ICCF20 Presentation: Validation Experiment Report of Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube by Michael Halem

I normally avoid watching videos, because the information density (per unit time invested) is often low, and quotation can be tedious. However, I'm making an exception here, having reviewed the slides. I met people from lenr-invest at SRI in 2012, and Godes was also there; over lunch, he explained his theory to me. I was unimpressed by the theory, but theoretical considerations pale in the face of the experience of those who actually get their hands dirty. Godes had just received his SRI badge, and was setting up to run experiments there. That is all an indication of a serious player. SRI is not free.

Here, we have Michael Halem. I think he may have been at SRI also. I attempted to share reporting of the SRI conference (around Thanksgiving that year) with Krivit. He essentially spit in my face. His choice, he makes his bed.

Halem has a clearly disclosed conflict of interest. The experiments he reports are unverifiable without devices from Brillouin, the actual techniques are secret and not disclosed. All these are limitations that should be understood. "Secret" does not mean "wrong" or "fraudulent," and I never took the position that Rossi was a fraud because he was secretive, nor that the lack of independent confirmation had such an implication. It merely means that fraud or self-deception cannot be ruled out. Here, from the appearance, self-deception appears relatively unlikely, but .... the field cold fusion is full of wreckage from past self-deception. It's not over till the fat lady sings.

So, the video:

The next video that pops up is Tanzella, of SRI. I have not watched that yet. Technically, SRI might be considered to have a conflict of interest. However, SRI is retained by clients to investigate issues. Their entire business depends on applying the highest levels of expertise, and in being rigorous about what they report. At this point, I don't know if there is any official SRI report. However, the involvement of SRI sets Brillouin completely apart from people like Rossi or Defkalion.

A disclosure of my own: In 2015, I received a grant from a person who is an investor in Brillouin. There were no conditions, and the grant was, on the face, based on what I'd written about Wikipedia. My opinion on Brillouin has not changed since before that grant. That is, this is serious work, there are some results of interest, but nothing is independently confirmed, beyond whatever independence might be asserted about SRI. And the SRI work is not enough to establish any kind of scientific certainty.

Investment in LENR, if it is done with a hope of profit, is highly risky. All investors should understand that. Potential investors might be made privy to private results and information. I would recommend anyone considering major investment to consult with experts. I consider it likely that Industrial Heat did this, and invested in Rossi in spite of what was obvious to nearly everyone, for long-term reasons that, on review, make a great deal of sense to me, and that essentially proved to be wise. On the face, they "lost" money, but they gained knowledge that was of high value, and by that I don't mean IP for generating LENR. I mean knowledge of the field, of Rossi, and of the reality of the "Rossi effect."

Their findings do not prove that there is no "Rossi effect." They pull the rug out, however, from under the general reasons to think it might be real.

In particular, this is circumstantial evidence: If the effect is real, why did Rossi not go ahead and arrange a genuine Guaranteed Performance Test, per the explicit terms of the Agreement and Second Amendment? If IH unreasonably refused to allow such a test -- which idea is negated by the Rossi email proposing his Doral idea -- Rossi could have sued on that narrow point, and a reasonable compromise would have been worked out, I'm sure. Why was it necessary to, as it appears, set up a fake customer? This is all easy to understand if the Effect is a fraud, and difficult to understand if it is real, though this possibility remains: it's real but unreliable, so Rossi wanted full control of the "test."

Halem's work, shown in the video and the slides, is strong, scientifically. He is fully aware of shortcomings. Time will provide, I expect, extensive skeptical commentary. I doubt that it would be stonewalled. This is not Lugano.

I am not in direct communication with Halem, but expect that if needed, I could become so. I'm happy to watch where this goes.

The E-catworld discussion is typical for that site, with the strong exception that Halem shows up. plus, well, Obvious. I hope Halem will participate here. There are some real skeptics writing here, which is a great positive. There are also pseudoskeptical trolls. Recently, I spent some time on http://ecat-fraud.com/welcome-…ensored-discussion-forum/

Some time ago, I spent time on moletrap, where Mary Yugo and Joshua Cude were active. I used that to develop an understanding of skeptical positions, and one or two participants there were, I'd say, genuine skeptics. But "debunking" attracts pseudoskeptics like flies. If one even mentions "pseudoskepticism," it is considered proof that one is a fanatic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
Truzzi is a fave of mine. On ecat-fraud, I don't pretend to be polite, there is on thing I hate: hatred, and I will call it by its names: contempt, arrogance, and an enemy of humanity.