Shane D. Moderator
  • Male
  • from Pensacola Beach, Fl.
  • Member since Jan 26th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Shane D.

    Good questioning there Barty! Covered all the angles. Rossi though is pretty good at answering, but not really answering:


    Your assumption has right of citizenship in the kingdom of logic, but we must be conservative.There are many parts of the plant that need upgrading and the next generation of industrial plants (F9) will be different. I cannot give the details of the parts to be modified, for obvious reasons, but we are talking not just of plumbing and wiring, we are talking of internal structure of the reactors.This plant belongs to the first generation, substantially it is equal to the plant tested in Bologna in the Winter of 2011; the next one will be different and I am already designing it (again: F9).
    Warm Regards,A.R.

    Interesting article:
    See also:
    The company, in conjunction with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Department of Energy, says it has developed a "hybrid fusion-fast-fission" reactor called GeNiE which, according to GEC, "is compatible with the decades-long development of very high temperature, helium cooled reactors." so not quite LENR perhaps.


    Yes it wasn't "quite LENR", more a blend of Hot and Cold, with an LENR cell one of the ways to provide the neutrons. Lots of discussion about the Genie reactor when it came out, other than the Guam interest story you link to. The story starts with this patent:

    Note in particular embodiments 11-19.

    Global Energy Corporation's (GEC) website appears gone. It described an LENR process for it's Genie reactor without mentioning does the patent above. I found a Vortex comment from Spinnacker at the time who made note of that:

    The Genie sounds like LENR after it's been accepted:

    1. Our experiments are repeatable.
    2. Our experiments have been replicated by others.
    3. Our experiments provide direct evidence that nuclear reactions are
    involved including the production of high-energy neutrons. Although our
    experimental results are not predicted by current nuclear physics theories,
    *the results are real*.

    Anyhow, if you care to read another version of An Impossible Invention, but written with a much sharper pencil you can take a trip to here:…-and-industrial-heat-llc/

    That is Gary Wright's site. He used to call it "shutRossidown". Even with the new name, seems it is still all about getting Rossi. Kind of wacky, but he does dig deep, real deep. Uses that sharp pen as you say. He has yet to find a smoking gun, but provides plenty of smoke.

    First I've heard of this new (1/11/2016) Rossi patent rejection.

    Guam, a little Island in the very western Pacific. SPAWAR/Global Energy Corporation, and their "Genie Reactor. Impeachment. Politics. 1st LENR commercial reactor. Could there be a connection?:…er-eyed.html#.VpwyIiorLIU

    Why of course! A very interesting LENR story. One of my favorites. But you have to search a little, as this one article isn't all there is.

    At the :56 minute mark of Lewans Webinar the other day he spoke of Lugano. He said: "measurements on methods not calibrated properly" or something like that. Lewan knows Essen (one of the testers) well... having introduced him to Rossi, so Lugano is officially dead it seems.

    However! there are always "howevers" in LENR LOLs, Lewan did say the fuel ash composition would: "be extremely difficult to copy". And we all know that if the fuel/fuel ash transformation stands, it is nuclear.

    So hear ye all believers; we have our new Lugano talking's all about the ash! Oh, and don't forget that Ecat X too! :)

    Couple of interesting tidbits in this video from Lewan:

    At .44 minutes he speaks of the Oct 2011 1MW "military acceptance test". The test was reportedly deemed a success by the neutral (Favioranti), and the military accepted it. No news there, but Mats says, while he has no proof if the military did accept it, he went on to say: "I have reason to believe the U.S. military bought the technology in one way or another, and using it".

    At 1.02 minutes he talks of the present year long 1MW test. Paraphrased: "According to some people I know that have been there, it is on blocks of wood so you can see there is nothing coming in. It's got cameras on it 24/7. The independent third party Certificating Institute is measuring at values corresponding to Rossi/[lexicon]IH[/lexicon]'s".

    I often disagree with Mary.
    But this time, it is clear what (he/she?) is right..because I am one of the few of this website who went to the last Airbus Workshop !


    MY called Geneste: "a whack job, nut case". Is that what you agree with him about...Or something else Mary said?

    So come on, get it out, you went to the "Airbus Workshop" Geneste hosted. What was it that brings you to say what you do about him, and agree with Mary? Pretty damning, and damaging what you "allude" too, with someone of such impeccable academic background. To be so condemned by mere innuendo, gossip, in absentia, just does not seem fair...don't you think? He deserves better IMO.

    The least you could do is provide some specifics, so he, or his defenders, can respond. Hopefully you agree?

    No where in the Lugano report do they mention SSM, but by this excerpt from that report, it sounds like the "On/Off" switch they are referring to, switches between manual/SSM?:

    We also chose not to induce the ON/OFF power input mode used in the March 2013 test, despite the fact that we had been informed that the reactor was capable of operating under such conditions for as long a time as necessary. That power input mode, however, would have caused significant temperature increases during the brief intervals of time in which power was fed to the reactor. Moreover, the emissivity of alumina is temperature-dependent: this would have made all calculations troublesome and rendered analysis of the acquired data difficult

    What is really a shame is that the professors had the option to run the Lugano Hotcat in Self Sustain (SSM)...electricity provided only to the control system. Yet, they decided not to. All they had to do was flip a switch, and the control system would have taken care of it for them. Had they done so, there would be no doubt of COP>1 once power was cut to the heater, no matter their failure to properly calibrate for the live run.

    I always thought it strange that Rossi would be so stupid to tell the profs: "hey guys, flip this switch if you want it to run in SSM" had he knowingly delivered them a regular old space heater. It wouldn't have taken them long to see they were duped. Quite a gamble too on Rossi's part, to hope, pray probably, they would not take him up on the offer, and then be so lucky they bungled everything else too!

    But, TC, MY, JC say he did just that, so who am I to wonder these things?

    If Rossi is a scammer, he probably will do as you speculate. The only thing I take some comfort from, is what I see around him. He obviously has a Patent team. David French says he has "top talent" lawyers too. Hard to keep them working feverishly, and enthusiastically were they to detect even the slightest chance they were fighting the USPTO over an imaginary tech.

    Reworking his website means he has IT guys working on that. Those guys aren't dumb. In Lewan''s interview with Fabiani, he (Fabiani) clearly points to a business hierarchy with managers above, a research team below. Pictures of the 1MW do show evolution of the control systems, and I don't think Rossi has the skills to develop those. Rossi also has this Prof. Norman Cook working the theory side pretty hard, and Rossi would have to be *convincingly* lying to him to keep him at it this long.

    The 1MW is being run in a factory somewhere. It appears [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] is still aboard. Woodford jumped in only this past summer. So if he is a scammer, he will have to somehow carry all these others along...and there is not a dummy among'st them, all accomplished in what they do, with him onto the next phase...the Ecat X, and then the XX etc. That won't be easy for sure, as only a few close to Rossi would be in on it. In fact, if a scam, I think it remarkable he has made it this far!

    Not to make this sound too rosy, as there are just too many things that do point to scam. But, that is why most of us are is a real fun story to follow. Provides endless opportunity for discussion. No telling what we will learn from day to day, and when it's quiet on the Rossi front, there is always plain old vanilla LENR to haggle over.

    I can't see that "adjust" is more dishonest than "adapt" but perhaps you would like to disagree?


    Yeah, I missed that part. Thx. Maybe the professors would have been more accurate by saying they "extrapolated"? Sounds a whole lot better than "adapt".

    Even better yet would have been for them to do as they claimed they would do, and answer to the questions. Irresponsible what they did, or better yet, what they didn't do.

    Go in peace, I let you off the hook on this one. :)


    Finally you admit your Lugano critique "is complex". Thank you for your honesty!

    Even Joshua Cude/Popeye, whom you defer to, has said about your analysis (paraphrased): "I find such complex arguments often collapse upon themselves". To this day, he has yet to endorse your Lugano review by the way.

    You can't assume comparison with the dummy test data because the testers adjusted their emissivity graph to make this fit.


    Your comment that the testers: "adjusted their emissivity graph to make this fit" just doesn't have a good ring to it. Makes them sound dishonest, which I am sure you didn't intend?

    This is from the Lugano report itself:

    From the analyses performed on the sample taken from the reactor, we determined that the material constituting the outer shell is 99% pure alumina (Appendix 2); better yet, that impurities, if present, are below the experimental limit of measurement. We therefore retrieved from the literature [3] a discrete-point plot of the emissivity of said material as a function of temperature (Figure 6), and extracted from it the values necessary to reproduce the trend as a continuous line (Plot 1).

    Shane, full of BS as usual. Of course companies reveal major and senior officers. They have to by law, at least in the US. The problem is that Geneste doesn't have the titles accorded to him by the various sources cited here. And I doubt he even works for the parent company called Airbus. I strongly suspect he works for a subsidiary. A small and inconsequential one

    LOLs MY. Exactly how much searching did you really do? I'm guessing you read Krivit's hit piece against Geneste from 2014, or was that early 2015? Quite laughable. Understandable to me why Airbus Group Innovations reacted to his aggressive follow up questioning, after first admitting his employ. Krivit's has that effect on everyone after their first "interview". Levi is a notable example of that. Rossi...well, in that one interview, I side with Krivits, but only that one time.

    Dig some more. Is Airbus all there is to "Airbus", or just another subsidiary of the parent company? How many divisions? Groups? How many employees spread across the globe; including engineers, Senior Engineers, scientists, Chief Scientists, and "Senior Officers"? Is Geneste a Senior Officer? I really can't tell.

    Or prove he isn't who he says he is to your satisfaction, and us. I can say that anybody claiming an Airbus has McKubre to SRI, this many times without legal repercussion as he has, even sponsoring "Airbus" LENR seminars, is probably a big wig with Airbus, or SRI in McKubres case. You and Joshua always claim the burden of proof is on the believer, and in this case you believe Francois Geneste is a fake.

    So back up your belief with solid proof, or face the backlash.

    Shane, please specify which division and branch of Airbus Group Geneste works for, show evidence, and say the name of his exact position. I do not think he works or ever worked for the parent company. Also, as noted above, he is an extreme woowoo.


    Of course I don't know that. Most companies don't reveal the names of their employees. Probably against the law to do so in most circumstances, and voluntary for the rest. And he is French, which is a foreign no telling what the laws are in that strange land! LOLs.

    Get over it. He is an Airbus bigwig. Joshua Cude tried the same as you here with Geneste, except his "hard-on" was for McKubre. JC couldn't find McKubre's name listed on SRI's website, so flipped out every time someone referred to his "supposed" SRI affiliation. He finally gave it up, now time for you to do the same.


    I wasn't endorsing Geneste's theory, and yes I am well aware of what he said. This all started with his (JPGs) big MFMP Facebook announcement in August:…o-be-revealed-in-october/

    There was much anticipation while awaiting his "theoretical breakthrough" to come. In the meantime, like now, there was speculation if he really was with Airbus...just like MY does now. In fact Alain had a thread about just that:

    11th International Workshop on Anomalies in 
Hydrogen Loaded Metals in Airbus Toulouse on October 15th-16th 2015

    Long story short, Geneste is with Airbus. He gave his awaited speech at an Airbus Conference he organized in Toulouse this Oct, for which everyone seemed pretty "let down" as expectations were high. Before that, he even gave a speech at one of Vandenberghes LENR-Cities an Airbus rep. So he is who he says he is, and had MY taken a moment to do just a little search, he would would have known that, saving poor Jean Francois Geneste the public embarrassment.