Skepticism, a cost-benefit analysis

Most of us do not believe that “absolute proof” has yet been provided for Rossi’s e-cat technology. One way or the other, it will be soon. One of the next few Rossi customers will be willing to go public with it, or customers will be returning product.

So we are confronted with a simple question, Err on the side of rejection or err on the side of acceptance. Let’s look at the cost of the two.  If we err on the side of acceptance, and Rossi’s technology is true, we will do our part, small or big, to bring this technology to light. We will help to bring in a brave new world.

But what if Rossi is pulling a scam?  He’s not asking for any money except from corporations who both can afford it, and who can test the technology before they accept it.  He gives you and me no opportunity to buy in.  We can jiggle our investments around a bit.  I have pulled out of all other energy stocks, for instance.  If it is a scam, these plays could cost the hopefuls a few dollars.

However, there is one serous risk of being positive.  If nickel + hydrogen fusion is possible (a la Piantelli etc.) but Rossi is pulling a scam, he may produce hardened skeptics of those of us who are currently positive. We may end up joining the group described below. You know, “fool me once …”.

If we respond to Rossi negitively, we affect how easy it is for Rossi to move ahead.  Consider the case of Pons and Fleishmann, the negative skeptics ruled the day. Despite Nasa saying, “Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat … such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals” ( Wikipedia continues to describe LENR as “pathological science”, and the US patent offices automatically rejects all LENR patents. Contrast that with the hot fusion boys who have hundreds of millions of dollars of funding. Had the positive skeptics ruled the day, this funding issue would have been very different. Surely LENR would have become practical far before now. I contend that even voices like yours and mine make a difference in this. I believe that when the scientific and media community “market” the negative position, they take a read of whether their “marketing” has been successful.  Had we the people declared that we were not buying the “cold fusion is bogus” line, the research would have been done.

If the nay sayers prove to be the reason that Rossi does not break through with his technology (kinda doubtful, partly because there are so many positive skeptics) or even if they delay this technology by one day, they harm the many who can benefit from an infinite and cheap supply of energy.

But what if the negatives are right? What do they benefit. Their portfolio might not take the small hit that mine might take for getting out of energy. But mostly, they’ll be able to say “I told yea so” Yippee!

The value of being positive and right — high.
The cost of being positive and wrong — low.
The value of being negitive and right — “I told yea so”.
The cost of being negative and wrong — HUGE.

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

147 Responses to “Skepticism, a cost-benefit analysis”

  1. Josh Says:

    Very good post – but I’d warn of one thing: Rossi has succeeded in pulling in people (like me) who previously had little knowledge of LENR or it’s history, but had an interest in energy. I remain hopeful of Rossi’s claims (positive by your definition?), but I am skeptical (based not on my deep understanding of the science – unfortunately I don’t have it, but on based on what Rossi says vs. what Rossi does). If blogs/news sources give Rossi too easy of a pass in his claims (i.e. cheer leading) as opposed to optimistic skepticism, they risk turn forever harming the view/connotation associated with LENR. I think that is Krivitz concern, and if it is, I agree with him.

  2. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    “The cost of being negative and wrong — HUGE.”

    Sort of like the cost/benefit analysis of believing/disbelieving in Christ.
    Huge downside for disbelievers if wrong. If right, all dressed up and nowhere to go.

  3. Bob Norman Says:

    I am quite optimistic on LENR. There are literally thousands of reports of excess heat being reported. Until Rossi and his E-Cat came along it was of scientific interest, but not huge on anyone’s scale because the heat gains were so small. I find it highly likely that someone would figure out, stumble across a methodology of enhancing the heat gain. Like many inventions, he saw the affect and what he could build with it. The hard part is to explain why, so that main stream science can be happy and feel comfortable giving it support. I think we will see market success before we satisfy the science community.
    I never cease to be amazed how afraid people are to be considered wrong. Its just so easy to be skeptical and so hard to support something new.

  4. Josh Says:

    @ Bob – I don’t care if science can explain it – science can’t explain a lot of things. If Rossi has just ONE commercial success, I’ll be satisfied. He hasn’t verified that yet, yet many people/blogs pretend like he has. That’s what bothers me. That fact, coupled with his absolutely asinine business plan are what what make it so “hard to support something new” in this case. It has nothing to do with science or the scientific community.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Josh, if you have a better business plan, I bet Rossi would appreciate hearing about it. He’s pretty easy to contact at

      • Josh Says:

        That’s not true – I’ve asked him multiple, exceedingly simple questions (almost yes/no) regarding his stated objectives (he’s never said money). He’s never responded to my posts or made them public. I believe that is because he knows his actions don’t make sense in light of his stated goals to deliver inexpensive, clean energy. No one would care if science couldn’t explain it, no one would care if it wasn’t peer reviewed, no one would care about anything – if he would just prove his technology in a meaningful way. Krivit’s NASA slides show it – they didn’t take him seriously because he didn’t let it run long enough to rule out other power sources. He’s got the the world’s attention (Wired, Fox News, MSNBC, etc.) – he refuses to deliver reasonable semi-independent proof. Now we have to wait 3 more months and hope his next customer isn’t so secretive… I call B.S.

    • brucefast Says:

      Josh, if you have a better business plan, jump in your private jet, head off to Italy or Florida or wherever Rossi is right now and show it to him.

      The longer I watch the more convinced I am that Rossi’s business plan is spot on. He has enough notice to sell all of the e-cats he can produce. Once a customer base is built up the issue of “absolute proof” will be gone. I am very convinced that Rossi will license the core technology to others, and it will be fully available in a year or two.

      • Josh Says:

        For the record, I hope you are right.

        But, if you had a product that had nearly infinite value, but was fairly simple other than an unknown catalyst, and if you were fiercely private/non-trusting – as he apparently is – would you sell them one at a time so that your initial customers could reverse engineer your product and “steal” your non-patented product?

        If he was really out to supply “cheap and clean energy” as he says, he’d quickly show/prove his technology and license it to many manufacturers capable of producing units quickly and reliably. That’s not what he’s doing.

        If he was out to make money, he’d prove his product to one giant company (or country) and sell it for billions. That’s not what he’s doing.

        In my opinion, he’s either got other goals or doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing.

        How long will you give him to produce a named customer before you begin to seriously doubt him? 3 months? 6? a year?

    • Bob Norman Says:

      Josh, I also believe Rossi is doing the right thing. His goal is to maximize his returns over time. By building the big units for big companies he can keep the secrets longer. This is a good revenue stream that will help him build infrastructure without borrowing or stock. The extra time supporting the big systems will give him time to develop other commercial applications such as home systems. Rossi is booting himself up without diluting his shares. I think he will be more wealthy than Bill Gates in a few years, because of his approach.

      • Josh Says:

        Couldn’t he be as wealthy as Bill Gates tomorrow if he proved his product and sold the rights to GE, Google, the Gates Foundation, etc? Besides he said his goal is inexpensive, clean energy – not maximizing his returns.

        If what he has is real, his only threat is time – as soon as people realize something isn’t impossible, they figure out a way (look how fast nuclear proliferation happened after it was proven possible) — If he is being fraudulent, that is actually my best guess as to why he is doing it. If he makes people believe it is real, maybe enough people will focus on it and make it real.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        He might make big dollars some day by selling to GE or one of the bigs, but that isn’t today. He first needs to build awareness and market pull. As soon as the markets are established and the future is obvious their will be many that try to buy him out, before he gets too far up the hockey stick. The longer he holds out and increases his value the higher value he can put on his company. If this technology is real, maybe Rossi will buy GE!

  5. Josh Says:

    @ Bob – you are right. If he truly has the technology, and if he is 100% about the money, I suppose a slow play is in his best interest – if you make the huge assumption that no one will reverse engineer or otherwise figure out his method.

    And he’s said he isn’t all about the money…

    I do hope for his success. But I hope he doesn’t ruin LENR research for everyone if he does not deliver for one reason or another.

  6. Bob Norman Says:

    Josh – Its always about the money! There are few people in this world that will pass up being rich when they get a chance of a life time. Its what drives capitalism and makes the world go round and that’s a good thing. I’m sure Rossi has some sense of helping mankind, but he will rationalize it to his advantage, its human nature.

    Yes, others will reverse engineer it and put product in the market. There will be patent fights and law suits, but in the end their will be a proliferation of companies and products. Some will be big and successful and some will fail, just like any new business. Even if you have solid patents, other have the right to manufacture and pay royalties, monopolies aren’t allowed.

    I think there will be huge revolutions in other fields because of this. Sure there will be home units and cars, everything that’s obvious, but the real revolutions may come in things like food production. Year around growing will make sense in warehouses and huge greenhouses will be common. The secondary usage will change the world.

  7. G_Zingh Says:

    I agree with you guys but something else to consider is this technology is not yet fully developed. Who better to bring it to it’s potential of higher thermal output than the guy who was the most motivated to develop it in the first place?

    Also do you really want to sell this to big oil or one of their shell corporations so they can drag their feet on developing it? No I say stick with the horse that got you here at least in these early stages the grass isn’t always greener on the other side of the field. Give it time. If this is the holly moley of energy production no one person will be able to put cap on it’s use.

  8. Craig Binns Says:

    “The value of being positive and right — high.
    The cost of being positive and wrong — low.
    The value of being negitive and right — “I told yea so”.
    The cost of being negative and wrong — HUGE”

    Interesting. That’s known as “Pascal’s Wager”. It was invoked by a French theologian back in the seventeenth century as a reason for believing in God. If you sign up to the wager you can “believe” without ever having that pesky thing that theologians and free energy scammers can never supply : EVIDENCE!!

    • brucefast Says:

      It feels great to be dialoging with someone who is clearly both smarter and wiser than Blaise Pascal. (Interesting, Pascal’s wager is accredited by wikipedia to Blaise Pascal, “philosopher, mathematician, and physicist“, not “theologian”)

      Craig, I have been practicing your mantra,

      no evidence
      No evidence
      No evidence!

      Has the evidence gone away yet?

      • Craig Binns Says:

        See Pascal’s wiki entry at

        “Following a mystical experience in late 1654, he had his ‘second conversion’, abandoned his scientific work, and devoted himself to philosophy and theology”.

        So I’m afraid the theology won over Pascal’s mind at the expense of the science. No more calculating machines .(which he demonstrated, showing to the satisfaction of all that they worked, by the way.)

        Pascal was a smart scientist, but a woeful theologian. His wager is nonsense, and Voltaire takes it apart in his “Philosophical Letters”.

      • Quizzard Says:

        Just for the record. Pascal in fact stated the wager in notes in the magin of a book, and stated himself that it was not valid. Why? Because the two outcomes (it works or it does not, in this case) are NOT of equal likelihood. So even though the cost of believing is relatively low, it is so MASSIVELY unlikely to be true tat the actual cost times the odds outweighs the alternative view.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        I’m not sure that’s true. The wager appears in the text at Pensées #223, not in a marginal gloss (are you thinking of Fermat’s “last theorem”?) and it is very seriously proposed as “cost effective”. Here is part of Pascal’s wording:

        “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

        “… Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager … But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.”

        When, by the way, will Andrea Rossi provide us with something to discuss that is relevant to the topic of this blog? Frankly I think we’ve heard the last of him.

  9. Jim Says:


    are you comparing Rossi to God? It’s not like you have to wait until death to find out if the e-cat really works. It’s just a matter of a few months.

    Nothing wrong with skepticism. Just don’t feel the need to be absolutely convinced it’s a fake without evidence either.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      It’s ALWAYS “just a matter of a few months”. That’s what scammers and mountebanks always say!

      It was supposed to be October, but we’re in the middle of November, and we know nothing.

      That makes it overwhelmingly probable that this is some kind of scam or delusion, and the burden of proof is on those who seek to convince me, in the face of this probability, that the contraption works, and that Rossi is an honest inventor and entrepreneur.

      • brucefast Says:

        “we’re in the middle of November, and we know nothing.”

        NO! Craig, you know nothing.

        This is what the rest of us know:

        We know that Rossi presented a 500kw e-cat system to an unknown customer. (We are all disappointed that the customer is so private, but some of us are not convinced that this is absolute proof that there is no customer.)

        We know that a new character has arrived on the scene, Domenico Fioravanti. We know that he is a man of significant reputation. We know that his name is on a document assuring that he measured the plant to be producing 1/2 Mw without significant power input (he said zero).

        What we don’t know is that any link exists between Domenico Fioravanti and Rossi. (Maybe they were old highschool buddies.) We also have no evidence that Rossi paid Mr. Fioravanti to sign his name to this document. (For a man of his reputation to do so fraudulently would probably have cost quite a bit.) We do know that there were pictures of him taken at the plant. What we have not yet seen is Mr. Fioravanti protest claiming that it was not his signature on the document.

        So, we know that a qualified, independent engineer measured the thing for hours. We know that to his satisfaction, it worked!

        You, Craig, still seem to know nothing.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        I can’t resist reminding you that your comment above was made TWO YEARS AGO!! If I knew nothing then I still know nothing now, because nothing worth knowing has happened yet, after all that time.

  10. Bob Norman Says:

    I have worked in companies that always had the doubting leader. He was always skeptical and said so. Most things never go as planned, so he always got to say,”I knew they wouldn’t meet that schedule, I knew it wouldn’t work, I knew sales wouldn’t be that good”. These guys exist everywhere and yes they can point to them being write in their assessment. The rest of us just plug along, yes missing an incredibly tough schedule, it missing some parameters from the spec and having to actually work to create a market. The choice is to curl up in a ball and suck your thumb of work to make things in life happen. I would be rich if I had a dollar for every time someone said that wont work.

    • Josh Says:

      So do you believe everything people say? The guy claims to have changed everything – essentially infinite energy! A wonderful thing! But, many have claimed this before – all have apparently been either deluded or frauds. Is skepticism not warranted?

      I’m not saying he has an obligation to prove his technology beyond a doubt for his skeptics (you could make the argument that he has a moral obligation to share it as fast as possible), but he’s had multiple opportunities to prove it (without giving away his secret) and yet he has always chosen not to. In what world is that not suspicious? He had NASA’s attention and they walked away.

      • Jim Says:


        he’s not the only one that’s working on LENR. Other researchers have been getting results too. He’s simply the first one to make a product. Don’t forget that critical thinking requires being critical of your own thoughts too. What does it cost you to wait and see?

      • Josh Says:


        I agree – I’ve followed Miley’s work at the U of Illinois very closely – I live nearby. I’m critical of my own thoughts – but I don’t always believe something just because someone says so. I look at the evidence. Rossi has done some very strange things – that doesn’t make him wrong or a fraud, but it’s part of the evidence being weighed. I continue to wait for a more definitive resolution – Rossi has left me little choice.

        But there may be a cost: Pretend for a minute Rossi has nothing. Will wired, Fox News, MSNBC, or others be willing to cover future claims if they are burned on this one? Will people be more disposed to write off LENR because they read about this? Will the kid who may have found the solution instead do something else in a more mainstream, “popular” field?

        There’s nothing wrong with being cautiously optimistic. The problem that I see is that some people have thrown all critical thinking to the wind.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        No, I’m quite skeptical, but reading the tea leaves seems to point to something real occurring by all the lab results. With all this evidence, it only makes sense that someone like Rossi would come along and find a way to make it commercial.

        I have always felt that things in life have a certain time frame to occur. Every 50 years their seems to be a major breakthrough. We have been a little over due in that regards. If you look at horse racing, sports records, there seems to be a cycle to them. Maybe I’m crazy, but I believe their is a time for things and its time for an energy breakthrough.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Who’s Joshing who?

      • brucefast Says:

        Josh, “But there may be a cost … Will people be more disposed to write off LENR because they read about this?”

        I discussed this exact cost in the original post. It is a real potential cost. However, I am personally strongly predisposed to believe that either Ni+H doesn’t work at all, or Rossi has tamed it.

  11. Roger Bird Says:

    Given stuff like this: and dark energy, and dark matter, and neutrinos twice measured as going faster than light, it seems to me that physicists and skeptics should not be so skeptical of anything. You do not have reality nailed down nearly as tight as you think that you do.

  12. Craig Binns Says:


    The only prominent Domenico Fioravanti I can find is described thus in wiki:

    “In 2001 he received the silver medal in the 100 m breaststroke and bronze medal in the 50 m breaststroke at the World Championship.
    Moreover, he won the Italian championship thirty times. In 2004 he was forced to retire from competitive swimming due to a genetic heart anomaly.”

    Is this the one?

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Craig Binns Says:

      The only prominent Domenico Fioravanti I can find is described thus in wiki:

      “In 2001 he received the silver medal in the 100 m breaststroke and bronze medal in the 50 m breaststroke at the World Championship.
      Moreover, he won the Italian championship thirty times. In 2004 he was forced to retire from competitive swimming due to a genetic heart anomaly.”

      Is this the one?
      I’ve found several Craig Binns:

      One in Midland, TX, heart of BigOil country.

      Another on facebook with a friend named, “Oil-Gas Recruiter”.

      Another, a quarrelsome bureaucrat on the Glasgow, Scotland city council.

      Which are you?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I looked for Roger Bird on the Internet and the only one I could find was this incredibly handsome dude who you should keep your daughters away from. (:->)

  13. Craig Binns Says:


    Oh, no. It must be this guy.

    “… The man named Engineer Domenico Fioravanti was named as the customer’s representative for the test.

    “Reports did not say who Domenico Fioravanti was or who he works for. He is described as an engineer They did not even make it clear if he was an Italian or an American. Many Americans have Italian names. It has been speculated that he is a member of a military organization, as he was apparently refered to as ‘a colonel’.”

    Yes, he has the alluring mysterious quality possessed by all Rossi’s collaborators – the ones that haven’t been jailed on charges of gold smuggling, I mean.

    “Described” as an engineer, “speculated” as this, “apparently referred to” as that, etc etc.

    You’re quite right, I still know nothing. On the other hand you haven’t convinced me that you know anything significant either.

  14. Bob Norman Says:

    I saw an interesting post on ecatnews. Defkalion said they would soon (15) days start testing with outside test house. Here is an excerpt from the web site.

    Tovima Googlated:

    “We not only continue our program and we are almost ready, with technology that precedes that of Rossi during a year. Specifically, within the next 15 days there will be announcements and initiated testing and certification by independent third parties. We will present the final product – not just a laboratory prototype – with all its subsystems to operate according to European safety standards. ”

    “And the catalyst?” We asked. “It’s not supposed to be secret Rossi?”

    “All the technology used in devices at the Hyperion KW and systems 1 to 5MW are our own design – different from those of Rossi” he replied. “As for the control, was already our own design and construction, and Mr. Rossi has signed acceptance certificate shows that it is ours. Even in the recent trial in October when he used some modules of our own design. However, the main and big difference in our device than that of Rossi is that our system is stable in performance, while that of Rossi or the last test failed to yield stable for more than five and a half hours. ”

    Interesting comments, they go up to 5 MW. Claim better stability and production ready. The catalyst comment has me still scratching my head.

  15. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I couldn’t find my previous post about the alleged Australian fusion device. Here’s an update from ‘NextBigFuture’, speculating that it’s “Star Scientific”. The ‘NextBigFuture’ author thinks it’s likely a fraud.

  16. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Assuming this is for real, it doesn’t look down-scalable to eCat size. That might be more palatable to BigGov, which of course is in bed with BigEnergy.

  17. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Mark Gibbs, the Forbes writer, sounds pretty confident on this radio interview.

    • brucefast Says:

      Iggy, I fail to hear Mark Gibbs placing any confidence in the e-cat. What he does seem confident of, and correct about in my opinion, is how big of a deal the e-cat will be in the next few years.

      Gibbs seems to suggest that there is no conspiracy of silence in the scientific community around cold fusion. As I see real scientists from high credibility organizations like SRI, the U. of Illinois and NASA coming out of the woodwork, declaring their experience of LENR, it is becoming clear that Rossi has single-handedly broken that conspiracy.

      However, scientists of this caliber at facilities of this caliber reveal that they have been working on this stuff for years, nay decades. Yet Wikipedia continues to define LENR as “pathological science”, and the U.S. patent office rejects all “cold fusion” related patents. This is conspiracy, plain and simple.

      Gibbs declares at the end of his speal, “but we have no idea yet.” I challenge the validity of this statement. While “absolute proof” is not in, “we have NO idea” is simply not true! We now have 10 separate innovators producing the Ni + H reaction 10 different ways and all achieving excess heat. That leaves the likelihood that this event is for real much higher than “we have no idea yet”.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Gibbs saying that some of us think that Big Oil et. al. are trying to keep this technology from emerging is simply a big fat lie. Some of us think that Big Oil et. al. MIGHT try to do something like that. But I haven’t seen a soul say that they currently are. And who is going to argue that Big Oil wouldn’t try to quash the E-Cat because they are so ethical and moral and just simply wonderful. An alternative to quashing E-Cats might be for Big Oil et. al. to jump on the money wagon and legitimately use it to make a financial go of it.


  18. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    MU research chief wants ‘cold fusion’ puzzle solved….
    advocates federally funded research:

    • Roger Bird Says:

      That is a really right-on article. Rob Duncan is a real scientist, rather than a skeptic. And Janese Silvey wrote a right-on piece.

    • Bob Says:

      This is great. Get solid research groups looking at it with government funding. I would much rather see a billion put in this research as dump the money in Solar or wind. Its amazing how much money has been put in wind farms and how many are already being abandoned. Solar is going the same way. Two technologies that will die and be footnotes in history.

    • brucefast Says:

      If cold fusion were out of the picture, funding for solar and wind make some sense to me. If the cost of these technologies could be brought into competitive range, they would make sense. However, in an e-cat world they don’t stand a chance.

      What really frustrates me is the billions that have been wasted on hot fusion when (a few) scientists have known perfectly well that cold fusion is a reality. Let hot fusion be seen only from the “can we do this” perspective, not from the “this will power the world” perspective.

  19. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    There have been 2 or 3 known cold fusion explosions including the 1992 accident that killed a scientist.

    Hokkaido, 2005

    There was reportedly another explosion experienced by Fleischmann & Pons.

    • Bob Says:

      Iggy, I think the explosions were caused by miss placed thermocouples. LOL
      The evidence is overwhelming that something is occurring. Quite frankly I don’t really care what it is, if its repeatable and can be used for a better fuel system, then just use it and build things. At some point the reason will be discovered and the academic types can write their papers and be happy, the rest of us can make product and better mankind in the meantime.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I wasn’t casting aspersions on cold fusion. There’s always chance of a mishap when dealing with heat and pressure. After all, probably a dozen or so people die each day from producing coal, oil, and hydro, not to mention others that die from cold weather. Easy petro-dollars cause thousands of deaths by the “Religion of Peace” trying to dominate the world. It’ll be nice to see certain folks returning to goat-herding and packing sand.

    • brucefast Says:

      I remember hearing about the SRI explosion. I filed it in the “there’s more to cold fusion than all that” mental file.

  20. Craig Binns Says:


    Most commentators seem to agree that in the cases you mention, even the reported P & F one, the most probable cause of the explosions was accidental ignition of hydrogen (present in all these devices) under pressure. Nuclear fusion as such has not been demonstrated, and the scale of the incidents would seem to be consistent with chemical reaction.

    • brucefast Says:

      I agree with you that the explosions are likely ancillary to any cold fusion/LENR experiments. However, your statement, “Nuclear fusion as such has not been demonstrated, and the scale of the incidents would seem to be consistent with chemical reaction.” Is a bit narcissistic, isn’t it? I mean:
      > We have serious scientists saying that they have experienced LENR reactions and
      > We have multiple papers published according to the scientific method.

      Yet the great and glorious Craig Binns, who hasn’t even looked at their evidence, hasn’t read one of the published papers, and hasn’t bothered to try to interview the scientists involved has declared, “Nuclear fusion as such has not been demonstrated.” Pretty darn self-Godizing there, Craig.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        When Craig (and many others) says that he believes in science what he really means is that he believes in scientists. That is an appeal to authority and is not an example of the scientific method; it is not believing in science. It is belief in a crowd of people who say that they are scientists.

  21. Craig Binns Says:


    You must have completely misunderstood my point, to have reacted with such a vehement response. Iggy seems to take the view that if an explosion occurs in the course of an experiment intended to demonstrate cold fusion, the explosion is (or probably is) itself a manifestation of fusion. But since the fusion experiment involved the compression of hydrogen, the probability is that the explosions were in fact chemical. Indeed, an explosive fusion reaction would have emitted copious radiation, which could not possibly have gone unnoticed (the experimenters as well as everyone else in the vicinity would have suffered radiation poisoning) and which would have left traces available for study, but which is reported in not one of these cases. This is discussed in the literature, going back at least to Walter Gratzer’s “The Undergrowth of Science” (Oxford University Press, 2000).

    In any event, you agree with me that the explosions were “ancillary”; that is, they were not nuclear explosions. Fine. So why the diatribe about self Godizing? Isn’t that an exaggerated response to a statement with which you essentially concur?

    By the way, we are approaching the end of the year, and we have nothing. None of the expected glorious world shattering proofs. No machines to power your toys. No steam cars. No greening of the deserts. Not a photon, not an erg, not the name of a buyer, not the location of a working device.

    We’ve been through all this before, and many times. It’s a scam or a delusion, and by saying that I am not claiming divine power, but exercising common sense, and taking note of the similarity between Rossi and the innumerable swindlers who have previously operated in this field.

    • brucefast Says:

      “You must have completely misunderstood my point”
      Your point has been consistent — that cold fusion is bupkis. Is that so, or not? If cold fusion is, in your opinion, bupkis, then my point is fully valid. Or do you acknowledge that cold fusion is in all likelihood a valid phenomenon as so many high end scientists have declared it? If so, well, then please permanently remove that argument from the table.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        To “know” that cold fusion (or BigFoot or UFOs or anything) is NOT true is philosophically STUPID, or else one is all-knowing and everywhere present. I suspect that these skeptics may not be all-knowing and everywhere present, so this makes them philosophically retarded, something I have said before. I DON’T KNOW if cold fusion is NOT true. I am inclined to feel/believe that it is true given the social evidence. However, I am still not rock-solid convinced. I will give it an 85% certainty.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      I always figured the explosions were due to plain old hydrogen + oxygen = combustion.

      The progress of the eCat is proceeding about the way I predicted. A couple of years for reliable home heat. 5 to 10 years for large locomotion (ships, locomotives, and large trucks) and widespread adoption for industrial heat. The early customers will buy to get a leg up on the future…..experimenters and researchers. The military will be the early adapter for remote operations like the Arctic & Antarctica. The US Navy will perfect the technology for ship propulsion. 20 or so years for automobiles. Heck, they’ve been talking stop/start battery systems for 20 years and they’re just starting to phase them in. The Chevy Volt took 10 years and it’s still got problems and not affordable. There may be a steamcar for demonstration purposes in a couple of years… the Cyclone steam speed record, but not a practical everyday vehicle.

      There may be a breakthrough on stabilizing and optimizing the eCat’s output but I haven’t seen any evidence yet. Maybe Ahern’s Dec 7 theory will simplify everything.

      Rossi may be the Daimler and someone else the Ford.

      I don’t think Rossi’s a scammer. Like a lot of inventors he’s overenthusiastic. He’s just what the world needs to get the technology going. He’s probably inspired thousands of home experimenters like Chan to push the envelope.

  22. Craig Binns Says:


    “Or do you acknowledge that cold fusion is in all likelihood a valid phenomenon as so many high end scientists have declared it?” you ask. But are not you the very person who derides mainstream science as cowardly and conformist for rejecting cold fusion? You can’t have it both ways.

    If, nevertheless, the opinion of the majority of scientists is to be the criterion of acceptability (and it is) then cold fusion is indeed pathological – because “high end” science refuses to accept it as valid. See for example: “Cold fusion theoreticians have proposed various speculative theories to explain the reported observations. Such ideas run counter to mainstream physical theories and associated observational evidence.”

    Iggy, you tell us that Rossi has “probably inspired thousands of home experimenters like Chan to push the envelope”. Iggy, this isn’t about art, where one person “inspires” another. The question is, has Rossi demonstrated cold fusion in action, enabling Chan reliably to reproduce his findings? The answer is … no.

    You also observe that “Rossi may be the Daimler and someone else the Ford.”. Sure, there were more Model T’s than Daimlers. But the Daimlers worked; and they could be shown to work because the purchasers’ names were not a secret. In this they differ from e-cats.

  23. brucefast Says:

    “But are not you the very person who derides mainstream science as cowardly and conformist for rejecting cold fusion? You can’t have it both ways.”
    You bet I can! These guys, staff at the U. of Illinois, SRI and NASA have been hiding in the shadows while the rest of science has dismissed their work. Only now that Rossi has developed a certain level of energy for cold fusion have they gingerly stepped out of the shadows. And these are the brave ones!

    “If, nevertheless, the opinion of the majority of scientists is to be the criterion of acceptability”

    You may not put the word MAJORITY in my mouth!

    The scientists that have come out for cold fusion/LENR are top tier — the chief scientist at NASA, for instance, but MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS has not crossed my lips!

    So who wins — a few top tier scientists who have delved deeply into a topic and found it valid, or the loudmouthed majority who, despite their Ph.D., haven’t bothered to look at the topic but have gone with the flow, declaring it invalid?

    Craig, you are being slippery. SRI has put out an hour long video on youtube sharing their findings. There is a report from the “chief scientist” at NASA. The U. of Illinois (or one of the states that starts with I) has clearly declared their success. Yet the “majority” of scientists still staunchly reject LENR. On which side are you?

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Bushnell’s an interesting guy, but I think his admirable concern for the environment has led him to be too credulous and trusting about Rossi’s alleged observations. As to theory, he rejects Rossi’s proposals in favour of various oddities of his own.

      The APS has not been won over, and NASA has made no public statements that I have found, in spite of many cold-fusionist hints. This has inspired a hilarious post from georgehants in E-cat world July 16, 2011:

      “You are talking about institutional science, [NASA] are not there to inform people, just to maintain and protect their positions. They do not have a web page like Rossi, to keep us up to date. They hide and twist everything.

      “That is exactly what people deserve all the while they are taken in by ‘experts’ who turn them in to automatons who do not even demand a reply to the French official report, confirming UFO’s and requesting an honest and open investigation. NASA has so far refused to reply. Mention UFO’s and most readers will close their minds and move on, but then still actually believe they are capable of an objective view on something else.”

      Georgehants has got this right. Flying saucers and cold fusion are at about the same level of scientific plausibility. And I’m not on their side.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I am on neither side, but I admit that I am very positively inclined towards the cold fusion side. If I had the resources, I would do research on the matter.

  24. Roger Bird Says:

    I notice that Rossi is still alive. He still has not been dragged into court. The US Navy or whoever his customer was still has not called a press conference to denounce him. If the E-Cat were bogus, you would think that his customer would be bouncing off the wall with anger by now. And Rossi must have been paid or else how could he eat; no one has reported seeing him at the local soup kitchen.

  25. Craig Binns Says:


    As evidence, is that the best you can do?

    Suppose the customer is as bogus as the e-cat. A shill, like one of the guys who leaps out of his wheelchair at a televangelist’s miracle cure meeting shouting, praise the Lord, I can walk again! But we never get to know his name.

    Also, Rossi walked off with heap wampum after the Petroldragon scam. And maybe he had something stashed away after the Swiss gold smuggling incident. And he’s “sold his house”. And his wife is neatly positioned in Cyprus, a scammers’ paradise, holding the rights to his patents. And he’s received unknown amounts from Ampenergo, for unknown reasons. And that’s just what we know about – Heaven alone knows what the hell else is going on. Plenty, I doubt not.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      It does not show much depth of thought I can’t get past the first sentence. Suppose all kinds of paranoid things, Craig. Suppose the US Navy is in on the scam. Suppose SRI is in on the scam. Suppose other people are not really conscious and only you are conscious; then what!?!?

  26. Craig Binns Says:

    Then zilch, because the things in my post are all in the public domain, and other people endowed with consciousness, who I am sure include yourself, can easily find them out. And the US Navy isn’t in on any scam because I’m pretty certain it hasn’t been crazy enough to buy even a bosun’s whistle from Mr Rossi, let alone an e-cat.

  27. Craig Binns Says:

    “Sure” in the sense of:

    I have not the least evidence the Navy has bought anything from Rossi, and in these circumstances the fool would be the person who did so believe.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, you shouldn’t think that you have won the argument if we don’t respond to you. We don’t respond to you because we find it impossible to reason with you.

      It may very well turn out that you are right. But your certainty about being right at this point in time is premature. If you are right, it will be a co-incidence. Any certainty that you have now is a psychological problem.

  28. Craig Binns Says:

    You reasoning is unsound. The burden of proof is with the person who positively asserts that a thing exists, or that a process occurs. You or I are not required to prove anything. Rossi has to do all this, AND HE HAS NOT DONE IT.

    It’s like a court case. It is entirely the responsibility of the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defendant isn’t required to prove anything. Moreover, as you are aware, the defendant is not guilty until it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the jury that he or she is.

    To talk therefore of “premature” disbelief is senseless. If, as you seem to admit, in the absence of further evidence, disbelief will be justified, then by that fact alone, it is justified now; because we don’t have the required evidence, and it may well never be provided.

    These are the laws of reasoning, and if you “can’t get past the first sentence” I’m sorry, but there’s nothing I can do about that.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      1st paragraph was as far as I could get. Rossi’s failure to prove his case does not disprove it. You have this psychological need for certainty and think that his failure to prove his case disproves his case. It does not. It is still an open question. This is how I look at it. This is almost certainly how most everyone else in this forum look upon it. And many of us have other indicators, mostly social indicators, that encourage us to believe that he may actually have something. And I know that skeptical science types don’t have social indicators; they are socially retarded.

  29. Craig Binns Says:

    “Social indicators”. Like being convicted on five criminal counts, largely involving an energy scam?

    All science types are sceptical types. Nobody takes anything on faith. When Einstein published his General Theory in 1916 the first thing even his admirers did was to attempt to falsify it. They have been trying ever since, and the theory has stood up to all its tests … so far.

    That’s how science – indeed all valid reasoning about the material world – works. The way you are doing things is how religion works. That is why there are tens of thousands of competing gods, but only one General Theory of Relativity. You can’t refute or falsify a god. You just believe.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Lighten up Craig

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Again, I couldn’t get past the first sentence.

      Absolutely, Craig. That would be a social indicator, and not a very good one for Rossi. But there are also the SRI achievements and Aherns and the DIA report, etc. etc. etc. Many of the social and scientific indicators so far, as far as I can tell, only show that Rossi may be right, they do not show that he is right. But one of his more important social indicator is that he is still not in court, still alive, and still does not have a major institution giving a press conference about him being a con. And he also hasn’t been seen at any soup kitchens.

  30. Craig Binns Says:

    Don’t worry, Iggy. I’m having fun!

  31. Roger Bird Says:

    I wonder what it felt like to be one of those “scientists” who maliciously slammed Alfred Wegener for 50 years and then to discover that he was right all along. Hopefully, perhaps Craig Binns will know how that feels, assuming that Rossi is right. Then he could come back to this forum and tell us. But I think that he will probably just run and hide, and he won’t have to wait 50 years.

    My way is really the most cowardly. I can’t be proven wrong because I haven’t said that Rossi is right or wrong. (:->)

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      The man who straddles fence ends up singing soprano.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, you got it backwards. The man who sings soprano straddles fences. (:->) Since I am a coward, a soprano singer, I am unsure. Or, perhaps I am heroic for not being pushed and pulled into certainty by other people’s and my own insecurities.

        I am 100% certain that LENR is creating excess energy. I am 100% sure that it will prove to be revolutionary. I am 90% sure that it is nuclear. I am 80% sure that Rossi is doing it. But I have not completely lost my mind; those last 20% will be garnered with a great deal harder evidence.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Skeptics are not the only ones who cling to certainty. An uncertainty-phobe can also be a believer, someone who believes without good evidence just to avoid uncertainty or to spit in the eye of the establishment. George Noori’s night time radio program “Coast to Coast” is populated with such people.

        This issue of believing, disbelieving, and being agnostic is hardly any different than thinking poorly of others who do not agree with oneself, for whatever the reason. We even go so far as to deny other people’s experience if it is at variance with one’s own beliefs and experiences. We will even say that they are crazy or criminal if their experience and beliefs are different from one’s own.

  32. Craig Binns Says:


    “I wonder what it felt like to be one of those “scientists” who maliciously slammed Alfred Wegener for 50 years and then to discover that he was right all along”.

    “Maliciously?” Are you nuts? Do you think the scientists (you even put the word in inverted commas) who wrongly rejected Wegener were motivated by malice? Get real! Neither Wegener nor anyone else could account for the forces that drove continental movement. The scientists who rejected the principle on that account chose wrongly, but rationally. They bet on their knowledge, then very inadequate, of available energy sources. The correct bet would have been on local geology and distribution of species, both at the time also inadequately documented, but which argued for continental movement. “Malice” had nothing to do with this.

    To suggest that they were inspired by evil, or that they were not even scientists, is absurd. Not merely absurd, but childish. You evidently have no idea what science is, but have a comic book understanding of mad scientists resisted by heroic inspired figures. Imbecilic.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, saying that I am imbecilic is malicious.

      It may be true that the scientists who disagreed with Wegener did so intellectually because of rational reasons, but the tone of their feelings waw malicious. They spent 50 year putting him down. Plus, rationally speaking, just because they could not account for the movement of the continents is just another example of “we don’t know, therefore it doesn’t exist”, which is classic arrogance.

      So, it does not seem rational to me to say that something can’t exist because we don’t know how it could exist. And, did they even bother to look at Wegener’s evidence. NO! They put him down every which way they could, including putting him down because he was a meteorologist. The exact same things could be said for the airplane. And the high and mighty Langley with his huge budget and scientific credentials was such an embarrassing flop!!!, right into the Potomac River. So two bicycle mechanics blow Langley right into the water, so to speak!!!

      But, Craig, we already have certified scientists saying that cold fusion is true. Yet you won’t admit that it is true. Are you going to take a vote of scientists to determine if it is true? And as opinion and the vote number shift, will your opinion shift. When 50.1% of all scientists say that cold fusion is true, are you thing going to say that cold fusion is true, with just as much vigor and enthusiasm as you now say that it is untrue?

  33. Roger Bird Says:

    I would also like to point out to everyone that the people who say that cold fusion is true are very, very close to the subject. They also have a strong incentive to keep their traps shut. Those who say that cold fusion is not true, are not close to the subject. And they have a strong incentive to say that cold fusion is not true, since they work in hot fusion. So even though the numbers are 99 against and 1 for, I am betting on the 1 for.

  34. Craig Binns Says:

    But we KNOW that hot fusion is “true”. Stars do it. It is understood perfectly well theoretically. We can make hot fusion explosions. The issue about the application of hot fusion to generate energy in power stations is whether it can be induced and controlled as and when we need it. An engineering problem, which in fact may not be solved. It is a very difficult problem.

    Cold fusion isn’t like that. It can’t be shown to happen naturally, and it has not been established experimentally. Current theory has no clear place for it. So that is why most scientists say it’s not “true”; not because they’re working on something else. Obviously whether cold fusion is “true” or not has no bearing on the unambiguous evidence that hot fusion really takes place in the core of the sun and other stars.

    Again, you have a childish view of this scientific question.

    • brucefast Says:

      You don’t know anything about whether hot fusion is true. You have never “made an explosion”, you have done no measurements of the sun designed to determine that hot fusion is true. The only evidence you have of hot fusion is heresay.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      You make many good points. But your last sentence shows that you are emotionally retarded. There was absolutely no need for that. It was just another putdown by someone whose emotional development ended in middle school. You skeptical science types are famous for that, but you are not famous for any new science or technology. Were those other bigger boys mean to you in middle school, Craig?

      Controlled hot fusion has never even come close to being demonstrated. 40 years ago, nuclear physicists were saying that it was 35 years into the future. Now they are saying that it is 50 years into the future. I believe them, and I believe the trend that I am seeing. We spend billions upon billion of dollars whose fruition keeps getting farther and farther into the future.

      And cold fusion has been demonstrated, at SRI and other places. You just don’t want to believe it.

  35. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I don’t know what possessed me to do it but lately I’ve had the urge to review Narcissism 101. A few excerpts:

    When you understand narcissists, it becomes easier to deal with them. They are the simply the most immature people on earth. They are pancake people, superficial, running around trying to puff themselves up, always looking for people to exploit and for people to admire them.

    It is not easy dealing with narcissists. You have to be an adult when they are running around acting like kids – it demands wisdom and strength. I have known good narcissists and toxic narcissists. Understanding them and yourself is the only way to survive. Don’t criticize them. Remember that knowledge is not wisdom -wisdom is the ability to make the right choices.

    People with narcissistic personality disorder often display snobbish, disdainful, or patronizing attitudes. For example, an individual with this disorder may complain about a clumsy waiter’s “rudeness” or “stupidity” or conclude a medical evaluation with a condescending evaluation of the physician.

    Some narcissistic traits:
    Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

    Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

    Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

    Rage attacks when you do not sufficiently meet his/her needs.

    An unwillingness to reflect on his/her own behaviors.

    Not taking responsibility for angry behavior and justifying angry outbursts.

    Dealing with overly-critical people:

    Always treat them with respect.
    Be the bigger person and do not treat them as they treat you. Retaliation and revenge will always bring negative results. Never allow critical people to get the best of you. When critical people change our behavior or our attitudes they win. Always try to rise above low behavior.

    Criticism is a fact of life but overcoming criticism is another fact of life. Learning to deal with criticism is a process and one that happens on a daily basis. Dealing with critical people is difficult but always strive to be the bigger person.

    “I’ve wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I’m happy to state I finally won out over it.” — Mary Chase

  36. Craig Binns Says:

    Iggy, your observations require no comment.

    Brucefast; yes I know about hydrogen bombs only by hearsay; but as regards cold fusion I don’t think I EVEN have hearsay. Let me put it this way: do YOU accept the existence of fusion bombs? How do YOU think stars (which you know to exist by direct observation) generate their power?

    Most people know most things by hearsay, but they hear the say from trustworthy sources. More trustworthy than Rossi, in my opinion.

    I have ample justification for believing by hearsay. The only constraint is that I am not thereby qualified to appear as a witness before, say, a parliamentary committee, or in a court of law, to testify to the existence of hydrogen bombs. If I were so qualified, and gave expert testimony, would the jurors be justified in believing me … by hearsay? Of course they would, if they accepted that I was an honest witness.

    Roger: I have already drawn a distinction between “hot” fusion, which assuredly exists (it is known to occur under specified conditions), and the immense engineering problem of controlling it, which may indeed never be solved, for all I know. You are, I think wilfully, confusing these two separate issues. I am as sceptical of unfounded reports of controlled hot fusion, which appear from time to time, as I am of anything connected with cold fusion.

    If you look again at your previous posts you will be able to see numerous instances of personal invective by you against me. In any case, for anyone to say that another person takes a childish view is hardly an extreme insult. It is essentially a negative assessment of the person’s beliefs, not a disparagement of the person’s character, which may well be admirable.

    By contrast, your “were those bigger boys mean?” is beneath contempt, and has no place in friendly discourse, or even any validity as an argumentative tactic. Be ashamed, if you have any decency left in you.

  37. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Has America lost it’s will to innovate? Why deal with skeptics, bureaucrats, regulators, Greenies, special interests, etc when you can go to China and do business?

    “Will Latta, the founder of clean-energy company LP Amina Inc., says he tried last year to interest U.S. power utilities in testing a new technology that reduces pollution from burning coal. Rebuffed, he took his invention to the coal-belt city of Fengtai in eastern China, where he found a partner eager to install the multimillion-dollar technology. “In the U.S. there’s a resistance to demonstrate new technology,” says Mr. Latta, a 42-year-old Miami native who founded LP Amina in 2007. “They don’t like to be the first.” Mr. Latta’s story underscores how U.S. companies can gain from China’s commitment to clean energy and challenges the notion that technological advances by one of the countries comes at the other’s expense. Start-ups aren’t the only companies getting a boost from China, so have energy giants like Duke Energy Corp. Last year Mr. Latta tried to create a pilot demonstration for a new piece of technology that reduces the size of coal particles during power generation. The invention is meant to improve coal-processing efficiencies in power plants and has shown promise in cutting nitric-oxide and nitrogen-dioxide emissions, which contribute to ozone-layer depletion and can harm a person’s lungs. But he says several U.S. utilities turned him away, unwilling to invest the about $10 million it costs to retrofit a typical power plant. Early this year, Mr. Latta found a partner in Zhejiang Energy Group, which installed his invention at one of its power plants in Fengtai. Zhejiang Energy didn’t respond to a request for comment. Armed with results from Fengtai showing that his technology worked, Mr. Latta returned to one of the U.S. utilities that had turned him away. This time, the utility agreed to install the invention at a plant. Mr. Latta declined to name the customer, citing a nondisclosure agreement. Mr. Latta now is attempting to replicate that success with a new process that simultaneously produces electricity and, as a byproduct, a valuable ingredient for industrial chemicals. LP Amina, which is based in Charlotte, N.C., says the technology reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 25%, compared with traditional petroleum processes. The process was developed in collaboration with the Bayer Technology Services unit of Bayer AG. New power plants “are massive capital investments,” says LP Amina’s Mr. Latta. “To push the envelope on the R&D side, it’s also a massive investment. Why should one nation shoulder that?” “It should not be us versus them,” he says.”

    • Bob Says:

      Iggy, I believe the answer is a big fat yes. I read just today that Bill Gates is working with China on a new improved Nuclear plant design, much safer and much less waste material.
      Our schools are in horrible shape and we don’t compete with top tear countries in testing.
      Our kids no longer do things, they play video games. When was the last time you watched kids build something.
      The Engineering grads want to go into marketing sale, more flash etc.
      Just go to a design seminar in Silicon Valley, its all Chines and Indian Immigrants attending, they do the design work and go back home after they learned the trade. If your not doing the designs and farm it out, you wont know how things work and you wont have the insights. The US is rapidly losing the ability to make anything, both Engineering and Manufacturing. I few this as very alarming and sad to watch the deterioration, mostly because of progressive politics.

  38. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    A nice essay, however I don’t think the resistance is due to true political philosophy (conservatism, liberalism, socialism, etc) but from genuine skepticism and influence from special interests. AlGore’s “Inconvenient Truth” was a blatant money grab.

    “Cold Fusion: A Resurrection and an Inconvenient Truth (A view from Europe)”:

    • Roger Bird Says:

      On the humane human level, remember, Al Gore went through a big depression after losing to Bush II. Fighting climate change became his new purpose for living. I am glad that he is no longer depressed and hasn’t killed himself. It also means that he won’t be changing his mind any time soon.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        When AlGore left office he was worth 2 or 3 hundred thousand bucks. Now he’s worth over 100 million.

        His daddy had the same knack for turning a crooked dollar. Armand Hammer bragged he had Albert Gore in his hip pocket (patting his wallet). Armand Hammer was in Joseph Stalin’s hip pocket.

        AlGore pretends to be Mr Greenie, meanwhile the Gore family
        owns the largest, most polluting strip-mine in Tennessee.
        Hammer’s Occidental Petroleum discovered the zinc mine, then sold it for a pittance to the Gores, and leased it back for
        considerably more…..a laundered political bribe. Tyson
        Chicken did the same with Hillary Clinton with her commodity
        option trading. Her broker, Red Bone, was also Tyson’s.
        Tyson would buy both long and short on a commodity. Bone
        would allot the winning position to Hillary and Tyson would write off the losing position.

      • Bob Says:

        Gore pushed green to sell books and things, but his real agenda was to get cap and trade going. He was a big owner in the Chicago carbon credit trading that was started. Slick all sold his position months before they shut it down. Don’t know the specifics, but Europe bought into all the climate bull and still trades carbon credits. I’m betting big Al has his fingers in that pie too. Its not about climate, its all about money.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        That’s ugly, but the fun begins when everyone starts adopting E-Cats, assuming that they actually work.

  39. brucefast Says:

    # Eleven


    On 1/30 and 1/31 M. Swartz will discuss results he has obtained from a variety of cold fusion experiments he has done over the years. He has observed excess power in PdD and in NiH experiments

    That makes 11 separate replications of the Ni + H reaction. (I have found a few more here and there, but they have not been published in a reliable enough of source for me to mention them. The MIT website qualifies by me.)

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      That’s no small feat…..MIT jumping on the CF bandwagon. Mallove resigned from MIT when he discovered they had tampered with test results.

      “MIT further disgraced itself by altering data in its failure to replicate study. This was discovered two years later by MIT employee Eugene Mallove, who found copies of the July 10 and July 13 drafts of the paper. The July 10th version had a graph that clearly showed excess heat. In the July 13 version the graph was redrawn to show no excess heat. The atmosphere at MIT, as shown by a “Wake for Cold Fusion” party (before the data was analyzed) and t-shirts and mugs offered by the plasma fusion lab, was hardly impartial.”

      • Bob Says:

        Iggy – If you look at all the papers and lab reports its pretty obvious CF has been around, but it never got interest, I believe, because it was low amounts of energy, but Rossi Changed the picture and created the buzz. I can understand the motives behind universities trying to protect their Hot Fusion research. Wonder where we would be if the money spent on Hot Fusion the last 20 years was put in CF instead.
        The Spawar shutting down work is troublesome considering all the NASA and military rumors and tie ins. What bothers me the most is DOE and their refusal to even consider it. The evidence is mounting that its real and a revolution and will solve everything they are working for. Maybe trying to protect their jobs, they backed the wrong technology.

        Regardless, the genie is out of the bag as evident by another guy claiming to duplicate Rossi

  40. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    The only question remaining in my mind is if and when the eCat (or a competitive device) can be developed into a consumer-friendly appliance. An appliance that will work reliably 24/7.

  41. does green tea make you lose weight Says:

    does green tea make you lose weight…

    […]Skepticism, a cost-benefit analysis « nickelpower[…]…

  42. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    What makes Rossi skeptics tick? I don’t get it. How can anyone be continually motivated by negativism?

    Negativism does motivate me when it potentially affects my pocketbook and/or my freedom, but a Rossi scam shouldn’t obsess anyone more than a few days. Some of the major Rossi skeptics are on line at least 12 hr/day 7 days a week.

    My only answer is that some 3rd party is providing the motivation i.e. vigorish. Bashing Rossi is their occupation. It’s so obvious.

    • brucefast Says:

      Oh man, I already labeled a comment “comment of the day”, now what do I do.

      I don’t think you have your “only answer” right, however.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        OK Bruce, didn’t you say you were a psychologist? Is there some psychological condition that would cause someone to be totally obsessed with opposing another person? It’s not like Rossi was trying to undermine a political system or a religion.

        If Rossi turns out to be a fraud, it would be an obscure footnote in history, if that. There have been huge scams in the past few years that involved many billions of dollars. One huge scammer is currently undergoing trial. I bet that not one of the Rossi skeptics could name that scammer, yet his damage would greatly dwarf Rossi’s potential mischief.

        I doubt Craig is a paid shill. It’s obvious that he just enjoys argument. I bet Craig avoids agreeable people like he avoids the plague.

        There’s a skeptic on the two major Rossi sites that must have a paid staff of researchers.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        In my humble opinion, I believe that all patho-skeptics are ill. I have had the unpleasant experience of encountering them in health forums. I can’t say that I learned anything from the experience except to recognize their walking-dead attitude when I encounter them. The various patho-skeptics here are exactly like the walking-dead I encountered in health forums.

        Craig Binns idea that brucefast (and probably others) were trying to convince him that Rossi was honest is an example. Bruce has obviously, over and over and over and over, said that Rossi is dishonest.

        Another example is saying that we-all believe Rossi. He either can’t understand the difference between enthusiastic optimism and conviction, because he is missing that component in his own mind, or else he is being deliberately daft. And being deliberately daft brings up the idea that he is being paid to undermine Rossi. If this is so, whoever is paying him should get his money back because Craig is not doing a very good job simply because we-all are clear thinking and don’t believe or disbelieve without convincing evidence.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        A lie is a misstatement with intent to deceive. I don’t think Rossi is a liar. He lets his mouth overload his ass. No, you cannot always depend on what Rossi says because what he says has not always been carefully thought out.

        Rossi is like what has been said about Newt Gingrich, “No thought goes unspoken”.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “No thought goes unspoken” I resemble that remark.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        If Craig Binns really is a paid saboteur, I would imagine he is right now thinking, “Boy! I blew it with that ‘brucefast trying to convince me that Rossi was honest’ bit.” He will be thinking up some other strategy to recover what credibility he absolutely has none of around here. Craig, you are wasting you time with us. Go bother some true believers, like perhaps AGW people, the followers of the next cult guru, some left brain mush heads, or something along that line. You haven’t moved a single person here because we have our eyes on the evidence like my doggie Tango has her one eye on the ball that he wants me to kick. Even when I throw another ball at Tango, she doesn’t take her eye off the one she presented to me. We are like that, Craig. If you have done ANYTHING, it has been to sharpen our focus on the evidence and helped us to improve our writing skills.

      • brucefast Says:

        “OK Bruce, didn’t you say you were a psychologist?”

        Well, I actually said that I studied psychology on the master’s level. (I do not have a master’s degree, though I finished all of my coursework.) In most jurisdictions you must both have a doctorate and be “registered” to call yourself a psychologist.

        As far as a diagnosis, my DSM is pretty well worn, but it hasn’t produced a formal diagnosis that I have found. That’s ok though, the field is rife with informal diagnoses. I think I would go with an argumentative personality disorder. Maybe I’ll submit it to the society for formal consideration.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – “comment of the day” may be gone, but there’s still “comment of the week/month/year” available.

        What we are doing is sifting the available evidence to see what probabilities we can attach, and thus make an estimate of when that pocket-book may need to see the light of day and go buy something that will save us money.

        I don’t know why Craig takes any evidence in the worst possible light and then tries to convince us to agree with him. It is maybe a contra-evangelical dysfunction (not in your DSM – yet). I think that, since he has not been in the position of bringing out a new technology himself, he thinks that it is as easy as Hollywood tends to portray science, and thus any delay, inadequate demo or missed deadline must therefore be a fraud.

        Going through PESN the other night, I followed a link to a thin-film solar panel to see if it had progressed in the last 5 years (Johanna). I found myself in Bosch, who are now manufacturing that solar panel. There are several things in the “top 100″ which are now being produced for sale. A patho-skeptic would probably pan all the stuff in PESN because Sterling Allan says it’s good, but there is some real gold in that pile.

        I am hopeful that new technologies will work, mainly because I have seen a lot of things that were written about in sci-fi become real and available. You can now buy a Dick Tracy watch, a StarTrek communicator, and a computer you can have a conversation with (and it’s phone-sized!). The evidence so far says that we will probably be able to buy an LENR reactor for the home in a few years.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        My wife works with the severely handicapped, neurologically damaged teenagers. I have no doubt whatsoever that a very large contributing factor to the increase in these disasters is pollution, and LENR will reduce pollution greatly. And I don’t even believe in AGW. These damaged children are the worst crime in the world, and we are all contributing to it by our polluting lifestyle. The sooner we get LENR the sooner this catastrophe will diminish.

      • brucefast Says:

        Roger, I have an MD friend who was laid up for about 5 years of unknown causes. He eventually discovered that if he lived in a radically wholesome world, his symptoms subsided radically. He eventually got a diagnosis for his untreatable condition, but “the cure” remained the same, a radically wholesome world.

        Because of this plight, my MD friend studied everything that has made the medical journals about environmental health. He has become an environmental physician. His success rate at improving the lives of his clientele is most impressive.

        Yes Roger, there is a lot of environmentally caused illness. I don’t know how much of it would be eliminated by the e-cat, however.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Too ‘clean’ is not good either.
        “In medicine, the hygiene hypothesis states that a lack of early childhood exposure to infectious agents, symbiotic microorganisms (e.g., gut flora or probiotics), and parasites increases susceptibility to allergic diseases by suppressing natural development of the immune system. Because of this we fail to induce a The polarized response early in life so as we grow up we are more prone to developing The induced disease. The rise of autoimmune diseases and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in young people in the developed world has also been linked to the hygiene hypothesis. There is some evidence that autism may be caused by an immune disease; One study supports the hygiene hypothesis theory and cites the lack of early childhood exposure as a cause of autism.”

        Many people with auto-immune diseases have gotten relief by intentionally infected themselves with parasitic worms such as hookworms and pigworms.

        Another treatment for auto-immune disease is low-dose naltrexone (LDN). I take LDN for my asthma and I’ve been able to reduce my medication by about 80%.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, I can see how exposure would strengthen a child for germs and viruses. Millions of years ago our ancestors developed an immunity via natural selection to XYZ germ. If I catch of whiff of XYZ as a child, my immune system “looks” around for those genes to defend against XYZ and develops the antibodies for XYZ. But I don’t see how this exposure would work for substances that have never existed since the the Big Bang.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        It’s hard to imagine hookworms, latched onto your gut, would cure or control Crohn’s Disease, Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), multiple sclerosis, colitis, or asthma, but it apparently helps many people with these diseases.

        It’s called helminthic therapy and it’s been researched for years at University of Nottingham and University of Iowa.

        Auto-Immune diseases are caused by an overactive immune system and my theory is that parasitic worms give the immune system something constructive to do.

        Naltrexone shuts down the body’s production of endorphins and is used to help drug addicts recover. Low-dose naltrexone only shuts down endorphin production for a few hours, when then it rebounds with a huge flood of endorphins. Somehow this is thought to “reset” the immune system.

        Both of these therapies are frowned upon by the medical establishment because they both threaten the profits of BigPharma and the sickness industry.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        If it is frowned upon by the sickness industry, then it very well may have merit.

      • Roger Bird Says:


        So many things are like Rossi/Defkalion/LANR, epistomologically speaking. Like anything that is outside of the box, like Helminthic Therapy. The “authorities” say that it ain’t so. Keen and honest observers say that it is so. The “authorities” say that it violates theory or is not accepted by the consensus of thinkers in the field. Keen and honest observers say that theory doesn’t count.

        Iggy, I have two questions. (1) Is Helminthic Therapy good for age related inflammation? (2) Are the worms removed eventually.

        I would also like to point out that the results sound very much like raw milk and homemade kefir. Homemade kefir works well for my inflammation (but not completely). And raw milk conquered my boys allergies.

        My 19 year old daughter still has allergies (and is sick in the next room) but she has refused to drink raw milk. And this is about how my family will view Helminthic Therapy, only worse. There is no way that they will try it, and there is very little reason for them to try it. But I sure would like to be completely inflammation free.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        (1) Is Helminthic Therapy good for age related inflammation?
        I haven’t heard that and I doubt it would help. Helminthic therapy is expensive ($3,500) plus travel to a foreign country.

        (2) Are the worms removed eventually.
        The worms can be easily eradicated with a pill they give you. The hookworms only live for a few years and then you must be retreated.

        The low-dose-naltrexone only costs $5/month and is very safe. The only side effects I’ve had are insomnia the 1st couple of nights and vivid lucid dreams every night.

        To avoid inflammation minimize intake of omega 6 oil. Avoid soy & corn oil. Most processed foods contain omega 6 oil. Natural foods, veggies etc also contain omega 6 but you can’t avoid those. I try to use canola cooking oil and canola mayonnaise. Some of the natural food nuts are paranoid about canola because it has been genetically improved but I don’t buy their argument.

        Probably the biggest cause of inflammation is red meat. All animal products have a sugar called Neu5Gc. Red meat has the highest amount of Neu5Gc. Poultry, eggs, and fish have small amounts.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I don’t know how much environmental damage would be eliminated by the e-cats either, but I can use my right brain for that estimation. Hmmm(right brain humming)mmmmm. It would be a lot. There would of course still be chemical factories, additives, pesticides, food coloring and things like. But most all transportation and all energy pollution would be gone. Transportation and energy pollution has got to be at least 50% if not more of the pollution problem. [Dear Hysterics: No, plutonium is not a serious pollution.]

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – thanks for the link for LDN – I’d never heard of it and I know two people that could benefit (maybe 3). My dad died very slowly from MND, and it seems he also could have benefited from this. The prospect of going that way myself is a nightmare.

        I have also since then read that such autoimmune diseases can be eased by using a parasite to give the system something real to work on. I don’t know whether LDN works better, but the parasite idea does seem a bit more natural. Whatever actually works is good, though, since most of the current medication appears to do little good. Being cheap as well is a major benefit.

        There’s always a conspiracy theory about any big business that makes a lot of profit. I suspect the researchers producing the new drugs truly believe they are doing their best for the world. The bosses look for the profit – that’s their job and their duty to the shareholders. Maybe sometimes there are conspiracies, but probably mostly not.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        No, Simon, there are conspiracies, or not. There are at least three things going on that make for very unnatural and symptom oriented pharmaceuticals.

        (1) There is the profit motive, which is greatly aggravated by the patent system. No drug company will try to sell a substance if they can’t get a patent on it; and no substance is patentable that is natural. So, therefore, ispo facto, all drugs are complete strangers to our natural bodies, immune systems, metabolism, livers, etc.

        (2) There is a mindset that goes all of the way back to Benjamin Rush and perhaps before that anything natural is the enemy to be “brushed aside” (as Rush said, or something to that affect).

        (3) All doctors think partialistically, instead of holistically. This influences the drug companies. So drug companies make drugs that remove symptoms, like high cholesterol, but said drugs do not make you a healthier person. Exercise in moderation will make you a healthier person and bring your high cholesterol down, but of course promoting exercise does not make any rich. And exercise and its affects are holistic, not partialistic.

        I just wish that the public would listen to the caveats that the FDA force drug makers to make about the drugs that they try to sell on television and radio. The real problem is the public is clueless when it comes to natural therapies and don’t realize or don’t care if the unnatural “remedies” are usually harmful to their overall health.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – Point 1 is one I hadn’t thought of, but it makes total sense. Thankyou. Point 2 doesn’t really mean much to me, except that I do see it in action. Point 3 about the holistic/partial divide in medical thinking East/West Is something I’ve known for a long time. The body is such a complex system, and micrograms of a particular substance can make the difference between wellbeing or illness (for example Thyroxin, where 25ug too much or too little is not at all good). Changing the diet is a better way of altering the cholesterol ratio, but statins (while they work) also seem to have the side effect of tiredness and lousy sex-life. But the patient is still alive, so it’s a tick on the statistics for lives saved.

        Maybe there’s just too much profit to be made in medicine.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        It does seem that in any arena of life if there is massive amounts of money to be made there is massive amounts of corruption. No one is trying to rob my house because we have very little wealth.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I seriously considered the hookworm treatment because my asthma was getting worse and my sister died from the disease 4 yr ago. If I do decide to use hookworms I plan to start my own hookworm “secret garden” so I can reinfect myself. Hookworms can only reproduce in the soil.

        Since LDN is so much cheaper ($5/mo) I decided to try it first. The cheap way to use LDN is to use the standard 50 mg pill, crush it, dissolve it in 50 ml of distilled water, then take 4.5 ml each night at bedtime. If you want to try it I’ll give you the internet source on your facebook page. I hate to openly post it for fear the authorities will close down the site.

        Dr Berkson is a former researcher at the National Institute of Health.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I hate using Facebook, but you could look for me. I have a friend named Nennette, if that helps. Use my name.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        But roger, there are 12 Nennettes on facebook.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        But Iggy, there is only one Roger Bird who has Nennette as a friend. I think.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Yeah, but I couldn’t find you.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Sorry Roger but I couldn’t find you.

        Send me a message on Iggy Dalrymple’s facebook page. I think I’m the only one.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I searched for “Iggy Dalrymple” on Facebook. I hate Facebook. I did not find you. Perhaps you did not come up because I hate Facebook. (:->)

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – from the website Iggy pointed to on LDN, this may be adequate to fix your problems. You may need to go to the “other sites” section and read all the personal stories, and then do some other research before you take that plunge. However, the FDA have said you can safely take 50mg daily, and the LDN is 1.5 to 4.5 mg daily, so it is probably extremely safe as medicines go.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Roger, if you want the source for ordering naltrexone on the web, give me your email address, or if Bruce will agree, I can send the info to him and he can forward it to you.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Bruce may extract or otherwise obtain my email address and send it to Iggy, please.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        By Jove, I’ve got it! Go to
        and join. When I see you, I’ll send you a private message.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, I will have a handle that is a combination of a famous German composer and a not so famous American artist in the first half of the 1800’s.

        I’ll be bach.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        OK Roger, I’ve sent you a PM with the info.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      More on INFLAMMATION AND Neu5Gc:

      “In 1982, Ajit Varki of the University of California, San
      Diego discovered a molecule called Neu5Gc that appears in the
      tissues of every mammal except humans (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, September 29, 2003). He has put together the pieces of a puzzle that may explain why, if we want to live into old age, we should probably avoid eating meat from any other
      mammals (Science, October 31, 2008).

      WHAT IS INFLAMMATION? Your immunity is good for you. It
      turns on and tries to kill germs when they invade your body.
      However, if your immunity stays active all the time, it eventually
      uses the same forces that kill germs to destroy your body. Your
      immunity makes cytokines that dissolve the outer membranes of
      attacking germs. These same cytokines can destroy the outer
      membranes in your body. Indeed, long before plaques that cause
      heart attacks form in your body, the cytokines erode and punch
      holes in the inner linings of your arteries. Plaques form long
      after a clot has formed to try to heal these lesions.

      NEU5GC CAUSES INFLAMMATION: When humans ingest the flesh or milk of any mammal, they absorb Neu5Gc and treat it the same way as an invading germ, so they make antibodies against it. This turns on their immunity and keeps it active so it eventually
      attacks the host itself, the human body. This chronic inflammation
      can cause heart attacks, strokes, cancers and premature death.

      NEU5GC AND CANCER: Since humans cannot make Neu5Gc, any amount found in human cells comes from the mammals that they have eaten. Neu5Gc is found in high levels in tumors, with the highest levels in metastasizing tumors. Dr Varki has shown that mice genetically engineered so that they are unable to make Neu5Gc, make antibodies against Neu5Gc and develop cancers when they are given meat that contains Neu5Gc and antibodies against that sugar-protein (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – thanks for the interesting information. When I was a student, one of my vacation jobs was as a cleaner in a meat-factory. It turned me vegetarian, and although I have no ethical problems in killing animals and eating them, I find I have no need to, in fact on the occasions when I have accepted meat (social necessity) I’ve spent a long time in the toilet subsequently. I do like cheese, though, so I still get some Neu5Gc.

        Maybe there are real health benefits from going Vegan….

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I intend to steer my family away (even more) from red meat. However, we will continue to eat fish and foul.

        I do have a slight ethical problem eating anything that I could love, and I don’t mean the kind of love that is all give and no receive, like the love that some foolish people have for snakes. I have received love from cows, dogs, goats, cats, and other mammals. The idea of receiving love from fish is laughable. Birds are another matter, especially parrots. But chickens? not going to be much of a problem for me.

  43. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Roger said, “The various patho-skeptics here are exactly like the walking-dead I encountered in health forums.”

    Roger, if you don’t mind saying, what health forums were you on? We may have butted heads. I was on for years, back when it was an open forum.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Iggy, I was too long ago for me to remember. But I doubt that we butted heads much if we did meet. You don’t seem like the type. And anyway, this is the first time that I have encountered the name “Iggy”.

  44. Craig Binns Says:

    A paid saboteur. A pathological paid saboteur. Wow, that sounds really dangerous.

    A tiny coterie of believers, like the Branch Davidians or a polygamous Mormon sect holed up in some mountain hideaway, perceiving the rest of the world as a diabolical plot. Every outsider is an emissary of Satan.

    That’s where the “pathology” is.

    The Rossi affair is now exactly similar to all the previous free energy scams. Phoney science invented ad hoc. Lies, fraud (the copper isotopes), denunciations of “snakes and clowns”, meetings designed to part cash-rich information-poor farmers in Australia from their dosh. Delay, obfuscation. The only thing lacking: evidence. But that’s no problem because believers don’t need evidence. They have faith, and they abuse the faithless, like devotees of some crazed sect.

    So this is now like Steorn or Blacklight. Exactly like them, down to the finest detail. Problem solved.

    Alas, the deserts won’t be turning green any time soon, will they? It’s like Saint Paul expecting “we who are still alive” to see Jesus coming down from heaven. 2000 years have passed and we’re still waiting. I hope you guys have as much patience as you have abusiveness. But please, keep your money in your wallets if Rossi or his buddies at Byron give you a call!

    • Roger Bird Says:

      “A tiny coterie of believers, like the Branch Davidians or a polygamous Mormon sect holed up in some mountain hideaway, perceiving the rest of the world as a diabolical plot.” We are not believers. This is why we think that you are nuts. I didn’t finish your entire post since you started it off with one of your lies. All you do is lie and then have battles with your fantasies. You are not talking to us. You are talking to a fantasy that you invented.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Craig, you’ve made your point.
      Go find yourself a soapbox in Hyde Park.

  45. bulk candy cheap Says:

    Hola! I’ve been reading your web site for some time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Porter Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up the good work!

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 72 other followers

%d bloggers like this: