Can cold fusion be this easy?

Iggy Dalrymple put me on to this video:

It is an interesting experiment with unexpected results.  However, as you watch the video you see that Renzo Mondaini begins to talk of his reaction as “cold fusion”.   Near the end of the video he uses a spectrum analyzer to “prove” that he is getting cold fusion.

However, we all know that the proofs of cold fusion are either measured transformed atoms, or measured excess heat.  This rig really needs to be set up in a controlled environment to detect excess heat.  Optionally, especially with his “aluminum becomes silicone” conjecture, the work product needs to be analyzed.

I am convinced that every high school whiz-kid will be doing LENR science fair projects in the next 5 years.  Could it be that this will be their experiment?  It sure looks compelling, and compellingly easy.

About these ads

54 Responses to “Can cold fusion be this easy?”

  1. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Bruce – the video is a bit short on analysis of the products and Aluminium Oxide is a white glassy ceramic, so just looking at the form of the results is not adequate as evidence that Silicon was produced. There’s no mention of current put in, just voltage.

    Having said that, there’s certainly a good chance that he is putting enough energy in to get some sort of transmutation, and of course the cavitation caused by the arc is going to produce locally-intense energy. Some measurements of energy put in and heat given out would be useful here, as you say.

    It could be this simple to get a reaction, but it would probably take a lot of experimentation to raise this from a desktop demo to something useful as an energy source. Note that the Tungsten seems to be consumed (the rod end certainly looks a bit smaller later on) and this metal is somewhat high in energy cost to produce. A full energy balance for the reaction would need to include the energy put in to making the materials that are consumed.

  2. Roger Bird Says:

    I notice that he is still alive. He is obviously a con trying to get our money. [Just kidding.]

    Although it is all very interesting, and I couldn’t take my eyes off of it, I would tend to agree with Simon. I recall making colloidal gold, and there was always a spark arcing from one electrode to the other. I did it at about 225 volts. But I don’t remember the strange stuff Renzo demonstrated. I started with plain water and I was not looking for cold fusion, of course.

    Renzo is obviously very resourceful, adventuresome, and brave, and I think that he should be congratulated. But I still want to see some proven transmutation and some excess heat before I am going to say that it is cold fusion or LENR.

  3. brucefast Says:

    Neither Renzo Mondaini nor I pretend that this is the foundation of a tappable energy source. (However, you never know.) I do think that the simple idea deserves pursuing as a quick demonstration of LENR. If a simple system can prove excess heat or transmuations, then it is a great high school grade LENR demonstration.

    Furthermore, if it can be proven to be LENR, it’ll be hard to argue with. This could be the breakthrough that convinces the world that LENR is real.

    As far as excess heat goes, I think the calculations are rather simple: Volts * Amps * Time = Energy. Energy shows up as increase in water temperature. If the excess heat is sufficient to be measured above the noise (heat lost to the air, that sort of thing) then the temperature proof would be easy to provide.

  4. Craig Binns Says:


    As you rightly observe, “Some measurements of energy put in and heat given out would be useful here”, and so they would indeed. Very useful. So I hope Santa brings some proof of excess heat or transmutations very soon, as you have all been waiting for such a long time.

    Meantime, I wish you all a happy festive season.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – I hope your Christmas went well and you have a really good Hogmanay.

      There are replications of Celani going on at the moment (well, maybe not over the next week or so) that look promising, so there some reasonable hope of soon getting some believable figures for Nickel/Hydrogen. It’ll be a while till anything gets commercially available, though. The main thing about a believable demonstration of this reaction is that it will then cease to be a reputation-destroyer, and a lot more bright young students will come in and try different ideas and maybe find better ways. While there are just a few people trying out ideas, it’s not going to develop very quickly, but once it’s really proved then it will suddenly take off as people see real profits available with a fairly short pay-off. I’d reckon now we’ll see that take-off in around 6 months or so. If Rossi et al have not got their act together by then, they’ll be left behind – I don’t think that would entirely displease you.

  5. Craig Binns Says:


    Your optimism is wonderful. “once it’s really proved then it will suddenly take off as people see real profits available with a fairly short pay-off. I’d reckon now we’ll see that take-off in around 6 months or so.” Ah, these six months! How often we have heard these words! How often we have been disappointed. Thank you for the Hogmanay good wishes.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – the problem with F+P is not that it doesn’t work (sometimes) and isn’t proved – Miles and others correlated Helium production with heat output so when it happens it’s some sort of nuclear reaction. The problem is that it’s not reliable and that it’s very expensive per unit of energy output. If Ni-H is proved to be working, then the oil and energy companies will start doing research in earnest (there’s some F+P replication early on from Amoco, but there’s no recent news). As with ITER, though hopefully more successful, we expect that if there’s a lot of brains and money thrown at the problem then the chances are better of solving it. No guarantees, but my world won’t fall apart if it’s later than I think. It’s thus a happy optimism.

      Scotland should do well anyway over the coming years. There’s a lot of oil and a lot of good engineers – could be somewhere near you will be the centre of LENR companies in future, since chip-fabrication plants and nanotechnology are going to be important in LENR later on. Scotland is already energy-rich and is likely to be more so – makes up for the weather a bit. Something to toast next Monday….

  6. Roger Bird Says:

    I was hoping that one of you bright fellows was going to say, “Oh, that’s blah blah blah, nothing to be all that excited about.” But I haven’t seen that. This is certainly a new phenomena to me.

    One intriguing aspect is that it happens on the cathode but not the anode. It would seem that the anode, with the most exposure, is sucking electrons off of the cathode faster than the cathode can supply them. It would be interesting to see if there are differences with different densities of electrolytes. That would be a test of my “theory”. A dense electrolyte would allow the anode to suck more electrons off the cathode than a less dense electrolyte.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – you’ve seen something very similar with the Pirelli High School Athanor experiment. That had measurements included, so was, let’s say, a bit more scientific. What we can say about this one is that it could be true, but it needs to be measured before we can say anything about what the energy-balance is or whether there’s any transmutation – at the moment we Don’t Know. We don’t know the current or the source impedance of the voltage or the impedance of the current path, so we also don’t know the voltage actually applied at the electrode tip.

      The cathode (negative electrode) is where the Hydrogen will be released from the water. Probably atomic Hydrogen when just made, though it would quickly become molecular. By using a short amount of cathode, he’s increasing the current-density, and thus the local heat and cavitation. The electrode itself gets pretty hot and also boils the water, so it’s quite complex as to what is exactly happening. The cathode and anode are presumably emitting and receiving exactly the same number of electrons, since otherwise the power-supply and the experiment would both end up with a high static charge.

      This could (like the Athanor experiment) serve as a basis for an experiment to prove whether you get more energy out than you put in. Could be fun if you happen to have the bits lying around, but use both a welding-mask for your eyes and sun-cream on any exposed skin.

      • brucefast Says:

        Especially if cavitation is involved, should one not also be monitoring for radiation poisoning?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – with all of these things, when we get to any appreciable power level (more than a few watts) we should have radiation monitoring in place. It’s probably safe, but without measuring it we don’t know.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        But people have inadvertently been doing this, not as an experiement, but by simply removing the cathode first, for at least a hundred years. And there are no reports of serious injury. So I wouldn’t worry about it. And the dude whose youtube video we are discussing seemed to be OK; he had his face right down close to it for a long time and it did not give him a sunburn, nor did it mess with his camera.

  7. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I remember one of the fellows at vortex when experimenting with the 5 cent nickel/hydrolysis commented that when he lifted one electrode near the surface of the electrolyte, he got a bright spark.

  8. michael hammer Says:

    What makes you think this is in any way related to cold fusion? Electrolysis of water doped with an ionic conductor is normally carried out at a few volts. You are using extremely high voltages and hence very high currents. Further you make the surface area of the cathode (electron supplier) much less than the anode (electron acceptor). I suspect the currents are so high that they are beyond the transport capacity of the electrolyte. This transport limitation does not occur in the bulk of the solution because the cross sectional area there is huge so the current density is moderate. It occurs at the electrode because that is where the area is smallest and hence the current density is highest. The net result is that there are extremely high voltage gradients at the electrodes and greater at the cathode than anode. As the supply voltage is raised, the voltage gradient at the cathode become high enough to cause breakdown and an arc is formed. I am sure you know it is possible to carry out electric arc welding under water and that is exactly what your demonstrating is showing.

    You are using tungsten electrodes which is exactly what TIG welders use. The electrode is consumed but only very slowly and that is also exactly what your video shows.

    Like all arcs, it generates copious amounts of electromagnetic radiation (after all that’s how Marconi did the first radio transmissions).

    Just because you can generate an arc does not automatically mean its cold fusion. Otherwise all welders would be cold fusion devices which is absurd.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Michael Hammer, you make total sense, and it fits in with my experience with arcing high current at 220 volts while making colloidal gold. The arc was the thing. No arc, no colloidal gold. But the arc is normal when the current gets high enough.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Michael – It’s one of those things where possibly no-one has actually accurately measured either the heat output or looked for evidence of transmutation in the products – they are expensive to do accurately and mostly if you’re welding underwater you’d be happy to have a sound weld. Maybe there are some isotopes there after the weld that weren’t there before, but who would measure that if the chemical analysis of the weld said the alloy was good?

      There’s evidence from the Pirelli High School Athanor experiment that Tungsten is useful as a fuel in LENR, and the high temperatures, energy density and available (and probably atomic) Hydrogen mean that it’s possible that some transmutation/extra heat is generated here, too. If someone has access to the right measuring kit then it would be nice to have evidence of transmutation in such a simple experiment.

      Possibly a MIG welder running underwater would be such a cold fusion device, but not as good at it as a purpose-built reactor. Maybe not as absurd as you think – until we measure it we don’t know.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Good comment, Simon. The same could be said about all of those reports of biological transmutations of elements that have been ignored for decades. We need to investigate them closer with a little less bias towards the dominent paradigm.

      • michael hammer Says:

        If one is advancing an hypothesis there has to be some evidence to support it. The fact that he creates a plasma when the voltage (ie: current density) is high enough simply means he has reached a point where the voltage gradient near the electrode is high enough to cause breakdown. That very well understood electrical engineering theory and is not in the slightest unexpected or abnormal. It does not in any way imply that fusion or any other nuclear reaction is occurring.

        Why would one suspect such a thing simply because we create a plasma? Because it looks bright and spectacular?

        If you really suspect welding involves a nuclear process then devise and carry out some relevant experiments and if they support your hypothesis present that supporting data. For example look for excess heat or nuclear reaction products. To suggest that it could be because we have not proven it isn’t is meaningless. You could pick any physical process and claim its fusion because we have not proven it isn’t.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Michael, that “If one is advancing an hypothesis there has to be some evidence to support it” business is for skeptical science types and others afraid of losing their funding and such other cowardly attitudes. Columbus did just fine with a hypothesis that was COMPLETE wrong, not merely non-existent. If one wants to discover new things and be a hero, one sometimes needs to forge ahead and damn the torpedoes of conventionality and fund raising caution.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Michael, no one is claiming anything here. We are merely suggesting that this phenomena (and biological transmutation of elements, etc) cry out for a second look.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Michael – if you read my comments you’ll see that I’ve stressed that we Don’t Know at this point since we haven’t measured it. In the Athanor experiment they did in fact measure 4 times the energy out than in, though the accuracy of the measurement could be improved. Since this is fairly similar, it’s possible that, if we actually looked hard at it we’d find some evidence of strange things happening, but it’s also possible that we would find it was simply getting very hot with no unexpected changes.

        Science advances when someone notices an anomaly that shouldn’t happen according to current theory. If you can measure it and repeat it, it can become a useful technology and maybe lead also to better theory. Ignoring an anomaly because it doesn’t fit with current theory won’t find out new possibilities.

        Here, the basic experiment is very simple, but the measurements needed to confirm or deny it are somewhat expensive and not available to me, so I won’t chase this one myself. To me it looks like even if you had access to such kit you wouldn’t do the measurements anyway since you believe it can’t be true.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, this “To me it looks like even if you had access to such kit you wouldn’t do the measurements anyway since you believe it can’t be true” I believe to be right-on. I believe that Michael may be a patho-skeptic.

        We are explorers here. We confirm things scientifically. But we don’t let anal-retentive uptight attitudes keep us from exploration and trying new ideas and techniques.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – In order to find something new we do have to know what we expect to happen according to current theory. If something appears to work, and there’s no value to analysing the bejesus out of it, then small effects such as a slight isotopic variance in a weld line and a slight difference in the heat output would not be noticed.

        Michael is taking a reasonable viewpoint that if it hasn’t been measured by someone then it’s not truth. This is good when you’re making things that need to work. I’m taking the slightly different viewpoint that if it hasn’t been measured then we don’t know. Starting off by realising what you don’t know is good for deciding what you do know, and also helps in deciding what you want to know when you have to invest time, effort and money in finding out.

        Enjoy the exploration!

  9. michael hammer Says:

    Simon and Roger;

    You disappoint me greatly. As a matter of record, I am a senior research engineer working for a major multinational scientific organisation and I have been highly successful questioning the status quo not once but many times. To suggest I would not investigate an unusually phenomenon is simply an Ad hom.

    My point is that in this case it is NOT an unusual phenomenon, in fact if sight unseen the actions had been described to me I would have predicted exactly what was observed for the reasons I gave earlier.

    You could spend your life investigating the common and mundane for bizarre effects on the basis of no information but your success rate would be very much higher if you focus on situations which are unusual or have some aspect which cannot be adequately explained by conventional well known science. That is not the case here.

    In the case of Fleishman and Pons, to my understanding, they looked at palladium and noted the exceptionally high absorption of hydrogen – that’s unusual. They then wondered what the implications of that might be and especially with regard to bringing the hydrogen atoms closer together – maybe close enough for fusion. That’s a valid and productive thought process. They were criticised because even in the lattice the hydrogen atoms do not come remotely close enough for classical fusion. However by the time F&P made their information public they already had further unusual information – notably anomalous heat. After some very brief and half hearted attempts at replication that was ignored by mainstream science with the focus on the impossibility of “classical” fusion. Others focussed on the anomalous heat and kept investigating.

    As to why the interest in nickel cf palladium, if you look you will find they are both in the same column of the periodic table and elements in the same column often have similar properties – again not blind random trials but ones driven by some thought and reason.

    Finally I note that the author of the original article does not suggest it might be cold fusion but declares it to be without explaining his justification for such a bold claim.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Oh God, here I go again being obnoxious. Please, Michael, forgive before I even start. Really.

      I am impressed with your credentials. I hope that you will stick around, as your ideas will be valuable. And as a matter of record, I respect you intrinsic and infinite value, but that doesn’t mean that I will always be gentle. (:->)

      What do “credentials” mean? Credentials are things about a person that give them credit, that cause other people to believe what they have to say. Unfortunately, in this theatre of investigation (as in many arenas, like nutrition, health, and death), many people’s credentials have been discredited by their own stubbornness and shortsightedness.

      As a matter of record, I got an 81 %ile in the GRE advanced test in philosophy. “So what! That doesn’t seem like much, Roger.” Oh, least I forget to mention, I had previous to that test taken only ONE (introductory) class in philosophy and read only ONE book (a thin one) in philosophy. Oh, there goes my credibility for clarity of thought UP, and my credibility for humility DOWN. (:->)

      So, Michael, this is a really good place for chatting about LENR and other subjects that are similarly epistemologically challenging. Please stay.

      (Was I too rough?)

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Michael – I’m not really sure what you’re pointing out here. Do you know of any isotopic analysis run on welds under water? It’s not something I’ve seen any data on. As regards what the guy saw, yes, it’s what I would expect to see.

      My point was that in this mundane experiment, if we look at it hard enough, we may find things we didn’t expect. By looking for something no-one has looked for before (because they are used to the process) we might find something unexpected. If you happen to have data on sensitive isotopic analysis of something approximating this, then please point me at it – it’s nice to have some measurements one way or another. I’ve seen an energy balance for the Athanor experiment, but no isotopic analysis – what is actually in the powder they supply is secret, so if they have run the analysis they wouldn’t publish it.

      Above, you are saying, if I read it right, that you wouldn’t investigate this because what is seen is what you would expect, having seen it before. I hadn’t regarded my comment about you as an ad hominem attack, but as a statement of the truth. Having re-read it in the light of your umbrage, I can see that you could read it as disparaging, and I apologise for not wording it better. If there’s something out of the ordinary, then I’m sure you’d investigate, but the point here is that is ordinary, so you wouldn’t. Maybe I was a bit snippy since you were talking down to me.

      Often you find new things by pushing conditions beyond previous limits. In this case, we might find it under our noses in something that is routinely performed. I find that interesting.

      Yes, the guy claims cold fusion with no backing data. That’s unfortunate, but it happens. He might be right, but without measurements we don’t know.

      Pons and Fleischmann played a hunch, and because they were excellent in what they did and what they thought (and waited long enough) they got a result. As well as Nickel, I’ve been looking at Titanium and Tungsten, and there have been documented successes with these, too. Using Tungsten electrodes is not therefore random but a good choice. Palladium is a bit expensive for home experimenters. I brought up F+P in a reply to Craig, who’s a long-time Skeptic here (note spelling) who has remained unconvinced that any Cold Fusion/LENR is valid at all. He’s still firmly of the opinion that Rossi is a fraudster, and in some ways he’s right in that Rossi has always published what seem to be deliberately uncertain measurements and hasn’t yet delivered on a commercially available device. Craig has been around here for a long time, and provides a bit of spice at times.

      Back to subject – the video shows something common with the claim that it’s cold fusion. Judging by the parallels with Athanor, which you can check elsewhere on this blog, he could possibly be right. If I had enough money or access to a mass spectrometer or similar kit, I’d probably do the analysis to find out. That knowledge may not be instantly useful, but could lead to something useful. If there is indeed transmutation going on there, wouldn’t it be interesting?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I believe that the biological transmutations have already been proven, but too many people kissing the rear-end of the dominent paradigm has kept these experiments from being accepted. Although, I suppose I could be wrong. I was wrong last year; I thought that I was wrong about something and I turned out that I was wrong about that. (:->)

  10. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Michael, we appreciate your expertise but most of us are not here for the purpose of gaining your approval. I doubt anyone here gives a rat’s ass if they disappoint you.

    No one on this board claims to be a high scientist although at least a couple have been granted patents (not me). We seek to learn more about cold fusion and on slow days delve into diverse and sundry whimsy. On slow days we’ve delved into politics, economics, religion, health, philosophy, humor, and nutrition. We try to engage in friendly, civil discussion. Sometimes we rub each someone the wrong way, but we don’t intend to.

  11. michael hammer Says:


    Fair enough. As it happens I also strongly suspect that cold fusion or LENR is probably real in some form or other. Having worked in new product development (that’s where my research ends up) I am more sympathetic than probably most to Rossi. I know only too well how everything takes longer than one plans and how delay after delay happens. I could easily imagine myself in Rossi’s position (in fact I have been on a very real and very worthwhile project) especially given his constant bombardment of requests for the latest status report.

    I hope Rossi (or Defkalion or Pinatelli) is correct and still think its possible. The whole situation seems to involve too many parties for it to be a deliberate scam. Could it be group think? Maybe but the various players are all reporting experimental results so either they are all incompetent to carry out experiments, or they are all carrying out deliberate fraud or there is something real here. (I incline to the last).

    However, my concern is that wild claims, easily refuted, discredit the entire field and that is in my view extremely unfortunate. If I was a CF skeptic and read the article that is the subject of this thread I would simply think that proves the field is bunk and read no further. Its unfortunate because the world really needs a new non chemical energy source and if there is a chance CF is for real we need to follow up on it intensively. Articles which make it seem questionable definitely do not help.

    If I go to a website claiming proof of cold fusion and then find in addition, for example, a whole heap of articles on perpetual motion machines I, like most scientists, would consider the website discredited and not worth looking at. That’s really why peer review exists – its to filter out the obviously unsupportable papers and thus protect the reputation of the journal. Sure I could be wrong and there could be a pearl among the dross but that’s the way the world tends to operate.

    Hence I call out such obviously questionable articles. Your comments suggest your goals and those of the others at this site are somewhat different. I apologise for disrupting your social dialogue and will not intrude further.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Michael – I understand your point of view since up to just over a year ago I had the same viewpoint. Rossi entered the news with claims of massive power and I found the demonstration had holes you could drive a bus through. There are however real scientists working on this, and the validated experimental results are in the milliwatt to watt range – you’ll find all the papers on You can spend months reading these (I did) and you should be convinced of the reality of CF.

      With Pd-D (Pons and Fleischmann-type experiments) it sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t, but with a bank of say 10 cells running of which maybe half produce excess heat, the Helium production is correlated to the heat production so the “non-working” cells act as controls since they are otherwise identical. This correlation of heat and nuclear ash is conclusive proof (to me at least) that it’s a nuclear reaction and has been measured by enough people (starting with Miles) that in normal science it would be regarded as proved beyond doubt.

      The Nickel-Hydrogen reaction does not have the same level of proof, but the heat production has been well-measured.

      Rossi is an entrepreneur and not a scientist. My belief is that he has at times seen dramatic releases of heat, but can’t predict when it will happen and can’t control it well. I think this is the reason he’s going for a lot of small units to make a large 1MW system, so that the units that are producing heat at any one time make up for the ones that are not producing heat. One unit on its own will be very variable in its output, and may also sometimes melt down and become useless. Until he solves that problem, he’ll keep claiming things but not deliver units. It’s possible that he won’t solve his problems, but since he’s keeping his process secret no-one else can help him solve them. His latest “hot-cat” is in my opinion a total crock.

      Defkalion also appear to have some problems with reliability that they have not yet solved, but it looks to me that they are taking a more scientific approach and they also have a team working together on their problems. We can’t predict when they’ll solve their problems, but most likely before Rossi does.

      Brillouin are not dramatic, but they are getting validations from SRI so we can expect some progress in 2013. Maybe even a product in a couple of years.

      The experiments you’ll read about vary in quality, and there’s a whole load that are easily dismissed as not rigorous enough like the video at the start of this thread. The reason I don’t dismiss it totally is that I’ve seen reports of similar things where measurements have been properly taken.

      You’re right that we need a new cheap and non-polluting source of energy. If you can spend the time, like I did, going through the real scientific papers, and especially read Ed Storms, then you should be convinced that LENR/CF is real and it’s worth working on to give us such an energy source. I’m working on experiments on a very low budget, and it’s possible that you might also want to do that. We need as many people as possible trying out different ideas of how to make it work reliably, but the “pathological science” tag stops reputable scientists/engineers like you working on it. Crackpot science…. There’s a lot of dross to get through to find the pearls – sorry but that’s the way it is.

      Please don’t say goodbye immediately, but do a bit more reading of the history and come back with questions or comments that we’ll try to answer if we know it. Our opinions may change as new data arrives, but that’s the way things should be.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Michael, No, please, intrude further. Keep intruding. Please.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Trust me when I tell you that your variance with “our” perspective is slight compared with Craig Binns and many others. You’re just one of the boys compared with so many others. And anyway, we need different perspectives. One perspective is usually like the blind man holding the tail of the elephant just before he gets shat on by the elephant.

  12. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Plasma Physics (2000), vol 63, part 2, pp 115 –128. Printed in the United Kingdom 2000 Cambridge University Press

    Arc-liberated chemical energy exceeds electricalinput energy

    Centre for Electromagnetics Research, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115,USA

    Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK

    Hathaway Consulting Services, 39 Kendal Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5R 1L5

    Tesla Coil Builders of Richmond, 7103 Hermitage Road, Richmond, VA 23228, USA

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Iggy, could you please be so kind as to translate that paper for us into simpler English. I am pretty sure that it probably says that their output energy was greater than their input energy. But perhaps you could elaborate. (:->) The important part, of course, is how they did it and how they measured it and if their output > input conclusion is valid.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        It’s over my head, Roger. I was hoping that Michael, Simon, or Bruce might comment.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        It is a wise man who knows his limits. As Dirty Harry said, often, “A man’s got to know his limits.” (:->)

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger and Iggy – what it says basically is that when you use an arc to make a fog from water, it generates much more explosive power than it should do. This isn’t Free Energy, since to get the fog back to water you need to put that energy back in again, but since that naturally happens to fog in the sunshine anyway it’s not a problem.

        It could be that with a bit of care we could get a useful amount of energy out from this, and with a bit of luck we might also find a quicker way of getting the fog back to water and thus make an engine from it. Over-use of it without that fix would lead to some very foggy days.

        This water-explosion is also used in dentistry, to explosive-form the plates for dentures. It’s cheaper than C4. I’ll bet you always wanted to know that….

  13. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Thanks Simon.

    To change the subject, here’s Russ Gries’ update #12.
    At the end of the video, he actuates the popper in slow motion.
    At 27min 24sec – 50sec, you can see a ghostly double smoke-ring rise rapidly above the popper. At 27:39, a text message appears on the screen, then the ring descends from the ceiling back down to the popper. What is the smoke-ring? If it only rose, I would speculate that it was a shock-wave…but I don’t think a shock-wave would reverse its motion.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Iggy – Russ put a roll of sticky-tape on the top. It got shot up into the ceiling and later came down again. He was playing to see how fast things were….

      Happy New Year!

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Well, I read the text about the tape but I didn’t understand what he was talking about. Dumb me. Amazing how it didn’t tumble, rising and falling but keeping the same attitude.

        Happy New Year to y’all.

  14. brucefast Says:

    Ugo Abundo is the instructor at Pirelli High School in Rome who became well known in the LENR community for leading a student project in building a cell designed to demonstrate cold fusion. In this video, Abundo demonstrates an experimental setup designed to demonstrate an LENR phenomenon.

    Obviously the same phenomenon. The power input vs apparent power output are quite astounding. However, full power output measurement has not been achieved yet. The case that this is LENR, while hardly conclusive, is very much stronger than with the first video.

    I have decided to add a “signature” to all of my posts:
    Don’t believe everything you think.

  15. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I had trouble understanding him. Did he explain what the “mesh” on one of the electrodes was made of?

    • brucefast Says:

      I’m not sure he did, but I don’t think its very important. The original video does not use a mesh, and the guy offers a variety of rod materials and electrolytes that all seem to work. What this guy really offers is metering of the volts and amps. The fact that the amperage goes down when the plasma ball develops is really unexpected. It appears that the flask is outputting much more energy though the energy in is being reduced.

      Again, for scope of construction options, I think the first video is much clearer and more flexible.

  16. Roland Says:

    Iggy I am doing experiments of this nature- could you send me an email (or Renzo) =====>

  17. Harold Blair Says:

    Igy do you have anyones email address like Renzo or a tech-y?

    • iggydalrymple Says:

      Sorry, I do not.

    • Roland Says:

      I do alota these experiments in my basement-but recently my wife heard a few loud noises and I have been moved to my backyard-but I am havin fun- I love renzo’s approach- and straightforward thinking-.

  18. Poose Says:

    Michael Hammer said…..

    “Why would one suspect such a thing simply because we create a plasma? Because it looks bright and spectacular?”

    The largest object in our solar system is a nuclear reactor composed of plasma. You must be blind not to notice this.

    We need more critical thinkers and fewer dogmatic preachers like Mr. Hammer. They have kept us down long enough.

  19. Craig Binns Says:

    “The largest object in our solar system is a nuclear reactor composed of plasma. You must be blind not to notice this.”

    That object is not a ‘cold’ fusion reactor, or a ‘low’ energy device.

  20. Roland Says:

    I duplicated Renzo’s test and was peased with the results-and I admire his ingenuity and natural desire to learn more about our univrse- everybody knows that electrons move somewhere around 185,000/miles per second but not many people know much about how fast IONs move- I read somewhere around 50 ft/sec- and what is their path- I am still trying to figure out what this all means in terms o scientific knowlegde- good job Renzo

  21. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    A couple of visitors asked how to contact Renzo. Apparently you can message him via his youtube page.

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: