Replicators (as of February 2, 2012)

Below is an annotated and linked list of reports of 16 people who have achieved a Ni + H reaction:

I have now categorized the list by perceived quality.  This is only my perception, but at least it’ll have people read the good stuff before reading the easy to shoot down.


Dr. Brian Ahern, Ames National Laboratory

While it is not clear that Ahern is using nickel, it is clear that he is using light hydrogen.  It is also clear that he sees it as a replication of Rossi.  He says, “This 5 watt excess is very much less than Rossi, but it is a real and repeatable experiment There was no radiation above the background level.”

Dr. Joseph Zawodny, NASA

I place Zawodny up cautiously although he has clearly worked with LENR, and produced the LENR effect, even filing a patent.  The concern I have is that I haven’t found good source material where he states that he has achieved the nickel + hydrogen reaction.  I have found numerous places where he discusses the utility of LENR from the perspective of the nickel + hydrogen reaction such as this.

James Patterson, 1920 – 2008, A “chemist”

Invented his “power cell” which is reported to produce 200 times energy gain.  In June 11, 1997 he demonstrated his technology on Good Morning America.  The scientific community, obviously, mostly ignored him.  He tried to produce a commercial product, but apparently had difficulty mass producing the intricate “beads” that he used in his reaction.

Quintin Bowles, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

On the television show Good Morning Americaclaimed in1996 to have successfully replicated the Patterson power cell. (See:

George Miley,  Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois

Began with Patterson’s technique.  Reports excess heat, and transmutations.

The link is of Miley’s PowerPoint for the 2011 World Green Energy Symposium:

PiantelliUniversity of Siena, Italy.

The Piantelli group filed an Italian patent application, “Method for Producing Energy and Apparatus Therefor”, on November 24, 2008.  Piantelli’s technology uses a nickel bar which is etched to increase its surface area.  He reports 2 – 3 times energy gains.

Piantelli’s work with LENR goes back two decades and includes two dozen scientific publications and conference presentations. (

Robert Godes, President and CTO at Brillouin Energy Corp.

Uses Nickel and water, and obtain a doubling of energy.  Their website publishes their “Phase 1 Data” and “Phase 2 Data”.

Mike McKubre, SRI

Has published about an hour of video on YouTube in 8 segments.  He discusses Ni + H fusion early on in this video (segment 2)

Francesco Celani, National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy’s equivalent ofLos Alamos)

He has announced success in producing the Ni + H reaction, and obtaining 200% (2x)excess thermal energy.

Dr. Eugene Mallove and Dr. Mitchell Swartz, Jet Energy, Inc.  Guest lecturers at MIT 

The MIT “Independent Activities Period” sylibus states:

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; typical energy gains in the range of 2-3 are seen, with a few experiments giving higher energy gain; he has carried out a demonstration of his experiment previously at MIT; and energy produced from cold fusion reactions has been used to drive aStirlingengine.

Demonstrated COP of 10 at MIT:


Andrea Rossi

I felt it necessary to place Mr. Rossi in the “Mid Quality” category because he is clearly not fully truthful, and because he hasn’t provided conclusive proof that his technology is valid.  However, he has done some fine demos, the best of which by far is the 18 hour test.


Defkalion talks an excellent talk.  Their board of directors hardly looks like a scamming group.  However, they haven’t yet publicly demonstrated anything.  Hopefully this will change very soon.

Thermacore Inc.

Did a study for the USAF in 1993.  Their final report is published:


Blacklight Power,

Blacklight has been around for a while, and not come out with product.  Their theory is certainly extra-scientific.  However, they do seem to be claiming a reaction that involves Nickel and Hydrogen.  So, though I offer them with skepticism, they are replicators.

R.J.Kokes, and P.H. Anderson, 1959

They logged a report of excess heat from Nickel and Hydrogen, but didn’t pursue it.  (Some folks have no curiosity.)

This excerpt from Journal of American Chemical
Society, 81,5032 (1959).

Chen, (suspect, see comments by Peter Roe) has published details of his replication on

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , , ,

569 Responses to “Replicators (as of February 2, 2012)”

  1. Peter Roe Says:

    I don’t think you need to include ‘chan’ alongside the other names here. He is a fantasist who posts fact-free pseudoscientific gobbledegook while claiming to be a replicator. His suggestions about creating sub-nuclear Ni-H exposions using a hollowed out bullet is just so ridiculous it is difficult to believe that anyone might take it seriously.

    I’ve posted a detailed debunking of ‘Chan’s’ two posts elsewhere which I’ll be happy to copy here if anyone wants to see it.

    • Bob Says:

      Peter, I would be interesting in reading your comments. I’m hoping Chan is for real, but a garage shop operation as he describes makes me skeptical, especially with no pictures or videos or someone observing his setup. If he is just blowing words in the wind, it can hurt the effort.

  2. Bob Says:

    Bruce, didn’t the Navy’s Spawar group officially report CF data? Maybe it wasn’t Nickel-Hydrogen.

    • alaincoe Says:

      no it was paladium hdeuterium, and the method was electrolysis with electrode co-deposition.

      anyway, their proofs support that LENR is not voodoo science…
      I you accept Pd+D, Ni+H or W+H/D is not a greater miracle, just one more finding.

  3. Peter Roe Says:

    Hi Bob. I’m copying below (slightly edited and somewhat extended) my recent post at For completeness I have also ‘reviewed’ Chan’s other posts, but not in any great detail because frankly I think his stuff is a complete waste of time. The whole thing is rather long I’m afraid, partly because I have quoted extensively from ‘Chan’s’ posts:-

    ‘Chan’ seems to be someone with a good imagination who has learned to talk some of the language – and nothing more. His published statements are are full of errors, vague to the point of being meaningless, and frequently intrinsically unlikely in vew of the conditions he claims to be working under. And strangely, not one photo to support his claims.

    Initial post: 21st Nov 2011

    Most of this I’m ignoring, as it is a description of a copper oil heater not dissimilar to Rossi’s ‘fat cat’ design, c/w external heat dissipator. The ‘business’ part supposedly consists of 5″ lengths of 1/4 copper pipe each containing 2g of “Ni, Ni-Cu, Fe, MgH2 powders” with the ends closed and spot welded in his glove box (he doesn’t seem to mention how his welder cables go into the gas-sparged glove box, or how he fits a spot welding machine into it!). These cartridges are then supposedly placed inside a coil submerged in oil, which is then energised by an ‘RFG with a low range and pulse mode’.

    He then goes on to his incredible claim: “I have reached self sustained fusion at 200 C for days. If anyone duplicates my success, please communicate with me for possible cooperative venture. I have applied for a patent on this some time ago. I am proceeding to place a boiler is series with the oil line to power a small steam engine created from a compressed air engine kit using a basic gasoline engine.”

    Unfortunately no patent application details are provided, nor any pictures of his ‘apparatus’. However, at this point, apart from the magnitude of the claim and the general vagueness (which might be expected if he had a viable system), there is nothing much to indicate fakery.

    1st ‘Update': 24th Nov

    Chan now claims to have moved on (in 3 days!) to a system in which his metals-metal hydrides mix has been ‘carefully suspended’ in mineral oil, and the suspension is being pumped through a short pipe circuit, part of which passes through a coil wound directly onto the pipework. He goes on to claim “I am in the process of adjusting variables to boost from excess heat already obtained to self sustaining mode. This information is given to help those actually working on projects. I have no time for conversations.” The rest of the post is an irrelevant quote from Rossi.

    MAJOR (TERMINAL) PROBLEMS: (1) the copper circuit is described as a vertical loop, a part of which is wound with a coil. When the coil is energised, the copper loop would simply act as the secondary of a transformer, generating a radio frequency AC circulating current. It is highly probable that most of the field would be dissipated as heat and radio waves. (2) By suspending his mixture of metals and hydrides in oil, he would separate the different particles so that they could no longer interact when they pass through his RF field, i.e. the hydride particles would be entirely separate from the metal particles, so no hydrogen donation could take place (the whole point of his mixture). Either of these considerations would be terminal on their own. This is no more than a badly thought through idea, and simply could not work in practice.

    2nd ‘Update':–17.html 15th Dec

    “2. Always use Cu for chamber. It has a permeability of 1. Steel is a shield. ” In fact a dynamic EM field would induce eddy currents directly in the copper container as described, leading to some heating and to the active repulsion of the external magnetic field through diamagnetic effects. The net result would be severe attenuation and randomisation of the field as seen at the fuel mix. ‘Steel’ is not necessarily an EM shield – austenitic stainless steels are almost fully permeable to dynamic or static magnetic fields and would be a much better choice in an application of this type.

    “3. I buy Mg powder from AmericanPyro. Place in metal container with attached tube for evacuating and pressurizing with H. Heated to 250 C and as it is cooled an uptake of H creates the essential MgH2.” In fact, in order to create MgH2 it is necessary to place the Mg in contact with H2 at around 200 atmospheres and heat to 500°C in the presence of MgI2 as a catalyst. Without the magnesium iodide the reaction would take days. I wonder what sort of ‘metal container’ Chan is using to hold his mix at 3000 psi while he heats it with a propane torch for few hours?

    “4. Mix molar % of MgH2 30 (100% excess) Ni 30, Cu 20, Fe 20 in glove box. You might try igniter such as ANTIMONY TRISULFIDE or LITHIUM BOROHYDRIDE in tiny catalytic amounts.” What could ‘molar %’ mean here? This is supposedly condensed matter physics, not chemistry. Lithium borohydride is just another hydrogen donor compound. Antimony trisulphide is an ingredient in some pyrotechnics (it creates white sparkling ‘stars’). Why he picks on this compound is a mystery.

    “5. Experiment with RFG to determine sweet spot for initial heating and then sweet spot for maintaining reaction, modulating pulse rate, frequency and power. Wave shape is important. Half wave sweet spots also exist. Key is sending Hydride ion into oscillations (e+p+e => n+e => e + Fusion)” The first part is so vague as to be completely meaningless. After ‘Key’ it goes downhill very rapidly – the subatomic ‘formula’ is literally completely meaningless.

    3rd ‘Update':–17.html Posted with update 2

    This one is even less credible than anything preceding:

    “My latest discovery is Hydride-Nickel Fusion explosive military warheads on a small scale. By using a generous molar excess of MgH2 within the previously described reaction mixture with a 3% by weight of commercial gun powder (Thoroughly mixed and manipulated in a glove box) an explosive results which exceeds possible chemical reactions (many factors of 10). Place inside of the drilled cavity of a 32 cartridge head, Carefully tamp and seal with epoxy. Fire at a 2 ft. diameter section of a tree trunk. Result is an incredibly massive explosion reducing the target to splinters.”

    Here is the meaningless ‘molar’ thing again (good buzzword though!). But what purpose could possibly be served by mixing gunpowder (carbon, potassium, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur) with his hydride-metal mixture? Commercial gunpowder is available in various granule sizes so unless it is first ground to dust it could not be mixed, only dispersed, still as granules.

    Unfortunately gunpowder is not ignited by impact, and in any case, at a 3% concentration it is little more than an inert filler. If on the other hand it is first ground to dust then the constituents become separated and it will no longer work as an explosive. So unless he is claiming that one or more of the constituents is yet another ‘catalyst’ this is just more pseudoscientific silliness.

    If you drill out a .32 rimfire bullet from the rear (it is assumed that this is what he means by ‘cartridge head’) you will have a cavity of around 0.25 cc. Assuming a little less than half will be filled with epoxy, that leaves an ‘explosive’ payload of around 0.15 cc – maybe 0.2g of powder. Unfortunately the lead walls will now be so thin that the bullet will almost certainly disintegrate as it is fired. But assuming it stays intact, Chan is claiming that the modest heat and pressure that would result from a low velocity bullet impact with timber is enough to initiate a previously unknown subnuclear process to release energy equivalent to a significant high explosive charge. A whole new branch of physics that we might call ‘nuclear enhanced chemical reactions’ – from a backyard schoolboy experiment! Please make up your own mind about how likely this is – especially in the light of ‘Chan’s’ other claims.

    The rest is just excited verbal filler. “This is key! Fe necessary. Nano Ni crystal structure must be aligned. RFG tunes. Proper frequency most important. It is not shielded by Cu tube. Never use iron pipe for chamber. Magnetohydrodynamics principals utilized. Note cascade approach shown in Rossi graphs of Temp and effect of pulses. Glove box a must.”

    It reads like a rather demented ‘stream of consciousness’ but the buzzwords and disjointed style seem intended to disguise an almost total lack of actual content. What does ‘aligned’ mean? The nickel lattice is fixed within a particle – it cannot be ‘aligned’ with anything. What is the ‘proper’ frequency then? What on earth does magnetohydrodynamics (the study of induced currents in moving conductive fluids) have to do with any of this? “Note cascade approach” – none is described, this is meaningless. What graphs? Rossi has never released any information, graphical or otherwise, on his use of RF stimulation.

    In short, ‘Chan’s’ contributions are just virtually meaningless ‘thought experiments’ with imaginary outcomes. They appear to be directly related to a contribution from someone publishing as ‘Phen’ ( who writes in a slightly more understandable way but may or may not be just another fantasist (or even the same person adopting two styles).

    If it wasn’t for the suggestion that Ni-H can be used as a ‘subnuclear exposive’ I would dismiss this stuff without a second thought. However in view of the vested-interest backlash that is currently growing against LENR, we should be very wary of ‘moles’ replacing the efforts of the ‘trolls’.

    It is not beyond imagination that someone who tries to appear to be a ‘replicator’ might also try to lay false trails and plant doubts about the safety of Ni-H fusion – doubts that could be echoed by trolls and later used to help ‘justify’ state seizure of the technology in order to suppress it or pass monoploly control to their friends in the existing energy sector.

    This may be a case of ‘hypervigilance’ on my part, but the suggestion that Ni-H might be ‘weaponised’ is exactly the kind of justification that would be needed to legislate against Ni-H in order to take control of it. In other words this is precisely the kind of negative propaganda (intentional or otherwise) that we need to be extremely wary of at this time.

    • brucefast Says:

      Wow Peter, this is an incredibly rich analysis of Chen’s claim. I have added the word (suspect) into my list above.

    • LCD Says:

      Hey Peter I agree with you thanks for the analysis. It’s unfortunate but I agree with you. I’ve been trying to make contact with him but he’s just not responding. Some of the stuff I think is misinterpretation but the other stuff I clearly agree with.

  4. Bob Says:

    Thanks Peter, a good writeup. I have been very wary of Chan myself, but this isn’t my area of expertise and I admit I read his writing and just said what. I was very concerned with the whole explosive angle and fear that this could heart the effort.
    Unless I see pictures or someone reliable reporting on his activity, I will just monitor what he is doing. A few nut jobs can run everything. Hadn’t thought too much about the shill angle, real food for thought.

  5. Bob Says:

    Here is an interesting report from Japan. It sure hints at K2CO3 as maybe being a good catalyst.

    To me it seems like they didn’t realize what they had. With these results they should have been all over this stuff.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Let us keep in mind, gentlemen, that consumer protection government types will not be pleased with this event, even if us Rossi watchers are.

  6. Peter Roe Says:

    Hi Bob. He’s probably just posting this stuff for his own amusement, but it may be a good idea to keep an eye open for deliberate misinformation anyway. I’ve found at least one other ‘contributor’ to lenr blogs, with an almost identical style and vocabulary (in this case on the forum).

  7. Bob Norman Says:

    There are some interesting findings. Calani is reporting that the resistance of Nickel changes when hydrogen loaded. He said that it switches from a positive to a negative coefficient and the amount of heat generated tracks the resistivity numbers. In a discussion on Vortex they talked that alloys of CU-Nickel were found to react when in contact with hydrogen. There were speculation that no catalyst may be needed and that Rossi got lucky picking copper as the metal used in the chamber.

    Another anomaly being reported is that when nm particles are put in resonance by energy applied, the neutron and proton bounce apart and back together. This was reported by researchers at Duke university. I’m not a physasist, but it would seem to me that if the nucleus of atoms are bouncing around in this manner that the Coulomb barrier would also be changing. Seems like a window of penetration may exist with this oscillation.

    The bits and pieces just keep piling up and I think the answer will soon be understood. My gut tells me its Lattice structures energized with various resonance energies. If this is the case, it will be easy for everyone to build their own. That won’t happen, but the business will explode with garage shop design houses. It will be a free flow of ideas and products that has not been possible since the early days of electronics. For innovative and resourceful people the fun will soon start.

  8. Bob Says:

    In Rossi’s blog, he now says people can change the Nickel and he will sell for $50 / KW. I’m shocked he has lowered the price before shipping unit 1. This makes me uncomfortable!

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Bob, I don’t see why lowering the price before he ships makes you uncomfortable. What makes me uncomfortable is all this feeding of our imaginations and hopes with empty words before we are even positive that he has a consumer ready product.

      • Bob Says:

        Lowering the price before shipping unit 1, makes me think is “vaporware” and that’s the last thing I want to occur.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Why would you think that it was vaporware just because the price was lowered before the product was even developed. And it is vaporware right now. Product development is taking fog and making it into something useful.

      • Bob Says:

        I find it unusual that someone would lower prices when not being pressed to. He was already at an attractive price and I found it strange to arbitrarily do that.
        After the latest Rossi interview I see the simplicity and the strategy makes sense. His recent revelation point to small and simple so low prices and flooding the market is a good approach.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I could not afford the old price. I can afford this price. And he may know the Defkalion et. al. are snapping at his heels.

    • brucefast Says:

      I really think that the price lowering bit is all about Defkalion. I really think that Rossi is intimidated by Defkalion. I really think he wants to discourage them by creating an unobtainable price point.

      That said, for home heat $500 is fantastic! At that price, one heating season will justify three of them for me, whereas from a heat standpoint, 1/2 of a unit will do.

      I have calculated, however, what it means for use in cars. If my car needs 50kw* (about 65hp) and steam power is 33% efficient, I would need 150kw of e-cats. At $50/kw, that’s $7,500. Now the vehicle still needs a full drive train, that just covers the cost of, well, fuel. In my car we use about $100 in fuel per month, so it’d take 75 months, or about 6 years to justify the cost. That’s doable, but not screaming easy. So the $50 price point must, and will, go up in smoke in relatively short order. (I recognize that the $50 includes the hardware for a home heating “boiler” of some sort.)

      * 50 hp sustained power. This hypothetical car would still have burst power (for hills and passing) that significantly exceeds this.

      • Peter Roe Says:

        I suppose that an ‘intermediate’ solution for car propulsion may be to substitute one of Rossi’s proposed LANR driven thermoelectric units for the IC engine in hybrid cars.

        The unit could run continuously with the output being stored in the car’s battery, whether it is being driven or not, i.e., it would be charging both when parked or in the garage. If the generator has to run continuously (no off) then when the battery is fully charged, any excess would probably have to be dumped to atmosphere via resistance heaters, or surplus electricity could be connected to a grid feed-in hookup when garaged. If it can be shut down without needing much power or time to re-start, then no problem.

        There is a lot of money going into developing various exotic batteries for electric cars at the moment and there should be plenty of ready-made ‘platforms’ for making use of a couple of Rossi’s units in this way, by the time such a device becomes available (I’ll skip the usual reservations here!).

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Nice comment Peter. Note that a “standard” family car actually uses about 10KW when driving on a flat road at 50mph (80kpĥ). You need the 50KW for hills, passing etc. and if you want to go much faster – 100mph needs about 40KW – mainly air resistance which is square-law. With storage of some sort 10KW electrical power (maybe 30KW heat power) would be enough. So Bruce would get pay-back in about a year instead, which makes the change-over easier (provided he keeps within the speed-limit).

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Simon says, “You need the 50KW for hills, passing etc.”

        Could a reservoir of steam provide for temporary surges?

        I always figure a good sized modern house would need 50kw for heat, electricity (30kw base plus 20kw for surges). The 45kw Hyperions probably would suffice.

  9. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    “There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works. Many extraordinary claims have been made in 2010. In my scientific opinion, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find a distinct absence of the latter. So let me be very clear here. While I personally find sufficient demonstration that LENR effects warrant further investigation, I remain skeptical. Furthermore, I am unaware of any clear and convincing demonstrations of any viable commercial device producing useful amounts of net energy.” – Joe Zawodny

    • Roger Bird Says:

      For me, nothing new. He confirmed LENR. Rossi is still on probation.

    • brucefast Says:

      Joe Zawodny, “There have been many attempts to twist the release of this video into NASA’s support for LENR or as proof that Rossi’s e-cat really works.”


      Joe Zawodny’s public statements, and the released video provide strong support for LENR. When Joe Zawodny’s slides say, “Works for any ‘pure’ hydrogen isotope – no
      need to discard evidence (e.g., NiH, PdH)” it would appear that not only is Zawodny supporting LENR but Ni+H LENR.

      There are three logical reasons to reject Rossi’s claims. That his technology is scientifically impossible, that Rossi has a history of scamming, and that Rossi has failed to provide solid proof of his claims. While the last two points are beyond the scope of this comment, this is where we are at on the first question:

      He is claiming something that is scientifically impossible.

      Zawodny’s position is clear. LENR has scientific validity. Nickel + Hydrogen LENR has scientific validity. Zawodny isn’t the only top-end scientist saying the same thing. To continue to use this argument against Rossi is, in my opinion, silly.

      Whether Zawodny likes it or not, every validation that LENR, especially Nickel + Hydrogen LENR, proves that the technology Rossi is presenting is valid, even if Rossi himself, even if his implementation is not.

      • Bertuswonkel Says:

        I must note that is impossible to claim that something is scientifically impossible. Nature is what it is, science does not change that. It a way to make sense of the world in a language we can understand. However, we are a long way from knowing everything there is to know and we could always be wrong. 200 years ago the atomic bomb was ‘scientifically impossible’, that din’t mean it was impossible. Nature did not change the rules after Einstein, they were there all along. Saying that something is scientifically impossible implies we know all there is to know. This is not the case, our science could still be fundamentally flawed. It is very important to keep this in mind and to remain critical to all evidence presented.

  10. Bernie Koppenhofer Says:

    A person who believes in the free market system, and then says Rossi’s way of introducing his invention as being invalid, dishonest or selfish because he is protecting his intellectual property is being either naive or intellectually dishonest.

  11. Craig Binns Says:


    Whom have I called “dishonest”? Nobody! On the contrary, I have stated that it is not necessary to be dishonest to sell things in a free market. That is the only point I was discussing with you.

    Anyway it is you who are calling people “intellectually dishonest”. I hope you have proof. Please provide.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, we will like you much better when you look at the evidence for LENR that we have provided you. Thinking just like we do won’t help, but looking at the SPAWAR and the SRI clips and the other material would cause us to like you more.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig is lying if he acts as though he looked at the evidence and he hasn’t looked at the evidence. But as I said before, we can’t blame the poor boy; looking outside the box will cause such troubling anxiety attacks that he would need hospitalization.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        That isn’t a response to my question: who am I calling dishonest in my response to Bernie? And what’s with the ad hominem nonsense about anxiety attacks and stuff? You rave on like that most of the time, instead of arguing your case. It’s pathetic.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, on “hoax”, January 13, 2012 at 11:39pm you said, “Speak for yourself. If you have a “lack of commitment” to making accurate statements about products you put on the market, then like Rossi, who has a similar lack of commitment, you are likely to spend time in the calaboose, and rightly so.

      Dear God, what have things come to, when deceivers can boast of their own lies as a philosophical principle!”

      You didn’t EXACTLY say that Rossi and I were dishonest, but you very strongly implied it. Further, in the comment that follows, I clearly called you dishonest. You take wide swaths of relevant data, pretend they don’t exist, and announce to the world that you, unlike myself, are truthful. Craig, grab a bit of commitment to truth, read this post:
      and follow the links in it at least 1 level deep. Then comment on this simple question, In your opinion, “what is the likelihood that the “Nickel + Hydrogen = over-unity heat” phenomenon is a valid phenomenon?”

      Craig, I am holding your feet to the fire. Every post you give will be followed by me charging that you are truth-avoidant, ie dishonest, until you clearly demonstrate that you have seen and digested the declarations from major scientific institutions declaring that they have achieved the “Nickel + Hydrogen = over-unity heat” phenomenon.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Here, here, brucefast. Closing one’s eyes to evidence is just as dishonest as creating “evidence” that ain’t so.

      • brucefast Says:

        Huh, didn’t realize that you were in the “replicators” post. Still waiting for your answer to the question:

        In your opinion, what is the likelihood that the “Nickel + Hydrogen = over-unity heat” phenomenon is a valid phenomenon?

  12. Roger Bird Says:

    If someone were to hold a gun to my head and ask me if Rossi’s E-Cat was real or bogus, I would say that it is unproven. If someone were to offer me Kim Kardashian, a hot fudge sundae, and a billion dollars if I would tell them what I feel about Rossi’s E-Cat, I would say that I felt that it is almost certainly true and could be the end of the world as we know it.


  13. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions

    New site is in development and will be published by the end of january.

    We are currently in the initial phase of development.

    We intend to start production on multiple types of reactor cores by the end of 2012.

    The reactors will be cheap and may be available to everybody depending on permit requirements.

    It is optimistic, but the technology is fairly straightforward based on our understanding.”

  14. GreenWin Says:

    Seems to be a critical mass approaching. The notion that dozens of design implementations of the LENR effect will result in low cost home appliances that replace grid-connect and water heater – is growing.

    Now that NASA has officially confirmed the validity of LENR, along with dozens of highly qualified scientists around the world – the only reason for slow growth is meditated disruption. Of course the “global press” still has its head inserted firmly in sand. Not one independent thinker out there? Not one??

    • brucefast Says:

      There may be others, but Mark Gibbs has written a number of articles in Forbes. At least one.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Since someone else is writing and signing the paychecks of any independent thinkers (John Stossel has to be one of the independent thinkers) in the news media, they aren’t quite so independent as perhaps we would like. The check signers also have to be independent, but they are dependent upon the ratings (the public), so, no one is independent in the news media.

      It is all about herd psychology, much as we would like it otherwise.

  15. Roger Bird Says:

    One thing that I have not seen mentioned here or anywhere else is that Coronal Mass Ejections will not be so potentially devastating. The whole business with the long range electrical wiring and the telegraph stations in 1859 burning down will be gone, assuming that LENR and/or Rossi can make the electrical grid go away.

    And also, gas pipe explosions will also become non-existent, as will nuclear power plant meltdowns, and the eye-sore and dead birds of wind energy. No more geothermal caused earthquakes.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      That’s actually a major point, Roger. Plus, of course, those militarily weak points will disappear with the pylons. At the moment, hit one major centre in power distribution (even a cyber attack) and the whole country goes out in overload.

      The satellite comms would get knocked out, but at least with cheap space travel we could get new ones up there quickly.

  16. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig Binns, Dave, and Peter all think that they are being very rational, you know, other that the fact that Craig and Dave are not even looking at the evidence, which strikes me as being very irrational.

    If everyone were are rational as Craig and Dave, there would be no progress in the world. The Wright Bros. would have died as scam artists. Madame Curie would have been ignored. No one would have bothered to test Einstein’s crazy ideas because they were irrational. Why should a scientist risk their careers over such crazy ideas as time slowing down or mass increasing just because one is approaching the speed of light? Light bending around a large mass is just insane. And why would anyone be so crazy and irrational as to think that fire can be controlled; it is dangerous and irrational.

    • brucefast Says:

      “Craig Binns, Dave, and Peter all think that they are being very rational, you know, other that the fact that Craig and Dave are not even looking at the evidence, which strikes me as being very irrational.”

      In my opinion, Peter belongs squarely in the list of those who are not even looking at the evidence.

      “Why should a scientist risk their careers over such crazy ideas … ” I think that the fact that LENR could offer significant and immediate value to mankind is all the more reason to take risk on this one. After all, is the evolution of the dung beetle really going to amount to more than a mole-hill?

      • Bob Says:

        Bruce, I would not look at any paper that these guys present that disproves LENR, unless of coarse its Peer revued. We must think of our jumping on bandwagon reputations. No, it must be Peer revued.
        The evidence is so strong by countless labs replicating the affect, I think it is now up to them to prove its not real.

      • brucefast Says:

        It is about impossible to prove a negative. I think that the only real way to prove the negative is to prove that Rossi’s technology, and Defkalion’s technology really doesn’t work. This can only reasonably be done by testing what they have. This requires that they let you, or that you commit a criminal act. Further, you would have to prove that the scientists that published success have erred in some way. About the only way to do that is to reproduce their success, and discover why that success is somehow invalid.

      • Bob Says:

        It was my small attempt at a joke. I was taken seriously. LOL

    • Alain Says:

      you a right, with “pal review” no progress, no breakthrough, no minority report is possible.
      the worst is that it is not only blocking new unconsensual ides, but also promoting stupid false ideas, that became new stupid consensus…
      all executives in government then follow the consensus and take stupid decisions, they think rational.
      all engineers and experts see it is stupid, but the silently obey to keep their job or take much cash, through scam-like legal business, or subsidies.
      then it crash, but nobody tell you.

      i talk about something real, and not lenr. guess what.

  17. Roger Bird Says:

    I was just reading about the Keystone pipeline and the environmental whiners and the fact that there are already 50,000 miles of similar but less safe pipeline in the USA. You-all here in think that the Rossi E-Cat or similar technology is going to solve all of our problems, or at least all of our environmental problems. You forget that our environment will still be littered with whiners who will simply look for something else to whine about, and the stupid-ass news media will still report their whining as something that we should all hear about.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – there’s actually a very pragmatic justification for conservationism. The world is a very large chaotic system, and we haven’t even catalogued all the species that currently exist and how they interact with the sea and atmosphere. Although you will read in the news that x number of species have gone extinct this year, there is no way that that number is more than an educated guess. We have proof that the world has worked and given us food, oxygen, rainfall etc. up till now, but we really cannot predict what will happen when we change the conditions. We just don’t know enough. We have seen that a small change can be accommodated with some side-effects, but we do not know the long-term effects with any certainty. We also do not know if there is a “tipping point” (watch “The Day After Tomorrow” for one group’s take on this) beyond which a small change gets amplified into a massive effect.

      There are a lot of poor people in China and India who are soon to be industrialised and thus brought up to a Western standard of living with its relatively large energy use. To cope with that, they are building power-stations and burning what they have to fuel them. This means that the rate of pollution and CO2 will be rising much quicker than in the past, and a lot of people think that was too fast.

      Maybe the eCat can’t solve everything, but it will be a major contribution to keeping the world more stable. The ecosystem needs either stability or change that is so slow that the biosphere can evolve fast enough to keep up. Cutting out the by-products of our energy-use should allow the rate of change to become slow enough so that our children and grandchildren will have substantially the same world to live in as we did.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon Derricutt, you misunderstand me. I am 100% in favor of environmental protection. But as with all things human, some people take it too far, so far that they fail to notice that we already have 50,000 miles of oil pipes in this country that are not as safe as the proposed Keystone pipeline.

        It is similar to the issue with legalizing marijuana. Those people who are currently making huge profits off of grass are not going to go work at McDonalds when marijuana becomes legal. They will go into a similarly lucrative line of work requiring a similarly small amount of effort and a similar lack of respect for the law, like perhaps kidnapping or extortion. When booze became legal in 1933, the bad guys didn’t just say, “hey, lets start a legitimate business with our money.” They continued to be crooks.

        The whiners and hysterics will continue to be whiners and hysterics. They will just find something else to whine about and be hysterical about.

        The environment protection profile has actually gotten better. Our water and our air has gotten better. I recall in the 1960’s that my swimming team hurt from the pollution because of a swimming competition in the Los Angeles basin (Occidental College, we won.). It still is not perfect, but it is much better.

        The opposition to the Keystone Pipeline is a useless waste of energy. That kind of environmental effort would serve us better in some other direction. Fortunately, probably, hopefully LENR will end all of this.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger, sorry, I did misunderstand, but I totally agree with what you say here.

      • Bob Says:

        The whole environmental movement drives me crazy, but that’s not to say I’m against good practices to save mother earth.
        We went through a period of history where we hurt the environment with a lot of air and water pollution and that was wrong. It wasn’t because people were evil, they basically didn’t know better to start with and the science wasn’t available to easily solve the problems. Both air and water are much better today than when I was younger, but the whole environmental movement has been taken over by a bunch of radicals. They use every little thing to stop progress, to the point of setting fires and destroying property. By and large be need to lock most of these radicals up and toss the key. We need to put common sense sane people in charge of being the watch dogs. California has been devastated buy water cut of so save a small fish. The oil find in Texas is trying to be stopped because of a small lizard that is so abundant the locals kill it as a pest. I know I have friends that live there and they say they ate everywhere. The environmental cause has turned into a political sledge hammer to further an agenda.
        One of the big agendas has been global warming, but its not about global warming, its about money. Carbon credits for making some rich and redistributing the wealth from rich to poor countries. Luckily, people are waking up and putting and end to the crazy people and those trying to work the system for financial gain.
        We need to be aware of our environment and work to keep it in balance with sane ideas, not radical agendas.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Bob, one of the agendas that you missed that these fanatics have is that they hate modern technological society. This is why you see all these white and black people parading around as though they were American Indians, like that total jack-wagon Ward Churchill.

        Real happiness comes from within. Living close to nature can be very nice, but it won’t solve all problems and it shouldn’t forced on other people with lying and the destruction of property.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I agree and so did Carlin….

      • Anony Mole Says:

        Oh, I think we know what the world might look like at both extremes of global weather change. On the once side we have the PETM, the Paleocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum and on the other end we have the Pleistocene’s ice ages.

        Life was pretty good during the PETM, not so much during the ice age epoch. But regardless which is better for humankind we’re pretty much out of the driver seat. This global change freight train is just cranking up steam (ha!) and we’re way back in the caboose thinking we can influence the engineer.

        +Roger Bird, curious thought about 1920s booze runners not deciding to “go straight” after prohibition ended. I hadn’t looked at vice crime in such a way. But you’ve got a point there, people’s inclinations in behavior will most likely change venues rather than change the underlying behavior.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        And, Anony Mole, it is nice to have all the bad guys in the same place doing the same things. You can mow them down easier that way. (:->)

        For a person to change fundamentally is a very, very, very rare and difficult thing.

    • Bob Says:

      Roger, I think the scales have tipped and if your a crazy man go work in the government and force your agenda on everyone. I just read this morning that the EPA is now trying to shut down all the oil fields in North Dakota on environmental concerns. We pay Brazil Billions to finance deep water drilling and China has come in and gotten the oil, you would think that would have been part of the deal. In Colorado and Wyoming their trying to limit drilling based on hurting the pheasants. I grew up around Pheasants and my Son-in-Law raises pheasants, believe me an oil well will not hurt their breeding. I lived in Washington State for years, everything is a wetland and is regulated. You pay more for runoff water than you do for your regular water. They tried to outlaw dust, just recently, but thank god congress stepped in and ended that, it would have put a halt to things like hay fields. I could sit and make long lists of our environmental laws and show the insanity of their thinking.
      I’m hoping that LENR technology ends much of these fights, no CO2 and vertical farming will over time curtail the acreages being planted that they are so dead set against. My guess is its not really the environment that they want, its control. End the CO2 problem and they will move on to the next thing, its job protection and agenda motivated. I just hope technology cuts through most of their arguments.

    • Bertuswonkel Says:

      Dear roger, i must say your argumentation might be convincing for some but when looking at it in more detail it does fall apart. The story about weed and liqueur is not making any sense.First, I dare to argue that crime and corruption was reduced with lifting the ban on alcohol. Second, is it a matter of game theory, if you make something illegal that is as easy to grow as weed or make as alcohol then no wonder people join the party. Why work your ass off for a boss when you can make lots of money using one small room in your house. I do it my self but the suggestion that i will start to sell cocaine or heroine after weed is made illegal is stupid and insulting. Your clearly don’t understand the drugs market or any of the people who work in it.

      Then there is the environmental issue. The fact that your water has become cleaner does not say anything about the state of the environment on the whole. The idea that environmentalism is only about money is nonsense. The movement really started to get momentum when the first pictures from earth where send back from space. Our planet is a pale blue dote drifting in a fast cosmic ocean. We don’t know if there is any other live out there or planets we can inhabit. I think it it say to say that we are properly stuck to this ball at least for the foreseeable future. There lots of people who care about the environment and share with me the sense of wonder about all the live on earth. If you want make statements about the environment use real indicator like biodiversity loss, changing participation patterns or temperature increases in stead of referring to the quality of the water in your back yard.

  18. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Alleged competition:

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Chan mentioned he lives in the tropics. He has an associate that posts under the name Ortiz. He quotes his proposed price for his 10 MW plant at $100,000. Mightn’t he be in Panama which uses the US dollar as its currency?

      • Bob Norman Says:

        All right, will that be cash or check. I hope he is for real, but with every post I think not. I think someone is playing games.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I think he may be for real. He decided to use metal hydrides instead of powder and H gas….that wasn’t copycat. Going for low-grade heat isn’t copycat.

        As for his expertise, I’m too un-expert to judge.

        These guys follow Chan:

      • Bob Says:

        Iggy, I hope he is for real, it would be great. He seems to know what he is saying, but if you study his words he doesn’t divulge much. Good buzz word application. Then again much of what gets done in the world is by lone wolfs that are able to succeed where others don’t. I will put my skepticism on the chelf on Chan and let time be the judge.

  19. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Defkalion really sounds serious if their announced demo pans out.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      That is impressive. It is sort of like very hot air, not merely hot air. Perhaps we will soon be getting “fire” out of it soon.

      And the 650 degrees C is very impressive. That would be 1202 degrees F. Wow! Andrea who?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Although I may get down on my knees tonight and pray that this announcement by Defkalion is for real, I think that it would be offensive to the Judge of the Universe for Defkalion to screw Rossi.

    • Bob Says:

      This is very, very good for the state of CF (LENR). Lets hope this categorically proves the Cold Fusion is not only real, but that it is capable of enough energy for commercial success.

      The stripped out reactor is puzzling to me. I would think they would have a very hard time controlling it if the normal cooling was not in place. The 600 C temperatures I would think would be an issue with air cooling. With these temperatures they can run regular turbines as they are close to the required temperatures.

  20. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Old news to us but NextBigFuture just gave a big headline to Defkalion. NextBigFuture is fairly discriminating in what news they feature.

    “If this is proved and the commercial devices work as promised then the world will be massively changed.”

  21. brucefast Says:

    When it comes to Defkalion, or Rossi for that matter, I don’t place much value in words. An invitation to be tested is radically different than actually seeing test results, or even than a test relationship being established.

    I am growing to wonder whether there isn’t a hitch in the plan somewhere. While the Ni + H = heat formula is surely correct, I think it possible that both Rossi and Defkalion are hitting technical trouble. The possibility that the machines only run for 12 to 24 hours then plug up has been raised by others. It could account for much of the lack of presentation.

    Alas, time will tell. However, lets not pronounce the eureka for Rossi or Defkalion until independent proof is in.

  22. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    More speculation (at vortex) on argon catalyst:

    “RE: [Vo]:DGT Screenshot

    Jones Beene
    Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:27:23 -0800

    —–Original Message—–
    From: Terry Blanton

    > I asked about the second spike and whether they added H to cause it.
    They admitted they did “something”; but, it did not involve adding H.

    Well, since they say they do not use RF then what would it be? The
    Letts/Cravens effect involves lasers. None there. There is the possibility
    of an arc discharge, but not likely – no indication. Burst of heat – maybe.
    Pulse from an electromagnet- no way.

    However, the best bet: notice that about halfway through, one Mec is adding
    a T to the hydrogen line with another valve. Why?

    Ta-Da … yes it is argon. It is a Mills catalyst, and we know they use it.

    I could not spot a standard tank of argon anywhere, but there could be a
    lecture bottle in there somewhere. Argon cylinders would normally have a
    dark green shoulder. They might have cut out the footage of that tank for
    the obvious reason.”

  23. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Early replication?

    “Documented evidence for thermal energy observation
    in nickel and hydrogen, in 1959.

    This excerpt from Journal of American Chemical
    Society, 81,5032 (1959). Research by R.J.Kokes,
    and P.H. Anderson. They were studying adsorption
    of hydrogen on Raney nickel and observed “strange
    feature of exothermic reaction”. Perhaps if they
    had done an elemental analysis or calorimetry
    analysis they would have found thermal energy
    generation in excess of any possible physical
    chemistry reaction ( that is, a nuclear
    reaction), but no one can fault them, in 1959, for
    not doing an elemental analysis of the nickel
    after the exothermic reactions. What they observed
    predated the Piantelli work by 30 years, and the
    Rossi catalyst by over 50 years.

    Raney nickel can be made from nickel/magnesium
    alloy, with other elements added before leaching
    of the alloy to promote catalytic activity. That
    leaves residue magnesium in the Raney nickel, and
    can contain promoter elements like copper,
    strontium, and so on, depending on the initial
    alloy composition before leaching.

    Here is the procedure for Raney nickel synthesis,
    using aluminum as the leach element. It would need
    to be adapted for use with magnesium to make the
    volume of catalyst required for megawatt reactors.”


    • Bob Says:

      Iggy, The mention of Argon is most interesting. Mills (Blacklight) uses it and now maybe defkalion. What I find interesting is the Noble gas engine being claimed by PlamERG also uses Argon. The have a high energy field around the case and excite it with an electric spark. It almost seems like this is close to what happens in the fusion. Gas to Plasma, back to gas with e-field and energy pulse. Not sure I believe in this, but interesting.

      Their home page has more detail.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I wish they provided an animated video of that PlasMerg engine operating.

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Iggy, I think they plan to demo the engine some time in February in Las Vegas. I’m skeptical, but would love to be surprised.

  24. Roger Bird Says:

    I think of nickelpower as my LENR homebase. So it is natural for me to say this here. Why didn’t any of you guys mention the following before? Why didn’t you guys think that it was important? I know why. You guys are even more left brain-ish than I am and don’t fully comprehend or appreciate the importance of social matters.

    Below is a list of the Board Members of Defkalion and a short blurb about each one. I took it off a post from another site which got it as a Google translation from the Defkalion site. For me, this is an attitude adjuster. I am now 100% sure that at least Defkalion has COP significantly higher than the 1.3 that we have been hearing about from LENR.



    January 31, 2012 at 9:45 pm
    Who run the Defkalion SA?
    George Sortikos CEO
    Engineer. . Former banker and industrialist (ceramic high tech). Former Chairman of State Bank ETVA (Greek Bank of Industrial Development) ’80-’90 and founder of Omega Bank ’90. . He was also chairman of the TIF (International Fair of Thessaloniki).
    David Christian Aurel CEO
    Swiss Banker with extensive experience in project finance and logistics. Former president of Bank of Montenegro.
    Alexandros Xanthoulis Board Member

    Economist (Macroeconomics). Greek-Canadian. Former official of the EU heads the Energy and Financial Reconstruction of the EU delegation in Central Asia (90).
    Chris Stremmenos Board Member
    Chemical Engineer. Professor (retired) at the University of Bologna, Italy, former ambassador of Greece to Italy.
    John Hadjichristos Board Member

    Mathematician. Extensive experience in software development, Management Information Systems and Project Management. From 1992 to 1999 he served as CEO of computer systems Telemedia SA, while from 1991 to 1992 general manager of software systems Cibar AU. From 1990 to 1991 he worked at Marketing & Sales Intrasoft SA as a responsible banking sector.
    Mouafak Saouachni Board Member
    Doctor Ophthalmologist. Greek-Israeli. Former member of the National Council of PASOK.
    Andreas Drougas Board Member
    Mathematics / Computer Systems. Former Executive Director in LARCO (Greek nickel mining company, now owned by the State), wide experience as a consultant on business management and information technology. Larco is a leading producer of ferronickel o in Europe and one of the five largest producers worldwide. The Larco explores, extracts, produces and sells its product worldwide.

    Two points:

    1.) These kind of people are often wary of protecting their reputations. If the local mail carrier is found to be an active member of the local UFO group, NO ONE cares. If a presidential candidate is an active member of the local UFO group, EVERYONE cares. So these guys are not going to be members of the Board of Directors of Defkalion unless LENR has acquired wings and is flying like swallows.

    2.) I notice that there are two CEOs. I have never seen this before. Are these the guys who know how to get along with each other after the rugged and perhaps annoying individualist was thrown out of the group? Perhaps Rossi left not because of money issues, but because he is difficult to work with.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Roger, as I have said before, being a banker is not necessarily the best of credentials these days. As you say, such people are “often wary of protecting their reputations”, so I trust that George Sortikos has terminated his contacts with Omega Bank and has had no recent dealings with it, or its successor, Proton Bank.

      Wiki has this to say about these banks: “In 2006 Proton Bank absorbed OMEGA Bank, with the new entity’s share capital reaching €650 mil. In 2011 it came under investigation for money laundering violations. In October 2011 it was effectively nationalised by the Greek government.”

      I fervently hope Defkalion doesn’t end up getting nationalised too!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The nationalization of Defkalion has been a worry for me. There is no end to the bad that do-gooders can do, especially when they have government power.

  25. Miff Says:

    I can’t see that there is any evidence that any of the sixteen have replicated LENR.

    It is obvious that a Nobel prize or similar will go to the first person who can pull this off

    The human power to self delude appears to be unlimited.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Miff, your post is utter crap. If you want more proof, then you will have to travel to SRI in Palo Alto or to Brillouin Energy in Menlo Park or to any of the other places that have on going research. You can’t prove anything by looking at your internet screen. To the extent that anything is true on the Internet, LANR is true.

      I know of the navy rail gun only by way of the Internet. It hasn’t been proven to me beyond my experience of the internet. Recently I tried to duplicate it with a 32 volt 250 millamp power supply for my 12 year old boy (who shows more sense than you do); I was not successful. Therefore, to your way of alleged thinking, the railgun has not been proven.

      You post is so off base that it constitutes a lie, intentional or unintentional.

    • Alain Says:

      >”The human power to self delude appears to be unlimited.”

      yest, but self delude for what ? for belief or for denial ?

      your theory of the fraud, is the typical Conspiracy theory…

      and the story of cold fusion, from the “believer”/”realist” side, is that it is a collective denial …
      no null hypothesis, reality is that denial or belief can be right or wrong. facts decide, but even facts cannot convince believers/deniers.

      Roland benanbou have gathered example of denial in well know affairs : (funny reading)

      and he us that exmapl to support his “collective dellusion” model :

      you know, even for me it is hard to know if I am on the realist or dinial side…
      but today I’m 99.999% sure
      the rest will make me doubt of 9/11 story, and of Apolo moon landing.

      • brucefast Says:

        You get my vote as thinker of the day.

      • Bob Says:

        Alain, very good links and oh so true. I have quite a few personal examples of much of this. People learn the hard way in life, if they learn at all.
        I know many people that won’t commit to anything until they know which way the majority is going. I have learned its quite easy to be a leader, most people don’t want or will take the responsibility for their decisions. By putting things off, most people push things and events to the worst case.
        Very interesting post, thanks.

  26. Miff Says:

    I have just read again the Wikipedia entry on cold fusion which also covers LENR as it makes it clear that there has been no real advancement in evidence in the last 15 years despite tens of millions being spent on research.

    Rossie is clearly a Con. If he had the slightest belief that his claims worked he would get the simple March 2011 demonstration repeated with a few independent experts present .

    I guarantee this will never happen as he will keep taking money from people such as the Gullible Sol in Australia for at least another ten years while people keep believing.

    A good little earner but pretty dishonest!

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Miff – Wikipedia is generally good, but generally each entry is made by one person or a small group who have their own ideas. It’s always worth checking the source material if you want to make a valid decision. It looks like you haven’t done this.

      Go on to and read all the info there (it takes a while) and then try for other information. Again it’s going to take quite a few days to absorb all the information. Look specifically at Piantelli’s patent, which details how it is done. In the 20 or so years since Piantelli’s work, you might expect the technology to have improved somewhat – this would not be extraordinary.

      Once you have read and understood all this material, it is unlikely that you will disbelieve that such a nuclear reaction is possible and that people can duplicate it at will, even though they claim much lower COP (energy out vs. energy in) than Rossi. Add to that the involvement of NI with Rossi, currently not really confirmed by NI but, importantly, not denied, and you may also come to the conclusion that Rossi has the goods. Maybe not as he’s been claiming, but working nevertheless. Denial of something because the theory is not yet rigorous is not clever – people have not yet agreed on the theory of why superconductivity happens, yet anyone with some Mercury and liquid Helium can demonstrate the reality of it.

      • Alain Says:

        wikipedia is good only on non sensible subjects.
        on politically/mediatically sensible subject wikipedia is controlled by a self-designated oligarchy.

        strangely government and corp are quite weak at this job, and they seldom dare to correct wikipedia except for clear mistake. it is because if one gov or corp try to oppose NGO/media vision, they will be strongly ciriticized, and it is very risky .

        in fact today wikipedi is under control of NGO, mostly green “consensual”. you see that when you oppose science papers, reports, statistics, with wikipedia on some green controversy…

        LENR is quite different from those case, since green have no opinion on it…
        there is hope wikipedia change vision in one day, when defkalion succeed in making a clear evidence.

      • brucefast Says:

        Man, Simon, you set the bar high. I have not by any means read all of that stuff. While it is excellent material, most of it is written by doctorates to be read by doctorates. We, the common people, can’t wade ourselves through it.

        That’s why I recommend to Miff to simply read this post, and follow the links to the documents and videos that support its claims. If one sees the titles of the representatives and the institutions they are associated with, it should be enough to convince them that wikipedia is, well, full of it.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – I did read a lot of it, and it does take a while but it’s an important subject. You have to read the various approaches in order to synthesise a good picture, and if you want you can skip to the conclusions. It’s why I think LENR is real science (despite Wikipedia) and why I’m putting all my spare time into it.

        Another nice one to read is the Galileo project, run by Steve Krivit (details at ) which has a few extra details that other people seem to have missed. Yes, they did replicate, and maybe should be on your list.

        Incidentally, your inbox tells me it’s full. Was it lying again?

      • Bob Norman Says:

        Simon, thanks for these links. I had them in my book marks, but had skipped over them. Spent yesterday reading, most interesting.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Miff, please, your use of Wikipedia as an authority is incredibly foolish. We all know that Wikipedia is the result of the contributions of anyone who comes along. Even I have made a few editing corrections in Wikipedia. And if the Wikipedia staff decided to stop contributions concerning so-called cold fusion, who made them God? They are considerably less qualified to decide what is true about this matter than even I am, since I have devoted about 120 four hour days to the matter; there can be no question that the staff of Wikipedia could not devote so many man hours to studying the matter, so they probably just accepted the word of a hot fusionist, many of whom are threatened by LANR.

      And, although no one has ever accused me of being humble about my intellect, in this LANR cheering squad, I find myself humbled by intellects superior to mine like Bruce Fast, Iggy Dalrymple, and many others, who seem to have devoted even more time to the matter than I have. And among those people whose intellects I admire, not one of them says that Rossi has proven his case, although all are very encouraged and optimistic.

      Calling Rossi “clearly a Con” is not very clear thinking. You do not have the evidence, and it is immoral to call someone a criminal until you have the evidence. You do have an opportunity to think and to practice patience and learn to live with uncertainty.

      I will not be sending Rossi any money until he has proven his case, and I am probably as enthusiastic and optimistic as the next Rossi cheerleader.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “I find myself humbled by intellects superior to mine like Bruce Fast, Iggy Dalrymple”
        Roger, I appreciate that nice complement but almost everyone here is smarter and better educated than me. All this stuff is way over my head. The only thing I excel at is googling.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I do excel in philosophizing. Whether it is a gift or a curse I have not yet decided. (:->) Perhaps I can apply my philosophical abilities to figuring out whether it is a gift or a curse. (:->)

    • brucefast Says:

      Miff, you are in the “Replicators” post.
      Have you read this post?
      Have you followed any of the links?

      Who do you believe more, wikipedia, an “encyclopedia” written and edited by the masses (often edited/redacted by people with agendas) or NASA, the guys smart enough to put men on the moon, and robots on mars.
      search the link for “Tests conducted at NASA” (Please note that this link is to the NASA website, not to someone else’s.) They say that they replicated LENR BACK IN 1989. They say that the research is published in the journals.

      How do you know what you know, Miff? How does one figure out which source to trust?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        brucefast, it is a dance of epistemology, one of my favorite things to do.

        Roger Bird, AS in electronics technology, BA in psychology, BA in philosophy

      • brucefast Says:

        Yes, Roger. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. However, I honestly don’t think its a word in Miff’s vocabulary. He can still ask himself some of the basic epistemological questions without knowing the vocabulary. (Hey, “epistemological” isn’t even in my google chrome spelling dictionary.)

    • brucefast Says:

      BTW Miff, punch the following into google: wikipedia pathological
      You will find that I have brought attention to the error in wikipedia’s ways 19 times. Wikipedia’s alternative opinion is not news here.

  27. ChemE Says:

    Feb 1st 2012 National Research Council News Release & Report: NASA’s 16 top technical challenges for the next 5 year

    I will interpret “Nuclear Thermal Propulsion” as including LENR… 5 years would not be too bad for something not on the near horizon 1 year ago. Hopefully we can have a residential HVAC/Generator before that or at least something to heat our coffee.

    — radiation mitigation for human spaceflight;
    — guidance, navigation, and control;
    — optical systems;
    — long-duration crew health;
    — solar power generation;
    — high-contrast imaging and spectroscopy technologies;
    — environmental control and life support systems;
    — electric propulsion;
    — detectors and focal planes;
    — instruments and sensors;
    — fission power generation;
    — lightweight and multifunctional materials and structures;
    — nuclear thermal propulsion;
    — entry, descent, and landing thermal protection systems;
    — active thermal control of cryogenic systems; and

    • brucefast Says:

      I think it a stretch to think that NASA is expecting to master an LENR propulsion system within the next 5 years. I suspect, rather, that they are planning to fiddle with the micro-fission reactors that the Navy seems ready to go into production with.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      They have “fission power generation” in both objectives A and B. Maybe that’s why the radiation mitigation is their first A priority, though the best way of shielding against cosmic radiation is a good thick bit of mass. A good strong space-drive that either collects its mass on the way or is non-reactive would be needed for such a massive craft.

      Larsen’s LENR-based gamma-ray shield may be useful once he’s actually got the bugs ironed out.

  28. Roger Bird Says:

    Bruce, there is a entry for fission, and there is an entry for “nuclear thermal propulsion”. They are two separate entries. Do I have to do all of the heavy lifting around here? You guys are all smarter than I am. Two entries mean that they are different endeavors. And “nuclear thermal propulsion” can be nothing other than LANR.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – sorry, but a fission reactor can also be used for propulsion, simply by heating reaction-mass and letting it go out the nozzle. Unless they are stating LENR as the means, I’m assuming they are going with what they know will work.

    • brucefast Says:

      In light of the most recent statements by NASA’s Dr. Zawodny, ( It would appear that NASA is very much of the mind that LENR is not ready for big time yet. (I strongly believe that NASA underestimates the state of LENR.) In NASA’s worldview 5 years is rather “short term” as plans go. This is why I think they are thinking of fission.

      I also see how NASA could see fission as two separate tasks: creating a fission reactor that’s appropriate for space travel, and figuring out how to use the heat thereof for deep-space acceleration. Throwing stuff out the back, as Simon suggests, without taking on new stuff to throw seems kinda limited. I think I have see sketch-ups of space ships with giant funnels on the front, presumably to pick up space dust that they can hurl out the back.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        That’s the Bussard ram-jet. It collects interstellar Hydrogen and chucks it out much faster. There’s a problem in making the funnel at the moment. In the meantime, I think they are just thinking of taking a certain amount of mass with them as stuff to chuck out of the back end. A bit limited.

  29. ChemE Says:

    Page 14 shows an LENR thermal propulsion prototype from 2009

    • Bob Norman Says:

      The 18GW number is impressive. Wonder if its a number or they know how to get there. Any idea how the Hypertransport efforts are going. The last one I am aware of failed, but they called it a success (USAF).

  30. Miff Says:

    If you need any further evidence of the misleading information coming out on this issue I suggest everyone reads the extraordinary post titled Report #4 on the New Energy Times blog by Steve Krivit.
    It explains how Rossie attempts to get credibility by linking with NASA even though the tests are never allowed by him.
    Anyone reading this report would not invest.
    Also look again at the claims Rossie doesn’t want any money!

    • Roger Bird Says:

      People usually read the sources the confirm their biases.

    • brucefast Says:

      Miff, in my opinion you are starting this discussion from the wrong end. Consider answering the very broad questions first.

      1 – Is there a true phenomenon which is often called LENR? NASA says there is — at least video with the NASA logo on it does, and scientists that are employed by NASA do. A whole lot of other people do as well. Oh, um, Steve Krivit seems to think that there is as well.

      2 – Is there a true phenomenon often called LENR that involves Nickel and Hydrogen? It is easier for me to provide the sources for this, because that is the focus of this blog. They are here:

      3 – Consider this recent post:
      Notice that whether Rossi is frauding or not is really irrelevant.

      Lastly, Miff, I can’t help myself — Steve Krivit has proven to be the harshest critic of Rossi, and of cold fusion/LENR in general. However, Krivit believes that LENR of the Nickel + Hydrogen type is valid. (

      Trying to figure out what is going on with Krivit brings me back to his strong opinion that Piantelli has the real thing (a Nickel + Hydrogen reaction.) It appears to me that Krivit is frustrated that his friend Piantelli is not getting the glory that Krivit believes he deserves. Krivit appears to want to remove the lime-light from anyone but Piantelli.

      I would be pleased as punch to see Piantelli succeed. I have no need for Rossi to be either correct or incorrect. The list of Ph.D.’s and their institutions is what convinces me that LENR is a real phenomenon.

      As both Defkalion and Dr. Swartz say that they have commercial grade energy product (COP > 10.) So the only thing Rossi claims that others don’t is that he was first to have commercial grade energy.

      Please Miff, get off of Rossi, and into the question of the legitimacy of the “pathological science” of LENR. If LENR then energy revolution — maybe not as fast as Rossi claims, but faster than we will ever achieve with oil.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        brucefast, very good post, but I think that you are wasting your time with Miff, who fancies that he is the only critical thinker here. These pathoskeptics really are ill mentally.

  31. kwhilborn Says:

    Hi Brucefast. I copied part of this into a comment section on msnbc and gave credit to you and your website. Let me know if you find this offensive in any way, but it was used against a AR attack.

    I have similar lists, but knew I could find yours quicker.

    • brucefast Says:

      it is not clear what you copied onto msnbc, I think it was my list of Replicators. (A link would be nice.) In general, if you don’t take what I say out of context, and if you give me the credit for it, its fine with me.

      As far as the list of replicators goes, please spread it around, it is the best proof of the Ni + H phenomenon, and of Rossi, that currently exists. BTW, the “Replicators” post is my most read post yet. People are noticing this list.

  32. Miff Says:

    Roger. I am happy to accept that there appears to be something in LENR. But unfortunately at very low power levels that are not practical in economic ways.

    Rossie is a different matter. Virtually everything I read said how he did not want any money from anyone until the units were proven and available. This was to show how honest he was.
    Then I read Krivits latest article which clearly shows Rossie was attempting to get large amounts of up front money from an investor. I also read that a person in Australia is organizing meetings to pay up front money to Rossie for the Australian rights. Rossie has never disassociated himself from this person.

    Just how much money has been given to Rossie that we don’t know about. It could be millions!
    I think you should be careful with what you write as some gullible investors could take note of your belief that Rossie could be above board and then invest. It may have well already happened.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Miff, I have always, up to now, said that Rossi was on probation until he can prove it.

    • brucefast Says:

      Miff, let me introduce you to the sophisticated investor. These are people that have two qualifications: they can afford to loose some money, and they are supposed to know what they are doing.

      It does not bother me one iota if Rossi gets investment from sophisticated investors. Rossi has not given me any method of investing in his work. I am on his list of people interested in buying one of the first e-cats, but he still hasn’t given me opportunity — let alone ask for money.

      Miff, you said, “I think you should be careful with what you write as some gullible investors could take note of your belief that Rossie (sic) could be above board and then invest.” (It’s Rossi with an Italian i, not Rossie.) As long as Rossi doesn’t take money from potentially “gullible” investors, let him take money.

      BTW, as I have made it very clear on this site, I do not find Rossi to be a particularly honest person. I take everything he has to say with a major shaker of salt. My dad always said, “Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear.” What has been seen I am well biased to believe — especially because of the quality of people witnessing it.

      However, more importantly, I am very prepared to believe that which has been reported by highly professional others.
      > This leaves me believing that the LENR phenomenon* is for real.
      > This leaves me believing that the Ni + H form of LENR is real.
      > This leaves me believing that commercially useful COP has been achieved.

      Rossi is beside the point.

  33. Miff Says:

    My last post was actually to Bruce!

  34. kwhilborn Says:

    Attn: Brucefast,

    This is the link where I copied most of your article. I did not think you would be upset, and did give credit to you before I copy/pasted.


    • brucefast Says:

      Kwhilborn, you are a beacon of truth in a storm of mindless drivel. Good luck. Its kinda sad when you place the list of replicators in front of people’s faces, and you get only a blank stare back.

      Its nice to see that there are a few other warriors for truth on the site.

  35. kwhilborn Says:


  36. Roger Bird Says:

    Bruce, in my opinion it is a mistake to have Blacklight in your list. LENR can do without them, and I disbelieve them. If Blacklight is as good as they say they are, how come they aren’t selling energy back to the utility.

    • Bob Says:

      Roger, I’m struggling as to where to put Blacklight. They have some interesting papers and have demonstrated products and even have a car initiative that people are looking at, but once again everything is done behind closed doors. They have been in existence for quite a while and yet seem well backed financially.
      I’m very curious what people in general think of them.

      • brucefast Says:

        I’m with Bob on this one — exactly. I put Blacklight in with cautious notes because I am dubious. I think their “hydrino” theory is highly unlikely. They certainly seem to have been around long enough that if they had what they claim they have, they would have introduced something to the world by now. Wouldn’t it be amazing if they discovered that one of these other theories explains their device better than their theory does? Wouldn’t it be cool if discovering a new theory allowed them to see that they have been close but not quite for a long time?

        However, Blacklight claims to be using Nickel and Hydrogen and getting anomalous energy. Therefore they qualify for the list. I haven’t chosen to remove Chan either, though his case seems hopeless. Partly, I guess, I like having a longer list. I do think that I am going to sort the list, maybe make a category A, B and C. In that case Blacklight would be in category C.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        You want to know “where to put” Blacklight. Well I know where I’d put it! It was founded in 1991, and according to wiki “By 2009 BLP had raised about $60 million in venture capital, and claims to have seven commercial agreements to license BLP energy technology for the production of thermal or electric power to utilities and private corporations. By 2011 no known power generation has occurred.”

        That sorry tale is, I am sure, a description of the e-cat’s future, at least the $60m would be if Rossi has his way.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, your back!!! I have missed you so much. You can’t imagine how I am looking forward to Defkalion blowing your self-esteem out of the “water” of your consciousness.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        A good idea to sort the replicators by degree of believability. I think Blacklight have seen some anomalous energy production from their devices, but in 21 years they haven’t seemed to actually produce anything but bills. I agree with Craig on this one! Also, as Bruce says, maybe their theory is just wrong which is why they cannot progress.

        I think Craig is wrong about Rossi, simply because of the “soft” evidence as stated by Roger Bird. Jetmech pointed out the Keely car company as a case of an out-and-out fraud that went on for 26 years, but in Rossi’s case the demos, though not rigorous, were very open to scientific scrutiny which I hope would have stopped such deliberate fraud (leaving bad measurements as a talking-point instead).

        Craig – how do you stand if the Defkalion tests come out all 7 positive? Will you accept that the old theory is perhaps wrong and that LENR can happen? I can understand scepticism that LENR is useful as energy-production while no-one is selling any good systems, but not after independent testing.

  37. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Pt 1/2 Frank Znidarsic – Today’s Cold Fusion Research

  38. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Pt 2/2 Frank Znidarsic – Today’s Cold Fusion Research

  39. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    HOLY GRAIL of Physics Discovered!

  40. Craig Binns Says:


    I’m all for independent testing. I’m all for openness. I can’t see any other way of proceeding. Unfortunately Rossi takes the opposite view. You will have familiarised yourselves with the recent bizarre Australian shenanigans (but if you haven’t I will happily bring you up to date!) which resulted in an offer to Rossi of a million dollars to conduct an independent test. Steve “The Snake” Krivit relates Rossi’s response at…t-send-131000/ ”

    “As we showed in the Feb. 14 article, Rossi responded to Smith’s offer. ‘When Our E-CATS will be in the market,’ Rossi wrote, ‘this millionaire will have the chance to buy for few hundred dollars an E-Cat and test it as he wants, so why waste money? I do not need his money.’ …

    “On Jan. 16, 2011, Rossi wrote on his blog: We have already passed the phase to convince somebody. … The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that works and go and sell it, as we are doing. … In this field the time of mental masturbations is over. Now is time for facts, and facts are operating reactors of satisfied customers.’

    “Oddly, there is no evidence of the ‘customer’ Rossi sold his device to in October and there is no evidence of any satisfied customer at all. There is only chattering from Rossi on his own blog and rumors and speculations on the various E-Cat blogs.”

    To which I personlly add: Rossi, we beg you: where oh where is your “satisfied customer”? And your faithful supporters are still “chattering” like crazy – why are you accusing them of being a bunch of jerks, engaged in mental self abuse? That’s not nice.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – yes, I absolutely agree that Rossi has jerked everyone about, and he’s not “beyond doubt” demonstrated that his devices work as advertised. He’s been doing a lot if not all of the things that would shout “scam” to an investor.

      I do, however, have some background in engineering and in nuclear physics. I have read a lot of the other experiments that have been done, and it looks like the physics is real and Einstein himself suggested why it was happening (1951 to Sternglass). So real I’m working on it myself, so I can be certain that the measurements are true and not fudged. I think that Rossi’s start-up and control systems have not been reliable, and this is the cause of the problems with his public demos. I also think that Defkalion have seen the same problems and have fixed them fairly recently, and are now ready to show the world their reality.

      As far as I have seen you have never responded to Bruce’s list of replicators. OK, it takes some time to go through and understand all of these, but that is actually a very small subset of the total number of people who have shown the LENR phenomenon to be real since 1989. Ed Storms is now giving it to students to do – see his website. Rossi is not the only one doing LENR, just the most obvious one, and really his lousy demos and secret sales only add a little bit of confusion. He’s not important. What is important is that someone, this year, will get a reasonably-priced product out that we can buy – my bet is that Defkalion will do this first.

      Please take the time to go back to basics in and look at the qualifications of the people who have run these experiments. Either they are doing good science or there are around 500 people who misread their instruments or tried to fool us all when LENR was definitely not something to further your career. The simple answer (following William of Ockham) is that they actually measured what they said, and thus that LENR is real physics. After you accept that, it’s just a matter what the ratio is, energy in to energy out. Most of the 200 or so experiments I’ve looked at have somewhere round +10% to +200% heat gain. Rossi claims around COP=6 now (+500%) and Defkalion are up in the 30s and expecting to get COP 200 at some time in the future.

      I also read Steve Krivit’s offerings as they come out. He’s good at getting information, but it’s not good to get on his bad side as Rossi has done.

      I still think it is likely that Rossi will actually surprise you by producing a device for sale. Maybe not this year, but in the first half of next year. Maybe NI will help him fix his start-up/control problem, after which his device will probably be a lot cheaper than Defkalion’s.

  41. Craig Binns Says:


    Thanks. I await with pleasure the prospect of Defkalion blowing me out of the water. But unfortunately Defkalion have disappointed us all before! I’m glad to see, however, that you’ve retained your innocent enthusiastic optimism, and I hope you won’t be too hurt when Defkalion blows it out of the water! Don’t become all cynical and disillusioned when that happens, as it will. Just keep smiling and blaming Big Science.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig Binns, I assume that you are addressing some kind of archetypal cheering squad member who you fancy blames Big Science for everything and thinks that Rossi is God’s (who/what you don’t believe in) gift to humanity. You certainly aren’t addressing me. I don’t blame Big Science for everything, but neither do I put them on a pedestal and worship them, as you do. And I have consistently said that Rossi is on probation, and I have said that using those exact same words so many times that you are showing your basic dishonesty by saying that I believe Rossi. You just can’t handle the concept or the state of being unsure, and you are jealous of anyone who has the inner fortitude to be able to deal with uncertainty. It is being a little person emotionally and intellectually to not be able to accept uncertainty.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Heisenberg was always uncertain.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I confess that I hd been uncertain about Heisenberg. Then I became certain about Heisenberg. Then I switched back to being uncertain. I am really uncertain whether I should be certain about the Uncertainty Principle or not. I just can’t be certain, I guess.

      • brucefast Says:

        Roger, “but neither do I put them [big science] on a pedestal and worship them, as you do”

        Craig doesn’t put honest scientists on a pedestal. Rather he plots to find mud to throw at my list of names. Craig follows the consensus like a lamb. He knows nothing that isn’t established by wikipedia. His issue is that he is completely incapable of thinking and analyzing a situation for himself.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        brucefast, Craig Binns has an insecurity problem so severe that he, as you say, throw mud on honorable and good scientists just so he can maintain his sense of security.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, you still owe me your opinion of the Ni + H process in light of these guys:

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

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I think that if we examine Craig Binn’s position closely, we will find that his position is very close to ours, except for one morally significant aspect. We the cheering squad do not go around calling people crooks without proof. Even the courts do not call people crooks without proof. We the cheering squad have both Rossi and Defkalion on probation. Craig Binns just calls him a crook (without proof, unfortunately). It would be nice to see what he has to say about LENR.

        The way that these patho-skeptics operate would lead one to believe that they DO NOT WANT goodness to prevail, they DO NOT WANT good things to happen, they DO NOT WANT hope to be fulfilled.

  42. Craig Binns Says:


    I am uncertain about “cold fusion” but on the whole I don’t accept it, because I don’t think it has been shown. But I am NOT uncertain about Rossi. I would be astounded if he turned out to be anything other than a “free energy” swindler, of whom we have seen so many in the past..


    I have notes on some of these guys, which I will put in order and pass on.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      And Craig, how is that you are certain about Rossi? What makes you so much more insightful? ALL of the evidence presented can be viewed either way. And by the way many of the negatives can be interpreted in an entirely different way, that Rossi has something but is stalling because he cannot control it or cannot keep it going or is running out of money. If you were really honest with yourself, you would admit that there are any number of interpretations given some of his negatives: complete con, stalling, has the real deal, etc. This failure to see the evidence like this is why I call you uncertainty-phobic.

      • brucefast Says:

        uncertainty-phobic — love it.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Dear Bruce and you-all,

        The reason that I believe that patho-skeptics are uncertainty-phobic in that this matter with Rossi is that it has been somewhat unsettling for me, and I am the guy who invented the word “uncertainty-phobic”. So it doesn’t take much imagination to see that there can easily be some people who are on the other side of the anxiety curve who just can’t stand the anxiety. Anxiety is the $hlts. But whether Rossi is an angel or a devil, the anxiety is within us, and we need to learn to toss it out and stomp on it. No amount of free energy or free wealth is going to change that.

  43. Roger Bird Says:

    I have had the same VitaMix blender for 19 years. Just yesterday I noticed a little liquid on the bottom after a blend. I dried it thoroughly and tried it again. I am not 100% positive that there is a leak, because I did not see the liquid (water, smoothie, etc) oozing out of the bottom. And the bottom is very irregular such that it is very difficult to dry. I put the blender on the heater outlet on the floor for an hour and cranked up the thermostat to make sure that the bottom was dry. Then I tried whirling it again at high speed for 5 minutes with water, and there was the liquid again.

    I got the exact same feeling about Defkalion. I am not doing the testing, so I am not absolutely 100% certain. But I am pretty dang certain, relatively speaking, that Defkalion is going to change the world and shame all of those stupid a$$ patho-skeptics who are social-blind.

  44. R Says:

    I cannot find any mention here about the possibility of muon catalysed fusion linking to the Ni-H projects. Natural muons occur at about 1 per second per square cm. They are variable and relate to cosmic rays. If the Ni -H cells were configured so that they capture the natural muons it might explain the results within classical physics. The variablity would explain the difficulty of replication of the effects.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I thought of that about 4 months ago. But no one commented on it. And I thought that the incoming cosmic rays would be too infrequent. But what do I know?

    • brucefast Says:

      Hello, R.

      Please understand that most of us here feel totally unqualified to analyse theories of physics as they pertain to the Ni + H phenomenon. From my perspective, I am very interested in determining that a phenomenon exists. Once we get past that simple fact, then the physicist gurus can figure out what on earth is going on.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        brucefast, thank for trying to save me any embarrassment, but I feel none. I have always been fascinated by cosmic rays, silently interfering in our lives constantly. I believe that some itches may be caused by cosmic rays, just like those little trails in cloud chambers. Some place on my skin may start itching, and nothing touched it. I see no reason why something that can leave a trail in a cloud chamber couldn’t cause an itch.

        You are the admin, aren’t you? Can’t you send us messages privately?

        I am up so freaking late, cheating a scrabble. (:->)

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      R – if you look at the variability of the experiments you will find that, in Pd/D electrolysis, the particular source of the Palladium is important and that if a particular sample works then it will continue to work; if it does not work it will continue to not work. The problem is thus not one of the flux of muons or neutrinos, but a physical configuration of the surface that is currently not understood since the way we know it has worked is that it blows up. This micro-explosion leaves a hole of dimensions a few microns across and deep, thus destroying the configuration that worked.

      With the Nickel/Hydrogen reaction, there is much the same problem. The current approach is to use as much surface area as possible (nanopowders) and to add various other dopants to the system to try to improve the repeatability of the reaction. This is also not (as far as I can see) properly understood, so some reactors work and some don’t. I think this is why Rossi has had problems in his demos, though I also think he has had a lot of success in private.

      The theory of why it happens will be firmed up and agreed upon only when someone has a system that starts up immediately and where every reactor works on test. Until that time (maybe next week?) things are going to be uncertain.

      Meantime, what I remember about muon-catalysed fusion is that it needs a temperature of around 900C to start up. It’s maybe not the mechanism for LENR that runs at room-temperature up to maybe 600C, though Defkalion are now saying they expect to get to 900C.

  45. Craig Binns Says:


    I was about do defend myself against your renewed suggestions that I am a victim of a mental disorder hitherto unknown to me (stupid-a$$ patho-scepticism), but then I read your posts about leaking food blenders, muon-catalysed fusion, scrabble, and cosmic rays as the cause of itching. At that point I decided to postpone any discussion of mental ailments until a more appropriate occasion, if it should ever arise. May I ask you to consider the valuable counsel contained in brucefast’s post of 10:36 pm, Feb 16th? This is not the first time he has vouchsafed such wise advice, nor the first time that I have entreated you to heed it.

    On a more important matter: one of the arguments used by defenders of Rossi’s integrity is that he is not soliciting money from suckers, like Mills of Blacklight fame, and all the other free energy scammers.

    But in fact he is. You have followed the Australian affair, and brucefast must be disappointed that Rossi has not accepted the offer of $1m to test the e-cat. (He must be incredibly naive to think for a moment that Rossi ever would!) But now we learn from Rossi’s own keyboard that he is selling “licences” to produce the contraption in various regions. See . This is a tried and true scam tactic! It also indicates that the Australia invoice was created with Rossi’s knowledge, and that the Byron outfit was acting with his approval, as his agents. Byron’s mission statement includes this: “These devices will include but not be limited to making use of gravity, anti-gravity, electromagnetic, electronic, magnetic, water, hydrogen, oxygen, zero point or vacuum or radiant energy and/or cold fusion and may also include other potential sources of cosmic energy.” A typical scam prospectus! Zero point antigravity and the like.

    So are you starting to understand why I have made up my mind about Rossi? If he wants to change my mind, let him produce a working device. Otherwise I must conclude that he is a swindler like almost every other peddler of free energy devices that there has ever been (the honest ones, if any, being madmen).

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – I can certainly understand why you have decided what you have about Rossi. Have you done the due diligence on the physics, though? There is one hell of a lot of dross in the Free Energy sector, but amongst it there is some real gold. Hard to find it at the moment, I admit, but you really need to understand the other experiments and read Piantelli’s patent carefully.

      Defkalion will have validated results a week from now. I expect them to pass muster and produce acceptable measurements. You can always say you don’t believe the testers, or that some other method is used to fake results, but subsequent tests will probably seek to exclude the possible failures of the first test – it will become more and more difficult to find a valid way to shout “Fraud!”.

      Meantime there are a couple of other interesting projects being touted by Sterling Allan on PESN. One is the QM permanent battery – you can duplicate this yourself using a piece of thick aluminium, a separation device such as a piece of silk, and a piece of aluminium foil. Only around the 20mV mark, temperature dependant, but easily measurable. That is a quantum effect, and is thus explainable. The other one is the South African fuel-less generator, which I had always thought was a scam – but they are making them, putting them on sale and have given SA one to take away and test. That is not the way a scam works, so pending SA’s report on this I’m suspecting that this may be real, despite it appearing to be breaking Conservation of Energy and Thermodynamics. Very interesting.

      It is nice to have a theory to explain what we see. Not having a satisfactory theory does not, however, invalidate the measurements when they have been measured by hundreds of people. Maybe you should look at the physics rather than Rossi. Maybe also get some nickel powder (a standard NiMH rechargeable battery has a few grams of it, and it’s already hydrided) and see for yourself whether it works. This will be an interesting year.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Yeah, Craig, don’t look at Rossi to hard, but if a short, partially bald guy with a cute Italian accent comes to your door asking for donations, politely say no and close the door. (:->)

        [He has not proven his case.]

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I am NOT defending Rossi’s integrity. He will have to do that by delivering. I am defending the attitude and policy of not slandering or libeling people until you have proof that is easy for anyone to recognize as proof. You don’t have that. So you are slandering/libeling a person who is innocent until proven guilty.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Your saying that Rossi’s selling license territory is scamming is only true if he does not have the goods, which is still not clear. So you are again slandering/libeling him until he is proven guilty. It would be perfectly natural for people to sell licensing territories given his position and assuming that he has a working machine, which is still unproven. Again, you can’t stand uncertainty, which is an indication of a raging anxiety problem.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      It is much easier to believe that Rossi turned down $200,000 for good reasons than it is to turn down $1,000,000. But, I, personally, don’t like or trust patho-skeptics and I can imagine that Rossi feels likewise, but you would not have put that in your scale of judgement. Still, $1 million is a lot of money. But I seriously doubt that the Aussie (which part of the story I am not following very closely; I can read just so fast) would pay up.

  46. Craig Binns Says:


    You keep telling me what is going to be proved or validated in the near future and, to be honest, I no longer pay much attention to such predictions.

    If Defkalion really have a device than can heat a house or something of that order, or power some of brucefast’s sought-for toys, then as soon as they allow it to be inspected independently, remove it from the local power supply and let it run for a few days or weeks, the matter will be settled. Rossi could do this but he won’t, in my view because his machine is an illusion created, it now seems, as part of a common or garden plain-vanilla licensing or agency swindle. He won’t let it run for 8 hours, even in return for a million dollars!

    Your magical South African device that infringes the laws of physics is (like everything else in this field, it seems) at a “pending report” stage. I await the report with avid interest. But I now want to see results, and not at the miiliamp “edge of detectability” level either.

    The laws of nature deserve at least this level of respect, that they not be abandoned without very good reason.


    One of your replicators here: George Miley, University of Illinois Have a look. Not Miley’s fault, I hope. But what is it that makes this stuff about cold fusion so appealing to racists? It’s a mystery to me. More to come on these replicating guys.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, I’m baffled.

      Of course I’m baffled that your method of judging a person’s science is so driven by something so un-science. Please understand that Newton was quite a theologian, with weird theology. Does that make an apple fall any faster or slower? We’ve had discussions before showing that the very brights are also very often very weird. As you are very centered, with no cockamamie beliefs, we have clearly established that you are not very bright.

      Second, I didn’t read your link very closely, but on first blush it appears to be an accusation of guilt by association. Because a white supremacist (spit, spit) website wrote something about him, you have accused him of being racist. They’d write something about you too, ‘sept they can’t find anything notable to write, can they?

      Please, Craig, use some discretion. Please only accuse people of bad behavior if the accusations are not repetitions of heresay.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – it appears too that you still have not looked at the physics. To get a 20mV constant voltage from a device that is not using chemical or nuclear energy, doesn’t change at all, and demonstrates quantum theory in action, is actually a very big thing. That breaks the laws of Thermodynamics by a small amount. It’s a bit like being a tiny bit pregnant. That should surely show you that the classical laws of physics are not exactly true. We can get useful work by utilising these departures from absolute truth. With the example I gave, surely you can see that if I put 50 of these in series then we get 1 volt free. Simple maths. Build a chip with 1000 of these devices in series and you get 20 volts – a useful value. Fabrication of these devices that produce useful levels of power has currently proved technically challenging, but as I said you can do the experiment YOURSELF to prove it. You don’t need to go to a weird energy website with strange claims.

      Given that there are these flaws in our classical theories, it is also possible that the South African system works, even though it appears that it shouldn’t. Your complaint about Rossi is that he is using classical scam techniques to get money whilst not delivering a working device to a real customer. Here they have given Sterling Allan a working machine to take away and run his house on – that does mean disconnected from the grid. Does that seem like scam to you? If it is a scam then SA would have to be in on it, and so far he has seemed to be a very truthful (if gullible) reporter. So it could possibly really be truth for a change.

      The best test is to get one yourself and run it yourself. Currently we can’t do that. The next best thing is to read reports and estimate the truthfulness and validity of them. Saying a machine cannot work because you don’t believe the theory is not good science. If it works at all, and your theory says it can’t, then your theory must be wrong. Fix the theory to take account of the new data. Such is the progress of science.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon, I am confused. Who is getting, “20mV constant voltage from a device that is not using chemical or nuclear energy”?

        While the South Africa system appeared to work in its controlled environment, I haven’t seen Mr. Allen declare that he had it working at home. While I remain skeptical, I do trust Mr. Allen to be an honest reporter. If/when he says that he has set it up himself, in his environment, and run it for a day then I will become less skeptical.

        In the mean time, Mr. Allen had to buy the thing. If it is merely a bucket of bolts, the bolt salesman made some money off of Mr. Allen. If the bolt salesman can hold Mr. Allen off of seeing the thing work for real by going through cycles of repair, then he can get some marketing credibility from Mr. Allen without getting to the point of proving that it is just a bucket of bolts.

        To me having two absolutely different technologies come to the surface simultaneously which break two distinct aspects of current physics understanding challenges credulity. Having a device that has sold hundreds of copies, but having no website challenges credulity.

        Lastly, Mr. Allen has presented a plethora of odd free energy contraptions. All of them, so far, have not proved to be anything but hooey. If I developed a “free energy” device that actually worked, I wouldn’t put it in Mr. Allen’s hands, simply because he has a well deserved reputation for gullibility.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – I’ll find the link to the “do-it-yourself” 20mv generator when I’m home again. It is easy to validate – you need a plate of maybe 4mm aluminium, some insulating cloth (silk or fibreglass scrim) and a sheet of aluminium foil. Clamp them together in that order. Measure the voltage between the foil and the plate at different temperatures. One of SA’s top ten was using the same principle and have been running one of the prototypes for years, it is reported.

        Some degree of trust of Sterling Allan is needed to accept his assurances that the South African device works. It may take a few days for the tests in real-life conditions, but there is currently no mention of repairs being needed. Since I, too, do not believe that such a machine can work as stated, if it does work then something else (say LENR that I do reasonably understand) must be happening. I’ll test out this hypothesis at home and if it works I’ll send you a self-charging battery to play with. If you have it working on the desk I’m sure you will believe it can happen.

        Note that one of SA’s top 100, the Griggs pump, does actually work and generate more heating power than the joules put in. Why this was not developed further I don’t know, but again we can understand it as LENR and thus improve the functioning of it.

        OK, that’s not 2 but 4 strange energy generators to ponder about. As I said, this looks like being an interesting year. Send me a private email if you want to know more right now.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Bruce wrote, “In the mean time, Mr. Allen had to buy the thing.”

        Not that it matters, but I thought the inventor gave the device to Sterling, free gratis.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        That was my impression also, that the maker gave it to SA.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Yep, SA did say they gave it to him after he’d begged all that money to buy it and fund the airfare etc.. So he had about $6K left over, and various people saying he should give the donations back. Oh well….

        The QM generator is on PESN at and this should actually work – at least the theory says it will. Not many details really, but if the details given are correct I’d say this will be saleable in about 5 years. Less if they get a crazy millionaire to back them….

        Physics really is in a state of flux at the moment, but historically such an upheaval was overdue.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The physics flux is about 23 years overdue.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, I am so glad that you frequently read and post on nickelpower.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Roger wrote, “Simon, I am so glad that you frequently read and post on nickelpower.”

        I agree. Nickelpower is blessed with several tech-savvy members who can write well. We even have better class skeptics here, the cream of the crap, so to speak.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, you made me laugh. As Monk would say, “You made me LOL out loud.” Cream of the crap. What a difference the changing of one little vowel can make.

        Seriously, one of things that impresses me about this cryofusion business is the quality of the thinkers and writers that I meet here.

      • brucefast Says:


        You already have my e-mail address. Don’t worry if you get a rejection notice, it lies. However, I would rather that you place links on this website for all to see.

        Your aluminum/paper device seems awfully like a battery to me. There’s no way its just a dry cell battery, is there?

        I did some snooping into Tesla’s “wheelwork of nature” theory. He seems to think that between the earth and the ionosphere there is a mighty capacitor. I immediately considered the phenomenon of lightning, that may be an arcing between the two “plates” of the capacitor. It causes me to wonder, with the aluminum gizmo, does its output power correlate to alignment at all? Does it make a difference if it is positioned horizontally or vertically?

        If the South Africa Device (herein known as SAD :) ) proves to be a cold fusion variant, then it easily fits in my grid. It’d be pretty weird for someone to make a device that works if their theory is so, well, in left field.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – the link to the do-it-yourself one will be posted here in less than a week – I haven’t got it on this machine and it will take a while to search it out since I found it by accident rather than by searching. It is not dependant on orientation, and works in a Faraday cage. No chemical or other change happens to the materials – it works by electron capture and emission. I think it could be improved by using the materials used on the emitters of valves, that make low-temperature emission of electrons more effective (these are various rare-earth compounds).

        It is really good to be able to check these things out personally….

        Personally, I think Tesla ran a few scams as well as some good stuff. Until someone gets his various overunity devices up and running (and thousands must have tried and failed) then it is in the “severely suspect” bin and I haven’t invested the time in trying too hard to make sense of them.

        As regards the SAD (nice acronym!), there have been many attempts at making a Bedini motor work – there are loads of “working demos” on YouTube. Since I haven’t been able to see where the energy is coming from, I have regarded these as amusing rather than good science. I’d have as much luck in making a perpetual motion machine out of springs (they certainly push and pull well enough). This appears to be of the same sort, so I didn’t look up until SA was given one to take home and test. That is not scam territory, unless Mr. Allan is in on it as well as his prime debunker Mark Dansie. I suppose if you paid them enough money they might sacrifice their reputations, but it does seem unlikely given the time they’ve been doing it. The simplest explanation is that is does actually do what they say. The question then is why? I’ll do a quick test on this when I get home.

        Talk to Bob – there are exciting things in process. You may end up with several things on your desk this year.

      • brucefast Says:

        I’ve been thinking about the aluminum sandwich device. It causes me to wonder if there is a simple explanation. My hypothesis is that it is picking up some stray voltage from the 60 hz stuff that escapes from our home wiring. The logical falsification of this hypothesis is to take it into the middle of nowhere, far from any 60 hz electricity, and see if it still builds up power.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I like the stray electrical fields idea, but I prefer the idea that uncertain electrons are going one way rather than another. Quantum uncertainty could open up a whole new field of all kinds of interesting things.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – hence the comment that it works in a Faraday cage. It really is a pure quantum effect. Quantum effects follow their own logic, which may not seem sensible to us. Currently I do not have any explanations of the basics of Quantum theory. Bob Feynman said “nobody understands quantum physics” around the time I was learning it, and that still applies. Just use the maths, use the effects and maybe sometime someone will work out a logical reason for it all.

        When quantum effects are seen, they trump classical physics. This is one of those experiments. I’m sorry I can’t give you a better explanation.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      • brucefast Says:

        Oh yes, you mentioned the Faraday cage. I hadn’t tweaked into why that was important. It certainly should eliminate external electromagnetic.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Dirac and I both lived in Tallahassee during the last dozen years of his life but unfortunately I never heard him speak, not that I would have understood him. Dirac was probably instrumental in Tallahassee becoming the co-home for the National High Magnetic Lab, along with Las Alamos.

        “God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world.”
        – Paul Dirac

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        As promised, here is the Maxwell’s demon analysis and how to build one at home.
        I have not done this myself yet, since I’m currently doing other things, but it is a good explanation and I have no (OK, very little) doubt that this is true, since I’d already done some of the work on this. This guy has done it to a good standard.

        Note that I have some other plans for violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, since it deals with large numbers (classical) rather than individual molecules. Individual particles only need to obey Newton’s laws of motion, or a quantum analogue of them.

        Have fun with this!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I notice that there is not so much discussion of watts and amps. Is this because the amps are so low as to make this effect useless.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Yep – pretty low at the moment. Useless as it stands except for one thing – it proves you can do it. Given that fact, it can be developed, but it needs a chunk of money and brains thrown at it. This is probably the basis of both the Powerchip technology and Sterling Allen’s everlasting battery. Once the correct fabrication method is found, this will translate heat directly into electricity without needing a heat flow from hot to cold – the voltage/current will depend purely on how hot it gets, and it will of course cool down in the course of producing electricity. It’s not free energy. This is the sort of thing that will in future be made in a chip fab, and thus manufactured very cheaply. Once we find out how to, of course.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – when I followed your link I found myself on a White Supremacy website. I’ve never been on one before – somewhat sickening. Is this where you get your information? The science from Miley seemed to be reported accurately (so why do you disbelieve that it happens?) but the sentiments are not useful to human endeavour.

      Unless you state that this is not your milieu I will no longer respond to your posts. I also have standards of decency.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig Binns, I assume that you were not looking too closely at that racist website. That website will accept posts from any source as long as they are pro-white or at least neutral. It is unfair to George Miley to condemn him as a racist. You should retract your statement or be ashamed of yourself. Racism is way too evil to be used for selfish purposes, like trying to win an argument about “cold fusion”. It is blatantly dishonest to say that George Miley is racist if information about him is posted on a clearly racist site. I could easily post on that website something about my speculation that cosmic rays may cause some individual occurrences of itching (which idea I will stand by); the website would instantly remove my post when they discovered that (1) my wife is Filipina, and (2) I believe that race mixing is GOOD and makes for healthier, stronger, and better looking children.

  47. Craig Binns Says:

    I do not accuse Miley of anything, in particular not guilt by association with racists. I dont have any evidence or belief that he is one. As I wrote, not his fault I hope. That is NOT an accusation of racism. But racists do seem attracted to this issue, and it would be interesting to know why.

    Brucefast. That does not mean that the people engaged in this research are racists, as plain logic will tell you. You say, with obvious truth, that you have not read my post closely. Please do, and you will see no disparagement of Miley has been made.

    You may also wish to have a word with the person who usurped my name and that of George Miley in the last two posts.

    • brucefast Says:

      You didn’t state an accusation, but you strongly implied it.

    • brucefast Says:

      Oh, um, You said, “But racists do seem attracted to this issue, and it would be interesting to know why.” You are still implying that interest by racists is evidence that the whole thing is poppycock.

      We know, however, that Stirling Allen’s new technology is poppycock. After all it comes out of South Africa. There’s a lot of blacks in South Africa. Maybe this machine is invented by a black guy.

      I happen to believe that Stirling’s latest machine is poppycock. However, the race argument adds absolutely nothing, zero, nada to the argument. “But racists do seem attracted to this issue, and it would be interesting to know why.” adds absolutely nothing to the argument either.

  48. Craig Binns Says:

    It’s not an argument, merely an observation. No I don’t believe interest by racists refutes the statements made by the cryofusionists. But it’s odd to see such things being reported in white supremacists sites whose interests are not usually particularly intellectual.

    By the way, the fact that I am surprised by this PROVES I don’t think the researchers are racists. If I did think that, I wouldn’t be surprised by the article in Stormfront, would I?

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, you will notice that others are taking your association as a statement of guilt by association as well. You may want to consider that maybe this implication is more clearly there than you think.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        brucefast, try to remember that Craig Binns is even more socially retarded than the rest of us, so it is no surprise that he would make an implication and not realize it.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      You make a good point, Craig, about being surprised.

      Wouldn’t it be ironic if a strong and annoying skeptic invented the word that everyone adopts: “cryofusion”, “cryofusionist”, etc? I like it. I think that I will use it and I give credit to Craig Binns.

  49. Roger Bird Says:

    The posting traffic has increased dramatically today, right after Defkalion said that they were going to start testing on February 24th. Do you suppose there is a correlation? Are people getting excited? I am. But I have to be excited here because my friends and family are getting tired of me being excited about something that they can’t understand. They can’t understand that a 40% discount in the price of EVERYTHING, except pollution which will get a 90% discount and energy which will get a 99.9% discount) will make a HUGE difference in our lives.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – same here… I think people here understand the implications of a valid test, whereas most people I can talk to don’t start to understand the underlying technology. Once it becomes available in the High Street, they might consider getting something that contains it hidden away inside, but till then they aren’t interested. I’d like to be one of the first to try it.

  50. Craig Binns Says:


    Well, Roger seems to agree with you about guilt by association; but he already has convinced himself of so many outlandish things about me that his view of this is of little moment.


    Defkalion is capable of disappointing people, as we all know. Wait till the chickens hatch before you count them, is my advice. Maybe your family are right in being less than enthused about the prospect of utopia. How often has it been promised? Many, many times. But how often has it been delivered … ?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Dear Craig,

      Regarding Utopia:

      How about fire, agriculture, writing, printing press, US Constitution, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, and Internet, to name a few. I have said repeatedly that this cryofusion, if true, will not bring a utopia, although I admit that I did not use that word. It will reduce the amount of suffering that is the result of necessities not being fulfilled, and it will increase the amount of suffering from people who cannot deal with plenty, what I called kardashianism, or somewhere else I called it parishiltonism.

      As far as the issue of disappointment, you are absolutely, positively right.

      Your friend in Jesus,


  51. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, I said, “As far as the issue of disappointment, you are absolutely, positively right.” I should have added that this is what Buddha would have instructed us.


  52. Craig Binns Says:


    Absolutely I have nothing to do with white supremacist websites! It appeared on a Google list of Miley contacts. That is why I was surprised. Look at the rest of my posts and decide whether I am a fascist or not. I was as horrified as you to encounter this. That’s the point I have been trying to make all day.

    But of course the fact that White supremacists are interested in cold fusion doesn’t refute Miley’s ideas. Not that I agree that Miley has demonstrated CF, I may say.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      OK, Craig, that’s a reasonable explanation and refutation. It was certainly not obvious to me (or anyone else, it seems) as to why you quoted that website.

      If a measured amount of excess heat with no possible chemical origin does not convince you that LENR is real, what would? In other experiments you’ll find excess Helium (could have diffused in), excess Tritium (possibly not correctly assayed) and various isotopes of elements that were not there at the beginning (also incompetent assaying). It does seem a bit like you’re never going to accept it even when you can buy one in the local hardware store. You’d have to install the earth wire yourself, though.

      • brucefast Says:

        Craig sits high and mighty in his seat of judgement. Cool enough to not buy something yourself, but to busy yourself trying to convince others to believe you rather than the Ph.D.’s is, well, narcissistic; a list of respected Ph.D.’s who don’t just say that they’ve seen it, but who say that they have personally made the things work.

  53. Craig Binns Says:


    A poor argument, the argument from numbers of supporters and their qualifications. Because the scientific community as a whole, PhDs and all are not convinced.

    What’s this with, if you buy one? I’d like nothing better! Please tell me what store to go to!

    • brucefast Says:

      “A poor argument, the argument from numbers of supporters and their qualifications.”

      This isn’t an argument from “supporters”. I haven’t included Ph.D.s who have witnessed the e-cat. This is an argument from replicators. Replication, if you recall, is the epitome of scientific proof. Their qualifications, and the integrity of the organizations they work for, increase the certainty that they know what they are doing — that they are capable of properly defining and monitoring their experiments.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        For me, I am happy to include the qualified scientists like the Swedish dudes and others as evidence, although their testimony would carry somewhat less weight than the replicators.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Dear Craig Binns,

      I am afraid that I must disagree with you very strongly about how “numbers of supporters and their qualifications” is not evidence. With just about EVERYTHING in our modern society I have to take someone’s word for it. I did not do the astro-photography to see that light from distant stars is bent by the sun. I HAD to take some people’s word for it. Those people have good “credentials”, meaning that other people said that they were smarties and well-educated in the field of astronomy and astro-photography. The trick is to be able to determine the truth from the falsehood by reading what these smarties and well-educated people have to say. The entire field of quantum physics is entirely unavailable to me; I have to trust other people on the matter. How often do I get to sit in a lab and do experiments? It is all a huge exercise in epistemological wisdom. When I see someone like Mike McKubre and his credentials or the folks at SPAWAR, I am convinced. I really don’t have the ability, finances, time, or knowledge to replicate their experiments. And if NO one took other people’s word for things, we would all have to have laboratories in our basements, and we would be way, way, way back at the technological level of Ben Franklin.

      Oops, gotta go. I hear a thunderstorm brewing.

      And evidence is not proof. And evidence is of different qualities.

      Sincerely grabbing my kite as I run out the door,

      Roger Bird

      • brucefast Says:

        Roger, if “numbers of supporters and their qualifications” is the evidence, then LENR looses hands down. People who claim “I did this thing” put themselves into an interesting position. Once they make such a statement they are: lying, fooled, or accurate. There are no other possibilities.

        Now, Ph.D.s who have serious reputations to maintain, who work for organizations that must maintain their reputations, claim that they have done something. Each of them is either lying, fooled or accurate. Finding such who are lying is phenomenally unlikely. They have lots to loose, and nothing to gain. Finding such who are fooled, well, every time another one makes the claim, the chances of that is significantly diminished. Especially in a field like LENR, where the belief that people have been fooled is well trod, it is highly likely that they have double and tripple checked before speaking out. So, every time one claims to have done it (and many have done so through the respected path of the peer reviewed journals) the chance that he is accurate is squared.

        The one who has done it must radically trump the 10,000 who say it can’t be done.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Bruce, I am sure that if you read my posts (and you do), I am not adding up the qualified people and seeing who wins. I am fully aware the the number of well-credentialed people who say that LENR is real is very small and the number of well-credentialed people who say that it is crap is very large.

        The qualification process for scientists (i.e. getting a PhD.) does NOT included social skills, courage, epistemology, philosophy, morality, etc. etc. etc. If a scientists is making $150,000 per year TRYING to get hot fusion to work, and is surrounded by similar people and having fun with them, camaraderie and all that, it is extremely unlikely that they are going to admit that they don’t know if LENR works or not. Qualifications does not necessarily make a person correct; it only gives one a little more creditability.

        This is why it is important to NOT worship scientists. They rarely agree. The news media would have you believe that they agree. The news media counts up the qualified scientists and declares the majority to be the winner, ie “consensus”.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Yep, the 10000 who say it can’t be done, and the one who says he’s done it and has the data to prove it. Not that everyone is going to accept the proof, but enough big businesses in the US and Japan have accepted it enough to put money into trying it themselves. Mostly we’re not going to hear about those now (maybe never, if they failed).

        As Roger says, we have to accept most data based on the authority of the people telling us. Sometimes they are wrong, mostly it is near enough. We cannot check it all.

        When I own one I can say absolutely that it works. Till then I can only say I think it works and work on the mechanics of enabling the reaction. Not too long to wait now for validation of Defkalion, though I think Rossi may take longer.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        “Not too long to wait now for validation of Defkalion, though I think Rossi may take longer.” We’ll see if Defkalion is “validated”. Don’t count your chickens.

        However, you’re spot on about Rossi “taking longer”! Recently we (or at least the most credulous among us) were told that deliveries old start in “Autumn”, which already represents a delay of nearly a year over the original timetable. But now it’s 12 to 18 months. See . Anybody with an ounce of grey matter will predict, however, that there will be further Blacklight-style delays and that nothing will ever be produced by Rossi except licences and invoices.

        By the way, Rossi has expanded his vocabulary of insults to include “puppet snakes, Greek clowns and other vultures”! Roger, I hate to have to tell you that Rossi is “willing to slanderize/ libel people”. Dear me, what’s the world coming to?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I have noticed his malicious mouth.

      • brucefast Says:

        On Roger: “Bruce, I am sure that if you read my posts…” Yes, Roger, you are one of the more level-headed thinkers on this site. When I disagreed with you earlier, I think that what you intended to say and what others (me) read you to say were somewhat different.

        In defense of scientists, it is only a tiny fraction of Ph.D. physicists that work in the field of nuclear energy. While most would express some opinion about cold fusion — I heard that … la-de-da, they would also recognize that they do not have an informed opinion. These same Ph.D. physicists, when talking on the topic that they are working on, are highly knowledgeable. They will take note soon enough. They will bother to check the literature when Nature, Science, and the other top journals begin to publish on the topic. Until then, cold fusion is simply not in their head-space.

  54. Craig Binns Says:

    Godes’ Brillouin looks like a classic scam. He’s been “replicating” like crazy for 20 years and all he’s got to show for it is a “licensing” business model, on The website under business plan. Al Fin says Godes is “like Rossi”. Only too true, Al.

    Here is a cast iron rule. When people claim to have a world-changing mechanism, unlike anything currently in existence, and claim it’s just about to go into mass production, and their business plan is not to raise revenue by selling this wondrous thing, but by selling licences to market it in various parts of the world – THEN IT IS A SCAM.

    Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge, bud? I mean, wanna buy a license to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to the Eskimos, bud?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Not necessarily true, in this case, Craig. Again you try for certainty when certainty is not evidenced. Just because someone or some business makes you feel uncomfortable does not mean that it is crooked. Stick with the evidence, Craig. The known evidence will not always give you certainty. Learn to deal with the uncertainty and stop calling everyone who makes you feel uncertain crooks.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, “their business plan is not to raise revenue by selling this wondrous thing, but by selling licences to market it in various parts of the world.”

      Thanks for the authoritative diagnosis.

      What you have just proven is that Rossi is for real, but Defkalion is a scam.

  55. Craig Binns Says:

    And Brillouin is a “Delaware Corporation”, which is also a bad sign.(I’m going to see if there are any others associated with “replicators”.) Its CEO is Robert W George II whose personal background includes: “Mr. George has extensive experience in planning and executing a wide array of financial transactions, in addition to strategic and tactical analysis. His background has included devising innovative financial structures for increasing sales through licensing and joint ventures”. I bet he’ll be given ample opportunity by Godes to construct “innovative financial structures for increasing sales through licensing … ”

    Well I don’t know if Godes has succeeded in his replicating, but his company seems much more interested in licensing than in science.

    More to come.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, you are mud slinging when in fact you can’t be sure given the evidence. I don’t suppose you care that you are being immoral. Your need for certainty is so great that you are willing to slanderize/libel people.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      “more than half of the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware”

    • Bob Says:

      Delaware has very good laws for corporate functioning. Most companies that I know or have worked in are incorporated in Delaware. Some of the Blue Chip names in venture capital are incorporated in the Cayman Islands. When I hear that someone has incorporated in Delaware, it tells me they understand the laws.

      Brillouin can show you a working system, they are stuck on 3x power improvement and need money to possibly get them to the next level. They are ahead of most, but not where they need to be. They have shown a fusion affect in a different manner than the rest. This just shows there may be many ways to slice the Fusion cake once we understand the details.

  56. Craig Binns Says:

    The Patterson Power Cell has been around for almost 2 decades, and has achieved nothing despite its massive claimed output except being held up as a quintessential example of “pathological science”. Here’s wiki (your source) with some of the replicators associated with this bizarre contraption:

    “George H. Miley is a professor of nuclear engineering and a cold fusion researcher who claims to have replicated the Patterson Power Cell. During the 2011 World Green Energy Symposium, Miley stated that his device continuously produces several hundred watts of energy. [15] Earlier results by Miley have not convinced mainstream researchers, who believe that they can be explained by contamination or by misinterpretation of data.” Or maybe they’ve been terrified into denying the truth by Big Science.

    “On the television show Good Morning America, Quintin Bowles, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, claimed in 1996 to have successfully replicated the Patterson power cell.[16] In the book Voodoo Science, Bowles is quoted as having stated: “It works, we just don’t know how it works”.[1]”

    1996! And since then, no commercial exploitation?? Amazing. Nobody thought of selling it to the Chinese?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – as I understand it, the Patterson chemistry is poisoned by trace amounts of Sodium, which as you probably know is very difficult to eliminate. Replication of this technology is always going to be very difficult. The background physics for it seems valid, but it has an over-complicated manufacturing process.

      1996 was 10 years before the Widom-Larsen theory was published, so it’s hardly surprising that Bowles didn’t know how it worked.

      So – do you use a complex method that has a large chance of failing if someone breathes on it, or choose a more rugged method that survives an engineer with a hammer? The value of the Patterson cell is that it has been shown to generate heat, not that it is reliable or manufacturable (it isn’t). It is thus an extra clue that the effect is real, and that there are probably better ways of getting a result.

      Having said that, I do tend to agree with you about Brillouin.

      As I said before, you do have to search the dross for the bits of gold. Hidden amongst the pile of misleading and possibly false data there are clues as to how to get it right.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon, of Craig Binns, “as you probably know”. I hope you don’t believe this. Mr. Binns knows little, scientifically. I am a lot more scientifically knowledgeable than he is, though he beats me hands down in history, and I have been unaware that sodium is hard to get rid of.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – as a small aside here, Sodium is in our fingerprints and pretty well every exudation of the human body. Thus traces of it will be on anything you handle unless you use Sodium-free gloves (and put them on without touching the outside) and don’t breathe on it. Pretty darn near impossible to exclude all traces without going to extreme robotic lengths. Personally I think that the Sodium contamination story is a red herring, and that there were other effects involved. Maybe they were pressed for a reason that it didn’t work every time, and that one was the one they chose because it is so difficult to eliminate.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, this is getting old. You know what people feel/think about immoral and cruel and hurtful behavior. They feel contempt for the people who do such things. You are attracting to yourself contempt, not because you believe or disbelieve in LENR or George Miley or Patterson, but because you are going past the evidence and throwing mud on them. THIS IS WRONG. YOU ARE BEHAVING WRONG.

  57. Craig Binns Says:


    Sorry, that should be “wiki – your source?” Of course I’m only speculating. Your replicators list appears to have gone viral among the CF sites on the Internet b the way. Congratulations.

    • brucefast Says:

      My “replications” post is clearly my most popular. However, viral hardly applies. That said, there’s a reason it’s popular. It is a powerful proof.

  58. Craig Binns Says:


    You mention Blacklight?!? Around since about 1991 in one form or another. Absorbed $60 m of suckers’ wampum. Has produced nothing but claims and patents! Here’s the best comment on this outfit:

    “June 6, 2008: Robert L. Park, of the University of Maryland, writes a follow-up: ‘BlackLight Power (BLP), founded 17 years ago as HydroCatalysis, announced last week that the company had successfully tested a prototype power system that would generate 50 KW of thermal power. BLP anticipates delivery of the new power system in 12 to 18 months.”

    Oh quite. Just like Rossi.

    “The BLP process, (WN 26 Apr 91) , discovered by Randy Mills, is said to coax hydrogen atoms into a “state below the ground state,” called the “hydrino.” There is no independent scientific confirmation of the hydrino, and BLP has a patent problem. So they have nothing to sell but bull shit. The company is therefore dependent on investors with deep pockets and shallow brains.”

    I love the last bit about the brains.

    McKubre next, I think.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – your conclusions on the business are, I think, accurate. I think their science sucks, too. Given that, I also think that they have had some successes but have not been able to repeat them reliably or improve on them – possibly because their theory doesn’t lead them in the right direction. Again there is a nugget of gold there, but I think they are looking in the wrong place for the rest of it. Such an approach is bound to be a money-pit.

      Still, I’m glad you are working through the list. Try looking for the positive clues as well as the negative ones, though. I have looked more at the scientific experiments rather than the commercial ones – when there is no profit motive it is easier to accept the data.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      More of the same lies.

    • brucefast Says:

      I mention Blacklight with strong notes of caution. “Blacklight has been around for a while, and not come out with product. Their theory is certainly extra-scientific.”

      Smear Chan too, he’s easy.

  59. Craig Binns Says:


    Thanks. Not all the replicators are as bad as those cited above. But the Patterson sodium problem is like Superman being knocked out by Kryptonite. Makes the stories more interesting.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – yes, I couldn’t work out why sodium poisoned it either, but they say it does. A very fragile reaction, but its importance lies in that it has been shown to work.

      I started this investigation thinking it was all snake-oil too, but became convinced that it is a real effect that requires specific conditions to work. So far people have achieved those conditions by chance, not understanding what is needed or how they (serendipitously) achieved them when they did.

      I will be interested to find out your conclusions when you have gone through the results of the scientific experiments – there are loads on Larsen’s site is good, too, though he does obviously tout his theory a lot – possibly rightfully as I think it is the best so far.

      If you accept the possibility that, at the beginning of the businesses you are castigating, there was an unexplained energy release that they have had problems repeating reliably, the whole field drops into more order and thus makes more sense.

  60. Craig Binns Says:


    “An unexplained energy release that they have had problems repeating reliably.” Yes I can go with that. But the release may well have a conventional chemical origin. After all we are talking in many cases about powdered metals being mixed with hydrogen and heated. Energy often emerges from that sort of concoction.

    Anyway, “problems repeating reliably” means that these guys are not “replicators” in the scientific sense that Brucefast wishes to attribute to the word.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – The excess energy was “too large to be explained by known chemical processes”. Given also the nuclear ash evidence, where isotopes existed afterwards that were not there at the start of the experiment, it is fair to say that nuclear reactions of some sort are indicated.

      Hydriding metal is known to release heat, and the quantity of heat is known. Heat the metal and generally the Hydrogen is released – this sequence is expected to be used to store the Hydrogen safely for use in fuel-cells. This science is now well-known and reasonably understood, so they should not get their calculations wrong.

      A single replication is enough to prove the effect if the controls are good enough. The fact that it has not been reliable is a piss-off, but does not negate the good data. I have ideas on how to make it reliable, and am working on this. When you have understood all the current data, maybe you too will get a feel for what they have been missing – you can either publish it here or set up your own experiment (and factory?) to prove the ideas. An AA-sized NiMH rechargeable battery contains enough hydrided Nickel powder to make a small reactor, and you can generate extra Hydrogen easily. It’s more useful to the world to add to the knowledge rather than spend time and energy saying why things cannot work. Maybe you will find the missing link in the process (and thus save the world from snake-oil salesmen).

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I want to add that when I first heard about Rossi and first came here to nickelpower, I was skeptical. This was in October. I recall telling my wife that I thought Rossi was a con. Then I went back and forth. I said I was 45% sure that it was a con, then 55%, then 45%. But the more I read, the more I became convinced that (1) LENR was real (100%), that (2) Rossi had LENR-on-steroids (95%), that (3) he could not control it (76%), that (4) Defkalion is going to blow our socks off (95%).

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – Agreed on all 4 counts, though on point 3 my certainty level is now somewhere around 90%. A bit sad, that change in certainty level – Rossi has publicised it very effectively and deserves to get some money when it works, but it is looking more and more that he still hasn’t got the start-up and control properly sorted, and that he is continuing to not solve it.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, “problems repeating reliably” means that these guys are not “replicators” in the scientific sense that Brucefast wishes to attribute to the word.

      Craig, you just proved that you have never even wasted the time necessary to read carefully. If you would have you would have read:

      Dr. Brian Ahern, Ames National Laboratory says, “This 5 watt excess is very much less than Rossi, but it is a real and repeatable experiment There was no radiation above the background level.” (see replicators).

      If you follow the first level link in replicators you will see that others are saying that they have solved the repeatability problem. However, lack of repeatability does not take away anything from the ““replicators” in the scientific sense” claim. Science should not require repeatability. Ask any repairman, “intermittent” is a major reality of their work. If “intermittent” were, by definition, unscientific, then science would be in a sorry state.

  61. Craig Binns Says:

    The problem with the “nuclear reactions” is usually stated to be the absence of radiation during the alleged fusion episodes. P&F should have been fatally irradiated many times over. Rossi’s device should produce copious gamma rays, but these have not been detected, as far as I know.

    Cold fusion is one area in which success on a useful commercial scale, if it were possible, would promptly result in the death of the researcher.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – One aspect of the W-L theory is that the gammas are shielded by the plasmons, and that the neutrons produced are so slow that they drop into a nucleus within a few lattice constants. There is some radiation, and it is measurable.

      Gamma rays and high-speed neutrons are aspects of high-energy nuclear reactions, but not low-energy ones. This is a Good Thing, even if the old theories say it can’t happen that way.

      In my book, new isotopes after the reaction (whatever it is) point to nuclear processes even if the intermediate radiation that I had expected to be emitted (by the theory I learnt) is not there. To say it does not happen because I do not understand how it happens is not the mark of a scientist, but that of a zealot.

      Just for interest – do you actually have a degree or equivalent in physics (I do) or have you picked this up along the way? I’m definitely not distaining the latter course, but it seems you rely a lot on authority rather than looking at the evidence. Nearly all the advances in physics went against the current theory, and this looks like being another of them.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Apparently, LENR is not fusion. SPAWAR demonstrated neutrons. If Widom-Larsen is correct, then it is all about ULM neutrons, not fusion.

  62. Craig Binns Says:


    I take your point. However I have to accept the authority of people more knowledgeable than me in this matter. Who, then? The few who accept “cold fusion” (if I may use that as a generic term) or the many who don’t? My choice is hardly that of a “zealot”.

    Nor is it truly the case that advances in physics go against the current theory. Advances have been continuous since the Enlightenment, while revolutions in theory happen only from time to time – but are very fascinating when they do occur! If this is one, of which I am by no means convinced, I will be as excited as anyone.

    • brucefast Says:


      This isn’t about the few who accept or the many who don’t! Its about the few who have achieved vs. the many who, like you, haven’t given the situation an honest look.

      How many seamen had to jump in a boat and head west to validate that Columbus was telling the truth when he said that they could bump into land? How many seamen declared that “beyond this there be dragons” so wouldn’t try. Columbus and his merry men were proof because they did it.

      Remember, Craig — liar, fooled, or accurate.
      Every claim of something that has been done fits into one of these categories… every!

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – As Bruce says, this is about what has been achieved. Either there are 500 or more people who have fooled themselves (and they do appear to have been careful to avoid this) or fudged their results (why when it is not in their interest?), or the experiments really have produced transmutations at low energy, with excess heat and nuclear ash.

      By following “traditional” nuclear physics (LOL since it’s not that old) and ignoring the evidence of the experiments that show things happening that the older theory cannot account for, you are not doing yourself justice. The older theory works at high energies, but there are other mechanisms also at work at low energies. Read the Widom-Larsen theory (they explain it very well) to explain the effects. It would be wrong to think that all of our current theories are absolutely correct and that there is nothing new to find in Physics. Funnily enough, at the end of the Victorian era they thought that they knew all the theory and had only to measure things more accurately, so Physics would be boring.

      If you find things happening that do not match the theory, and there is no error found in the measurements, then the theory must be wrong.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, this is a very good point. The people who say that LENR (not “cold fusion”, since it is probably not fusion of any kind) works have seen it with their own eyes and have studied it for months, years, and in some cases even decades. The people who say that LENR does not and cannot work are basing their belief on THEORY, not experience. I will take the experience any day over the theory. That’s just me.

      It is just like Bigfoot. Those who say that they have an experience of Bigfood, well, I believe their experience. As to their interpretation of the phenomena, and as to those who say that it can’t be so, that is their theory, which ain’t necessarily so.

  63. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast and Simon

    Why pick on me? Continue to address your complaints to the consensus of current scientists. Have you convinced them? Do you accept that they think the evidence provided by the replicators is inadequate to justify the abandonment of current theories? Or do you believe that they are dishonest, having been corrupted by Big Energy; or that the powers that be have terrorised them into bowing to the theoretical status quo?

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      “A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.” – Abba Eban

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – basically because you are here and arguing that the effect cannot happen because the theory says it can’t. By posting here, you accept that the whole world can see and comment on your ideas or lack of them. It’s a powerful thing, a blog.

      Current theory is not being abandoned – read the W-L theory and understand it. It is not new physics. It explains the results. It’s neat. I think it might even be right. If I convince one person (through explaining to you) that it is worth experimenting, then that is in itself a good thing and may benefit the world in general.

      You are not the target, but you are certainly standing right in front of it and pretending to be a bulls-eye.

    • brucefast Says:

      One of those “current scientists” used to post on this site. I picked on Peter Theiberger every bit as hard as I pick on you. I couldn’t for the life of me, however, get him to read and comment on “replicators”. He was all talk and no listen.

      Believe me, I’m happy to pick on any one of the “current scientists” that comes on this site. I’ll pick on you a whole lot less if you stop posting. (I haven’t stopped picking on Peter Theiberger, so I likely won’t stop picking on you either.)

      My picking on will consist of:
      > pointing people to the evidence,
      > exlpaining, again, what the difference is between poor and good evidence. (You seem oblivious to that concept.)
      > and, to some extent, deriding people for avoiding evidence, or totally “not getting” simple ideas where it is likely that they are choosing to avoid those ideas.

      I am an equal opportunity pick-oner.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I believe that hot fusionists are (1) convinced of their theory enough to be able to discount cryofusion; (2) also, semi-consciously, are impelled to disbelieve because cryofusion is a threat to their incomes and their precious theories; (3) like the rest of us have to struggle with the “it’s too good to be true” emotion; (4) are encouraged by their comrades to discount LENR; (5) may be unfamiliar with the whole matter; (6) may be patho-skeptics. They are not all of one mind.

      I think that I can speak for the rest of the LENR cheering squad when I say that we don’t care what the hot fusionists think.

  64. Craig Binns Says:

    Thanks for that. The one part of my post you haven’t responded to is the question motivation that consensus science may have for rejecting the evidence you believe to be convincing.


    If the WL theory is reconcilable with current theories, why have you previously spoken in terms of the revolution in physics in and after the late Victorian era? You raised that point in the context of a discussion of WL. Now, it seems, no revolution is required.

    • brucefast Says:

      I have a friend who works down at the college. He’s a pretty bright boy, though I don’t know that he is a professor — he might be. I mentioned the latest LENR stuff to him. He responded simply that “it defies the second law”. I e-mailed him with a link to replicators. I have no reason to believe that he read it. In my opinion, he has no informed opinion.

      So we see that even if a person is intelligent and educated, if they haven’t looked at the data, they have no informed opinion. That eliminates 99% of the Ph.D. physicists, and well more then that of the other Ph.D.s. Though these are part of that “consensus”, they have no informed opinion.

      When people have no informed opinion, but they state an opinion, they are doing so based upon the little information they have. This information includes:
      – It doesn’t fit scientific theory.
      – “Free energy devices” have come and gone 1000 times.
      – Others don’t believe it, so I won’t either (even though the others are uninformed.)
      – This was looked at back in ’89, and rejected then.
      – And that sinking feeling that scientists get in their gut when they look at the railroading of Pons and Fleischmann.

      Find me 100 physicist who’ll spend one honest hour looking at replicators, and I’ll find you at least 90 that at least say “wow”, this needs to be checked out. Oh, give out the invitation to 1000 physicists, and you won’t find 100 who will check it out.

      I therefore contend that the consensus is a consensus of ignorance. I also contend that scientists are rather slow to bother to find out about something that defies theory, as it is normally a huge waste of time. I contend further, that the ignorance is held fast by a historically established fear of derision.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        brucefast, you rock.

        I think that derision is a big fear of even looking outside of the box.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – If you haven’t read Bruce’s comment at least twice, do so. I started this investigation with the thought that it was yet another scam, but did the background work needed to persuade me that it was good physics. There may yet be scams associated with it, but the physics is real, is now repeatable, and is covered by a slight extension to theory that was suggested by Einstein in 1951.

      Why mainstream physics still ignores it I don’t know. The hounding of Pons and Fleischmann may have something to do with it. Still, you have looked at some of the evidence and, evidently, rejected it as not fitting with the theory you are used to. So you can maybe tell me why.

      The W-L theory seems simple and understandable to me, yet it does require collective action of groups of electrons (a plasmon). This is quantum theory, and like most quantum theory has no large-scale analogues yet to make it feel right. If you look at BLP they are trying to get rid of quantum theory altogether – a lot of old-school physicists don’t like it since there are counter-intuitive laws in it. But it works.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, it will be a revolution in attitude, not theory, probably. Hot fusionists are being anal retentive, up-tight a$$holes. This will teach them some humility, and it will happen so rapidly that most of them won’t have a chance to die before they learn their humility lesson.

  65. Roger Bird Says:

    The number of Google searches is not a good measure of interest because I NEVER do Google searches about LENR. I just use my favorites list concerning LENR to go where I want. I think that the Google search statistic may indicate NEW interested persons. But it does not indicate continuing obsession about a topic.

  66. Bob Says:

    In 1989 F&P rocked the world, but they had no idea what caused the affect. Everyone jumped in and tried to duplicate it, but not knowing the parameters and importance of material preparation most failed. MIT savaged them causing the whole area or science to be labeled Junk science. Most scientists, ever aware of their precious reputations either ignored the subject or failed to report any findings. Evidence was found in various labs, but no one came forward, the risk was to high and the energy was to low to be significant anyway.

    Along comes Rossi and lights a fire under the whole subject. If nothing else, Rossi should be commended to getting the subject back in the limelight. In my Opinion, if defkalion test show they are real, I expect that Rossi is also real for they came from the same tree.

    I believe both groups suffer from the pangs of getting production worth technology on a science they don’t fully understand. This delay is fully understandable, few new products meet initial milestones. I believe the problems are close to being worked out based on the defkalion testing and some of Rossi’s statements.

    Rossi is a difficult person as evident by almost everything, but I hold him in high regard for relighting the fire.

  67. Simon Derricutt Says:

    It’s maybe time for a bit of philosophy. The laws of Physics have been invented by physicists in order to explain what we see and, more importantly, to predict what will happen when we do something. There is nothing that says that Nature must obey these laws – we simply note that they appear to have worked so far. We have not, however, explored all the possibilities of interactions so far, so we do not know all the laws that Nature applies. Physics is expanded when people note and take notice of effects that do not follow the currently-accepted laws.

    Thus, to say that something is against the laws of Physics is effectively saying that you know all of Nature – and we definitely do not.

    As regards my assertion of a nuclear reaction being involved without a lot of gamma rays and fast neutrons, the end results of transmutation back this up. If it looks like a duck and tastes like a duck, do you worry that it didn’t quack before you shot it?

    I’m maybe talking to a fairly small audience here, with a total of 33 people following this blog and I don’t know how many other dipping in now and again. But you are spread around the world and interested in the results (even Craig, who doesn’t think it can happen but would like it to be true nonetheless).

    Rossi does seem to have added a bit to the confusion, and it seems NI have now denied being involved with him after having said they were (see Krivit’s latest news). Deliveries in quantity have yet again been delayed – not a good sign. Opposed to that we have Defkalion who have not so far delayed the tests on Friday, so I’d suggest waiting till the results are out before flaming too much over the impossibility of it being real.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      See, philosophy is important.

      I would say that the term “laws of physics” implies that some god has decided how things are going to be and has posted these laws somewhere and we are violating his/her will by even thinking that we could break those laws. I say throw out the term “laws of physics” for something like “patterns of physics”.

      All these “laws” are empirical, and the empirical pre-conditions under which we have observed these patterns are that of neutrons and protons moving close to the speed of light. And we know from studies of velocity that funny, unexpected things can happen when we approach the speed of light. If virtually all of our observations in classical physics of protons and neutrons were done when they were traveling close to the speed of light, then when we encountered protons and neutrons not traveling close to the speed of light, then it should be expected that we might observe them behaving in “funny and unexpected” ways.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – I thought you said you were not a physicist? You certainly have grasped the fundamentals.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, I am flattered.

        Unfortunately, way too many scientists think that those laws are laws. Consistent observations do not a law make. Consistent observations make for consistent patterns, which hopefully we can depend upon. (:->)

  68. Craig Binns Says:

    I’ll be fascinated by whatever Defkalion does; but they’ve disappointed us before, as Brucefast must remember clearly. I still have a fear that they will come up with some sort of excuse, or announce further delay.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      As we pause in our endeavors this Sunday to understand LENR, if it is true, if it works, how it works, and all the ramifications of possibly the greatest invention in all of human history, waiting for Defkalion to end the world as we know it, or not, I have to say that it has not been easy. If we had just said that it is all bunk, then it would have been easy. But I, personally, have been seduced by the evidence, and the annoying evidence keeps making me journey into an intellectual region that no human being has ever traveled. We are a lonely group, because we insist upon following the evidence. And if Friday and the following two weeks is jubilant or a big disappointment, I got to say that I have enjoyed traveling this road with Iggy, Bruce, Simon, Craig, and many other heroes of the intellect.

      And Craig also is a hero. He, like so many others, could easily have gone away. I see that he is furiously trying to tie loose ends up. He may continue to doubt, but he has been here and has been thinking and has been challenging us.

      I thank you all for your courage and intelligence and your insight.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Yes, it’s still not quite there yet. It has certainly been interesting discussing it, and I hope the tests are good. As Craig says, there are no guarantees that some extra delay will not suddenly come up.

      Doubt is normal – we see so many examples of mis-truths in daily life. Half-truths, misleading statements and outright lies are very common as businesses and governments seek to separate us from our cash. In “free energy” nearly everything I’ve seen has been a scam. It takes a lot of gumption to continue when most established scientists currently think it is not possible.

      With LENR we can see that the energy has a source. Transmutations occur, Hydrogen disappears, and we can work out the overall energy balance even if we don’t know the details. Bear in mind that it is only in the last few years that people have claimed to understand how photosynthesis actually works, so knowing how a process works is not necessary for that process to proceed satisfactorily. (In the same vein, the process of making wine is still not fully known at the molecular level – it’s very complex.)

      The people on this blog have helped me clarify my ideas. If Defkalion do not come up trumps, I believe that we could do this between us and produce a reactor of some sort. My last specialty was making electronics cheaper to manufacture, so I also think we can do it cost-effectively. This year is going to be fun, anyway.

  69. Roger Bird Says:

    You might be interested in this:

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      “One of the bizarre consequences of this work has been the generation of radiation at levels that apparently left Lebid dangerously poisoned in August of 2009. “My temperature dropped to 95 degrees and I experienced severe vomiting,” recalls Lebid. “Mark saved my life.”

      Continue reading on Scientists may have found gold in water – San Francisco Technology |

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Someone needs to check out that fire station with a geiger counter…..the fire station with the Griggs Hydrosonic waterheater.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Certainly interesting, Roger. It’s strange that so far no-one has replicated it – it ought to be easy to do using a high-pressure pump and small holes. Possibly the exact material he was using is important, and he didn’t know that so didn’t state it. Or possibly he did know it was important and didn’t tell people in order to protect his intellectual property. Difficulty in replication does seem to be far too common in this field.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Sterling Allen’s long but interesting interview with NanoSpire. They even discuss liposomes, an interest of mine.

      I guess cavitation isn’t an example of cold fusion, but more likely a low energy form of fission……maybe “cold fission”.

  70. brucefast Says:

    I have sorted the list of replicators. If any of you think that my sorting is solidly in error, please let me know.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      How would you categorize the cavitation devices? They are probably the most easily replicatable but with lower COP.

      In fact we’ve been unknowingly practicing fusion with boat propellers and water hammer for over a century. I bet cavitation is actually hot fusion, if only for a millisecond. It’s hot enough to produce flashes of white light.

      I wonder if some of the tricks learned in cold fusion could be used to juice up cavitation? Maybe try heavy water or ionized water.

      • brucefast Says:

        “Replicators” only lists those who report excess energy from nickel and hydrogen. As such, the list avoids cavitation and avoids palladium based LENR.

        Without this boundary the list becomes unmanageable lanky. Further, I was inspired by Peter Theiberger’s contention that nickel + hydrogen LENR was a different category of impossible than the palladium + deuterium form.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      It is much more authoritative now it is sorted. Rating them is a good idea, and helps newcomers to look at the good stuff first.

      Iggy – it is possible that the COP of a cavitation device could be improved with better design. Your point about propellors etc. is good – we’ve been designing things to avoid it happening because it eats the equipment, but it is certainly very hot in a collapsing bubble. Using heavy water is possible, but note that it is normally made in nuclear fission power stations, so it’s probably better to avoid it if possible. Distilling it from the ocean is possible but very expensive.
      Ionised water could be good, maybe dissolved Hydrogen, maybe some salts added too. Note how sea-water eats your propellor faster than the river does.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I read that cavitation occurs in tall trees and white water rapids.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – the cavitation that appears to lead to LENR seems to be very small bubbles. While it has been seen in open solution (see NASA’s sonocavitation files) it will probably be more efficient when the bubble is in close proximity to a metal lattice that has absorbed Hydrogen into it. Get the bubble to collapse on one side first, and the energy is directed. If the energy is directed just right, then it can cause the LENR reaction to initiate. The more bubbles of the right sort and in the right place you have, the more intense the reaction. Thus getting many very small bubbles, with maybe a time gradient in their collapsing to direct the energy, will increase the chances.
        Temperature is sometimes a tricky thing to measure. It is defined really as an average energy, but this has been extended to also give the energy of a single particle as a temperature. Since E=kT approximately, T=E/k. Look on it simply as how fast a particle is moving. By this definition, bubbles in water can achieve extremely high temperatures. It’s another collective-action result.

        So – white water probably ends up with the bubbles being generally too big to be useful. If you add in the ultrasonics of rocks hitting each other, then maybe there’s a chance that some LENR happens. I hadn’t heard of the cavitation in trees, so I can’t comment on that.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, you have the unique qualities of very excellent social skills and technical ability. You should start your own LENR company.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        In my simple layman’s mind, cavitation occurs when a sudden extreme drop in pressure causes water to pull apart.

        Question: If you suspended a long water hose (longer than 32′ say 100′) filled with water and capped at both ends, then uncapped the lower end, could cavitation occur? If so, I think this phenomenon sometimes occurs in tall trees.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – It’s not so much the cavitation itself, but the collapse of a cavitation bubble (with effectively vacuum inside) that does the job. Your long water hose will indeed cavitate, but there is no obvious way to get that cavitation (cavity?) to collapse again.

        I’m sorry I produced confusion by not making this clear earlier. Cavitation is the production of a hole in a liquid (or perhaps in a tooth??), but cavitation damage is caused when those bubbles collapse. It is normally referred to as cavitation for both parts of the process, which is a bit sloppy.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “Sonoluminescence in Nature:
        Recently, Pistol Shrimp were found to produced SL as a byproduct of their specialized claw closing quickly.”

        I wonder if cavitation occurs when someone pops their knuckles?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I have seen cavitation happen when my wife starts talking. Just kidding. She is not a nag, but I thought that it was funny. She thinks that I am a nag. (:->)

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Quite likely – you can test by cracking your knuckles in a dark room after your eyes have fully dark-adjusted. This could be a fun test!

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “Water ice and Wint-O-Green Lifesavers can give off light when they crack (called triboluminescence), and it is thought that the high pressures inside the bubble cause the water to form ice-like structures. As the jet hits the other side, the water “fractures” in the same way that silly putty and other non-Newtonian fluids behave like solids when subjected to sudden stresses. The fracture causes a release of photons. Prosperetti believes that an introduction of noble gases changes the way the water molecules align themselves, creating flaws in the crystal-like structure that enhance the fracturing effect. This theory may be tested by firing hyper-fast jets of water to see if it produces light without the acoustic cavitation. Prosperetti believes that an introduction of noble gases changes the way the water molecules align themselves, creating flaws in the crystal-like structure that enhance the fracturing effect”

        Another clue in support of argon being Rossi’s secret sauce, or maybe Wint-O-Green Lifesavers.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Thanks for this Iggy. I’d forgotten about the Lifesavers trick and in any case I’d thought it was electrostatic in nature. Since water expands when it crystallises, I would expect pressure to change crystals into liquid, not the other way round. But a jet of water suffers a sudden release of pressure, so should cool – maybe if enough pressure is used then it cools enough to form ice in the jet which then heats again when it hits the target. Using a large noble gas such as Xenon may work better than Argon at changing the structures.

        At the moment I can’t see why any noble gas in the system could help, apart from providing some back-pressure to keep the Hydrogen in the Nickel lattice. As far as I know, no data is around as to absorption of noble gases in metals – if there is I haven’t seen it. I would assume Argon and above would not be absorbed (too big) but Helium obviously can percolate through.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Roger, that’s called mandibularescence, or sparking jaw syndrome.

  71. Roger Bird Says:

    I’m sure that this will be no problem for liberals:

    The ends justify the means for morally immature people like liberals.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Roger, that’s simply childish.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, you are kidding, aren’t you. Liberals think that the ends justify the means CONSTANTLY. They constant violate the Constitution because what they are doing is **good**.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger, even more childish. People of all persuasions do all sorts of things! Look at Iggy. He is willing to contemplate the violent overthrow of the constitution of any country (including he USA) where “have-nots” are allowed to vote. And he wants to replace democracy with a fascist dictatorship which will torture and murder liberals and hand the management of the economy over to Friedmanite “Chicago Boys”.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, it is handy to be old since I can’t remember what it is that you are referring to: “Roger, even more childish.” But I am pretty sure that you are exaggerating or deliberately misunderstanding me, like you did with Iggy.

        You liberals really should be careful when you talk about overthrowing a constitution. For more than 50 years you liberals have been over-throwing our constitution, little by little. The federal government has acquired more and more power until it has become so dangerous and unrecognizable by the Founders. And it is not the “have-nots” that are the problem; it is voters who are “tax-receivers” who are naturally going to vote for more government entitlements, like two wolves and a sheep voting on what they will have for lunch. Is Chile currently a fascist dictatorship?; I thought not. Are the economies of Chile or Singapore not working so well that you desperately don’t want to be like them?; I thought not. Do you like living in government of the government, by the government, and for the government? I am sure that Iggy would tell you that we just want a government that stays in the boundaries of our Constitution, and doesn’t spill out all over the land owning everything, controlling everything, and being the ultimate authority on everything.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Buzz off Binns!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – I see Iggy as a collector of information who is willing to contemplate anything. That is not saying that he would himself do such things or that he thinks that they are good. Sometimes Iggy has a black sense of humour that makes me laugh out loud reading it – when there’s nothing you can do about it this is a much more sane reaction than ineffectively railing about it. I see him not as ” the glass is half full” or “the glass is half empty” but as ” there’s still more in the bottle”.

        You impute negativity into a lot of peoples’ comments – maybe this is just your net persona and you want to stir up a good argument, but some of your comments are good and thoughtful. If you put a negative comment in, you’ll get negative comments back. If you think an idea is wrong, attack the idea not the person. Maybe also use some other source of information than Wiki; there’s a lot more information around that hasn’t been bowdlerised and pre-digested to fit consensus view. The net is your oyster….

  72. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Regarding radiation sickness:

  73. Roger Bird Says:

    Kind of quiet today. Is everyone holding their breath? Remember that if Defkalion is a scammer, then they won’t be able to confirm. If they have the real deal, then they have no need to confirm for us LENR Internet crazies. In fact, they may be enjoying our torment. Considering that so many LENR Internet crazies (the skeptics and the patho-skeptics) have been insulting, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are deliberately trying to torment us with unconfirmed reports of splendid success.

  74. Craig Binns Says:


    Alas, not only sceptics are insulting. Let me quote your previous post: “The ends justify the means for morally immature people like liberals.” Mind you, that’s better than Iggy who wants liberals massacred by the tens of thousands by the “gentle” Pinochet.

    I’ll be happier with Defkalion when I know even who’s conducting the tests. Do we have that info yet?

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      I never said massacre. I said that 10s of thousands of Chile’s liberals mysteriously disappeared. They may all be undergoing reeducation deep beneath the Atacama Desert, digging lithium for for green batteries.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Liberals in this country think that conservatives are evil. Most conservatives and all leading conservative do not think that liberals are evil; we think that they are misguided or immature. I am more worried about liberals lining conservatives up and mowing them down with their favorite rapid fire weapon than the other way around.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Iggy, your revolting flippancy in this matter proves my point better than anything I could have designed myself. Shame on you. And of course you introduce another of your boogie men to add to the dreaded liberals – greens, with their lithium batteries. Woooooo! They’re coming to get you!!

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I hate to say it, but I personally am not even sure that government people are doing the first test that ends today. Just because Defkalion says it is so don’t make so. We need confirmation.

      Keep in mind, assuming that the Hyperion actually works, which I personally assume that it does (but it may not), they have absolutely no interest or even knowledge that those of us interested in their Hyperion are flapping in the breezes of uncertainty and are craving some certainty. They have other concerns other than our emotional needs for certainty. I also have emotional needs for certainty, but I don’t play games in my head and say it is or isn’t so just so I won’t have to crave certainty so badly.

  75. Roger Bird Says:

    You might want to check this out:

    I feel that he might be exaggerating the number of replications and peer reviewed papers, and he might be showing a little more certainty than the currently available data warrants.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – the technologies mentioned apart from Rossi and Defkalion:
      Ampenergo is allied to Rossi.
      Seldon Technologies appears to be a water-purifying company.
      Lattice Energy (Lewis Larsen) last posted news in 2003. He may be trying to get something running, but he’s being quiet about it apart from plugging his theory of LENR and patenting a gamma-ray absorption system that so far has not been built and thus shown to work.
      Brillouin have probably not yet reliably exceeded COP=1, but I expect they have seen bursts of excess power.
      Energetics Technology seem to be trying gravity waves to get heat. Gravity waves probably don’t exist – it’s still theory and no-one has yet measured any. Low chance of success.
      Star Scientific are using Muon-catalysed fusion, which is valid technology (see Luis Alvarez, Arthur C. Clarke) but again has not yet reliably exceeded COP=1. Once they get it working, this will be power-station sized, not available for the home, and will still be expensive power. Raw materials for this are very common, so we won’t run out of fuel soon.

      Out of the lot, it still seems that Defkalion and Rossi are closest to getting something out.

      There are an awful lot of peer-reviewed papers and a load of replicators for P+F. Not many for the cheaper (and possibly much better) Ni+H reaction. There’s also a Russian guy working on Zirconium as a core material.

      A reasonable article overall, but maybe his examples of new energy could have been better. Of the 6 mentioned, 1 is not relevant, 1 is effectively Rossi, and 1 is moribund. The 3 others are nowhere near getting a commercial device.
      He does mention that the Chinese are likely to be secretly doing a lot of well-funded research – I don’t know where the source of his data is, and maybe this is speculation. If he’s right, they may well get something out before we do. That would make for interesting politics….

      • Roger Bird Says:

        This kind of sloppy journalism does not help our case.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Brad Arnold said it well – those that don’t know, talk, and those that do know stay silent. . The rest of that comment is very good, too.

        I suspect, however, that the people who are silently working on it are not going to be affected by inaccurate journalism – they are below the radar. With a bit of luck one of them will suddenly break into the market with a better design. Since Rossi’s design works out only marginally cheaper than Natural Gas for heating (and the CO2 problem may well be less than the IPCC tells us), and the Defkalion version looks like being expensive to buy and to replace fuel, there is still a place in the market for a device that takes the good points of both. Fast start/stop, high running temperature, high COP, low initial cost and cheap fuel replacement. Both machines are currently stopgap devices, like Swann’s electric light bulb before Edison made it work properly.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon, your “Gravity waves probably don’t exist – it’s still theory and no-one has yet measured any. Low chance of success.” is pretty certainly wrong. They’ve not been observed in a detector, on account of their stupendously low energy, which completely rules them out as a magic free energy source. But the observed orbital decay of mutually orbiting pulsars or other collapsed objects indicates that such systems radiate gravitational energy (within observational accuracy) exactly as predicted by the General Theory of Relativity. Of one such observation wiki states that 

        “It has been shown that the gravitational radiation predicted by general relativity allows these observations to be matched within 0.2 percent. In 1993, Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for this work, which was the first indirect evidence for gravitational waves.”

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – are you sure that it is loss of energy by gravity waves? Apart from reading Wiki, that is. You should note that since a moving radiant object will by simple Döppler effect radiate more energy forward (blue-shifted) than behind (red-shift) then it will slow down anyway. The problem is which frame of reference you measure it in. If GR is absolutely true, then Quantum theory is absolutely false (and vice-versa). In which case your computer would not be working. Both theories are not the complete answer since they are mutually incompatible, but in their range they each give us the correct answer within experimental accuracy.

        Since this mutual incompatibility (thus need for doublethink) caused me problems at college, I have been thinking on this for almost 40 years. How much time have you spent researching it?

        If gravity waves did exist, you are right that there would not be enough energy in them to do very much.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon, interesting. But I can’t see how the notorious incompatability between these two theories can indicate that gravity waves “don’t exist”. The observers are pretty certain, and so are the theorists, that they exist, that their effects on orbital decay are being accurately measured, and that the obtained data are consistent with (the appropriate) current theory.

        This marriage of theory and observation seems robust to me, and I would expect that any adjustment to the accepted figure resulting from a reconciliation of the two theories would be small, like Einstein’s adjustment of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit. In fact, probably less, because the discrepancy between the orbit and Newton was great enough to have been observed as early as 1859. No such discrepancy between Einstein and the gravity waves has been found, as noted above.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Is Craig Binns stridently trying to maintain the status quo again regarding gravity waves. What a big surprise that would be!!!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – People working from Newton use the centre of mass and the distances between them. This is obviously a load of cock since all particles will attract all other particles, so the gravity you experience when you are near to a large and massive body is lower than would be calculated if you looked at the body from a large distance (effectively almost a point object) and then worked out what it would be near the surface, where nearly all the matter is pulling in a different direction than straight down. Thus Newtonian gravity does not in fact exactly follow a square law, and the closer you are to a large object (so you can no longer reasonably treat it as a point) the bigger the deviation is. When I’ve finished with dealing with LENR, I’ll go back to getting the maths round this (probably use iterative numerical solutions) to calculate Mercury’s orbit using this corrected Newton formula. I expect it will give an answer that agrees with observation, but I can’t tell yet until I’ve done it.

        Since the best method of checking for gravity waves (a triangle of satellites well away from Earth) has not yet got a measurement of them, I regard it as a theory that has yet to be proven. They may exist, but the jury is still out.

        Other mechanisms may be postulated instead of gravity waves that would give the same results. I don’t know of any personally (it’s not my subject), but there are normally many theories around for anything that has not yet been proven beyond reasonable doubt (as well as for a lot of things that have been).

  76. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Any one of the regulars on this blog could have written a clearer and much more accurate article.

  77. david Says:

    Parliamentary questions on cold fusion – Italy.


    Check eng forum at

    • Roger Bird Says:

      The Italian government is beginning to stir. Not necessarily a good thing. I am sure that the Italian parliament ladies are well meaning.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Interesting youtube on David’s new site:

      Kitchen fusion – Charcoal dust to iron

      • Bruce Fast Says:

        I know! I already made a new post if it!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – if that was actually transmutation, and if 5% of the Carbon (maybe a gram or two) turned to Iron in 3 minutes, then that little lump of material would have output a few megawatt-hours of power in a very short time. It’s a hoax, sorry. The bit at the start showing a flame going plasma in the microwave is real, but if you have an old (but still functioning) microwave and try this out, don’t be surprised if it doesn’t do fusion. Don’t do it in your kitchen microwave unless you feel like buying a new one.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “I know! I already made a new post if it!”

        Not to be picky, Bruce, but your post was at 1:46 pm, 8 minutes after mine.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        In-freaking-credible!!!!!!!!! I hope that you guys will try it. I was particularly intrigued with turning charcoal into iron.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger, incredible indeed! Freaking, too. In nature, only stars more massive than the sun can transmute carbon to iron. You need to squeeze carbon quite hard at a rather high temperature to get it to do this, or at least so the books seem to be telling me.

        Like yourself, I am therefore most intrigued by the achievement of this feat in a microwave oven. Mine takes quite a few minutes to bake a potato, a much simpler task.

        The “defrost” setting probably won’t manage nucleosynthesis. Set to “high” is my advice!

        I’ve got a camping stove that burns wood gas, and turns sticks and pinecones into charcoal, but having done that, it refuses to go any further and change the charcoal into gold or platinum, more’s the pity.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I confess that I am agreeing with Craig Binns on this one. I am much more comfortable with creating magnetic carbon in a microwave oven than pushing a nucleus from 6 protons to 26 proton iron.

        This just goes to show that we have to double check stuff with other ways of testing stuff. This is why I am uncomfortable with so much in astronomy (my favorite science). If the red shift is an invalid measurement, then we are screwed. If the red shift indicates something other than recession, like perhaps tired light or interference from dark matter or energy, then astronomy falls down and goes boom.

    • Bob Says:

      Roger, not everything is solid in science. Scientists have a new theory that light may indeed travel at different speeds in deep space. The radioactive decay used for carbon dating is found to be changing so who knows the real dates of things. Astronomers have found anomalies in space that point to physical laws may not apply the same everywhere. There are many examples that things as we know it may not be as solid as we think, but they work for now so we use them. To many things to investigate, just have to pick a few and be a drive by reader on most.

  78. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana

    “The 60 psi D2 gas loading caused the temperature increase from ca. 20°C to ca. 50°C. The further temperature increase from ca. 50°C to ca. 140°C occurred during unloading.”
    Friday, March 23, 2012
    3:30 p.m. Waterway Ballroom 2

    Chair: Harold White Jr. (NASA Johnson Space Center)

    3:30 p.m. Kim Y. E. *
    Cryogenic Ignition of Deuteron Fusion in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles [#3006]
    Possibility of cryogenic ignition of deuteron fusion in micro/nano-scale metal particles is described
    based on nuclear fusion theory for Bose-Einstein condensation of deuterons in metal. Experimental
    tests of hypothesis and predictions of the theory are also discussed.

    3:50 p.m. Yang X. Miley G. *
    A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) [#3051]
    Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell has been verified, confirming nuclear
    reactions provide output energy. Neglecting unlikely chemical reaction contributions, the energy gain
    is virtually unlimited due to negligible power input with gas loading.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Thanks for posting this Iggy. Some very interesting papers in there. LENR ignition at liquid helium temperatures – not exactly what we want but it’s another piece of the puzzle. Plus a space drive that works on the Quantum Vacuum – that was just science fiction when I was a kid.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon,: yes. Quantum vacuum interplanetary space drives were mere sci fi when I was a kid too. Glad to have lived long enough to see them in the real world, like nuclear fusion powered water heaters.

        Also firmly located in the sci fi domain were INTERSTELLAR (!!!) space drives, like “Obousy R. K., Long K. F. Smith T. Project Icarus: Antimatter Catalyzed Fusion Propulsion for Interstellar Missions [#3104] This paper will explore the possibility for using antimatter catalyzed fusion propulsion for interstellar missions. This includes direct anti-proton and magnetically insulated ICF schemes.” The subject of another of these papers.

        So I’m really excited that we can now zoom around the cosmos like Captain Kirk! Do you think Byron will let me buy a licence to sell e-cats to the Klingons?

        $hit: the outback sheep herders have cornered the market already!

      • Bob Says:

        Craig, you missed element 116 used for anti gravity propulsion. Its the element of choice for all interstellar projects.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Bob, yes, that’s the stuff. Thanks for the tip. Up to now I’ve been using unobtanium 117 to construct interstellar space craft in my attic, but I’m not too proud to change.

      • Bob Says:

        Craig, your like the marines, adapt and overcome. Its so good to see people like yourself not stuck in rigid thinking. Its like swing jumping in grade school (see who could jump the furthest). My buddy Phil always beat me, so I asked him why.

        He said it had to do with mass and momentum. Being in 2nd grade I didn’t quite grasp it, so he boiled it down for me, I needed to gain weight. After stuffing myself with red jelly beans for a month I came back a full 10 pounds heavier, prepared to win. He still beat me and I figured the momentum weight thing was all a lie . Years later after careful study, I new that there was solid thinking to the theory. I payed a visit to said playground and with my ever so keen powers of observation realized that one swing had a much longer rope. The theory was right, it just hadn’t been fleshed it out properly, that and Phil was a cheat with an older brother that kept him apprised of the finer details in swing jumping.
        I hope I have given you some insights on the power of logic thought and the need to be precise and get all the details. I know I learned a lot and just wanted to share.

    • Bob Says:

      These are great links Iggy, I missed them on my daily search. One more way of creating the affect.
      I think the fundamental model for the atom is wrong, when they sort this all out they will redefine how an Atom works, but then I’m just guessing.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Kim’s Bose-Einstein Condensation theory

  79. Joe Shea Says:

    You were very kind to respond to me with this link. I believe, too, that Ni+H is where we’re headed. I am still hoping Randall Mills will get there first. Thanks!


    Joe Shea

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Since I don’t even know what the “ground state” is, and when I get to information on the “ground state” it will be peppered with other words I will have to look up, could you be so kind as to explain in layman’s terms what a hydrino is and what evidence we have that it exists.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – ground state is the lowest energy level of the atom. A bit like it’s stretched in a hammock and can’t get any more relaxed. Hydrinos are supposed to be even more relaxed than that. They alone claim evidence for this, but the rest of us don’t believe it since if Hydrinos existed there would be cosmological evidence staring us in the face. What they are seeing is probably a neutron.

      • Joe Shea Says:

        If hydrinos didn’t exist, spectroscopists at the Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics would not have found them, as they did last February (2011).

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Thanks Joe – I must have missed that. I’ll go find the data. That is the way I’d expect them to show, with the astrophysicists finding unexplained lines.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Source for discovery of hydrinos, please.

      • brucefast Says:

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Thanks Bruce. This is not from looking at the stars, but at BLPs equipment. There may be some other reason for the measurements being what they are, but it would take a long time studying the subject to be able to properly understand this report. If I read it right they are not saying that Hydrinos exist, but that the Hydrino explanation is consistent with their measurements (the weasel-word way of saying that they don’t believe it, either, I think). If the astrophysics guys had seen those spectra in some section of the sky, then I would be quite happy with the explanation. As it is, I’m not really convinced either way, but I’m inclined to not accept Hydrinos as having existence. Sorry, Joe, but I like the idea of a ground state being the lowest energy possible. If a lower state were possible, then Hydrogen should be in it most of the time, rather than going around partially excited for the majority of its life. Sorry for the bad language.

  80. Craig Binns Says:


    If “partially excited” is bad language to you, you’ve had a sheltered life.

    But thanks for the hydrino elucidation. Finding hydrinos in Blacklight’s equipment is less impressive than finding them in nature. And your point about the lowest energy state is devastating for the hydrino hypothesis, if I may dignify a scam legend by describing it even as a hypothesis.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      “partially excited” is a frequent condition after age 70.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:


      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – if that chart is telling the truth then he’s doing a good job. Does it feel like the truth to you? Or truuuuuuuuth?

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I think the chart is pretty accurate but he is not popular. He’s not a touchy-feely politician. Firing state employees doesn’t win many friends. Plus the fact that he has the look of Simon Legree.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – I see what you mean. It must be a difficult job – you need to please more than 50% of the people, avoid any scandal at any time in your life, and spend more than you can raise in taxes without actually depleting the treasury. Oh, and also look good, too, and be rich enough to run an election. I can’t see the attraction of the job.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I just can’t get away from the thought that what you are doing Craig is evil, and you are becoming more and more evil doing evil actions. But, I know, as a debunker patho-skeptic type, morality really doesn’t matter much to you, until of course the evil happens to you. Then you are so up in arms about the evil that happened to you. Calling people crooks when you don’t have proof is evil. It would be really nice if Rossi was spending a few man hours collecting data on you slanderers so that (if and) when the E-cat goes public he would then come after you slanderers.

      • brucefast Says:

        Roger, you’ve got Craig all wrong. He is trying to rescue us from our mindlessness. He is trying to show us the light that will save us from being swindled by all the nasty people. Praise the Binns.

  81. Roger Bird Says:

    It may be too late for:

    • Bob Says:

      The fight has already started over this, turkey is claiming it is theirs and have threatened warships in the area. Israel has made deals with Cypress to park jets to protect the area and prevent them from being wiped out by a surprise attack. The war wagons are circling.

  82. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Chan’s site has a couple of new links:

  83. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    March 29, 2012
    Brillouin Energy Closing to Commercialization

    Cash Flow Radio has an interview with Brillouin Energy‘s CEO Robert George and President/CTO Robert E. Godes.

    Brillouin Energy has been able to develop a control system that allows a reaction to start and stop, and run in a steady state mode. In April, they will be working with Mike McKubre of SRI International to run a reactor at a higher temperature.

    Godes states that the Brillouin’s reaction starts with an endothermic reaction (reaction that absorbs heat) and ends with a more powerful exothermic reaction (reaction releases heat). Brillouin is working on two systems, the first one provides heat at 140 degrees C, (called the “wet boiler”) the second one reaches 400 – 450 degrees C. George says that they have applied for patents, but have been told by a patent examiner at the US Patent Office that the office is still not permitted to grant patents in the cold fusion field.

    “The high-end system that will easily generate electricity, we’re looking at potentially, from our cost analysis, about 1 cent per kilowatt hour, but that’s on a commercial system. For a residential application, to get a higher R-value, or COP on it, we’re talking about a turbine, not something you don’t currently have right now. We’re talking about just having the boiler.”

    They have a million dollar investment and are working to get the second half of a two million dollar investment.

    They plan to license technology to third party producers. George says that Brillouin has been visited by the Naval Research Lab and major corporations.

    We’re looking at 12 to 18 months to bring it to strategic partners.

    Brillouin Commercialization Plans

    Is the Brillouin Boiler going to be conventionally priced compared to existing fossil fuel systems?

    “Absolutely”, said George, “the raw cost of the system should be about 30% higher than a conventional fossil fuel boiler. The system is quite simple, the electronics are complex, but you’re talking about a pressure tank, a heat exchanger, and the electronics to drive the reaction. We’re using nickel as the catalyst, not platinum or palladium, so there’s no exotic metals so it’s not an expensive device to build.”

    “The electronics are complicated, but it’s less complicated than the cell phone I’m talking to you on”, added Godes.

    “How many people does Brillouin have working on your system now?” James asked.

    “Technical people, we have about nine engineers,” said Mr. George, “then on our advisory board we have a group of scientists that basically advise us on everything from fluid dynamics and thermodynamics to configurations. We have Dr. Michael McKubre from SRI International who is one of the world-renowned experts on cold fusion. We have a variety of people.”

    “He was a skeptic originally when Robert Godes first talked to him and he’s come over to believing on our side. He’s been doing alot of work with heavy water reactions for the controlled electron capture,
    and now he believes as we do that you can use it with regular water in a pressurized system, and that’s what we’re working on.”

    James then wanted to know how they would be able to meet a commercial demand that would be strong, and immediate.

    “There are any number of different sizes of pressure vessels which we use in our wet boiler, and so we expect that the commercial systems will probably be 20-30% more than a current boiler and about the same size. We’re talking about, for a residential application, a pressure tank about the size of a scuba tank, the electronics which Robert Godes has developed and patented through Patrick Townzend, basically a heat exchanger which the boiler manufacturers all over the country have the capability of doing, that’s why we don’t want to become a manufacturer, we won’t become a competitor. And they’ll be able to substitute Brillouin Boilers in where you now have a coal-fired, oil-fired, gas-fired, electric boilers providing the heat, and maybe you have additional heat exchangers to transfer to the building. But this system is basically going to be a one-on-one replacement.”

    Mr. Godes states that he knows how to control the E-Cat, and its there for Mr. Rossi to look at in his intellectual property filings. A lack of system control, and other critical components needed to stabilize the reaction which are missing in the E-Cat, is why he doesn’t believe that Leonardo Technologies or Defkalion Green Technologies have an actual product.

    “There’s something with process variation you can do called binning, and he sees that as one of the solutions for Mr. Rossi to issues of control and on-demand power.”

    Godes “You take everything that operates between A and B and put that in one bin. And you take all the other bits and pieces that operate between B and C and put those in another bin, between C and D put those in another bin, so you can assemble modules that are going to operate in the same range. But I don’t think he can reliably turn his units off and then back on again.” via NextBigFuture

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I guess because Brillouin has not been feeding us hot air for months I am pretty excited about this. It is also right there with Rossi and Defkalion as far as LENR-on-steroids is concerned. And they say that they can control it and turn it on and off immediately. Wow.

      But, for me to invest money in it, I would have to see it for myself, over a period of days, with a cot to sleep on, with all of the entrances locked. (:->) And pizza delivered.

    • Bob Says:

      Iggy – I talked with George and James Martinez about a year ago. They were struggling at a cop of 3. It looks like they have changed their design in a big way and are getting along with making it a business. I am about half way through reading their patent.

      It claims a nuclear reaction, but I will hold further comment until I finish reading the patent. It is just a publication, not a granted patent.

    • brucefast Says:

      I think that Brillouin needs to take Dick Smith up on his offer:

      • Bob Says:

        That’s not a bad idea. Brillouin has struggled raising money, this seems like an easy way to get a big chunk of what they need. You should write them and suggest this.

  84. Roger Bird Says:

    It would be useful and interesting to me if Iggy, brucefast, Simon, Bob, Bob Arnold, and others who post here at nickelpower frequently were to post their credentials. Don’t get the idea that I care so much as those who I will be talking to about LENR might care. By way of example and to get the ball rolling, I will start with myself.

    In chronological order: B.A. in psychology, B.A. in philosophy, A.S. in electronics technology. I worked as an electronics technician for 3 years and as a software engineer for 20 years.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      BA Florida State Univ. Business (Insurance & Real Estate)
      also studied at Georgia Military College and Universidad Ibero-America, Mexico City.

      US Marine Corps Officers School, Quantico, VA
      Quantico Pugil-Stick Fighting Champion
      Naval Aviation Training, Pensacola, FL

      Worked as military pilot, civilian crop-duster, insurance agent, occasional bail-bondsman, and operator of preschools (with my wife). In retirement owned and managed residential rentals.

      Interests: Science, technology, health (alternative and allopathic), genealogy, history, economics, investing, and women.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      BA in natural science (nuclear and solid-state physics) after which I had some time out in a pottery before dropping into computers. I’ve done most jobs in computers apart from making the chips. The last couple of jobs were at Xerox UK, where I was in Failure Analysis for 6 years and then senior electronics designer for another 6 before the work got moved to Hungary (much cheaper) and the site shut down. I now run a tiny vineyard in the south-west of France – it’s a long story. Before I got diverted into LENR 4 months ago I was cogitating on the paradoxes in Physics and how to resolve them. Things like how gravity really works and problems with Relativity.

      I’d thought you two were pretty high-powered from the comments – I already know about Bob. Bruce put his potted history into “about” so I know he has experience in really doing things rather than just talking. Of course you can never really tell on the net (or in real life) but the wording and the knowledge behind the comments shows through. So taken on trust – until you ask for money to get the next antigravity device into production.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon, your knowledge of Physics seems to far outweigh your qualification. I’m impressed.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – it would have been “automatically” upgraded to an MA if I had gone to collect it, but that seems dishonest to me. However I’ve spent 40 years or so since then thinking about things and using the knowledge, so I hope some of my resolutions of the paradoxes are closer to the Truth than I was taught. During my time at Xerox I really learnt how to speed up research and how to assimilate knowledge quickly – electronics moves so rapidly that it was sink-or-swim in getting the data from the books onto the boards.

  85. Bob Says:

    BS EE, Mainframe Memory Controllers design, Minicomputer disk & Tape controller design & Firmware, Big Box Disk design & head of String controller design, Product planning PLD’s and Peripheral devices. Flash Memory controller design, SATA controller design, SATA switch design, All these design also required firmware and in some cases software. Some Marketing and Sales.
    Started out as System designer and later went into I.C. design. A lot of management along the way, but always stayed hands on even when VP level.
    Ran race horses, Part owner in a Boat Company. Own a demolition company and helped wife get Garden center Business going. Love to paint. retired and do Consulting work and come up with Patents for Companies. Own a Farm/Ranch – Mostly hay and cows.

  86. Roger Bird Says:

    I am just changing my email. I have nothing interesting to say right here.

  87. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Perelli Industrial High School, Rome, Italy achieves 400% COP.</b?

    "The prof. Abundo then showed the ignition in the laboratory "live" in a reactor, explaining that the yields obtained were greater than
    400%, ie they allow us to hypothesize that 100 units of electricity they produce lower-quality type 400 thermal be used to power functions as the production of hot water and heating systems."

    • Bob Says:

      Good find Iggy!
      I can just see the commercials, “Cold Fusion, so easy a cave man can do it”.

      4x is respectable!

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I LOVE that. Even a freaking high school can do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      This is good. Ed Storms has been doing this with his students, but did not get the COP. This seems to be a F+P replication, though, and uses electrolysis in water – not good for producing steam, fine for heating houses. On the FB page, they were asking for other people to replicate this experiment – it seems you can get the exact plans and method from Professor Abundo by asking for it, and he wants others to do it too.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        This could be the breakout that we have been waiting for. Sort of like, too much like, the breakout from Normandy that the Allies did versus the Nazis: surrounded by the forces of darkness.

      • brucefast Says:

        This is intriguing, fun, but I doubt if it’ll break through the noise. I think that the only thing that will is a marketed product. I do think, however, that a marketed kit would do it. A clear step-by-step instruction that doesn’t produce materials acquisition challenges would also do it.

        Somehow we must be able to place a working reactor in the face of any doubters. Nothing less will penetrate the wall of silence.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – they claim to have 4 other universities willing to duplicate the experiment and thus verify it. If he publishes how it is done then I’m pretty certain those kits will be produced and a lot of people will do it for themselves. There are as yet no details of either what the setup is, how big it is and how much power goes in and comes out, but it’s only been publicised today so maybe in a few more days the details will emerge. If it is then verified by the universities (maybe a month or two from now if we’re very lucky – they tend to be slow) then it just needs scaling-up As to get your house heater running. As Roger says, this looks like being the real break-out of the technology. With working verified models being sold, and anyone can test them, it can no longer be panned as “pathological science” and there’ll be a gold-rush to get the next level running. That basic research will finally be funded.

  88. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Just for interest, if you google Ugo Abundo, you’ll find this on :
    “Dear Sirs,
    I’m professor Ugo Abundo, director of physics laboratory at Secondary Polytechnic School “L.Pirelli” in Rome (Italy).

    In some planned laboratory experiences, in a network Project according to wich more schools will follow, we need small amounts of specimens as detailed in the following.

    Please, detail for each one:
    the minimum quantity purchasable
    the unit cost
    delivery costs
    delivery time and modality
    order and payment modalities

    Details of specimens:
    Nickel porous plate (metal-foam) diameter 20mm, thickness 5mm;
    Nickel porous cube (metal-foam) dimension 10mmx10mmx10mm;
    Nickel porous cylinder (metal-foam) diameter 10mm, height 20mm.

    Questions: (are such customized dimensions possible?)

    We are grateful for a kindly quick answer.
    Sincerely yours.
    Prof. Ugo Abundo – “L. Pirelli” School laboratory – Rome (Italy)
    Mail to:

    Dear Ugo!
    Thanks a lot for your inquiry. The samples can be cut with scissors very easily. You can put some specimens together in order to get necessary thickness. Our specialist will connect with you as soon as possible and sent you some information about our foam materials.”

    Some sort of hint that Abundo is maybe not using Palladium in his experiment, but Nickel?

  89. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Here’s something just posted at vortex. Looks like an LENR hitched to a Stirling engine.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      It looks like they also had that vibrating Stirling (slide 18) that First L linked to a couple of days ago for solar collection. NASA have their fingers in a lot of pies, if it can possibly relate to Space. Most things do.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Yes, I remember seeing a similar device on the ‘L’ thread. Those gray diaphragm looking things…..are they rubber rebounders?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Iggy – rubber wouldn’t survive, so I’d expect them to be multi-leaf steel or most likely beryllium-copper springs. If they fill with Hydrogen rather than Helium, they’d need the Be-Cu material to avoid embrittlement over the 25-year life. Still, it’s a very neat idea.

  90. Anthony Scalzi Says:

    Add DARPA to the list of replicators(albeit using PMs and not nickel).

    “FY 2011 Accomplishments:
    – Continued quantification of material parameters that control degree of increase in excess heat generation and life expectancy of power cells in collaboration with the Italian Department of Energy. Established ability to extend active heat generation time from minutes to 2.5 days for pressure-activated power cells..”

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig Binns was just seen at the local justice-of-the-peace changing his name. maryyugo has changed her handle to “ibelieve”.

  91. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    No info but apparently Chan is working on 600° 10MW reactor.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I won’t be investing my money in that one any time soon. (:->) I am not saying that it ain’t true. But I know that there some people say things that just ain’t so. I would need way more proof than just a picture. Otherwise I would draw some really cool pictures, post them, and start racking in the dough. (:->)

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Chan is mysterious but the way he talked back when he was talking, he seemed very savvy. He was the 1st that I recall that advocated the use of metal hydrides instead of gaseous hydrogen. He was also the 1st that I recall that suggested using a frequency generator.

        About a year ago he said he planned to sell his low-temp 1 megawatt for $100,000 which is about 1/10th Rossi’s price. Maybe, like Rossi, he’s figured out how to achieve much higher temperatures and he’s scrapped plans for the low-temp model.

        Based on the amateur replicators who are talking, he seems to be the most advanced. Of course there may be a quiet genius (like Simon) that’s ahead of everyone.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon has not been talking much at all, if at all, and I am hoping that he is busy taking over the world.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Simon would be the nicest billionaire of all time. Roger, maybe he’ll let you and me be night watchman and janitor. Bruce could be his VP of IT. Bob could be the foreman of his Wyoming ranch. Anony could run his charitable foundation, and Craig the custodian of the high pressure hydrogen storage tank.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I prefer that Craig Binns be his Director of Public Relations. Nothing like a convert to be enthusiastic.

      • Bob Says:

        If selected as Foreman for Simon’s Wyoming ranch, I would develop a fine blood line of racehorses to dominate the California circuit and note only make Simon more money, but allow me to recoup losses from prior years.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Chan may be real but, like the others, so far it’s just talk. We really can’t tell. If like us you follow what’s happening with Rossi, Defkalion, Brilloin and Celani, and amalgamate the data, you can come up with a number of designs that should work according to current knowledge. The only way to test whether that knowledge is real is by building and testing something real, which means you’ll have at least photos of the kit even if you don’t explain what you’re doing. Any photos of Chan’s experiments in action?

      Although I’m sure my daughter would love to have a ranch with a lot of horses, I’m not the type to aim for billions – with massive riches also comes a massive responsibility to use it well, which would divert me from playing with Physics to controlling the money. As I see it, that’s Somebody Else’s Problem, and I’d need a lot of help in dealing with it. You guys could really help if we hit the jackpot. The idea of Craig helping too is also good – I’m pretty sure he’s good at his job and should prove very effective. A small team where each does what he/she does best is a good business model. Anony would gain a name….

      They say money is like manure – it only does good when it’s spread around – leave it in a pile and it just stinks.

      Yes, I’m somewhat busy at the moment.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I could be the Philosopher in Chief. I would sit around philosophizing about how no one becomes happy when they become filthy rich. Of course, I would need to be compensated according to my esteemed stature as a great philosopher. Otherwise I would pout and stamp my foot in anger.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        But Roger, couldn’t the job be a dual position, both Night Watchman and Philosopher in Chief? Seems compatible to me. During the early years of SouthWest Airlines, the pilots helped vacuum the passenger compartment.

  92. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Celani patent:


    Five 99.5% nickel wires (each of diameter 200 μm, length 200 cm, lateral surface area 12.5 cm2, overall weight of the 5 wires 2.7952 g) were each treated in the following way: a) degreasing in 2M NaOH at 70° C.; washing in distilled H2O; washing in acetone; final wash in distilled H2O and drying in hot air. b) each wire was heated to a temperature of approximately 1000° C. by Joule heating in air for a time of 400 seconds. The temperature was estimated by the change in the resistance of the wire. c) after cooling each wire was coated with a solution of colloidal silica (30% by weight of SiO2, sol dimensions 12 nm) in three passes with a brush. d) each wire treated in this way was heated by Joule heating as in b). After cooling 5 wires were weighed again; an overall increase in weight of approximately 1.2 mg was recorded. e) 20 ml of 85% by weight H3PO4, 100 ml of a 20% by weight solution of PdNO3 and 100 ml of a 20% by weight solution of NiNO3 were added to the colloidal silica solution (100 cm3). f) the five wires were treated with the solution mentioned in e) using the means described in c). g) finally the wires were heated by Joule heating as in b). After cooling the increase in weight in comparison with the bare wire was found to be approximately 2.3 mg. h) the five wires, each inserted into a quartz-fibre sheath 0.2 cm in diameter and bent appropriately were placed in a cylindrical gas-tight stainless steel container (volume 2025 cm3) fitted with pressure and temperature sensors and held at a temperature of 150° C. i) after vacuum had been applied hydrogen was quickly introduced into the container until it reached a pressure of 5 bar; the temperature of the container was held at 150° C. The Ni wire adsorbed hydrogen until it reached saturation in approximately 500 seconds; the H/Ni atomic ratio produced from the change in pressure was estimated to be 0.65. l) the container containing the wire was evacuated and filled with air at ambient pressure; the temperature of the container was held at 100° C. in order to evaluate the discharge time for the wire. It was surprisingly found that after 600 hours the Ni wire retained its hydrogen content almost unchanged.

  93. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    MFMP’s reactor seemed to suck energy from the room at 15 minutes past midnight.

    • Craig Binns Says:


      I get 404 not found from your link. It’s a really weird site, by the way.

      • iggy dalrymple Says:

        Way back, when they were running live online test, they were showing excess heat on reactor, but temp in room was dropping. If correct, they may have invented air conditioner.

  94. Roger Bird Says:

    How is this for a replication:

    I guess Bruce was out chopping wood, trying to keep his family warm.

    And hope that Craig will respond to warn us that it is just pretend.

    • BruceFast Says:

      Its just a picture.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Not for me. Just a picture is a picture, and assuming that Rossi is not involved in a grand scam, it indicates that much of what “Rossi says” has been true. When he asks me or anyone else that I know of for money, my skepticism index will jump considerably.

        I also find it interesting that there are a bunch of people working in these pictures. I suppose that they are just actors and they are in on the scam. But how does he pay actors. Or are they just acting for practice or to full Craig Binns. I.E., I am skeptical of your skepticalness.

      • brucefast Says:

        Roger, i am rather optimistic that Rossi has what he says he has. However, the picture is not “the proof” by any means. That independent test that Rossi keeps talking about would be compelling. However, I still must say “would be”, rather than “will bee”.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Bruce, what does “will bee” mean. Does this mean that Rossi will reincarnate as a bee next lifetime after we kill him for making all of this stuff up?

      • brucefast Says:

        “will be” means I am sure/certain it is forthcoming. “Would be” means I am not certain.

  95. Craig Binns Says:


    Bruce said it for me. It’s a picture, that’s all. I shows a blue box and something that looks hot connected to the box with wires. Is this supposed to be evidence?

  96. GreenWin Says:

    It could be orange glass with a light bulb stuck in one end. Right?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      It could be a lot of things, things made with glue from the local crafts store. But I just don’t see Rossi going to that much trouble. It certainly isn’t proof for someone unfamiliar with all of the goings on with LENR and Rossi, but it is proof from my perspective, and I am willing to risk looking like a fool for saying that. The intellectual complexity of Rossi being seen as a crook is just too anti-Occam for me, now. This, however, does not mean that Rossi practices the level of verbal honesty that I require and expect of myself and my friends and family.

  97. Craig Binns Says:


    “It certainly isn’t proof for someone unfamiliar with all of the goings on with LENR and Rossi, but it is proof from my perspective, and I am willing to risk looking like a fool for saying that.”

    OK. A picture is proof from your perspective, but not proof from someone else’s perspective. Your risk taking capacity is admirable.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, it is the gestalt, the context where in the picture becomes important. This is not scientific proof. I convinces me.

  98. Roger Bird Says:

    Just for fun, Craig, do you believe in anthropogenic global warming?

  99. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger Bird Says “Just for fun, Craig, do you believe in anthropogenic global warming?”

    Dear me, Roger, is AGW’s “gestalt” not strong enough for you?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Dear Craig, for a long time, I drank the AGW kool-aid, just like most people. Then I saw information like this video: Ya know how psychologists have these pictures and if you look at it one way it is two faces of young women facing each other, and if you look at it another way it is a candle stick holder. After absorbing information like in that video, I flipped from being an AGW kool-aid drinker to stridently anti-AGW. Make fun of gestalt, but perspective is everything, and information plays an important part in perspective. Please don’t convince me that you are philosophically retarded. If so, try to learn from someone else.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        I used to believe in AGW as well, and it seemed so many scientists and governments were saying it was happening that I didn’t look too closely at the data. It’s not as if there’s anything I can do about it, after all. Thanks mainly to reading Chiefio’s blog (linked to a while back from here), I had my eyes opened to both the problems with the data and problems with the way it is interpreted. There’s still nothing I can do about it, but I’m preparing for the world to become colder in the next decade not warmer, and now cheap energy has become a higher priority. I always wanted a non-polluting energy, but we’re going to need more of it in future otherwise our standard of living will go down further.

        So – go look at the data and how it is processed. Oops! they’ve kept their models secret and the data has undergone several changes since it was first published, and each time the dataset changes it’s got more “corrections” in it that make the trend closer to the AGW idea. Would you believe that for around 1850 or so they calculated the whole Southern Hemisphere average temperature to 1/100 degree from one weather-station in Australia? It’s all done by averaging things out….

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig Binns, Simon is sort of an authority figure around here. Will that help you to look at AGW with a different perspective?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – I think you’re overstating the case a bit…. I do look at the data, though, and decide from that. It’s why I can see why Craig has good reason to disbelieve Rossi, but also why I still think that LENR is possible. I’m not here as often at the moment since I’m working on things – not as much time as normal. Today I’ve taken a day off.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        In spite of my respect for him, no. In matters of fact, people in and of themselves have no authority. Data have authority. Simon doesn’t merely deny that global warming is anthropogenic in origin – he denies that warming is happening at all. That is not a plausible position.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, again perspective becomes important. Today, outside my house, it is getting warming. The past couple of years or so, the Earth has been getting cooler. The past 45 years, the Earth has been getting warming. The past 150 years, the Earth has been getting warming. Since the Holocene Maximum, the Earth has been getting cooler. Since the last Ice Age, the Earth has been getting warming. See how important perspective is? So, what time period was Simon talking about?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        I think we passed a peak in warming about 15 years ago, and this has been tacitly accepted by the climate scientists who, though originally stating that if the current plateau in temperature lasted 15 years then they’d re-think things, are now saying 20 years is the minimum you’d need to wait. The Met office quietly published a note on Christmas Eve about the climate, and that the warming had stopped.

        Things are a little more complex than higher CO2==>more warming – in fact NASA have recently published some data that shows that CO2 actually cools the outer limits of the atmosphere, and they have measurements. What appears to be happening is more of a series of cycles of various lengths, the most obvious being a 60-year cycle. There are some much longer one, too, but the problem with taking that data as absolute truth is that any temperature data (or anything else such as Carbon-14 prevalence) produced for the distant past has to be inferred from plant growth, tree rings, sedimentations and such-like. More of a hint than hard data. Possibly someone will come forward with some climate data based on a fossilised monkey-bone, but is it dependable? To a large extent we can work from archaeology and see how benign the climate must have been at various points in history – if a place was habitable then people would be there and leave some residue for analysis. Can we say precisely how warm or how wet? No – we don’t know what the plants or people were capable of at that time, so generally people seem to make the assumption that they were the same as they are now. That assumption is not highlighted, though.

        At this moment, as far as I’ve seen, we’re getting further and further away from the computer-model predictions from around 15-20 years ago that the AGW scare was based on. They have proved to be wrong so far, and I think they’re going to be proved even more so.

        Craig – don’t take my word for it, since it’s not me that did the work. Go read Chiefio at and look at his other posts. A good recent one is but some people have also tested against planetary orbits and found correlations with volcanic activity and earthquakes – not that surprising considering the forces involved. Could be there is after all something in Astrology, at least in predicting climate, though I doubt if any astrologers actually would do that.

        A while back I looked at what I remembered of the weather in my lifetime and thought “hey, it seems to have been generally warmer over the last 30 years or so” since I don’t really remember that much below around 13 or so and I’m nearly 59 now. Those 60-year cycles…. Now I’m seeing it swing to wetter in the last decade or so and in the last 5 years getting cooler as well. Not long enough for a climate-change, right. On the other hand, look back to the 1953 weather and compare it to now.

        Prediction is an imprecise science at best. Look at the data people base it on and see if it changes your mind on the AGW scare.

  100. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I finally found another person in my small town that is following cold fusion. He’s a professional geek, electrical engineer, and Indian-American.

  101. Craig Binns Says:

    Simon, you say: “Prediction is an imprecise science at best. Look at the data people base it on and see if it changes your mind on the AGW scare.” I am saying there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the warming is taking place. See . Now explain that away before introducing me to the climate change deniers, who are a minority, and appear to be in many cases animated by financial interest or the extreme right wing views also found from time to time in this blog.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Simon, quick, notice Craig’s use of the words “scientific consensus”. Craig believes in science being run via consensus, which, of course, guarantees no progress. It also shows that Craig is incapable of thinking for himself.

      Craig, one good reason that there is this “consensus”, meaning more votes for AGW than against AGW, is that all of the money is going towards those papers whose titles are things like, “The sex life of the tse-tse fly and how it relates to global warming” or “On the Possibility of Neutrino Spin and How it Relates to Global Climate Change.” AGW advocates get all of the money. It is not a scientific thing. It is a political thing. The body politic has become hysterical. We are all sharing our anxiety, even if it has nothing to do with climate, and singing kum ba ya, liberals with flowers in their hair dancing around the maypole singing “kum ba ya the world is coming to an end.”

    • Craig Binns Says:


      Stop being completely ridiculous. Your last post is utter nonsense, and simply a diatribe about liberals with flowers in their hair, and other right wing boogies. Have a nice day.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I thought that it was hilarious. I laughed many times while I typed it. And your opinion of what is ridiculous only affects me to the extend of my being able to heal you of your social blindness. (:->) If you think that it was ridiculous, I take it all back. But I did think the “flowers in their hair” bit was a nice touch.

        Craig, I don’t think that you are a kum ba ya liberal or any other kind of liberal. To the contrary, liberals are too socially influenced for my taste. You are social blind. I confess that I am a little Craig-blind. I don’t always understand you. But I am trying.

  102. Craig Binns Says:


    A source for this would be nice, and the wording of the statement, please. “The Met office quietly published a note on Christmas Eve about the climate, and that the warming had stopped.”

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – google “met office christmas eve” and you’ll get a list. At the top was this one but it’s not at all a mainstream paper…. I had a quick look at the Wiki you pointed at, and it doesn’t take the Met Office’s predictions and admissions into account. In other words it just follows the PC line.

      The reason I pointed you at Chiefio’s blog is that he’s not only into denying global warming from the point of view of a somewhat Aspberger’s systems programmer and Chief Information Officer (ChiefIO) but that you’d probably enjoy the myriad of other things he also talks about. Instead of just saying the data is badly-processed, he demonstrates exactly how it is badly-processed, what the systematic errors are and gives you the source-code to check and, if you want, run it yourself.

      So – follow the consensus (often the best thing to do if you don’t know/can’t be bothered) or go find out what the truth is? It really is affecting your own spending-power by a hell of a lot. Getting the truth about it will give you so much more to talk about in the pub. Somewhere around I’ve got a link to the speech Lord Monckton (spelling?) made to Parliament around a year ago, where he spelt out to them the problems on the AGW idea. You’d enjoy reading that, too. Just because Wiki says there’s an overwhelming consensus doesn’t mean it’s true.

  103. Craig Binns Says:


    “It really is affecting your own spending-power by a hell of a lot.” and that’s all big business needs to know! Who gives a shit about anything other than their own spending power?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      But Craig, don’t you care if your tax dollars and government policy are hurting you if it is all based upon bad science?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – I want a pollution-free world, and it’s why I’m working hard to achieve that. Cheap energy will also solve a lot of the other problems – the business model was built on having cheap energy, and now it isn’t any longer there’s a problem.

      A long time back I was visiting a motor-cycle graveyard to pick up some difficult-to-get parts (I had a Royal Enfield Bullet at the time). One bit of graffiti there has stayed with me since – “A cut in my little finger matters more to me than millions starving in Africa”. So yes, the spending-power is important. The AGW scare has put up your taxes and at the same time put the cost of living up and kept your wages the same or certainly less of a rise than inflation (you think the banks would have collapsed if the cost of oil hadn’t gone up?). There have been a whole lot of regulations as to CO2 emissions and charging for them, and it’s based on a mistaken idea and fierce defence of that idea. Meantime look at the air-miles Al Gore has accumulated telling people how to use less oil….

      Try reading the stuff I pointed at, and tell me what you think afterwards.

  104. Craig Binns Says:


    “One bit of graffiti there has stayed with me since – ‘A cut in my little finger matters more to me than millions starving in Africa'”. Do you approve of that bit of graffiti?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      It’s a pretty fair comment on the world. You must have seen this in your work. I suppose in its way it’s spurred me to try to be better. On the other hand, I’m aware that my actions can only generally affect the people I’m in contact with one way or another. I can’t personally fix those starving millions, but maybe the things I am doing will ameliorate things in the future. What’s your attitude on it?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      The issue is not whether we approve of such selfishness. I certainly don’t. The issue is whether is this how most people think? Unfortunately, most people think like this, and if you want to affect real change, it has to work with the reality that people think this way. It is most unfortunate that they think this way, but complaining about it and condemning it won’t do any good.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        I can speak from experience. Whacking one’s thumb with a hammer does tend to focus one’s mind.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger and Iggy – I have to agree with both of you. Over the years I’ve hit my thumb enough that it’s not so bad, but hit the little finger and it’s worse.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Yes, folks. Your attitude says it all! But listen there’s one thing I don’t understand. You don’t give a toss about other people, fine, but if there ecological disaster it will affect you (and your little fingers) too. So do please try to take the issue seriously, even if it takes your mind off your own unthinking greed or a moment.

        Simon, Lord Monkton is a semi-fascist nut case. He’s a bigwig in the ultra right English party UKIP. Here are Monkton’s views on my country and people. I can see why you like him by the way. “The Scots are subsidy junkies, whingeing like a trampled bagpipe as they wait for he next fix of English taxpayers’ money.” As if taxes in the UK were paid only by English people.

        Monkton is a fitting adornment to the world of greed-inspired
        climate change denial.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig your misrepresentation of what I am saying and how I feel about other people is reprehensible. Given that you say that you care about other people, you might want to try to stop lying about what I am saying and how I feel about other people.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Monkton is my kind of Lord.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – I thought you’d enjoy reading that.

        As I’ve read the data, a rise in global temperature was followed by a rise in CO2 level. Strange, that, when AGW says that the CO2 level should rise first. The things I’ve pointed at have that data, and you’ll just have to go read it.

        I’m not saying that temperatures and the climate are not changing, just that the cause is other than stated and that the activity of the Sun has a lot more to do with it. Logical, when you see that a 1% difference in the Sun’s activity would change the global temperatures by around 3°C.

        Cheap and non-polluting energy will be a good way to avoid various ecological disasters that are currently around. We need to stop deforestation where poor people want the wood to cook and keep warm, and stop the ripping up of forest to plant oil-producing plants at the expense of the natural habitat. The CO2 level seems to have little to do with what we are doing – the total CO2 in a column a foot square to the top of the atmosphere will only produce about a 2″ diameter by a foot long piece of wood in a year. Trees will take a lot out if allowed to.

        I’m working with engineers in several countries to fix this ecological problem by making almost-free energy a reality. That is I’m putting my money (what there is of it) where my mouth is. What are you doing apart from accepting the way things are and saying it can’t be done?

  105. Craig Binns Says:

    On a recent visit to New Zealand “Lord Monckton spoke at the Devon Hotel in New Plymouth to around 100 people last night and said climate change scientists had ‘fiddled’ the numbers to produce evidence of global warming and sea level rise. It is fraud.” That what you lot believe? The great scientific consensus not an error; it is a fiddle, fraud? There is no warming, no sea level rise? Monkton doesn’t believe that either. He was appealing to the stupidity and greed of his audience of farmers opposed to all ecological constraint on their activities. Monckton has no scientific qualifications in this field.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, you are like a yapping little dog with no teeth. You merely fight the fight of the AGW crowd without actually understanding both sides. You just want to defend the status quo and be among the big dogs.

  106. Craig Binns Says:

    This is from Lord Monckton’s CV for the UK Independence Party:

    “2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue.”

    This guy should get together with Rossi. The ecat could end all energy problems while Monckton’s magic potions could cure all known ailments. How wonderful the world would be then! I like the “patents have now been filed” bit. Very reminiscent of Rossi’s modus operandi.

  107. Craig Binns Says:


    Contrary to the impression you may have given in your message of 11:41, Monckton is not a member of Parliament, either the House of Lords, or House of Commons. From the wiki article on him:

    “The House of Lords authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House.[6][16] In July 2011 the House took the “unprecedented step” of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, “I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.”

    As to the UK House of Commons, he withdrew his UKIP candidacy. He has stood for the Scottish Parliament, but alas:

    “In 2011 he stood as lead party-list candidate for UKIP in the Scottish Parliament constituency of Mid Scotland and Fife but did not gain election, with the UKIP list coming seventh after scoring 1.1% of the region’s vote.”

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – The only thing I knew about Monckton was that one address about climate change, which seemed pretty spot-on. It seems he’s on the loony right from what you’ve pointed out. Oh well – shows how much I follow politics. I’m an engineer, after all. Maybe that should be “before all” instead. It’ll be good if his patent nostrum does what he says, though, and despite the attitude he could be right on that – just have to wait and see.

      Sea-level changes run on a 320-year cycle, if I remember the figures rightly. The Moon does not follow a circular orbit relative to the Earth, and this affects the ocean flows. You need to take a longer-term view than just what has happened over the last century or so.

  108. BobN Says:

    Here is a good article addressing climate change.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Thanks Bob – good article. Might even make Craig think about the problem.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Simon, we’re back firmly in the wacky world of the loony right. Bob’s source is “Senior Policy Advisor at the Heartland Institute”. See

        In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms. More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.” …
        In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[10][30] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish “policy studies” which summarized Philip Morris reports …
        On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the “Unabomber” whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?”[24] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

        Simon, the link with the tobacco industry is very significant. The tobacco industry was paying phoney science to spout its self-serving lies. in the end it and they were discredited. This think tank takes money from big business and does its bidding. It is a tainted source, lacking all intellectual integrity.

      • BobN Says:

        Craig – The loony left attacks everything that apposes their agenda, they never can argue the facts. The climate change data speaks for itself – There is none. The Hartland Institute is fighting to not waste money on none issues. For that reason I applause their efforts. The subject is Climate change, not smoking.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        The subject is think tanks being paid to churn out self serving corporate claptrap under the guise of science. After the tobacco thing with Philip Morris, in the face of decades of medical evidence, why should we believe them when they get up to similar shenanigans, in the face of a similarly overwhelming scientific consensus, on behalf of the fossil energy industry?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      With a name like “American Thinker”, I already know what the paper is going to say. tee hee

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Libs and Greenies don’t ‘think’, they ‘feel’.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Well, Iggy, I feel that that is right, and I think that it would be a good idea if more liberals thought for themselves and more conservatives felt more for others. (:->) But getting government, which is an agency of force, to act upon one’s feelings for others is wrong. If one has feelings for others, the one should do something about it and not use the loaded pistol of government to get it done.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Conservatives are far more generous (with their own $) than libs. Libs are generous with other people’s money.

        “‘The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher

        “Eight of the ten most charitable states in the USA are below the Mason-Dixon line.” – WiKi

      • Roger Bird Says:

        And if we didn’t have the unnecessary weight of an unnecessarily heavy government on our backs, we could all be even more charitable. I don’t see why the federal government is giving money to a private organization that helps Hawaiians feel their separate ethnic identities.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Very appropriate tht you should mention the late Margaret Thatcher. She knew all about “other people’s money”. And she never ran out of her share of it. She did big favours for other (rich) people and corporations, and they repaid her lavishly. See

        “One current cabinet member and supporter of the former prime minster believed she was increasingly reliant on wealthy friends, saying: “My impression in latter years was that she was looked after by rich supporters.”

        Before moving into the Ritz, where it was reported that Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, owners of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph were footing the bill, Thatcher had lived in one of London’s most exclusive neighbourhoods.”

        And like Heartland she was not too proud to take handouts from Philip Morris:

        “Thatcher was engaged in a series of lucrative ventures before her health began to deteriorate, from speaking engagements in the US and far east to her role as a global consultant for Philip Morris tobacco, reportedly worth hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.”

        As the Roman Emperor Vepasian once said about money: Non olet. It has no smell.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The painting of people one disagrees with as being EVIL is typical of liberals. So, if one person is EVIL, then anyone associated with them must also be EVIL, and so on. It is a childish thinking process. I like the fact that the Koch brothers are anti-communists, so therefore I must like the Koch brothers, and since the Koch brothers are EVIL, then I must be EVIL. uhh, and so I get rejected by the middle school playground group. I feel so bad, I’ve been rejected by the kum ba ya crowd. Oh, poor me. I better repent and worship at the altar of liberalism. [tears]

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – ex-prime ministers have never been poor. There’s always someone who’ll pay to listen to them. It will probably be a while before History sorts out whether she was good or bad, or whether it was just the world conditions. I don’t follow that much politics (not enough time in the day) even though it does affect my life. I figure I can’t change it unless I put a load of effort in, and it’s better to use that effort into things I can change.

        On tobacco, last time I was in the UK I couldn’t find any that was not adulterated – here in France I can buy pure tobacco, and if I couldn’t I’d have to give up smoking totally – whatever the additions are give me a sore throat very quickly. Packaging here has to tell you the percentage of tobacco and the percentage of “other stuff”, and the “other stuff” seems likely to me to be the main cause of the problem with health issues. Not that the pure stuff is devoid of health problems, of course, but that my experience implies that it’s less.

        This thread seems to have veered off-subject of LENR, and maybe politics and tobacco are better discussed elsewhere. AGW, though connected in that LENR or other non-polluting cheap energy will really expose that we can’t change it, is also not really part of the “replicators” string, either (there’s another string here for that). Some things are moving in LENR, but not yet enough to be worth a lot of discussion. So far, no accepted theory for it, either. Possibly why we’re nattering on other things.

  109. Roger Bird Says:

    I realized today that I actually have a better sense of the truth of SGCC (Solar Global Climate Change) than I do LENR. The graph lines for SGCC are dang near parallel. I feel that the evidence is rock solid.

    We still haven’t gotten Craig to look at the evidence for LENR, and given his passion for defending AGW, I am convinced that he will NEVER look at this video:

  110. Craig Binns Says:

    Sorry that went in twice by mistake. Please delete duplicate. Thanks.

  111. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, this is so wonderful: You start, your very first sentence, is an ad hominem argument. How can one beat that? I ask you.

    You’re into that sort of authority as credibility thingie, aren’t you. Well, for me, Simon is WAY more of an authority than you are, so your ad hominem attack back fires on you. It just shows that you have no arguments worth listening to.

  112. Craig Binns Says:


    I don’t know what you mean, because if there was ever anything ad hominem, it is your post about me. Have a nice day.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Ad hominem: “Simon, we’re back firmly in the wacky world of the loony right.”

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger Bird Says: Ad hominem: “Simon, we’re back firmly in the wacky world of the loony right.”

        Not ad hominem at all. You don’t know what the expression means. It was not an attack on Simon, and it was not my argument, it was an observation. Look at my post. It was stuffed with facts, and fully sourced quotations, not the semi random pseudo Freudian nonsense you hand out to me about my alleged personality defects, which is hilarious. Go back and read your own stuff!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Character is destiny. You are a flawed individual, so it is natural that you would be afraid of change, afraid of thinking differently from authority figures, afraid of thinking for yourself, etc.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I only have $2.79 until Monday, Craig, but I will bet that money at 10 to 1 ($2.79 to you if you win, and $.28 to me if I win) that you have not watched:

    • Craig Binns Says:


      And by information-free, pseudo-Freudian, ad hominem, but above all HILARIOUS, nonsense from you, I mean things like this: “uhh, and so I get rejected by the middle school playground group. I feel so bad, I’ve been rejected by the kum ba ya crowd. Oh, poor me. I better repent and worship at the altar of liberalism.” That is a mere list of right-wing bogie men, snarl words and other signs of obsessiveness.

      But if you ever get EVIDENCE of LENR, or anything else, then tell me what it is and I will be most grateful.

      You may keep your 29 cents. Gambling can induce dangerous obsessive behaviour as I’m sure you are aware.

  113. Craig Binns Says:


    Don’t be lazy. Set down your own arguments here, and then tell me why I should spend an hour watching a video of a guy I know nothing about. Who is he? What are his credentials? Why should I take him seriously? What evidence does he have?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – part of scientific method is to try to read what other people say even if you think you won’t agree with it. Check the evidence, and be prepared to change your opinions based on the available evidence and your estimation of the validity of that evidence. As for myself, I’m willing to change my basic ideas if the evidence is strong enough that I’m wrong. I’m never absolutely certain I’m right.

      At the moment I’m diverted a bit from LENR itself into some ideas that are closely-related, which should also give the tools to get LENR running reliably if I’m right. The proof will be obviously energy output, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens. I hope to get something viable this year. Could be the result, in a few years, will be some very small nuclear-based energy-sources that will be pretty useful. The physics runs across quite a few specialist subjects, so it’s not easy to explain simply. Evidence, when it arrives, should be pretty indisputable in that it will power itself and something else.

      On AGW, to me the evidence points to variations of the energy we receive from the Sun as being the main cause of variations in the global temperatures we experience. Variations of albedo, for example by soot mixed in with the snow, do make some measurable difference in snowy areas – maybe good to stop that for various reasons. Apart from that, there’s not much we can do to change things – the natural processes of the Earth have a built-in negative feedback that will tend to stabilise the global temperatures if we keep the biodiversity high. Reference James Lovelock’s “Daisy World” simulations (and don’t get fooled by “Gaia theory” into thinking he’s saying there is a real deity, as various supporters of his believe – it’s not what he says).

      Underlying this idea is the thought that no-one actually understands all the interactions in the biosphere and what changing one thing will do. It’s way too complex for a computer model using current hardware and software, and you can confirm this statement by looking at the weather forecast from the Met Office – tomorrow’s forecast will likely be pretty good, but the accuracy diminishes rapidly the more days into the future you go. I suppose you remember the “barbecue summer” type forecast that ended up rained off. Note that they were using the same models for that forecast as are used to predict AGW….

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Watch the movie: It is a huge improvement with regard to science, data, and presentation over the movie about this that I saw years ago.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Who made the movie? Who’s the guy on it? What is his interest in this question? Are you saying, as headlined in the title, that AGW is a “swindle”? Answer these points.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Paranoia is no excuse for not watching the movie. That is an ad hominem argument. In fact, the oil and coal industries have been trying to distance themselves from the anti-AGW crowd for a while. They have, what one calls, caved. They know where the money is, and it isn’t where unpopularity is.

        Watch the movie and for God’s sake, trust yourself and think for yourself. You are such an authority figure ass kisser the likes of which I have never met before.

  114. Craig Binns Says:


    What you are saying is relatively rational, whether I agree or not, and it’s a world away from the nonsense being spouted by Heartland’s hired propagandists:

    “On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the “Unabomber” whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?” The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question.”

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      In Defense of Carbon Dioxide
      The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature.


      Of all of the world’s chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

      The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.
      read more at:

  115. Craig Binns Says:


    Alas, Harrison Schmitt’s views are contaminated by ultra right paranoia, and he’s part of the Heartland network I have already alluded to. Here’s from the wiki article on him.

    “Likewise, in a 2009 interview with libertarian talk-radio host Alex Jones, Schmitt asserted a link between Soviet Communism and the American environmental movement: “I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement.” At the Heartland Institute’s 6th International Conference on Climate Change Schmitt said that climate change was a stalking horse for National Socialism.”

    So it’s all a commie-nazi plot! This is not rational argument. It is ridiculous to suggest that a scientific consensus has been created by political movements that ceased to possess political power decades ago.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Talk about paranoia. You are so incredibly gutless, Craig.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Yeah, Wikipedia is another authority source. This is just another example of your gutlessness. You are afraid that you will become contaminated with ideas that are different from the ones that you hold so dearly. You are really something, Craig. In the old days they would call you “yellow”.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        “Ad hominem” remember? We were trying to avoid that because it’s naughty. Weren’t we? Have we forgotten so soon? Dear me.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, you entire paranoia about right wingers is entirely ad hominem. It is one gigantic ad hominem argument. It is so intense and self-justifying that it enables you to not only say that they are wrong, you don’t even have to read or watch what they have to say.

    • Craig Binns Says:


      I’ve now googled up Schmitt’s fellow author William Happer, in this article titled “The Wall Street 16 – Hapless Happer Leads Clueless Geriatrics in WSJ Fiasco”. Guess what!

      “Among the leading lights of the clueless crew is William Happer, a Princton physicist, who as Chairman of the George Marshall institute, presides over one of America’s leading cheerleaders for Tobacco and oil addiction.”

      And this is from wiki about the George Marshall Institute.

      “Historian Naomi Oreskes states that the institute has, in order to resist and delay regulation, lobbied politically to create a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion.”

      Have we seen this before? Pseudo science on behalf of big business?

      “…the trappings of scholarship were used to put a scientific cover on positions arrived at otherwise. These positions served various interests, ideological or material. For example, part of my job consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank.”—Matthew B. Crawford

      “In 1998 Jeffrey Salmon, then executive director of GMI, helped develop the American Petroleum Institute’s strategy of stressing the uncertainty of climate science. William O’Keefe, the Institute’s current CEO, was previously Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute, and has also been on the Board of Directors of the U.S. Energy Association and Chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, a business-led anti-climate change action group active between 1989 and 2002.”

      Took me about a minute to find this stuff out Iggy. Now, I’m not going to believe corporate hirelings in preference to an overwhelming scientific consensus. That would be silly. They have already disgraced themselves through their relationship with the tobacco industry. They are simple harlots.

  116. Roger Bird Says:

    Our very own Simon got published here. Just click on it and you can see him. I haven’t read it yet.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Roger Bird Says: Our very own Simon got published here. Just click on it and you can see him. I haven’t read it yet.

      You accuse ME of not reading things! But Roger, to be honest, don’t bother reading it if you want to keep your marbles. This is like, weird stuff.

      “I thus came up with a perpetual motion machine as the other. I’ve had this open on the net for a long time now, so anyone who manages to make one can do so, but it won’t be patentable as such.”

      He’s right Roger. You can’t patent PM machines. Do you know why not? Cos nobody can make them work. That’s why he says “anyone who manages to make one can do so”. I bet a pound to a penny that nobody has managed to do that. Lots of inventors have come up with free energy machines – I mean plans for such machines – and how many of these imaginary contraptions are working at producing useful energy?Well, you can answer that for me, Roger. Maybe if Simon submitted a working model, or a car with a PM device under the bonnet? But he won’t. Believe me, he won’t! He’ll put plans on the net, yes. But a power source, no.

      Not only do the magic machines in these plans not work, they infringe the second law of thermodynamics. Is Simon worried about that? Why, no, of course. He’s not a yellow gutless wimp like me: he’s not afraid to break a silly old law!

      “If we build an array of these elements, then we have a system where the gas is cooled on the side of the piezos and heated on the side of the resistors, and this breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics since energy is moved from a cooler to a hotter body without using energy to do it.” … “The laws of thermodynamics break down when we look at things on the nanoscale where the particulate nature of matter becomes important. This can be used to do work without needing energy to do it” … “I’ll probably get complaints that you just can’t break the Laws of Thermodynamics.”

      He will, Roger! Not just “probably” either. That’s exactly what he’ll get, mark my words.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, you really are knee-jerk. It has been known all of the way back to the 1800’s that this sort of quantum engine is theoretically possible. Some major dude whose name escaped me seconds after I read it that if one had a box that was divided inside by a door and could allow only the fast molecules through that door, then one could heat up one side of the divided box and cool down the other side. Not a single physicist on the planet would dispute with Simon that this is theoretically possible. Whether it is feasible or not is questionable. But you knee-jerked off of certain words and ad hominem’ed Simon. You don’t think things through; you just react to one credibility word rather than another.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        And the Wright Bros. got complaints that heavier than air flight was impossible. And Simon admits that such an “engine” is probably not feasible. It was an exercise in theoretical quantum physics. I said once that I thought that you were a child, and I had to take it back. But you get all upset because Simon submits a thought experiment in theoretical quantum physics. That really is child like. You may not be a child; and you may not be intellectually a child; but you sure are emotionally a child. You are incredible. But the worse part is that you have no humility. I at least ask people for help when a color issue comes up.

        Breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not crime. And I doubt that Simon will lose any sleep worrying about whether you or anyone else complains about his theoretical breaking of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

  117. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, that was absolutely brilliant, and I learned something. I believe that if someone had the technology and the MONEY to develop such a “device” that fit perfectly your specifications that we would learn something important about the quantum world.

    So, just how big are the pixels on an LED TV? (:->) I think that they are monstrously too big. I guess that we will have to wait another 100 years before we can build such a device. Although, a molecule version of some material that . . . .

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – the attacks on this idea have come from the usual approach. “It can’t work because the professors say so”. I’ll check for more answers, but as of yesterday just one who accidentally backed my idea with an experiment he thought disproved me. There is a loophole in 2LoT at very small dimensions. You can demonstrate this on a snooker table, where a slow ball can give all its energy to a faster one – Newton’s laws take precedence.

      At MIT, they have been measuring over-unity light output from an LED at very low forward currents, where the “tail” of the Boltzmann distribution gives a few electrons enough energy to cross the barrier. The LED cools down, and you get that extra energy out in photons. People are struggling to reconcile the experimental results with 2LoT, and doing a fair number of mathematical gymnastics to account for it.

      One consequence of 2LoT on a large scale is that things always head towards more mixed-up. In information theory terms it’s said that there is “more information” when that happens – counter-intuitive since on a human level there is less information. Look up at the night sky – do you see stars (agglomerations of matter) or a sea of formless gas? Since by Big Bang theory those stars formed out of a formless sea of matter, there’s actually quite a large refutation of this theory every time you look up (or down, since presumably the Earth shouldn’t exist either).

      In making the gold-leaf idea, it’s just very hard with the kit I’ve got to achieve the accuracy, and also to see and monitor the result with the microscope I have. Not impossible, but too difficult for now. For the second version, with better power output, I can’t make that at all, and need a fab to make it. I don’t think that could be proved wrong mathematically or physically, so if you can make it it will work. I’m looking forward to someone actually trying to prove me wrong there, without saying “that can’t work because 2LoT says so”. That argument is not acceptable as refutation. As I said in the article, either Newton’s laws are broken or 2LoT is broken. Both can not be right at these dimensions, and I’m betting on Newton holding.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        But Craig said that it is wacky and that you are a poop-poop head. (:->)

  118. Craig Binns Says:


    This is all quite ridiculous, but even if you have to make a choice between Einstein and Newton, why on earth do you choose Newton? Einstein’s theory fully explains Newton’s formulae, which are simply a special case of Relativity; while Newton’s theory can’t account for the more precise aspects of Relativity. Need I remind you that the anomalous precession of Mercury’s perihelion was immediately resolved by the application of Einstein’s formulas to planetary motion, while it had been a complete mystery to astronomers using Newton’s formulas since the discovery of the anomaly in 1859? On what grounds then, can you bet on Newton in the event of such a disagreement. It is absurd.


    Are you REALLY telling me that one side of a box can be heated without any energy input, by inserting a filter that selectively passes fast molecules and excluding slow ones? Does it do this without having any effect on the speed of the fast molecules? And without using up any energy in the selection process? If so, wow! Pure magic.

    You’ve just reinvented Maxwell’s Demon who sits at the barrier between the two halves of the box separating the slow and fast particles, in a famous thought experiment. (Maxwell is the “major dude” you referred to in your post, by the way.) Any problem here? As wiki states:

    “The demon opens the door to allow only the faster than average molecules to flow through to a favored side of the chamber, and only the slower than average molecules to the other side, causing the favored side to gradually heat up while the other side cools down, thus decreasing entropy.”

    Hooray, we’ve invented a magic energy machine! But wait, the Second Law enforcement cops are hot on our trail.

    ” … any demon must ‘generate’ more entropy segregating the molecules than it could ever eliminate by the method described. That is, it would take more thermodynamic work to gauge the speed of the molecules and allow them to selectively pass through the opening between A and B than the amount of exergy gained by the difference of temperature caused by this.”

    And that applies to Simon’s filter or any possible device, just as I have indicated. Put it another way: the Demon needs to eat. OK? Now you have stated that no scientist disputes that energy can be obtained by the major dude’s demon’s activities. I say that’s tosh because the demon (or filtering process of any kind) uses up more energy than could be obtained by its selectioning activities. Over to you.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, your ignorance is showing. The laws of motion were discovered by Newton, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics was first expressed by the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824. Einstein didn’t have anything to do with it.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – you really haven’t read what I’ve written carefully enough. The Daemon is a thought-experiment only, whereas I’m not postulating a daemon who opens and shuts the doors. I’m saying that a flexible bit of metal will do the selection without any thought and with no processing or information retained, purely based on the vector. No Daemon there at all – it’s just dumb mechanics. No need to feed a Daemon who isn’t there.

      Yes, one side of the box will attain higher pressure – I didn’t say it heats up. Read the description of the process again. You’re saying it won’t work – well, then that first thing I mentioned (the crystal radio) also can’t have worked, and it’s impossible to do a lot of other things.

      Now try to attack the second idea, using logical analysis. Produce me a proper refutation of that, without quoting 2LoT, and I’ll accept it. Just quote mythical Daemons and “it’s impossible” and you’ll just have to put the hat on and sit in the naughty corner for a while.

      Newton’s laws are simply the limiting case as v/c approaches zero. At somewhere around 500m/s there’s no need to invoke relativity in the calculation, especially as this is ballpark and not to 10 places of decimal. I didn’t use a relativistic analysis since it’s not necessary. I’m saying that Sadi Carnot’s ideas have limits, and that down at the molecular dimensions we hit them and it no longer is valid.

      So yes, both of these ideas will in fact work. The first one is just a bit beyond the limits I can actually make here.

      You’re arguing purely from Wiki, rather than thinking about what I’ve said.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon Derricutt Says: Craig – you really haven’t read what I’ve written carefully enough …

        Simon – you really haven’t read what I’ve written carefully enough. I only invoke the demon because the issue was presented in this way by Roger’s “major dude” Maxwell. In fact I state ” … a filter that selectively passes fast molecules and excluding slow ones? Does it do this without having any effect on the speed of the fast molecules? And without using up any energy in the selection process?” The wiki article puts the issue this way: ” … it would take more thermodynamic work to gauge the speed of the molecules and allow them to selectively pass through the opening between A and B than the amount of exergy gained by the difference of temperature caused by this.” The intelligence or consciousness of the “demon” is not the issue. I refer in my post to “Simon’s filter, or any possible device.” And of course what applies to temperature applies also, and in exactly the same way, to pressure. Or do you intend to argue otherwise?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The idea that the hole might slow the “fast” molecules down makes perfect sense. However, it is an idea that should not be an excuse for not trying. The fact that such a project might be too expensive would be a better excuse for not trying. But if one had a lot of money, even if the contraption could never be commercialized, it would be very revealing to see if it would work.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Again, Craig, read what I wrote. There is no Daemon. There is no energy or entropy change to be totted up. Test out the idea yourself with a tennis-ball and a flap of cardboard – watch the carboard deflect when it is hit by the ball, and note that the bounce of the ball is not specular to the original position of the cardboard flap.

        A cardboard flap is pretty unintelligent and can’t store much data, yet it will allow the ball more easily through from one side than another – this is something you can test using various stuff around the house. Maybe if you run the experiment yourself rather than relying on Wiki you might get a bit further in your thinking on this. Build a model of the gold-leaf design I put up, and chuck balls at it. You’ll probably need to adjust the mass of the ball against the flexibility of the cardboard and the gap to get a really dramatic result of total stop one way and total pass the other, but all we want to do if change the probabilities to be unequal.

        You still haven’t addressed the second invention I put forward. Why won’t this work? Use physics to do the refutation, without recourse to quoting the impossibility because of 2LoT or any magical Daemon. I don’t believe in Daemons, and really you should stop talking about them when we’re trying to discuss science and what happens in the real world. This is simple mechanics.

        Given your reluctance to read what I’ve pointed at before, I’ll point you to other scientific discussion on the subject once you’ve proved me wrong. Let’s get one thing resolved before spreading the net.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Don’t expect any exploratory thinking coming from Craig. Discovery of new things is not one of his strong points. He seems quite capable of going over other tracks that others have already laid out, but new thinking isn’t his strong point.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Before I do comment on your second invention, have you got it to work, I mean in practice, on a macroscopic scale? If you can think of no reason why it shouldn’t work, why don’t you tell us how you have made it work, on what scale, and what output you get?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        And, of course, the follow-up to Craig’s question of whether Simon has got it to work would be, “See, it doesn’t work and therefore it can never work so don’t even try.”

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Really, Craig, you can’t have read what I said there either. It needs a fab or MEMs lab and a few million financing. I haven’t got the money, so no I haven’t done it. It’s not a macroscopic scale, you see, it’s nanoengineering. Have you ever tried to achieve sub-micron accuracy? I can’t even measure that here.

        So comment away in the knowledge that I haven’t made one. Find a good reason why it won’t work.

        Meanwhile, have you tested the ball and cardboard flaps yet? I’ll look forward to your report on that experiment.

        I do put effort into writing what I mean. You should be putting the effort into reading what I say, not what you think I’ve said, before saying I’m wrong.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, if you are still being patient with Craig, you are a better man than I am. I have lost it several times with him. He is the Grinch of Looking Outside the Box.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Ichabod Craig, the Headless Naysayer.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig is actually quite intelligent. And he uses that intelligence to shoot down anything that smacks of change or looking outside the box.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Have you tested the ball and cardboard flap idea yet? What energy did you obtain from the device that can’t be accounted for as part of the kinetic energy you imparted to the ball when throwing it? In what relevant way do balls resemble molecules? I can’t believe you are using this ball experiment to persuade me that making flaps in holes in gold foil will produce pressure differences that can be “scaled up”.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I think that Craig may actually be Guinness World Record Holder for The Grinch of Innovation.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – Once more you didn’t understand what I said. It’s the probability of the ball passing the flaps from one side or another that is the issue. We’re not talking about the energy of the ball, or whether some energy magically appears in this experiment – it doesn’t (and I didn’t mention energy gain in this context, either – you introduced that from nowhere). It’s purely a demonstration of the change in the probabilities from equal to unbalanced in passing from one side to the other.

        How does a ball represent a molecule? Come on now – you can’t be trying.

        You obviously have not tested this in reality, and haven’t thought about it much, either.

        So tell me – if you throw the ball at the flaps, is it easier to get it through from one side or from the other?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, Craig is trying. He is trying mightily to not try. Otherwise, change might happen, hope might happen, innovation might happen, improvement might happen.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        No I have not tested it in reality. I am not the person who proposes that anything of which this ball throwing is a model could possible produce useful energy, in defiance of the Second Law. YOU are that person and it is incumbent upon you to perform any necessary experiment and publish the results you obtain, along with your interpretation of them.

        As to the ball going through in one direction more easily than another, there are a large number of valves and other devices designed to have that property, and I have never heard of any of them defying the Second Law.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        It is interesting to watch Craig use such big words in defense of his NOT looking outside the box. Remember that Edison had very little formal education.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        May I add that a lot of things get very strange at the quantum level. It is true that Einstein was very uncomfortable with quantum physics because it was random.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – did I say that a few nanowatts was a useful amount of energy?

        Be assured that I will build these things when it becomes possible to do so. Until that time, they will likely remain untested. The ball/cardboard experiment, though, should at least give you something to think about, and I notice that you still haven’t addressed the second proposal for extracting work from air. That’s a bit more difficult to even begin to refute, since there is definitely no Daemon in it. The analogous human-scale experiment here would be throwing balls at an array of small loudspeakers with the speaker output rectified and fed to a load. I expect you can’t see how that works, either, even though such a system is being used to extract energy from a dance-floor (again, human-scale and not nanoscale).

        Over at Revolution-green, I’m getting a far more detailed attempt at rebuttal, from someone who actually thinks about it and knows his physics. Exploring the limits of the known laws can be useful, and even if I never manage to get these things into reality and prove them that way, it might give someone else an idea that will be easier to realise.

        Roger – you’re definitely right there.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig is highly entertaining and good practice for when one encounters other patho-skeptics. [“patho-skeptic” is one who refuses to look at the evidence.]

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Yes, strange at quantum level. Various devices have been unsuccessfully proposed for making Radom motion of particles do useful work. They fall foul of the Second Law needless to say. Here’s one: the Brownian Ratchet. I’m pretty sure an analogous obstacle would thwart your plans Simon. I’ll think about what it may be.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Ichabod Craig, the Headless Naysayer.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Iggy and Roger

        Thank you for your constructive and helpful remarks. As always, a joy to read.


        You accept that the holes might slow down the fast particles, and that seemed to me to be the problem. I don’t see how it can be otherwise. A particle travelling from left to right, the “most probable” route may hit the sides before being “funnelled” through the “flap”. This will slow it down. Or it is fortunate enough to go straight through. But a particle coming the other way has a similar chance of doing that. So either velocity is lost, or there is no net probability of a particle going through in one favoured direction. This is what I thought the difficulty would be. I presented the problem to the curmudgeonly pathosceptic grinches at the James Randi Forum, and you may read the discussion at Posts #12 and #14 seems to be expressing more precisely than I could, the sort of idea I had vaguely thought of.

        You have come nowhere near convincing me that you know how to circumvent the Second Law.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I might be able to answer that. The holes per se cannot slow down the molecules. However, when bouncing off of the sides of the holes the molecules that make up the holes would absorb some momentum and heat up, slowing down the molecule in question. The next molecule to come along would hit that heated up molecule and gain heat (velocity). At this level there is no friction, only perfectly elastic molecules. So, on average, one side of the semi-permeable barrier would heat up and the other side would cool down. In theory.

        This heating up of the material making up the hole is the friction, but at this atomic level, it would be just more motion, bouncing the next molecule along faster.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The velocity “lost” by the molecule hitting the flange would be picked up by the next molecule because molecules in the flange would be slightly hotter. There is no friction at this level. What we call friction is material absorbing heat. But in this case, the flange would bounce the molecule along even fast. So there would be a net gain of zero for molecules hitting the flange.

  119. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger, you haven’t read my post. It’s in 2 parts.

    1 Addressed to Simon, asking why he chooses Newton instead of Einstein where they disagree. And I think it’s ridiculous, as you do, to refer to disagreements between these figures in this context. And I say so.

    2 Addressed to Roger, where I discuss his second law delusions. I refer to Roger’s major dude in this part, Maxwell. I don’t mention Einstein at all. OK?

  120. Craig Binns Says:


    I didn’t say that. I posed pertinent questions to Simon. Calling people poop heads is your ad hominem stuff bustin’ out again! I called Simon’s statements about Einstein and Newton ridiculous, which I stand by, and I didn’t say any poop head, I referred to the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. However, if someone wants to refer to the points I actually made, not putting imaginary words in my mouth, that’s fine with me.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      As noted, Craig, I didn’t mention Einstein in the article, and only mentioned him since to refute your misreading. Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. If you do some research you should find that there is starting to be a feeling of unease amongst scientists about 2LoT – after all pretty well every other physical law has been modified in the last century and a half, so what’s special about 2LoT that it has no limits? There will be devices coming out during the next decade or so (some have been made) that similarly explore the limits. It’s not free energy – it’s free work. There’s actually a lot of difference in the two.

  121. Craig Binns Says:

    I grant you the point re when Einstein was introduced to this discussion, and I apologise. But Newton is known to be incomplete, following the formulation of Einstein’s more inclusive theory, so I don’t think it changes the point I was making. We now know Newton doesn’t give a full account of all phenomena. Which scientists, by the way, are willing to abandon the Second Law, and contemplate machines with no energy input, but a useful work output? That is, perpetual motion.

  122. Roger Bird Says:

    It seems to me that Simon’s semi-permeable gold leaf would work. The molecules as a group would not lose heat because any heat lost to warming up the foil would be regained by the next molecule that would be speeded-up by bouncing off of slightly warmer foil.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Great Roger – you’ve seen that little point. At molecular levels, things are ideally elastic (except when they aren’t of course) so bounces come off with the same energy. It needs a mixture of looking at the individual energy-transactions as well as looking at the whole thing.

      I was laughing out loud (on my own) reading your comments. Thanks.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I would hazard a guess and say that Craig is at least as intelligent as you or me, but it is completely devoted to naysaying. Perhaps he should be director of quality control for Rolex.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      “Headless” was a play on “Ichabod Crane and the Headless Horseman”.

  123. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Craig – The gold-leaf version is just difficult to make, and the amount of gold-leaf needed does not cost much. It’s the second version that costs a load of money to set up and needs a fab. I did not “put you off” by stating that the gold-leaf version was unaffordable, just that I can’t actually do it (reference post #7).

    In the gold-leaf version, the dimensions and flexibility of the gold-leaf are critical to the operation. This overcomes the problems of the “brownian ratchet” that you referred to. In post #14, it’s stated that the trajectories are equal from one side and from the other side. Not so because the gold-leaf is flexible.

    With the gold-leaf version, I’m not bothered if the inequality is 51% versus 49% or 50.01% versus 49.99%. If it’s at all unequal it proves the point.

    Still nobody has come up with a reason the second device won’t work.

  124. Craig Binns Says:


    “Not so because the gold-leaf is flexible.” And therefore absorbs energy, and is not “perfectly elastic”. You’re just pulling things out of thin air now, to save your machine. This is very different from the LENR people. They don’t produce explanations that depend on the violation of basic natural laws. They do not invoke perpetual motion. You do. Pure magic.


    You’re into theories of heat and motion now. Soon you’ll be a major dude, refuting the Second Law and all. And no insults. C’mon, call me a pathosceptic yellow coward again. It’s fun!

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Well, whenever I wander by the Box, I see your yellow face pop up and you point your intellectual gun at me and take a potshot.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Everyone is an infinitely major dude, probably not intellectually, but with regard to their potential and their intrinsic worth.

    • Craig Binns Says:


      I’ve looked at the discussion at Revolution Green, and very amusing some of it is too. Thanks for introducing me to it. Here’s an extract.

      “Wendell: The fraudulent second “law” of thermodynamics conveys that ambient temperature energy can not be translated into work output that is greater than the work input used to create the output. Lets start by disallowing the validity of this law as a general law of physics.”

      Dear me, another “fraud”, just like AGW.

      “Simon: I’m thus changing the energy of the molecules by a small delta which I have effectively ignored for two reasons. Firstly it’ll be a lot of calculation, and secondly it’s going to be pretty small so I ignored it in the interests of getting the idea across.”

      My response is, that you’re obtaining a VERY small delta of increased energy by selecting your molecules. You’ve told me: “With the gold-leaf version, I’m not bothered if the inequality is 51% versus 49% or 50.01% versus 49.99%. If it’s at all unequal it proves the point.” So you stress the energy gain, no matter how small, and you dismiss the energy loss because you can’t be bothered calculating it and “it’s going to be pretty small anyway”. Now by doing that you can refute any law of nature, but your refutation is valueless. You’ve cherry-picked the effects you like and ignored the contrary effects. The “frauds” who believe in the “disallowed” Second Law say these cancel each other out, so no net energy can be gained from ambient temperature, without a greater energy input. The cost of the demon–or any device even if non-sentient and unpowered–sees to that.

      Simon, you also state this.

      “Since by Big Bang theory those stars formed out of a formless sea of matter, there’s actually quite a large refutation of this theory every time you look up (or down, since presumably the Earth shouldn’t exist either).”

      Do you really mean this? The existence of bodies in the universe, which originated as formless gas, is a refutation of the Second Law?


      You’re being naughty. You tell me “Everyone is an infinitely major dude, probably not intellectually, but with regard to their potential and their intrinsic worth.” But your original reference to the dude was much more dismissive: “Some major dude whose name escaped me seconds after I read it … ” And sometimes you say horrid beastly things about my intrinsic worth, too.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        It was not dismissive in my mind, and I am the one that said it. I did not intend for it to be dismissive. I tend to not remember sources or dates unless I apply myself to do so.

        I also find that calling the 2ndLofT fraudulent to be a clear misuse of our language, and I can’t see how that wasn’t intended. I would not have continued reading such a writer. If the 2ndLoT can be bye-passed at the quantum level, that does not make its original purpose to deceive and extract money from others. To imply that it is fraudulent is a big, fat lie. It works brilliantly at the everyday world.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        I think your post is absolutely right. Anyway James Clerk Maxwell your major dude is reckoned by many to be the third most important scientist in history after Newton and Einstein (who kept a photo of him in his study).

        The Second Law is not a fraud. AGW is not a commie plot and it is not a fraud. It’s funny that people who see reds under the bed and frauds everywhere sometimes can’t see very obvious free energy scams and right under their noses!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        My only objection to AGW is strictly and entirely scientific and with an eye to the history of science and how money now influences everything. I do not own oil or coal stocks. I don’t think that there is a commie under my bed. I have been an environmentalist since the 1970’s. You need to trust me enough to watch the movie:

        It is going to be the case that those who think for themselves enough are naturally also going to be individualists and people willing to go against the crowd. So it is likely that anti-AGW people are going to be conservatives. It is merely a selection process. But such will not always be the case. Eventually everyone will be laughing their asses off at the AGW nonsense. I am still an environmentalist.

  125. Craig Binns Says:


    The existence of bodies in the universe is an effect of gravity. For a is discussion of this in terms of the Second Law, see or indeed about any tetbook on gravity. Simon, all this is well understood. It is absurd of you not to know this, or if you do, not to tell your audience here of dudes who perhaps don’t, and are in danger of being misled.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      There are a lot of interpretations of 2LoT. One is that things tend towards getting totally mixed up (“more information”), and from the observation that gravity tends to clump matter you should be able to see that for gravity this just isn’t true, no matter how you play with the maths. Look at reality instead. On your link, so far there’s some nice maths, and good as far as it goes, but a hot body will radiate so cools down again. Ultimately, gravitation can produce a black hole where the information goes down to only the mass and the spin. That’s a pretty severe breakage of 2LoT (more information, remember). Strangely, having been made by gravitational attraction, the black hole then “evaporates” slowly giving out energy in the process (Hawking radiation). Very strange things.

      Two challenges:
      Firstly, try to produce a refutation of the second device that uses a very small microphone to gather energy from air. Such a refutation cannot consist of the idea that it can’t work because of 2LoT, but must instead use some other more intelligent ideas.
      Secondly, tell me at what level 2LoT breaks down and is not valid. Is it valid for a universe that consists of two, three, four… bodies? Is it valid when you get to dimensions comparable to the size of the bodies you’re working with? Where are its limits? What happens when you go beyond these limits?

      2LoT is a statistical law, and depends on large numbers to be valid. It is thus valid for pretty well all the things we’ll deal with in normal life, but go beyond its limits of validity and we can do some useful things.

      So far no-one apart from me has mentioned the second device. It’s somewhat harder to prove it won’t work. Hopefully I’ve made a few people think about ways to prove me wrong. See if you can be the first to successfully prove that the second device won’t work.

  126. Craig Binns Says:


    No more obfuscation. Are you stating that the existence of bodies in the universe refutes the Second Law, or not? It is not for me to prove that our devices won’t work. It’s for you to show that they do work.

    The second law applies to all closed systems. What scientific opinion rejects it?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Notice Craig’s hard, confrontational approach. I guess that they think that being hard and rude will somehow reveal the truth and make life easier for everyone.

    • Craig Binns Says:


      I’m asking plain simple questions that deserve an answer. Whether the answer will make life easier is not the issue; but in fact I think that in the long run truth is better than illusion.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        My statement did not address whether the answer will make life easier. My statement addressed whether the hardness and anger of how you presented your question would make life easier or not. When you stridently demanded a “yes / no” answer rather than the answer that the answerer wants to give, you hurt the answerer, yourself, and you learn nothing.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – what obfuscation? I’ve asked you to think about the limits of 2LoT. Looks like you haven’t answered any direct question. You just ignore that and come back with another question you want me to answer.

      2LoT is stated in several ways. In one snappy version, the laws are thus: 1st law – You Can’t Win, 2nd Law – You can’t even break even. More fun that way. The other version of 2LoT stated above was based in information theory – one of the ways that Maxwell’s Daemon was proved to be impossible. By that statement of it, though, the agglomeration of matter by gravity really doesn’t fit, especially when you take into account the strange properties of Black Holes (information disappears in those, does not increase).

      Back around 40 years ago I had to learn both Relativity and Quantum physics. One interesting thing about those two theories is that if one is right, the other can’t be. We have to learn the limits of each theory and use the right one in the circumstances to get a reasonable answer that matches what the world actually does.

      So I’ll ask you again (for the last time before I give up on getting an answer) where are the limits of validity of the 2LoT? Where do you think they are? I’ve given you examples of several reasonable limits. Try to find a reasonable answer. Having found an answer, look again at the second microphone-type device and try to work out why it can’t work.

      One hint is that no text-book I’ve seen has discussed the limits of 2LoT. It’s a blind spot that needs thinking about.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig never answers any questions. He is always in debate war mode. He thinks that that is how we uncover truth. It is in fact an excellent way to cover truth.

  127. Craig Binns Says:


    As already asked: Are you stating that the existence of bodies in the universe refutes the Second Law, or not?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – the existence of bodies in the universe does not necessarily refute the 2LoT, since there are ways to make it work for those. This requires a few reasonable assumptions that are probably valid enough and are unlikely to be wildly inaccurate. Close enough for Jazz, therefore, to say that the existence of clumps of matter does not refute the 2LoT. It was a bad example. The existence of Black Holes in the universe, however, certainly seems to me to refute it.

      Now answer my questions in return.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “Now answer my questions in return.” Simon, don’t hold your breath.

  128. Craig Binns Says:


    I am certainly aware that relativity and quantum theory are in disagreement; or rather that there are two disparate theories current presently which say different things about different kinds of objects; and they can’t either be refuted, shown to be compatible, or included in a single all-encompassing theory. Yes. They are inadequate, and we do not have a final theory–if indeed such a thing is possible. Also, Black Holes are indeed mysterious objects. Before Hawking’s work it was not even known how to measure their entropy.

    But it hardly seems to me that this is relevant. The question of whether useful energy can be extracted from ambient temperature, more or less as a perpetual motion machine, seems settled, and I have argued that the loss of energy in your system will, for all you know, outweigh the energy gained by your gold leaf filter.

    Your microphone proposal seems absurd, but I can’t comment on it because a mike is a more complex system than a hole in a sheet of foil, and you won’t let me dismiss it on the grounds of its violation of well established physical laws, which by the way I would otherwise feel entitled to do.

    It is not for me personally to say what the limits of the second law are, if any, but I am pretty certain that your footballs and cardboard flaps fall well within the domain of its operation; and if your football procedure is a valid model of your gold leaf thing (which however I think it is not), then the latter must be as obedient to that law as Maxwell’s Demon is obliged to be. I can therefore see no reason to dissent from the following assessment of the scope of that law.

    “The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”–Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – that looks to me that you are stating the 2LoT has no limits. Is this true or am I misreading you? Either that or you’re ducking the question by saying it’s not your place to question it.

      It’s everyone’s task to question the rules by which nature works – that’s what physicists do. That’s the purpose of the LHC, at heart. We need to know the limits of the physical laws we use to calculate things. The limits of 2LoT is indeed an important question, and should not be ducked.

      Sir Arthur Eddington’s comment was valid for the engineering that was possible at the time. Things change. IBM recently put out a “movie” where the dots on it were individual atoms being moved around.

      If you go a bit further in the maths you pointed to earlier on gravitation, you’ll find that he nicely proves that 2LoT is absolutely valid by reference to the Virial. Go a bit further in this, and you also find that the energy calculations of dust-clouds using the Virial give you a wrong answer relative to observations. Thus the idea of “Dark Energy” was born, and effectively it’s there because the sums don’t work without it. I’m not an astrophysicist, so that level of maths is hard to follow. There is, however, a bit of doubt there as to whether Dark Energy really exists or that the theory is wrong.

      As I said at the end of the article that started this, the microphone idea is either going to break Newton’s laws (and I’ll update that here to “or relativistic equivalent” just for you) or it will break 2LoT. Looks like you think the 2LoT takes precedence. I think you’re wrong. Best leave it at that.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “Either that or you’re ducking the question by saying it’s not your place to question it.” Knowing Craig, not only is it not his place to question the 2ndLawTD, it is NO ONE’s place to question the 2ndLawTD, and he is prepared to tell anyone that who questions it. (:->)

  129. Craig Binns Says:

    Well, Roger. You go ahead and question the Second Law, and why don’t you make some magic machines that defy it and produce perpetual motion? Then you will not only win the Nobel Prize, but you’ll be the richest person who ever lived.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I already have a perpetual motion machine. It is your tendency to see the world in black and white. Just because I say that it would be interesting to see if the 2ndLoTD could be broken, you take that as my being gung-ho on perpetual motion machines.

  130. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger and Simon

    See posts #17 onwards.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Yep – last comment (reworded) is that they can see it won’t work without doing the calculations. The good thing about that commenter is that at least he actually read what I wrote. The argument, though, is statistical in nature.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        See wiki on ZPE:

        “Current claims to zero-point-energy-based power generation systems are in contradiction with known physics laws and have the status of pseudoscience.” … “Even though the zero-point energy is theoretically infinite, there is as yet no evidence to suggest that infinite amounts of zero-point energy are available for use, that zero-point energy can be withdrawn for free, or that zero-point energy can be used in violation of conservation of energy.”

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Any time that one is advancing into new territory or the unconventional, any encyclopedia is the last place to look for guidance. That should be an obvious truism. If you want to know the population of South Korea, Wikipedia is a good place to look. In 1905, if you wanted to know if heavier-than-air flight was possible, looking in an encyclopedia would be a big mistake.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        The Laof Conservation of Energy is not “new territory” or “unconventional”. So here’s Wikipedia.

        “In a paper Über die Natur der Wärme, published in the Zeitschrift für Physik in 1837, Karl Friedrich Mohr gave one of the earliest general statements of the doctrine of the conservation of energy … “

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, try not to be complete dense. Everyone from the 8th grade up knows that the 2ndLofTD is not new. It is the possibility of break this law that is new and unconventional. So think about what I said in light of what I actually said and re-write your response.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Try not to be complete dense. Everyone from the 8th grade up knows that the Law of Conservation of Energy is the 1stLofTD.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Oh, dang!!! I missed a fact and therefore I must not have any wisdom or insight.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Not at all. It’s a judgement from on high upon you calling others “complete dense”, for it is written in Matthew Ch 7:

        “3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Dang!!! Craig, you zinged me again. I feel so dense.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I did bring away from those posts that Simon’s “holes” are as smooth and straight, yet the traveling molecules are big and round. Of course the “holes” are going to be made of molecules that are bigger and just as round. That doesn’t proof that it won’t work. But it should change one’s thinking.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – On average, the reflection would be much the same as from a mirror in the plane of the molecules making up the surface, though I’d expect a tendency to reflect more towards reversing the velocity than exactly specular. It does make a difference, but not much.

        One problem about arguing the validity or not of physical laws is that it’s by definition impossible – until it is possible and has been proved and someone has to go change the laws. When I learnt physics, I was taught that nuclear processes (alpha and beta decay) cannot be modified by the conditions we can easily apply (needs gamma-rays or high-speed particles). As it turns out we can modify those rates pretty dramatically without using nuclear processes but by simple electrical stimulation. It’s rarely wise to say something is impossible, so most scientists hedge their bets by saying “extremely unlikely”. Unfortunately it’s extremely unlikely that I’ll win the lottery.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Just for interest, ColdFusionNow has published a nice piece on Norman Bushnell’s ideas on space exploration, which also covers NASA’s take on LENR. Bushnell goes into a few of the problems I’ve talked about, but of course being a Chief Scientist he does it with a lot more credibility than I can muster. Worth a read at and Ruby’s article about it is worth reading, too.

      • Craig Binns Says:


        Not only LENR. Does NASA have a “take” on zero point energy too? Here’s Bushnell. “There are also several even more exotic energetic possibilities including isomers, LENR’s [low energy nuclear reactions] and even ZPE [zero point energy].” Or is the “take” Bushnell’s own, as I suspect?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – I’ve been public on stating that I don’t expect any ZPE project to work. Since they have some bright people working on it though, it would be unwise to say it will never be possible. Those Laws Of Physics you are fond of quoting are, in fact, simply a sum-total of What We Have Seen So Far. If we can show things to work, then those Laws need to be rewritten. I thus am quite happy that people are working on it, even though I won’t be doing any work myself.

        I can’t at the moment remember who said it, but there’s a nice quote: “The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it’s stranger than we CAN imagine”. It looks likely that there will be quite a number of things possible soon that we used to think were either highly improbable or impossible, and unless people are allowed to research what interests them (and that they can scrabble enough money to do) we may not achieve some of those dreams. I think that you are maybe far too dependent on Wiki as the source of all knowledge. It tells you what has been, and not what will be. Roger is dead right.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “Roger is dead right.” Please, Simon, at my age could you please use another word. (:->)

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger is aboslutely correct!

  131. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Another Jolly Roger

  132. BobN Says:

    This will give you what you can and can’t do!

  133. cendrier marocain Says:

    Thanks on your marvelous posting! I genuinely enjoyed reading it, you can be a great author.

    I will make certain to bookmark your blog and may come back later on.

    I want to encourage you to definitely continue your great posts, have a nice evening!

  134. phytotherapie rennes Says:

    Have you ever considered publishing an e-book or guest authoring
    on other sites? I have a blog based upon on the same information you discuss and would love
    to have you share some stories/information. I know
    my readers would value your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free
    to shoot me an email.

  135. Anya Says:

    I feel that is one of the most important
    info for me. And i am happy reading your article.
    But should observation on few common things, The web site taste is perfect,
    the articles is in reality great : D. Just right activity, cheers

  136. referencement google Says:

    Wow, that’s what I was looking for, what a information! existing here at this web site, thanks admin of this web page.

  137. Rossi BUSTED lying – PESN drops support – E-CAT is a fraud | USAHM Conspiracy News Says:

    […] If he was not lying to Jim Stokes, then he has been lying to all the rest of us. Reference: Replicators (as of January 12, 2012) – An annotated and linked list of reports of 14 people who have achieved a Ni + H reaction. […]

  138. iggydalrymple Says:

    Craig, as a skeptic on this forum, you’re just sorta unique. But since you’re a polite skeptic, you’re very unique.

  139. Craig Binns Says:


    You can’t say “very unique” because unique means there’s only one of a kind, so things are either unique or they’re not. They can’t be “a bit” unique or “very” unique. That’s a “qualified absolute”, and it’s a no no!

    The only thing that’s “a bit” unique is the Rossi ecat. It transmutes nickel to copper, so it’s a bit like a table top version of the core of a giant star about to go supernova, which would be unique. But it doesn’t emit any gamma rays, so it’s even more like an electric kettle, which there’s millions of. But mostly it’s like a “free energy” or “perpetual motion” licensing fee scam.

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: