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

STMicroelectronics LENR Patent

September 23, 2013

Developments in the CF arena may be slow but there are occasional surprises dotted on the way. One such is the revelation of a Patent application by STMicroelectronics. There is no doubt that this is LENR. It is in the title. The application is very specific and unlike AR’s patent apps, is extremely professional. I have only skimmed it to be sure it is worth discussion. It certainly is. Filed in February this year and with a priority date of Feb 2012, it is evident that some quarter of STM (Italian?) has a keen interest in the subject.

Much time is spent in explaining the control mechanism but it goes further than that. This device is described in great detail. It does not seem to be trolling. I did wonder if a small group within the company had been convinced by external events such that they knocked up a ‘just in case’ patent but on reading further, I doubt that is the case. This appears to be a serious attempt at staking a claim on a device they had painstakingly constructed and used to effect. What that effect is, we cannot be sure. I am tempted to conclude that they have built such a device and obtained results worth protecting. As always, however, sober reflection is a canny strategy and I will hold off the knee-jerk reaction until further reading.

I welcome your thoughts. Those qualified to do so, please examine the patent carefully and share your view in the comments section so that we all might learn something.

 

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130243143

 

[With thanks to pagnucco at Vortex]

Posted by on September 23, 2013. Filed under Close Up,Competitors,Hands-On. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2,846 Responses to STMicroelectronics LENR Patent

  1. daniel maris

    January 15, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    R Hopeful refuses to take seriously the independent reports on BLP’s technology (even where there is independent fabrication and testing) because they deal only in milliwatts and watts.

    OK, defensible up to a point I would agree.

    The only problem I have with that is that if the demo on the 28th Jan is in the 100 of watts to Kw range, you will move on to some new objection.

    • JNewman

      January 15, 2014 at 11:38 pm

      It is time to put aside all the objections. Far easier to assume that pretty much every miraculous energy claim is legit. Then all you need to do is think up rationalizations for why none of them ever comes to anything. A far better use of your mind than finding flaws in the claims.

      • Daniel Maris

        January 15, 2014 at 11:59 pm

        I don’t mind people raising objections and doubts. That’s healthy, as long as people don’t mind the objections and doubts being challenged in turn.

        I am just suggesting we will be in a new context come the 28th Jan if BLP demonstrate energy gain in the hundreds of watts or Kws range.

        • JNewman

          January 16, 2014 at 12:46 am

          And it is also healthy to challenge the doubts. Unfortunately, the challenges are generally in the form of skeptics are evil, skeptics are paid shills, skeptics are biased, skeptics are unwilling to face the facts, etc. These kind of “challenges” do not address the doubts in any substantive way. But BLP demonstrates oodles of power in a convincing way, that will be something to see.

        • GreenWin

          January 16, 2014 at 1:02 am

          Daniel, you waste your time. The skeps here are pathological. They have little or no scientific background yet pretend to expertise (perhaps in having read the DFG Disinfo Field Guide a hundred times.)

          Sit back and watch these over-the-hill sods frustrate with “rationality.” Best show on the internet!!

        • JNewman

          January 16, 2014 at 1:26 am

          Daniel, it must be great having GW on your side.

          • daniel maris

            January 16, 2014 at 9:13 am

            Looks like you can’t choose your friends after all… 🙂

    • Mary Yugo

      April 9, 2016 at 1:51 am

      .

  2. GreenWin

    January 16, 2014 at 12:56 am

    This just in: Gary and Steve found cohabitating earthenware vase!! News at Eleven!!

    http://blog.ceesquare.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/pot.png

    While Mary Yugo/AlPretenza/Newman/Popee/deluded skeps amusingly attempt to character assassinate Dr. Rossi – they assiduously avoid the REAL HARD NEWS about their fellow Mr. John Beal. The “Climate Change Expert” who stole $1,000,000.00 from the American taxpayers and is now serving time in the Big House for skeps favorite crime: F R A U D.

    http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/12/john-beal-epa-climate-change-expert-going-to-prison-2776208.html

    That’s conservative alright!!

  3. Dale G. Basgall

    January 16, 2014 at 5:44 am

    Seriously gentlemen do you actually think for one instant that anyone is telling us the truth? All of this LENR claims is absolutely BS and there is no one with an over unity device. Not the LENR for sure, it’s magic to magicians.

    If anyone had anything in product form for sure they would not be telling it before a proven product was for sale. This is a bandwagon for the prospectors. Until a working theory is proven to be correct and accepted by the mainstream scientists it’s hogwash at best.

  4. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 11:15 am

    Ransom wrote:

    All that the null results for the last several decades mean is that a breakthrough is becoming more and more likely.

    How vacuous! Even if it meant that, and it doesn’t, such a statement has no intellectual value to anyone. The fact that *a* breakthrough is likely does not relax the scrutiny one should put on extraordinary claims.

    And there have been breakthroughs. But null results in *all* pseudoscientific claims of abundant, clean energy in all of history means a breakthrough in pseudoscientific clean energy remains remote indeed. By pseudoscientific here, I mean claims of breakthroughs that defy scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified. Claims like this have been borne out, but not in abundant, clean energy.

    Frankly, I think intuitively the markets are already sensing a breakthrough, that is why the long term secular bear market which began in 2000 is ending.

    You’re dreaming. Not that this is not true, just that your intuition has any relevance.

    I am sure you and the pessimistic clan will scoff at it but cycles are natural to human societal growth. We are due for a bull cycle and energy will have to become cheaper (greater supply) for it to happen.

    Nature does not bend to the needs of human cycles, alas.

  5. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 11:19 am

    Ransom:

    Where in the world did you get the notion that I think only (what you call) pseudoscience can advance technology.

    Well, in the matter of energy, you keep talking about something like cold fusion, or hydrinos, which are both pseudoscience.

    …have great respect for science.

    You don’t show it here.

    As to energy, while some incremental improvements to the known energy technologies (Coal, Gas, Oil, Wind, Solar, Fission, Hydro, Geothermal) have occured over the years, no new source of energy has been introduced (including Fusion) in 40 years.
    I said in my earlier post that the improvement triggering a new secular growth period may just be incremental improvement in current energy sources, but I wouldn’t rule out the introduction of a new source and would expect one fairly soon based on the history of cyclical developments.

    What cycles are you talking about in relation to energy? The only fundamentally *new source of energy* in the history of our species has been nuclear energy: fission in the 40s, and uncontrolled fusion in the 50s and beyond.

    Every other source we use has been used for millennia. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, chemical (including biomass and fossil fuels) have been in use forever, or at least since fire was tamed. Ways of extracting or converting energy have developed throughout history in an incremental way. More abrupt developments, like the industrial revolution were about new ways to use energy, but it still just involved burning coal. Of course it also spurred the development of new ways to dig up or drill for fossil fuels, but that was every bit as incremental as the development today of solar and wind technologies.

    Fact is, more than 80% of our primary energy still comes from burning stuff, a technology as old as fire. And even the comparatively new use of photovoltaics to exploit the sun’s energy was discovered almost 2 centuries ago, and was developed from something totally impractical in a painfully gradual way to what is now just beginning to be a competitive method. There have been no “cycles” of discovery of new energy sources. That’s just your fantasy.

    What we can learn from history is that the discovery of a fundamentally new source of energy, having happened only once, is an extremely unlikely occurrence, and that systematic, incremental development based on what we already know is far and away the most likely way this quest will progress. Mixing eye of newt with toe of frog and hoping something no one can explain will happen to solve all our problems may be your preferred scientific modality, but that’s why you’re a lawyer.

  6. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 11:32 am

    Ransom:

    Just for the record, I think our current knowledge of physics is most likely about as close to complete as a monkey’s understanding of fire.

    Rubbish, gibberish, claptrap, balderdash, blarney, hogwash, baloney, rot, moonshine, garbage, jive, tripe, drivel, bilge, bull, guff, bunk, bosh, BS, eyewash, piffle, poppycock, phooey, hooey, malarkey, hokum, twaddle, gobbledygook, codswallop, flapdoodle, hot air, bunkum, tommyrot, bullshit, crap, crapola

    Yea, that’s the output from a thesaurus… under “any opinion expressed by Ransompw”…

    It’s not about how complete our knowledge is. It’s about whether the knowledge is adequate to predict or explain what it is you want to predict or explain.

    One can argue that we know next to nothing about dark energy and dark matter. And there may be much more to learn about all fields, but what is known about atomic and nuclear reactions fills hundreds or thousands of volumes, and takes a decade of training to appreciate. A great deal of modern technology is based on what we know about physics at the atomic (and to a lesser extent) subatomic scale. In that article of Hagelstein’s that you praised so highly, he goes to some trouble to explain how much is known:

    “In the 60 years or more of experience with QED, there has accumulated pretty much only repeated successes and triumphs of the theory following many thousands of experiments and calculations, with no sign that there is anything wrong with it…. But neutrons and protons are compound particles, and new fundamental laws which describe component quarks and gluons, and the interaction between them, are captured in quantum chromodynamics (QCD); the associated field theory involves a reductionist construction similar to QED. This fundamental theory came into existence by the mid- 1960s, and subsequent experience with it has produced a great many successes….From my perspective, we live at a time where the relevant fundamental physical laws are known…”

    You have to know what nuclear means to claim LENR is nuclear. The claim that if the energy density exceeds chemical energy density, then it must be nuclear, implies some detailed knowledge of chemical and nuclear reactions. That knowledge certainly doesn’t come from the 25 years of sloppy cold fusion experiments. Yet the same establishment that provided that intelligence is ignored when it says that nuclear reactions don’t occur in metal hydrides at ordinary conditions.

    It’s true that the long-range nature of the electromagnetic interaction means that many problems are intractable, and this has given rise to some surprises in solid state physics, like superconductivity and HTSC. But at the same time, many many strange phenomena like anyons, massless Dirac fermions, BECs were predicted before they were observed. But the strong force is very short range, and so collective effects of this sort are not so relevant. Their much greater strength (and the much lower mass of the electron) means that collective effects of electromagnetic particles have a minor influence. While isomer shifts and Zeeman splitting can be observed by the Mossbauer effect, as mentioned recently by Duncan, what he didn’t mention is that they represent energy changes in the range of parts per 10^11 (~10^-7 eV). The only case where these effects appreciably influence nuclear reaction rates is with exotic particles (muons), and that was predicted before it was observed, so *not* a surprising effect. Chemical effects (without exotic particles) that could appreciably change nuclear reaction rates (by 20 or 30 orders of magnitude) are seen as extremely unlikely. If they weren’t, the balance of elements on earth would be different.

    I’m not saying there cannot be a phenomenon that was not predicted and that violates current expectations, only that it’s not likely, and needs damn good evidence. If it were treated as likely, it would like ignoring a century of research. That happens occasionally with great revolutions (QM and relativity), but is brought about by incontrovertible, reproducible, and widely accepted evidence. That is completely absent in the case of cold fusion.

    You don’t have to know everything to be able to make predictions. Aspects of gravity are still a mystery, but we can predict a rock will fall to the ground, even on another planet. Likewise, enough is known about nuclear and atomic physics to justify confidence that cold fusion is almost certainly bogus.

    • Ransompw

      January 16, 2014 at 12:26 pm

      POPEYE:

      You are arrogant, you think the tidbit of knowledge you have is significant. No wonder we have not gotten past fossil fuels.

      Your post proves my point, you are a waste of skin.

      • BigWillyJohnson

        January 16, 2014 at 3:11 pm

        Ransom,

        What is this tripe? Pure insult post? That is your retort?

        BW

        • JNewman

          January 16, 2014 at 4:06 pm

          When you don’t have any counter arguments, insults are the weapon of choice.

          • Ransompw

            January 16, 2014 at 5:36 pm

            My comments were not arguments, and they stand as precepts as old as the universe. Popeye spent a page criticizng this comment:

            ###Just for the record, I think our current knowledge of physics is most likely about as close to complete as a monkey’s understanding of fire.###

            I think it is complete arrogance to suggest otherwise. You really think Popeye is right or would you agree that mankind and Physicists have a lot to learn about our universe. Seems ot me when we do learn more some of what we know now will surely fit differently than we currently imagine. Maybe a lot of it. Are you really arrogant enough to believe Popeye is right and I am wrong about my comment.

            And Newman if we know so much why can’t we solve our energy issue, is Popeye saying it is impossible. Surely, if we know so much we must be able to conclude at this point that a solution is hopeless or what the solution is (which seems to escape us). My bet is Popeye is full of it.

          • JNewman

            January 16, 2014 at 6:21 pm

            Ransom, you present things in a bizarrely polarized fashion. Your comment about physics is empty-headed claptrap. We know a huge amount abount physics, based upon centuries of significant work by thousands of brilliant minds. Is it complete? Of course not. But to reduce it to the level of a monkey’s comprehension of fire is simply self-serving rhetoric to try to prove a point. There is a whole lot of real estate between our knowledge being “complete” and us knowing practically nothing. Citing those two as the only alternatives is somewhere between ignorant and moronic.

            You really come across as someone looking for a clever spiel to fool a jury. Nobody can criticize preposterous claims of pseudoscience because we really don’t know anything about science? That is utter crap and you know it. If you really believe that, then every single outlandish claim on the PESN website is a viable candidate to solve our energy problems. If that is your actual position, then you are not even worth talking to.

            And the statement “if we know so much, why can’t we solve our energy problems” is, if that is even possible, even more disingenuous and ridiculous. Doctor, if you know so much medicine, why can’t you find out what is wrong with me? Ransom’s answer: the doctor knows absolutely nothing about medicine.

            Perhaps you should just continue hurling insults because your arguments are unworthy of a 7th grade debating class.

          • Ransompw

            January 16, 2014 at 7:00 pm

            Newman:

            The huge amount of knowledge you talk about is all relative (just ask Einstein). Every generation thinks it knows a huge amount.

            You really think 500 years ago they would not have made the same comment about what we know as you and yet we have learned a lot in 500 years.

            In another 10,000 years(assuming our species makes it that far) you really believe humans will look back at what we know now and think wow they knew a huge amount back then. 🙂

            It is you that acts like a seventh grader. I am not criticizing what we know or our progress but I certainly hope you are wrong about what in relative terms we actually know now and I think if you weren’t so consumed with posting against those you imagine to be “believers”, you would agree with me.

          • JNewman

            January 16, 2014 at 7:32 pm

            So what is your point? Apparently you are contending that any time someone proposes something that flies in the face of our understanding of science, it should be considered to be correct because science is incomplete? Perhaps you should concentrate less on philosophical concepts and theory on more on empirical results. Despite your unsupported assertion that most scientists are biased and dogmatic, the truth is that most scientists are open minded and fascinated by new things. However, scientists with proper training understand the scientific method and the requirements for convincing experiments. That is why the great majority of scientists reject the claims of LENR. The experiments and analysis are just not very good. This is where the arrogance and/or naïveté of believers enters the fray. Almost every one of you has no training and experience in science and yet you listen to LENR boosters on the Internet and conclude that it has been demonstrated in a convincing manner. It simply hasn’t. The existing body of data on LENR puts in squarely in the category of pseudoscience and if it wasn’t for the grandstanding on the Internet of the likes of Andrea Rossi, none of you would pay a lick of attention to it any more than you do to a host of other pseudoscience claims. But now that Rossi has hooked you, hydrinos, Papp engines, and all sorts of other nonsense are suddenly fascinating. The good news is nearly every one of these silly things has some bonafide scientist or other figure of authority vouching for it. So they must be real! It’s a lifetime of thrilling entertainment. Cheaper than HBO, I guess.

          • popeye

            January 17, 2014 at 10:04 am

            ransom wrote:

            Popeye spent a page criticizng this comment:
            ###Just for the record, I think our current knowledge of physics is most likely about as close to complete as a monkey’s understanding of fire.###
            I think it is complete arrogance to suggest otherwise.

            I spent a page criticizing the comment because it means nothing, and contributes nothing of value to anyone. How does one measure how complete knowledge is? And what does it mean to be less complete than a monkey’s knowledge of fire? It’s complete nonsense.

            What I argued is that the important question is whether knowledge in a particular context is adequate to make predictions about that context.

            And since I accept the strong consensus view that there is enough known about matter and nuclear reactions at ordinary temperatures and pressures to make the confident prediction that cold fusion is almost certainly bogus, that is not an arrogant position. I didn’t say I know everything, or even enough to make that judgement. I said that there is enough known by the likes of Gell-Mann and Weinberg and all the other experts in the field to make that judgement. The unprecedented successes of the standard model bear that out.

            Accepting the consensus view of experts is not arrogant. It is humble. The epitome of arrogance is someone with no training or experience in the field claiming to be in a better position to judge the plausibility of cold fusion than experts like Glashow and Lederman.

            You sir, are the arrogant one here. Your arrogance is exceeded only by my humility.

            You really think Popeye is right or would you agree that mankind and Physicists have a lot to learn about our universe.

            Wow! Talk about changing the claim. I specifically said there was much to learn about our universe, so both of those are true. I am right, *and* physicists have a lot to learn.

            You clearly didn’t read my (verbose) reply. It is not necessary to know everything to be able to make predictions. There is still a great deal to be learned about gravity — how it relates to the other forces; how is it quantized; why is the expansion of the universe accelerating — but in the restricted context of our solar system (and much larger than that), we know *enough* about gravity to explain to arbitrary accuracy the motion of the planets, and comets etc. We can predict with almost complete confidence the motion of any massive object on this sort of scale subject to gravitational forces. It’s not arrogant to suggest that we could land a man on mars, and keep him alive there. It’s based on sound science, even if it’s not *complete*.

            Moreover, you seem to think there is enough known to conclude that perpetual motion machines are “very unlikely”. You said: “People have been trying to invent them forever. If one could be made it seems to me it would be tapping an energy source heretofore unknown and unpredicted.”

            It seems to me that applying your logic, that says you think there is nothing more to be learned. How can you be so arrogant?

            But again, you don’t have to know everything to be skeptical of extraordinary claims. I think perpetual motion research is pseudoscience, but that doesn’t mean I think we know everything about energy, or gravity, or magnets. I think bigfoot searches are a waste, but that doesn’t mean I think we know everything about zoology. I think homeopathy research is folly, but that doesn’t mean I think we know everything about medicine.

            And I think cold fusion is pathological, but that doesn’t mean I think we know everything about physics.

            And Newman if we know so much why can’t we solve our energy issue,

            JN already lampooned this idiocy, but I have to emphasize it. You think because we know enough to be confident that something is almost certainly bogus, we should be able to solve any problem?

            We could just as well ask you, if you know so much as to regard perpetual motion as very unlikely, how come you haven’t solved the energy issue.

            Such completely imbecilic logic is astounding from anyone. It is mind boggling to hear it from a lawyer.

          • popeye

            January 20, 2014 at 4:17 am

            Ransom wrote:

            The huge amount of knowledge you talk about is all relative (just ask Einstein).

            No. Motion is relative. Knowledge, and the amount of it is absolute. Zero motion has no unambiguous definition, but zero knowledge does. Given the degrees of freedom in the universe, potential knowledge is effectively infinite, and as you say, complete knowledge is almost certainly unattainable.

            At the same time, it is not inconceivable that the fundamental constituents of the universe and the laws that govern their interactions are finite, and that at some stage they can be identified and enumerated, if not understood in a total metaphysical way. Einstein believed until the end that this was possible, even though he admitted that success still eluded us. Once they are discovered, barring catastrophe, they can’t be discovered again. New knowledge after that would consist of more elegant ways to codify nature, and more effective ways to apply the principles to more and more complex systems.

            Although we are certainly not there yet, in spite of what cold fusion advocate Hagelstein says (“we live at a time where the relevant fundamental physical laws are known…”) — what with all the cosmological mysteries, and the incompatibility of GR and QM — that doesn’t mean that within a restricted context, you can’t approach something like a complete description of what is observed, or at least a complete description of the fundamental governing principles.

            For example, some millennia ago, man could not predict the extent of the land on earth. But now, we can be sure that new continents will not be discovered. In the context of the earth, the water/land boundaries have been mapped out to very high accuracy. And even though Columbus thought he knew enough that he would hit India if he sailed West, his error does not reduce our confidence that we now have continents on earth pretty much nailed down. After all, we have planes that can circle the globe, and satellites that can examine it from multiple vantage points at the same time. That kind of information was not available to Columbus.

            Likewise, in the context of our solar system, we came to an almost complete understanding of the governing principles of motion with Newton’s law of gravity and his laws of motion. With Einstein’s refinements, the understanding of the principles exceeds the accuracy of our measurements, and as I said elsewhere, in this context, the knowledge of motion subject to gravity is essentially complete.

            Likewise, we can be confident that all the naturally occurring elements on earth have been discovered, and that we know the building blocks of the atoms (proton, neutron, electron). And furthermore, although you will protest this, the fundamentals of the interactions between these atoms (QED) is almost certainly correct to very high accuracy.

            Of course, everyone knows that in the late 19th century, with the success of Maxwell’s equations on top of Newtonian physics, and the acceptance of the atomic theory and the maturity of thermodynamics, some scientists thought they were close to understanding all the necessary fundamental interactions, just before QM and relativity threw everyone for a loop, not to mention nuclear structure later on. But I would compare that time to Columbus sailing West. There were still many very basic phenomena that were contrary to classical predictions, like the photoelectric effect and the ultraviolet catastrophe, and others that had no conceivable explanation within the classical system, like the discrete atomic and molecular emission spectra, and of course the famous “asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena” within electrodynamics that so puzzled Einstein. And they didn’t have the equivalent of satellites that we now have that allow us to examine matter at the scale of atomic dimensions.

