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

Original Defkalion Test PDF

October 19, 2012

With thanks to Eldering_G, the following is the original pdf (with signatures) from Defkalion’s test run. The document was posted on the DGT forum and then swapped for the one doing the rounds now with signatures blanked. I am on the road so post it in good faith for your comment.

2012-09-07_Test protocol signed

ETA videos (With Thanks to RonB)

 

 

 

 

Posted by on October 19, 2012. Filed under Defkalion,Hyperion,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

179 Responses to Original Defkalion Test PDF

  1. JKW

    October 19, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Paul, I don’t know what to think of it yet, but page 17 looks weird. Thanks for the new food, though.

  2. John Milstone

    October 19, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    A couple of quick observations:

    There is a significant difference between an independent test and having an “observer” to a test run by the people making the extraordinary claims. This was not an independent test.

    Apparently they are promising to release the actual data at some later date. This report has no actual data.

    Their (so far) unsubstantiated claim is a COP > 1.0. This is nothing like what they have been claiming for the last 15 months or so.

    No doubt the True Believers will be ecstatic over this, but it’s no more significant than Rossi’s dog & pony shows.

    • spacegoat

      October 19, 2012 at 3:59 pm

      “will be ecstatic over this,”
      Not at all.
      But it is more meta data,.
      Are we to assume DGT fabricated the PDF to purposely expose the name NASA? The DGT CTO was wearing a NASA t-shirt to support the scam? They imported an American named Mike (which corresponds with the PDF) into the scam?

      Patho-skeptics must surely answer Yes, Yes, Yes.

      Correct?

      • GreenWin

        October 19, 2012 at 6:13 pm

        yes. Yes. YES! It is in fact a scam to up gross sales of NASA merchandise, including coffee mugs with the acronyms: RIP ITER.

        IGZ-2013 I Got the Tee-Shirt!

    • Ransompw

      October 19, 2012 at 4:01 pm

      I wouldn’t expect much more from the likes of JKW and Milstone. Frankly, you two and quite a few others that have made this site your home really blow. Michael Nelson is a qualified person and weren’t you slobbering over yourself when you thought he was supporting your myopic view of Rossi?

      • John Milstone

        October 19, 2012 at 4:13 pm

        Ransompw, that’s a pretty bold statement given that none of the data has been released.

        We’ve had numerous previous examples where the build-up to the event looked really impressive, but the actual event was a huge let-down.

        If DGE had given a device to NASA and had them do their own testing, this would be very interesting. The fact that DGE ran the test with an “observer” is less so. As long as they are using DGE’s facilities, there is a chance of fraud. And even experts often can miss such fraud.

        • Ransompw

          October 19, 2012 at 4:24 pm

          It is your immediate rejection that is bold. Can’t you even see that you are biased. You start every evaluation from your fraud scenario and try to fit whatever you see into this square hole.

          That is precisely why you and your ilk make any discussion useless and why this site has become a joke. You and your buddies make joke after joke at the expense of anyone who wants to look seriously at this subject. Well joke away Milstone and I am sure the dimwits like General Nonsense etc. will join in.

          If you ever want to really discuss the subject seriously, maybe this site might be worth a post.

          Newman is about the only one of the regular skeptics I really respect.

          • John Milstone

            October 19, 2012 at 5:02 pm

            You start every evaluation from your fraud scenario

            Given DGE’s history, it’s reasonable to insist that they exclude the possibility of fraud.

            You and your buddies make joke after joke at the expense of anyone who wants to look seriously at this subject.

            Nothing in my comments on this post were jokes. Apparently, you can’t distinguish between stating facts and jokes.

            Newman is about the only one of the regular skeptics I really respect.

            That’s OK. I don’t respect you either.

          • GreenWin

            October 19, 2012 at 6:37 pm

            Ransompw, “Generale Nonsense” is misunderstood. Much the way Elephant Man was. Had he a heart, it would be on his sleeve. See, he means well, but is a militant despot deep down inside.

            I have invited Generale to guest host the “Ancient Symbols” segment of Island of Generale Zarcofagus. His wit, banter and command of low-level programming will make for a hilarious episode!

            In fact the caliber of talent here at ecnews is explosive. Alas, so many skeps, so few roles. IGZ-2013 Stay Tuned

          • lcd

            October 19, 2012 at 6:52 pm

            Well said Ransompw

    • spacegoat

      October 19, 2012 at 4:05 pm

      Regarding COP:
      “We got COP>3 very easy with noise to signal less than 4%. “

  3. spacegoat

    October 19, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    (From previous thread).

    So DGT deliver again, verified by Nasa (identity viewable with the right PDF reader) using their own equipment. But let that not interrupt Rossi clownery / Dick Smith discussions, which are more important of course.

    “Testers calibrated and tested all instruments that are logging data in our logging system with their own instruments. Obviously we do not suffer of such pre-mature experimental problems any more.

    The objective of this test was to get only COP>1.1 with a noise to signal ratio less than 10%. We got COP>3 very easy with noise to signal less than 4%. Note that the tested reactor R5 was not designed for maximum COP but to get maximum lab safety and control /understanding over the phenomena.”

    Yes I agree its just a DGT-PDF-Says. Does this meta data make you fraud name callers slightly worried?

    (JKW said “no”)

    • JKW

      October 19, 2012 at 5:35 pm

      Spacegoat, I have to run to work now, because one funny guy brought my cable down this morning. But I cannot leave without a collateral for my statement. I am ready to eat my hat when I see DGT Hyperions on the market. Just give a day notice so that I can sterilize it.

    • John Milstone

      October 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm

      So DGT deliver again, verified by Nasa (identity viewable with the right PDF reader)

      Wrong.

      What this “proves” is that Michael Nelson is using his employer’s laptop and software for his “hobby” (as shown in the link to the “perpetual motion” article).

      In every company I’ve ever worked for, this would be a fireable offense. Especially if it was incorrectly suggesting that the company was somehow “endorsing” the employee’s independent work.

      Perhaps NASA has looser rules. OTOH, since it’s likely that the American taxpayers are paying for that laptop and software, it might be not only a fireable offense, but possibly a criminal one.

      I hope someone (Paul?) will email NASA and ask for their official statement regarding Michael Nelson’s work. I strongly suspect that they have nothing to do with it and do not endorse his “hobby”.

      I would be happy to contact NASA, but none of the True Believers would believe anything I said, even with a verbatim copy of the entire email transcripts.

      • dragonX

        October 19, 2012 at 8:35 pm

        “I would be happy to contact NASA, but none of the True Believers would believe anything I said, even with a verbatim copy of the entire email transcripts.”

        That is lame excuse. Please, do contact NASA and get their official opinion. Why do you think we will not believe you?

        • John Milstone

          October 19, 2012 at 11:25 pm

          Why do you think we will not believe you?

          Because I’ve seen people like Methusla and Ransompw operate.

      • robiD

        October 20, 2012 at 3:38 pm

        If you could open your eyes for an instant, you’d see that a respectable and valid engineer that doesn’t work for Defkalion has observed a test making measurements by his own count and also with his own instruments, asking (and achieving) modifications in the setup and, at the end, he found that:
        – DGT is able to produce a real excess energy (excluding instrumental errors) in the amount of about 300% (for now);
        – the energy excess is not of chemical origin;
        – the energy excess can be achieved on request.

        If you were an American taxpayer you’d be happy that Mr. Nelson has done all that for you, and you should ask to American international laboratories to do the same.
        If NASA is not part of the test, you should ask them to do it.
        You should ask to your president to make things happen more quickly, you should ask to mister Obama to make the DOE part of the development instead of complain about the use of a laptop and the software installed on it, that’s ridiculous.
        Someone is telling you “hey man, watch over there, there is a treasure” and you are watching to the finger of the man is pointing it instead of watching to the treasure.

        • John Milstone

          October 21, 2012 at 1:22 am

          We will see.

          We don’t have any valid data to review. All we have is the comment of someone who apparently believes in perpetual motion devices. That by itself makes him an unreliable witness.

          When NASA (or any other credible organization) is given a gadget to test on their own then it will get interesting. As long as the test was conducted by the same people who are making the extraordinary claims in the first place, it’s not worth much.

          Speaking of NASA, did you know that Dr. Werner von Braun fell for Yuri Geller and his spoon-bending magic trick? Even normally smart people can be baffled and confused by con men.

          • robiD

            October 21, 2012 at 1:44 pm

            In the range of kiloWatts and with COPs of 3 or more, there is a little room for errors or tricks if the setup is correct and instruments work properly.

            Don’t be afraid about the data, they will arrive soon or later and not only from Free Energy Foundation and from DGT. There will be lot of data, but you will always stay with your eyes closed complaining about laptops, t-shirts and sillies like that.

            Someone else, instead, is starting to open his eyes:
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/10/20/cold-fusion-gets-a-little-more-real/

            It’s only a matter of time. I’m a patient man and I’m young enough to see the end of the movie (the pity is that Martin Fleischmann wasn’t).

  4. MaxS

    October 19, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Rossi once says Defkalion is fraud. Perhaps it was one of the single occasions where he told the truth. On the other hand, the former involvement of Mr Engineer with them is per se suspicious.
    Now appears at first glance Defkalion could be one step ahead of Rossi when it comes to verification of claims. Whether it is credible requires more detailed analysis.

  5. Jami

    October 19, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Is that the same Michael A. Nelson who claimed he wouldn’t test just any old perpetual motion machine but only those that promise over-unity? 😉

    To be fair to DGT, they had some catching up to do. When Rossi paraded his bunch of crackpots in Zürich, they surely turned green with envy – and now they struck back… with Michael. A. Nelson. Take that, Rossi.

    • Ransompw

      October 19, 2012 at 5:05 pm

      Another joke by one of the dimwit skeptics that populate this site. That is all they can do since they lack the ability to think in any other way.

      Wow Jami, you sure are smart, I’ll bet you even have a HS degree.

      • Jami

        October 19, 2012 at 5:18 pm

        Yeah, whatever. But it really is the guy who told Sterling Allen not to waste his time and please only send over-unity motors for further testing.

        http://peswiki.com/index.php/Tools:NASA_scientists_Nelson_%26_House_willing_to_verify_overunity_electromagnetic_machines

        For a lawyer, these remarks from a “NASA scientist” surely don’t leave the slightest dent in his reputation. And you’re right, of course. He may have been a complete idiot back then and now simply stopped drinking the damn kool-aid just before witnessing the DGT tests… everything is possible, I suppose.

        • Ransompw

          October 19, 2012 at 5:26 pm

          The only real question Jami is what are you drinking. Sour Milk?

          Can’t you wait to evaluate the material before concluding or would that be against the world you have created in your head.

          • Jami

            October 19, 2012 at 5:39 pm

            No. The conclusion that this Michael A. Nelson is the guy testing perpetual motion machines and wrote about it on PESN is pretty clear. No need to wait for confirmation of that simple fact. I haven’t concluded anything else yet. I will, probably, but until I have done so, your conclusion about my conclusion is premature.

        • John Milstone

          October 19, 2012 at 6:20 pm

          Wow, that link is pretty damning. And, I notice they make it clear that they are NOT representing NASA but doing this in their spare time.

          No doubt the True Belivers will ignore that part.

          • Ransompw

            October 19, 2012 at 6:55 pm

            Pretty damning only to someone that sees conspiracies and frauds behind every bush. Do you think they test with any less vigor because they are not a curmudgeon like you.

            You are hilarious.

  6. daniel maris

    October 19, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    I said you hypersceptics were getting a bit tetchy and sounding far less confident than before. With good reason perhaps.

    I am not a fan of DGT after the way they treated their supporters but if these results are for real, then I welcome them wholeheartedly.

    But if they are going down this research and publish route then we need to see the stuff published in the peer review journals as promised.

  7. GreenWin

    October 19, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    “And even experts often can miss such fraud…”

    AND the black helicopters hovering overhead. It is frightening to think all these NASA, and NRL scientists are “in” on the conspiracy to demoralize skeptopaths. Skeps are such a diminutive clan, fearing daily the Bewilderberg payroll will be cut.

    IGZ-2013 No Where to Hide

  8. Frank

    October 19, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    How to understand this:
    On Page 4 of the test plan is written “Atomic Hydrogen Production method” “As identified in ICCF17 paper by J Hadrjichristos et all”

    The test plan was approved on 18/7/2012 (see page 5)
    Do they refer in the test plan from July to a paper which was not available at that time?

    • Ransompw

      October 19, 2012 at 7:07 pm

      Available to who?

      • Frank

        October 19, 2012 at 7:15 pm

        See the last pages of the ICCF17 paper. They show tables with test data from 18/7/2012. That means that this ICCF paper wasn’t ready (atmost it was in preparation) at the time when the test plan was approved.

  9. DvH

    October 19, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    the ‘innovative’ way to route the water-pipes near the electric outlets and switch-boxes seems to indicate that they have better gaskets than AR…

  10. Quax

    October 19, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    IMHO this is somewhat more substantial than anything we’ve seen from Rossi, simply because there is some actual test protocol that has the stated purpose to demonstrate energy production in excess of what can be achieved chemically.

    Other than that the standard caveats apply.

    I have a hard time finding anything about Michael Nelson outside the LENR darknet. Surely it cannot be this dude, who just holds a BS degree?

    • Ransompw

      October 19, 2012 at 7:14 pm

      Quax:

      I think that is the same Michael Nelson. You think it takes more schooling then that to do calorimetry? Maryyugo apparantly claimed to be able to do it, I suspect it can’t be too hard.

      • JNewman

        October 19, 2012 at 7:47 pm

        Just more metadata to digest. We have a company that claims to have world-revolutionizing technology and announces that they are inviting experts from around the world to validate their claims. One must presume that they would want the validators to be widely-acknowledged experts whose credentials and integrity is unquestioned. It only stands to reason, or why bother to pursue this course at all – if DGT were legitimate, that is. So the question is: does this highly-awaited report come remotely close to meeting the criteria set for it? Is this Michael Nelson the best the world had to offer?

        I don’t expect an honest answer. I expect the usual convoluted explanations about Greeks, entrepreneurs, geniuses, and other lame excuses for fishy behavior.

        • Ransompw

          October 19, 2012 at 9:33 pm

          The best the world had to offer? Are you serious, Who do you think that would be?

          • JNewman

            October 19, 2012 at 9:38 pm

            You misread me. I don’t mean that there is one “best” person in the world to perform this test. There are many many people who would meet the criteria with respect to reputation, affiliation, and expertise. No, what I mean is that Defkalion solicited testers around the world and this guy was the best the world had to offer. Or at least, the best they were willing to have participate. Interesting.

      • Quax

        October 20, 2012 at 2:44 am

        Ransompw,

        it’s not only calorimetry that I am most concerned with but a complete assessment of the test procedures and how they are implemented. I.e. to be able to rule out foul play and ensure that what the company claims it is measuring is actually what is measured.

        And What does Mary Yugo have to do with this anyhow? We don’t know his/her academic credentials.

        At any rate, I don’t think Dick Smith will lose sleep over this test just yet.

        • Ransompw

          October 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm

          Quax:

          Do you know Nelson? Also, what parts of the test protocol do you question? I doubt the pseudoskeptic is going to put themselves out to test, they have concluded it is a fraud.

          By the way, I believe Nelson was part of the Nasa team that went to test Rossi’s ecat and all the skeptics here were very pleased to accept his report of that event. Don’t you think the Thickets ect on this site would criticize any testing?

          Finally, I have mentioned in the past 2nd hand knowledge (although what I believe is credible) of the testing. Most of the Skeptics here don’t even believe they have occurred, so now that they see they were wrong is there even a slight change in position? Obviously not. What does that tell you about their openmindedness?

          • Quax

            October 20, 2012 at 3:15 pm

            Ransompw, asks Do you know Nelson?

            No, I don’t, that was exactly my point. I tried to find something out about him. His resume, while fine, is not of the caliber that I would have liked to see.

            It doesn’t help that he wasn’t there on behalf of NASA.

            I am happy to find that there actually was at least this one test, but I am hoping for more with less LENR affiliated testers. And it is my understanding that this was originally promised. At this point this is just yet another morsel stewing in the LENR/free energy microcosm.

    • RonB

      October 19, 2012 at 8:31 pm

      Jeeze.. I’m starting to feel like the ugly stepchild because I only have a BS degree : o

      • Quax

        October 20, 2012 at 2:48 am

        RonB, there are lots of degrees of all stripes that really are BS 🙂

      • Robert Munson

        October 20, 2012 at 4:43 am

        Turns out your the real dummy in the pack!;)

  11. Thicket

    October 19, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    This ‘report’ by Defkalion is highly entertaining.

    I hardly know where to begin.

    * Defkalion acknowledges that Michael Nelson lacks knowledge of previous data and observations. Nelson is s perpetual motion nutter.

    * Michael Nelson has been paid to attend by the Free Energy Foundation. Maybe this is the Dutch organization developing solar energy in rural areas, but I doubt it. ‘Free Energy’ is a common pseudonym for Perpetual Motion. I’d be curious if a bunch of perpetual motion woo-wooers were financing the test observation.

    * Defkalion wanted Michael Melich to attend. Melich is writing the final report. What a joke! Melich is on the board of directors for Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics. He’s promoted LENR and cold fusion for decades. Melich is a nutter who reportedly has tried to convince people that he’s a secret agent working for the U.S. government monitoring cold fusion. This is supposed to be an ‘independent third party validation’?

    * Defkalion has taken a page out of Rossi’s notebook, albeit almost two years later. This is a witness test, not a third party validation. The test was controlled by Defkalion.

    * I see no mention of NASA in the report. Maybe we should have a poll as to whether it’s a T-shirt or a filename that constitutes NASA endorsement of this test. 🙂

    * Argon is used to show that the cold fusion reaction is dependent on hydrogen. Well duh! Argon is an inert, Noble gas. Of course there won’t be any reactions with Argon. Defkalion is using complexity to baffle the ignorant.

    * Those familiar with Rossi’s ‘demonstrations’ will recognize the heating up of the system. Also familiar is the continued use of electrical heat in order to ‘maintain the internal temperatures in the reaction as steady as possible.’ Uhuh. Right. You need to add heat to maintain the temperature and keep the reaction going. And here we thought that the Defkalion process produced excess heat.

    * Of course, they didn’t test for gamma radiation or transmutations. After all, this is cold fusion so why would anyone want to do that? /boggle.

    * Hydrogen had to be added, apparently because there was a small hydrogen leak. Right! There was no chance that hydrogen could have been consumed in a reaction with oxygen in the system to produce water and… wait for it… heat. That’s because they ensured that there was no oxygen in the system. No, wait, they didn’t do that.

    * What’s this nonsense about using a glycol-water mix? Sounds like more complexity to baffle folks. Plain water is just fine.

    * Testing on the second day had to be cut short because of problems. That sure sounds familiar.

    * Did you notice the spark plugs in the reactor? Spark plugs are excellent when combusting hydrogen and oxygen to form water and heat.

    * Why did they do a vacuum test? This is a poor way of testing for leakage. Of course, if you want to ensure that there is air in the system, then it’s a good way to get it there. Suck in some air, pressure up with hydrogen, heat up the equipment, ignite the oxygen/hydrogen system with spark plugs, keep adding electric heat and shut down the test prematurely. Bingo, cold fusion demonstrated.

    * They generated some steam! They didn’t consider that in their calculations. That would sure throw a monkey wrench into the numbers. After all, the heat of vaporization for water is five times the latent heat to take the same water from zero to 100 degrees C. Use the generation of steam to your advantage. After all, if you calculate getting excess heat based on liquid water only, then you can crow that there was lot more energy produced than you expected because you generated steam that you didn’t measure.

    * Add some mystery and credibility by listing lots
    of folks by only their initials

    * Make sure there are lots of instruments. This adds credibility. Did you notice that they calibrated flow meters using a scale and a stop watch? Bwaahaahaa. Amateurs.

    * Claim that chemical reactions were not a factor. Don’t actually say what reactions were considered and accounted for.

    * Say that the purpose of the test is to get a COP > 1. Then claim that you demonstrated it. Do a whole bunch of hand waving in between the two and count on gullible folks to believe you.

    Conclusion:

    The test procedure and results are a dog’s breakfast of incompleteness, inconsistencies, red flags and drivel.

    You just need to read and understand this report to see convincing evidence that Defkalion is fraudulent.

    • John Milstone

      October 19, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      * Argon is used to show that the cold fusion reaction is dependent on hydrogen. Well duh! Argon is an inert, Noble gas. Of course there won’t be any reactions with Argon. Defkalion is using complexity to baffle the ignorant.

      Of course, there is a branch of the perpetual-motion, free-energy movement that claims to be able to extract “free”energy from noble gasses.

      How fortunate that they didn’t accidentally get all that free energy from the Argon, which would have “hidden” their free energy from the Hydrogen!

      • Methusela

        October 21, 2012 at 9:21 am

        Nutter…

    • JNewman

      October 19, 2012 at 7:27 pm

      Thicket, you are knowledgeable in technical matters, so you are disqualified from judging the DGT report. Please leave that to lawyers and social scientists. At least they don’t “conclude”.

      • Ransompw

        October 19, 2012 at 8:04 pm

        Newman:

        You really think Thicket is knowledgable. What do you base that on? He thinks the excess heat is coming from a hydrogen/oxygen reaction and he doesn’t know how much hydrogen was involved, if any oxygen was in the system or the energy generated. I’d call his above post pretty much nonsense. So that is your expert?

        Frankly, on one hand we have Michael Nelson who openly was critical of Rossi and made it clear that rigorous testing was necessary to confirm any claim of LENR and then you have Thicket, a blogger who we don’t know from Adam that posts silly comments like the one above about hydrogen and oxygen and we should be persuaded by someone named Thicket. You really got to be kidding.

        • Thicket

          October 19, 2012 at 8:17 pm

          There you go again Ransom. Of course you have zero idea if I’m knowledgeable or not. You’re a lawyer. You are ignorant about technical matters. You can’t compose a cogent technical comment on the Defkalion report because you’re clueless. You pull your jabs out of your butt because you’ve decided to be a Rossi/Defkalion shill. Stick to lawyering. On technology, you’re a Google hexpert.

          • Ransompw

            October 19, 2012 at 8:33 pm

            No I’m not clueless. I have read enough over the last year and 1/2 half to be quite knowledgable on this subject. That’s what lawyers do. And I am certainly as well educated as you and I don’t even have to know your background to be certain of that fact.

            What I find is nonsense in your post. There are no measurements given on the hydrogen used in the experiment. To make a claim that Nelson a NASA engineer mistook a hydrogen/oxygen reaction for a positive LENR test is insulting. It insults him and insults a reasonable person’s intelligence.

            What is does show is your bias and agenda in writing what you write. Now if you had a shread of data to back up that nonsense it would be one thing but you don’t even care to bother with such scientific trivialities as evidence in formulating opinions.

          • Thicket

            October 19, 2012 at 8:50 pm

            Ransom

            I going to try to explain aome technical points to you. I’ll keep it simple so maybe you’ll follow.

            * Defkalion admitted that they had a leak in their system.

            * Defkalion stated that they did a vacuum leak test. What happens when you have a leak and apply a vacuum (hint: you suck in air)

            * They then pressured up with hydrogen, heated the system, and ignited the contents of the reactor with two spark plugs. What do you get when you have hydrogen, oxygen (from air) and an ignition source? (hint: you form water and generate heat)

            It’s an obvious point. Your counter argument is that Nelson surely wouldn’t be fooled by this. I don’t know whether he would or not. He’s a flaky free energy/perpetual motion nutter. You find him credible. That makes you the fool.

          • Ransompw

            October 19, 2012 at 9:19 pm

            Just a second big guy, precisely what does it say in the report about a vacuum leak test and where? Second are you contending they didn’t do as they claimed in the test protocal,hold a vacuum in the reactor, heat, then cool and then add H2? They were measuring pressure in the reactor, what was the air pressure in the reactor before they pressurized with hydrogen?

          • Bigwilly

            October 19, 2012 at 9:31 pm

            “Im a lawyer, bla bla bla.”

            Your profession is meaningless. You are a random internet poster. Your credibility rest solely on the content of your posts.

            I know plenty of professionalism that are complete buffoons.

            Me especially most of the time.

            BW, Esq.

          • JNewman

            October 19, 2012 at 9:44 pm

            Ransom, one of your posts to Thicket caught my eye. You explained how you have read lots of stuff over the past eighteen months so now you are knowledgeable. Have you been reading electrochemistry textbooks? Treatises on calorimetry? Books on nuclear physics? If so, and you have the wherewithal to understand and retain what you read, then I agree that you are knowledgeable. If, on the other hand, you have read endless gibberish on Vortex, e-cat-world and other bastions of pseudo-science, then just stop it. It’s like me saying that I am knowledgeable about the law because I watched a lot of Perry Mason as a kid.

          • Ransompw

            October 20, 2012 at 4:49 am

            Thickets comment about the vacuum is nonsense. The protocol says they held a vacuum in the reactor heated it, then cooled it then added h2. When did the air enter the system, when they were holding and measuring a vacuum? Let’s see how much O2 was in the system when the reactor was at 0 bars, any estimate? Is that the O2 that reacted with the H2? Must have been a collosal explosion all thet O2 that measured as a vacuum. Thicket is full of BS and obviously you know so little science you don’t even recognize it.

          • LCD

            October 20, 2012 at 5:10 pm

            No Thicket is wrong with the O2 assumption of the leak if that’s what he is saying.

            H2 is hard to enclose. A leak of H2. Does not imply a leak of air.

      • daniel maris

        October 19, 2012 at 10:00 pm

        J Newman,

        Given that you say professors of physics from ancient seats of learning know nothing about chemical reactions and calorimetry, it seems a bit redundant to ask whether Ransom has read any books on the subject.

        • JNewman

          October 19, 2012 at 10:03 pm

          Fine words from a man who believes that 95% of the world’s climate experts don’t know what they are talking about. You are remarkable, sir.

    • Frank

      October 19, 2012 at 7:37 pm

      Spark plugs are excellent when combusting hydrogen and oxygen to form water and heat.

      … and they are the perfect devices if you want to fool a simple el. power measurement.

    • daniel maris

      October 19, 2012 at 8:28 pm

      Thicket –

      Perpetual motion is not the same as energy obtained from the electromagnetic force. People here have previously accepted that energy can be obtained from that force but claim only if you for instance use potential energy to put an object in position to benefit from the force.

      I presume Nelson thinks it is reasonable to investigate whether energy can be drawn out from the electromagnetic force by means other than exploiting potential energy. However, if you use it, it will eventually run down is my understanding. Therefore, NOT perpetual motion.

      • Thicket

        October 19, 2012 at 9:23 pm

        Daniel

        I don’t know what you’re trying to describe. Perhaps it’s the magnetic motor scams from folks like Steorn. In any event, Defkalion is claiming that the energy is coming from cold fusion, not some kind of electromagnetic force. The fundamentals of any kind of fusion are well understand. It’s achieving the fusion that’s the problem. Fusion is not perpetual motion. My point is that Nelson believes in perpetual motion.

        • daniel maris

          October 19, 2012 at 9:31 pm

          I know that’s your point Thicket. I’m saying you haven’t given any evidence for him believing in perpetual motion. Perhaps you can now. A quote would help.

          • daniel maris

            October 20, 2012 at 12:55 am

            No quote Thicket?

      • Jami

        October 20, 2012 at 11:03 am

        “Perpetual motion is not the same as energy obtained from the electromagnetic force.”

        You still don’t understand the difference between force and energy. Not even slightly.

      • Robert Munson

        October 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm

        Your going out of your way to slander someone because he looks at perpetual motion. Funny how it wasn’t an issue when he dismissed Rossi.

  12. GreenWin

    October 19, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    Hmm… if Nelson leads this new conspiracy in cahoots with Dr. Melich, then we must indict both. AND of course Navy Research, since Melich gets orders from there.

    So, we have here a Greek/Navy/NASA conspiracy to befuddle the pathoskeps at ecatnews. Unhappily from the remarks above – they have succeeded.

    Skeps are a diminutive clan, fearing daily the Bewilderberg payroll cuts.

    IGZ-2013 No Where to Hide

    • JNewman

      October 19, 2012 at 7:53 pm

      So Mike gets his orders from Navy Research, eh? Why don’t you tell us some more about that. I would love to hear some insights on the subject. (Full disclosure: I have worked at “Navy Research” as you put it during my career; I have worked with several USN research arms at times; I know Mike personally.) Now Greenie, tell us all about what all this really means.

      • GreenWin

        October 19, 2012 at 8:48 pm

        Ha ha JN! Your disclosure is as believable as, “I have worked at the White House. And I know The President personally.”

        Now, the “Mike” you refer to is Ditka? Moore? Douglas? The Archangel? See JN, it’s the details that matter. Right?

        You will be a fine contestant on IGZ-2013!!

        • JNewman

          October 19, 2012 at 9:48 pm

          Believe whatever you’d like, GW. I note that you don’t have anything to add to your bullshit about “Naval Research” (NRL? ONR? SPAWAR? Naval Postgraduate School? OSD? Captain Crunch?) I like it better when you just blather about your fantasy island.

          • GreenWin

            October 19, 2012 at 11:44 pm

            JN, are you sure you know your port from starboard? You seem one of the befuddled conspiracists.

            Great contestant material! IGZ-2013

  13. Al Potenza

    October 19, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    Hey Ransom, I’m interested to know what you think this bizarro set of papers and claims actually demonstrates. In detail please. And with consideration of the excellent analysis provided by Thicket. Thanks.

    @GW: the idea isn’t to befuddle the pathoskeps. It’s to bamboozle the investors!

    • Methusela

      October 19, 2012 at 7:53 pm

      Thicket’s “analysis”.

      LOL.

      • GreenWin

        October 19, 2012 at 8:17 pm

        ROFLOL!

    • Frank

      October 19, 2012 at 8:16 pm

      and I’m interessted in a marginal formal issue:
      The signature (for the observer) on the last page is
      Michael Nelson on behalf of Dr. Michael Melich

      Is this legally ok? Wouldn’t this actually mean that Melich endorses the paper (but, for what ever reason he can’t personally sign the paper, so he let Nelson signs with his consent)?

    • Ransompw

      October 19, 2012 at 8:20 pm

      Potenza, I will tell you exactly what it means. It means that Michael Nelson a NASA engineer and a gentleman who was openly critical of Rossi and who acknowledged the need for vigorous testing of any LENR claim believes that the Defkalion R5 reactor demonstrated COP>1, controlability and energy production greater then chemical energy possible from the reactant mass.

      I am also sure that none of the usual suspects on this site who have formulated opinions on the subject, namely, Milstone, Thicket, Newman, You JKW care what the data will reveal since you know with certainty that your bizarre view of this world and this subject can’t possibly be mistaken.

      • JNewman

        October 19, 2012 at 8:34 pm

        Ransom, it would be entertaining to hear how the world view held by the vast majority of individuals who have any suitable background knowledge of the subject at hand can be described as “bizarre” while the view of an eclectic and tiny group of individuals, most of whom are really not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the evidence, is not. I guess it is all a matter of perspective. But I must say that your accusation is truly the pot calling the kettle black.

        • Ransompw

          October 19, 2012 at 8:49 pm

          Who do you deem has suitable background knowledge? Certainly not people taught in college that cold fusion was psedoscience and who haven’t investigated it by reading or testing. Those are people who know dogma not this subject.

          Cite to me people who have experimented in the area and hold your view. They are the only ones who count. I suspect you will find that the only people you will be able to cite did their work 23 years ago.

          • JNewman

            October 19, 2012 at 10:00 pm

            I see. So the only people qualified to reject claims of the validity of LENR are those who have attempted to observe it and have failed. Why is it that the converse doesn’t hold? Shouldn’t the only people who believe it be those who have measured it themselves?

            Sometimes your rhetorical gymnastics to preserve your beliefs are nothing short of staggering. But entertaining, I have to say.

          • Ransompw

            October 20, 2012 at 4:42 am

            I am not rejecting claims or professing claims. I am observing claims and the only people I take seriously are those that actually do something. Not skeptics that populate this board who do nothing but act as those they really know something.

  14. Jami

    October 19, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    “Frankly, on one hand we have Michael Nelson who openly was critical of Rossi and made it clear that rigorous testing was necessary to confirm any claim of LENR…”

    Hang on. Are you now implying that being critical of Rossi and demanding rigorous testing to confirm any claim of LENR is adding to somebody’s scientific reputation? I thought only pathoskeps did that. After all, Rossi’s n’th demo (I forgot which one it was) categorically proved he was right and couldn’t possibly be faked? I’m pretty sure I remember you saying that.

    P.S. I vote for the t-shirt.

    • Ransompw

      October 19, 2012 at 8:43 pm

      Lewan’s second test demonstrated COP>3 if there was no hidden energy source. That is what I said. It is why I have continued to pay attention to Rossi.

      I have also made it clear that independent third party tests of his ecat are long overdue and that is why I have refrained from posting lately. I don’t think the fraud crap is right but I don’t think Defkalion or Rossi have a useable commercial product yet.

  15. JKW

    October 19, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Guys and gals, who the f*** is the guy who signed the paper, again? Is this the LENR revolution we are all waiting for, finally? The guy with the NASA t-shirt doesn’t look even close to dr. Zawodny. Come on, people.

    • Ransompw

      October 19, 2012 at 9:25 pm

      Who do you think signed the report? It says Michael A. Nelson, not Zawodny. It certainly might be the Michael A. Nelson who was quoted extensively by Krivit in various reports on Rossi, the same Michael Nelson who presented at the NASA symposium last September (2011).

    • JKW

      October 19, 2012 at 9:27 pm

      OK, sorry for the foul mouth, I got carried away a bit. All I would like to see is the list of those peer reviewed journals that will eventually publish the independent test results., As promised. Please

      • Ransompw

        October 19, 2012 at 9:41 pm

        I suspect it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than to have many of the peer review journals admit they were wrong about Cold Fusion. Just a hunch.

        • JKW

          October 19, 2012 at 10:55 pm

          Those chief editors must have retired years ago. Wouldn’t the second generation rather race against each other to have such revolutionary and verified results published under a big bold flashy headline?

          • Ransompw

            October 20, 2012 at 4:38 am

            No they were taught in school cold fusion is pseudoscience and won’t give it a second thought. That’s how science works today. Someone tells you something and of course without so much as testing to see if it is true you believe it.

          • John Milstone

            October 20, 2012 at 11:48 am

            No they were taught in school cold fusion is pseudoscience and won’t give it a second thought.

            They’re taught not to waste their time on perpetual motion, Big Foot and Santa Claus as well.

            Science builds upon the work of predecessors.

            Of course, as a LENR True Believer, you wouldn’t have a clue about that methodology.

          • Methusela

            October 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm

            @John Milstone: nutter.

    • Veblin

      October 19, 2012 at 9:49 pm

      The person in the NASA t-shirt is Defkalion GT’s CTO, John Hadjichristos.

      • RonB

        October 19, 2012 at 10:35 pm

        The person holding the camera is from southern USA for sure and that fits with the profile of Michael.
        I have a feeling that he must have brought the t-shirt as a present since it has the marks of just being unfolded as new.

        • JKW

          October 19, 2012 at 11:12 pm

          My missing t-shirt had folding marks on it, too! I’m gonna get that guy and tear his hair away! Or is it a wig? ….on a second thought I will just drive to Cape Camaveral and get another one. The visitor center bus driver lady was staring at me in a peculiar way last time I was there… Need to find out what was on her mind… Oh, wait.. maybe that was General Zaroff!

          • RonB

            October 20, 2012 at 12:42 am

            lol JKW, is that sarcasm?

            Lots of energy here today!

            When that alpha male syndrome seems to want to overtake you, think about this….

            http://www.johnptacek.com/ego.html

        • spacegoat

          October 20, 2012 at 4:10 am

          “I have a feeling that he must have brought the t-shirt as a present since it has the marks of just being unfolded as new.”

          Probably the only valid deduction ever seen on this site. 🙂

  16. GreenWin

    October 19, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    Admittedly, the tee-shirt detective work here is impressive. It confirms collusion between ancient Greek Nephilim, NASA Marketing, and a mysterious Dr. Melich of the Naval PostGrad School. Could it be a subtle psyop to interrogate skeptopaths? Or a submarine rocket pad hidden beneath Santorini??

    Unfortunately, skeps lack a need to know 🙂

    • JKW

      October 19, 2012 at 11:54 pm

      Greenie, thanks for keeping the language alive. We haven’t heard the word “skeptopaths” for a while already. Same goes with “skeps”. Now to keep the words from getting on the endangered species list let’s also say aloud “SKEPTOS”. OK, that will keep it going for a month or two. Please mark your calendar around new year.

      • RonB

        October 20, 2012 at 12:43 am

        I like the “nutter” word.. had to laugh at seeing that one

  17. JKW

    October 19, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    let’s put the weapons down, and in Greek tradition, have some fun for a moment. Here is another episode of our favorite sitcom, “The Engineer”. This episode is about answering the questions right to the point. The presidential candidates might learn a thing or two.

    Steven N. Karels
    October 17th, 2012 at 1:26 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Some clarification please on your comments.

    a. I therefore understand the total amount of time the Hot eCat spent in self-sustaining mode (SSM) was 218 hours?
    b. The 218 hours consisted of a number of separate SSM periods, ranging in duration from minutes to hours?
    c. During those SSM periods, no electricity was used to heat the Hot eCat, the electricity only supplied power to the control system?
    d. During the SSM period, the surface temperature stayed within some range. Can you specifiy the temperature range while in SSM?

    Andrea Rossi
    October 19th, 2012 at 4:29 PM
    Dear Steven N. Karels:
    It is too soon to confirm, we are contunuing our tests and measurements. I am very satisfied, but much work remains to be made. We are working very, very, very hard on the Hot Cat, and the Tesla Dream is close ( I hope).
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Eldering_G

      October 20, 2012 at 7:48 am

      You’re apparently reading rossilivecat which probably has the questions and answers out of order. If you read the original website you will find:Andrea Rossi
      October 17th, 2012 at 4:40 PM
      Dear Steven N. Karels:
      a. yes
      b. yes
      c. yes
      d. 1030/1070 °C
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

  18. General Zaroff

    October 20, 2012 at 12:23 am

    Well, I just tried to post a comment under my new name “General Nonsense”, but it is awaiting moderation. Do you guys think it is because I used the expression “Bobo the lawyer”, or because I used the same fake email address as I normally post under?

    Is “Bobo the lawyer” a flagged expression”? I have not really been around that long. I could imagine that many others used it in the past in a negative way. Would “Forrest Gump the lawyer” still convey the same meaning but not get sent to moderation?

    I am looking for something catchy that conveys my meaning. Something that gives you the image of an animal that has just learned to use a stick to dig for termites wearing a suit and presenting a case before a judge.

    Any suggestions?

    • JKW

      October 20, 2012 at 12:46 am

      You can try Ernest the lawyer. A non committing name. I’m wondering if you have anyone specific in mind.

  19. Auenland

    October 20, 2012 at 12:26 am

    I quickly read through the PDF.
    The good thing: Contrary to Rossi, at least someone with a methodical approach has written it.
    The bad thing: I couldn’t find any info, that the observer checked the H2 and Argon.

    I agree with others. This was not an independent test, only an observation (if it really took place as claimed).

    • JKW

      October 20, 2012 at 1:15 am

      10 minutes of wasted time which will never come back. 10 minutes closer to death. Or is it heat after death?

  20. Shane D.

    October 20, 2012 at 2:11 am

    Lots for us believers to be excited about as we can add yet again another item in the meta data column.

    Unfortunately for us though, the skeptics still have some time before their party ends and we can tell them “told you so”.

    This was clearly an observation instead of an independent test. Throw in the hydrogen leak, refilling, vacum, limited time, and I could see the skeptics argument forming, without even reading here first. These guys have got me trained!

    Athough I’m still scratching my head about this one; purposely not accounting for the steam in the calculations? Seems to me, by not doing so, they would underestimate the output and not the opposite as our esteemed critcs claim?

    Onwards to Michael Nelson; in his defense he is cleary very guarded in his responses and it was stated that he would produce a “final report”. So bad form to jump on him.

    Interesting too as to whether Mr. Nelson represents NASA in this case. The report states “The test will be performed in the presence of a Michael A Nelson, Energy Systems Consultant, under grant by the Free Energy Foundation”. Does Nelson have a side job as consultant, along with being a NASA Engineer?

    To make it more confusing the report also states that Nelson is filling in for Dr. Melich, of the Naval Post Grad program, because Melich has issues with flying. Say what? I know he is old, but keeping an old LENR diehard from a test like this because of anything is hard for me to fathom. Still plausible but makes one wonder.

    Dr. Melich, as has been noted, is with Rossi and on the JONPs Advisory Board… conflict of interest? Did DGT protest at Free Energies request for Melich and compromised with sending a trusted intermediary? Or did DGT request Melich in the hopes of getting back into Rossis favor?

    Very confusing stuff, but I’m loving it!

    • Shane D.

      October 20, 2012 at 3:07 am

      Oh, forgot to mention that National Instruments (NI) is invloved with DGT also. What a small LENR world it is getting to be, as NI/LENR keeps popping up over and over. From the report:

      “NI is working to resolve the noise power issue”.

      • John Milstone

        October 21, 2012 at 10:24 am

        CERN used National Instruments tools while making the imaginary discovery of faster-than-light neutrinos.

        Just using National Instruments tools doesn’t insure that the results are valid.

        • Alain

          October 21, 2012 at 11:27 am

          right.
          however they did not do that 180times, in various protocols, various team, various countries, various kind of organization, with huge signal, and basic measurements.

          moreover the neutrino were breaking previous results from supernova measurements.
          Ther were also breaking one of the few meta-law of physics, that are speed of light and thermo dynamic laws.

          LENr is pure simple nuclear reaction. break no law. just break incompetence.

          anyway, I don’t expect to convince.

          as most you will wait for Science, MIt and wikipedia to change their position before admiting tha huge facts.

          at least if you were honest you could admit that the proofs are very convincing, yet there is a small risk of error…

          at least the result is far more replicated than CERN single and contradictory measure.

    • JKW

      October 20, 2012 at 4:20 am

      Unfortunately for us though, the skeptics still have some time before their party ends and we can tell them “told you so”.
      Then we will have no choice but to crash Daniel’s new year party. I don’t mind paddling across the pond in Papp’s submarine.

  21. Quax

    October 20, 2012 at 2:56 am

    Ransompw wrote,

    No I’m not clueless. I have read enough over the last year and 1/2 half to be quite knowledgable on this subject.

    Seriously? So, I guess most malpractice lawyers must be perfectly competent to self-medicate. All of a sudden a whole lot of things begin to make so much more sense!

    • Ransompw

      October 20, 2012 at 4:31 am

      I would have expected more from you. You really think making a career choice in law means I couldn’t have gone into the sciences and excelled. I picked a career in law because I could make more money at it not because I wasn’t competent in other areas. Likely the same for many doctors and lawyers in this country. The less talented choose physics and chemistry, the ones who couldn’t get into med school or law school. How simple an engineering career would have been. Geesh, you really are joking aren’t you?

      • General Zaroff

        October 20, 2012 at 5:35 am

        “You really think making a career choice in law means I couldn’t have gone into the sciences and excelled.”

        Affirmative. For a man who makes his living from debate and argument, you are just about the least convincing person on this blog. Seriously. Why would you be any better at science if that was your full-time job?

        • Ransompw

          October 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm

          Obviously, I get under your skin. So I am accomplishing just what I intend.

          • General Zaroff

            October 20, 2012 at 3:35 pm

            No, you don’t get under my skin. I enjoy bandying around with you. You provide a rare opportunity for me to post without feeling remorese about being offensive.

            And I do understand why you use the I-am-smart-enough-I-could-have-been-a-successful-scientist line. I am sure you use it at lots of parties. I used to tell girls I was good enough to have been a star in professional football. Of course, only the dumbest of women believed me, but they were my target audience.

          • Ransompw

            October 20, 2012 at 5:27 pm

            Most of your posts are intended to be offensive so responding in kind is as you say done with little remorse. Since a good many of you have your minds made up and respond to anything, including this lastest with no thought or consideration, discussing these issues is next to impossible. We are simply left with name calling and insults. Too bad.

            I tried to discuss Thicket’s Oxygen/Hydrogen theory with him and he disappeared. Since it was a stupid point I can understand why he didn’t want to delve too deeply into the subject. Unfortuantely, most of you seemed to lap it up anyway. It does make me wonder what real expertise exists at the skeptic level on this cite. But that’s ok, since I am just a misinformed lawyer, I can understand why he wouldn’t want to discuss the matter with me. If I proved him wrong just think how stupid he’d look.

        • GreenWin

          October 20, 2012 at 8:47 pm

          “…you are just about the least convincing person on this blog. Seriously.”

          The depth of this slight challenges the Mariana Trench. Generale, please tell us you are not really this angry.

      • Quax

        October 20, 2012 at 3:31 pm

        Ransompw wrote:

        You really think making a career choice in law means I couldn’t have gone into the sciences and excelled.

        No, I mean that reading up on something for 2 years does not equate studying physics or engineering on the graduate level. Maybe up to the theoretical BS level if you really put some effort into it, but you will miss out on all the hands-on lab time.

        Of course there are also plenty of attorneys that have a science and law degree. Excellent combinations. Really useful when it comes to IP or environmental regulations litigation.

        If you satisfied your money requirements at this point and have strong interest in science I’d strongly encourage you to pursue a science degree (maybe in a part time or distance learning program).

        • General Zaroff

          October 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm

          By BS do you mean bullshit? If so then I heartily agree, but I would say you don’t need a full two years of study. I think a lot of us here have achieved a solid BS level with far less effort.

          • Robert Munson

            October 21, 2012 at 5:33 pm

            You’ve certainly proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. 😉

    • Shane D.

      October 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm

      Couple of times I’ve seen Ransompw more then hold his own, scientifically, against popeye. Once, with the help of LCD, I even gave the win to Ransom… no one else here can say the same.

      More then once he did the same with JN.

      Not taking sides in this… just saying.

      • JNewman

        October 20, 2012 at 9:39 pm

        Shane, there is very little science discussed here and in any event, there is no value to a pissing contest as to who knows the most. If Ransom’s expertise is deemed superior by someone, then they will listen to him. The far more common failings here are in reasoning, not knowledge. But there is even less point in trying to persuade anybody on that basis. When the standards for belief a sufficiently low, criticism has minimal impact.

        • Robert Munson

          October 21, 2012 at 5:42 pm

          Ask yourself were u critical of Nelson when he did his Rossi evaluation or was that ok since he was voicing your opinion? Now he’s some nut because his evaluation of DGT was positive. If u are a research scientist where is your sense of wonder are things that black and white that what science has observed so far is all there is. I think you need to Re evaluate why you entered this field.

  22. ts

    October 20, 2012 at 3:29 am

    Well….Where is the test data in this test report? The same can almost be said about the ecat test report.

    • Quax

      October 20, 2012 at 3:41 am

      ts, this is a test protocol, kind of like a check list.

      It states that a final report with data collected during this test is going to be compiled by Dr. Melich.

      That in itself I don’t find particular problematic.

      It would be much more convincing though if Melich and observer Nelson had less of a LENR affiliation.

      • JKW

        October 20, 2012 at 4:30 am

        Welcome back, Quax. The general problem is basically a linguistic one. The definition of a few phrases, like “in weeks”, or “soon”, or “wait and see”.

    • ts

      October 20, 2012 at 4:43 pm

      In my opinion, it comes across like the LENR people are stringing us along. It seems like they can’t live up to their claims now. So, they keep giving out little tidbits to keep people interested and signed up to the preorder lists. The websites that support the ecat might propagate this too as the longer the LENR story goes the more ad revenue they collect. Watch that before completely independent 3rd party test verification is done for the hotcat, it will be scrapped for yet another new design. The same might have happened for the ecat shown in the Jan 2011 tests, the second model of the ecat, and the “fatcat ecat”.

      • Quax

        October 21, 2012 at 3:54 am

        ts, indeed. Unfortunately this kind of game can go on for a very long time.

      • John Milstone

        October 21, 2012 at 10:22 am

        Blacklight Power has been doing exactly this for over 20 years!

        I wish one of the True Believers would find out what happened to the 50,000 Watt reactor they claimed to have back in 2008. That would be far more impressive than anything anyone has produced since.

        But they apparently lost it. Maybe the dog ate it.

  23. spacegoat

    October 20, 2012 at 4:50 am

    Thicket’s analysis is a good post, apart from his personal attack on the Nasa guy as “nutter” (That word again RonB).

    *** “Melich is a nutter who reportedly has tried to convince people that he’s a secret agent working for the U.S. government monitoring cold fusion.”

    Reportedly? You base your world view on “reportedly” data?

    *** “This is a witness test, not a third party validation. The test was controlled by Defkalion.”

    DGT in their forum posting state that testers were ” using their own equipment.”
    As Quax pointed out, this test was according to a documented protocol. Testers are able to use their own equipment to verify readings. That DGT turn the knobs and dials at the appropriate moments according to the protocol is not concerning, it is the setup and protocol execution that counts. I am sure DGT would allow the tester to turn those knobs, but to what avail?

    *** “Of course there won’t be any reactions with Argon. Defkalion is using complexity to baffle the ignorant.”

    This test shows that the between Argon and Hydrogen, only Hydrogen triggers a reaction. This is a datum.

    *** “You need to add heat to maintain the temperature and keep the reaction going. And here we thought that the Defkalion process produced excess heat.”

    Yes, that’s right, the claim is that excess heat is produced and yes a heating element is required to keep the reaction going. Your point?

    *** “Of course, they didn’t test for gamma radiation or transmutations. ”

    The objectives of the test were valid and clearly stated. What you are asking for is peripheral.

    *** “Hydrogen had to be added, apparently because there was a small hydrogen leak.”

    A valid criticism. Hopefully the final report will quantify this leak.

    *** “What’s this nonsense about using a glycol-water mix? Sounds like more complexity to baffle folks. Plain water is just fine.”

    In Canada, the laboratory may freeze over a weekend when the premises are not heated.

    *** “Why did they do a vacuum test?”.

    Suggest you post that question on their website, but I expect your cynicism, as displayed in the rest of your post, will disallow that.

    What we have is DGT-PDF-Says metadata.

    DGT have delivered on expectations. Regarding the much quoted “deception” back in July they said that test publication was contingent on acceptance by the testing organization. The latest major expectation set is the unveiling of an industrial prototype Hyperion by the end of Jan 2013, but more likely before the end of 2012.

    • Jami

      October 20, 2012 at 10:10 am

      “In Canada, the laboratory may freeze over a weekend when the premises are not heated.”

      ROFL. Very funny. An unheated lab would be the ideal place to do serious calorimetry. I can see the disclaimer in the footnote of the calibration chapter: “Ambient temperature during the calibration was around 24C or so (the sun was shining and there was almost no wind). When we did the actual experiment, it was going dark and a blizzard rolled in. We account for melting the ice off the reactor with a blowtorch by the formula given in appendix a. Measurements stopped at 00:45 when the LCD screens froze…”

      I bet they chose glycol because they can put it to good use in the after-experiment party. They’re barkeepers, don’t forget.

      • spacegoat

        October 20, 2012 at 3:42 pm

        Barkeepers. Good thinking. 🙂

    • John Milstone

      October 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      In Canada, the laboratory may freeze over a weekend when the premises are not heated.

      I guess this is like Rossi’s “laboratory” (i.e. garage) where, in spite of the alleged LENR-based heaters, they needed winter coats and propane heaters to keep from freezing.

    • Veblin

      October 20, 2012 at 3:39 pm

      I would think that glycol was used for it’s anti-boil properties in this case.

      An antifreeze mixture is used to achieve freezing-point depression for cold environments and also achieves boiling-point elevation (“anti-boil”) to allow higher coolant temperature.
      Antifreeze can enable a wide temperature range in which the mixture remains in the liquid phase, which is critical to efficient heat transfer and the proper functioning of heat exchangers.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifreeze

  24. Loop

    October 20, 2012 at 11:12 am

    If someone care enough here is about ecat in popular science
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/?y2g097958qndxtm

    I don’t care:)

  25. Loop

    October 20, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Here is OCR’d in docx filetype format you can copy and paste the text
    http://www.mediafire.com/view/?cj5d1hmcv07br3s

    • Jami

      October 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      Thanks for sharing. Anything interesting on “page 97”, where the story apparently continues?

    • Shane D.

      October 20, 2012 at 8:43 pm

      Good article. Well written. Entices you along on the authors journey through the discovery process. In the end though, he is right where he started… not sure whether Rossi is real, or scammer. Just like us pleasant believers.

      Not much new to those here; Rossis’ quirky, mercurial personality, tendency to lie and exagerate are as we have come to know him. Then again, there are those demos, cert, the meta data, others finding LENR success, that somewhat balances it all out.

      But I did find the part about Rossi doing a demo for an investor group willing to invest up to $150 million, only to have the ecat come apart and spit steam everywhere, something new. With Hyrdrofusion, that makes two now that have seen a private demo and walked away.. not good.

  26. daniel maris

    October 20, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    I hope none of you are going to give any credence to the PopSci article as you had all previously dismissed it as irrelevant to the science. 🙂

    I’ve only briefly scanned it. Seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it in all directions, which is fair enough given the state of play.

    • Frank

      October 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm

      I’ve only briefly scanned it

      You Rossi fans are really hard to understand.
      You are frequently complaining because mass media is not covering the e-cat saga, and now you get a story in a mainstream magazine, and you are not even reading it in detail ???
      Are you afraid that the ‘sceptical viewpoint’ may shatter your dreams?

  27. Shane D.

    October 20, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Thanks Spacegoat for asking DGT about the vacum/leak:

    2. Some say the vacuum test performed with a know leakage would have allowed air to be sucked into the Hyperion allowing hydrogen-oxygen combustion, falsiying or explaining the COP.

    Please comment.

    Dear spacegoat,

    As reported by the testers of this specific test, after the control test (Argon) a critical component had to be replaced, whilst no leakage had been observed during the typical diagnostic tests after each test. After this, as far no humidity or oxygen must be present inside the reactor during its operation, a vacuum+heat procedure ran for 8h, followed by cooling down the reactor to room temperature before any further testing. No leakage had been observed during such procedures nor during safety tests we perform before any test or experiment.

    Possible H2 leakage is monitored during any testing for safety and operational reasons. Such indication of a possible H2 leakage was spotted during one of the test. The test stopped immediately and no measurements were taken after such leakage indication, during proper inspection off all H2 circuit in pressure.

    Thank you for your question

  28. LCD

    October 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    Again leaking of H2 does not imply the sucking in of Air. Hydrogen is much smaller than air thicket.

    • Thicket

      October 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm

      I’m back from a nice weekend at the cottage. 🙂

      There sure is a lot of bunk being posted about vacuum test.

      First, to do a leak test under vacuum is absurd. Have any of you actually ever tried to find a leak in a vacuum system? It’s very hard, sometimes bordering on impossible. There is usually no sound. You can’t analyse the surrounding air to find where the leak is. The best way to find a vacuum leak is to shut down the process and pressure it up. If you’re lucky, you can hear the leak. After that, you can try something simple like a soap test around flanges, threads, valves and other equipment. If you still can’t find the leak, you can be more sophisticated by injecting helium or hexafluoride into your process and then using a portable analyzer to find the leak.

      Leaks that drop pressure in a process are macroscopic, not molecular, so the comment about the hydrogen molecule size being smaller than air is meaningless. This is a good example of folks with a bit of knowledge reaching the wrong conclusion.

      Also, remember that vacuum leak testing was just one of several stupidities done by Defkalion. It’s the one that Ransom picked on because because he has some familiarity with it, since that’s what he has between his ears.

      It’s sometimes frustrating and often funny trying to debate something obvious with folks who have no practical experience with the subject being discussed.

  29. Dale G. Basgall

    October 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    I just watched the videos on the LENR-Cold Fusion site, and a lab with windows? Hmm again light weight!

  30. LCD

    October 20, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    So after reading the report summary/notes a couple of quick observations.

    In the first test with 30% glycol the liquid was assumed not to evaporate. So the measurements are indeed conservative.

    In the second test they could have done that to but I guess they decided not to?

    Protocols and procedures look good.

    The Argon substitute is a good control measure so long as the energy out exceeded all possible chemical reactions this is not a problem.

    Hard to not substitute with inert Argon, how would you get the pressure up and not use H2?

    Not the only control experiment I would have run though.

    • Shane D.

      October 20, 2012 at 6:29 pm

      LCD,

      Thanks,

      DGT says their reactor needs 220C (preferably 310C) for the hydrogen reaction to trigger, so with water boiling point 100C, and 30% glycol boiling point at 123C, both pure water and mix had to be run in the gaseous state (steam) less they cool the reactor below the 220c minimum trigger temp?

      In fact, they say in the reprot that 100% water cools the reactor to 140C and kills reactor. Therefore, sounds to me like all tests, both glycol runs and 100% water, were conservatively calculated, as both were assumed liquid, yet both were in fact in gaseous state?

      If so, the COP would be higher still?

      • lcd

        October 21, 2012 at 12:53 am

        yeah the question is why did they make a point about the water being in a gaseous state. That’s what threw me off

    • lcd

      October 21, 2012 at 1:08 am

      it’s early and I might be wrong but it sounds like DGT’s rivalry with Rossi might be a good thing for us because it looks lik Rossie put out a report Summary and DGT put out a report summary.

      TIT FOR TAT

      On the other hand data that is put outr prematurely might be a bad thing.

  31. Al Potenza

    October 20, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    “RansompwReply
    October 19, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    Potenza, I will tell you exactly what it means. It means that Michael Nelson a NASA engineer and a gentleman who was openly critical of Rossi and who acknowledged the need for vigorous testing of any LENR claim believes that the Defkalion R5 reactor demonstrated COP>1, controlability and energy production greater then chemical energy possible from the reactant mass.”

    That speaks more about Nelson’s gullibility and sloppiness than it does to any facts or data.

    “I am also sure that none of the usual suspects on this site who have formulated opinions on the subject, namely, Milstone, Thicket, Newman, You JKW care what the data will reveal since you know with certainty that your bizarre view of this world and this subject can’t possibly be mistaken.”

    Fortunately, that won’t matter because, as usual, Defkalion provided no data. Their lab and their methods are terminally sloppy just like previous talks, reports and photos were. They’re basically acting like slobs. And I suspect this is strategy, not accident. They’re out to be more Rossi-ish than Rossi and they are succeeding. I can hardly wait for their hot-Hyperion.

    • lcd

      October 21, 2012 at 1:02 am

      Another AP what the flip moment.

      ” That speaks more about Nelson’s gullibility and sloppiness than it does to any facts or data.”

      Without you APot having the data how can it possibly speak to any sort of negative judgment call by you on Nelson on this subject.

    • Shane D.

      October 21, 2012 at 1:43 am

      Don’t mind Al, he was an axe murderer in his former life. Hacking and bludgeoning comes naturally.

      • Al Potenza

        October 21, 2012 at 7:37 am

        Guilty as charged, Your Honor. I brutally murder bad theories and incompetent experiments.

  32. GreenWin

    October 20, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    “They’re basically acting like slobs. And I suspect this is strategy, not accident. ”

    Agreed Al. Reflects poorly on the institution, eh?

    • Al Potenza

      October 21, 2012 at 7:37 am

      If you are hinting NASA is involved, forget it. It’s not.

  33. Robert Munson

    October 20, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Gotta like the enthusiasm of the posters both sides going toe to toe. Ransom has got game!!

    • Quax

      October 21, 2012 at 4:01 am

      Yep, Ransompw I think displays all the attributes of a very good attorney. Fire in his belly and he really knows how to pivot on a dime 🙂

  34. Ransompw

    October 21, 2012 at 7:04 am

    I would still love to debate the oxygen/hydrogen issue raised by dear friend Thicket if he wants to pursue the issue. Otherwise, I must assume he knows it is total crap and sulked off into the lair he habitats.

    Anyway, let us consider a few of the issues his point addressed. First, is he suggesting a constant input of oxygen or just some less then 1 bar in the reactor when H2 is added. A constant input of course is impossible with the listed protocal so I must assume he thinks the vacuum test pulled in a set amount of o2. Well, what is the size of the reactor? At less ten 1 bar how much o2 is in the system? If it reacts with H2 how much energy is produced? How does that compare with the energy produced in the tests.

    You see he knows none of the above. Under the best circumstances the energy produced would be tiny. So thicket please come back and tell your fellow skeptics why they should bother to listen to your nonsense in the future.

    • Al Potenza

      October 21, 2012 at 7:35 am

      Well, we don’t really know how much hydrogen and oxygen not to mention a Raney nickel sort of reaction are available in that reactor. We don’t know because we don’t have data. All we have are vague and incompetent descriptions and an opinion from a person who is probably as gullible as Kullander, Essen, Josephson, Lewan, and Levi.

      Let me know when some reliable organization does a properly described and documented experiment with a hyperion. Until then, injecting more hydrogen and oxygen than is claimed is only one of a myriad ways Defkalion could cheat.

      • Frank

        October 21, 2012 at 1:25 pm

        We don’t know because we don’t have data. All we have are vague and incompetent descriptions …

        Right – too many unknown parameters, how was the test setup exactly, how was the input power exactly measured e.g. can the instrument (was a CT also used? appropriate for high frequencies?) measure the power spikes of the spark plugs?
        Correct heat capacity (lower than water) of the water/glycol mixture considered in the calculation? …
        Best would be to have the ‘swedish testing company’ to check the measurements – probably they would leave at the first day again…

      • Ransompw

        October 21, 2012 at 3:47 pm

        None of you want to take up cause for Thicket. Not surprising.

        Al, Jami, Frank, Milstone etc., your shtick is really getting old. Are we going to have to endure the same silly points every time a new independent person confiems LENR, ie, they are deluded, incompetent or in on a fraud.

        Sure the data Nelson relied on will be interesting when published, but the idea that any of you are in the least bit competent to evaluate it is hysterical. From your posts it is clear you guys couldn’t think your way out of your own house.

        You all are becoming colossally irrelevent.

      • Robert Munson

        October 21, 2012 at 11:12 pm

        Hopefully you won’t reply till that happens. Good by Al;)

  35. spacegoat

    October 21, 2012 at 8:58 am

    Since the psychology of belief is such a theme on ecatnews, I was intrigued by JNewmans comment about “Dr. Werner von Braun fell for Yuri Geller and his spoon-bending magic trick”

    I have no particular interest in the subject. Spoon bending is not an application of great importance to mankind. But upon checking, I found some pretty positive comment about Geller from some reputable sources, example British journal Nature, Volume 251, No. 5476 (see below).

    Thus the tennis ball back to JNewman. Please enlighten us how to distinguish good from bad scientific reference. On what basis do you dismiss Geller and how do you explain the references below?

    ‘Based on preliminary investigations of Uri Geller, I cannot establish fraud. The powers of this man are a phenomenon which theoretical physics cannot yet explain’
    Dr Friedbert Karger {Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Munich}

    ‘The Geller Effect is one of those “para” phenomena which changed the world of physics. What the most outstanding physicists of the last decades of this century could grasp only as theoretical implication, Uri brought it as fact into everyday life’
    Dr Walter A. Frank {Bonn University, Bonn}

    ‘Metal objects were bent or divided by Geller in circumstances such as to prove conclusively that the phenomena were genuine and para-normal’
    Dr A.R.G. Owen {New Horizons Research Foundation, Toronto, Canada}

    ‘There is no logical explanation for what Geller did here, but I don’t think logic is what necessarily makes new in-roads in science’
    Dr Thomas Coohill, {Western Kentucky University, Physics Dept, Bowling Green}

    ‘Geller has bent my ring in the palm of my hand without ever touching it. Personally, I have no scientific explanation for the phenomena’
    Wernher von Braun, {NASA scientist}

    ‘The Geller method of breaking steel is unlike anything described in the [Metallurgical] literature, from fatigue fractures -195 degrees to brittle fractures +600 degrees Centigrade… Why is metal bending important? Simply because we do not understand it’
    Professor John B. Hasted {Birkbeck College, University of London}

    ‘The evidence based on metallurgical analysis of fractured surfaces [produced by Geller] indicates that a paranormal influence must have been operative in the formation of the fractures’
    Dr Wilbur Franklin {Physics Department, Kent State University}

    ‘As a result of Geller’s success in this experimental period, we consider that he has demonstrated his paranormal perceptual ability in a convincing and unambiguous manner’ {The results of these experiments were published in the respected British journal Nature, Volume 251, No. 5476}
    Dr Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ {Stanford Research Institute}

    ‘The bends in metal objects {made by Geller} could not have been made by ordinary manual means’
    Dr Albert Ducrocq {Telemetry Laboratory, Foch Hospital, Suren, France}

    ‘Geller altered the lattice structure of a metal alloy in a way that cannot be duplicated. There is no present scientific explanation as to how he did this’ {This is the first research related to parapsychology conducted at a US Government facility to have been released for publication by the US Department of Defense}
    Eldon Byrd {US Naval Surface Weapons Center, Maryland}

    ‘I have failed to conceive of any means of deception in the static PK tests with Geller, nor have magicians I have consulted’
    William E. Cox {Institute of Parapsychology, Durham, North Carolina}

    ‘”The scientific community has been put on notice that there is something worthy of their attention and scrutiny in the possibilities of ESP.” With these words the respected British journal, Nature, called on scientists to join or refute millions of non-scientists to believe human consciousness has more capabilities for real perception than the five senses’
    New York Times editorial

    ‘I tested Uri Geller myself under laboratory controlled conditions, and saw with my own eyes the bending of a key which was not touched by Geller at any time. There was a group present during the experiment who all witnessed the key bending in eleven seconds to an angle of thirty degrees. Afterwards we tested the key in a scientific laboratory, using devices such as electron microscopes and X-rays, and found that there were no chemical, manual or mechanical forces involved in the bending of the key.’
    Professor Hellmut Hofmann {Vienna, Austria}

    ‘Uri Geller is extraordinarily gifted in telepathy’
    Professor Mittenecker {Psychologist, University of Graz, Austria}

    http://www.urigeller.com/books/fortune-secrets/fort1.htm

    • John Milstone

      October 21, 2012 at 10:20 am

      spacegoat, thanks for demonstrating your complete lack of judgement and thinking skills.

      Using a book being peddled by Geller to “prove” that Geller is “magic” is the height of stupidity.

      Actually, it’s about as stupid as believing that Rossi is real because Rossi says so on his blog.

      Where is George Hants when we need him?

      • spacegoat

        October 21, 2012 at 3:21 pm

        I expressed no judgement and stated I was not even interested in the subject. But it seems you cannot resist baseless judgements.

        ” your complete lack of judgement and thinking skills.”

        Does this apply to all the prestigious references cited, including Nature?

        Simple question failed to receive an answer

    • John Milstone

      October 21, 2012 at 10:40 am

      You really should watch the documentary of Joseph Newman (http://josephnewman.com).

      It is far more impressive than anything Rossi or DGE or anyone else in LENR has accomplished. He claims to have the support of dozens of experts (including the executives of Ray-o-Vac and multiple NASA people including an astronaut!). He claims to be working with Ray-o-Vac on developing new batteries to hold all of the free energy he is producing.

      Of course, this was in the early 80s (based on the clothes and hair styles), and nothing came of it. But I’m sure that you will conclude that it was real and has been suppressed, rather than the obvious conclusion that it was a fraud.

      • Jami

        October 21, 2012 at 11:20 am

        Interesting. I didn’t know the Newman story – but his references include NASA, so I can’t wait for Daniel to keep an “open mind” an defend it rigorously. Apart from putting so much emphasis on the “God told me” stuff, his style of saving the world seems remarkably similar to Rossi’s. He, too, doesn’t seem concerned about proving the principle at all but prefers building funny machines that do something with water. I wonder whether Rossi will end up like Newman, selling DVDs and books rather than licenses – but Rossi seems a lot smarter when it comes to the money making side of the scam trade. Plus Rossi chose LENR as a playing field – much more reputable than magnet motors, at least for some people.

      • JNewman

        October 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm

        Seems to me that if you are going to argue for the validity of a dubious energy scheme, your credibility is enhanced if you don’t embrace other dubious energy schemes and paranormal phenomena as well. Unless, of course, you are like Sterling Allan and credibility is not part of your bag of tricks.

    • Jami

      October 21, 2012 at 10:46 am

      Don’t fall for the idea that scientists are somehow smarter than other people. In science there are, if anything, more idiots around than anywhere else. If you want to confirm that, google the guys from your “Uri Geller reference list” individually.

      Something like, as an example, “Dr. Walter A. Frank, Universität Bonn” may sound reputable – but who is he really? Turns out he used to teach at the “Institut für Zentralasiatische Ethnologie” (institute for central-asian ethnology) at the university, from which he retired in 1989. Since then, he has witnessed UFO landings and spun theories about trans-universal, telepathic communication (whatever that is).

      Somebody like Geller can best be debunked by another “magician” or a good detective – not a scientist. They are, after all, only human. And their biggest weakness is the idea that they’re not as easily fooled as anybody else. I think Feynman was fooled by Geller, too. But rather than jumping to the conclusion that Geller was genuine, he concluded he himself was too dumb to understand the trick.

      • spacegoat

        October 21, 2012 at 3:30 pm

        Thanks for an answer instead of the humbug by JNewman and John Millstone.

        Interesting about Feynman.

        Still, the list is long, and if peer review is so valuable, how did spoon bending get into Nature.

    • JNewman

      October 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Fascinating quote about Geller. However, just for accuracy,I was not the one who said it.

  36. Jami

    October 21, 2012 at 11:51 am

    Mark Gibbs from Forbes has a new article out on the DGT subject.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/10/20/cold-fusion-gets-a-little-more-real/

    “A little more real”. By Mark’s logic, Loch Ness monsters become a little more real with each and every reported sighting. They must be so real by now, we should be able to buy them at our local pet shop.

    • Frank

      October 21, 2012 at 12:23 pm

      “A little more real”.

      One should know there is no such thing like “being a little bit pregnant”

    • daniel maris

      October 21, 2012 at 2:16 pm

      It must be a disappointment for you to find a prestigious business commentary taking the DGT test seriously.

      I can understand it makes you a bit tetchy. But this is the way science works when it is investigating new territory. Things do become “more real” in stages as the credibility of certain results increases. And things do move to and fro while there is an area of contention.

      • Jami

        October 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm

        “I can understand…”

        I doubt it.

  37. robiD

    October 21, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    @ Thicket
    >This ‘report’ by Defkalion is highly entertaining.
    I hardly know where to begin.

    * Defkalion acknowledges that Michael Nelson lacks knowledge of previous data and observations. Nelson is s perpetual motion nutter.

    Nelson is an engineer, for sure more able than you, and Defkalion didn’t contacted only him.

    >* Michael Nelson has been paid to attend by the Free Energy Foundation. Maybe this is the Dutch organization developing solar energy in rural areas, but I doubt it. ‘Free Energy’ is a common pseudonym for Perpetual Motion. I’d be curious if a bunch of perpetual motion woo-wooers were financing the test observation.

    someone complained that he used the same laptop that he used at NASA so there was a “tremendous” waste of public money. Do you think that with this attitude we will see people from DOE or DARPA doing test at Defkalion?
    Keep in mind that Free Energy Fundation is not the only that tested the Hyperion. You will see.

    >* Defkalion wanted Michael Melich to attend. Melich is writing the final report. What a joke! Melich is on the board of directors for Rossi’s Journal of Nuclear Physics. He’s promoted LENR and cold fusion for decades. Melich is a nutter who reportedly has tried to convince people that he’s a secret agent working for the U.S. government monitoring cold fusion. This is supposed to be an ‘independent third party validation’?

    Melich is not the only that tested the Hyperion.

    >* Defkalion has taken a page out of Rossi’s notebook, albeit almost two years later. This is a witness test, not a third party validation. The test was controlled by Defkalion.

    the protocol has been showed to the public months ago and the setup is as simple as possible since you have to measure kW of power and not the mWs of NANOR. What you need is a liquid, some thermocouples and a flow meter. Who see the test has to verify that all the instruments and the elements work as due.

    >* I see no mention of NASA in the report. Maybe we should have a poll as to whether it’s a T-shirt or a filename that constitutes NASA endorsement of this test. 🙂

    useless statement.

    >* Argon is used to show that the cold fusion reaction is dependent on hydrogen. Well duh! Argon is an inert, Noble gas. Of course there won’t be any reactions with Argon. Defkalion is using complexity to baffle the ignorant.

    Argon is used to show that is not an electric resistor that heats the liquid in the circuit because when Argon is used, you can’t measure any excess power. In other words Argon excludes the doubts that all people have with Rossi i.e. that is only an electric resistor that generates heat. You have to use a gas in the chamber to transfer heat to the external wall. What kind of gas should they use? Methane?

    >* Those familiar with Rossi’s ‘demonstrations’ will recognize the heating up of the system. Also familiar is the continued use of electrical heat in order to ‘maintain the internal temperatures in the reaction as steady as possible.’ Uhuh. Right. You need to add heat to maintain the temperature and keep the reaction going. And here we thought that the Defkalion process produced excess heat.

    this is a poor statement. You measure energy, input and output, and you have to do it in a correct ad reliable manner. Once you did it it’s not important why the reactor needs electric power while is working, these are details that concern the manufacturer and not the tester. What is important is the total output energy that has to be greater than the input energy.
    You will be surprise when Piantelli will show how his cells work.

    >* Of course, they didn’t test for gamma radiation or transmutations. After all, this is cold fusion so why would anyone want to do that? /boggle.

    They will do it in another test. Be calm, there will be a lot of reports to take care.

    >* Hydrogen had to be added, apparently because there was a small hydrogen leak. Right! There was no chance that hydrogen could have been consumed in a reaction with oxygen in the system to produce water and… wait for it… heat. That’s because they ensured that there was no oxygen in the system. No, wait, they didn’t do that.

    Defkalion explained all in their site:
    http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9993&sid=34c08964a2518fd5511afb1ecd1f6601#p9993
    In particular:
    “The test stopped immediately and no measurements were taken after such leakage indication, during proper inspection off all H2 circuit in pressure.”
    They are not so stupid as you believe.

    >* What’s this nonsense about using a glycol-water mix? Sounds like more complexity to baffle folks. Plain water is just fine.

    The mix water-glycol is used to avoid water boiling. Where is the problem? When you know what is inside the liquid, and when you have verified that is correct, you have to do a multiplication with a different coefficient. Where is the complication?

    >* Testing on the second day had to be cut short because of problems. That sure sounds familiar.

    Hu, hu, hu, it’s a prototype, what did you expect? Do you now how many times there are failures or a problem during the test of an engine prototype for normal cars or Formula One cars?

    >* Did you notice the spark plugs in the reactor? Spark plugs are excellent when combusting hydrogen and oxygen to form water and heat.

    Yes but to produce heat by hydrogen’s combustion for five hours you have to consume a small quantity, instead during the test hydrogen is not being consumed, why?

    >* Why did they do a vacuum test? This is a poor way of testing for leakage. Of course, if you want to ensure that there is air in the system, then it’s a good way to get it there. Suck in some air, pressure up with hydrogen, heat up the equipment, ignite the oxygen/hydrogen system with spark plugs, keep adding electric heat and shut down the test prematurely. Bingo, cold fusion demonstrated.

    Bingo, silly demonstrated. You ignite the oxygen/hydrogen system and you burn all the mixture in one shoot, then for the remaining 4 hours and 59 minutes what do you burn? As you can see in the video, there is an ignition every few minutes, every time you should input hydrogen and oxygen in the chamber. It would need a system of valves and gas supply that is manifestly absent in the reactor.

    >* They generated some steam! They didn’t consider that in their calculations. That would sure throw a monkey wrench into the numbers. After all, the heat of vaporization for water is five times the latent heat to take the same water from zero to 100 degrees C. Use the generation of steam to your advantage. After all, if you calculate getting excess heat based on liquid water only, then you can crow that there was lot more energy produced than you expected because you generated steam that you didn’t measure.

    it’s conservative calculation, the COP is grater. Probably they had to use more glycol or increase the flux.

    >* Add some mystery and credibility by listing lots
    of folks by only their initials

    they will be revealed don’t be afraid.

    >* Make sure there are lots of instruments. This adds credibility. Did you notice that they calibrated flow meters using a scale and a stop watch? Bwaahaahaa. Amateurs.

    So they had to add one more instrument to calibrated the flow meters? Didn’t you complain that there was too many instruments? If they invited you to verify the test, how would you do to verify that the calibration of their flow meters is correct? A balance and a watch are perfect, maybe personally I would measure the flow for more than five minutes, but considering the error of +-1 second in 300 seconds is good enough.

    >* Claim that chemical reactions were not a factor. Don’t actually say what reactions were considered and accounted for.

    If the reactor’s chamber contains 56 grams of material and mostly ceramic component, I don’t know the precise volume, but I can imagine that is very little. Given that volume it’s quite simple calculate the maximum chemical energy that you can get from that volume. Consulting Wikipedia is enough for that.

    >* Say that the purpose of the test is to get a COP > 1. Then claim that you demonstrated it. Do a whole bunch of hand waving in between the two and count on gullible folks to believe you.

    This is why Rossi doesn’t want to do public demonstration, even if God in person will tell you that the COP is greater than 1 you will say that he is a liar.
    I have a suggestion for you. Stop reading about LENR and Cold Fusion, go outside, have fun with your friends and your girl, and coming back, let’s say, in a couple of years.

    >Conclusion:
    The test procedure and results are a dog’s breakfast of incompleteness, inconsistencies, red flags and drivel.

    first of all the complete report with all the data has not been showed yet, so you should wait a bit before speaking, I know it would be useless, but at least you can criticize with data in your hands.

    >You just need to read and understand this report to see convincing evidence that Defkalion is fraudulent.

    Defkalion has done other test, some also with skeptic scientist, and you will see that each one says the same.
    Be prepared, something is going to change in our lives in the next years (and watch out for Defkalion’s lawyers, when all this story will be clear, words like “scam”, “hoax”, “fraudulent” etc. will be their food).

    • Jami

      October 21, 2012 at 8:42 pm

      “Defkalion has done other test, some also with skeptic scientist, and you will see that each one says the same.”

      Wow. An “insider” who knows “the truth” and asks everybody to believe based on his secret knowledge. Where have I heard that one before? You’re not a barkeeper by any chance?

      • robiD

        October 23, 2012 at 9:48 am

        @Jami
        I’ve already written this and now I repeat that: I know for sure of an Italian professor that works for international organizations (well known organizations) that attended to one test at Defkalion, but I don’t know for which organization.
        Rest assured that this professor is a skeptic, more than everyone else, but he is a very capable professional.
        You don’t have to “believe” none, you have only to wait. If you are impatient well … this might be a problem for you, and in this case I can only suggest you the same I’ve suggested to Thicket: go outside and have fun with your friends and your girl and come back here in a few months (or few years).

    • Auenland

      October 22, 2012 at 3:38 pm

      “This is why Rossi doesn’t want to do public demonstration, even if God in person will tell you that the COP is greater than 1 you will say that he is a liar.”

      If a university professor would make a scientific independent test (Rossi = observer but nothing else!), and later publishes the results as head of the institute and that would confirm excess heat, who would call Rossi a liar?
      Since when have independent tests from independent scientific engineers no impact?!?
      It is excatly what would make shut up al critics, what Rossi avoids and you claim it would change nothing?

      Do you really believe what you are writing? I can’t imagine someone being that stupid.

      And regarding the Defkalion presentation:
      It was only an observation, not a test. Or do you find any info in the PDF, that the “tester” checked the H2 and “Argon” supply?

      • robiD

        October 23, 2012 at 10:59 am

        @ Auenland
        Do you know the TEG Rossi’s affair?
        If you are a critic about Rossi, you for sure know that, otherwise search with Google.
        Do you know that Rossi’s TEGs efficiency had been tested by a university (maybe New Hampshire’s university, but I’m not sure) that confirmed the value of 20%? Though nobody believe it, all say that it was a fraud.
        Also keep in count that a university never do “public” demonstrations, they do the test and publish a report.
        For me this would be enough, but, be honest with yourself, would be the same for you and for the millions of pseudoskeptics all around the world?

        Do you know that McKubre at SRI (Stanford Research Institute) replied (independently) an experiment done originally by the Israel company Energy Technologies and found an excess heat more than 200%, and replied it more times. This experiment has been supervised by the DARPA (a USA government entity) that found the experiment correct and well done with high accuracy and precision and they stated that there was “no doubt that the excess heat was real” (you can find all this in the CBS video “60 minutes” about could fusion, search on youtube) but NOBODY believe it.

        Richard Garwin said: “they have to prepare me a cup of tea and after that another one, when I’ll drink the tea I will believe in cold fusion”.
        The sense is that Mr. Garwin will not believe in any university report or public demonstration, he wants a machine that produces enough heat to boiling a certain quantity of water that works with cold fusion and want to see it with his eyes.
        Maybe we are near to satisfy the hard to please Mr. Garwin.