What are each of us prepared to do when validation happens?

By Greg Goble,

My hope is that ‘believers’ following cold fusion LENR science prepare for the role that promoting this clean cheap energy will play; in order to accelerate the end of carbon and uranium energy use.

The recent anti-fracking rally, last summer, in Washington was the largest crowd gathered there in the history of U.S. political demonstrations. People from all walks… creeds… States… ages… and backgrounds. Dozens of organizations joined together forming a coalition of earth loving activists opposing tar sands, fracking, pipelines, peak oil tactics, offshore wells, Alaskan extraction, uranium energy, dirty coal, mountaintop removal, strip mining, etc…. The largest political meeting in the history of our democratic nation, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people.

Each missing a powerful key to the success they all seek… an energy replacement that will put an end to the destruction… the disease… both the death… and the dead zones created by the fossil fuel and uranium energy industries. The powerful key is a really cheap, clean, abundant, and easy to use energy source. An energy source that has a clear economic imperative (cheap cheap cheap)… with environmental side benefits. Finally an alternative energy source that is easy to sell, both ‘scalable’ and one that delivers ‘on demand energy’, and an energy source that requires no energy storage or transmission systems. Another side benefit (which is not to be underestimated) is that it is a nuclear dense energy (lightweight)… A totally clean atomic energy… Cold Fusion – LENR Energy engineering

What should every ‘BELIEVER’ do the moment applied LENR engineering hits the market? This will be the E-Cat with its’ published third-party engineering report (in the next month). Followed by happy customers ordering more. (The first customers most likely have orders in for more units.)

What are each of us prepared to do when validation happens?

Say “I told you so” to ‘disbelievers’ at MIT, or at the DoE, etc?

Heck No!

What we are prepared to do is to present this key to every group and to every individual who went to Washington to end carbon and uranium energy use, and to every person who wished to, yet could not attend. Believers are prepared to teach each of these folks the wonders of applied cold fusion LENR energy.

The next time…In six months or so… When these anti-carbon and uranium energy folks return to Washington. Their numbers will swell exponentially, and each of them will have this key, which we, the believers, will give them… Cold Fusion Now! LENR Applied Engineering!

Soon we will become an ocean of cold fusion activists.
Informed by cold fusion advocates.

Demanding a turning of the key, LENR energy!

<— To main blog

About these ads

35 Responses to “What are each of us prepared to do when validation happens?”

  1. brucefast Says:

    I love this comment. What will we be doing in response to high-grade proof?

    I am going to use the info for some investing. I’m planning to post more on this soon. I also want to quickly heat my home. I have considered getting into some local LENR business. Also I have some potential inventions involving LENR technology which I would love to patent.

    But I want to use the information to help shut down some local developments that will be made obsolete by LENR. The British Columbia site “C” hydroelectric dam project is going to destroy a gorgeous and productive valley. I would love to give the site “C” opponents the tools they need to stop the thing. Canada is itchy to build two pipelines from the Alberta tar sands to market. They will become silly once LENR is established. We will benefit by ending these projects before they start. As I ponder this question, I bet I’ll come up with others.

  2. BobN Says:

    For myself I want to get off grid as soon as possible, but what really gets me excited is what can be done with vertical farming on a year long growing season. I think LENR will revolutionize food production and possibly the way people live. I have several projects being planed to test these theories, all I need is the cheap energy.

    I am very bullish on the whole cheap energy possibility. I still worry greatly that government will step in and regulate to what extent it can be used. The money in taxes and the geopolitical impacts are immense and I think the government will get scared and do what they do – over regulate.

  3. Roger Bird Says:

    When validation happens, I will tell all of my friends, “I TOLD YOU SO!” And my family, they will never hear the frickin’ end of it. But I won’t do that with physicists. I will email everyone that I can about it, with links etc. I ***may*** print out some fliers and pass them out at the mall or something like that. I will contact my representative and senators and our local newspaper. Then I will get down to the real work. I will enter comments in every article that accepts comments that I can find on Google News that would be read by anyone who might be interested. Energy articles, blogs that are about edgy topics, etc. I will go freaking crazy.

    If you have any other ideas, please let me know. I have nothing better to do here than keep house and raise my son (who is so good that he needs very little raising).

    • Al S Says:

      With LENR being ‘free energy,’ there should not be so vital a need for working to make money, there will be more working for one’s own satisfaction. Disruptions probably have good consequences, as well as the the negatives of finding new jobs. Free energy maybe the key that opens debt slave prison cells! Gradually perhaps, but inevitably.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Al S,

        LENR is as much free energy, from the physicist’s viewpoint, as is a nuclear power plant or hot-fusion. From the economists viewpoint, LENR comes closer to free energy than anything that we have, but it is still not free. You have to pay for the device and you have to maintain it.

      • Al S Says:

        Hopefully paying for a LENR device could be so negligible, that one could still say it’s ‘free energy’ compared to today’s paradigm.

  4. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I hope to stay ahead of the “disruption curve”.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      As usual, Iggy is right on and reminds me that there will be disruptions. There will be people thrown out of work, and consequently there will be a high demand for other jobs. There will be somewhat less need for firemen. Auto mechanics will need to be reeducated. Of course, furnace installers and repair people will be busier than a one legged guy at an ass kicking contest. Many people working for utilities will be looking for work. People who make internal combustion engines are in serious trouble. Likewise for solar energy, nuclear, coal, etc. companies.

      Of course, all of this won’t happen suddenly.

  5. Brad Arnold Says:

    The best part is that LENR is (starting out – it will go even lower in price) about 1/10th the cost of fossil fuel, so we don’t need to legislate clean energy, the market will force everyone to switch so they can compete with others who are using that very very cheap, super abundant, and clean energy.

    “A volume about the size of a #2 pencil eraser of water provides as much energy as two 48-gallon drums of gasoline. That is 355,000 times the amount of energy per volume – five orders of magnitude.” ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html ).

    This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

    “Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical…” –Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

    “Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

    By the way, here is a survey of some of the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html

    For those who still aren’t convinced, here is a paper I wrote that contains some pretty convincing evidence: http://coldfusionnow.org/the-evidence-for-lenr/

  6. Craig Binns Says:


    “I donate this video to help Craig and JetMech cope with the change”. Thank you. I’m sure we can handle things when “the change” finally comes, “when” validation happens. (When will that be, Iggy?) After all, you are coping very well “when” it hasn’t happened. The nonsense you’re writing now was being written a couple of years ago about Rossi! He’s now been written off, but have you learned anything from that fiasco? Not a bit. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Quite astonishing, really. Now I know where these weird religious cults get their followers from.

    Greg says, “The first customers most likely have orders in for more units.” Do they, Greg? Evidence? Who are these customers, Greg? Why don’t they tell us how great it is to be the happy owner of a magic energy machine? Cat got their tongue – eh, Greg?

  7. Craig Binns Says:

    Iggy, you will never eat crow, because you will go on believing in the absence of evidence, and when one magic energy scheme is abandoned, you will seamlessly switch your credulous loyalty to another. And I have a deal with brucefast going for nearly two years. I won’t eat crow, I’ll eat my headgear. My “Glasgow bunnet”. However it’s getting tired of sitting quietly on my head, waiting for this most improbable, and indefinitely delayed, event!

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Yes, Craig, it has been a long time. And yes, it seems very improbable. But the social and soft evidence is very compelling, but you are oblivious to social and soft evidence. This is why you live alone.

    • Rockyspoon Says:

      As one who has developed projects, anything less than 5 to 7 years is extraordinarily short, Craig.

      I’m certain you have no real-world experience in any of this, have you? You’re just a no-brainer critic sitting in some basement somewhere with expectations that are based on dreams rather than reality.

      Take your equipment and do whatever you want with it (eat it, sit on it, donate it to charity, etc.), but learning anything from it isn’t going to be one of them. But the funny thing is this–what you say doesn’t matter one bit. If Rossi ever does read your vaucous comments, he’ll laugh at you because he knows what’s going on.

      It’s crystal clear you don’t.

      But in any case, have a good day!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Rockyspoon, try to be a little more civil. I know that you are angry with Craig for not reading the data the same way that you do, or in Craig’s case not reading the data at all, I suspect, but everyone has a right to an opinion. And from our chairs looking at screens, it is ALL opinion. Very few are actually working on an LENR device and know for a fact.

  8. Craig Binns Says:

    The “compelling” evidence is “improbable” and I live alone. Nobody could argue with that, even assuming it to be true! I agree the evidence is soft – even assuming it to be evidence.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Dear Craig,

      the evidence that you can’t see (thus you live alone) is the human evidence, the social evidence. You discount or ignore the human element, thus you live alone. I am hoping that you don’t take this as a putdown; I am hoping that you take it as a message. You are social blind. I am color-blind. If people hadn’t told me that there was color, I wouldn’t know it. I would not even know that I am color-blind. Someone or many someones had to tell me. You are social blind.

      The fact that you are social blind does not prove LENR nor Rossi.

      I don’t believe in free energy. I know that it is absurd. I kind of go crazy trying to explain to free energy fools that there is no free energy. I am on the fence with Bigfoot since biological “laws” are sort of weak and they haven’t come up with any physical evidence, but lots of eye witness testimony. I don’t believe in little green men flying around in UFOs, but I believe that people are seeing lights flying around, that their experience is real. Their interpretation of their experience is what I completely discount. Believe it or not Craig, I am a reasonable person with a very sharp philosophical mind. I am simply using my reason with more evidence than you are since I don’t ignore or discount social evidence. And social evidence includes the realization that some people are crooks, insane, pranksters, etc.

      My only evidence for LENR and Rossi is the social evidence. I know that the Coulomb barrier is a bitch. But the social evidence is quite compelling.

      I spent all of this time writing this long missive because I respect your intrinsic worth enough.


  9. Craig Binns Says:


    Thank you for taking the trouble to send that long message. In the case of LENR there is no need for social evidence. Success will be measurable and repeatable; indeed it will be capable of changing the world, as you have suggested. So physical evidence is all we need, and we don’t have an adequate supply of this. In the absence of sufficient physical evidence – in a case where success can be measured physically – social evidence is both superfluous and valueless. It does NOT make up for the lack of physical evidence.

    In any event, even if it was of value, I think it tells against Rossi and Defkalion rather than supporting them. Rossi has a criminal past, and has been involved in energy projects of the most dubious character. He is a manifest and shameless liar. Defkalion has made all kinds of promises to regenerate Greece in the most public way, but is now skulking behind a shop front in downtown Vancouver, trying to pick up Canadian taxpayers’ money. These things give me little confidence in the integrity of these operators in the LENR field. But as I have said, let them produce the physical evidence that an alleged world changing physical process really ought to be able to provide, and I will at once acknowledge it.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, I still don’t see it your way. Almost every physical “fact” I had to take someone’s word for. I have not tested the speed of light and whether it is a constant; I have to take someone’s word for it. I presume that you also have not tested it. So, the speed of light, for me, is still in the realm of social evidence.

      And Rossi’s past, the use of the word “criminal” is bogus. You are assuming that the state can do no wrong, especially the Italian state, for God’s sake! And you are assuming that business people don’t sometime bite off more than they can chew and get in over their heads. And you are forgetting Brillouin and a number of other companies. And you are forgetting that LENR has been confirmed numerous times.

      I am sorry, Craig, but you are still social-blind. This does not prove that Rossi and/or Defkalion are real. It does prove that we should wait patiently and stop calling people crooks. If you were a prosecuting attorney and Rossi lived in your jurisdiction, then you would still have to come up with some proof than we already have before you could say such things.

  10. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger, I very much disagree with your “I have to take someone’s word for it. I presume that you also have not tested it. So, the speed of light, for me, is still in the realm of social evidence.” That’s wrong. What you have is the report of an observation, which showed that light is observed to travel in vacuum at the same speed, regardless of the relative speeds of the observers. And you are told that if you make that observation, you will find the same thing. But Rossi and Defkalion simply say: we can produce lots of cheap power. Trust us! If they said: “construct a device to such and such specification and you will observe such and such power being generated” I would regard that as good relevant evidence. Especially if they let people “poke and prod” the device, as at one time brucefast used to say Rossi was letting scientists do to his steam puffing contraptions. But there is no such evidence.

    And I am not forgetting Brillouin! In commercial production are they? And I’m not forgetting LENR. Persuaded the scientific community yet? Or are they all Big Oil shills?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, I was not relating the speed of light to the E-cat. I was merely saying that for just about everything in our lives we have to trust someone, and I trust Focardi, Levi, Essen, et. al. I am especially fond of McKubre trust-wise, because Mikey ain’t trusting anyone. He was and is right there watching it and doing it. There are others like him. And all of these people put their careers and reputations on the line. This is why I trust them.

      Your analysis of the difference between the E-Cat and the speed of light with regard to trusting Rossi is spot on. Rossi and Defkalion are not at the base of my trust framework. If anything, I believe LENR and Rossi despite the “Rossi says” mantra, which I found to be quite tiresome.

      Just because mainstream science does not believe in LENR does not phase me in the slightest. History will show that all paradigm shifting discoveries and advances were opposed and/or disbelieved by mainstream science. Once mainstream science believed in heavier-than-air flight, then they went to work and did a fantastic job. But paradigm shifting is difficult. There were people who SAW a Wright Brother flying around Dayton, Ohio and still did not believe in heavier-than-air flight. The acceptance of a major paradigm shift generally has nothing to do with science. People either have to get old and die, or else they have to see it with their own eyes and touch it with their own hands. LENR, if true, is a major paradigm shift, perhaps more so than even heavier-than-air flight. I would be astonished if mainstream science accepts LENR before a commercial product starts to be sold at Home Depot.

      I study paradigm shifts. My main focus in life is health. I see paradigm shifts all of the time in health. Unlike LENR, I can test most of the paradigm shifts; in other words, I can see it with my own eyes and feel it with my own gut. The established dudes NEVER accept the change. They get old and die first. Or else we stop hearing about them because reporters and publishing houses figure it out before the former expert does and simply stop going to the former expert for advice, stories, and books.

  11. Craig Binns Says:


    You say “I trust Focardi, Levi, Essen, et. al. I am especially fond of McKubre trust-wise, because Mikey ain’t trusting anyone. He was and is right there watching it and doing it. There are others like him. And all of these people put their careers and reputations on the line. This is why I trust them.” And this has nothing to do with science. Who cares if you trust them or not? That’s not how science works. It doesn’t matter if I trust Einstein or not. As soon as he published his General Theory people attempted to TEST it by observing stars during a solar eclipse. They trusted nothing. As it happens the theory survived the test, and all subsequent experimental tests. And it’s the observations that count, not the trust or the reputation or anything else.

    And you’re wrong about something else too. People did indeed accept Einstein’s theory when evidence supported it. It wasn’t necessary for them all to die before Einstein’s theory became the new “paradigm”.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, I am so glad that we got to the crux of the problem:

      “‘And all of these people put their careers and reputations on the line. This is why I trust them.’ And this has nothing to do with science.”

      You could be right, but it has EVERYTHING to do with the social or soft evidence, and this is the sort of things that you can’t see, just as I can’t distinguish between red and green.

      But I don’t see why this is different from that fact that you don’t actually know that the speed of light is 299,?XY,ZAB meters per second and is a constant other than the fact that you are trusting someone else. I am trusting McKubre. And he has been confirmed numerous times.

      Science depends upon trust or else we would have to do every experiment ourselves. When enough people independently confirm something, then we trust them. McKubre, Fleishmann, Pons, et. al. have been confirmed independently at least 100 times. If you don’t accept those independent confirmations, then how can you think that you are being scientific. If you don’t accept independently confirmed experiments, then you are just being stubborn and close-minded, but not scientific.

      Did you test Einstein? I doubt it. I would not expect people to trust Einstein just because he said something. He was doing it all on paper. But McKubre, who was reproducing and confirming Fleishmann and Pons, was experiencing the heat from the device. He was collecting data. Why should you trust the guys that did the observing stars during a solar eclipse test? You should do it yourself during the next solar eclipse. No, you are trusting someone.

      And, I see all of the scientific principles that you like to harp on constantly. I know what they are. You don’t need to tell me about them. You don’t see what I am saying. And you reveal this when you jump on the fact that during a paradigm shift not everyone has to die who believes in the old paradigm. I was talking generalities and trends. But you are social blind, and did not get it. I guarantee that you see things as black and white, and there is no room in your thinking for grays and forget about colors. You are a binary thinker, yes, no, true, false, etc. This is a very shallow way of looking at life. This is an integral part of your social blindness.

  12. Craig Binns Says:

    “If you don’t accept independently confirmed experiments, then you are just being stubborn and close-minded, but not scientific.” You say. Then I ask you, does the scientific community accept this “confirmation”?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, so-called scientists are not always scientific. If they were always scientific, then all scientific discoveries would have been embraced immediately, but they aren’t. Worrying about whether mainstream scientists have accepted LENR or not is a species of not thinking for yourself, of being afraid and letting someone else think for you. So, it doesn’t matter if they accept it or not, if you want to be scientific.

      New scientific discoveries are not accepted immediately because scientists are still human. They have fears and ambitions and insecurities and trust issues and greed and egos and in the old days there were communication issues, and all manner of issues and problems. But none of those barriers to acceptance were scientific.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Roger, you say “If you don’t accept independently confirmed experiments, then you are just being stubborn and close-minded, but not scientific.” And you say “so-called scientists are not always scientific.” And you say “Worrying about whether mainstream scientists have accepted LENR or not is a species of not thinking for yourself, of being afraid and letting someone else think for you. So, it doesn’t matter if they accept it or not, if you want to be scientific.” It’s all very confusing, the things you write. So let me cut through all this by saying I want EVIDENCE and I have none.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, since I don’t know why you find it confusing, I can’t help you. You might try re-reading it.

        But, yes, I don’t see any evidence for Rossi. I see promising demos and reports by observers, but that was 1.5 years ago. I see no evidence for any progress. I do see a lot of evidence for LENR, but none for a commercial product.

        This does not make Rossi a crook, no matter how frustrated we might be. It is a moral issue to not accuse people of ANYTHING until we are certain. And given Rossi’s terrific (but non-independent) demos, I believe that we should hold back on the name calling. It is bad karma to falsely accuse people. I have been the victim of false accusations many times, and it was really bad for me emotionally and reputation-wise. If he should come to your door and ask for money, I would say no if I were you. And please let me know if he has done that so that I can put him on my “crook” list.

      • Brad Arnold Says:

        Roger Bird:
        You are like my wife, who looks in her closet stuffed with clothes and tells me she has nothing to wear:
        This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

        “Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical…” –Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Brad, you are talking to the wrong guy. I have been an LENR believer for about 1.5 years since I saw the Mike McKubre video. Just like your wife, I like distinguished looking guys with small beards. (:->)

  13. Craig Binns Says:

    May I add: this has a few moments ago been posted in the James Randi Forum website at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9184522&postcount=3090. Regarding the quality of cold fusion “evidence”

    “The readily available info is:

    a) A string of SPAWAR pseudo-papers showing an utterly inadequate understanding of high-energy neutrons, the detection thereof, the specific detectors they used, and generally anything whatsoever to do with calibration.
    b) A bunch of videos of Rossi doing nothing whatsoever.
    c) A handful of amateur-hour theory papers with flat-out sign errors, wrong numbers, and nonexistent nuclei.
    d) Pons and Fleischmann’s original crappy calorimetry—now, what, a quarter-century ago?—and its predictable result reporting a calorimetry error.
    e) The collection of early-90s attempted “replications”, in which various competent high-sensitivity groups disagreed with P&F, and the occasional claims to disagree with P&F were in direct proportion to the incompetence of the claimant?”

  14. DravenR Says:

    After validation, I hope someone with integrity that’s behind-the-scenes will put the *complete* schematics and methods online for the common man.

    The alternative is to wait while these people drag their feet and try to encumber us with all manner of fees and red tape.

  15. Anony Mole Says:

    Hope is now a faded patina, a scruff on the surface of all these prophetic visions laid out here over the last many months.

    We’ll all be old men by the time “validation” (if it comes) is heralded as the news of the day. I’m reminded of this crazy piece: https://plus.google.com/u/0/113163888439328035664/posts/8fYj9X1qW88

  16. Jim Pelsor Says:

    open testing showing excess heat using Celeni’s process. Follow the history of the protocol and I think you’ll find a rigorous testing followed by positive results that will become the basis for unequivical and reproducible results.

  17. Ricky Says:

    Hello There. I found your weblog using msn. That is a very well written article.
    I’ll be sure to bookmark it and return to learn extra of your useful info.
    Thanks for the post. I will certainly return.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: