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

Defkalion Self-Leaks Catalyst

October 22, 2012

Hydrogen is not the only leak coming from Defkalion – maybe. When Eldering_G recovered Defkalion’s unredacted report from his cache, he did so because he noticed the company had changed the pdf to one with information blanked out. He was unaware at the time that they had also withdrawn another paper which recounted a March visit by Michael Nelson to the company. This document is marked ***Extremely Confidential*** Defkalion Proprietary Information

Once again, since they put it into the public arena – albeit briefly – I consider it fair game for your reading. An immediate question arises: Are we having our chain pulled? Can the company really be that careless or is this accident designed for a purpose?

To all commenters, I welcome your take on this as I have to admit to a certain head-scratching. My physics is rusty so I’m perfectly willing to listen to those more able than I to analyze what is here. I will, however, delete any analysis which simply mocks an individual or assertion. “Who do these morons think they are?” does not cut it.

Much of the stuff we’ve seen before, but the claim that Potassium is a catalyst is new to me. Reading between the lines, they seem to say that it changes the Ni powder in some way to enhance the reaction. I find it curious that they would include such a detail but at the same time also note that they claim at least one other secret ingredient to maintain the mystery.

It is one thing to advance a theory but I’m puzzled at the apparent matter-of-fact way they discuss the virtual neutron situation. In polarizing atomic Hydrogen, they say that the elongated electron orbit brings it close enough to the nucleus to make the ensemble look like a neutron for the order of 10E-17s and (if I read them correctly) this provides a window for overcoming the coulomb barrier. My gut reaction is to call nonsense or at the very least wonder why they would include such an assertion as though they knew it to be so, without undertaking extensive basic research. Is this a case of bullshit baffling brains or is it me being thick or unfair? [All are possible, of course].

I leave it to you.

Summary of Visit to Defkalion

[Thanks, Eldering_G]


Posted by on October 22, 2012. Filed under Defkalion,Drama,Hands-On,Hyperion,Tests & Demos. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

582 Responses to Defkalion Self-Leaks Catalyst

  1. spacegoat Reply

    October 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Another “delusional” scientist at Univ of Missouri?

    “the team created a device to record emitted neutrons with the expectation of counting about 10 neutrons a second. The card’s storage was used up in less than one hundredth of a second.

    They then used a counter with the capacity to track up to 1 million neutrons and timed it again with a stopwatch. That time, they reached a million neutrons in a second. ”

    Note the “non-existent” suppression effect of the P&F witch hunt.

    So Popeye, is this likely to be experimental error, delusion, scam?

    • RonB Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 12:54 pm

      IF this turns out the be the holy grail then I will feel very good about having it right months ago.

      That gas then became trapped in a crystal lattice and subjected to instantaneous compression, resulting in the neutron burst. If that sounds too complex, think of a car engine compressing gasoline and air, causing gas to flood spaces and produce high pressures, Prelas said.

    • Methusela Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 1:53 pm

      Shanahan, not Popeye. Address him correctly please.

    • GreenWin Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 8:18 pm

      Goat, you should know by now that Popee is the ONLY authority on… well, just about everything you can think of – especially LENR. See, the hundreds of other scientists who have documented the cold fusion effect, are ALL wrong. ONLY popee is right. And his mission in life is to prove it to whoever will listen to his drivel, er, “commentary.”

      • popeye Reply

        October 28, 2012 at 10:17 pm

        GreenWin posted on October 28, 2012 at 8:18 pm:

        See, the hundreds of other scientists who have documented the cold fusion effect, are ALL wrong. ONLY popee is right.

        Me and 99.9 per cent of nuclear physicists.

        • NJT Reply

          November 1, 2012 at 2:23 am

          Really hard to believe there are that many wasted physics educations in this world?

    • popeye Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 10:12 pm

      spacegoat posted on October 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm:

      Another “delusional” scientist at Univ of Missouri?

      First skeptics are criticized for labeling people, but then we’re constantly asked to choose a label for them.
      All I can say about this experiment is that there’s not enough information yet, and a lot of things don’t make sense.
      Yes, if they are getting large neutron bursts from titanium deuteride, and can control it by temperature, then that is a major breakthrough, and is suggestive of fusion of the ordinary variety. Unfortunately, it’s not the LENR everyone else is reporting, where neutrons at high levels are absent. Jones first claimed neutrons in 1989, and actually got published in Nature, but at levels far too low to explain the claims of heat, and far lower than reported here. And then subsequent experiments at one of the most sensitive neutron detectors on the planet greatly reduced the upper limit on neutron flux. So, if the results are valid, and other LENR claims are valid, then there are at least two very different revolutions to explain.
      But so far, this is a very anecdotal report from 1992, complicated by saturating detectors and software glitches. He said the funding was cut, but surely he recognized the significance, and could have moon-lighted to improve the experiment to get a nobel prize. I doubt he would give up so easily.
      The burst rate was easily high enough to be dangerous, but they didn’t seem to take any precautions, even after their decade counter overflowed (at a million counts) several times. They didn’t even know the rate, only that it was really high, and they took no precautions. That doesn’t sound like a smart nuclear engineer.
      The story about the pressure and the comparison to a car piston makes little sense. If you have high loading in a metal hydride at a given temperature, you have high pressure regardless of how you got there. So, physically, this should be similar to metal hydrides in electrolysis, where neutrons are not observed (except allegedly at trace levels).
      The tribune story says they have reproduced with Kimmel funding, but the only quantitative figures are from 92. And they say Petras reported his findings at ICCF17, but the preprint only gives measurements from that one experiment back in the day. If they’ve done a better experiment with better detectors and counters, why don’t they cite the better work?

      Note the “non-existent” suppression effect of the P&F witch hunt.

      So far, its’ only Petras’s claim. It may be that whoever controlled the funding looked at the results and had a different interpretation. Anyway, he’s got the money now, and is still reporting only the ’92 results. But maybe, if we’re patient, we’ll find out that LENR produces neutrons after all. That would be exciting.

      • Jay2011 Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 5:39 am

        I agree with Popeye’s analysis here. Millions of neutrons/s would be a stunning result if real. But it would also represent a stunning contradiction of nearly all other LENR results regarding neutron emission, and the health hazard is serious. The article doesn’t even mention the type of neutron detectors used. Probably a BF3 or He3 proportional counter. These are highly susceptible to RF radiation, and I’ve seen radiation claims before that turned out to be detector artifacts. Not saying that’s the case here, but so far we just have an anecdotal account with no data. I’ll be interested to see a publication.

    • Quax Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 2:31 am

      Spacegoat, neutrons would be good, the news article unfortunately does not make clear how exactly they are measuring it.

      If an actually good paper came from this that’ll be splendid.

  2. GreenWin Reply

    October 28, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    I couldn’t find Shanahan’s cover bio… Only his work as a programmer for Westinghouse Inc. at Savannah River since 1989… same year F&P announced.

    A little background on Kirk L. Shanahan: a software programmer for Westinghouse Savannah River Company since at least 1989. Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC) is a consortium of four major companies: Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox, Bechtel, and BNFL.

    Shanahan is heavily invested in DOE weapons programs at WSRC, and a big supporter of laser driven inertial confinement theory – like the NIF. The failure of inertial confinement and success of cold fusion experiments has unleashed a torrent of Josh Cude/yugo/popeye/shanahan diatribes.

    But Shanahan is something of a ghost as there is little or no background for him outside his employment by the Westinghouse nuclear management company. Papers he contributes to do not represent DOE or the Savannah River Lab – only the opinion of the authors as employees of Westinghouse.

    What’s he a “doctor” of?? Derision?

    • GreenWin Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 3:32 pm

      It’s also helpful to read the legal disclaimer on Shanahan’s grandiose treatise from 2009 attempting to “critique” LENR research:

      This work was prepared under an agreement with and funded by the U.S. Government. Neither the U. S. Government or its employees, nor any of its contractors, subcontractors or their employees, makes any express or implied:
      1. warranty or assumes any legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or for the use or results of such use of any information, product, or process disclosed; or
      2. representation that such use or results of such use would not infringe privately owned rights; or
      3. endorsement or recommendation of any specifically identified commercial product, process, or service. Any views and opinions of authors expressed in this work do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, or its contractors, or subcontractors.”

      Shanahan’s most recent rant (“whitepaper”) does not even represent his employer, and is neither funded nor contracted for by any agency of the U.S. Government. He appears to be a rogue pathoskep with a personal vendetta against CF. And severe ego inflation.

      IGZ-2013 material!

      • Quax Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 2:04 am

        GreenWin, this is your worst drivel yet. Apparently you only follow pseudo science and never the real thing, the criticism that Shanahan has been leveling at LENR is absolutely benign and par for the course when results and theories are challenged.

        Apparently out in the cold the LENR researchers unlearned how the normal back and forth in science works and acolytes like you never clued-in in the first place. *sheesh*

        If you want to check out how contentious thinks can get in perfectly non-fringe fields with regards to start-up businesses, I suggest you check out my last blog post.

        If the LENR field can’t even take that little bit of heat coming from Shanahan’s direction they are really not ready for prime time.

    • daniel maris Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 3:40 pm

      Interesting…I wonder what Popeye thinks of the role of fission nuclear energy solving our energy problems into the future?

    • Quax Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 2:19 am

      Papers unrelated to LENR indicate he is associated with the Savannah River National Laboratory (e.g. this on)

      His publishing record also indicates he is quite knowledgeable when it comes to complex hydrides.

      Ridiculing and ignoring a scientists with this kind of publishing record is preposterous.

      • GreenWin Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 2:29 pm

        Quax, “karma is a beitch.” This is the normal back and forth, just as in a debate.

        shanahan is neither ridiculed, or ignored. His CCS hypothesis was soundly debunked by a dozen LENR researchers. Even Jay2011 finds it hard to believe.

        I have merely made clear shanahan’s employment record and who he works for – the corporate nuclear industry including Fluor Corp., Honeywell International, Newport News Nuclear, and the Westignhouse Savannah River Company consortium (Babcock & Wilcox, Bechtel, and BNFL)

        My labeling shanahan as a “lap dog” is essentially correct – as he is directly employed by oil,gas,nuke industry and clearly takes orders from them.

        If Mr. Shanahan cannot explain the heat… he should exit the kitchen.

        IGZ-2013 Nuke Hounds Considered

  3. General Zaroff Reply

    October 28, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Tracking down Popeye’s true identity is much more productive than actually trying to counter his arguments. Although, it must be embarrassing to find out that he is not some big famous physicist. No matter, I am sure the believers can pull together and discover his mailing address. Then you can keep him occupied by sending him a steady stream of bags of burning dog-poo via FedEx.

    Once Popeye is sidelined LENR will be oh-so-close to mainstream acceptance. It will still need a little extra push though. Maybe a convincing experiment using proper measurement techniques will do the trick.

    • daniel maris Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 5:25 pm

      Brother Zaroff, have you been on one of your whisky-fuelled sprees? We haven’t seen you in the Church of True Believers lately. It seemed you were ready to join the fold and were eager to learn. I gave you that Book of Amoco reading for your scripture study but I don’t think you even read it – you certainly didn’t comment on it. Still we pray you may yet see the (LENR-induced) light.

      These words being written more in sorrow than anger…

    • Methusela Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 6:10 pm

      I suppose it is embarassing that you are all fawning over a non-entity.

      Never mind, eh?

    • GreenWin Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 6:43 pm

      Unfortunately the obviously biased “arguments” offered by Josh Cude/popee/shanahan are so skewed toward his employer Westinghouse and their fat contracts with DOE – it is like arguing with a box of rocks. Josh stumbles around on this site trying to appear well organized and perhaps even is, but his bias towards nuclear weapons essentially disqualifies his opinions from serious consideration.

      As I have pointed out, josh/popee/mary/shanahan suffers from narcissistic personality disorder, presenting a belligerent need to always be “right.” While skeps take solace in this compulsive behavior, the rational world should greet josh with compassion. He has some skills, unfortunately wasted on nuclear weapons programs.

      I fear should he appear on IGZ, he would tank the ratings. Audiences dislike know-it-alls.

      • popeye Reply

        October 28, 2012 at 6:55 pm

        Nope. It’s no secret I write as Joshua Cude on other sites; you can find the same text copied and pasted pretty easily. But there’s no connection to Shanahan. His approach is very narrowly focused on one possible artifact in electrolysis experiments. My objections are much more general: the lack of progress, the opposite of progress, the exponential drop in publication rate, with the rapid increase in attempts to capitalize on gullibility; the absence of a single experiment that qualified scientists can do with an expected result; the failure of cold fusion experiments to make enough power to power themselves, etc. Of course, one should not expect True Believers to need something like evidence before they jump to conclusions that help to rationalize their preferred beliefs.
        Not sure it matters anyway, since I do not make arguments that depend on my credibility, but only on information that is easily verified.

        • Al Potenza Reply

          October 28, 2012 at 7:41 pm

          “Not sure it matters anyway, since I do not make arguments that depend on my credibility, but only on information that is easily verified.”
          Good luck getting some of the gullible cretins who believe Rossi to see that!

        • RonB Reply

          October 28, 2012 at 7:54 pm

          Did you see the report of neutrons at the top of this page? I have a feeling this guy knows his way around detectors since he’s working on that type of thing pretty often.

          I was of the belief that if it’s possible to have undisputed source of neutrons and/or gamma rays that that would be definitive.
          Do you think it would be?

          ps — To everyone.. my name really isn’t RonB

        • popeye Reply

          October 28, 2012 at 8:01 pm

          I could add that I’m not as interested in finding an explanation for every unexplained result in the field, as seeing the interpretations tested by other experiments.
          So, I don’t care how Uri Geller bends spoons in his staged shows. But to believe he does it with his mind, I’d have to see him bend a spoon I provide, when he least expects it, and when he doesn’t control the circumstances.
          There’s a terrific episode of Johnny Carson (that others have referred to), where Geller is completely flummoxed by props supplied by Carson, and he eventually gives up saying he’s not strong tonight. Carson had consulted James Randi before the show. It’s on youtube.

          • Methusela

            October 28, 2012 at 8:11 pm

            Lol. Something you don’t know.

          • RonB

            October 28, 2012 at 8:23 pm

            Hey bud, I’m not out to get you by any means at all. I am happy that you’re willing to visit these online sites and share your insight. I think you would be a hard sell on new and possibly hair-brained ideas so I’m just exploring what would be required.
            It’s my belief (which isn’t based on much that’s substantial) that if someone can turn on/off gamma rays and/or neutrons from a non radioactive source then that’s clear indication of a nuclear process.
            I’m just asking if that’s true or not.

            Is it true?

        • Jim Reply

          October 29, 2012 at 1:23 pm

          I’m confused – doesn’t Brillioun’s research report give enough information to be counted as reliable and reproducible? Certainly, they appear to have a theory, have produced results based on theory and have proceeded accordingly into further studies.
          While I would have expected further information from them to have been published by now, I suppose there is that darned profit motive intruding into ‘real’ research again!

      • GreenWin Reply

        October 28, 2012 at 8:04 pm

        In August of 2008, Fluor Inc. of Irvine CA, partnered with Honeywell Inc. and Newport News Nuclear to assume the Westinghouse Savannah River Site contract. Fluor is a 43k employee engineering firm focused on oil & gas, large fission power plants, and nuclear fuels.

        It is clear that the Shanahan/popee/mary/cude mindset is heavily biased toward its employer, Fluor and partners who stand to lose more than nearly any other business from the successful deployment of LENR.

        Due to the obvious conflicts of interest, the Shanahan/cude/mary LENR commentary disqualifies itself from serious consideration.

        • Bigwilly Reply

          October 28, 2012 at 8:19 pm

          Easy friend!

          You are going to get us in trouble with that kind of logic. If I subscribe to that I can’t take Rossi, Defkalion, Cures, Celani, Roger Green or any of our favorite free energy crusaders’ comments seriously.

          And let me tell you, I take it very seriously!!!


          • GreenWin

            October 28, 2012 at 9:37 pm

            Willy, put Rossi, DGT, Celani, Roger all together… you got a handful of poor entrepreneurs. Little guys without billion dollar contracts, giant payrolls, or insider guvm’nt deals. David v Goliath.

            Remember how that turned out?

          • popeye

            October 28, 2012 at 10:21 pm

            Actually, it is far more likely that the many prolific and adamant supporters of Rossi and DGT are paid shills. In fact, I have good reason to believe that GreenWin is really Mrs. Rossi.
            If Rossi is looking for investment, then he has something very obvious to gain from a devoted following. Also, Rossi’s history, and the comment he made to Krivit (from memory: if you help me now, I will help you always), back when Krivit was on-side, seem entirely consistent with his employing advocates. So, given the clear conflict of interest of the various true believers, nothing they say should be taken seriously.
            On the other hand, it is impossible to imagine what oil or nuclear organizations could possibly gain from a few shills in tiny irrelevant internet blogs, when science already disbelieves Rossi, and the media ignore him. Any organization threatened by LENR does not need to worry until someone convincingly demonstrates a working device, and then no amount of advocacy would help them.

        • RonB Reply

          October 28, 2012 at 8:26 pm

          If you think that Popeye is worried about his paycheck I would speculate that it’s not an issue. lol
          I’m quite dumb compared to him and I have no worries about finances.

        • Frank Reply

          October 28, 2012 at 8:40 pm

          … the Shanahan/cude/mary LENR commentary disqualifies itself from serious consideration

          Sorry to tell you, but they have the by far more convincing arguments and facts, and their comments are based on rational thinking.
          Whereas many of the ‘believers’ comments – in particular the ones in favor for Rossi – look to me like based on wishful thinking and unproven claims only, some of them like written by ‘spin doctors’ with an agenda.

          • Methusela

            October 28, 2012 at 8:44 pm

            Lol @ “‘spin doctors’ with an agenda”.

        • RonB Reply

          October 28, 2012 at 8:53 pm

          It seems that’s all the more reason that someone should demand proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Unfounded rumors of something that could obsolete 45,000 peoples jobs would be bad for the security of those jobs. It might scare off investors and cause general turmoil at the company. It would be horrible if all that came to pass and all the rumors were just that and nothing fruitful would ever come from it. Ya know?
          There’s always a bigger picture.

          • GreenWin

            October 28, 2012 at 9:27 pm

            And a lack of vision for it, Ron.

          • RonB

            October 29, 2012 at 12:18 am

            I sure hope you’re right. It would be a vision of the Emerald City from Arthur C. Clarke.

  4. JNewman Reply

    October 28, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Lots of lively chatter today, mostly about the real identity of Popeye and how that is supposed to somehow matter. For the record, I really, really don’t want to know who GreenWin and Methusela are in real life. I want to assume that their Internet personae are nothing like their actual ones and knowing anything about them could spoil that fantasy. But enough about this sort of worthless fluff.

    Today is a momentous occasion: the one-year anniversary of Rossi’s big ecat demo in Bologna. It is amazing to see how far we have come since then. I mean, he has blogged hundreds of times claiming an ever-expanding set of breakthroughs and also… And also… Um… Never mind.

    • RonB Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 9:08 pm

      but but but.. he promises next week there will be BIG news!! lol

    • Jami Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 9:21 pm

      “and also… And also… Um… Never mind”

      Yeah. The list goes on and on. What more could we possibly want?

      I’m prepared to bet that, a year from today, we’re still exactly where we are now.

      DBM’s wonder battery (not as potentially important as cold fusion – but not quite as outlandish either) had it’s second anniversary a couple of days ago. And the blogs where believers and skeptics still battle about whether it’s real or not look like one never ending deja vu – only with slowly decreasing participation because the believers finally get it (one by one) and the skeptics get bored because of that.

    • Methusela Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 9:22 pm

      @JN: You’ll be too busy waxing your dastardly moustache to notice the real news when it happens…

      • JNewman Reply

        October 28, 2012 at 11:31 pm

        Mustache waxing is a complex and painstaking process, so I can only pay so much attention to real news. Fortunately, I am confident that you will be around to point it out to those less capable of recognizing it.

    • Ivy Matt Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 2:07 am

      I hear Rossi’s E-Cat technology has recently progressed at such a stunning rate that soon he will be using it to heat his factory in Bondeno.

  5. GreenWin Reply

    October 28, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    Darn! THAT’s why we should forget LENR! Cause the 45k Fluor/Honeywell/NNN/ employees that could (if their bosses let ‘em) transition to new, productive LENR work, need to keep their dirty old jobs! The breadth of this vision is… miniscule!

    Wow. I guess the nuke, oil & gas industry really [don't] have a dog in this fight. Regardless, they’re losing, and we now have Shanahan/popee/mary confirmed as their lap dog. Woof! Go fetch Josh!

  6. Quax Reply

    October 28, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Methusela, only somebody who did not bother to read Dr. Shanahan’s work could conclude that he is identical to popeye. Shanahan does not dispute the existence of anomalous heat effects and advocates to research them. His very valid point is that conventional explanations have to be categorically ruled out. Shanahan bemoans the suppression of LENR research as it means that papers critical of LENR experiments also won’t get published.

    Very different stance than popeye’s.

    At any rate, I don’t intend to partake in this high-school like obsession to identify somebody who prefers to stay anonymous.

    • daniel maris Reply

      October 28, 2012 at 11:20 pm

      I don’t see how they can be anomalous if they can be conventionally explained. They are mismeasurement, misconfiguration or something we describe as LENR.

      • Quax Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 1:50 am

        daniel maris, not everything new needs to be nuclear.

        Last time I checked Chemistry is still a field that offers much opportunity to discover new effects.

        • daniel maris Reply

          October 29, 2012 at 2:18 am

          Well I am no chemist or physicist but from all I read there is no way that chemical reactions could deliver you COPs of x2 through to 20 over periods of days to months.

          Those figures are the product of poor measurement, wrongly configured experiments, or LENR. They cannot be the product of chemical reactions (at least as conventionally understood – i.e. you would have to redefine chemical reactions to allow such huge energy increases).

          • Quax

            October 29, 2012 at 2:22 am

            daniel maris, you are correct. And Shanahan proposed a systematic error shift specific to the observed system.

            Should be easy to refute with some high quality papers.

    • GreenWin Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 1:12 am

      Honestly Quax, have YOU read Shanahan’s stuff? In 2002 he conjured up something he calls “calibration constant shift”(CCS). “It was found that this assumption forced one to change the calibration constants to drive the apparent excess heat signal to zero. What was noted was that the changes required were minor, being ~1-3% of the originally determined values.” Wikiversity

      Shanahan defending his masters at Westinghouse and Fluor Corp, uses the same (measurement error) argument as popee to deny anomalous heat.

      • Quax Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 1:40 am

        GreenWin, haven’t read the CCS paper yet, but if Shanahan is correct the rebutals confuse a random with a systematic error. That in itself would be rather astounding.

        Remember the faster than light neutrinos sensation. That turned out to be a systematic error that was very hard to chase down.

        Admittedly a systematic error of this kind seems far fetched but it should be easy to show this by a comprehensive assessment and disclosure of the complete calorimetry set-up.

      • Ivy Matt Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 2:33 am

        Are you serious? What skeptic hasn’t used measurement error as one possible mundane explanation of results claiming to demonstrate proof of LENR? What sets Shanahan apart from most other skeptics is that he claims that a particular systematic error can explain all or most LENR results. I don’t recall Popeye ever making that argument.

        • GreenWin Reply

          October 29, 2012 at 3:11 am

          Shanahan is clearly a political lap dog and his attempts at debunking LENR specious. and laughable. He damages what little reputation he might have had and heaps unwanted attention on his corporate masters.

          • Quax

            October 29, 2012 at 3:22 am

            Greenwin, I am sooo impressed in how well you refute Shanahan’s technical arguments point by point.

            Apparently, all you and Methusela can muster with regards to Shanahan are ad hominem attacks.

            A bit disappointing but not entirely unexpected.

  7. GreenWin Reply

    October 29, 2012 at 12:51 am

    One of the signature behaviors of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is grandiosity; often contradicted by an even more grandiose claim:

    “Not sure it matters anyway, since I do not make arguments that depend on my credibility, but only on information that is easily verified.” Popee, October 28, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    “In fact, I have good reason to believe that GreenWin is really Mrs. Rossi.” Popee, October 28, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    Sudden cognitive swing in just over 3 hours? Using two different pseudonyms to make the same claims? Time for skeps to come to grips with Josh’s psyche. Josh is not inherently “bad” – but he’s disturbed. And that manifests in belligerence, combativeness, and grandiosity. Compassion is the only decent reaction.

    • Quax Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 1:30 am

      Greenwin, the latter is clearly a joke. For somebody whose posts are mostly jocular you seem to have a hard time to detect sarcasm.

      • GreenWin Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 3:06 am

        Unfortunately, this is not the case with Josh. He is rarely jocular (and suffers for it) and this bit of contradictory petulance changes nothing.

        Insurance concerns have forced us to dis-invite his participation in IGZ-2013. Sadly.

  8. Quax Reply

    October 29, 2012 at 3:45 am

    The irony about the ad hominem attacks on KL Shanahan is that he argues to treat LENR as proper science that allows for papers of different persuasions to be published in order to let the scientific process work.

    I would like to thank Methusela for bringing him to my attention. Since I am only a casual LENR observer he hasn’t caught my attention before.

    The reception that his work received indicates that the scientific process in the LENR field is indeed profoundly broken.

    It should be very straightforward to show if his CCS conjecture has any merit.

    Instead it was confused with a random error explanation by 10 LENR researchers.


    The LENR hard-core believers vilify Shanahan as if he somehow massively tried to undermine the LENR research, completely ignoring that this kind of back and forth is how science works. In reality things can get much more contentious even in fields that are quite mainstream (e.g. Exhibit A).

    The way Storms et. al. have been (deliberately?) missing the point of Shanahan criticism is very disconcerting.

    At any rate, I spend way to much time here and on LENR in general this week. A quite unintended CCS in my own priorities. They need to be reset.

    Will sign off for a while.

    • Jay2011 Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 5:24 am

      I was aware of Shanahan’s CCS thesis, but not completely bought into it. If I recall correctly he is claiming that many LENR calorimeters may give heat values that are dependent upon where the heat is created, i.e. they are position sensitive. If the source of heat changes location, e.g. because of H2/O2 recombination, the calibration may be off and a systematic error is produced. By integrating over a sufficiently long time with a systematic calibration error, one can have the false appearance of MJoules of energy being generated. I think his thesis is entirely possible, but cannot be universally applied to all LENR experiments.

      Of Rothwell’s “thousands of peer reviewed papers”, only a small percentage are actually published in peer reviewed journals, and an even smaller percentage go into sufficient detail regarding calorimetry calibrations, control checks, presentation of raw data, or any other details that would enable one to have confidence in the results. So Shanahan has a point. But I have trouble imagining a flow calorimeter that collects 98% of the heat, as is the case with McKubre’s calorimeter for example, being that susceptible to a Shanahan-type calibration error. However, I think only a handful of labs have calorimeters of that quality.

  9. spacegoat Reply

    October 29, 2012 at 5:39 am

    What if …;jsessionid=9AEB85770F3851766118C3CF49A691F2.RegisterPlus_prod_0?number=EP08873805&tab=main

    25.06.2012 Observations by third parties
    19.10.2012 Despatch of a communication from the examining division (Time limit: M04)

    … the European patent office confirm Rossi’s sauce?

    All I would like to see is Jay2011 sterilize his hat and post on youtube making a meal of it (as he promised to do). :-)

    I would henceforth refrain from using a Rossi-ism (clownery) on Rossi.

    With a patent behind him, perhaps the paranoia will lower and maybe we could have validation of some of his claims.
    Could Believer/Skeptic peace break out on ECN? :-)

    • Al Potenza Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 5:59 am

      Common misconception. A patent does NOT prove something works. Every day, tons of useless or impossible crappola is patented. Only independent testing done correctly proves a technology works as claimed.

      • MaxS Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 11:21 am

        Exactly. A patent examination only checks for novelty against prior art and sufficient disclosure.
        The fact that an examination report would be published soon, does not mean that any of the claims would be granted.
        I have many years of experience with patents, and my opinion is this patent would be probably rejected on the ground of insuffcient disclosure and lack of experimental data to support any of the claims. Possibly in Italy one may bribe the examiners but hardly on EP stage. Already on PCT stage it was all rejected. We shall see.

    • Methusela Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 7:06 am

      09.07.2012 New entry: Observations by third parties
      19.10.2012 First examination report published on 21.11.2012 [2012/47]
      19.10.2012 New entry: Despatch of examination report + time limit

      Will be interesting to see the first examination report.

    • Jay2011 Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm

      @ Spacegoat,

      I think you’re confusing me with someone else. I don’t recall ever betting my hat against Rossi. But I will admit that after his flaky demos and bizarre antics I placed a pretty low probability on his claims being real, and that my probability estimate has been exponentially decaying ever since.

      Nevertheless, if by some bizarre stroke of fate he ever fields a real product that really works, I will toast all of the believers here and wash down my hat with several glasses of champagne.

  10. opeye Reply

    October 29, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Alain posted on October 28, 2012 at 7:21 am:

    problem with mckubre is not that it did not convince him, but that nobody accepted despite good protocol.
    you rebuttal is a mix of reasoning errors, using the pathology of mainstream to justify the result of that pathology.
    it is a vicious circle. nothing can convince you, since if something can, you will reject it because it is said by people that accept LENR, and use the rejection of mainstream to prove that mainstream is right…

    You’re arguing that the evidence is good enough for you, and therefore, since it is not good enough for the mainstream, the mainstream must be pathological. So every scientist in the mainstream hates cheap, clean, and abundant energy?
    But we know this is not true, because in 1989, when the mainstream gave P&F the benefit of the doubt, there was widespread excitement, and many attempts to participate in the revolution. Pons received a standing ovation from thousands of scientists. Everyone wanted it to be true, and no one wanted to be left behind. So there is no pathological fear of cold fusion. There is only rejection of weak evidence for an extraordinary claim.
    The fact that the evidence does not improve with time suggests much more strongly that the pathological behavior is on the True Believer side. It is also more plausible because the group is more connected and much much smaller.

    • JNewman Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 5:09 pm

      You have captured the essence of Alain precisely. Anyone who doesn’t see things as he does must be pathological and evil. With that kind of a world view, he must be wonderful at parties.

      • Alain Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm

        Pathology is the term used on living things, for broken…

        if you don’t see there is something broken in mainstream behavior… like in Science rejection of report41 (just one example), like in risk analysis around LENR, and like your self-confidence that all is faked…

        I can easily accept doubt expressed, but being sure of having high probabilities of fraud, is simply symptomatic of a bug in the analytic system…

        read the data and stop feigning to argue.
        I mean, really read them and use you brain in a balanced way, not only in a one-sided way.

        what should i say ? When I see a broken software, after checking all, I tell it.

        It took me 2month to check, in 93, then in 2011.
        Don’t imagine that I believed in LENR up-front…

        I’ve followed you broken reasoning for long, I’ve seen the same software on 9/11 conspiracy sites, on fearmongering NGO sites, on political supporters sites…
        in fact it is not broken, it is designed to protect the self-confidence , not to find the truth, not to take decision on reality.

        sorry to be so straight, but MY is back , and I have a limit of quantity of broken rhetoric that I can survey without answering…

        I’ll try to get more silent.
        I’ve waiting for good data to challenge what other biased groups publish… not much here except bad reasoning and bias.

        • JNewman Reply

          October 29, 2012 at 7:32 pm

          Like I said, you think that anybody who doesn’t come up with the same conclusions that you do is either a bad person or has not done the analysis. There is another possibility that appears to be beyond your powers of comprehension: you might be wrong.

        • opeye Reply

          October 29, 2012 at 7:54 pm

          Alain posted on October 29, 2012 at 6:30 pm:

          if you don’t see there is something broken in mainstream behavior… like in Science rejection of report41 (just one example),

          You’re not making any arguments to persuade people that things are broken. You’re just listing things you don’t think should have happened. I don’t get it. People repeatedly point to the more than 1200 papers in cold fusion that have been published under peer review, and they admit many of them are poor quality. So it is possible to publish cold fusion results — even only suggestive ones. And people list all the mainstream organizations that “support” LENR. So how is that also consistent with suppression. Do you think that all these organizations validate LENR, but not enough?
          Given the many publications in cold fusion, the failure of report 41 to get published is more plausibly blamed on its poor quality, and not on a systematic suppression of the field. And a look at the paper makes that even more plausible: There are many legitimate criticisms. The first few of the criticisms below would be enough for any journal to reject it:
          1) They talked about correlating the helium to the heat, but missed by a factor of 10 (based on the Q-value for the formation of helium from deuterium), and then said that the measurement of a single temperature was too crude to get a true measure of the heat. A referee would be justified to send it back asking for better calorimetry if they’re gonna say something about the heat.
          2) The speculation about DD -> He-4 plus heat was very poorly justified. The idea that an excited He-4 can give its energy (24 MeV) to d-electrons is unprecedented (and fusion in Pd has been observed), and in any case, the electrons should be detectable, since many reactions at least will happen near the surface. I think a reviewer might have suggested not to speculate on a possible reaction at all, or collaborate with a theorist and calculate reaction rates.
          3) If the calorimetry was not wrong by a factor of 4, then there is too much helium. If some of the helium has a mundane origin, why not all of it?
          4) It’s been 10 years, and they said things like the calorimetry needed to be checked. Did they?
          5) It was 2002, but there is no reference to the work in the 2004 submission to the DOE panel. It seems that even the cold fusion advocates who made a critical presentation to the DOE in 2004 did not think report 41 was credible.
          6) Carlo Rubbia was acknowledged. Has he made any public statements about cold fusion? I looked some time ago, and found none. He has spent the last decade working on renewable and sustainable energy in several official capacities. He has personally advocated (even invented) the “energy amplifier”, a sub-critical reactor using thorium fuel. It would seem his confidence in cold fusion might not be so strong, if he’s working on a fission reactor, in spite of the fact that he should be quite familiar with this experiment.

          like in risk analysis around LENR,

          It’s not skeptics that are claiming explosions caused by LENR, or copious neutrons produced by temperature shocked titanium deuteride (Petras).

          and like your self-confidence that all is faked…

          My argument is mainly the lack of credible evidence. Most is probably not faked, but the claims from companies looking for investment should be treated suspiciously.

          I’ve seen the same software on 9/11 conspiracy sites, …

          Don’t know what your point is here, but if you’re supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories too, then your attitude makes sense, and I abandon all hope to influence your thinking. I hold the view that it couldn’t have been a conspiracy with Bush involved, because it worked. If you’re arguing against such theories, then it makes no sense that you argue for them in the case of cold fusion. They are equally implausible.

          • Alain

            October 30, 2012 at 8:32 pm

            the rejection was because it is ininteristing, or for clear stupid reasons…

            Nobody gat as far as you… probably because your position cannot be defended.

            Anyway my point is that the rejection was ridiculous

  11. popeye Reply

    October 29, 2012 at 9:44 am

    daniel maris posted some time ago on October 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm:

    So which of the climate scientists are you saying is right, Dick? In the UK the Met Office has just issued an analysis showing no rise over the last 15 years (when the amount of carbon being pumped into the air has increased exponentially). Maybe the small 10% minority are right?

    I wanted to respond to this post because it is typical of the hypocrisy of the True Believer camp.
    One of your favorite validations of cold fusion is the support NASA and other organizations give it, even though none of them actually endorse cold fusion as an organization. You can search the NASA website for LENR and find a few presentations and so on, but they have an entire web site (climate.nasa…) on climate change, and pretty much fall in line with the views of the IPCC.
    And here’s a partial list of the professional science organizations that have taken *official* positions on the question of AGW: ACS, APS, Am Astron. Soc, Geol. Soc. of Am., AAAS, AIP, Am. Geophysical Union, Am. Meteorological Soc. They are unanimous in agreement with the IPCC broad claim that they are 95% certain of AGW. (The last one was the Petroleum Geoligists in 2007).
    This sort of thing doesn’t mean anything when it contradicts what you’d prefer to believe, but if a few scientists in a few organizations express support for something you’d like to believe, it represents almost incontrovertible support.
    And by the way, the Met Office has refuted the misleading interpretation given to their data by the Daily Mail. Global warming is less than two tenths of a degree per decade, and the short-term fluctuations can be close to a degree, so trends can only be seen clearly on multi-decade time scales, and short term plots depend very much on the starting and stopping points in relation to effects like el nino. If you take a 40 year plot of temperature, the increase is obvious, but look at it through a window 10 (or 15-year) years wide, and it’s easy to find sections that don’t look like significant warming is occurring. People have been saying global warming stopped over the last decade for years; they said it in 1995, 98, 2002, 2007, 2010, and now in 2013. But no one disagrees that since 1985, there has been considerable warming. Here’s a couple of good articles that show how to differentiate noise from signal:

    and and

    • spacegoat Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 11:51 am

      Only fools deny AGW.
      The doubt is in the impact, risk and effectiveness of any counter measures. The counter measures proposed are way over the top, revealing the agenda for global taxation and global government.

      By the way the BBC program from way back on Cold Fusion is essential viewing:
      All major protagonists appear. Balanced presentation IMO.
      Darth Vader of Cold Fusion appears too.

    • Jay2011 Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm

      @ Popeye,

      Thanks for this great post. I know next to nothing about climate modeling, but I know a little about generically trying to model anything with a whole lot of feedback loops, both positive and negative and with all different time constants. Add in a host of other quasi-cyclical behaviors that are not completely understood and it’s easy to argue that it’s going to be next to impossible to get any model right. At the same time, I also know that when you now subject such a system to a large impulse response, in this case the release of a hundred million years of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere in little more than a century, there’s no way that the system will remain unchanged. And most likely we won’t like the results. The major question left, as spacegoat articulated, is what do we do about it?

    • daniel maris Reply

      October 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm

      Misrepresentation, Popeye. I use the NASA argument against people like Jami who from time to time try to equate an interest in LENR with the wild utterances of the swivel-eyed promoters of perpetual motion (and other, similar dismissals of LENR research).

      I do not have an opinion for or against AGW. I fully accept it may be a reality. But the evidence is not as clear cut as the promoters of AGW like to suggest.

      My own view on carbon reduction is that we should adopt a precautionary approach and assume carbon has a role to play in global warming and that global warming is (continuing to) take place. We should take steps to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. However, it is puzzling why the rise in temperature has been so modest if it exists at all at a time when carbon in the atmosphere has been increasing hugely. Also, it is puzzling whey the globe got colder for several decades in the mid 20th century if the theory is correct.

      • popeye Reply

        October 29, 2012 at 7:58 pm

        daniel maris posted on October 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm:

        Misrepresentation, Popeye. I use the NASA argument against people like Jami who from time to time try to equate an interest in LENR with the wild utterances of the swivel-eyed promoters of perpetual motion (and other, similar dismissals of LENR research).

        Again, are you not aware that the internet remembers? You frequently list NASA etc as the reason for your confidence in LENR. I googled “daniel maris nasa ecatnews” and came up with several examples. Here’s one from August 18, 2012 at 12:52 am:
        “Hmmmm…I think we are entitled to think LENR is probably a real phenomenon if NASA, DARPA, the EU, SRI, NI and many other entities think it is…including professorial specialists in the field.
        It’s more irrational to think it can’t possibly be real.”

        I do not have an opinion for or against AGW.

        See, that’s the inconsistency. Just above you say LENR’s probably real based on several entities who have scientists who think it is, even though the organizations have not taken official positions. But you have no opinion on a subject for which far more organizations *have* expressed an official position.

        I fully accept it may be a reality. But the evidence is not as clear cut as the promoters of AGW like to suggest.

        Bases on what? The criteria you use to conclude LENR is probably real are satisfied 100 times more clearly for AGW. Many more scientists working in the field, and many more professional organizations making much more definitive statements *from* the organizations. You should just admit that LENR fits your preferred belief system better than AGW.

        However, it is puzzling why the rise in temperature has been so modest if it exists at all at a time when carbon in the atmosphere has been increasing hugely.

        If you’re referring to the last 15 years, the increase in CO2 has been about 5%, and the planet’s got a lot of inertia. The expected increase in temperature is less about .2C. That’s just not easy to see against annual fluctuations in the range of 1 degreeC. Most of the warming expected is from the accumulated increase, not the incremental increase. And it takes more than a quizzical raising of eyebrows and a naive expectation that “hugely” increasing co2 levels should result in “immodest” temperature increases. Climate science is far from perfect, but it’s more than choosing vague adjectives. CO2 is a forcing gas, but water vapor does the heavy lifting when it comes to the greenhouse effect. And so, there is no reason to expect some sort of proportional temperature increase.

        • GreenWin Reply

          October 30, 2012 at 3:18 am

          Note popee addresses only daniel and avoids dealing with his by now obvious psych disability. Again, not to sneer or castigate; simply to suggest one must read popee/josh cude with a large dollop of compassion.

          IGZ-2013 Popee disqualified :(

          • CuriousChris

            October 30, 2012 at 4:00 am

            LOL Look who should talk. Its the greenwin calling the popeye black.

            I suggest you pick your fights better. when it comes to knowledge it is obvious between you and popeye who understands and who needs the compassion. And no you don’t get the knowledge tick.

            But I am not in a compassionate mood. so stop being such a dick.

            tyool-2012 Greenwin proves his incompetence


    October 31, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    To Defkalion people,

    That potassium is a catalyst for the Ni-H transmutation reaction has been explained already in September in the article “cold fusion catalyst” in the e-Cat Site by joannes van den bogaert. Other catalysts are e.g. strontium and barium.

Leave a Reply

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

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