What convinces a physicist?

I couldn’t pass this up, what a headline:

“Four Swedish entrepreneurs, two of them particle physicists, run the site Ecat.com”

I would go on, but the NyTeknic article is fantastic — and in English.  Please read it and comment either here or there.


<— To main blog


About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

147 Responses to “What convinces a physicist?”

  1. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    They’re like the believers here….seeing is believing, except
    they have the benefit of advanced scientific training.
    But, like us, they don’t claim to understand the process.

  2. maryyugo Says:

    They readily admit that they have never seen a test of the E-cat independent of Rossi and that they don’t know of any

    They won’t reveal their contract with Rossi so possibly they paid him in advance.

    I don’t understand why they’re so sure it’s real that they went to all the trouble and expense to acquire the distribution rights and the web site.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Old physicist’s adage, “Strike while the iron is hot”.

    • Brad Arnold Says:

      Maybe they are going by the preponderance of the evidence, huh?

      Some people don’t need certainty before tending to believe. I mean it isn’t analog, where it is either 1 for true or 0 for false, it is digital where it is very likely true based upon a probability assessment.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      maryyugo Says: “They readily admit that they have never seen a test of the E-cat independent of Rossi”.
      “They were allowed to check for hidden conduits and examine the instruments and various elements of the system. They were not allowed access to the core but since it was small and the claimed energy large, it was reasonable to treat the device as a black box to determine its utility.

      No one can accuse Kullander or Essen of not being independent. How often have we heard that a scammer would never let an independent and qualified scientist near their scamming machine? And yet, here we have two physicists, both active and experienced, one the chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ (of Nobel fame) Energy Committee and the other the former chairman of the Swedish Skeptics’ Society and both allowed dangerous and intimate access to a working eCat.

      He also said that Rossi is definitely not a fraud and that his friend Focardi and Levi is absolutely not frauds. They are his friends and he trust them.
      Rossi on the other had he said to be a black box.
      He said that NASA had contacted him and asked about rossis ecat. So NASA was the first American customer that bailed. Apparently they wanted to know how it worked and Rossi wanted to keep the secret for himself.

      Sven kullander did not know who the final costumer is.”

  3. Roger Bird Says:

    maryyugo, it is called taking a risk. Risk taking is common in venture capitalism. The venture does not have to violate the known laws of physics for it to be a risk. It is just more exciting if it does violate the known laws of physics. (:->)

  4. Jonathan Says:

    I guess you should look at at what is happening with the neutrio experiments that apparently show something travelling at faster than the speed of the light to see what convinces a physicist.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Some scientists cling to their precious theories like some religionists cling to their precious theology like an insecure, hysterical widow might cling to her husband’s coffin.

  5. Peter Thieberger Says:

    What convinces most physicists is experimental evidence that is well documented and independently replicated. Following this simple rule has produced pretty good results so far. It seems strange to argue that it is designed to stifle progress.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Perhaps Rossi is afraid of what happened to Pons and Fleishmann, assuming that Rossi knows that it works and he saw what happened to P & F. Remember that scientists said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible, even after the Wright Bros. were flying around Dayton for 4 years. And remember that scientists swore up and down that the electric light was impossible. Commercial success is a much smarter way to go.

    • Sven Says:

      It’s clear that Rossi is either worried about the result from a controlled study or this is a part of his strategy. The only thing that is absolutely clear is that doing this to make money. It’s not necessarily the smartest move from him, to put the world upside down over a night by bringing an undeniable evidence on the table. A smarter thing to do could be to build up public interest while building up his enterprise, but keep the research community on the sideline as long as possible.

      Even if his patents don’t hold, imaging the enterprise value of his company if he would now publish this type of evidence after selling a number of units compared with if he would have tried to sell a chemical formula a year back without any publications. With the evidence on the table GE and the other giants would be waiting in lines to acquire his technology to get the jump-start they need into this new arena of energy management.

      So given that the technology works and he is in this for the money, isn’t he just doing exactly what he should be doing?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        If Rossi just followed the Pons and Fleishmann path, he would end up just exactly like Pons and Fleishmann. Other scientists were stuck on the idea that it could NOT work, so their efforts were designed to make it not happen, instead of trying to see what Pons and Fleishmann, two perfectly honest people, had actually experienced. Rossi is doing the right thing. Let the boxed scientists catch-up while people are making millions of dollars with the E-Cat.

  6. Josh Says:

    It seems to me that Rossi hasn’t entirely convinced himself:

    Andrea Rossi
    November 19th, 2011 at 2:58 AM

    “…We are not ready to go public. My enterprise is still too risky to propose investment to the public…”

    Ecat.com is an investment, so apparently he is ok with their time and/or money being invested, but Rossi should know all – if he has what he claims he has, the risky part is done. Demand will be high, and manufacturing is a solvable problem.

    It concerns me that he still thinks there is great risk.

    • brucefast Says:

      “if he has what he claims he has, the risky part is done.” Oh I wish. There is untold risk in the early stages of business. The problem with the risk of early stage business is that it is often hard to define.

      • Josh Says:

        If I could prove to you that I could produce large amounts of excess heat/energy, would you pay me anything you could afford to have my technology?

        So would GE. So would Google. So would any sane business/person. Everyone who consumes energy wants cheaper energy.

        If Rossi has what he claims, he could be richer than he can imagine moments after proving it to any number of reputable entities. The only risks he faces are those he’s subjecting himself to by trying to go it alone.

        Most risks in the early stages of business are related to sales… energy is probably the largest market in the world… and his would be far cheaper than the competition.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        That articled I “Wow!!!” recently, the long one, about the history of cold fusion up to 2004. That really shows that really serious people have been having sputtering success all along. Rossi has probably gotten rid of the sputter. I am up to 70% certain.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Josh, big companies like GE and Google will jump in when the water is safe and their is no danger. Guys at the top make the big dollars for not making mistakes. Sadly that puts them in the same caliber as most scientists, skeptical up until its proven and their idea. It its proven, they will put a real press on to acquire the technology. None of these guys were ever fired for not getting a technology, they play safe.

  7. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Dec 7 Presentation
    “Brian Ahern received his PhD in material science from MIT, holds 26 patents and was a senior scientist for 17 years in research and development at USAF Rome Lab at Hanscom Air Force Base. Ahern was the U.S. Air Force’s expert on nano-materials. Ahern has discovered the LENR phenomenon is occurring on the nanoscale and involves a formerly misunderstood and rarely explored attribute of nano-magnetism.

    Apparently, energy localization at the nano-scale circumvents the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Nature evolved to take advantage of these energy exchange mechanisms available only at this size scale (which is why ordered structures can be created from chaos, such as after the big bang.) This phenomenon was identified in 1996 as Oscillons in relation to Chaos Theory, but has never been clearly understood until now.

    Ahern states “In the last 8 weeks I have been astounded by a superior nanotechnology that will capture the imagination of even the greatest foes of LENR. I believe all of LENR is just a new and unanticipated form of nanomagnetism.” Citi5′ Flash Summit titled Attention America: Clean Tech will fix the Economy will be integrating Ahern’s research, as well as providing a platform for leaders and innovators of LENR to present their findings. Please contact us at info@citi5.org with any questions regarding attending the event or speaker suggestions.

    Citi5 cautions all that while LENR may in fact represent one of the most important advances in human history, we must move forward logically with testing for unanticipated and unintended consequences. This technology faces many years of further development to address efficiency, scale, output, and application. However, this discovery creates a clear path towards creation of a sustainable future driven by freedom, justice, creativity, and innovation.”

    • brucefast Says:

      Iggy, yet another interesting find.

      I find it quite important to separate the phenomenon from the theory. It makes me gristle when I periodically read people refer to the e-cat reaction as an hypothesis. It is not! It is a phenomenon (if it isn’t a scam). The phenomenon requires theory to understand it, but the phenomenon does not need theory to work. I love the illustration that its like fire. Some cavemen tamed fire who knows how long ago, but fire being properly understood as rapid oxidization is only about 250 years old.

      Once the physicists get past denial, I trust that they will figure out what is really going on in relatively short order. I also believe that once it is properly understood, that knowledge will lead to more effective reactors.

    • Bob Norman Says:

      The Ahern paper will be most interesting. It feels like they are slowly walking into an understanding of the technology. The full understanding may obsolete all patent attempts as the understanding will open up new methods of achieving the reaction. I think Rossi needs to run and run hard to get a market lead to capitalize on his invention. The pack will soon be at his heals. I think he knows that and has adapted his present strategy for that.

  8. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    New course at MIT:

    Starting 2012 with Cold Fusion 101
    November 18, 2011
    tags: class, cold fusion, Hagelstein, Jet Energy, MIT, Swartz
    by Ruby Carat

    A new short course on cold fusion science and technology sponsored by the Engineering and Computer Science departments at Massachusetts Institute of Technology will be held in January 2012 during institute’s Independent Activities Period.

    • brucefast Says:

      Man I wish I could attend.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Funny thing….MIT was the biggest critic of Fleischmann-Pons.
        Three of the 4 Koch brothers have advanced science degrees from MIT. One of the Koch brothers was in my aerodynamics class at preflight school at Pensacola Naval Flight Training. I had a business administration degree from Florida State and Koch had chemical engineering degree from MIT. I outscored him on the final exam. There was only 2 perfect 100s in the class, me and a Stanford engineer. Over 1/3 of the class flunked, including a Naval Academy engineering grad. Koch was Navy and I was Marine Corps. Koch seemed to be a nice guy. Koch Industries is the largest family owned private company in the US. Their father invented an important refining process but was shut out of the US petroleum
        industry. He took his idea to Russia and there learned the evils
        of communism. When he returned to the US he became an
        ardent anti-communist. He founded the John Birch Society.
        One of his sons ran for President as a Libertarian. Another son won the America’s Cup yacht race. One son gave $100 million to fund the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT.

        The Koch family are great patriots. They make most of their money from energy. They stand to lose from the E-Cat. I don’t think they would do anything dishonest. If they were persuaded that LENR was the future, they would try to buy into it.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Very interesting!!! The last I heard from John Stossel (not someone I actually know personally, but someone whose delightful personality and clarity of thought I appreciate) the Koch brothers were ardent free market libertarians. The liberals and lefties think that they are Satan incarnate.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Iggy – most interesting. I wonder what the Kosh brothers think of Cold Fusion.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I don’t claim to know Koch and didn’t know him back then. It wasn’t until decades later that I read about the family and my mind flashed back to Public Speaking class in 1960. We had to start our speech with a short bio. A tall, slightly pudgy, Ensign with reddish blond hair said, “My name is Koch, pronounced Coke. I’m from Wichita where my family is in the oil business. I attended MIT and graduated with an engineering degree.”
        There are 4 Koch brothers and 2 broke away from the family business. William is one of the breakaways and I think he was my former classmate, although I can’t remember his 1st name. The other breakaway brother is not a scientist but has spent his career in the arts and philanthropy.
        I tooted my horn on aceing the aero exam because that was the sole example of me excelling in academics. Otherwise I was a mediocre student.
        I expect the Kochs are nervous about the eCat developments and probably have a contingency plan.

  9. Greg Goble Says:


    I have been pondering sound, or sonic harmonic phenomenon (like cavitation), as being the catalyst in the Rossi – E Cat reaction chamber. Knowing your interest I am sending you this. You will find enlightening leads in this piece I have been doing flash crowd education with.

    A bit of research and I come across this item. Rossi is associated with these folks who are experts in the cavitation phenomenon.

    Different frequencies of sound may cause cavitation and focus heat within the nickel and hydrogen lattice, specific frequencies oscillating through a harmonic may create standing waves weakening the lines of resistance between subatomic particles. Is sound the catalyst in the Rossi E Cat reaction chamber? Related information see Sonofusion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonofusion

    Are the radio frequencies creating a micro-cavitation within the nickel hydrogen lattice? This is the first post I found where Rossi mentions sonic frequency generation as part of the reaction process. “In the self sustained mode, a one megawatt plant can operate at full power, while consuming a miniscule amount of electricity to operate fans, pumps and radio frequency generators.” http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp/Products/1MW_Plant/index.html

    Further sonic speculation in a recent CBS News article “Cold Fusion Debate Heats Up After Latest Demo” ByNatalie Wolchover
    “Peter Hagelstein, an MIT professor of electrical engineering and computer science and one of the most mainstream proponents of cold fusion research, thinks the process may involve vibrational energy in the metal’s lattice driving nuclear transitions that lead to fusion.” .www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57318762/cold-fusion-debate-heats-up-after-latest-demo

    “Not so far in the distant future, the next generation… will look back at our generation… and know that the term ‘energy shortage’ was a term for unenlightened minds” gbgoble-2008



    • Roger Bird Says:

      I am under the impression that “radio frequency” means electromagnetic waves, not sound waves. Although I have no problem, intuitively, with sound waves. Harmonics of any kind can do amazing things, like bring the Tacoma bridge down.

    • brucefast Says:

      First, I have not hear Rossi discuss his “frequency” as a “radio frequency”, so I wonder where the “radio” part came from.

      Secondly, radio frequencies are “electromagnetic frequencies” usually only considered to be radio frequencies if they are in the frequency range of some radio signal band. Electromagnetic frequencies are readily converted into audio frequencies simply by placing them in the presence of iron — magnetized iron works even better. This, in fact, is how speakers work — the electromagnetic frequency pushes and pulls a magnet producing the sound.

  10. Roger Bird Says:

    Here is another indication that things aren’t always exactly as scientists say that they are and that perhaps we should cultivate an open mind:


    The problem is not that science isn’t the correct way to investigate the universe. The problem is the implication by professional scientists that they are the only ones qualified to have theories, that they are the high priests of all knowing, that we amateurs should stop thinking for ourselves and listen only to them, and that materialism is the only reality (despite the fact that the scientific method is not designed to answer metaphysical questions.)

    • Craig Binns Says:


      If you’re saying that the Rossi e-cat is not a material reality, but an abstract concept located outside the domain of the physical sciences, I agree.

      However, is the metaphysical realm the appropriate dwelling place for a mechanism contrived for the purpose of emitting steam?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, when I say the word “metaphysical”, I am talking about the branch of philosophy concerned with trying to decide what is real, unless I say otherwise. I used the word metaphysical to explain that scientists are philosophically ignorant and make statements implying that they are positive when in fact they aren’t and in fact can’t be. They say that the Universe is expanding, then they have to invent dark matter and dark energy to explain what they are seeing. In other words, I do not worship at the altar of modern science. This gives me the distance to see that scientists are not all knowing.

  11. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Two hydrogen atoms meet. One says, ‘I’ve lost my electron.’ The other says ‘Are you sure?’ The first replies, ‘Yes, I’m positive.’

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I disagree. Divine love and all the other little loves like loving our children, spouse, parents, friends, country, other human beings, is a more rewarding experience. But I am not putting down wonder. Joy is also wonderful, and so is absolute calmness. I would think that all great scientists like Newton and Einstein had a lot of calmness. Newton spend months if not years concentrating on a single problem, which would be pretty amazing calmness. I can’t even concentrate on my tinnitus for more than a minute or so. (:->)

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former. –
        Albert Einstein

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Einstein is not my authority figure. And apparently he was wrong about the universe being infinite. It is only 27 billion light years across, or so say most astronomers.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Does my posted quote sound like a quote of authoritative command?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, I thought that I was responding to Craig.

  12. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school. – Albert Einstein

  13. Craig Binns Says:


    The OBSERVABLE universe is believed to be 27 m ly across because it is calculated to be 13.5 billion years old. Light from further away has not had time to reach us.

    However, the observable universe is certainly only a part of the entire universe, which may be vastly larger or, indeed, even infinite in size.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, I have heard that bit about the universe being infinite but we can’t see it because the light hasn’t gotten to us yet. But, if it is infinite, then why isn’t it eternal? (:->) And in any case, what does this have to do with cold fusion? I know, I got us most of the way here. (:->)

  14. brucefast Says:

    Here is a 1 hour plus discussion by another Ph.D. believer:
    Interesting: [With thanks to Mary Yugo and Jouni Valkonen on Vortex]

    • Roger Bird Says:

      In response to McKubre’s lecture, I have to say that I am no longer a cold fusion doubter. But Rossi is still on probation. It is a big step to go from 4He and excess heat to a working product.

  15. Greg Goble Says:

    Few new energy devices will find a clear path to a patent. Not surprising considering the fact they defy physics, or should I say known “non-reality” physics. This article will clarify: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/14/nuclear-catastrophe-how-the-lack-of-fundamental-research-on-alternative-energy-led-to-a-wrong-energy-policy/

  16. Roger Bird Says:

    I wish to rub the noses of the skeptical disbelievers in their own poop. I have been preaching agnosticism for months here at nickelpower.org concerning both cold fusion and Rossi. I remain uncertain about Rossi. After watching the Mike McKubre video tapes, I BELIEVE in cold fusion. And if you don’t, then you are either uninformed or you cling to theory like an hysterical old widow would cling to her husband’s coffin. Hot fusion, after billions and billion of dollars and millions and millions of man-hours and at least 50 years, doesn’t have squat. SRI and others are actually getting lots of excess energy.

    And the thing I like best about hot fusion is that the longer they do their experimenting, the farther into the future they claim it will be for them to get a viable commercial product. They condemn their own efforts with their own words. The more they know, they more unlikely it is, by their own words, that they will have a product. What they are saying is that most of their children will be dead of natural causes by the time they have a viable product. Yeah, they like to play with their big, huge, monstrously powerful machines, but is it doing me the tax payer any good?

  17. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    “NextBigFuture”s version of Ahern’s aborted presentation. See comments for PPT footnotes.

    “14) Nobody paid attention to the Arata claims, because Takahashi presented right after him and showed a null result. Over three weeks of e-mails I convinced him to process in the 3 – 12nm range and he got excess energy on the first attempt. When the metal lattice is this small it too udergoes large amplitude anharmonic oscillations. This in turn, causes a further amplification of the hydrogen modes to a chaotic condition. This introduces new possibilities for energetic reactions that are as yet undetermined.”

    • brucefast Says:

      Thanks Iggy for the post.

      I have two points

      This statement is a bit hard to read, who is “I” and “him”. I believe that the statement is as follows:
      Over three weeks of e-mails, I [Arata] convinced him [Takahashi] to process in the 3 – 12 nm range, and he [Takahashi] got excess energy on the first attempt.

      If this is the case, it would be really nice if Takahashi publicly declared his success.

      Secondly, “Nobody paid attention to the Arata claims, because Takahashi presented right after him and showed a null result.” This statement sooo frustrates me about the scientific community. I repeat what I said over on “hoax” — If 100 people attempt to swim the English channel and two succeed, is it possible for a human to swim the English channel? If this be the case, and one scientist gets a result but another gets a “null”, why should the “null” get the respect?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I believe “I” is the owner/author of ‘NextBigFuture’. “Him” would be Takahashi.

        I believe the owner of NextBigFuture is a Japanese-American….a savvy guy. He’s also regularly corresponds with Ahern.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Brian Wang….sounds Chinese. http://worldtransformed.com/wt1/our-fears-transformed/brian-wang/

      • brucefast Says:

        Interesting. “NextBigFuture” sounds Asian. However, NextBigFuture publishes so darn much hocus pocus that it is a bit hard to take serously. Their whole “do you believe this article” vote certainly leaves one with a feeling of confidence in their journalism.

      • Bob Says:

        I read where Mitt Romney mentioned Cold Fusion in a recent media discussion. He keeps that up IO may have to switch my vote. LOL

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Romney and Gingrich are the 2 brainiest presidential candidates. Gingrich is more conservative but he’s so abrasive that even his own GOP peers hate him. Romney, having been CEO of a venture capital company, is probably more knowledgeable of science and technology. Gingrich stupidly promotes ethanol mandates. For me it boils down to voting for Gen Patton (Ginrich) or Gen Ike (Romney).

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “However, NextBigFuture publishes so darn much hocus pocus that it is a bit hard to take serously.”

        Not nearly as kooky as Stirling Allan, but he was critical in publicizing the E-Cat.

      • brucefast Says:

        Sorry Iggy, I was getting nextbigfuture mixed up with Before it’s news. NextBigFuture is seems rather trustworthy, beforeitsnews.com is the whack job website.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “whack job” as in whacked in the head and can’t think all that clearly anymore? Or, “whack job” as in short stroking so much that they can’t think all that clearly anymore. (:->)

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Yeah, BeforeIt’sNews is just another incarnation of Stirling Allan’s. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy reading Allan’s publications but they warrant great scrutiny.

        The Filipino, Aviso, may be on to something with his “energy from the ether” electric car….or it may be a scam, but this video claimed to be monitored and verified by the Philippine DOE:
        “”Confirmed It’s a BREAKTHROUGH. Test by DYNO. Two type of supply from Ac wall outlet & Aviso tech. Conventional MERALCO supply 45% eff. & Aviso tech 133%. DOST will release the final result next week & they will immediately recommend the funding of Aviso techn.”” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpJEZHuYiDo&feature=related

  18. Roger Bird Says:

    I risk looking like a fool. I know this. I am going to suggest this anyway.

    I have been wondering if perhaps cosmic rays may play a role in cold fusion. As strange as it seems, cosmic rays play an important role in cloud formation and the initiation of lightning. I looked at the charts of cosmic ray density and energy, and it seems to me that cosmic rays may possibly start a cold fusion cascade, given the right circumstances. This might explain why some labs get extra energy and some labs get zip. Perhaps some labs have heavy inadvertent shielding about them and some labs don’t.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      So maybe Rossi’s “lead shielding” is duct tape.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, does that mean that lead pipes or thin lead will stop cosmic rays?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I guess not.
        “X-rays are good for going through flesh, but not through rock or metal,” said Rick Chartrand of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Cosmic ray muons, on the other hand, can pierce six feet of lead with only a slight change to their speed and direction.”

        “In 1968 Dr. Luis Alvarez, a Nobel prize winner in physics, tried to ascertain whether there might be secret chambers or passages in Khefre’s pyramid (the middle pyramid on the Giza plateau, only slightly smaller than the Great Pyramid), by measuring how cosmic rays passed through it. Normally the recording device would show a drop in energy if cosmic rays were passing through an empty space rather than through stone. In this case the recording tapes, when analyzed by computers, showed that the cosmic particles could not be measured – every time the tapes were run, the patterns were different. The cosmic particles rearranged themselves and some of the data disappeared altogether. “This is scientifically impossible,” said one of the scientists, Dr. Amr Goneid … there is some force which defies the laws of science at work in the pyramid.”

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The article said that there were about 1,000 cosmic ray muons per square foot per minute. That sounds like a lot until you do the math. That is only 1.07 cosmic ray muons per square centimeter per minute, or 0.0179 per square centimeter per second. That is ridiculously small. So, unless there are also other cosmic ray particles that can get through thin lead shielding, the cosmic ray idea is out.

    • brucefast Says:

      Roger, I’m still suggesting that folks like you and I let the scientists figure out how it’s happening. They may not be very good at figuring out what happened, but they are rather good at figuring out how it happens, once they are convinced that it actually does.

  19. Craig Binns Says:


    Please! The very last thing this discussion needs is forces inside pyramids that defy the laws of science. “Pyramidiocy” is the best word for this pseudoscience.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Alvarez proposed in 1965 to “X-Ray” the Egyptian pyramids to search for unknown chambers. Using naturally occurring cosmic rays, his ingenious scheme was to place spark chambers, standard equipment in the high-energy particle physics of this time, beneath the second pyramid of Chephren in a known chamber. By measuring the counting rate of the cosmic rays in different directions the detector would reveal the existence of any void in the overlaying rock structure.[7]

      Alvarez assembled an international team of physicists and archeologists from both the United States and Egypt, the recording equipment was constructed and the experiment carried out, though it was interrupted by the 1967 Six-Day War. Restarted after the war, the effort continued, recording and analyzing the penetrating cosmic rays until 1969 when Alvarez reported to the American Physical Society that no chambers had been found in the 19% of the pyramid surveyed.[8]

      The American Journal of Physics commented, “Luis Alvarez (1911–1988) was one of the most brilliant and productive experimental physicists of the twentieth century.”[1] He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1968, and took out over 40 patents, some of which led to commercial products.

      Fellow of the American Physical Society (1939)
      Collier Trophy of the National Aeronautics Association (1946)[10]
      Member of the National Academy of Science (1947) [11]
      Presidential Medal for Merit (1947) [12]
      Fellow of the American Philosophical Society (1953)[13]
      Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1958)[14]
      California Scientist of the Year (1960)
      Albert Einstein Award (1961)[12]
      National Medal of Science (1963)
      Michelson Award (1965)
      Nobel Prize in Physics (1968)
      Member of the National Academy of Engineering (1969)[15]
      University of Chicago Alumni Medal (1978 )
      National Inventors Hall of Fame (1978)
      Enrico Fermi award of the US Department of Energy (1987) [16]
      IEEE Honorary Membership (1988) [17]

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Very good!!!! Iggy. You are a man after my own sense of intellectual revenge.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        To make your revenge all the sweeter, give me a source for Alvarez (whom I respect) informing us that his experiments produced results which defy the laws of science. Otherwise it’s pointless listing his impressive credentials. I have no quarrel with Alvarez. He was most certainly NOT a “Pyramidiot”, but people who commented on his work may well have been.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “He was most certainly NOT a “Pyramidiot”, but people who commented on his work may well have been.”

        So? I’ll remember that if I ever need a ‘Pyramidiot’ test performed. Is that your function for the city council?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Louis Alvarez in his Nobel acceptance speech:

        ““The next day, when we had all accepted the idea that stopped muons were catalyzing the fusion of protons and deuterons, our whole group paid a visit to Edward Teller, at his home. After a short period of introduction to the observations and to the proposed fusion reaction, he explained the high probability of the reaction as follows: the stopped muon radiated its way into the lowest Bohr orbit around a proton. The resulting muonic hydrogen atom, y,~-, then had many of the properties of a neutron, and could diffuse freely through the liquid hydrogen. When it came close to the deuteron in an HD molecule, the muon would transfer to the deuteron, because the ground state of the p-d atom is lower than that of the p-y atom, in consequence of « reduced mass » effect. The new « heavy neutron » dp- might then recoil some distance as a result of the exchange reaction, thus explaining the « gap ». The final stage of capture of a proton into a pap- molecular ion was also energetically favorable, so a proton and deuteron could now be confined close enough together by the heavy negative muon to fuse into a 3He nucleus plus the energy given to the internally converted muon.

        We had a short but exhilarating experience when we thought we had solved all of the fuel problems of mankind for the rest of time. A few hasty calculations indicated that in liquid HD a single negative muon would catalyze enough fusion reactions before it decayed to supply the energy to operate an accelerator to produce more muons, with energy left over after making the liquid HD from sea water. While everyone else had been trying to solve this problem by heating hydrogen plasmas to millions of degrees, we had apparently stumbled on the solution, involving very low temperatures instead.

        But soon, more realistic estimates showed that we were off the mark by several orders of magnitude-a « near miss » in this kind of physics!” http://www.opensourcelenr.com/

        n this kind of physics!”

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      “The English inventor the sir W. Siemens has informed about following supervision: once, when he stood on the top of the Great pyramid of Cheops the guide-Arab has drawn his attention to such fact that each time when he raises the hand with spread wide fingers, it is heard a high shrill ringing sound.

      Having risen up only a forefinger, Siemens has felt distinctly pricking in this finger. When he has tried to take a sip of wines from a bottle which has brought on pyramid top has felt an easy electric shock. After that Siemens has curtailed the newspaper and has wrapped up it round a bottle — it has turned out Leyden jar. It accumulated on the increasing an electric charge when it simply held over a head.

      When the bottle with wine has started to sparkle, the guide-Arab became very suspicious and began to accuse Siemens of occupation with black magic. Other guide has tried to seize Siemens companion then he has put a bottle down from what the Arab has received such strong blow that has fallen, having fainted. Having come to the senses, the poor guide has hardly risen on feet and something loudly shouting, began to go down alone downwards from the pyramid.”
      – The citation from: Peter Tompkins «Secret of the Great Pyramid of Cheops » http://paleotecnolog.com/teleport/

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Iggy, Great stuff! Another wonderful addition to my “pyramidiot” file. Sparks coming out of a wine bottle wrapped in newspaper! Happens all the time in Glasgow, my home town, where winos always wrap their bottles in newspaper, as there is a city by-law forbidding drinking alcohol in the open air. Fun place.

        Anyway I was much more interested in your site’s account of the origin of these sparks:

        “Closed an entrance in a pyramid and started «religious rite». The operator sang a mantra, it caused piezocrystalline generation in the granite. A formed «Leader»was beating deep into the Earth. In the answer in «The Chamber of severe tests»from the Earth flew the killing lightning killing the magician, who was sitting there and shaking out from he his Soul (consciousness).”

        We might doubt Rossi, but nobody’s going to argue with a “formed leader” who can piezocrystallise simply by singing.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, I am going to come to your defense at the risk of being ridiculed by Craig Binns and perhaps other.

        When I was living in Berzerkely many years ago, I decided to test the pyramid thingie. I constructed 2 or 3 pyramids out of hard art boards, all of one piece. I did not cut and connect. Each pyramid was of one piece. They were about 18 to 20 inches tall, kind of on the big side. Then I put one under my bed and the other above my bed pointing down at me.

        I sort of forgot about them. Then I started having problems sleeping. I did not connect the two right a away. I was young, but insomnia can happen to anyone. But after a while, the insomnia got worse and I realized that the cause might have been the dang pyramids. So I trashed the pyramids. My sleep immediately went back to normal.

        Skeptics would all say that it was power of suggestion. That is what they always say when they can’t understand something or there is the implication that there is a non-physical explanation for something.

        I think that it was real. I also learned that not all energy is necessarily good. I see all of these advertisement for energy drinks and energy bars etc. etc., and I know that more energy is not necessarily good. Harmonious energy is always good, but not necessarily more energy.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger, I’m certainly not going to ridicule your belief that the pyramids prevented you from sleeping. If I had a hanging 20 in wooden pyramid pointing down at me as I lay in bed I’d have trouble sleeping too, in such a “sword of Damocles” situation. I don’t think we need to postulate unknown forces, beyond subconscious anxiety.

        But Iggy’s source is orders of magnitude weirder than your story! Magicians’ souls shaken out by piezo crystalline lightning induced by mantras sung by operators …

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, I appreciate your humor, and I will not give you a hard time for not believing in the objectivity of prana, chi, life force, so-called “energy”, etc. etc. etc.

        It takes a long time to learn to be able to discriminate between the power of suggestion and other inner forces.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Sir W Siemens was the younger brother of the founder of Siemens AG, the huge German industrial company. Sir W moved to the UK.

        When I read about Rossi’s current discussion with Siemens AG, I remembered reading about the pyramid incident so I googled it for your benefit.

        It was a good book, telling 5 or 6 theories (both far-out and skeptical) about the pyramids. I think the book also told of Alvarez’s experiments.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        My late wife and I were privileged to a great tour of Greece and Egypt in 1980.

        We were seated in a restaurant in a hotel built by a former king of Egypt for his girlfriend, a Hollywood starlet. Our table had a perfect view of the Great Pyramid. The man we were sitting with was a civil engineer for Pinellas County (St Petersburg). The engineer claimed to be a devout pyramidiot. He said that he always stored his razor in a miniature pyramid, which preserved and renewed the sharp edge of the blade.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The razor in a pyramid thingie should be easy for Craig Binns to test, assuming that Craig is old enough to shave.

        I may also test it since I am sick and tired of shelling out money for razors that take a few week to start hurting me.

  20. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    What convinces a physicist? Let him count the ways.

  21. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    If this is true, I hate to hear it:

    [Vo]:Mass media exposure kills SPAWAR cold fusion research

    Jed Rothwell
    Sat, 17 Dec 2011 14:46:07 -0800

    I am sorry to report that the authorities have finally closed down cold
    fusion research at SPAWAR. After Frank Gordon left, the project was on life support. Recent reports on Fox News and elsewhere mentioned it, bringing about the inevitable coup de grace. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59243.html

    • Roger Bird Says:

      It barely matters. The genie is out of the bottle, or where ever he generally hides. We can at least thank Rossi for that. More people will do more research and development. People will profit by it. The self-esteem of Craig Binns and Mary Yugo and the like will take a nose dive when they realize that they were not only wrong but helped to try to suppress one of the greatest discoveries of all time, a discovery which could help billions of people and change the world for the better.

    • brucefast Says:

      Iggy, great link! I do respect, however, that the material is not well sourced — doesn’t have the stamp of trustworthiness that major media would provide. I would love to know for sure if SPAWAR really has closed its doors on cold fusion research.

      The link you provided links to the following: http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/12/why-is-nasa-lan.html
      Which ends with the following:

      Keith’s note: Why NASA LaRC and/or HQ management knowingly allows overt quackery such as this to go on in NASA-sanctioned meetings using NASA personnel time while budgets are being slashed on “science” missions simply baffles me. Maybe Dennis Bushnell ( dennis.m.bushnell@nasa.gov 757.864.8987 ) can explain.

      What a cocky Ba%^@#d! Man it will be fun when he and the fool who used the expression “pathological science” nine times in the wikipedia article on cold fusion/LENR have to eat their crow.

      The case I have seen from major scientific sources at least validating the Pons Fleischmann effect is rock solid. Cold fusion works! This genie must get itself out of the bottle during this coming year!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Dear brucefast, that was an extremely weird read because you forgot a quotation marking and at first reading I thought that Keith had changed course in mid-paragraph.

        Anyway, this SPAWAR business, if true, is a little, tiny setback. Remember that I became a believer BEFORE I watched the SPAWAR video at University of Missouri. And the SPAWAR video still exists and is still sitting on the cloud smiling at us. And the best part is that it doesn’t take a million dollars to set up these experiments. It doesn’t even take $100,000. At worse, it make take a few $10,000.

  22. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, I have always thought that Rossi and Defkalion were on probation. (And I have never called them crooks, unlike you.) I have never said that it was a done deal Every time I have written about them I have ALWAYS said “if” it works. The correct position on Rossi and Defkalion now should be uncertainty since “cold fusion” has been proven. But you do not hold that “cold fusion” is a done deal because either you are stupid or have not reviewed the information that we have presented to you. If you have not reviewed the information that we have posted, then you are a rotten scientist.

    I doubt that brucefast said that about December 31 being the “Blacklight” deadline for Rossi. Perhaps brucefast was just getting impatient. Or, perhaps he meant December 31, 2012. YOU, Craig, are on probation. YOU have not viewed the evidence and admitted that there might be something there. YOU are either a piss-poor scientists or are working for hot fusion.

    • brucefast Says:

      I said that if Rossi didn’t deliver his 1mw plant, or something else didn’t show that proves the technology by the end of the year, I was out. However, though Rossi didn’t have nearly the fanfare that I would like, he did deliver his 1mw plant on schedule. Further, since I made that statement the list of significant scientific organizations validating the Ni + H reaction are notable. Since I made the statement, I am content that the Ni + H reaction has been verified.

      Craig, You don’t run my life. You don’t get the privilege of informing me that you have declared that my standards have not been met — at least not on my site.

    • brucefast Says:

      “YOU [Craig Binns] are either a piss-poor scientists or are working for hot fusion.”

      Actually not. He’s just a guy like you and I.

  23. Greg Goble Says:

    Silly Silly So Silly,

    Passes Skeptics initial scrutiny…

    National Instruments contracting with Rossi…

    Folks from ecat.com partnering with Rossi…

    Positive yet reluctant NASA report on the first demo…

    It may be fulfilling to argue nonsensically…

    Conversations from 5 months ago have little bearing…

    Please do not quote me.

    Silly Silly So Silly.

    Warm Regards (every time)

    That’s a clue…

    Electrifying Anticipation (pay attention now)

    Remove the space between the reactors and the “1MW” plant fits into a 3 ft deep cargo container… Yowzer!!!

    Rossi and the Wright brothers are frauds of the same caliber…

    Does it really fly….


  24. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, I will NOT be reading your posts until such time as you indicate that you have read or viewed the material that we have tried to show you, in the first sentence.

  25. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    “The truth is on the march and nothing will stop it. If you bury the truth, it will grow.” – Émile Zola

  26. Craig Binns Says:

    blah blah blah

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, this is my back yard. Behave appropriately or get kicked out. This entire line of reasoning ends now, or Craig Binns finds a new playground to play in.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Don’t you mean “This entire line of non-reasoning ends here.”

      • brucefast Says:

        I mean that Craig Binns doesn’t get to declare when my threshold of proof is met. Any attempt on his part to do so, or even get close to the topic, will cause him to land in the moderation stack.

  27. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Theoretical Feasibility of Cold Fusion According to the BSM –
    Supergravitation Unified Theory
    Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev
    York University, Toronto, Canada *


    • Greg Goble Says:

      This work and similiar ones bring us to the grand unification theory… Einstein smiles.

      As understanding about cold fusion phenomenon increases we see increased replicas ability.

      Of particular interest from Sargoytchev’s work is the following concerning the proper environment for LENR/cold fusion:


      (from pgs 17 and 18)

      1. The process of cold fusion is more probable between a heavier and a light nucleus with a proper neutron to proton ratio

      2. The knowledge of the real 3D configuration of the nuclei helps to estimate the possibility for deeper penetration of the smaller nucleus into the heavier one. It also allows to find common structural features between elements that showed affinity to cold fusion reactions or transmutations in prior art experiments.

      3. The heavier element must be in a solid state in a powder form in order to increase its active surface

      4. A proper temperature of the powder substance is required

      5. A proper pressure of the light element gas is a prerequisite for the cold fusion process. The applied pressure must also be combined with a pressure pulsation.

      6. Optional use of acoustic cavitation in a liquid phase.

      7. Optional use of a plasma arc.

      8. Optional use of a strong EM pulse

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Here’s excerpt from Sargoytchev’s article in “Foreign Policy Journal”

      “The emerging field of cold fusion is a typical example of suppression imposed by some well-funded scientific groups that are involved with research on hot fusion. After Fleischmann and Pons announced a successful cold fusion experiment in 1989, interest in this field, later called Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR), continued to grow despite the lack of government support due to severe denial by mainstream science. Finally, the year 2011 marked significant progress by the Focardi-Rossi method of Ni + Hi LENR implemented in the E-cat reactor. It is important to note that the E-cat technology does not create hazardous radioactive waste. Further, it cannot be weaponized and cannot cause nuclear catastrophes such as Chernobyl and Fukushima. While the experimental evidence for cold fusion can no longer be denied, the last card of its opponents is now the lack of a physical theory. Yet, theories exist that challenge the current understanding of nuclear reactions, some of them having been around for decades. However, they have not been allowed to appear in peer review journals controlled by the favored interest groups, so the policy makers controlling funding from government and investors are misinformed.

      In 2004, the censorship barrier was further elevated with a rule change for publishing in the moderated physical archive, arxive.org. The archive initially allowed rapid announcement of new achievements, while the peer review process could take years. With the new rule of endorsement, even a new discovery could not be published if the author was not supported by an endorser. An endorser could lose his or her own right to post if an article were supported that challenges the status quo. For scientists searching for the unbiased truth, the only option left was to post on some other on-line archive. One of these archives, vixra.org, gained popularity despite not being officially recognized by mainstream science. The favored scientific groups carefully avoid mentioning some of the challenging scientific theories, even if their authors are able to publish in some peer-reviewed journals. This attitude of mainstream science is nothing less than a sign of stagnation. A typical example is the way the BSM – Supergravitation Unified Theory was ignored. This theory was first published in 2001, followed by multiple reports in scientific conferences and some peer review journals outside the scope of mainstream science.”


      thanks to George Hants, ecatnews

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        another article from ‘Foreign Policy Journal’
        (sounds like Tesla here “Energy from the Vacuum”)

        “The correct understanding of these processes is of vital importance now at the time of the global energy crisis. The main question is: Is there a safer replacement for nuclear energy? The correct answer is: Yes! It comes from the revised concept of space—the physical vacuum [5,6,7]. The superfine structure of the physical vacuum is a source of two types of primary energy: (1) Static Energy not of EM type related to gravitational mass with a detectable signature: Casimir Forces; and (2) Dynamic type of energy (lower amount), which is behind the electrical and magnetic fields and has a detectable signature of 2.72K estimated from the Cosmic Microwave Background.[6] THE STATIC TYPE OF ENERGY IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY. IT IS NOT CONTAINED IN NUCLEI BUT IS UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED IN SPACE, SO EVERY CUBIC CM CONTAINS 1.37 E20 JOULES = 3.8 E13 (KWH) OF THIS ENERGY. IT IS ALSO THE SOURCE OF THE DYNAMIC TYPE OF ENERGY, KNOWN AS ZERO POINT ENERGY (ZPE), WHICH COULD BE REACHED BY SPECIFIC ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTIONS.”


      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        I’m not sure I can swallow this theory whole, especially on the Zero-point energy idea. Maybe reading it a few times will help, but it does seem more New Age than real physics. There may well be nuggets of real truth in there when I find them, but it’ll take a bit of work to go through. Thanks for the post Iggy.

      • Greg Goble Says:

        Simon Derricutt,
        I for one cannot swollow a theory whole, as Einstein and you remind us… (the theory of releativity is releative) we look for a more unified field theory… accounting for observed phenomenon, Thahk you for this truth. The art of science travels along understood, little understood, and completely misunderstood paths… simultaniously.

        The theory of releativity incorporated newtonion physics with atomic, cosmological, and chemical physics observation. Gravitational, space time fabric, and subatomic force explanations eluded Einstein in his quest for a grand unification theory which would obliterate (or incorporate) the theory of releativity.

        Now we have… quantum physics… nano physics… lenr physics,,, and super gravitation as well as widom larson physics theories (simiiiar yet different) and many others picking up where Einstien wanted us to… beyond conventional or established physics.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Greg – before I got diverted into LENR, I was working on trying for a better explanation of gravity that conforms with QM. I’ll pass an idea for consideration: In GR gravity is explained by distortion of space-time, and produces slower time in the vicinity of a particle of mass. This really excludes quantum-jumps from possibility since time becomes dependant on the observer, whereas quantum theory requires an absolute timescale for a jump to be instantaneous (or see Dirac’s quantum-entangled electrons).

        If instead we say that around each particle of mass there is slower time, then part of the probability function of another particle will be in that slower time. Slower time=lower energy, and thus the particles will tend to move together to lower the total potential energy of the system. We see this as gravity.

        This inversion of cause and effect allows a universal timescale to exist, thus satisfying QM. It also means that gravity is instantaneous (not speed-of-light limited or effected by gravitons) and is a quantum effect on a grand scale. It also gives a basis for Newtonian gravity (used by NASA for orbital mechanics with great accuracy) and just feels simpler.

        This is a succinct explanation, and I hope you find it interesting.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Re: Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev’s article about “energy from the vacuum”, do you recall the space experiment where one satellite was tethered and reeled out to another higher elevation satellite?

      “Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon the TSS-1 experiment will test is whether it is possible to generate electricity as the tethered satellite and shuttle move through the Earth’s magnetic field at 17,000mph.

      Just as a dynamo generates electricity by the movement of wires in a magnetic field, so the tether – with its copper wire – is expected to produce up to 4 kilowatts of power as it hurtles through the Earth’s field.

      The generation of electricity also means that electrons will flow from the satellite on the end of the 12-mile line down the tether and on to the shuttle, causing it to become negatively charged. An unanswered question is whether enough electrons will jump off the shuttle to return to the positively charged satellite through the charged ionosphere of space.”

      “As mentioned earlier, conductive tethers have failed from unexpected current surges. Unexpected electrostatic discharges have cut tethers (e.g. see Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) on STS-75), damaged electronics, and welded tether handling machinery. It may be that the Earth’s magnetic field is not as homogeneous as some engineers have believed.”

      I would think that so-called “Space Elevators” would incur the risk of large electrical surges.

  28. Greg Goble Says:

    oops! its the grand unified field theory…. Einstein laughs.

  29. Greg Goble Says:

    The speed of light as a limit is farce, neutrons travel faster than the speed of light! Research the little understood neutron, it’s role in LENR and our new understanding of cosmological, nano, quantum, and cold fusion physics. Einstein scratches his noggin’ with pencil in hand.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Greg – our ideas are always in a state of flux as new experiments are done or old ones measured more accurately. One reason for the speed-of-light limit for measurement is that we are using speed-of-light particles/waves to do the measurement. If something is going faster then we see it as going back in time instead. I’ll get back to this once I have a working LENR reactor.

    • Jonathan Says:

      Neutrinos might travel faster than the speed of light, but only a little bit faster. The problem with them is that they don’t really do anything, just pass through things as if they weren’t there.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Jonathan – there was some speculation I saw a while back (no links, sorry) where it was thought that maybe neutrinos were the cause of the half-life of radioactive nuclei. This could be tested by putting a sample in a much higher neutrino flux than ambient and measuring the half-life. I haven’t seen the experiment done yet. This would have consequences for nuclear-powered spacecraft moving far from the sun. Interesting if it’s true. It might have consequences in LENR, too, if that is the case.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Very interesting, Simon. You are almost always very interesting to read, except when I can’t understand you and/or my eyes glaze over.

        I have always been troubled by the idea that neutrinos aren’t really good for much. It is like the Infinite just couldn’t think of what to do with them. Or like black holes, they are just a means of flushing matter out of the System (of the Universe).

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I read yesterday that the “faster neutrino” might have been an error due to a poor electrical connection on the instrumentation.

      • Jonathan Says:

        There’s still all the other experimental results and the observations from supernovae explosions. The results are not conclusive, they suggest neutrinos might be faster than light, but the difference is within the margin of error. If the OPERA experiments are invalid due to a faulty electrical connection, we exclude the results from the evidence, but it doesn’t mean neutrinos don’t travel faster than light.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Light interacts with matter and is slowed down. Neutrinos almost do not interact with matter, so are maybe only slowed a little. Given the interstellar matter density (extremely low but there) is it not more likely that the neutrinos have travelled to us at the speed of light but that light itself has been slowed by the gases it passes through?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, you are one strange dude. You are a first class engineer/scientist type. You are not a patho-skeptic. You are sweet and caring. You not only don’t suffer from Obnoxious Personality Disorder (I do), but you patiently explain stuff to those who do suffer from OPD and patho-skeptism. It just doesn’t make any sense.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – you are not obnoxious. At times I laugh out loud at your posts (this was one). Irascible, maybe, sometimes. This bit of posting has got a bit off-topic, but Jonathan and Greg may see what I’m getting at and return with a new idea I hadn’t thought of – we all gain. The SAD seems to be a hoax, but in the process of analysis and with the knowledge of LENR (helped by this blog) I had an idea that may just work. If it does, again we all gain. If not, then I’ll have wasted a bit of my time but no-one else’s.

        Try my patent cure for OPD – a glass of Armagnac. It’s the local tipple distilled just down the road from here.

  30. Greg goble Says:

    Neutrinos may be big players with a little seen part in the play of light, gravity, electricity, magnet fields, and subatomic structure. Initially theorized, recently observed, newly generated, possibly enlightening; the neutrino is worth watching.

  31. Greg Goble Says:

    Go here and read about this…
    With warm regards and electrifying anticipation…

    “NI platforms can be used for LENR applications, particularly the National Instruments Reconfigurable I/O (RIO) platform that is based on FPGA (field programmable gate array) technology for the control and monitoring needs. The FPGAs are programmable integrated circuits that offer true parallelism, high-speed analysis of data and a high level of reliability needed for control and monitoring applications. We do think the field of LENR is an intriguing research area that has potential to impact the energy crisis that is facing the world. NI believes in providing the right tools and platforms to enable engineers and scientists to focus on innovation and solving the grand engineering challenges such as energy from fusion, cancer therapy in the field of medicine and smart grids for better urban infrastructure, to name a few. National Instruments is working with Universities and Research Centers around the world to empower researchers and scientists who are working on magnetic confined fusion, inertial confined fusion and Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.”

  32. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics

    “Textbooks present science as a noble search for truth, in which progress depends on questioning established ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth. They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous – especially when that view is backed by powerful interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent. The usual pattern is that someone does researcher speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic’s ideas or the critic personally-by censoring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions,withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors.” (1)
    Science is in a state of crisis. Where free inquiry, natural curiosity and open-minded discussion and consideration of new ideas should reign, a new orthodoxy has emerged. This ‘new inquisition’, as it has been called by Robert Anton Wilson (2) consists not of cardinals and popes, but of the editors and reviewers of scientific journals, of leading authorities and self-appointed “skeptics”, and last but not least of corporations and governments that have a vested interest in preserving the status quo, and it is just as effective in suppressing unorthodox ideas as the original. The scientists in the editorial boards of journals who decide which research is fit to be published, and which is not, the science bureaucrats at the patent office who decide what feats nature allows human technology to perform, and which ones it does not, and the scientists in governmental agencies who decide what proposals to fund, and not to fund, either truly believe that they are in complete knowledge of all the fundamental laws of nature, or they purposely suppress certain discoveries that threaten the scientific prestige of individuals or institutions, or economic interests. Research that indicates that an accepted theory is incomplete, severely flawed, or completely mistaken, is frequently rejected on the grounds that it “contradicts the laws of nature”, and therefore has to be the result of sloppiness or fraud. At the heart of this argument is the incorrect notion that
    theory overrides evidence.

    In true science, theory always surrenders to the primacy of evidence. If observations are made that, after careful verification and theoretical analysis, are found to be inconsistent with a theory, than that theory has to go – no matter how aesthetically pleasing it is, how much mathematical elegance it contains, how prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it.
    read on for 17 pages

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Iggy – that was well worth the time reading it. It has a lot of further reading material (when I get the time) that also looks to be well worth understanding. Apart from that, it also makes me feel that my heretical thoughts on relativity, gravity and Thermodynamics are obviously shared by a few other people. They may even be right….

      Unfortunately I don’t know anyone in JPL who could confirm that NASA use experimental fudge-factors in order to make their celestial navigation work, but it is obvious that they do in fact get things right so their calculations are close enough.

      I am reminded of a story my dad told me about a foundry that cast engine-blocks. The engineer who visited the foundry had the specification of the alloy for the blocks, and this had been specified for years with no cracks in the castings. He talked to the foundry guys, and found that a different mix was in fact in use, and was told that the mix he specified would always crack, and that when that mix was specified they had always used an alternative that they knew would work. It’s all a matter of what works in practice, not what the specifications say. Reality trumps theory, every time.

  33. Greg Goble Says:

    Wow Iggy,
    Thanks! Deep breath to take it all in.

  34. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    E-Cat Article From Igorvia Рулев Игорь at vortex

  35. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I wonder if there’s any accidental LENR here?
    Nickel–hydrogen battery
    A nickel–hydrogen battery (NiH2 or Ni–H2) is a rechargeable electrochemical power source based on nickel and hydrogen. It differs from a nickel–metal hydride (NIMH) battery by the use of hydrogen in gaseous form, stored in a pressurized cell at up to 1200 psi (82.7 bar) pressure.

    NiH2 cells using 26% potassium hydroxide (KOH) as an electrolyte have shown a service life of 15 years or more at 80% depth of discharge (DOD) The energy density is 75 Wh/kg, 60 Wh/dm3
    specific power 220 W/kg. The open-circuit voltage is 1.55 V, the average voltage during discharge is 1.25 V.

    While the energy density is only around one third as that of a lithium battery, the specific property of the nickel–hydrogen battery is its long life: the cells handle more than 20,000 charge cycles on 85% efficiency.

    NiH2 rechargeable batteries possess good electrical properties which make them attractive for the energy storage of electrical energy in satellites and space probes. For example, the ISS, Mercury Messenger, Mars Odyssey and the Mars Global Surveyor are equipped with nickel–hydrogen batteries. The Hubble Space Telescope, when its original batteries were changed in May 2009 more than 19 years after launch, led with the highest number of charge and discharge cycles of any NiH2 battery in low earth orbit.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Iggy – if there was LENR here, then the battery would probably become unaccountably warm on charge. Maybe it does, and it hasn’t been measured properly. If this happens, then considering the high Hydrogen pressure involved there should be Helium produced (very little change to the Nickel) and this could be measured if the old battery gas were spectral-analysed. It might be interesting if NASA did this analysis and published the results.

      If you wanted to use such a battery as a heater, you could probably attach a circuit such as the “desulphater” that pulls current into a coil and then feeds the current back into the battery with a high spike voltage and little energy loss. Getting hold of a battery to test could be difficult, though.

    • Dave Babcock Says:

      Note the quoted 85% efficiency! If there was any significant LENR going on the measurement would show much more, easily over 100%.
      Of course this may be exactly what happened, and the cell inventors suppressed the data -better not go the way of P and F. So they have a product that is better than they dare say… Well, fun to talk about, but REALLY unlikely.

      Ol’ Bab

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Dave – the odd 15% efficiency loss is expected to come out as heat, and the 85% is expected to come out as stored electricity. If more heat came out than they expected, they’d probably put it down to bad measurements if they measured it at all. Providing the battery didn’t overheat in use (kept within the specified charge/discharge parameters) I would not expect them to have put the battery into a calorimeter to test it.

        If it happens, therefore, it is fairly likely that they would have missed it.

      • Dave Babcock Says:

        Simon: Right on. The extra energy would only by the wildest strange science present as more amp-hours. Since nobody tests batteries with calorimeters, the extra heat would probably be unseen and unnoted. Unless ’twere wicked huge.

  36. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Andrea Rossi
    May 13th, 2012 at 8:03 AM

    Dear Pietro F.:
    I have been authorized to give the following information.
    The 1 MW plant has been delivered and is working in a military concern. It has been made in the USA, after the October test of the prototype made in Italy; such prototype will be delivered, with the modifications which we will complete based on what we learnt from the model at work, to a European Customer in July. I have not been allowed to give this information until now.
    We are working very much and very hard to be as fast as possible. For the domestic E-Cats we have the necessity of the certification made. The industrial plants will get the necessary certification within weeks.
    Warm Regards,

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Does that mean that the domestic E-Cat has been UL approved?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Andrea Rossi
        May 13th, 2012 at 11:45 AM

        Dear Iggy Dalrymple:
        As I repeatedly said, the certification process is in progress and we cannot foresee how much time it will take.
        Warm Regards,

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – maybe he’s just not using English correctly. In your highlighted text in the 8.03am (Rossi-time) post you could possibly read that as meaning that he needs to get the certification for the domestic E-Cats. It’s a stretch to read it that way, though.

        His reply to you is pretty definitive, though – can’t read that another way.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Yep, his 1st statement was ambiguous, at least to me it was.

  37. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    New article from ECAT.com
    “Leonardo Corp and Andrea Rossi is currently working on a new reactor type with specifications far better than the previous versions
    of E-Cat. The canonical improvement is that the new E-Cat is now working stably at much higher temperatures than previously achieved. These temperatures allows for a vast number of electricity solutions at 40%+ gross heat-to-power efficiencies and 25%+ net efficiencies taking into account the power used by the process. The design allows for merely any heat transferring media including water/steam, heat-transferring-oils, molten salts but also hot air.

    The high temperature E-Cat reactor currently in test also opens up for applications with Sterling Engines. The new reactor is smaller in size and has a charge of 1.5 grams and more shielding than the original reactor. The new progress also gives the possibility to increase the COP for industrial applications.

    Currently a one month long E-Cat test is in progress as part of the new development process. Stay tuned to ECAT.com for the latest developments.” http://ecat.com/news/news-update-from-andrea-rossi-and-ecat-com-in-may

  38. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    With cheap heat I don’t see the advantage of a Stirling Engine, unless it’s for improved safety. Heretofore, the Stirling Engine was touted mainly for its efficiency.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Iggy – the main reason for using a non-steam based heat engine is to use temperatures below the boiling point of water. This is also over come using something else with a lower boiling point, such as organic solvents or Carbon Dioxide. Sterling engines generally need tight tolerances to work at all, so are expensive to manufacture, but they will work on pretty well any reasonable difference in temperature available.

      The higher efficiency of a Sterling engine also means that a lower COP will still give enough electricity generated to run the device – could be a critical point.

      Looking at the development makes me wonder if Rossi’s new design has anything in common with Brillouin’s Hot Tube technology.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Yeah but Rossi didn’t mention Stirling engines until his “high-temp” breakthrough.

        Here’s a nice animation of a Stirling.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Brian Josephson quotes Rossi claiming 600°C.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – he might claim that, but Nickel starts to sinter at somewhere above 500°C, so running at this temperature for more than a few hours would make his fuel into one big lump which would stop working. This places an upper limit for working temperature that is engineering knowledge, not physics. The only way you can get around this is your fluidised bed idea, and even then the limit is going to be around the 600°C mark before colliding particles have too much tendency to stick together.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        From the Free Dictionary: Sinter, verb, To form a coherent mass by heating without melting

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – sorry, I should have explained the term. You’ll find sintered items in quite a few manufactured articles, where either the material melts too high (tungsten filament in light bulbs) for normal treatments or you wish to keep the shape the way it is (pottery items), or you wish to have a porous metal (sintered bronze bearings in motors that allow oil to percolate through). To make a sintered article, you take a lot of small particles of the material, with maybe a bit of some sort of glue, and form the item. You then put it in a kiln and heat it to the right temperature, quite a lot below melting point and maybe under pressure, for a certain number of hours or days. The surfaces of the particles fuse together, even though the bulk of each particle does not melt at all. At the end of the process, your article is ready to use.

        The process has been in use for millennia making pottery, and is also the basis of hammer-welding in blacksmithing.

        At lower temperatures, the sintering process takes more time.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Iggy, there is also the issue of noise. How does the Stirling compare with other engines noise-wise?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Here’s a miniature you can barely hear.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        If I were to have an electrical generator in my home, this is the quiet that I would be looking for. And if it had a little noise barrier that would now screw up the heat issues, that would be even better.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: