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

Celani’s Patent Describes Material Prep

August 20, 2012

The following patent explains Francesco Celani’s method for preparing his Ni-coated wires (and other forms) to better adsorb hydrogen. I cannot be certain this is the state of the art as used to process the materials in the recent NI and ICCF-17 demos but I notice a number of potential replicators requesting information on this subject and thought it worthy of bringing to your attention. He cleverly uses the term cold fusion in his patent by relating the invention to a tool for cf research. Now, surely no-one could object to that.

The Patent

 

Abstract: Thin nano structured layers on surfaces of nickel or its alloys for quickly achieving high hydrogen adsorption values (H/Ni˜0.7) through direct metal/gas contact. The said layers are produced by a process comprising the step of oxidising the said surfaces, applying a film of aqueous silica sol to them, subsequent heating in an -oxidising atmosphere and final activation through reduction in a reducing atmosphere. …

 

He gives two examples – the second of which describes preparing wire:

 

EXAMPLE 2

Five 99.5% nickel wires (each of diameter 200 μm, length 200 cm, lateral surface area 12.5 cm2, overall weight of the 5 wires 2.7952 g) were each treated in the following way: a) degreasing in 2M NaOH at 70° C.; washing in distilled H2O; washing in acetone; final wash in distilled H2O and drying in hot air. b) each wire was heated to a temperature of approximately 1000° C. by Joule heating in air for a time of 400 seconds. The temperature was estimated by the change in the resistance of the wire. c) after cooling each wire was coated with a solution of colloidal silica (30% by weight of SiO2, sol dimensions 12 nm) in three passes with a brush. d) each wire treated in this way was heated by Joule heating as in b). After cooling 5 wires were weighed again; an overall increase in weight of approximately 1.2 mg was recorded. e) 20 ml of 85% by weight H3PO4, 100 ml of a 20% by weight solution of PdNO3 and 100 ml of a 20% by weight solution of NiNO3 were added to the colloidal silica solution (100 cm3). f) the five wires were treated with the solution mentioned in e) using the means described in c). g) finally the wires were heated by Joule heating as in b). After cooling the increase in weight in comparison with the bare wire was found to be approximately 2.3 mg. h) the five wires, each inserted into a quartz-fibre sheath 0.2 cm in diameter and bent appropriately were placed in a cylindrical gas-tight stainless steel container (volume 2025 cm3) fitted with pressure and temperature sensors and held at a temperature of 150° C. i) after vacuum had been applied hydrogen was quickly introduced into the container until it reached a pressure of 5 bar; the temperature of the container was held at 150° C. The Ni wire adsorbed hydrogen until it reached saturation in approximately 500 seconds; the H/Ni atomic ratio produced from the change in pressure was estimated to be 0.65. l) the container containing the wire was evacuated and filled with air at ambient pressure; the temperature of the container was held at 100° C. in order to evaluate the discharge time for the wire. It was surprisingly found that after 600 hours the Ni wire retained its hydrogen content almost unchanged.

 

[With thanks to Dale G. Basgall in the eCatNews comments section]

Posted by on August 20, 2012. Filed under Competitors,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

467 Responses to Celani’s Patent Describes Material Prep

  1. Sojourner Soo

    August 23, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    “As has been written here many times, the problem is not hard core skeptics, it’s not main line scientists and it’s not the press. It’s that advocates of LENR do not have adequate power production for a long enough time to rule out measurement errors, design mistakes, and chemical reactions such as the classical Raney nickel ones.”

    **** How do you really KNOW this, Al Potenza? I need proof, solid evidence showing that there have been no privately-conducted, third party, independent tests made by potential customers of these reactors, either Rossi’s or Defkalion’s, proving this is a scam designed to sucker in potential investors to give up their money. Can you give me that?

    More importantly, since Defkalion is now HQ’d in Canada and since I am a Canadian, I am very interested in knowing what proof you can provide to me that DGT is perpetrating an illegal scam. I would take such proof to the Prime Minister of this county, as well as the federal Minister for natural resources, today, if you could provide such proof. In fact, I would forward such information to every member of the federal government cabinet. I would, furthermore, contact the RCMP, our nice federal police, with any such proof. So when you can provide it, please by all means, post it.

    • John Milstone

      August 23, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      Because lack of evidence is… evidence?

      • Sojourner Soo

        August 23, 2012 at 8:48 pm

        Alleging that a company is undertaking a scam designed to defraud investors is a serious allegation. If you have proof that DGT is engaging in such a scam, as you and your skeptical colleagues have long been claiming on these blogs, you should, at the very minimum, be able to provide credible proof for these claims.

        • Al Potenza

          August 23, 2012 at 9:09 pm

          But Soo, nobody is claiming proof. What skeptics say is that there is way more evidence suggesting that the behavior and claims of Defkalion and Rossi are scams than that they are real. If the claims were in fact real, it should be the other way around!

          None of the skeptics here, far as I know, have invested in Defkalion or Rossi so they have no reason to go through the difficult process of trying to persuade prosecutors that laws have been broken.

          A lot of times, investors who are scammed do nothing. Examples include the usual. Steorn, BLP, Eestor, and many others.

          On the other hand, Carl Tilley did get indicted and convicted. Unfortunately he successfully fled from a pending arrest and finding and extraditing him from another state hasn’t been worth the trouble apparently. It’s not all that easy or cheap.

          Defkalion and Rossi may or may not get justice yet. We’ll just have to see. Few skeptics have enough concern or resources to collect evidence for prosecutors. An exception is Sniffex where several people did. See for example this link which I included before:

          http://sniffextest.blogspot.com/

          And the resulting prosecution resulted in plea bargains and consequences for the perps.

          • Sojourner Soo

            August 23, 2012 at 10:21 pm

            Al: I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that you can’t draw conclusions about DGT using information that pertains to other entities. It doesn’t work that way in the real world. I’ve no doubt there are countless examples of scams, but you and your colleagues are unequivocal in your assertions that DGT (and Rossi) are engaging in scams to defraud investors. You openly call them liars, scammers, frauds, etc, etc ad nauseum. You are all saying this as though it were a fact. You are asserting the fact of a scam, without proof. That takes some stones, let me tell you.

          • Sojourner Soo

            August 23, 2012 at 10:28 pm

            And I never said you were “claiming proof.” On the contrary, I’m saying you have zero proof for your claims of scam. Don’t mischaracterize what I write, please.

        • dsm

          August 23, 2012 at 9:49 pm

          Sojourner.
          .
          You too are learning that Al & crew delight in the ‘scam’ allegations but don’t answer or dodge like rats when asked to back it up for cases where some of us can see there is no evidence.
          .
          Certainly in 2 cases I can name. Rossi unfortunately is on thin ice over his claim to have designed home eCats, taken money for rights to resell them, but has never shown one to these agents & even at his upcoming Sept dealer conference has already said “no demos”.
          .
          But, as I have learned don’t hold your breath expecting any integrity on the matter of false ‘scam’ allegations from Al or JM. There simply isn’t any. That puts those 2 at least on the opposite end of the propaganda spectrum that GreenWin occupies.
          .
          DSM

    • JNewman

      August 23, 2012 at 8:29 pm

      The gold standard of truth: If you haven’t proven something is a scam, it must be real. Soo, your insights into society and human nature are invaluable.

      • Sojourner Soo

        August 23, 2012 at 8:54 pm

        You’re just twisting what I write to suit your faulty logic. I suppose that makes you think you’re brilliant?

        • JNewman

          August 23, 2012 at 9:06 pm

          What faulty logic? You quote Potenza about there not being convincing evidence for LENR and reply with a screed about scams. If you want to rant about scam accusations, you should at least refer to one. So I assumed that you are claiming that if you don’t believe LENR is the real deal, you must think it’s a scam. If that is not your view, then make yourself clearer.

          As for being brilliant, if I was, I wouldn’t be wasting my time here.

    • Al Potenza

      August 23, 2012 at 8:45 pm

      Hang in there Soo. The evidence you can take to the Canadian government will come. It’s just not quite enough to prosecute Defkalion. Yet.

      • Sojourner Soo

        August 23, 2012 at 8:51 pm

        I very much doubt it, Al. It’s clear to me that you don’t have anything to back up your allegations of scams. Just as I thought.

        • Al Potenza

          August 23, 2012 at 8:56 pm

          I really hate to have to rehash this s*it just for you because you don’t keep up. Defkalion has issued nothing but lies. They said a year or more ago that they had a table top 10kW reactor under multiple unit testing for months using liquid flow calorimetry. Since then they produced no results of this and no photos or other evidence. The photos and papers they did furnish show no evidence whatever of working reactors that meet the previously announced specs, in fact, no evidence of anything working or being built at all except for test fixtures and devices of unknown and undetermined significance. And those look lame.

          They said they had seven independent testers last April including the Greek government. No evidence of that.

          Stremmenos, who was on their board of directors, said they are liars.

          They had an opportunity to show real independent data at NI Week and at ICCF17 and they didn’t.

          That’s the evidence so far. Nobody who is both sane and honest fails to develop and market and promote a 10kW cold fusion reactor that works for months in multiple test copies. To believe it is absurd. If they are lying, they are scamming because they asked many people for money, most recently about $1 million from Dick Smith as an investment if the rumors are true.

          Defkalion are obvious serial liars. Do you deny even that self evident fact?

          • Sojourner Soo

            August 23, 2012 at 10:36 pm

            Actually, I think Stremmenos is the liar in this picture. He’s a politician, after all. So, yes, I do deny that “self evident fact,” because it isn’t “self evident” to me, even if you’ve convinced yourselves that you somehow know everything that DGT has done or not done. To be able to make these claims, you must all be insiders at DGT and present witnesses to all the private tests and everything else. Given they’re in Canada now, I can assure you that if DGT is scamming anybody, they won’t last a month before shutting down or fading away quietly into wherever it is that failed companies go.

          • dsm

            August 23, 2012 at 11:38 pm

            Sojourner Soo,
            .
            A careful analysis of the Stremmenos position on DGT & statements he make, can explain why each party (Stremmenos & DGT CEO) had a ‘reason’ to believe they were right in the public statements they made.
            .
            Stremmenos was a long time very close friend of Focardi & when Focardi began telling his friends about the miracle his NBF Rossi had discovered back in 2009, Stremmenos got quite excited about it (he says so).
            .
            So when Stremmenos approached George Papandreou (in 2009 Papandreou had been PM & was a close friend of Stremmenos), he offered to help.
            .
            In 2010 a group was found who did early assessments of the eCat & believed at the time Rossi was ready to commercialize. These were expatriate Greek businessmen (primarily from Canada). In Jan 2011 their new business DGT became official & they were eager to go to market. All they needed was Rossi to provide a working eCat module they would then manufacture under license at one plant (IIRC in Cyprus ?) & use these manufactured cores in their Hyperion products produced at other plants (to be licensed out to regional manufacturers). DGT would have a 2nd design plant at Xanthi in Greece.
            .
            Rossi as we all now know, did not have a commercial ready eCat. He still doesn’t. DGT either shut up shop or sought a 2nd source for the core reactors. They apparently knew Rossi had based his eCat on Piantelli’s design so they apparently decided to go it alone & some believe they have partly succeeded.
            .
            DGT & Rossi split. Rossi & Stremmenos blame DGT & DGT sought to blame no one (at the time). But with time it can be seen that they had no option but to shut up shop or go it alone.
            .
            All the waffle by people who try (without any seriously reliable evidence) to claim DGT stole form Rossi, can never produce the evidence as even Rossi himself states emphatically he never let DGT anywhere near an eCat & the claim that DGT did a spectrum analysis of an eCat is a provable lie (repeated ad nauseum by true believers who lack the proof). It is now considered possible the the Uni of Sienna did an analysis of the ash from an eCat and that details came to the attention of DGT but even that does not provide the essential detail of the structure & prep of the Ni that *everyone* claims is what makes the difference between one Piantelli based design and another.
            .
            So DGT had good reason not to tell Stremmenos what they were doing after they realised Rossi had no base reactor for them& thus Stremmenos’s public claim they were liars, was a totally emotional claim & one he can’t back it up with anything other than ‘Stremmenos says’. He claims Rossi was owed money, DGT say they were to pay for a succesful 1MW plant & a core reactor & neither were provided.
            .
            Then we get down to does DGT have anything ? – for me I’ll believe it when they publish independent validation. And they haven’t done that yet.
            .
            I hope they do have something. Peter Gluck is convinced they do. I know of one NASA associate who thinks they do. But, this is 2nd hand evidence & thus has no real substance.
            .
            DSM

          • dsm

            August 24, 2012 at 2:18 am

            Correction:
            Uni of Padua was said to have done a spectrum analysis (not Uni of Sienna).
            .
            Mats Lewan originally made the claim about Sienna but he got it completely wrong including what was actually carried out.
            He later corrected his error then backpedalled on the whole issue.
            .
            http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3353181.ece
            .
            The likely probability (based only on my guess) was that Uni off Padua did do an analysis of some part of an eCat & a copy their report may well of found its way to DGT. But what no one including Mats Lewan ever states is how does a spectrum analysis of ash from a reactor, explain the refining process of the original Ni ? – it doesn’t & the above correction by Lewan shoots down any claim that DGT “stole a Rossi eCat & copied it”.
            .
            Such a claim is simply a lie & people who deliberately repeat it (as does CuriousChris further don this thread are simply liars & just to make this point clearer CuriousChris already knew what he was posting was not true.
            .
            I had already slugged this very issue out with Chris months ago back here but he never lets a good lie be held back by any good proof …
            .
            http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/my-answer-to-prof-christos-stremmenos.html?showComment=1341453379123#c4060056393800240627

          • Quax

            August 24, 2012 at 3:40 am

            Soo, as a fellow Canadian resident I sympathize with your notion that a fraudulent company could not survive in this marvelous country, but unfortunately I cannot share your optimism.

            Surely you must remember Bre-X?

          • Sojourner Soo

            August 24, 2012 at 4:55 pm

            Quax: Yes, I remember Bre-X. They got caught, didn’t they? which is my point. If DGT is scamming anybody, they, too, will get caught. Eventually it will all come out in the wash.

          • Quax

            August 25, 2012 at 10:13 pm

            Soo, I’d not be content if Defkalion was to play out like Bre-X. Lots of people lost a lot of money before the latter blew up.

        • Thicket

          August 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm

          Soo

          You rail against folks calling Rossi and Defkalion frauds. Then you turn around and call Stremmenos a liar because he’s a politician.

          You’re such a hypocrite.

          Stick with your social injustice campaign. You are blindingly ignorant about technical matters. And don’t bother repeating the arrogant, self-serving BS that your social training gives you some insight into whether cold fusion/LENR is real or not. Mother Nature doesn’t give a damn about esoteric, philosophical mumbo-jumbo. She does as she pleases.

          • Sojourner Soo

            August 24, 2012 at 4:59 pm

            Thicket, I don’t care what you have to say. You’re in the fossil fuel industry and worked in the disgusting tarsands. Further, you initially failed to disclose your bias, until my sources revealed it to me, much to your chagrin and at the expense of your male ego. I had great fun outing you that day. That information makes everything you say here suspect. You’re responsible for the destruction of the planet, as far as I’m concerned. Now I understand from certain sources that you are busily fracking for gas out East, still determined to kill us all. I’m glad you got shut down.

            Like it or not, your beloved fossil fuel industry is headed for the fossil bin of history. That makes me happy. And, what is more, I’m 110% certain that I am right and you are wrong. You don’t have anything to say that I’m interested in. In fact, I think you’re an ignoramus and rather dull-witted and dumb. You might be an engineer, but you’re a pretty stupid one. What would a man like you even know about “Mother Nature,” except how to destroy her?

  2. Anapopei

    August 23, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    @John Milstone:

    We seem to be in an agreement now that there in fact is credible information about independent e-cat tests. It is of course difficult to tell what Essén precisely means when he says that he, due to these tests, find the e-cat more interesting than ever. Clearly he is not saying that the e-cat is validated or that he is convinced. However, I think it is fair to say that Essén’s response implies that the tests are more conclusive than the ones that we all are aware of. At the same time I believe that Dick Smith offered Rossi 1 MUS$ for a successful re-run of the Essen-Kullander test with better measure of input power.

    The main and constantly repeated argument in support of the scam scenario is that Rossi doesn´t allow the e-cat to be independently tested and the reason is because otherwise it would be reveal that the e-cat actually is not working. That argument is now longer valid. In fact, is has not been valid for a while.

    In my world, when a good argument is vaporized then the case has weakened.

    • JNewman

      August 23, 2012 at 8:32 pm

      Two in a row! Another disciple of the new school of thought that states that something must either be criminal fraud or valid. Who knew that was the rule?

      • Anapopei

        August 23, 2012 at 8:53 pm

        Would you be so kind as to point me to a comment by Milestone acknowledging that Rossi’s claims about the e-cat is due to honest mistakes by Rossi.

        • JNewman

          August 23, 2012 at 9:12 pm

          Rossi’s claims about the ecat cannot be due to honest mistakes by Rossi. Either he is demented or is a serial liar. No one can possibly believe everything he says. As to whether he is a scammer, that remains to be seen.

          • Anapopei

            August 23, 2012 at 9:17 pm

            QED.

          • JNewman

            August 23, 2012 at 9:25 pm

            Yep. QED. Somebody says that Rossi’s series of self-contradictory claims cannot all be true and you conclude that he has been labeled a scammer. Many have indeed called him that. I haven’t, actually. I think there is essentially zero possibility that he is in possession of a world-changing energy technology, but whether he is a scammer, a delusionary, a high-stakes gambler hoping for a last-minute discovery, or just plain incompetent is an open question. Just clarifying things for your little “aha” moment.

          • Anapopei

            August 23, 2012 at 10:21 pm

            This is not a big issue but for the records. We know that Ampenergo paid Rossi money. I think it safe to say that Rossi demanded a payement from DGT and that Roger Green has paid a down-payment. If he hasn’t a working technology, it is a scam – this even if he in some sense truly believes that he can fix it later on or even if he is delusionary rather than operating through a sophisticated plan.

          • Jack Sparrow

            August 24, 2012 at 6:54 am

            Anapopei: How do you know that Ampenergo has transfered money?
            For the Record: Ampenergo is a dead mailbox company with the same adress as Leonardo. Their website ampenergo.com has not changed since their press release.
            Must be a Rossi Shill Company.

          • Anapopei

            August 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm

            How do you know that Ampenergo has transfered money?
            I don’t “know” this and that is the reason I did not say that either. The reason I think it is safe to say that they paid money is because they said so. To NyT.

      • Sojourner Soo

        August 24, 2012 at 8:06 pm

        JNewman: You can point out to me the logic you used to conclude that, because someone says there is no evidence or proof of a scam, that the thing you assert is a scam is therefore valid. I’m curious to know how your brain can be so logically faulty. I hope you don’t work as a scientist. Your conclusions would all be quite suspect, because you clearly don’t know how to use logical arguments. Another skeptical dud I’m afraid, one who relies on deliberate mischaracterization and faulty logic to debate a subject. You gentlemen are such a disappointment to a woman like me.

        • Methusela

          August 25, 2012 at 10:19 am

          Never attempt to engage them in any logical argument.

          I don’t do that here, although I have over the years in a few different ‘places’.

          You won’t change their minds!

    • John Milstone

      August 23, 2012 at 8:34 pm

      We seem to be in an agreement now that there in fact is credible information about independent e-cat tests.

      We most certainly are not in agreement.

      Essen heard a rumor from Levi, who heard a rumor from Focardi, who admitted that he doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know how the E-Cat works.

      Essen admits that he failed to check the obvious things that would indicate fraud:

      “I must admit,” Essén said, “I was thinking that I must check that the water is not draining out. I had this vague feeling that the water inlet flow wasn’t that fast, that the steam could be consistent with it, especially after some condensation in the hose. But we should have looked more into that, obviously, but there was not enough time.”

      Both Essen and Kullander admit that they “believe” in the E-Cat because of 2nd- and 3rd-hand claims. That’s not science. That’s religion.

      • Anapopei

        August 23, 2012 at 8:49 pm

        You are backing down from what your previous wrote:

        If Essen really said that (and I still haven’t seen any actual evidence of it), then it would be the first statement by a credible, known person that any independent test has occurred.

        • Al Potenza

          August 23, 2012 at 8:52 pm

          Where did Essen say that and when and where can we see it?

          • Anapopei

            August 23, 2012 at 9:09 pm

            Does it have any consequences for your reasoning if he has?

          • Al Potenza

            August 23, 2012 at 9:12 pm

            @Anapopei

            Well, first of all, you’re the one who wrote that Essen had said he finds the ecat of more interest than ever. That’s meaningless if it’s a year old. So if it’s recent,please prove it. Second, it would be of interest to me to see how he had been deluded *again!*.

          • Anapopei

            August 23, 2012 at 9:30 pm

            it would be of interest to me to see how he had been deluded *again!
            Well that is the thing. You have already made up your mind. Try a balanced statement instead.

        • John Milstone

          August 23, 2012 at 9:07 pm

          There is no evidence that Essen has any first-hand knowledge of independent testing. What he had was unsubstantiated claims, all ultimately based on “Rossi Says”.

          That’s not proof of anything.

          • Anapopei

            August 23, 2012 at 9:12 pm

            Suppose that he had access to the reports. Would that make any difference?

          • Al Potenza

            August 23, 2012 at 9:14 pm

            “Suppose that he had access to the reports. Would that make any difference?”

            Depends on WHICH reports. Independent reports? Why are you so vague all the time? Can’t you pull together something coherent and meaningfull? Can’t you answer simple questions about what you saw, if anything, in the way of evidence that Essen saw anything new or recent and that it’s meaningful? You’re just wasting our time. Sort of like Soo.

          • John Milstone

            August 23, 2012 at 9:33 pm

            Suppose that he had access to the reports. Would that make any difference?

            He could start with the isotopic analysis report that his partner Kullander promised to deliver over 9 months ago.

            The only independent comments I’ve seen were the University of Bologna denying any involvement with Rossi, and National Instruments denying that they were developing a controller for Rossi. Both were in response to Rossi’s lies on those matters.

    • Al Potenza

      August 23, 2012 at 8:51 pm

      @Anapopei

      WHEN did Essen say he found the e-cat more interesting than ever? In the last year? I doubt it.

      Dick Smith’s offer is for proper independent testing of both INPUT and OUTPUT power and a long enough run to rule out storage of energy inside the container of the ecat.

      There are many arguments for Rossi being a scam. The most current is the absurd claims he makes for an absolutely impossible 1200 degree C ecat which he illustrates as what is certainly an ordinary tube furnace with no electronics, no coolant and no controls so that it can not possibly be a reactor, much less a 1200 degree C reactor!

      Why is the argument that he doesn’t allow independent testing valid? Are you thinking of Hank Mills’ article? Rossi doesn’t have independent testing inasmuch as anyone can prove. Hank Mills believes all sorts of impossible things. He’s not evidence for anything ever except that he can write silly and worthless articles which mislead only the most gullible.

  3. Frank

    August 23, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    You may speculate what Rossi intends to tell his followers (to prepare his fans) by this:

    Andrea Rossi
    August 23rd, 2012 at 2:10 PM
    Dear G.Luca from Italy,
    What is really difficult is the construction of working plants that astisti Our Customers.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    I guess ‘astisti’ should be spelled as ‘satisfy’.

    I get the feeling that he wants to prepare his followers that there will be no ‘public viewing’ of an installed and operational 1MW plant soon – contrary again to earlier ‘Rossi says’.

    • John Milstone

      August 23, 2012 at 9:07 pm

      I’m Shocked! Shocked, I say!

    • dsm

      August 23, 2012 at 9:41 pm

      Frank
      The writing was long on the wall about his ‘plants’.
      In Jed Rothwell speak, Rossi told the truth but it will become truth in 5-10 years, maybe.
      .
      DSM

      • JNewman

        August 23, 2012 at 9:57 pm

        In order to put a chink in the armor of the Rossi supporters, it will be necessary to provide proof that he has not told the truth. Let’s start with the million ecat factory. To prove that it doesn’t exist, we will need to check out every building in the world and see if it is an ecat factory. I just went up and down my block and nothing doing. If each of us can take a turn, we will be well on our way to exposing Rossi’s false claim. Well worth the effort. One has to keep an open mind about these things.

      • Al Potenza

        August 23, 2012 at 10:04 pm

        @DSM

        There’s nothing to suggest there will be megawatt LENR plants in 5, 10, 20 or 100 years. Nothing at all. It may or may not be possible and we simply don’t know at this point.

  4. Jami

    August 23, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    “So are you saying all the people and organizations I list in section 1 are deluded or scammers?? The quote from the EU last month?? They seem pretty convinced. Must just be a bunch of idiots huh.”

    Is that supposed to be an argument, Tyler? Are you saying all physicists calling LENR fringe science are deluded or scammers or idiots? That’d be quite a bunch, wouldn’t it? What do you suppose a survey amung NASA or MIT or CERN scientists would look like? 99.7% against? 99.9%?

    Stop singing the “all these wonderful organisations and people think that…” tune. Organisations don’t think – only individuals do. Once enough of them do, organisations start acting accordingly. How big is the EU research budget for LENR? How big is NASA’s or MIT’s when you compare it with far, far less important things than “changing the world”? It is practically non existent – and that reflects LENR reality pretty well. (Unless you’re calling the organisations somehow wise enough to follow your strange way of defining confidence but accept that their budgeting is completely bonkers, of course). Did you donate to the ‘lets buy Celani a proper glasstube fund’ the community announced in Korea? Why, do you think, that was necessary?

    • JNewman

      August 23, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      A NASA LENR survey would be a hoot. NASA has 18,000 scientists. I suspect that most of them have no opinion on the subject whatsoever.

    • daniel maris

      August 23, 2012 at 11:08 pm

      Jami,

      We have had the argument from authority made several times by sceptics (where are the peer reviewed papers? you ask – even though there are peer reviewed papers of course). Tyler is merely turning that back on you.

      Besides, there is a different between the positive and the negative scientists. The positive ones have viewed the research up close. The negative ones seem to start with the proposition that cold fusion or LENR is impossible and then say “show me”, but what “show me” amounts to appears to vary considerably.

      • Al Potenza

        August 23, 2012 at 11:43 pm

        We’ve explained it to you ad nauseam. “Show me” means high enough power (dozens or hundreds of watts) long enough (days or weeks) to rule out measurement error or chemical reactions. I tire of saying it as much as some tire of reading it but it is quite clear that YOU DON’T GET IT. It is not an appeal to authority. It is an appeal for EVIDENCE that CONVINCES.

        So far, all we get are huge claims from obvious serial liars, and alternatively, tiny claims to very small amounts of energy and/or short experiments which do not and can not rule out errors or chemical reactions.

        That just doesn’t cut it!

      • CuriousChris

        August 24, 2012 at 1:29 am

        “Show me” one credible peer reviewed paper of an experimental device that emits more than 100watts of excess power for a length of time that is greater than possible from chemical sources. That’s real power not EXTRAPOLATED power like some like to use.

        There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that something unusual is going on otherwise we wouldn’t even bother. But the circumstantial evidence and peer reviewed papers of that circumstantial evidence are inconclusive and leave scope for error.
        Perhaps your should reread Celani’s paper conclusion 1 page 54 states…
        “If there will be no errors in the measurements performed and procedure adopted”
        Does that sound overly confident to you?

    • Alain

      August 24, 2012 at 8:09 am

      “Is that supposed to be an argument, Tyler? Are you saying all physicists calling LENR fringe science are deluded or scammers or idiots? That’d be quite a bunch, wouldn’t it? What do you suppose a survey amung NASA or MIT or CERN scientists would look like? 99.7% against? 99.9%?”
      that is clear groupthink, and very common.
      See the market bubble, subprimes delusion, enron,…

      now the question is where is the delusion.
      Where it pays ! and LENr research is teh best way to kill your career… anyway pride might pay some fan…

      then read the papers and the critics…
      and you will realize that the positive paper have the structure of good papers, the results have the structure of a real phenomenon, not artifact.
      He and heat correlation, are the biggest proof it is not error.

      on the otherside you have loose experimental setup (as saif in the miles calorimetry lesson ridiculizing MIT/caltech work, and reminding that F&P protocol was corrent, based on a later and very deep analysi by Grenoble team).
      You find unproven critics, with no positive proof of the errors, (faced with proof that there is no important erreor, and new experiments correcting the risk).
      with time thing get more clear and critics are base on no argument, just groupthink justification, like the “we have no priority” excuse of Science to Report 41…

      it is funny to see that.. sad too.
      so common.

      your only arguments is groupthink related.
      circular reasoning. we are right because we all think the same (me and the mainstream).

      I am convinced, even more now than before, because with time I realize the high level of proof that was available even in 93, in 91 and even in 89 (hidden in drawers).
      Also I realize the level of loose job of mainstream job, that is an insult to science.
      The description of MIT and Caltech experiments is really just high school level.

      • Jami

        August 24, 2012 at 10:15 am

        Alain (and Daniel).

        For the hundredth time. You can’t constantly bring up the “All these wonderful scientists can’t possibly be mistaken” argument and then list people like Celani, Piantelli or Pons – and, at the same time, start crying out as soon as somebody mentions, that these people are a very, very, VERY small minority. So either stop using that sort of argument or live with the fact that you’re shoting your own foot when using it.

        And Tyler didn’t bring it up because I braught it up first (which I didn’t) – but because his entire presentation is based on it.

        • Alain

          August 24, 2012 at 11:21 am

          I don’t say thet they are wonderful, but that their resulst are much more credible that the critics.
          There are result, that eliminate the hypothesis of mesurement errors, and since long, and coherent with others having various settings…

          science is not a polling.
          the modern “consensus by force” sciences is really stinky.

          and also look at the behavior of those that have worked on the subject…
          Bob Duncan, ouf Uni Missouri, was mainstream skeptic, by default, because he was trusting like 99% of scientists, the claims of those who talk louder and control Nature, science and all magazine by terrorism. this is not conspiracy theory, but well known, publicly proved, and logical fact.
          Then , like NI he look at the results, the data, the researchers…
          and now ICCF18 is palnned at Uni Missouri for 2013.
          NIWeek show LENR.
          Naturewissenshaften magazine sine dec 2008 have a LENR editor…

          of course the Maginot Line of mainstream is still blocking massive public claims in mass media, but the dam is leaking everywhere…

          That people describe DGt as possible scammer is really irrational, if you profile their CV. Rossi is more risky, since his history can be interpreted in two way, and the best hypothesis is not fantastic, yet it explain his strange behavior.
          The success of selling his patent favor the optimistic hypothesis, which let great room for lies and over-optimistic claims.
          For DGT you can expect over-optimistic claims, yet less, and delays like in any real-life industrialization.
          The data they already gave have nothing to compare with scam pamphlet.

          Their behavior is more compatible with a company that was over-optimistic, than with a scam artist.
          Rossi personality is more over-optimistic and more artist, but indirect events show that if he might lie on technology (sure), on readyness (probable), it is clear that he own something with potential.
          Add also the behavior and profile of Aldo Proia, compared to his CV, and you will realize that rational deep pockets have seen the potential.

          Each time you claim that DGT, Rossi are scam, you have to assume that all their associate, their speakers, their HR, their partners (like the NTUA researcher that share the paper), are sharing the complicity.

          is it more credible than that simply LENR is real, experiments well well made, thet few people continue to work, tested similar but different protocol with NiH, obtained higher resulst at higher temperature, and that industrialist just replicate the experiments in a bigger pot with similar energy density.
          then few people that dare to look at the pots, get convinced and bet their balls in that technology, even indirectly like NI.

          of course you just have to accept that the mainstream science is victim of consensus terrorism, groupthink, frauds, lose job, budget cuttings of dissenters… but that is not new, not exceptional.

          what is so hard to believe.

          science is working as usual, and politics as usual. nothing new.

  5. dsm

    August 23, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    Frank Ackland’s own words about why the Rossi Zurich conference will not be everything his devoted followers expect.
    .
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/rossi-not-expecting-media-attention-from-upcoming-conference/
    .
    Frank doesn’t let the obvious conclusions intelligent observers can see, get in the way of his apologist rational (in advance whats more) for why the event will be low key. (In other words a non-event).
    .
    Frank is now even using the ‘if’ word a lot. Such as if Rossi releases an ‘independent’ report (implying strongly, a 3rd party ‘validation’) of the eCat technology.
    .
    To me it was always plain the Rossi had to placate the people he took money from for home eCat agency sales rights & as he doesn’t have a home eCat (blamed ‘certification delays) he is in a bit of a pickle.
    .
    He has to make it look like the bandwaggon has substance.
    .
    He has to placate those who keep wondering why he fails to get a truly independent validation and why anytime one was organized, he reneged.
    .
    He has to maintain the image that he is in control (which to a certain degree he is, as he has so many of us dancing to his tune).
    .
    As promised, I have my hat sitting aside but have little fear it will get eaten this Sept & neither will Rossi’s magic machine be independently validated by then.
    .
    DSM
    (The Rossi Sept dealer conf will have been a very effective but useless distraction that ate up a few months)

    • dsm

      August 23, 2012 at 11:05 pm

      A wonderfully choice use of words by the esteemed Frank 🙂
      .
      “Even if the much-discussed E-Cat test report that will be released just prior to the conference confirms the LENR claims that Rossi has been making over the last couple of years, I would be quite surprised if there was much coverage of it in the media.
      .
      So when Frank says “I would be quite surprised if there was much coverage of it in the media. ” what do you think he is really saying, even if he doesn’t realize exactly what it is himself 🙂
      .
      DSM

    • dsm

      August 24, 2012 at 12:09 am

      Can’t resist this bit of irreverence in reinterpretation of Frank’s last para 🙂 (yes I know I am being positively evil >:) )
      .
      Frank said
      “I don’t think Rossi’s intentions at this point are to interest the media. His targets with these conferences and reports are probably serious players in the world of engineering and business who have their ear to the ground and are looking to pick up on something new and useful, even if it has not yet hit the media in a big way. ”
      .
      DSM’s version
      “I don’t think Rossi’s intentions at this point are to interest the media as we all know he failed miserably at that. His targets with these conferences and never ending JoNP based reports are probably serious players such as Feng Shui masters & new energy shysters, (not in the real world of engineering and business), who have their heads in the sand (or cuckoo land) and are looking to pick up on something new and useful but can only see sand, even if their folly has not yet hit the media in a big way of which we can be sure, it never will.”
      .
      (my humble apologies in advance 🙂 )

  6. GreenWin

    August 23, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    “Denial is the refusal to acknowledge the existence or severity of unpleasant external realities [LENR] or internal thoughts and feelings [I HATE Rossi!”] minddisorders.com

    But we will be allowing denier perps the opportunity to plead “mental deficiency” to explain their BEHAVIORS – at the People’s Tribunal. Such unfortunates will be ushered into a special Energy Transition Therapy program. We wish them speedy recovery and suggest whilst doing so, they watch – IGZ-2013! 🙂

    Resistance WAS Futile.

    • Al Potenza

      August 23, 2012 at 11:39 pm

      We’ll see what you have to say when Defkalion and Rossi deliver nothing by year end and after as they have continued to do since day one. You’ll probably still be kissing Rossi’s rear end even if he goes back to jail.

    • dsm

      August 23, 2012 at 11:46 pm

      GreenWin
      .
      you mostly seem to act like a broken cuckoo clock.
      .
      At random times you pop up & squawk ‘cuckoo talk’ & then pop away.
      .
      We can’t even rely on your timing as offering us anything we can make sense of other than that time appears to stand still in your cuckoo world.
      .
      DSM

      • GreenWin

        August 24, 2012 at 5:53 am

        Doug, indeed, occasionally we have stopped in time.

  7. CuriousChris

    August 24, 2012 at 12:52 am

    Alain says
    “I’m more confident on 9/11 conspiracy financed by alien. about Rossi, he is more credible, but i wont bet on it at even at 100/1”

    We have had this discussion before, You still have your hands over your ears saying “I cant hear you”

    This is the story DGT sells and you apparently unquestioningly believe…

    Rossi is introduced to DGT who’s job was to design the shell Rossi’s Reactor was to reside in. The so called Hype-rion

    DGT discover Rossi is fraud (assumed, but why else did they refuse to pay him? perhaps they are just dishonest!)

    DGT independently discover LENR with thousands of times greater output than any other known researcher, but amazingly similar to Rossi’s they then ramp it up to a COP of 22. They do this in a record 3-4 months where others have failed to get any consistent results in 23 years.

    Do you have any idea how incredibly ridiculous this sounds. If you believe in DGT you must by extension believe in Rossi.

    Its simply logic, Then you must ask yourself how did DGT acquire their own version of the Rossi reactor. Independently as they claim or by stealing Rossi’s IP which they admitted to secretly acquiring.

    • dsm

      August 24, 2012 at 1:12 am

      CuriousChris
      .
      Are you back to inventing your ‘evidence’ yet again ?
      .
      There is only hearsay of a very weak kind to back this bit up that you posted
      .
      “Its simply logic, Then you must ask yourself how did DGT acquire their own version of the Rossi reactor. Independently as they claim or by stealing Rossi’s IP which they admitted to secretly acquiring.”
      .
      The basic logic flaws that are in the above weak statement include …
      .
      1) “their own version of the Rossi reactor” ? – says who ? – how about their own version of the published Piantelli reactor ? (published not divined as you would have it). Rossi repeatedly states they never got near one !. They never admit at anytime they ever had one !. If they did state “we got hold of one” please list that original claim ?, because I am telling you Chris, it does not exist in this planet.
      .
      2) “they admitted to secretly acquiring”. Hmmm says who ? – so please produce the actual original language admission *was it Greek, was it Danish, or was it in English) ? ( and not any Mats Lewan translation or misinterpretation , that we are expected to take on ‘trust’ alone).
      .
      Also please add the comment where the DGT CEO specifically states that as he understands it a University supposedly did a spectrum analysis. Then you tell us what that analysis said (or just acknowledge you have no idea – which is the truth of the matter). All hearsay on hearsay on bias.
      .
      But everything else you say appears to be a fair summary.
      .
      DGT only had to start with Piantelli’s 1995 patent & the 2008 update (both freely available & far more readable that what Rossi applied for in 2008).
      .
      DSM

      • Al Potenza

        August 24, 2012 at 1:49 am

        I wish you’d tell us why you think DGT has any reactor at all that works.

        Certainly, since the start, they’ve done nothing but make ridiculous claims of high power, liquid cooled reactors that run continuously, send telemetry data home, have self destruct devices, and other absurdities, all starting June 2011 on their forum.

        Time and again, they made promises of tests and results and they have kept NONE of those promises.

        The photos they showed on the internet are lame and stupid. They show nothing to indicate that DGT has made anything that works nor that they have an orderly and effective production or even test facility with proper and appropriate equipment.

        DGT has given no public demos, no independent tests with public results and if they’ve done private tests, nobody has admitted to doing them. The Greek authorities specifically denied doing any tests when questioned by a member of Parliament.

        So tell us again, what evidence do you have or have you seen that DGT has anything whatsoever except their fertile scammy imaginations? What reason do you have to think they have anything at all?

        • dsm

          August 24, 2012 at 2:27 am

          Al
          .
          Al said “I wish you’d tell us why you think DGT has any reactor at all that works. ”
          .
          Where did I say that in this thread ? PLEASE quote me if you want a debate as you have become notorious for manipulating wording & topics to suit your agenda & when you don’t quote that is now my 1st suspicion of your motive.
          .
          I stated repeatedly in this thread I’ll believe they have a LENR reactor the day an independent body validates it. And that has NOT happened yet.
          .
          The above post was about the oft repeated & provable lie that DGT said they stole Rossi’s reactor to create theirs.
          .
          DSM

          • Al Potenza

            August 24, 2012 at 3:01 am

            Well, shoot me if I can’t read but the words I see suggest that you think they have some version of the Piantelli reactor and that for some reason, because it’s Piantelli, it works. If that’s not what you meant, you need to be more clear.

            I’m pretty clear. The evidence we have from what Defkalion has shown and done is that they have absolutely nothing that works.

            If I am drawing the wrong inference from your post, maybe clarity is the problem.

          • dsm

            August 24, 2012 at 3:06 am

            I was 100% clear when I said quote me.
            .
            DSM

          • CuriousChris

            August 24, 2012 at 5:24 am

            You have become a joke DSM. The purpose of your attack has nothing to do with clarification or finding the truth according to DSM. It is to try and take a stick to someone who has according to your little rewrite of the world slandered McKubre. That’s obvious to all and sundry. Your hypocrisy is just as obvious.

            I will answer one real obvious question you asked. Ultimately yes a believer like yourself would and can make the statement that DGT’s reactor may be based on Piantellis work. but then as far as we know so is Rossi’s via Focardi. The only person who has claimed kilowatts of power apart from DGT is Rossi not Piantelli, and they only claimed it after they broke up with Rossi and after they admitted to breaching their agreement with Rossi and analysing the contents of the E-Cat

            Whether or not Mats Lewan is telling the truth in his statement is not for me to determine. But joining the dots its hard to draw any other conclusion
            http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3353181.ece

            You have a chip on your shoulder. I personally no longer give a damn what you think. You have lost any shred of credibility you once had with me. But you have my permission to continue to make a fool of yourself. Over to you now for your next dummy spit.

          • dsm

            August 24, 2012 at 5:36 am

            Chris
            .
            If you post something as a fact back it up. You are the joke because you leave yourself open when you jump on others with your ‘facts’ that can be shown to be fallacies. Even now you are backing off your claim.
            .
            Go read your post again – more claims & no proofs – just Chis says & thus it has to be true ?.
            .
            What makes it nasty is when you just keep doing it.
            .
            It is sooo easy, just post the proof & you are out of hot water. But if your answer to a request for proof is to attack rather than prove then anyone might ask WTF you are here for ?. Not for any truth 🙂
            .
            DSM
            By the way did you ever find the proof to back up your slander of Bob & Mike ? (nup, but you keep doing that too 🙂 )

          • dsm

            August 24, 2012 at 5:46 am

            Chris Said :
            ” but then as far as we know so is Rossi’s via Focardi. ” – oh is that so. And where might Focardi have got it ?.
            .
            But here you stated “their own version of the Rossi reactor.”. So Chris whose reactor is it ?. And while we are at can you link to the info that allows you to state this “Rossi’s IP which they admitted to secretly acquiring”. I challenged you to prove they said and did that.

            .
            So Chris rather than answer the question with proofs to shut me up, you attack and that is the classic defense of someone who has no proof.
            .
            DSM

        • Alain

          August 24, 2012 at 10:01 am

          You seems to be unable to understand the reality of business and normal life.

          that you compare papp story and DGT is… pfff… look at their CV…

          ther is room for business lies, and business optimism…

          about proofs, I would tell you what I say to my 3 years old daughter :
          Wait a few minutes, I’m working on it, and it is harder than what I imagined first…

          that NI associate their business image with DGT is one circumstantial evidence, that mixed with other similar, profiling, and the content and structure of their claims, raise confindence.

          that you cannot understand that, does not mean other here can read and understand it.

          by the way about teh ridiculous powe, note that the Grenoble experiment reached COP=2.5 of anomalous heat, if boiling
          “Our experience during this last three years, leads us to conclude that the Fleischmann and Pons calorimeter is very accurate and well adapted to study cold fusion phenomenon. It is simple and precise. However precautionary measures must be taken:
          – the Dewar must be of excellent quality, i.e. good vacuum, in order to eliminate heat losses by conduction, and operate with radiation losses only,
          – temperature calibration of the thermistors must be done very precisely,
          – all electrical feedthroughs must be sealed off in order to eliminate spilling off of electrolyte by capillarity.
          Our results concerning the relative excess heat (percentage of excess heat to enthalpy input) can be summarized as follows:
          – below 70°C, between 0 and 5%
          – between 70°C and 99°C, about 10%
          – at boiling, up to 150% especially in the final phase which appears as the best condition to get a large amount of excess heat.
          As already done by S. Pons, with ICARUS 9, it is necessary to operate at boiling on a permanent basis to obtain the most significant results.”
          NASA already obtained COP=1.7
          http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf#page=7
          in 89.

          the great reason why mainstrean scientist reject LENr is because they don’t have the real data, but buzz spread by liars and fraudster like MIT.

          and don’t forget that even 0.01% of proved without doubt anomalous heat above chemical potential, is a revolution.
          anyway 250% is easier to be sure about.

          that there is not real mainstream theoretical research (if it is weak, I understand that applied researcher abandon), that is a symptom of a big dysfunction of Science.

          in that context, like you propose not to care of Rossi says, I don’t care of MIT says.
          Note that I’m enough honest anyway to care of critics, when they contain some substance, even if it is to gather data on psychiatry and politics.

          • Jami

            August 24, 2012 at 10:56 am

            “NASA already obtained COP=1.7 in 89”

            You should read the paper referenced on page 7 of the presentation you linked to. It concludes:

            “Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the explanation of choice.”

            They sort of leave the door open for non-trivial (possibly even LENR) explanations – but not for the data they measured themselves. In effect they’re saying “we can explain pretty well what we measured – we can’t explain what Mills measured”.

            This was just another failed replication.

          • Alain

            August 24, 2012 at 1:02 pm

            ok, thanks for the correction.
            so the positive results is only for the replication in 2006 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006LiuB-ExessHeat.pdf.

            I was thinking about a quoted experiments gas phase, like the replication, and you are right in that slide it is electrolysis…

            so maybe the data were clear only in 96 with that one,
            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LonchamptGreproducti.pdf
            or earlier (I should search)

            COP2.5 at boiling temp, with checked calorimetry is rock solid…

            McKubre isothermal experiment seems already good in 91
            http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermal.pdf

            It was addressing all critics already.

            I have to find the gas phase report of Nasa GRC…
            so OK, maybe was the situation not so clear until 1992.

            PS: I’ve found the gas phase experiment

          • Alain

            August 24, 2012 at 1:15 pm

            I’ve found the old report of Nasa anout gas permeation test and it is, I agree less blatant that what I imagined.
            http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FralickGCresultsofa.pdf

            there is heat generated, but clearly the team was looking for neutrons and neglected to look further for heat source.
            not even estimation of heat quantity, and comparison to the hypothetical chemical sources…

            the report made after replication in 2006
            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006LiuB-ExessHeat.pdf
            is much more clear, and represent what the people in 89 would have found if they have pursued to look at anomalous heat, and not neutrons.

            thanks for the help.

          • Alain

            August 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm

            here is the F&P (in fact mills cell) replication study quoted in the slides
            http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/TM-107167.pdf
            and made in 1996

            note the full quote
            “Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination becomes the explanation of choice. But even perfect recombination can not account for all of the apparent excess heat in those Mills cells usually operated in a pulsed current mode and reported to input to the cell.”These cases at least leave the door open to more interesting possibilities. Considering the potential
            value of a new energy source it seems worth while to study the Mills type cell in configuration allowing an accurate account for recombination and water loss.
            Insufficient resources prevented us from proceeding with a more careful study of the excess heat effect in cell types adapted to bear on specific questions. For example, certain gaseous loading types,such as the D2-Pd transient pressurizing experiments at NASA or the H2-Ni heating experiment at the University of Siena, could avoid the complications of electrolytic cells, while exploring possibilities of high temperature operation and radiation
            emission.”

            in a way that article simply say that recombination is not proved, not even credible, yet easy excuse. that clearly one should make better experiments, but budget is short.

            So in a way I retract the “it was clear in 89″…
            it seems that, even if there was many replication, the key organization manage not to have budget or curiosity to analyze the anomaly, just accepting improbable extreme hypothesis of errors…
            it seems that what F&P have announced in 89, was old anomaly found and rejected as errors since few decades (some say 50s)…

            maybe that period of “non curiosity” allowed for the comfortable rejection of cold fusion to sediment in an impossible to change consensus.

            thanks for pushing me to look further.

          • Alain

            August 24, 2012 at 2:18 pm

            The full story, rebuild with your support
            http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=474&p=1947#p1947

            interesting.
            anyway the end is the same.
            2009, all is clear.
            Maybe is it why/because Naturwissenschaften hired a LENR editor around that period… why Spawar communicated (and the lenr lab closed)…

            normally for hard innovation it can take 5 years to get into production… we seems on the track. (someone gave me the example of that former startup http://www.adamantec.com/en/technology/diamond-coatings )

          • Jami

            August 24, 2012 at 2:19 pm

            I disagree when you say “not even credible”. It is the explanation of choice in this case because it is (and already was at the time) a known, inevitable effect and it accounted for the anomaly. I’m sure the researchers wished to look further into the matter but somebody must have thought they could spend the money and time better elsewhere (and I would’ve probably agreed).

            The unloading anomalies struck me as interesting when I first touched LENR a while back. They seemed utterly counter-intuitive and suggested that something strange was going on – not necessarily nuclear in origin but at least unexpected. Until I read “Origin of excessheat generated during loading Pd-impregnated alumina powder with deuterium and hydrogen” by Dmitriyeva et al.

          • Alain

            August 24, 2012 at 3:23 pm

            what he said is that recombination hypothesis, had to be pushed to the extreme to explain the anomaly.
            The heat linked to aluminia is interesting, but as far as I remember (I agree I should check) it was used to strengthen procedure in LENR experiments, by baking so oxides are eliminated…
            Today oxides (of Ni , of Pd, of Zr,Ti…) seems to be interesting factors… it was discussed at ICCF17, but I did not read those articles .

            After correction, no real change.
            moreover many experiments had total energy much higher than any chemical reaction in that volume. Celani is in that group, with heat disintegrating the chemical limit.

            note the honesty of LENR scientist who, when a critic is sent, try to correct it… and most of the time find it is negligible.

          • Jami

            August 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm

            What are you talking about? Read it. The effect’s got absolutely nothing to do with oxides.

            “note the honesty of LENR scientist who, when a critic is sent, try to correct it… and most of the time find it is negligible.”

            You’re still living in that strange dream where LENR is proven and 99% of the world just doesn’t know yet. Just the things we’ve discussed here in a couple of minutes should strike at least ten or twenty, probably more, papers you thought were irrefutable from the list just like that. What makes you think it’d be different with all the rest? There isn’t a single convincing experiment to date and it isn’t mainstream scientist’s fault. It isn’t group-think or conspiracy. It is that nobody’s proven it yet – not even slightly.

            When the vortex was still open, Jed and Joshua (the guy who I think you know as popeye over here – though I may be wrong) had a game they played. Jed kept on throwing a new paper after Josh every other day and Joshua had the skill and patience and time to destroy every single one of them to the point where Jed (not being a physicists) gave up – only to come back with a “Yeah. But THIS one is REALLY convincing.”
            It felt like groundhog day. After a couple of weeks it ended when Jed finally exclaimed the he no longer bothered but still thought it was all very convincing just because there was so much of it. It was funny and frustrating to watch at the same time.

          • CuriousChris

            August 25, 2012 at 6:04 am

            Alain. You get me wrong. While for me the jury is out on LENR. the verdict may fall either way. (just to clarify, a little while back I had lost all hope, but have clawed some back)

            Its your apparent hopeless optimism in DGT that I am concerned about, you apparently take them at their word. I see nothing in their behaviour or words that gives me confidence, in fact quite the opposite. I was merely pointing out the anomalies and timelines do not make sense.

            You regularly excuse DGT’s approach as normal business practice. That applies only if you are an unconscionable business.

  8. dsm

    August 24, 2012 at 6:02 am

    And we have this link here to don’t we Chris – from months ago.
    .
    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/my-answer-to-prof-christos-stremmenos.html?showComment=1341453379123#c4060056393800240627
    .
    I was *very* polite then but when someone keeps repeating a claim that they won’t back up with evidence, it defines a well known pattern of bad behavior & I am merely calling you out on it.
    .
    Settle the matter by providing the words from DGT that they admit they stole Rossi’s IP. Lewan’s link was updated such that he backed off it. You should have too.

    .
    DSM

    • Jami

      August 24, 2012 at 10:28 am

      DGT sort of stole Rossi’s IP, which is “use an undead branch of science, such as LENR, for scamming unsuspecting investors with the help of a medium sized bunch of idiots on the internet who are keen to believe in just about anything”. I don’t think Rossi could patent the idea as such though. Apart from the internet stuff, it is as old as mankind itself.

      • Dsm

        August 24, 2012 at 11:31 am

        Jami
        You are a bit smarter than Chris can be so my friend are you telling us a fact or sneaking in an opinion 🙂
        .
        DSM
        .
        PS – if we ( when I wear a skeptic hat) expect to be able to rubbish what we may see as BS & Naivette of true believers, don’ t we run the risk of being hypocrits if we can’ t use supported facts. What I am saying is we tear so many believers to bits over crap facts but then when we ( like me asking some of us to back up claims of scam or theft ) use crap ‘facts’ against them. Too many of the skeptics among us have begun lying then denying it.

        • Jami

          August 24, 2012 at 12:16 pm

          “are you telling us a fact”

          You gotta be kidding or you have a very subjective idea of what a fact is. I’m expressing my opinion, of course. This is a blog, for heaven’s sake.

    • CuriousChris

      August 25, 2012 at 11:00 am

      Why should I step away from Fact? Mats Lewan didn’t retract his statement, only you claim that he did. Reread the damn article.

      Oh and I didn’t see the post you linked above anyway. As surprised as you might be by this fact I don’t read everything you write.

      So jere is the quote you wanted from Alexandros Xanthoulis

      “I know what he’s got in the reactor, I know everything. It was a spectroscopy (Greek: ‘fasmatoscopy’) made by the university of Siena. It was an equipment made by the University of Siena. It understands everything that’s inside the reactor. So we know the components.”

      Later the name was corrected/changed to the university of Padua and the corollary added that Rossi commissioned the report.

      There was no retraction of the statement “we have everything” just a name change and correction on who ordered a test. but there was no retraction. That part you made up all by yourself. As we know from Rossi he claims they do not know whats in his reactor. So if they know everything then logic dictates that it was taken without permission

      That’s called stealing.

  9. Jami

    August 24, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Alain
    “Each time you claim that DGT, Rossi are scam, you have to assume that all their associate, their speakers, their HR, their partners (like the NTUA researcher that share the paper), are sharing the complicity.”

    Why would I? In my opinion, only those consciously participating in the scam are “guilty”. The others either believe they’re doing nothing wrong or are just doing “a job” without realizing the thing they’re working on is based on a lie. Happens all the time. My former tax accountant was arrested for fraud a year ago. The people who worked for him all came out clean. They answered the phone, filed papers and god knows what other things worth doing in accountancy.

    Would be the same with DGT or Rossi. His plumber possibly really believes the crude machines he’s welding together are in fact nuclear reactors. If I’d be Rossi, I’d try to keep the number of people knowing that there is nothing as small as possible.

    • Jami

      August 24, 2012 at 12:39 pm

      When I wrote that thing about my accountant, I started thinking what became of his wife (who I know from a long way back) and called her to see how she’s doing these days. Funnily enough, she told me her husband (now out of jail and freshly devorced) had hired a lawyer to sue the German tax authorities for NOT noticing his cooking of the books for several years. He implicitly suggests, that they legitimized his doings by believing his data. His lawyer has talked him out of it, apparently, but the line of thinking behind it is very similar to believing Rossi is legit because people like Kullander or Essen didn’t uncover him.

    • daniel maris

      August 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm

      You are piling up the improbabilities though:

      You have scams involving a large number of people (difficult if not impossible).

      You have multiple research companies all developing LENR technology who must therefore all be deluded, incompetent or scamming liars.

      You have incompetent measurers of experiments, despite their decades of experience in the field of energy studies.

      You have deluded fantasists with physics doctorates claiming LENR.

      You have sceptics from a sceptics society who get taken in.

      You have a named engineer who is a scammer (Dominic F.).

      You have physicists workign closely with Rossi who lose all critical faculties after age 70.

      You have large organisations like NASA and DARPA taken in by the bogus research.

      You have to believe NASA have not filed an LENR patent despite the three references to the creation of LENR energy in the patent application or you have to believe they have filed a patent application for which they have no experimental basis.

      You have a number of organisations like AMOCO who have no vested interest in it, confirming the reality of LENR.

      You have to believe ALL these propositions for there to be no LENR.

      • JNewman

        August 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm

        Daniel, do you ever discard an argument after it has been repeatedly shown to be bogus? I think your list would be infinitely more compelling if you eliminated half of the items listed which are simply nonsense. I have no interest in going through them point by point since you ignore anything anyone ever says. But one thing I’ve been meaning to ask you: Can you name a single person at DARPA who has ever said something positive about LENR?

    • Alain

      August 24, 2012 at 2:55 pm

      among the plumbers that are manipulated there is a physiscits from NTUA who write an article with claims inside, there is NI Big Science director, ex-Energaya project director and his funders…
      Rich friends of Xanthoulis.
      Note that LENR is harder to swallow (you prove it) than Hedge-fund performance.

      And scammers climbing on scammers, with few one being already rich and having family and wealth to lose (eg: xanthoulis)…

      I try to see how your theory could be true, but I don’t see any possibility, even improbable.
      Now there is too many actors, and facts, and the clear opposition of mainstream does not help to believe that deep pocket get screwed by scam artists…

      in 2010 this theory could be defended… today after NiWeek… pff…

      If you look for scam, look for papp, leclair, photovoltaic, wind, biofuel, facebook, IPCC, chicago school of economics…

      • JNewman

        August 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm

        Your last sentence has put you on my pay no further attention list. Congratulations.

      • Jami

        August 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm

        “among the plumbers that are manipulated”

        In a metaphorical sense, yes. They are the “plumbers” here, like, say, Kullander was before them. They don’t know any more about the sectret catalyst than you or I do. And they all say things like “IF what Rossi says is true and the data hasn’t been manipulated, THEN this is really cool and a revolution” and all that.

        I think we can all agree on that. Only difference is how likely we believe the “IF” to be.

  10. spacegoat

    August 24, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    The title of this website is Ecat NEWS <—

    "Rather, I want to provide a platform for discussing all sides <— of the argument."

    http://ecatnews.com/?page_id=2

    Which sides of the argument are being discussed?

    E-cat news may have been reduced to a hard core of pummelling patho-skeptics but thankfully, serious posters like Alain and Pekka still post elsewhere.

    Paul, the admin, posts the most interesting editorials around. Shame his site has been hi-jacked as Scam Speculation and Accusation.

    • JNewman

      August 24, 2012 at 4:10 pm

      I continue to be greatly amused by people who fanatically believe in something that is still highly controversial and a long way from being proven to exist referring to those who haven’t joined their party as “pathoskeptics”. I guess it the strategy of usurping the middle ground that is so popular in modern politics. You take on an extremist position, declare yourself to be a moderate and categorize those who are actually in the middle as extremists of the opposite stripe. It seems to be effective in politics, so perhaps it is effective in whatever it is you folks are trying to accomplish with your LENR adoration.

  11. Stephen

    August 24, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    You guys all sound like people in a University bar, after more than a few beers.

    • GreenWin

      August 24, 2012 at 7:28 pm

      Scholars the world over resemble that comment Stephen. The dialog here mimics the sound of a kindergarten long past snack time.

      A great reason to join in!

      IGZ-2013 Resistance is Futile.

      • GreenWin

        August 24, 2012 at 7:44 pm

        Only Generale Zarcofagus would find this amusing:

        http://bit.ly/T56nMj