            None of this means that we know everything. There might be a far more elegant and simple theory waiting to be discovered, or a more accurate one (like Einstein’s to Newton’s), but there are no observations today that contradict the predictions of QED within its context of atomic matter. So, all conceivable atoms on earth are known, and *a* theory of their interactions has no significant contrary evidence. Still, there is much to be learned about the application of QED to complex systems, and that’s why phenomena like HTSC and quasi-crystals still take us by surprise.This is the reason that research at larger than atomic scales (nano scales) is receiving so much attention. And this extends to the even greater complexity of life.

            Finally, it is not inconceivable that the elementary particles that make up ordinary (atomic) matter have been discovered: electron, up quark, down quark. Of course, photons and neutrinos associated with their interactions are also ubiquitous, but not as constituents of atomic matter as such. And the other gauge bosons — gluons and the W and Z are involved in the strong and weak interactions, but observable only in accelerator-type experiments. Likewise, the other generations of matter are only observed in exotic circumstances.

            It’s possible there is an even smaller scale structure to these particles, but there may not be. We may have arrived at the fundamental building blocks in this context. And as with the atoms, there is a highly successful theory (QCD) to describe their interactions, which has not met any significant contradiction within its context.

            Whether or not the fundamentals of matter are within our grasp (as Hagelstein said), ordinary atomic matter only accounts for about 5% of the mass-energy believed to exist in the universe. So, that leaves an enormous amount left to learn. But it seems like religious dogma to suggest it is unlearnable.

            Every generation thinks it knows a huge amount.

            Yes. And they are right, for an appropriate definition of huge. But for the most part, they are also well aware of what is not known. Columbus may have expected to find India, but he was by no means certain, and no one believed all land had been discovered. Newton said “I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

            You really think 500 years ago they would not have made the same comment about what we know as you and yet we have learned a lot in 500 years.

            But the comments made did not preclude learning a lot in the next 500 years. They merely stated that the physics governing nuclear reactions is well enough known to allow confident predictions that cold fusion is an extraordinary claim. That is not a claim that knowledge is complete.

            Even so, I regard as wrong your notion that knowledge is a homogenous continuum extending back to negative infinity and forward to positive infinity so that at any time the knowledge landscape has the same sort of nature. It clearly doesn’t. Even if what we now think of as elementary particles turn out to have more fundamental structure, it is unlikely to influence the current theoretical organization of the observations of matter in ordinary conditions, because under these conditions there is no indication of such structure. In the same way, the interactions of nucleons within nuclei have no relevance to pure chemical reactions.

            They were literate 500 years ago, so we know what they said, and I’m not aware that in any previous century they have said that all the fundamental particles of matter and the principles governing their interactions were known. The closest to this, as I said, was some scientists during a brief period a little more than century ago between Maxwell’s equations and Planck’s constant, a period when, nevertheless, many phenomena within the context of existing theories were contradictory.

            In another 10,000 years(assuming our species makes it that far) you really believe humans will look back at what we know now and think wow they knew a huge amount back then.

            Well, we look at the Egyptian pyramids and marvel at what they knew back then. And if we’ve got the elementary particles right, they will probably be similarly impressed.

            But like so much of this argument, that’s a nonsense point. It doesn’t matter what the future will think of our present knowledge. It matters only how much confidence we are justified in placing in the existing theories. The record of these theories speaks to that, and it is a very strong record indeed.

        • Ransompw

          January 16, 2014 at 4:59 pm

          It is not tripe at all. In fact it is a sad observation of what is clearly a person so full of himself that he thinks he really knows a lot. A person like that, who is arrogant enough to believe that we as humans have advanced enough to really understand our world and this universe, is dangerous. It is anti science, it is dogma thinking, it is religion. Science requires and demands humility. There is no room in science for Popeyes, they are a cancer to the process. Just like Parks.

          The point of my posts, which Popeye spent so much time and effort responding to, was a simple concept. I think it is safe to assume that we really have a lot to learn about our universe. What we know now may or may not turn out to be accurate when we have greater knowledge. It is why re should always follow the evidence and not the theory in evaluating our world. And why we should act with humility toward ideas and not act condescending.

          He is nothing if not condescending and arrogant.

          • R Hopeful

            January 16, 2014 at 5:23 pm

            It is OK if you don’t agree with Popeye -you are not the only one. No need to try to discredit him -you only discredit yourself.

            I’m learning in these forums that “rational thinking” leads to conclusions much more varied than I ever thought possible. Who knows whether the differences are caused by personality, education, values, misinformation, upbringing, intelligence, laziness, arrogance, inflexibility,…

            That diversity is probably good, it enables innovation. It is also the reason some ridiculous scams can go on: you can always find a bigger sucker.

          • Ransompw

            January 16, 2014 at 5:44 pm

            Hopeful:

            I am just disturbed by the arrogance. He is condescending about his knowledge of this universe. It is not how I see science and scientists. I see the process as an act of complete humility, the search for what we don’t know and a thirst to understand. Science is not the art of pretending you know everything.

          • JNewman

            January 16, 2014 at 6:26 pm

            Ransom, you are disturbed because, in all honesty, you are the most arrogant person on this website. Your attitude is that since you have a legal degree and an MBA, you can pick up enough science on the internet to be able to tell science professionals that they don’t know what they are talking about. If that isn’t arrogance, I can’t imagine what is.

          • Ransompw

            January 16, 2014 at 6:45 pm

            Newman:

            I do tend to post in an arrogant fashion at times, but when it really comes down to it, I am at heart a very humble person.

            Lawyers by learning and experience believe in the notion that if we study something hard enough we can learn tiny pieces of expert knowledge as well as the experts. My experience tells me I can and have done that throughout my career. It is how we are able to cross examine experts in cases. Lawyers end up knowing tidbits of things very well but I would never suggest I know a field of study well at all(expect my own).

            And Newman, most important to the line of posts here, my bad habits do not excuse Popeye.

          • JNewman

            January 16, 2014 at 6:56 pm

            The only thing Popeye needs excusing for is verbosity. He does tend to go on at great length. However, he provides detailed and often documented arguments for his positions and I frankly don’t see anyone rebutting them with anything other than insults and accusations. He roasts people with their own stupid words. It is convenient to forgot everything one said and, especially, what people like Rossi and DGT said in the past. But none of that matters, does it? Every whacko claim comes on a clean slate for the believer. Popeye is more adamant about the ultimate status of LENR than most of us, but I certainly can’t provide him with any reason to think otherwise other than a small dose of your beloved optimism. But the actions of people who behave like carnival hucksters instead of scientists are no cause for optimism. Frankly, the animosity toward Popeye strikes me as nothing more than shooting the messenger.

          • Ransompw

            January 16, 2014 at 7:09 pm

            Newman:

            What are you talking about, the last 5 or 6 posts of mine have been in rebuttle to Popeye.

            The level of our knowledge today in relation to all that is knowable can’t be discussed with anything but philosophical arguments.

            Yet Popeye pretended to do it in the post above with facts that have no more signifcance to the issue than whether I drank a cup of coffee this morning. And for some reason you act like Popeye actually said something intellegent.

          • GreenWin

            January 17, 2014 at 6:38 pm

            JN says “Science Professional?” Er, which one of the Musketeers is a professional anything except sycophant to the Disinfo Field Guide?? Mary Yugo/Pretenza, Newman and Popee – the Three Muskepteers have shown no professional credentials whatever.

          • R Hopeful

            January 17, 2014 at 8:16 pm

            GreenWin, I’m not sure who in these forums is a reputed professional, but the title of biggest idiot has an owner.

          • GreenWin

            January 17, 2014 at 10:32 pm

            Yes! That would be the pathoskep who uses multiple pseudonyms to hawk his narrow-minded little ideas.

          • popeye

            January 20, 2014 at 4:21 am

            ransom wrote:

            In fact it is a sad observation of what is clearly a person so full of himself that he thinks he really knows a lot.

            I was not talking about my knowledge. I was talking about knowledge in general, and the impeccable record of successes of existing theories, and why a virtually unanimous consensus of experts in these theories deserves some respect.

            A person like that, who is arrogant enough to believe that we as humans have advanced enough to really understand our world and this universe, is dangerous. It is anti science, it is dogma thinking, it is religion.

            That depends on what you mean by “really understand”. No one thinks everything is understood. Feynman said that lots of people understand relativity, but it’s safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. But *every* physicist thinks they understand the *method* that predicts the spectral energies of small elements (e.g.) to crazy precision. Are they all anti-science and dogmatic?

            Hagelstein wrote: “In the 60 years or more of experience with QED, there has accumulated pretty much only repeated successes and triumphs … with no sign that there is anything wrong with it…. [QCD] came into existence by the mid- 1960s, and subsequent experience with it has produced a great many successes….From my perspective, we live at a time where the relevant fundamental physical laws are known…”

            Does that mean the the premier theorist in the cold fusion community is dangerous, anti-science, dogmatic, and religious?

            Science requires and demands humility. There is no room in science for Popeyes, they are a cancer to the process. Just like Parks.

            Sorry, but you don’t get to decide what science requires and demands, and that’s a good thing, because many of the best scientists were/are arrogant. Feynman is often described as arrogant and pompous and brash (just read Surely You’re Joking or see Gell-Mann’s description of him on youtube), but he was one of the more brilliant scientists of our time, and made important contributions to knowledge. You would consider him a cancer to the process.

            I think it is safe to assume that we really have a lot to learn about our universe.

            No one disagrees with that. You’re knocking down a straw man.

            What we know now may or may not turn out to be accurate when we have greater knowledge. It is why re should always follow the evidence and not the theory in evaluating our world.

            Only interpretations can change with greater knowledge. But observations and successful predictions remain true.

            Not since Descartes has anyone disagreed with the notion that we should follow the evidence. But theory is nothing but a generalization of the evidence, and science would be futile if it were ignored. Science is all about finding generalizations and theories that can be used to predict the outcome of experiments, and to guide further investigation.

            Obviously, predictions not yet observed can turn out to be wrong, and predictions that cold fusion won’t happen could be wrong, and even the prediction that a golf ball would fall to the ground on Mars could be wrong. But the greater the consistency of scientific generalizations, the greater the confidence we have in predictions. Some explanations are so well established they become laws and rightly constrain our imagination.

            Feynman put it like this:
            “The whole question of imagination in science is often misunderstood by people in other disciplines. … They overlook the fact that whatever we are allowed to imagine in science must be consistent with everything else we know. … We can’t allow ourselves to seriously imagine things which are obviously in contradiction to the known laws of nature. … One has to have the imagination to think of something that has never been seen before, never been heard of before. At the same time the thoughts are restricted in a straitjacket, so to speak, limited by the conditions that come from our knowledge of the way nature really is.”

            If you have some reason we should consider your view of science above Feynman’s, let us know what it is.

          • popeye

            January 20, 2014 at 4:23 am

            Ransom wrote:

            I am just disturbed by the arrogance.

            You are frustrated by having all your expectations and predictions prove wrong or delayed, and so you lash out at skeptics, whose expectations are so far, bang on.

            He is condescending about his knowledge of this universe. It is not how I see science and scientists.

            In the first place, I’m not claiming to be a scientist, and in any case, we’re not doing science here. We’re just discussing it. In interactions with other people, scientists, like the rest of us, come in all flavors. Some are arrogant and condescending, and some are shy and humble.

            I see the process as an act of complete humility, the search for what we don’t know and a thirst to understand. Science is not the art of pretending you know everything.

            You don’t need complete humility to search for the unknown or to be attracted to the thrill of discovery. And no one was pretending to know everything.

          • popeye

            January 20, 2014 at 4:25 am

            JN wrote:

            The only thing Popeye needs excusing for is verbosity. He does tend to go on at great length.

            If I had more time, I’d write shorter posts…

            My team of LENR-busters (mainly Olive Oyl, Swee’Pea, and Wimpy, with most of the nasty lines coming from Bluto) submits rebuttals to me, and I have to sort and cull and consolidate. Most of the time, I like all the points, and so I just stitch them together and post.

            The evil empire pays me by the post, so it’s not for greed that I am verbose.

  7. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Maris wrote:

    A couple of weeks ago the skep-script here was that BLP had gone silent,

    Because they had. The skeptical objections to all these people is always the same. They make extraordinary claims and do not back them up with good evidence, and *never* follow through with an actual product. A few weeks ago, BLP’s last claims were from early 2012, and there was no good evidence to support them — particularly (as with all scams) no evidence accessible to Joe scientist. There were several so-called validations, but a close look showed they were carefully worded so as to be meaningless (not to mention they claimed only mW levels of power), and after that nothing.

    Now they are busy making claims again. So far, there is still no better evidence for their previous claims, and these claims seem to be completely different, even though they still call it CIHT, and still attribute it to hydrinos. It all resembles bull-ciht more than anything.

    done a runner over the border and were enjoying their ill gotten gains in some far flung fleshpot.

    Don’t recall anyone making such a claim. BLP has been making claims and then falling quiet in cycles for 20 years, and managing with each cycle to hoover up millions more in cash from people with very short memories. There was, and is, no reason to expect them to change their highly successful modus operandi.

    You could at least admit to being surprised at this development, which surely exposes them to possible investigation for fraud, on the basis of your analysis.

    It fits their pattern. Why should that be surprising. In 2010, they announced a license to produce up to 750 MW of continuous power. They seem to have gotten away without delivering that or being investigated for fraud. Why should this claim be any different?

  8. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 11:45 am

    shane wrote:

    Agree Daniel, damned when they (BLP) remain silent and damned when they don’t.

    No one is damned for either. They are damned for making claims and failing to provide evidence. So they’re damned when they make the claims, and when they fail to provide good evidence, either by being silent, or by staging lame “validations”, and always by failing to deliver the promised revolutionary product. Right now, they’ve just made a claim, very unlike previous claims. Later, we’ll either dance and sing for free energy, or they’ll be damned for failing to provide good evidence. Guess where my money is.

    BLP just can’t buy a break from these skeptics.

    That’s probably not their goal. They want to extract money from gullible believers. And they’ve been very successful at it.

    Soon there will be a public demo. This time BLP. Yet another in a growing list of LENR, and related, companies having done so. Getting real hard to ignore the significance…. but try they will!

    What do mean “yet another”. They were the first. Plus they claim it’s not related to LENR, and the experiment is quite different.

    But it amazes me that *you* ignore the significance of the fact that that list keeps growing, but the list of products stays at zero. That even proof of principle eludes every single one of them. Maybe this one will be different, but a new claim does not make it more difficult to discount previously unproven claims. Why would you think it would?

    Don’t know quite how far one can bury their head in the sand, but looks as if I shall soon find out.

    Actually, it’s the true believers who try to ignore failure after failure. Skeptics here pour over the details of every claim, and respond in considerable detail. They do not ignore them; they are not impressed by them.

    But how can this particular claim excite you so, when in 2008 (6 years ago) BLP posted this press release:

    BlackLight Power, Inc. today announced the successful testing of a new energy source. The company has successfully developed a prototype power system generating 50,000 watts of thermal power on demand. Incorporating existing industry knowledge in chemical and power engineering, BlackLight Power (BLP) is pursuing the immediate design and engineering of central power plants utilizing the BlackLight Process. BLP plans on developing pilot plants with architecture and engineering firms with anticipated delivery in approximately 12 to 18 months. The BLP process has been replicated and validated by independent scientists and has received interest from financial institutions and power utility plant operators around the world. BLP plans on licensing its technologies.

    This was followed with a flurry of excitement in the mainstream press including NYT, WSJ, CNN, and others, and the video of independent confirmation from Rowan, and several announcements of commercial deals etc etc. It’s all listed on the press page at their web site.

    Yet, not only is there no sign of this device in the market, but BLP doesn’t even mention it anymore. The CIHT is totally different, you know, using the old change-up trick.

    Will it be different this time? Not if you go by Mills’ record, but we can hope.

  9. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 11:55 am

    shane wrote:

    Of course you want free energy, but you also want to be right. So does Popeye, the Hot-fusion community, physicists in general like your brother, all whom have already flatly declared LENR a scam and/or pseudoscience on an immense scale.
    Once you burned your bridges with such absolute statements, then it becomes human nature to defend that stance… even when presented such convincing evidence to the contrary.

    This sort of motivation makes far more sense for believers than skeptics.

    First, because if it were real, it would surely be inevitable that believers would be vindicated. I think skeptics believe that more strongly than believers. And then, escalating the skepticism would only make the eventual embarrassment even more acute. Why would they do that?

    However, if it is not real, it’s pretty likely that believers will never have to concede. They can keep arguing that all those lame experiments prove cold fusion, and the useful product — the cup of tea — is just around the corner. Real soon now…

    Second, no skeptic could possibly believe that argument, particularly in obscure corners of the internet, could possibly have any effect on the progress toward the inevitable vindication, if it were real. But lame arguments *can* keep a true believer’s delusions alive indefinitely.

    Third, one would have to be psychopathic to take measures (if they existed) that might be effective at delaying eventual vindication, and clean and abundant energy for all, and the lives that would be saved and improved by it.

    Moreover, believers are always arguing that most scientists are simply unaware of what’s been happening in the field. So they, especially the younger ones who were not active in 1989, would *not* be invested in the way you claim. They have no pride to worry about. And yet, when faced with making a judgement on the subject, it seems obvious that it is almost always negative. Apart from DOE panels, or the failure of papers to get past referees in prominent journals, or for grant proposals, or awards etc etc, a receptive scientific cohort would produce an exponential growth in interest and acceptance if the evidence had any persuasive merit among the educated and experienced. Look at what happened in 1989: it was an explosive growth of interest.

    Duncan is an example of someone who was convinced by the evidence, and look at the exposure he’s given it, with colloquia at Missouri and even a conference at Missouri, and the establishment of an institute. Other physicists could not miss this exposure, and if the uninvested were persuaded by it, there would be at least rapid growth, but instead it fizzles instead of explodes. Missouri had to issue a correction when Duncan claimed sponsorship. They were embarrassed instead of convinced. And now even Duncan seems to have abandoned the field. Same thing in the physics department at Bologna, which could not have escaped the publicity of Rossi’s ecat, but instead of the belief spreading through the department like a virus, they had to issue statements denying formal support.

    No, pride can’t explain the almost unanimous rejection of cold fusion. In fact, the fame, glory, and honor that would be sure to accompany definitive evidence for cold fusion means that pride would attract far more interest than it would impede.

    The denial in this case takes on almost humorous dimension as we now have multiple companies, all with their own genesis, that don’t communicate with each other, sparring over patents, while essentially claiming the same thing….

    The thing that’s humorous is that of these multiple companies, many more than a decade old, not one can produce a single product, or even a definitive proof of principle that can convince the mainstream. There are far more fortune tellers (essentially claiming the same thing) than cold fusion companies. That doesn’t make it any more credible.

    Popeye is hedging his bets now ever so slightly by justifying his attacks “just in case” this all turns out to be real, but still dogmatically anti-LENR.

    Disagree. My tone has not changed from the beginning. Always been virtually certain that LENR is bogus, and still am.

    Even worse, you are doing more then your fair share to make sure this emerging field, with such potential, never receives the publicity it deserves.

    It’s amusing how true believers are always lamenting the lack of publicity the field gets, as if a story in the NYT would somehow change things. What’s missing is some actual evidence that the phenomenon exists. You should lament that. The missing publicity is just a symptom of the failure to prove extraordinary claims.

    • Shane D.

      January 16, 2014 at 4:41 pm

      Nice little circular argument you have going there Popeye: Of course we skeptics don’t escalate our criticism of LENR, because doing so would heighten the embarrassment should we be shown wrong… therefore we haven’t gone over the top. Yup.

      Then you go on trying yet again to convince us that LENR has been suppressed only by it’s poor quality of results, lack of quality researchers, and then throw out a few meager examples in support of.

      It had nothing at all, you say, to do with the attack on the field, it’s results, by the scientific establishment. It was welcomed with open arms… embraced by you and your colleagues! Now that popeye is funny.

      Yes, it was temporarily embraced with some enthusiasm, and then shortly afterwards (before the year was out), your community started the process of discrediting with a campaign right out of the propaganda books. And please don’t tell me this was because there were no replications, because there were. Just as there were failed replications done by those having no right in a lab.

      I could show you the 1989 NYTs article *again* that best shows, unwittingly by the NYTs, the tactics that laid the foundation for the stigmatizing of the field for decades to come… but I doubt you’d be interested. Shameful if you ask me. Nothing at all like you wish us to believe.

      There is no doubt in my mind, that when LENR is finally accepted, the fallout for your physics community will be devastating. Your arguments to the contrary will be buried under an avalanche of testimonials from those inside the field, as well as those from without. Those many test results you mock as insignificant will become very significant. Those scientists you dismiss as incompetent will be Nobel candidates, and sought by every energy company hoping to get in on the bonanza.

      They will also look to those anonymous participants in the suppression, such as yourself and MY, as willing accomplices. And yes, you do have an impact. Specially Al. Literally just about every article (there are few), that makes it public… there is MY.

      • JNewman

        January 16, 2014 at 4:51 pm

        All the rhetoric about conspiracies and suppression is utterly pointless. All it takes is one unambiguous demonstration that LENR is for real. Nothing and nobody can prevent that from happening if it really works. Despite your wishful thinking, it hasn’t happened. So continue to accept the word of charlatans and keep your fingers crossed.

      • popeye

        January 20, 2014 at 4:30 am

        Shane wrote:

        Nice little circular argument you have going there Popeye: Of course we skeptics don’t escalate our criticism of LENR, because doing so would heighten the embarrassment should we be shown wrong… therefore we haven’t gone over the top. Yup.

        It’s not circular at all. You’re suggesting skeptics are arguing to protect their pride, not because they believe they are right. But if skeptics believed they were wrong, then logic would dictate that arguing would be contrary to their proud interest, because vindication would be inevitable.

        Then you go on trying yet again to convince us that LENR has been suppressed only by it’s poor quality of results, lack of quality researchers, and then throw out a few meager examples in support of.
        It had nothing at all, you say, to do with the attack on the field, it’s results, by the scientific establishment. It was welcomed with open arms… embraced by you and your colleagues! Now that popeye is funny.

        I agree it was attacked eventually, but poor science deserves to be identified as such. It was initially welcomed with open arms, which shows that the mainstream is receptive to the concept. It rejected the execution. Here’s Morrision in the weeks after the announcement: “… I feel this subject will become so important to society that we must consider the broader implications as well as the scientific ones. Looking into a cloudy crystal ball, […] the present big power companies will be running down their oil and coal power stations while they are building deuterium separation plants and new power plants based on cold fusion. No new nuclear power stations will be built except for military needs….”

        He would later become cold fusion’s most informed and effective critic.

        Yes, it was temporarily embraced with some enthusiasm,

        Some? It was like science’s woodstock. That kind of embrace is extremely rare in science.

        and then shortly afterwards (before the year was out), your community started the process of discrediting with a campaign right out of the propaganda books.

        It was discredited because it was bad science.

        And please don’t tell me this was because there were no replications, because there were.

        There were claims of replications, but they were no more persuasive than the P&F claims when they were finally described. And as late as 2008, McKubre would say there is no quantitative reproducibility in the field, and no inter-lab replications without the interchange of personnel. That means no replication. It’s best described in a 2003 Newscientist article: “For close to two years, we tried to create one definitive experiment that produced a result in one lab that you could reproduce in another,” Saalfeld says. “We never could. What China Lake did, NRL couldn’t reproduce. What NRL did, San Diego couldn’t reproduce. We took very great care to do everything right. We tried and tried, but it never worked.”

        I could show you the 1989 NYTs article *again* that best shows, unwittingly by the NYTs, the tactics that laid the foundation for the stigmatizing of the field for decades to come… but I doubt you’d be interested. Shameful if you ask me. Nothing at all like you wish us to believe.

        It only looks shameful to you because you’re a member of the cult. To objective thinkers, cold fusion got far more positive attention than it deserved.

        There is no doubt in my mind, that when LENR is finally accepted, the fallout for your physics community will be devastating.

        Far more distinguished voices than yours have been singing from this song-sheet for 25 years, but it never comes to pass. I notice you’ve wised up, or gotten too scared to put a date on that prediction, because if you did, that would be the date that another of your predictions would be wrong.

  10. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 11:57 am

    shane wrote:

    Stole this from Frank over at ECW:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/01/blacklight-power-validation-by-rowan-university-video/
    Never saw this 1 1/2 year old video from Rowan Universitys testing of BLPs CIHT.

    Yea, that’s because it’s a 6-year old video validating their 50 kW system. Don’t you even watch or read the stuff you are so convinced by? Check the BLP press page. It’s right there, posted in 2008.

    What’s the 50 kW system? There was a flurry of publicity about it (WSJ, NYT, CNN) back then, and BLP claimed several commercial contracts, but it’s nowhere to be seen in the market, or in any of the recent BLP publicity. It appears to be dead. Replaced by the CIHT system, because, change-up is a con-man’s friend, as important as short believer memories.

    Next thing was that they were performing those simple type calorimetry tests Al screams for. Put charge tube in tube. Add electricity. Measure water temp in and water temp out. Measure energy gain. How could anyone screw that up, or better yet… how could Mills fake this?

    How indeed? And yet here we are, 6 years later, and that device is completely abandoned. None in the market, and it appears to have nothing to do with the design of the current CIHT.

    How does he do it? How does anyone fall for it?

  11. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Maris wrote:

    The ones I tend to reject and show no interest in are those that are obviously contrary to the known laws of physics ……

    The known laws of physics represent scientific theory, and believers are not supposed to allow theory to govern their acceptance.

    The conservation of energy may be obvious enough for you to reject perpetual motion machines. For those familiar with subatomic physics, the scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified (laws) are (with only rare exception) sufficiently obvious to reject cold fusion. The difference is in education and experience.

    I think an open minded interest in the world is what led to the great discoveries between 1700 and the early 1900s. I don’t like the peer-review, conformist scientific culture we seem to have developed now.

    But the pace of discovery and innovation cannot be said to have slowed in the last century. Obviously, the discovery of the fundamental concepts of the modern physics revolution in the first decades of the 20th century was exceptional, but in biology and even many areas of physics and technology, discovery in the last century far outstrips any previous time. There is inertia in science, yes, and there should be, but it is not a conformist culture. Honor, awards, promotion, glory are all awarded to scientists for disruptive and revolutionary discovery. Innovation — not conformity — is rewarded in science. The conformist rationalization is only used by true believers to preserve their delusion about some wacky, evidence-free, but really, really desirable phenomenon.

    Well there is no evidence that concerted efforts to deny LENR evidence by vested interests have been entirely successful – I never said they would be. I just said, we know there have been such concerted efforts e.g. through prestigious journals, patent officers and certain universities.

    Scientists have denied LENR because it is theoretically implausible (extraordinary), and the evidence in its favor sucks. If they thought it had merit, as they did briefly in 1989, we know they would embrace it enthusiastically.

    If you don’t think energy industry X doesn’t try to do down energy industry Y you are very naive.

    What evidence do you have that the fossil fuel industry has tried to suppress nuclear fission, fusion, solar, wind , hydro, or anything else?

    In fact, the opposite is common. For example, T Boone Pickens, a long time fossil fuel beneficiary, has been one of the stronger proponents of alternative energy technologies.

  12. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    maris wrote:

    Can I just be clear on the skep position here. Are you dismissing out of hand the ENSER report of 16th January which indicates they independently manufactured and assembled the device and were able to achieve a COP of X2 (with an indication this could be improved to x20)?

    Yup. The total amount of energy demonstrated was less than that of a fraction of a gram of gasoline. That does *not* constitute evidence of a new form of energy.

    And the claim that it can be scaled is not convincing. In the first (on-site) experiments they claim a COP of more than 1000 with 2 mW power. When they “scaled” up for the off-site experiment, the COP was less than 2, with a power of tens of mW. That doesn’t look promising.

    The report itself is almost impenetrable, but the Perkin-Elmer one is worse. Can *anyone* make any sense of the latter?

    That these reports of mW of power are used to give credibility in a claim of 10 MW power from a small cubic foot sized unit seems unconscionable to me.

  13. popeye

    January 16, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    shan wrote:

    Dr. Storm and others already weighed in on this CERN report. It had to do with the W/L theory, not LENR in general.

    The CERN paper also has a lot to do with the SPAWAR claims, which have been touted here frequently as evidence for LENR, and make up close to half of the refereed papers in (experimental) LENR in the last decade.

    There are of course many other negative claims for neutrons that contradict the SPAWAR claims. Maybe PRL’s rejection of their paper was actually inspired, and about its merit, and not a conspiracy.

    Interesting too in that NASAs Zwodny set out over a year ago to test W/L also, and we have yet to hear how that is going.

    Man, you’ve been following this for years. Can’t you at least get the names of the prominent advocates right? Storms, Zawodny.

    Anyway, it’s more like 5 years since Zawodny got involved. But what is this? Are you admitting that NASA’s participation does not prove LENR? Could it be? Will NASA now be left of the list of organizations allegedly endorsing cold fusion?

    Lots of theories out there; i.e. Hagelstein, Kim, Storm. Einstein speculated it to be a multi-body (re: extremely complicated) interaction.

    Whoa. Einstein speculated on neutron production; precisely what this paper denies. His ideas are as much a casualty as the WL theory. He never speculated on cold fusion in general.

    If LENR is indeed validated, the physics community (after the righteous recriminations) will have gained a full employment boost for years to come as they try and nail down theory for a science they once ridiculed. How ironic that would be.

    This is very true. And it’s one reason the conspiracy theory is such nonsense.

    • Shane D.

      January 16, 2014 at 5:11 pm

      Popeye,

      Zawodny of NASA specifically initiated his differential experiment to test the W/L theory. If it doesn’t pan out, NASA is still supportive of LENR due to their 1989 validation (subsequently buried) of the FP anomalous heat, and also their replication of the same in 2008.

      So don’t get all giddy over nothing.

      LENR, as many have now expressed, could involve a host of heretofore unknown effects. Some do record neutrons, or some heat, or transmutations, and a few a little bit of each. We have a lot to learn, and I’m sure you aren’t going to make it easy for those trying.

      You may want to read Sterlings interview with McCubre the other day. Hard to listen to and not believe there is some real effect. Afterall, even your hero Garmin -inventor of the GPS, (for you Al!) seemed pretty impressed when he went to McCubre in 1993.

      Interesting in that McCubre and SRI are the gold standard of LENR testing. In fact, others have brought their equipment to them to verify their own observations, only to be informed that they noted an artifact. But, there were at least 5 that were validated.

      Anyways, try and take 25 minutes and watch. Pretty convincing. I was a little confused with his comments of Brillouin. At times he spoke as if they were unconnected to him, and at others like part of the team.

      • Al Potenza

        January 16, 2014 at 6:18 pm

        “Afterall, even your hero Garmin -inventor of the GPS, (for you Al!) seemed pretty impressed when he went to McCubre in 1993.”
        *
        What in the world are you talking about Shane? Someone named Garmin is my hero who invented GPS? Is that some convoluted joke or are you really that ignorant? (I tend to believe you are)

        • Shane D.

          January 16, 2014 at 6:30 pm

          I was calling him Garmin before instead of Garwin, and you corrected me by saying Garmin is GPS.

          Just a thanks after the fact.

          Nothing personal.

          • Al Potenza

            January 17, 2014 at 1:11 am

            But Garwin isn’t “my hero”. Matter of fact, I only vaguely recall who he is or what he said. I’d have to look it up to be sure. You sure make some wild assumptions. But then, that’s no surprise!

          • GreenWin

            January 17, 2014 at 6:31 pm

            Shane, Garwin is Mary’s fellow Muskepteer Emeritus. He appeared on the CBS 60 Minutes segment “Cold Fusion is Hot Again” in 2009 to deny the DOD documentation on excess heat. In 1989 he was first denier of Pons and Fleischmann’s work. Before that helped Ed Teller build an H-bomb.

      • popeye

        January 20, 2014 at 4:40 am

        Shane wrote:

        Zawodny of NASA specifically initiated his differential experiment to test the W/L theory. If it doesn’t pan out, NASA is still supportive of LENR due to their 1989 validation (subsequently buried) of the FP anomalous heat, and also their replication of the same in 2008.

        You lamented the absence of word on Zawodny’s progress. Any word from NASA on the progress since the 2008 “replication”?

        You may want to read Sterlings interview with McCubre the other day. Hard to listen to and not believe there is some real effect. Afterall, even your hero Garmin -inventor of the GPS, (for you Al!) seemed pretty impressed when he went to McCubre in 1993.

        Seriously? You were impressed by that interview? Are you sure it’s not just that accent that’s got you all gaga for him? Or maybe the hair?

        There were no specifics. Even people on ECW were frustrated by it, and that fence-sitter over on vortex (Spinnaker) said: “These statements and videos are ludicrous and frankly getting tiresome… show the world otherwise just keep it to yourself and stay invisible.”

        You really have to be smitten by the cult to find that stuff impressive.

        Are we supposed to be impressed that McKubre, who has spent 25 years chasing cold fusion, would vaguely confirm that Brillouin has a COP of 3 or 4? The same McKubre who abandoned his own research on the subject after making no progress for a decade or more. The same McKubre who endorsed Dardik and his COP of 25, who has since vanished from the scene? The same McKubre who thought Papp was worth a look? The same McKubre who, according to Krivit, manipulated data to make his helium results look better?

        And what’s that nonsense about the COP? They use COP > 1 to claim a revolutionary phenomenon, and then a COP 6 or even 10 or even higher. But *no* self-sustaining devices to demonstrate. Rossi claims 200 in his papers, and then 40 in his first demo, and then suddenly it’s always less than 6, so he can’t self-sustain.

        But McKubre doesn’t mention that if you have thermal-to-thermal COP > 2, there is no reason it can’t self-sustain, just by limiting heat loss. Rossi’s latest devices should be able to self-sustain based on that, so he has to invent bogus safety claims. He has to *add* power to keep it from running away.

        Every bogus energy claim has a device that needs external input. It’s a sure sign. If someone is claiming a COP on an ostensibly viable device, they’re either selling a heat pump or snake oil. You can take that to the bank

        McKubre has an articulate delivery, but he’s either crooked or hopelessly gullible.

        Interesting in that McCubre and SRI are the gold standard of LENR testing. In fact, others have brought their equipment to them to verify their own observations, only to be informed that they noted an artifact. But, there were at least 5 that were validated.

        I don’t see how that adds confidence. How do we know that in the 5, he didn’t miss the same artifacts that the others missed? He’s a believer, and he’s gonna be subject to the same confirmation bias. Hearsay just isn’t good enough. Describe the experiment so others can repeat, or make the hardware available. But bringing in the #1 cheer-leader for cold fusion to verify your device is not really impressive.

        • Shane D.

          January 20, 2014 at 3:16 pm

          Popeye,

          Had a feeling you would say that.

          As to the McCubre interview; my take away is clearly that Brillouin is far from commercial. Even Godes and George’s say about the same…without that sexy English accent by the way.

          I like their honest assessment which makes it all the more believable when they all, McCubre included, with on-looking scientists of varying backgrounds, say with full conviction that they have achieved over unity.

          Brillouin seems about where Piantelli is after reading Virglios recent comments on his blog. Long ways to go admittedly, but very confident of the effect they have achieved.

          Which leads me to your NASA comment… Yes they are still active in LENR as evidence of a young engineer presenting on LENR/ aviation coming up this Feb at a NASA symposium.

          • popeye

            January 22, 2014 at 10:12 am

            Shane wrote:

            As to the McCubre interview; my take away is clearly that Brillouin is far from commercial.

            Yea, mine too. But you said it’s hard not to believe there is a real effect, listening to the interview. You don’t have to believe there’s a real effect to take away that they’re far from commercial.

            Even Godes and George’s say about the same…without that sexy English accent by the way.

            It’s New Zealand — very different from an English accent. And again, Godes and George saying it’s far from commercial does not suggest it’s real.

            I like their honest assessment which makes it all the more believable when they all, McCubre included, with on-looking scientists of varying backgrounds, say with full conviction that they have achieved over unity.

            McKubre’s a long time believer, the other two have a conflict. Which other scientists?

            Brillouin seems about where Piantelli is after reading Virglios recent comments on his blog.

            Where’s Piantelli? About the same place he was, or a little further back, from where he was in 1998, when CERN showed he was full of it.

            Which leads me to your NASA comment… Yes they are still active in LENR as evidence of a young engineer presenting on LENR/ aviation coming up this Feb at a NASA symposium.

            From the abstract, it looks like a lot of wild speculation, with zero report of internal progress at NASA. But maybe he’ll surprise us.

        • popeye

          January 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm

          Some of the text in my reply got mangled by the use of less-than greater-than signs. The paragraphs on the COP should have read as follows (the bold-face stuff is what got cut, kind of making it read like Godes’ Q-pulse theory):

          And what’s that nonsense about the COP? They use COP greater than 1 to claim a revolutionary phenomenon, and then a COP less than 10 as an excuse for why it’s not actually a *source* of power; for why it still can’t make enough power to power itself. A self-sustaining device could scarcely be denied, so they need an excuse for why there isn’t one: COP too low, don’t ya know.

          Yes, it’s true that if electricity is needed at the input, you would need a COP higher than the reciprocal of your heat engine efficiency to close the loop. But there are plenty of claims over the years of COP higher than
          6 or even 10 or even higher. But *no* self-sustaining devices to demonstrate. Rossi claims 200 in his papers, and then 40 in his first demo, and then suddenly it’s always less than 6, so he can’t self-sustain.

          But McKubre doesn’t mention that if you have thermal-to-thermal COP > 2, there is no reason it can’t self-sustain, just by limiting heat loss. Rossi’s latest devices should be able to self-sustain based on that, so he has to invent bogus safety claims. He has to *add* power to keep it from running away.

          Every bogus energy claim has a device that needs external input. It’s a sure sign. If someone is claiming a COP on an ostensibly viable device, they’re either selling a heat pump or snake oil. You can take that to the bank.

  14. david

    January 16, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    Randell Mills
    Today at 9:45 AM

    On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:33 PM, amack43 wrote:

    > Will the demonstration produce electricity that can be compared to
    > input versus output or will the constructed device showcase just
    > the highly energetic plasma?
    >

    The energetic plasma will be demonstrated. The energy and power
    balances will be measured using a commercial calorimeter that will
    quantify megaWatt power at a density of billions of watts per liter.

    I will also go over the system engineering, hydrino product
    characterization, and talk about applications and commercialization.

    We have to build the MHD converter for plasma to electric conversion,
    the basis of a later public demonstration.

    > In my spare time I’ve been trying to absorb this incredible
    > announcement of a cubic foot device that can power 10,000 homes.
    > The patent and the animation are very helpful.
    >
    > Solid fuel (common chemicals that can be induced to undergo hydrino
    > transitions under certain conditions) appears to be delivered into
    > the reaction chamber by cogs and a high amp current delivered to
    > induce an extremely dense hydrino reaction (based on H20 catalyst
    > reactions) that converts most of the solid fuel into a pulse of
    > highly energetic ions (plasma). The plasma pulse expands at high
    > speed leaving the reaction chamber and entering the MHD. This
    > requires a superconductor and liquid helium and nitrogen but
    > hopefully results in up to 50% of the energy of the plasma being
    > converted into electricity.

    The conversion could be much more efficient than 50% with a fully
    ionized supersonic plasma.

    > The products of the solid fuel are conveyed to a section of the
    > device where the addition of water from a tank regenerates the fuel
    > to an active form and it is conveyed back to the cogs and reaction
    > chamber to facilitate further plasma pulses.

    that’s the process

    • Shane D.

      January 16, 2014 at 6:04 pm

      Sounds like Mills is saying he will demonstrate a plasma with small power output, that if scaled up would amount to a lot of power?

      If so, how does he know it can be scaled? Seems like this scaling up is a problem for the LENR field… as the researchers seem stuck at the mW to Ws stage, with occasional, unexpected bursts well into the 100s of W.

      This is from the press release:

      “BlackLight has produced millions of watts of power in a volume that is one ten thousandths of a liter corresponding to a power density of over an astonishing 10 billion watts per liter.”

      Yet in this press release he seems to be saying he HAS produced millions Ws from 1/10,000 (10 -4) liter of fuel, and if scaled up to a liter could produce billions.

      • Anon2014

        January 19, 2014 at 2:39 am

        Mills’ power could be about the same as is in a single pop of a piston engine’s cylinder. It’s on fire in a gasoline cylinder, i.e. its plasma.

        We have to see something more interesting — repeatability running on water as the fuel. If he could run an 8 cylinder engine on water vapor by zapping it with his arc welder, it works for me.

        I don’t see enough to know he is running on the H to hydrino transition and that it is not just conventional chemical.

        And the measurements that he has done are marginal and and at low enough power output to make it unclear he has a breakthrough.

        I am hopeful, but doubtful.

  15. Al Potenza

    January 16, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    The problem with prior BLP demos such as those done with Rowan University, was that they provided some sort of “fuel” which was burned and then made energy. The fuel was not regenerated nor was it characterized. The energetic reaction was almost certainly chemical. The experiment was brief, supporting this idea. But who knows? BLT never says or does anything clear. Nor do they allow anyone they work with to do that either.

    They’ve been claiming milliwatts, watts, kilowatts and even megawatts for 20+ years. They have provided nothing worthwhile for independent testing. They have no customers and no products. They sure seem like a lure for investors and nothing else, don’t they?

    Anyone know how you would demonstrate hydrinos if such a thing even existed (which is exceedingly improbable)?

    • daniel maris

      January 17, 2014 at 1:11 am

      Fair enough, but –

      (a) As far as I understand BLP certainly DO claim the technology is chemical energy (NOT nuclear fusion) – so on that they agree with you.

      (b) You haven’t explained what the fuel might possibly be to sustain such a reaction. Do you not have any ideas?

      (c) I agree BLP to date appear to be behind Rossi and Defkalion but why not wait till 28th Jan and see what – if anything – they produce.

      (d) I don’t think you complain about the bona fides of the testing companies/institutions involved with BLP. If you think you can, then make known your complaints.

      • JNewman

        January 17, 2014 at 1:26 am

        In what way does the BLP stuff relate to LENR? Other than the notion that both claim to be examples of some sort of new physics taking place, how exactly are they related? (I know you are not a scientist, but since you are lumping the two together, you must have a reason. Or is just that your gurus said so?)

      • Al Potenza

        January 17, 2014 at 1:57 am

        Referring to your paragraphs with the same letters:

        a) IIRC, the amount of power they claim for the volume of fuel they require can not be due to any known chemical system.

        b) They did not demonstrate (a). They only ran a very short time. Any compact combustible fuel could probably do that. They did not give enough detail to determine which fuel.

        c) They’re not behind Defkalion or Rossi. They’re way ahead having collected even more money than Rossi (nobody knows how much Defkalion collected but they don’t act very rich). And they produced about the same: NOTHING.

        d) I don’t care about the “bona fides” of testing companies as long as they don’t report a clear, transparent account of what they did, what instruments they used and so on. I glanced at the Enser (was it?) report briefly and could not make heads nor tails out of the so-called calorimetry. When they issue a clear report (when anyone does) let me know!

  16. Al Potenza

    January 17, 2014 at 1:52 am

    How soon the enthusiasts forget the promises of October 28, 2011. May this remind you! Sterling Alan traveled all the way to Bologna and only came away with this little bit of baloney!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFiJb2UhzqY

    • Dale G. Basgall

      January 17, 2014 at 4:44 am

      And that video was for what? Nothing is evident in that video in regards to even showing anything working, much less anything close to paying for the plane ticket and costs to get there. How do those people afford to just go on a vacation like that anytime bologna calls?

      Even the Wright brothers had a better show than that back decades. They went on a downhill slope and used gravity to help lift off. That video is lacking content, is that because that’s it and there is no content?

      • Al Potenza

        January 17, 2014 at 5:46 pm

        Exactly. Nothing in the video is shown working except the huge diesel generator.

  17. Anonymole

    January 17, 2014 at 6:03 am

    It’s like a circular whack-a-mole. But instead of pounding them down they popup for $, do a demo, collect some new blood and sink back down into their holes.

    • Rossi popped with the famous hot cat test $ flowed in and he moved to America and now sells real estate.
    • Then it was DGT’s turn, pop, another contentious experiment down the drain, then plop – gone.
    • Then Broullion gave a video chat blatantly asking for $, then poof, silence.
    • Now BLP, up for air and a fresh cash supply, then they’ll vanish and it will be back to Rossi some time in March maybe.

    Round and round we go. Maybe they really are all in collusion. Kidding, that would be granting them too much intelligence.

    Still, just like all of the demos before, it’s not the demo itself that is the topic – but what occurs in the month or two after that is indicative of the validity of the experiment.

    • Shaun R

      January 17, 2014 at 1:21 pm

      Hi Anonymole,

      Nice summary! To me this whole thing is looking more and more like
      the south sea bubble, except that it never bursts.

      Maybe that’s the real new discovery that these companies have made?
      i.e. an investor fraud bubble that never bursts – genius!

      This kind of thing used to make me angry, I hated the idea of ordinary
      people getting scammed like that, which was why I bothered to
      go into details about Rossi’s input power measurement on this site.

      But now that I’ve had the displeasure of arguing with some of the potential investors in such scams, who wanted to shout me down when I was only trying to save people’s money, I’ve realised that I no longer give a damn.

      It has dawned on me that the idiots who give them money (despite
      technical experts bothering to explain why the claims aren’t valid),
      are probably the same idiots who breathe down my neck in the supermarket queue, and who tail-gate me when I’m driving my car at the speed limit.

      In fact quite a lot of the stress which I suffer in my day-to-day life
      is due to idiots with money having power over me, so I say “go for it”
      to Rossi and BLP and the rest, they can can scam the crap out
      of these pillocks for all I care.

      If I didn’t care about truth so much, I’d even offer to shill for them.
      Mind you they probably wouldn’t want me, because I don’t have a high profile in the science world. 🙂

      Shaun.

      • Al Potenza

        January 17, 2014 at 6:12 pm

        Interesting attitude. Can’t say I blame you. The whole world is replete with deception. Almost all advertising is simply con artistry and deception. All is misleading. Research proposals are all too often also fanciful nonsense wrapped in a pretty package of words and equations.

        Amazingly, some good stuff comes out anyway.

        I think it’s important to keep after the obvious outliers (and out and out liars) and to show them for what they are.

        It isn’t going to eliminate all the crooks but the more Madoffs, Steorns, Sniffexes, Dennis Lees, Carl Tilleys, Rossis and Defkalions we can expose, the better the world will be. We have to take our scams and scammers out one at a time as best we can. And it you don’t take it too seriously, it’s fun!

    • Anon2014

      January 18, 2014 at 4:49 pm

      Slightly off.

      People like Mills and Brillouin, and I dare say Rossi actually BELIEVE they have found a new energy source and their convincing demonstration is just around the corner. They both need money to continue their work; and have already convinced speculative investors to fund them to an extent.

      All money, like Gibbs Free Energy, eventually runs out (gets turned into entropy). Therefore, if they believe they have something where the breakthrough discovery or demonstration is around the corner, they need to get more funding. Hence the new demonstrations.

      Now it is possible that some KNOW that they have disproven their own hypothesis. This is where it gets dangerous for an investor — if an entrepreneur knows it doesn’t work and he has already sunk his life’s savings and reputation into the project, there is an incentive to cheat investors by giving them only partial demonstrations that do not show conclusively what the entrepreneur KNOWS. This is what has to be parsed or separated from the entrepreneur; i.e. do they have an incontrovertible breakthrough invention, or do they have an invention that failed.

      I think that in all 3 above cases, real investors have gone in early. I think in the case of Rossi, whatever effect he is seeing needs at least 1 year to run to prove it is not chemical and is a significant economic breakthrough. The Levi report did not prove that; and his investor knows it. Rossi himself has over promised again and again, as has Mills, to deliver working prototypes to manufacturing 1 to 4 years in the past. They both failed. That doesn’t make them frauds, but it doesn’t make them successes either.

      Let’s give them a chance, and yes Al Potenza, keep up the skeptical opinions as your analysis is as valuable as anyone elses. I hope we all end up popping a bottle of Champaign for Rossi or Mills. I have a 20% probability of that happening in the next few years. Good luck to them and their investors as the luck would then spread to all of us in civilization. Patents only run 20 years.

      • popeye

        January 20, 2014 at 4:45 am

        Anon2014 wrote:

        People like Mills and Brillouin, and I dare say Rossi actually BELIEVE they have found a new energy source and their convincing demonstration is just around the corner.

        I think that’s highly unlikely. I suspect the bogus theories published by Mills and Godes are pure gobbledygook. That’s why people who read them and are sucked in say they’re really sophisticated and make their brains hurt and so on. What they mean is they can’t make heads or tails out of it, but it sure looks smart.

        They’re just pages taken from standard texts (Godes borrows liberally from wikipedia), modified slightly, and stitched together to give it a little flow. They are clever enough so that the sentences and even the math are microscopically grammatical, but if you take more than a paragraph or a page at a time, it looses all consistency. No one qualified gives either of them any respect. If they did, it would not be the subject of discussion by a bunch of losers in some obscure corner of the internet. It would be explained from a podium in Stockholm.

        Experimentally, it is completely implausible that they could think they have discovered *practical* ways to exploit an energy density a million times that of gasoline, and not be able to demonstrate it. At least the cold fusion researchers who probably do believe they’re seeing cold fusion, admit that they are not able to reduce it to practice.

        A field like this is ideally suited to unscrupulous hucksters with a bit of technical background. There are still enough legitimate scientists involved to make their own belief in it plausible, and then they can make shit up to their hearts content, put on bogus demos and it’s very difficult to prove deliberate deception. There’s no law against believing a wild-ass theory, and they’ve seen that the mainstream has not disproved cold fusion claims in 25 years, so they’ve got plausible deniability up the wazoo.

        The wet steam gambit was ideal, because it’s easy to plead ignorance there as well. After all, lots of people who shoulda known better were fooled by it. Faking power input is more risky, but careful restrictions probably make it doable.

        Rossi himself has over promised again and again, as has Mills, to deliver working prototypes to manufacturing 1 to 4 years in the past. They both failed. That doesn’t make them frauds, but it doesn’t make them successes either.

        If they got millions in investment, it likely makes them frauds *and* successes.

  18. Jordi Heguilor

    January 17, 2014 at 9:33 am

    Ransom says: “In another 10,000 years(assuming our species makes it that far) you really believe humans will look back at what we know now and think wow they knew a huge amount back then. :)”

    Please, buddy, I’m not picking on you, except when you are factually wrong.

    Yes, we look at the Greeks of 2500 years ago and go: Wow, they knew a huge amount back then…

    • Ransompw

      January 17, 2014 at 4:09 pm

      Jordi:

      I disagree, we look back at the Greeks and say wow they really knew how to think, not necassarily that they knew a huge amount.

      In fact I am not sure today we know how to think any better than the Greeks, just that we know a lot more.

      • Al Potenza

        January 17, 2014 at 6:07 pm

        That’s the trouble with words like “huge”. They’re relative. Compared to cave men, the Greeks knew a lot and knew how to do a lot. Compared to modern man in the civilized portions of the world (an important qualifications), they didn’t have a lot of important facts and theories to work with. I am not sure what the point is here.

        Nobody has a clue what will happen to people-kind in the next hundred years and you’re trying to predict out to 10,000? Lots of luck.

        If we know anything, it’s that things tend not to work out the way we predict. While we’ve made incredible advances in the last few decades in miniaturization and computing, material sciences, and space exploration, the human life span and general level health is only improved by a small amount. That is not what was predicted as recently as 50 years ago. And so on.

        There may be a discovery equivalent in impact to the discovery of the equivalence of mass and energy out there somewhere but it certainly does not have to be so. There may be a safe and efficient harnessing of nuclear reactions or there may not be. We just don’t know.

        What we know is such improvements are not likely to come from such obvious, prolific, extravagant and transparent liars as Rossi and Defkalion. Nor from such gullible people as McKubre.

      • popeye

        January 20, 2014 at 4:46 am

        Ransom wrote:

        In fact I am not sure today we know how to think any better than the Greeks, just that we know a lot more.

        I guess that means monkeys know a lot more than the Greeks.

  19. GreenWin

    January 17, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    Afternoon gents. Here’s the latest from WSJ on Muskepteer’s favorite subject – fraud in guv’ment.

    “The Beale affair is a classic story of government waste, fraud and mismanagement. But it is much more than that, because Beale was no low-level bureaucrat, unknown to senior officials and operating in the depths of the agency. He was among the EPA’s most senior, most highly paid officials, one entrusted with formulating the agency’s most controversial policies… [Climate Change”] Wall Street Journal

    EPA could actually make Ernie look good! 🙂 Now, on a lighter note. According to this amusing toon, before there were Three Muskepteers…

    http://bit.ly/19zYcph

    • Al Potenza

      January 17, 2014 at 10:37 pm

      The Beale affair is actually an interesting scam on its own merits though I fail to see that it has anything whatever to do with claims for cold fusion or LENR.

      This particular scam illustrates that government, like investors, is easily bamboozled. Too trusting, too eager to maintain a low overhead, and too happy to avoid any semblance of the trouble you get by questioning claims. Just like Rossi and Defkalion followers. Thanks for the reminder.

      • GreenWin

        January 18, 2014 at 5:00 am

        Which is why of course we should question claims as big and improbable as AGW. Because the United States’ top most big time consensus wielding climate “expert” is… just another elitist con man. Except he’s now he’s in prison. How many others in EPA’s “climate programs” are Beale-phonies??

        Then there are boondoggles like the nuke village, NNSA (scammed $20B in tax dollar “overruns”)DOE contractors guilty of fraud, negligence, the giant NIF/ITER/hot fusion boondoggles – $250B, 62 years, ZERO useful energy. These are B I G frauds Al. Big frauds that steal billions from innocent taxpayers. Any skeptical gumshoe can chase little guys. Try focus on the BIG energy frauds. Help end the reality distortion field Mary! 🙂

        • JKW

          January 18, 2014 at 7:32 am

          Hi Greenie! You still wasting away your precious time here? No wonder. Looks like Terawatt Research with their reputable board of trustees I did not save the planet as you promised back in ’11, so all hope is in Rossi now.

          • GreenWin

            January 18, 2014 at 5:40 pm

            Er, JK you wrote: “…I did not save the planet as you promised back in ’11”

            While your dogged focus is impressive – it is highly doubtful I promised YOU would save more than your own little flock. But here’s a thought; Terawatt Research LLC is an anti-terror front with admirable advisers. The Terawatt science facility is in Nevada.

            “Supported primarily by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), [the Nevada Terawatt] mission is to conduct research and to train students in the field of high-energy-density (HED) science, the study of the behavior of matter subject to conditions of extreme temperature and density.”

            BTW, you ever listen to Terrence McKenna’s lectures? They are quite fascinating.

  20. Al Potenza

    January 17, 2014 at 10:43 pm

    Defkalion is hilarious. From their web-shite:

    ” January 16, 2014
    We are pleased to announce that our timetable for 2014 is as follows:

    Currently we are developing our R 6 technology in our three laboratories. We are doing this using robust calorimetric methods, without the use of water coolant, based on both positive and negative experiences we have gained.

    Concurrently we are finalizing the heat management and control electronic subsystems for the final pre-industrial prototype.

    Several third party independent tests from international organizations, universities and teams are expected to present their results thus verifying our recent technological and scientific breakthroughs.

    Accordingly we expect the commercialization of our technologies in the 3rd quarter of 2014. For further inquiries please contact us through our offices.”
    *
    *
    Fantastic news, isn’t it? Oh wait… it’s what they said in 2011 virtually verbatim.

    http://defkalion-energy.com/

    No water cooling? I wonder what they cool a 25+kW reactor with? Fairy dust?

    • JKW

      January 18, 2014 at 7:09 am

      DGT are just a bunch of clowns and copycats. “Positive and negative” – say again? Shouldn’t it be “positive OR negative”?!

  21. david

    January 18, 2014 at 3:42 am

    This presentation describe Randell Mills theory of the atom and compared to Bohr model of atom

    http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=350

    • JKW

      January 18, 2014 at 7:23 am

      David, you seem to be on top of the LENR thing. The only thing you missed is the fact that Bohr’s model was kind of outdated just before Randell Mills was born.

      • david

        January 18, 2014 at 8:42 am

        Bohr’s model seems to be correct for hydrogen atom. Randell Mills tried to understand why is that and whether there was something right about Bohr’s model and he end up with new model of atom that predicted stable hydrogen atom with electron under ground state. this theory was reason that he started his company in 1991 to achieve a stable state of hydrogen under ground state and new process for power generation.

        • david

          January 18, 2014 at 9:54 am

          By the way hydrino for me is a independently confirmed discovery at least since 2009 just google ‘Ultra Dense Deuterium’ that is just a stable hydrogen atom under ground state and current model of atom couldn’t explain it.

          http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/winterberg-on-ultradense-deuterium.html

          http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/university-of-gothenberg-making.html

          • JKW

            January 18, 2014 at 12:09 pm

            So, an atom is like a little tiny planet-electron orbiting a tiny little sun-proton. Then the little planet finds an external electric field and is sent flying towards a wall with two holes. And, voila! When no one is looking, the tiny little planet goes through both holes at the same time and interferes with itself like a wave. And Randell Mills reaches his ground state.
            Seriously, a model is just it, and as long as it matches experimental physics – let it rule. Unfortunately hydrinos only explain Mills money-grabbing, is all.

        • popeye

          January 20, 2014 at 4:52 am

          david wrote:

          Bohr’s model seems to be correct for hydrogen atom. Randell Mills tried to understand why is that and whether there was something right about Bohr’s model and he end up with new model of atom that predicted stable hydrogen atom with electron under ground state.

          No it doesn’t. Its predictions of the average energy levels coincide with that of QM, but the Bohr model does not predict the fine structure in the energy levels, among other things. So, Mills’ premise was wrong.

          this theory was reason that he started his company in 1991 to achieve a stable state of hydrogen under ground state and new process for power generation.

          More likely, this theory was the reason that he started his company to persuade people to believe he could achieve a stable state of hydrogen under ground state and new process for power generation, in order to fleece them of millions.

  22. quax

    January 18, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Given the Mary/Ransom debate about how much the old Greeks knew I cannot resist to point out that already Sophocles marveled at what humans were capable of:

    #############

    Many the wonders but nothing walks stranger than man.
    This thing crosses the sea in the winter’s storm,
    making his path through the roaring waves.
    And she, the greatest of the gods, the earth –
    ageless she is, and unwearied — he wears her away
    as the ploughs go up and down from year to year
    and his mules turn up the soil.

    Gay nations of birds he snares and leads,
    wild beast tribes and the salty brood of the sea,
    with the twisted mesh of his nets, this clever man.
    He controls with craft the beasts of the open air,
    walkers on hills. The horse with his shaggy mane
    he holds and harnesses, yoked about the neck,
    and the strong bull of the mountain.

    Language, and thought like the wind
    and the feelings that make the town,
    he has taught himself, and shelter against the cold,
    refuge from rain. He can always help himself.
    He faces no future helpless. There’s only death
    that he cannot find an escape from. He has contrived
    refuge from illnesses one beyond all cure.

    Clever beyond all dreams
    the inventive craft that he has
    which may drive him one time or another to well or ill.
    When he honors the laws of the land and the gods’ sworn right,
    high indeed is his city; but stateless the man
    who dares to dwell with dishonor. Not by my fire,
    never to share my thoughts, who does these things.

    Sophocles, Antigone, c. 441 B.C. (332-369)
    (translation by Elizabeth Wyckoff)

    • Dale G. Basgall

      January 18, 2014 at 5:54 pm

      Quax a great post, so in the last statement ” When he honors the laws of the land and the gods’ sworn right,high indeed is his city; but stateless the man who dares to dwell with dishonor. Not by my fire, never to share my thoughts, who does these things.”

      Where would Rossi and Defkalion fit with the man Sophocles, Antigone as you see it. Are they dishonorable with lying and possibly taking others money for furthering their ventures or would they remain in the good standings of him?

      • quax

        January 18, 2014 at 7:41 pm

        Dale I think Greenwin actually puts this into the right context.

        As Ransom likes to remind us, there is the possibility that Defkalion and Rossi honestly believe in their research work. In the latter case, even if it is all baloney, then there’s no culpability and I figure Sophokles would grudgingly allow them to warm themselves on his fire (the old fashioned kind, personally I’ve given up on ‘new fire’).

        • Al Potenza

          January 19, 2014 at 12:21 am

          “…there is the possibility that Defkalion and Rossi honestly believe in their research work.”
          *
          See, but that’s the thing! We KNOW that both lie outrageously in forums and posts. That’s why I am certain they do not believe in their own crappola. Sincere people don’t give tangential answers to proper questions. Sincere people get appropriate tests and respond to critiques. Sincere people with customers reveal at least one. Sincere people don’t offer to give a device to make heat in Scandinavia and then fail to do it. Sincere people don’t claim dozens of reactors working with liquid flow calorimetry and dozens of companies testing them and then don’t show one reactor working clearly and don’t name any of the companies doing the tests… sincere people… do I need to go on?

          If these guys are not crooks, then they are simply nuts. I vote for crooks. It’s much more probable.

          • GreenWin

            January 19, 2014 at 3:09 am

            Mary, you might consider that Sophocles (and Euripides thereafter) knew their stuff. Creon’s own son Haemon, tried to make the king see his paranoid fears. Creon obstinately refused to believe that Antigone answered to a higher authority.

            Creone’s refusal to accept his limitations, led to his tragic end. Alone, exiled, without family or State, it was Creone’s pride that dishonored the gods and brought about his demise.

          • Ransompw

            January 19, 2014 at 2:12 pm

            Al:

            I think a third possibility exists. They are blowhards, and believe the steps from lab curiosity to product is easier than it is. And since they expect what they say will happen shortly they can’t help from exaggerating what is taking place.

            I don’t condone this but I think it may explain them short of scammers or nuts.

          • JNewman

            January 19, 2014 at 2:31 pm

            Generally speaking, there is not a subtle distinction between exaggerations and outright lies. Exaggeration entails stretching the truth. For example, what truth do you think Rossi was stretching when he said he was building a roboticized factory in Florida capable of manufacturing a million ecats a year?

          • Ransompw

            January 19, 2014 at 2:45 pm

            Newman:

            A lot of the so called lies associated with Rossi have to do with predictions of what will happen and even what is about to happen. You can’t really lie about the future but you can certainly exaggerate about what you think will happen.

            Go through Al’s litany of alleged lies and objectively evaluate how many of them are about what HAS happened. I think there are far fewer than Al thinks.

            The robotized factory is a perfect example. If he had purchased a building and starting sweeping it out with the notion of building a factory is he lying or exaggerating?

          • JNewman

            January 19, 2014 at 3:10 pm

            I have gone through the “alleged” lies repeatedly for three years and think that it takes Cirque de Soleil-like contortion ability to describe them as anything other than egregious falsehoods. But as I have said repeatedly, once you are determined to believe something, you will spin and twist things in ways that boggle the mind. You will even resort to trying to pin the same rap on skeptics in order to try to make your own view seem sensible. But there has never been a point you have conceded, Ransom, and I sure you won’t start now. Onward and upward.

          • Ransompw

            January 19, 2014 at 3:31 pm

            Newman:

            Then you didn’t look at them closely, just like Al. You just assumed what you wanted to assume.

          • JNewman

            January 19, 2014 at 9:24 pm

            February, 2012 from ecat world:

            ” Leonardo now has the funds to meet current needs. The design and testing of the E-Cat are complete and now the focus is on building the production line for the factory. They are currently building only one factory in the United States– location is unnamed. I asked if there were plans to build factories in other countries, but he said that they are planning for US manufacturing plants only. Rossi said that currently there are around 50 people working on his team, and that when the plant is completed, Leonardo Corp will employ between 50 and 100 people.”

            I guess we skeptics don’t look very closely and just see what we want to see. For example, in the above I thought it said that Rossi was building a factory in the US and has a team of 50 people working. Silly me. According to Ransom, what it says is that Rossi was thinking about factories and someday might have lots of people working for him. I guess I just don’t know how to read properly.

          • popeye

            January 20, 2014 at 4:56 am

            Ransom wrote:

            A lot of the so called lies associated with Rossi have to do with predictions of what will happen and even what is about to happen. You can’t really lie about the future but you can certainly exaggerate about what you think will happen.

            This from someone who says half-truths are worse than lies when they come from Krivit.

            Go through Al’s litany of alleged lies and objectively evaluate how many of them are about what HAS happened.

            Well, he wouldn’t be much of a con man if he said “black is white”. So he makes bogus predictions knowing his followers will jump through burning hoops justifying it. Or he says things about the past or present which can’t be checked, like his frequent claims that he *had* heated and *was* heating his factories with ecats. Those are almost certainly lies, or why wouldn’t he show them off?

            And what about his claim in 2011 that he had a product that was ready for the market? Given the complete absence of products on the market 3 years later seems to contradict that.

            The robotized factory is a perfect example. If he had purchased a building and starting sweeping it out with the notion of building a factory is he lying or exaggerating?

            If he says he has 50 people building a factory, and he doesn’t, then he’s lying. But how can this be checked?

          • Ransompw

            January 20, 2014 at 12:10 pm

            He didn’t say there were 50 people building a factory. His team isn’t going to build a factory.

            A factory is built by contractors or machine manufacturers.

          • JNewman

            January 20, 2014 at 1:32 pm

            Ransom, there are numerous examples of flat-out lies by Rossi. Why do you persist in trying to weasel-word around them? Isn’t it simpler for you just to say that he lies about pretty much everything but his gadget actually works (at least to some extent)? That is clearly what you believe, so why bother with the spirited defense of the falsehoods? It only weakens your credibility.

    • GreenWin

      January 18, 2014 at 6:33 pm

      Nice Quax. It is interesting that these lines when first recited by the Chorus refer to Antigone’s disobedience toward Creon’s State. Creon flies into a rage, accusing Antigone of insubordination, civil disobedience. However, as the drama unfolds we come to realize it is Creon and his corrupted State the Chorus refers to. It is the State that dwells with dishonor; a State that has dishonored the gods’ sworn right.

      • Dale G. Basgall

        January 19, 2014 at 6:39 am

        Well GW I had an article sent to me this morning from Jack @ LENR-Cold Fusion RE: Blacklight and their demo for the 28th and it read thanks to GreenWin. It was on the ECW site. There is a site that appreciates your posts.

        I understand, and here the topic migrates when there is no substantial developments in the LENR field and more so when nothing happens with the Rossi E-Cat. Do you think that Blacklight is actually going to demo a product or a method to entice others yet again like the Defkalion or Rossi ?

        Moreover what I would appreciate knowing in fact do you support Rossi, Defkalion and others claiming product producing electricity using a LENR? Support meaning do you really think the approach in disclosure was conducive to factual happenings with Rossi at the onset of his claims? If you had to interpret future what would you state you support to date regarding LENR’s?

        • GreenWin

          January 19, 2014 at 9:31 pm

          Dale, BlackLight Power has worked for the military industrial complex since 1991. Here is a link to his work with Thermacore and Air Force Material Command, Wright Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

          I suppose it’s possible that Blacklight’s announced product have been reclassified for USAF or other military branches. In either case the Air Force has been a financier of Blacklight’s since 1993.

          Could the Air Force be involved in some level of investment scheme? Possibly. Remember the lesson in “Antigone”. It is the corrupted State that dishonored the gods and brought down Creon’s kingdom. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf

          Meanwhile you might want to catch up on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Change criminal, John Beale. He’s serving time in prison for scamming the American public out of $1.3M. Sounds dishonorable to me.

          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/16/epa-climate-change-expert-cia-fraud

          • popeye

            January 20, 2014 at 4:58 am

            GW wrote:

            Dale, BlackLight Power has worked for the military industrial complex since 1991.[…]
            Could the Air Force be involved in some level of investment scheme?

            Nah. Well except for the fact that “a Navy official and the owner of a small tech business were found to be conspiring in a $10 million kickback scheme” (www.theverge.com/2013/11/14/5103084/1-6-million-silencer-fraud-us-navys-second-investigation-november). Of course, the Navy is more likely *getting* scammed in the case of BLP. It wouldn’t be the first time either. It seems they also bought some sniffex devices.

          • GreenWin

            January 20, 2014 at 9:16 pm

            According to Kirvit’s detailed report today on the Purdue/Oakridge “Bubblegate” scandal, the DOD Inspector General investigated Navy’s ONR and Ms Holly Adams’ actions with respect to the scandal.

            Through FOI-obtained documents Kirvit reports Ms. Adams behaved “inappropriately” during her investigation of Prof Taleyarkhan. As a result Ms. Adams was stripped of her security clearance and position as Inspector General at ONR.

            Remember the lesson in “Antigone” Quax introduced. It is the corrupted State that dishonored the gods and brought down Creon’s kingdom.

          • popeye

            January 22, 2014 at 10:13 am

            GW wrote:

            According to Kirvit’s detailed report today on the Purdue/Oakridge “Bubblegate” scandal, the DOD Inspector General investigated Navy’s ONR and Ms Holly Adams’ actions with respect to the scandal.

            You do realize that that’s the same Kirvit who reported on McKubre’s data fudging, and Rossi’s fraud, right?

            Through FOI-obtained documents Kirvit reports Ms. Adams behaved “inappropriately” during her investigation of Prof Taleyarkhan. As a result Ms. Adams was stripped of her security clearance and position as Inspector General at ONR.

            I didn’t spring for the full report. Is there any elaboration on what “inappropriately” means? Are there any unfiltered words from ONR?

    • Anon2014

      January 19, 2014 at 2:46 am

      Quax,

      Bravo for your Sophocles post!

      Well said and well done!

  23. Al Potenza

    January 19, 2014 at 6:41 am

    I wonder if Quax has an opinion this work:

    http://www.benthamscience.com/open/topcj/articles/V005/17TOPCJ.pdf

    It involves a company called Thunder Fusion. It purports to have confirmed Santilli’s work in the fusion of deuterium and carbon to yield nitrogen plus energy, if I read it right. Way out of my area unfortunately.

    • Al Potenza

      January 19, 2014 at 4:59 pm

      Ah, never mind. I showed it to Moletrap — the paper is full of typos and other mistakes. What is a -30PSI vacuum for example? Santilli has a long history of running companies into the ground. Check the financial history, for example, of MNGA. That’s a typical pump and dump profile. Santilli’s claims for recycling waste remind me of Rossi’s fraud with Petroldragon. The guy has been bumping about since 2006 at which time he ran a car on his “magne-gas”. Nothing has come of it since as far as I can determine. I have no idea what a “hadronic reactor” is. I doubt that there is such a thing that works. Maybe this will be something to check out further once Rossi and Defkalion go the way of Steorn or Dennis Lee or Carl Tilley or Sniffex. For the moment, I have no time for it.

      • Ransompw

        January 19, 2014 at 6:56 pm

        Al:

        No offense to you but Moletrap is full of nuts. I have no idea if Santilli is another of your scammers (how many are there now, I’ve lost count) but relying on Moletrap is worse than relying on Levi.

        • JNewman

          January 19, 2014 at 8:58 pm

          Yeah, Moletrap is full of nuts. If you want to hear from real scientists, go to Vortex. LOL.

          • Ransompw

            January 19, 2014 at 9:11 pm

            Newman:

            At least on the Vortex real people post, who are the real people on mousetrap? Scientists? That’s only a guess and if so nutty ones for sure.

          • JNewman

            January 19, 2014 at 9:43 pm

            It’s good to know that no matter how decoupled from reality or deluded someone is, they are worth listening to as long as they are “real”.

        • popeye

          January 20, 2014 at 5:00 am

          No offense to you but Moletrap is full of nuts.

          There is no one on moletrap even close to as nutty as axil axil, jones benes, fznidarsic, alain…

          I have no idea if Santilli is another of your scammers (how many are there now, I’ve lost count)

          I’m curious. Does something like this Santilli thing popping up make you more or less suspicious? Because to me, another shifty guy like Rossi, with a similar story (in 2011 or earlier), and similar lame demos, and *no* product and *no* convincing evidence only seems to fit one scenario. They’re all mining the same obviously powerful will to believe in abundant, clean energy, and specifically the widespread gullibility associated with cold fusion, that includes a few apparently legitimate scientists. It just doesn’t make sense to me that they’d all fall short of proof all the time, if it were real.

  24. Harry Perini

    January 19, 2014 at 10:09 am

    • Daniel Maris

      January 19, 2014 at 12:07 pm

      It’s Hadronic isn’t it? – not “harmonic”.

      • Al Potenza

        January 19, 2014 at 5:00 pm

        Most probably, Santilli is absolute nonsense. His equipment reminds me of Rossi’s but it’s much more elaborate and startrekkie. Sort of fun to look at. Kind of cute. But not science. IMHO of course.

        • Ransompw

          January 19, 2014 at 7:13 pm

          Al:

          My only observation is that all these claims are similar. Some element, nickel, carbon, paladium etc is pressurized with hydrogen or deuterium and then an electric current is added and a claimed nuclear event occurs.

          So my view is they are all seeing something similar or they are all just deceiving themselves or intentionally everyone else. The more I see the more uncertain I am at what is at the heart of all of this.

          • Al Potenza

            January 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm

            Again, that is about your ignorance of science and physics.

            Elements do not fuse into new elements with the addition of electric current. Nuclear events cause transmutation or large releases of energy, and usually radioactivity. To prove a nuclear event, you have to prove those with appropriate, carefully performed measurements using the right instruments and methods. None of that has been done for ANY of these silly claims.

            Nature does not provide for highly energetic nuclear reactions under usual circumstances, except for natural radioactivity which we know a lot about and which involves fission and not fusion. Otherwise we’d all be dead or maybe the Earth would be more like the Sun. The physics of charged particles provide an additional (Coulomb Barrier). You should read about that. One doesn’t dispense with it by waving their hands and making claims. Fusion, far as we know, has only been demonstrated in stars, bombs, and perhaps a few rare and difficult to attain experiments which are very inefficient at producing power.

            People have been mixing chemicals and elements with each other and adding electricity for decades if not centuries and no nuclear interactions have occurred. The Farnsworth Fusor and muon-catalyzed fission are real but they require very special and difficult to provide circumstances involving high power densities and very specific geometries and methods.

            I do agree the claims are similar. All involve loose thinking and woowoo. None has been properly demonstrated, much less replicated and proven. All involve investment money being sought and obtained. And the proponents are either gullible and careless or very shady.

          • Ransompw

            January 20, 2014 at 1:18 am

            I never said any of this was at all clear. Why do you act like I am accepting it.

            But our past experience is no help if we are talking about subtle results no one back then even bothered to measure. What does that prove.

            As to the paper you cited the presence of oxygen is the biggest issue because it looks like air was sucked in.

            They should test the reactor in another container with either vacuum or like argon to prove nitrogen couldn’t be sucked in.

          • popeye

            January 20, 2014 at 5:04 am

            Ransom wrote:

            My only observation is that all these claims are similar.

            Right. They’re all exploiting the controversial legitimacy that small-scale fusion clings to. They’re all about abundant, clean energy.

            Some element, nickel, carbon, paladium etc is pressurized with hydrogen or deuterium and then an electric current is added and a claimed nuclear event occurs.

            Well, Santilli claims to be able to do it with air too. O + C to make Si. That’s different.

            So my view is they are all seeing something similar

            But the experiments are different enough that one of the dozen companies should be able to prove that it works. Surely.

            The more I see the more uncertain I am at what is at the heart of all of this.

            I guess that answers the question I asked above. To me it makes the bogosity of it all ever more obvious.

          • popeye

            January 20, 2014 at 5:06 am

            Al wrote:

            Nature does not provide for highly energetic nuclear reactions under usual circumstances, except for natural radioactivity which we know a lot about and which involves fission and not fusion.

            Pardon a little quibbling:

            At earthly temperatures, fusion does not occur naturally. That’s right. But radioactivity is not all fission. Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are not ordinarily called fission, and the latter 2 don’t even involve separation of nucleons. But fission (ordinarily used to describe splitting into roughly equal parts) does occur naturally.

            Fusion, far as we know, has only been demonstrated in stars, bombs, and perhaps a few rare and difficult to attain experiments which are very inefficient at producing power.

            Fusion is neither rare nor difficult. Cockcroft and Walton did it in the 30s. All you need is a high voltage to accelerate hydrogen ions (tritium works best) to a few tens of keV, and smash them into metal deuteride targets, and fusion happens. The chance (cross-section) for a particular incident ion to undergo fusion is pretty low, and so the energy out from fusion is far lower than the input energy, so this can’t be used to generate energy, as you said. But that’s the principle for bench top neutron sources. And they are common and turnkey.

            People have been mixing chemicals and elements with each other and adding electricity for decades if not centuries and no nuclear interactions have occurred.

            Depends what you mean by adding electricity. Neutrons observed in pyroelectric fusion show conclusive evidence of fusion. But again, there is no energy profit to be made.

            The Farnsworth Fusor and muon-catalyzed fission are real but they require very special and difficult to provide circumstances involving high power densities and very specific geometries and methods.

            The FF is just another example of accelerating ions into one another. It’s not so special or difficult as witnessed by the fact that many amateurs have constructed them in their garages. Again, in its simplest form, there is no energy profit. Muon-catalyzed fusion is more exotic, and might have had an energy application except for the alpha sticking problem. That hasn’t stopped Star Scientific from claiming they will have a product based on it Real Soon Now.

            Apart from that, I agree with you.

          • popeye

            January 20, 2014 at 5:07 am

            Ransom wrote:

            But our past experience is no help if we are talking about subtle results no one back then even bothered to measure.

            Back when? Studies with metal hydrides have been and are detailed and subtle. They are studied by the military for weapons purposes, so inadvertent fusion would be a nasty effect, and by battery designers, and others. And fusion, being a million times more energy intense than chemical reactions is not a subtle effect. That’s why, if it happened under such ordinary conditions, it would difficult to hide, not difficult to prove.

          • Ransompw

            January 20, 2014 at 12:33 pm

            If the changes are some heat and subtle changes in the elements without radiation I doubt it would be noticed.

          • popeye

            January 22, 2014 at 10:15 am

            Ransom wrote:

            If the changes are some heat and subtle changes in the elements without radiation I doubt it would be noticed.

            Subtle changes in the elements would be difficult to notice, but if they correspond to watts of thermal power, they would not be subtle.

            But I doubt they could possibly miss heat at any level that could be identified as excess. The thermodynamics and kinetics of transition metal hydrides are studied in careful detail just for fundamental investigations — to better understand and classify chemical reactions — but also for practical development of metal hydride batteries and for military purposes, where nuclear reactions are specifically investigated. I should think the heat released in metal hydride batteries is a critical figure-of-merit, and would be measured carefully.

      • popeye

        January 20, 2014 at 4:54 am

        Maris wrote:

        It’s Hadronic isn’t it? – not “harmonic”.

        To hear the sheeple on the video, it’s “hydronic”. It’s funny when people can’t pronounce or understand the name of their company. Just like the CEO of Brillouin hasn’t a clue what a Brillouin zone is.

  25. Al Potenza

    January 19, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    “The robotized factory is a perfect example. If he had purchased a building and starting sweeping it out with the notion of building a factory is he lying or exaggerating?”
    *
    Typical lawyerly thinking. If Rossi gets investments based on a claim that he is building a robotic factory that will produce millions of ecats “soon”, then he’s lying if all he’s done is clean out an old building. Telling the truth would be to say he bought an old building with a view to building a robotic factory eventually.

    But in reality, I don’t think Rossi ever bought anything remotely resembling a factory. I think he rents space here and there to put together his silly looking kludges and misleading, deceptive experiments. There is no evidence about any of this and Rossi isn’t about to give any… IMHO of course.

    BTW, only to lawyers maybe is extreme exaggeration to make money not lying.

    “I think a third possibility exists. They are blowhards, and believe the steps from lab curiosity to product is easier than it is.”
    *
    Maybe you missed Defkalion’s forum. They didn’t talk about what they WOULD do. They talked about ridiculous things they claimed they HAD DONE.

    • Ransompw

      January 19, 2014 at 6:50 pm

      Al:

      Rossi would need investment to build a robotized factory not the other way around.

      So Rossi says I am going to build such a factory can’t get the investment to make it happen and it does not happen. Where is the lie. That is the kind of thing start ups do all the time.

      You always assume he is telling some investor the stuff he posts and there is no evidence for that at all. That evidence is in your mind.

      When I read Rossi what he is saying is almost always what will happen not what has happened. And how far along on his plans is always impossible to discern from what he says. You are the one that reads more into his posts than is actually there.

      • JNewman

        January 19, 2014 at 9:46 pm

        In other words, disregard everything Rossi says for six months. Then pick through his words and find a few that match up with current reality in some vague way. Then declare him to be a truthful guy. But of course, this procedure does not apply to the basic premise that he has a world-changing energy device. That is axiomatic based on cycles of human development and the reading of bird entrails.

      • Al Potenza

        January 19, 2014 at 10:44 pm

        “You always assume he is telling some investor the stuff he posts and there is no evidence for that at all. That evidence is in your mind.”
        *
        Uh,no. It’s all over Rossi’s correspondence and emails, obtained and exhibited by Gary Wright. That includes, in some instances, Rossi’s signature on documents.

        And Rossi mostly writes in the present as well as the future. But yes, he is most often vague which is exactly how con men are about such things.

  26. GreenWin

    January 19, 2014 at 9:51 pm

    Speaking of State sponsored fraud and hoaxes here’s a look back at what Forbes thinks is possibly “The Crime of the Century”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/09/16/climate-change-hoax-or-crime-of-the-century/

    Sounds pretty dishonorable, eh what?

    • JNewman

      January 20, 2014 at 5:38 am

      Parenthetical comment: you should look into what an op-ed piece is. The article you cite is what Mark Henrickson thinks, not what Forbes thinks – not that either is particularly significant.

  27. JNewman

    January 19, 2014 at 10:44 pm

    GW has become so much more interesting in my book. I didn’t realize he was a climate change denier whacko on top of his other predilections. What fun!

    • spacegoat

      January 20, 2014 at 3:35 am

      JN you are having another relapse of ungraceful name calling (whacko, denier). Normally you tout the benefit of sticking to facts.

      That Science might have been railroaded by oodles of government research money into perpetuating a scam is actually very relevant to Ecat/scam News.

      As an AGW agnostic I began reading GW linked the article. Not to divert Ecatnews from the ecat, but how about telling us a couple of factual errors in the article?

      • JNewman

        January 20, 2014 at 5:21 am

        Gosh, Spacegoat. One magazine article from some guy from a right-wing think tank and I’m supposed to reject the work of thousands of climate scientists around the world. Reminds me of the medical doctors who were trotted out to deny that cigarettes cause cancer. Frankly, I have no patience for the political debate about climate change. It is simply too disheartening to listen to. Just part of the decline of my country as a world leader. And if you think that his nonsense has any bearing on the cold fusion scams, I don’t know what to tell you. But as for GW, his views on AGW do not define him as a whacko. He earns that assessment in many other ways.

        But sorry to disappoint you.

      • Jordi Heguilor

        January 20, 2014 at 2:16 pm

        Spacegoat, all of us in the end choose who to believe. I (or you) could never win an argument about evolution with a Creationist with a Ph.D. in Biology, he would squash me (us) with the sheer weight of all the biology he knows and we don’t.

        But that doesn’t mean we will prefer the Bible over Darwin, does it?

        Same with Global Warming. Do we believe the 99% of scientists who say that it’s real or the 1% who say it’s not?

        • JNewman

          January 20, 2014 at 3:34 pm

          I’m with you Jordi. The analogy I like is if a person went to a doctor and the doctor gave them a diagnosis of a serious malady requiring aggressive treatment, they might well (and should) go see another doctor. If the second doctor makes the same diagnosis, one might conclude that action is required. Perhaps it might even be prudent to see yet another doctor just to make sure. However, would anyone remotely sane proceed to consult with another 97 doctors until they finally find one who says not to worry? And then decide to do nothing? This is pretty much where we are with climate change. Those with political agendas that trump anything else in life have found the metaphorical one doctor who says they are ok and thinks we should do nothing.

  28. david

    January 20, 2014 at 8:14 am

    Federal Investigations Reveal Academic Backstabbing at Purdue University.

    http://us7.campaign-archive2.com/?u=efa1558ece17e946d64fd9a89&id=cf8ef248b2&e=fb001f8a52

    • GreenWin

      January 20, 2014 at 6:02 pm

      THX david. This scandal confirms certain elements in academia and government collude to debunk certain kinds of research. Kirvit reveals that much of the “fraud” committed in this dustup appears to have originated with Oxford Philosophy B.A., and Journal Nature correspondent Eugenie Reich. That such “authors” with little background in experimental sciences should be influential to this extent – is a stunning fail.

      But it appears Ms Reich has an agenda; to sell books based on her amateur opinions about science fraud. Her 2009 flop, “Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World” is evidence. Biggest??

      But this scandal involves more than just Ms Reich. Kirvit reports federal investigators point to the head of Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering, UCLA scientist Seth Putterman, University Illinois chemist Keneth Suslick and even the Inspector General of ONR, Holly Adams.

      The whole bunch dishonor their esteemed institutions due to egotistical pride and grandiosity.

      • popeye

        January 22, 2014 at 10:17 am

        GW wrote:

        This scandal confirms certain elements in academia and government collude to debunk certain kinds of research.

        Again, I haven’t read it in its entirety, ’cause I’m too cheap (and lazy). But I think what it confirms is that Krivit interprets the evidence that way. I gather that more objective sources have a different interpretation of the evidence. The Wikipedia article is based on what they deem reliable sources, and gives a rather different account.

        In any case, in some sense, academia and government do collude to debunk certain kinds of research — the kind that has no merit. The sense of debunking I refer to is declining to fund, publish, award, or otherwise recognize the research. They also collude to elevate and promote certain kinds of research — the kind that has merit.

        And bubble fusion, as the years since the first claim have borne out, almost certainly has no merit.

  29. Jami

    January 20, 2014 at 10:38 am

    Looks like MFMP is running out of steam and money. After having collected about 4% of what they initially targeted and wondering for more than a year why they could never replicate anything close to the wonders Celani supposedly demonstrated with almost identical hardware at NI week and ICCF 17, they now concede that Celani was wrong and his results were, in reality, “MUCH closer” to theirs, i.e. null. What a waste of time – and it’s hard to blame Celani’s overly optimistic and sloppy attitude alone. When even Rohner-believer McKubre wasn’t convinced – why were “the guys”?

    • Dale G. Basgall

      January 20, 2014 at 3:46 pm

      Jami it seems that others attempting LENR including the MFMP as you referenced mostly are organizations that need to pay people for assistance and cannot afford to, so they ask for donations. This is an indicator to me that they got the group together to try their best and no one had the capital to continue the process so they used the intranet to gain funds.

      To me others need to pay their own way if they have something to do and not ask others for support on something they will gain from personally themselves. You don’t find a wealthy person asking for handouts of money, only a conniving type of person does that.

      If you don’t have the wherewithal, or the means to accomplish your needs then you ask others for money to support what you are contending. The person that gains success in their ventures does not ask others to support them along the way to accomplishment.

      If those people asking for money to support a venture would share profits equally that is different and the word profit is a real factual variable in any venture business. When profit’s are large setbacks costing money are usually claimed and that reduces profit.

      In this day and age of energy costs the market is wide open to experiment but the real issue should recognize that people are to be the source of energy in the future and not some miracle gismo. It’s like needing to get to a remote location when walking is the usual method but then you ask others for money to design and build a hover craft. It doesn’t make sense to jump light years when all you need is your feet.

      Point being that the simplest way to make something is to do it and if it costs more than you can afford to pay then make something you can afford for yourself. I just don’t like other experimenters asking others to fund projects and that’s personal with me and only my opinion.

      Rossi, Defkalion, MFMP, all must have paid themselves along the way from receiving the donations but at least the MFMP people were up front and putting the facts up front. They didn’t contend to others that they had a product so I feel that’s quite different than what Rossi and Defkalion are doing.

    • Al Potenza

      January 20, 2014 at 5:45 pm

      Thanks for the reminder, Jami. It now looks as if what Celani has is a collection of fortuitous measurement errors plus his confirmation bias. Sort of par for the course when it comes to LENR “investigations”. The closer you look, the more carefully you work, the less effect you find. That’s a valuable contribution by MFMP.

  30. BigWillyJohnson

    January 20, 2014 at 3:23 pm

    Popeye,

    Someone above commented on your verbosity, that it need excusing. I heartily disagree. Please keep it up. The longer and more detailed the better. I love a good read.

    BW

    • Dale G. Basgall

      January 20, 2014 at 3:55 pm

      I like the longer posts also, more depth and more a true feeling detailed. The short posts seem to just be bait to debate at times so I like posts that are detailed. More a statement for a complete feeling of thought.

      • GreenWin

        January 20, 2014 at 5:09 pm

        “The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

        On a more somber note Kirvit finds ONR Inspector General Holly Adams & academics implicated in “Bubblegate” scandal:

        “Through multiple Freedom of Information Act requests, New Energy Times has obtained inter-university correspondence and documents from federal investigations revealing that Eugenie Reich, a freelance journalist writing for Nature’s news service, conspired with Lefteri Tsoukalas, at the time the head of the Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering. Reich also collaborated with physicist Seth Putterman at the University of California, Los Angeles, and chemist Kenneth Suslick at the University of Illinois.

        All four of them sent allegations to Holly Adams, at the time the inspector general of the U.S. Office of Naval Research, claiming that Taleyarkhan had committed research misconduct and, in some cases, fraud.

        Yet, after several years of extensive and costly federally mandated investigations, no evidence of fraud was found.”

        Very sad.

        • Al Potenza

          January 20, 2014 at 5:40 pm

          I don’t know anything about that case, GW, but just out of curiosity, what do you think about Nanospire’s claims to bubble fusion? And about their other claims to having made large and damaging amounts of radiation with bubble fusion — radiation which caused serious harm to their health?

        • popeye

          January 22, 2014 at 10:26 am

          GW wrote:

          “Yet, after several years of extensive and costly federally mandated investigations, no evidence of fraud was found.”

          “Taleyarkhan was found guilty of the two research misconduct charges, […] Purdue removed Taleyarkhan’s endowed professorship, reduced his salary, and limited his duties with students.”

    • GreenWin

      January 21, 2014 at 3:16 am

      Willy, please be sensible. The more the Muskepteers bluster on, the deeper the whole they sail into!! Time to come about skip. Hard-a-lee… 🙂

      Have a great day today BWJ! And friends.

      • Bigwillyjohnson

        January 21, 2014 at 5:21 am

        GW,

        Come on bro!

        Why do we come here?? Is it because we think our comments are going to retard/accelerate LENR or Roosi? No! We come here for the lulz. For the Hairy Perrini’s. And to laugh about the latest smart scarecrow exclusive.

        I for one am happy that guys like yourself, Shane, Daniel and Mr. Ransom populate this low trafficked forum. It generates some good chaw.

        Popeye is a damn fine debater. The only thing that could make this forum better if we had a believer who was a methodical and reasonable in their views. I don’t make that comment as a statement about believers. It is more that Popeye’s type of commenter is truly rare I feel. On this forum it happens to be a skeptic.

        You too sir. Enjoy the night and as always be good.

        BW

        • GreenWin

          January 21, 2014 at 7:54 pm

          “Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
          And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
          I will be brief: your sailor is mad”
          Hamlet

          BW, Popee’s what I’d call a dismissive debater. His long winded, condescending style lacks humor, self-deprecation, concession. He dismisses far too much as “improper” procedure, which means improper to his myopic world. I have asked Popee many times if he is a human being. He never replies. Wonder why.

          Most readers who know him and his various pseudonyms don’t bother reading his diatribes as they’re patently tedious & tautological. Even fellow Muskepteer JN agrees.

          Anyway, you’re right. The Muskepteers make excellent foils! Have a great afternoon!

          • JNewman

            January 21, 2014 at 8:26 pm

            And your style of debate, GW? Insults, smarmy insinuations and non-sequiturs. The chances of you responding to a direct challenge with anything resembling a relevant factual reply are nearly nil. But don’t let that get in your way. Incongruous smugness is a way of life for you.

          • GreenWin

            January 22, 2014 at 12:45 am

            Hmmm, looks like we’ve touched another sore spot JN. Like scratching the surface of a mollusk, causing its sensitive interior to anger.

            Sorry. Did not address my comments to you, nor intend to hurt. Have a pleasant evening JN.

          • JNewman

            January 22, 2014 at 2:38 am

            Incongruous smugness is a way of life for you.

          • popeye

            January 22, 2014 at 10:07 am

            “Brevity is the soul of wit”

            My favorite Shakespeare quote. Here’s the entire paragraph containing it:

            This business is well ended.
            My liege, and madam, to expostulate
            What majesty should be, what duty is,
            Why day is day, night night, and time is time.
            Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time.(95)
            Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit
            And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
            I will be brief. Your noble son is mad.
            Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
            What is’t but to be nothing else but mad?(100)
            But let that go.

            The lovely proverb “brevity is the soul of wit” is so frequently cited without the context which so completely contradicts its message. It was spoken by Polonius, the most verbose of all the characters, and he uses 83 words to say “Your son is mad.” And he isn’t finished. When the Queen protests “More matter, less art”, he continues with even less brevity in his reply.

            His long winded, condescending style lacks humor, self-deprecation, concession.

            I admit you try to inject humor into some of your posts, although far less of it lately, presumably reflecting your own frustration and anger. But I don’t recall any concession in your writing. Maybe I missed it.

            He dismisses far too much as “improper” procedure, which means improper to his myopic world.

            If you’re referring to my acceptance of the extraordinary claims heuristic, it is hardly myopic, having a distinguished pedigree, as well as being common sense. Evidence for cold fusion has to be at least as robust as the copious evidence that indicates its unlikelihood. It’s not even in the ballpark.

            Most readers who know him and his various pseudonyms don’t bother reading his diatribes

            That’s OK. I don’t read everything either. For example, while I live for GW wisdom, after the 6th repeat of the same irrelevancy or conspiracy theory, I (gasp!) often skip your words as well.

  31. Al Potenza

    January 20, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    I think it’s humorous that attorney Ransom sees no problem with Rossifiction such as this:

    “Andrea Rossi
    September 13th, 2012 at 3:54 PM
    Dear Brian:
    The reports are under NDA.
    Also the testing done is under NDA
    The SGS engineers have worked for the safety certification, not for the product certifications, therefore they did not work on the COP issue.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    *
    *
    The so-called certification Rossi got was a “self-certification”. SGS engineers did not “work” for it. They had nothing to do with it at all. And testing and reports about safety certification are not and can not be “under NDA”. That would be absurd. No lie is too ridiculous for Rossi. And none is too over the top for Ransom to ignore.

    I think we have more to look forward to from Gary Wright. He’s a busy little energizer bunny.

  32. Al Potenza

    January 20, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    Oh, and tell us Ransom, if you think this is what a real operations manual would be for a million watt power generator using nuclear fusion:

    http://shutdownrossi.com/rossis-partners-investors/e-cat-australia-roger-green/1mw-e-cat-operating-manual/

    ROTFWL!!!!!!!!!

    A high school student could write better science fiction than that!

    • R Hopeful

      January 21, 2014 at 11:40 pm

      My goodness! I need to apologize for bringing up old news, but I had never run into this chain of emails:

      http://shutdownrossi.com/rossis-partners-investors/e-cat-australia-roger-green/roger-green-robert-k-e-mails/

      For the people who assume Rossi is real: reading this exchange, can you possibly believe Roger Green is anything else but a con? An aggressive salesman with no business sense and poor spelling?

      There is always other possibilities: the e-mails could be fabricated. Is that the only ray of hope to cling to?

      • Al Potenza

        January 22, 2014 at 1:25 am

        If the emails were fabricated, Rossi and Green would have sued Wright or at least denied that they were real and maybe showed the real emails about that issue. They didn’t do any of those things though Rossi clearly knows about it because he spends some time calling Wright names.

  33. GreenWin

    January 20, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    More, from Krivit’s disturbing confirmation of Antigone and reference to corrupted State:

    “The Navy’s decision to punish [Purdue University Professor]Taleyarkhan by blocking his federal research funding until September 2011 has caused Taleyarkhan and his group to forfeit a hard-won multiyear National Science Foundation/ Department of Homeland Security collaborative grant that would have benefited research professors and students at Purdue, Texas A&M, Prairie View A&M and Jefferson High School. Also, if he cannot secure other sources of funding, the Purdue Metastable Fluids Research Lab, which he manages in leased space off-campus, will have to be abandoned.”

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/35/3522bubblegateinspector.shtml

    The details of this highly dishonorable scandal will go to Congressional representatives with recommendation for a full investigation of government, academic, and industrial attempts to inhibit free and open scientific research.

    “It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.” Bette Davis

    • Al Potenza

      January 20, 2014 at 10:37 pm

      I agree about an investigation. Lack of proof of fraud is not the same as absence of fraud. Mistakes happen too. I think this is far from settled. And then it would be interesting to know if there was really a conspiracy and premeditation/intent. That is not by any means suggested much less proven.

      • Shane D.

        January 21, 2014 at 12:23 am

        Thought you always assumed anything LENR was fraud?

        Following your normal rationale… LENR related, therefore scam, so all involved are crooks, and all who side with the scoundrel are fools. Do I have that right Al?

        I actually read up on this affair some time ago and would have to agree with your apparent baffling turn around, and say yes… this should be investigated further.

        Is this those “2 steps forward” I have awaited since last week? Steps towards believer, therefore redemption when LENR is proven? Showing forensic historians eons hence that you, the hermaphrodite Al/Mary, took a slightly more pragmatic stance then your hero Popeye “the sailor man”?

        • JNewman

          January 21, 2014 at 12:46 am

          It is hard to believe that anyone would hold the view that anything LENR is fraud. There is no doubt that many researchers are quite earnest in their efforts. What is blatantly obvious is that there is a great deal of experimental sloppiness, questionable methodologies and confirmation bias. It appears that the more carefully the work is done, the more likely it is that there will be null results. The fraudsters are those who claim fantastic results and never come close to transparency and sensible methodologies. They are a small subset of the LENR world but they are its most viable face.

          • Shane D.

            January 21, 2014 at 2:21 am

            JN,

            First you attacked popeye for being overly “windy”, now you are stating that not all LENR characters are fraudsters.

            Seems to me that the skeptics are breaking rank… No?

            Understandable I would think in light of the overwhelming metadata and flawless (with perhaps a few exceptions) reason of we believers. Not bragging mind you… as we believers admire modesty above a else, but just the way it is.

          • JNewman

            January 21, 2014 at 3:28 am

            “Overwhelming metadata”. That is just plain sad. Shane, it is pretty pathetic when you take great comfort in hearing that something might not be fraud but simple stupidity and wishful thinking instead. But comfort is comfort, I suppose.

            And for the record, skeptics, by definition, don’t have ranks to break. We actually think for ourselves, Try it sometime.

          • GreenWin

            January 21, 2014 at 1:36 pm

            “We actually think for ourselves.” JN

            Sounds a lot like YOU claim to be thinking (and speaking) for all skeps!

            “And for the record, skeptics, by definition, don’t have ranks to break.”

            Nothing wrong with skeptic ranks. There are a dozen “Skeptic Societies” in the US alone. Including that paramour of truth The Amazing Randi “Educational Foundation.” http://bit.ly/1e9TQkS

            And isn’t Elforsk-Levi validation author Dr. Hanno Essen the former Swedish Skeptic Society Chairman?

          • JNewman

            January 21, 2014 at 1:44 pm

            Some people join societies – Skeptics with a capital S. Other people just like to use knowledge and common sense to form opinions. They are your antithesis, GW.

          • GreenWin

            January 21, 2014 at 8:26 pm

            So by inference the people who join Skeptic societies do not use knowledge and common sense to form opinions?

          • JNewman

            January 21, 2014 at 8:46 pm

            Your capacity to draw improper or unwarranted inferences is legion. In fact, it is pretty much all you do. It really gets boring, you know?

          • popeye

            January 22, 2014 at 10:35 am

            Shane wrote:

            in light of the overwhelming metadata and flawless (with perhaps a few exceptions) reason of we believers.

            Overwhelming metadata and self-perceived reason of true believers accompanied by an almost complete absence of actual evidence,or evidence that never improves or becomes weaker, is characteristic of pathological science and/or frauds and scams.

          • Shane D.

            January 23, 2014 at 12:04 am

            Popeye,

            This is the way I look at it: The early reports were correct in terms of raw power. But like the first raw internal combustion engine or Star Trek Enterprise (1960s vintage); when you start adding accessories (transmission, fuel pumps, power steering, flux capacitors, warp drives, cloaking devices etc.)…

            or in LENRs case, hook the reactor up to the energy transfer medium to make it commercially practical, then the numbers, while less impressive, are nonetheless more impressive in that they account for commercialization.

            At this point you probably think I am sitting in Maui next to our lovable Dale with a bong pipe in hand, but there is something to what I say that believers think about when you claim retrograde results as time goes on.

            Maybe out on a limb here, but why not live on the edge? You always go easy on me anyways. No worry.

          • popeye

            January 23, 2014 at 4:42 am

            Shane wrote:

            This is the way I look at it: The early reports were correct in terms of raw power. But like the first raw internal combustion engine or Star Trek Enterprise (1960s vintage); when you start adding accessories (transmission, fuel pumps, power steering, flux capacitors, warp drives, cloaking devices etc.)…
            or in LENRs case, hook the reactor up to the energy transfer medium to make it commercially practical, then the numbers, while less impressive, are nonetheless more impressive in that they account for commercialization.

            Except that not only did his COP go down, but so did the commercialization readiness. In the early prototypes, he had a working fluid, that could be used to extract the heat. In the later one, it just glowed. That would still need a an energy transfer medium.

            Until the device can power itself, I don’t believe it has any significant commercial potential. If you can’t use the heat to produce the input electricity or whatever, then it’s no better than a heat pump, except possibly a little simpler. And you can’t revolutionize energy with a heat pump. Once it can power itself, then there will be no talk of COP, but only of the output per unit fuel — energy and power density. It’s silly for an inventor to stage a public demo of a prototype before that point has been reached. And yet *all* the free or nearly free energy scams demonstrate exactly that. Because of course, they *can’t* power themselves.

        • popeye

          January 22, 2014 at 10:31 am

          Shane wrote:

          Thought you always assumed anything LENR was fraud? Following your normal rationale… LENR related, therefore scam, so all involved are crooks, and all who side with the scoundrel are fools.

          I don’t believe you thought that was anyone’s rationale. I think you’re being deliberately dishonest for rhetorical purposes.

          I don’t recall any skeptic saying anything like that. You’ve said it before, and it’s been denied. The last time was only a few weeks ago, when I wrote in response:
          _
          “You really don’t pay attention. I don’t recall anyone suggesting that everyone involved in cold fusion is involved in a scam of any kind, fanciful or otherwise. It is highly unlikely that scientists like Storms and Miley and Hagelstein etc are involved in a scam…. They are simply involved in pathological science, for which there are many precedents.”

          And shortly after:

          “You’re mixing up people involved with LENR and people complicit in scams. There are clearly hundreds (maybe thousands) involved in LENR. … It’s the ones suspected of being involved in (and complicit in) scams that constitute a relatively small number …”

          I actually read up on this affair some time ago and … yes… this should be investigated further.

          Krivit loves to sink his teeth into this sort of he said she said dust-up. To me, the outcome of previous or future hearings or inquiries is far less significant scientifically than the fact that *were* hearings, and that there may be more. The same is true of the Bockris tritium controversy.

          Hearings are only needed when questions like this can’t be answered in the laboratory, which is the case when the claimed phenomenon is bogus. If anyone had been able to provide decent evidence for bubble fusion (or tritium in Bockris’s case) after the earliest claims, there would never have been accusations of fraud, or if there had been, they would been answered by careful experiments instead of interminable scrutiny of past events, and what was said between the department secretary and the other faculty members.

          Can you imagine if someone had accused Mueller and Bednorz of fraud when they claimed high temperature superconductivity? They would have simply invited the accuser, or adjudicator, or his charge, to the lab, and they would have said, OK, Yup, it works. Or they could have called up *anyone* else in the field on the planet, and they could have said: Yup, it works, they’re OK. Same thing with Shechtman and quasi-crystals, which were met with considerable skepticism. Any charges of fraud would have looked pretty ridiculous a few years later when *other* labs were making quasi-crystals the size of bowling balls. (In fact, some of the skeptics (including Pauling) do look ridiculous now.)

          Bubble fusion was claimed on the basis of neutron detection, which is sensitive enough to detect at millions or billions of times below any level that might have been practical as an energy source, but still it was a marginal result. So the claim that this research showed potential as an energy source is nonsense to begin with, and would not have been any sort of threat to the hot fusion community or big oil. And in more than a decade since the first results, no other group has legitimate claims of independent reproduction (the experiment using human radiation detectors is not legitimate). Even Taleyarkhan has not made any new claims recently, and in spite of his sanctions, he got considerable funding after the 2008 hearings. One of his rivals (Putterman) clearly had no philosophical objection to small-scale fusion, because he is responsible for much of the excitement about pyroelectric fusion.

          No doubt a lot of nasty things happened in this affair, and I doubt that either side is free of guilt. But regardless of how that all plays out, the chance that the science is legitimate is remote indeed.

          • Shane D.

            January 22, 2014 at 11:29 pm

            Actually Popeye, you may not lump them all together, but Al sure does. By the way, I was responding to Al, and you answered as if I was talking about you.

            So maybe you are back to being Al/MY along with your confessed AKAs Josh Cude and Donald Rangel?

            No, that can’t be because yesterday you told Al he was a dummy when he (Al) ventured into your physics realm. You wouldn’t call yourself a dummy… would you?

            Confusing.

            Oh, almost forgot, I have seen you take more then a few pot shots at all the players here… the commercial players, and LENR scientists alike.

          • popeye

            January 23, 2014 at 5:04 am

            Shane wrote:

            Actually Popeye, you may not lump them all together, but Al sure does. By the way, I was responding to Al, and you answered as if I was talking about you.

            I’m usually identified as the most skeptical here, so I thought my quotes were enough. But what I said was that I don’t recall *any* skeptic saying anything LENR is fraud, and without digging up quotations, I remember Al frequently saying that not only does he not think all LENR researchers are frauds, but that he is far less certain that LENR itself is wrong, than that the likes of Rossi are frauds. So, if you think Al sure lumps them all together, please supply some evidence.

            Oh, almost forgot, I have seen you take more then a few pot shots at all the players here… the commercial players, and LENR scientists alike.

            Sure. But I take potshots at stuff other than fraud. Like bad science.

  34. GreenWin

    January 21, 2014 at 3:00 am

    It is surprising Mary Yugo wants a high profile Congressional investigation into suppression of scientific research. A LOT of skeletons will come out of the closet. Some, like our egomaniacal cartoon sailor, might be best left in Davey Jones’ locker.

    • JKW

      January 21, 2014 at 8:07 pm

      Any news about Terawatt’s magnetic motors you were barking about two years ago, Greenie?

  35. Tony2

    January 21, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    I’ve been away for awhile with a medical problem and I see that the issues are the same here as they were a couple of months ago.

    If you really want a chuckle, go to here:

    http://www.plasmictransitionprocess.com/

    and get a load of John Rohner’s latest. The SEC shuts the guy down and he’s STILL selling shares in a another company., The website looks like the crayon scribblings of a psychotic inmate and the text is just to bad to be true. I get a real kick out of this.

    Tony2

  36. Al Potenza

    January 21, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    Hi Tony2. Then, there is this guy. $500 million give or take. What a case!

    Amazing chutzpah. Worthy of a Madoff Prize.

    ” His company Just Think Media may have been the most successful Internet venture no one had ever heard of: in 2009, with just 20 employees, it earned more than $100 million in revenue. Few entrepreneurs, past or present, have ever built such a lucrative company so young. Not even Mark Zuckerberg could match the achievement; in 2006, the year he turned 22, Facebook reportedly grossed just $48 million. Basking in the neon radiance of Vegas, his eyes steely and sure, Willms looked like a triumphant mogul poised for greater triumphs yet.

    But though this trip was routine by Willms’s standards, anyone familiar with his affairs likely would have been amazed that he had the nerve to take it at all. Even as he and his friends struck cocky poses and fanned stacks of cash at each other’s cameras, Willms knew that he was the subject of an exhaustive investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. And what this investigation would determine, essentially, was whether Willms, the white-hot e-commerce whiz, was actually one of the most egregious scammers in the history of the Internet.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/01/the-dark-lord-of-the-internet/355726/

  37. GreenWin

    January 21, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    Okay fellas, I have a candidate for the Forbes Fraud of the Century Prize (competing with AGW.) The nuclear fission industry:

    “Denjiren (the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan) has been telling a pack of lies,” he began. “When experts say nuclear power generation is safe and doesn’t cost much and this is the only way to go if we want to stop relying on coal, well, we believe them. But they’ve been lying to us for years.” Former Prime Minister of Japan, Junichiro Koizumi 1/12/2014

    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/column/AJ201401120009

    • JKW

      January 21, 2014 at 9:19 pm

      • GreenWin

        January 21, 2014 at 10:42 pm

        JK, I answered you last inquiry. Did you see it?

        • JKW

          January 23, 2014 at 3:44 am

          Yes, you “answered” but I assumed you were under influence. “Tera” does kind of sound like “terror”. I don’t think the trusted board of trustees have anything to do with terror (or anti) , though. Not even with fraud. Most had no idea they were bamboozled and manipulated,. Just like you.
          Good luck with free LENR energy flow. It doesn’t cost a dime. Is it IGZ 2015 now or am I too optimistic?

    • JNewman

      January 21, 2014 at 9:39 pm

      A list of 200 scientific organizations around the world that hold the position that AGW is what is going on with our climate. Thousands and thousands of climate scientists – approximately 97% of all of those who have expressed an opinion on the subject.

      However, GW, who considers Levi and the 6 nonentities to be unimpeachable experts on nuclear science, thinks it is all a hoax. It is certainly great to get his insights on important matters. Hoo boy!

  38. GreenWin

    January 22, 2014 at 12:34 am

    Now JN, don’t put words in my mouth. Just follow that Lazy Ole Sun…

    “‘Whatever measure you use, solar peaks are coming down,’ Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire told the BBC.

    ‘I’ve been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I’ve never seen anything like this.'”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html

    Brrrr.

    • JNewman

      January 22, 2014 at 12:44 am

      GW, so what? Also, it is very cold tonight where I live, so global warming is over, right?

      I’m sure you can find lots of other articles predicting the next ice age, the snowpocalypse, and anything else that you somehow see as evidence for your position. Personally, I look at decades of data and the work of thousands of scientists and am going to side with them. We’ll just have to see what old Sol does for the next couple of years, even if the Daily Mail predicts that the Thames will turn into an ice skating rink.

      And like everything else you post, it doesn’t even support your position. It is tangential, as always. But carry on. That’s what you do. And don’t forget to keep up the smirking. It so becomes you.

  39. Al Potenza

    January 22, 2014 at 1:30 am

    Rossi is hilarious. Typical of his classic *bad* con man output is this:

    “Dear Andrea Rossi,

    A while back, you have reported that you were putting up a robotized production facility for your reactors. Could you tell us if this project is meanwhile completed, so that you could start production soon after the testing and validation program is finished?

    Best regards,
    Andreas Moraitis”

    So does Rossi say no it’s not completed but it’s half done… or does he say something like we planned to do it but it’s been delayed because of yadayadayada? Nope. Instead he says this:

    “Andrea Moraitis:
    It does not depend on me
    Warm Regards
    A.R.”

    An absolute contentless meaningless evasion. Honest people don’t respond like that to absolutely legitimate questions, do they, Ransom?

    Rossi had this to say about Wright (ROTFWL!):


    Andrea Rossi
    September 13th, 2012 at 1:45 AM

    Dear Giuseppe B.:
    Mr “Gary Wright” ( a false name that the coward snake – The Snake- is using for cowardice) has contacted SGS in an unproper way and has put an unproper question.
    So he published on his newbogusenergybricolage that we do not have a SGS certificate. This is the evidence, as if there was any necessity, that when the Snake ( or, better, the puppet Snake) writes, he usually publishes a falsity.
    Within hours you will find our Voluntary Safety Certificate.
    So you will see who is that says the truth and who is that has an agenda.
    Now we are very close to make a plant able to make power, and the puppeteers are trying all they can to discredit us: this is why I am caring not too much of the mumbojumbo growing up around and focus on the factory where we are making the real work. But from the violence of the attacs you can read the fear they have of the fact that we are making it. Not to mention the blackmails and the threats I am receiving on dayly scale. Just let me work and we’ll see.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

    *
    Rossi seems convinced that Gary is Steve Krivit (again ROTFWL!).

    “I received some emails asking what can I say of a site of a guy who says his name is Gary Wright, who is an appassionate attacker of the work of mine and of our employees: as most of you know, we have very good intelligence, for obvious reasons, therefore here is the information:
    Gary Wright is not a person, it is a pseudonym of….THE SNAKE !!!!
    This coward knows that we are preparing a suit for him, therefore has invented the pseudonym Gary Wright to continue his work, which consists in getting money in change of the attempt to discredit out work. If you search Gary Wright, you will easily discover this, as our intelligence friends did. He is paid full time to discredit our work because his puppeteers are strongly worried about our work.
    And they are right. Their mistake has been to pay an imbecile like this: there are around much better puppet-snakes. For a fee I could suggest tens of them.
    Andrea Rossi”

    I’m speechless. I can’t stop laughing at Rossi.

    • Ransompw

      January 22, 2014 at 2:30 am

      Al:

      People in his position say even less, they don’t announce plans on the internet. And if they do, they act like NFL coaches before the NFL draft and lie through their teeth. ROSSI only needs to be truthful to someone he takes money from. Now if you have given him money, you are entitled to the straight scoop.

      • Al Potenza

        January 22, 2014 at 5:48 pm

        Hey what do I know? I am just another paid, puppet clown snake.

        • GreenWin

          January 22, 2014 at 6:18 pm

          Al, true but don’t take it personally!

    • Tony2

      January 22, 2014 at 7:28 pm

      Al,

      Alright! The Snake is back! I love when AR dips into this particular scene. Clowns – snakes – puppet snakes. Too good to be true. But it is.

      Tony2

      • Al Potenza

        January 22, 2014 at 8:21 pm

        At least Rossi is very funny. Unless you’re one of the poor schmoes who gave him money.

  40. Dale G. Basgall

    January 22, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    This link was sent to me by someone I respect, Jack @ LENR-Cold Fusion and he sent it to me because I have been pushing the DC electricity thing in home appliances as well as building an egg cooker from a jar and a wire and adding battery power. It’s because jungle life finds grid electricity non reliable and not consistent in frequency. Anyway I watched it and am commenting directly from that.

    http://pesn.com/2014/01/20/9602425_Randell-Mills_explains_upcoming-Blacklight-power-demo/

    Blacklight Demo

    Wednesday, January 22, 2014
    3:22 AM

    1) Statement on introduction using the word “imagine” several times exhibiting possibilities to think about.

    2) New type power source using water converted to new type of Hydrogen.

    3) 10 megawatts per liter of water claimed.

    4) Specifications in detail on gears and fuel input with relation to high plasma output.

    5) Converts plasma back to electricity.

    6) Power control system claimed input not detailed, laser, motor, plasma generation.

    7) Power output instantly produced.

    8) All appliances using DC and have self powering possibilities, projection of what could exist and come from the technology, everything going DC.

    9) Claiming nothing else on planet is close to producing the amount of energy “electrical” that Blacklight prototype is supposed to.

    10) Dark matter claims, regarding what is producing electricity in the Blacklight anticipated product.

    11) Predictions project more stable form of Hydrogen, H2O converted 100 times more than high octane gasoline.

    12) Millions of watts of power “electrical” produced by fraction of grams of fuel.

    13) Off the shelf components and to be demonstrated on the 28th of January 2014.

    14) Power supplies and components all purchased off the shelf.

    15) Complete to a point no more engineering is needed.

    16) Claiming a magneto hydro dynamic system powered by laser’s. claiming engineers are now working on that.

    18) 90% conversion efficiency, power density, should be going to electricity claimed at time 16:45 and “possibly” is the term used.

    19) Claiming DC electrical energy 10 $ per Kw/hr cheap.

    20) Time to commercial product never addressed @ 18:45 question worded around and never answered.

    21) We are “going” to get it going and anticipated power production, no product at this time.

    My ending comment is that; there were no claims or specification on input power to the device anticipated. They are not demonstrating the device just supportive paperwork. The logic seems skewed where megawatts produced but no claims at what rate just the possible high energy density.

    To say it’s using the gears to compress fuel to produce steam is missing a hydraulic conversion of 746 watts produce 1 horsepower and one horsepower produces a flow rate of 1 GPM @ 1500 psi back pressure. The energy to keep that moving and also power the lasers producing plasma is not declared. I like the concept and saw some type of cool looking reactor with nice machine work but it appeared to be a Navy device.

    My take on this is power management in that size of device seems realistically more anticipated as well as the electrical power claims of 10 Mw output. Maybe 10 Meg after 10 years of operation but the claims are really fascinating.

    • Al Potenza

      January 22, 2014 at 5:46 pm

      Hey Dale, if you generate megawatts “in volume” inside a tiny chamber, how do you cool it so that it doesn’t melt? Mills silly computer graphics don’t even have a cooling system. NONE AT ALL. IMO, it’s all pure fancy.

      I don’t what Mill’s game is now but in the past, he promised all sorts of machines and deals with huge companies. Not a single one of his promises happened. I’m sure for Ransom, that proves he’s real. He’s just a smart businessman and he doesn’t want to reveal his intellectual property too soon. That’s been true, with Mills, for more than TWENTY F’N YEARS. And people still give him lots of money. How does THAT work?

      • GreenWin

        January 22, 2014 at 6:23 pm

        Er, military black program sales??

        • Al Potenza

          January 22, 2014 at 9:17 pm

          I don’t think so. They’re spending too much money on invisible unicorns. Much more potential.

          BTW, GW, any idea how Mills removes megawatts of heat from a tiny reaction cell? Maybe he invented a whole new physics of heat transfer too? Maybe he sends all the excess heat to some alternative universe? Dumps it into dark matter? Converts it to a tachyon stream? Makes a lot of cups of tea?

          • JNewman

            January 22, 2014 at 9:57 pm

            It isn’t that amazing that believers think some these energy scams are real. What is amazing is that they think ALL of them are real.

            Of course, the discerning believer only thinks that the LENR scams are real. But that is not much of a constraint since pretty much anything qualifies as LENR (Blacklight, for example) as long as somebody somewhere says so.

          • Shane D.

            January 22, 2014 at 11:03 pm

            JN,

            I’m drawing the line with BLP. Too many fantastical statements from Mills. Odd for a believer to say: “it sounds too good to be true”, but dang, he sounds exactly that. He even supposedly solved the mystery of the missing dark matter.

            That said, Mills has actually gone further publicly in delivering quality, and quantity, of validation tests then all the others combined. Out of respect for that I will refrain from criticism til his demo. Never know… he might really surprise us. At the least he did say we can expect a “boom”, and how us believers like that kind of stuff. If it’s loud enough… I’m in!

            But on the chance the 28th turns out a dud, then thank goodness we always have our dependable stalwarts such as Rossi, DGT, and Brillouin to deliver the goods. For sure.

          • GreenWin

            January 23, 2014 at 12:17 am

            JN says: “It isn’t that amazing that believers think some these energy scams are real.”

            Indeed. For example, those who believe fission is real safe, and… secure. But evidence from Fukushima keeps decimating those claims.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/10585863/New-radioactive-water-leak-discovered-at-Fukushima-plant.html

            “When experts say nuclear power generation is safe and doesn’t cost much and this is the only way to go if we want to stop relying on coal, well, we believe them. But they’ve been lying to us for years. Former Prime Minister of Japan, (and nuke believer) Junichiro Koizumi 1/12/2014

          • GreenWin

            January 23, 2014 at 4:12 am

            Mary, to edify you; unicorns are not “invisible” unless perhaps Mills has developed a practical invisibility cloak ala Harry Potter. Hey, DARPA is deep into invisibility:

            http://www.nature.com/news/temporal-cloak-erases-data-from-history-1.13141

            Speaking of time cloaks, IGZ-2014 (boffo non-terrestrial entertainment) has many requests to see Al Pretenza attempt the shark swim. Pays double scale Al – and maybe a scholarship back to divinity school!

          • popeye

            January 23, 2014 at 4:37 am

            GW wrote:

            For example, those who believe fission is real safe, and… secure. But evidence from Fukushima keeps decimating those claims.

            The opposite is true. Fukushima showed that a nuclear plant gone horribly wrong kills fewer people than a coal plant operating according to design.

            The casualties of Fukushima are the people who will die as a result of all the extra coal that had to burned to make up the electricity of all the nuclear plants they shut down.

            Coal kills between 200 and 1000 people per GW-year. Nuclear kills about 1 – 10 per GW/year.

            Nuclear is scarier though, for a lot of people.

          • popeye

            January 23, 2014 at 5:03 am

            Shane wrote:

            I’m drawing the line with BLP. Too many fantastical statements from Mills. Odd for a believer to say: “it sounds too good to be true”, but dang, he sounds exactly that. He even supposedly solved the mystery of the missing dark matter.

            So, it comes down to your perception of what is too fantastical. That’s the same reason most physicists give for being skeptical of cold fusion, and they have a much better handle on what really is fantastical.

            That said, Mills has actually gone further publicly in delivering quality, and quantity, of validation tests then all the others combined. Out of respect for that I will refrain from criticism til his demo. Never know… he might really surprise us. […] But on the chance the 28th turns out a dud, then thank goodness we always have our dependable stalwarts such as Rossi, DGT, and Brillouin to deliver the goods.

            If it is a bust though, you have to agree that what you said about Mills having the best validation is going to put big holes in the argument that the others’ validations prove anything.

          • GreenWin

            January 24, 2014 at 5:55 am

            Further evidence that Popee’s programming is deeply corrupt. And ignorant of the refugee status of some 150k Japanese who have to send their children to schools where radiation levels exceed even the 10X level Japan now says is “safe.”

            Japan, and its deeply corrupt nuclear village rather than admit the imminent danger to its citizens… Moved goal posts. Saying before Fukushima X radiation level is extremely dangerous. AFTER Fukushima, well, 10X previous limit is dangerous.

            Flawed robots and their “logical” algorithms are dangerous to human beings.

          • popeye

            January 24, 2014 at 11:16 am

            The effects of low level radiation are not easily measured, and not well known. There is evidence for a radiation hormesis effect, but the linear, no-threshold hypothesis is adopted to be conservative, and on that basis, any radiation is dangerous, and so often the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) policy is followed. But “allowable” safe standards from artificial sources (not including medical) are often ridiculously conservative, well below average background levels. If you live in Denver, the background is 10X the recommended safe level; airline workers get even higher doses, and if you live in Ramsar, Iran, the background is 260 above the recommended safe level. Smoking gives you 30X the recommended *radiation* dose, and most people don’t even know radiation is involved. In any case, estimated deaths from 10X the previous safe level are in the noise, and far below the well-understood deaths caused by burning coal.

      • Dale G. Basgall

        January 23, 2014 at 6:04 am

        Al your reply ” if you generate megawatts “in volume” inside a tiny chamber, how do you cool it so that it doesn’t melt?”

        A) with some type of fluid that flows at a rate to remove heat from “the chamber” generating the exchange in energy.

        Al reply ” And people still give him lots of money. How does THAT work? ”

        A) There are people out in the general population that want to promote energy that reduces our need to burn the fossil fuels. Some don’t care if it works now but will fund large amounts of money into the accounts of those willing to step out and do research to find out if it can be done. So what someone does with a history of making things work is to make feature claims of a method to produce energy that no one really has accomplished and make claims that they are willing to continue to develop that. Also the developer needs to be credible to a point that what is contended seems to be a possibility for the investor. It takes just one person with deep pockets (100’s of millions) to push research.

        Inventors and design engineers are usually poor people that invent ways of producing cash to flow from their ideas. Otherwise if they had money they would be spending it instead of trying to invent ways to produce a cash flow for developing ideas like power generation in a new way.

        Thermodynamics is what you cannot work around no matter what you claim, so your first question should be an easy one to see if there is no cooling they are claiming to over run the current accepted fundamentals of energy production as well as known physical experiences from many others.

  41. Jordi Heguilor

    January 22, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    OFF TOPIC

    I hope that I´m not encouraging GreenWin, but I feel this perverse pleasure when a long held skeptic belief of mine bites the dust:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25811460

  42. GreenWin

    January 22, 2014 at 6:15 pm

    More from the repugnant Purdue “Bubblegate” affair and the “Yuri Geller FUD Script.”

    “Two days later, on March 4, Suslick e-mailed his comments about the DARPA visit to Putterman, Coblenz at DARPA, and Schmidt at the Office of Naval Research.

    ‘Rusi’s performance at Purdue was a farce on par with a Uri Geller spoon-bending act,’ Suslick wrote. ‘I’m not quite decided whether Rusi is also just fooling himself or has actually crossed the line into fraud. I strongly suspect the latter, but only because I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not a complete moron.’

    Suslick continued with a laundry list of complaints, and insinuations of fraud, and data mishandling, concluding with his recommendation for DARPA.”

    We’ve seen the skeps “Geller FUD Script” used against Rossi by Mary Yugo’s pseudonyms, the Muskepteers, Milstone, Josh Cude, Jetmech, Pretenza, etc etc.

    Kirvit reports that Office of Naval Research Inspector General Holly Adams was stripped of her clearance and position. According to Purdue Nuclear Engineering Dept employee Erica Timmerman’s sworn affidavit:

    “The Tsoukalas group or hate group is also referred sometimes by those of us that know them, as the “Mafia.” Tsoukalas’ group truly operates like a mafia.”

    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2014/01/20/federal-investigations-reveal-academic-backstabbing-at-purdue-university-part-7/

    • Al Potenza

      January 22, 2014 at 8:19 pm

      Yeah, well I know nothing about Taleyarkhan except what I read in Wikepedia and that is not encouraging.

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

      I do know for sure that Rossi is as FOS as an overflowing sewer and that Nanospire’s claims to radiation injury from their experiments with sonofusion are unsubstantiated and totally un-credible. When I argued with one of them (forget which) in a Forbes article comment string, he was totally incoherent and nonsensical. I don’t believe a word they say. To my view and from arguments like those, the guys seemed both insane and fraudulent. I got the same vibes from Nanospire’s claims that I get from Rohner’s.

      Backstabbing happens a lot in academia. In this particular case, I have no idea who is correct.

      One interesting aspect of it is that there doesn’t seem to be much about sonofusion since around 2008. If it’s the cat’s meow, that seems strange.

      • Shane D.

        January 22, 2014 at 11:15 pm

        Al,

        I remember that exchange you had with LeClair and do recall also that his partner Sergi joined in. Believe it was on Sterlings site.

        Anyways, they were both very immature. Lost a lot of respect for them, but I gave them some slack since they were both still recovering from a second bout of radiation poisoning.

        Hmmm… come to think of it Al, have you been playing with a cavitation cell recently? If so, that may explain some things.

        OK the last was fun… like I said LeClair and his Russian partner didn’t come off very well in that exchange with you.

      • GreenWin

        January 23, 2014 at 12:22 am

        One of the Bubblegate conspirators Suslick still runs a sonofusion lab out of University Illinois. He also builds artificial noses. Whaddaguy!

        • popeye

          January 23, 2014 at 4:34 am

          GW wrote:

          One of the Bubblegate conspirators Suslick still runs a sonofusion lab out of University Illinois.

          He’s got an impressive record, for sure. But it’s a sonoluminescence lab. He has made no claims of observing fusion, although he has tried.

          In 2007 he reported an upper limit on neutron detection 10,000 times below the level claimed by Taleyarkhan. In 2010 he reports observation of a plasma and efforts to measure its characteristics.

          Incidentally, the field is not cold fusion, and has no connection to claims of nuclear reactions in metal hydrides at ordinary conditions. Some simulations of the cavitation have predicted that sufficiently high pressures could be attained in the bubble to initiate ordinary (hot) D-D fusion, with commensurate neutron emission. Therefore, successful observation of neutrons would not contradict any “dearly held physics prejudices”, the way cold fusion would, and so the suppression based on scientific inertia would not apply here. As such, fusion may someday be observed in collapsing bubbles, but unless the experiment is the same as Taleyarkhan’s, it will not likely be viewed as vindication for him.

          It seems pretty unlikely Taleyarkhan’s results are right, given the failure of others to reproduce in similar experiments. But if he did observe fusion, and his competitors succeeded in suppressing it, that’s both egregious and extremely impressive. It would be hard to make sure no one else on the planet tries the same experiment, and incriminating if someone did.

  43. GreenWin

    January 23, 2014 at 2:22 am

    Popee Caught Lying (Worse than “robotic factory”)

    The quarterback for the Muskepteers is ostensibly Mr. Popee, aka Joshua Cude, Donald Rangle, Jetmech, MY etc. He uses many pseudonyms, apparently insecure a single voice is sufficiently grand.

    Popee recently quoted me writing about the Purdue Bubblegate scandal. Popee replied:

    January 22, 2014 at 10:26 am

    GW wrote:

    “Yet, after several years of extensive and costly federally mandated investigations, no evidence of fraud was found.”

    “Taleyarkhan was found guilty of the two research misconduct charges, […] Purdue removed Taleyarkhan’s endowed professorship, reduced his salary, and limited his duties with students.”
    _______________________________________

    1) GreenWin (GW) did NOT write any of the quoted content and Popee knows it. GW quoted from the recently published New Energy Times expose titled “Federal Investigations Reveal Academic Backstabbing at Purdue University.” 1/20/2014

    2) Popee knowingly edited the second unattributed quote out of context; with intent that it appear a valid and truthful rebuttal.

    3) Popee commits [a] editorial malfeasance, [b] a premeditated lie with intent to misdirect, [c] a failure to cite originating source, [d] irreversible embarrassment to fellow Muskepteers! (This is by far the worst)

    Popee’s unattributed quotes belong to S. Krivit, Editor New Energy Times, of which the second in full context is:

    “On that day, Purdue issued a press release, saying that Taleyarkhan was found guilty of the two research misconduct charges, and it published the full investigation report.”

    Why did Popee lie? Compulsive dishonesty? Moral and ethical failure? Intent to impugn Taleyarkhan? Or did Popee like some scientists, want to take credit for another person’s (Krivit’s) work? Who knows. Who cares. He’s a liar; (far worse than the robotic factory.)

    That’s unsportsmanlike conduct warranting ejection from the game, Popee. 🙂

    • popeye

      January 23, 2014 at 4:31 am

      GW wrote:

      Popee Caught Lying…
      […]
      1) GreenWin (GW) did NOT write any of the quoted content and Popee knows it. GW quoted from the recently published New Energy Times expose titled “Federal Investigations Reveal Academic Backstabbing at Purdue University.” 1/20/2014

      You’re reaching GW. In bold face. There is no dishonesty, except yours.

      Mine was a nested quote. You know how that works, right? You quoted someone. I quoted you quoting someone. The marks are there. And it appeared almost directly below your post, so there could be no confusion. Anyone curious as to attribution can scroll back about 20 lines and see it. Not that it makes any difference.

      2) Popee knowingly edited the second unattributed quote out of context; with intent that it appear a valid and truthful rebuttal.

      It was in quotes, and it came from the *same* document. I was appending some information from the same article, to put your quote in better context. My elisions did not change any meaning whatsoever. I’m trying out that brevity thing, don’t ya know.

      But your leaving out the part of his being found guilty of academic misconduct and being reprimanded *was* misleading and dishonest. I was just trying to help you out.

      Why did Popee lie?

      He didn’t.

      Intent to impugn Taleyarkhan?

      Well, he *was* found guilty of academic misconduct. My intention was to express that truth, which you had dishonestly omitted, suggesting with your out of context quote that he had been fully exonerated.

      That’s unsportsmanlike conduct …

      At least I didn’t blatantly misquote Shakespeare, attempting to besmirch the good name of a sailor.

      • GreenWin

        January 23, 2014 at 8:30 am

        Popee Weasels, Denies He Lied! Thereby Admits to Ethical, Grammatical Ig’nance! (News Now!)

        Mr. Popee (admitted pseudonym for pathological skepticism) and his tiny band of misbegotten Muskepteers (well, JNewman) raced to deny evidence Popee is lying just two hours after the accusation hit the internet. Apparently the meister of “proper protocol” is a hypocrite. And liar.

        It is very simple Popee. Argumentation based on another person’s research and documentation requires “proper” attribution. You knowingly FAILED to provide said attribution with intent to deceive. You ARE a LIAR. The evidence is clear, hard, infallible. We shall now disregard each and every statement from you, just as we would that of a paid snitch or Basgallian rat.

        If you are now or ever have been a “sailor” as you claim… Navy has every reason to send you to the brig, for life. Shame Popee, shame!
        Not to mention the shame heaped upon your fellows! (That’s the worst part Popee…)

        • popeye

          January 23, 2014 at 10:37 am

          GW wrote:

          It is very simple Popee. Argumentation based on another person’s research and documentation requires “proper” attribution. You knowingly FAILED to provide said attribution with intent to deceive.

          You’re losing it, GW. There was no deception, and the attribution was obvious, and scarcely relevant. The only deception was on your part, first for leaving out the important point that Taleyarkhan was found guilty of misconduct, thereby implying he was exonerated, and second, for suggesting that I lied, when I am in fact scrupulously honest, and algorithmically incapable of deliberate untruth.

          As for leaving out attribution in this forum, it’s pretty common. Like when you wrote:

          “Popee was a mentally ill, sociopathic con man. Nothing else.”
          You left out schizoid. Have a great day gents!!

          You did not attribute that quotation to Al. And you deliberately changed it from Papp to Popee. That’s OK, because it appeared below Al’s post, so the change and attribution were pretty obvious.

          You also wrote:

          Shane, JNewman and Mary (in all her personae) struggle with denial. Sort of like a substance abuser, the more LENR is accepted, the shriller their denial.
          “Cognitive dissonance can occur in many areas of life, but it is particularly evident in situations where an individual’s understanding conflicts with beliefs that are integral to his or her self-identity.”
          Have pity.

          Here there was no attribution implied or otherwise. Not that it was particularly relevant.

          And as referred to above, you wrote:

          “Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your sailor is mad” Hamlet

          This is an incomplete attribution, implying Hamlet said those words, when they were spoken by Polonius in Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

          And of course, you changed “noble son” to “sailor”, making it a lie. Technically.

          GW, take a deep breath. You’re desperately trying to win some kind of technical point here, but you’ve forgotten the context of an informal discussion in an obscure internet forum, which you presumably use to excuse your own omissions of attribution, and deliberate misquotations.

          Not only are you losing the technical point, but you’ve lost the spirit of the exchange as well. My quotation exposed the simple truth that T had been found guilty, and communicated nothing untrue. Your omission gave the false impression that he had been cleared.

          We shall now disregard each and every statement from you,

          Gee, and just a little while ago you said people were already doing that. But you won’t disregard what I write. You can’t.

    • Bigwillyjohnson

      January 23, 2014 at 4:39 am

      Man I love these bulletins! Popeye caught lying! More at 10! Also, local water smells bad, wop found defecating in water system.

      • Dale G. Basgall

        January 23, 2014 at 6:34 am

        Big Willie J you hit the nerve from hell in your post there about the water system.

        I moved to a remote location in Hawaii and when I got a chance to shower the pressure was not to great, about a dribble and I asked the owner what’s up? Coffee was made and dinner was cooked using the water.

        Next day I found out that most all had been using a water catchment system from the roofs of houses. It rains, the water comes off the roof and fills the water tank used for drinking and cleaning. Well the next morning while the owner was taking a shower the water again slowed down so he went out and there in the bottom of the water tank and stuck in the outlet tube (gravity) had a dead defecated rat that had been on the roof and fell into the drinking water tank. I drank that water and showered in the rat infested stuff. Talk about ruining your appetite.

        When I read that post of yours I couldn’t help but to think of this true story. If there was a moral to learn it was make sure you know where the water your drinking is coming from.

      • GreenWin

        January 23, 2014 at 9:31 am

        BWJ I know you’re new here but… ““…wop found defecating in water system?”

        The expression “wop” has long been a derogatory reference to Italian immigrants – equivalent to calling an African, a “nigger.” This is immediately racist Willy. Meaning YOU are a racist.

        Straighten up Willy. This is not funny.

        • popeye

          January 23, 2014 at 10:44 am

          The expression “wop” has long been a derogatory reference to Italian immigrants – equivalent to calling an African, a “nigger.”

          Are you familiar with American history, GW? ‘Cause if you are, you know those references are hardly equivalent.

  44. JNewman

    January 23, 2014 at 4:53 am

    Boy I hope Rossi does something interesting soon. Listening to people squabble about the provenance of GW’s irrelevant rants is almost too much to bear. We don’t even have Ransom around to explain that there is absolutely no proof that unicorns can’t fly. Dull days indeed.

    • GreenWin

      January 23, 2014 at 9:25 am

      Hardly JN, now is the time to defend your misbegotten fellow, Popee, aka Wrangle, Joshua Cude, Lying Traitor, whatever you treacherous types choose to hide behind.

      Only the scum of the Earth betrays their sacred vows, JN. Think about it.

      • popeye

        January 23, 2014 at 10:48 am

        Sheesh, GW. Talk about humorless! Next thing we know, you’ll sink back to calling everyone fucking assholes, and then your handlers will impose another month-long moratorium on your posting here. So shape up. We missed you the last time.

      • JNewman

        January 23, 2014 at 1:32 pm

        I keep thinking there is a point to your posts, GW, but what it is still has not occurred to me.

    • Al Potenza

      January 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm

      Actually only pink invisible unicorns can fly and only they can make overunity power generation with their wings. I know this from personal research. I have some living in my garage. I’d show them to you but they’re… well … invisible.

      If you doubt me, ask Ransom. He will tell you that you have not proven that my unicorns are fakes.

      • Ransompw

        January 23, 2014 at 4:44 pm

        And only Al can post something this ridiculous. Makes you wonder what dream world he lives in.

      • JNewman

        January 23, 2014 at 5:09 pm

        I knew mentioning flying unicorns would bring Ransom back. I think he is still optimistic about them.

        • Ransompw

          January 23, 2014 at 9:12 pm

          Only if you were riding one.

          • Al Potenza

            January 24, 2014 at 8:01 pm

            Well, they’re invisible. So how would you know? Would you believe it if some Swedish scientists agreed?

  45. Jordi Heguilor

    January 23, 2014 at 11:02 am

    Hey, GreenWin, how do you feel about blackmail?

    • GreenWin

      January 23, 2014 at 9:30 pm

      Ize wid Willie on dat Jord.

      • Jordi Heguilor

        January 24, 2014 at 9:46 am

        For those who don´t remember, the impeccably moral GreenWin tried to silence me by threatening to “out me” because I had made donations to Erowid.org, a site that provides unbiased information about psychoactive substances.

        See, GreenWin, even as a blackmailer you are a failure.

      • BigWillyJohnson

        January 24, 2014 at 4:14 pm

        Is drug use really a negative on an obscure, cold fusion blog??

        • GreenWin

          January 24, 2014 at 9:11 pm

          Heyyyy, come on offit guys! We all do drugs a some kind right? Say Willie likes blow, Jord likes the shrooms, Newman prolly drinks like five cups of caffein every day. A little weed here an there don’t actually hurt no one. Even robopopee prolly needs some DC every day!

          An hey, who reads this crappy facepage? Not like its Gran Central ro sumthing.

  46. Al Potenza

    January 23, 2014 at 4:40 pm

    “Al,

    I remember that exchange you had with LeClair and do recall also that his partner Sergi joined in. Believe it was on Sterlings site.

    Anyways, they were both very immature. “
    *
    *
    Oh, they’re more than “immature”. Well, don’t let little old me tell you. Let this guy who is not anonymous:

    “I am truly sorry to see that you have wasted any of your time and effort on the Nanospire nonsense. The unfortunate truth is that Mark LeClair is both profoundly ignorant and delusional in his belief that he can cause thermonuclear fusion and make “any element in the periodic table” from plain water by cavitation. The simple fact is that this is physically impossible. Even Jesus only turned water into wine.

    The physics of thermonuclear fusion and element formation are far beyond the capabilities of Mr. LeClair’s system and his comprehension. He provides a textbook example of grandiose delusional disorder as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). He really should be seeking professional psychiatric help, not investors.

    His ideas are simply preposterous, and common sense alone would suffice to disprove them. His reluctance to submit his claims to the peer review process is one obvious example. I actually have a copy of one of his presentations, and I decided to help him out by sending it to the Chairman of the Physics Department at the University of Maine, a professor of materials science at Penn State, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Missouri (affiliated with the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance), and the Chairman of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Department at the University of California. Suffice it to say that they all found Mr. LeClair’s ideas to be both ridiculous and hilarious.

    There is no ionizing radiation or radioactivity associated with Mr. LeClair’s ludicrous and nonexistent “LeClair Effect.” He is basically using a 0.5-hp pump to direct plain water at an aluminum plate. If you are familiar with bass fishing tournaments, you may know that bass boats use 250-hp motors (500 times more powerful than Mr. LeClair’s pump). Each motor is equipped with a “cavitation plate.” So you can imagine that, if Mr. LeClair were correct, the entire lake would explode when over 100 bass boats take off at full power during a tournament, and of course all the participants who did not die in the blast would die of radiation exposure.

    I have reviewed Mr. LeClair’s “results” and his products are small fragments of commonly available materials like brass and carbon steel. These are probably detritus from the internals of his system that were produced by cavitation erosion, a well-understood process. Even assuming that “elements” formed from plain water, it would truly be a miracle for them to spontaneously organize themselves into commercially available alloys, don’t you think? Also, if these elements were recently formed by thermonuclear fusion, they would be highly radioactive and would have isotopic distributions (e.g., C14 to C12 ratio, K40 to K39 ratio, etc.) that would be significantly different from present-day materials. His ridiculous claims of “radiation sickness” are indicative of his mental disorder. His “we will never give up the fight” attitude is not science, but rather the same kind of fanaticism that enabled Jim Jones to get all those people to drink that Kool-Aid.

    I have a Ph.D. in nuclear and chemical engineering and over 35 years of experience in commercial and Naval nuclear power. I worked on ADM Rickover’s staff at Naval Reactors in the radiation protection branch from 1975 to 1980. I have taken over 50 courses in chemical and nuclear engineering, radiation protection, materials science, fluid mechanics, and chemistry/physics. So who are you going to believe, LeClair or five engineering/science Ph.D.s?

    If you still have any doubts whatsoever, I would be pleased to arrange for Mr. LeClair to give his presentation to the physics department faculty at the University of Maine. If even one faculty member supports his ideas, I will personally pay him one million dollars. If as I suspect they conclude that he is nuts, then he has to submit to a psychiatric evaluation at his own expense.

    Best regards,

    Fred Zoepfl, Ph.D.,
    Vice President, Technical Programs
    Systems Technology, Inc. (STI)
    14925 Bogle Drive
    Chantilly, VA 20151 USA”

    From Gibbs’ now defunct Forbes blog.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/08/04/the-state-of-the-cold-fusion-market/2/

    • Dale G. Basgall

      January 23, 2014 at 5:40 pm

      Al that’s a great post, could someone do that type of evaluation on the claims of Rossi?

      • JNewman

        January 23, 2014 at 6:18 pm

        It wouldn’t matter. According to believers, there are two kinds of scientists: those who are bamboozled by Rossi (good scientists) and those who think he is full of it (bad scientists). So a careful analysis would fall on deaf ears.

  47. GreenWin

    January 23, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Well fellas,

    Popee’s behavior sinks to new lows. He not only lied about Bubblegate – a scandal affecting government, major academic institutions, and intellectual freedom; he now defends Willy’s hate speech(speech or writing that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of one or more characteristics e.g. race, gender, or sexual orientation.)

    Further, Popee fails to distinguish parody (a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing) from his intentional deception. A nuance alien to some.

    Shame on bro? Willy. Shame on treacherous Muskepteers. Shame on JNewman for… Just being JNewman. You dishonor your service. 🙁

    • JNewman

      January 23, 2014 at 5:10 pm

      GW, given your judgement about… well, pretty much everything, your comment about me makes me pretty happy. Thanks!

      • GreenWin

        January 24, 2014 at 5:33 am

        No prolemm JN. Say, whaddaya think weze putta end to the Rossick Andrea prolemm?? Tony2 knowz a guy… Yeah itz gonna cost. Butt, we pull outta fuggin torn inna side dis guy gives, right?

        Me an Willy iz talkin abouddit. I wanna count onna you JN. Think like itz doin us all a favah!

        • popeye

          January 24, 2014 at 11:19 am

          My mistake. You are not just culturally numb. You’re a bigot, parody or not. And you have a tin ear for humor.

    • popeye

      January 24, 2014 at 11:09 am

      GW wrote:

      Popee’s behavior sinks to new lows.

      I knew you couldn’t resist me, even though you said you would. Now, what do you call it when you say something that’s not true? Hmmm.

      He not only lied about Bubblegate

      You say that, but for all your posturing, you have not identified a lie. What I said was true.

      he now defends Willy’s hate speech

      In my experience big willies have minds of their own. No, what I was doing was trying to protect you. Because it’s dangerous for someone to be so culturally numb as to think “wop” and “nigger” are in the same league.

      Further, Popee fails to distinguish parody (a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing) from his intentional deception.

      A modified quotation should be so indicated with square brackets, even if used in parody. Otherwise it’s just dishonest. And if that misquote was meant as a parody, you’d have drawn attention to the change, because otherwise, it’s a sure bet not 1 on a hundred would have been aware.

      And again, you have not identified any deception I committed. My quotation exposed the simple truth that Taleyarkhan had been found guilty of misconduct, and communicated nothing untrue. But I have identified *your* deception: your omission gave the false impression that he was cleared.

  48. Tony2

    January 23, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Popeye,

    How in the name of Holy Jumping Jesus Christ can you wield the sword of physics to such devastating effect in one hand and then be able to quote line and verse from Shakespeare with the other?

    I am truly impressed and I’m serious. You are truly a renaissance man.

    Tony2

    • BigWillyJohnson

      January 24, 2014 at 4:29 pm

      Hey Tony2,

      I agree Popeye is the man. What sucks is that one day this blog will dry up and there will be no more of his writings to wake me up in the morning and get my brain moving.

      And thanks for the kind words but I can not be lumped with Mr. Popeye or most of the other commenters on this blog. I am simply a depraved lurker, waiting for the next good funny to lol over.

      BW

  49. BigWillyJohnson

    January 23, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    Mr GW,

    Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities but I am not a good character as you probably already should have known. I use racial slurs, I think Rossi is a complete lying piece of crap, I don’t remove the price tag on presents I give people, I don’t care about fraud cases in the government, I do drugs, I swear, I kiss and tell,I have terrible grammar and don’t care, I don’t subscribe to putting the toilet seat down after I use it and I don’t pick up the poop from my dog.

    Unfortunately I will not be doing any straightening my good sir. Someone needs to get up pretty early in the morning to be judging me.

    Sincerely
    BW

    • Tony2

      January 23, 2014 at 8:16 pm

      BWJ,

      You are a renaissance man, too, and have all my respect!!!!!!

      Tony2

  50. GreenWin

    January 23, 2014 at 9:13 pm

    Ehhh, Fuggeddaboutit Willy! Happy to see ya set da standard skep decrapitude! And ah, demon-strate de true… ahem, color of youz fellow skeptopaths.

    Just an FYI; putting toilet seats down dont requires no subscription Willy. Just a annoying wife or fuggin GF.

    Rest in piece youz robohero Popee supportz all youz bad manners cause he’s algorithmically fugged to do udderwise. And we all knowz algorithms, like Algore hisself… nevah lie.

    We gotta nice room at Sing Sing made up for ya, Willy (near da climate felon “Johnnie defraud Beale.”) But remembur, Sams inside gonna costya bigtime. Prolly like two, three large a case. Ehhh, what bettah way spend that $$ ya stoled?

    Begood Big Will!

    • popeye

      January 24, 2014 at 11:12 am

      Oh, GW. That’s just embarrassing. Is that you trying to be funny. Because to me, it falls about as flat as Justin Bieber imitating Joe Pesci in Goodfellas. I don’t have a problem with a little eye dialect now and then, and use it myself sometimes. But when every second or 3rd word is spelled sort of phonetically, it really causes a hitch in the reader’s gitalong (it must be contagious), and just begins to look illiterate.

      The quote from Johnny Depp in Donnie Brasco explaining what “forget about it” means, is usually written with normal spelling, and I don’t think it loses anything for it, although maybe it’s because it brings the actual scene to mind:

      Forget about it is like if you agree with someone, you know, like Raquel Welch is one great piece of ass, forget about it. But then, if you disagree, like A Lincoln is better than a Cadillac? Forget about it! you know? But then, it’s also like if something’s the greatest thing in the world, like mingia those peppers, forget about it. But it’s also like saying Go to hell! too. Like, you know, like “Hey Paulie, you got a one inch pecker?” and Paulie says “Forget about it!” Sometimes it just means forget about it.”