Triangle Business Journal: Despite lawsuit, Industrial Heat continues mission, investor says [No Rossi please]

  • IH does not communicate much on the trial (Dewey seems to be on his own, and it does look more instinctive than PR job :D), and here Darden is saying he is continuing to work on LENR Cold fusion...

    NB: for debate on the trial, keep it in the main thread. Let us consider this thread is only on Non Rossi subject.:evil:

    What I notice is a dozen of "avenues" explored and 6 projects kept among multiple continents,

    Darden says he’s moved on to other possibilities when it comes to LENR technologies. Rossi’s research was just one of a dozen avenues Industrial Heat was exploring. Of those 12, Industrial Heat has halted or slowed funding on about half, he says, adding that the management team feels “increasingly good” about the remaining avenues. “Our triaging process is working pretty well to figure out which ones we want to continue to support and which ones we don’t.”

    In the meantime, work continues on about six projects, scattered across multiple continents.

    1. Miley, seems clear. (he transfered his Ip to IHHI patent pool)
    2. Brillouin was cited in that interview…/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf
    3. As was Dennis Letts
    4. and Peter Hagelstein

    Now what other good project could be considered ?

    • Clean Planet in japan... Not sure japanese actors would accept it, but why not...
    • Seashore Reshearch (David Duncan and TTU, Bill gates...) ?
    • SKINR...
    • ENEA collaboration... why not linked with Bill gates recent funding of Enea Frascati (officially on Hot Fusion).
    • SRI
    • MFMP ? probably not as we did not hear of it (MFMP would tell it), and MFMP would not protect IP.

    My bet is : Miley, Letts, Hagelstein, Brillouin, SKINR, ENEA... with alternative options : Seashore Research, SRI

  • Mr. Weaver,

    Understanding confidential information can you remark on this press release?

    As importantly, can you provide any information as to whether any of the six projects have shown verifiable excess heat?


  • we are encouraged

    Thank you for the response.

    I believe (and hope) that the main hurdle for LENR/CF/"what ever to name it" is simply to get a reputable and repeatable test reactor showing excess heat.

    Once that is available, as some have stated before, the road to commercialization will be relatively short. Until then, we are stuck in the fog of uncertainty and

    "people do not drive fast in thick fog".

    I find it very interesting that 50% of the possible candidates did not have enough merit to continue financing. Although, I assume some may have been dropped due to pre-emptive patents or "same design". We certainly know why one was dropped! However, the fact that 50% still merit research is comforting to me. To some extent, this is a form of independent replication. Perhaps not on the same design or function, but that 6 parties, independently, have shown merit in continuing research into "LENR". Very positive in my opinion.

    For what it is worth, pass my appreciation on to those involved. The backing they are providing hopefully will provide a better energy source for the planet, that of which I would be grateful! If they succeed, the financial reward returned will be well earned but will be minor compared to the great value to everyone's future.

  • Deae Dewey,

    IH encoutaged by the half of the CF testers-OK, abndoned the other half-vae victis!

    Is now the organization of ICCF-21 by IH OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED? Or it still depends on the verdict in the RvD Trial?

    Thanks in advance for any answer.


  • I believe (and hope) that the main hurdle for LENR/CF/"what ever to name it" is simply to get a reputable and repeatable test reactor showing excess heat.

    I'm afraid calorimetry will never convince a nuclear physicist, and nobody without balls (government officers, politicians, editors, journalists) will decide anything if a nuclear physicist don't support him.

    What can convince a nuclear physicist ?:saint:

  • Calorimetry is a laboratory method- the survival method and the locus of main effort for classic CF.

    In technology heat -energy balances are used. As in the recent

    ERV core report.

    To convince a nuclear physicist you must show him comparative elementary isotpic analyses of raw materials and ashes.


  • What can convince a nuclear physicist ?

    Possibly three things, but the question is can they be done?

    Self-sustain mode. If a reactor can be setup and run without input power for a long period and the accurately measured output is significant to the mass of the fuel, then, it would be hard to argue. Again, calorimetry is involved, but not so much COP. If a device repeatedly and independently produces heat without input power and it goes significantly beyond what the mass could chemically produce, the burden would then fall on the physicist.

    Transmutation. If a reactor does indeed repeatedly and independently produce elemental transmutations, again the burden now shifts.

    Measured radiation. I hope this is not part of the forumula!

    Lastly, I do not think all physicist are so encased in dogma. SKINNR and Texas U have physicist actively working on LENR and some with pedigree. I think if one of these institutions, with careful experimental results are able to have the other institution replicate independently, then it will be hard to argue. I think and hope, that these two institutions would not be against replicating each other. And then they could have a third, "non-lenr" institute replicate afterwards.

    Again, it all depends on a reactor that can function repeatedly at will. So far, an elusive gadget!

  • Thank you Bob - confirming a credible, repeatable experiment is our focus right now. With the obvious exception of the recent unpleasantness, we're very pleased with the hit rate so far but realize that there is a long way to go and some or all of these may yet stall out. I don't think that "a form of independent replication" is a good description of our efforts. Thats about all I can say right now.

    Peter - While we are encouraged with progress across the board, including the ongoing unpleasantness, our timeframe for making a formal decision regarding ICCF-21 remains unchanged.

  • Repeatable experiments seem to be the current step on the way towards confirming LENR. At what point does a robust theory come. I am coming from the point of view that the theory is the main point to get customers, who will actually field test/use the device, to procure a LENR device with confidence, The theory, that is "the theory", that is the one that actually works under all conditions and leaves no questions unanswered or at least leaves only minor questions unanswered to the point where the device made under that theory is the one that is used for dependable devices in the long run. Without such a theory then the devices made under it cannot be depended on in case of breakdown. When a breakdown occurs the theory can be used towards efficient repairs. Without the theory, repairs are more ad hoc then efficient. If A customer has a multi-million dollar installation, just swaping it out for a new model is costly. With a proper theory in hand of how it works exactly, then the machine can analysed for what the actual problem is and instead of sawpping it out then it can be repaired or tweeked to work while in place at the customers site. This makes for a more effeicient and a less costly device in the long run. Until this point is reached customers will be wary in procuring a device that is based on less than a fully robust theory. It may be that the actual workings that make up the theory may be so obscure at this time that Widom Larsen and the like may only look like the best theory so far. For that reason the final theory or at least a good working theory, may be some time in the future.

  • I'm afraid calorimetry will never convince a nuclear physicist, and nobody without balls (government officers, politicians, editors, journalists) will decide anything if a nuclear physicist don't support him.

    What can convince a nuclear physicist ?:saint:

    Not sure what would convince them. If tritium production doesn't what will? And that has been seen by people at national labs at LANL (Claytor) and at BARAC.

  • Self sustaining mode - that does not do it. Cravens had a sphere full of material running for days, months, years and showed it Nat'l Inst. in public over several days to engineers and even cut it open at the end of the demo.

  • oldguy - On my always hope kick. Do you know what happened to this experiment (even though he called it a demo or some such) If we get anything at all working I wonder why it is not being exploited (unless you are aware). I have heard no more of it. Since it is a low cost, I would like to see MFMP do it along with the dogbones. I would love a video from Bob G. well here is the latest from the dogbone and BTW the Craven balls have been running now for 4 months.

    To hat tip MFMP, I used to stay up all night looking at the live runs. I went to their website QH they have a new interface that is pretty sweet. They must be smoking Virginia Slims, "you have come along way baby".

  • Rigel, I am assuming you are talking about the spheres and not Claytor's T.

    I think Tom has "retired" but still doing some T research and measurements away from LANL.

    I don't have a link for it but also the replication in

    My Most Successful Cold Fusion Experiments Rod F. Gimpel Issue 120 March/April 2015 Infinite Energy Magazine

    and that special Indian CF issue:

    But it looks like he has "gone dark" . Makes you wonder.

    I always wonder when researchers go "missing". Did they give up or found something to keep them fully occupied in the lab? Tongue in cheek- It is a conspiracy I tell you.

  • oldguy , I read the pdf's. thanks. I wonder what B. Ahern and Dr. Cravens are up to, I think I read that Brian A. is working on reproducing Thermacore . Brian also posts on EgoOut. I wonder if LFH could duplicate the balls (like the Model T.) we could have a kit. Also Dr.Cravens device seems rather fool proof. As it does not have many moving parts.

    I wonder why MFMP does not try to duplicate, I must be missing some reason here. (I spend to much time wondering ;) )

  • Rigel, my guess is that few are interested in microwatt or milliwatts while Rossi is claiming MW.

    And I understand that Brian is working on a Thermocore like system using large volumes of Ni (with K carbonate?) similar to the old Thermocore runaway and melt down. Long ago I looked at the thermocore set up but the problem I saw was that their vacuum flasks were for liquid N2. Most of those have something like water vapor in the jacket and rely on the LN2 to freeze it out to zero vapor pressure. Food grade thermos bottles are better for higher temps.

    If you want something to try, someone needs to try to replicate the Chinese hot Pd wire systems.