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

Fleischmann Dead

August 4, 2012

Martin Fleischmann is dead.

We are here, in good part, because of him. They called him a fraud and a liar. They said it wasn’t science.

And yet, he will outlive them all.

I hope Stanley Pons lives to see the dream break free. I hope we all do.

Thank you for giving us hope, Martin.

Posted by on August 4, 2012. Filed under Drama,History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

362 Responses to Fleischmann Dead

  1. Bettingman Reply

    August 7, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    http://t.co/d257IoBU

    Krivit posted a paper/report bij Celani.

  2. JNewman Reply

    August 7, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    If you are annointing NI as the big thing in LENR, what happens next? They are a company that makes instrument controller software and hardware. Let’s suppose that whatever it is that you think is going on with NI is true. So what is it you are expecting them to do?

    • daniel maris Reply

      August 7, 2012 at 11:37 pm

      Do what they say they are going to do: support the development of LENR technology.

  3. daniel maris Reply

    August 7, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    WARNING TO SCEPTICS – MAY CAUSE COFFEE EJECTION!

    Andrea Rossi
    August 7th, 2012 at 4:53 PM
    To Whom it may interest:
    After the validation of the Hot Cat made on July 16th we made today another Third Party Validation, with the Certificator: the results have been the same of the test made on July 16th. The maximum temperature we reached has been 1 200 Celsius. Of this validation will be made an indipendent report which will be published soon. This test has been performed in the Product Validation Process that we have asked after the Safety Certification. This test has been directed by an indipendent Nuclear Engineer who is leading the certification processes of the industrial plants.
    We are extremely enthusiast of the work of today, because is the second time we get a third party validation in a month, getting the same results.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • dsm Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 12:49 am

      Daniel – it will be truly a great day that we can all celebrate when and if Rossi gets his constant claims validated by someone other than his fairy godmother.
      .
      Rossi is a P-I-T-A with his 5 years of claims (private or public) that he has never once had properly validated (no matter what Hank Mills says or thinks of Rossi’s eCat being ‘proved’ repeatedly. Hank is a sycophant of the worst kind).
      .
      Sorry
      .
      DSM

    • DvH Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 7:41 am

      hopefully the independent nuclear engineer finds some time to brush up the operation manual…

  4. GreenWin Reply

    August 8, 2012 at 1:00 am

    SO SO MANY accomplished DENIERS auditioning for “Island of Generale Zarcofagus” today! It’s a veritable feast of perptalent!

  5. Al Potenza Reply

    August 8, 2012 at 1:37 am

    “Al That McKubre quip was pure Ad Hominem no matter how you try to palm it off. You can be downright nasty when you want :) – go to your cage & stay there until we let you out. DSM”

    McKubre gives support to Rhoener for an impossible machine that he (McKubre) has never tested. The overwhelming evidence supports the contention that Rhoener is a long time (years if not decades) serial liar who has never had a single machine properly independently tested. He’s probably taking investor and franchisee money under false pretenses, just as it is likely that Rossi is doing the same.

    This makes McKubre a person you can not trust. If you think that’s out of line, please say why. If you can’t trust him about the Rhoener/Papp engine, you can’t trust him about LENR either.

    • dsm Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 2:21 am

      Al
      .
      How come you now say ‘probably’ ? – what you are admitting is that you don’t have anything but your tongue as proof.
      .
      As for McKubre & your trust – no issue at all you can decide not to trust him as you like.
      .
      As far as I am concerned Gene Mallove was dead right when he said the technology deserves investigation & that is precisely what McKubre said.!. Nothing more & nothing less !.
      .
      Cheers

      .
      DSM

      • John Milstone Reply

        August 8, 2012 at 2:10 pm

        As far as I am concerned Gene Mallove was dead right when he said the technology deserves investigation & that is precisely what McKubre said.!. Nothing more & nothing less !.

        But that’s not all McKubre said. He said that he believed that this “impossible” device really did work, based on nothing but a video demonstration and unsubstantiated claims by Rohner.

        That’s a sure sign of someone who is too gullible to be trusted (or possibly “in” on the scam).

        • dsm Reply

          August 8, 2012 at 11:27 pm

          John
          .
          I already requoted McKubre’s exact words & they differ from what you just posted!.
          .
          McKubre said (in ref to the Papp engine) “It is clearly impossible, but apparently it works“.
          .
          He follows that wording with a statement that he needs to test it thoroughly himself & also that it needs a properly equipt lab with open minded scientists to evaluate it !. This is a far cry for your warped words. So how many times will I need to post this before you acknowledge you (deliberately ?) got it wrong !.
          .
          It is not normally like you do deliberately twist words but you just did !. Then you call McKubre gullible based on your twisted wording. Naughty boy. Go to your kennel until you apologize :) !.
          .
          Cheers
          .
          DSM

          • CuriousChris

            August 9, 2012 at 10:22 am

            I have been in contact with Bob Rohner. At first he was nice, then he got real nasty when I discussed possible problems with his setup.

            I did make a mistake in that my email client hid some of his text. And I apologised to him for that. But even with that bad oversight on my behalf it made no difference to the conversation. in which he was making excuses to why he would do any testing.

            After that point he accused me of being a liar and a stooge for his brother.
            Prior to that I did manage to get some information out of him.

            1/ He has no idea how it works
            2/ He does not have a clue about the effect of magnetism on aluminium.

            Given the discussion we had. I can safely say that in my opinion Bob Rohner does not understand what it is he is doing (he admitted that he didn’t know what part of the setup did).

            In my opinion the Papp engine is a fraud. But it may be the biggest victims are the Rohner family. Apparently it has destroyed them.

            Where does this leave McKubre? Honestly I think McKubre is a nice guy and Bob has befriended him. In this scenario when put on the spot I might say precisely the same as him. He has stated he has seen it work and it seems to work but he doesn’t know the mechanism by which it works. He has probably never asked Bob any hard questions.

            Perhaps McKubre is not aware that people hang off his word as if its gospel and he would be wiser to be more cautious about his response.

            Regardless of McKubre’s input I am convinced the Papp engine is a fraud. If Bob didn’t know before now, he certainly does know how to test now. What he does with that is up to him. But I am guessing like most inventors who have deluded themselves over a long time the truth does not rate very highly.

            If you want to try the device for yourself you can. his brother is selling a ‘popper’ based on the one Bob showed at the conference for a mere $350.00 Bob says its a fake but you decide.

            Its available at plasmerg.com. Oh and they want to sell their licenses for $200,000.00 a piece.

  6. JNewman Reply

    August 8, 2012 at 2:30 am

    It must be frustrating to be convinced that so many “free energy” technologies are for real but not a single one of them ever makes it to the real world. Must be the damned skeptics at work.

    • Ransompw Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 3:15 am

      Newman:

      You keep posting the same thing. I grant you we haven’t seen a LENR product up to today. Do you really think that fact is reason to conclude the day will never come. I am not sure who you are trying to convince, those that think we MAY one day see one or yourself because you are starting to lose your resolve.

      • dsm Reply

        August 8, 2012 at 3:55 am

        Ransompw

        .
        We can say what we like, dream what we like, hope what we like, but it all amounts to fantasy without validation.
        .
        We sadly are in that loop with LENR. No one can demo better than 10s of watts but Rossi can claim anything (did you read his 2008 report on power gains in his 1st eCat – 203 times input (even 400 times input in one supposed test).
        .
        Yes there are a lot more people talking about LENR & there does appear to be growing interest in LENR but any of us who try to call that proof that it is real or proof it will ‘happen soon’ have nothing but a self fueled dream.
        .
        DSM

        • Ransompw Reply

          August 8, 2012 at 4:22 am

          DSM:

          I tend to think we all are pretty short sighted if progess in LENR is measured in months. Repeatability has been a major issue in LENR and by all accounts that issue is being addressed. I think progress is also being made on theory.

          The fact NI has determined that demand for instrumentation is increasing for LENR is a sign of interest and increased testing.

          Definitive proof of LENR may happen soon or at least an explanation for the anomalous heat.

          I think that is good progress.

          • dsm

            August 8, 2012 at 5:20 am

            Yup – agree with you there.
            .
            DSM

        • Al Potenza Reply

          August 8, 2012 at 7:11 am

          “No one can demo better than 10s of watts but Rossi can claim anything “

          In fact, nobody can demonstrate *properly* measured, independently verified, “tens of watts” for long periods of time.

          • Jami

            August 8, 2012 at 10:53 am

            Yep. The big problem is measurement methodology and the fact that most of these experiments require input power – usually in form of electricity. Doing it properly is terribly difficult and complex and drawing the right conclusions is dicy – especially when you’re expecting a certain outcome.

            Lets take an example that those not spending their life in a lab should be able to understand and relate to. Lets assume you want to invent nuclear fuel for a car. Unfortunately you don’t understand all aspects of it yet and you therefore don’t succeed in building a car running entirely on your fuel – so you set out to prove it by adding your special nuclear fuel to the gas in a normal car’s tank. You’re first running a test without the additive and record the mileage. Say you reached 50 MPG. You then add a tiny amount of your nuclear fuel to the gas and record the mileage again. Now you get 55 MPG. You call the additional 5 MPG anomalous energy. Then you’re doing a very long run and the 55 MPG are confirmed. You calculate the extra energy, arrive at a very impressive number (probably hundreds or thousands of kWh) and conclude, that the tiny amount of the special fuel which you added couldn’t provide it chemically – ergo it must be nuclear. Q.E.D., sort of.

            Of course there may be any combination of a billion factors responsible for the extra 5 MPG and unfortunately you can’t reproduce the experiment at will – sometimes your mileage gets worse, sometimes it doesn’t change, sometimes your calibration drives get 55 MPG, too, sometimes you detect small amounts of gamma rays, sometimes you don’t etc. But you’re an accomplished chemist or physicist and can honestly say, that you’ve done everything in your power to assure the test drives are comparable – maybe you even threw out the original speedo and had NI build one expressly for this purpose. Building a car that runs entirely on your nuclear fuel and drives even a single mile with nothing but a tiny fraction of a drop of it would be really convincing – but unfortunately that doesn’t work. You need the normal gas to get your reaction going and even to sustain it. So all you ever have is the extra 5 MPG – well, sometimes. As long as you haven’t got the faintest idea how or why your fuel works, it will be rather tricky to convince anybody but yourself that it actually does. No matter how many other researchers, keen on proving you right, have tried the same thing over the decades and claim similar or even better results – sometimes.

          • CuriousChris

            August 9, 2012 at 11:14 am

            Jami

            Where can I buy this nuclear fuel. It sounds really promising. I am sure you’ll work out the problems.

            Don’t listen to the naysayers. Skeptics are responsible for preventing new technology from working. I think its the negative muons they radiate and the way they lepton to every breakthrough. we have to nuetrino their effect.

      • JNewman Reply

        August 8, 2012 at 12:12 pm

        Ransom, my comment was directed at the recent discussion of the noble gas engine as well as earlier chatter about cavitation and Pakistani cars that run on water. I was not really talking about LENR. Your efforts to defend LENR from scurrilous remarks are admirable but wasted in this instance.

  7. Bettingman Reply

    August 8, 2012 at 10:06 am

    A quotation out of the Celani report that seems relevant as one would not expect this fenomenon (X and or gamma emissions) to happen with a chemical reaction.

    Quote:

    23.) We observed, for the first time in our
    experimentation with such kind of materials, some X
    (and/or gamma emission), coming-out from the reactor
    during the increasing of the temperature from about
    100°C to 160°C. We used a NaI(Tl) detector, energy
    range 25-2000keV used as counter (safety purposes) ,not
    spetrometer. Total time of such emission was about 600s
    and clearly detectable, burst like

    • RonB Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 12:19 pm

      Bettingman,
      Thanks for the update about gamma rays. I’ve waited sometime to hear that news and to me it’s very exciting. Anomalous heat is one thing but gamma rays are something altogether different. If this is reproducible then I’ll be really surprised if general science doesn’t wake up and smell the coffee.

      • daniel maris Reply

        August 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm

        I’ll be surprised if they do – a hell of a lot of personal kudos has been bound up now in rubbishing cold fusion (the technology that dares not speak its name :) ). They are going to look really stupid. Perhaps some younger scientists will now take note, realising the laurels to be won.

    • CuriousChris Reply

      August 9, 2012 at 11:46 am

      I noted that as well, but you must keep it in context. The important thing is the statement “for the first time in our experimentation with such kind of materials” So what happened in all the other experiments?

      At this point its an anomaly. Perhaps someone was cooking a sausage roll in a microwave somewhere nearby.

      Once it becomes repeatable then we can give it more credence.

  8. daniel maris Reply

    August 8, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Once again I think we can see why sceptics here are so desperate not to give a millimetre on Celani. His technology is associated with Piantelli. But so is Rossi’s and Focardi’s. Is it really credible that Rossi’s machine was completely bogus and did not containing a working nickel-hydrogen device (whether you think it worked well or not is perhaps another matter)?

    I think the sceptics here must feel like the Dutchman running out of fingers and toes to plug the holes in the dam.

    • John Milstone Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 2:24 pm

      Once again I think we can see why sceptics here are so desperate not to give a millimetre on Celani. His technology is associated with Piantelli. But so is Rossi’s and Focardi’s.

      So, your claiming that Rossi’s and DGE’s Killowatt and Megawatt claims a year ago (or more) are justified by Celani’s new 14 Watt device?

      I think you have your “logic” backwards.

      I’ve said it plenty of times before: It’s entirely possible that LENR is real and Rossi/DGE are frauds.

      • Methusela Reply

        August 8, 2012 at 2:29 pm

        No, I think he’s stating in a roundabout kind of a way that you’re a fool :)

      • Alain Reply

        August 8, 2012 at 5:44 pm

        YES…
        or in fact even 10x more can be justified.

        computation is there
        http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=353&p=1579#p1565

        simply compute power per surface of wire,
        then assume micrometric powder, multiply, and that produce 10kW per gram.

        about COP infinite, with Celani paper that says that indirect heating activated some anomalous heat, with good insulation, COP can get infinite (self sustain).

        with electricity advantage you can understand the spark used by DGT.

        see there
        http://lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=353&p=1579#p1579

        and don’t tell me that the measure is not precise enough, even if you divide the anomalous heat by 10, or 20, it cannot be chemical, and can justify Defkalion/E-cat claims.

        GREAT DAY.

        • CuriousChris Reply

          August 9, 2012 at 12:00 pm

          Wow so easy I think I’ll knock one up myself before breakfast tomorrow.

          If it was just a matter of applying some maths don’t you think the real scientists would have done this already.

  9. Dick Smith Reply

    August 8, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Does anyone think it strange that the Defkalion March tests have not had any results published?

    Surely it would take less than a week to verify their claims.

    What could the explanation be? Any suggestions?

    • Bettingman Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 2:20 pm

      DS,
      Yes, strange indeed. In case they want to keep it a secret, why start bragging about it in the first place? Now they appear to be a bunch of scammers trying to lure investors in.
      However, I understand that their CTO John Hadjichristos is speaking today in Austin on the NI conference, and Peter Gluck thinks he will reveal interesting information there. I guess we will know shortly.
      Perhaps you will loose your million :-) .
      By the way, didn’t you award 5k for the person that could name the CTO of DGT to you? Did annyone collect?

      • dsm Reply

        August 8, 2012 at 9:40 pm

        IIRC
        1 mill for 1 KW LENR with COP better than 3.
        5K for locating the Rossi factory heating eCat (I have pics of it)
        5K for identifying the ‘military man’ who did the 1 MW eval.
        .
        :) DSM

    • Mahron - A4 B2 Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 2:42 pm

      scam.

    • Ransompw Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 2:51 pm

      Sure, if Defkalion can’t control the reaction sufficiently to introduce a commercial product, and thought that with time they could, delay would be inevitable. Happens all the time in business with the introduction of new products. Of course this is pure speculation, they could also be scammers as you have proposed and lots of other possibilities.

      Since they are presenting this week and again at ICCF 17 maybe your question will be answered.

    • Anapopei Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 3:22 pm

      Without any particular order:

      a) The status of development projects are regularly trade secrets. Defkalion had second thought and decided to do things they way you normally do business.
      b) The tests were successful in terms of COP but reveal problems (e.g. control problems)
      c) A new investor required that they start doing business the way others do it, see a).
      d) The commercialization in general is delayed anyway so they are stalling release of tests to buy time.
      e) The lawyers advised them not to confirming a working device because Rossi is currently hesitating to drag them to court because he is not certain that they were actually able to walk away with his technology.
      f) The tests failed miserably because the device is just a Potemkin village.

      • DvH Reply

        August 8, 2012 at 4:15 pm

        i pick f)

        • Anapopei Reply

          August 8, 2012 at 7:42 pm

          It’s a indeed a popular choice and has always been. Many of my customers go for that. Safe play. What differs pessimists from optimists is that the first mentioned never gets disappointed.

      • John Milstone Reply

        August 8, 2012 at 4:35 pm

        g) There were no tests. It was all a lie.

        Note that this option fits all the publicly-available facts as well (if not better) than any of the other options.

        • Anapopei Reply

          August 8, 2012 at 7:34 pm

          I have a distinct recollection of ending my list with “e.t.c” but that part must have been lost in the editing. :-(

      • dsm Reply

        August 9, 2012 at 1:56 am

        g) They desperately need money just like Rossi & Brillouin & others – this is *fact*.
        .
        It is a constant fantasy that people / companies are throwing money at these people IT JUST ISN’T HAPPENING !.
        .
        Tha fantasy in regard to many $millions being invested in these companies is as stupid as the belief everything Rossi has claimed or said, is 100% true.
        .
        Some are getting limited ‘Angel Investor’ money.
        .
        DSM

    • CuriousChris Reply

      August 9, 2012 at 12:19 pm

      Nope, I don’t think its strange. They have broken every promise to date.

      So the pattern is set and they are sticking by it. But don’t tell Alain.

  10. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    August 8, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    Does anyone here really think that “if” the said validation reports were certified that any one of the claimants regarding LENR would hesitate one second to have it all over the web?

    At least a year and a half later and to date the companies are not illuding to the fact that a product exists using the LENR technology. Look at it this way, that; before any products existed using LENR fuel there were claims and pictures of a product that obviously never existed and actually were computer renderings and or actual fasauds of products.

    The moment certifications are documented in support of a LENR device it will be announced to the world in a large scale.

    • JNewman Reply

      August 8, 2012 at 6:32 pm

      Amen.

  11. Jami Reply

    August 8, 2012 at 6:20 pm

    “computation is there”

    Do that “computation” again for Piantelli, Alain, and you’ll discover that, according to your logic, the deviations of his control runs alone will easily provide the entire earth with more than enough energy if you scale it up to about half a ton of Ni – without even starting the “reaction”. What a wonderful world this must be for some of us.

Leave a Reply

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

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