Hoax

The Rossi energy catalyzer must be a hoax, right?

I certainly have seen my fair share of hoaxes in the free energy arena.

For instance, I remember going to a technology show in Vancouver BC, Canada many years ago to see a 10 foot high display of a cool perpetual motion machine.  I talked to the “inventor” who had reports from an engineer that said that the thing should work.  However, he didn’t have a working model.

I have seen other machines which have been demonstrated on T.V.  They sure appeared to work.  The “inventors” however, were very protective of how closely the machines were examined.  Their technology never seemed to make it out of demo mode.  Though they always seemed to fear for their lives because big oil was going to get them,  I never heard of any of them being lobbed off.

So what’s different about Dr. Rossi’s energy catalyzer than about these techologies?

  • It works!  He has demonstrated it to others for tests as long as 18 hours.
  • He’s not begging for any investment money.  He is personally funding the initial 1 megawatt generator.
  • He has real qualifications — he is an engineer, not a backyard tinkerer.  His sidekick, Sergio Focardi, is a physicist.
  • He has allowed real, notable,  physicists to poke, prod, and examine his working technology for hours at a time.
  • The physicists that have poked and prodded have had their findings published in significant media that I count on to make sure that: these physicists are who they say they are, these physicists really did poke and prod, these physicists were accurately quoted.
  • The physicists have declared that they don’t believe that any known laws of physics are being broken!

The bottom line:

Feel free to still be skeptical.  We each have our thresholds of proof.  However, this blog site will work on the strong assumption that the Rossi energy catalyzer is for real, that it is as billed.  This site is not mandated to discuss the internal workings of the Rossi energy catalyzer, rather it is mandated to discuss the technological, social and economic impacts of the catalyzer.  Please feel free to publish your skepticism, or your conjectures as to how the rossi e-cat works on other websites.

<— To main blog

751 Responses to “Hoax”

  1. Kanga Says:

    Here’s my thought: if I’m about to invest in alternative energy today and I heard about Andrea Rossi’s experiment, and thought it was real, I would “wait and see” before spending one more *nickel* on solar, wind, geothermal, etc. If this thing is a fake, my bet is that Andrea Rossi will announce delay after delay until it’s finally shown to be fraud, and which point we could conclude that the whole thing is a plot to undermine the momentum alternative energy is currently enjoying. What’s the motive? If alternative energy continues on its trajectory, then the high profits “peak oil” is supposed to bring to the oil companies and their backers will degrade and vanish…sunlight is free, ya know. So, this could be a very cheap way to undermine the momentum of alternative energy. Follow the dollar signs!

    HOWEVER, if the E-cat is real and produces vast amounts of energy from tiny bits of fuel through the power of fusion (or some other nuclear interaction similar to fusion) then this world will drastically change this century:
    1. Humans could become vastly more mobile, because we could carry large amounts of heat and electricity into deserts, polar regions, deep sea, other planets, remote villages, jungles, mountains, etc.
    2. Crude oil will no longer be necessary except for plastics and organic synthesis–which means our global economy will be vastly disrupted.
    3. Connectivity, internet access, and mobile technology will explode throughout the third world, bringing online economies a massive increase in traffic and profits.
    4. Transportation and utilities will become cheap again, decentralized, and ubiquitous, i.e. plug your electric car into your home, run by E-cats.
    5. Every single business that makes, mines, adapts, assembles, hires, employs, communicates, constructs, refines, distributes, ships, buys, or sells anything (and requires electricity and/or heat) can greatly lower their overhead costs. Of course, this would not be a relative change where some companies get rich while others stagnate, but would allow all companies to lower costs semi-simultaneously. This would in effect act as anti-inflation in most economies.
    6. The electric power grid will be obsolete within 50 years…and good riddance, it’s an eye-sore (here’s to you, Tesla).
    7. Technologies that were hindered by power needs will become much more viable: rockets, robots, military posts, any unmanned vehicle, etc. etc.
    8. Further innovation into power sources will grind to a halt for quite some time.

  2. brucefast Says:

    There is a very interesting, and disquieting thread on new energy here:http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2011/03/09/updating-the-rossi-focardi-cold-fusion-reactor/
    It brings out two concerning pieces of data as to the validity of Rossi’s e-cat technology.

    The first is that neither the nickel nor the produced copper has an unusual isotope mix. This is very unexpected as the only simple equations where nickel + hydrogen produce copper involve nickel isotopes 62 and 64. If the e-cat is converting nickel to stable copper, it should be getting depleted of these isotopes.

    (Source: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece, “the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.”)

    The second is that a lot of money is flying around. It appears that the American company has provided Rossi with “an undisclosed sum”. (See the news feed). Further the Greek government has invested or promised 200 million euros to build a Greek plan. That’s a lot of money to commit fraud for, and it is inconsistent with statements that Rossi has made.

    A third point made in the new energy thread is that one of the available heaters of the brand and size used in the demo is capable of outputting 2500 watts. It is wired with wire capable of providing that amount of electricity. This implies a method of pulling off a fraud.

    Here’s why I am not ready to give up on Rossi:
    1 – The report of the isotopes of the nickel and copper seem painfully incomplete. They didn’t state percentages of the various isotopes. I am wondering about the completeness and accuracy of this testing. Further, it seems possible to me that the reaction in Rossi’s e-cat is a reaction that happens in nature, a reaction that produces the isotopes mix that nature produces.
    2 – Though some have made a big deal of Rossi’s legal struggles, I think that these struggles show the nature of who Rossi is — an exaggerator, but generally an honest person. His first famous invention, the production of oil from garbage, works. However, Rossi oversold its efficiency, and with a drop in the price of oil, well he got bit. However, his revolutionary technology worked!
    3 – Rossi’s current e-cat outputs 4500 watts. The heater that is presumed to be involved in the fraud outputs 2500. I think the power outlet used can only output about 3600 watts (15A * 240v = 3600). Rossi’s first e-cat, the one that was run for 18 hours, output 15,000 to 20,000 watts. It had a short burst of 135,000 watts. These output powers are far beyond what Rossi could have pulled out of a wall outlet — even in Europe.

    I had a long chat with my wife, a mental health professional. We assembled a psychographic perspective. If Rossi is pulling a fraud, he will not only drag his own name through the mud to get rich, but:
    – He will drag Frocardi’s as well — actually Frocardi would almost have to be in on the fraud.
    – He will drag Giuseppe Levi’s too. This is an interesting choice, as Dr. Levi is a colleague of Frocardi, but not likely a tight confidante. This is a very unlikely choice as Rossi could have found people who were emotionally anonymous like Drs Kullander and Essén to involve. If you know that the shit will hit the fan sooner or later (Rossi is smart enough for that) it makes no sense to bring in someone with this level of emotional connection.
    – Kullander and Essén are interesting — anonymous. There could be a certain thrill in pulling the wool over the eyes of these powerful people. However, Dr. Essén in particular, as the head of the Swedish Skeptic Society, is (or should be) an expert on detecting fraud. After all, that’s the primary purpose of a skeptic society.

    Further, Rossi is a guy who comes out with working, revolutionary technologies. He is not one who spends his life perpetrating frauds.

    Despite the unexpected results of the isotope analysis, and despite the fact that a whole lot of money seems to be flying around, I remain confident in the legitimacy of Rossi’s technology.

  3. Craig Binns Says:

    “I remain confident in the legitimacy of Rossi’s technology.”

    See mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg48955.html

    He’s now selling “dealerships”, not e-cats. That’s straight out of Dennis Lee’s playbook. That does it for me.

    • brucefast Says:

      There is really only one piece of data that seriously concerns me at this point — the lack of isotope variation between his nickel and nature’s. This, however, has moved my trust level from favorable to cautious.

      I still hold that he does not have the same signature as Dennis Lee has. He revealed a scientifically “impossible” process to the world before. Though it wasn’t as big of revolution as it was made out to be (partly due to changes in the price of oil) it works. From what I have read of cold fusion, well, cold fusion seems like a hard to ride bull, but it does seem to work. Let time see if Rossi has tamed it or has become just a con artist.

      As such, I am happy to invest my money directly in Rossi’s stuff once his 1mw plant is up and running.

      • geack Says:

        I’d be a lot more concerned about another piece of data – the piece where he’s never demo’d the thing under anything like acceptably transparent conditions. It’s gone from “possible scam” to “probable scam” to “obvious scam” – no need to waste time on the isotopes.

  4. bsmcconnell Says:

    It’s a hoax. He’s probably feeding high concentration hydrogen peroxide into the reactor, which is filled with a metal catalyst. It flashes to steam and oxygen at high enough concentration. With an energy density of 1.5MJ/kg at 70% concentration, it would run indefinitely and throw off lots of heat. The electrical heater is probably just for show.

    • brucefast Says:

      This is an intriguing theory. I have looked into H2O2 as a power source. Its pretty impressive, having even been used as rocket fuel.

      However you open up an even larger can of worms when you simply consider that there is a large container of “hydrogen” providing input to the e-cat. Could the large container be providing some energy source other than the purported hydrogen? Could Rossi pull off his 1mw plant the exact same way? NyTeknik sent a tech down to test the electrical stuff — calibrate the ammeter and temperature sensor. However, has anyone tested the hydrogen input to confirm it as real hydrogen?

      As the hoax hypothesis must contain a testable theory, yours is the first that I find reasonably feasible. Lets see if we can inspire NyTeknik to confirm or falsify this hypothesis.

  5. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    The sages on the Randi Forum say no to the H2O2 scam hypothesis; I tried it out on them. See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7358123#post7358123 posts #1913 et seq.

    It might blow up they say.

  6. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    In fact is blowing up not what happened to the German rocket-propelled fighters that used it as a fuel in 1944?

    I mean blowing themselves up, not the enemy.

    • cptwayne Says:

      Yes, it also happened with the V2. It was Dr Wamke and some techs, I believe. Werner Von Braun had told them not to lite the fuel until they could tame it. They went ahead and he died along with the techs. Werner Von Braun went on to develop a way to keep the incoming fuel cool so it would not explode. All this from my Penemunde book. Walter Dornberger was in charge of the V2. I met his niece in Washington many years ago at the Smithsonian museum showing Goddard’s rocket display. I was telling Lt Davis that they could thank Werner Von Braun as the real developer of rockets. She heard me and came over and told me Dornberger was her uncle.

  7. brucefast Says:

    In the “18 hour test” document, Dr. Levi said, “I weighed container before and after charging, and including the gas we let out to empty the tube of air, the consumption of hydrogen was 0.4 grams. That’s nothing!”

    Dr. Levi is in on the hoax (unlikely), Rossi has some darn slick sleight of hand going on, or the H202 in the hydrogen tank hypothesis is false.

  8. Craig Binns Says:

    brucefast
    Another problem. Read http://ecatreport.com/rossi/andrea-rossi-on-the-e-cat-part-12, where Rossi is now saying that “The post-reaction analysis shows a copper isotope ratio of Cu 63/Cu 65 ~ 1.6, while the natural occurrence show a ratio of Cu 63/Cu 65 ~ 2.24 which is a statistically significant difference.”

    But that’s new! Up to now we’ve only had the Kullander and Essen statement that: “The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.”

    I need hardly stress to you the importance of this matter. What is Rossi’s source for the changed observation? When was it made? etc.

    • brucefast Says:

      Sorry for being so unresponsive, but I am on vacation and have very poor internet access.

      I find the isotope analysis to be the most significant factor that causes me to doubt Rossi. There are two things puzzling about Rossi’s report of an unusual isotope mix in his copper. First, he doesn’t seem to provide the source of his measurement (a report from the measuring institution would be nice). The second, greater concern is that he hasn’t reported on the isotope ratio in the nickel. An unusual isotope mixture should appear in the nickel if his reaction is really happening though it is reasonably conceivable that the copper ratio would be like that of natural copper.

      All of my doubts still rest on the isotope analysis, though I am willing to abandon them if he reveals his 1mw plant before the end of the year.

  9. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    http://www.ecatnews.net/?author=5

    “A conference titled ‘Has cold fusion become a reality?’ was held at 4:00 PM July 23 at Villa Borbone in Viareggio, Italy. The conference was hosted by Italian solar energy company Delta Energie. Among the participants were Andrea Rossi via Skype; his research partner, retired University of Bologna physicist Sergio Focardi, via a pre-recorded presentation [etc.]” …

    “16.13 – Rossi is contacted on Skype, he confirms delivery of the 1MW plant according schedule. The first industrial plant will be delivered ‘patent pending’, hoping that this will push the European patent application. Domestic reactors will have to wait a couple of years due to certifications.”

    That last sentence does it. Blacklight-style “delay”. Scam. Agreed?

    • brucefast Says:

      I’m a bit puzzled by your scam claim here. He still seems to be promising a publicly demonstrated, long running, 1mw reactor well before the end of this year. This has been his promise from the beginning. If this target is reached, he is not delaying.

      • David Says:

        “1mw reactor well before the end of this year. ” and who will be permitted to pull it apart to ensure that it is not just a giant 1Mw electric kettle?”

  10. Craig Binns Says:

    BruceFast

    See http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2011/05/09/rossi-ecat-cold-fusion-reactor-update/#comments Joe Shea on August 2, 2011 9:09 AM “The thing is that now it looks like they are going to produce – or not produce – in Broward County, Fla. B ut they may have a hurricane next week or as early as Sunday next (8/7/11). Can anyone help me with a name, contact number or address for the Broward County operation?”

    Broward County FL! That’s new; but not entirely surprising – I mean if we’re dealing with manifest fraud.

    As a US resident, BruceFast, can you help Joe with this address stuff? All the European addresses seem to have been lost from the production schedule, or in the case of the Ferrara factory, been sold, and the ecat that heated it for the last year has disappeared. I had hoped hope he might leave it there – the most valuable artefact ever constructed in the history of the human race – because the buyers might have upped the price with this treasure in place: but seemingly not. Gone.

    Oh, and there’s also Krivit #3 and http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3707appendixa2.shtml But, keep the faith!

  11. oelind Says:

    Hoax. Only pumping water at constant rate through a resistance heater bracelet. Youtube videos shows that only a fraction of the water was evaporized at the hose end. A 5KW output would generate a LOT more steam. Just consider your 1-2KW household water heater and compare the steam production (speed/volume).

  12. brucefast Says:

    Lets see if I have this right, 3 Ph.D. physicists have touched and measured this device. One of the Ph.D.’s rewired the heat system so as to not boil the water. He then ran it, measuring the OUTPUT for 18 hours. Yet y’all can confirm that this thing doesn’t output what is claimed based upon a youtube video?

    Possibilities: Youtube video analysis is painfully inaccurate and incomplete, Ph.D. physicists are incredibly stupid, or these guys are all in cahoots.

    My vote is that youtube analysis is painfully inaccurate.

  13. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    Thanks for the reassurance about the video analysis. Can you now please have a look at this: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501&cpage=9#comment-59867, and give us a clue as to what might be going on?

    Dear Marcia Pires:
    Thank you for your question, and here is the
    PRESS RELEASE :
    Bologna-Rome (Italy) August 4th 2011
    “EFA- Energia da Fonti Alternative srl, the Italian Company through which the rights for the production of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat were granted to Praxen Defkalion Green Technologies LTD, publicly announces that the License and Technology Transfer Agreement between the two companies has been recently terminated. All business relationships with Praxen , the Cyprus based company that owns the Greek company Defkalion Green Technologies S.A., have been cancelled and asof today neither Praxen nor Defkalion, nor any other Greek company whatsoever holds any rights for the production of the E-Cat or for any other exploitation of Andrea Rossi’s technology.

    “Furthermore Andrea Rossi and EFA announce that no information, nor industrial secret, nor any technology whatsoever has been neither transferred, nor disclosed, neither to Praxen, nor to Defkalion, nor to any other Greek company whatsoever and currently Andrea Rossi and EFA are not planning to deal with any other project in Greece.

    “Not one single test, of the many demonstrations of the E-Cat technology held around the world, has ever been done in Greeceand no E-Cat has ever been brought, produced, or assembled in the territory of the Ellenic Republic: so not only the technology is still fully owned by Andrea Rossi’s company, Leonardo Corporation, but it still remains a well preserved industrial secret.

    “Any declaration or public announcement of third parties claiming possession of rights on the E-Cat technology and/or indide (sic) knowledge of said technology, as well as any statement of third parties in conflict with the above facts shall be considered a fake and treated as misleading information.”

  14. Craig Binns Says:

    And this too, just published by the indefatigable Steve Krivit

    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/08/07/rossis-scientific-failure-in-seven-steps/

  15. Peter Thieberger Says:

    I think that Rossi is using Nickel as a catalyst to oxidize hydrogen forming water and heat. Just Google using the key words (nickel catalyst “hydrogen gas” oxidation) and you get 117,000 hits. Nobody pays much attention to the hydrogen consumption; just to electric power consumption. It is the old magician’s trick to make you look away from what they are really doing. At one point they claimed that the hydrogen was in a sealed volume. But then during the demonstration you see the hydrogen bottle connected to the device and you hear a valve clicking.

    In addition to the isotope ratio problem (which is very serious) we have the following additional problems:

    1) No detectable radiation, while they should all be dead if all that power was produced by nuclear reactions. The reaction they claim produces positrons which rapidly annihilate when encountering an electron. The positron and electron masses are converted into energy in the form of two 511 keV gamma rays.

    2) No plausible theory of how the protons get into the nickel nucleus somehow overcoming the repulsion of the two positively charged objects. This repulsion is of course much larger than in the case of deuterium-deuterium fusion. There is nothing controversial about calculating the probabilities for such reactions, and they are both infinitesimal at room temperature. And at least for p-Ni they are so infinitesimal that you can totally forget it.

    What bothers me most is that the reputations of respectable scientists will be tarnished.

  16. brucefast Says:

    Craig, Steve Krivit continues the “water to steam” argument. I must consider it in light of Dr. Levi’s 18 hour test which used higher water volume to only heat water, rather than convert to steam. Why Rossi returned to a steam model when showing the technology to the physicists from Sweden is a bit beyond me as it added a lot of questions.

    Peter Thieberger, Dr. Levi specifically measured the weight change of the hydrogen bottle. This measurement seriously challenges your hypothesis, and similar hypotheses such as that the bottle contained H2O2.

  17. syam Says:

    Dear Peter,
    If it is the oxidation of hydrogen,What is the source of oxygen? You can not see any oxygen or air cylinder in the video

  18. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Dear syam,
    There is 20% oxygen in the air and lots of dissolved oxygen in the water. I think that is why we don’t see any oxygen cylinder. There is no way of knowing if the system is air tight or if air is introduced on purpose. Also we can’t tell if the water comes into contact with the nickel.

  19. brucefast Says:

    Peter, Dr. Levi weighed the hydrogen cylinder before and after. How do you explain that?

    Further, if I understand Steve Krivit’s video ( http://youtu.be/m-8QdVwY98E ) correctly, the hydrogen tank isn’t attached to the e-cat while it is running. Rossi connects the hydrogen tank to input a load of hydrogen, then only uses the contained charge during operation. How can this fit with your theory?

    • k.w.hilborn Says:

      i wondered about the size of the hydrogen tanks, and if there was a miscalculation. learning that they are not connected after chamber is pressurized is my final hoax theory put to rest. i believe 100% now.

  20. Peter Thieberger Says:

    I don’t explain it. If weighing that heavy cylinder was done correctly with the required precision, then there is something else going on. As to the cylinder being connected or not, that varies between videos of two different demonstrations I have seen. One thing is for sure, no radiation – no nuclear reaction. The thickness of that black insulation is not nearly enough to absorb the 511 keV gamma rays produced in the reaction they claim is happening. Another thing that is for sure is that there is no way these nuclear reactions would produce copper that has the exact same isotope ratio as normal copper.

  21. Craig Binns Says:

    Can any pro-Rossi writer answer the absolutely devastating observation made in a comment in New Energy Times? By “Maryugo” on 7 August:

    “It’s fascinating to look at all the posts on Defkalion’s forum about the various equipment they say they built around the E-cat principle and all the tests they conducted in liquid phase with a glycol type coolant. But Defkalion never publicly provided any pictures or actual data — only unsupported claims. And nobody outside the organization and related entities has ever seen one of their Hyperions.

    “Now along comes Rossi and he says in so many words that Defkalions are rank liars. So who’s really lying? Dekalion? Rossi? My vote is both.”

    So is mine.

  22. Peter Thieberger Says:

    I agree Craig. That last video of June 14, 2011 ( http://youtu.be/m-8QdVwY98E ) speaks for itself and should be the last nail in the E-Cat coffin. The pitiful amount of steam coming out of that hose shown by Rossi is ridiculous. You can prove this yourself. Just put 1 liter of water in a kettle and boil it on your stove at full blast for 15 minutes. If your stove is similar to mine, there will be about ½ liter left. That means that we are boiling off 2 liters per hour instead of the 4 liters Rossi uses. Yet there is no comparison of the large amount of steam you will see in your kitchen with the little bit you see in the video.
    Rossi’s energy calculation is based on 100% of the water being converted to steam. That is clearly not happening. Either he uses much less water than claimed or much more liquid water is going down that drain than the “small amount of condensation” mentioned by Rossi. If you really want to measure the total energy output, you must measure in detail everything that comes out and not let it go down the drain, blatantly assuming it is all steam. It is as simple as that. This either is utter incompetence or crude dishonesty.
    I know there are other tests mentioned where the water or another liquid is heated and not boiled. But I have never seen any demonstration or any data from such tests. Have you?

  23. brucefast Says:

    Peter,

    1 – Even the small elements of stove tops normally output 1200 watts, large elements are more like 2000 watts (2kw) (http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5179441_many-watts-electric-stove-use_.html) much more than the 750 watts that Rossi says he is putting into the system. Note also that when he opens his electronics box there are about 6 heat sinks in there. Likely his electronics use a serious fraction of that energy.

    2 – “That means that we are boiling off 2 liters per hour instead of the 4 liters Rossi uses.” At about the 12 minute mark of the Krivit video Rossi claims that he is using 7kg or 7 litres of water, not 4. If a 2kw stove top boils 2 liters of water, it should take 7kw to boil off7 liters. As Rossi claims the output to be 5kw, he’s not doing bad.

    3 – “I know there are other tests mentioned where the water or another liquid is heated and not boiled. But I have never seen any demonstration or any data from such tests. Have you?” Check out http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece (or link to “18 hour test” in the news feed on the right of this page.) You will find the line “He explained that this time he chose to heat the water without boiling it, to avoid errors.” However the “heated water” equations are significantly discussed.

  24. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Thank you brucefast. I stand corrected. I misquoted Rossi. He did say 7 kg/hr not 4 in that video. That makes my point even stronger. No way is the amount of steam he shows equivalent to 7 kg of water per hour. Did you see how he lifts the hose before pulling it out of the wall? Apparently he knows that there is a lot of liquid water. Thank you also for the references. I will have a look.

  25. brucefast Says:

    Peter, it looks like you actually took a kettle and tested this. If so, I am impressed.

    I am tempted to take a similar kettle, but add 20 feet of garden hose and see how much steam comes out the other end. Even if dry steam goes in, it seems that a lot of condensing will happen in the hose (despite what Rossi says.) Consider only that Rossi’s hose was hot. If its hot, it is giving off heat to the room. If it is giving off heat, the steam inside is condensing.

  26. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Thank you Brucefast. If you say it looks like I tested the kettle it probably means that you checked it out too :-) . You are of course right about condensation in the hose. All depends on how much condensation there is. A garden hose may be much worse than what looks like one with rather thick rubber walls. The guy seems to have no idea about correct calorimetry. Perhaps the Defkalion folks know how to do it right. Could that have anything to do with their refusal to pay? Just a thought.

  27. brucefast Says:

    I did some calculating on the question of hose heat loss. Here’s what I came up with:

    I found a chart showing heat transfer through various substances here: http://www.easygrow.com/tools/surfacearea.html It provides a general formula for heat transfer of:
    BTU/hour/square feet/degree F.
    and a list of substances with a multiplication factor. I chose a factor of 1 for simplicity sake, however a factor of 2 is highly unlikely for the rubber hose.

    I calculated some values:
    Surface area of the hose: 2 square ft (2″ hose circumference * 12′)
    Temperature differential: 124 deg Fahrenheit (100 – 31 Celsius).
    Based on this, the heat leakage from the hose should be in the order of 250 btu, or 75 watts per hour. (http://www.unitconversion.org/energy/btus-it-to-watt-hours-conversion.html)

    IE, the steam loss due to condensation in the hose is negligible.

  28. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Good job Brucefast! Very interesting! The conclusion then is that indeed a lot of hot water somehow ends up flowing down the drain without having ever been converted to vapor. And that totally invalidates Rossi’s energy output calculation, which takes full credit for the heat of vaporization for the entire 7 kg of water. Congratulations!

  29. brucefast Says:

    “The conclusion then is that indeed a lot of hot water somehow ends up flowing down the drain without having ever been converted to vapor.”
    I would suggest that this is too narrow of a conclusion. The conclusion I come to is that heat loss from the hose does not account for the lack of steam. Other possibilities I see include: Rossi is lying about how much water is going through the e-cat, a lot more steam is coming out than it looks like on the video (notice that when the background was white you couldn’t see any), the e-cat wasn’t fully operational – that it was warming up, etc.

    I still contend that the careful analysis of three Ph.D.s who spent hours observing thing beats a 20 second video clip (the duration that steam was being displayed). Further, I am reminded that Dr. Levi’s 18 hour test was done without steam.

    While I do not have strong faith in the e-cat, to convince me that it is a hoax, a plausible hoax method other than that three independent Ph.D.s are in cahoots must be presented — or significant time must go by with the thing not being presented to the world for extensive testing, aka a 1mw plant or similar.

  30. Peter Thieberger Says:

    I agree that there are other possibilities of fraud and that we will not find out for a while. The three PhD scientists you mention I assume are Kulander, Essen and Levi. I don’t think it takes a conspiracy. Kulander and Essen were just observers as indicated in their report:

    http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.

    They probably didn’t see much more than we see on the video.
    I haven’t seen a report from Levi, but he is quoted in:

    http://202020assoc.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/cold-fusion-18-hour-test-excludes-combustion/

    If he is quoted correctly then the 18 hour test without boiling the water and disconnecting the hydrogen bottle seems quite impressive. I don’t know how they do it and it will be interesting to find out.

  31. Craig Binns Says:

    What’s a significant time? End 2011? We have to set a limit, based on the promoters’ original promises. Otherwise it drags on like the BlackLight scam, and people lose $60m – except the swindlers, of course, who gain $60m.

    • brucefast Says:

      For once I fully agree with you, Craig. I am going to run out of faith on this one by the end of 2011 if it hasn’t been “revealed to the public”.

      I don’t at all like the feel of: we have a secret American company to take over from Defkalion with top scientists on board, committed to putting E-Cat to “Service of Mankind” It sounds bogus to me, like he is peddling like mad trying to find a replacement for Defkalion.

      It also appears to me that Rossi is having trouble driving a steam engine with e-cats. My assumption is that he cannot obtain the 500 degrees celsius that he wants because the cores operate at a lower temperature than that. I hope Rossi is flexible enough to not let the thing crash if he can’t solve this minuscule problem. I would propose to Rossi that he get a number of universities around the world to sign “I won’t look in the core” agreements with him, then distribute e-cats to them for testing. It should take no time for these universities to either be extolling the virtues of the e-cat or crying foul.

      IOW, I personally don’t need to see a 1mw plant as the carrier of a revealed Rossi by the end of the year. I do need to see multiple independent sources saying that they have theirs going, in their own labs, with their own packaging around the e-cat core.

  32. brucefast Says:

    On a related site, e-catworld.com, I found a series of 5 videos (about 50 minutes) of Steve Krevit interviewing Dr. Levi: http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/08/guiseppe-levi-conducts-video-interview-with-steven-krivit-about-his-testing-of-the-e-cat/

    I was particularly impressed with Dr. Levi’s level of focus on whether Dr. Rossi was a “cheat”. He points out that he is a member of the American Skeptic Society, and that he has used their guide to analyze the trustworthiness of the experiment.

    This interview increases my hope that the e-cat is for real. (Don’t worry Craig, I’m still by no means certain.)

  33. James Says:

    We will know the truth soon.

  34. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Did you see the 3 part interview with Focardi ?

    Really interesting to observe how Rossi operates. He was obviously there not only as an interpreter but mainly to control and manipulate the interview. He was caught in at least one lie. It turns out that it was he and not Focardi who had insisted in doing the first e-cat demonstration. He was masterful in trying to wiggle his way out of that one, but not successful for somebody who understands Italian.

    • brucefast Says:

      Peter, thanks for the video link. I haven’t watched much of it because I am too impatient to listen through double-translated dialog. However, other readers may wish to do so.

      You wrote, “He was caught in at least one lie. It turns out that it was he and not Focardi who had insisted in doing the first e-cat demonstration.” I am presuming that what you are saying is that if you listen to the Italian, it is clear that Focardi says that he did not “insist in doing the demo”. I puzzle, however, that you find this significant.

      Firstly, calling something a “lie” in the relational arena is really difficult. I know, for instance, that I will realize that my wife wants something to happen, and I will “insist” that it happens. Yet my motivation was clearly to fulfill her desires. I also know that some times she has pushed hard to make something happen, then minimize how hard she pushed after the fact.

      Secondly, “he was caught in at least one lie” implies that people are either saints or devils; if a person is in any way less than perfect, he is an evil schemer that cannot be trusted on anything. I have not found people to be so.

      I don’t think that the data presented offers much to either confirm or deny the veracity of the e-cat claim.

  35. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Brucefast, perhaps somebody else who also understands Italian will explain it better. What seemed outrageous to me was not the lie but the misuse of his translator’s role to manipulate the interview in a clever and dishonest way.

    Of course this doesn’t prove anything, I never claimed it did. The only relevance is that watching these interviews we get to know the actors just a little better. Focardi and especially Levi come across as very sincere and honest persons.

    Another detail I learned from these interviews is that Focardi has no knowledge of the inner workings of the E-cat. Doesn’t that seem a bit strange to you? Rossi calls Focardi to check his work because of Focardi’s early and pioneering involvement in this field, but then doesn’t tell him what he is doing? Does that make any sense?

    • brucefast Says:

      I now understand your frustration with the translation issues. I do find it puzzling that when I listened to the Dr. Levi interview, he made it very clear that the demo was about Focardi and Focardi’s role as a retired professor of the university.

      I heard from another discussion that Focardi is not familiar with the workings of the e-cat. I agree with you that this is strange, especially as he is supposed to be the scientist behind the thing. Focardi has been involved with cold fusion for a long time. He had some amount of involvement with Piantelli. Yet Focardi seems so much like a wallflower, a necessary credential with the e-cat.

  36. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Yes Brucefast, “a necessary credential with the e-cat” is a good way to say it. Poor professor Focardi’s prestige is being misused while he seems understandably happy that his honest but rather obscure and inconclusive results are finally being “validated” in such a spectacular way. You can read his paper with Piantelli, et. al. at:

    http://64.142.106.183/v2/library/1998/1998FocardiS-LargeExcessHeatProductionNiH.pdf

    According to the interview with Levi, Levi now plans to do a real scientific test involving also other specialists at the University of Bologna. I may be wrong, but my prediction is that, before that happens, Rossi will find an excuse to remove his E-cat units from that laboratory. By the way, as far as I know, he hasn’t yet placed E-cats at the Uppsala and Stockholm universities as he had promised.

    Another detail I learned is that Focardi had insisted last year in submitting a scientific article about E-cat which was eventually rejected by Arkiv för Fysik, a Swedish physics journal. I haven’t seen the manuscript, but I am not surprised. No reputable journal will publish results if the authors don’t disclose what they are doing. There are two distinct ways to protect intellectual property. One is to patent it and the other one is to keep it as an industrial secret. You can’t have it both ways.

  37. brucefast Says:

    Ny Tecnik has released a new video entitled “See the E-cat run in
    self-sustained mode” (See the news feed on the right for the link). Wow! This is impressive! After the machine has been running for half an hour, he releases wet (more visible) steam into the air. It gushes out! It resembles a steam cleaner, and a good one at that! This gushing lasts in the video for nearly a minute and a half without showing any signs of slowing down. During the steam dump there is a 12c loss in temperature. There is no way that a bunch of metal in a box that size could be storing that amount of heat. There is no way that the “thermal inertia” hypothesis could possibly explain this.

    Steve Krivit’s video may have produced doubts. This video produces believers — at least of me.

  38. Craig Binns Says:

    BruceFast
    “Steve Krivit’s video may have produced doubts. This video produces believers — at least of me.”

    He’s not going to make his end October deadline, is he? How long will your beliefs survive?

  39. Craig Binns Says:

    Maybe I’m not classy. However, if Rossi succeeds in meeting his deadline of end October he will be super classy, but he won’t.

    It’s up to you how long you wish to retain your credulity, of course.

  40. Theodore Rigley Says:

    Is he simply storing heat in water? Under pressure? If so, opening a valve will release lots of steam, and seem very impressive. And it will continue for a long time, in proportion to the volume of heated, pressurized water, its temperature, and the size of the valve once opened. It could fool the inexperienced (inexperienced with steam boilers) into thinking there was continued, self-sustaining energy production.

  41. fusioneafreddo Says:

    Hi,
    good site!
    It’s important to make e-cat notorious!
    Please visit also my web site http://www.fusioneafreddo.it!!

  42. Craig Binns Says:

    Ah, yes. Notorious.

    Well it seems the Rossi – Sterling B Allen connection is having just that exact effect. Probably on account of the fact that Allen is a nut job who fills his preposterous blog with links to articles about Barack Obama being teleported to Mars by the CIA back in 1980 and stuff like that, people have been contacting poor Mr Rossi, and here is the unfortunate man’s anguished response:

    “Sterling, please: all the website is not approved, please take out
    from the net all the website. I have to review all of it, I continue
    to receive a lot of troubles from it, instead of making my work I have
    to handle all the very bad comments I am receiving! I do not publish
    on the blog these comments, because I want not to polemize and expose you, but I am totally exasperated. Take immediately all the websit out of the net, all of it is not approved!”

    “Exasperated”. In the circumstances that’s pretty mild. But Mr Rossi, may I beg you to publish on the blog these comments, because I would love so much for you to polemize and expose Mr Allan; and I’m sorry you’re receiving lots of troubles.

    The e-cat affair is turning into a pure classic. There’s a book in this!

    • brucefast Says:

      Yea know, Craig, Sterling is just like you.
      Every time something potentially earth-shattering comes along, both of you respond in a knee-jerk way.

      In addition to this topic, I spend a lot of energy trying to manage an investment portfolio. In the investment world, I see folks just like the both of you. There’s the bulls who shout that we’ve found a bottom, and the market is on the rise, and there’s the bears who shout that we are at a top. Both the bulls and the bears point out to the times when they “called the market”. Both are right, they did call the market. And you have been right a hundred times, I am sure, by saying that this wonder is whacked, or that wonder is whacked.

      But the boy who cried wolf eventually found a wolf to cry about. The challenge remains to be better at calling ‘em than you get by jumping on every story — positively or negatively. (Number of free energy stories I have examined? 100 or so. Number of free-energy stories I have jumped on? One.)

      The sad truth is, I’d still much rather see Sterling’s mistake than yours. I’d rather have encountered a thousand hoaxes but one success, than have had one baby thrown out with the hoax-soiled bathwater.

  43. Peter Thieberger Says:

    The Leonardo web page, first authorized by Rossi but then rejected, is still there:

    http://www.leonardo-ecat.com/fp

    but it now has a notice attached, to the effect that it has not yet been approved by Rossi

    The explanation of how the e-cat works has changed (again). But this is a big improvement. It finally takes into account most of the objections. Now, all of a sudden, we find out that Rossi wasn’t using regular nickel, but nickel enriched in the isotopes 62 and 64 (which are the least abundant ones; 3.6% and 0.9% respectively). And we also find out that he has a new proprietary enrichment method that increases the price of nickel by not more than 10%. Wow, another monumental discovery! This one will revolutionize the enriched isotope industry. Let’s hope it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.

    And not only do the protons somehow get into the nickel nucleus (that part is old), but now the gamma rays don’t come out, but are absorbed immediately and converted into heat. Wow again! That will forever change the way we thought we understood how gamma rays interact with matter. Another revolution! This guy is amazing. We physicists should be ashamed for having believed that we knew anything at all.

  44. Theodore Rigley Says:

    What the heck is going on with this guy and his claim to cheap power? Is he a fraud? If so, is he knowingly in on the fraud, or is he sincerely deluded? Or, did he witness one time a real, incredible effect, and has been unable to reproduce it ever since? That seems possible to me, and if so, it tells us what we should be pursuing. What do you people think? It doesn’t seem like he could be a flagrant, deliberate scammer.

    • brucefast Says:

      “Or, did he witness one time a real, incredible effect, and has been unable to reproduce it ever since?” What are you talking about?

      • Theodore Rigley Says:

        What I’m talking about is this: credible experiments appear to have shown over-unity energy release from Ni-H experiments. Not a lot of energy, but nonetheless real. Is it possible that Rossi costructed an apparatus that on at least one occasion really produced significant excess energy? I was thinking of something like the phenomenon of the ramjet, which doesn’t work at all until just the right somewhat exotic conditions are provided. To me, it seems possible that a process like the Widom-Larsen hypothesis, or the Bose-Einstein condensate idea promoted by George Miley, could be at work.
        I personally don’t know if Rossi’s claims are a complete fraud or not. The recapitulation by Craig Binns below makes a very good case for knowing fraud on Rossi’s part. I guess that, like others, it’s hard for me to dismiss it all after seeing the interviews with Levi, who seems like he really believes something is valid in it. Has he really been duped by Rossi?
        .

      • brucefast Says:

        Theodore Rigley “credible experiments appear to have shown over-unity energy release from Ni-H experiments.”

        This is in strong contrast to what Peter Thieberger has said elsewhere, that the coulomb barrier makes the NI+H scientifically impossible. If the NI+H reaction happens at all, it makes no sense that Rossi would frauding. If the NI+H reaction happens at all, then it is likely that Rossi has tamed it.

      • Theodore Rigley Says:

        The Coulomb barrier can reasonably be expected to preclude Ni + H fusion, but an alternate mechanism for extracting nuclear binding energy from these elements has been suggested. The Widom-Larsen hypothesis provides for inverse Beta decay of a proton liberated from an H atom in an appropriate metal surface, with the resultant production of a low-energy neutron. This neutron rattles around in the metal until a Ni nucleus absorbs it and transmutes into an isotope that spontaneously decays and releases energy. I don’t know if this is actually the explanation for excess heat without radiation from Ni-H experiments, but it seems worth considering.

  45. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    It is indeed absurd to suggest that Rossi has witnessed an incredible but unrepeatable effect, except for the ludicrous credulity of his supporters (which is alas only too “repeatable”), who can induce themselves to believe that a machine plugged into the grid is producing whiffs of steam by some process unknown to science, and not because it is drawing power from the grid.

    But do you really and honestly believe, as matters of plain fact, that Rossi has built and tested hundreds of these devices, and (as Peter Thieberger reminds us) that he has invented new ways of enriching materials with rare isotopes – dear God, why doesn’t he show the sceptics the mechanism by which he’s able to perform THAT feat? – at the cost of 10% of the price of nickel (which will give the Iranian uranium enrichment programme a welcome boost – no need for hugely expensive centrifuges); that he heated a factory for a year using one of his contraptions (which now seems to have been casually abandoned and forgotten – the most valuable artefact ever constructed!); that he can shield the immediate environment of his machines from enough gamma rays to produce a megawatt of power, using a couple of inches of lead, so effectively that no residual radiation can be detected?… And so on, and on.

    You simply and surely can’t believe all this absurd stuff, leaving aside Rossi’s bizarre CV, which hardly inspires trust. This is pure spoon bending. It is like believing that a televangelist can work miracle cures, when you don’t even know where the cures are taking place or who is being cured; and the proof that the cures have happened is the televangelist handing out spreadsheets telling you so.

    • brucefast Says:

      You caught him — dead to rights. Rossi exaggerates. There is no way that he has had a 1Mw plant running for a year as he says he has. Rossi clearly exaggerates. He even exaggerates the power of his 1Mw plant which only puts out about 1/2 that.

      Does Rossi enrich nickel? I don’t think so. On other occasions Rossi has clearly said he uses natural nickel. I think he made that statement to shut up those who wonder where the 10% copper comes from. (I still don’t know where the 10% copper comes from, and have not ruled out that it, or some of it, was salted.) However, there is a VAST difference between enriching nickel and enriching uranium. Rossi is not claiming that he has developed “pure” isotopes, only that his Ni is heavy in certain isotopes. He already has the nickel ground into very fine powder. Could it be that simply pouring and vibrating the stuff, letting it find its natural level leaves bands of nickel that have a certain dominant isotope? That is generally what is happening in a centrifugal uranium enrichment process, isn’t it?

      There is only one way that Rossi could have produced significantly modified results in his demonstrations — if he spent great effort to conceal a power source into his demos. This would be a blatant fraud, not a white lie. If he did so, it’ll become clear by the end of the year when this customer gives back their plant, or the next customer gives back their plant.

  46. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, regarding:

    “There is only one way that Rossi could have produced significantly modified results in his demonstrations — if he spent great effort to conceal a power source into his demos. ”

    There is a second way. In the e-cat demos there is always some connection to the grid, even in the so called self sustaining mode. This remaining connection is always justified as necessary for the instrumentation, the radiofrequency or whatever. All it takes is to sneak in some extra power through that remaining connection. How can this be done? After seeing how they measure the current, I invented a circuit that would do just that. Temporarily I call it the “e-scam” circuit. But I have no problem changing the name to honor a previous inventor if he or she comes forward to claim priority.

    I will be happy to disclolse this invention on your blog if you tell me how to post a drawing.

  47. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    The Cardiff Man, the Grandest Hoax.
    Fooled may scientists and academics.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7384872n

  48. Roger Bird Says:

    The free energy hoax “inventors” that brucefast describes at the beginning of this thread are a very interesting phenomena, psychologically speaking. They are not merely crooks. That is a simplistic and probably incorrect appraisal. They are more like crazy. I think that they are sincere. Paranoia might describe them. Like all people, they came from heaven as infants, where all energy is free. And somewhere in their childhood they were severely betrayed. And so they think that they can still have that free energy in this world, if only those meanie head Big Oil companies would stop interfering.

    • brucefast Says:

      Yes, Roger, I think you are right. The majority of “free energy” inventors are sincere. They believe that the have figured out the magic. They are sometimes painfully misguided, creating machines that take a small voltage in, and produce a large voltage out, for instance. They do not realize that voltage is not a measure of energy.

      Some spend years believing that their machines are about to work — tomorrow. A few have been frustrated by unbelievers, and by their lack of funding, so have crossed over into fraud to get the funding so that they can complete the real work.

      Is Rossi in this last category? It is the only available category other than the “it works!” category. Peter Thieberger believes he has figured out a way that Rossi may be piping power into his device. If Peter is right, it explains why Rossi hasn’t let the device out of his control (until recently — apparently). (I would love to see Peter’s theory, and have e-mailed him instructions on how to put pictures up.)

  49. Theodore Rigley Says:

    I think that in the movie, Andrea Rossi should be played by Christopher Lloyd. With an outrageous Italian accent, and wild eyes and hair. It would be great.

  50. Roger Bird Says:

    I think that the Italian accent is very cute.

    Roger

  51. Craig Binns Says:

    An excellent article has appeared in “Science Blogs” at

    http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/cold_fusion_is_it_possible_is.php

  52. Craig Binns Says:

    From e-cat world 29 Nov:

    “Well today there may be some good news for those seeking third party confirmation of the E-Cat. Andrea Rossi made the following announcement on his JONP site.

    ‘Today we sold in the USA a 1 MW plant which will go to a normal Customer. This installation will be visitable by the qualified public. … ‘

    “So there is apparently a ‘normal’ (i.e. non-secret) US customer who may be willing to allow members of the public to visit the plant and see the the E-Cat in operation. Rossi has said that he has no problem if one if his customers wants to open up a plant for testing. … This is all part of the ‘validation by the market place’ strategy that Rossi has been championing all along.”

    Hooray! But wait a moment; what’s this?

    “It will take some time for all this to materialize … ”

    Oh s***t! Back to square one.

  53. Carl Eckenrode Says:

    I am skeptical. On the utube video of DR. Rossi’s ecat machine, I saw he showed the steam wofting fron the black output hose. It was not nearly enough or with the velocity necessary to develope the 10 kw he claimed. It looked like the steam from a stove top tea keddle. about as much as you would expect from the 800 watts he was inputting.
    Carl

  54. Roger Bird Says:

    Carl, I also saw that, and it was very underwhelming.

  55. visitor Says:

    Just put HPGe detector next to it, remove some of the shielding
    and prove you have capture gamma-rays. Not so hard to do, any nuclear physics student can do the measurement in 10 minutes

    • brucefast Says:

      Visitor, three of the theories flying around (to the best of my understanding) do not suggest that gamma rays will be released, what will this test prove? Measuring energy in and energy out is by far the best way I can think of to establish that an unknown reaction is happening. This has been done repeatedly.

  56. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Levi actually did that, but with two NaI(Tl) scintillation detectors at 180 degrees in coincidence. He drilled two holes at opposite sides in the lead shielding. He saw nothing, zero, nada. His comment was oh well in that case it must be some other mechanism, but it doesn’t mean that it can’t work (or something like that)

    • brucefast Says:

      Peter, please explain to me why your colleagues at SRI and the U of Illinois are claiming to have measured excess heat from a Ni + H reaction.

    • visitor Says:

      well, then the unknown reaction is not nuclear – I know a lot about these

      • brucefast Says:

        Before you claim you know too much, please remember that 10 different sources have produced the Ni + H reaction. Three of them are renown sources: The U. of Illinois, SRI and the USAF. One of them, the first, Patterson, had his device tested by independent lab. Another, Chan, has published the details of his methodology.

        Be quick to dismiss this if you wish. Its no skin off my nose.

  57. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, my comments are only made in reference to the the Ni + H = Cu reaction claimed by Rossi. The so called theories “predicting” no gamma rays are as far as I am concerned at-hoc constructs. These aren’t predictions but post dictions.

    • brucefast Says:

      The ten sources I site are all sources that claim a Ni + H reaction, not a Pons, Fleishmann reaction.

