Global warming, solved!

I know, there’s still significant debate about whether anthropocentric global warming is for real, whether the global warming we see is caused by human activity, but it no longer matters!

Think about it, oil for energy, the biggest cause of carbon emissions, will hardly be used in twenty years.  Coal, the biggest producer of carbon emissions per kilowatt hour will no longer be used.  Natural gas, obsolete!  Propane, obsolete! (except maybe for back yard barbecues.)  The remaining sources of greenhouse gases are insignificant against these biggies.

Dr. Rossi’s energy catalyzer, once implemented, is going to eliminate the vast majority of carbon emission sources.  As such, when this technology is heard above the noise, I expect the sound to be deafening.  Everyone who cares about global warming and everyone who is unsure but fears that the scientists are right is going to jump onto Dr. Rossi’s energy catalyzer like its going out of style.

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , ,

151 Responses to “Global warming, solved!”

  1. JP Straley Says:

    Average life of cars is 15 years in the US, therefore 6.6% are replace with new each year. Even crude Rossi power trains, basically a triple expansion steam engine, could be quickly developed. If you drive a thousand miles a month, 25 mpg & $4 a gallon, this is $160. That’s the additional monthly payment you could afford to get Rossi. But actually, such a powertrain would be cheaper than a piston engine. This offers makers a large wedge of cost with which to make profit. So I would say that auto manufacturers would offer Rossi power the first year, producing under license from R. The incentive from large trucks would be even greater.

    • brucefast Says:

      I appreciate your knowledge of steam engines. I will be shocked, however, if the first production rossi-powered car is available within one year of the rossi technology being discovered by the world.

      The first issue that car companies are going to have to deal with is the issue of safety. The fact that the rossi is considered “nuclear” will put fear into the hearts of the dangerphobes. The fine nickel dust that is involved in the rossi is considered by Dr. Rossi to be toxic. It most probably is. There are safety issues with steam power in the fact that you have a pressure vessel containing super-heated water.

      The second issue that car companies will face is that rossi-drive cars will require major re-engineering. This is hardly like putting out a new model year of car. The engines are totally different, the electronics are totally different, the transmissions are totally different. Even the engineering expertise that the car companies have is so irrelevant to the topic of steam engines, or heat engines of any kind. Car companies will need to retool, starting with their intellectual expertise.

      The third issue is that simpler implementations of the rossi such as industrial power and home heat will take up the manufacturing capacity of the rossi, and the mechanical engineering capacity of that human resource for some time. It is natural for the lowest hanging fruit to get the attention first.

      Therefore I expect that it will be some years before we see the first production car. However, I agree with you that the trucking industry will clamor for this technology. Their fuel bills are huge, and they are willing to put out the investment to make it happen. I expect that the entire fleet of long-haul trucks will be rossi-drive before the rossi makes a serious dent in the automotive industry.

      I am only one guy trying to figure this stuff out. Time will prove how long it will take for GM to offer a rossi car. The sooner the better by me. I will be an early adopter.

  2. Malcolm Lear Says:

    Well I would say that the first cars would be produced extremely quickly. Maybe within 2 years. Re-engineering is not such a big issue. Body shells and suspension would all remain the same. A suitable power plant has already been developed and only requires modifications to utilize the Rossi reactor. Working temperatures of the Cyclone engine are compatible and the company is already aware of the Rossi development.
    Modern steam engines like the Cyclone do not store vast quantities of super heated water and work as a flash boiler thus they are inherently safe.
    A transmission is not required simplifying and significantly reducing manufacturing costs and reverse gear is achieved simply by changing the valve timing. The complex electronics that modern IC engines require is simply redundant and can be scrapped.
    In conclusion the new cars will be much cheaper, quieter, simpler, more reliable with far fewer components.

    • brucefast Says:

      Wow! This is a game changer. I read the site, and bought some of the company. My time forecast has got to change to 5 years because of this. (That’s 5 years until I can go to a car showroom, test drive a rossi-power car, and buy one at any cost.)

      I’ll be making a post yet today that extends my thoughts about implementing rossi in cars. It’ll make significant reference to cyclone power.

      Thanks Malcolm

    • JP Straley Says:


      Nice find on the Cyclone. Compact & looks adaptable for mass production. You are right about simple or no tranny, the old Stanley’s actually had performance sufficient for street traffic in today’s urban mess. And they would go! A Stanley set a world speed record on Daytona Beach in the early teens, 120 mph.

      I envision some form of CVT. Modern auto tranny too expensive and not required for practical service. Certainly there is a need for reverse gear, unless valving allows a reversing cycle. I agree with you about flash boilers, the energy stored in live steam is low since it is generated according to demand.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        The Cyclone Engine looks quite compelling. Steam engines have historically been quite noisy that may present a problem for a modern car. I think a lot of noise may come from the combustion chamber, but it would be interesting to get a DB readout of a motor run by external steam.

      • Anthony Scalzi Says:

        Bob, I was just at an antique machinery fair that had many working steam engines, some quite large,in the multiple hundred horsepower range. It was remarkable how quiet they were, although that may have been because they weren’t operating under any load. The boiler for the engines was in a separate building. Some of the engines were being run by compressed air, and they were noticeably louder.

      • brucefast Says:

        Bob, it is my opinion that the major noise of steam engines is the release of steam into the air. Modern engines are regenerative, they condense the steam back to water, and reboil it. (Non-regenerative engines are not feasible for automotive use because you’d have to fill up with water too often.)

        If you look at the second video at this link: you will see a cyclone power engine running. It doesn’t look like it has any noise dampening technology on it, yet it is quiet enough to easily carry on an interview beside it.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Anthony – That’s most interesting. My only point of reference is some old steam tractors that I saw as a kid growing up in South Dakota. They were noisy as heck! Guess I need to research the subject, but from what you said it sounds promising.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Bruce, your right, it does look quiet. This is quite promising indeed!

    • Anony Mole Says:

      Another engine that could use pressurized steam (uses air or combustion now).

      But direct use of a LENR power plant might be feasible. Although it is a fascinating engine design.

  3. Bob Norman Says:

    I don’t believe in man made Global warming. Most causes are not man made. Junk science and money are the root of this issue. Its being proven daily to be a big fraud.

    • brucefast Says:

      I’m not all that convinced of anthropocentric global warming either. However, if you and I are right, the e-cat will shut up the chicken littles that are crying about it. If we are wrong, it’ll solve it. The problem is solved either way.

  4. Roger Bird Says:

    The Rossi E-Cat will also allow the Chicken Littles to focus on more important things, like mercury, SO2, etc.

  5. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

    Read more:–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kuJ4GQwq

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Unlike AGW freaks, I am not going to generalize this one too much.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Yes, but isn’t it amusing to see people reach radically different conclusions from the same data? The CO2 we’ve put out already will not go down quickly if we stopped burning oil tomorrow, so it’s a matter of make a change now and wait 30 years or so to start seeing the effects. Maybe by that time we’ll know a bit more about what to do if there still appears to be a problem.

      Cheap, quiet, non-polluting energy is worth having even if it brings no other benefits.

      • Alain Says:

        cheap energy will also solve the problem of climate if there is one (even if it is ice age). it will allow poor countries to develop and survive better in case of problems.
        we could accepte colder and hotter climate with heating and climatisatio, with warmed greenhouse or desalinization, with city evolution, dam building…

        what shock me in IPCC prediction is that they imagine we behave like mussels on a rock, and neglect social change that are the biggest of all factors.
        catastrophes like in haiti or katrina kill because of poverty, not because of nature.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Alain, so true. Hard scientists (who fancy that they are the only real scientists) often forget the human element in life.

      • Bob Says:

        Science continually under estimates its own development in shaping the world. When I was a kid all people talked about was over population and starvation. Social conditions changed and birth rates dropped, but more importantly big jumps in food production occurred with the green revolution. While starvation is still a huge problem in many parts of the world, its not because of not enough land to serve the people. Land use still isn’t where it should have been and may always be that way. I’m guessing abundant cheap energy will again cause a bigger agriculture revolution and will again help reshape the world. Many lives will be saved as the technology spreads, but alas, there will always be pockets of starvation unless the world decides to just take over the care of certain groups. I doubt that will happen, but overall huge improvements will be realized.

        I still feel that a sea change will occur with people moving from the city to the rural area. Families will live off 5 acres of intensely farmed land, being self sufficient in the food and energy needs. Bartering with the neighbor will become big and the need for money will decrease. There are huge implications in this, but thats a whle different issue. I have mentioned this trend a few times in passing, but I believe it to be the biggest social affect caused by cheap energy.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        I remember watching a BBC program about 15 years ago where they used just 8 square metres of garden to grow enough food for a family of 4 people for a year, by planting things together and getting the timing right. This is on the edge of failure if one crop doesn’t yield as much as planned, but systems like this have to be tested for long space missions where the possibility of food resupply is non-existent. Nearly Free Energy should make this type of ultra-intensive agriculture more certain to succeed. Maybe we should expect to see a proliferation of roof-greenhouses (heated/lit/cooled as necessary for the crops) in future.

        John Seymour, in his book on self-sufficiency, uses 1/2 acre for growing fruit and vegetables, and this is not over-intensive since it avoids chemical fertilisers.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Bruce, I’m amazed that someone could grow enough for a year in 8 square meters. If that’s the case maybe the rural migration I envisioned will not evolve. Attics, basements and back yards would be plenty to give people food independence.
        The government is trying to outlaw gardening and farmers markets in the name of food safety, this could be a real issue.
        I read that Australia outlawed gardens.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The people need to outlaw big and unlimited government

      • brucefast Says:

        Bob, “Bruce, I’m amazed that someone could grow enough for a year in 8 square meters.”

        ’twasn’t I who suggested that enough food for a family could be raised on 8 square meters, it was Simon. Seems pretty amazing to me. ‘Be interesting to try it though. I’ve got at least 8 square meters in my back yard I could sacrifice — if I could dig it out of the -40.

      • brucefast Says:

        Roger, “The people need to outlaw big and unlimited government.”

        Before you get too entrenched in American thinking, check out the economies of Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark and Canada. All are in much better shape than the USA is, yet all are much more socialized. As I see it, big government isn’t the problem, imbalance between taxation and services is the problem. That problem is eating the USA alive. The same problem is eating the lesser EU countries alive.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        brucefast, it has been proposed that the reason that the USA doesn’t do well with socialization is that we are not a very homogenous culture. I am not sure that that is the case, since North and South Korea are the 2 co-winners of the homogenous contest in the world, and Switzerland has 4 languages.

        I think that harmonious might be a better word than homogenous. And harmonious is a difficult thing to quantify and study.

        In any case, I took up the small government flag because the US government via the FDA is currently trying to shut down raw milk (I await my raw goat milk lady this morning as I type this). And I have known of the stupidity, corruption, and incompetence of the FDA for the past 40 years. I realized that people making up their own minds works better than some jack-wagon in a distant city. Big government is inherent less free and less nimble.

      • Bob Says:

        Bruce, yes I made a mistake, but sent it and couldn’t correct it. The amount of land that people can live on is amazing.

        On the other front, I have to admit I think I agree with Roger. The US government is bloated, way to big with way to high of salaries and pensions. The government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. We now have 49% of the population getting aid from the government. We need to start cutting everywhere. Government and social programs being the first place to start. Hopefully we can repeal Obamacare within the next year, that alone will bankrupt this country, the numbers are staggering.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Amen to Bob’s comment.

        In the long run, we need a constitutional amendment which disallows voting from any citizen that receives payment from the federal govt in excess of what that citizen has paid in…..i.e., once your Social Security income has exceeded your contribution, you lose your right to vote. Receiving a salary for service rendered would also lose your vote, with the exception of the military. Of course this amendment would never pass without a violent revolution, but I think that’s where we’re headed.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, the problem with that proposal of taking the vote away from government “charity” receivers, as I see it, is that as soon as the old codgers are no longer voting, then Social Security would be greatly diminished, if not stopped completely. Then the old Codgers (like me) would get their voting rights back, then they would re-institute Social Security, etc., etc. I understand your thoughts on the matter. They are quite interesting and I find them brilliant. Without something like this, the unwashed (that includes me) will use the vote to rob from the rich and the producers.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Chile was a basket-case until Generalissimo Pinochet gently showed his nation a better way. Ever since, Chile has been South America’s most prosperous nation. Pinochet also instituted one of the world’s most secure and generous social security systems. It’s a plan where workers pick their own mutual fund and have their own private account. The funds are restricted to investing in Chilean companies. This has caused Chile’s economy to boom. The average Chilean, at retirement, is worth much more than his US counterpart.

        Unfortunately, tens of thousands of liberals mysteriously disappeared.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Let’s hope that the US liberals, instead of disappearing, merely change their way of seeing things.

        I have heard of Chile’s success. It is very inspiring. It’s too bad about the liberals, though. That does not help when other countries try to change in the same direction.

      • Bob Says:

        Iggy, that’s an interesting idea. I think I like it, but need some time t think it through. Yes, we are a divided country with little give from either side. I believe that it will all collapse and we will be living in mad max type days. Then again I’m half crazy, but at a minimum it will be very hard times.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Your contribution re Pinochet is revolting. I take it your “unfortunately” about the murder of liberals is ironic, and you actually approve such murders. Either that, or your description of Pinochet as “gentle” is ironic. Which? By the way he tortured even more than he murdered, and persecuted their families too. … Unfortunately.

        And you want to remove the right to vote from people on welfare, and retired public servants! This will, you admit, cause bloodshed in the US, but what the hell! Eh?

        People criticised me for looking at the fascist website
        Stormfront that turned up in Google when I was researching the Cold Fusion controversy. But it seems I don’t have to go as far as that in order to find the outpourings of the ultra right. I can find them right here on Nickelpower. Unfortunately.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, fascists are not the same a Nazis. The site that you happened on was Nazis. It is true that all Nazis are fascists. It is not true that all fascists are Nazis. Pinochet would have been an equal opportunity torturer, without regard to race, religion, and ethnic background. Mussolini could not understand Hitler’s obsession with the Jews.

        The farther one is to the left or right, the more that one lumps the other wing all together. Extreme right wingers lump Obama in with communists, and it just ain’t so. And they are not trying to be meanie heads by saying that. They see Obama that way. And lefties can’t see that O’Riley is just right of center, not “an extreme right winger” as some progressives have called him.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Yes, Naziism was fascism at its most extreme. Mussolini’s public statements were generally free of antisemitism until 1938, when he adopted a whole collection of viciously anti Jewish laws. According to his mistress’s diaries he claimed to her to have hated Jews since 1921. He was viciously racist in regard to black Africans during his aggression against Ethiopia. So Mussolini was a very bad man, compared to just about anyone except Hitler.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, I don’t know if you noticed how Mussolini would strut so arrogantly. Now, not every bad guy struts arrogantly. But everyone who struts arrogantly is a bad guy. If you can come up with a counter example, I would love to hear it.

        Social awareness is an art and can be developed.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        If Mussolini had spent his time strutting instead of persecuting people and attacking other countries he wouldn’t have been such a bad guy, I suppose.

        Apart from that, I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I know, Craig, you don’t understand. So I will explain it to you. Mussolini’s strutting and arrogance tells us about his inner being, his ego. The bigger the ego, the farther he is away from his heart, and for God’s sake Craig I do not mean the physical heart. The emotional heart is where we get love and caring and humility and sweetness. His strutting and arrogance, which was so bad as to be almost a parody of strutting and arrogance, told me that he did not have love, caring, humility, and sweetness. If I saw that kind of strutting and arrogance on someone I did not know, I would avoid that person like he had a lethal contagious disease.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Mussolini pose:

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I don’t think that the comparison is fair. I HATE Obama’s policies as much as the next guy. But I don’t let political thought get in the way of my judgement about people’s characters. Obama is a very well-meaning, politically retarded, sweet guy. It is probably his well-meaningness that is the problem politically. Government is not and cannot be a charitable organization, in as much as taxation is coercive and so many other government functions are coercive. But these liberal political retards seem to think that it is government’s job to be charitable, with other people’s money.

        When taxation is truly voluntary and government gets out of the business of coercion, then I guarantee that I will be a liberal.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “Obama is a very well-meaning, politically retarded, sweet guy.”

        So was Mussolini, until he started hanging out with the wrong crowd.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, Mussolini was never like Obama. Mussolini’s character developed in his teen years.

      • brucefast Says:

        This thread has wandered badly off topic. Please end it.

  6. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Germany’s Godfather of Green Turns Skeptic.

    • Bob Says:

      Iggy, this is a very interesting report. I think we have been feed a diet of bad science for many years and guys like Al Gore got rich off it. Just this last week there were articles that stated that the Polar Ice caps hadn’t really shrunk that much, the Himalayan snow and Ice has remained unchanged for the last decade and there has been no warming for the last 10 years, in-fact the data shows that the earths temperature has cooled half a degree.
      I personally believe this was a made up issue over money, however I believe air pollution needs to be curbed and gases into the atmosphere need to be curtailed, that just makes sense, its an Eco system and we all breath the air, but we shouldn’t be making huge financial decisions based on any of this hysterical data. Should coal plants be shut down? Yes, of coarse, they pollute like made, but not like Obama is doing, just shutting them down causing potential blackouts and huge cost to customers. We recognize the problem and need to start replacing the plants in a manner that wont disrupt society.
      With cold fusion, the issue may almost go away and from all the data I see, we have time to phase changes in without major financial or energy hardships. We just need common sense people in government.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Bob, I think that the anthropogenic global warming hysteria road on the backs of people’s natural desire for a more natural lifestyle. Money came later.

        And, also, what I have written elsewhere here in nickelpower, people get an intellectual and prestige vested interest in some particular viewpoint, and they are not spiritually mature enough to let go of it.

      • Bob Says:

        Roger, you may be right about some people wanting more natural life styles being the early driver of these ideas. I do however resent people trying to force views and policies on me without proper proof and to find out now that much of the proof was from manipulated data is irritating to put it mildly. Some of these folks should be looking at jail time.
        I’m always amazed how one side can be forced to show proof and the other side can just keep making charges. Its not a fair world, but no news there.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        People who fancy that they have a monopoly on the truth are always dangerous: Communists, Nazi, Muslims fundamentalists, patho-skeptics (years ago I called them skeptical science types, when I declared them dangerous), and AGW advocates. I am sure that there are many others.

      • brucefast Says:

        Roger, “I think that the anthropogenic global warming hysteria road on the backs of people’s natural desire for a more natural lifestyle.”
        60 deg 47 min North, 135 deg 10 min West. Eat your heart out.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Bruce, I presume, you GOOSE, that you are referring to where you live. (:->)

        That was very cute!!!!!!!!!!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        It’s very hard to decide what, of all the information that comes my way, is true, nearly true, slanted truth, slanted lie…. The decision tends to be based both on my opinion of the source veracity and my own feelings of how likely the reports are. In science, it’s well-known that your results are affected by your expectation of the experiment. Millikan’s notes have been published of his experiments to measure the charge of an electron. He got the right result in the end, but made quite a few errors in the early part of the experiment – corrected later.

        Currently it seems that the climate data is massaged before it is published, and the same dataset can be quoted in support of either side of the dispute. Bob has pointed out errors in location of the measuring stations that he has seen personally. There is a lot of bad data in the mix, and the historical data is of dubious quality.

        Personally, it seems to me that there is a difference in the climate now as opposed to when I was young. It is more extreme. This would be expected if the sea is warmer and thus more energy is available for the weather to use. On balance it is more likely that this is due to more CO2 in the atmosphere, but there are also natural variations in addition to this.

        Like Bruce, I really hate to be forced in one direction by political or commercial slanting of what I’m told. The dataset on global warming, however, is so huge and hard to make decent sense of that I’ll conditionally accept the views of decent people who work with it daily. I hope they have read the data correctly. By now, I do not accept the views of the IPCC – they have not been honest, in my opinion.

        Hopefully I’ll get a version of reactor that will satisfy Bruce up in Whitehorse, and quietly keep him warm without giving him radiation poisoning. AGW or not, the lack of pollution and low cost is going to be a major benefit.

    • brucefast Says:

      This is interesting. It does not directly support the cause of LENR (the fear of gobal warming should support LENR). However, indirectly it supports the LENR-centric belief that science is far more boys club than research.

      Before I would accept the findings that you report I would be googling “Fritz Vahrenholt”, “The Cold Sun.” and “energy tribune”. If this didn’t raise flags, I think that this news is astounding! Maybe I’ll do the googling tomorrow.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I’ll take the idea that we have to stop worshiping scientists and start “worshiping” science. No one will ever love pollution, so the idea that there is no man made global warming (AGW) won’t hurt LENR any. Look how enthusiastic many people here at nickelpower are about LENR but we do not believe in AGW; and that includes me. I like CO2. It is good for plants. Pollution sucks, and one of the best things about LENR is that it will reduce pollution to a very large degree.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Oh, Iggy!!! I didn’t know that you were working for the oil companies!!!!

  7. Simon Derricutt Says:

    I also used to accept the general Global Warming data before I looked into it more closely. Currently I think that the world has become warmer in my lifetime, and I suspect that human activities have had some effect on this global temperature. Like Roger, I want general pollution to be decreased, but I also would like less CO2 in the air, as this does have an effect on the acidity of the oceans and thus shelled sea-creatures find it more difficult to make their shells. It takes some time for evolution to work and for species to adjust their chemistry to new conditions, and we have probably been modifying conditions too quickly. LENR, though not a panacea, will certainly fix a lot of our problems both in pollution and financially, and remove the problem too of importing oil/energy from people we’d rather not deal with.

    Totally “green” energy tends to come at unpredictable times, and we have evolved our businesses and lifestyle around the always-available energy of fossil fuels. Cheap energy storage is needed before we could really use wind and solar energy for everything.

  8. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society

    “The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.”

    • Bob Says:

      Iggy, I spent a lot of time in 2010 revuing this issue. What I learned made me mad. The data was not shared, the models were not publicized. The Peer revue groups systematically removed people that disagreed with their findings. The emails published in the climate-gate release smacked of collusion and coverup.

      The data gathering has been detailed and found to be very suspect. Getting past data from tree rings with any accuracy in my opinion is laughable. That Hockey stick that was talked about, it doesn’t exist at second look. A good case of curve weighting was used!

      I believe that the weather has gotten warmer over the last 30 years, but I believe the climate goes in cycles with 100′s of variables changing the climate. Many are now predicting global cooling which is just a continuation of the cycle.

      I think science needs to keep monitoring this and share data openly so all can be comfortable with how the conclusions are arrived.

      I don’t think we really know the answer and we need to keep looking. My big gripe is putting in place huge infrastructures with money involved until we know conclusively the results. No carbon credits, no demanding coal plants close immediately. We need to take care of mother earth and work towards zero pollution and gases into the atmosphere, but don’t impose game changing mandates on industry, phase things in so we don’t cripple business and drive prices out of site.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        There are no tree rings in the tropics because tree rings result from distinct seasons. The fossilized logs in Arizona’s Petrified Forrest have no rings because when they lived they were in the tropics.

        Eric the Red’s colonists cultivated crops in Greenland in 983.

        Giant boulders have been found high in the Alps. These boulders were native to land scores of miles away.

        In my other home town of Hot Springs, Arkansas some of the road cuts reveal vertical strata.

        The norm for most of our planet’s history has been so cold that humans would be challenged to survive. We live in the most pleasant interlude in earth’s history.

        Read Velikovsky’s “Worlds in Collision”, “Ages in Chaos”, and
        “Earth In Upheaval”.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Amen. Bob, your investigations were way more thorough than mine, but we came to the same conclusions.

        So, here is the deal, sociologically speaking: The first wave of AGW disbelievers were conservatives who don’t like change and are sort of biased in favor of business, and the businesses who seemed to be threatened by this AGW alarm. The second wave of AGW disbelievers were those who bothered to look at the data (and the lies) closely. The media and the AGW think that those two waves are the same people, but they are not. I was an environmentalist before most of these jack-wagons AGW thugs were born, and I have no connection to any company that is threatened by the AGW alarm.

    • Craig Binns Says:


      Revulsion at the very idea of global warming, but no revulsion at the mere slaughter and torture of thousands of “liberals” at the hands of the “gentle” dictator Pinochet.

      What any of this ultra right stuff has to do with whether, as a matter of fact, LENR is valid or not is beyond me, like the racism thing.

  9. Craig Binns Says:


    By the way, Velikovsky was nuts, with his ideas about the planet Venus zooming about the solar system as if it was a pinball machine, crashing into other planets. Like, for global warming you demand high standards of proof. Why accept Velikovsky’s absurd fantasies?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Velikovsky’s nuttiness opened up the minds of people enough to allow for the end of uniformitarianism, the idea that everything in geology happens slowly and at the same slow pace. I found his books to be very interesting, but it was obvious that he was a nut case.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        He was lucid enough to be a personal friend of Einstein.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, everyone in my neighborhood thinks that I am a nut case. My friends think that I am a nut case. My family, who love me very much, think that I am a nut case. (:->)

  10. Craig Binns Says:


    Einstein was nuts too, but not in a way that prevented him from being rational in mathematics and physics. Personally, however, he was pretty crazy, so being on of his friends is no proof of sanity.

    Velikovsky was plain nuts all the way through.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Velikovsky was not nuts all the way through. He had the courage to confront evidence that cowardly scientist could not deal with and actively ignored. How he dealt with the evidence was nutty.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Iggy Einstein, what a guy! He was Albert’s brother. He sold bagels in Vienna until he moved his operation to the USA. And that is the origin of the Einstein Bros. Bagel company, although Albert actually didn’t play a part in the operation of the company. Not many people knew that Albert was embarrassed by his brother Iggy.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      I’m not concerned with his personal life. Velikovsky really makes you think about the history of man and the geological history of the planet. He points out actual real historical and geologic data to back up his theories. While he’s an apparent atheist, he showed that evolution could not possibly account for the sudden ascendancy of man. He doesn’t deny evolution. He proves that “Oedipus Rex” was based on the life of Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV).

      Sagan was a great critic of Velikovsky but I happen to know that Sagan was a secret member of a doomsday cult.

  11. Craig Binns Says:


    What aspects of “uniformitarianism” do you object to? The idea that the world is very old, or the idea that the geological processes which are active today have been operating in a similar manner for a very long time? Or something else?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, it was my understanding that the idea of asteroids and comets slamming into the Earth had been opposed by the uniformitarianists. And certainly asteroids and comets slamming into the Earth sort of runs counter to uniformitarianism.

      Also, I would think that the “snowball earth” theory would also be at odds with uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism is sort of like the 1st approximation. Upon closer inspection, there have been moments when things changed rather quickly. Even the Great Death of 250 million years ago was somewhat sudden, geologically speaking.

      However, I believe it to be the case that for the most part, geological change is gradual and relatively uniform, relatively speaking, other than that space debris slamming into the Earth now and then.

      Did you really think that I believed that the Earth is only 6000 years old? That is really funny and illustrates your social blindness. It is your social blindness that keeps you from seeing that Rossi/Defkalion et. al. could very well be for real. Unlike visual blindness, you probably won’t be able to understand that you have social blindness, even after I have told you numerous times. I am color blind and have to deal with it often.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Let me get it right. According to you, Velikovsky opened people’s minds and brought about the end of uniformitarianism i.e. “the idea that everything in geology happens slowly and at the same slow pace.” Simultaneously, however, you believe this fallacy is a “first approximation”, and you also believe “that for the most part geological change is gradual and relatively uniform.”

        This proves nothing more than that sudden changes take place in your mind, and that uniformitarianism doesn’t apply there.

        By the way, I didn’t say “change” i said “processes”. Catastrophic events like ice ages and volcanic eruptions have gradual and cyclical causes. I need not argue that point, unless you dispute it. I MAY concede part of your argument about individual impacts, particularly with regard to the early history of the solar system; but that is hardly the end of uniformitarianism, is it?

        You never disappoint. Human beings not a product of evolution? Secret Doomsday info about Sagan, eh?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, if you don’t want to spend time trying to understand what I am saying, the ef you cee kay you and I am sorry that I have tried to converse with you. And by the way, ef you cee kay you.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        My last para was addressed to Iggy. His views of Velikovsky are more extreme than yours. Sorry for that Iggy!

        (Secret info may be “off topic”. At any rate it’s useless! Maybe I have secret info that Rossi’s a former jailbird and energy swindler. Unless could produce evidence to that effect, who would believe me?)

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “Secret Doomsday info about Sagan, eh?”

        Yes, told to me by an engineer (now deceased) who had to approve certain aspects of their underground bunker in Arkansas.
        “Human beings not a product of evolution?”
        Velikovsky didn’t deny the existance of evolution, but that it couldn’t account for the sudden ascendancy of man. He speculated that the ascendancy of man was due to sudden mutation from cataclysmic radiation or alien intervention.

  12. brucefast Says:

    Mr Binns,
    You seem to be arguing that Rossi is nuts, so has nothing.
    However, so far the only “nuts” you have found for these guys is that some nutsy people wrote about one of them:

    Dr. Brian Ahern, Ames National Laboratory
    Dr. Joseph Zawodny, NASA
    Quintin Bowles, University of Missouri–Kansas City.
    George Miley, University of Illinois
    Piantelli, University of Siena
    Mike McKubre, SRI
    Francesco Celani, National Institute of Nuclear Physics
    M. Swartz, guest lecturer at MIT

    Nickel + Hydrogen LENR has some pretty spectacular extraordinary evidence. However, you seem determined not to look at it.

    Craig, you obviously are well versed in, and love, history. You haven’t seemed to have figured out what history looks like while it is being formed. I bet you’ll be a much wiser historian once this dust has settled.

  13. Craig Binns Says:


    I am not arguing that Rossi’s nuts; I’m stating that he is a swindler.

    As to your list of “replicators” – I’m still not convinced that their findings are sufficient evidence for a reaction that could be attributed to fusion of any sort. But I remain to be convinced and while sceptical, my mind is not closed.

    By the way, not a very impressive group of scientists. Your original list included some really bizarre individuals. I’ll get round to the ones I’ve missed so far, in due course.

    • brucefast Says:

      “Your original list included some really bizarre individuals.”

      Question, does the claim of the bizarre individual diminish the claim of the well respected? Is there a balance where the “good guys” weigh on one side and the “bad guys” weigh down the other?

      To put this another way, does the fact that Stirling Allen endorses LENR make LENR less likely?

      BTW, in Replicators I still list the bizarre, however I have now categorized the list by quality of the claim. You’ll notice that neither Rossi nor Defkalion are on the A list.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – I think the main thing about the evidence for LENR is that it produces energy greater than can be explained by known chemical processes (note careful wording there) and that transmutation has been found. The evidence against is that it has been unreliable and has not been easy to reproduce with high efficiency, though it does look like Mitchell Swartz may be happily doing that now.

      Consider this: Several times Rossi sees his test reactor produce amazing amounts of heat. He tries to do it again, and thinks of other things he can do to make it happen every time. He thinks he has fixed the problems, but when he shows people it doesn’t work as he thought it would. He still thinks he’s just one idea away from getting it going every time.
      It’s a possible scenario.
      Consider Defkalion with the same problem, and they need to keep interest up and satisfy the investors. Again they think there’s a small change they can make to get it working every time.

      I think that this is fairly close to the truth. If the processing of the powders is critical to success, and they try to go from small batches made by an enlightened chemist to large batches made in a factory, then unless they absolutely know the precise reasons for one batch to work and another not to work, then they will have failed batches very frequently and will not be able to manufacture.

      One of the major points that drops out of the history of LENR is that, given a length of Palladium strip and some heavy water, and building several electrolysis cells from that, maybe around half will work in a successful sequence. If you get the palladium from another source, maybe none will work. No-one who has replicated the P+F experiment has had all their cells work.

      Given this sensitivity to something where we don’t know what that something is, there will be problems in taking this technology to mass production. It is likely that both Defkalion and Rossi have fudged their demonstrations and will do so again. In my opinion it is extremely likely that they have seen and measured extra heat from their devices in a quantity that could only be nuclear in origin. These successes that they have seen, and we haven’t, have kept them trying to get the process controllable rather than dependant on the phase of the moon. I want them to continue trying. Given the work and money that they have put in, and the benefits to us all if they succeed, I hope you share this view.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Thanks for that thoughtful contribution. It deserves a considered, and perhaps lengthy, reply, which I hope Brucefast will permit me.

        These experiments have been proceeding for decades. Some of the researchers are honest scientists, but many obvious swindlers and lunatics are attracted into this field. There is no dependably repeatable result, but some possible indications of unknown processes. Output, in the credible experiments, has been in the main low.

        That is all good and well, and I can accept much of it. But that is not what the current CF flap is about. It’s about Rossi’s claims, and those of Defkalion, and that is what this blog was intended to discuss. In some quite fantastic terms I may say. Rossi’s clear inability to fulfil his extravagant promises has “derailed” this discussion, and he has now been regated by contributors to the background, where, I predict, Defkalion will soon join him.

        Brucefast flatters me on my love for, and knowledge of, history. To decide on the validity of the CF experiments I need more scientific knowledge than I have, so I go with the consensus, and will do until the replicators establish their case, which they have not yet sufficiently done. With Rossi I don’t need much scientific knowledge; I need familiarity with the history of swindles, of which I have at least some.

        Because the “sciency”-looking content in a science swindler’s patter is simple misdirection of the intended mark, I need no more scientific knowledge to perceive Rossi to be a swindler than I would have needed botanical knowledge to perceive the Dutch Tulip speculation of 1636 to be an empty bubble, or the French Mississippi Scheme or the English South Sea Bubble of 1720 to be gross examples of swindling and embezzlement.

        The same goes for the dot.con boom, Enron scandal and credit bubble of the last decade or so. You don’t need any expertise in computing or banking to understand these phenomena.

        Scammers have to devise convincing stories, about things which people feel to be important. Tulips were indeed socially important in the Netherlands in 1636 (and they have since become a legitimate multi-million industry); the new credit economy which gave us the 1720 swindles is the very basis of modern insurance, banking, trade and public finance. Dot.con was based on real and important innovations. And so on.

        So the possible validity of the replicators’ discoveries, of which I am not convinced, has little to do with my evaluation of Rossi, which is what this discussion was originally about.

        Recent information about Defkalion gives rise to a similar assessment of that outfit.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, you are wasting your valuable typing trying to teach Craig Binns anything. He is hope-aversive.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – thanks also for a considered post. I liked the dot.con pun.

        A short while back Jetmech drew our attention to the Keely Car Company, a scam that went on for 26 years. People can be fooled for a long time. I think we are all aware of Rossi’s history and his less-than-absolute veracity. Given the quality of his demos, it is easy to believe it’s a scam (I started from this viewpoint). We can’t say the same about Defkalion – they seem to be upstanding businessmen and scientists with impressive qualifications. Still, a lot of similar people must have been involved in the dot.con.

        So – yes, a scam must be possible, and the current level of demos supports that view. The consensus of scientists appears to be against LENR being real – second strike. It looks decidedly dodgy.

        However, both Rossi and Defkalion have based their devices on Piantelli’s work, who used a lump of Nickel and got a COP of 2-3. His patent was in 1995, since when he has been doing good work in cancer research. Rossi and Defkalion appear to be using powdered Nickel, and the reaction appears to be a surface phenomenon. Powdered nickel has more surface for the mass, so using Piantelli’s device almost as-is but using powdered Nickel instead of a block, you would expect more power to be output. So the claims are not extraordinary.

        I did train as a physicist before spending my working life in various electronics/computer engineering. I have read a lot of the other papers where people have stated their findings either supporting the reality of LENR or not finding any evidence. I thus changed my mind, and accept that the reaction is real and nuclear. Not enough is yet publicly known about the parameters needed to make it work reliably.

        Basically I am saying here that the consensus is wrong, and as Bruce stated a while back, I think that if they actually spent the time needed (about a month of reading) then the majority of physicists would agree with me. They don’t because they haven’t the time for what appears to be another nutty idea that goes against theory. There are so many nutty theories put forward, you could waste a lot of time studying them long enough to put them in the right pigeonhole. Thus the consensus stays as negative until a good proof appears, and it hasn’t yet.

        In the end, they could be a Keely-type scam. Based on my reading of the real scientists, however, I think the scenario I painted above is far more likely to be true, despite the failed claims and lousy demos and the general feel of scam. Telling you to read is not going to help you much if your knowledge of Physics isn’t up to it, though you could just read the abstracts and maybe the conclusions.

        We’ll probably disagree on this until someone actually produces one we can buy in the shops.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, you are wasting your time with Craig. He has had way more than a month to read the material in and has avoided it like patho-skeptics avoid feelings.

        Oops, I’m sorry, Craig is a patho-skeptic and he does avoid feelings or anything remotely social.

  14. brucefast Says:

    Craig, “I need more scientific knowledge than I have, so I go with the consensus, and will do until the replicators establish their case, which they have not yet sufficiently done.”

    This looks like double-speak. “will do until…” implies that at some point you are willing to break with consensus. Is this so? If so, what hypothetical circumstances would see you break with consensus? If not, why bother with the discussion, why not just ping Wikipedia once a month or so, and change your mind when those wizards decide that LENR has a consensus?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig admits that he does not go with the evidence. We, the cheering squad, are an evidence based group. Perhaps this is why Craig does not get along so well with us. Another reason is that he is social blind and an anal retentive uptight a$$hole.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        I thought you might reward my meditations with pseudo-psychological, not to say scatological, invective. And you didn’t disappoint me.

        As a method of argument, such invective lacks logical power and will not convince reasonable people.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I rest my case.


        I guess I really have to explain it, because you Craig are so dense emotionally: You hurt my feelings. You are oblivious to feelings. You don’t give a fig that you hurt my feelings or anyone else’s feelings. You don’t give a fig if you hurt other people’s feelings because you don’t have feelings. These are all examples of your social retardation. People without feelings are also oblivious to the fact that the Board of Directors of Defkalion cannot afford to destroy their reputations. The Swedish scientists, who know more about nuclear physics than you, me, brucefast, and Iggy all put together, also cannot afford to destroy their reputations. This is why you are not optimistically inclined towards thinking that LENR/Rossi/Defkalion is for real. Now do you understand? You are socially retarded. Right now, all that we have is the social. We have to take people’s word for the evidence. We have to decide who we are to listen to. Are we to listen to real scientists and business men who have seen it and have reputations to protect and who know a lot about it? Or are we to listen to real scientists (no businessmen) who think that they know something about it but who have never seen it and don’t really know anything about it?


      • Craig Binns Says:


        Personal feelings must not and do not enter into assessments of whether statements of scientific fact are true or not. If you think the moon is made of green cheese, and I disagree, and if that hurts your feelings, then I’m sorry but I will say what I believe to be the factual truth.

        This should not be perceived as a personal insult against you. I think Brucefast and Simon would agree with me on this. The reason is, that when people express their feelings towards each other, they do not do so by relating scientific facts. These two things are in different domains of thought.

        My wife, for example, is a believing Roman Catholic. I think the factual elements of her religion – virgin births etc – are complete nonsense, and I say so, if and when the occasion arises. But she doesn’t take that as a personal insult. Disagreement about facts is emotionally and personally neutral.

        Another suggestion you make, that one should believe what businessmen say about science more than what scientists say about science is, by the way, a strange one.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, these are not statements of scientific facts. They are statements of people describing their experiences. When we have third party, independent tests, or even if we do the experiments ourselves, then they are statements of scientific facts. Social awareness coupled with a knowledge of science is where we are at now.

        For example, I believe Simon more than Peter because Simon has more social awareness than Peter, although it would appear that Peter has more knowledge about nuclear physics.

        We are trying to judge other people’s statements about things that they have experienced in a not completely and perfectly scientific setting. When the experiments are perfectly scientific, then they are statements of scientific facts.

        But there have been statements of scientific facts. We have real scientists making these facts, like McKubre.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Personal feeling are deeply involved in whether we are going to believe someone or not. Personal feelings about the Swedish science dudes tell me that they are being honest. It is not about whether they like me or not. Personal feelings are involved with whether we are impressed with Mike McKubre’s integrity or not.

        Gotta go.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig admits he doesn’t understand the scientific evidence for the reaction, but he does understand the topology of a scam. It is normally a low-risk route to go with the consensus when you don’t understand what people are talking about – I have no problems with that. He is, I think, in the majority who do much the same but do not put their case as well. If I didn’t know the science, I would class this as a scam until proven otherwise. As it is, I class it as good science until proven false.

      I used to go with the consensus on Global Warming. Now I’m not sure to what extent it is human-caused. I read a lot of scientific papers to get that far, from agreeing with the consensus to uncertainty.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon, “he does understand the topology of a scam.” It is clear that Craig believes that he understands the topology of a scam. I dare to believe that his understanding in this regard is in error.

        “Craig admits he doesn’t understand the scientific evidence for the reaction.” I admit that I also don’t have the capacity to diagnose theories. That doesn’t put me in the position of not being able to use similar technology of human diagnostics to determine that there is a valid phenomenon happening here.

        I would say that Craig’s “humility” in this regard is badly misplaced. He has encountered vastly more evidence on this topic than “the consensus” has. As such, even though he may have no more knowledge of physics than I do, he still has a huge knowledge base that the typical physicist does not have. (Just because the typical physicist could have the knowledge, that doesn’t mean that they do.)

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The idea that Craig is some kind of expert on scams means that he must also be an expert on human beings. He is not an expert with human beings. He is socially retarded. For example, his failure to be impressed with the credentials of the leaders of Defkalion is most astonishing. His blindness to social cues is enough to cause one to slap one’s forehead in surprise.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – Since I started off thinking it was a scam, I can’t blame other people for thinking that. My partner’s son, who is a fairly newly-minted physicist, was particularly scathing about it when I discussed it, but then he hadn’t read any of the real science at that time. It takes a lot of work to become satisfied with the physics. You must know that, since you’ve done it too. Most people will not put the time or effort in.

        Rossi doesn’t help this. On his ‘journal of nuclear physics’ blog there are some really wacky “peer reviewed” papers. That doesn’t help the image Rossi wants of his science – it’s more like fringe lunacy.

        Maybe Craig will finally read the real science on lenr-canr even if he only reads the abstracts and the qualifications of the people doing the research. He might even understand why we still think it’s going to happen despite the setbacks. He might even end up indignant that this is something that’s been hidden in plain sight, and damned by the consensus view. No comments about aerial porcines, please!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, as far as AGW is concerned, just remember the French in the 1200′s complaining about English vintners stealing their business. Remember the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. That is all that you need to know about AGW. The hockey stick is way too short and almost certainly based upon altered data.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – yes, that was precisely my point. Lies, damned lies and Statistics. I’d thought that Science was in the main above that, and the IPCC should have been above reproach. Oops!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        One thing I should add to that comment. Going against consensus and publishing results that people do not like is normally a sign of honesty (see the LENR experiments). Going with the consensus and changing the data to suit the required final result is dishonest.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        My “failure to be impressed with the credentials of the leaders of Defkalion is most astonishing.” Is it? From memory: Greek bankers? Athens is in flames as a result of a rebellion against the corrupt shenanigans of the Greek financial elite, whose unbridled greed and irresponsibility may well have wrecked the common European currency.

        The head of the national bank of Montenegro? Well, who could possibly challenge credentials like that! When did he hold this post? See wiki on the Montenegrin economy: “This period [1993-1994] was marked by the second highest hyperinflation in the history of humankind (3 million percent in January 1994)”.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Now, that is what I like to see, Craig. We are dealing with people. Not science. My wife could determine if the Hyperion was working if we instructed her to slide her metal ruler under the bottom of the machine and check the meters or just use her hand.

        One of the stated proofs of the E-cat and the Hyperion has always been sales and customers. Most customers are not nuclear physicists. We really don’t need experts to tell if they work; that is why we have always said that if sales are happening and units are going out the door, and if no one is screaming bloody scamming after a few months, then they are proven.

        Did you check the credentials of these other guys. I admit that I had a problem with the Montenegro dude, but I didn’t check his history record.

        We already have scientists who can check these machines at least better than we can. Our problem is to decide if the scientists are honest and reliable and just exactly what they said.

        In my opinion, the two Swedes and Celani and McKubre are very good social evidence. There are others. I am going to have to say that the Montenegro dude is on probation until proven otherwise.

        We should make a list of all of the people: the people who said that they have done it, and their reliability indicators; the people who have said that they have seen it, how much, how long, and how closely, and their reliability indicator; etc. etc.

      • brucefast Says:

        Roger, “his failure to be impressed with the credentials of the leaders of Defkalion is most astonishing.”

        Roger, get real, Craig Binns is not impressed by these credentials:

        Dr. Brian Ahern, Ames National Laboratory
        Dr. Joseph Zawodny, NASA
        Quintin Bowles, University of Missouri–Kansas City.
        George Miley, University of Illinois
        Piantelli, University of Siena
        Mike McKubre, SRI
        Francesco Celani, National Institute of Nuclear Physics
        M. Swartz, guest lecturer at MIT

        Craig Binns is impressed with these credentials: and Craig Binns.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        But following Wikipedia is merely following the consensus, i.e. the crowd. And when it comes to new discoveries, the crowd by definition must necessarily be clueless, or else it would not be a new discovery. So Craig is following the crowd.

        Methinks that perhaps he is in front of the crowd cheering them on to absolutely no progress whatsoever.

      • alaincoe Says:

        about greec, don’t be manipulated by CNN-like vision of greece.
        situation is hard there, a bit like in US when subprime crisis created tent village.
        there are the “usual” violent rebel around athen that put the mess, but population is calm.

        about bankers they were advised by goldmansachs and financed by germany, who could not consume it’s benefit from capturing all european industry work…

        not much more corrupted than many similar elit among the world.
        the real problem of greece is that culturally, because of turkish colonization , they don’t pay their taxes.
        it cannot work if the currency is managed like deutchmark…

        otherwise businessman are lik usual. don’t expect them to run a scam more easily than in new-york.

        about skepticism, I would event expect from rational people like you pretend to be, to have more doubtful opinion.

        your communication seems more like a belief than a conviction.

      • brucefast Says:

        Roger, “when it comes to new discoveries, the crowd by definition must necessarily be clueless.”
        Yes! Well said!

  15. Craig Binns Says:


    Greece became independent of the Ottoman Turks in 1832. Their financial elite have had plenty of time since then to learn to pay their taxes. Very many of the worlds present countries didn’t exist in the 1830s.

    Let the Greeks and the Turks each take responsibility for their own offences, which in both cases are numerous.

    Do you know that modern Greece and Turkey are the only two countries which were created by becoming independent from each other: Greece in 1832 from Turkey, and Turkey in 1920 from Greece?

    • alaincoe Says:

      culture and mentality are slow to evolve.
      america still fight with its pioneer and tea party history.
      france still fight with louis the 14th and jacobin revolution.

      this explain that in france it is more easy to raise new taxes that reduce state, and the opposite in US.

      colonization give the feeling in the uncounscious of the population that tax are stollen by a far state… once this kind of feelin is installed, it became hard to change the perception of taxes, and of frauders …

      this is why now I understand that euro currency was a mistake.
      you cannot manage the same way countrys that were created by a dictatorship, a revolution, an independance.

      emanuel todd even says that the politic structure is determined by the family structure (rooted to father, nuclear) and the legacry rules (primogeniture or equality)…

      from a french point of view, US and germany are badly managed, but it is the same from each of the 3 point of view…

      also one other problem from greece is that it get out of a dictatorship (installed by us to avoid communist, with the agreement of staline), and that also break the link between government and people, includinc with taxes.
      but turkish history is strongly evocated about that…

      • Roger Bird Says:

        When I struggle to get through alaincoe’s atrocious spelling, capitalization, grammar, and word selection, I agree with him. The beginnings of a country strongly skew it in a particular direction.

  16. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Craig – statements of science “fact” must always be taken with a pinch of salt – we do not know everything about any branch of science, and it is thus not fact but our best interpretation so far. Our degree of reliance upon such statements depends upon our personal estimation of the integrity and reliability of the people making those statements. If we apply these “facts” to what we do, and they work every time, then we gain more confidence that we have a good explanation, but we can never be absolutely certain.

    It really does depend on what you think of the person making the statement and your personal experience. Consensus is not always right, though it is generally a safer option. Reference Galileo….

    Roger – damned right Peter knows a lot more than me about Nuclear Physics – he’s been working in it for a long time. Pooling our knowledge, however, means that we can apply our multiple experiences to a problem and thus have a better chance of reaching a new “fact” in a shorter time than if we worked separately. That is the true benefit of this blog, in that it enables this discussion across many countries and timezones. With a bit of luck we can reach a new mini-consensus which facilitates maybe new directions of thinking that could be useful. Einstein did this in a coffee-house in Vienna, and by discussion of crazy ideas came up with one that passed the test. Not that I’m saying any of us are Einstein status, but the technique is good. This is the modern, net-enabled version.
    I also liked your reference to the crowd being clueless when it comes to new discoveries. It takes work and time to understand new stuff.

    Alain – Right as far as I can see. Greece, as other countries, has its own culture of how things are done. To say that a Greek person is less honest because their country is in debt is just not correct. As far as I know, personal honour is valued highly in Greece, and so it is less likely for a Greek businessman to risk losing his reputation. Tax dodging is in the culture, for sure, but I don’t know of many people who actually enjoy paying taxes. I’ve known a few businessmen who have started a company in the UK, and they have told me that it is very difficult to make a start-up work unless you avoid a lot of taxes at the beginning. Richard Branson is a famous case in point – he went to jail for it, but is now a knight and well-respected generally. And rich.

    Today is Defkalion’s first test. Once the figures are released I’ll spend some time de-fudging them and we can see whether there is reason to continue to doubt that they really have the goods. I’ll test first with the null hypothesis (no LENR happening) and see if can explain the results within the error bars. If that fails to explain the results I’ll try to estimate the upper and lower COP figures. I’m expecting a COP of around 3, but I hope that does not bias my calculations. From the photos I will try to determine the physical size of the devices under test, and assume stainless steel as the material to get a minimum heat-mass. I’ll put the maths up, and hopefully someone here will check that I’m not mistaken or dropped an order of magnitude somewhere. I’ll use my Nuffield Book of Data (1984, ISBN 0 582 35448 X) for any values needed – old but good enough for this.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Simon, I still don’t understand why it is rocket science to determine if there is a useful reaction. Defkalion uses two machines: one with a potentially active core and one with an empty core. It should be a no brainer. Even my wife could do the testing, and she would be much sweeter than I would. (And you guys would all lust at her beautiful body. (:->) )

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – it shouldn’t be difficult if the COP is well in excess of 25 as they state (Defkalion forum). The problem is similar to someone giving you an elastic tape-measure and asking you to say whether a box is square. You can tell if it is a lot away from square by how hard you have to stretch the elastic, but for a small difference you can’t be certain.

  17. Craig Binns Says:


    Your post deserves comment, but first I’ll wait to see what you make of the Defkalion test results. These promise to be interesting. How soon after the first day’s test do you expect results to emerge?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – They will run 2 tests each of 48 hours. They then have to write up the data, make a report, and have it checked. I’d say at least a week from now before we get any results. I’ve looked and can’t find a live webcam showing it happening, so we need to wait for published results before making any calculations at all. It does look like a lot of people are waiting to similarly pounce on the data and analyse it to death, so we should get corroboration of my calculations, too.

      If you were one of the testers, and knew that getting it wrong would seriously damage your reputation, wouldn’t you be careful and take your time over it? Every person on the test list will be googled from all round the world, and the MaryYugos of the world will be trying very hard to find any error (including spelling and grammar) in the reports or in the tester’s credentials.

      It’s going to be an interesting fortnight.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Simon, while waiting on the results of the Hyperion tests, any thoughts on Allen’s SAD test?

        I know one of the vortex members predicts the batteries will fail in a few weeks.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – no news that I can find. If he gets it, installs it at his house and runs it as promised, I’ll predict he’ll be pretty cold after the first hour. He won’t be able to tell us because his computer will have no power, either.

        I hope I’m wrong about this, but since they are using Lead-acid batteries I can’t see where the energy is coming from. If SA does report that it works as stated, then I will continue to be sceptical since he’s now the US distributor so has a vested interest in selling it. If the first 200 are sold to less cautious people, and they work, I’ll start to wonder if conservation of energy is true, and maybe go buy one to find out. On Vortex they say this sort of machine hammers the batteries so they last a couple of weeks before needing replacing. That implies they’ve had them running and under test. If so, then why have they not sold them? Since such a device would be world-changing, and the only change needed would be to improve the batteries or use a giant capacitor that wouldn’t degrade, I incline to think it’s a load of bollock$.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I thought that it was two 24 hour tests, with switching the cores after the first 24 hours.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Wishful thinking… Check Defkalion’s forum at under “Type of Testing”.

  18. Bob Says:

    This is a bit off topic for the present discussion, but I cam across this that relates to global warming, a very good writeup. Its the presentation given in the UK recently.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Bob – seems pretty level and authoritative – still reading it. Still, having less pollution is a good thing, and very cheap energy will be, too. There’s still a need for LENR as soon as possible.

    • Roger Bird Says:


      I flatter myself by saying that I am a philosophical reader. Which means that I read about 300 words per minute.

      What is the bottom line on the article?


      • Bob Says:

        Roger, it reports that there is essentially no Global Warming and that CO2 has much less affect than originally thought. He said there was no reason to panic. The data shows that most everything is in historical ranges.

        It was a real good argument against Gore and the alarmists. To me is says we have time to figure things out without all the heroic efforts to cut Green House gases. We need to do it to prevent problems, but we also need to proceed in a smart manner. I thought the data presented was quite good.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        This reminds me that many people latched on to AGW because it gave them something to be hysterical in concert about.

        I recall I was subbing at a school I will not mention because I have a close relative who works “there”. (Notice the fear of reprisal.) I was naive at the time. I had just read some really good material that completely blew AGW out of the water, but I did not realize how badly hysterical people needed AGW so they could worry together. The teacher said something about AGW, and I told the class that it was uncertain and it was nothing to worry about. I never subbed at that school again.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Every tyranny needs a scapegoat. Hitler used the Jews. Islam uses the infidel….all non-believers. Gore chose us, the lovers of the good life. We are evil and should pay “indulgences” by buying carbon credits from his company so he can fly in his GulfStream and heat his 20,000sqft home.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Liberals don’t connect their ideas to their own behavior. It is sort of a form of alienation from self.

      • Bob Says:

        Iggy, You understand the issue well. There are pollution issues, no doubt, but 99% of this whole thing was made up as a money redistribution. The money was intended to move from us to those taking care of the situation, i.e. Gore.

      • Bob Says:

        Roger, you just showed a fine example of words mattering and having consequences. I’m very glad that you spoke your opinion, we need more people to do that.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        The bottom line is that, whereas the climate models used by IPCC et al say there is a positive feedback from AGW (so that once it is knocked off the balance point it tips further), the measured effect (from NASA) is that the feedback is negative. This makes sense when you look at the time the Earth has held a fairly stable temperature despite variations in the Sun’s output.

        The bottom bottom line is that there’s no need to worry about the CO2 in the atmosphere – it has made and will make not much difference. It is far more important to find a new energy source because the fossil fuels (especially oil) will become in short supply.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        And fossil fuels pollute like heck, are expensive (compared with potential LENR), and require centralization.

        (Did I get them all?)

  19. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Some absolute proof of global warming over the last couple of centuries:

  20. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Veteran NASA scientists protest Global Warming hysteria.
    We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

    The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

    As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

    Those who signed:

    1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
    2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
    3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
    4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
    5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
    6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
    7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
    8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
    9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
    10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
    11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
    12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
    13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
    14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
    15. /s/ Anita Gale
    16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
    17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
    18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
    19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
    20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
    21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
    22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
    23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
    24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
    25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
    26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
    27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
    28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
    29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
    30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
    31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
    32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
    33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
    34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
    35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
    36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
    37. /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
    38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
    39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
    40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
    41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
    42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
    43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
    44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
    45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
    46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
    47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
    48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
    49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
    50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

  21. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      George Carlin always puts things into perspective. He’s not that well-known in the UK, but my first wife was American, so I got introduced early.

      Here he’s spot-on – the world will be fine; it just may become a bit more difficult for human life.

  22. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    “Cleantech has been hurt more by environmentalists than any other constituency.” – Vinod Khosla

  23. Iggy Dalrymple Says:


    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Wide grin….

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Thank you, Iggy. That was terrific!

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Of course I’m a skeptic on man-made Global Warming (I agree with George Carlin on that issue), but I’m for all the same improvements to the environment…..except I don’t figure CO2 is a problem. I dislike coal because of the mercury and other pollutants (other than CO2), but all that’s a moot point if LENR puts all old energy in the shade.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        CO2 is a nutrient.

  24. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Enjoy while we linger at the precipice.

  25. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
    “Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.”–chart-prove-it.html

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Thanks, Iggy. Funny that since Jones’ 15-year limit has now expired without record heat, he’s extended it to 20 years. It’s good that the climate models are finally being challenged as not matching reality. Maybe we’re finally coming to the point where people realise that the models are really the same as someone looking at trend lines and estimating where they will go.

  26. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Brad Arnold touting LENR on radio show.

  27. Craig Binns Says:

    Hi, guys!

    I notice that over a year ago we were all agog in this thread with anticipation of the Defkalion test results, the forthcoming Hyperion device and all manner of other exciting things, so I did some research on progress. What I found was disheartening to all but the most curmudgeonly skeptopaths or pathoskeps or whatever the current preferred term is.

    Far from rescuing Greece from economic doom, Defkalion has left its afflicted homeland to its fate and decamped to Vancouver. Its website doesn’t appear to have been updated since August 2012, and its activities in Canada aren’t very impressive, as may be gathered from this site “According to Google Earth a building called the New Oxford is located 1140 Homer Street. I cannot tell if this houses corporate offices or not but a photo clearly shows a shop of some sort … Google Earth couldn’t even find the address in Cyprus. Google wasn’t able to locate any websites for Moses Ltd. or Defkalion Europe.” Not about to rescue the world from non-existent global warming, it seems.

    Now, I would like to find out what sort of mindset indignantly and promptly identifies AGW as a scam, but can’t do the same for Defkalion. May I quote Matt. 23:24? “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

  28. Craig Binns Says:

    I think their sudden migration to Canada shows they’re too smart to be caught out like that. Their wonga will be safely stashed, I have no doubt.

  29. Craig Binns Says:


    I don’t think these oligarchs are all that smart. One of them was recently found dead in his UK home, and according to a newspaper report:

    “(Berezovsky’s) personal and business life had suffered several costly setbacks. Last year he lost a private action for £3 billion in damages against fellow oligarch Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea FC, whom he had accused of blackmailing him into selling off business interests in the Sibneft oil giant at a fraction of their true worth.”

    So they throw their money away, and they don’t have the intelligence and cunning of the Ponzi or Madoff types who seem to proliferate in the “free energy scam” field.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: