Industrial Heat to Organize ICCF21 in Raleigh, NC

Whether or not the Cold Fusion or LENR community should embrace or reject the next ICCF conference will be determined by the facts we learn as the litigation between IH and Rossi continues.

Quote from AlainCo

IH is funding serious LENR research that may soon give us all what we need : a correct usable theory

What people need is a working and safe tech

If it works and doesn't emit weird and harmful particles or waves, it works and is safe

IH hosting ICCF? Hilarious. Wasn't Lewan having some huge conference to celebrate the end of Rossi's successful one year test in June in Sweden? Maybe this idea will go the same way that one did.

Quote from AlainCo

IH is funding serious LENR research that may soon give us all what we need : a correct usable theory

This is a long-standing and highly misleading idea, that what is holding LENR back is a "correct usable theory." The demand for "theory" was a major piece of the dysfunctional part of the rejection cascade, because the evidence of an anomaly became overwhelming. People may disagree over when that evidence reached that level, but it was on its way, and clearly, when Miles announced his heat/helium results in 1991. That work was extensively confirmed and most of the confirmation was done by the time of the U.S. Department of Energy review, certainly by 2005.

No "theory" is involved, though the results do suggest some theory. No particular "mechanism" is needed. Just experimental results and sane analysis.

What is still missing is a set of simple and accessible protocols to demonstrate the effect(s) so that anyone may confirm at least parts of it. Heat/helium requires major equipment and expertise.

It is not clear that such protocols exist. There are various claims. Swartz claims that the Nanor is reliable. But Nanors are made of unobtainium. If you think otherwise, try to obtain one. The field is beginning to recognize that unverifiable claims are almost completely useless.

At this point, with the state of the evidence, there is a very good chance that the "correct theory" would be immediately rejected. Pons and Fleischmann announced an "unknown nuclear reaction," but that was actually premature. They were right, and being right, and announcing it at a press conference, got them immediate fame and rapid notoriety, as poster boys for Bad Science.

That very sad outcome arose because they made an extraordinary claim without providing clear evidence, but only "believe me" circumstantial evidence.

A claim for anomalous heat would have been fine. And if somebody asked them about "fusion," they could have said, "Well, I suppose you could speculate about that .... we are looking for conclusive evidence of the origin of the heat, and, so far, we have not found it."

Quote from Mary Yugo

IH hosting ICCF? Hilarious. Wasn't Lewan having some huge conference to celebrate the end of Rossi's successful one year test in June in Sweden? Maybe this idea will go the same way that one did.

I looked at Mary's post here (because I have personally blocked Mary). This is the dumbest post I have ever seen from Mary.

The news here is that closest thing we have to a decision-making body in LENR or CMNS (the International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science) decided to trust IH with the next International Conference on Cold Fusion. This will happen. They have the interest, they have plenty of money, and this depends on no announcement or expected news. By then, Rossi v. Darden is likely to be resolved, or at least the core case.

Mary thinks of the Rossi affair as a spectacular failure for IH, a complete waste of millions of dollars. IH is crying all the way to the bank. It's clear to me that what they did and what they continued doing earned them the $50 million investment from Woodford, which was not based on "Rossi technology," my conclusion. It was based on the same thing as the $6 million donation from Gates to the Texas Tech project (leveraged into $12 million by state matching funds).

It's called science, with a heavy dosage of inspiration that looks beyond what we know into what is possible, that investigates mysteries instead of "debunking" them. This is also, by the way, genuine skepticism, that seeks to, as Darden said, "crush the tests."

Quote from JDM

A couple questions:
Did IH have a presence here at ICCF20?

I assume so, but I don't have specific information on that. I know that Dewey Weaver, at least, was at ICCF-18, because I met him there. I know that Darden was at ICCF-19 because wasn't he the keynote speaker? For IH to be in the business they are in and not to be at an ICCF would seem really weird to me. The matter of ICCF-21 may have been pre-negotiated, so it doesn't prove anything. IH is clearly working extensively with the LENR community, but only a few open signs of that have appeared.

Quote

Has IH ever released any experimental data to the LENR community?

I'm not aware of any. They have been acknowledged as providing funding for Peter Hagelstein in a paper published in 2015. This is not experimental data, but work on theory.
http://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol17.pdf#page=72

The way they work, technically it would probably not be "Industrial Heat" releasing data, it would be the funded researchers. I do not know what kinds of agreements they have with researchers, and those agreements may vary.

This much I can infer: they had data from testing Rossi devices showing no measurable heat, probably by 2014, certainly by 2015, from the same devices as allegedly showed heat when demonstrated by Rossi -- or tested by the Lugano professors. They have not published any of that data. Their stand appears to me to have been to give Rossi every opportunity to reveal "the secret," if there was one. Publishing that data, if he was hiding the secret because he did not trust them, would have sealed that.

However, Rossi went beyond limits, the extreme of which was suing them. They were then forced to reveal the historical evidence. So far, they have still provided only minimal details, adequate to suffice for a defense and for the counterclaims. While the case is pending, I don't expect much more. The actual test results are probably moot for the primary case (Rossi's claim against them). That case hinges primarily on purely contractual details. The counterclaim for fraud may get into test details.

The ISCMNS action accepting an IH bid for hosting demonstrates the relationship between IH and ISCMNS: positive and cooperative. In 2013, at ICCF-18, people on the floor talked about Rossi, but he was not a major topic at the podium, I don't recall any mention. Defkalion attracted some attention because of that abortion of a demonstration, but the community had always been divided about Defkalion; some scientists, such as Kim, lent their names. Embarrassing.

Speaking about activity on the CMNS mailing list, most scientists don't want to talk about Rossi at all. There is more talk of people like Parkhomov (and other NiH investigators). After all, he's a scientist!