    • brucefast Says:

      Oh, btw, when Rossi showed his device to Dr. Levi, the good doctor measured a maintained 25kw of energy. If Rossi was pulling 25kw of energy out of a 220 volt plug, he was sucking out 113 amps. How thick of wires are required to carry 100 amps without melting the coating? Do you really think Dr. Levi is so stupid as to be staring 6 guage wire in the face and not noticing (http://www.cablesandconnectors.com/wiregauge.html)?

    • visitor Says:

      Q=8 MeV for 58Ni+n (gamma emission)

    • visitor Says:

      Q=7 MeV for 60Ni+n

    • visitor Says:

      proton will never make it through Coulomb barrier at these temperatures … and if they do, ~10 MeV need to be released, which may happen through n emission which brings us back to neutron capture and ~7 MeV gamma-ray energy release !

      • brucefast Says:

        Visitor, Like Peter Theiberger, you know too much for your own good. I know it is inconceivable to both of you, but could it be that something you know is just wrong? Could it be that other stuff is going on that you don’t know about? When knowledge crashes into phenomena, who wins?

  58. Roger Bird Says:

    And Peter, I suppose that dark energy and dark matter are not ad hoc explanations.

    The only thing that counts is whether it works or not.

  59. Roger Bird Says:

    I am going to bet that refereed journals will not accept a cold fusion article. You can see Mike McKubre’s (SRI) presentation here:

    http://ecatnews.com/?p=1430

    You skeptics are trying to make the phenomena go away because it does not fit in with your precious theories. I have maintained all along that the mechanism could be unknown.

  60. Roger Bird Says:

    We are getting extra energy that cannot be accounted for by current theory. Ooooh, I like that. I like it so much that I am going to say it again. SRI, et. al, is getting extra energy that cannot be accounted for by current theory. Hmmm. That felt so good. I so love scientific revolutions, and I see the start of one in 2011.

  61. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, Nuclear Physics is of course an experimental science and our knowledge is based on over 70 years of experimentation and observation and tens of thousands of published and verified research results. Not on any preconceived notions or theories. Any new, repeatable and verifiable observations, expected or not, will necessarily become part of our science. I don’t think we are quite there yet with cold fusion.

    • brucefast Says:

      Your colleagues have produced cold fusion, and documented it. They have new, repeatable and verifiable observations which they acknowledge do not fit with current theory. These phenomena, of which there are at least two, will necessarily become part of science.

      However, these phenomena are already “repeatable and verifiable”, as such I do not understand your statement, “I don’t think we are quite there yet with cold fusion.” The only validity there is to this statement is that you have not been brave enough to contact your colleagues, or seriously study their publications, and discover the horror that something is going on which isn’t explained by current theory. Such a claim should excite and inspire a scientist, which truly leaves me baffled.

      Yes, Peter, I am pushing you to make the calls.

  62. visitor Says:

    brucefast:

    And one can only wish that there are neutrons in this set up.
    With protons of eV energies it is >5 MeV barrier to overcome to get Ni + p

    But again, it is in the Rossis interest to show that nuclear reactions are taking place. In anihillation of e+e- from Cu decays will produce 2 x 511 keV gamma-rays. That’s what he claims is the heating mechanism.

    He could keep all the secrets and we can look for new physics, if he can only show us that really its the fusion followed by decays that takes place.

    No coincidence measurement is needed – just keep counting before, during and after the ecat is working.

    So before you jump to conclusion about new exciting physics, just ask for the proof that fusion is really happening – which is so easy to do … for some reason – crazy power calculations are being performed with tap water vapors 10 m long hoses in 30 C rooms.

    • brucefast Says:

      Rossi is an engineer, not a scientist. His interest is in showing excess heat. He hasn’t done the greatest job of that, but that, not theoretical physics, is his responsibility.

      Again, what if his reaction isn’t fusion? What if it is a totally new, unknown, phenomenon? If Rossi demonstrates a phenomenon, the job of the scientific community is to figure that phenomenon out.

      Now, I admit that its a bit hard to figure out a phenomenon when you haven’t been given a box to play with. However, I have sources from the U. of Bologna that say that they need 1/2 million euro and two years to “study” the stupid thing. It shouldn’t take ‘em more than a week to “prove the existence of a phenomenon.” Scientist are a bit anal, what can I say.

      However, when it comes to figuring out what is going on, some of the other 10 replications are much more open. Chan, for instance, has published careful details of his technique, and has asked people to replicate it. Some of the replications come from top rated science labs for gosh sakes! We don’t need Rossi to prove this phenomenon, or to study the death out of it. Rather, we have scientists declaring that the “know” that it doesn’t work.

      • visitor Says:

        bruce, please post some links to papers of Chan and other labs. I do work in one of the top rated science labs, so I may go around and ask.

        I thought Rossi is claiming Ni + H fusion to Cu isotopes, which are short lived b+ decaying isotopes and this is a nuclear reaction followed by a radioactive decay. In their “paper” they calculated the probability to penetrate the barrier to be 10^-1050 … and then they claim that despite this very low theoretical probability they have experimental proof that reaction happened. Again, if this reaction occurs, it is easy to confirm it with gamma-ray spectroscopy !

        After this is confirmed, I completely agree that mechanism to achieve fusion is a new one, not documented in peer reviewed papers. Last 60 years we were only able to do this reaction with a use of accelerators.

  63. Roger Bird Says:

    brucefast, that was excellent: “Could it be that other stuff is going on that you don’t know about?” That is the one I like. I am confident that they know what they know. But I am very unsure that they know about the other things that they don’t have a handle on, like perhaps dark energy and dark matter and apparently very young galaxies that have old stars in them and now “cold fusion” or whatever that excess energy is.

  64. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, I think that we are there with the excess energy (cold fusion). It doesn’t take a nuclear physicist to see that. And I am not alone. Some dude at Missouri U. and many others agrees with me. The problem is that all scientists are afraid of having their reputations ruined like Halton Arp et. al. (I could go on and on with that one) just for stepping out of line. Sort of middle schoolish, isn’t it?

  65. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, making calls isn’t how it works. Sufficiently well documented results need to be published, replicated by others and published again. After a while the results that stand up to such scrutiny are incorporated in the main stream of science. That is how we check each other. It may seem frustrating and it is to many, especially when there is urgency to solve a problem such as the energy crisis. But it isn’t such a bad system. Over the years I think we have shown that knowledge is advanced.

    Regarding what I am reading or not reading; there is no way for you to know that. But there is one think you know for sure. I am not only reading peer reviewed articles. I am at least reading your blog too.

    • brucefast Says:

      There are clearly three kinds of scientists in this world, those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who are pretty sure nothing happened until consensus is reached.

      The guys at U. of Illinois, SRI, NASA, USAF, etc. are obviously part of the “make things happen” crowd …

    • brucefast Says:

      Back to your proposal of how Rossi could be scamming. I watched this video to see what I could about the amp metering:

      The video shows that a section of the power wire is stripped away. One of the three leads is metered. I think an easier scam than you suggested could have been achieved by simply running the power through the ground wire. This, of course, would require that Rossi be in control of, or able to respond to, which of the two other wires is carrying the heavy load. This scam method would likely be possible for all tests except the 18 hour test.

      However, the 18 hour test persists. How did Rossi run over 100 amps through wires as thin as these and not start a fire? He would need at least 6 gauge wire to carry that much power. Even 8 gauge would probably melt the coating. (Of course that doesn’t include the fact that he would have had to rewire the building to pull the whole thing off.) How do you explain this?

  66. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, it would seem to me that this phenomena is so touchy that it is easy to get negative results, and when negative results are allied with a theory that says that it is impossible, then researchers are strongly inclined to dismiss it.

  67. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    Yes, I think that’s right. If you observe negative results experimentally, and in addition theory predicts that there will be negative results, then researchers may well be inclined to accept the negative results. I’m sure this applies not only to cold fusion experiments, but others as well.

    • brucefast Says:

      If 100 labs produce negative results, but 2 produce positive results, which should be believed? Which is more likely, that the two erred, or that there are some unknown parameters, and the 100 didn’t get it right on those parameters?

  68. Craig Binns Says:

    It is more likely that the 100 got the parameters right, than that 2 got them right. If the two were using some special parameters overlooked by or unknown to the 100, then the 2 experimenters could explain this to their 100 colleagues, and their results would quickly be replicated.

    Of course Rossi is not now cooperating with researchers, but telling us that he awaits the judgement of his customers, about whom we know nothing, and he will reveal nothing.

  69. Roger Bird Says:

    Thank you for being civil.

    In response to you comment about results plus theory not supporting Flieshmann and Pons, Flieshmann (the scientist, not the butter) had a sterling reputation. Why would he throw it away? And why would other scientists not look a little closer, knowing that Fleishmann was a very distinguished and responsible person? The reasons are that (1) Flieshmann was too socially unaware (like almost all scientists) to realize that he had chucked a bucket of horse manure at a large fan, and (2) all the other scientists who slammed him were also autistic savants who had the emotional and social maturity of middle school boys.

    22 years later we find that there really is something worth studying with so-called “cold fusion”; a 22 year delay because of scientists being emotionally and morally and philosophically retarded.

  70. Roger Bird Says:

    brucefast, I did an LOL on that one. Even the dogs perked up their ears wondering what all the excitement was about. Thank you.

    Isn’t the Internet BOSS!! This time around, there are probably hundred of people working on this problem.

  71. Roger Bird Says:

    And try to keep in mind that such an elaborate fraud as rewiring the entire building does not seem likely in the context of everything else about Rossi.

    I personally focused entirely on Rossi. I did not pay much attention to the equipment. What struck me was that he seemed to take everything going on for granted, as though he had seen to numerous times. Taking things for granted is a relaxed attitude, yin for you students of Chinese philosophy. It is not easy to do if it is not true. A con would be a little more excited. It was almost like Rossi was tired to showing people and he wanted to get back to what he enjoys most, which is tinkering.

  72. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, I agree with you about the 100 vs. 2. BUT, the 2 would be terrified of revealing their little hobbies. Another human side of science that you did not notice.

    Hey, Craig, it’s alright. My wife says that I have Aspberger’s syndrome and my son tries to keep me away from ANY kind of a social life. To those masters of social skills in my family, I seem to be socially retarded. To me, you scientist types seem to be socially retarded. Guess what my family would think of you scientists types. (:->) They would think that you are socially clueless autistic savants.

  73. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    If calling me a socially clueless autistic savant is your way of thanking me for being civil, well, I might just go totally uncivil again!!

    But don’t worry too much about the Asperger’s. Einstein had it. Mind you, he was like REALLY socially clueless.

  74. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, I may be exaggerating. But we shouldn’t take it as an insult. It is just the way that we are. Self acceptance is a wonderful thing. Just make sure that you follow the Golden Rule, and everything will be all right.

  75. Roger Bird Says:

    brucefast, I am going to come to the defense of the 2. No one knows that they made it because everyone of the 100 are too afraid to check it out, too afraid to get the same treatment that the 2 got. It is a cult of fear. No one wants to lose their funding. No one wants to lose their friends. No one wants to lose their jobs. No one wants to look like a fool.

    It doesn’t help any that http://www.freeenergy.com or whatever it is called and several other sites just a wacky promote Rossi.

  76. Roger Bird Says:

    Another LOL on that one, brucefast. My dogs appreciate the break in the boredom. (:->) I don’t really know what Craig is, but he seems to act very much like what I call “a skeptical science type”.

    I do not worship at the altar of modern science. I think that the scientific method is a very powerful way to know the physical world. I think that skeptical science types worship at the altar of modern science. This is different that respecting and doing science.

  77. Roger Bird Says:

    There will be problems caused by this new technology, if it actually works. There will be far less misery caused by impoverishment. This is true. But there will be far more misery caused by people thinking that the fulfillment of desires will make them happy. More people will be in a position to have whatever they want. This will cause more suffering, not less; why do you think that punk and body piercings and other self-mutilation has gone from zero to way too much in the richest country in the history of the world. There will be a population explosion in the third world. There will be other problems associated with other limited resources.

    God (or Nirvana, if you like) remains the same. The challenges change.

  78. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Roger, with all due respect, you absolutely don’t know what you are talking about. Most of us did believe Fleishmann’s results and many of us tried very hard to replicate them. And nobody, even today, has ever doubted his sincerity.

    • brucefast Says:

      All I will say, Peter, is that on this side of the lab coat, the picture is very different than you just suggested. It appears from reading the material from the mainline media sources, including magazines like Popular Science and Scientific American, that Pons and Fleishmann were both basically run out of town.

      I also am baffled by your statement, “many of us tried very hard to replicate them.” I remember well the announcement and reports of failures to reproduce the results. I also remember (though I am only going on my memory, and access through mainline media) that some labs were successful in reproducing the experiment. (Hence my 100 didn’t but 2 did discussion with Craig Binns above.)

      What really baffles me is this:
      Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading deuterium into bulk palladium.

      http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm

      1989 was the year that Pons and Fleishmann made their announcement. Some time between that announcement and the end of the year Nasa reports evidence of anomalous heat.

      This seems to validate my premise that though many did not produce anomolous heat, some did. If some did, then the Pons, Fleishmann effect should be seen as replicated, validated. If the Pons, Fleishmann effect was validated, research into it should have been well funded, not financially dehydrated.

  79. Roger Bird Says:

    You mean, Peter, that I can’t read the newspapers and am too young to have been around in 1989. I saw the venom.

    If there were no venom, how come everyone else who has HAD success since then has been hiding.

  80. Roger Bird Says:

    And Peter, with all due respect, I know all about Halton Arp, who had to get a job in Europe because he wouldn’t believe in the Big Bang. And please don’t say otherwise since I have corresponded with him. I know how Alfred Wegener was treated. I could go on and on.

  81. Roger Bird Says:

    I got this from http://www.pesn.com this morning:

    “Italian scientist Andrea Rossi, who claims to have invented the world’s first cold fusion machine, visited Massachusetts last week, meeting with a state senator and several scientists to explore the possibility of manufacturing cold fusion reactors in the state.”

    I have to admit that if this was the first thing that I read about this cold fusion business since 1989, I would be rocking with laughter. This is why we optimistic semi-believers suggest that you skeptics read and watch more, especially the SRI video: http://ecatnews.com/?p=1430 and the Defense Intelligence Agency report: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf

    I doubt if Peter or anyone else will be able to convince me that there is not something abnormal and strange going on with the nickel and palladium experiments that portends for something wonderful. As for Rossi, he is still on probation with me.

  82. Roger Bird Says:

    From pesn.com: “We learn that AR sees a drop in the current price of 2K Euro per kW to 1K Euro within a year. (eCatNews; December 7, 2011)” Wow!!! (sarcasm) That is really encouraging. Let’s see, (figure, figure, scribble, and calculate), that would be $16,000 for a 10 kW home unit. That doesn’t seem very encouraging to me. At my home, that would be about 8.9 years to break even, not counting any money that I would garner by selling electricity to the local utility.

    Competition is (and will be) a wonderful thing.

  83. Roger Bird Says:

    You don’t have to get into the details to see examples of the scientific communities middle school boy behavior. It is spread all over the place from Newton’s vindictiveness to Edison to Tesla to the Wright Brothers, to Wegener to Flieshmann and beyond.

  84. Paul Says:

    Rossi’s behavior is analogous to this:
    Suppose Einstein had kept his theories to himself, and instead decided to become a maker of precision time pieces?
    Would he have been taken seriously?

    How can any sensible person not realize the value of these claims being much more worthwhile if published and independently verified?

    The answer is simple.

    I will keep an eye peeled for third party testing. Until then, all of the speculation and hearsay only clouds any truth that might exist in this anti-climatic story.

  85. Roger Bird Says:

    Paul, how did Pons and Fleishmann fare with “published and independently verified”?

    Rossi is doing exactly what I would do. If I am rich and the world’s energy problems are solved, I don’t give a crap what academia and other scientists think.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      And when Rossi solves these energy problems I’ll believe him. Precious little sign of that so far. He may get rich … by scamming, like the Petroldragon swindle. That doesn’t count!

    • brucefast Says:

      Actually, Roger, Pons and Fleischmann famously did not follow protocol. Because they feared that someone else was going to beat them to the punch, they announced their findings in the press rather than wait to have their findings formally published in a journal.

  86. Roger Bird Says:

    brucefast, they were still treated like crap. We have got to stop treating people like crap who we disagree with.

    Not sticking with protocol is what has happened with climate science. That is how we got into this dreadful mess. All AGW people think that the pro-Sun GW types are the conservatives and oil companies who originally opposed AGW. And now money and ego has everyone set to their theory and no one is listening to anyone else.

    • brucefast Says:

      Yes, you are right. Pons and Fleischmann have been treated like crap. This treatment is why the scientific community is paranoid of cold fusion, why the few scientist working hard on this stuff have been so quiet.

  87. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, you are playing a dangerous game. We know that you are being skeptical like this in our faces while not bothering to read any of the material that we suggest just so that you can garner attention and responses. But what happens if and when Rossi proves to be a champ rather than a chump? You will look like shit and NO ONE will respond to you.

    I confess that I like when people respond to me, particularly when they are positive. You will get universal condemnation or be completely ignored by everyone if and when Rossi wins.

  88. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    I note your last five words. Again, when will we decide he hasn’t won? He can spin this nonsense out for years, until even pathological yea-sayers like yourself lose interest and start following some other free energy charlatan!

  89. Roger Bird Says:

    And Craig, you can’t see a difference between Rossi and many certified cons? This shows your either (1) neediness to get responses, even if they are usually negative, and/or (2) your lack of social awareness, which is very typical of skeptics. I looked at some cons suggested by another skeptic, and I noticed the con’s BS almost immediately. One used the phrase or something like it “discovered phenomenologically”. That was a real howler. The only thing that would stop me about Rossi is the Coulomb barrier (excuse the pun). Rossi’s style of promoting his alleged invention is EXACTLY how I would do it. The academics and scientists have already demonstrated that they act like a bunch of middle school girls. Business people are way more practical and way more expert at knowing how to deal with risk. I will wait before making up my mind. I am perfectly comfortable with uncertainty, a sign of a grown-up mind.

    As far as “cold fusion” is concerned for me, it is “settled science”, as the AGW folks like to say. Whether scientists like Mike McKubre can control it yet, that is a different question. Cold fusion happens.

  90. Roger Bird Says:

    But Craig, you have not even read the articles or watched the videos that we recommended to you. I found that outrageous. I don’t know why I even respond to you. When you watch the Mike McKubre video and read the DIA article, then send us a very short post saying yes you watched the video and read the article. If I see a long post from you, I am just going to delete it. I call it “shunning”. You are shunned until you grow up a tiny bit and watch the phucking McKubre video and read the phucking DIA article.

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

    http://ecatnews.com/?p=1430

  91. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    What are you babbling about? My recent posts are all 3 or 4 lines long.

  92. Roger Bird Says:

    Clever. Read the material. I have decided that you are a child, really, chronologically.

  93. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    Being personally disparaged by you puts me in good company: “The academics and scientists have already demonstrated that they act like a bunch of middle school girls.” Keep it up! Where you have no arguments, you are obliged to resort to ad hominem attacks.

  94. Roger Bird Says:

    It is merely an observation without malice: Scientists and academics oftentimes act like middle school girls when they feel threatened by a new theory. So also do you.

  95. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    And how do middle school girls act when they feel threatened by a new theory?

  96. Roger Bird Says:

    First of all, they shouldn’t feel threatened. And when they do, they conspire to put down those who are different and create a cabal.

  97. rene Says:

    all this is ridiculous. I’d find the thing that would change the face of the world ,that would stop deforestation , make possible to remove salt from ocean water to cultivate ,that would stop oil dependance which makes us negociate with islamist countries… I just wouldn’t keep for trying to make a few million $. If it would be for these few million $ , rossi is just small and stupid.
    I really think it’s a scam

  98. Roger Bird Says:

    rene, you are new here. I GUARANTEE that after you read all the material and watch all of the videos that us oldbies have read, you won’t be so sure that it is a scam:

    http://ecatnews.com/?p=1430

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

    There are more, but there are more, much more.

    A number of nuclear physicists have said that they believe that Rossi is almost certainly for real; this means that if Rossi is a con, then these nuclear physicists have all gone insane and are committing career suicide: Levi, Focardi, two heavy duty Swedish nuclear physicists, Celani, Stremmenos, and others.

  99. Wayne Frank Isaac Says:

    At the zenith of Einstein career he compared his knowledge to but one grain of sand on all the seashores of this world.He was truly a humble man who understood that he had caught but a glimpse of all that could be known.I think it sad to see physists who are but riding on the shirt tails of this humble man making bold statements about the confines of the laws of physics,It seems a social tragedy to use ones power and influence in such a selfish way.Step back ye wise men and keep silent.Produce a lightning bolt and harness and sell the energy but please stop you prattling and take a lesson in humility from your god Einstein! Franko

  100. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce,
    You should change the name of this section of the blog if you are no longer interested in dissenting opinions. I started contributing when I saw the Hoax title and also when I read in your introduction that you didn’t need to be right (or something like that). I have no dog in this fight and would like to have a new cheap source of energy like everybody else. But I hate bullshit and I believe that Rossi will end up damaging prospects for legitimate research in this field.

  101. Roger Bird Says:

    Your post could be a pout, Peter.

    I am still uncertain whether Rossi has a controllable product. Any businessman is going to fudge so as to get funding and support.

  102. Roger Bird Says:

    Be that or anything else as it may, Rossi’s E-Cat is still not a proven fact. I await proof with extremely keen anticipation.

  103. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, it is true that you have never inhibited any of my posts. But you have new guidelines:

    “Please feel free to publish your skepticism, or your conjectures as to how the Rossi e-cat works on other websites.”

    I will follow your advice even though such a statement under the title HOAX seems a bit strange.

    Also you explicitly approved a ridiculous rant against physicists who “use their power and influence in such a selfish way”. What power? what influence? what is my benefit? I am just wasting my time while having much better things to do.

    • brucefast Says:

      Actually, I haven’t edited the content of “post” since it was first published.

      I searched comments for “use their power and influence in such a selfish way” but didn’t find such, so I am not clear the context of this entry. There has been some amount of charges that physicists at MIT and at the DOE have faked data, and actively ignored data that they were required to study. If I supported the above statement in this context, well, I wasn’t accusing you of something. If I accused physicists in a much more general context, then I apologize.

  104. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, it is beyond me why so many people and professions are subject to selfishness yet somehow physicists are not. How is that physicists are exempt from that moral/spiritual malady?

    The other day I divided up the smoothie that I had just made and took the large portion for myself. That was kind of selfish of me.

  105. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Roger, you got to eat a little more of your smoothie. You had a benefit. I may do something similar. But to imply that my position regarding Rossi benefits me while depriving humanity from cheap energy is totally ridiculous. Such ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of despicable debating techniques. The behavior is typical of members of a cult who feel the need to demonize the non believers.

  106. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, you misunderstand me completely and I am at a loss to understand how. I was merely pointing out that some physicists are bound to “use their power and influence in such a selfish way” because they are human. Physicists are no more noble of character than anyone else, and if their jobs or mindsets are threatened, they may act selfishly.

    I apologize if you felt attacked. I hope that you will continue to contribute. I am probably in agreement with your position about Rossi. I have yet to see the beef, although there seem to be quite a few European nuclear scientists who think that he is for real.

  107. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Roger, no need to apologize. This whole discussion about selfishness started with the rant by Wayne Frank Isaac on Dec. 25 (see above) who essentially told me to shut up, and especially with Bruce who on Dec. 26th responded “I wholeheartedly agree”.

    • brucefast Says:

      Peter, I am baffled at your interpretation of Wayne Frank Isaac’s post, and my response. WFI didn’t mention anyone’s name except that of Einstein. WFI didn’t make his post as a direct or implied response to one of your posts. WFI didn’t suggest that anyone should “shut up”. He suggested that the scientific community, including physicists, should open themselves to recognizing that Einstein had something valuable to say when he compared his knowledge to but one grain of sand on all the seashores of this world.

      What has impressed me most about physicists, unlike biologists, is that physicists recognize huge vistas of “not knowing”. They maintain a position, I understand, that there is “dark matter” which makes up 90% or so of matter. I understand that the term “dark” simply refers to “we don’t know”. Further, there is the mystery of “dark energy”, also meaning “we don’t know”. There is a recognition of the conflict between Einstinian and quantum physics. A conflict that honestly I don’t understand enough to even define it. Yet the world of physics has made it clear that there is a major hole in their knowledge at that point. Need I go on? These are all examples of humility shared by the world of physics. Good on ‘em.

      However, we now have a situation where at least 13 separate groups, at least 3 being scientists working for respected organizations, have obtained excess energy from a Nickel + hydrogen reaction. You have declared in a stalwart and authoritative fashion that this phenomenon is not valid, for it cannot be because our understanding of physics prohibits it. I have every reason to believe that your understanding of the laws of physics is the state of the art. However multiply reported phenomena may take cause for one to pause and wonder. We know that we don’t know all that we know we don’t know. So maybe some of the stuff that we know for sure is somehow incomplete.

      Please, Peter, allow yourself to wonder.

      Ps, on another website, or another thread here, I’m not sure, you proposed a way that Rossi could have pulled a fraud. I have considered your proposal and suggested a problem with it. During the 18 hour test Dr. Levi measured and average of 25 kw of heat out of Rossi’s device. (for a period of time it was outputting 135 kw, which makes the problem even worse.) For Rossi to have piped this much heat into his device he would have had to rewire the building he was in. Further, he would have had to run at least 8 gauge wire between the wall plug and the device. Such a fraud would be rather obvious, don’t you think?

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Bruce,

        I will look at the new-physics hypothesis over the weekend and will do my best to understand what they are saying.

        Regarding the Rossi’s and Levi’s 18 hour test I did say before that it seems to be the one of the most impressive results so far. Unfortunately there is nothing in writing. No report, no graphs, no numbers, just some spoken statements. To reach any professionally valid opinion much more is needed. Also I don’t know anything about the other 13 separate groups you mention who have seen excess energy from nickel + hydrogen. Anecdotal evidence is interesting but totally insufficient.

        The standard for scientific discoveries is clear and complete reporting of the methods and data in such a way that independent replication can confirm the results. This standard may be stated in different ways but it applies to other sciences as well – not just to physics.

        I agree that our physics knowledge is very limited and that there is infinitely more to learn. That is the main reason one chooses this profession. But our partial knowledge has led to some remarkable successes. You don’t just discard it because it would be convenient for somebody to explain a new phenomenon that hasn’t even been scientifically confirmed. You may end up explaining this one supposedly new thing at the expense of hundreds or thousands of previous well established results. That has been the nature of my objections.

      • brucefast Says:

        Peter,
        You have inspired me to complete a project I had planned for a while. I have added a post called Replicators. It lists, annotates, and provides links for the published claims of replications I have seen. I have avoided some reports because they are too “anecdotal” for me. (My standards may not be as high as yours, but they do exist.)

        I seem to have lost one replication somewhere. Hopefully one of the readers can find it.

        The respected institutions associated with these replications include:
        University of Missouri–Kansas City.
        Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois
        University of Siena, Italy.
        USAF
        SRI
        National Institute of Nuclear Physics
        MIT

        One of two things must be true, either there is a lot of material in the scientific literature on the Ni + H reaction, or there is a whole lot of science going on that is not being published.

        BTW, one of the scientists at the DOE directly contacted Bushnell. (http://ecatnews.com/?p=1717) Once he had a good talk with him, he decided that the DOE is likely in error in their rejection of LENR. I guess scientist phoning up scientist is not unheard of, and can prove to be useful.

  108. Craig Binns Says:

    Peter

    Have a look at

    http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/12/23/the-e-cat-tribe/

    where Steve Krivit discusses the “tribalization” of the Rossi supporters and their sites. They form belief groups, and non-believers start to seem offensive, and are seen as agents of an enemy, or simply bribed by secret power groups. Roger accuses me of this from time to time.

    Happy festive season to you all!

  109. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, I wholeheartedly appreciate your input. I wholeheartedly agree with you about Rossi.

    Do we still disagree about the LENR phenomena (excess, trans-chemical heat), without saying exactly what it actually is, since I don’t really know, and probably no one else really knows, or if they do they haven’t proved it yet?

    But we should NEVER be mean to each other no matter whether we agree or not.

    • Peter Thieberger Says:

      Roger, I simply don’t know what to believe or not to believe about all the reports on excess heat. It isn’t really my field and I have been concentrating my attention almost exclusively on Rossi and his questionable tactics. Regarding Larsen’s and Widom’s LENR theory I find it very strange to say the least. But we can discuss that some other time.
      Best wishes, Peter

  110. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, you are a liar. I never accused you of anything other than being too stupid and stubborn to actually look at the evidence, not a very scientific thing to do. And I will continue to accuse you of unscientific behavior until such time as you look at the evidence. The only thing that counts is the evidence. Discussions about tribalism may be interesting, but they are irrelevant to the central issue of whether LENR and/or Rossi is real.

    • brucefast Says:

      Roger, you are a funny fellow. In this last post you accused Craig of being: a liar, stupid, stubborn and unscientific. I am not sure you notice just how much accusing you do.

  111. brucefast Says:

    Peter Thieberger,
    I have started a new thread: http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/29/has-lenr-uncovered-a-new-physics/

    It presents an hypothesis that apparently not only explains LENR but provides a TOE, and an explanation for dark energy. Could you please check it out, and explain to me why it is balderdash?

  112. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, balderdash seems a bit harsh but I don’t think it is too far off the mark. This is pure fantasy. It totally ignores the understanding we have gained of the atomic nucleus over the past 70 years. I didn’t make it all the way through, but I think I read enough. Just a few examples should suffice:

    He claims that the present theory assumes that all nuclei are spherical. That denotes total ignorance of nuclear structure research results. We know precisely which nuclei are spherical and which have various known degrees of ellipsoidal deformation.

    The crazy nuclear shapes he describes are totally incompatible with experimental results. For example the probability of hitting a nucleus with a proton (we call it cross section) would deviate drastically from what is measured.

    We understand the strong force that holds the nucleons together. The shapes he proposes wouldn’t be stable at all. It is as if the nucleus had strong surface tension. That is what makes it approximately round, like a drop of water. But it also rotates which contributes to some elipsoidal deformation.

    He totally ignores the structure of the protons and neutrons (the quarks).

    I could go on and on, but I think you get my point. It is an absurd attempt at “solving” the Coulomb barrier problem of cold fusion while ignoring basic facts we have learned over decades of experimentation and modelling. It is like demolishing the whole building because somebody reported that window on the third floor doesn’t fit.

    • brucefast Says:

      Thanks, Peter, for looking into it. I see no reason to put much weight in the hypothesis if it is invalidated by too much current evidence. While I am convinced that LENR including the Ni + H reaction are for real, I guess that this theory is most probably not the needed solution to the conundrum.

  113. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, et. al., I am afraid that I am pretty much in the Brian Josephson camp now. I have seen, heard, and read enough to convince me that Rossi has something real. Sustainable, yes. Controllable, probably not. For home use, now, I see thermostats controlling baffles, not the reaction itself.

    Perhaps electrical input can control the reaction.

  114. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Roger, have a look at the link below:

    http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/horganism/?p=20

    perhaps you’ll want to select another “camp leader”.

  115. Roger Bird Says:

    Sorry, Peter. I have experienced ESP often. However, I am sorry that Josephson has said that since it will (unfairly) hurt his credibility.

  116. Bob Says:

    I think Josephson experienced burnout. When someone concentrates to heavily for to long your mind needs a break from the subject. I have seen this happen repeatedly over my career. I have seen people get strange and get into many strange things. Sometimes to return to society normals and some times not. I even think its an escape for some for hitting the intellectual wall and no being able to innovate in the manner people expect of them.
    Breakthroughs come in bursts from creative minds, the trouble is those minds see many possibilities that maybe the rest of us don’t.
    I once had a guy working for me that I that was certifiably crazy, but I was happy to set him in the corner and let him bounce off walls because every so often he came up with things you just can’t pay for.

  117. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Genius come in all sizes, shapes, and colors. Rumor has it that when Steve Jobs was asked why IBM didn’t come up with the cool stuff that Apple did, he said that “maybe it was because they never took acid”.

  118. brucefast Says:

    Iggy, you took the name right out of my mouth. Steve Jobs was clearly a lover of altered states of reality.

  119. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Thank you Bruce, what a revelation! Now I get it! I didn’t realize why it was that I couldn’t understand some of the LENR theories. Altered reality obviously requires altered physics. How could I have been so blind?!

    • brucefast Says:

      There be truth in that mocking tone. We are totally talking about an altered reality. Rossi’s device, and the devices of the others who have produced similar are exactly that — altered realities. Unfortunately, these altered realities have intersected with the reality that is universal without chemical enhancement or psychological illness. We need an altered physics.

      Just remember this list:
      University of Missouri–Kansas City.
      Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois
      University of Siena, Italy.
      USAF
      SRI
      National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy)
      MIT

      These are the stoners you are mocking.

  120. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Lighten up Bruce. I didn’t say anything about the measurements. Just about a couple of theories, one of which you sent me. Physics is an experimental science. Whatever the confirmed facts are, the theory must follow. Then a successful theory makes new predictions that are again confirmed by measurements. It takes a single measurement that doesn’t agree, and it is back to the drawing board for the theorists.

    • brucefast Says:

      Peter, if you look at the thread I started about one of those theories, I took your response on face value, and concluded that the theory didn’t fit all of the data.

      I still say, as I said in my latest post, that the scientists who work at respected institutions who are claiming the Ni + H reaction are the ones who have the obligation to communicate their success to the scientific community — not Rossi.

      Even though these scientists haven’t succeeded in convincing the scientific community that they have something, I find their statements as scientists to be more convincing than that of Rossi — even though Rossi has shown his machine in public.

      Why do the public statements of your colleagues fall on your deaf ears? Have they not published their findings? Have they published, but you and yours not read? More than a half dozen scientists, from more than a half dozen respected institutions are not saying, we saw Rossi’s demo, but are saying that their own devices work! Why do you find this evidence so uncompelling that you persist in saying that the Ni + H reaction cannot be?

  121. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, please don’t put words in my mouth. I have never made any comments about other experiments except Rossi’s. Time permitting I will have a look at the references in the list that you compiled and if there is anything relevant that I can say, I will.

    I am an experimentalist. I will never reject an experimental result because it doesn’t fit a certain theory or preconceived notion. But if somebody comes up with an explanation that doesn’t make sense to me I will tell you. In other words, the experiment can be right or wrong, the theory can be right or wrong and I can be right or wrong. All I can do, for what it is worth, is to give you my honest opinion.

    • brucefast Says:

      “I have never made any comments about other experiments except Rossi’s.” I am well aware of that. I have repeatedly asked you to make comment about your fellow scientists who have publicly declared success with the Ni + H reaction. Your lack of comment is, of course, some sort of comment in itself. So far your only real case against Rossi is that the Ni + H reaction seems ridiculous based upon known science. If his reaction is so, then it is just as ridiculous when performed by fellow scientists. Their work merits to be factored in whenever Rossi’s reaction is considered. Their combined reputations merit to be factored in whenever the Ni + H reaction is considered.

      My simple position on the hard sciences is that any theory must reasonably fit ALL of the data. Current theory does not fit the Ni + H reaction. Therefore, either the Ni + H reaction is misreported, or current theory is in error. I find it difficult to conclude that the reaction is misreported when I see a dozen separate sources reporting it, some of whom are very well credentialed. So we need a theory that fits all of the data including the Ni + H reaction.

      You pointed out that theory I posted did not fit a bunch of real data, so I dismissed it. However, so far you have not softened your position that Ni + H is misreported, even though there is a long list of sources, some of which are well regarded, which say that it is for real. What does it take to convince you that there is at least a serious possibility that there is something beyond fraud and error behind the Ni + H reaction?

      (Note that I refer to the Ni + H reaction rather than “cold fusion” or LENR when discussing the theoretical aspect of what’s going on because I am not convinced that “cold fusion” or “LENR” is happening, only that Nickel and Hydrogen under certain circumstances is routinely outputting excess heat. It wouldn’t bother me a bit to discover that the reaction is in no way nuclear.)

  122. Roger Bird Says:

    Bruce, it is a mental disease called “Binnsinitus”: People who keep saying that it has never been proved yet refuse to look at the evidence. Clinicians believe that it is the result of a deep-seated anxiety.

  123. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, you have been here in nickelpower.org longer than I have, yet I have found time to look at so much of the compelling evidence that I believe in Ni-H and Pd-D LENR. I hope you don’t suffer from Binnsinitus.

  124. Roger Bird Says:

    I don’t care if unicorns are jumping around in tiny, little fields of nickel powder, breathing in hydrogen, and the stamping of their little feet is what causes the heat. (:->)

  125. rene Says:

    Rossi is a shame for the scientific community .Actually he is not a scientific , let’s not forget it , only a obscure “ingeneer”
    A shame ,because this is this kind of game/scam that prevents people from investing in scientific research , because of the poor image he gives from searchers (true ones are hostages of this kind of clown)

    • brucefast Says:

      Rene, this post says, “Feel free to still be skeptical. We each have our thresholds of proof. However, this blog site will work on the strong assumption that the Rossi energy catalyzer is for real, that it is as billed.”
      If you are going to completely disregard the premise of this site, at least make some vague sort of evidentiary case. And please, please, check your spelling so you don’t look too ignorant. What on earth is an “ingeneer” anyway?

  126. Roger Bird Says:

    rene, you are new here. So as to avoid further embarrassment to yourself and to save yourself a lot of time, first check out these sites:

    http://ecatnews.com/?p=1430

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

    http://www.fusioncatalyst.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/White-Paper-what-is-cold-fusion-Bastiaan-Bergman.pdf

    Then also notice the intellectually high caliber of people who post to these sites that are following the development of the E-Cat and other LENR developments. This is the first time I have been in forums where I was not certain that I was the smartest guy in the room.

    • Dave Says:

      Rodger you’d never be the “smartest guy in the room” if you believe Rossi’s E-Cat claims. All of the evidence points to it being a hoax/scam. Just look at the video of one of Rossi’s silly demonstrations in which he shows the steam output. There isn’t nearly enough steam to account for the volume of water Rossi claims he’s heating into steam. That whole room would look like a sauna if the E-Cat really worked. Also, the fact that Rossi has refused to allow any independent 3rd party test of an E-Cat in all this time shows he knows it doesn’t work.

  127. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    It’s polite to address your own arguments or points to questioners and not immediately give them links to hours of videos, telling them they’ll believe after looking at the stuff. Please let’s hear what YOU think.

    On the other hand if you can give me links to the forums where you were convinced you were the smartest guy in the room, I would be fascinated to have a look at them, and study the thought processes of all the other guys!

  128. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave, the smartest guy in the room certainly can’t be the guy who misspells my name when my name is right there on the screen for all to see.

    I cannot judge Rossi’s claims by the experiments because I am not there; I have to rely on others, and the others there are quite impressive and they are saying the Rossi is for real; no one comes away from the demos saying that it is all a con. I can’t judge Rossi by theory because 23 years of successful cold fusion experiments have proven that the hot fusionists’ theories are wrong. And when I look at Rossi’s behavior language, I see a very confident person who takes it for granted, and he refuses donations and he refuses money. This eliminates the scam. He is either mistaken or psychotic. But those heavy duty scientists and even professional skeptics came away believing Rossi, so he is probably not mistaken or psychotic.

    And I will say it once again: Comparing Rossi to theory does not mean anything since others, from Fleishmann to Celani have demolished the theory arguments.

    • Dave Says:

      ROGER(I got it right this time)I just can’t believe you really can’t see how this is almost certainly a hoax/scam. Maybe it’s because you *want* it to be true so badly that it becomes like a religion to “E-Cat Truthers” like you and others? I want to be true as well, but I know how to think critically and follow the evidence.

      Some people *have* come away from his demos saying the E-Cat doesn’t really work. The rest are fooled by the fact that Rossi controls the demo and tells us the input and output results. Many people who have seen his demo videos on YouTube are saying it doesn’t work. At least one video shows a steam output several times lower than it would be if the E-Cat really worked. How do you explain that?

      How do you explain Rossi’s refusal to allow a single independent 3rd party “black box” test of an E-Cat unit? That would show the whole world that it really worked without giving away a single detail on how it worked. People with legitimate products *want* confirmation of their claims. How do you explain his behavior?

      Also, I’m not saying anything about LENR or LENR research. That has nothing to do with Rossi’s claims. They stand or fall on their own.

      • brucefast Says:

        “How do you explain Rossi’s refusal to allow a single independent 3rd party “black box” test of an E-Cat unit?”
        see: http://nickelpower.org/2012/01/03/why-should-rossi-prove-it/

        “People with legitimate products *want* confirmation of their claims.” This is simply not so. Companies hold their technologies secret until they are ready to release their idea to the world as a product all of the time.

        “The rest are fooled by the fact that Rossi controls the demo and tells us the input and output results.”
        Please read: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
        Dr. Levi, a Physicist, rewired the entire power measurement system. He modified it to produce only hot water, not steam. He took all of the measurements. The device back then produced 25kw of energy! That’s a lot more than can be pulled out of a standard European wall outlet. It did so for 18 hours. Many, including me, see this test as the best one ever.

        “I’m not saying anything about LENR or LENR research. That has nothing to do with Rossi’s claims.” The best case that Rossi is scamming is the scientific case that LENR, or more specifically Nickel + Hydrogen LENR doesn’t work. If Ni + H LENR is implemented in a dozen labs around the world, if Ni + H is implemented by well respected scientists at well respected labs like MIT or SRI, the “Ni + H LENR doesn’t work” case is off the table! Therefore the LENR research of others SAYS SOMETHING MAJOR about Rossi’s claims. He is no longer promising a scientifically impossible phenomenon.

        If Ni + H LENR works, as demonstrated by all of these other labs, then the “scam” position becomes that Rossi, by scamming, has forced the hand of these scientists to bring their technology out of the labs. Even if this is the case, which is highly doubtful, then Rossi is a hero. Even if this is the case we are entering a new era of free energy.

        A puzzle for you. Rossi has residency rights in the USA. He revealed this technology in Italy. Italy was the country that felt badly stung by the Petroldragon fiasco (which I don’t believe was Rossi’s fault BTW.) Which makes more sense, that Rossi returned to Italy to redeem his name with his homies, or that Rossi returned to Italy to have his name mocked twice?

      • Dave Says:

        brucefast here are your replies.

        I didn’t see anything on that page that explained why Rossi wouldn’t want to do a 3rd party test. It was only talking about more demonstrations. His demonstrations mean nothing anyway because we have no way to know if they’re being done correctly or honestly.

        “Companies hold their technologies secret until they are ready to release their idea to the world as a product all of the time. ”

        Rossi has been releasing his idea to the world for some time now. It’s not like he’s keeping the idea a secret. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain at this point by getting his E-Cat verified.

        Dr. Levi’s 18 hour test would certainly be good evidence, if it really happened. We have no confirmation that the test was real other than articles on “E-Cat Truther” sites. In other words, it’s hearsay. Show me a peer-reviewed article in a scientific or engineering journal.

        You’re right that LENR isn’t scientifically impossible. It’s just that any claim for an advancement in LENR requires evidence the same as any other scientific claim.

        Who know what Rossi’s motivations would be in revealing his invention in Italy. Most likely he doesn’t speak English or other languages as well as Italian, so he feels more comfortable there.

      • brucefast Says:

        “We have no confirmation that the test was real other than articles on “E-Cat Truther” sites.”

        http://www.e-catworld.com/2011/08/guiseppe-levi-conducts-video-interview-with-steven-krivit-about-his-testing-of-the-e-cat/

        Unless Steve Krivit can be viewed as an “E-Cat Truther”, this statement is simply wrong!

        “He has nothing to lose and everything to gain at this point by getting his E-Cat verified.” How does he have “everything” to gain? How does he gain more by getting some scientist (whose qualification you will doubt) to say he tested it than he does by bringing actual products to Wal-Mart or Home Depot for sale?

        “You’re right that LENR isn’t scientifically impossible. It’s just that any claim for an advancement in LENR requires evidence the same as any other scientific claim.”

        The equation of “we optimized a known phenomenon” is a vastly more minor than the claim “we created perpetual motion” (effectively what the “no LENR” community is saying.)

        Responding to your points on your comment posted below:

        5. … Were they [the Swedish skeptics] really qualified to say it worked?” Dave, this is LAUGHABLE! Both are physicists! One was the head of the Swedish Skeptic Society. The other, the chairman of the Energy Committee for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. More qualified people are very hard to come by.

        Are you, Dave, qualified to judge whether they are qualified? Do you have a Ph.D. — NO! Do you have a bachelor’s? Probably not.

        “6. I haven’t seen anybody surrounding Rossi I would say is credible.” “I haven’t seen” is an argument from authority. Arguments from authority can be effective — if the authority sited is an actual authority. For your opinion to be respected as an authority on the credibility of “anybody surrounding Rossi”, you’ll have to produce a resume — or at least a wikipedia article.

  129. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave and Craig Binns are absolutely right to be opposed to their impressions of what cold fusion is. Unfortunately, since they refuse to look at the evidence, from Fleishmann to Celani, their impressions of what is cold fusion is not reality. They are having these wonderful little intellectual wars over fantasies in their heads. I think that this may be a form of psychosis. I would be nice if they looked at the evidence, and then their massive intellects would be helpful in shedding light on these matters.

  130. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave, if you had followed my posts, you would have noticed that I remain and am proud of being uncertain. I believe in the reality of LENR. I am inclined to believe Rossi, but remain stubbornly uncertain. We will see.

    It is a big jump from anomalous excess heat to being able to scald someone with a jet of steam and hot water coming from a hose.

    I assume that all of Rossi’s secretiveness is due to his wanting to keep his secret. I see pros and cons going both ways. You gave several cons. His unwillingness to accept money is a strong pro. His working long hours is a strong pro. His behavior, hard to fake, of taking things for granted is a weak pro. The Swedish skeptic hovering around and giving a thumbs up is a strong pro. Being surrounded by nuclear physicists who approve of his efforts is a strong pro; if I were a scammer of cold fusion, I would want the nuclear physicists as far away as possible.

    I am not fooled by the fact that Rossi’s E-Cat does not fit conventional nuclear theory. I believe that conventional nuclear theory has already been blown away by LENR.

    You might check out: http://www.ecatnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/E-cat-english.pdf It is very cute; a computer program translated it from Italian. I am only up to page 22, but it is very enjoyable reading, and the mis-translations sort of reveal things about being Italian. (:->)

    Roger

  131. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave, why do you disbelieve? There are a hundred reasons to believe and a hundred reasons to disbelieve. What is the real reason why you choose the disbelieve reasons and rationalize away the believe reasons? You are doing the same thing that you thought that I was doing and am inclined to do, only in the opposite direction. What is the real reason why you disbelieve? Is it because it is too good to be true? (That one still bites at my heels.) Is it because it seems to violate conventional nuclear theory? (I don’t care about that one.) Is it because you secretly can’t believe that an Italian could come up with something this revolutionary? (Don’t forget Fibonacci, Galileo, Enrico Fermi, et. al.) Is it because it is too big of a jump from LENR to scalding someone with steam and hot water bursting forth from a hose?

    • Dave Says:

      Roger, good question. Here are my reasons for disbelief.

      1. His E-Cat demos don’t show enough steam output to account for his claimed heat energy output. Also, the fact that the steam output could scald someone means NOTHING. An electric tea kettle can do the same thing. That can be accounted for by the electrical energy input.

      2. A rational inventor of a working product would *want* independent 3rd party tests to validate to the world his invention really works. It could be done as a “black box” that wouldn’t reveal anything about how the E-Cat works.

      3. Nobody in the world has been able to do what Rossi is claiming to have done. LENR is real, but so far it’s only been anomalous energy released in ways that can’t be reliably replicated. There is a huge leap between that and a working product as Rossi is claiming. If he really did it, he can’t expect anyone to believe it without evidence.

      4. His unwillingness to accept money means nothing. You don’t know if he’s taking investor money in secret.

      5. Did the “Swedish skeptics” test the E-Cat themselves? Were they really qualified to say it worked? Also, the copper found in the E-Cat could have been there from the start. Do you have any peer-reviewed reports from them?

      6. I haven’t seen anybody surrounding Rossi I would say is credible.

      • brucefast Says:

        Dave, thanks for at least presenting an evidenciary case. I made an evidenciary response to your previous post above. Please respond to it.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        Dave, you’re entitled to your disbelief but Rossi has no obligation to prove anything to any of us.

        I doubt he has a retail-ready product at this point but I believe that he believes he will have one soon…at that time, he will let his customers be the judge.

        “Peer Review” and “Publish or Perish” are nothing more than profession enhancement and fodder for grant requests.

      • brucefast Says:

        And neither peer review nor Ph.D. has allowed the scientists in the LENR world to convince wikipedia that LENR is anything but “pathological science”.

  132. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Yes, the peer review isn’t a perfect filter. Some of the nonsense gets through and is weeded out later.

  133. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave, there seems to be a lot of people surrounding Rossi that are credible: Levi, Stremmenos, Focardi, Celani, and others. That is why I am inclined to believe. But it really doesn’t matter if I believe or not, because it makes not difference whatsoever. If Rossi should come to my door and ask for a donation, then my belief or disbelief might matter.

  134. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    Opposition to Rossi’s evident phoniness is not a “psychosis” or even a mere “fantasy” in my head. The scientific world rightly rejects Rossi’s claims, on the ground that he has not provided sufficient evidence for his alleged discoveries.

    If there are psychoses or fantasies, they may more easily be found among the ever-smaller group of “special thinkers” who continue to allow themselves to be deceived by Rossi’s swindles.

    • brucefast Says:

      “The scientific world rightly rejects Rossi’s claims, on the ground that he has not provided sufficient evidence for his alleged discoveries.”

      The scientific world also rejects the claims of SRI, MIT (MIT rejects the claims of MIT), SPAWAR, NASA, USAF, and all of the other on the grounds that they have not provided sufficient evidence for their alleged discoveries as well. This remains to be so until the consensus of the scientific community is that LENR is valid science.

  135. Dave Says:

    brucefast, “How does he have “everything” to gain?”

    If Rossi had an E-Cat verified by a reputable independent 3rd party there is no doubt he would receive billions of dollars in “clean energy” grants from many Western governments to develop his E-Cat system into working products. Rossi wouldn’t want that? Whether he’s motivated by profit or by a desire to give the world cheap energy his course of action makes no rational sense if the E-Cat works.

    • Alain Says:

      if the business world is convinced E-cat is real, immediately he won’t be bilionaire, but copied.

      The inventor of smart card, Roland moreno, started by a partnership with bull, but since they use all the time to turn around his IP, he break away.
      smart card had success in france. but not in US, and it has success there only when his IP get expired.

      the best strategy, like defkalion, is be silent until you a ready to sell… Rossi is not enough rational to shut up and wait.

      maybe they need a little communication to attract early adopter partners.

    • brucefast Says:

      Dave, where do you live, Fantasyland? We have top scientists from top scientific institutions saying that they have achieved the same reaction that Rossi is claiming. These scientists are now being mobbed by governments everywhere throwing money at them. In fact last week one of them suffocated under the vast pile of $100 bills that was delivered via dump truck. (www.fantasyland.com/news)

  136. Dave Says:

    brucefast, let me also add that from what I’ve read about the Swedish scientists, they only observed a Rossi demonstration. They didn’t do the test on their own. That’s meaningless.

    • brucefast Says:

      I know, they were kept behind a fence 6 feet from the dear machine. They were able to observe from this distance for a period of 3.5 minutes. It was ridiculous.

      BTW, when is your acknowledgement that you were wrong when you said, “We have no confirmation that the test was real other than articles on “E-Cat Truther” sites.”

  137. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, the fantasy is your opposing what you imagine “cold fusion” is, since you never look at the evidence, you can’t oppose the reality. When you look at the evidence of LENR, then we can say that you are opposing (or supporting) the reality of LENR.

    As for Rossi, he is still own his own. I neither believe or disbelieve him, although I am very encouraged that he may be for real.

  138. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave, the last time that someone did that (Fleishmann and Pons trying to get scientific confirmation), look what happened. You may be a Charlie Brown (and the scientific community would be Lucy), but neither Rossi nor I nor many other people are Charlie Browns. We actually learn from other people’s mistakes. The Wright Brothers did not get confirmation from the scientific community. Neither did Edison with most if not all of his inventions. It would not make any sense to pursue scientific confirmation with that kind of history.

  139. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave, a demo only and not a test is not meaningless. The Swedes had the opportunity to poke and prod. Admittedly, it is not as good as a test, but it is not meaningless, given the gestalt of Focardi, LENR, Levi, Stremmenos, etc. etc. etc. etc.

  140. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    I am opposing Rossi. I am not opposing some kind of cold fusion that I have dreamed up. I am saying that Rossi is a crook, whether there is such a thing as cold fusion or not, and I admit I don’t think it has been shown to exist. Rossi’s machine is phoney. It is a scam like all the other free energy machines that have appeared from time to time.

  141. Roger Bird Says:

    So what say you about LENR?

  142. Dave Says:

    Roger well Fleishmann and Pons made the mistake of having a press conference to announce something that had not yet been duplicated by other researchers. Nobody else could replicate the results, so they were unfortunately discredited.

    The situation with Rossi is completely different. He says he can use a LENR to reliable get several times more heat energy than electrical energy input. That would be very simple to confirm one way or the other.

    • brucefast Says:

      Dave, “Nobody else could replicate the results”. Nasa says that during the same year Pons and Fleischmann made their announcement Nasa replicated their results.

  143. Roger Bird Says:

    Well, Dave, I await confirmation of Rossi. I’ll keep phoning my local WalMart to check to see when they are carrying the E-Cat. And I don’t really care too much about so-called scientific confirmation since they screwed us so many freaking times with the Wright Bros., Edison, Wegener, Kinney, etc., etc., etc.

    But what do you say about LENR? We have hardcore anti-Rossi diehards here who refuse to look at the LENR evidence. I am impressed that something real is happening with LENR. I am hoping that you have or you will look at the LENR evidence. To not look at the LENR evidence is as stupid as believing in anything that comes along, like free energy, etc.

  144. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, I think that we should keep the experimental results separate from the theories. The validity of independently verified, repeatable results is independent of theories that may or may not explain them ( such as LENR, Cold Fusion or whatever). You list a bunch of results, most showing some excess energy, some showing some apparently nuclear reaction products, a few with excess energy above values compatible with chemical reactions, etc. But they are all different and often unpublished results sometimes lacking sufficient detailed information. That is not what we mean by full description and independent verification.

    The theories that I have seen so far, don’t make any sense to me and some are truly ludicrous. But that may not be so surprising given the confused experimental situation. If a few of these experiments could get to the point where they are fully under control, then they could be repeated under varying conditions and the responses be carefully mapped out. That sort of information would offer much better guidance to theorists. Once a candidate theory is developed, it would make predictions for new experiments. If these predictions turn out to be accurate then we would know that we have a valid theory.

    • brucefast Says:

      “I think that we should keep the experimental results separate from the theories.”

      Oh yes! I am so wide open about the theoretical base for these findings that I am not prepared to declare that anything nuclear is going on at all. There does seem to be some results that indicate that there is something nuclear going on. However the most obvious evidence of a “nuclear” reaction to date is Rossi’s 10% copper claim. While I believe that Rossi has generally accurately demonstrated his technology, I am highly suspicious that he seeded his test sample with copper.

      Honest, Peter, I do not pretend to have enough knowledge to evaluate theories. The reason I published the post: http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/29/has-lenr-uncovered-a-new-physics/ is that it seems to have had the endorsement of a physicist.

      I am also convinced of the value of establishing a theoretical base for this technology. Once the theory is understood, I expect that we will be able to push the technology into new areas. It also won’t surprise me if a theoretical understanding of this phenomenon proves productive in answering some of the great unanswered questions of physics.

  145. Roger Bird Says:

    So I have been reading this online book by (I am not sure) Rossi and Focardi called “E-Cat Rossi Focardi’s book The beginning of a new era” at: http://www.ecatnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/E-cat-english.pdf, translated from Italian. Those Italians are so cute, and the translations from Italian to English is even cuter.

    Anyway, I am on page 24. If hydrogen atoms are loaded into the lattices, then isn’t that storing potential energy? [I was surprised that these lattices are actually on the atomic level, not little holes in the material.] And when the hydrogen atoms or ions come rushing out, isn’t that kinetic energy? Wouldn’t that explain the surge in heat that can’t happen until the lattices are loaded? Is this the explanation for the excess energy? If not, then could it be noise that is making it difficult to hear the signal of the real LENR?

  146. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    I absolutely deny that fusion energy consists of the potential energy stored by squeezing particles into lattices, and then letting the squeezed particles rush out, as if we were discussing compressed air suddenly released from a cylinder.

    That’s nothing like how stars work, for example. I just can’t tell you how wrong and mistaken I think your picture is!

    • Bob Says:

      Craig, the atoms rush out of a lattice may be causing heat by the cavitation affect being reported by bubbles or by atoms being forced through a pin hole under pressure. They both are reported to cause CF to occur. I think its energy released to confined atoms, somehow that causes an atomic and maybe partial chemical reaction. When you have atoms with energy in proximity, something happens causing CF, it seems to me it is created in many ways so their must be a misunderstanding of how atoms interact. Once they solve the riddle, its my guess there will be many approaches to commercial CF.

  147. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. I was suggesting that the perceived heating was do to the hydrogen ions rushing out of the lattices, not nuclear fusion. If it takes energy to push the hydrogen into the lattices, then we should get energy back from the hydrogen coming out of the lattices. I hope that this does not explain LENR, because if it does we have no energy source, just an interesting phenomena.

    In other words, there would be a net zero energy or even less since it would take more energy to push the H ions in than we would get from the heat of the H ions coming out. But I should read more of the document.

  148. brucefast Says:

    Craig, there is a way of denying LENR and making money from it too. I have a job offer for you. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=839

  149. Peter Thieberger Says:

    “I am not prepared to declare that anything nuclear is going on at all”

    I agree but if it is not nuclear it isn’t really useful. Nickel is a well known chemical catalyst, especially when finely divided. At least some of the excess heat observations may indeed be chemical in nature.

    • brucefast Says:

      However, Peter, consider what happens if we take the 18 hour test at face value. (Taking it at face value would have to conclude that there isn’t something hidden in the lead shielding, something strange in the hydrogen tank, etc. Ie, what Rossi presented as the contents of his system really is the contents of his system.) We had a very small combustion chamber, and a measured hydrogen consumption. If the heat out of this system is of chemical origin, we still have one heck of a new chemical process going on, don’t we. This new chemical process could easily be turned into one heck of an improved energy source over anything we’ve seen before.

      BTW, this still does not give your colleagues the respect that they deserve. You would think that if their reports of excess energy, etc. were just chemical, that their reports would be very different than they are.

      So we are left with three possibilities that I can see:
      1 – It is as billed — some sort of nuclear reaction.
      2 – It is chemical, but not anything vaguely like previous chemical events. As such it remains scientifically and industrially VERY interesting.
      3 – It is a phenomenon that is neither chemical as we understand it nor nuclear as we understand it. Could it be that a whole new class of phenomenon is being uncovered?

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Bruce, energy generation from chemical reactions is well understood. It is always based on binding energy differences between the reactants and the reaction products. Granted that there is a large number of compounds, but they are pretty much known, especially the most tightly bound ones which would be the ones yielding the highest combustion energy. This type of energy is basically limited by the relatively weak nature of the electromagnetic force. I mean relatively weak compared to nuclear forces.

        As to something not nuclear and not chemical, it would be interesting to know what you have in mind. There are four forces, gravitational, weak, electromagnetic and strong (or nuclear). The best bet is to use the last two which are the strongest. Chemical and nuclear reactions do that. Gravitational is the weakest but it has some chance because it is long range and cumulative. For example tidal energy ultimately derives from the gravitational energy of the moon.

        Regarding the famous 18 hour test I can’t take it at face value. Rossi was running the e-cat while Levi was taking data. Hardly an independent test. Later Levi steadfastly refused to provide any written opinion, report or copy of the data. And then the University of Bologna issued a strong disclaimer regarding any association with Rossi’s tests except regarding possible future experiments. Rossi had promised to place e-cats at the University and to pay for a research program. Earlier he had made similar promises regarding the universities of Uppsala and Stockholm. At that time I predicted that he would honor these promises. I am still waiting.

      • brucefast Says:

        Peter, we still have to deal with the simple fact that many of your colleagues have gone public declaring that they have achieved a Ni + H reaction. Regarding Rossi’s claims, we now have two possibilities.

        1 – Rossi is a fraud who created a conjurer’s box, but he forced the hand of your scientific colleagues bringing the valid world of the Ni + H reaction to light.

        2 – Rossi’s demonstrations are effectively valid.
        Your colleagues’ claims, therefore, are the best case that exists that Rossi did not create a conjurer’s box.

        However, you have stalwartly avoided referencing your colleagues’ claims. I am personally baffled at your determined unwillingness to consider all of the data.

        BTW, while Levi has not written anything that I know of about the 18 hour test, he has gone on record verbally. My understanding is that the hour long interview he did with Krivit was done after the U. of Bologna formally distanced themselves from Rossi. Levi has been in attendance at even the October 31 test. He has never hinted anything but a positive take on the e-cat.

        “As to something not nuclear and not chemical, it would be interesting to know what you have in mind.” I present this scenario as one versed in logic, but not as one versed in physics. If I were to make a conjecture, and surely it is a conjecture from ignorance, I would wonder if something within the world of the quanta is involved. The little I do know about quantum mechanics is that it is weird, that in the quantum world things behave in ways that appear absolutely impossible in the world we are familiar with. I also get the impression that the quantum world is not fully understood. So if an unknown force or phenomenon exists, I would think to look there.

  150. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    I don’t have the required qualifications, alas, as I’m not a “pathological”, merely a “reasonable”, sceptic. May I suggest, however, that a job be found for georgehants, author of the preceding post in your linked blog, in honour of his reasoned defence of the supernatural?

    Nightwatchman at Chernobyl springs to mind.

    It is certainly true that people can make money out of LENR, if not by denying it, then at least while not believing it themselves. I aver that Defkalion is full of such persons, and that Rossi and his gang are also individuals of this type. The technical term is “swindlers”.

    May I entreat you yet again to attend to Peter Thieberger? If you have a machine that is observed to emit modest whiffs of soft, visible steam, for short periods, while

    a) wired to the local power supply,
    b) fed with hydrogen and fine metal powders, and
    c) emitting no detectable radiation products

    then it’s hardly “pathological” to require of anyone who states that this is the result, not of chemical reactions, but of unknown, unrepeatable, and theoretically impossible nuclear processes, to adduce further evidence, or at least permit free access to the device by suitably qualified people.

    • brucefast Says:

      Sorry, I am not translating “author of the preceding post in your linked blog” into an actual link. Could you please provide a link so that I can see georgehunt’s “reasoned defence of the supernatural”. I may choose to add my own reasoned defense of the supernatural to his. Oops, there I go, as I would consider the supernatural to be a valid topic I prove to the great and wise Craig Binns that I am a crackpot. Have no fear, Craig, this topic will again be brought up at your bunnet eating ceremony.

  151. Craig Binns Says:

    And your comment on the rest of my post? The reference to georgehants was, of course, a piece of slapstick comedy.

  152. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    I am happy to discuss reasoned arguments in favour of the supernatural, although they may be out of place here, since NEITHER of us believes that the e-cat is powered by supernatural forces. But I said “reasoned” arguments. Here, on the other hand, is georgehants:

    “Defkalion can I nominate the dead-brained scientists below.

    Why our youth are being taught to close their minds, we are paying these people to teach reductionist rubbish. Time to remove them.

    … In other words this coward Professor is maliciously lying and wilfully misleading the viewers when he says there is no objective and repeatable evidence for psychic abilities. Yet he shows he does not have the sharp intellect, the courage, the intelligence, the knowledge, the motivation and the integrity to show WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY the existing evidence for the paranormal is invalid –

    $50,000 CHALLENGE! to this biggest coward skeptic Prof. B Hood. Does he have the COURAGE, the INTELLIGENCE, the MOTIVATION, the INTEGRITY to stand up for what he believes? Or is he going to continue to confirm he is the biggest coward in the U.K?”

    Wow!

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, you, and presumable georgehunts, aren’t very good at providing LINKS. I searched for Prof. B Hood $50,000 CHALLENGE and did not find the challenge in google’s top ten. Where is the link to the challenge? Where did georgehunts say, “objective and repeatable evidence for psychic abilities”. Did georgehunts provide a link to his evidence for “objective and repeatable evidence for psychic abilities”?

  153. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig Binns, again I was not able to get past the first sentence. A reasonable skeptic is one who looks at the evidence and does not hide from it. You are not a reasonable skeptic. You are a pathological skeptic.

  154. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    The evidence tells me, with more than 50% probability, it seems to me, that the’s no LENR effect there. So I don’t believe. That is the definition of “believe”.

    Let’s say you don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy. If that’s because you don’t have sufficient evidence for the existence of the TF, then your disbelief, however entrenched and unshakable, is not “pathological”, and your mind may rest at ease.

  155. Roger Bird Says:

    Gee, Craig, I don’t know why I read your posts, really. You give me a lecture on the scientific method as though I didn’t already know.

    You have NOT looked at the evidence that we have presented to you.

  156. Roger Bird Says:

    Real things are not necessarily repeatable. This is a problem with science.

  157. Dave Says:

    Roger that’s not a problem with science. Real things are repeatable. If not they’re either they’re simply not real or we don’t understand the nature of the thing to define what it is.

  158. Roger Bird Says:

    What is reality?

    For LENR in 1989, it was that we did not understand what it was we were dealing with. But instead of appreciating the human element and saying perhaps we don’t fully understand what it was we were are dealing with, MIT et. al. said that Fleishmann and Pons were crooks. Like I said before, scientists tend to be like autistic savants who are socially and morally retarded.

  159. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    You reprimand me “You give me a lecture on the scientific method as though I didn’t already know.” But you don’t already know! You have just described practitioners of the scientific method as resembling “autistic savants who are socially and morally retarded”.

    Roger, that’s because scientific statements, like mathematical statements, have no moral content. Not because the persons who make such statements are morally delinquent in other aspects of their lives.

  160. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, again you show your obliviousness to the human touch.

    I cannot do these experiments. They are too costly. I suspect that you could not do them either for the same reason. I also do not have the knowledge. You also may not have the knowledge. Therefore, the scientific method is not directly accessible to you and me for these matters. We must rely on those who do have direct access Rossi, most of whom are heavy science types. That is what you do; that is what I do; that is what Frank Acland does; that is what brucefast does; that is what Iggy does; that is what maryyugo does, etc. etc. etc. Except for Aussie Guy and some dubious guy named Chan, this is what we all do. (Hopefully there are and will be many people doing these experiments) We listen to other people. I believe those who are surrounding Rossi for all the reasons that Frank Acland gave in his post today at http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/01/why-i-believe-there-is-a-coming-e-cat-revolution/

    Who do you believe, since you cannot do the experiments yourself?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – you could afford to do the experiments. Larsen is selling little kits for around the $100 mark that effectively replicate Pons+Fleischmann’s experiment of Palladium+heavy water (sorry I’ve lost the link to this). I am setting up an experiment using Titanium and Hydrogen to see if it will run. My budget is also around the 100 euro mark – I can’t afford much more but I do have the time. The thing is that the more people who investigate the effect, the more likely we are to have someone find the key to making it easily reproducible. The phenomenon exists, and there is evidence of transmutation which points to some form of nuclear reaction going on. The problem is that the precise surface conditions for it to occur are not yet known. New Energy Times has a very good archive of papers and articles, from which you can get information of what has been done in the past and can glean some clues as to what has been missed in the data. A lump of nickel can be bought on eBay, hydrogen you can generate by electrolysis, the container you can weld together – this is not rocket science and can be done in the back shed. Just do it with small quantities at first ;>).

      Enjoy playing with it, and maybe one of us will get reproducible results.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon, if you could find a link that would be great!

        A couple of notes that I gleaned from the SPAWAR video:
        1 – The palladium must soak in the heavy water for a couple of weeks to get a reaction.
        2 – The palladium must be fully immersed in the deuterium to make it work.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Hi Bruce – it took a while searching through history as I didn’t bookmark it, but it is http://lomaxdesign.com/coldfusion/ (so probably not Larsen as I remembered it). A pretty scrappy site but has all the items needed (cell kits currently out of stock). The Palladium is electrolysed out from a solution of Palladium Chloride, so it should co-deposit the hydrogen in the lattice, thus prolonged soak not needed. They also supply the plastic for sensing neutron emission – not realtime but you can look at the record under a microscope after developing the sample in NaOH. I think that possibly a blacked-out webcam may provide a cheap gamma and beta sensor – more news when I’ve run some tests.

        The usefulness of this is really only to see it happening yourself and thus assure yourself that it is real and not just a load of hype. I think it is better to try a new method that gets plasmons, ionised Hydrogen (protons) in a lattice and gaps in the right places to increase the probability of a reaction occurring. Noting that in several published papers that anomalous heat production was associated with a change in electrolysing current, for example, it makes sense to send a chopped DC current in. We want waves in the plasmons in
        order to get that magic 5E+11V/m electric field.

        Larsen’s presentations at http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen have some interesting ideas. I was intrigued by the Nov 6th presentation on analysis of the pyrolysis vessel – maybe LENR is a common occurrence but has not been seen since no-one believed it could happen and the techniques necessary to characterise it are somewhat expensive to use. Another interesting idea comes from Vysotskii (http://www.lenr-canr.org/LibFrame1.html and search on Vysotskii) where he basically states that certain moulds use LENR to produce iron from manganese when grown in an iron-poor environment. It may be easier than we thought to transmute elements, and we just need to find the correct method.

        Happy hunting!

  161. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, an autistic savant is someone who is typically monstrously skilled at one thing, like piano or memorization or painting, but is terrible at most other things, especially human interaction and understanding human beings. It has been suggested that some scientists are autistic savants. Einstein, although excellent at platitudes and physics, was frightfully abusive towards his women. Newton was a vindictive and mean sort of person. I could go on and on. There is even some talk of all our great intellectuals, from Newton to Rousseau to Marx into the present day, being harsh and stupid when it comes to other human beings. It is like these intellectuals traded their human skills for intellectual might.

  162. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    It doesn’t matter what Einstein’s personality was like. E=mc^2 is still true. To suggest all intellectuals are harsh and stupid is insane. And even if a scientist happens to be an unpleasant person, that in no way invalidates that person’s discoveries, as well you know.

    In general, Pons and Fleschmann have not been regarded as crooks by the scientific establishment, but as deluded and mistaken people.

    • Bob Says:

      Craig, your blindly clinging to your view of life can work out great, I have used your technique myself. Once when called for Jury duty I went before the judge and he asked if there was a reason I shouldn’t serve as a jurist. I said, no your honor, as a mater of fact I have been gifted with the ability to spot criminals a mile away. He quickly dismissed me as a jurist. Blindly stating a belief or lack of one can work very well. I see nothing and I’m so sure of it I won’t bother to look! Nice!

  163. Roger Bird Says:

    I didn’t get past the first sentence.

    I am not trying to decide if E = MC2 is true by looking at it because I am incapable of making an informed decision. I am trying to decide if other people who claim to be knowledgeable and who are acclaimed to be knowledge know whether E= MC2 is true or not.

    I am incapable in my current circumstance to know whether Rossi = E-Cat is true or not. I am relying on those who claim to know nuclear physics and who are acclaimed to know nuclear physics know whether Rossi = E-Cat is true or not.

    I am impressed by the knowledge and acclaim of those who have checked out Rossi’s E-Cat sufficiently to believe that Rossi’s E-Cat works.

    I am enjoying our conversation much more than in the past. Please don’t ruin it by implying or saying that I am stupid again. I am very confident that I am approaching this matter in an intelligent and reasonable way. I am open to reinterpretation given new evidence.

  164. Roger Bird Says:

    Bob, that was a very nice way to get out of jury duty. Unfortunately, I am committed to absolute honesty, so that option is not open to me. However, if the judge asked me if I believed if the defendant was guilty until proven innocent, I could say that I believed in cold fusion. That would certainly get me off. But that will only work for about another year. After that, the judge will say, “Don’t we all, now answer the question or else you will be spending tonight in jail.”

    (:->)

  165. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, Krivit’s interview with Levi was on June 14, 2011 and the University of Bologna disclaimer was issued on December 1.

    I have been critical of Drs. Levi, Kulander and Essen and I will say it again. I think that they did act carelessly and unprofessionally by making public statements about the results of experiments not conducted by them and over which they didn’t have full control. It is like an MD issuing a diagnosis of good health just because the patient looks healthy. He would be accused of malpractice if the patient later dies of a disease that he should have discovered during a professional examination he never conducted.

  166. Roger Bird Says:

    Since doctors only spend an average of 8 minutes with their patients, you analogy is wanting.

  167. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Most doctors are not totally irresponsible. They may spend 8 minutes with their patients but they do order all the tests and bloodwork necessary to reach a professionally valid opinion

  168. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    You’re enjoying our conversation much more than in the past, but at the beginning of just about every post you tell me you didn’t get past the first sentence. Maybe you shouldn’t read my posts at all, then you’d enjoy them even more.

    As to the relevance of the personalities of scientists, you tell me how impressed you are with the “knowledge and acclaim” of those who allegedly support Rossi. Does this mean that the majority of scientists support him? Or that those who oppose him lack knowledge or reputation? Evidence, please.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, “…“knowledge and acclaim” of those who allegedly support Rossi. Does this mean that the majority of scientists support him? Or that those who oppose him lack knowledge or reputation? Evidence, please.”

      Your lack of logic in this statement is astounding. Lets say that there are 100,000 scientists who deserve the title “knowledge and acclaim”. Lets say that 3 of those scientists support Rossi (I’m sure I can readily name of 10). If so then Roger’s statement is reasonable where your rebuttal is not.

  169. Roger Bird Says:

    Sorry, Peter, you may have spent the last 40 years studying nuclear physics, but I have spent the last 40 years studying health. Our system sucks. There are at least 20 countries whose longevity rates and infant mortality rates are better than ours and who spend 30% to 50% less than we do on health per capita. And the part about ordering tests? Why are tests being ordered when the doctor has very little contact with the patient?

    And I am not proposing a government health program. Just the opposite; I am proposing getting the government out of health and arresting all FDA officials for crimes against humanity.

    Sort of off topic, except that I hope that the government is the last group to figure out that cold fusion works.

  170. Roger Bird Says:

    Anyone who would put up with the abuse of pathological skeptics is a brave soul. Oh, but I forgot, you don’t believe in souls, just meat. A person is just meat and consciousness is an interesting but unnecessary hypothesis to people like you.

    I meant (and you know I meant it) that the people who have SEEN the results and who have investigated LENR are real scientists.

    So, Craig, since you cannot do the experiments, who do you believe and why? I believe those who have seen the results.

  171. Roger Bird Says:

    brucefast, although Peter is way more polite than Craig Binns, do you have any reason to believe the Peter has actually looked at the studies. (Funny thing is that Peter could actually understand the formal papers.) I suspect that Peter is hiding his head in the sand just like Craig Binns.

    • brucefast Says:

      Roger, it would appear that Peter has actively avoided even making a cursory check into what his colleagues (listed at http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/) have said. I have mentioned the replicators to him about a half dozen times, yet he hasn’t referred to anything they have said, or even acknowledged that their work exists.

      “Funny thing is that Peter could actually understand the formal papers.” You are so right. I don’t understand the formal papers. I am dying to see Peter engage this phenomenon. He did take a look at the one theory paper I cited. He provided a bunch of strong evidence that the theory was full of it. I loved that interaction.

  172. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    Who wrote this, on Aug 16? (see above) “I personally don’t need to see a 1mw plant as the carrier of a revealed Rossi by the end of the year [2011]. I do need to see multiple independent sources saying that they have theirs going, in their own labs, with their own packaging around the e-cat core.”

    Why, you wrote it, and you were right!

    Where are these multiple independent sources? Nowhere, now or ever.

    This is an old fashioned, tried and true, “free energy” scam.

  173. Roger Bird Says:

    When I say knowledge and acclaim, I mean PhDs in physics and/or nuclear physics.

    But Craig Binns does not really want to know what I mean. The reports of anything that is outside the box (whose boundaries are created by other people) makes him feels so uncomfortable that he becomes pathological. He is too insecure to admit that there is an outside of the box.

  174. Dave Says:

    brucefast none of those LENR replicators have done what Rossi is claiming to have done. None of them have a working LENR product. Even if they did it wouldn’t mean that Rossi could also do it. He would still have to provide evidence that his own device really works.

    Not trying to be insulting, but you “E-Cat Truthers” really need to learn about the scientific method and learn about critical thinking. Some of you seem to think that just because there are a few experiments that show some anomalous excess heat from LENR that means Rossi’s extraordinary claim of having a working LENR device has some validity. It doesn’t have any validity until it’s been verified by a reputable independent 3rd party. That’s the way science works. That’s the way a rational human being thinks.

    I really hope Rossi’s E-Cat does work, but all of the evidence points to it being a hoax/scam.

    • brucefast Says:

      Lets see, Dave. There is a scientific law that basically says that you don’t get more out of something than you put in. Its called the first law of thermodynamics. The second law basically says that you don’t even get as much out as you put in. Rossi, and these other guys all are putting less energy in than they are getting out. They are all lawbreakers!

      Dave, “Not trying to be insulting, but you “E-Cat Truthers” really need to learn about the scientific method and learn about critical thinking.”

      One of us has trouble with their critical thinking skills, that’s for sure.

  175. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    The point being made by Rossi’s opponents is that the e-cat is an ILLUSION and Rossi is a FRAUD. His data are LIES. It’s like a magician sawing his lovely assistant in half, and then putting her back together again which is also forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics. But he never really did saw her in half and the laws of nature remain inviolate!

    And of course neither Rossi nor the magician let you see behind the scenes.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig Binns, the point being made by me is that there are a bunch of others performing the same trick. Some of these others are well respected scientists from well respected institutions.

      Therefore,

      Even if Rossi is performing a parlor trick, the phenomenon he is reporting (Nickel + Hydrogen LENR) is validated by the others.

      The logic is simple, GET YOUR BLINDERS OFF, NOTICE THAT NON-ROSSI DATA EXISTS!

  176. Roger Bird Says:

    Both Craig Binns and Peter are not sincere in their belief in science.

    • brucefast Says:

      Roger, science is a HUGE field. Not every scientist has the time to deeply explore this or any particular topic. While Peter hasn’t put in the time to check out what his colleagues have done in this field, suggesting that he is therefore “not sincere in his belief in science” is too much to say.

    • Peter Thieberger Says:

      And you, Roger Bird, you have bad breath :-). Not only can’t you or Bruce know what I am ignoring or not ignoring, you also don’t know what else I am doing in this field, which isn’t part of my full time job. In case you are interested, here are two links:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/77531979/thieberger

      http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php

      I still hope to get to Bruce’s very useful list in some detail, but I have already made a short general comment which I repeat below in case you missed it:

      “You list a bunch of results, most showing some excess energy, some showing some apparently nuclear reaction products, a few with excess energy above values compatible with chemical reactions, etc. But they are all different and often unpublished results sometimes lacking sufficient detailed information. That is not what we mean by full description and independent verification.”

      • brucefast Says:

        Dr. Thieberger, you are one of the bravest men I know! Who else would publish documents that are suitable for the mass media without first getting to know why the scientist in the lab next door are getting exactly the opposite result than you are claiming — especially in an field that could transform the world. It would appear to me that you have risked making yourself the poster boy for the “science rejected it” chorus that will follow.

        Your entire case in these two documents (one of which I had read before) is, It can’t be therefore it isn’t. This is the exact opposite of your previous statement, “Physics is an experimental science. Whatever the confirmed facts are, the theory must follow.”

        Dr. Thieberger, you also said, “… they are all different and often unpublished results sometimes lacking sufficient detailed information.” I am puzzled by that word “often”. It seems reasonable to me that you would pass over the unpublished results. I am rather sure that Chan, for instance, has not published anything. However below is the list of scientists who have declared in a public forum that they have achieved the Nickel + Hydrogen = heat reaction.

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

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

        Piantelli, University of Siena, Italy.

        Mike McKubre, SRI

        Francesco Celani, National Institute of Nuclear Physics (Italy)

        M. Swartz, lecturer for MIT

        Note that this leaves out the scientists at NASA, and SPAWAR
        because I have not noticed them declare that they had achieved the Ni + H reaction, only the Pons effect.

        Which is true, have these guys stood up in public, but not published? Or have you chosen not to look into what they had published, but gone out on a limb to oppose their experimental findings with your equally public declarations that it can’t be therefore it isn’t.

      • brucefast Says:

        Bruce, “Who else would publish documents that are suitable for the mass media without first getting to know why the scientist in the lab next door are getting exactly the opposite result than you are claiming — especially in an field that could transform the world.”

        Oops, sorry Peter, I guess I am a slow learner. What physicists say in public doesn’t count, so it needn’t be accurate. Only what a physicist says in published works must be accurate.

  177. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave, your “all of the evidence points to it being a hoax/scam” is as far removed from good science as your accusation that we are “E-Cat Truthers”. Very few of us, not me, believe that Rossi has made his case. The case for LENR has been made, yet most scientists belief that LENR is bogus. Other than looking beyond the bounds of current theory, Rossi has done nothing to deserve your cruel, unwarranted, & unscientific accusation of fraud. If everyone abided by your requirement that no science can be done unless it is done within the bounds of known facts, no discoveries would ever be made. Edison would never have gotten even started on the light bulb since science said that it was impossible. The same can be said for flight, EVEN years after it was a reality.

  178. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    That’s nonsense. But I’m used to your personal attacks and slights, and I pay no attention to them. Produce some reasoning and we can discuss it.

  179. Dave Says:

    Roger, science is open to new ideas, but they have to be backed up by testing that can be repeated by independent 3rd parties and the results published in peer-reviewed journals. Only then can new theories be accepted. Science doesn’t accept “Ross says” as evidence. Please don’t compare Rossi to Edison. Edison provided evidence that his light bulb really worked.

    Rossi has done *everything* to deserve what I said. He has conducted silly desktop demonstrations only with his own instruments that don’t even output enough steam. He has refused to allow a single black box test of an E-Cat unit by a reputable independent 3rd party. He cobbles together a 1MW plant that just happens to only output 470KW, which can be accounted for by the 500Kw generator that was connected to the plant the whole time. He sells said 1MW plant to a secret customer.

    • brucefast Says:

      Dave, please have a conversation with me in this thread (reply to your post above.)

      You said, “science is open to new ideas, but they have to be backed up by testing that can be repeated by independent 3rd parties and the results published in peer-reviewed journals.”

      Is it your opinion then that, Science (the scientific consensus) currently does not believe that LENR is real?

      Is it your opinion that once someone actually publishes a third-party repeatable test demonstrating LENR in a peer-reviewed journal, that the scientific consensus will accept LENR as real?

  180. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave, if Rossi is a con, then why did he say that his 1 Mw units only had 470 Kw? That would make very little sense. Heck, if I was a con, I would have said that it was 1.23 Mw.

  181. Roger Bird Says:

    And Dave, if Rossi were a con, why hasn’t he asked for money from the rest of us?

    You know, Dave, there is a lot of room between [working perfectly]–[getting scientific validation] and being a crook. There is having problems with control, having problems with sustainability, both, wanting to protect industrial secrets, being mistaken, being psychotic, and probably other things I haven’t thought of. There are many people who seem perfectly lucid but are completely out of touch with reality, such as hoarders, Munchhausen by proxy sufferers, anorexia nervosa sufferers, etc. You and Dave and Peter are so quick to call Rossi a crook that it undermines your credibility and your good reputations. Why not just say that Rossi’s E-Cat is unproven, which Iggy, brucefast, myself, and many others will all agree with. Why the “crook” appellation? There is so much room for so many other interpretations. Plus, should you prove to be wrong, you will be forced to eat crow. I will not have to eat crow. If he fails, I will not be wrong. If he succeeds, I will not be wrong.

    Yes, Rossi has not proven his claim. Very few people say that he has. Those who do are in a different position than I am sitting here in Colorado Springs in front of a computer screen. But to say that he is a crook is evil and philosophically unsustainable (read: stupid).

  182. Dave Says:

    brucefast, I think the scientific community doesn’t know what to think about LENR. They see some excess energy, but only in ways that can’t be reliably reproduced. As such they can’t formulate a theory that explains what’s happening.

    Yes once someone publishes a repeatable test demonstrating excess LENR energy in a peer-reviewed journal the scientific community would accept that LENR is real.

    • brucefast Says:

      Dave, “Yes once someone publishes a repeatable test demonstrating excess LENR energy in a peer-reviewed journal the scientific community would accept that LENR is real.”

      Thanks for acknowledging that the one who publishes doesn’t have to be Rossi! This is why the list of replicators is valid. Each person who has produced excess heat from a Nickel + Hydrogen = heat reaction, whether their setup looks like Rossi’s or not, can be that “someone” who could publish a repeatable test in a peer-reviewed journal. Yes?

  183. Dave Says:

    Roger well Rossi had to show(or appear to show) to those who observed the 1MW test some kind of excess heat generation. He probably didn’t have easy access to a 1MW generator so he had to use a 500kW generator and cut down his claimed heat energy output to something less than 500kW. Don’t you find it incredibly suspicious that he had a generator connected to the system that just happened to supply enough power to account for his heat output claims?

    You might say that the E-Cat is just “unproven,” but Rossi’s actions and statements leave no doubt that he thinks the E-Cat really works as claimed. It’s not the same as Fleischmann–Pons getting a little excess energy that they couldn’t explain and others couldn’t replicate. Either Rossi is a hoaxer/scammer, or he’s completely delusional. Rossi has said he has used E-Cat tech to heat a factory building for a couple of years now. That leaves no doubt that he knows if the E-Cat really works or not. That also tends to eliminate control and sustainability issues.

  184. Roger Bird Says:

    This is great: “Roger, science is open to new ideas, but they have to be backed up by testing that can be repeated by independent 3rd parties and the results published in peer-reviewed journals.” Is this like bombing for peace or screwing for chastity. If the ideas are truly new, then they are not accepted by science. If they are accepted by science, then they aren’t new. How can an idea or phenomena be new if it has already been backing up by testing, repeated, written up, peer-reviewed, then published. NO scientific discovery is initially “backed up by testing that can be repeated by independent 3rd parties and the results published in peer-reviewed journals.” NONE, NEVER, NADA, by definition.

    We are currently in the stage, hopefully, between discovery and “backed up by testing that can be repeated by independent 3rd parties and the results published in peer-reviewed journals.” with Ross’s E-Cat So, “backed up by testing that can be repeated by independent 3rd parties and the results published in peer-reviewed journals.” is irrelevant. LENR is also in that state, but you, Dave believe in it. Scientific American, Nature, and many other peer reviewed journals have not signed off on LENR, but you Dave, have.

    What is the difference between the E-Cat and LENR, Dave that? And I would remind you that many “discoveries” that have been signed-off on by peer reviewed journals later prove to be untrue.

  185. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave, why would Rossi claim to be able to fake 1 Mw without first checking to see if he could do it. This is a negative for your scam theory. Scammers don’t make huge mistakes like that. A better explanation is that he had problems with a system that is not completed.

  186. Dave Says:

    Roger, maybe he thought he could get a 1MW generator when he announced he’d be selling a 1MW plant? A 470kW output is still more than good enough to keep people interested in his E-Cat system. You’re making a false assumption that scammers don’t make huge mistakes. His own E-Cat desktop demo failed to output enough steam to account for the heat energy output he was claiming. That’s a huge mistake right there.

    In any case, there was no good explanation for running a 500kW generator during the entire 1MW test. None at all. The most reasonable explanation is that the 1MW plant didn’t work and Rossi used the 500kW generator to fake the power output.

  187. Dave Says:

    Roger, OK let me explain how this works. Let us say you have a scientific theory that contradicts the accepted theories about how the world works. You do the testing showing empirical evidence that backs up your theory and publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal. Other scientists will attempt to replicate your tests and also publish their results. If the results confirm your theory it may over time become the accepted theory for how the world works.

    LENR is NOT at the state you claim. Scientists have not be able to reliably replicate the tests. That’s what happened to Fleischmann–Pons. Most researchers could not get the excess energy, so they couldn’t say for sure what was really happening. We need to keep working on LENR because there is something to learn there, but please don’t think it’s been confirmed.

    Yes sometimes “discoveries” have been approved for publication in legitimate journals that have later been proven false. That just shows the power of the scientific process. Peer review and the requirement that results should be able to be replicated by others catches mistakes. That’s why we don’t rely on “Rossi says” or silly demonstrations.

    • brucefast Says:

      Dave, which is it:
      ““Yes once someone publishes a repeatable test demonstrating excess LENR energy in a peer-reviewed journal the scientific community would accept that LENR is real.”
      or
      “If the results confirm your theory it may over time become the accepted theory for how the world works.”

  188. Roger Bird Says:

    Even as I am inclined to believe that Rossi has something of value, you could be right that he is being dishonest and deceptive, etc. Business people have been known to do that.

  189. Roger Bird Says:

    But Dave, LENR has been replicated but it is not published in peer review, prestigious journals because of the F&P fiasco. Science is run by people, and people can be biased or brainwashed or worried about their jobs or just plain wrong.

  190. Roger Bird Says:

    And please stop talking at me like I am stupid. I would be happy to compare GRE test scores with you anytime that you like.

  191. Roger Bird Says:

    I ACCUSE: I accuse Dave, Craig, and Peter of being non-explorers, non-discoverers, only gate-keepers of absolute certainty.

  192. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Have you considered that Rossi may be an operative from the inner circle of the Illuminati called the Rossicrucian Order?

    “The secrecy required to protect the life and throne of Queen Elizabeth I led to considerable censorship of drama and suppression of printed literature in Elizabethan England. Religious strife led to persecution of alleged heretics, and the powerful Catholic Church stifled scientific discoveries that appeared to contradict scripture. Severe punishments (including torture, maiming, or death) were imposed on any of the Queen’s subjects who plotted against
    her or “spoke ill” of her. Despite this repressive climate, Renaissance ideals and humanistic ideas were circulating among the English intellectuals, artists, scientists, and philosophers. Secret societies such as the Freemasons and Rossicrucians enabled the free and safe exchange of ideas. These societies developed secret codes, symbols, and rituals with which they could initiate members and avoid persecution. The symbols were also used to convey to future generations that “William Shakespeare” was a pen name devised to shield the author, Edward De Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, from retaliation for his satires of courtiers, and to protect the reputation of the “Virgin Queen” by whom he had a love-child. Portraits using Rossicrucian symbols also convey the connections of Oxford/Shakespeare to his natural son, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. Southampton’s Tower Portrait [1603] contains
    numerous Rossicrucian symbols as well as an impresa indicating that he had royal blood, though he did not oppose King James I as the successor to Queen Elizabeth. Ciphers imbedded in a plaintext by Oxford/ Shakespeare give clues that solve the Dedication to the
    Sonnets.”

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Iggy

      No I must admit I haven’t considered that possibility, that Rossi is in the inner circle of the Illuminati. Some evidence would be nice. What you have given us up to now, about Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare, and so on, doesn’t take into account two facts that seem significant to me:

      Rossi lives in the 21st, not the 16th, century.
      He is Italian, not English.

      Anyway, are you also suggesting that Rossi being a Rosicrucian is evidence that his e-cat works?

  193. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, I don’t know why, but you are pretending that these blog posts are much more general than they are. One is about Rossi and the Ni + H = Cu reaction he claims is responsible for his reported results. The other one is about Widom and Larsen’s LENR theory. That’s it. They are about nothing else and nobody else.

    • brucefast Says:

      Yes, Peter, as I more closely read your articles I can see that the first is about the Widom, Larsen theory and the second about the transmutation to copper. I think that these articles are not going to be understood in the light that you intend when read by the general public — people like me. They appear to the casual reader not to be a challenge to a particular theory of how LENR works, but to the question of whether LENR, or particularly nickel + hydrogen LENR, works.

      Consider, for instance, the one title, “The Physics of why the e-Cat’s Cold Fusion Claims Collapse” This title strongly implies that ALL of the claims (plural) collapse based upon your analysis you are presenting. If one reads the article more carefully, however, it is only the transmutation to copper that you are truly challenging (a minor claim of the e-cat. Certainly the major claim of the e-cat is the generation of heat, not copper.)

      That said, I also challenge at least part of your case. You said, “Given the pressures and temperatures present in the Sun, you might expect any or all of the fusion reactions mentioned above to happen.” Actually, given what I understand of the e-cat, I wouldn’t. Rossi says that if the e-cat gets too hot the nickel melts. When it melts it ceases to function. He presents it as an effective fail-safe. If the reaction requires solid nickel I think your position has a problem as I suspect that nickel in a solid state is unheard of in the sun.

      Your first article is just as confusing from a public perception standpoint. You begin by stating: “Here is my take about the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) interpretation of what used to be called Cold Fusion. The so called LENR theory…” The world does not see Widom and Larsen when they see LENR. I know I don’t. You finally mention Widom and Larsen on the second page of your discussion. As such I promise you I will not be the only one who sees this article as a general attack on LENR/cold fusion/nuclear events in a bottle rather than as a challenge to Widom and Larsen’s theory.

      Peter, I know that you have suggested in the past that the Pons, Fleischmann style reaction may have validity, but that the nickel + hydrogen model is not conceivable to you. However, there is a list of renown scientists who have stated that they have achieved excess heat with a nickel + light hydrogen setup. Is their evidence compelling enough to you that you have at least taken pause, or are you pretty convinced that its all bogus?

      BTW, I read one person who proposed that nickel, like palladium, merely acts as a scaffold, that in both cases the reaction is in the hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium zone. I think that the idea is that palladium’s lattice is the right size to support deuterium to react, where nickel is the right size to support a reaction from light hydrogen.

  194. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, as you know, the name e-cat was coined by Rossi and is used exclusively to refer to his devices. And in the second line of the other article you will see references 1) and 2) which point to endnotes referring to the article and patent by Larsen and Widom. I think that should leave no doubt about the intent of these articles. Regarding your suggestion about the possible roll of nickel being similar to the one claimed for palladium, that idea crossed my mind too. In both cases the details of any repeatable effects would still need to be well established and described. But at least we would have one type of effect and not two.

    • brucefast Says:

      “Bruce, as you know, the name e-cat was coined by Rossi and is used exclusively to refer to his devices.” This is true — and I am of the belief that Rossi seeded his output with copper. (I am of the strong mind that Rossi’s sense of truth is not the same as my own. I also think he’s using far more lead than he needs to, just for show.) However, whether Rossi is getting copper or not is very much beside the point. If Rossi is getting heat, then Rossi’s e-cat is valid and revolutionary. Further, if Rossi is getting the heat he claims, then none of us will declare his demos to be invalid.

      It would make much more sense to me also that the nickel + light hydrogen event is a sister to the palladium + heavy hydrogen event, rather than these two events being distant cousins.

      “And in the second line of the other article you will see references 1) and 2) which point to endnotes referring to the article and patent by Larsen and Widom.” Oh my, Peter, you have been in the world of intellectuals far too long. The rest of the world doesn’t read end notes, at least not on the first pass. (Actually, the “at least” part isn’t very necessary. Those of use who don’t dwell in academic circles read end notes no more than once in a hundred sited articles.) If you want your communications to be understood by the masses, then it must be written with the masses in mind. This must begin with not holding any essential information in the end notes.

  195. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, your point about endnotes is well taken. But, as you noticed, Widom and Larsen’s names are also mentioned explicitly in the text, albeit on the second page.

    Regarding the seeding of the sample with copper that wouldn’t be some different “sense of truth”. That would be deliberate, premeditated and treacherous fraud. It would be taking advantage of your trusting and naïve guests, and misusing their prestige and the prestige of their institutions in the most despicable way. It is inexplicable to me how, after accepting that possibility, you would believe anything at all that individual tells you. I hope that part of that sample still exists. If it has indeed been intentionally contaminated, there may perhaps be ways to establish that fact beyond reasonable doubt.

    • brucefast Says:

      I don’t think there is any question whether Rossi has a casual willingness to lie. He at one point claimed that he had a 1mw plant heating a facility in Italy. Well, at the time, no way! So Rossi is a liar, and must therefore be suspected every time he opens his mouth. (Not that a liar can’t also tell truth.)

      Does that do anything to the nickel power case? Not a lot. Even if Rossi wasn’t part of the picture, the validity of the equation: Ni + H = Heat has been established from numerous other sources. That’s the bottom line.

    • brucefast Says:

      Peter Thieberger, “That would be deliberate, premeditated and treacherous fraud.”

      The real deliberate and treacherous fraud is the fraud the scientific community has been telling us. We the people were well informed that the great academics had confirmed that Pons and Fleischmann were wrong. We the people were told that “cold fusion” was not a valid phenomenon. Yet during the same year that Pons and Fleischmann made their announcement, Nasa publicly stated that they had replicated it.

      Peter Theiberger, “It would be taking advantage of your trusting and naïve guests.” The scientific community has no responsibility to the trusting and naïve readers of popular science literature? The scientific community has no responsibility to correct wikipedia when they describe cold fusion/LENR as “pathological science”?

      Ultimately the trusting and naïve you has also been sucked up into the vortex of these damned lies!

  196. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, despite what a bad person Rossi might be for seeding his samples with copper (assuming that that is the case), he will still be richer than Rockefeller (literally) if he can sell his units via WalMart. The public won’t give a fig and the scientific community will still be seen as having seriously dropped the ball for their destruction of Pons and Fleishmann and every other LENR investigator since them.

    Gates licensed MS-DOS to IBM before he bought it from the CP/M dude, who was too busy flying his airplane to take a call from IBM, but that is another story. But the public doesn’t know that Gates started off as a crook, and they don’t give a crap.

  197. Roger Bird Says:

    God!!! Craig, I hope that you are being funny, or else I really will think that you are an autistic savant.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Roger

      Do you hope anything or not about whether Iggy was being funny? Or do you simply accept speculations about the Illuminati as a normal component of discourse about nuclear energy?

      Perhaps you do, judging by your most recent post, which is truly remarkable!

      Roger, the reason why people are concerned with Rossi’s frauds and lies is that these are evidence that his statements about the e-cat ARE NOT TRUE. The lies about the old Ferrara machine suggest that just as there was no machine then (he was lying, we know that) so there is no machine now. His figures are lies, his “buyers” are shills, his results are phoney, and have been corrupted by seeding with metal.

      So there WON’T BE any Walmart mass sales. The public WILL “give a fig” if Rossi promises the goods and doesn’t deliver. And if Rossi is capable of delivering, why is he not doing so now?

      Now we are given another schedule – late 2012. By that time only free energy truthers and Illuminati conspiracy theorists will be paying the slightest attention to him. This is a CLASSIC SCAM.

      • brucefast Says:

        What the heck is the “Ferrara machine”?

        Even if Rossi is scammin’, he has forced the hand of the scientific community which has been holding their LENR research a secret. Rossi is no longer a necessary component of the Ni + H = heat reaction.

        Further, despite my belief that Rossi’s commitment to truth is pretty weak, his approach remains consistent with a product developer, not a scammer. How would I know? I am a product developer.

  198. Craig Binns Says:

    Brucefast

    “I am a product designer”. An honest one, I hope! Commitment to truth is a useful principle in product design. Or am I wrong?

    • brucefast Says:

      Pontius Pilate said, “What is truth?”

      I remember putting a software product to market with the moniker, “early experience software”. My tech support guy was very upset. “It’s Beta! You are lying!” And we see the wisdom of Pontius Pilate’s question.

      There is a wonderful little movie out called, “Liar, Liar”. In it the main character becomes obligated to speak the truth. He gets himself into a rat’s nest of trouble. Does “truth” include “whole truth”?

      Some days I would say that I expected that a threshold of development would be met at a certain time. I would know in my heart that it was doubtful. I would convince myself that it was “possible” so as to justify my statement. Did I lie, or did I not lie?

      The simple reality is that “lie” and “truth” are simply not simple statements in the real world.

  199. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, I am back to shunning you since you are a malicious, anal-retentive, uptight asshole, and that is not a statement about your beliefs about Rossi or LENR.

  200. Bob Says:

    This is the first time I have been exposed the the physics community. I find their pier revue before accepting anything as not only annoying, but obsessive behavior. Doesn’t anyone trust their own opinion? I have never seen such people that are afraid of being wrong. If they are this cautious, I don’t know how they can get anything done, they must spend their time quadruple checking their data. A strange bunch of folks.

    • brucefast Says:

      It certainly is an anal and narrow way of determining truth, isn’t it.

      Everything we know is in the journals.
      Everything that can be known is in the journals.
      Only we have proper access to the journals.
      We are the only ones who know anything.
      We are the high priests.
      Bow and worship.

  201. Craig Binns Says:

    Come, come, gentlemen. We don’t need to drown ourselves in deep philosophy! It’s a simple matter, like for example, where did the copper come from? Was there an e-cat heater in a factory in Italy three years ago? Or not, as the case may be. Truth in the very simplest yes or no variety.

    If George’s father finds him beside the felled cherry tree win an axe in his hand, and says, “George, is it true that you cut down this tree?” Then should George repond, “Sir, you are a malicious anal-retentive uptight asshole.”?

    Not very nice, Roger.

    • brucefast Says:

      Actually, when discussing truth we must recognize our own lack of commitment to it. And that includes you, Craig.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Brucefast

        Speak for yourself. If you have a “lack of commitment” to making accurate statements about products you put on the market, then like Rossi, who has a similar lack of commitment, you are likely to spend time in the calaboose, and rightly so.

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

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident … ” but that was very long ago, eh?

      • brucefast Says:

        Craig, “Speak for yourself. If you have a “lack of commitment” to making accurate statements about products you put on the market … ” Ie, I have demonstrated by a re-frame that my commitment to truth is incomplete.

        However, Craig, this is my charge that you lack a commitment to truth.

        A detective is trying to solve a crime. He interviews Fred, and asks him “do you have a hunting knife”? Fred says he doesn’t. After some further investigation, he establishes that in fact Fred does have a hunting knife, the same kind of knife that was involved in the murder. He says to Fred “you are the murderer, you lied about the evidence”. Fred says, I can’t have been the murderer because I was with a dozen friends. The detective ignores his statement, and continues to have him arrested. He says, “but I have an air-tight alibi!” The detective says, “But you are a liar, so I don’t believe you.” Fred says, “but many of the people I was with are lawyers, prosecutes.” “Don’t care, you are a liar, and obviously the murderer.”

        How does this analogy fit you, Craig? We have pointed over and over again to the dozen who also claim the same reaction. Most of these are scientists, many of them are in the government’s employ. Yet you ignore this evidence, and focus on Rossi’s “lies”. In doing so you are demonstrating a RADICAL avoidance of truth.

        BTW, Peter Thieberger, you also are radically avoiding the same truth, while accusing Rossi of some great wrong.

      • Dave Says:

        brucefast, you’re making the same mistake in logic over and over again. Let me say this again. Just because someone somewhere can show some unexplainable excess energy from a LENR that does NOT provide any credibility to Rossi’s claims. Rossi’s E-Cat claims stand completely on their own. If he wants anyone to believe he can get a 6 times energy output he must show evidence for it. That means an independent 3rd party test.

        If some researchers say they’ve found evidence that a given compound could be effective in treating cancer would you believe MY extraordinary claim that I could use that same compound to cure cancer? Of course you wouldn’t.

      • brucefast Says:

        Dave, you are making the mistake in logic. Your mistake is not understanding the question. Rossi is beside the point, if what he has presented is all fraudulent, it doesn’t matter. Even if Rossi is a fraud, nickel + hydrogen = heat. A non-chemical reaction, capable of a full energy revolution is confirmed. GET PAST ROSSI, to LENR/cold fusion.

  202. Roger Bird Says:

    Very good, brucefast. I didn’t realize the priest aspect of all this rigid skepticism. I usually see those kinds of those sociological thingies.

  203. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, I only read the first sentence. I don’t want you to think that I read your entire post. And the use of the word “gentlemen”, you should be careful with that word since you can’t apply it to yourself.

    It is my experience that most scientists are philosophically retarded. Discounting the importance of philosophy (the practice, not the body of “knowledge” or the history of philosophy) is part of the retardation.

  204. Bob Says:

    I think I am finally learning why Physics moves ahead so slow compared to other scientific fields, its the personality types attracted to it for some reason. Somebody has an idea, but they can’t just write it up and have it published. My gosh, what recklessness that would be. Write it up, shop it around to see if I can find a peer to revue it. Like anything given to someone for revue, they must add the “scent” to the document to make it worthy. Iterate that document a few times and you easily blow a month or two. and that’s just step 1. Know I see why it takes a Manhattan project to make progress, its the only time semi fast decisions can be made. I think these people need to be payed for results, not papers. From what I see, things like CERN should be dropped, I don’t trust such indecisive people with making big decisions. Rossi will be shipping second or third generation product before they can decide its real. I’m betting a company with one Physicist makes more progress than one with two. If you have two the argue and revue each others work. The government needs to regulate this.

  205. Dave Says:

    brucefast it does matter if Ross if fraudulent. It will hurt the prospects for future LENR research. People will see it even more as a scam.

  206. Roger Bird Says:

    brucefast, Craig Binns and probably others will have an anxiety attack if they look at evidence that would encourage them to think outside of the box. Although it is pathological, they can’t help themselves. They need our understanding and perhaps some 5-HTP or valium.

  207. Roger Bird Says:

    But Dave, although I share your frustration with Rossi, and although I agree that he has not made his case in absolutely terms, his many demonstrations witnessed by many intelligent scientists are not without meaning. I would not give him a nickel (excuse the pun) yet at this point, but I am strongly encouraged that he has something. You seem to think that confirmation is a binary thing. I take it as an analog thing. And for me, Rossi’s COP = 6 or more, despite the weeks of BSing, is at the 90% certainty level of confirmation. Control and sustainability, 10% certainty level of confirmation.

  208. Roger Bird Says:

    Dave is right and right on. If Rossi is a fraud, a complete fraud, with no COP = 6, then it will hurt LENR badly.

  209. SQRLSY One Says:

    Hi ECAT or ECAT fan or ECAT Skeptic,

    Has anyone considered making a home-use version of the ECAT that could be used as a food irradiator? Longer version/suggestion: The ECAT, by all appearances, derives most of the heat energy produced, by converting (in its shielding) gamma rays (high-energy electromagnetic rays, AKA ionizing radiation that is eminently suitable for food irradiation) into heat. In the USA, if you did such a thing (make a food irradiator), the FDA (a sub-division of Government Almighty) can be relied upon to make you study such a device for a few decades, and spend millions of dollars, to prove it to be safe, under all conceivable circumstances, and in all parallel universes that MIGHT possibly exist. So my suggestion to you, if you should chose to make a food irradiator version, is to market it to a burgeoning new market called Scienfoology. See http://www.churchofSQRLS.com , where you can see details about how Scienfoologists use technologies, in the name of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, on their EFFIGIES rather than on themselves, and so therefor escape Government Almighty regulation. Advertise your food irradiator to be used, NOT for foods for human consumption, but for use ONLY for feeding irradiated foods to EFFIGIES. This is a VERY convenient escape from Government Almighty, for those greedy capitalists who might wish to combine the heat generation capabilities, plus the raw, cootie-organisms-killing (think salmonella, E-coli, etc.) powers of gamma radiation, into a VERY convenient (and disease-defeating) home cooking device!

    Thanks! -SQRLSY One

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Dear SQRLSY One

      Good try! But the LENR fanatics (the honest ones, anyway) are entirely immune to irony. So it’s no use. You’ll just have to let them carry on spouting nonsense about Rossi until they lose interest in him and transfer their obsessions to some other weird scam.

      • brucefast Says:

        Ooo Craig, good skip-over. You still are choosing to not look at “truth”. Pretending that there is no truth to be found when it is placed in front of your face is being every bit as dishonest bald-faced lying.

  210. skeptic4life Says:

    To quote the swedish skeptics who examined the machine “”Since we do not have access to the internal design of the central fuel container and no information on the external lead shielding and the cooling water system we can only make very general comments””

    Just as everyone else has been denied access to certain parts of the machine such as the central fuel container it cannot be proven to be working until such time the full machine is independent verified!

    With places not investigated you have places to hide other sources of energy.

    Compound this with Rossi’s Criminal past. I’ll remain a skeptic until such time it is PROVEN in the proper scientific methods.

  211. Roger Bird Says:

    SQRLSY One, why do you think the E-Cat is called the E-Cat? To kill E-Coli, duh, of course.

  212. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon Derricutt, that is incredible. I will definitely keep it in mind. I think Larsen is brilliant for thinking of this. If more people get real results, not just enthusiastic reports from others, it will give LENR support a huge boost.

    However, my wife merely tolerates my enthusiasm for LENR and Rossi. Actually spending money may be another matter. (:->)

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – I’ve added in a reply to Bruce’s request for the link, just in case you do decide to try an experiment yourself.

      Personally, I have divorced twice (shades of autistic savant??) so I get the problem with actually messing up the house with little projects, but there’s always the back shed….

      One thing about the back-shed variety of experiments is that they will almost by definition be cheap to make. This is a major advantage if the experiment works. I’ve found it’s cheaper to buy something ready-made if it is manufactured, thus I only build something when I can’t buy it. Even so, often it is cheaper to buy a component (say, a motor) as a part of something else rather than getting the component on its own. If you do design your own version of eCat, therefore, look for ready-made parts that exist within other things (possibly scrapped for another reason) as your source materials.

  213. Roger Bird Says:

    I guarantee that I will be sticking with the nickel and hydrogen reaction.

  214. Roger Bird Says:

    It looks like material that would have to cobbled together by someone who knows what they are doing.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – as Brad pointed out on another discussion, get the core right and the rest is just plumbing. Plumbing is rated for pressure when you buy it, so it’s easy to get it right. Admittedly a lot of articles of daily life are beyond fixing without the right equipment (I used to design and fix them) but plumbing needs a couple of spanners. In the Pd-D electrolysis, the wiring is not much worse than Christmas lights. Measuring the power output is harder, but gets easier if the experiment actually works well. Note that one of the good experiments (I forget which one) produced 50KJ excess energy over a couple of months – sounds a lot but it’ll just about boil a cup of tea. Another experiment boiled dry – a dramatic and thus unequivocal confirmation, even if the measurements were thus invalidated.

      If I get one working, do you want a kit?

  215. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, let me know if you get LENR, then I might be interested in spending the money. And tell me about it anyway. I trust you, so it will be interesting to see if you can make it happen.

    Most of the proofs in alternative/complementary health necessarily must be personal since the entire medical/health complex has completely the wrong mindset and much of it has a vested interest in the status quo. So I am used to this sort of thing.

  216. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, like with health, we do get to the final step. We do help our health. So, wouldn’t it be wild if you and I and others with these kits actually got to the point of powering our houses with these home cobbled LENR kits!!! And not just proved LENR to our own satisfaction.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – will do, but I’m not making the mistake of asking for money first – wait till I’ve got something that works every time. Current design size for a 1KW (approximately) output is 35mm diameter and the same high, and the core is around a gram in weight. The current cost for the material in the core is around the $20 mark, cost of the whole thing maybe around $100 to make, though I’m pretty sure that in mass-production I could take at least 60% off that. Run time till 10% conversion (thus efficiency drops off) should be around 2 months, but I won’t know till it works, of course. Rossi claimed 30% conversion, but the copper grains appeared to be visible amongst the nickel and were normal isotopic composition, so I’m a bit wary of taking anything he publishes as true. I would expect the used Nickel to look much the same – the nickel in your pocket is about 75% copper and is still Nickel-coloured. The drive power will be in the 1-10 watt range.

      If the first prototype works, it’ll be somewhat of a miracle. Once it is working reliably, I’ll post a video. Hopefully this year. I think that boiling a cup of water and making some coffee with it should be a reasonably conclusive demo (thermometer in the water, of course).

      I think I’ve got a good understanding of what conditions need to be met to make things work, but I could be wrong. That’s what experiments are for, after all.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon, if you can produce a “kit” based upon a model that has worked for you, I’ll buy one off you for $100 in a heartbeat — even if it should infringe on any patent. (If you don’t sell the whole thing, but provide info as to where to get the missing parts, you can absolve yourself of a patent breach.)

  217. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Ok Bruce – but I’m not sure I’ll get a nuclear reactor (or two) onto a plane. The airport might be a bit sensitive about it. I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it, though. First thing is to make one that works, no hype and no fudging the results. Having spent time today chopping wood very small the way my mum likes it (she’s 88) the idea of switching on a small nuclear reactor to heat the house seems especially rewarding.
    As far as I can tell from reading NASA’s patent, I’m not going to infringe it. LENR is not itself patentable since it’s part of Nature.

    • brucefast Says:

      I wasn’t just thinking of Nasa’s patent. Rossi has a patent pending. I think there may be a few others flying around.

      As far as shipping the thing, again, the easiest solution I can find is to ship parts, rather than the whole thing. Shouldn’t be any trouble shipping the chamber, heater, nickel, catalyst. We can make our own hydrogen. The rules end up radically relaxed if you produce an incomplete kit.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Personally, I think Piantelli’s (granted) patent is the most relevant, but Nasa really have covered a lot of ground in their patent, with a ton of claims using esoteric materials such as carbon nanotubes (can’t see the utility of those apart from generating high EM fields when damaged) and irradiation with microwaves, UV, what-have-you. It strikes me that they know it can work but don’t know precisely how to make it work, so they have blanketed every which way they can brainstorm that might, perhaps be relevant. It is not helpful.

        Since I will be using Titanium products in my core I think that the previous patents and applications will not apply. Titanium is much more available than Nickel – it’s about the best white pigment in paint as its dioxide, and is thus much cheaper. A can of white paint probably contains a lifetime of power for one family (OK, there’s some processing involved, too).

        I’ve spent some time now listening to the Rossi interview on SmartScarecrow, and there are some other little points about the way the eCat works:
        (a) it takes of the order of an hour to start when switched on and about the same to stop working when switched off.
        (b) in 6 months it uses picograms of Hydrogen.
        (c) transmutation of Nickel into Copper is a by-product of the reaction.
        (d) once Rossi has got his manufacturing capability up he’ll open-source the technology.

        My comments:
        (a) The reaction start trigger is still not well-understood, since simple heating of 100 grams of Nickel powder would not take this long. Ditto for the cool-down period. This could be the explanation of the problems in the public demonstrations.
        My design, BTW, should actually start at room temperature (down to -26°C) and be instant on and off.
        (b) Since 1 hydrogen is needed in order to produce 1 neutron, then usage of Hydrogen should be much higher. For a 10KW unit and 180days continuous use before recharge, that’s about 6.1E+16 Mev/s for 1.55E+7 seconds and thus about 9.5E+23 Mev. Assume around 28Mev per reaction – may be 10, may be other depending on the “catalyst” nucleus (I don’t know so being generous) giving around 3.4E+22 total reactions. This is about 1/20 of a mole of Hydrogen so 1/20 of a gram. Still a small amount but much more than picograms.
        (c) The transmutation is the core of the reaction, and what releases the energy in nucleon binding energy. It is dropping a slow neutron into into a nucleus, thus making it unstable and releasing an electron, neutrino and some gammas and thus transmuting that is the underlying energy release process. This may be mis-direction from Rossi or just misunderstanding – he is not a nuclear physicist, after all.
        (d) Hats off to Rossi when he does this. He accepts that it will be reverse-engineered and is prepared for it.

        When I see National Instruments confirmation they are working with Rossi, or perchance just the lack of a refutation from them, then my level of confidence in Rossi will go up quite a few notches. If UL certification comes through in a few months (last time I was involved in that it took quite a bit longer) then that would be solid confirmation that Rossi is not conning anyone (well, not much, anyway). We have some waiting to do. In the meantime, unfortunately, we have more unsupported (as yet) claims that sound good.

        One thing about a scientist is that he/she does expect to be lied to. It’s not in the training or the ethos, and we attempt to give the best truth we know at the time. Anyone suspected of fraud or having fudged their results is ostracised and tarred for life. On the other hand it’s OK to be wrong if you’re honestly wrong. The history of science is littered with such people who have contributed to the sum of knowledge as well.
        It’s pretty obvious to me that Rossi has overstated his successes and fudged his results, but he’s an entrepreneur, not a scientist, so different rules must apply. If he gets to production on-time with NI, or even half a year later, that will be a major success and world-changing. I suspect that, then, we’ll forgive him for the peccadillos he’s found necessary in order to get his idea accepted.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon Derricutt, I am most impressed with the quality of your comments. Every comment you make I am reading with excitement.
        A few comments about your last post (your words in bold):

        Nasa really have covered a lot of ground in their patent …

        The Nasa patent claims are “A method of producing heavy electrons”* If my understanding of patent law is correct, this patent places all of its weight on the theory that heavy electrons are involved in LENR” By writing the patent this way, I believe that the patent is very restricted to the theory. If I were writing a patent, I would write claim 1 as “A method of producing heat …” Writing the patent this way would free it from the question of theory.

        If UL certification comes through in a few months (last time I was involved in that it took quite a bit longer)
        I agree with you on your “longer” view. This is new technology. It uses the N word. I don’t see UL being quick to validate it. I think they will feel a need to double and triple test for radiation of any sort.

        One thing about a scientist is that he/she does expect to be lied to. Interesting, ‘seems that scientists are willing to comment on stuff without getting properly informed (see comments here by Peter Thieberger.) I find this avoidance of the evidence to be every bit as untruthful as lying is.

        It’s pretty obvious to me that Rossi has overstated his successes and fudged his results

        I don’t think that there is any question that Rossi has spewed some bravado. Did he fudge the copper? An interesting question. Did he fudge his demos? I really don’t think so.

        but he’s an entrepreneur, not a scientist, so different rules must apply.
        I appreciate that you recognizing this. Entrepreneurs are well known for their bravado. Its pretty much standard procedure that they declare that they have what they expect that they will have next week. When they can’t dazzle ‘em with data, they baffle ‘em with bull.

        I remember a former employer had a sign on the wall that said something like, “I’m like a duck, calm on the surface, but underneath I’m paddling like hell.” That is the world of the entrepreneur. If the reality catches up with the bravado they ride the wave. If the reality doesn’t catch up, well, sunken entrepreneurs are as common as the sand on the seashore.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – thanks for the kind words. Yep, Peter Thielberger is a bit not-open to things not fitting the theories he’s used for 40 years or so, but a paradigm change is always hard. If he was working on ITER he’d probably be one of the best people.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Roger – I noticed your post in Ecat News about the new NI private group to discuss, amongst other things, LENR:
        “Roger Bird on January 21, 2012 at 5:33 pm
        I tried to register and got stopped here: “Your NI.com Login”. Too bad. But the good news is that NI is seriously looking at LENR.”

        OK that’s somewhat of a confirmation that NI are working on it, so the degree of confidence that it’s true goes up a notch or two. Other comments on the blog about NI being somewhat slow may be justified, but when it’s produced it should be rock-solid.

        OK, now to wait for the UL certification….

    • Bob Norman Says:

      Simon, have you looked at the Ahern patent? It looks like it could be quite simple to recreate for a replication attempt. Just curious?

      If your selling units for $100 that demo CF, put my name on the list.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bob – no I haven’t seen that one. I’ll go find it later on and look. On the other hand, recreating an experiment that didn’t succeed is not my preference – I’d rather look at what is not right, fix it and proceed from there and thus have something that works.

        I’m not selling anything yet – I only started this project 9th December 2011, and there’s a lot to read and digest on the theory and practice. IF I’ve understood the current knowledge correctly, and my application of that knowledge is correct or close enough, then my design will work and there will be some experimentation to get it better and cheaper to manufacture. Hopefully I’ll have a first test in around a month and see what needs modification.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Hi again Bob – yes, the Ahern experiment is a duplication of Arata’s efforts. It looks to me not particularly high power output, and without analysis of the end result (not that I could find) I can’t really be sure it’s not just a chemical reaction. There’s been a lot of hidden power going in, in the form of hydriding, baking and gas pressure, and a slow chemical reaction may just be enough to explain the 5 (8?) watts excess power out. If it continued without further depressurising/repressurising cycles then I’d be more inclined to accept it, ditto if it continued to give excess power for enough time that the chemical angle was excluded. Also some form of isotopic analysis of the powder at the end of the experiment would be useful, but not essential if the total power output were high enough to exclude chemical reaction heat.

      • Bob Says:

        Simon, thanks for looking at it. I have been clinging to this patent with some favor as the idea of a self contained liquid container is quite attractive. Some of the methods for the electrical devices used would lend itself to semiconductor manufacturing techniques.
        I’m surprised he was able to get a patent if Arata’s work is public. I have seen a lot of references to his work (Arata), but I haven’t seen much published. I know Ahern went to Japan and worked with him for a while. If my memory is correct I believe Arata was the one who had the Palladium and Tungsten experiments explode because of excess power when KHCO3 was used as a catalyst. I could be wrong on some of my facts as I read a lot, but don’t take notes. Thanks for your comments!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bob, sorry I made a mistake and found the Brian Ahern experiment (duplicate of Arata) and didn’t look further. The patent is different, see http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/Amplification-energetic-reactions/WO2011123338A1.pdf . He’s taken Arata’s work a bit further, and is using the same nanoparticles with one or more of the following excitation methods: microwave, laser, cavitation, spark. I suppose one of them ought to work… I think he’s covering bases here in case someone gets something working properly and it’s similar.

        That said, something along these lines ought to work. The problem with the nanoparticles is that you have to take them as they are – they are randomly shaped and structured. Note also that he covered a lot of metals and alloys in the patent too – he doesn’t really know what’s best. Maybe he’s got something working – hard to know at this point. If it was working well, I think we’d kknow.

        If you have a chip fab (you imply that you do), then you could maybe manufacture nanoparticles that are a bit more clever. Start off with a soluble base substrate. Sputter on a layer of metal 1 (Hydrogen absorber such as Nickel) at around 2 microns. Sputter on a second layer (plasmon producer such as Gold) at a thickness of maybe 1/4 micron. Depending on the fab, mask it and etch it into maybe 5-micron squares or use some other method of cutting, then dissolve the substrate away. You now have nanoparticles that should reliably work in the apparatus Ahern describes.
        On the other hand, on the sputtered substrate, if you can just cut through the sputter layers and leave the dots electrically isolated, possibly with an undercut to expose more metal underneath, then putting this in high-pressure Hydrogen and exciting it with a corona-type high-frequency discharge at one edge with the other edge grounded, you should have a very controllable reaction. You want to have little corona discharges between the dots, and excited plasmons on the top surface. It’s going to be important to avoid a lip on the top surface, so that it is nicely bevelled (should be naturally fabbed this way anyway). For this idea, the substrate would instead need to be an insulator with reasonable heat conductivity (Sapphire?) and the whole would need to be mounted on a heatsink to take the heat away. The reaction should take place at the junction of the metals and gradually eat away at the edges of the dots. The Hydrogen pressure should not need to be that high – once it has absorbed all it can it can then be run at a lower pressure, maybe even atmospheric. This would make the manufacture a bit easier, but note that the resin encapsulation and the caps must be resistant to Hydrogen and totally gas-tight. Fused alumina (standard ceramic package?) may be needed for the casing, with maybe a fused quartz top on it if you want to try the laser stimulation.

        These type chips would not last as long as the Rossi design, since there isn’t much material there. They would be very cheap though, and easily changed. Useful for the under 50W market, I think.

        This idea, of course, is dependant upon my having understood the current theory well enough. No guarantees it’ll work!

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon, please don’t feel a need to get very high energy outputs. If you can beat unity, that’s enough for a kit. As Bob and I discussed on the phone earlier, what this whole field needs is 8 gazillion creative hobbyists figuring the thing out.

      • Bob Says:

        Simon, thanks so much for your comments. Way different than what I was thinking. I no longer have direct fab access, as I’m now retired and do some work from home. I still have friends with access, so some possibility still exist.
        Your dot idea is most interesting, that wasn’t what I was thinking. My approach was much simpler, make a grid of metal at the nano scale that high voltages could be applied to, put the nano particle dust in the chamber and stimulate the hydrogen to carry the nickel particles aloft. When the particles hit the grid you get a reaction. Keep the particles circulating and hitting the grid and you have a sustained reaction.
        I think your idea has more promise.
        Thinking about things, I now have a whole new set of ideas, amazing what a little stimulation does to the thought process.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bob – it’s fun working in a different direction, and I have no access to a fab so can only do thought experiments at nano scale. Further thoughts on the above idea are that (a) the undercut is not useful, as it reduces heat transfer and (b) persuading the plasmons to reroute by etching a hole through the gold in the middle of the dot should increase the reaction probability. Also using a honeycomb layout for the dots would be better than a square grid. Drive system can be taken from the CCFL drive as used in laptop etc. backlights, with a fast diode inline. Drive voltage is going to be approximately calculated by looking at the total gaps on a chip and applying around 800V per mm of gap. If the chip is say 3mm across, and the dot size is 5nm with a gap of 2nm, then we have about 28% gap so around 0.9mm total gap and around 700V drive voltage. It should be instant start-up, since you have arranged the system regularly and the necessary things are all there at the same time. On a nanoscale, we are producing a storm in a teacup in order to attain the 5E+11 volts/metre electrical field needed.

        Most people seem to be looking for a self-sustaining reaction. I wish to have it totally under control – if it’s not stimulated then it won’t happen. It’s effectively governed by Quantum Mechanics, so the reaction is merely one of the probabilities of what will happen. We are just increasing the probability that the reaction will happen. As the number of reaction sites increases, this probability tends towards certainty that a certain number will react.

        Again the caveat that I may be misunderstanding what is happening. The available data comes from what is seen after the nano-explosion of the active sites, and no-one really knows (yet) what the active sites were doing before they reacted.

      • Bob Says:

        Simon, again thanks for your comments. I also agree that its more important to increase the probability of the reaction than it is to control it or attain self sustain mode, the control can come after you know how to efficiently create the event.

        Ahern talks about a particle being activated when in contact with a high energy point. That was the idea for a grid approach, build a screen that the particles hit at regular intervals and accelerate the number of events. A delicate nm screen may not hold up to the rigors of a LENR reaction, but if excess heat can be demonstrated and the grid is blown apart in the process it is good clues as to what is happening. The type of damage will give evidence to what is happening. If it works a multilayer array could produce very large power, just need to engineer it to hold together.

        I’m still digesting what you have said and have passed it on to a few people for a bit more brain power.

        If these concepts work it could evolve into a more dynamic type of reactor with electronic controls and a dozen possible way of managing particle flow.

  218. brucefast Says:

    Simon, just googling around because you seem smart enough to leave a footprint. Is patent #6633052 yours?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Bruce – yes that’s me. Xerox wanted more patents from the design groups that year, but it was actually granted after I’d been made redundant. The jobs in Micheldean got exported to Hungary so I had the choice of either (a) taking the redundancy and early retirement or (b) working in Welwyn 3 hours’ drive away for the same money. I took the money and bought a vineyard in France. TeeHee….

      Looking further back I had a patent application in 1986 for a heat engine that used constant pressure and different-sized compressor and expander sections and a few heat-exchangers. Not granted, but it could be ideal for use with an eCat since it approaches Carnot efficiency. While I was working I didn’t have the time to get a working model, but once I’ve explored the LENR project enough to pass it on I’ll go back to this. I’ll send a .pdf of the patent if you’re interested, but note I used efficiency in engineering terms so Carnot was 100%, mine got to maybe 70% on this rating.

  219. RedRyder Says:

    Suggest Reactor Stability:

    During the atomic transformations I keep seeing that many photons are being created then absorbed then recreated. The transformations from one particle to another particle will create more photons. The photons play a role in the reaction that I am not qualified to theorize obviously.

    A photon wavelength is created in over abundance during the reaction than can be absorbed over time.
    I have the suggestion that at certain time intervals Photons will need to be released from the chamber to atmosphere or out of the chamber. The excess photons are somehow creating the instability issue. Photons created during the transformational process of the different atomic structures.

    You may gain something like a throttle control for better control of the reactor if done correctly by expelling the correct wavelength over a cycle duration (or Time).
    How much time for each cycle?

    In a way it is like a static charge gives of light.
    It must give off these photons for this type of so called room temperature fusion reaction to initiate.
    Expelling the photons during the moment of static initialization is essential for the reaction to take place. It is not an after effect; it is part of the process.

    Some control has been gained by the use of frequencies that most likely affects the hydrogen helping to create a anti-photon (not sure of that) or similar to stabilize the reaction somewhat but, over time this control will deteriorate to the point if impossible unless the right circumstances exist.

    The photons must be absorbed by atmosphere or something other than the reactant surfaces within the reactor.
    Probable the photons that need to be expelled from the chamber are in the visible light spectrum ?

    Ultimate control may be to expel the photons after a given time, the reactor response will tell you how much time should laps between releases.

    It may be like looking at our universe Billions of years ago at the moment the first photons were created.
    “Let there be Light” so to speak.

    Depending on catalyst and purity of all, the time would change for these releases. Also depending on conditions in the reaction chamber, release time may change many times because of the transformations taking place over time in the reactor chamber. A filter could be used to expel the correct wave length photons.

    It is possible the metals of the reactor play a role in the process.
    Differing magnetic fields of all the surrounding metals of the reactor itself will alter the process for magnetic waves also have a function just as it does in stellar ignition. One could suggest changing the reactor metals may also alter the reaction because of the change in many magnetic fields that are in play.

    These reactions may in a way be similar to the reactions in the center of out planet
    Is it possible that reactions such as these create many compounds and convert metals from within the planet itself?

    “I find it fascinating to try and figure out just what is going on inside the reaction chamber”

    I sometimes wonder do I have this wrong?
    Is it possible the lack of the correct wavelength photon (in the correct quantity) what is
    needed rather than removal for a better control of the reaction?

    Have a Great Day!

    • Bob Norman Says:

      RedRyder, thats very interesting information. I have seen the light aspect also mentioned on the physics blog Vortex. He report it as things you observe. May I be so bold and ask if you are doing cold Fusion research and observed this phenomena in relation to you direct work. If that is the case it would be great to hear of your experience in obtaining energy.
      Would some sort of window like what is in high temperature furnaces work as a escape. Cover the open then cover type of control sequence, or just change the magnetics to control the operation.
      Anything you can share will be of huge interest to the group.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      It looks like the photons produced will be gammas that are absorbed in the plasmons and subsequently the lattice by normal electrical resistance. We don’t really want gamma rays let out of the system, but the infrared does need to exit.

      Magnetic fields, especially fast-changing ones, may be useful in exciting the system. Since the rate of change is somewhat key here, the background magnetic fields of the reactor vessel are unlikely to make too much of a difference except possibly in guiding charged particles in a particular configuration. It is probably a better idea to design the system so that such guiding is not needed.

  220. RedRyder Says:

    In a way, the reaction is suffering from sun spots.
    need to find a way to allow ejecting of some of these wavelengths so transformations can continue with some control.
    suggest the transformations are creating too many iron molecules at times and not enough at other times so the reaction is very hard to control when scaled up. The iron could be limiting and or absorbing the gammas during the reaction possibly?

  221. RedRyder Says:

    If one could put the reactor an a scale it may be that the reactor weight is changing ever so slightly as these transformations are taking place. Gravity could be in a state of so called flux at times as these transformations commence. Fascinating!

  222. RedRyder Says:

    The Gravity flux spoken of may be “mad to the extreme” but for transformations to commence the barrier but be weakened or down for an instant so, for that instant the molecule will not exist as a solid and may be weightless for that instant. Must get a better grasp on these possible transformations. Something does not compute. Something must be left over or added for these transformations to take place. Are the photons the missing piece of the puzzle?

  223. Bob Norman Says:

    I think RedRyder is here to pull our leg!

  224. Roger Bird Says:

    Bob Norman, since I couldn’t figure out what the hell he was talking about, I didn’t say anything. But you have clarified my thinking.

  225. brucefast Says:

    I’ll keep an eye on RedRyder. If he continues to be incoherent, I’ll trim him.

  226. Roger Bird Says:

    It’s all part of the epistemology lesson. I wasn’t sure if I should say something because “gravitational flux” didn’t make any sense to me.

  227. RedRyder Says:

    Sorry guys, sometimes I think out loud and in this case I shouldn’t.
    I am not here to confuse anyone with my thoughts and am sorry for the lack of clarity.

    Is just that gravitational forces need to be in play during these transformations as far as I can see. Magnetic fields must be altered if transformations are happening.

    Iron could stop such transformations in a star as far as theory goes so, why not in this case? I just find it hard to fathom the reported increase in iron found in the core after the reaction has been going on for some time. How the iron doesn’t stop the reaction?
    I have trouble getting past that without some resolution.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      RedRyder – gravitational forces are very weak between things like individual atoms – try the maths and check the actual scale. The only reason normal stellar fusion stops at Iron is that the nuclear binding force per nucleon reaches a maximum there – above Iron you need to put energy in to fuse things, though dropping a free neutron in will always give you energy. To make the free neutron needs more energy than you get out. Elements above iron are produced when the star goes supernova (needs a big, shortlived star) and there is a lot of energy floating around.

      This is of course the generally-accepted theory, and may be wrong in some places. Some changes may be expected as we learn more and have a longer history of looking at stars with the new telescopes.

      It’s ok to think out loud, but it helps if you can get the thoughts in order so that people can understand what you’re getting at. Look at the nuclear energy binding curve, a plot of nucleon energy against number of nucleons, and you’ll get a better feel for the energy balances involved in fusion and fission and what will work.

      • RedRyder Says:

        Thank you for the kind words, my frustration is getting in the way so I jump way out at times so that I can find my center of thought again.

        I work with metal, I can see metal flow in my mind, I know what to add to make two different metals bind together without loosing strength when possible. Many times without the correct catalyst this is not possible to achieve.

        I feel it may be productive at this point for me to go back and try to understand the reactions and explosions that happen when the wrong catalyst is used for certain metals.
        The energy that is given off at those moments could enlighten my understanding of this reaction.

        Sometimes those reactions can be very spectacular and very HOT! giving off untold amounts of energy.

        I have never thought of trying to keep these reactions going and to have control of them. these reactions were always something to avoid in the past.

      • RedRyder Says:

        Also when combining some metals with a catalyst I sometimes use frequencies to aid in this process.
        without these correct frequencies the combining of some metals would not be possible. Selling of one of my processes is how I made my mark in this world.

        Have a Great Day!

  228. RedRyder Says:

    Is it possible that the iron is something else until after the reaction stops and at that instant transforms into iron?

    As you can see I do have a tendency to go way out of the box at times, am not loosing it but, something is way off with our present understanding if these transformations are happening as stated by some.

    I will now go back in my box and post only if I find some possible information to get me past this transformation paradox.

    Have a Great Day!

  229. brucefast Says:

    RedRyder, you’ve been talking about photons.
    I read this on http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/will-pons-and-flieschmann-be-vindicated/

    AstralProjectee on February 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm
    In those video’s I showed posted above in the cold fusion BBC series and experiment, show a light made from water and sound in their experiment. That could and probably would almost prove cold fusion.

    Are AstralProjectee and you talking about the same thing? Until now photons/light has not been part of my LENR grid.

  230. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Some form of electromagnetic energy (photons) have often been postulated as an aid to the reaction, the idea being that, if you hit the right frequency, you can locally produce the extreme electrical fields (5×10^11 V/m) required to split the electron from the proton in the Hydrogen atom. Rossi appears to be using microwaves, I think Brillouin are using twinned lasers of different frequencies to get a beat frequency in the teraherz range. Microwaves, light and gamma rays are all photons, so photons certainly have a rôle to play in the reaction. The precise frequency chosen depends upon many factors such as the lattice used, Hydrogen concentration, temperature…. It’s probably going to be very difficult to predict the frequency needed, and it will be changing too.

    Given that, hitting the assembly with a square/triangular wave, which contains many frequencies of which one may be right, would seem to be a good tactic. Maybe later when we understand more precisely what is happening the technique could be better tuned and use less excitation energy, but for now we don’t have the knowledge.

    With sonofusion, it appears that you need to produce very small bubbles, since these have the greatest energy per unit volume. Again this is similar to the square wave idea above, and thus a lot of the energy put in is going to be at the wrong frequency, but if enough is there at the right frequency we’ll get a reaction.

    In any of these methods, the basics will be:
    1: Get enough local energy level to split the Hydrogen into an electron and proton. With Rossi, this is done by using a high enough temperature in the Nickel lattice (above Debye temperature).
    2: Give the electron 782.5Kev. The Rossi method uses the collective action of plasmons (local grouping of electrons) to do this.
    3: Ensure that there is a high probability (relatively) that this energetic electron can score a direct enough hit on the proton to form a neutron. With Rossi the proton is held in the Nickel lattice and the electron is slow because it is part of the plasmon. With a slow collision, the reaction cross-section (probability) is much increased.
    4: The neutron will be hopefully very slow and thus will drop into a nearby nucleus (no Coulomb barrier for this) and change the isotope number. Again the slower it is, the more likely it is to get neutron capture.
    5: The (most likely) unstable isotope decays into some other element (transmutation), giving out energy in various forms.

    Note that this is my synthesis of the experiments and theories looked at, and depends on the Widom-Larsen theory being close if not correct. I could be wrong, but this does seem to explain all the current published data. If I’m right there could be many ways of getting this sequence to happen, and we’ve only explored a few of them. In future, we can expect much smaller systems with easier control, and it may not use Nickel though will probably use Hydrogen.

    • Bob Says:

      Defkalion came out with a bunch of answers to questions, it appears that the electromagnetic field is used to stop the reaction. They reach an upper limit and turn on the electro magnet and when the temperature decreases to the desired value they stop the Magnetic field. Ecatnews has a good writeup.
      There has also been discussion on vortex about Photons being produced and the need to remove them periodically so it doesn’t kill the reaction. One theory being put forth.

      • brucefast Says:

        An active shutdown sounds a bit scary. Are you sure its not the other way around, that the magnetic field is required to maintain the reaction?

        The problem of course with this scenario is that a failure in the magnetic field generator would result in the reaction not being stopped. I guess, however, that these reactions do have an automated shutdown mechanism when the nickel becomes molten.

      • Alain Says:

        where dig you get that magnetic field stop the reaction.
        in http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5983#p5983
        they don’t comment magnetic field… no meaning.

        however what is clear is :
        that they understand the behavior of the reaction, that it is multi-stage and they know the delays, and how to control them by smart triggering…

        assuming widom larsen framework i understand what they can do. in Widom-larsen the reaction start with generation of slow neutrons that are absorbed by nucleus around…
        then with some delay, some of the nucleus can disintegrate with beta or even betadelayed alpha…
        so if you start the neutron generation, then stop, it will continue heating for some time…
        there will be also a wide population of isotopes of various elements, thus there is many such intricated decay and transmutation.
        if you have an approximative model of the reaction, then you could control the heating profile, the average temperature, by careful pulse… as they say.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Continuing from Alain’s post – with each kick you give the system, neutrons will be produced. Any unstable isotopes produced will have a half-life, thus heat from any particular isotope will have an exponentially-decaying heat output. The sum of the heat-outputs from the total decay-chain will likely have a fast rise, a peak and then an exponential tail-off. This is assuming that the starting kick is of short duration. If such a kick is repeated, the heat-output will be the sum of the current outputs from all previous kicks.

        If you excite the reaction using a train of pulses of energy of some sort, then the total energy output will be effectively predictable unless the system is allowed to enter the “self-sustain mode” where heat alone is sufficient to excite the reaction. The geometry of the system thus needs to be designed so that this “self sustain mode” is never encountered, or if it is it can be stopped.

        Defkalion do state that they have solved the problem of localised heat production that Rossi has, and that they produce heat throughout the core. This implies to me that they have solved the geometry problem.

        Maybe they don’t need EM pulses to stop it.

  231. jetmech Says:

    What is to argue about?
    There is no Ecat available to be sold or tested!
    unless we count mystery customers!
    There is no hyperion!
    When an Ecat or a Hyperion become available we will know!
    To me ALL of this is just speculation.
    Produce the Ecat/Hyperion quit hiding it!

    until then i believe this to be true

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely.htm

  232. jetmech Says:

    Well yeah! I think that is the major point. Whether LENR or CANR or COLD FUSION EXIST IS NOT THE POINT! Does the Ross Ecat exist as a workable device? We just do not know at this point. John W Keely made many remarkable demonstrations but failed to produce a workable device. That is why I gave you that link
    I think it is one of the best stories about Keely I have ever seen.
    You might find much amusement at this website of “unworkable devices” Fitting that you would say déjà vu about Rossi and his parrallel John W Keely the greatest con artist of machinery!

    déjà vu indeed!

    If you think any skeptic would not be happy to be absolutely wrong
    about Rossi you are wrong!

    • brucefast Says:

      Jetmech, the scientifically interesting question is whether CF/LENR/LANR exists. Further, the existence of CF/LENR/LANR seriously addresses the question of whether Rossi’s technology works. http://nickelpower.org/2012/02/02/extraordinary-claims/

      Further, lets say that Rossi’s stuff doesn’t work, but Defkalion’s does.
      What is the real net difference to the world? Nothing that I can see.

      I have said on this site that Rossi is beside the point. He and his technology is purported to be first, that’s all. Others claim to have the same grade of technology.

  233. Roger Bird Says:

    Dear Jetmech, to call all of this speculation is to ignore the social perspective. The social evidence, which is admittedly soft evidence, is really quite impressive, although not proof positive. Stirling Allen’s most recent visit to Defkalion is very impressive. Did Defkalion muster up 17 actors to pretend like they were working in the Defkalion lab? That doesn’t seem likely. If they are not actors, then who or how is Defkalion paying these people? If they are not being paid, then how are they supporting their families? One could go on and on, yet Occam is looking down on us and is concerned that our skepticism is becoming absurd. A better explanation is that the Hyperion works close to as described.

    And Allen’s most recent visit to Defkalion is not the only social evidence. The amount of social evidence is pretty overwhelming. A look at the boards of directors and/or advisors of Defkalion and Brillouin Energy Corp. is really quite impressive. I could go on and on.

  234. jetmech Says:

    roger byrd says something about “social perspective” something about Sterling Allen (whew) that is a stand up guy. Sterling Allen who would find a turd in your toilet to be capable of free energy?
    if they are not actors – what are you rambling along about?
    who cares who works in a Defkalion lab! Our skepiticism is becoming absurd?
    My friend NO ONE HAS PRODUCED a device!
    how can you say my skepticism is absurd?
    look around you – do you see anyone with a workable Rossi/DGT device?
    ALL I AM SAYING is that RIGHT NOW as of this moment
    Rossi/DGT looks the same as John W Keely and the greatest “free energy scam” of the 20th century!

    OK Hyperion works close as described – this is the important thing
    mr Bird – now listen close – think about it – ALL US SKEPTICS REQUIRE IS PROOF! Do you got that – is it registering on your synapses?

    ITS A SIMPLE THING CALLED PROOF!

    My friend Mr Bird how did we ever get to the point of “believing something”?

    It is either true or it is not. Lemmings believe.

    Skeptics just want to know if that used car actually runs!

    If you havent bought a used car without an engine lately i guess you are a sskeptic too!

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Oops, Jetmech. If you run it through a digester, that turd (about 160g for average adult) will produce around 50kJ worth of free energy – enough to boil a cup of tea. Maybe Sterling Allan has it right….

      For a thing to be “proved” you have to believe the proof. Ultimately there is no absolute proof, only belief that something is correct; that the evidence so far points to it being more likely true than not.

      You might find it useful to know if that used car runs on petrol (gasoline) or diesel, and also how long it has been running so as to make a guess as to how much longer that it will run before costing a lot in maintenance. For example also check the brakes – it may go but will it stop when you want?

      That’s enough semantics – we’re all waiting for a believable demo and to be able to actually have something that we can see working. There’s no need to put capitals everywhere as emphasis.

      • brucefast Says:

        “If you run it through a digester, that turd (about 160g for average adult) will produce around 50kJ worth of free energy – enough to boil a cup of tea.” :)

    • brucefast Says:

      Jemtech, please don’t spout off your mouth until you have read the proof. It is here: http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/
      I know some of the first ones on the list look hokey, but please note these guys:

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

      Now, replicators does not contain anywhere near all of the evidence. But it does show vividly that Stirling Allen, or even Rossi, is not the authority on the matter.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Here’re some ramblings from Keely. He doesn’t sound like a scammer but probably was a nutcase……I don’t know. I haven’t tried to digest his ideas.

      http://www.keelynet.com/keely/neutral1.htm

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Maybe not a scam in this bit, just mad…. It’s a bit of a take-off of Eastern mysticism, with a few other random words thrown in to make it sound good. Unfortunately, like most of these types of rambles, it might sound like it ought to mean something but ultimately gives zero information as to how to use these strange properties.

        If that is the Keely from Keely Car Company, then that was truly a scam. By saying things that people don’t understand, and being really sure about it, you can often convince enough of them that you know what you are talking about. Especially if there are some bright and shiny toys to show.

        I would rather be able to explain things so my daughter can understand them – if I can’t explain it simply enough then I obviously don’t know it well enough and need to spend more time getting the explanations easier to understand. It’s a good test.

  235. Roger Bird Says:

    jetmech, fortunately you were talking about someone else since my name is Roger Bird, not roger byrd, as plain to see as a wart on a pretty girl’s face. Furthermore, I don’t Sterling Allen from a horse’s rear end and have never said that he was a stand-up guy or a sit-down guy or just a crumb. I know zip about the guy and have never said anything about him. So, you must be talking about someone else. So, I didn’t bother to read the rest of your post.

  236. jetmech Says:

    Wow That is why John W Keely was the best! Even today when it is well known and every facet of his scam is known, there are people in the year 2012 who think it was not – very good you have discovered a website that is still making money off Keely! He was good! He kept his investors on pins and needles – always bringing out a new demo
    every time they complained he had not produced a device.

    this is the best source

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely.htm

    see keelynet.com leaves out just enough information for it to be a “mystery”
    However to thier credit they mention his giant air tank
    but pooh pooh it as if it is irrelevant.

    You have never been on peswiki? You do not know this guy makes money off EVERY free energy scam ever? You don’t know if Sterling Allen is a stand up guy? You are unable to discern this?

  237. jetmech Says:

    Brucefast points me to these websites of lenr canr cf Scientists
    yes i have heard of them all and read what they have to say.
    I do not understand what that has to do with Rossi/DGT.
    Many people are trying to link the reality of lenr canr cf to Rossi/DGT Just because lenr is real does not make Rossi/DGT claims of out doing any of these great scientists real.
    Rossi /DGT claims to have leapt way beyond these researchers!

  238. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Jetmech – I think the point is that LENR is real. The claims of Defkalion and Rossi therefore are less extraordinary, but should still be treated with a degree of scepticism until a real saleable device is made and sold. It seems the history of “free energy” is one scam after another, but these ones at least have a real source for the energy produced, so there is a good chance that we will see a product we can buy.

    As Bob said earlier, when we pull the wallet out and buy one we will be somewhat more careful as to whether it works or not. It currently looks like Defkalion may be the ones we can buy first, whereas Rossi’s date for selling seems to have moved another 9 months downstream.

    A while back on this blog I was castigated by Brad Arnold for being sceptical about Rossi’s claims. It’s looking like I was right on that. I hope I’m also right about Defkalion having solved their technical problems and their tests showing positive. This will be of such benefit to the world in general.

  239. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Jetmech – sorry I didn’t answer about Sterling Allan. In order to run his website and to live, he’s going to have to make money from it. I doubt if it’s a fortune, though, and a few of those technologies he publicises are not scams. I would expect that a lot of the people who look at PESN don’t believe any of it until they can test one themselves, though SA does state that he makes money from selling plans. If people have the time, money and inclination to play with those types of things, then it’s good. Maybe one of those experimenters may find something new and benefit us all. Not all crazy ideas are false, just most of them.

    Given that SA makes money from publicising strange ideas, he does seem to report honestly what he is told, and does seem to attempt some verification. He also states when he can’t find any valid verification. As such, he does the world a service by making public those strange devices – as I said, not all of them are lies. It is up to us to decide which, if any, are worth actually testing. Some may contain a germ of truth that has been distorted, and if we can sort out the truth from the lies and distortions then something useful may turn up.

  240. Roger Bird Says:

    jetmech, we are all well aware that Rossi/DGT are on probation. Why do you think we are awaiting test results so enthusiastically.

  241. Roger Bird Says:

    I see a double standard among the skeptics. 60 years ago hot fusionists told us in all honesty that hot fusion was 35 years away. Bless their hearts of being honest. 40 years later, they told us that hot fusion was 45 years away. Now they tell us that hot fusion is 50 years in the future (which is actually 110 years from the start of hot fusion research). But if Rossi pushes back his time line by 12 months, then he is a crook.

    Furthermore, hot fusionists have not produced a single watt of excess energy, although the experiments are really impressive and fun. But cryofusionists have produced many watts of excess energy.

    I love double standards; it helps us see reality.

    • Peter Thieberger Says:

      Roger, your point about the double standard is well taken but I think somewhat oversimplified. Unfortunately, we know very well how to use hot fusion to produce enormous amounts of energy, but not yet in a controlled way. Progress in that respect has been painfully slow; much slower than expected even though we understand the underlying physics.

      It would be truly wonderful if cold fusion became useful faster; whether we understand the physics or not. It may just be that we are extraordinary lucky in this case, but historically that hasn’t been the experience. Normally, a real good understanding comes first. In any event, I think we can all agree that false claims and scams only hurt the legitimate efforts.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – it would be wonderful if any method of getting very cheap non-polluting energy were to become available as soon as possible. I really do not mind if the hot fusion guys get there first, though it does seem out of the question right now. The cold fusion/LENR is nice in that it appears to produce low radiation emissions and no long-lived radioactive isotopes to store. It also looks like we can make household-sized ones – nice to get rid of those power-pylons around the country which are getting more fragile (solar flares, terrorists etc.) the larger they get.

        It looks like we may get LENR before we really understand how it really works, but once it is understood we may get better and smaller reactors, and maybe also energy in a better format (electricity). Having one working example in the lab will certainly help the theorists.

        I’m not certain that false claims have really harmed progress, except for P+F being made an example of which pushed it underground for a while. Those who had seen real effects continued in private, maybe with reduced grants or on their own money. Others have repeated the experiments and done new ones along the same lines. Rossi blew it into fairly public knowledge, and whether his claims were true or not (probably not at the time) he has spurred new research – people have realised there might be a massive amount of money to be made from this. Meantime the sub-fusc experiments in the last 23 years are getting public viewing now, and the evidence is overwhelming that LENR (by whatever name) is valid science we just don’t fully understand yet. It does sound to me as if you are also coming to that conclusion – maybe you have looked at the other experiments, too.

      • brucefast Says:

        Peter
        Nice to see you back.
        “It would be truly wonderful if cold fusion became useful faster.”

        Is it your understanding that SPAWAR’s LENR research was defunded recently.Would you agree that there is a tight link between funding and becoming useful faster?

        Would you agree that if the phenomenon of LENR were no longer recognized as “pathological science” it would get a lot more funding?

        Would you agree that when a demo of high COP LENR has been performed at MIT, that high COP LENR is most probably within the grasp of current technology?

        As the hot fusionists figure they might be there in 40 – 50 years, do you think that maybe the LENR path should be at least as well funded as the hot fusion path?

        How does the reality of LENR get past the rhetoric of “pathological science”? One way of course, if it works, is for Rossi or Defkalion to introduce a commercial product. Its hard to deny a commercial product.

      • brucefast Says:

        Peter, “we know very well how to use hot fusion to produce enormous amounts of energy, but not yet in a controlled way.”

        Peter, I respectfully disagree. The only unique difference you pointed out between the two technologies is “enormous amounts”. The LENR phenomenon (to differentiate from any given theory) We know that we can get excess energy from LENR where hot fusion only gives us excess energy if we make an unfathomably huge explosion.

        I contend that the only material difference between LENR and hot fusion is that LENR is generally an outcast within the scientific community. If the scientific community acknowledged that LENR is a valid phenomenon, then they would have a choice between a reaction that has proven untameable for decades, and a reaction that is hard to start, and usually produces a commercially inconsequential amount of energy.

    • Richard Hill Says:

      Hot fusion works now and could be used commercially in a few months, if needed.. How? Drill a deep hole, drop in a fuson device (AKA H-Bomb),.back fill with concrete. Trigger the fusion device. If the hole is deep enough the energy from the fusion will crack and heat the rocks, rather than blowing a crater.. Use known geothermal technology to extract the heat from the resulting hot rocks.

      • brucefast Says:

        Cool.

        Pretty certain it wouldn’t produce earthquakes and tsunamis around the globe?

        I may be wrong, but my memory says that h bombs are triggered with fission bombs. Now we’ll need to deal with the radiation issues.

        What’ll be the ROI on this one? Can we at least go boom, suck the heat out, then go boom at the same place again?

        Just sayin.

  242. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, you have a very impressive and kind way of making good sense and educating others without putting anyone down. I salute you.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Thankyou for that Roger – it is nice to get complimented. The discussion is good, too, as someone else may have a better idea than me. If so, I want to learn about it. This blog multiplies my chances of seeing something I might have missed since people kindly put up links to things they think may be important. LENR needs a synthesis of thoughts of a lot of people in order to get it working well, and the skeptics too are needed in the discussion.

  243. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    The latest buzz on ecatnews & ecatworld is that Krivits has written that National Instruments now disavows any relationship with Rossi.

    If true this is a disappointing development. But we knew Rossi is a difficult person to deal with. Hopefully Rossi has found another control supplier or maybe he’s discovered a self-regulating mechanism. There was also mention that NI is in discussion with Defkalion.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      I guess my comment about Rossi being hard to get along with is irrelevant in this instance. Rossi insists that he and NI got along great and he is still lavish in his praise of NI.

      If in fact Rossi has lost control of his company, I wouldn’t be too surprised to see production moved overseas, maybe to China. On the other hand, I read that the US is rapidly regaining its competitive edge.

      • Bob Says:

        Iggy, there could be NDA’s in place that prohibit any mention. Also, Rossi has money partners and may have pulled the control effort in house. Unless we know whats going on, we are just guessing. I don’t find this particularly disturbing.

        I hope he doesn’t move it to China, a sure fire way to get it ripped off and competition started. I suspect he knows that and will not go to China. If he can automate and use robots as he has indicated, then I think it will stay for now.

  244. Roger Bird Says:

    It helps my sense of optimism that you guys disavow free energy. I think that if you-all embraced free energy, I would not be here. (:->)

  245. Bob Says:

    Most things dreamt of by man are doable, its just the time line that is the question.

  246. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, nice to see you (or read you).

    Another problem that I am having with hot fusion is that the experimental setups for hot fusion do not seem to be setups that could be used to produce usable energy. With the laser setups, for example, how do we extract the energy and keep dropping pellets, etc. etc. The explosions are going to blow those incoming pellets all to hell. It just seems to me that we are entertaining a lot of very brilliant folks, but we aren’t accomplishing anything.

    And, perhaps you could tell us all of the various means that they are using to make hot fusion happen. I know that there are the magnetic “bottles”, zapping with more than 100 lasers, zapping with huge amounts of electric current, and there are probably hybrids. And I imagine that there are other means that I did not list.

    • Bob Says:

      Roger, there are a few private efforts at hot fusion that sound promising. I have more confidence that progress will be made in the private sector. One is in Canada and on is in New Jersey. They are spending a few million and hope to have demo systems in a few years.

      Here is one of the links

      http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/jeff-bezos-invests-195-million-nuclear-fusion-technology

    • Bob Says:

      Here is another link on fusion

      http://coldfusion3.com/blog/new-jersey-company-developing-fusion-process

      I have no idea if these are real, but I’m guessing that being in private hands more progress will be made. Of coarse, there will be more fraud and scams. The price for progress.

    • Peter Thieberger Says:

      Roger, thank you for your kind welcome. I am not a fusion energy specialist. I think the two paths you mention to controlled hot fusion are essentially it, but with a number of variants for each. In the case of “inertially confined” fusion of pellets, the energy input methods I am aware of are laser beams, heavy ion beams and exploding wires (producing x-rays). The challenges are formidable but I think it would be a mistake to assume that the proponents and researchers haven’t thought about obvious problems such as the ones you mention of pellets being blown away or ways to extract the energy. Regarding the first one, it must be that the next pellet will not enter the chamber until the very short burst from the previous one has passed. Two of the most difficult challenges are implosion instabilities due to driver asymmetries and/or not perfectly spherical pellets, and rapid degradation of the reaction chamber walls. Regarding the latter, a solution that has been proposed is covering the wall with liquid “waterfalls” of a molten mix or fluoride salts that would also serve to transfer the energy to the heat exchangers.

      The challenges are formidable and, even if technically overcome, it remains to be seen if such a power plant could become economically competitive. But we will never find out if we give up too soon. It seems to me that the energy problem is so important that we should support a large variety of approaches.

  247. Roger Bird Says:

    Rossi lost control of his company? Not a real big surprise if he can’t get long with other people. He should be happy that this has happened to me, sort of like my wife and children constantly giving me social advice. Some people are socially impaired and they need to be taken care of, for their own benefit and the benefit of society.

  248. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Simon,

    For now the only remote possibility I see for early cheap energy is the one offered by Defkalion, but I have no way at all of forming an opinion about their seriousness. All I am saying is that I haven’t seen any obviously false statements. But that may simply be because they haven’t given any phony demonstrations or made claims regarding the mechanisms involved. It seems that we may soon find out if this is for real.

    I agree that there is serious research going on and several very intriguing results. But none, as far as I know, claim to be ready for prime time energy production. I think that P+F were serious too. What got them is the intermittent nature of the results. That problem is better recognized now but not solved. It tells me the obvious. That there are uncontrolled variables which will be much easier to find and hopefully to correct once our understanding improves.

    My only involvement in all of this has been in reference to Rossi and more recently to Widom/Larsen. I am not sure that the full negative impact, especially regarding Rossi, has been felt yet. But you are right that there also may be positive consequences. In fact, there is an interesting example that tends to prove your point in the early history of hot fusion. The dictator Peron in Argentina was fooled into supporting a crazy German physicist, Ronald Richter who claimed to have observed neutrons from d d fusion in an arc discharge. It turned out that the “neutron” pulses he reported were due to spark-induced electrical noise picked up by his oscilloscopes. The immediate result was a big scandal but the early news of success stimulated further fusion research at Princeton which eventually led to the establishment of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). Another positive result was that I got to use excellent oscilloscopes for my undergraduate research.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Peter – there is always that problem of what you measure and how it is interpreted. In Failure Analysis, I was once fooled by the smart new digital ‘scope that told me I had some very strange waveforms on a board that was failing. The ‘scope had auto-set itself up at a too low sample rate and had interpolated to show a wave, and I was misled for a day or so. That problem turned out to be change of supplier of a drive-belt, and thus static in the system, but it made me very cautious since in relying upon one instrument to give me data. I try to use at least two different methods of measuring something now. In the same way, I think that a lot of the problems in the “free energy” arena have started because someone did not understand the limits of their measurements. If the “true RMS” voltmeter shows a certain value then it has to be right, they think, but it is maybe insensitive above a certain frequency and thus more power is going in than the meter says.

      If a machine is really over-unity, then it should run if you loop the output power to the input and still give you power to use. In all the demonstrations/videos I’ve seen, this simple connection is never done, and until it is done I will continue to say such things are not real physics. Plus, of course, I do want to know where the energy is really coming from.

      Yes, it is hard to make absolute judgements about Defkalion on so little real data, but Roger Bird did publish here a list of the people behind it and a bit of history for them. They do not seem to be the kind of people who would easily be misled or would run a scam. On this basis, I am pretty certain that they must have solved their main problems with control and are now happy that any demonstration they give will work as advertised. Since they have set a limited protocol for the tests, it is also likely that they have not ironed out all the bugs yet, and the full production version is still some way off. Still, a properly measured test run or seven will silence a lot of the critics, though maybe not the most rabid ones.

      I’ll second Roger’s welcome – it’s nice that you’re back.

  249. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Thank you, Simon. It is my experience too that double checking measurements with different instruments is essential, especially when finding unexpected results. In the case of important discoveries, that double checking should not only involve different instruments but also different individuals and different laboratories. I think that there are no good substitutes for independent verification. What bothers me about the arguments based on the testimony of prestigious experts is that in no case I know of have they been allowed to conduct independent verifications. Their informal impressions are often mistakenly interpreted as serious, well-founded professional opinions.

    I agree also about the limitations of the “true RMS” clamp-on ammeters. Not only is there a high frequency limit as you point out, but a low frequency limit as well. In particular, any DC component wouldn’t be detected. Also excess power could sneak in if the voltage is higher than stated or if there are wires that are not monitored. Another way to sneak in additional power if one wanted to cheat is through induction with coils hidden under the table.

    I don’t know what the limited test protocol is you mention, but it doesn’t sound very good to me. It reminds me of the magician who asks a member of the audience to join him on stage in order to verify one of his tricks. He tells that person where to stand, what to do, and when to go back to his seat. A limited protocol.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Peter – the limited test has been attacked by a few people, but it looks good enough to me. Go to http://www.defkalion-energy.com/press and download the .pdf under Independent Testing on Hyperion Reactors 23-1-2012 (currently top of the list). They are measuring total energy in versus total energy out, on a live (but stripped-down) reactor and a similar control reactor with no powders. After 48 hours they take the powders from reactor 1 and load reactor 2 and repeat all the measurements. As far as I can see the test equipment stays where it is. I can’t see any room for systematic error, and they would be taking one big gamble if they assumed that the people doing the tests would not spot a fraud. I think they have specified the test sequence in order to eliminate fraud, in fact. See what you think. If they do that 7 times, then the chance of being caught would be almost unity, since I would expect each new set of testers would look at the notes of the ones before and try to find faults in the test – I would if I were doing this.

      The only glaring fault in the test is the lack of proper calorimetry. I know this is somewhat of an art to achieve reliably accurate results, and thus maybe someone new to the calorimetry they chose would maybe mess up the first few times, but I cannot see how you can measure the COP without it. As I see it (maybe it was lost in translation somewhere) they are heating a reactor without coolant and measuring what temperature it achieves. I can calculate approximately from the temperatures achieved what the power output is, but I cannot see it being in the kW range – and they say if it overheats they’ll blow some air over it.

      And so to the fudge – they are certain that they will achieve COP > 20, but are not certain how many kW their 5kW unit will produce. They are certain that they can start and stop it. It’s mostly there.

      I am working on a design myself. If I get it working would you be willing and able to validate it? Your sceptical input would be extremely useful…. No time frame yet for when it happens, unsurprisingly.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Simon, thank you for the reference. I must admit that I am neither impressed nor surprised. I list some comments below:

        1) The title is “ Independent Testing of Hyperion Reactors”. But in the text they say that “Independent tests have already been scheduled” but that these ones are something else. So the title is misleading and they are not telling us who will perform the real independent tests or what they will measure.

        2) They promise COP determinations but that is impossible without calorimetry.

        3) They say “tests will be conducted following mutually agreed protocols” but they have already defined all the details.

        4) They say “All the electric consuming devices attached to the Reactors will be measured and logged (Volts and Amps)” but they don’t say that there will be separate measurements for each reactor.

        5) They say “The Reactor #2 will be empty of any powders and with all triggering and control mechanisms deactivated” How much power will be removed by deactivating these mechanisms? They don’t say.

        6) They say “Cold air may be blown to both Reactors through their isolation if the maximum safety level as defined in the test protocol is reached in the active Reactor” how will that cooling be taken into account for the COP calculation? Not possible without measuring the air flow volume and delta-T.

        This looks to me like a smoke screen to hide the fact that the real third party tests may be either secret or non-existent.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – I expect the people doing the test will be aware of the problems and find a way round them. The published results will, I think, back up my estimation above that they can start, control and stop the reaction using less than a tenth of the power they get out (they say 1/20), and that the total power is actually fairly low (maybe 500W). Yes I added a few figures in there, based on the 650°C minimum internal temperature.

        Points 1-3 there is no contention. Point 4 I would expect separate measurements, otherwise why swap the reactors round? Point 5 introduces an inaccuracy unless a dummy inactive powder of the same thermal mass is put back in. Point 6 says that they do not know how much energy will be produced, which is why they are running without calorimetry.

        The difference in our approach is that you are looking at the techniques used and saying why they are wrong, and I am looking at the reason why they chose these particular techniques and what that implies about their technological status. I don’t see a disagreement here, except maybe I lean towards thinking they are closer to a working system than you seem to think.

        I do expect these tests to be made totally public, warts and all. From the data we should be able to get a close estimate of the actual power output providing they also measure the ambient air temperature. After the first test has been done, I would expect the next people doing the test to be a little bit more careful to protect their reputations and sneak in a few more measurements or verifications. Defkalion have said that the results will be published by both the testers and Defkalion. I’m sure that any discrepancies would be immediately jumped on.

        Thanks for the thoughts. I would appreciate having your thoughts on the results, too, when they are published. I think that Defkalion actually do have an almost-working system, and as we discussed before any version of cheap energy is really going to change the world.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Simon, it is not clear to me how they will estimate the power even approximately. The reactor is insulated so we either try to use the inner to outer temperature difference, or the difference between the outer temperature and the air temperature.

        In the first case we need to know the thermal conductivity of the insulating material and the exact shapes of the two boundary surfaces. Also we need to assume that these two temperatures are uniform over each surface even though we only measure one point on each. And then we have to find or write some simulation code to calculate the total heat flow. Not easy.

        In the second case we use the outside temperature, again assumed uniform over the entire surface, and then use some complicated, shape dependent estimates for radiation and convection cooling. I don’t know how to do that. Do you? And if there is some forced convection due to an open window, how do we account for that? Perhaps I am not understanding something. In any case I will be happy to look at any results and it would certainly be a pleasure seeing yours.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – maybe you missed the word “estimate”, since without proper calorimetry it’s going to be somewhat inaccurate. We will know what power is going to the “dead reactor” and the concomitant temperature rise on the outside and the inside. We have the same figures for the “live reactor”. If they also measure ambient temperature, and it is reasonably stable, then we can get a reasonable estimate of the actual amount of heat produced. Assuming the two reactors are almost identical (and no window open etc.) gives us a check using the second set of figures. The various shape/insulation/airflow factors should approximately cancel out. Using the “dead reactor” figures gives us total thermal resistance to ambient. Applying the thermal resistance figure to the “live reactor” gives us total heat produced, with a degree of certainty I currently can’t determine.

        What we will not know, and will bias the result to a lower COP than the true figure, is how much of the input power goes into the control system/triggering electronics and how much energy goes into the reactor and ends up as heat in the core. Since the “powders” are missing in the “dead reactor” and it is not triggered, then less heat will be put into the core of the reactor which will result in the “dead reactor” not heating as it should. If the triggering is a combination of heat and some other wave, then we will only see the heater effect, and this would bias the final COP higher than truth. I may be able to extract more information from the real data.

        Some gut-feel estimates: (a) they are putting in around 20W total energy, of which maybe 10W goes into the core, (b) they expect they’ll get at least 400W heat from the core, (c) they are not certain if they need to use air-cooling because the actual amount of heat output has been variable in their own tests and (d) their insulation is a bit thin and if the core is at 650°C and putting out 500W then the system will be in thermal balance.

        Hopefully by Friday you will be able to check my estimates against the measurements. I may end up with egg on my face….

        I think the main reason for the lack of calorimetry is to stop people from being able to make such estimates and thus understand precisely what they are doing. It is worth a lot of money to them, after all. If they can state a COP of 20 after Friday then I would apply a fudge-factor of around 50% to this, but even COP=10 would be good enough.

    • brucefast Says:

      Peter, “In particular, any DC component wouldn’t be detected.” I haven’t found the specific link, but I recall on at least one of NyTeknik’s videos, they specifically test for DC current. (It is a well-trod scamming method to run DC through the pipe.)

  250. Roger Bird Says:

    Believe it or not, there are actually some posts by posters that I really like and enjoy that cause my eyes to glaze over. I think that I will finish this one when I am suffering from insomnia.

    (:->)

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Hey Roger – we’ve both used this stuff to make a living. It’s not that complex really. No buzzwords to confuse things – these are all in the dictionary. What Peter is talking about is how fraud could be done and what the testers have to look at to eliminate that possibility. If the “prestigious figures” are allowed to look but not touch, then they should walk out of the room in case they are used as evidence that something worked when they have had no chance to verify it personally. If it was me there (not that I’m prestigious) and they still quoted me as being there after I walked out, I would make it very, very public that I was stopped from checking things. I’m not a nice person sometimes.

      Back to sleep now….

  251. Roger Bird Says:

    Certaintly Rossi’s claims, without knowing about the context of 22 years of LENR research and replication, were too extraordinary for me to believe. After I learned of the 22 years of LENR research and replication, especially Mike McKubre’s SRI accomplishments, then I found that I could entertain the possibility that Rossi was not a crook or a crazy person or a complete fool.

    However, Rossi still has to prove himself. The part about having a customer ready product still needs confirmation.

    • brucefast Says:

      Roger,

      I appreciate that you recognize the massive difference between Rossi claiming some unknown and scientifically impossible technology vs. claiming that he has tamed a known and scientifically reasonable technology.

      I personally take everything that Rossi says with a large dose of salt. However, I am prepared to believe the demos that he put on where scientists and engineers were invited to at least some level of poking and prodding. To pull off such as a fraud just feels outside of scope to me.

      I don’t know what’s going on behind Rossi’s closed doors, but it doesn’t smell good to me. I think he is having some sort of problem that is holding up the show. I think he would do better by letting the problem be publicly known. He may be able to join with the expertise that’ll get him past it.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – again you’ve hit the nail on the head, but I have noted rumours that Rossi is hard to work with. Maybe the people who could have helped him walked away. You have probably also encountered people who absolutely knew they were right and would not be diverted from path that led in a circle.

  252. Roger Bird Says:

    And hot fusion commercial energy has been under development for roughly 77 years with lots of government funding and public support, and LENR commercial energy has been under development for roughly 23 years with zero government funding and zero public support.

  253. Roger Bird Says:

    People who absolutely, positively knew that they were right: Communists, Nazis, conservative religious, patho-skeptics, Jim Jones, Pinochet, Jefferson Davis et. al., etc. etc. etc. I hope that Rossi is not among that group.

    But to get where he has, with LENR-on-steroids, he might have to be someone who absolutely, positively knows that he is right. But it is difficult to work with such people.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Pinochet delivered on his promise. Chile is the most prosperous nation in South America and at the rate we’re going, they may surpass the US in the future. Pinochet brought in Friedman trained economists to redesign Chile’s economy and its social security system.

      Yes, he was brutal. Coup d’etats are war. War is hell.

      Some of my ancestors were Loyalists and had to flee the US.
      My gggrandaddy’s brother was a rebel deserter who organized an opposition force against the Confederacy. He was captured and executed less than a week before Lee’s surrender.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Iggy

        When a general overthrows an elected government, brings in foreign agents to run the economy of his own country nd murders and tortures tens of thousands of his fellow citizens, that may be hell, but it’s not war. It’s treason and usurpation, and the perpetrator deserves perpetual imprisonment.

        Pinochet in any case was a squalid crook who stole tens of millions of dollars from his own country, as well as a murderer, a torturer and a usurper.

        Your ancestor on the other hand appears to have been a martyr in the cause of human freedom and the Union. Strive to be worthy of him.

  254. Roger Bird Says:

    Perhaps they are merely going for the mind blow. If one is putting out scalding water for 24 hours and the other is putting out merely warm or even cool water, I would be impressed. Then switch the cores and blow my mind again.

  255. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Roger, there is no talk of any water. Just two closed systems and some air that may be blown in if one gets too hot. I really don’t understand what if anything they plan to prove.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      Not using water doesn’t make sense. Dick Smith should send GoatGuy to do the test.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        I think GoatGuy would do a excellent job of it. Peter would, too and I’d trust his measurements, though he would probably insist on pumping water through it as a precondition of doing the test. No proper calorimetry means they have something they want to hide. It may not stay hidden once the data has been published, even without the water flows.

  256. Roger Bird Says:

    We’ll see. There is no reason to believe that they are not just as smart as we are.

  257. GreenWin Says:

    Gentlemen, there is a specific problem with air flow calorimetry. However, since the testing is to prove a general energy amplification, air flow could suffice.

    Here’s an interesting proposal from J. Fletcher to make air flow T more accurate in a cylindrical reactor:

    http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62452.html

    We shall apparently have some results by day end Friday.

  258. Roger Bird Says:

    I am very happy that Chile is doing so well. I wish that other countries would learn from Chile without murdering and torturing its citizens.

    • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

      When the takers form the majority of the electorate, then violent overthrow is the only solution. You think Hugo Chavez will leave office peacefully?

  259. Roger Bird Says:

    Iggy, “takers”, I resemble that remark, and so also is my 12 year old son. But my wife works two jobs just to keep our heads above water.

    I agree that if the takers form a majority, then serious actions would have to be taken to get the parasites off the public doll. People can become like parasites. But I will be dying soon, so you won’t have to kill me. (:->)

  260. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Simon,

    You say ”We will know what power is going to the dead reactor”. I couldn’t find anything in the “guidelines” that tells me that. Calibrating the temperatures with known input powers may work to some extend as you suggest. But this is very poor calorimetry. One of the main problems with this approach is that the calibrating power may be introduced at a location different from the source of the power to be measured. And temperatures are only measured at one or two points. If I were to use such a system I would take precautions to minimize these errors, but who knows what they will do.

    But let’s assume for a moment that they do allow some kind of reasonable calibration. The next problem is that they plan to deactivate the “stimulation” when switching to the other reactor. That stimulation by itself may be causing all of the heating. Then when they switch, the other reactor becomes hot. Great success!

    Rather than an “estimate” this could easily become a wild guess or a stunt to impress customers or investors. I would not only insist on proper calorimetry but I would never endorse the results of a demonstration that isn’t performed under my full control.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Peter – since they say that power going in is measured on both reactors, I assume they mean that. Hopefully we’ll find out on Friday.

      I accept your criticisms of the setup. It is also possible (as you said at 7:20) that the errors introduced by this crazy way of measurement could include zero in the error bar, especially as I’ll have to estimate the errors possible and probable (sorry, Roger and Bruce, but he’s right). Still, I’ll de-fudge the data as best I can and publish it here. Hopefully I can do this to your satisfaction and we can agree on the probable range of COP.

      It does seem a strange way to produce a “definitive” test, when all they are trying to show is power out is more than 20 times power in. Proving more than 10 would be good enough for most people. I could do better with a reasonably insulated bucket of water. Could be I was wrong about them having solved their control problems.

      • brucefast Says:

        “Could be I was wrong about them having solved their control problems.”
        I suspect that something of this nature is going on. Certainly a water (no steam) model would be by far the best.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Simon, I will trust your de-fudged data analysis without even checking. But, as you know, it isn’t just COP values that are important. The power to keep a well insulated reactor hot can be miniscule. It seems very unlikely that they will prove any excess over possible chemical energy. Not by a long shot.

  261. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, I think that you are used to experiments that require very accurate measurements. Since LENR is not believed in by most people and especially most scientists, a COP of 19 will work just as well as a COP of 20.

    As a home owner, I will be delighted with a COP of even as low as 12, even if 20 was expected.

  262. Peter Thieberger Says:

    No Roger that isn’t it. I do understand the difference between accurate results and rough estimates. But the estimates can’t be so rough that they become compatible with zero if you want to prove that there is a real effect. Also, we shouldn’t assume good faith. There is a strong possibility that what we are seeing here is a small corner of the large “green energy scam” market. See for example:

    http://www.wallstreetinvestmentfraudlawyer.com/2010/01/beware-of-green-energy-scams.html

    http://www.finra.org/Investors/ProtectYourself/InvestorAlerts/FraudsAndScams/P120644

    http://www.scherzer.com/Green/

    • brucefast Says:

      Now Peter,

      Defkalion is claiming a cop of 20. Surely one can tell the difference between the heat output of a 5 watt light bulb and a 100 watt, or a 100 watt light bulb and a 2000 watt. The idea that estimates become so rough that they become comparable with zero is a bit far fetched.

      While it is possible that Defkalion and Rossi are both pulling a scam, we do have some tools that are outside the realm of the hard sciences to make this diagnosis.

      Our first tool is quite simple, neither of them want my money. They may want other people’s money, but they don’t want mine. As long as they are not digging into my wallet they are not scamming me.

      A second tool is the “extraordinary claims” analysis. There is a good-sized group of scientists that say that the technology claimed by Rossi and Defkalion has been seen by them. This cannot be a small deal as the vast majority of “free energy scams” claim the scientifically impossible. To claim the scientifically possible is no longer that extraordinary of a claim.

      But consider this tool, the resume of some of the Defkalion board of directors:

      George Sortikos CEO
      Engineer. . Former banker and industrialist (ceramic high tech). Former Chairman of State Bank ETVA (Greek Bank of Industrial Development) ’80-’90 and founder of Omega Bank ’90. . He was also chairman of the TIF (International Fair of Thessaloniki).
      ————————————————
      David Christian Aurel CEO
      Swiss Banker with extensive experience in project finance and logistics. Former president of Bank of Montenegro.
      ———————————————–
      Alexandros Xanthoulis Board Member

      Economist (Macroeconomics). Greek-Canadian. Former official of the EU heads the Energy and Financial Reconstruction of the EU delegation in Central Asia (90).

      http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2050#p2050

      Are these the kind of guys that pull free energy scams? Or are these guys getting scammed too?

      • Bob Says:

        Bruce, there was an interesting post on Cold Fusion Times.

        http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html

        The top left corner. The paragraph at the bottom states the following:
        Feb. 21, 2012 – William Zebuhr of Infinite Energy magazine examines the JET Energy Cold Fusion/Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reaction Solid State Open Demonstration setup at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA), after reviewing the data obtained during its month of operation at MIT. At this higher electrical input power level, the energy gain was 764% over input.

        The 764% gain is pretty good, he is in the Rossi ballpark.

      • Bob Says:

        Here is a most interesting post I missed from Rossi’s blog.
        This relates to the radiation sickness seen in cavitation experiments.

        http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=395&cpage=2#comment-22221

        Could be more smoke, but thought it was worth posting.

  263. Roger Bird Says:

    Bruce, as usual, great response.

    I felt the same way about Peter’s “But the estimates can’t be so rough that they become compatible with zero if you want to prove that there is a real effect.” I am just a little slow to react sometimes; I like to think things through or I can’t believe that someone who is otherwise so intelligent made such a nonsensical statement.

    In my opinion, resting one’s bare hand on the two machines could enough test for me. Don’t be surprised if this is what Dick Smith does; he is probably a very level-headed sort of guy, rather than an egghead.

    I was also impressed with the Brillouin Energy Corporation “Team” and advisory board. Although they seem far from making any sales, they still report LANR, and those individuals are still risking their reputations.

  264. Roger Bird Says:

    When you start using percentage gains like 764%, it gets confusing. 765% means a 8.65 times more energy. 1 times more energy is unity (which even that is supposedly impossible).

    • brucefast Says:

      Roger,
      The % thing slipped past my notice. It is a very deceiving way of presenting the gain.
      Thanks.

      In any case a COP of 8 is, well MAGNIFICENT!
      This confirms LENR, and even LENR in harvestable quantities.
      However, it is not nickel based LENR.

  265. Roger Bird Says:

    The good news is that this sort of thing will prove LANR beyond a shadow of a doubt. The bad news is that we will have government regulators doing what they do best, stifling innovation. And we will have to put up barriers to protect people.

  266. Bob Says:

    Sterling Allens revue of his South Africa trip to see the 5KW free running motor is now [posted for every ones revue.

    http://pesn.com/2012/02/22/9602042_South_African_Fuel-Free_Generator_Preparing_for_Market/

    • brucefast Says:

      Thanks for the link, Bob.

      I must say that this whole thing feels all wrong. “Back EMF”? “Wheel work of nature”? How does this thing go? Why the heck would the thing not be switching battery banks? That’s all wrong.

      But where is the fraud? How can Stirling Allen’s colleagues, with their qualifications, be blind to an input power of 5KW? How on earth are these guys going to make “scam money” from this thing?

      Lastly, “The plan is to ship me one of the first 200 units.” So Stirling doesn’t have one in his possession yet.

      • Bob Says:

        I was surprised also, I thought Sterling was taking one home with him. was hoping to get real world use very quickly as a true test, looks like another delay to the data.
        The only thing possible is the spikes recharge the battery somehow. Worthy of looking into as these guys claim it works. Was hoping for a lot more solid evidence.

        If I had flown half way around the world for a test I would have sat up all night watching the thing run, so there was some long run time on the device. Why do they quit both tests at 3 weeks, they should have one going for as long as it can!

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Yes, I thought he was taking one home, too, and he’d said that, since he was being given one he’d thought that the $5K would pay for the shipping. Shame I didn’t save the webpage rather than just bookmarking it, but it seems that some people had done that and re-published it on the ‘comments’ section where the deleted page was – now also deleted. This basically means that SA is trying to hide what he said before and stop people checking up. Maybe he’s not as honest as I had thought.
        Note that Mark Dansie (SA’s debunker) was said to have gone with measuring equipment, was not allowed to measure anything and went home again.
        Also no photos of the device because it wasn’t pretty enough. After inviting SA there to do precisely that?

        We are now told the battery type (lead-acid) and the capacity (102AH) and I can’t see a way of getting extra energy out of them by LENR. This is adding up to some sort of hoax, but damned if I can see where the benefit is.

        All in all, I think we will have to wait and see if they do sell any and get “famous names” saying how well they work. I think even Rossi may get there before the SAD….

  267. Roger Bird Says:

    So, I guess I am a scientists, since I am an electronic technician. (:->)

  268. Roger Bird Says:

    In my opinion, my wife, who is technologically clueless (she can’t even use the TV/DVD remote properly), could easily test this Defkalion setup with a metal ruler (to slide under the Hyperions) and her bare hands. She might be hesitant and incredibly uncertain and we would have to encourage her because she would be so unsure of herself, but she could do it. 20X is a no-brainer. Now, should the output fall down to close to 1, then we would have to bring in the instruments and start fretting.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – the problem really is how much energy goes into the heating and how much goes into the triggering and how much goes into the electronics.

      The measurements they appear to be intending to make are: “live reactor” – energy going into all three, “control reactor” energy used to drive electronics and heater. We have 3 variables and 2 measurements – not enough data. I can probably estimate limits from the measurements when they arrive, but they may be quite wide. If the electronics take a relatively large amount of energy relative to the heater and they drive the trigger system that is not connected to the “control” reactor, then the calculated COP from a simplistic view will be vastly inflated. Bear in mind that the heater has to heat a few grams of Nickel – a 10W resistor for a minute or two can achieve quite a high internal temperature and in the control reactor the nickel is in fact removed so I don’t know what the internal thermocouple will be measuring. As such I will use the outside temperature to estimate thermal resistance of the reactor to ambient temperature. In this case I do not know how much power goes to the resistor and how much to the electronics. In the live reactor, I will not know what is the balance of resistor/electronics/triggering. If the heater runs for a short time, and then the triggering takes over the power instead, then far more energy goes into the core – I cannot tell from the measurements given. Also if the electronics has a variable power draw (dummy load resistor?) it could skew the results (yes that would be deliberate fraud in that case).

      Add a measurement of the power going to the resistive heating and I could give you a reasonably accurate estimation of the performance (excluding deliberate fraud), but without it there is a possibility that the COP could in fact be 1 even with a core measurement of 650°C. I’m hoping that the figures they actually produce preclude this possibility, but Peter is correct in his statement.

      I need the plot of temperature versus time for each measurement taken. If these are skimped so that I can’t make a reasonable estimate after permuting the variables I know, then it points to this being more of a cover-up than a real test. Unfortunately the lack of calorimetry (even a simple water heating over time versus power in) points in this direction too.

      I would be disappointed if I proved Peter right. That would mean a longer wait for a version we could buy. I still think they can do it (same for Rossi) but the repeatability could still be a problem they haven’t fixed yet.

      Just to get your head round the figures:
      If the electronics takes 50W and the resistor is 10W and the outside casing reaches 10° above ambient, then they will say that the control reactor takes 60W to achieve 10° difference. With the live reactor, say the triggering is 40W, so we now have 100W going in. They measure 50° above ambient. For an increase in power input of 40W they have 5 times the power coming out, so 5 times 60W = 300W output, right? That must be a COP of 300/40=7.5, then (incrementally) or 300/100=3 absolute. In fact, we’re just putting 50W into the core to produce that 50° rise (10W/°C), since the electronics takes the rest. And the COP would be less than 1 overall. Fiddle further with the figures to get the COP of 20 by reducing the resistor power, or by taking the trigger power from the electronics budget which can easily boost the figures.

  269. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, I confess that all that was hard to follow. If the water coming out of the experimental reactor is scalding vs. the water coming out of the control reactor which is merely warm, and the flow rate for both is the same, then what is the problem? Of course, the water going in has to be from the same source with the same plumbing. And of course, it would have to continue for the 24 hours, then switch over and do it again for 24 hours.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      That is indeed the problem – they are not running any water through them. These reactors are running dry, on low power, and with not enough measurement points. If they were running water through and measuring the temperature we would be reasonably sure that the power output was as stated. They aren’t, which is why there’s a discussion about it.

      I would really rather I couldn’t find an error in their measurements.

    • brucefast Says:

      Roger, they aren’t using water! They are using air for cooling!

      Simon, I agree with Roger that what you said is painfully hard to follow. Why are you assuming that they are putting a different amount of energy into each of the two reactors. My assumption is that they intend to treat both cores the same, where one core is a brain damaged core (no hydrogen or no nickel) making it not work.

      If they are putting the same amount of electricity into each core, and the electricity is going to the same place, then any head differential would be the result of LENR. If they are putting different amounts of energy into the two cores, well, then it gets complicated.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Sorry Bruce, but they do state that they are disconnecting the triggering on the control reactor. If this disconnected triggering still consumes power, then we have the problem I stated above. The power put in is split (at least) 3 ways, and we are not told what proportions.

      Work out the figures on paper, substituting your preferred values for each split. Choose a reasonable heat resistance for the complete reactor with insulation – sorry I wrote 10W/°C above when I should have written 1W/°C. (Time for bed!)
      The measurement of power going in is the TOTAL only, so it needs to drive the heating resistor, the electronics, and whatever trigger device they are using (sound, microwave etc.). Given that the electronics is a controller, it will put the power into different devices as well as use some itself, and this will vary with time.
      Choose different scenarios for energy going to each device we know of, and calculate from that what the temperature rise of the outer casing will be. Assuming no reaction so resistive only, now work out the apparent COP from the equation (total power in core)/(thermal resistance) = (temperature rise). You’ll see what I’m getting at.

  270. Roger Bird Says:

    brucefast is so good to me. I think that he must have a close relative who is also retarded like me. (:->)

    Even if air is the coolant, the body of the test reactor should be much hotter to the touch than is the body of the control reactor. If this is a noticeable difference, then we have a winner. If not, then go get the calorimeters.

    In fact, if the thing works, I would worry about a melt down with the test reactor. Using only air doesn’t seem like such a great idea to me. But I am hoping that they know what they are doing, and what they are doing is not a scam.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – I also hope it’s not a scam test. We’ll have to wait for the figures. If the test reactor is hotter, then it has more energy going into it than the control reactor. The problem with the test setup is that we actually do not know how much energy is going into the reactor, and how much goes elsewhere (for either reactor). I will apply what I know or can reasonably estimate. Estimates will be stated as such, so people can see exactly what I’m doing.

      By having the optional air cooling, looks like they are also a bit worried about melt-down, and if it does melt the Nickel I’ll be pretty certain that there is a reaction even if I can’t calculate the powers used – the resistor would probably melt before the Nickel does, though I can see ways of fudging this one, too.

  271. Craig Binns Says:

    From Sterling Allen’s blog. Do we need to take this guy seriously any more? Obama on Mars was bad enough, but which is this: lunacy or a scam? Usual pseudo-scientific ravings and new world order paranoia. Anyway, if it’s true, it easily outdoes both Rossi and Defkalion! But it ain’t true, alas.

    “We’re talking about a device that taps into a type of energy that allows it to use one bank of batteries to power your home while it charges the other one. … for the first time ever a company has risen above the threats and corruption to produce a device to benefit all humanity! … Sterling will be taking delivery of one of the devices in the next month so I’m looking forward to being able to see this device in action powering a home soon!   For one of the first tests, the inventor disconnected from the grid and ran his home on the unit for 3 weeks straight with no problems at all! … it’s the KNOCK OUT punch to the new world order plans of a one world global government where all your energy is strictly controlled! … Energy is all around us and is free for the taking!  … stop the new world order from controlling us! … you will soon be able to buy one! http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/nsearch-breaks-biggest-story-in-the-last-100-years-free-energy-is

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, this reminds me, I recently posted this:

      http://nickelpower.org/2011/04/12/global-warming-solved/#comment-6923

      where I asked you, “does the fact that Stirling Allen endorses LENR make LENR less likely?”

      Feel free to read the context of the question, but I’d prefer that you answer in this thread.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Brucefast

        No, the one doesn’t follow from the other, and I have happily agreed that point in the past.

        But I think some contributors pay too much attention to “credentials” and perhaps not enough to verifiable results; and also that SA has been noted as an observer worth listening to, which I am sure he is not, and also there has been some ambivalence about the South African Device. Also I think that there should be an absolute distinction between the serious researchers in this field, who may deserve attention, and the collection of oddballs with their preposterous free energy machines who hang about on its periphery.

        That way we can perhaps get to the bottom of this whole LENR-CF affair.

      • brucefast Says:

        Craig, “I think some contributors pay too much attention to “credentials” and perhaps not enough to verifiable results.”

        I willingly admit that I pay attention to credentials and public statements almost exclusively. I could, I guess, do the work of locating what these guys have formally published, and read that. But it pretty much flies over my head anyway.

        You do the same as the latter, don’t you? You haven’t done a literature search for even one of the list of scientists I have presented, have you? So your position is that “verifiable results” are the only thing that count, but you don’t go to the sources where such results get published, do you?

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Brucefast

        That’s not quite what I mean. Public statements are fine, because a public statement, either by the researcher, or by someone else about the researcher, could of course contain information about verifiable results, and attention should be paid to that. But when I’m asked to treat seriously the idea that a person might be less subject to suspicion because he is a Greek or Montenegrin banker, or a former Greek ambassador to Italy, then I am not very impressed.

        The point of scientific verification is to concentrate on results and not on attributes of the person who produces them.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – ambassadors and bankers are normally chosen for their probity and diligence in most countries. Being involved in a failure is bad (note ex-sir Fred Goodwin), being involved in a scam is extremely bad for the reputation. Given a group of such people together with professors and engineers, it is socially unlikely that they would intentionally commit fraud. Greek prisons are pretty nasty places, I hear. I’ll except Goldman-Sachs and Lehmann brothers from my generalisation of bankers being of high probity…. Still, frauds do get found out and the perpetrators generally go to prison. If Defkalion is a fraud, it will be exposed before they have made any money from it. From this viewpoint, the only reasonable thing to conclude is that they, at least, think it’s the truth.

        Nearly all the information you learn as a student is from authority. Practical science teaching is based on confirming what is known. The credentials of that authority are important in deciding how much you believe of it. If you know enough already, you can decide on the science itself, but in truth most people have not got the time to do this much work reading the original science and checking every calculation. For me, tensor and spinor calculus are over my pay-grade, so I accept what the mathematician tells me if his/her credentials are good or if there is another good reason such as common acceptance.

        As such, the attributes of the person giving you the information are central to whether you should accept it or not.

      • brucefast Says:

        Craig Binns, “But when I’m asked to treat seriously the idea that a person might be less subject to suspicion because he is a Greek or Montenegrin banker …”

        Where do you find a Greek banker in this list:

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

        Further, if Stirling Allen’s opinion does not diminish the LENR case, then it would seem that the best way to analyse the case is to look at the strongest case first, not the weakest, to determine truth. I’m prepared to bet that at least 3/4 of the people in the above list have published their LENR findings in peer reviewed journals. These are, therefore, respected scientists who have formally presented their findings.

        Craig, you remind me of my step-mother’s way of playing cards. When a question of the rules comes up, she always declares that “Hoyle says … ” This is very nice to say, except she doesn’t have a copy of Hoyle’s rules to prove her point. So in her lack of formal documentation, she declares herself, rather than Hoyle, as the authority on the rules. By ignoring the publications that these guys have published, you have declared yourself to be an authority that there isn’t any data.

        The data is there. You could find it. Or you could make the amazing discovery that the data is only as good as the integrity of its author. (I have studied some data in the psychological world. I have found that drug companies often sponsor psychological and psycho-pharmacological research. Their research very often lacks integrity, even though it is formally published.)

        If the ultimate authority is the integrity of the author, then all we need to do to figure out truth is hear what the authors are saying, and determine the level of integrity of the best of these authors.

        Some of these authors, in my opinion, have plenty of integrity to be declaring truth when they declare that they did the experiments, and they got real results, and the results are not explainable with foreknown explanations such as chemical reactions.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      I don’t think any of us actually take Sterling Allan seriously, but he does publicise stuff we wouldn’t otherwise hear about. Craig, you are talking about the SAD (South African Device) which has been discussed here and certainly looks like a scam. SA’s “test” was seriously flawed. Having been told that the batteries would go flat (without some extra energy supplied) after around 35 minutes, he watched it for 41 minutes and then went to lunch. When he came back after 2.5 hours, the device was miraculously still running.

      The text you quote is not from SA but Nsearch Radio, who also took SA’s report and quoted it as well. It is, as you say (but paraphrased), enthusiastic babble.

      Not all SA’s articles are about scams, though most are. He also reports on the Cyclone steam engine, the Griggs pump and the Breakthrough_Solid_State_Generator. These are testable real physics, but are not on the market yet. There are a few others in his Top 100 that are real, too, but not dramatic. You’ll also find Brown’s Gas generators – useful to get high flame temperatures for welding/fusing refractory materials. You can buy these from Eagle Research if you need one, they’ve been for sale for quite a while.

      So SA’s endorsement or not of a device means very little. You have to work it out for yourself – he’s a journalist not a scientist. If you are investing in one of those companies, you should do the due diligence first or you’ll lose your money. If you buy plans from SA on how to make a free energy machine, then you are paying for an education in human gullibility, in general. If it didn’t work for you, then you didn’t get the orgone desmogrifier set up right….

      SA is a publicist, and performs a useful and sometimes hilarious service to the world. There is truth amongst the hype, and hopefully the discussions help in clarifying what is truth and what isn’t.

  272. Craig Binns Says:

    Simon

    True it is to say that Sterling doesn’t get everything quite right. Here he is describing a conversation with the Defkalion guys during his visit to Athens: “Their product will be the Hyperion (pronounced “high-pee-ree-un” [they nearly gagged when I told them I thought is was pronounced Hyper Ion -- "yikes!"]). The name hearkens back to a Greek legend of a man who was thought to be father of the Greeks, similar to the Noah’s Ark story.”

    Yikes! The Greeks are going to be “gagging” good and proper when they read that! It was Defkalion (also written Deucalion) who was the Greek “Noah”. Hyperion was one of the twelve Titans. Greeks get fussy about that sort of stuff.

  273. Roger Bird Says:

    I agree with Craig: It sounds very whack-job-ish to me. Like the evil oil companies are behind all evil in the world. My neighbor was mean to me a few years ago; I am sure that I saw an evil oil company minion visit her house and pay her to be mean to me.

    Give me a break. We all carry around in our own hearts the propensity for lust, greed, and anger and all the other evils like pride and watching the Kim Kardashian show.

  274. Roger Bird Says:

    There are no verifiable results. It is all about who we can trust. Or I should say, the chain of evidence starts with experimentation, but must necessarily go through people, and the reliability of those people are paramount to our ability to determine the value of the experiments.

  275. Roger Bird Says:

    I think that it was Simon who introduced us to the concept of quantum tunneling being a source of energy. This would definitely be in the realm of free energy, yet the science is not so goofy.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Yep, that was me. The energy comes from the heat in the device – it cools down. It only (!) breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. And it is one you can do at home – the file I pointed you to has the details.

  276. Roger Bird Says:

    Which link, Goose.

  277. Roger Bird Says:

    Does this show that Craig Binns is more interested in debunking than he is in the truth? Ya think?

  278. Roger Bird Says:

    Dear Simon,

    Thank you. I think that http://www.execonn.com/maxwell/maxwells_demon.html is the link.

    I am going to do a project for me and my 12 year old precious darling boy. [He is a wonderful child who is obedient (sort of) and sweet and kind and fun to be with and loves his mommy and daddy and studious and honest and honorable and everything that a parent could possibly want. Oh, oh, oh, you guys are all so jealous. (:->)]

    This has got to be the cutting edge of physical reality.

    Thank you.

  279. Roger Bird Says:

    But Craig, the certitude (should be one of your favor words) of any test other than the one that you do depends upon the reliability of the people doing the testing.

  280. Roger Bird Says:

    I love breaking laws that aren’t really laws, just patterns.

  281. Roger Bird Says:

    Speaking of “psychological”, this telling Craig Binns that you have the evidence is becoming like an encounter group with someone who doesn’t want to hear anything except themselves talk. Craig does NOT want to hear the evidence. He does NOT want to reason things out if it means that he is going to think differently than the crowd. Craig is not an independent thinker. Like I said before, I think he has a lot of anxiety.

  282. Craig Binns Says:

    Please have a look at

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/02/24/dick-smith-rossi-e-cat-too-fantastic-to-be-true/

    It is an excellent description by Dick Smith in Forbes of the harm caused by energy scams, and it is now clear that Rossi is nothing more than a traditional type swindler. Nothing special at all.

    The Forbes article ends with the pertinent question which I also ask, and to which I haven’t received a reply: “Moreover, at what point will Rossi have made us wait too long? When do you think that will be? And will we just forget about Rossi and the E-Cat whenever that point comes to pass?”

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – you ask how long is too long for Rossi. I think the answer may well be ‘two weeks from now”, when hopefully Defkalion will have published their first set of results. However it is not clear that Rossi is a swindler, this is just your interpretation of events. Seems there’s not much point in repeating earlier justifications for my view since you haven’t read the background science.

      Still, even if Rossi comes late to the party but with a much cheaper version he will still make more than enough profit.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        My justification for assuming Rossi a swindler is NOT basically scientific, as I have stated at length, giving my reasons. As to the real scientific question – whether LANR is valid: I do not pronounce finally on this, am still looking at it, and am open to scientific arguments about it, but I am not convinced, and the adverse consensus weighs heavily with me.

        But really that has nothing to do with Rossi. He’s simply using the disputed LANR issue as a “legend” to base his swindle on, just as in 1720 South Sea Bubble swindlers used aspects of the new and unfamiliar paper credit economy to generate legends to deceive investors, or snake-oil quacks today base legends on disputed medical procedures.

        Rossi’s current scam happens to be science-flavoured; but he has worked gold-smuggling and waste-disposal scams in the past, presumably finance-flavoured, and ecology-flavoured respectively. The “science” is pure misdirection, in my opinion. Take his Byron fellow scammers in Australia. Scientifically these guys are off the wall free energy, cosmic energy etc etc swindlers. Science my ar$e. Selling “licences” to idiots in “outback” small-town Australia is their true profession. They have colleagues in the USA! Mr Dennis Lee springs to mind! See http://www.nmsr.org/denislee.htm .

        Again, that does not apply to genuine LANR research, which Rossi is so shamelessly exploiting and abusing.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – Rossi’s oil-from-waste business looks as if it worked and produced usable fuel from waste at a viable cost. He was sloppy on handling of toxic waste, and there were regulatory problems, but I did read that a very similar process is now being used in the States. Basically, this was not a swindle, but a pollution and tax problem. The gold-smuggling seems to have been fairly common in Italy because of harsh regulations on owning gold. You did not mention his thermoelectric venture, where the first TE device tested by the customer (US Navy?) had very high efficiency, but when he tried to scale it up to industrial-sized devices they went down to standard efficiencies. He did not get the contract.

        These three known events show me a person who regards laws as things to be ignored when possible and who does not have a full grasp of the fine detail of his projects. He is not a scientist but an entrepreneur, and puts his energy into the realisation of ideas from scientists without fully understanding them. If it doesn’t work, get a bigger hammer….

        As I understand the Byron, Australia event, they set things up on their own and invited Rossi to have a live talk with them on Skype. He didn’t do this. Having seen his ways of publicising many things, that I didn’t see Rossi mention Byron implies that he had nothing to do with it. Rossi has no control over what other people say about him or claim in his name. Having read the Byron documentation it certainly seems that they are indeed scammers, but saying that because of this Rossi is also a scammer, that is not just. Byron (the scammers) claim association with Rossi, so you are damning Rossi in this case purely on their word.

        Dennis Lee is one I hadn’t heard of, but that is indeed similar to Keely. Pretty obvious scam, but he must be making money at it, surprisingly.

        At root, I think the main reason you think Rossi is a scammer is that he has not fully delivered his promises. Given the new technology with less-than-understood science, it’s not surprising. New technologies are almost never on-time and on-budget.

      • brucefast Says:

        Craig Binns, “My justification for assuming Rossi a swindler is NOT basically scientific, as I have stated at length, giving my reasons. As to the real scientific question – whether LANR is valid: I do not pronounce finally on this, am still looking at it”

        Your justification for assuming that Rossi is a swindler is sociological — an analysis of his behavior compared to the behavior of others. You can use the same method of analysis to determine the truth of the LENR science.

        You attempt to do so by finding the weakest link, Stirling Allen, and determining that he is full of it. Yet you recognize that acceptance by Stirling Allen does nothing to promote your case. So your analysis of SA vis-à-vis LENR is useless. Do the analysis on any of the real scientists that claim that they have achieved LENR.

        Let me trim the list for you a bit because 9 such scientists is obviously producing an overflow. Consider this guy:

        At least watch the first 3 minutes of this video. It makes my primary case.

        Craig, “and am open to scientific arguments about it” Not really. You haven’t chosen to look at the science. Anything these scientists say that is not formally published, you reject as not formal evidence. That which they have published you don’t even look for.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Good video, Bruce. I missed this one, thanks. Penalties for a normal scientist found to be a fraud – loss of credibility, maybe loss of job. Penalties for a Navy scientist found to be a fraud – both the above and possibly jail as well.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Brucefast

        Having problems with the video. At present I’m in a mountain village in Italy surrounded by a forest populated by wolves, bears and lynx. Internet connections are often too poor for video format. I’ll try again later.

        By the way, there are complaints on other blogs about silence from Defkalion. Do you have anything on this?

    • Peter Thieberger Says:

      Craig,
      There is additional supporting evidence for your indictment of Rossi. You are probably aware of most of it but let me just briefly summarize

      1) He hired Focardi who had seen and published some positive effects. Yet Rossi explicitly stated that he didn’t reveal his “secret” to him. How much sense does that make? He obviously wanted the endorsement of a prestigious “specialist” in the field but most probably had nothing legitimate to show him.

      2) He invited the Swedish professors; all expenses paid, and got their endorsement too. Anybody with the slightest technical experience who saw the video of that demonstration knows that the amount of steam shown wasn’t nearly commensurate with the power claimed. Later one of these professors stated that he neglected to check the current in all of the wires and that he wasn’t aware of the volume of steam he should have expected. So, what the heck did they check? Yet the endorsement wasn’t withdrawn. These are reputable scientists, but one is a professor in theoretical physics and the other one is a high energy particle physicist (they typically work analyzing and interpreting data with sophisticated computer programs). We don’t know if either one of them had seen a clamp-on ammeter before.

      3) Rossi gave the Swedish professors a sample of what he claimed to be nickel powder that had been in a functioning reactor for six months. He expected 30% of that nickel to have been converted to copper. There are 3 problems with that:

      a) He has been unable to demonstrate performance even for a few days, let alone 6 months.

      b) The professors indeed found 30% copper but with isotopic composition identical to natural copper which is incompatible with the reactions claimed by Rossi. But it is of course what you would expect if the copper had been added later.

      c) Whatever real heat effects may be observed by the serious researchers, the production of copper isn’t credible:

      http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/12/the_nuclear_physics_of_why_we.php

      My apologies Bruce. I know that this isn’t the most appropriate blog to express doubts. I will shut up now.

  283. jetmech Says:

    yes Craig that hits it squarely on the head.
    When no one is listening to Rossis next big
    announcement – Ecat powered robots are building
    Ecat powered robots and when I have built enough Ecat
    powered robots I will build Ecats!! Or some such
    that is probably how this will all end.
    remember how long has Black Light power been taking
    investments without producing any devices?

  284. Craig Binns Says:

    jetmech

    You ask “how long has Black Light power been taking investments without producing any devices?”

    It was set up in 1991, and has taken over $60m. I’m sure its founder Mills is Rossi’s model. Free energy is probably the most lucrative scam legend apart from phoney religion.

    Of course not all religion is a scam just as not all CF research is a scam, Brucefast.

  285. Roger Bird Says:

    Why is it that for a physical process to be true patho-skeptics have very high standards of proof, yet in order to be able to call someone a crook their standards of proof are so very low?

  286. Roger Bird Says:

    Keep reminding us of Blacklight, jetmech, and all us skeptics like brucefast, Iggy, Simon, myself, and others will keep our money in our pockets. But just as I need proof that Rossi’s machine works, I also need proof that he is a crook. And so far the evidence for his being a crook is even weaker than the evidence for his machine working.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – I agree. A crook would work very little, spend the money “invested in he business” on cars, houses etc.. Rossi appears to spend very little on clothes, works all hours and does not appear to spend money except in the business.

      Failing to bring new technology to market is not a crime, failing in business is not in itself a crime. Add those together, and Rossi does not come out as crooked, just not successful… yet.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        Nobody appears to be sure even where Rossi lives (Florida, USA or Bologna, Italy) let alone what he or his wife spend their money on. The now forgotten forced house sale might have been cover for some change of residence, for all I know. His wife seems to own rights to the device, and has interests in Cyprus, a country known for financial secrecy. There have been recent changes of ownership involving Leonardo Corp. Apart from his copious “journal” correspondence, which is couched in inimitable language, the activities attributed to him may be carried out by employees or assistants.

        Simon, there is a connection between Rossi and Byron through the Australia invoice, which had Leonardo’s bank account number printed on it. Rossi withdrew it, but never stated that it was a forgery, which common sense would have required him to do if indeed it was. Nor has Rossi denied any contact with Byron, another manifestly sensible act, if in fact there had been no contact.

        Brucefast: Peter Thieberger raises the copper isotope issue again, which we discussed many months ago. It worried you too. In fact it’s a “slam-dunk” proof of meddling with the evidence. Who is on your suspects list? Peter also reminds us of something I failed to note at the time: the alleged 6 month functioning period to obtain the copper. Do you share Peter’s evident view of the authenticity of reports of such a long run?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – I have an address in the UK and one in France. A letter sent to either will reach me – it’s not a crime. Krivit recently published that Rossi’s wife had sold her interest in LC back to Rossi for $10K. If Byron had applied for the Australian rights, then they would have been sent an invoice to pay before being able to take it up. I have seen no evidence of such payment, and thus a legal connection.

        None of this is evidence that would stand up in court.

        I share Peter’s view that the evidence of copper was meddled with, and I also think the likelihood of a 6-month continuous run outputting 10kW is very low. Such hyping of the results is dishonest, but does not in itself indicate a scam. It does indicate that Rossi is not a nuclear physicist, though. If the results had been a vast range of isotopes of various elements, I would find it more believable.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        I’m not suggesting that having two addresses is suspicious. I’m saying we don’t even know Rossi’s location, so we don’t know what he’s spending.

        You call the fraudulent addition of copper “hyping results”! It is in fact falsifying results. Hyping would be exaggerating the significance of data. Inserting phoney substances is fraud, and may one day add another chapter to Rossi’s copious criminal record.

        It’s a bit like salting a gold claim by adding extra gold to the assay sample, back in the Old West gold rush. When folks were caught doing that, the ones that were tarred and feathered and run out of own on a rail were the lucky ones!

        Roger

        So Rossi is not “innocent”, as you suggest, and my disparagement of him is motivated by indignation as his dishonest dealings, not because my id is in conflict with my super ego or whatever your psychobabble theme is today.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – you’ve seen the videos – does Rossi look like a man who’s spending a load of money on himself and fancy equipment, or does it look like a shoestring operation? To me, it looks like Rossi really believes that what he is doing is correct and that he’s not blowing money on extraneous fripperies.

        It looks like salting the goldmine is what he is doing, but that he does believe that there is really a lot of gold there; it just requires a bit more digging but he’s not sure exactly where. Such actions are pretty common in entrepreneurs – did you ever work on early versions of DOS and Windows, where the software was pretty buggy and crashed with the BSOD frequently? 20-odd years on, and it’s not bug-free. I’ve also quoted Sir Richard Branson, who went to jail for tax fraud when starting his record business. Start-ups do tend to falsify records and tell lies in order to get enough liquidity in the business to make progress. When they are successful, those early days are swept under the carpet.

        So investing in any start-up is risky, and you will almost certainly be lied to. That is what the phrase “due diligence” is about if you want to invest money – you find the lies and misrepresentations and decide if the chances are still good enough for investment nonetheless.

        I did not say that Rossi was innocent, I said that you can’t prove him guilty yet – it’s all circumstantial evidence.

        Although I find it difficult to believe that someone would work so hard and so long on something that doesn’t work, it is possible. Jetmech brought up Keely as an example. So I still have a degree of doubt as to whether Rossi can finally deliver what he has promised, even though his device, based on Piantelli’s and Focardi’s work, should function at least as well as theirs did. I have no doubt that the device CAN work, but I don’t know whether he can start and control the reaction efficiently enough to make a commercially viable system in a reasonable timescale.

        Meantime, Defkalion have gone very quiet, and in this case no news is not good news. It seems the forum moderators go home at the weekend….

  287. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, Craig does not apply his skepticism to Rossi’s crook-hood with as much vigor as he does to the process of LENR because Craig craves certainty so badly that he is willing to be dishonorable and irrational and unscientific in order to make certainty happen in his head.

  288. Roger Bird Says:

    So Craig, you admit that you are being immoral.

    I don’t understand a society that thinks that high tech is more important than morality. This is how we have gotten to the point where we can destroy the human race with nuclear bombs. And this attitude goes deeper than a bunch of nuclear physicists in the 1930’s and 1940’s realizing that they could make bombs to destroy whole cities in one flash. The entire march of military technology (a hobby study of mine) is a dance of morality being less important than technology, and of course Hitler was the supreme example of this. Our physicists who developed the a-bomb were just taking care of necessary business.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Roger

      I really don’t understand what you’re on about here. If, as I believe the evidence indicates, Rossi is a swindler, the question of morality certainly arises. But what this has to do with destroying cities is beyond my understanding.

      I’m not accusing him (or anyone else) of wanting to create a cryonuclear bomb!

  289. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig Binns, if I look at the overall impression that you have had on the nickelpower “group”, I have to say that it is not very good. And it is NOT because you are not optimistically hopeful about LENR, Rossi, or Defkalion. It is because you stubbornly will not look at the evidence, because you keep robotically saying the same thing over and over without looking at the evidence, because you fancy that you are the only accomplished critical thinker here, because you fancy that you are the smartest person here, because you slander people without proof, and etc.

  290. Roger Bird Says:

    Let me explain it to you. Your desire for certainty is greater than your desire to be ethical. It is not ethical to accuse people of criminal behavior without proof positive. You don’t have proof positive; you have only indications and circumstantial evidence. And since you are personally not at risk, your behavior is immoral.

  291. Roger Bird Says:

    Fortunately, Navy personnel have the concept of honor drilled into them.

  292. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Simon. I don’t quite understand. Inviting prestigious scientist to show them a fake demo and to give them a doctored sample obtaining their endorsement that way isn’t evidence enough? That is a little more than ”hyping of the results” in my book!

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Peter – You expect a scientist to tell you the truth. Rossi is not a scientist. If he had enough knowledge to make LENR work, he wouldn’t have mixed copper dust into the sample – an alloy 75% Ni and 25% Cu is still silver-coloured, with 30% copper you couldn’t see the difference in colour. I don’t know how he managed to fool the head of the Swedish Skeptics Society, either. Based on the work of Piantelli, I would expect some energy from LENR in Rossi’s device if he was lucky with getting the conditions right. I thus think that Rossi has seen some “good” results, but cannot make them happen to order. Since he needed to show something, he fudged it somehow or maybe there was some excess heat but not enough. I expect that Rossi, like a lot of entrepreneurs, does not hold to the same standard of truthfulness that we would like. While this is not good, and it tars other good scientists with the same brush, it does not mean that Rossi is running a scam. It just looks that way.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        Rossi is not a scientist. That’s why I don’t need to be a scientist to perceive he’s a swindler.

        Rossi is not a scientist, but he achieves world-changing successes in a field in which scientists – said to be of high quality – have worked in vain for decades. Or so his supporters would have us believe.

        And I expect not merely scientists to tell the truth. I expect people selling licences to others to distribute a supposedly valuable product, to tell the truth about that product. The law expects that too, at least in the United Kingdom.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – obviously you don’t know that many people who have started a business. It is necessary to tell the truth about an item that is currently for sale. It is unusual for people to tell the truth about a product that is not yet released. Read the small print that says “specifications subject to change without prior notice” that you will find on most device specifications (yes, I do read the small print) that basically says that what you have bought may not necessarily match the paperwork. If it does what you want it to, does that matter?

        Rossi used other peoples’ science and ran a lot more tests and changes. He added information from other sources. When the theory does not tell you what needs to be changed, legwork (the Edison method) may well find the answer.

        I admit that aspects of it look like a scam, and that Rossi is not the most truthful of publicisers, but that does not prove he’s a swindler. Until you buy one and find out whether it works or not, you can’t tell yet. You can decide, on your perceptions, not to invest in his company, but you cannot call him a crook yet.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        “Currently for sale.” The licences are currently for sale. My advice like yours is, don’t buy one.

  293. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Roger – I must point out that Peter Thieberger is also a stubborn skeptic. The difference is that he argues from a position of knowledge and experience using good evidence. If good evidence turns up for LENR with a viable amount of energy being produced, I’m pretty certain he will change his mind and treat the evidence with the same clarity he has used before. Peter requires that things be done rigorously in order to eliminate systematic errors, and this is necessary when dealing with something that will change the world if it works. Skeptics as well as cheerers are needed in these discussions.

    • brucefast Says:

      Simon, “The difference is that he argues from a position of knowledge and experience using good evidence.”

      Simon, I radically disagree with you on this point. Peter Thieberger has been determined to avoid my list of Replicators. While he thinks that there might be something to LENR, he is rather convinced that the nickel + hydrogen form of LENR is not valid.

      Further, Peter’s case against Rossi is not made from his area of strength — physics, but is made using the same class of sociological case that Craig Binns uses. I admit that there is very little scientific evidence to make a case for/against Rossi. However, there is lots of good science re: LENR, nickel + hydrogen LENR and even high COP LENR.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – maybe Peter will spend some time watching that video you put up by SPAWAR. Peter did use some sociological evidence, but certainly initially he was arguing purely on a theoretical viewpoint, and this is the theory that works for hot fusion. He did point at his theoretical refutation last time, too. If Pd+D and Pd+H LENR is valid, then Ni+H LENR should also be valid – Piantelli tried various metals in his reactor.

        I certainly hope that Peter will look at the A class replicators. A list of errors (or not) in the experiments would be useful. Maybe he can spot things others have not.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Bruce, you have no way of knowing what I read or don’t read. In fact you produced a very good list, even though the name “Replicators” seems to indicate that they came after Rossi which isn’t the case. I have read some of the papers and looked at others. I have seen some intriguing results of excess energy with nickel + hydrogen , but no credible evidence for copper production. That is all I am saying, and for several reasons. For example if nickel could be converted to copper in this way, there would be no nickel left in the sun.

        Focardi’s old paper on Ni + H,which stimulated Rossi, is one I read about a year ago, much before you generated your list. That is one of the intriguing results even though his calorimetry was questionable. When you mentioned the possibility of H + H in nickel, I thought that was an interesting idea and told you so. In spite of your impression, I am keeping an open mind and would be as happy as everybody else if we could find a cheap and clean source of energy. And I also believe that premature or fraudulent claims are damaging the prospects for serious research.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – If you had a source of thermal neutrons (say 300K) and dropped them into a Nickel target, would you agree that you might expect Copper as one of the reaction products? If you keep doing it, would you also expect Zinc, Gallium, Germanium etc. in the X-ray spectra? I have not worked out all the reaction chain, probabilities and decay rates of the intermediate products, but taking Nickel in its 3 isotopes and ending with 30% of just Copper (in natural isotope ratio) and nothing else is just not reasonable. In that I agree.

        I’d like to point out that the processes in the sun are high-energy collisions, whereas here we are talking about low-energy neutron capture. It is likely that in the sun that there are no slow neutrons, so the probability of that reaction would be extremely small. Comparing the sun, where we know fusion occurs, with LENR may not be useful in determining the details of the LENR process.

      • brucefast Says:

        Peter Thieberger, “Bruce, you have no way of knowing what I read or don’t read.”

        True. But I do know what you have responded to and not responded to. In these posts I asked you to present your opinion of the Ni + H reaction in light of what your colleagues, the real scientists, have said:

        http://nickelpower.org/page-2/#comment-2939

        http://nickelpower.org/page-2/#comment-2944

        http://nickelpower.org/page-2/#comment-2945

        http://nickelpower.org/page-2/#comment-2969

        http://nickelpower.org/page-2/#comment-3684

        If LENR is a valid phenomenon, and LENR is generally held in disregard by the scientific community, I see this as a serious problem.

        I don’t have an accurate picture of what goes on behind the curtain of the world of physics. But I do see clear indicators that the scientific community holds LENR in very low regard. I know that wikipedia labels LENR as “pathological science”. I know that the LENR branch of SPAWAR was recently defunded.

        The scientific community recognizes global warming as an issue. From only what your colleagues report, LENR holds serious potential to address that issue in a magnificent way. The only reason I can find why the world of physics is not all abuzz about LENR is that they don’t believe that there is anything to be abuzz about. This, to me is a major issue.

        As to the legitimacy of Mr. Rossi, well, let me first say that I don’t believe that Rossi’s legitimacy enters the more pressing question — the legitimacy of the phenomenon of LENR. While he may prove to validate it. The validation is already in from what I can see.

        That said, Rossi is different from any scammer I know in a two major ways. First, I know of no scam that has been presented to anywhere near as high of grade of clientele as Rossi demoed to. Second, I know of no scam that has been picked up by another in close proximity like Defkalion has done with Rossi. Is both Rossi and Defkalion a scam? Maybe. Does Defkalion have the real thing where Rossi is a scam? No way!

        If Rossi proves to be a scammer, will he have harmed the field of LENR? Potentially very much not! Just 3-4 years ago SPAWAR tried very hard to break through the LENR taboo. They failed. Because of Rossi, LENR has returned to the front burner. If LENR can get past the “pathological science” nonsense because Rossi pulled a scam, then Rossi will have done more good than harm.

        If you can come to recognize that the rejection your colleagues have experienced from their peers is just plain wrong, then we have taken one major step toward having Rossi do more good than harm.

  294. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Yes Simon, you can make some copper that way. The natural abundances of Nickel isotopes are:

    Ni58 68.08%
    Ni 60 26.22%
    Ni61 1.14%
    Ni62 3.63%
    Ni64 0.93%

    The neutron capture reactions are:

    Ni58 + n > Ni 59 + gamma , electron capture (76000 years) > Co 59 (stable)
    Ni60 + n > Ni61 + gamma (stable)
    Ni61 + n > Ni 62 + gamma (stable)
    Ni 62 + n > Ni 63 + gamma, beta decay (101 years) > Cu 63 (stable)
    Ni 64 + n > Ni 65 + gamma, beta decay (2.5 hours) > Cu 65 (stable)

    Only the least abundant Ni isotope, Ni 64 leads rapidly to Cu 65 through neutron capture. The radiation emitted during neutron capture isn’t mainly X-rays but high energy gamma rays. These so called neutron capture gamma rays typically extend in energy up to 8 or 9 MeV.

    Regarding Ni + H in the sun, the rates may be lower than on earth, even though that is questionable giving the large pressures and densities present in the sun. The point is that over billions of years slow rates don’t matter so much.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Thanks, Peter. I would also assume that the Copper would also undergo neutron capture too once it is there, thus making higher elements. There must still be neutrons loose since the reactor is still running, and a neutron (by W-L theory), would drop into any nucleus it gets close to, so the Ni63 would also mostly become Ni64 (stable) since it would be around long enough. The copper produced would thus mostly be Cu65, and not the natural isotope ratio.

      I also remember Rossi saying that his Nickel powder was enriched in Ni64 (by a secret process), thus trying to negate this argument. If he did have this process, he’d make a fortune selling that alone to nuclear processing plants….

      In the sun, I would expect as much Ni becomes Cu as Co becomes Ni, thus maintaining the ratios seen. If this slow process of neutron capture occurs in the sun, then all nuclei should be susceptible to it. Thus what we are seeing as constant is actually a steady-state process. Rather than the elements higher than Iron being debris from earlier supernovae whose elements later coalesced into our sun, some of them may actually be made in the sun. Successful explanations of LENR may have implications for cosmology, too.

  295. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, that was just a breath of fresh air. Thank you.

    Yeah, Rossi may be a crook or a partial crook; that would really hurt the research and development of LENR. If he is a thorough crook, which I very much doubt, the law will be the least of his worries.

  296. Craig Binns Says:

    Peter

    Long discussion of this, and of the Widom-Larsen Theory in general at http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/02/short-rebuttal-to-proponents-and.html where Goat Guy has a long contribution and various postings attempting to refute WLT. I have nothing like enough scientific knowledge to evaluate his argument in any detail.

    As to Simon’s last point: is current knowledge of nucleosynthesis sufficiently incomplete to admit the “implications for cosmology” he proposes? Or can they be ruled out by, for example, observation of the abundances of heavy elements in sun-type stars?

  297. Roger Bird Says:

    I cannot think of a single world changing technological (physical, not theoretical) discovery that was made by scientists: printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio, television, computer, etc. etc. etc. Please help me with this, because I am sure that scientists must have played a role in some of those and perhaps others.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – Generally the scientists enjoy themselves working out how and why things work, and the technologists enjoy themselves finding out how to apply that knowledge to make something useful. For a lot of the science, the usefulness of it is not seen by the scientist. Scientists were, however, involved in atom-bomb making, but this was unusual – that qualifies as world-changing.

    • Peter Thieberger Says:

      Roger, here are some relevant Nobel prizes in Physics and one in Physiology or Medicine also won by physicists:

      Fiber optics Charles Kuen 2009

      CCD imaging sensor William S. Boyle and George Smith 2009

      MRI Paul Lautterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield (Physiology or Medicine 2003

      The integrated circuit Jack S, Kilby 2000

      Holography Dennis Gabor 1971

      Laser Alfred Kastler, 1966

      Transistor Bardeen, and Brattain joint 1956

      Wireless telegraphy Guglielmo Marconi, Karl Ferdinand Braun 1909

      X-rays Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen 1901

      There are of course many more that had less immediate but at least as dramatic life-changing impacts such as prizes for relativity, atomic and nuclear structure, superconductivity, etc.

  298. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig is still lying and slandering an innocent person. I guess it probably takes one to know one. Although since there is this thing called psychological projection, Craig could very well be projecting his inner evil/ugliness on to someone else. It is probably the case the since Rossi challenges his world view and sense of certainty, Craig is lashing back at him.

  299. Roger Bird Says:

    What I find most interesting is that Craig cannot see the difference in the quality and quantity of interest in LENR/Rossi/Defkalion and other known (with certainty) scams. Most of these scams that he mentions I have never heard of. But the people interested in LENR/Rossi/Defkalion are of a much different sort and are much more numerous. But this would be social evidence that Craig would be oblivious to. Craig is both clueless/oblivious to social cues and arrogant. It must be awfully lonely to be right all of the time.

  300. Roger Bird Says:

    Cosmology is dating on steroids, and I already said that dating will be all messed up if and when slow neutron capture is demonstrated to be real. So, I get the Nobel Prize for that one. (:->)

  301. Roger Bird Says:

    Yeah, but I don’t have one in my basement to keep me warm. (:->)

  302. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    Thanks for the sub-Freudian psychobabble. I has made my day.

  303. jetmech Says:

    Roger

    whew
    Spock has his eyebrows raised on that rant roger bird!
    live long and prosper and have a nice day!

    or is it george hants?

  304. jetmech Says:

    Logic is a little tweeting bird

    remember that episode? (first star trek)

  305. jetmech Says:

    Spock: Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD. Are you sure your circuits are registering correctly? Your ears are green.

    I MUDD 1967

  306. Roger Bird Says:

    It is nice to label it psychobabble so as to defend yourself from discovering how phucked up you are.

  307. Roger Bird Says:

    bruce, have you ever considered that the work and knowledge of SPAWAR went black ops, that someone wanted desperately for the development to become invisible, hidden, a national security secret?

  308. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, my message is always the same. But I will make it clear for you. You are either moral slime, or you are deeply disturbed. Take your choice.

  309. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    That is the most curious comment to make in the course of a disagreement about the occurrence of nuclear reactions. I’m going to crack open my Freud psychology books and see what the source of your obsession may be.

    Let’s start. Were you ever frightened by a neutrino when you were a child?

  310. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, that was actually funny.

  311. jetmech Says:

    i am sure if i went to nyteknik and i was looking for some serious weed
    Mats Lewan would be the guy!

    Mats Lewan i am looking forward to your probing in depth reporting on this Defkalion tests.
    I am sure you know who performed these tests and why they were performed!
    Quit holding back!
    You are a breed of journalist who goes after the facts no matter where they lead!
    Your Indefatigable style of going after the facts using all your journalistic skills is phenomanal!
    And your concise non vague answers always hit the point!
    As Mr Peter Gluck pointed out “the DGT people are serious professionals” to which your stunning
    non answer attests to your unswerving diligence in journalistic
    probing of these important questions!

    sorry people there is no answers yet

    maybe one day!

  312. jetmech Says:

    Sorry Mat Lewans i do not think you could sort crabgrass from any other weed!

    /-

  313. jetmech Says:

    from the Tim channel
    I am just repeating this these are not my words
    nor am i associated with the Tim Channel

    Another day in the never-ending E-cat charade. Since my last post, Defkalion is asserted (by the same set of shady sources) to have “tested” their “new and improved” E-cat. One is left to speculate on the ease of improving upon a fantasy device, but let’s play along anyway.

    The obvious question is, “How did the tests go?”. According to (always unverifiable-duh) reports, the Defkalion tests were SAFETY tests and not meant to prove/test output power or efficiency. I am quite sure the big pile of junk they are trying to pass off as a fusion device is safe unless it falls on you (or you stub your toe on the unit by accident). So from where I am sitting, it looks to be just another in the long line of ECat stalling techniques, sure to keep the hopeless rubes excited but never really addressing whether the fantasy device actually functions.

    Hold the presses. Looks like the initial reports on tests for safety are now being rewritten (because how do you test the safety of a non functional product!?). Here is the bit of PR fluff designed to patch over the earlier safety announcement test:

    Mr. Lewan is reporting the test was conducted on February 24th and that it was not focused on safety because the product is not ready yet for such tests.

    I love this next bit of misdirection:

    To complicate things, the tests are being performed on bare reactors without cooling – the same reactors that are part of the Defkalion heating product called Hyperion.

    “To complicate things…”, as if that wasn’t part of the entire E-cat ruse…LOL. I have to admit it is hard to add sarcasm to such blatant bogusness, specially the part about running the “reactor” without coolant. I guess this was the China Syndrome simulation? So we are left with news of an E-cat test that measured absolutely NOTHING. That is a smashing success in the world of ECat circle jerkers.

    To engender even more respectability (not) into the mix, Defkalion has reportedly shut down their company blog forum. Of course it is too much trouble managing a (scam) forum when you have the real work of fooling people to contend with. To add even more “respectability” to the effort, Defkalion tosses in “throw away” info on the ever-present (and always mute) mysterious government officials on hand to witness their “tests”.

    As to my poll on why the tests would fail? I didn’t see the “safety test” misdirection coming, but isn’t it telling that we’re suppose to worry about the safety of a device that hasn’t yet even been shown to function?! I expect the next “test” will be on the durability of the E-cat (the paint on the exterior of the unit but not the unit itself). Anything to keep from having to prove the dam thing actually works.

    For grins and chuckles, I offer the following “news” taken from the myriad E-cat blogs. Suffice to say that the comments section of many of these latter day MySpace Ecat blogs is even more incredulous:

    The Greek government has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement in the test, but it is most probably informed. (my emphasis)

    No specific details or results have been released. For the Greek government’s position they neither confirmed nor denied its involvement in the test, but it most probably took place. (my emphasis)

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Someone more sceptical than Craig? Surely this can’t be… Craig, you’d better pull your socks up a bit!

      Again, TimChannel hasn’t noticed that the Defkalion forum is in fact still on the net and people are still adding to it as of right now.

  314. jetmech Says:

    It is over my friends Rossi Ecat/Defkalion are in full scam zero mode

    Rossi has now said no devices until 2013 IF I HAVE READ CORRECTLY
    PLEASE CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG

    SCAM ZERO means no devices UNTIL some date in the future
    keep investing

    someday a device will be produced!

    Give it up!

    UNLESS YOU HAVE MORE INFORMATION OR PROMISES
    OF DELIVERY BEFORE 2013

    PLEASE SAY THIS AINT SO!!!

    I would love to have Rossi be right

  315. jetmech Says:

    please correct me
    i am in doubt!

    • brucefast Says:

      The problem Jetmech, is that you are looking in the wrong place.
      If you check out Replicators, you will see that neither Rossi nor Defkalion are A listed. The people who are A listed are mostly a bunch of scientists who have formally published their work in peer reviewed journals.

      Please feel corrected.

  316. Roger Bird Says:

    I am still stuck with the problem of Rossi working so hard and all of those scientists and skeptics who were impressed with the machine and a bunch of other problems. I don’t think that it is over. The Internet chatter and flurry may be over.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Yep, you’ve got to hand the Brass Balls Award to someone who invites the head of the Swedish Skeptics Society and other top scientists to a demo if he intended to fudge the results. You don’t do that sort of thing if you have any doubts. So either he thought that he could fool them (and did so) or he just showed them what he had, believing it worked as he said (and it did). Somehow the second choice still seems more likely.

    • brucefast Says:

      Yes, Simon, yes.

      Factor into that the fact that LENR, specifically Ni + Hydrogen LENR is clearly a phenomenon. When we begin from that point, and factor in the belief that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, we see that a better Ni + H reactor isn’t all that extraordinary.

      The next thing to factor in is the fact that Rossi is giving me no opportunity to give him money*. He doesn’t even have a donate button like Stirling Allen has. If “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then extraordinary requirements require extraordinary evidence”. As Rossi makes no requirement of me, then again the level of evidence that should be convincing should be lower. As it is, if Rossi asked me to pay $600 now to purchase an upcoming home heater, I would not pay. Such would raise the threshold of required evidence.

      * Craig Binns has stated loudly, and probably correctly, that Rossi has taken money from some. However, I know of no one who has given him money that hasn’t had a chance to see, touch, experience the device first. They all seem convinced to their own satisfaction. I also have seen no evidence that Rossi has taken anything but, well, risk money, from anyone.

  317. Roger Bird Says:

    jetmech, we are all in doubt. We have all been in doubt from the beginning. Being hopefully optimistic is not the same as believing. It is OK to be in doubt. Let us find something else to get excited about and keep checking back occasionally to see what happens.

  318. Roger Bird Says:

    I tried again and could not get in to Defkalion.

  319. Craig Binns Says:

    Have a look at this, which has come out in the last couple of days

    http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/03/rossi-answers-detailed-questions-about-domestic-e-cat/ “One of the big questions that people are now asking is whether it will be worth it to make an expenditure for one of these early devices. Rossi has always guaranteed that these E-Cats will put out 6 times more thermal power than the electric heat required to run them, but even with that kind of COP, you have to take into account the cost of electricity and the machine(s) itself if you are trying to figure out if it makes sense to make a purchase.”

    So this is the contraption that’s going to green the deserts and abolish hunger and poverty!

    Help! A new scam legend, more exaggerated promises, and plausible causes of further delay are required, and urgently! No sooner said than done.

    http://www.e-catworld.com/ “Up until this point, the largest E-Cat plant has been a 1 MW thermal unit. Now Rossi is talking about making something fifty times as large (he says 15 MW of electric power which at 30 per cent efficiency would require 50 MW of thermal power) with the intention of making a closed-loop self sustaining plant which will create enough excess electricity to drive itself. This kind of system would achieve the holy grail of energy production that many inventors and engineers have been striving for over the centuries — and which conventional science has said would be impossible.”

    A 50 MW holy grail. That’s the only kind of e-cat you could ever unplug. By the way, I don’t have evidence that Rossi is responsible for the preposterous and moronic suggestion that such a device is a perpetual motion machine, and I hope he’s not. But ah, the precious delay, obfuscation and misdirection. As a swindler, the Petroldragon is a pure genius.

    What about the innocent believers who deluded themselves into thinking that they would – oh so soon! be zooming about in e-cat propelled vehicles? Free standing mini e-cats. 2011? No way. Well 2012, then? No chance.

    But they will continue to believe, and to denounce pathosceptics and other imaginary demons.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – I pointed out a while back that Rossi’s device, with a COP of 6, currently is only just competitive with Natural Gas in a country where gas is cheap and electricity is expensive (like Italy, for example). Defkalion’s device may well be a better deal for most people even though it is likely to be more expensive to buy.
      That’s assuming they both work, of course.

      Adding a generator of some sort so that it doesn’t need power from the wall at all except maybe in start-up is a very logical progression, though it does seem that in both types far more heat would be produced that most people could use whilst generating enough electricity for their non-heat needs.

      Given the current state of electricity generation efficiencies, this is really pie-in-the-sky for now. There is research in this area if you look, just nothing that looks like being within a few years (but I will be happy to be surprised).

      Don’t write off 2012 yet, though. Defkalion and Rossi are not the only people playing with this, just the most obvious.

  320. Craig Binns Says:

    Simon, All that’s as may be, but your sober words stand in stark contrast to the desert-greening fantasies indulged in by the earlier contributors to sites such as this. From changing the planet they retreat to looking at the gas meter under the stairs and making calculations on the back of an envelope. This is of course ludicrous, but vastly more absurd even than that is the fact that the believers keep modifying the things they believe, without admitting the fact, and seem to forget what it was they were believing half a year ago: or in Roger’s case – five minutes ago!

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, your mind is numb.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – look a bit further into the future. Bruce pointed out how cars were when they started. Things now develop at a much faster pace than then. So first accept that some form of cheap, safe nuclear power is actually available now. OK, it’s not particularly powerful, nor that useful at this moment. Most scientists seem to believe that it’s not worth bothering about. That changes once someone starts selling them. Suddenly there will be a rush to investigate it publicly rather than privately. People will build them cheaper, more powerful, smaller, tidier and in various colours to match your décor.

      As with most prognostications of the future, the start-point is as yet unknown. It will most likely start to boom in the next 2-3 years, but I can’t be sure on this. I am sure, however, that once it is accepted as something real and profitable, then a lot of people will invest in making them, and then in making them better. Put enough good people working at it, you get answers a lot quicker.

  321. Roger Bird Says:

    I would also like to point out that if Rossi were a scam artists, he again doesn’t show much artistry by saying that his machine has a COP of only 6. Why is it that sometimes the debunkers say that Rossi is this brilliant scam artist and other times he does such profoundly stupid things as to claim that he has a COP of only 6.

    • alaincoe Says:

      this COP6 is more compatible by hope but lack of reliability or self-assurance.

      maybe also he have a weaker technology compared to DGT.
      I’ve noticed that he use lower pressure of H2 than DGT…
      maybe it is why the temperature is lower and the COP too…
      Catalyst and RFG use seems different too.

      Rossi seems more to be the kind to tell what he hope as an observed fact, before the test, and hide the problems…

  322. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, you believe that we should all follow the evidence. Our optimistic hopes are also following soft social evidence that you are completely blind to. This is why our behavior seems so confusing. (1) we have feelings and hopes, which you don’t. (2) we have a keen eye on social evidence, when you seem to be social blind.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – are you sure you mean me? My reading of the evidence says that Rossi will probably be late delivering, but I think he will deliver what he says – sometime. I also think he doesn’t understand fully how it works yet, and needs a lot more scientists helping him rather than just tell him it can’t work. That’s one need that looks like not being satisfied. Maybe after he’s started selling them (and when they do work pretty well as stated) there’ll be a rush of scientific investigation. That isn’t going to get us a working machine earlier than Rossi or Defkalion can do it, but it will, a few years later, bring the costs down.

  323. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger, “I would also like to point out that if Rossi were a scam artists, he again doesn’t show much artistry by saying that his machine has a COP of only 6.”

    Wrong. Minimalism in “artistry” is often the best mode of aesthetic expression. When the visible material available to the artist consists of a mere few whiffs of steam, he makes modest claims.

    It’s like a delicate watercolour, not a giant statue.

    On the other hand, the 50 MW behemoths can be described as COP anything Rossi likes, ‘cos the scientists ain’t never gonna get to “poke and prod” at stuff like that.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – you’re back to being somewhat negative again. Rossi started off claiming much higher COPs. Every other scam I’ve seen increases their claims, Rossi decreases his. Recently Krivit put up his interview with Petterson, where Krivit’s analysis of the interview and the words he reported of the interview are so totally antagonistic it is quite funny. You may well have read it. Petterson’s final quoted comment was basically “it still works”. He considers the output sufficient to outweigh the lousy measurements. What Krivit intended as one more cut at Rossi ends up as being actually a more convincing argument that he really has something that works pretty much as described.

      I can’t see Rossi building a 50MW machine anytime soon, though. That really is a lot of 10kW units – he does not seem to have solved the scale-up yet (another telling point – if it was truly a scam he would claim a 1MW or higher single unit) or started his automated production, so they are currently all hand-built.

      So – the evidence is that Rossi truly believes he has the goods. Petterson says that Rossi is sloppy but has the goods. You may tentatively start to accept that in the future (sometime) those goods will be delivered to the waiting public. Just maybe not this year, not that high a probability for 2013.

  324. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, I guess you are just braver than I am. I (and everyone else at nickelpower who is optimistically hopeful) am not committing to either true or false, real or scam. You have committed yourself to false/scam, and you have to wait upon history. If you are wrong, you are going to look so stupid.

  325. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, I am positive that I meant Craig. Sorry about that. (:->)

  326. jetmech Says:

    Chairman Swedish skeptic society? you say? Not anymore.

    From Martin Rundkvist NEW pres
    Hello!

    I replaced Professor Essén as chairman of the Swedish Skeptics last
    spring. He is still on the executive board. When he looked at the Ecat
    device, he did so in his capacity as professor of physics at the Royal
    Institute of Technology. The Swedish Skeptics have not launched any
    investigation of Rossi’s device or made any statement on the matter.

    Best wishes,

    MR

    • brucefast Says:

      Actually, if my understanding is correct, Essén’s stint as the chairman of the skeptic society ended shortly before he first observed Rossi’s technology.

      The day he did, of course, he became dumb as an ox. Had he been the chairman of the society at the time, his findings would have been brilliant and profound.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Jetmech – wouldn’t you agree that having been Chairman of the Swedish Skeptics society (at any time) is somewhat of a statement of that person’s abilities and scepticism? Also being Professor Of Physics at the Royal Institute of Technology has to be pretty impressive. If I was running a scam, people of this calibre are certainly not the people I’d want to do any investigation at all. I certainly would not invite them. Rossi did.

  327. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, you are amazing. I have never met a person who was such an excellent head case who had such good social skills and a good heart. How did you get this way? You are one in a million.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – You’ve never met me, either…. I always find my social skills (talking) somewhat lacking, especially in working out whether someone is lying to me. I take refuge in looking at technical stuff, where I can at least rely on the instruments to tell me the truth.
      Still, it’s nice to get compliments :>)

  328. Roger Bird Says:

    I don’t know if it helps any, Simon, but I have a total commitment of body, mind, and soul to a much higher calling than e-cats and giving Craig a hard time. That calling compels me to practice absolute honesty. This does not include going out of my way to hurt other people. So, Simon, you can trust me.

    You describe yourself as a typical geek. [Where do you live? I thought I read somewhere that you live in France.]. But you certainly don’t sound like a geek. You have such a wonderful way of gently explaining in the most reasonable way your most reasonable of positions, when others of us, especially me, just blast viewpoints that we find unreasonable. Or way of explaining will convert more people than my way, which will probably just alienate others.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – Yes, I’m in the South-West of France. Normally better weather than the UK, though recently not as reliably. Starting as a physicist, I got a job in computers. Operator, programmer, sysprog, engineer – pretty well the gamut. Other jobs were Failure Analysis and electronics designer. In industry being reasonable is really necessary, and also I found that in order to fix a problem you had to first admit that there was one. That is really very important. I had a lot of practice persuading people to accept that there was a problem, after which it was much easier to fix it.

      This blog has a lot of reasonable people in it. Most discussion sites are full of flames – not worth reading. Even when you are being a bit irascible with Craig, it’s still got some good humour in it, and Craig also has fun, I think. He splits some fine philosophical hairs at times. The regulars all bring a different viewpoint and experiences.

      The issue itself is important. Most of us are powerless to do anything about what will actually happen. Thinking about what is happening and will happen when this technology actually arrives will, however, be useful to us all. We’ll be that bit more prepared. As regards the various demos, picking the bones is a group effort and different people catch different impressions. Add it all together and we all know a bit more than we would separately. There’s no point in flaming someone you’ll never probably meet, and a lot of people on blogs like these hide their names, so why not be reasonable? Swear at the cat instead – you may get a bit more of a reaction.

      30 minutes later, I finish what I wanted to write. I’m a bit slow at talking, too, and need a long enough gap to get all the words out.

  329. jetmech Says:

    Best wishes MR
    Warm Regards AR
    Perhaps if you look hard enough you can find what you want to find!
    NO scientist has said anything else than “if what Rossi says is true then…….”
    I have a feeling that it is not over yet!

    I digress. When either Rossi/DGT or Miley or Black LIght Power actually produce a device the dominions of hell itself will be frozen over and only the 1 terrawatt to the 100th power Ecat/Hyperion will be able to thaw it!
    So when hell freezes over MAYBE the ECAt/DGT/BLACKLIGHT POWER devices will be able to save us!

    But in the end who knows?
    Let us all agree that by the end of this year
    when Rossi/DGT?Blacklight Power (MIley Too)
    have produced NO workable Devices – We all agree it is over!

    as for you guys simon and roger bird lets sing

    Cheer up, Sleepy Jean.
    Oh, what can it mean.
    To a daydream believer
    And a homecoming queen.

    You once thought of me
    As a white knight on a steed.
    Now you know how happy I can be.
    Oh, and our good times start and end
    Without dollar one to spend.
    But how much, baby, do we really need

    You guys go!
    Keep dreaming!
    Im Gonna have a Rossi Heater if it exists!

  330. jetmech Says:

    Moment of silence for Davy Jones!

  331. jetmech Says:

    Once you have bought into a lie whether it is Rush Limbaugh or faux news you know it is a lie.
    However you now can not back out.
    because if you do you will have to admit to yourself YOU BOUGHT INTO A LIE!
    You were tricked!
    Your EGO will not let you!
    So you have to make more and more grandiose arguments
    about how you believe shawn hannity, glenn beck, rupert murdoch Bill Orielly are right!
    What is this about human nature?
    You make the same grandiose arguments about the ECAT?
    Rossi is lieing – to protect his tech – krivit does not like rossi – rossi lies – but only to protect his tech? Rossi lies but only to misdirect?
    Never once do you waver
    once you have bought into a lie!
    And you know its a lie
    (STEORN was right)
    Cmon Rossi says nothing till 2013
    DGT will not publish any INDEPENDANT tests!
    When will you give up?

    • brucefast Says:

      jetmech “Once you have bought into a lie whether it is Rush Limbaugh or faux news you know it is a lie.”

      That is an odd assumption. I have not found it to be true. Either you or I have bought into a lie re: cold fusion. I certainly don’t know that what I have bought into is a lie. According to your logic, then, you must know that your position is a lie. Maybe you do.

  332. Roger Bird Says:

    When the dust settles, the only thing that will matter is how we treated other people.

  333. Roger Bird Says:

    jetmech, you make the same mistake that Craig Binns makes. You mistake hopeful optimism for belief. I do not believe Rossi or Defkalion. I think that EVERY person here at nickelpower agrees with me. Simon, Bruce, Iggy, myself, et. al. are optimistically hopeful, but we know that Rossi/Defkalion have not proven their case. We have all looked at social or soft evidence and believe that we have room to be hopeful, but NO ONE thinks that they have proven their case. We await proof, just as you do, or else you wouldn’t be here criticizing us for something that we have made crystal clear numerous times that we are not doing. We are not true believers. You are a true disbeliever, which is the same thing as a true believer. You believe something that has not yet been proven.

    So you have sort of a straw man that you can feel superior to, but know that you are feeling superior to a fantasy. It is not our problem that you are so dead inside that you cannot have hopeful optimism or cannot follow the soft/social evidence.

  334. Roger Bird Says:

    I will agree with jetmech that anytime you have any kind of an investment in something, whether that investment is ego, energy, infatuation, money, prestige, etc. etc. etc, it is difficult to extricate one’s self from that something. Watch how the famous global warming advocates cling to their position no matter how freaking cold it gets. This is one good reason why you can’t get authority types to recognize advances. I am thinking of coconut oil, which is a “new” discovery (new for us); prestigious dietary people just can’t give up their position that all saturated fats are bad, despite the overwhelming evidence.

    The mistake that jetmech is making is believing that us nickelpower LENR hopeful people are certain that Rossi/Defkalion have a lock on a working, commercializable LENR-on-steroid. Although I am very hopeful, I think that both Rossi and Defkalion are having some kind of serious problems that make commercialization currently impossible.

    • jetmech Says:

      You have just made my point! You obviously can not extricate YOURSELF from global warming! How freaking cold it gets on a GLOBAL SCALE (RUSH LIMBAUGH) over time? So we have established you are are FAUX NEWS listener? So a cigar smoking drug addict is right? Even critics like Michael Shermer have reversed their positions and YOU still listen to FAUX NEWS LIES?
      How many people inhabit our planet? How about 6,840,507,003?
      ALL Burning stuff to stay warm (NOW) and destroying forests to plant crops!? And you want to stay safe and cozy while listening to Rupert Murdochs minions on FAUX NEWS?
      I can not believe it! YES I CAN!
      LOOK MAN SOONER OR LATER THE TRUTH IS GONNA BE IN YOUR FACE!
      Yeah that cigar smoking drug addict (rush limp dick) is right on!

      • brucefast Says:

        Note to Jetmech and Roger Bird,

        Jetmech, your prose is entertaining.

        Your logic approach seems to me to be “proof by insult”, however. For the thinking man, its not very effective.

        It reminds me of a time that I got into a conversation with a young teen girl. She rattled off a couple of cute slogans to make a point. I suggested to her that she must be right because what she said “rhymed”. She thought that reasoning to be interesting. I later suggested some obvious falsehood to her. She responded by saying “no way”. “Why not?” I asked. “because it doesn’t rhyme.”

        I remember talking with a fellow of limited mental capacity. He was discussing cars, and claiming that Fords were no good. “Why?” I asked. Because Ford stands for “Found on road dead”. Proof positive!

        Jetmech, oh, and Roger Bird too, to impress me/us you will need to use data and logic rather than merely insulting twists to make your case. Oh, and both of you, please try to maintain some semblance of staying on the topic of this site.

  335. Craig Binns Says:

    Simon, lets look again at your March 6, 10:42 am post.

    “Craig – you’re back to being somewhat negative again. Rossi started off claiming much higher COPs. Every other scam I’ve seen increases their claims, Rossi decreases his.”

    You are permitting yourself to be deceived. Rossi has now deferred and deprecated his own first model of the e-cat. He has turned to touting more and more powerful “future” e-cats, which he hints might be worth buying. The world shaking significance of the first models has disappeared, and maybe gas cylinders would be more appropriate for the average outback sheep herder’s household after all. The green deserts can wait, for the moment. But oh! the wonders to come, with the next model …

    This is a variant of a well-known swindler’s trick called “bait and switch”. He’s using it to achieve delay, while stringing along his infatuated believers with increasingly exaggerated promises for the future. So, Simon, he IS “increasing” his claims: 10 kW, 1 MW, 50 MW, (and at the same time postponing delivery of the sexy stuff). But, you say, he’s not increasing his COP claims. I say, oh yes he is! They’re now as big as can be! Here’s from e-cat world. Sorry for the resulting length of this post.

    “A reader of Rossi’s JONP blog this week made point that I am sure many E-Cat observers would agree with:

    “Since e-cat requires electric power, which is very expensive in some countries (expecially here in Italy) it’s crucial to get also the electric power production as soon as possible. The first generation will enable substantial savings but only the second generation will trigger off the revolution.

    Rossi responded:

    I agree, also because the production of electricity will make the COP infinite, if we consider that in a system of E-Cats one makes the power to drive the others.

    “Those who purchase the first edition of home E-Cats will have to determine whether the cost outlay will be worthwhile. While heat is very valuable for many households — indeed essential for basic survival in many parts of the world — for some the heat-only E-Cat may not be cost effective solution compared to other sources of heat that are available, especially where the cost of electricity, which is needed to run the E-Cat, is high. However if electricity generation became available with home units, and especially if some kind of closed loop system, with an “infinite” COP were available, there would of course be a tremendous amount of interest. The idea of producing cheap and abundant power at home is one of the most appealing aspects of any LENR technology.” http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/03/rossi-eyes-15-mw-plant-in-pursuit-of-self-sustaining-e-cat/

    Roger, you can burn coconut oil too. Cook stoves that use it have been designed for places like the Philippines where it is abundant, to cut the use of charcoal and save trees. A lot more efficient that a Rossi e-cat, I have no doubt. Also, these stoves have a useful property not possessed by any e-cat: they EXIST!!

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, I know its pointless to take you seriously. However my economic calculations of Rossi’s model 1 e-cat are pretty attractive. I heat my house with oil, at about $1200 per winter. To heat with electricity would cost about the same. If I could heat with 1/6 the electricity my winter’s heating bill would be $200 for a one season savings of $1000. Why would I be unwilling to put out $600 or $800 for a model 1 e-cat? Just because you can find one situation where the model 1 is ineffective, doesn’t prove it useless.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Brucefast, read my posts again. The first (poked and prodded, desert-greening, snowmobile-propelling, world-changing, biggest-thing-since-sliced-bread) e-cats are now being downgraded by Rossi as mere assets that might or might not save you a few cents, and that the revolution will come not with them (as originally implied) but with the (so far unpoked and unprodded) next batch. You’re allowing yourself to be deceived, for sure.

        By the way, what do you make of Rossi’s statement as quoted in my last post?

        “the production of electricity will make the COP infinite, if we consider that in a system of E-Cats one makes the power to drive the others.”

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – Rossi has decreased his claims over the last year or two – the generator fed back to drive the system (thus COP infinite) is such an obvious next development (that defines a power-station, nuclear, gas, oil or coal, after all) that any engineer would do it. Ditto the cost/benefit analysis – for Bruce it is a no-brainer as he gets pay-back in less than a year. For Jonathan there’s no pay-back ever. For me maybe 10 years. These are obvious and trivial maths problems, and should not be disputed.

      This diverts attention from the main question of whether it actually works and whether we can buy one that works. If the answer to both is “yes” at some time in the future, then the further developments (infinite COP) must be expected, but if “no” to either then we’ll have to wait on another technology to get us out of the looming energy crisis. I don’t see hot fusion giving us the “yes” answer in much less than 20 years (and probably much longer). Thorium fission is now being properly developed, I think, and so this may be one answer for Big Power, but will not deliver the very cheap power that Ni/H LENR currently hints at. I would not expect any major roll-out of this under 10 years if not a lot longer.

      So, back to basics: your position is that Rossi is lying and performing a giant hoax, whereas mine is that he at least (and a few other scientists, too) believes it works and it is quite possible that he is correct. You expect total failure, whereas I expect that sometime in the next few years we’ll be able to buy this miracle of home power from somebody.

      Which of us is happier?

  336. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, you made me LOL.

    The point of the coconut oil reference was how people cling to their obsolete beliefs.

    And coconut oil should be drank, early in the morning, instead of coffee. But I guess one could burn it.

  337. Roger Bird Says:

    brucefast, think of anorexia nervosa or hoarding or any of a number of other walking psychoses. Craig Binns and other patho-skeptics and patho-believers are obsessive/compulsive about certainty. The patho-skeptics and patho-believers cannot stand uncertainty. So, like you said, there is no point in trying to reason with them.

  338. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, the question is not which of us is happier. Craig Binns will say that just because a theory makes a person happy is not a good reason to believe the theory. The issue is that Craig’s inner unhappiness/anxiety compels him to be a disbeliever/believer. He thinks that he is avoiding the pitfall of unwarranted belief that is based upon wishes; but in fact he is avoiding uncertainty based upon anxiety or an obsessive/compulsive need to be certain.

    He thinks that we are fools for believing when in fact we are courageous for remaining uncertain until we have proof one way or the other.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – here I disagree. The question of happiness is central, and important. Happy people enjoy life more and I recall reading studies that said they live longer – that packs even more happy hours into their life. If Craig is happiest not believing his life will become better, then that is his optimum course. He has, however, stated that he would be happy if the Rossi/Defkalion/LENR devices actually proved to be true, and I believe him on this. He’s therefore comparing the happiness if it does work (and he doesn’t believe it) to the unhappiness if it doesn’t (and he did believe it), and rating the second choice as the worst bet based on his knowledge of the science and of the people involved. Our cautious optimism is our best choice – also based on an understanding of the science, the way start-ups work and the sociological clues. There are also “true believers” who blindly swallow all the good news and ignore the technological problems and delays involved in bringing such a thing to market – luckily we don’t see any of those on this blog. Craig may have helped bring some of them to a more realistic view, and thus stopped them being disappointed so often – thus probably he has made those people happier.

    • brucefast Says:

      If I get Craig right, I think he’s trying to save us all from future disappointment, ie future unhappiness. Being blissfully unaware is not the best way to be happy.

    • Craig Binns Says:

      Roger, I see Brucefast hasn’t yet been too successful in broadening your psychological vocabulary. Still banging away at a few simple themes, alas.

  339. Roger Bird Says:

    I am crazy about curry and we use coconut oil to make our curry. But I go crazy with irritability when I eat curry and lose sleep because I am so hyper. It has to do with a pitta imbalance.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Maybe eat curry for breakfast? If you can’t sleep after it, then change the time you eat it to get the benefit of it. Put the pittas on the other side of the table to balance it perfectly….

  340. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, I do that. I eat stimulating foods early, but curry is mostly a family affair, and they like to eat it in the afternoon. And resisting curry would be like resisting a night with Kim Kardashian. (:->) I figure if I knock myself out to eat calming foods all week long, then I can endure the stimulating foods. Unfortunately, that is only partially true. (:->)

  341. Roger Bird Says:

    I am going to change the subject.

    It is a certainty-phile thingie to believe that the world is absolutely black or white, true or false, right or wrong, without areas of gray and even color.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      “You go blue with cold, green with envy, red with shame, yellow with fear, white with anger and you call ME coloured?”

      Lots of variations in this world. Aristotle knew this.

  342. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Curry powder is a mixture of spices usually including turmeric.

    Populations that eat a lot of turmeric experience very little Alzheimer’s Disease.

    Coconut oil (especially its concentrate, MCT oil) also ameliorates Alzheimer’s Disease.

  343. Roger Bird Says:

    Well, he is certainly reminding us that this could be bogus.

    There is also many things between bogus and a complete winner. I figure that that is what will happen. It could be years before they figure out how to stabilize the reaction, etc.

  344. Roger Bird Says:

    Actually, I brought this up because patho-skeptics tend to see the world in binary terms, true or false, on or off, black or white, etc.

  345. Roger Bird Says:

    Turmeric is also very pitta enhancing. You won’t like me when I am pitta imbalanced. (:->) But the coconut is sooo cool. I can feel the difference when I eat it.

  346. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, I laugh again. If this keeps up we are going to need a chaperone.

    Craig, I sincerely appreciate your inner strength to not be upset and take things personally, like when I say really mean things at you.

    There should be only two rules: (1) Do not annoy [annoy in the most general way] other people. (2) Do not be annoyed easily by other people.

  347. Roger Bird Says:

    We eat way too much carbs. Alzheimers has been likened to diabetes of the brain. Coconut oil uses an alternate pathway to energy usage. I felt an instantaneous improvement in inflammation, power, and many other things. Make sure that she takes it in the morning, or it could disturb sleep. And start out slow with like a tablespoonful or even less in the morning.

  348. Craig Binns Says:

    Here’s a list of free energy “scam symptoms”, at the Free Energy Devices site, under “How can we tell a free energy scam from an honest FE researcher? Here are some symptoms of a scam:” http://amasci.com/freenrg/fnrg.html . 

    Have a look and see how many of these symptoms Rossi exhibits. Many, if not ALL of them. 

    Roger, I just love this bit: ‘You risk being labeled as a “Scoffer” or “Government Spy.” … if you dare to look for their flaws, or dare insist on clear and simple evidence, and if you refuse to jump on the scammer’s bandwagon, you’ll be attacked by the scammer and his supporters. They’ll try to apply labels to you: “untrusting,” or “Nasty Skeptic,” or “CIA infiltrator.” … If you see this ploy in use, then you’re certainly dealing with a seasoned expert in con-artist tactics.’

    Brucefast, On the “post” thread you say “The advantage that the Cyclone has is that the company is public, so easy to invest in. The first problem with the cyclone is that they have no product ‘for sale'”. 

    Companies without products for sale are usually very “easy to invest in”. That’s never a problem. The problem is always getting back out more than you put in. Having nothing to sell, on the other hand, is a BIG problem for a public company. Investors discovered that back in 1720 during the South Sea Bubble, and the lesson has been hammered home myriads of times over these last three centuries.

  349. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, thank you for the information. However, I have never seen Rossi or Defkalion say that someone was any of those things. I have seen many times, many, many, many times, health food promoters do that. I learned decades ago that just because person or group XYZ is against something bad does not make XYZ good. [A corollary to that is just because a person is a victim does not make them good.] I have seen Rossi say that Defkalion and others are snakes and/or clowns, but that seemed more like business infighting than what you are describing.

    I have also seen that those health food people or companies who do that sort of scapegoating do not necessarily have a bad product. Again, however, the really best health food products don’t need that kind of advertisement. If a health food product is not really good, why bother? So the scapegoaters are just trying to compensate for a mediocre product.

  350. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    At least health food EXISTS; we get to see it, we know who’s buying it etc, so we can easily obtain evidence about it, and make informed judgements. That said, most of it is overpriced crap.

    My point, however, was the attacks on sceptics, suggestions that they are agents of malign powers etc. This seems to be common among Rossi supporters, ever since the Petroldragon days when our hero was laid low by a conspiratorial combination of the Italian government, the mafia and various other bogeymen … Or so they would have us believe.

    What’s with the health food, turmeric, coconut oil theme you’re on now? Is it a psychological thing? Has your disappointment with the Rossi fiasco manifested itself in the guise of a food obsession?

    It’s back to Sigmund for me, to investigate this phenomenon!

    • Bob Says:

      If your reading Sigmund to investigate anything your wasting your time. Yes, he was the father of Physiology, but he had most things wrong. He was a certifiable nut and his teachings are bad. IMHO

  351. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig, you have a sense of humor. This is good.

    I have not condemned Rossi to the depths of hell. And I notice that you say that it is his “followers” that claim that there are big conspiracies against him. I have not seen that. I have seen his “followers” say that there ***might*** be such conspiracies in the future. Which even that I find absurd.

    As far as my interest in food and health, there is nothing new about it. What is new is that real LENR news has gone dark, and we really don’t have much to chat about. Iggy is giving us lessons in language and such. I am trying to educate you head cases about food and health.

    I did say that these people who are saying that they are developing LENR into commercial products, if this is actually so, have their own interests which may not include wasting their time satisfying our curiosity and craving for certainty and news. A corollary to this idea would be that they would simply stop feeding us news, which they have.

  352. Roger Bird Says:

    I agree with that, Bob, about Fraud or Fruad or whatever his dumb-ass name was. But he was the illegitimate father of psychiatry, not physiology.

  353. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, I believe that Freud based his assumptions on the idea that sex is what keeps the species going, and since evolution was all the rage, then it must be very important. But, as you say, food would also be very important if evolution is important.

  354. jetmech Says:

    I think Rossi has another “Demo” up his sleeve. I base this on the fact that he has shown some swedish guy (Petterson?) the fact that
    now the Ecat has a push button switch (ties him back to National Instruments) Now Rossi has let slip information that Siemens is working with him on turbine technology to produce electricity!
    Rossi is going to demo a self powered Ecat that produces excess
    electricity! Which will be another “different” test but not just that!
    It will take this thing in a new direction that will buy Rossi more time!
    It would be a brilliant move! I think Rossi and his associates read these comments quite intently as evidenced by his varying demos
    each one designed to answer the major skeptics (i am NOT one of due to my failure to have a degree which works in Rossi’s favor but not a skeptics!) questions. Reasons for new demo 1.amount of believers is dropping 2.interest seems to be waning 3.interest in producing electricity is gaining.
    Again my prediction is this – Rossi will demo a self powered off the grid Ecat that runs a generator that produces excess electricity!
    No wires to measure who cares about excess heat!
    I predict he will use a chemical reaction this time which he has never used before!
    The skeptics have given him all the information on how to do so!
    (not me the smart skeptics)
    John W Keely will turn in his grave as Rossi will surpass him!

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely.htm

    However in my deepest soul i wish that Rossi actually could produce his claimed device. It would be the greatest day for mankind. I began this as pretty skeptical but began to be impressed
    with Rossi – then the amount of steam issue and the constantly varying demos plus the secret customer was too much.

    • Peter Thieberger Says:

      That person is Roland Pettersson, Senior Lecturer of Analytical Chemistry, Uppsala University. He together with others is or was involved in a “Chemonuclear Fusion” scheme:

      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2006/2006Ikegami-Ultradense-Nuclear-Fusion-ER2006-42W.pdf

      promoted by Kullander among others. After 2006 I haven’t heard any more news about that effort.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – It’s 109 pages, so I haven’t read it all yet. I assume you have. If this paper is true, then is it not reasonable to try cavitation in liquid Lithium as a way of fusion? Use a piezo driver to get ultrasonics inside the containment vessel. The piezo power would probably need to be pretty high, but the output heat should be quite impressive. Helium would be the result, if I read it right, so no remanent radioactivity and the process radiation is easily shielded.

        If this process (basically hot fusion) will work, it would be fairly quick and cheap to set up. I think Lithium has no shortage even if it were burnt as a nuclear fuel. Calorimetry for the test would be a bit harder because of the temperature of running, but not excessively so. This type of reactor would probably never be released for use in the home or transport, but nevertheless if it does work then it would be understandable and very quick to implementation.

        It would be interesting to get a hot fusion result before the LENR practitioners are in the market. What do you think?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        A note for people other than Peter – Lithium is very reactive, and so is dangerous on its own. You wouldn’t want to handle it outside a properly-equipped laboratory. Add to that that the Lithium is molten at at least 454K (181°C) and is giving off alpha particles and outgassing with Helium, and you wouldn’t really want to have anybody unqualified dealing with it.

        Having said this, quite a small reactor with a few grams of Lithium could be envisaged. Start-up time could be of the order of minutes (time to heat the Lithium to melting-point) after which you switch on the cavitation. It could be quite controllable, and if it was packaged well enough it might be fine for home use. You can buy bullets, after all.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Simon,I read most of it; enough to be doubtful of the results. Regarding your question about cavitation, I am not quite sure how to make the connection. What these people do is to shoot a high energy deuterium beam into a liquid lithium target and measure radiation. The beam energy is way below the Coulomb barrier of Li+d but not for d+d; and there will be deuterium accumulated in the lithium. They don’t ignore that problem, but I think they are misinterpreting the radiation they observe. It probably is from d+d and not from Li+d. Also the fact that we haven’t heard more news about this in six years isn’t a good sign. If something like this was real it would have taken off by now. This is totally different compared to our main topic. It is obviously well supported open and honest research. But it probably just didn’t pan out.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon, as Dr. Pettersson’s work has produced no published fruit for the last 6 years, it seems to me that its hardly a situation of “we’re almost there, we can beat Rossi and Defkalion to the punch.”

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter and Bruce – They were shooting Deuterium ions at molten Lithium, but there is also some information that two Lithium atoms may form a temporary quasi-Carbon atom under this bombardment. If it is true that this can happen, and the end result of this chain of reactions for 6Li and 7Li is basically Helium and heat (the thermal neutrons undergo capture thus make a side-chain), then cavitation may be a better way to make an Li-Li reaction work than shooting D ions that tend to form LiD complexes rather than an Li-D nuclear reaction.

        So, firstly I’m saying that Petterson was seeing a good result, but it wasn’t the one he was looking for so he ignored it. Secondly I’m saying that if a lump of melted Lithium is held in a fused alumina crucible under an atmosphere of Helium, and you insert a shaped fused alumina probe that is driven with ultrasound, then a Li – Li reaction could possibly be instigated when the cavitation bubbles collapse. We know from other cavitation work that the effective temperature can be extremely high in a collapsing bubble, and we also know that molten Lithium has a very high surface tension, thus bubbles will collapse especially rapidly and thus have even more available energy than seen using water.

        I’ll read this paper again and pull out the relevant parts. There is a lot of repetition in the multiple papers inside the .pdf and so the extract may only need a page or so.

        Please think further about this Peter – this is not an experiment I can run, and it needs a proper lab. I think this may be a viable method of hot fusion.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon,
        Please understand that I find the lithium findings intriguing. (I find it interesting that you think that Pettersson may have missed a phenomenon that is going on in his experiment.) It may prove to produce a great new reaction. However, I think your theory of beating production LENR is quite unlikely. I honestly believe that Rossi and Defkalion have the goods.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – if this works, it will work reliably. The physics is all known and understood. Jury-rigging a test should take a couple of weeks in a lab – first measurements shortly after that. Getting good measurements maybe within a month. Publishing maybe 6 months later – it’s often very slow. Getting to commercial, if a big company sees it and runs with it, could take a year or two, but if you went to Japan it would be commercial in about 6 months flat – they need it really badly. They would probably skip the publishing, thus saving time. So yes, it could beat the Ni-H we’ve been talking about. Peter is happy with hot-fusion theory, but is maybe a bit dubious about sonocavitation. I hope he sees the fusion of the two ideas as something feasible.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Simon, I am afraid you are a little too optimistic in this case. I wonder if you have read the Wikipedia article on “sono fusion”. That controversy went on for years and ruined carriers. And Li + Li is way more difficult than d + d because of the higher Coulomb barrier.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – I just re-read the Wiki entry. It only follows Taleyarkan, who does seem to have overstated his results somewhat. The underlying physics is interesting, though. Look at http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/AIAA5596_JPC07.pdf – this does show that the effective temperatures in a bubble are enough for hot fusion. Wiki does tend to ignore any positive results once it has decided that something has been the subject of fraud.

        If the Petterson paper is good physics, and NASA have also done good physics, then the Lithium fusion should work.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Simon, thank you for the link. In spite of the “star in a jar” logo, it seems to me that they don’t show evidence of any nuclear reactions. They just talk about the possibility and show evidence of light and perhaps some heat. I think this is mostly designed to justify funding without being dishonest. But they do walk a fine line. The scientific quality of NASA research covers a very wide range.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Peter – NASA have gone quiet on SL since that publication. I don’t know if they have continued or stopped their research. There’s a bit more on SL in microgravity, where it gets 20% brighter. If the calculation of 12million K is correct, then there should be more than enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. If we are using just molten Lithium, then the only atoms that can collide are Lithium – we’re not dealing with a mixed system where maybe the energy goes to a D2 molecule, maybe to H2O, maybe somewhere else. Therefore each bubble that collapses should have a good chance of initiating a reaction. It’s another way of using group energy at a single point.

        I’ll try to find some good examples of sonoluminescence tomorrow, but it may take longer. There are of course a lot of dubious reports as well – they don’t help. Generally I trust NASA, SPAWAR etc. to tell the truth. They have a lot to lose if they lie.

  355. Roger Bird Says:

    jetmech, you could be right.

    I have another theory. Let’s say that Rossi is for real. He might be suffering from the Babbage Syndrome. Babbage was this English dude 150 years or so ago who said that he could make a mechanical calculator. He did. But he just couldn’t leave it alone and say that enough was enough. He just had to keep adding functions. He never did deliver his mechanical calculating machine (I forget what he called it.) to the British government.

    But Rossi could be in a worse situation than Babbage. He can’t show us an unfinished product that reliably produces excess heat because he has to protect his industrial secrets. He has to have a finished product. Babbage did show a working model to the government but said that he was not finished.

    • brucefast Says:

      Roger, love it. I have not heard the “Babbage syndrome” bit or even that he didn’t deliver his mechanical calculator. Aand I did take a class in computer history.

      I remember working for a small company (two rich guys). They had connections into Pacific Bell, the east-most of the baby bells. The project was always 3 weeks away from getting done. I even have a letter that they wrote to the U.S. Department of Immigration stating the 3 week completion date. A year after the letter, I was still working for them, and the product was still 3 weeks from being done. At some point I gave up on them because I wanted to take a different path (thought their money was good). I handed the work off to a new guy who soon became a friend. Two years later I went to visit the new friend. He announced to me with glee that the project was 3 weeks from being done. I’m like, “Eric, that’s old news!”

      I did a quick google on “Babbage syndrome”, and it showed nothing. Babbage syndrome should become a recognized syndrome. The phenomenon certainly happens. I believe it was discussed earlier under the title of “not done yet”, but I like Babbage syndrome better.

      I think Rossi may very well have a bad case of Babbage syndrome.

  356. Roger Bird Says:

    jetmech, Did I mention that passion concerning one’s position is also a reason why people have trouble changing their minds.

    The first wave of people who opposed the idea of AGW were conservatives. They don’t like change; they are skeptical of change; they automatically don’t like anything that prominent liberals advocate; and they don’t like the fact that big government wants to get involved. The second wave, the wave that I am a part of, looked at the evidence, without passion, and remembered things like the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, which seemed to be missing from the hockey stick graph. Bending over backwards to make phenomena disappear is cheating; messaging data is cheating.

    From what I could see, the graphs of temperature and CO2 changes for the past 1 million years showed that either the warming happened before the CO2 increase, or it could not be determined which comes first. It was also obvious that we are over-due for an ice age.

    But I don’t expect you to change your mind because you have a great deal of passion invested in your position. You may say that of course you have passion invested in your position because the world is going to be destroyed if we don’t stop burning CO2. [Don't you think that plants love CO2. For them the current rise in CO2 is like a big festival.] What you don’t understand is that science works like this. The Phlogiston theory lasted for about 100 years and everyone based their science upon it. The consensus of scientists are constantly trying to catch up with the new and valid theories.

    The difference this time is that the public has gotten involved and all the hysterics are fretting about the end of the world. Hysterics like everyone to agree with them so that they can feel warm and all kum-baya. But I am still wondering what happened to the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. I am still wondering why the “climate scientists” would factor out the effect of water when water is trillions of times more plentiful than CO2. I am still wondering why H20 is so unimportant and what is so magical about CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

  357. Roger Bird Says:

    Bruce, recently I was falsely accused of something bad, so if I seem touchy, please forgive me. Could you please point out to me in which posting to jetmech I was rude? Could it perhaps be my frustration with Craig?

    • brucefast Says:

      Actually, I would think that I am mostly referring to the way you speak of some of your favorite hobby horses, like liberals, fraud (Freud) and AGW. That said, you can rip into Craig rather vehemently. Alas, I can too, he seems to do that to people.

  358. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig may be used to it. But it probably doesn’t help his problem for us to rip into him. He does seem to be thick-skinned. But is this because he has enormous inner strength or because he is numb?

    Craig, there really is such a thing called love. What I am talking about does not originate in one’s pelvis. Do you have a dog? They are absolutely fantastic if you want to love and be loved. My dogs are Tango and Dance. Dance is fat, and I think that all spayed dogs eventually become fat. We also think that she was abused as a puppy since she is utterly clueless about play. Tango is the sweetest puppyzilla in all of human history, and she loves to play. For her, play and affection are basically the same thing.

  359. Roger Bird Says:

    That was a pun, Simon: “I hope he sees the fusion of the two ideas as something feasible.”

    Have you directed Simon to the videos showing sonocavitation. I think that it is important to keep in mind that water is very viscous compared with what I imagine liquid lithium would be.

    Do you want me to keep quiet when you are discussing heavy science stuff?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – I think Peter has seen most of the stuff available. He’s been contributing here for a while. I can pull the ideas from various specialist subjects together, but I can’t go to the depth of a specialist.

      The problem with cavitating molten Lithium is that you can’t see the bubbles, so you need to either find other methods of seeing them or just increase the power until the reaction commences. This won’t be an experiment for an amateur. There are problems in getting the heat out of the Lithium but there should be a wide available range of temperature at which the reaction will happen.

      Since standard nuclear reactors are cooled with molten Sodium, the techniques for handling such fluids are in production. Using Lithium fusion, heat outputs from the kW range to multi-MW range could be produced.

      It’s probably worth writing this up and sending to Mitsubishi.

      Enjoy the odd eureka moments – they don’t come often. And no, no reason for you to keep quiet.

  360. brucefast Says:

    Simon,

    If I understand you correctly, you believe that in the cavitation process the shock waves produce microscopic hot spots that are “sun temperature”. If I understand you correctly, you believe that by using a cavitation process, microscopic spots of hot fusion could be achieved. Correct?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Bruce – yes, this is exactly what NASA say. Even in water, this effective temperature may be achieved. It’s a surprising and counter-intuitive finding, but seems to be true. I think that no-one has yet proved fusion to have occurred beyond doubt, but high temperature is measured by how much energy a molecule or atom has. Quote from NASA:
      “Calculations indicate that peak temperatures inside the SL
      bubbles may exceed 12 million K, that peak pressures may
      reach 100 million atmospheres, could initiate D-D fusion.”

      In most applications we try to avoid cavitation because it seriously destroys things. Sonocavitation or hydraulic cavitation in your lubrication oil or hydraulic oil breaks it down by burning it (known for a long time), so we try to avoid it.

      Given the concentrated energy involved, this should work. If it does, then it will work for anyone who tries it – the mechanism is understood and there are no secret sauces to concoct.

  361. Roger Bird Says:

    I am not a scientist, and I don’t even play one on television. But I think that the difference between the pitting from the heavy water sample and the pitting from the regular water sample should get any scientist’s attention.

  362. Roger Bird Says:

    If SL works, Bruce will have to rename his site “sonoluminencensepower”. Won’t that be awkward.

  363. Roger Bird Says:

    Peter, if they don’t show any fusion, why did the heavy water produce pits and the light water not produce pits.

  364. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Roger, I don’t know what causes the pits. It may indicate something interesting if they repeated it a few times with the same results. Normally the presence of nuclear reactions is verified by the presence of the emitted radiation.

  365. Roger Bird Says:

    And the fact that they didn’t mention that does not look good? Especially considering that they are going to have access to the best measuring devices on Planet Earth.

  366. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Roger, I don’t quite follow. What is it that looks good? If they observe neutrons or high energy gamma rays they will prove that there is some fusion. But that is a long way from producing useful power. For that they must get out more energy than it takes to make the bubbles.

    There is even the possibility of getting some fusion from unwinding Scotch tape:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/science/28xray.html?_r=1dy

    but nobody is suggesting that it would be a good idea to buy 3M stock for that reason.

    • brucefast Says:

      I had heard of the scotch tape x-ray thing, but not the nuclear fusion part. I heard it suggested that rolls of tape could be used to produce x-ray machines that didn’t require AC power — useful in 3rd world countries, etc.

  367. Roger Bird Says:

    I said that it doesn’t look good: “does not look good”.

  368. Craig Binns Says:

    Here’s something else that doesn’t look good: “does not look good”.

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20120309BRC-Report.pdf

    The snake bites again.

    • brucefast Says:

      It seems to me that Gary Wright is a vicious human being.

      If Rossi really is a scammer, fine enough, expose him. However, in Gary Wright’s letter he speaks of the hundreds of units that Rossi claims to have sold. However, I am one of the 100,000 of Rossi’s customers, having placed an order for an e-cat device. Though I am claimed by Rossi, he has not received a penny from me, nor has he offered me any way to give him any of my pennies.

      While it would appear that Rossi has accepted money from some, I know of no one who is not clearly a sophisticated investor capable of easily withstanding the risk of a new technology investment who he has taken money from. As such, protecting the general public from this vicious scammer is a bit thick by me.

      However, Gary Wright’s primary concern seems to be that Rossi is making a “nuclear device” which “breaks many laws”, and may endanger the public. While protecting the public from possible danger is an admirable goal, however Gary Wright’s concern seems more focused on breaking a law than on protecting the public.

      One must also recognize that Rossi claims to be in the process of getting UL approval for his device. While it is assumed that UL’s mission is to assure the safety of electricity, as that is their most visible role, note what UL says is their mission:

      UL is a global independent safety science company offering expertise across five key strategic businesses: Product Safety, Environment, Life & Health, Knowledge Services and Verification Services.

      http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/aboutul/

      Further, UL stands for “underwriter’s laboratories”. Their name clarifies that they work for underwriters — insurance companies.
      As such, it would appear that UL to verify that Rossi’s e-cat isn’t emitting dangerous radiation.

      As Rossi seems content to not sell any products without formal safety certification, it would seem that Gary Wright’s concern for public safety is solidly misplaced. As far as Rossi’s technology breaking some “nuclear device” law, well, it just might. If Rossi’s technology is prohibited from being sold to the first world because some archaic “nuclear device” law prohibits it, then the first world will be stuck with oil. However, the third world, the world that is not bound by archaic laws, will get hold of this technology, and be freed from oil. When the African continent, the South American continent, and most of Asia are freed from oil, and North America and Europe are still bound, then we will see the true cost of archaic law.

      In any case, let Rossi’s technology have its fair shot. If he’s defrauding people, well, at least wait until he defrauds eager beavers like myself — then arrest him. If he is working hard in his laboratory to get a safety certified device to market, cut him some slack. If the law bound Gary Wrights of this world stymie Rossi’s work, well they will only do so by proving that the thing really is a “nuclear device”. In so doing they will give the third world the last laugh.

      • alaincoe Says:

        I mainly believe it is hate and stupidity, not more.
        But this fact might be the trogger of a witch hunt againt LENR that in my opinion will happend through the collaboration of two converging interests.

        on one side the green malthusianist that will be furious of an energetic orgy without risk…
        they will do all to block that technology, and the irrational fear of radiation (and of atomic weapon, like this rumor of U hydride) is a good tool for that.

        they have already done that kind of manipulation in europe with GMO, chlorine, non-organic farming. it is a gree version of the classic FUD methodology (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt).

        on the other side the big energy corporation will not want to forbide that technology but to capture it.
        LENR does not allow easily capture, since the raw material is not rare, not expensive, and not needed in great quantity. un like oil you cannot take a key by corrupting/bombing few governments in strategic zones.
        It is not easy also for patent, since the key facts are publics today, and there are many possible implementation. so a patent will only protect a small optimization, note the whole principle.

        the only way to restrict it to big player is safety, and regulation. if the government impose nuclear style safety to LENR installation, there will never be LENR at home, and big corp could earn billions by selling energy at twice the price.

        thos corp will thus discretely support the green zealots, to create fear, and then propose their help to the governement.

        like today the help to green will be, absence of comment when they say pile of technical bullshit, and big funding of hundred of million $, as today for AGW, renewable, and so on…

        and that stupid guy start the buzz just to please his ego.

        Lord, forgive them , they don’t know what they are doing.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Bruce, Rossi is not defrauding you, he is just using you. Having a large customer base is important. Venture capitalists and risk investment companies operate following profit/risk ratio estimates. This particular potential profit is enormous, so the risk can be large too. They have failure rates around 90% but more than make up for that with the remaining 10%. They also have confidentiality rules mostly to avoid being embarrassed. I am sure you can see how that creates opportunities for scam artists.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Alain – a lot of good points.

        Peter – I assume that the people who are investing in Rossi are wise enough to see something working and verified before parting with their money. If not, then they need to be prepared to lose it. Since pretty well everything that Rossi says shouts “scam” then I would hope that they have been extra-careful. I do not understand the big-money VCs and how they work, or on what basis they decide how much money to bet, or how much proof they require of a new technology. I have to assume that their criteria have been met, since Rossi has been given the money.

        Until the people on that list (of which Bruce is one) get asked for money, then only Rossi and his backers stand to lose if Rossi does not produce something that works. I doubt if many of the public on that list would put down a deposit to get a device without knowing for sure that they are actually being produced and have a UL certificate – most of them will be following the various blogs and are very much aware of the possibility of a scam. If the first ones delivered do not work, then no more will be sold, and Rossi would get very little money and quite a few law-suits.

        So while you and Craig may be right on this, I can’t see where the profit comes from if it is a scam. If there is no profit in a scam, then the only other possibility (as I see it) is that Rossi and all his co-workers and backers believe that they have the goods and will in the fullness of time deliver – if that belief is justified. He may be mistaken and totally fail to deliver, with the result that he loses his shirt and the backers take a haircut.

        Unless you see a way to profit from a failure (similar to the film “The Producers”?) I can only conclude that Rossi believes (correctly or not) that he is right. Until I need to put the money down to buy one (and I’m not on that list of 100,000) my own money is not on the line, and it is not my problem if some Venture Capitalists lose a bet.

      • brucefast Says:

        Peter, “Bruce, Rossi is not defrauding you, he is just using you…”

        Peter, my message to investors is clear, if Rossi has the goods, I want one. I am happy to prove to investors that there is lots of market for the promised product. It is the investors’ responsibilities to determine, to their threshold of confidence, that Rossi has the goods. As I have stated elsewhere, if Rossi asked me to send the money tomorrow with only the proof of today, I wouldn’t send the money.

        There are two things that Rossi has going for him, however:

        1 – Your colleagues have joined on the stage that Rossi has created, and have been shouting at the top of their lungs that the LENR phenomenon, including the Ni + H variant are real.
        2 – I have never seen a scammer demonstrate his product to anywhere near as high of quality observers as Rossi has done.

        I have been saying for quite a while now that Rossi and Defkalion are beside the point. LENR, including the Ni + H variant has been established in the scientific journals by multiple scientists of your pay grade. It is these, not the incomplete demos of Rossi nor promises of Defkalion, that convince me that this topic is worth supporting.

    • brucefast Says:

      Ps, last summer my daughters ran a lemonade stand. You wouldn’t believe how many laws they broke, those evil children. They ran a business without a business license. They ran a food services business without inspections. They didn’t have their “food safe” qualifications. They didn’t provide their patrons with public washrooms. The list goes on.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Come off it Brucefast. That’s pure desperation, your little daughters’ lemonade stand. 

        Either Rossi is lying to the public about factories in Florida and New Hampshire; about fusion; about gamma rays; about copper production, or he’s lying to the Florida inspectors about these selfsame things. Of course he’s lying to the public. He’s seen an Italian slammer. Does he want to spend time in a Floridan one? 

        You’ve been saying you have Rossi on probation, so to speak. Now he’s been caught in a serious lie, and the best you can do is impugn his opponents and use your little daughters as a distraction from this mendacity. WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD IT TAKE for you to abandon this manifest swindler?

        Of course your first instinct is to attack in abusive personal terms the person who drew the attention of the FL authorities to Rossi’s activities. Your post to ecatnews 10 March.

        “I’m wondering about the lack of anger at Gary Wright. What’s he up to? Why would he busy himself with trying to throw a monkey wrench into Rossi’s technology? My guess is that Gary Wright has his fingers into oil, and believes that he’ll loose his shirt when Rossi reveals something.” 

        Your “guess” is based on what evidence? Do people do things only for personal profit? Is that why you have taken an interest in this matter? An investment position? Of course not!! So give the same consideration to Rossi’s critics.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – given the total volume of laws, and the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse, we probably all break laws every day without knowing it. If it does not harm anyone, and no-one complains about it, I don’t worry about it. I was once stopped by the police for an illegal number-plate on my car ( it had passed 2 tests with it) – but if the car had been a year older it would have been legal.

        Meantime, you should have said ‘yet another lie’ – Rossi does seem to have a problem with the truth and nothing but. I think you might have missed seeing that most of us agree with you on that, and that the saga smells strongly of scam. Can you see how he could profit from it, though? I can’t. I think, therefore, that he himself believes that it works substantially as advertised, and that he also believes that he can fix the remaining problems and go into production. If he’s wrong on this, then we don’t lose, and if he’s right then we gain.

        If he’s wrong, I expect he’ll have a choice of countries to go to jail in. I suppose that means he won’t need to pay for a house….

      • brucefast Says:

        Craig,
        Gary Wright has three bones to pick with Rossi.

        Bone 1 – Rossi may be a fraud. My response simply is that if he is a fraud he’s only defrauding those who should be smart enough to not get defrauded.

        Bone 2 – Rossi may be endangering society. Fine enough to worry about such, but Rossi claims to be obtaining UL listing before selling product. It is UL’s responsibility to assure public safety. As they work for the insurance industry, failure on their part would be very expensive, therefore they will do their job well.

        Bone 3 – Rossi may be breaking many laws. Well, he probably is. My daughter is.

        As far as personal attacks on Gary Wright, My bone with him is his emphasis on bone number 3. It appears to me that Gary Wright is attempting to destroy a productive Rossi, not expose a swindler.

      • brucefast Says:

        Craig, “WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD IT TAKE for you to abandon this manifest swindler?”

        Well, I have already concurred that Rossi is a manifest liar. I also recognized that he hasn’t swindled me, or even offered me an opportunity to be swindled.

        I know that Rossi has brought LENR to public light. I know that real scientists have confirmed that LENR, including the Ni + H variant are real phenomena. I know that if LENR looses its public energy again, it’ll take an even bigger cry to convince people that its not a cry of “wolf”.

        Lastly, again, I know that I have stated a dozen times that Rossi is beside the point. Even if Rossi is a simple swindler without the goods, and of course Defkallion is a swindler because they are the fruit of the forbidden tree, they have succeeded at bringing LENR to the public eye. LENR must be discovered. Wikipedia must remove its “pathological science” perspective. Investment money aplenty must be put into LENR to perfect it. Such will hugely benefit the world economically and environmentally.

  369. Craig Binns Says:

    From Krivit’s material:

    [An inspector from the Florida Bureau of Radiation] “I spoke with [Mr.] Rossi concerning the construction and operation of his E-Cat device. He stated the active ingredients are powdered nickel and a tablet containing a compound which releases hydrogen gas during the process. [Rossi states that] the output thermal energy is six times the electrical energy input. He acknowledged that no nuclear reactions occur during the process and that only low-energy photons in the energy range of 50 to 100 KeV occur within the device. There are no radiation readings above background when the device is in operation. Since the device is not a reactor, the NRC does not have jurisdiction. Since there is no radioactive materials used in the construction and no radioactive waste generated by it, the state of Florida, Bureau of Radiation Control has no jurisdiction. [Rossi states that] currently all production, distribution and use of these devices is overseas. [Rossi states that he] has arranged to meet with underwriter laboratories (UL) to seek approval for manufactured in the United States. … “

  370. Roger Bird Says:

    Someone may be trying to push Rossi to liberate some information or even force him to put up or shut up.

  371. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger, what do you mean? Of course “someone” is trying to push Rossi to liberate some information. The Florida Board of Radiation is trying to push Rossi to liberate some information. It’s their job, when people claim to have a factory producing fusion devices. When questioned, if the people say there’s no fusion, no factory and no devices in Florida, then the Florida Board of Radiation inspectors snap shut their briefcases, say thanks, and go away.

  372. Roger Bird Says:

    No, I meant that the person complaining to the Florida Board of Radiation is probably trying to liberate some information out of Rossi. Don’t get too passionate in your responses until you are sure about what you are responding to. It is a waste of good energy.

  373. Roger Bird Says:

    My brave little son picked up dog poop as a job for a few months. I suppose he and I and the neighbor lady were breaking some kinds of laws. There are just way too freaking many laws in this land of the free.

  374. Craig Binns Says:

    Interview with Rossi published in PESN 14 Jul 2011:

    H – This process as I understand it… well, you said that you have a boiler that has been running for at least a year now?
    A – It has worked at least one year, when I was there. Now we no longer have the factory. I had to sell everything to finance this. Now we have here in the United States. Here in Florida, the place where we make the reactors, and in Greece they are making huge production lines for the production of these products in Europe.
    H – That is exciting. So that is being done here in the United States then?
    A – Absolutely, and of course we will try to create as many jobs as possible.
    H – Alright. Good. Thank you very much for doing that. I am sure the state of Florida will appreciate that and so will the rest of the country.

    Well, it turns out there’s no factory in FL, any more than there was a boiler running for a year in Italy. And no fusion anyway. No gamma rays. And no transmutation, if no fusion, so all the confusion about the isotopic composition of the copper product was smoke and mirrors. He “salted the mine” after all.

    And have we forgotten the traditional swindlers’ tearjerkers? I had to sell everything to finance this. I had to sell my house. Half the profits will go to children with cancer … As Sterling Allen would say – “yikes!”

  375. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger “There are just way too freaking many laws in this land of the free.” Rossi may well find that out by experience, just as he did in Italy.

    It’s not unreasonable to have laws regulating nuclear fusion, or punishing fraud ivor that matter.

  376. Craig Binns Says:

    “For”. Not “ivor”.

  377. jetmech Says:

    LOL Roger Bird and his alter ego Derricutt (secret identity)
    are just over the top funny!
    I cant stop laughing!
    Which one of them claims to be a “software designer who works for a comic strip”? And then the Rossi League of Infatuated Heroes
    Bruce Fast (green arrow) comes to the rescue!
    AND
    You all run off to answer what diddle these (clowns) respected Rossi sycophants i meant to say

    GOD cant stop laughing lolollollllloll

    here we go

    jetmech, Did I mention that passion concerning one’s position is also a reason why people have trouble changing their minds.

    YOU my friend might have trouble changing your underpants!
    Your mind?

    GOD LAUGHING ALL OVER AND TWITCHING!

    YOU ARE FUNNY!!

    SO a guy comes in a bar selling a W***e with no P***Y
    and says you can pre order a W***e that has A P***Y

    That has happenned to you hasnt it? Roger?
    You are like waiting outside of the bar for this W***e to appear
    YOUR BUDDIES (LIKE ME) are laughing thier asses off!

    AND SUDDENLY THE W***E appears and you and Mr Derricutt GO FER IT only to find out ITS GOT A STIFF P***Y!

    OK got all the technical details lol CMON dude!
    THEY AINT NO FACTORY THEY AINT NO ECATS THEY AINT NO DEFKALIONS

    Just you and simom derricut waiting outside of a bar in winter
    for a meeting with Andrea!
    AINT SO GOOD LOOKING LIKE YOU THOUGHT?

  378. jetmech Says:

    COME ON GUYS!
    A factory that does not exist?
    A device that LOLOLOLOl that does not exist?
    A guy that keeps talking about a “better non existant device that
    could be improved upon should it ever exist?”
    I sold a device to a person who does not exist?
    I WORK WITH NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
    I WORK WITH SIEMENS
    I TALKED WITH NASA
    YADA YADA TO the nth power
    AND I STILL HAVE NO DEVICE!
    LAUGH WITH ME!!!!
    LOLOLOLOLOOL

    • brucefast Says:

      Jetmech, this site is not for you. We use data and reason to make our points, not
      “LAUGH WITH ME!!!!
      LOLOLOLOLOOL”

      Join in the discussion, or discover that you have disappeared.

  379. jetmech Says:

    I admit i like OIL BUT I COOK MY FRIES IN THE OVEN!
    So there big oil!

  380. jetmech Says:

    IT IS POKING YOU IN THE EYE AND YOU ARE SAYING
    LOLOLOLLOLO
    ITS STICK P***Y?
    CMON DUDE
    NEVER MIND
    HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED?

  381. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Simon, I of course, have no way of knowing for sure what Rossi is doing. But one relatively safe way to profit is to get investments from VCs. The profit would be the investment itself; not any dividends. Success is not really expected, and outright fraud is difficult to prove. Even if fraud is suspected it would probably never be prosecuted.

    The main reason I am concerned is because of potentially very negative impact on the public perception of science and on prospects of support for legitimate research in related areas.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Peter – thanks for the explanation. This type of behaviour is literally unthinkable for me – why I didn’t think of it, I suppose. I would still expect the VCs to be convinced by hardware. Rossi’s background should have made them somewhat suspicious, after all. Even given that, it’s only a living until the VCs pull the plug and give up waiting for a production version. Rossi would not be able to salt any of that money away without being open to fraud charges. So I accept that you could be correct, but if so then Rossi is probably certifiably insane.

      I think that if this fails, it will not impact public perception of science, but instead will only tar businessmen a bit more heavily. I don’t think Rossi has been on any “science” programs on TV. The same probably applies to most of the items on PESN, though a few of them are real.

      Investment in related areas should not be affected. Brillouin and BLP have not affected investment in Rossi, after all. While the Wiki regards all this stuff as pathological, it is surprising that anybody invests in any of it unless they have seen real results.

      • Peter Thieberger Says:

        Simon, I hope you are right about avoiding negative impact on public perceptions of science and scientists and on funding. Unfortunately we may already have seen a first example in the suspension of the Navy’s SPAWAR cold fusion research funding.

        Regarding potential fraud charges, that may never happen because of the embarrassment factor and the negative impact on investor relations at risk capital firms. I think the Petrodragon story shows that clearly. There must have been plenty of disappointed investors back then. Yet the legal actions we know about had to do with pollution, tax evasion and gold smuggling.

        Another unfortunate aspect of this story is the careless and frankly unprofessional behavior of some of my colleagues. They had no business endorsing something like this without independent, professionally conducted testing fully under their control.

      • Bob Says:

        Peter, don’t mean to be picky, but if you read the release of the SPAWAR cancellation, it sounded like that effort was moved elsewhere. The wording was vague on purpose I’m thinking.
        Having said that, Rossi’s actions are hard to make sense of. Many times when booting yourself up, you make statements you hope to be true as you progress.

    • Bob Says:

      Peter, most VC’s are very careful with the money, they usually make people take salaries below market saying you will make it back in spades with your stock. They make you believe in what your doing to participate. They also guard the money very close, they typically instal their CFO to handle the money and review spending very close. Its almost impossible for a CEO to salt money away, at least until manufacturing has started and money is coming in. I’m skeptical Rossi could make much this way. It wouldn’t be worth the effort.

    • brucefast Says:

      Peter Thieberger, “The main reason I am concerned is because of potentially very negative impact on the public perception of science and on prospects of support for legitimate research in related areas.”

      I think you are very right in your concern. However, I think your fingers are pointed in the wrong direction. While Rossi could cause this attempt to legitimize LENR*, and make the next attempt even harder to achieve, his is not the first or second attempt.

      The first, of course was Pons and Fleischmann. While their findings were clearly given a shot, it still appears to me that they were whitewashed back in 1989. Nasa continues to state that in 1989 they replicated the P&F effect. Yet somehow LENR got labeled as “pathological science”.

      The second was Patterson in 1997. He publicly demonstrated his technology. He had independent labs verify his technology. He brought it to the public eye, but the scientific community and the public all but ignored him. He clearly had difficulties mass producing his technology, dying young didn’t help. However, he most probably had the goods.

      The third attempt was by SPAWAR who went public in a major way in 2009. They declared that they had stable LENR reactions. They declared that they had found the specific issues that were making LENR difficult. The declared that their findings had been replicated multiple times by undergrads at UCSD. They declared that everything they had declared was published in the journals. They got a bit of public traction, but their light went out pretty quick. The scientific world seemed to already be numb to the LENR message, and seemed to continue to declare that LENR is “pathological science.”

      Now that Rossi has started this next fire, Defkalion has joined in, and a significant group of scientists have joined the chorus. Even if Rossi and Defkalion crash and burn, the message of your colleagues may prove to survive.

      But what your colleagues need is respect and notice from their colleagues, you. If the scientific community opens its eyes and says “yes, LENR exists”, then even if Rossi and Defkalion fall away or even prove to be outright scammers, their success will be enormous.

      LENR is established in the literature, and rejected by the scientific community.
      Nickel + Hydrogen LENR is also established in the literature, and rejected by the scientific community.
      High COP LENR was demonstrated for an extended period at MIT. How long will the scientific community keep its eye on the likes of Rossi and Defkalion, off of their fellow scientists, and off of the fact that LENR is a real phenomenon.

      * To clarify, by LENR I mean the phenomenon of excess heat emanating from metal and hydrogen reactions that seem to be of a nuclear nature, rather than any specific theory of how it happens.

  382. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Bruce – a compelling statement, and I agree. Given the number of good papers in the subject, I cannot see any reason for the “pathological science” tag for LENR. If SPAWAR and NASA cannot be trusted to tell the truth in science, then the world is in a worse state than I thought.

    Bob has dealt with VCs, so it seems Rossi cannot be making more than a living. Rossi has also displayed his technology to good scientists – not the normal route for a scam, yet his history and his statements point heavily in the scam direction. It does not make sense.

    Whether or not Rossi is shirt-tailing the scientific effort to improve LENR, and whether or not he really has a COP=6 device, he has sparked interest in it. There are thus a lot of people now thinking about it, reading the published papers and finding that LENR is in fact real. So whether Rossi or Defkalion actually get a product out is not germane; what is is that other people will be researching this now, and will find other ways of getting nuclear power that does not have the waste-disposal problems and dangers of uranium fission.

  383. Roger Bird Says:

    That article would have been more informative and more pleasant to read if alaincoe had spent a little time trying to get the punctuation, spelling, grammar, and sentence structure right.

  384. Roger Bird Says:

    Actually, Craig, a person can lie about one thing and not lie about a bunch of other things. A person could even lie about 2 or 3 things and not lie about everything else. In fact, believe it or not, a person could lie about everything but one thing. That is possible. And just because Rossi lied more than once does not mean that everything else he says is a lie. Your lack of social awareness is showing again.

  385. Roger Bird Says:

    Bruce, please do something about this guy. I did not come here to be insulted.

  386. Roger Bird Says:

    I would also point out that if Rossi has a psychotic need for attention (sort of like a psychotic need for certainty) or is so whacked out that he thinks that a non-working device is actually working, his employees, Focardi, etc. almost certainly do not share his psychosis.

    I think that he is just a typical businessman lying. Because I deliberately practice absolute honesty, I can see around me almost everyone lying now and then and perhaps they don’t even realize it and don’t even care. And businesspeople, school administrators, politicians and others often lie a lot more than the general public.

    For me, the theory that works is still that he has LENR-on-steroids but does not know yet how to control it, sustain it, etc.

  387. Roger Bird Says:

    I just said something similar elsewhere: Even if Rossi is for real, let’s say, and he does all of these dishonest things and looks like a crook, and then he starts shipping real e-cats with real COP = 20, it will make skepticism look really bad and really stupid. This is not a good thing. The world need skepticism and skeptics until everyone is absolutely honest, which probably won’t be happening any time soon, if ever. Whether Rossi is a crook or is for real, Rossi’s dishonesty has done the world a great disservice. And I am not even saying that he is any worse than the average business person.

    • brucefast Says:

      “it will make skepticism look really bad and really stupid.”

      Interesting point, Roger. However, some skepticism, like that of Mr. Binns, is really bad and really stupid. The one thing that needs to be understood about scammers is that they try really hard to look like the real thing. Studying scammers to figure out how scammers act, therefore, is futile. One must study non-scammers, real inventors and entrepreneurs, to understand what the real thing looks like. And I assure you, the real thing doesn’t look like a bunch of angels who are always honest, and open. The real thing knows how to spell truuuuuuuuuuuth.

  388. Roger Bird Says:

    And although we here at nickelpower.com have been very optimistic, I can’t count the number of times we all have said things like “Don’t put any money down until you get absolute, eyeball proof.”

  389. Roger Bird Says:

    “Yet the legal actions we know about had to do with pollution, tax evasion and gold smuggling.” And, it is entirely possible, when dealing with a corrupt government like Italy that all of these charges are bogus. Gold smuggling is an invented crime invented by governments. So these kinds of charges don’t mean a thang. If you trust governments to always be doing the ethical thing, then you are already the victim of the greatest con in the history of the world.

  390. brucefast Says:

    I just deleted the report from ecatworld.com that Ryan Garino of the Citadel investment group had declared that their company had witnessed and invested in the Defkalion project.

    To the asshole who wrote this mockery believing that we suckers would bite on anything, well, we just proved you wrong. I know that you think that we are a bunch of idiots who don’t know evidence from imagination; but the one who doesn’t is you.

    I had sent in an info request to Citadel on the matter, but had not received my own confirmation.

    Bruce Fast, administrator of nickelpower.org

  391. brucefast Says:

    Comments pertaining to the Prince of Darkness have been deleted. It would seem that he/it dared to mock the moderator — the unforgivable sin.

  392. Craig Binns Says:

    And all comments pertaining to the Ryan Garino affair have been removed too. The memory of that fiasco is to be suppressed, I perceive. No surprise there, then.

    Brucefast, on the “Replicators” thread, you once kindly defended me from Roger’s ravings by saying (March 12, 2012 at 5:01 pm)

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

    Thank you for this tribute. However, your taking seriously the clearly phoney Garino report with its semi-literate balderdash, misspelling of “Defkalion”, and failure to capitalise “Citadel”, indicates that any attempt to rescue infatuated e-cat fanboys from their only too evident mindlessness, or to bring light to their deluded brains, is doomed to fail. No further such attempts will be made.

    This almost incredible incident simply shows that there is NOTHING, however preposterous, that free energy fanatics won’t swallow, as long as it panders to their science-fictional fantasies about limitless wealth and power.

    • brucefast Says:

      No Craig, you are wrong on two counts.

      “And all comments pertaining to the Ryan Garino affair have been removed too. The memory of that fiasco is to be suppressed, I perceive. No surprise there, then.”

      This is simply not correct. I deleted the Ryan Garino post that I had made, but I immediately followed it with this comment: http://nickelpower.org/page-2/#comment-9351
      In doing so I did the opposite of what you just accused me of. I corrected the error without deleting the memory of that fiasco.

      And
      “your taking seriously the …, indicates that any attempt to rescue infatuated e-cat fanboys from their only too evident mindlessness, or to bring light to their deluded brains, is doomed to fail.” is also patently in error.

      I assure you that had I noticed the spelling errors in the post, I would not have posted it. However, there is a built in peer review process in these blogs. That process worked as it was intended to. The peers reviewed, they found the post wanting, the post got deleted.

      Had I, or the community, bullheadedly defended the post with arguments (which can be found as a minority on ecatworld.com) such as: well, maybe the PR person didn’t know what they were talking about. Maybe Ryan Garino really did post it, but maybe he got reamed out for doing so …. then your statement would be valid. However, the fact that I reneged on my original post proves the opposite of your claim.

      This peer review process exists elsewhere on this blog. Please note the comment thread discussing one “Chen” in the Replicators thread. You will notice that Chen’s claims are badly discredited. Such discrediting is inconsistent with your position. Consider the comment thread on http://nickelpower.org/2012/03/03/home-lenr-experiment/ This post was also very much discredited as a LENR finding — though it does hold some highly intriguing scientific value. The latter is why I keep it around. And consider this post, http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/29/has-lenr-uncovered-a-new-physics/ It also remains in the dustbin of discreditation.

      Alas, Mr. Binns, I say it is you who has the “believe anything that fits your model” theory. You don’t even have the guts to produce an honest response to Replicators. Rather than admit that the science of LENR and of the Nickel + Hydrogen variant is solid as a rock, you shut your ears and declared your lack of qualification to judge. Mr. Binns, that was YELLOW of you. (see: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yellow definition #3.)

  393. Craig Binns Says:

    I simply don’t accept that the science is as “solid as a rock”. Declaring a lack of qualification to judge is not “yellow”. It is perfectly in order, and above all it is honest.

    It is more cowardly and dishonest to pretend to knowledge you don’t have, as in the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes, which the ecat affair more and more closely resembles!

    I have more qualifications in the field of detecting spoofs and deceit, and that is the discipline that is needed in the free energy field. Real science tries to be honest: Rossi is habitually dishonest. The Garino statement was a clear spoof. Ryan didn’t get “reamed out” for anything. What a nonsensical fantasy!

    And “peer review” is supposed to be applied before publication.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – peer review on a blog is a bit different. To do a peer review, you have to publish it to at least the peers who do the reviewing, and that is what this blog does. The fact that everyone in the world can see it and discuss the errors is what is supposed to happen, and thus we have a lot of people checking the truth or otherwise of the claims.

      If you watched Celani’s CERN lecture, you should realise that LENR is a real phenomenon that we just don’t understand well enough yet to move into mainstream. I think that neither Rossi nor Defkalion fully understand what they are doing, but I do think that whereas Rossi is further from a good design than Defkalion, both will, in time, sell their products and make a good profit from their businesses.

      Apart from the Citadel spoof, you didn’t mention the Woomera one, which also went viral – in these days of little real news anything that looks as if it might be true is immediately passed around for general perusal and review. Personally, I think “that’s interesting” and put it in the “awaiting checking” pile, neither believing nor disbelieving since there’s bugger-all I can actually do about it one way or the other. An announcement from Defkalion itself would carry a bit more weight, but I still won’t believe it until there’s a product actually demonstrated to Peter Thieberger’s satisfaction.

      Publishing claims that might be true is important so that we can see what’s claimed and decide on the veracity. Not-publishing because you don’t believe it has been the problem with LENR for a couple of decades. It is more profitable for the world to shine a light on these dark places and dubious claims – some of them might be right. Your ability to detect spoofs and scams is useful (and much needed) but you risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you dismiss everything you don’t understand the background theory for.

      • Craig Binns Says:

        Simon

        The Citadel guy would have had to be nuts to make such a statement, in advance of the publication of a detailed report on the Defkalion tests – if indeed there ever have been such tests, which I doubt very much.

        Somebody is trying to make fools of the e-cat enthusiasts. Predictably, the effort was instantly and completely successful.

        In fact I found it too embarassing even to mention the previous spoof, but for all anyone knows the Citadel imposture may also have been perpetrated by the ridiculous “woomera”, with his jolly Australian “G’Day” greeting, and his Greek island hopping.

        Could you try to find a way of tightening up blog rules on “peer review”? I think this is desperately needed, don’t you?

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Craig – the blog is the peer-review. It is better, I think, to publish it in the blog so we at least have a heads-up on what is being said.

        As you said, the “free energy” area is chock-full of various scams and hoaxes, and most of the time it doesn’t seem worth going through them to check the claims or work out the dynamics of what the machines actually do. It makes it very hard for a real effect to get noticed amongst all that noise. I don’t mind looking like a fool if there’s a chance that I’ll find the bit of information that isn’t a scam, hoax or mistake. I’ve even read the new “aether’ theories to see if they hold water – it doesn’t seem right to me, but maybe some of it is usable to make something happen we couldn’t make happen before.

        If by using a cocked-up theory, you predict a useful effect and it happens, that doesn’t validate the theory exactly, but it could give us something useful such as a space-drive or a way of getting energy that replaces oil and fossil fuels. If someone has spent years on trying and failing to make their predictions into reality, I’ll applaud the effort even if I think the theory is rubbish – they could be right and prove it sometime, and the theory I “know” could be wrong.

        Orthodoxy is fine, and it tells us what we can do within the limits we’ve tried so far. Unorthodox ideas are normally wrong, but push the boundaries of what we know and may come up with something good.

        I’m happy with the way the blog works, and the way that peer review on it works. Instead of having to check all the facts myself, there are a lot of other people that will do that as well, saving me some work if they do it before I get round to it. It’s anarchic, but it works. It’s also democratic, in that we all get a chance to put something up for discussion. You can also choose whether you take part in the discussion or not, and there’s no entry fee other than the time it takes to type. Why change a good thing?

    • brucefast Says:

      “I simply don’t accept that the science is as “solid as a rock”. Declaring a lack of qualification to judge is not “yellow”. It is perfectly in order, and above all it is honest.”

      It’s not honest! You now made a judgement — albeit without any logical support. Yet you hold that you are not qualified to judge. Which is it, you “don’t accept that the science is as ‘solid as a rock'” or that you have “a lack of qualification to judge”?

      You certainly claim qualification to judge Rossi and Defkalion. On what grounds? You have seen free energy claims that are false. You see a lack of character on the part of the players.

      If you apply the same method of judgement to the hard science of LENR, what do you get?
      > We have a lot of good scientists making the claim.
      > Their claim is in the first person — I did it, rather than I witnessed it.
      > The very fact that these scientists work for highly respected organizations makes some proof-case that their character is worthy of the honor.
      > Nobody has made an honest swipe at the character of all of them. Nobody has made a reasonably successful swipe at any of the players in the A list of Replicators. If only one of them is of good character, then the case is made by someone of good character.

      So, Mr. Binns, if you “simply don’t accept that the science is as ‘solid as a rock'” on what grounds do you make this claim? How much hard science must be published in peer reviewed journals, how many scientists must stand up in public forums saying “I had this result” to convince the great Mr. Binns that something is solid science.

  394. Roger Bird Says:

    I am losing interest in Craig Binns posts. I think that he may be trying to make up for lost time by being extra obnoxious. I can’t finish his posts now.

  395. Roger Bird Says:

    I don’t even want to read responses to Craig Binns, or responses to responses to Craig Binns. His dishonesty is too repellent to me.

  396. brucefast Says:

    Roger, you are right again. Every post by Mr. Binns passes through my, “maybe I should just kill it” filter. In response to these statements on your part I have upped the sensitivity of the filter.

    Mr. Binns is welcome to present real data, but if he’s just playing idiot, I’ll delete his post. To make sense of the threads, I’ll have to delete any responses to his posts as well.

  397. Craig Binns Says:

    Roger

    You never could finish my posts; you always gave up after the first sentence. So I have learned to live with that.

    Brucefast

    I am not ruling out LENR. I simply don’t think the case has been made. I AM ruling out Rossi and Defkalion, because they are behaving like swindlers and not like honest people with a valuable device to sell or make public.

    So the question of whether LENR as such is valid is peripheral to the subject of this thread which is: Whether Rossi is a hoaxer or not. Even if I was an LENR supporter, on the current evidence available to me, I would still insist that Rossi and Defkalion have nothing.

    • brucefast Says:

      Craig, I appreciate the less combative tone. Do remember whose back yard this playground is in.

      I have seen your case about Rossi and Defkalion, and I find it very wanting. However, even if Rossi and Defkalion are swindlers, it is LENR and not them that drives this blog.

      You might conclude otherwise from reading the heading on the blog, but views, including my view, change as evidence pours in. The evidence supporting Rossi is not rock solid. He has not provided solid proof. The case for Defkalion is purely anecdotal at this point — which is frustrating. The evidence supporting LENR, however, passes every test that you have used to claim with certainty that Rossi and Defkalion are full of it.

      Why, Craig Binns, do you use a totally different method of analysis to determine the believability of the scientists than you use to determine that Rossi and Defkalion are not believable?

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Craig – which particular sort of LENR do you think has no case made yet? Is it cavitation (http://nickelpower.org/2012/03/23/is-anyone-listening/#comment-9396 ) , Palladium-Deuterium (Ed Storms has his students doing this now), Nickel-Hydrogen (see Piantelli or Arata in Replicators) or something else? As far as I can see all three types I’ve mentioned have solid backing. One of them is in production.

  398. Roger Bird Says:

    Craig Binns admitted some place that he doesn’t believe LENR because the mainstream doesn’t believe LENR. This site and all other LENR sites are for thoughtful explorers, not those hanging back waiting for the crowd to accept LENR. It is no surprise that even after reading the replicator blog he still does not believe. He will basically never believe until LENR is so mainstream that it is presented on NOVA or the Discovery Channel. So I don’t see how he has much to contribute here or on any other LENR site.

  399. Roger Bird Says:

    brucefast, Craig Binns real criterion is when LENR is presented as fact on NOVA and the Discovery Channel.

  400. Roger Bird Says:

    New people here need to go here before they start wallowing in their preceived certainty: http://nickelpower.org/2011/12/30/replicators-as-if-december-30-2011/

  401. Bob Says:

    Cold Fusion (LENR) or its symptoms have been proven as seen by the experimental evidence seen daily. I won’t even argue that aspect any more, its real, live with it. To me the only thing worthy of argument is how fast it will develop commercially. When it hits, it will be an explosion in development like none ever seen before.

  402. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    Weird ‘WooWoo’ video. Don’t know what it proves or if it proves anything. Coral Castle is strange place south of Miami where elderly man, Edward Leedskalnin, back in the ’40s built a castle out of huge coral blocks, supposedly without any mechanized assistance. It’s been theorized by fringies that he learned how to harness antigravity forces from magnetic anomaly lines. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2W_ZXWqKDQ&feature=player_embedded#!

  403. Roger Bird Says:

    I see those spinning doohickeys stopping, sort of, every few seconds or so. It would not make any sense for someone to create a fraudulent video to allow such an obvious flaw to show. I don’t see how the spinning doohickeys keep spinning. Shouldn’t friction eventually cause them to slow down and fall over. Something strange is happening, and it ain’t normal.

  404. Roger Bird Says:

    Also, I doubt if it is possible to get so many spinning doohickeys spinning all at once. Some would slow down and fall over before you got that many spinning. Also, they are all spinning at the same speed. Either this is a clever fraud, which I doubt, or else something abnormal is happening.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Roger – all you need is a rotating magnetic field under the table somewhere. Take the rotor out of a 3-phase motor and power it up. Spinning tops take a while to slow down anyway (it’s on low-friction glass) so it doesn’t need much field to keep them spinning. This is also why they’re all spinning at the same speed. I’d say this is a hoax. Mind you, I only lasted 5 minutes watching it and skimmed the rest, so I might have missed any explanations. When they stop, I see that all stop at the same time – it’s a glitch in the video.

  405. Roger Bird Says:

    Simon, what you saw is all that you are going to get with that video.

    If this is not a fraud, such a thing would not mean too much to me. Unless it can be used to help people, so what? I do not believe that the physical world is ultimately real anyway, and all manner of strange things can happen. It also does not bother me much to entertain the possibility that strange things can happen. But can we use them for helping people? People get all worked up about UFOs. I say, so what? Are the UFO greenie guys going to pay off my mortgage? (:->)

  406. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    I’ve watched several of these Kapanadze videos and I figure he’s managed to greatly multiply the power of a 9 volt battery with cigarette smoke.

  407. Roger Bird Says:

    You would think that a guy as smart as this guy would learn to not mumble so much.

  408. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Simon,
    The hidden wire is in the tree. Like all good illusionists he wants to focus your attention on something irrelevant like the wire connected to the faucet. He seems to be using 50 Hz AC power with a full wave rectifier. The loud hum contains several strong 100 Hz harmonics. I wanted to post the frequency spectrum but I obviously don’t know how.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Well spotted, Peter. The world of free energy is full of hoaxes, and what isn’t a hoax is bad measurements. Occasionally you come across one that seems to be neither. That’s worth a bit of effort.

  409. Iggy Dalrymple Says:

    HotCat finally revealed…..production pending safety certification.

  410. jetmech Says:

    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/keely/keely.htm

  411. jetmech Says:

    simple as that go to this link and Rossi will be exposed!

  412. Peter Thieberger Says:

    Bruce, conflating the serious workers (misguided or not) with the scam artists doesn’t help this field at all. Finding picograms of copper isn’t enough by a long shot to account for the levels of power that are claimed. And you always find picograms of anything in any sample. We’ll probably soon hear the next “explanation ‘.

  413. Simon Derricutt Says:

    For those who haven’t seen it yet, I saw this on Vortex. Enjoy.

    http://www.22passi.it/downloads/Cheese.pdf

  414. jetmech Says:

    Voters have a real choice this election season between a president who

    has redirected a country suffering the worst economic times since the

    Great Depression, including

    a global financial meltdown, and a Republican ticket that favors

    draconian cuts in our most popular programs. It’s a good time to point

    out that it is liberals who, time and

    time again, have been on the right side of history.

    Conservatives blast the left for not appreciating “American

    exceptionalism”—even though Barack Obama is the only president to

    have ever used that phrase, at least in the

    past eight decades or so. But let’s take a moment to explore just what it

    is that makes us exceptional. It is, very simply, a battle between

    progress and regress.

    The last time we hit the economic bottom, Franklin Roosevelt focused

    on relief, recovery and reform: relief for the poor, recovery from a bad

    economy, and reform so it

    wouldn’t happen again. The Civilian Conservation Corps put young

    men to work in rural areas, with the income going to help their

    families. The men planted trees, built parks and laid down roads.

    The Works Progress Administration put eight million Americans to

    work distributing food and clothing and building roads and housing.

    Firehouses, libraries, even the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut exist to

    this day because of the WPA.

    Roosevelt created Social Security, a program that today keeps 40% of

    seniors above the poverty line and helps families with disabilities and

    those who have lost loved ones. The GI Bill, enacted in 1944, made

    sure that returning service members could get high school, vocational

    or college educations. It also provided veterans with

    business advice and, if necessary, a year of unemployment benefits.

    Lady Bird and Lyndon Johnson, October 1965.

    Later on, Pell Grants, named for Democratic Rhode Island Sen.

    Claiborne Pell and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, gave

    millions of needy students the opportunity to attend college.

    Johnson declared a “war on poverty” in his State of the Union address

    in 1964, and through his Great Society programs he brought down the

    poverty rate to 11.1% from22.2% within a decade. Medicare provided

    health coverage to those over 65, the permanently disabled and those

    born with disabilities.

    Our current president is the one who was finally able to move health

    care forward. President Obama overcame strong lobbying, even within

    his own party, to pass theAffordable Care Act. The nonpartisan

    Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2022 the program will

    provide health coverage to 33 million Americans who wouldotherwise

    be uninsured.

    Today the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known

    as food stamps, feeds one in seven Americans. The program was

    established in 1939 by FDR’s thenSecretary of Agriculture Henry

    Wallace. Recipients are not all lazy bums sitting on their posteriors

    watching “The Jerry Springer Show.” Most of them have jobs and

    onlystay on the program an average of nine months.

    Mr. Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped more

    needy families obtain food via the food-stamp program. And Moody’s

    estimates that for every dollar in

    food-stamp money, $1.73 is circulated back into the economy. It was

    Democrats who fought to extend unemployment benefits during this

    difficult time. For every dollar in

    these benefits, the return is $1.64. The Recovery Act stimulus, 34% of

    which was tax cuts, included homelessness-prevention funds that

    allowed many Americans to stay

    where they were living or to quickly find new housing. It also provided

    them with job training.

    The movement toward marriage equality may not sit well with a large

    portion of the right. But, again, it is the liberals who have led the fight,

    so that now we have state

    after state stepping up on this score, and even a military that no longer

    forces our heroes to have to hide their sexual preference. Years from

    now, people will look back at

    how we denied marriage equality, and heads will shake, much as we

    now look back and marvel at how women were regarded as chattel

    and weren’t allowed to vote.

    The fight for women’s rights continues, as regressives try to put an end

    to already-established reproductive rights. Even if you don’t believe

    that 98% of Catholic women

    have used birth control, as a 2011 Guttmacher Institute study showed,

    the overwhelming majority has, and charges of a “war on religion” by

    Mitt Romney are wildly inaccurate.
    The left has fought to ensure that we aren’t defined by any one faith,

    and that we are equally American even with no faith at all. And our

    current Democratic president signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which

    gives women who are denied equal pay for equal work a realistic

    window within which to obtain just compensation.

    Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan, whose father died when Mr.

    Ryan was 16, funded his college education with Social Security

    survivor benefits. Now he wants to dismantle that same Social Security

    program. He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Act and co-sponsored

    legislation declaring that life begins at fertilization, which would
    effectively make abortions illegal.

    Under Mr. Ryan’s budget, Pell Grants wouldn’t keep pace with

    inflation, and interest on student loans would double, to 6.8% from

    3.4%. He’d like to see Medicare replacedwith a voucher system.

    If Messrs. Romney and Ryan have their way, reproductive rights would

    be overturned and millions of Americans denied health-care coverage.

    Cuts in job training and

    student loans go against the grain of historical gains fought for and

    achieved to benefit the majority of Americans. This social compact is

    the real reason we can tout

    “American exceptionalism”—the phrase that the right thinks it owns.

    Messrs. Romney and Ryan may be able to convince a large portion of

    the electorate that their way is the best, that their policies are what will

    save America. They may

    even win an election. But if they do come out on top, it will be only

    short term, as proven by years of American history and progressive

    victories—the ones that have truly

    made America exceptional.

  415. HGB Says:

    Irrefutible proof that Rossi’s used Nickel powder has not been subject to nuclear reactions:

    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20121204Kullander-Ni-Isotopes-LIG1204121.pdf

    • brucefast Says:

      Interesting. Puzzling source, not that anything that looks bad for Eng. Rossi wouldn’t get published at New Energy.

      So the question then, what was the source of the anomalous heat? Is it a hydrogen to deuterium, hydrogen to helium reaction?

  416. Craig Binns Says:

    brucefast

    Cold main sequence stellar nuclear reactions? Mmm. Rossi must have a powerful refrigerator somewhere inside his contraption. Mind you, nothing would surprise me.

  417. Craig Binns Says:

    Hydro Fusion today announced that they are looking for a Pilot Customer in Sweden for a showcase ECAT 1 MW plant.

    Hydro Fusion will be responsible for the financing of the project and the Pilot Customer will only pay for the energy. The offer is restricted to Sweden only, due to Sweden specific funding. The Pilot ECAT 1 MW Plant will be used by Hydro Fusion as a Showcase in the introduction of the ECAT 1 MW to new Customers.

    – See more at: http://ecat.com/news/hydro-fusion-pilot-customer-ecat-1-mw-plant#sthash.27npl7Dq.dpuf

    http://ecat.com/news/hydro-fusion-pilot-customer-ecat-1-mw-plant

    Scam. That’s it.

    • brucefast Says:

      First, the date of these links is rather old, June 10. Second, it can’t be that hard to find a taker for the freebee that they are offering. One would hardly expect that such an offer wouldn’t be snapped up in a breath.

  418. Craig Binns Says:

    And who has snapped it up, then? Someone who is going to get power, but will have no access to the alleged magic machine that produces the power? Meanwhile Rossi will go round telling all and sundry, look, here I am supplying power to some big anonymous company. That proves my magic machine works.

    But if you know better, tell me who has taken up his offer. Indeed tell me who the folk are who are supposedly already using his ecat.

  419. acementhead Says:

    The long awaited “indipendent”sic report now out. Just as absurd and underwhelming as the others.

  420. CimPy Says:

    Nice to read this nowaday that Rossi himself revealed Copper has never been a product of transmutation inside his E Cat – he said it was copper from tubes inside *the machine*….What a pity, it never trasmutate Ni…But lukcily in these days he was able to produce the more valuable Ni62 (as a ash, not as a fuel!). How lucky is he… :D
    This Hoax entered a final deadline.
    Greetings to all believers

  421. brucefast Says:

    If you follow my comments on the first analysis of Rossi’s resultant, I always suspected that he had seeded it with copper to assure a positive result.

    However, your statement, “Ecat no longer producing copper from its “reactions”.” seems to be incorrect. There seem to be picograms of unexplained copper.

    As to “Once people are conned they STAY conned”, the issue faced with LENR is that there are multiple independent sources claiming to be achieving the phenomenon. Some of them are highly credentialed. If it were for Rossi alone, I would probably move my marbles to the sidelines.

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: