THE INDEPENDENT REPORT IS HERE!

The E-Cat has now been tested!  I believe that the E-Cat should now be considered a confirmed phenomenon!

“Even by the most conservative assumptions …, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.”

http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf

or

Cornell University Library

The reporters include names familiar to us: Guiseppe Levi of Bologna University, and Hanno Essén of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm Sweden.  Some might see these names as a negative.  I believe, however, that it shows that these reputable scientists have chosen to be engaged in this process for a long time.  They have already had feedback from critics eighteen different ways.  As such, they were in a very good place to cover all reasonable critique.

The biggest question remains, how much difference will this report really make?  The true difference would be:  LENR is no longer “pathological science”, research funding pours into LENR research and development and long-term energy planning factors in the pending LENR phenomenon.

The natural corollary: can we, by putting this information in the right hands, help make the difference?

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , , , , ,

191 Responses to “THE INDEPENDENT REPORT IS HERE!”

  1. BobN Says:

    The report looks pretty good. I’m sure that some will find things to pick at, but the bottom line, significant heat has been shown over a chemical reaction. This could be a very historic report. Lets hope it launches LENR into the mainstream.

  2. brucefast Says:

    What I am finding interesting is that the website hit rate is an order of magnitude beyond what it was before this post as well. However, there has been little in the line of comment action. I guess that the report says it all.

    • BobN Says:

      People are afraid to voice an opinion and be wrong. Seems all the skeptics have everyone looking over their shoulders. Very interesting on the volume and no posting.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      A bit if timezone hassle, is all. It’s most interesting that the report does not actually back up Rossi’s claim of a COP of 6 or more, yet if you look at the graph of heat input versus heat output you can see that this is most likely a control algorithm issue. The authors have also addressed the problem of a control measurement, using the same system but without the active ingredient, and running the same measurements on it. If Rossi had done that last time I could have accepted the data then.

      Basically, unless you think that the measurements were more than 90% out or that there is intentional fraud, this pretty well nails it that Rossi actually has a good process. It’s still not perfect, of course, but it’s going to be hard to dismiss this as vaporware any longer. Of course I expect people to take that opposing view and nit-pick – maybe they’ll even find some half-way valid objection.

      If Rossi had had this level of validation done before, he’d have had a whole lot more support but also maybe a whole lot more competition. Since he didn’t do that, it looks likely to me that he wasn’t sure that it would pass, or perhaps he just didn’t have the manufacturing fully sorted.

      This doesn’t mean that Rossi always told us the truth, but it does means that there’s a pretty good demonstration he has a valid technology now. That’s good news.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        This study was paid for by an independent “Swedish sounding” group, the Elforsk and Alba Langenskiöld Foundation.

      • brucefast Says:

        “This doesn’t mean that Rossi always told us the truth” Ditto to that. Exactly what Rossi has remains fairly unclear. That he has reliable, working, useful level LENR is also perfectly clear.

  3. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    WiKi actually published a brief positive statement.

    “A much more extensive investigation on the ‘hot cat’ version of the reactor was carried out in 2012–3 by a team of Swedish and Italian scientists, yielding very positive results.”

  4. gbgoble Says:

    Hip Hip Hooray!!
    Just in time… I’ve been so hoping this could coincide with the following. I hope you can attend…. Please contact these folks, maybe we could make it a cold fusion now event and go as a group.

    Nearly Free and Unlimited – Totally Nonpolluting

    Energy to Empower Environvental Restoration and Remediation

    On a Scale Never Seen Before….

    This Century will be known as the,

    “Century of Environmetal Restoration”

    Visit and Participate In

    THE SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION (SER)
    25TH ANNIVERSARY

    http://www.ser2013.org/about/ser-25th-anniversary/

    The SER2013 World Conference marks the 25th Anniversary of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) and represents an opportunity to celebrate not only the Society’s achievements over the last two and a half decades, but also the great strides and important advancements made in the field of ecological restoration during this period. Since SER’s inception, ecological restoration has gone from being a marginal and poorly understood discipline lacking theoretical and methodological coherence, to a widely recognized strategy for safeguarding biodiversity, re-instating ecosystem services, sustaining human livelihoods and reconnecting fragmented landscapes that is becoming an increasingly important component of environmental and natural resource policy frameworks around the world.

    SER2013 is the 5th SER World Conference on Ecological Restoration and the 21st Annual Meeting since the Society’s founding in 1988. The first SER conference was held in Oakland, California in 1989, and this began a series of annual meetings that continued until 2005. That year, the Society switched to a biennial conference cycle with a broader international focus, celebrating the 1st World Conference on Ecological Restoration in Zaragoza, Spain. The 2nd World Conference was held in 2007 in San Jose, California; the 3rd in Perth, Australia in 2009; and the 4th in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico in August 2011.

    Madison, Wisconsin provides an ideal setting in which to celebrate the Society’s 5th World Conference and 25th Anniversary, as it was here that SER was originally founded and here that the science and practice of ecological restoration first began with the pioneering philosophies and early experiments of Aldo Leopold, Theodore Sperry and others.

    This rich history, coupled with the pressing need for restoration to play an ever more important role in informing land management and policy decisions, forms the basis for the SER2013 conference theme:

    “Reflections on the Past, Directions for the Future”

    The SER2013 World Conference on Ecological Restoration: Reflections on the Past, Directions for the Future will bring together more than 1,200 delegates from around the world interested in the science and practice of ecological restoration as it relates to natural resource management, climate change responses, biodiversity conservation, local and indigenous communities, environmental policy and sustainable livelihoods.
    SER2013 is the 5th World Conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration.

    The Call for Abstracts at http://www.ser2013.org/ for oral and poster presentations at the SER2013 World Conference is now open. We welcome abstracts related to any aspect of ecological restoration, especially those that directly relate to the conference theme. The deadline for submissions is May 15, 2013.

    • brucefast Says:

      Greg, I just contacted these guys: http://wildernesscommittee.org/sitec informing them that they have a new power tool in their fight to shut down a hydroelectric project. I’m planning to put the e-cat wrench in the wheels of a couple of pipeline plans.

      I think it is to you to make sure that the Society for Environmental Restoration truly understands what the e-cat entails.

  5. Roger Bird Says:

    I am so looking forward to what Craig Binns has to say. I really am.

  6. Craig Binns Says:

    O ye of little faith! I already did comment, in another blog. See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=198040&page=78#post9235716 comments #3095 and subsequent.

    Hi brucefast I don’t need my neighbours to be heating their houses : anyone at all heating their houses will do. As long as I know who they are and it isn’t a phoney mchine in a factory in Ferrara or somewhere invented by Rosi’s imagination.

  7. Craig Binns Says:

    The questions and objections listed here need to be answered.

    http://pesn.com/2013/05/20/9602320_VINDICATION–3rd-Party-E-Cat_Test-Results-show-at-least-10x-gain/

    Comment by Mark Euthanasius: “It is unfortunately a very poor quality report that is unlikely to find general acceptance. One of the ‘elephant in the room’ questions the report leaves unanswered is how it is possible to have a process that is supposed to generate tremendous heat once started, but that cannot keep itself going with that tremendous heat, yet can be stimulated to restart after it has cooled down with modest heat. Disturbing parts of the report with respect to the lack of control by the investigators include statements that the device was already running when tests began denying the investigators even the opportunity to inspect the device prior to the experiments. Further serious data quality questions arise from the statements that the input power was the result of proprietary power waveforms that the investigators assumed were processed accurately by the test instrumentation.”

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      So the report doesn’t suit you….tough Shinola! Supposedly there’ll be a longer term test this summer, and no doubt, it won’t suit you. As Rossi has repeatedly said, the supreme test will be judged by the market.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        One has to wonderful if Craig has every flown in an airplane. After-all, Lord Kelvin said that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        You seem to infer from the fact that some people disbelieved in heavier than air flight (Kelvin didn’t disbelieve. He had seen birds do it. He disbelieved reports that it had been achieved.) then everything, however crackpot, that some people disbelieve, must be true? At the same time almost all informed people believe in AGW, and you don’t. Is your brain wired up the wrong way?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        You are doing the inferring. I didn’t say that. You need to examine your own thinking. Perhaps it is your tendency to think things in black and white. I merely follow the evidence. Sometimes I find that soft/social evidence is stronger than theory that says that something is impossible, as in the case with LENR. Sometimes I find that personal experience evidence is better than what some profession professes, as in the dominant theory from the medical profession concerning traditional Chinese Medicine. In the case of AGW, I looked at both the soft/social evidence and the scientific evidence, just much closer than most people.

        I am in pain. I gotta go. Bye.

  8. Craig Binns Says:

    Iggy

    Yes, people will buy it in the public market place if it works. When is that going to happen? Up to now Rossi has been marketing not machines but licences, and that is a very typical scam procedure.

    Also, Iggy, the validity of a report on the production of heat is determined on scientific grounds. Rossi presented his machine to people on the basis of their scientific credentials, which have been boosted on ecat fanboy websites. He has chosen the field in which the authenticity of his device will be determined. Rossi could have gone to the market. He didn’t; therefore he’s shirking what you claim he thinks is his own “supreme test”! He’s kidding us on. How long can you abet such charlatanry!

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I wonder if patho-skeptics ever admit that they are wrong. CRAIG, YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT HEAVIER-THAN-AIR FLIGHT. ADMIT IT!!!!!

      • Craig Binns Says:

        If I had been wrong about that back in 1903 then I’d have changed my mind when I saw a machine fly. When I see Rossi “fly” I’ll believe his claims. At present they don’t deserve belief. OK they laughed at the Wright brothers, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. And I know who Rossi most closely resembles!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        But Craig, you only had 14 days in 1903 to see and believe the Wright Bros. I think that we can safely peg your conversion to flight about 6 months after you first saw it, like most everyone else at the time.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Craig, didn’t that photo of the red hot and yellow hot ecat tweak a single iota of intellectual curiosity in your mind? The observers claimed that not only the steel inner-vessel melt, but also some of the ceramic insulation melted. You think that was a scammer’s illusion?

      No, I don’t think the ecat is quite ready for major marketing. I think we’re seeing rapid startling improvement. Within the next couple of years Rossi will likely develop a combined ecat powered gen-set and then the revolution will begin.

  9. Craig Binns Says:

    See also the sober report by Vincent at http://coldfusionnow.org/andrea-rossis-third-party-report-released/

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – there are a lot of people looking for holes in the report. Not unexpected. The test of the “empty” hot-cat where the same temperature was achieved using the same measuring kit is, however, pretty conclusive to remove the majority of the measurement error problems, leaving maybe an error in the 10% range. Thermocouples were used, too, to check the optical calibration. Not unexpectedly, they disagreed by a few degrees since the thermocouple sees a different insulation under the spot. The real cause for acceptance of the effect, even if there is some error in the magnitude, is the graph of temperature versus input power. Look at the shape of it – it tells you that there is extra energy being produced at higher temperatures, and the shape of the curve does not match pure resistive heating.

      No doubt that there will be Skeptics who will continue to doubt that it works. That’s not my problem. To me this test shows a real excess heat generation purely from the temperature/input graphs. Also fairly obviously this device is not yet ready for manufacture, and since for a domestic device such as this there will be years of testing to be done, it’ll be a while yet before you can go buy one at B+Q. That will come, but far later than you’d wish.

  10. Craig Binns Says:

    Iggy

    Regarding the picture f he bit of hot metal: in http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=198040&page=78#post9237271 the statement is made:
    “using an infra-red camera to measure temperature seems a bit odd.” To which the reply is given:
    “The difference being that there are methods of calorimetry that people would accept. Which are studiously avoided in favor of demonstrations.”

    Probably, flimflam.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig Binns, “Probably, flimflam.”

      Ah yes, all is right with the world. Honest, Craig, do you know any more than I do about the speed of heat dissipation from a hot container? Does it dawn on you that maybe others do know more than you or I about heat dissipation in this context? Do you think that cutting edge science can measure such heat dissipation within an order of magnitude?

  11. Craig Binns Says:

    Cutting edge science: the people who know more than you or I – the consensus among these people is to reject LENR as unproven, and to ignore Rossi as a charlatan. And when I accept these people’s views you and Roger accuse me of not thinking for myself or refusing to believe planes can fly.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      brucefast

      A writer on another blog says this:

      “And where are we years after the initial wave ?
      No where. No reactors place can be named. No commercially available to all gizmo. No truly independent verification. Always the man behind the curtain directing the show and refusing to let anybody too near the circus.
      I predict that in 2 years it will be the same.”

      http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=198040&page=78#post9237763

      He’s right, and you surely know it.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – Rossi has not got the controls good enough yet to go for the UL and other certifications. It’s a reasonable bet that if it’s true that he’s delivered a device and it is in use, there would be so many people wanting to see it and test it that the owner would be overwhelmed. Whether it’s true or not, I don’t think we’re going to see any data from that.

      To get a “commercially-available for all gizmo” is probably going to be at least 5 years away since Rossi has to get his process and manufacturing fully sorted and the regulatory approvals. Since this test is finally good enough to show a result, even if not to the level that Rossi promised, then I’d think Rossi’s finances are now safe and his financiers somewhat mollified, and so he’ll be able to continue his research in order to achieve that ideal of a gizmo for all. Getting the approvals will cost likely millions and take at least a year and likely two, simply because the process itself does not have a sound theory yet. You’ll have to wait.

      Randi thinks he knows a scam, and certainly Rossi has often appeared to be one with each failed demo before now. However Randi, and those commenters on his forum, seem to BELIEVE that LENR is not possible. Belief and science don’t go well together, whether you believe something is possible or whether you believe it isn’t. Better to just go by the evidence and experiment. There’s a whole lot of physics that is not believable yet we use it anyway.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I believe that you believe that planes fly. However, you confessed to an unscientific viewpoint. Consensus science is an oxymoron. If you will look at the evidence, look at the people who are talking about the evidence, the PhDs, the real physicists, then you won’t be quite so sure of yourself. I have always held that people who are sure of themselves don’t understand life very well. Simon and I are trying to hold your hand, because you are not an explorer type.

  12. Craig Binns Says:

    Simon

    “then I’d think Rossi’s finances are now safe and his financiers somewhat mollified, and so he’ll be able to continue his research in order to achieve that ideal of a gizmo for all. Getting the approvals will cost likely millions” Quite so. This mollification will keep the money rolling in for a while longer.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Yep – ‘fraid so. It costs a load of money to get this sort of thing through the regulatory processes so that everyone can get their gizmos. I’m assuming that the people putting the money in have previously seen better demos than we have, otherwise they’d have pulled out a long time back. They are gamblers, and prepared to bet a lot on making an absolute fortune at some future time. They obviously think the bet is good, and that they will collect that absolute fortune.

      Maybe they aren’t following other developments quite as closely as they should, but providing Rossi gets his control system sorted within the year they should still make an excellent profit. Longer than that, they may have competition.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        It’s been more than two years now. Believe me, in another year we will be no further forward.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        We have observed dramatic progress over the past couple of years, and I expect more of the same.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Iggy

        If you’re observing that, somebody’s been putting weird stuff in your bong.

  13. Anony Mole Says:

    Maybe, for the summer’s test those involved will take it to the next level and remove themselves from Rossi’s oversight, Rossi’s instructions Rossi’s equipment, and Rossi’s lab; video tape the whole thing; request the presence of two or more thoroughly credible scientists and produce the same if not better results. Then I’d say we’d have something to truly smile about. As it is, although enticing, the circumstances around the test as well as the complete lack of credibility on the part of Rossi leaves me unconvinced.

    If we can get a real third party test performed with like this one sometime before next winter… Or a public demonstration… It’s just that I wouldn’t even trust Rossi to park my car.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Yes, Anony. Rossi sometimes says he is willing for his machine to undergo independent tests. In that case the test protocols should be as you have listed, to ensure independence. At other times Rossi says to hell with tests, let the market pronounce on the machine. But he won’t tell us who he’s sold the contraptions to and miraculously none of the happy buyers now in possession of a world changing energy machine has said a single word in public! Does ANYONE here believe this?

      So what’s he playing at? Simon is right. This is to “mollify” his surely increasingly impatient financiers. By the way, folks, have we forgotten those days so long, long ago when Rossi was going to do all this with his own wonga and it couldn’t be a scam because he wasn’t going to take a penny from anyone …? Never mind. Life goes on.

  14. dave Says:

    phys.org picked up the story now:

    http://phys.org/news/2013-05-rossi-e-cat-energy-density-higher.html

    comment section is huge

  15. Craig Binns Says:

    “Comment section is huge” — and devastating for Rossi fans.

    • brucefast Says:

      Show me one comment that is “devastating for Rossi fans”. PhysOrg just has a bunch of blowhards who haven’t given the facts a serious look — they just declare their expertise.

  16. Craig Binns Says:

    Well that’s all right then, brucefast. Don’t bother about blowhards, don’t bother about pathoskeps. Just wait for Rossi’s contraptions to change the world.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      That is exactly what we are doing, except we are trying to promote it by going to websites and making comments. But we won’t be commenting much to patho-skeptics.

      Craig, you really think that your thinking processes are perfectly OK, don’t you?

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Ah, Roger

        Still the amateur Freudian-type shrink, I see.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, amateur for certain. Freudian, no. Shrink, yes. But it seems like normal discourse to me, just as your thinking and discourse seem normal to you.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      SkeptoBobbleHead.
      Just give’m a nudge.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Trust me, Iggy, I am trying. The more I try the more I am convinced that the patho-skeptic mindset is very deep and discussion won’t change anything. I assume that they are the flip-side of the true believer. TCM might say that the true believer is too yin, and the patho-skeptic is too yang. But I will have to think about that one.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        You carry on with that stuff, while I get on with discussing the “independent” tests. Think about yin believers and pathoyang sceptics, and when you’ve come to a conclusion about them, let us know. I don’t think your meditations are likely to be interrupted by an announcement that the Rossi machine has changed the world.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I guarantee that if Rossi’s E-Cat is accepted by the world that it will NOT interrupt my meditations, as you call deep thinking. And your attempts to mock my deep thinking merely show that you are incapable of keeping up.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        Is that because my patho-skeptic mindset is too yang?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, I love our chats. In the future, try to give me some kind of context. This forum is so full of posts that it is sometimes difficult to know what someone is referring to, and I don’t want to miss a thing with you. Fortunately, this time I know what you are referring to.

        My guess is that you have a very yang mind and I have a yin mind. This is neither good nor bad, so you don’t have to take offense. Extremely yin types are like unicorn believing LSD taking. Yang types would be more realistic. Balance is where it is at. But there is a huge range. My guess is that extremely yang types might be found in prison, and extremely yin types would be found in mental hospitals. A yin type would say to a yang type, “You have no dreams, no imagination.” And yang type would say back, “And you are not grounded; you are too unrealistic.”

  17. Anony Mole Says:

    Let’s, for the moment, pretend that this report was indeed a true and valid third party, independent report which takes us to the 80% or 85% level in the assumption that the Rossi LENR core is the real deal. If so then what are Rossi’s next moves? What can we expect to see happen? What news, what exposure, what participation, deals, partnerships, legalities should we see start to popup on the LENR radar?

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Rossi claims he and his partner are trying to develop an E-Cat powered genset. If he succeeds in that, it should be a game changer.

      Iggy Dalrymple
      April 18th, 2013 at 4:01 PM
      Dear Dr Rossi,
      Once you have completed the design and engineering, does your partner hope to assemble and sell a combined e-Cat/generator package complete with boiler and condenser?

      Sincerely,
      Iggy Dalrymple
      ~~~~~~~
      Andrea Rossi
      April 18th, 2013 at 5:23 PM
      Dear Iggy Dalrimple:
      Yes.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I think that we should be keeping an eye on Elforsk. They know that it is real, and they are going to make it happen in Sweden. This will cause a great deal of interest through-out the world. Also the European Parliament is going to look at it. Otherwise, a lot of the creep of this glacier may be too small or far away or hidden for us to be able to guess where the next big story is going to happen.

      I am at 100% for LENR, and 99% with Rossi. I am still not convinced that just anyone can get one of these things started. But time marches on.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Anony

      I don’t think we need to trouble ourselves too much about whether its the “real deal”. The argument seems to be that Rossi’s catalyst, or magic potion, reduces the temperature required to initiate nickel fusion (from which even exploding stars can’t extract energy). I raised this issue in the Randi Forum threads, and someone responded with this:

      “No, not even according to Rossi’s “data”. If you were somehow lowering the barrier to nuclear fusion … well, you’d be putting in this small amount of energy and getting nuclear fusion. And we know what nuclear fusion looks like: it’s a nuclear reaction, i.e. something that produces gamma rays and radioactive daughter nuclei. Go inside the Sun and you find a hydrogen plasma, which is being continually heated by high-energy gamma rays, neutrons, and beta rays from the fusion reactions. Go inside a bomb, or a tokamak, and you find the same thing. The gamma rays are not an incidental side effect, but rather are fundamental to the behavior of energetic nuclei.

      So as soon as Rossi says “no gamma rays were detected”, and “no radioactive products”, you can discard this “lowered the fusion barrier” interpretation..”

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – try forgetting the “fusion and how it must happen” argument and look at what is happening.

        Unless Rossi has managed to fool some good scientists, then what he’s shown is that he’s putting a smaller amount of energy in and getting a larger amount of energy out. I’m pretty certain he does not in fact know precisely how it works, since currently no-one else has a theory that stands up and is accepted in general.

        We have not got independent analysis of what is put into the system and what remains after the energy is extracted. Rossi is known to be less than truthful about such things, too. Just stand back from the misrepresentations of ingredients and processes and look at the energy balance or COP.

        Is it important that what “Rossi says” is happening is against what a number of good scientists say? Do you believe what “Rossi says” for the ingredients but not for the result as measured by a group of scientists? I think that the demonstrated COP is more important. Something is happening that is giving out energy, and it looks like that process is now reasonably-well validated unless you stipulate that a lot of people are either dishonest or incompetent.

        What evidence (other than “Rossi says”) have you got that this is a nuclear reaction? We now have pretty good proof that we get more energy out than in, and that is all that has been demonstrated. It may take a while before we know what is actually happening.

        Also worth pointing out is that nuclear reactions can proceed without gammas being emitted. What you’ve quoted effectively says that if there aren’t any gammas then it can’t be a nuclear process. Epic failure of understanding there.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I think that we the fans of “cold fusion” or LENR already knew that it was not nuclear fusion in the conventional sense of the word. It is anomalous heat, and for now that is all that we need to know. Fire had no explanation for at least a million years and yet we managed to use it to our benefit. But when we finally did get an explanation, then we were able to improve it greatly. I assume that it won’t take a million years to find an explanation for this anomalous heat.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        Fire has been controllable, repeatable and observable for a million years. If you strike flints, you get sparks. Dry wood burns, etc. But with LENR we can’t even say with certainty that any effect exists, let alone what it is an effect of. And in my view the effect is delusional. But if it becomes as observable, repeatable, controllable and useful as fire, I will accept its existence whether it is understood or not. It is not, and I’m pretty certain it never will be. You believe in it, and other people, on as good grounds, believe in fairies at the bottom of their gardens.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I believe in fairies. We are just too gross to see them, as in too splattered into the physical to see them. The physical does not define reality.

  18. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Worth reading, especially for the points and counterpoints, is this essay by “LENR.WTF”. I’m sure Craig will agree with all the counterpoints….

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JkYKd3Ipwz64ZuHzbdSdayk26VxOcQIo4K8E3t1Fmqs/edit?pli=1

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Simon

      Looks like the usual nonsense to me. By the way, who wrote it? Where is it published?

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, it looks great to me. Thanks for posting it. It has become the most important part of my convincing arsenal.

        And Craig, when you become convinced that you are wrong, which you will, eventually, you might take that opportunity to examine yourself and find out how you could have been so wrong. For example, your social sense is very weak. You might get into a ballroom dance group; that might help. But let us wait until you realize what a big mistake you have made.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        If I wasn’t sure you were joking I would be very worried for your well being.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        5 years from now, just to make sure we get past any development stages, I surely hope that we are still in contact.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Thank you, Simon. Nice read. I hope that Craig reads it.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        One difference in believers and skeptics.

        Chronic skeptics feel they’re so smart that anything they don’t understand must not be real.

        Believers, on the other hand, are comfortable with not understanding everything. I don’t understand electricity but I know it’s real.

        I confronted a newly graduated Electrical Engineer and asked, “Sal, what is electricity? Or can that be explained?” Sal said, “It’s simple, Iggy. Electricity is electrons moving down a wire.” I said, “Seems like it would be really crowded on the other end of the wire.” Sal said, “You’re right, Iggy. We can’t really explain electricity.” Sal became a software engineer.

        I don’t understand women but I know they’re real….a few unreal.

  19. Simon Derricutt Says:

    That link is where it’s published, author effectively anonymous (assumed name of LENR.FTW ). Don’t tell me you didn’t agree with the counterpoints? I thought you’d like those.

  20. Craig Binns Says:

    Simon

    Useless, then. An unknown author spouting nonsense on a nameless link. But some bits, though hilarious, are true. Ths statement, for example:

    “Still, the tests are compelling — not close to absolute proof, but convincing if one discounts elaborate fraud.”

    Quite right. I am not convinced, because I most certainly do not discount elaborate fraud. Why should I? What is most probable, that a crook like Rossi is perpetrating fraud? Or that he can set aside the known laws of nature? (We know he’s a liar. He never heated a factory in Italy with one of his ecats, and his “transmuted” copper was phoney flim flam.)

    Anyway free energy devices are ALWAYS delusions or scams. They’ve been around for centuries and none of them has ever worked. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – you obviously mean unknown as in Aepervius, TjW, The Man, Reality Check, Kid Eager, or Craig B (Illuminator), which is a selection of the “names” of people on that Randi blog you’ve quoted here (and obviously agree with and maybe even respect). Do you know who all of those are? I suspect you only know one of them.

      At the moment, it looks to me that an accusation of elaborate and outright fraud is the only one that still has some traction, and you are of course welcome to choose that as your explanation. If you can tell me that you know all the laws of nature, or can point at someone who does, then you can use the argument of “against the laws of nature”. Since people who do know a lot must also realise there’s a lot more to know, if you point me at someone who says he/she knows everything, then it’s almost certainly not someone you should trust. Catch-22 again – sorry about that but that’s the way it is.

      You are of course right about Rossi being economical with the truth. Since that’s his best option if he’s correct and wants to make money from it, you should not expect him to be any other way. The meek don’t inherit the earth (or at least no more than 6’x2′ by 6′ deep) but get stomped on.

      You’re also right that no “free energy” device has so far worked. You are arguing from induction that they will never work, which risks being proved wrong at some point. Rossi’s device is not however touted as “free energy” but as some form of nuclear power. It’s not perpetual motion. At this moment we don’t know where the energy comes from, but I expect we’ll find the source of that energy once it’s in manufacture.

      With this report, we’re really left with 2 options:
      1: Rossi either fooled the scientists or bribed them to help him fool the world, and his device does not really do anything extraordinary.
      2: It really works.
      From my knowledge of other scientists working on similar ideas and the evidence of involvement of Siemens and NI, I choose the second option (I’ve come off the fence). The first option will, I think, become more and more untenable over the coming year. It will still be a few years before they’ll be on sale and your point of view will have to change.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, your philosophical retardation is show. There are no 7ucking laws of nature. There are only patterns, and sometimes those patterns work out nicely mathematically with other patterns of nature, so this gives us a warm and secure feeling. But they are still just patterns.

  21. Craig Binns Says:

    Simon

    We don’t know where the energy comes from. So it doesn’t come from transmuting nickel into copper and getting the same ratios of isotopes are are found in nature. Good. So Rossi, at least in respect of that matter, is a fraud. We’ll find the source once the device is in manufacture, eh? Then you don’t believe that Rossi has already been manufacturing and testing these contraptions by the dozen or hundred, as he was claiming two years ago, and that he’s sold more than one big economy size version to an unknown purchaser. So he’s been lying about the source of the energy, and the marketing of the devices? Not too good so far …

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – looks like you’re actually agreeing with me. I didn’t think Rossi was manufacturing things before, though he has made a few himself. I also didn’t believe the published powder analysis. Lots of misdirection as well as some lies, but I’ve also said you should expect that considering his history.

      So – ignore the misdirections and lies from the past, and look at the new evidence from this test. Do you think the tests were adequate to show energy from whatever was inside the can, and that the report’s authors took enough precautions? They didn’t rely on the camera to work out temperature, but calibrated that against a thermocouple. If they hadn’t done that I’d be picking holes in the measurements myself, but they did. All the current arguments on the net about emissivity and the real power dissipated were demolished by that and their use of the “emptied” box as a control to check their instruments and calculations. The only thing they haven’t done is to totally eliminate a secret power feed-in that wasn’t metered. Since Rossi didn’t specify their kit, it would have been foolish of Rossi to try that since they might have brought various things with them that would have caught such a fraud and the game would have been over. For example, using their own mini-extension/break-out cable would remove the possibility of Rossi using coaxial cables as his wires and thus hiding the real current drawn from the wall, or they could have used some plug-in wattmeter. You’re thus left with collusion or bribery to explain the results away, or you accept that they’re real.

      It looks currently that you’ve still got a few years before it gets to be like fire and you can see it works for yourself, so you’ll have some time to gradually let yourself think this is indeed real. Looks like there may be some interesting stuff from Defkalion in August that will stretch you a bit, though.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “Looks like there may be some interesting stuff from Defkalion in August that will stretch you [Craig] a bit, though.” I sure hope so. Craig needs all of the stretching that he can get.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        And Defkalion needs all the evidence it can get! But we’ve been promised “interesting stuff” from them before. It never came, and the only piece of hard info we have is that after all their fanfare about making Greece save the world they’re now skulking behind a shop front in Vancouver, waiting for grant funding from BC Province.

        Maybe I should take up ballroom dancing to pass the time while waiting for them to keep even one of their promises, eh Roger?

  22. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Since Rossi has sold out, he’s lost his underdog appeal.

    From here on I’m just a fan of generic LENR. I admire Rossi but he doesn’t need us any more. I don’t blame him for selling out. It may have been his only viable option.

    I hope he gets some stiff competition. That’s what will bring domestic units to market.

  23. Craig Binns Says:

    “Selling out”? What has he sold? Sure as hell not one single ecat.

  24. Anony Mole Says:

    It’s because this whole thing is just so frustrating, yet the underlying idea is so compelling that we, well I, continue to return to beat this apparently dead horse. Whack whack whack.

    The Rossi Show is so bloody frustrating. His behavior is not that of a man who has changed the world (for the better). His behavior is more along the lines of a sneaky, conniving manipulator bent on monetary gain and egotistical stroking. What the hell is he playing at if he’s not the convoluted charlatan that he appears to be? His actions make no sense if he’s truly got the goods.

    Someone needs to get him flat-ass drunk and videotape his confession; get the truth out of him. Cuz’ damn I’m tired of flailing this equine PITA.

    • BobN Says:

      What you are seeing from Rossi is a man stalling for time. He is still trying to figure out what makes it work, he has stumbled across the how, but without enough detail to properly control the beast. He might come close to mastering it to the point of a product, but a good solid product will not emerge until the root cause of how it works is known, at that point you can engineer a solution.

      Yes, its incredibly frustrating and time moves slowly for those that are waiting, but in the scope of thinks, Rossi has made excellent progress. Its like a drip, you don’t realize its happening, but one day it will be there, just like the full water bucket.

      Oil companies continue to divest, Nuclear companies are not going ahead with planned sites. Coincidence, maybe, but big money always finds out what is real a little ahead f the little guy (that’s us).

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I don’t see that at all. I see a business man who has been screwed by the state before who is determined to make money this time.

  25. Craig Binns Says:

    BobN

    How can you possibly say Rossi has stumbled across anything except some flim flam of his own manufacture which he has used to set up a free energy scam? Free energy is full of scams. It contains not much else except a few sincere lunatics perhaps. And Rossi’s career of garbage to petrol projects and suspected gold smuggling, as well as his numerous lies about the e-cat, give few grounds for accepting his credentials with any confidence.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig said: “How can you possibly say Rossi has stumbled across anything except some flim flam of his own manufacture which he has used to set up a free energy scam?” This is how: The rest of us have a social sense, and can read soft/social evidence. You, Craig, can’t.

    • BobN Says:

      I believe Rossi has found something, because cold fusion has been replicated in 1000’s of labs, most have only shown small power gains, but I think it highly likely that someone, with all the testing found something that produces large quantities of energy.
      I have been studying the whole thing for 2 years and believe in the science. I think they are close to understanding it, but breakthroughs are hard to schedule.
      Quite frankly, I could care less what Craig thinks at this point, the argument has gone past the is/isn’t stage in my opinion.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        BobN, I presume that you realize that Craig Binns has NEVER looked at any data point that could be seen as part of a picture that would indicate that any LENR was real, especially the E-Cat. Craig has the worse problem with new things or out-of-the-box things of anyone I have ever met, total rock-solid mental constipation. You are absolutely right; LENR/E-Cat is a fact. Now if Rossi can get some products sold, especially at Home Depot or whatever similar stores are in Scotland where Craig lives, then maybe we could break that ice jam that Craig calls thinking. (:->) And I mean that in the nicest log jamy possible way. (:->)

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        “Now if Rossi can get some products sold, especially at Home Depot or whatever similar stores are in Scotland where Craig lives, then maybe we could break that ice jam that Craig calls thinking.” Yes indeedy. That kind of thing is called “evidence” and if it is ever produced in that form, I will change my mind about Rossi. But Roger there has never been nor ever will be any free energy device in Home Depot or anwhere else. That’s my problem, not congestion of the brain or anything.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        But Craig, there is plenty of evidence, all of which you refuse to even look at. But you are waiting for your 1994 Encyclopedia Britannica to approve of you thinking along new lines.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        I have been citing evidence and discussing it here and on other blogs. You’re the one who babbles about ballroom-dancing pathoskeps. Have a nice day.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Which evidence would that be? It certainly is not the evidence presented by Levi, Essen, McKubre, et. al.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        It surely isn’t the evidence that allowed you to write this weird statement! “I believe in fairies. We are just too gross to see them, as in too splattered into the physical to see them. The physical does not define reality.” And reality doesn’t define Rossi. Maybe he warms fairies’ little toes with his ecat.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        As I have said before and as is obvious, I tend to believe people’s reports of their experience, if not always their interpretation of their experience. I still have one hand tightly wrapped around the Theory of Relativity, so I tend to discount the interpretation of the the reports of alien abductions. I accept their experience, but not their interpretation. After-all, did the abductors say that they were from the Pleiades?

        You attempt to discredit and mock my perspective, Craig, just shows me how tiny you and your experience is.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        If your experience includes fairies and persons who have been abducted by space aliens, well I admit my own modest experiences are tiny compared with that. If I believed in fairies and space aliens I might be more ready to attach credence to Rossi’s equally fantastical e-cat–perhaps!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        That would be knowing about people who claim to have been abducted by aliens, and surely you also know of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. So don’t over state my position so that you can mock it.

        I don’t think that I have ever seen a fairy, although my wife says that she did once as a child, clear as a bell. Children would more likely be open to those sorts of experiences. They are less bound by their intellect and less slammed into the physical.

        I have had experiences akin to seeing fairies, but I am pretty sure that I have never had that experience. But I trust those who say that they have, unless of course they ask me for money to pay for their researches.

        As long as you take the physical to be the one and only reality, you will always mock my perspective. You will, however, have a hell of a time explaining consciousness, mind, experience, platonic love, caring, life, etc.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Roger, I’ve seen them in Key West and San Francisco.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Iggy, you are always funny. The ironic thing is that the fairies you are referring to are exceeding gross, and I mean that in both senses of the word.

  26. Craig Binns Says:

    An interesting moment on Rossi’s former garbage to fuel enterprise in http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/03/10/rossis-financial-and-environmental-criminal-history/

    “In the years where he was working here, he didn’t produce a single drop of oil, as far as we know. What he did was creating just a media event. He was able to persuade – in a way that I cannot explain – a good portion of public opinion, and that’s exactly what is hard for me to explain. He persuaded technicians in the field, scientists and important institutions, [inaudible] the region of Lombardia that he was able to do magic.”

    And he’s working the same tricks again. But just as Petroldragon produced not a drop of fuel, neither will the e-cat EVER produce even a spark of useful energy.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      You know Krivit has a vendetta against Rossi? This is not unbiased reporting.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Craig & Krivit soon receive “cease and desist” warnings from Rossi’s attorneys. Wiki has already caved.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I have always said that calling someone a crook without proof is grossly immoral and is illegal. But Craig and Krivit have no problem with it. SHAME on them. I have had it said of me, and I am not a crook. It is very hurtful.

  27. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Although quite a few people are complaining about the report, I haven’t yet seen a valid attack on the measurements of temperature and the energy radiated. The second test on the inactivated device used straight resistive power that was measured and thus showed that the emissivity was about right and that the overall errors in the power radiated in the live test were indeed pretty well correct and within their error bars.

    The only valid attack therefore is that Rossi sneaked some extra power in through the cables. I see this as extremely unlikely, since the people doing the measurements would have had at least a fair chance of finding it and publishing, and that Rossi would be unlikely to take that chance at this time. If Rossi has found a method that would fool any possible test meter, that is probably worth quite a bit of money (but not to the energy-generating companies).

    Let’s face it that LENR is no longer extraordinary when it’s been demonstrated at MIT. It does not need extraordinary evidence, just the normal sort. I wish Rossi well in his upcoming lawsuits for libel.

  28. Anony Mole Says:

    I agree. A little court action here would do the whole field a service.

    “Mssr. Rossi, you claim you’ve been libeled in regards to your e-cat apparatus. These claims are that it is a fraud and you are a front for further fraud akin to your Petroldragon scheme all those years ago. So, does your device work?”

    ‘Of-a course-a it-a works-a.”

    “Can you prove it in front of this court?”

    “Well-a, no. But if-a you come to my-a laboratoria I can-a prove it-a there-a.”

    “Has your e-cat apparatus been proven to work in a complete and absolutely separate test from your control, scientifically verified by parties not in any way associated with you or your various companies or parties?”

    “Well-a, no. But if-a you come to my-a laboratoria I can-a prove it-a to you-a there-a.”

    “Mssr. Rossi, this court will not be shifting it’s venue to accommodate our your inability to provide court acceptable proof of the operation of your apparatus. Can or can you not provide absolutely and completely independent proof, in multiple, reproducible tests utterly out of your control on the viability of your e-cat apparatus?”

    “Well-a, no. But-a if you-a come to my-a …”

    • Roger Bird Says:

      The day is fast approaching, Anony Mole, that you will eat your words.

      • Anony Mole Says:

        And what may be odd to some, but I, for one, would happily eat such words. And I would think that many others who either started out or have acquired a considerable mistrust of Rossi would gladly eat their words were Rossi to vindicate himself, deliver absolute proof and effectively “save the world.”

        My knife and fork are ready… Truly, I would love to feast.

        Alas, my hunger pangs will most likely linger long into the future.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        How fast is that day approaching? We’ve been waiting for years and have no evidence for anything except a lot of rubbish. Meanwhile Defkalion has disappeared from Greece, and its Internet discussion forum has been deleted. It consists of a shop front in Vancouver. What have they ever produced there or in Greece? And where are Rossi’s factories with their swarms of workers who’ve allegedly been manufacturing e-cats for years? Florida, Ferrara, Sweden? Show us, Andrea!

        Simon tells us LENR requires only “the normal sort” of evidence. Agreed. Where is it? Where are the LENR power plants? Where are the reliably working LENR devices?

        Finally Roger talks about fairies and ballroom dancing and space aliens and pathoskeps and other creatures of his imagination. And all this goes on for years. It’s ludicrous!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – for reliably-working LENR devices, check out Mitch Swartz at MIT – I’ve mentioned that before. You might also check out Brillouin and Arata. Good science, and experimental results.

        If it was easy, it would have been done by now. It’s not easy. Worth noting that getting nuclear power has never been easy, and getting power from nuclear fusion has had a lot more thought and money poured into it, and that although the fusion experiments show some results the COP has so far been pretty dismal and is billed to remain that way for the next couple of decades or so.

        Rossi has not been particularly truthful in the past, but unless you figure either gross fraud or incompetence the figures and cross-checks in the report show that the authors measured around 3 times the energy out than they put in. That is not Rossi saying that, but a company that measures power for a living. That shows that Rossi has gone from pretty unreliable to being certain enough that it will work to allow outside confirmation. It doesn’t mean he’s now got a totally reliable system – for all we know he may have had a few HotCats in reserve in case the tests didn’t work, but he got lucky and the one he gave them did in fact perform.

        Next time, I’d expect the authors to be a lot more careful to eliminate the possibility of fraud, since it can’t be nice for them to have had so much scorn poured onto their measurements. I don’t expect them to find any fraud, though.

        Bear in mind that currently no-one has a fully-working and generally-accepted theory as to why the excess heat is there, but it is experimentally confirmed. Rossi probably has his own working theory that guides him, but that too may not be correct.

        Denying experimental results because your theory doesn’t allow them to happen can only go so far. At some point you’ll need to change the theory to take account of reality. Funnily enough, it was only in the last decade or so that people finally worked out how a bumble-bee can in fact fly.

  29. Craig Binns Says:

    Simon

    “no-one has a fully-working and generally-accepted theory as to why the excess heat is there, but it is experimentally confirmed.” Where is this experimental confirmation published? Is it recognised by the scientific community as having been confirmed to the level of confidence now required?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – I’ve told you where to look before, yet you obviously still haven’t looked (or maybe not understood the experiments). Go do the research. Maybe start with Bruce’s “replicators” as a good basis.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Simon, you still don’t get it. You are projecting your good sense, adventurous spirit, independent thinking, and confidence in your own thinking on to Craig. Craig won’t budge until he reads about it in Popular Science or whatever the Scots have that is similar. I.E. he won’t think for himself; he still demands like a petulant child that someone else think for him. He is a dependent thinker.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        You have said LENR has been “experimentally confirmed”. That either means nothing at all, or it means the confirmation has been reported in a peer reviewed journal. My request is simple. Give me the journal reference, so that I can check the truth of what you have stated.

        If you are going to refer me to unscientific fan literature, then on that sort of evidence UFOs and tooth fairies have been “experimentally confirmed” too. (Sorry, Roger, I know you believe they have.)

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig said: “You have said LENR has been ‘experimentally confirmed’. That either means nothing at all, or it means the confirmation has been reported in a peer reviewed journal.” This is what it is all about Craig. You don’t seem to understand that there are a lot of things that are real that are not confirmed in peer reviewed journals, like your hands typing on your keyboard, etc. etc. etc. But the worst thing about your attitude is that NO ONE gets published in peer reviewed journals with even a minor paradigm shifting paper unless they have made a lot of noise elsewhere in other journals first. You are still depending upon someone else to think for you. Your insistence upon publication in a peer review journal as evidence is your telling everyone that even Craig Binns doesn’t trust Craig Binns’ thinking. And your strident attempt to define what is valid evidence has nothing to do with science; it is all about your petulant attempt to force other people to adopt your standards. It is fine if you want to have those standards. You can wait until confirmation in a peer reviewed journal if you want. But don’t try to force us to your standards. It won’t work and it is a waste of your real hands typing away.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Craig, you are still a dependent thinker. This is the opposite of an independent thinker, a marker for greatness.

      “Where is this experimental confirmation published?” You know where it is published. You just don’t want to read it for fear that you might have to think for yourself.

      “Is it recognized by the scientific community . . ” Still waiting for you to think for yourself.

      “. . . as having been confirmed to the level of confidence now required?” Now required by whom? By other people who do think for themselves and who do your thinking for you.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – when I started on this research (as it happens I’d just seen Rossi’s first (failed) megawatt demo) I spent about 3 months reading papers on it. Jed Rothwell’s lenr-canr.org is a very good source of those. Most people don’t want to put that level of effort into it.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “Most people don’t want to put that level of effort into it.” Simon, neither do I. I’ll take your word for it. YOU HAVE TO TRUST SOMEONE. I confess that I depend more upon social or soft evidence. I am trusting the 7 that they are competent and uncorrupted. Craig is not. I don’t think that he can. His social sense is weak; his trust is weak. It is just like my wife and son have a very strong sense of disgust. I don’t. I have to make an effort to remember to shut the door when I am on the can and to not pick my nose in front of them. I am also color blind. I readily ask others when a question of color comes up. I think that trust is more fundamental. I easily trust my son and wife on both of these issues. But Craig does not trust you, and that is not a fault of yours. I am pretty sure that Craig’s lack of trust has a place in this world, but it sure is annoying to have to repeat over and over why and who we trust, and then for him to fancy that he is the smart one and that we are the stupid ones.

        My sister-in-law Nennette makes huge strides in her knowledge and welfare because she trusts me completely. Trust is not always bad. Otherwise, how would children possibly learn. One must learn when to trust and when not to trust. It is an art called growing up. To always trust (Nennette does not trust everyone, and probably not me always, like if I said to her, “It would be best for you if you were to sleep with me.” She would probably no longer trust me after that.) is a mistake, to never trust is a mistake. There is a balance, and that balance is an art that I doubt that other people can give to each other.

      • BobN Says:

        Roger- Everyone has to trust someone, but too many people blindly put their trust in people they no nothing about. We have become a nation of superficial readers, never checking the underlying data on the issues.
        A good example is Global warming, most of the people go along because that’s what is reported. A few with an agenda are leading everyone astray. Almost every one that actually studies the issue believes there is no Global Warming. At some point everyone needs to get a basic understanding, so they can judge accordingly.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        BobN, I couldn’t agree more. I looked deeply at AGW, and thanks to a really good website sponsored by those meanie heads the oil industry, I came to the conclusion that AGW was bogus. As I went along in time, I started connecting other data points that the website did not mention (at that time), like, what happened to the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period? Then later I learned about the Holocene Maximum. That is really my favorite data point in this debate.

        And nothing that I have seen disputes the reality of the sea level temperature vs. CO2 over the past 500,000 years chart, or the existence of the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Holocene Maximum. Because I started off with the right assumptions, the picture just kept getting clearer and sharper. The idea that one gas going from 1/2600 to 1/2500 would be a big deal when we are awash (like that pun) in H2O, solid, liquid, and gas, so much so that numerous people have died from getting too much of it and getting too little of it.

        But, we have to trust someone. We have to learn who we can trust and who we can’t trust. We have to learn how we determine who we can trust. I think that is one of the most important things that we learn as we grow up. When Simon first came here (nicklepower.org), he was an AGW advocate. He did his homework, and now he is NOT an AGW advocate. I trust his mind for scientific matters. Changing like that is like a drunkard successfully giving up booze; it takes a lot of focus and will and mental backbone.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        That’s a no, then. Simon is not right when he says LENR is confirmed, unless he means confirmed by Roger’s imagination. In science, the word confirmed has a specific meaning, not applicable here. Has LENR been confirmed to better that 5 sigma, or whatever? If it has, in what journal has this been published?

        Justify your statement that lmost everyone who studies the matter thinks that there is NO global warming. (I.e. not merely that it is not caused by human activity — it isn’t happening at all!) Presumably the temperature data are being faked. But of course Big Oil is to be listened to here, even though its agents are allegedly suppressing poor Mr Rossi and his world changing energy machine.

        Say hi to your sister in law Nanette for me. It’s very touching, but not scientifically relevant, that she trusts you, Roger.

        Simon

        You said something specific about scientific confirmation of LENR. Where has this been published? Don’t waffle. Tell me.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        So Craig says No No, Nennette

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, I told you before to give a context, otherwise I don’t know what you are talking about.

        LENR IS CONFIRMED NUMEROUS TIMES.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – I’m a bit rushed at the moment so I’m not going to do your work for you. Go read Mitch Swartz for a start, and read the other papers too (I seem to be repeating myself here). Don’t come back and tell me that they are too complex for you to understand. There are maybe thousands of papers on lenr-canr.org (I haven’t counted them), and you’ll also find papers there that say “nothing happened”. Also valuable data.

        If you do the work, you’ll find that:
        1: It’s not easy to do.
        2: When there is a positive result it is unmistakeable.
        3: It’s not yet understood why some experiments work and others don’t, although they are as far as possible identical.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        Whether I do work or don’t do work on your sources which for all I know may be the work of charlatans or lunatics, I had a request for you. It was this: “You have said LENR has been “experimentally confirmed”. That either means nothing at all, or it means the confirmation has been reported in a peer reviewed journal. My request is simple. Give me the journal reference, so that I can check the truth of what you have stated.”

        Now, either tell me that no such publication has taken place within the normal procedures of science, in which case LENR has not been “confirmed”, or give me the reference I have requested. But stop waffling.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig, Simon and I are not responsible for your disability of being unable to figure out who is trustworthy. You will have to work that out for yourself. I will give you some pointers. If someone is going to make money off of something, then their credibility is greatly reduced, but not entirely eliminated. And if they keep proving themselves, then their credibility will increase. Starting out, with me, Rossi’s credibility was a big fat zero. When other credible people in 2011 said that they thought that Rossi was for real, this helped Rossi’s credibility for me. When I saw the steam/vapor/water blasting out of the hose, this helped. But I never really completely believed Rossi until the recent ‘independent’ test. It may help to think of credibility as a percentage thing. I still know that everything that comes out of Rossi’s mouth may not necessarily be true and more than any other business person or most people for that matter. But, for me, his E-Cat is the real deal. I am convinced, despite the seeming improbability of it.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        Thank you. I’ll get back to you. Meanwhile Rossi hasn’t yet made the “peer-reviewed confirmation” status. See http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1005

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “Meanwhile Rossi hasn’t yet made the ‘peer-reviewed confirmation’ status.” Rossi has also not been confirmed by WickedPedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Daughters of the American Revolution. Obviously no peer-reviewer is not going to say that Rossi is OK; otherwise this wouldn’t be a paradigm breaking discovery.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – read that and then go read the papers in the bibliography that detail the experiments he’s based the report on. Most publications, as you should know, have a policy of rejecting outright any papers on LENR/Cold Fusion. This one is, however, published and peer-reviewed.

        If after reading and understanding this paper and the referenced papers you come back and say the data is still not good enough then you are not a scientist but pathologically sceptical.

        You have some work to do. It’s easy to reject something you don’t understand, and follow the crowd of happy disbelievers. You’ve previously asked for proof but you obviously haven’t read what we’ve pointed you at, so you’ve come back again asking for more proof. You actually do have to read this stuff if you really want to know. It’s not about belief, it’s about evidence.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        The word is now “skeptopath”, rather than “patho-skeptic” or the variations on that order. Skeptopath is the correct order that is used in psychology. It also has a nice ring to it that will infuriate the skeptopaths.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        Thank you for that contribution. As you may imagine I’m quite relaxed about being called a Pathoskep; but when I’m called a Skeptopath I go completely bananas!

      • Roger Bird Says:

        That was funny.

      • Anony Mole Says:

        And then on the other side of the aisle we have:

        Zealopaths?
        Devoutopaths?
        Righteopaths?
        Gullipaths?

        Given a choice of diseases I think I’d rather be a skeptopath.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I am an evidencepath.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        For me, I took the lesstraveledpath.
        And that has made all the difference.
        – Frosty Dalrymple

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I march to an inner drummer.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        “Some people walk in the rain, others just get wet.”
        – Roger Miller

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        The paper was written by E Storms. It doesn’t claim to be confirmation, but “to provide a brief overview of the major discoveries and some of the attempts at an explanation. The evidence supports the claim that a nuclear reaction between deuterons to produce helium can occur in special materials without application of high energy.” so it’s a simple summary of past experiments. Storms is on the Editorial Board of the journal in question.

        That’s not “confirmation in a peer reviewed journal”, Simon.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – so you think that Ed Storms’ paper was not peer-reviewed? You have not had the time to read the SPAWAR or China Lake papers (US military) which have a much higher bar to publication – bad science there could be punished possibly by jail time. Go through the bibliography that Ed Storms has pointed to at the end of his paper. If you aren’t convinced when you’ve done that then you will not be convinced even when they are being sold.

        There are people, such as Bob Parks, who say that LENR is impossible and thus that anyone working with it or approving of it is a charlatan, against science and should therefore be sacked. Unfortunately, he has the power to sack people and refuse research grants, and has. It sort of reduces the number of people who are willing to research. It does look like China is researching though. You’ll see a fair number of papers from Beijing University if you go look.

        You should really go read the stuff yourself, rather than rely on Wiki to set your opinions or ask for only stuff that has been passed by the management/government. (Notice in hotel – All water here has been passed by the management.)

        Bottom line – scientists are finding out new stuff all the time. You look at the data, and you look at the way it was measured. If it’s repeatable then it’s real whether the theory allows it or not.

        A story: about 40 years ago I had a lecture from Professor Kurti. He was working with low temperatures, and when he reached a certain temperature the liquid Helium dripped from the bottom of the container. This happened twice, and each time he took the whole apparatus apart to look for the leak and couldn’t find it. A colleague working in the same field saw the same thing, had checked for any leaks and published the results and got the Nobel prize for it. Superfluidity was against the theory at that time, but they soon got a theory together. Professor Kurti was thus the confirmer, not the discoverer.

        You’re like the guy who told Kurti “There must be a leak, let’s take it apart again and find it, then we can continue the experiment”.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        You write:

        “Go through the bibliography that Ed Storms has pointed to at the end of his paper. If you aren’t convinced when you’ve done that then you will not be convinced even when they are being sold.”

        That is quite absurd. And what’s this “WHEN they are being sold”? It is of course my contention that they will NEVER be sold. You’re counting the chickens before they’re hatched. You should say “would not be convinced even if they were being sold”.

        But you assume what you cannot show to be true or even probable.

        Now you have drawn a blank with the Storms “confirmation” you’ve switched to another. On it goes, on and on for decades. And not a single photon of energy is ever produced by a commercially sold device producing useful heat or motion. Not one. Ever. Just lies from Rossi and others like him.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – to claim that “not one photon has been produced” is an interesting assertion. But yes, it looks like you aren’t ever going to be convinced.

        Damn! This thing is producing energy and it’s not supposed to. Let’s ridicule it and close our eyes, and maybe we can keep things the way they are!

        You are now saying that a few hundred researchers are either liars or incompetent. You can’t be bothered to read the data. Looks like you’ve read at least some of Ed Storms paper, but you’ve been looking for ways to say it isn’t truth. I really doubt that you’ve understood what he’s said. However, since that isn’t good enough for you then you’ll just have to wait till you can buy one.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Craig is the only one around here who is STUCK on a preconceived outcome. Simon and I followed the evidence. Perhaps Simon and I are still wrong. Let’s suppose. But we did follow the evidence, not our preconceptions. Craig, however, decided that LENR was wrong from the get-go. Who are the scientists and who is the scientific-retard?

  30. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I thought this comment on Gibbs’ Forbes article was interesting:

    Paul Maher 6 days ago
    Hi There,

    It’s no doubt about it, Rossi is a character, but I trust him. He’s a pretty foxy guy. You should watch an interview he did with Ruby Carat from coldfusionnow.org. That interview is what showed me who he is. He’s a very animated guy, which puts a lot of people off, but I like him.

    He’s not the only trout in the stream though. Look at Brillouin Energy in Berkeley California, and their relationship with Michael McKubre from SRI. I believe that they are nearly there. Visited them a couple of weeks ago. Very dynamic crowd. 20 or so people crammed in to what looked like an old dentist office. Lots going on there. They got it goin’ on with their boiler tubes at SRI in Palo Alto. Everybody wants to put Rossi down. Why are they not attacking Robert Godes, Robert George, and Michael McKubre?

    The problem is compounded by the fact that 3 or 4 incredibly transformational technologies are coming to the surface at then same time. There’s
    Focus Fusion going on at the Skunk Works in Southern California, and Graphene and its many applications will both generate and store electricity. And if you want to go way out there there is “Zero Point Energy”

    The question is how much of each technology will show up as things advance.

    Sincerely, Paul D. Maher
    CCOTW, coldfusionnow.org

    I am sincerely glad to see this considerably more favorable look at Rossi and LENR. He’s going to come through with it and help lead the way to electrification of the third world, and take us into a new age where we no longer have to contaminate the world and burn things to extract energy from matter.

    I watched Bill Gates on a PBS talk show today, and he is developing what I am pretty sure is a cold fusion based machine to extract energy from nuclear waste.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1337-2917-2984

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Personally I wouldn’t trust Rossi, but I do think he now almost has what he’s been telling us he’s always had. I do think Robert Godes is reliable in what he says, though, as is Mike McKubre.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        I really, really, really like Andrea Rossi. I think that he is the most important man in the world (if one person can be more important than another). But I agree with you, Simon. I think that in the long run Rossi may prove to be the man of the century, but we shouldn’t make any significant bets on every little thing that he says. For shorter term words and promises, I’ll take Mike McKubre any day over Rossi.

    • Roger Bird Says:

      Two young people at MIT figured out a safe and simple way to use the heat from nuclear waste to turn turbines and power electricity. They did a TED talk, a girl and a boy. They may or may not be geniuses. I just think that they are young people and came to the realization that the old guard are so stuck in their ways that they can’t think creatively. Gates is also not part of the nuclear establishment and he is perfectly capable of watching that TED talk and saying, hey, let’s do it. I am older than Gates, and I would have if I had the money. Even if LENR eventually pans out, why waste good waste. This process will eventually reduce the Earth’s load of nuclear waste.

      I ALWAYS wondered if nuclear waste is so freaking dangerous why it can’t be reused for fuel.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        In France it has been reprocessed for a long time. Probably for the States, with its own Uranium mines, it’s cheaper to store it.

        There’s still normally around 90% of the original energy left in that waste. What a waste…. Using it up completely, of course, makes the final waste a lot less dangerous, too.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        Of course, if there were a solution to nuclear waste, libs would have less to fret about. Then they wouldn’t have that to project their worries on to. They might discover that their worries come from within themselves and that they were responsible for stopping their worrying.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Roger

        Why not get Rossi to deal with the waste, so you can show us all that lib fretting is merely a result of mental disorder and not anything in the real world? Rossi has quite a record in this field with his Petroldragon stuff. We could call his new operation Nucleodragon, and pray that it may be more successful than his previous venture.

  31. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

  32. BobN Says:

    Here is a pretty impressive list of those researching LENR!

    http://nickelenergy.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/lenr-research-news/#comments

    • Craig Binns Says:

      BobN

      You’re seriously quoting a source called NICKEL+HYDROGEN=ENERGY
      The Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer – Adding to our Clean, Renewable Energy Future!

      Do you really believe the ecat is powered by fusion of nickel plus hydrogen to copper? No you don’t! And it lists a bunch of people and agencies who are “researching” some stuff? How very impressive! And what have they found? Nothing yet, of any use or value. And they never will.

      • BobN Says:

        I posted information I thought relevant to the subject, you (Craig) must decide how to place its value, just like everyone else.

  33. Craig Binns Says:

    BobN

    Well, believe me, I don’t find it “pretty impressive”. Surprised if you do.

  34. Anony Mole Says:

    Interesting article on viewing hydrogen atoms interstitial in water (ice).

    http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/how-discovering-ices-secret-could-unlock-alternative-energy-options.html

    Sounds a lot like the whole LENR lattice loading.

  35. Greg Goble Says:

    Fuel Rod Management,

    An important technology has come to maturity out of the Naval Spawar Laboratories. The technology is a low energy nuclear reaction that transmutes spent nuclear fuel rods to less harmful elements while creating electricity. Holding a license to utilize advanced engineering of this LENR technology, the Global Energy Corporation offers the GeNie Reactor. A HYBRID FUSION FAST FISSION REACTOR (patent) Developed under contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25946 with the US Department of Energy and Department of Defense.

    At a Global Energy Corporation presentation to the Guam Power Authority, GEC president Jay Wook Khim offered to pay the 250 million dollar cost to construct the first 50MW GeNie Reactor and provide Guam with electricity at half the cost. According to the dates on the document, Fitial and Buckingham signed off on the nuclear energy document around the time GEC scientists and officials, including CEO Dr. Jay W. Khim, visited Saipan during June of 2012. For many reasons this stalled, two of them being that the governor of Guam was impeached and that Guam has no spent fuel rods, therefore the new governor is hesitant to bring fresh uranium onto the island to fuel the GeNie Reactor.

    NEWS (Clean Nuclear Power Eyed)
    and (Impeached Governor Inked Secret Deal to Construct Fast Breeder Reactor)

    I think this U.S. LENR energy technology is more important to you, with your spent fuel rod storage concerns, than to the people of Guam. It is important to me that you pursue it. This is a spent fuel rod risk reduction strategy that is profitable.

    With this technology your spent fuel rods become a source of revenue instead of an ongoing expense and risk. Without the need for extensive processing, the spent fuel rods are placed around the LENR reactor core. The LENR reactor can be tuned to emit different levels of protons and neutrons, bombarding the spent fuel rods, increasing the different radioactive elements rate of emissions, This transmutes the elements, shortening their half life or eliminating the radioactive isotope completely.

    The proposed GeNie Reactor does this and produces enough excess energy to power your turbine electrical generators. You may consider having multiple GeNie Reactors on sight providing low cost – high energy heat for all your power needs.

    Please contact the GEC president Jay Wook Khim or GEC manager Rufus Anglin or a member of the GEC Board of Directors to inquire.

    Ask if you can get the same presentation and deal as offered to the Guam Power Authority.

    The Global Energy Corporation direct dial: (703) 750-0909

    Corporate Partners and Board of Directors include:

    Frank Carlucci GEC – Former U.S. Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of the C.I.A. and chairman of the Carlyle Group

    Norman Mineta GEC – Former Secretary of Transportation. Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Congressman, State of California

    Thomas M. Davis III GEC – Former U.S. Congressman, State of Virginia

    National Security Technologies = National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec) was formed in 2006 as a joint venture between Northrop Grumman Corporation, and three other corporate partners. These partners are AECOM, CH2M Hill, and Babcock & Wilcox (B&W). With some 2,450 employees, NSTec manages operations at the 1,360-square-mile Nevada National Security Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and at its related facilities and laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Site Office. The company has satellite offices in Los Alamos and Albuquerque, New Mexico; Santa Barbara and Livermore, California; and Washington, D.C., along with a small number of employees located in nine other states and two foreign countries.

    Defense Threat Reduction Agency = DTRA is the U.S. Department of Defense’s official Combat Support Agency for countering weapons of mass destruction. Our people are Subject Matter Experts on WMD, and we address the entire spectrum of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high yield explosive threats. DTRA’s programs include basic science research and development, operational support to U.S. warfighters on the front line, and an in-house WMD think tank that aims to anticipate and mitigate future threats long before they have a chance to harm the United States and our allies.

    JWK Corporation = (JWK) has provided reliable, high quality professional services to our customers for over 30 years. Our customers, which include the Department of Defense, numerous U.S. government agencies, and various commercial and foreign enterprises, have come to realize that JWK stands for high quality, affordable technical expertise.

    Lawrence Forley is chief scientist of GEC and is a president of JWK.

    Thank you,

    Gregory B. Goble

    This group is full of highly reputable folks who are sure to give credibility to the field of LENR Energy. The preceding letter has been sent to the operational manager and NRC program manager of every nuclear power plant in the U.S.

    Next I will contact the members of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Americas’ Nuclear Future and the directors of
    THE ASME – ICEM2013 15th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

    ON ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

    The conference is organized by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

    The ASME has 130,000 members in 150 countries and 147 Student Chapters. ASME has 30,000 student members.

    • BobN Says:

      Very interesting link. I’m not convinced that what they are doing is LENR.
      IF I was going to put a new reactor I would go the LFTR rout. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. That should be the cores of the future if the Nuclear Industry was not protecting their infrastructure.

    • brucefast Says:

      Very interesting report Greg. What is your source? I googled this: http://globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx What I didn’t notice was any mention of LENR, however they are clearly doing something, and something very interesting.

      • gbgoble Says:

        Navy LENR Patent Granted Transmutes Radioactive Waste

        http://coldfusionnow.org/navy-lenr-patent-granted-transmutes-radioactive-waste/

        The source for most of my information is the GEC presentation on Guam and the patent in Europe.

        Bruce Fast this is an example of advanced LENR engineering out of SPAWAR. Crazy story in the four part series. What are your thoughts on why they tried to launch on Guam? What do you think of the companies partners and directors? Is it real? Why not Fukushima where it would be welcome?

        Or why not at a nuclear power plant near you? The fuel rod management team would love to see this. Go in and show them. Electricity at half the price from Frank Carlucci. He was Secretary of Defense in 1989 which oversees the DOD and the Defense branch of the DOE. He went on to manage the Carlyle Group.

        Would a presentation of this technology before the Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas’ Nuclear Future committee on nuclear waste bring credibility to the field?

        I’m a bit over my head on this one and would like to see a lively discussion about this on nickle power. I have a few strong opinions about it which may be wrong. I’d like to see you write a neutral lead on this and read what others think.

      • iggydalrymple Says:

        What are your thoughts on why they tried to launch on Guam?

        Probably because this is a work in progress, and Guam is an obscure US possession, with few prying eyes and few radical greenies.

        http://guamblog.com/2009/12/guam-as-modern-day-bikini-atoll.html

      • BobN Says:

        I have to admit, I haven’t done my homework, but this looks more like a small linear accelerator used to remediation of the rods, I’m just having a hard time seeing the LENR in it.

        LENR is supposed to be occurring without Neutron release, this counts on it, so it seems like a different affect to me.
        More of an opinion than science.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        I think Iggy has the right idea, and it’s away from interference and prying eyes till they’ve got the wrinkles out. The reliance on neutrons, as BobN says, points to it using more traditional physics in operation. If it works, is safe and is economic, then this shouldn’t be a problem. There’s a whole lot of nuclear waste to remediate, and if you can do this while generating electricity (so it generates money rather than costs money) then it’s worth following up and testing it in larger than lab-size.

  36. Craig Binns Says:

    I also doubt that this is LENR. It is based on an assembly of nuclear fuel rods, so it is most probably fission.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, please note the following from my link:

      It is “a proprietary hybrid fusion, fast-fission reactor”. Clearly fission is involved, but fusion is involved too.

      Further:
      Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories, the results are real.

      Particularly note the “our experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories” bit. That sounds like LENR to me. Certainly it sounds like a model that, like LENR, breaches the currently understood laws of physics.

      • Roger Bird Says:

        “Certainly it sounds like a model that, like LENR, breaches the currently understood laws of physics.” Oh oh, that could give Craig an anxiety attack! Craig, breath into and out of a bag if you are having an anxiety attack. (:->)

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Roger

      “It sounds like a model”. Very impressive. “LENR breaches the currently understood laws of physics too”. So it does Roger. And it is poorly attested experimentally as well. This doesn’t give me an anxiety track. It simply makes me (quite calmly) believe these effects to be false, a state of affairs that will continue until or unless I get better evidence. A couple of years ago I was promised that Rossi was about to deliver the goods; then Defkalion was the great hope. The result, nothing. So it’s not I, but the believers, who should be having anxiety attacks.

  37. BobN Says:

    I think a bit of transparency may be at hand. defkalion is going onto the stock exchange and will have to be more open..

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/08/defkalion-ceo-entering-the-toronto-stock-exchange-this-year/

    A public company discloses partnering and deals ongoing, its the law.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      BobN

      “Transparency”, eh? We wanted a magic energy machine. What do we get?

      “When asked what the next step was, the CEO stated that scientifically it would be “optimization of the model”. In business terms it would be entry onto the Toronto Stock Exchange which they think they can join after October 15th. This will be followed by a ‘roadshow’ to promote the stock.”

      No machine. A roadshow to promote stock instead. Wow! That’ll revolutionise the world, green the deserts, carry humanity to the furthest planets–and make a few scammers rich. My guess is that the few scammers will get rich, but none of the other things will happen.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Dear All

        The reason for Defkalion’s interest in Canada has now been explained in a post in e-cat world!

        “JerryVic on August 8, 2013 at 3:24 pm
        Vancouver Stock Exchange – Major Fraud there, Hopes are Defkalion have not fallen into the hands of a bunch of Stock Pumpers. Quote: Canada produces more stock market fraud, at least per capita, than do other countries. And there may be good reasons for concern. Unlike other major industrial nations, Canada has no national regulatory agency for securities but leaves the task to the provinces, which pursue oversight with varying degrees of enthusiasm. And efforts at reform have been incomplete.”

        Jerry, no way Defkalion has fallen into any swindlers’ hands. Defkalion I’m sure is perfectly capable of pumping (and then dumping, when the marks come on board) its own stock.

        So a revolutionary magic machine energy company spends its time marketing is own stock, before it gets round to releasing machines. NOT ONE WORKING MACHINE IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION!! And it has roadshows for the purpose. And where does it list its stock? Where regulation is weakest. Come on, guys! This now has ALL the hallmarks of a traditional energy scam.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Dear All

        Further to the above: this is from the wiki entry on Canadian tick market regulation.

        “Unlike any other major federation, Canada does not have a securities regulatory authority at the federal government level. Provincial governments began to establish regulatory agencies in 1912 (in Manitoba), and the Privy Council decided in Lymburn and Mayland, [1932] A.C. 318 that such legislation is authorized under the provincial property and civil rights power.
        Notwithstanding the lack of a federal regulator, the majority of provincial security commissions operate under a passport system, so that the approval of one commission essentially allows for registration in another province. However, concerns with the system remain. For example, Ontario, Canada’s largest capital market, does not participate in the Passport regime.”

        And Toronto’s in Ontario. But no doubt all those attending the roadshows will be reassured enough to open their wallets.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        That should be stock market, not “tick” market. But actually “tick” meaning informal credit advanced by a corner shop, reads quite well in this context.

  38. Craig Binns Says:

    Have you guys all gone and left me alone here with the spambots? Where will you be when the ecat revolutionises the world, and Defkalion offers its shares in Toronto?

    • Roger Bird Says:

      I’m still here, Craig. Someone has to hold your hand when you discover that we were and you were wrong.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – sorry, not so much time for commenting at the moment, and in any case there’s not that much worth commenting about with reference to Rossi and Defkalion. Although I think that they’ve both shown they have a device that works, for both it looks like a few years yet before they can achieve enough reliability to be able to sell anything. George Miley seems to have a process but again it’ll be a while before there’s any large-scale system there.

      ITER is still the odd decade away from being viable, and may remain a decade in the future for quite a few years yet despite a whole load of money being put into it. At least Rossi and Defkalion show signs of being able to produce cheap energy before ITER (and it’s not our money going into them). Always look on the bright side of life….

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Frankly, Craig, I’ve grown weary of waiting for LENR. I don’t know what their problem is, but I suspect Simon is correct and that they are having control problems.

      I’m not pessimistic on the advent of new cheap energy. There must be a dozen companies racing to be 1st in the marketplace.

      Lockeed-Martin Skunkworks
      Redox Power Systems
      GeNiE
      E-Cat
      Defkalion
      Brillouin
      BlackPower
      Lawrenceville Plasma Physics
      + unknown dark horses from hundreds of private experimenters inspired by Rossi’s hoopla.

    • brucefast Says:

      Let me throw in my two-bits. I too am weary in waiting. Do I think that LENR is real? 100%. Do I think Rossi has it? Yup, it makes no sense to me that he would not have it, but that he would have inspired all of the others to discover it.

      When LENR gets out from underground, I will be very nearly the first to know. When that happens I will be putting the necessary energy into making this site hop.

  39. Roger Bird Says:

    We were right and you were wrong. That was NOT a freudian slip.

  40. Greg Goble Says:

    The Genie Reactor is LENR Energy technology out of SPAWAR

    Shortly after the Navy LENR Patent Granted article posted, this appeared on the youtube video
    “Twenty Year History of Lattice Enabled Nuclear Reaction LENR – Hidden in Plain Sight”

    Contained within this glowing update by Dwight Williams, Senior Science Advisor – DOE, there is a slide show that I have never seen before. On page 57 is a description of nuclear waste remediation by LENR

    This is a most glowing report from SPAWAR, Have you seen it before? I have only found a link to it in this video update.

    http://bisbee.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/SPAWAR-MAY-9-2009.pdf

    Uploaded on Apr 28, 2011
    UPDATE: On April 16, 2013, Pamela Boss, Frank E. Gordon, Stanislaw Szpak, and Lawrence Forsley were awarded United States Patent 8419919 for the neutron particle experiments cited in this video. This milestone is well deserved, as these scientists worked in obscurity, in their spare time to make this patent possible.

    At the University of Missouri, on May 29, 2009, scientists from the US Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) lectured on twenty years of verified research involving anomalous heat and mini-explosions on deuterated metals, reported by various governmental and international research laboratories.

    They conclude that these energetic observations are of nuclear origin and sow the seeds of a true green energy source.

    Mr. Lawrence Forsley, President, JWK International Corporation
    Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, Ph.D., Advanced Systems and Applied Sciences Division of US Navy SSC-Pacific
    Frank E. Gordon, Ph.D., Former Head, Research and Applied Sciences Department, US Navy SSC-Pacific
    BRINK – Discovery Science Channel on “Cold Fusion”
    Dwight Williams, Senior Science Adviser, DOE

    This paper from SPAWAR research cuncludes the observation ofcharged particles and neutrons from LENR.

    http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol4.pdf

    JOURNAL OF CONDENSED
    MATTER NUCLEAR SCIENCE
    Experiments and Methods in Cold Fusion
    VOLUME 4, February 2011

    Review of Twenty Years of LENR Research Using Pd/D Co-deposition

    Pamela A. Mosier-Boss∗, Jack Y. Dea and Frank E. Gordon†
    SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, CA 92152, USA
    Lawrence P.G. Forsley JWK International, Annandale, VA 22003, USA
    Melvin H. Miles Dixie State College, St. George, UT 84770, USA

    pg 173

    6. Conclusions

    Using the Pd/D co-deposition technique developed by Stanislaw Szpak, we have detected excess heat, gamma and X-ray emissions, tritium production, transmutation, charged particles, and neutrons. Taking all the data together, we have compelling evidence that nuclear reactions are stimulated by electro-chemical processes. To date, these observations have been published in 22 peer-reviewed journal papers and two peer-reviewed symposium books
    .

    • brucefast Says:

      Greg,

      Mr. Binns has made it very clear that Rossi is a fake and a fraud. What then, he says, does Spawar have to do with it? And besides, who the heck is Spawar anyway? Sounds like a spelling mistake to me.

      Please Greg, don’t confuse Mr. Binns by weaving off of the topic of Rossi.

  41. Craig Binns Says:

    Thanks for there wise words Brucefast.

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: