March 29, 2012 at 3:08 pm

      Mahron – A4 B2, In most cases keep to the Facts and communication is easy.
      Philosophy and Quantum Mechanics stretch my point to the limit.

    • Alain

      March 29, 2012 at 4:01 pm

      good, I try to translate (sorry for english speaking people):
      What I think,
      What I want to say,
      What I think I’m saying,
      What I say,
      What you want to hear,
      What you think you hear,
      What you hear,
      What you want to understand,
      What think you understand,
      What you understand,
      there are 10 possibilities that we have difficulties to communicate.
      Anyway,let’s try.

      the good point is that this quote let room for the Rational Denial that Roland Benabou use for his theory of group delusion, there clearly apply on denial of cold fusion.

  15. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Pekka Janhunen, you said
    “George feel free to ask, I can try to answer. But spacegoat very clearly said NO, for some reason you didn’t see it.”
    Pekka thank you, without all the clever rubbish can you confirm that factually science cannot say at this time that there is no creator.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      March 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm

      In principle science could say that there is no creator, provided that the creator is of such type that it can be showed. Because such a claim would in principle be falsifiable (by showing the creator), it could belong to science. But science cannot prove things correct, it can only prove them incorrect, so even if science would claim this, it would not be a proof. Usually one cannot prove a negative, an absence of something.

      • georgehants

        March 29, 2012 at 3:41 pm

        Pekka, thank you, but I am being scientific I do not wish your opinion in this case, I am asking, is it not a fact that science cannot prove the non-existence of a creator.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          March 29, 2012 at 3:50 pm

          In other words (reducing triple negation to single), is it a fact that science can prove the non-existence of a creator. Answer: no.

          • georgehants

            March 29, 2012 at 3:54 pm

            Pekka it is your turn to ask a question but I will continue until you ask.

            Is it therefore true that any scientist who advocates no creator such as DAWKins is only giving an opinion that means nothing in Fact.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            March 29, 2012 at 4:06 pm

            I don’t know Dawkings, but I think that it must be only an opinion of his. One remark: the context of that type of discussions varies a lot from country to country.

          • Johan Börjesson

            March 30, 2012 at 10:02 am


            Dawkins and other atheist doesn´t claim that science can prove the nonexistent of a God, neither do they claim to be 100% sure that there isn´t one.

            However, since there is no scientific reasons to believe that there is one and tons of logical arguments that there isn´t one, they can with an extremely high certainty (99.9999999%) say that there is no God that fits the description of the numerous religions there are in our history. They can never be 100% sure.
            Many atheists carelessly transforms this high certainty in discussions and says that there is no God.
            It is very rarely you find statements in scientific papers that are claimed to be 100% true. Words like indicate, very/most likely are often used.

        • Quax

          March 29, 2012 at 10:53 pm

          Ever since Kant’s “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” this issue has been conclusively settled.

          What’s the point in rehashing it.

          • dragon

            March 31, 2012 at 6:39 am

            Kant didn’t solved nothing in his little book. Death is the great proof that life on Earth is meaningless and with no real point unless there is a continuation after death.
            Since there is a continuation after death, then there must be rules after death. We are not made from chaos but from rules…once something is made from rules, then infinite rules exists all around us. Once rules exists, then a Ruler exists. And only one Ruler can be all powerful and always in control at any time. He is a Ruler from the beginning and he is not loosing the ability to control all the rules just because you, a puny little mass of rules are trying to take him out of his own equation.
            It is interesting how irrelevant all matter on Earth are if you consider that nobody on this forum (or in all history) can outlive his death sentence from this Unique Ruler.
            Your scientific rules or rational rules cannot defeat his barrier for your reason: death. After that you will ask him about his rules, but from a detainee point of view.

  16. JNewman

    March 29, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Spacegoat, you asked for me to weigh in on something or other here. I’ve read through today’s posts and am at a loss to figure out what is afoot. A lot of people seem to be riled up for mysterious reasons. You and George seem to be in some kind of argument about religion, the point of which keeps eluding me. Others have some sort of gripe about the Mitsubishi results, but it seems to be anger in advance of some future criticism which hasn’t even occurred. FInally, Kwhilborn is angry as usual because he is sure that LENR is already accepted as valid everywhere, Rossi is the real deal, and anybody who offers a contrary word is simply nuts. Given that background, I don’t think I can really add anything useful. It must be something in the air.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      March 29, 2012 at 4:07 pm

      No wonder the diversity since today’s topic is transmutation🙂

    • spacegoat

      March 30, 2012 at 3:04 am

      JNewman, weren’t you the poster with an interest in the psychology of the LENR debate? If so, I thought you might be interested in posting your view on the attraction of people to what I called magical thinking (defined above) and how that plays out with ecat believers.

  17. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 4:12 pm

    Pekka Janhunen, you said”
    “I don’t know Dawkings, but I think that it must be only an opinion of his.

    Then regardless of who he is, if he or any scientist writes books under a scientific mantle making out there is no creator do you think that is fraud if he does not explicitly make clear that his view is nothing but personal opinion and has no connection with science.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      March 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm

      I don’t think that writing a book qualifies as fraud, even if it contains a claim which is likely false: one can be wrong without being fraudulent.

      • georgehants

        March 29, 2012 at 4:22 pm

        Pekka , I am asking – if a scientist does not make very clear that he is only giving a personal opinion and attempts to imply that what he says is a scientific fact that would be construed as deception.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          March 29, 2012 at 4:23 pm

          I don’t know.

          • georgehants

            March 29, 2012 at 4:27 pm

            Pekka, thank you.
            Is their one intelligent scientist who wishes to debate Facts with me on Cold Fusion and science in general with simple question and answer points.

    • Mahron - A4 B2

      March 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm

      I may be wrong, but it seems you still did not define “creator”, which makes the exchange useless.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        March 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm

        I used an implicit definition that creator is something or someone that made the universe (thought of as the material universe, a multiverse or something else) as it is, either at one instant or in some more generalised way.

      • georgehants

        March 29, 2012 at 4:29 pm

        Mahron – A4 B2, the position of representative scientist to prove how daft I am seems to be open.
        Please proceed.

        • C M Edwards 9%

          March 29, 2012 at 7:32 pm

          You should take applications and give interviews, George.

      • Allen McCloud

        March 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm

        Here are the questions we need to ask in regards to religion or the belief in god/creator or whatever you want to call it.

        What do you believe?
        Why do you believe it?
        Provide evidence for that belief. (Hint: there is none)

        End of debate.

        It’s really that simple. 😉

        • georgehants

          March 29, 2012 at 4:52 pm

          Allen McCloud, are you volunteering to be the next scientist to try and debate facts with me.

      • DvH

        March 29, 2012 at 6:14 pm

        when things go philosophical like this we also need to define ‘fact’. topics/opinions/believs/effects georgehants insists as being TRUTH, COMMON SENSE and FACTS may not be seen like that by others.

  18. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Fusor Energy
    Fleischmann And Pons, The Forerunners Of What’s To Come With …
    The names of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons will forever be associated with the phenomenon now known as Low Energy Nuclear Fusion.

  19. Jami

    March 29, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Just in case this blog is still about LENR (if not about the ecat) rather than God, UFOs and the Loch Ness monster: David Kidwell from the Naval Research Laboratory presented his measurements on Iwamuras samples at ICCF-XV (and pretty much destroyed him). And of course there was a rebuttal by Iwamura. The documents can be found on NET.

  20. Shane D.

    March 29, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Interesting history on the transmutational aspects of LENR. I just read Krivits article from a a few years back: “Two decades of cold fusion”.

    To make a long story short; the cold fusion field languished until 2003 when Mitsubishi/ Iwamura, in a seminal event for the field (CF), reported transmutation of Pr… and also that Osaka University had replicated the results.

    NRL (Navy Research Lab) took notice and reactivated their dormant cold fusion research. NRL attained samples from the Mitsubishi experiment and confirmed transmutation.

    In 2005 NRL began an official collaboration with Mitsubishi and sent 3 scientists to Japan who observed another successful experiment.

    The NRL then brought in a scientist named Kidwell –who Krivits gives anecdotal evidence that he (Kidwell) is very biased against LENR– who then tests the same Mitsubishi sample, from another spot though, and reports there to be no transmutation.

    Then there is a 7 year gap until the recent CERN LENR colloquium where Mitsubishi reports again transmutation of Pr and that now Toyota confirms.

    The article last week that started this says Mitsubishi is a “newcomer” to the debate, however it appears they have been deeply involved for quite a long time, as Jami pointed out to me a few days back.

    As Admin says; it will be interesting to see the skeptics here try and find some flaws with this one. Unlike the “lab in the garage” experiments that some here have been able to pick apart, we are talking here about a highly disciplined, very talented, well equiped, well funded organization reporting transmutation. And equally important, these results are being confirmed by others of the same caliber.

    • Jami

      March 29, 2012 at 4:43 pm

      I agree as far as lending credibility to Mitsubishi goes as opposed to some garage experiment. However Iwamura’s rebuttal to Kidwell’s damning measurements was rather lame, I thought. Krivit, of course, attacked Kidwell for being a non believer and nobody can rule out bias – but in scientific terms, all Iwamura himself had to say against Kidwell was, that he either couldn’t make any sense of the discepancies or claimed having measured other concentrations in other experiments which weren’t controlled by NRL. Iwamura, afaik, didn’t work on LENR again until last year when he quit his job in response to the Fukujima catastrophe and tried to bring his decontamination technology to use. Whether or not that was really tried, I do not know.

        • Shane D.

          March 29, 2012 at 5:38 pm

          Kidwell relies heavily on lab dust contaminating the samples in refuting Iwamuras transmutation claims. In reply Iwamura claims to have washed the hell out of the samples and no way they were contaminated, plus he had control samples.

          All that exchange revolves around that same sample back in 2003 I suppose. Since then, I’m sure MHI (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries), and now Toyota, in the year 2011, would have become more strident in ruling out contamination, just so that someone can’t casually dismiss their results as due to mere contamination like Kidwell did.

          Iwamura made an interesting observation back in 2011 about the reproducibility of LENR experiments:

          “I want to comment on the reproducibility of my experiment and experiments in the field. Cold fusion tends to be thought of as being simple. But the experiments are very complicated. When we perform the experiments in our laboratories, almost every time we get positive results. If we go to another university or institution, we don’t
          get the same rate of reproducibility. Why? Because we don’t understand all the conditions. We should investigate factors about the conditions. It is tough work. Experiments are important. I hope many researchers join this field.”

      • AB

        March 29, 2012 at 5:25 pm

        all Iwamura himself had to say against Kidwell was, that he either couldn’t make any sense of the discepancies or claimed having measured other concentrations in other experiments which weren’t controlled by NRL.


        That’s not what the rebuttal actually says.

        Iwamura says he never gets Pr in non-permeated samples. So it is not an external contamination.

        He then addresses internal contamination, that is, possible migration of existent Pr inside the metal, caused by deuterium flux. He says that he cannot find Pr deeper inside the metal. It’s only found on the surface after permeation.

        Furthermore, the Pr is found in localized spots. If Pr migrates easily under deuterium flux as suggested by Kidwell, why is it localized and not spread out?

        • Shane D.

          March 29, 2012 at 5:55 pm


          Kidwell attributes that to “lucky tweezers” by the MHI technician who drew the experiment sample and then Kidwell hints at impropriety by mentioning that the tech left MHI afterwards.

          Very insulting if I read that right.

          • popeye

            March 31, 2012 at 8:25 pm

            Shane D. on March 29, 2012 at 5:55 pm:

            Kidwell attributes that to “lucky tweezers” by the MHI technician who drew the experiment sample and then Kidwell hints at impropriety by mentioning that the tech left MHI afterwards.
            Very insulting if I read that right.

            This seems to be the latest rebuttal to all criticism of cold fusion evidence. “Insulting.” As if we should accept a revolutionary result, even if we’re not convinced by the evidence, because not to do so might hurt someone’s feelings. It’s important to be polite of course, but being rational is more important. And yes, lucky tweezers is a rational possibility; many would say far more plausible than the sort of transmutations being claimed.

        • Jami

          March 29, 2012 at 6:12 pm

          “Iwamura says he never gets Pr in non-permeated samples.”

          Yes – but NRL actually confirms that. The puzzling part is, that NRL couldn’t extract Pr from any sample when they did it themselves at NRL. How does that rule out contamination?

    • Jay2011

      March 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm

      Thanks everyone for the various links to the MHI research and for jogging my memory regarding various replications.

      This is a great example of why experimental physics can be really hard. My impression of Iwamura’s work from several years ago was very positive. Going back to his papers, the first I could find was in 1996. The last was in 2005. These MHI slides presented at CERN seem to be referencing the 2005 work.

      For me, Iwamura seemed to approach his experiment with the same level of professionalism and rigor that I would expect from a high energy physics experiment. At face value, it seems like a nearly perfect experiment. The results are reproducible, CS concentration goes down over time and Pr goes up as a function of time. Both x-ray fluorescence and mass spectroscopy are used. There appear to be good control experiments, i.e. without the CaO/Pd layering there is no Pr, and if H2 is substituted for D2 there is no Pr. MHI also tried the experiments with other isotopes and found similar results, including anomalies in the isotopic abundance of the transmuted element.

      Finally, there were corroborations, including Osaka University:

      If anyone has links to publications of the Toyota replication, I’d be interested to see it.

      So, given all this, what could possibly go wrong? Kidwell suggests lab contamination, but that hypothesis is difficult to reconcile with the control experiments that showed no contamination.

      Nevertheless, NRL found no Pr on the lower 2/3 sample where MHI found Pr on the upper 1/3. That’s very puzzling, especially since MHI also looked at spatial distributions of the Pr and found hot spots all over the samples.

      I’m not an expert in trace element analysis. SIMS and other MS types of analysis can yield false positives due to ion cluster events. I don’t know what types of errors show up with X-ray fluorescence techniques. Osaka U also used NAA, which is less prone to false positives and can also point out isotopic abundance anomalies. However, the Osaka replication did not approach the level of rigor of the MHI experiments. No control experiments, at least not in the paper I linked to, and not even a “before” and “after” log of the Pr abundance.

      Finally, why did Iwamura not continue his research?

      What can we conclude from all of this? That science is hard, and even the best looking experimental results may be subject to different interpretations. In this case, there is no interpretation put forth by either MHI or Kidwell that doesn’t run into some difficulty. Iwamura and MHI clearly put a lot of time, effort and expense into this set of experiments. I believe their data is very interesting and suggestive, and worthy of an independent look despite NRL’s negative assessment. Unfortunately, it’s not easy to pull off a replication with the same level of professionalism. But I would like to see Osaka U or another university have another go at this one.

      • Tom Baccei

        March 29, 2012 at 10:32 pm

        Thanks to all regarding Iwamura’s research and the challenges to his results by NRL. In my opinion Jay2011 has written the best discussion of difficult, but potentially important experiment I have seen on this blog. Something for the skeptics, but not a rebuke of the experiment itself or the researcher. I appreciate being told again just how difficult these efforts can be, and that arriving at solid and reproducible evidence is no simple matter. Thanks.

      • AB

        March 29, 2012 at 10:45 pm

        Nevertheless, NRL found no Pr on the lower 2/3 sample where MHI found Pr on the upper 1/3. That’s very puzzling, especially since MHI also looked at spatial distributions of the Pr and found hot spots all over the samples.

        I don’t understand why you say this is puzzling?

        You’re saying that Pr was found on and near the Cs coated surface but not deeper inside, right? LENR is generally regarded as a surface phenomenon so this would be consistent. That no Pr was found inside the sample seems to support the transmutation over the migration theory also.

        • Jay2011

          March 30, 2012 at 12:11 am

          No, I mean its puzzling because Iwamura gave NRL the lower 2/3 piece of a sample for which he (Iwamura) had already measured PR on the surface. But on the piece given to NRL, NRL found no PR either on the surface, or further into the sample (at least, that’s how I read Kidwell’s presentation).

          There are at least three ways to resolve this seeming contradiction: 1) Iwamura’s measurement was wrong, either because his piece of the sample got contaminated or because he measured a false positive for PR, 2) NRL’s measurement was wrong, or 3) both measurements were correct but for some very odd reason only the top 1/3 of the sample (Iwamura’s piece) experienced the transmutation effect. NRL would claim the first option, but that’s not indisputable.

          • Jay2011

            March 30, 2012 at 12:19 am

            Sorry, I now understand the confusion. By top 1/3 and lower 2/3, I meant that the circular sample was cut into two pieces, with 1/3 of the circle retained by Iwamura and 2/3 given to NRL. I didn’t mean that the sample was sliced depth-wise with Iwamura keeping the surface piece.

          • Jay2011

            March 30, 2012 at 12:31 am

            I had some trouble editing the above. To clarify still further, the only reason I used “top” and “bottom” was because that was how the sample and the slicing was oriented in Kidwell’s presentation. I didn’t mean “top” to imply “surface”. My bad use of language.

      • GreenWin

        March 30, 2012 at 7:15 am

        Thanks for this review Jay. Very helpful.

  21. georgehants

    March 29, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    Well thats me done for the day – again.
    If any scientist would like to apply to debate facts of science with me that would be very good, in the morning.
    Is it beginning to sink in that science is built on myth and religion and Dogma, no scientist can survive more than a few minutes debating in simple question and answer debate, reality.

    • Mahron - A4 B2

      March 29, 2012 at 5:23 pm

      What the question again ? 🙂

  22. Al Potenza

    March 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    This forum is disturbingly deteriorating largely due to completely irrelevant and entirely off subject posts mostly by one person.

    Maybe there’s another place he could go to discuss the inequities of science in general and the other metaphysical subjects which seem to interest him.

    Meanwhile, the industrial newsletter Macrotrends has decided that Rossi’s claims aren’t real:

    • Shane D.

      March 29, 2012 at 6:05 pm

      Agree. He has been on a tear lately.

      Certainly, as you suggest, there are more suitable forums for his talents.

    • Ransompw

      March 29, 2012 at 6:19 pm

      That’s actually pretty funny. Krivit is a hoot. So he published something which would prove he is having a negative effect on Rossi and acknowledges his goal of preventing investment in Rossi. The thing that will save Krivit if Rossi pulls a rabbit out of his hat and really introduces a LENR product, is that he almost certainly doesn’t have any money of substance to make legal attempts worthwhile.

      • Al Potenza

        March 29, 2012 at 6:43 pm

        If Rossi has an LENR product, he will be rich beyond imagination. What would be the point in prosecuting a small fry?

        On the other hand, if Rossi doesn’t have an LENR product and is scamming investors, Krivit’s dogged pursuit of the facts and careful analysis of data and videos may have saved investors millions of dollars.

        Personally, I find the scam scenario much more credible at this point in time for all the reasons clearly enumerated in the link from Macrotrends’ editor provided by Krivit.

        It’s almost time for the long awaited independent tests of Defkalion technology to show some results. Anyone think that will happen? They said the same thing last June except that their expected date to deliver results was then “fourth quarter of 2011”.

        • Ransompw

          March 29, 2012 at 7:02 pm

          I agree, but if he is indeed rich, he could out of spite make Krivit’s life a legal hell. Seems petty but who knows.

          As to Defkalion, If nothing in April I’ll stop looking for it.

          I still think Rossi likely has a LENR reactor, so I don’t think he is just fabricating a scam. Of course that isn’t based on too much other then some likely overunity on some of the demos. So to me, it is more likely he had an O/I of 2/1 or 3/1 and thought with time he’d have a commercial product but hasn’t been able to succeed.

          • Al Potenza

            March 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm

            So you think he made the greatest scientific discovery in recent memory and because it can’t be immediately commercialized, he is going to sit on it? I find that doubtful behavior, even for Rossi.

            If Rossi has made LENR work at kilowatt levels, even for a few hours, even erratically, it’s a tremendous achievement, probably worthy of a Nobel prize. He would be acclaimed. He would get rich just on the consulting and speaking fees. And his secret sauce would be wanted by everyone. Thousands of labs would want to get their hands on the process to improve it.

            If Rossi could make kilowatts from LENR and it could be independently tested and proven, he could be rich and famous almost instantly.

            It’s ridiculous to assume that he has to sell product to get rich. Look at what happened to fame and fortune for Jonas Salk when he discovered the polio vaccine. And he deliberately never took a penny of royalties or any other direct benefit of sales and of course, never sold a thing himself.

          • spacegoat

            March 30, 2012 at 3:53 am

            Al Potenza

            “It’s ridiculous to assume that he has to sell product to get rich.”

            This is my over riding sentiment all along.
            But as Lu pointed out, AR appears to want to better Bill Gates for whom he has displayed admiration more than once.

            So (assuming it is not a scam) the world burns whilst AR pursues his richest man in the world dream.

            And that burning may get nuclear this year in the middle east over energy wars.

    • daniel maris

      March 30, 2012 at 1:40 am

      He’s “decided” nothing:

      “I am still open for proof to the contrary but have become highly skeptical about Rossi’s E-Cat project. ”

      I’ve become highly sceptical about Rossi’s E-Cat project – doesn’t mean I’ve “decided” his claims aren’t real.

    • spacegoat

      March 30, 2012 at 3:29 am

      Al Potenza
      Thanks for the link
      The Macrotrends letter to NET is well written ans solid.

      I only take issue with point 6
      “The outrageously low prices for the machine and the fact that Rossi wants to produce them immediately in the millions for worldwide delivery­ seem void of business reality.”

      Correct, conventional business reality would indicate this. However usurping the whole energy sector requires different strategy.

  23. Mahron - A4 B2

    March 29, 2012 at 6:38 pm

    So lets be clear.

    1) Mitsubishi lab is transmuting stuff.
    2) Transmutation at room temperature is impossible according to current science.
    3) Almost no one is talking about it.

    Is this about right ?

    • Al Potenza

      March 29, 2012 at 6:45 pm

      Talking about it won’t help. Replication by a major lab or university followed by peer reviewed publication in a mainline journal like Science or Nature would.

      • Ransompw

        March 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm


        How does replication happen if all major labs or Universities say it is impossible so why bother. The problem I see is that as a result of Pons and Fleischmann and the events of 1989, what would normally happen just doesn’t happen in this area. Occasionally but not often and for the most part not recently.

        • Al Potenza

          March 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm

          I bet you could get a graduate student interested in it. Graduate students, not to be cynical, can be persuaded to try almost anything. And a negative report would be just as publishable as a positive one. It would also help if Mitsubishi or Toyota would fund a small replication program. That shouldn’t cost too much.

          If *all* labs and *all* graduate students and everybody who can do that sort of work doesn’t want to try it, you might ask yourself if it’s really worthwhile. Maybe you are reading too much into the positive results you’ve seen. If NOBODY else who can test it out wants to try, maybe it’s not as good a set of evidence as you think.

          Personally, I don’t know. I’ve not looked at it yet and I am not sure I want to. So many things and so little time.

          • Ransompw

            March 29, 2012 at 10:47 pm

            Herd mentality is really something we all should try to avoid.

        • John Milstone

          March 29, 2012 at 7:25 pm

          When your leading practitioners behave like con men (whether they are or not), and the “runner-ups” are doing as poor a job as Swartz and Miley, it’s no wonder that the mainstream community is ignoring them.

          Miley’s tease about being able to produce 350 Watts well enough and long enough to be used as a battery for space probes would be sufficient to bring all sorts of academic attention to the subject.

          But Miley appears to be AWOL (again).

          • Barking Monkey

            March 29, 2012 at 9:01 pm

            Well, to be more precise, it’s the people who may have attended his recent presentation and blogged/tweeted/whatever about it who are AWOL. Suspicious of LENR I may be, but piling on the guy for not reporting on his own report (presentation) seems a little harsh and somewhat disingenuous.

          • Ivy Matt

            March 29, 2012 at 10:10 pm

            Right. To be fair, I haven’t been able to find anything about the conference after the fact, apart from a couple of videos which didn’t, from what I could tell, include a presentation by George Miley. A pity, as I was rather interested in Dr. Miley’s presentation on the Helicon Injected Inertial Plasma Electrostatic Rocket.

          • John Milstone

            March 29, 2012 at 10:21 pm

            Of course, Miley was a no-show at another conference earlier this year, so there is precedent.

          • GreenWin

            March 30, 2012 at 4:47 pm

            The entire conference appears to be a NO SHOW. So much for the American Nuke Society – pathetic joke.

        • popeye

          March 31, 2012 at 8:19 pm

          Ransompw on March 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm:

          How does replication happen if all major labs or Universities say it is impossible so why bother.

          Not all major labs and universities say that though. Hagelstein at MIT doesn’t; Duncan at Missouri doesn’t; Kim at Purdue doesn’t; NASA, NRL, DIA don’t; lots of Japanese and Italian and Indian academics don’t. So that’s how replication could happen.

          And if it doesn’t happen because they think it’s impossible or highly remote, and they continue to think that after the evidence is made public, then (as someone has already argued) that is their judgment on the quality of evidence of the experiment.

          The problem I see is that as a result of Pons and Fleischmann and the events of 1989, what would normally happen just doesn’t happen in this area.

          Or, what happened in 1989 happened *because* the evidence was weak, the evidence is not weak because of what happened in 1989.

          Occasionally but not often and for the most part not recently.

          Wait. Sometimes the argument is that progress is accelerating, that more people are getting involved. Other times it is that less is happening recently. I guess it depends which way the wind blows.

      • GreenWin

        March 30, 2012 at 2:15 am

        Living in the past Al. Humanities and Science are dumping bottle-necks in old school journals:

        “…humanities scholars have begun to challenge the monopoly that peer review has on admission to career-making journals and, as a consequence, to the charmed circle of tenured academe. They argue that in an era of digital media there is a better way to assess the quality of work. Instead of relying on a few experts selected by leading publications, they advocate using the Internet to expose scholarly thinking to the swift collective judgment of a much broader interested audience.”

        “The current peer review system in which journal editors send potentially publishable manuscripts to experts for review is hotly debated. Many scientists complain that the system is slow, inefficient, of variable quality, and prone to favoritism.

        Moreover, there’s growing resentment in some quarters about being asked to take valuable time to provide free reviews to journals that are operated by for-profit publishers or that don’t make their papers open-access. “

        “Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.”
        Arthur Schopenhauer

        • popeye

          March 31, 2012 at 8:16 pm

          GreenWin on March 30, 2012 at 2:15 am:

          “…humanities scholars have begun to challenge the monopoly that peer review […]”
          “[…] Many scientists complain that the system is slow, inefficient, of variable quality, and prone to favoritism.[…]

          There is certainly some truth in the criticisms you quoted, but though imperfect, nothing in those quotes suggests that the peer review system is responsible for the failure of people to get good evidence for cold fusion.

    • Quax

      March 29, 2012 at 11:06 pm

      Transmutation at room temperature can be achieved with slow neutrons.

    • GreenWin

      March 30, 2012 at 3:04 am

      Mahron, don’t force these guys to think.

    • popeye

      March 31, 2012 at 8:21 pm

      Mahron – A4 B2 on March 29, 2012 at 6:38 pm:

      So lets be clear.
      1) Mitsubishi lab is transmuting stuff.
2) Transmutation at room temperature is impossible according to current science.
3) Almost no one is talking about it.
      Is this about right ?

      Nope. That’s zero for three.

      1) Mitsubishi is *claiming* to be transmuting stuff. It didn’t seem to convince Hagelstein and McKubre or the DOE panel, and Kidwell seems to challenge the results.

      2) Transmutation at room temperature happens all the time.

      3) It was presented at a CERN colloquium that was broadcast on-line, presented at several recent conferences, written up in conference proceedings, and is the subject of discussion on several blogs. All this in spite of the fact that nearly all the results are between 5 and 10 years old.

  24. Pekka Janhunen

    March 29, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    JNewman said “So the people who chase after publicity for their LENR gadgets – posting videos, staging demonstrations, blogging, being interviewed, etc. – don’t want to prove that their stuff actually works because then everybody would be doing it too? If that seems plausible to you then we really don’t have enough logical common ground upon which to base a sensible discussion…”

    At the risk of losing common ground: yes, that indeed is plausible and natural. The motivation for the demos is to leave a mark in history for later moral (and if possible, formal) priority and a “life insurance” for the invention. If the inventor would be completely silent, the invention would disappear if something would happen to him, and in another scenario he would be left without historical recognition if someone else would invent it later but go public sooner. Concerning a fully convincing demonstration, the inventor-businessman needs to do it only if he otherwise can’t get his selling permissions or enough paying customers.

    • Methusela

      March 29, 2012 at 9:06 pm

      Come now John, no comments on the article yet?

      • John Milstone

        March 29, 2012 at 9:22 pm

        One quote caught my attention:

        Andrea Rossi: The 1MW units can be assembled at a reduced size of 10ft x 8ft x 8ft, and can then be stacked in series or parallel to produce the necessary power. It will cost $1000/MW.

        Last I heard, he was supposedly selling those for $2 million. Now, it’s $1000.

        I’m pretty sure that the shipping container costs considerably more than $1000.

        More Rossi B.S.

        • Mahron - A4 B2

          March 29, 2012 at 9:39 pm

          1000 is pretty cheap. Imagine all houses having a 1MW output lol. Must be a typo.

        • SH

          March 29, 2012 at 9:44 pm

          This is what you got out of the interview??

          This is obviously a typo, John!

          More Milstone B.S.

          • John Milstone

            March 29, 2012 at 9:51 pm

            SH, if they got that direct quote wrong, why should we believe anything else in the article?

            Either Rossi is spewing B.S., or the author and publisher of the article couldn’t get their facts straight.

            There is no other option.

          • John Milstone

            March 29, 2012 at 10:17 pm

            Well, aside from the obvious typo, there isn’t any actual content.

            Lots of “Rossi says” and absolutely no evidence of it being real.

            Why would you think that some puff-piece, typo-filled article in a trade rag would convince anyone of anything?

            They have pages to fill. They’ll fill it with anything remotely related to the industry. They certainly aren’t doing any fact-checking (or proof-reading, apparently).

          • SH

            March 29, 2012 at 10:33 pm


            Thats a little harsh isn’t it? Journalists mess up details all the time. And this one was obvious because the idea that ARs megawatt gadget has dropped from $1500/KILOw to $1000/MEGAw! In a few months is absolutely nonsense.

            Don’t you agree? That was actually quite obvious wasn’t it?

            Especially when the same guy, AR, states in the same interview that his 10kw homekittens will cost around $900.

            $100 more? get a megawatt instead! Its the freaking deal of the freaking century! 990kw for $100!

            Pisses me off that i have to write about this nonsense. Think about it, John. We could have actually done something useful and maybe even helpful to others in the time we spent having this completely useless conversation.

            Its a waste of time, stop being so negative all the time!

          • SH

            March 29, 2012 at 10:44 pm

            “Why would you think that some puff-piece, typo-filled article in a trade rag would convince anyone of anything?

            They have pages to fill. They’ll fill it with anything remotely related to the industry. They certainly aren’t doing any fact-checking (or proof-reading, apparently).”

            And while i was replying to you even more negative crap emerges! I am amazed!

        • Shane D.

          March 29, 2012 at 10:27 pm

          Later he says:

          “Andrea Rossi: The domestic 10KW unit will cost around $900, the 1MW plant $1.5m. Both are totally different technologies”

    • Ivy Matt

      March 29, 2012 at 10:16 pm

      We are very close to completing a 1MW plant in the US which will soon be opened to the public.

      I suppose that’s worth quoting, even if “soon” isn’t quite as definite as, say, “the end of October”, or even “some point next winter”. I expect he will be asked to clarify the meaning of “soon” on JoNP.

    • Lu

      March 29, 2012 at 11:34 pm

      The interviewer seemed to know his stuff. Much if not all of the information from Rossi has been heard before.

      He repeats the NI FUSES with H to form CU and that GAMMA RAYS are emitted and absorbed by a lead shield to produce heat.

      He mentions he is “working with Siemens” which hopefully is more than what he did with National Instruments. $10/MWh from this system is $.01/kWh which is good.

      He says development (and production?) is being self-financed but last we heard Leonardo Corp is now owned by a Trust. This is a big disconnect.

      A 1MW plant will soon be open to the public in the US. We’ve heard that a 1MW plant will be public so it is good to see this mentioned again. Only 14 1MW plants have been ordered and Rossi is “consolidating” before “expanding.”

      The domestic 10kW E-Cat is now up to $900 and the 1MW unit $1.5M (15x more expensive per kW) and he keeps insisting that the technologies between the 10KW unit and the 1MW unit are “totally different technologies.”

      Power output from the home E-Cat may be modulated 100% whatever that implies for power input. Surprisingly after payback consumers should save 66% from the energy bill which is a 3 to 1 savings and not the expected 6 to 1 savings.

      These are the comments from the interview that made an impression on me.

      Oh one more: “Like myself, Focardi is a man of few words.” Too funny.

  25. JNewman

    March 29, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    Perhaps all the talk about religion is not so far off-base. In many ways, Rossi fanhood is a faith-based enterprise. The facts don’t provide much support. If your baseline belief is that the ecat is real, then everything else must simply be adjusted or rationalized in order to keep the faith. The real difference is that with God, there is no end game. People either keep God in their lives or they don’t. They are not waiting for something to happen (rapture aficionados notwithstanding.). The question is, for how long will people keep Rossi faith in their lives? We shall see.

    • Tom Baccei

      March 29, 2012 at 10:39 pm

      We will hold a pew open for you. Even the atheists should have a place at the celebration when the long dark tunnel has been transited, and Rossi emerges as the Pope of Power. He could as well end up the Mayor of Jonestown for all that. No one but a very desperate pilgrim, or wavering skeptic holds on to him so much. Can we all move on past Rossi?

      • lenrman

        March 29, 2012 at 11:36 pm

        Yup lets now switch to Brillouin Energy.

        They have a very long interview avail as an mp3 (very long).
        In a nutshell they are saying …

        1) “We too have a LENR device but we are convinced works better than Rossi’s & Defkalion”

        2) “We are not claiming quite the large COP that these others do”

        3) “We understand how to control it – they don’t (referring to Rossi & Defkalion)
        4) “We just need a few more $millions to perfect this”

        5) “Big energy investors only ever ask 1 thing “have you got a patent” & “what is in your patent”

        6) “When we did apply to the USPTO for a patent. the person allocated to review it told us he had been directed not to grant any patents for cold fusion.”

        Only time will tell if they have a useful device but they appear to me to be stepping forward because they see Rossi & Defkalion getting some attention & they resent the apparent money those companies appear to be attracting when they are struggling to get relatively small $s.

        But am sure many have seen this 60 Minutes report. It is worth viewing as many others here have already said.

        (PS: A believer in LENR but with no faith whatsoever in Rossi’s circus)

        • spacegoat

          March 30, 2012 at 4:12 am

          regarding Brillouin Energy’s catch22. How about crowd funding ?

          “The Cosmonaut is another landmark example of crowd funding ..raised €130,000 within only a week. Throughout the time, the film has raised a total sum of €300,000 by means of crowd funding”

          Are there 100 000 people worldwide to risk 20 dollars?

          • lenrman

            March 30, 2012 at 4:36 am

            Spacegoat – I think these guys are credible enough to deserve it.

            How does a program like crowdfunding get kicked off ?


      • spacegoat

        March 30, 2012 at 4:05 am

        Fantastic. Pope of Power.

    • spacegoat

      March 30, 2012 at 4:03 am

      Finally you picked up on the connection with God and magical thinking. 🙂
      Wasn’t psychology your primary interest in this site?

      • JNewman

        March 30, 2012 at 7:17 am

        Spacegoat, I knew what you were on about but I didn’t want to get in the middle of your dance with George. But I do like the idea of a Pope of Power. After all, it would be great to have an infallible energy source.

  26. Dick Smith

    March 29, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    Al. Let’s have bets on what excuse Defkalion will give when no positive test results appear?

    The dog ate the results?

    Skeptical people have created so much negativity that the tests failed?

    We are not interested in showmanship-tests are not important – you can purchase one of the units.

    All the Government testers involved insisted on NDAs that also meant the results must be kept secret!

    Look forward to some more ideas so we are not surprised.

    • Al Potenza

      March 29, 2012 at 11:31 pm

      If Defkalion does like Steorn, the most likely response will be that the clients were very satisfied but in order to maintain their competitive edge, they decline to release results or be interviewed at this time. Defkalion will make an announcement when results and interviews will be available, probably by the fourth quarter of 2012. Or 2014.

      Another Steorn habit was long periods of silence. This became easier once they closed their public forum, something Defkalion also did.

    • Ransompw

      March 29, 2012 at 11:34 pm


      Just in case tests are published and Defkalion and Rossi introduce LENR devices that work, what will be your excuse for being wrong? I know there is 0% chance of that happening, but just in case I think you should let us know.

      I suppose it is your vast experience with scams of this type which based on the evidence led to only one possible conclusion which couldn’t have been wrong had the Aliens not interferred and given Rossi and Defkalion the technology, or

      Your otherwise infallible business acumen didn’t work because you had a cold, or

      The coin you usually flip (which always has the right answer) got stolen and your new one obviously doesn’t work as well.

      Just wondering.

      • SH

        March 30, 2012 at 12:12 am

        The higher they climb…

    • Shane D.

      March 29, 2012 at 11:35 pm

      Maybe it’ll be some unique excuse like this just posted over on Sterlings site:

      S. Africa Company Discovers Problems in Alpha Testing their Fuel Free Generator

      The South Africa company, which has developed the 5 kilowatt Fuel Free Generator, has discovered that the batteries’ longevity is significantly effected by the process. Until that is resolved, the company will not feel comfortable releasing the product to customers, so it’s back to the drawing board.

      • John Milstone

        March 30, 2012 at 12:31 am

        Gee, their perpetual motion device doesn’t actually work?

        I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

  27. Shane D.

    March 29, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    This is all getting so strange; first Brian Ahern canceled his appearance Dec. 7th 2011 in which advance billing was just near short of fantastical. Remember this:


    LENR “Cold Fusion” nano-magnetism phenomenon details to be revealed December 7th in NYC

    November 14, 2011 Chris Houts 7

    Based upon evidence verified by our network of scientific leaders, as well as a definitive explanation of the “mystery” behind how and why LENR works; we are announcing the credibility and feasibility of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, often incorrectly labeled ”Cold Fusion.”

    Brian Ahern received his PhD in material science from MIT, holds 26 patents and was a senior scientist for 17 years in research and development at USAF Rome Lab at Hanscom Air Force Base. Ahern was the U.S. Air Force’s expert on nano-materials. Ahern has discovered the LENR phenomenon is occurring on the nanoscale and involves a formerly misunderstood and rarely explored attribute of nano-magnetism.

    Apparently, energy localization at the nano-scale circumvents the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Nature evolved to take advantage of these energy exchange mechanisms available only at this size scale (which is why ordered structures can be created from chaos, such as after the big bang.) This phenomenon was identified in 1996 as Oscillons in relation to Chaos Theory, but has never been clearly understood until now.

    Ahern states ” In 1995 we made a major and fundamental discovery regarding nano-material properties. This almost completely unknown to most technologists. All materials processed within certain tolerances experience very different vibrational modes than all other aggregations of matter. IT PROVIDES A CONCISE EXPLANATION FOR THE BIOENERGETICS OBSERVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF NATURE.”

    Brian explained this to Akito Takahashi working to replicate the LENR experiments of Yashiaki Arata in early 2009 and he succeeded immediately. Ahern has been funded for 2.5 years to replicate Arata and then push on towards Piantelli. Ahern has also been guiding George Miley’s group at UIUC on this nanotechnology, and the group seems to be enjoying a great deal of success in the month on October.

    It also appears that the phenomenon may account for and explains a persistent mystery regarding the unification of physics.

    Ahern states “In the last 8 weeks I have been astounded by a superior nanotechnology that will capture the imagination of even the greatest foes of LENR. I believe all of LENR is just a new and unanticipated form of nanomagnetism.”

    Source: Citi5 (

    Then nothing. No follow up, no explanation whatsoever. Ahern disappears off the face of the earth.

    Now Miley makes a splash and then disappears also.

    Maybe we should have that talk with George about UFOs after all?… it’s the only explanation that fits.

    • Robert L

      March 30, 2012 at 6:20 pm

      Ahern and Miley going quiet is interesting isn’t it? Possible scenarios:
      1/ With further checking they found errors in their initially positive results – very few people would be willing to stand up and report on that.
      2/ They were successful but commercial or legal pressures led to them having to go quiet, (eg someone waved a lot of money at them to develop it commercially). Most probably still working on it in that case.

      Until they surface again we don’t have any way to judge which is more likely

  28. NH

    March 29, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    I thought Shane D.’s link was interesting because of the mention within the comments of that link, of exciting the reaction with acoustic or RF energy. This has been a “pet theory” of my own. I would be pleased to share if there is any interest.

  29. Dick Smith

    March 30, 2012 at 12:12 am

    Ransom. I will shout that I was wrong from the mountaintops.

    In Australia the media will have a field day telling everyone how the supposedly astute Dick Smith had lost his money and missed the chance of being a ground floor investor.

    Those who have read my book or seen my population documentary will know how concerned I am about peak oil and the poor countries not being able to afford to keep warm and feed themselves.

    LENRs will clearly mitigate these problems and give us more time to learn how to cope. But I don’t see any evidence yet of viable useful units.

    • Barking Monkey

      March 30, 2012 at 12:35 am

      I am sure you will Dick, but (with respect) – money and success aside – you are a pretty minor player and just one more cog in the global scheme of things. Evidence is key, but context cannot be ignored in this issue, and it goes to the heart of something that is actually more important than the truth or falsity of Rossi’s claims or even LENR itself (although that will be disputed by many). Is there now and has there been some type of cartel/conspiracy like effort to manage information in this area?

      This to me is the real nub/rub of things, and the ongoing debate here really shows the fundamental difference of opinion that exists regarding how current governments, societies, and economies actually function. Do we manage our own fates or are they being managed; is the world largely chaotic and uncontrollable or are events being controlled and shaped; is the free market actually free or is it shackled and led?

      I know the “usual skeptics” just think the answers here are obvious and that people are just being led astray by charlatans and poorly done science, but I cannot help but acknowledge the weight of interests arrayed against the development of cheap energy alternatives. Would that weight truly not cause some distortion of reporting/evidence, etc.? Honestly? And, if it did, could it truly alter the evidence over considerable time and in such a way that the truth just never seemed to come out? I honestly don’t know, but this is the question that I find most interesting and even most relevant for the future. It is easy to say that no one would really stand in the way of a real “free/cheap” energy,” solution, but is that actually true?

      If you believe the world is controlled by conspiracies, you are delusional.
      You are deluded if you don’t think conspiracies control the world.

      Which is it? Do these statements both exist as truths together? Funny how people – to a man(woman) – seem pretty much divided on this issue; with equal scorn, derision and condescension on both sides.

      As one illustration, I have heard posters here question why China does not research this phenomena extensively, thereby “throwing off the chains and control of the west,” but this truly misses the truth of the matter. For countries like China, true LENR would be disastrous – can you imagine what distributed power systems would do to central government control? Do you honestly think that such a change in power supply dynamics would not strengthen the power of not only the Western provinces and Tibet but every religious/cultural/social group that ever dreamed of autonomy or freedom? Distributed power systems would go a long way to sounding the death knell of any central authority or control anywhere – from the deserts of Central Asia to the hinterland of the Amazon basin. It is not just the oil industry and/or its powerful controllers/beneficiaries that stand to lose heavily here, it is every current power structure on that planet that depends on the status quo being maintained. LENR would be a disaster for the current Chinese government, and the Russian, and the etc., etc. Again, it is not just the power brokers/wealthy elite that stand to lose – every economic and political structure on this planet stands to lose if LENR is real. Countries have fallen and security/intelligence apparati have directly or indirectly caused the deaths of thousands (hundreds of?) over the possession of a few oil fields in the past. Would there not be some effort made to maintain the current energy reality at least until every last drop of available fossil fuel was expended?

      Seen in this light, the forces that could/would be (are?) arrayed against LENR are unprecedented in the history of humanity. This reality/fact is worth mediating on. As I have said several times, I personally do not think the research out there is necessary or sufficient for LENR to exist, but I also think it is a little naive not to question the veracity of this evidence considering what’s at stake. This doesn’t make me believe in LENR, but it does encourage me to reserve final judgment.

      Just some thoughts offered for your perusal on a boring Thursday afternoon.

      • NH

        March 30, 2012 at 1:02 am

      • spacegoat

        March 30, 2012 at 4:36 am

        Excellent Barking Monkey.

        Right now, Inexhaustible energy = social revolution. However, given a bit more time, the Nanny states of the West will control their populations even tighter. Hence the call on this site for continuance of a centralized energy grid despite a flowering of LENR.

        Given a bit more time, Asia and South America will have swallowed the Western government model of very high tax and spend, to create Nanny states globally. This is evident in Asia right now. Massive state dependent civil services are leading to calls for introduction of generalized sales tax and higher and higher rates of sales tax… draining independence and autonomy from the people.

        So if LENR arrives in 20 years time, there will be no social change.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        March 30, 2012 at 7:53 am

        The election term and the business cycle are the timescales that the elite operates on. These timescales are short compared to profound changes in energy infrastructure, for example. When making decisions, few in the elite are interested in how the world looks like 20 years from now. (It’s both frightening and relieving.)

        Nearly all technological revolutions in the past have been peaceful. Luddites who destroy machines are a rarity in history. Railway companies did not sabotage aviation development, telecom companies did not suppress Intel, IBM agents did not kill Bill Gates in his garage, coal and oil companies allowed nuclear physics research to happen. But LENR competes against LENR, as Tesla competed with Edison.

        • spacegoat

          March 30, 2012 at 8:52 am

          I suppose key questions are:
          Is the top level of elites our CEO’s and Prime Ministers?
          If not are their agendas purely business?
          It appears your answers would be yes and yes.

          A 20 year vision is quite normal for every one of us: our children’s future, provision for old age.

      • Peter Roe

        March 30, 2012 at 10:32 am

        What an excellent post – thanks BM. Thoughtful analysis of this kind seems to be increasingly rare on this blog. You raise a number of issues concerning the nature of opposition to the introduction of decentralised and cheap energy systems I have also tried to address from time to time, but with greater eloquence and far more coherence.

        You have also managed to maintain a level of neutrality over the question of whether or not powerful elites may be attempting to interfere with the development of LENR, that I have difficulty assuming.

        Corporations and governments are in effect psychopaths, with purpose, but zero empathy. In fact corporations in particular are frequently dominated by psychopathic individuals (e.g., see or Concepts such as social justice or even concern for the welfare of fellow humans therefore play no part in the considerations of these powerful entities.

        So it seems to me that if there are powerful groups who currently own and control the world’s nuclear and fossil energy supplies, and other top level groups who stand to lose power or income (entirely self evident), then if the more powerful of these groups are able to control events through the use of servile mass media, political corruption/lobbying, de facto ownership of most relevant institutions (less self evident, but apparent on research) and a number of other tools, then it must be assumed that they will. There is essentially nothing to stop them.

        I agree entirely with the idea that the Chinese government has as much to lose as any other existing global power, and that we should not look there for any salvation. The same probably applies to Russia. Brazil and India are different, in that the writ of central government may carry less weight than elsewhere, but I suspect that it would not be too difficult for multinational corporations – in particular the nuclear power industry – to find the levers that ensure that no problems for them arise in these countries either.

        It is only when powerful organisations exist that stand to gain by the introduction of LENR power, that neutrality or even a degree of support might be expected. As BM says, most existing power brokers stand to lose more than they might gain, and potential winners are relatively few in number. In fact it is hard to see how there might be any corporate or government winners in the case of ‘home LENR’ or other CF distributed power systems other than the manufacturing industry, which has relatively little power or influence on the world stage. However, in the case of larger scale (multi MW) CF plant, the governments of Germany and Japan may potentially belong in this camp, together with many other smaller industries such as the automotive industry, maritime transport and power generators who currently use fossil fuels.

        On balance I think (usual caveats) that we may see the gradual introduction of multiple megawatt CF reactors for central power generation, industrial heating and marine propulsion, but I see almost zero possibility of being able to buy a home heater any time in the next decade, at least not without a level of taxation that ensure that is costs almost as much as my gas boiler to run.

      • psi

        March 31, 2012 at 4:11 pm

        Great post, Barking Monkey.

    • Ransompw

      March 30, 2012 at 12:39 am


      I admire that, I am more doubtful then I typically let on, but I have an optimistic attitude about our ability to solve problems especially when it becomes obvious it is necessary.

      My one disagreement with the scam scenario, is my belief LENR is a real technology. I think Rossi and Defkalion likely have prototypes with some possibilty but no product to show and proving a non commercial technology will just invite competitiion.

      Oh well let’s hope something good will come of it.

      • Quax

        March 30, 2012 at 5:57 pm

        I admire that, too 🙂

  30. Quax

    March 30, 2012 at 4:15 am


    thank you for your excellent analysis of the SPAWAR experiment.

    Just wished we could archive these golden nuggets that can be found amidst all the noise.

  31. GreenWin

    March 30, 2012 at 7:11 am

    Interesting article from Aviation Week past October 24 “Nuclear Powered Aircraft:”

    “Recent LENR research dates back to the late-1980s ‘cold fusion’ debacle of Pons and Fleischmann but, [NASA’s Joe] Zawodny says “a growing body of increasingly repeatable experimental evidence indicates the LENR effect is real and is likely not fusion, cold or otherwise.” An LENR power source would have enormous energy density, but the ionizing radition produced would be extremely low.

    “LENR represents such an enormous energy density (gigajoules per gram of fuel), and fuel consumption would be so low – the energy from the hydrogen in 40 litres of water could power a 747 half way round the world – that aircraft could be thought of taking off and landing at the same weight, says Zawodny.”

  32. jumpjack

    March 30, 2012 at 8:13 am

    Is taht PDF just a fake build up from random data/pictures taken from original one?

  33. spacegoat

    March 30, 2012 at 8:56 am

    I was provoked by georgehants postings to stumble upon this :

    Theodore C. Loder
    Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences
    University New Hampshire

    Has this professor gone mad? He still has tenure.

    Which led me to the Polywell fusor, a US Navy project was started in 2009:

    “..would enable a model only ten times larger to be useful as a fusion power plant.“

    It appears the energy field has many many pistes, but as Professor Loder says, we have very little time to develop them and are spending peanuts on their development.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      March 30, 2012 at 10:44 am

      Concerning the first link: I probably wouldn’t completely exclude the possibility that alien craft may have monitored us and that people might have seen them. But if the claim is that not only did that occur, but also that they have somehow transferred their technology to our militaries who have then kept it secret for 40-50 years, then I lose interest in what this professor says.

      It is vaguely known, by the way, how MHD propelled flying saucers could work (for example, The main thing which is missing is a high power density nuclear electric power source with small enough waste heat. Such craft could ultimately enable fast flight inside the atmosphere with no sonic boom plus orbital access.

      Concerning the second link: Unfortunately, the polywell and other similar electrostatic confinement fusion concepts would have to explain away the severe and fundamental criticism that was presented in T.Rider’s thesis in the 1990’s. The devices could produce fusion, but not net electrical energy, unless they have made some new fundamental breakthroughs that I’m not aware of. (I don’t think so, since the Polywell concept has been around for some time already.)

      • spacegoat

        March 31, 2012 at 2:05 am

        Thanks Pekka

  34. Jami

    March 30, 2012 at 9:31 am

    “Maybe we should have that talk with George about UFOs after all?… it’s the only explanation that fits.”

    Not sure. Over the centuries there have been so many premature announcements of major breakthroughs in science. Usually when they announce and then remain silent, it means they just failed. I mean look at Miley. He talked about hundreds of watts and, when asked by Krivit, told him he’d have to confirm it first and needs “more data”. If that data don’t confirm the “hundreds of watts”, we’ll probably never hear about it again. So why talk about it at all BEFORE confirmation? Maybe its just human.

    And I wish I’d counted the people claiming they’re sooooo close to formulating some GUT and will publish real soon now. If they really were, they’d shut up about it and come out with a bang when they closed the final loop. As yet – nobody has.

  35. georgehants

    March 30, 2012 at 10:52 am

    Lovely day, most as usual are missing the point.
    I do not discuss if Rossi or Defkalion etc are genuine as that possibility was already determined a year ago. We just wait for events as it is their game to play as they wish.
    Nothing will change that but I understand people having fun debating the pros and cons.
    But sciences actions on P&F and Cold Fusion in general are in the past and it’s actions are clear and judge-able.
    While waiting for Rossi et al everybody should be concerned with correcting the errors science has made so that they can never happen again.
    Debate on Rossi etc is fun but a waste of time, debate on sciences failures and faults are positive and sensible.
    Make fun, fine, as unfortunately that is many scientists way of defending Dogma which leads to delays that can cost lives.
    UFO’s Telepathy etc fall into exactly the same category as Cold Fusion, Water Memory etc. etc. and if science does not grow-up and stop making ridiculous excuses for not doing it’s job then nothing will improve.

    • Johan Börjesson

      March 30, 2012 at 11:29 am

      It is quite difficult to have a good debate with someone who doesnt listen to the other side.
      I am still waiting for your reply on us having a discussion done by email.
      I am also waiting on you to give us what your proffesional experiance are regarding sience, a subject that you clearly think you have a lot of knowledge on.

      • georgehants

        March 30, 2012 at 11:38 am

        Johan, please stop being critical of somebody that only states Facts unless asked or volunteers a clearly marked opinion.
        If you wish to discuss or show my errors then I invite you to debate any subject you wish in a simple question and answer session with me.
        Why E-mail, here I am for anybody to prove their point, but not in irrational comments containing Opinion and hearsay mixed with the occasional Fact.
        Your irrational attack on me that I “do not listen to the other side” is typical ad hominem that if you choose to debate can be clearly shown in both directions.

        • georgehants

          March 30, 2012 at 11:56 am

          Johan, I am now finished for the day I will look out for your answer.

  36. Jami

    March 30, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    “most existing power brokers stand to lose more than they might gain, and potential winners are relatively few in number.”

    I think people over estimate the game changing potential of LENR. “Free energy” sounds good – but is any energy really free? When mankind discovered fire it was sort of free. There were lots of trees and all you had to do was burn them for lots of heat. Yet it took a long time until people could use it to, say, travel from a to b and of course this making use of energy was never free. Today we use free energy directly from the sun, wind or water – yet despite being free, they’re considered costing quite a lot of money and environmental cost has to justify most of their deployments (with the possible exception of water). Fission is almost free when you consider only the fuel aspect of the equation. LENR wouldn’t even change the game if it really costs only the < $1000 Rossi claims for his ecat plus the "fuel" and if it really was safe to deploy despite emitting gamma rays. If it needs a turbine you won't get it for 1000. It'll be more like 5000-20000 plus maintenance, converters etc. You'll need lots of water to run it. You'll still need hookup to the grid because you'll want to sell your surplus and don't want your fridge to thaw if it fails. So for home use it'll probably not be much (or at all) cheaper than solar – and for the grid the challenge lies in scaling it up to GW levels. That'll be engineering far beyond anything Rossi's plumber can put together in a shipping container. Usage in cars, planes and whatever is decades away – even if Rossi and Defkalion have what they claim. So, no, I don't think anybody suppresses it any more than the coal miners suppressed Texaco or Texaco suppressed Fermi. If its real and makes economic sense, it'll be used – no matter what it may or may not replace. And whichever way you cut it, it won't be free at all. There'll be lots of money on the table and people will take it. Listening to Rossi you have to come to the conclusion that he already started doing so.

    • Peter Roe

      March 30, 2012 at 12:22 pm

      Jami, I agree with more or less everything you say in your post. However I would just point out that I did not use the phrase ‘free energy’ anywhere in the post you cite.

      However, the potential gains due to cheaper energy derived from LENR applications are large, and MUST be disruptive of the existing status quo, which in turn must mean huge losses for those who own the existing energy infrastructure.

      In particular, the nuclear sector, which is lobbying hard by putting itself forward as the solution to the fossil fuel crisis, stands to lose virtually all of its investment, AND will be left with the crippling costs of decommissioning and disposal of its own ‘assets’.

      • Jami

        March 30, 2012 at 1:28 pm

        Sorry Peter. I was quoting you as an entree – not to claim disagreement.

        What is the “nuclear sector”? I don’t know about the US but in Europe most investment in nuclear was done by the large power companies themselves (plus lots of subsidies, of course) and some technology companies like Siemens. They don’t really specialize in nuclear, afaik. Its simply part of their portfolio and they’re prepared to shift away from it as soon as something else promises better returns. They’re now making a lot more money from renewables than they’re making from nuclear – and I’m sure they’d include LENR simply because they don’t want to miss an opportunity. I don’t know about the nuclear fuel situation. Kirk Sorensen says that’s where most of the profit comes from – despite its cost ranging only somewhere in single digit percent overall. So who would really lose money if LENR was real who couldn’t profit from it as well? Oil and coal – obviously – who else?

        • Peter Roe

          March 30, 2012 at 2:25 pm

          I am using ‘nuclear sector’ just as shorthand for the principals in the industry such as Areva, EDF, E.On, RWS/NPower, General Electric, Westinghouse Nuclear and so on, but not to include their suppliers.

          In Europe the first 4 listed above tend to work in consortia with little sign of any real competition, lobbying jointly and carving up the ‘territory’ apparently by internal agreement. It’s probably much the same elsewhere, but I don’t know that for a fact. Even where corporations have other interests, e.g., Westingouse and railway equipment, their nuclear subsidiaries act as independent companies.

          As such these companies are massively invested in fission power and it is hard to see how they could move to LENR in the event it becomes available. Not only is more or less the entire value of these corporations locked up in existing nuclear power stations and the fuel and waste handling infrastructure, but as I previously mentioned they would be saddled with the eye-watering costs of decommissioning their existing plant and the disposal and storage of huge amounts of high level waste that will remain a liability for centuries.

          Under the circumstances it seems more than likely that if the emergence of high output LENR systems can’t be controlled, then these companies will be shed by their owners and left to sink, transferring their massive liabilities onto the governments of the countries they operate in. Thus it is in the interest of both the ‘nuclear sector’ and the governments that currently sustain it to try to ensure that LENR does NOT emerge unhindered.

          Regarding oil, coal and gas fired generators, LENR would represent a cheaper power source that could be widely retrofitted, and would probably not be unwelcome for many reasons, including security of supply of feedstocks, compliance with emissions legislation, reduced maintenance and operating costs and so on.

          • Jami

            March 30, 2012 at 3:30 pm

            I looked up the E.on business report for 2011. Fission contributed to EBITDA by 272 million Euros (down from 1996 million in 2010 due to the German nuclear moratorium). Fossil (coal and gas) remained stable at 1,792 million. Water, solar and wind contributed 1,459 (up from 1,207). So whatever the investment in fission was, it’s profits for E.on don’t seem to justify holding on to it – at least not in the current political climate in Germany – just like the investment in coal power plants seems not to have suppressed fission in the 1960s and 70s.

          • Peter Roe

            March 30, 2012 at 9:41 pm

            You are right. E.On and RWS/NPower seem to have come to the same conclusion and are now pulling out of new nuclear in the UK.

            I hope we have the sense to follow Germany in dumping nuclear fission, but we seem to be too tied to France (EDF) in this respect.

            Anyway, 2 down, 2 to go.

      • GreenWin

        March 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm

        Peter, a good bit of responsibility falls on what President Eisenhower warned against: mil-industrial / energy complex. They assumed their physics was intact and accurate – even with glaring conflicts in QED, unified field, singularities, lack of Higgs, red shift quasars, condensed matter, etc. Thus, stubbornly hung energy production on fission (invented by Manhattan Project) and the distant potential of hot fusion.

        Assumptions of complete knowledge in any field is hubris. The complex’s two ways to make energy – fission or hot fusion were incomplete. One rife with radiative and destructive dangers – the other a grandiose belief in recreating the functions of a cosmic star! In process they dismissed recurring evidence of alternative physics, and their incomplete understanding of atomic structure.

        Now the complex is faced with realignment due to ignorance and protectionism. Dig they will; the hole they stand in is of their own making.

        The economic boom resulting from far lower cost energy will circulate well beyond the old cartels. It will free millions to innovate, consume, spend on leisure, and produce higher standards of living. Yes, the old fortress will fall, just as horse and buggy, but a renaissance will replace it – far stronger and egalitarian by comparison.

        • Peter Roe

          March 30, 2012 at 3:23 pm

          Greenwin, I hope you are right. I’m just old enough and cynical enough to think that we won’t have such things handed to us on a plate.

          The resistance of the old order will probably mean citizens having to fight even harder than they are doing now in Europe to try to maintain some semblance of a decent society in the face of the rapaciousness of the banks acting through their political puppets.

  37. JKW

    March 30, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    The George show is on again. 31 and counting. This forum is definitely degrading…

  38. Quax

    March 31, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    @dragon, since you are so certain in your beliefs you can take the discussion up with Kant how relevant his “little book” is once you pass from this earth.

    For me he showed rather conclusively that these religious matters are undecidable by rational inquiry.

    Hence I am totally uninterested in them and rather focus on question that are decidable e.g. is LENR real or not?

  39. Alan DeAngelis

    April 1, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    There were plenty of researches who were seeing transmutations in the early 1990s.

  40. walker

    December 18, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    A very interesting paper from Toyota.

    You may also find interesting the work they have done over the last few years on Hydrides such as Magnesium and Boron and Calcium alloys.

  41. walker

    December 18, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    And for those looking for Toyota’s work on transmutations:
    It is in here: