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

Posts by Shane D.

    Oh, I need to clarify, previous attempts by BLP to commercialize were dubious because the power density was so low, not because I think the reaction itself doesn't exit.

    Quote from Shane D.: “Contrarian,

    Like Rossi, as long as the investors, insiders, employees seem to be happy...I'm happy. <img src="" alt=":)" />

    I mean it's not like Mills has horded his…


    Commercial ready or not, all I care about is overunity. Once, or IF...for our skeps, that is established, the revolution follows.


    Like Rossi, as long as the investors, insiders, employees seem to be happy...I'm happy. :)

    I mean it's not like Mills has horded his discovery and kept it from others. He has put it out for evaluation a number of times, in all it's various design forms, just as one would expect from an honest inventor, and each time perfectly legitimate and independent scientists/engineers have confirmed his findings.

    And no Pierre, I'm not willing to bet on BLP either.

    I try and not pay attention to what Rossi says. His comments over the years have been all over the place, and what he says, implies one day, he contradicts the next. His sidekick Fulvio Fabiani claims he has a unique genius, and maybe with that curse his thoughts come out jumbled...leading others not so "gifted" to think he is lying. ;) Or maybe he is purposely lying for competitive advantage as many hope to be the case?

    Whatever, I keep an eye on those around him for signs of what is really going on. Yes, that is pretty limiting, as most of the principles have been pretty tight lipped. Although recently there has been some light shed with Darden's positive comments in his interview, his funding an LENR research facility in NC with more funding to come, Fabiani's interview, inside reports (rumors I know) of the 1MWs apparently working well at the plant. Most importantly, no one has run out the door screaming scam. No lawsuits, employees confessing, etc.

    One can piece together enough of the metadata, interspersed with a little common sense, and conclude that Rossi and a team are in fact babysitting the 1MW in a factory as claimed. There is a legitimate third party "referee" that will judge "negative or positive". A little more speculative...but I would also assume Darden is at least to some degree (if not then why would he decide recently to invest more?) kept apprised of the progress, or lack thereof.

    If one accepts these premises, as do I, one could take this a little further by concluding there would have been ample info available early on, maybe within the first few days of the 400 day test, to determine the basic claim of overunity. If not overunity, it would be hard to fathom, at least for me, why they would then continue on with a now worthless, expensive venture, when in effect they would be developing just another industrial heater? Surely Darden would have pulled the plug by now as would be his fiduciary responsibility to his investors.

    Put it all together, and things look good still. And no, I am not willing to bet on that!

    What if we wouldn't have something that can be used for something, so either all these companies and individuals do claim that they don't have something that can be used for something, or not. That's pretty obvious no?


    That may make MYs head explode!

    Yes, I'm starting to like this site. :)


    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    I wasn't referring to you as MY, but referring you TO MY. For your betting that is. He loves that stuff. But he is a skep too, as it appears you are, so probably nothing to wager against each other there.

    LOLs too..."chicken" am I? Just because I think betting on a scientific outcome is useless, and boring to boot? Look, betting is not my gig. Doesn't do a thing for me. Yes, I know for some it is everything. Beforehand it won't change the eventual outcome of the game, but that won't stop the madness in my opinion.

    In our case, betting won't change the reality, or not, of LENR. So what is the point? That said, I have no doubt LENR is real, and that it will be proven soon, and I bet real soon. :)


    That was in response to Paradig. Nonetheless, whomever throws down the betting challenge, I think it silly. Childish actually. Like a school yard taunt. Proves nothing.

    Science is serious stuff, and such antics only serve to distract away from the merits. No place for it. It is either real or not, and bets won't change that. Nor make the facts, or metadata, any different from what they already are.

    If you must though, may I also refer you to MY?


    I think the field has matured beyond such gimmicks. Brillouin Energy, Rossi, and probably Piantelli, Miley, etc. are flush with far more funding than the mere $100,000 you suggest as a wager. So why bother? That is chump change in the scheme of things.

    With respectable universities, commercial industrial research institutions, governments across the globe all within the past few years investing in LENR , either for the science, or reward of a marketable product, it might be more appropriate at this point to debate...

    Did they commit in this highly toxic environment on a whim? Stake their reputations, risk their investment dollars... whether that be for profit or on the merits of the science, based on deeds?... or words, rumors, hope, naivety as the sea of skeps want us to think?


    Re-reading that reminds me of how sharp Fleischman was. Easy to see how he was one of the worlds few top nuclear chemists. He simply made mince meat out of Morrison. Probably the reason Morrison disappeared without responding. I mean, come on, how do you go head to head with a guy like Fleischman? Obviously you don't! Too bad F isn't still around. Especially when in his prime. Things could be different now if so.

    I respect Thomas, yet would wager a bet on the outcome in a one-on-one between the two. As an aside; once I would have said the same, maybe more about Joshua Cude, but no more. It happens to the best of the best. Sad, but such is life. May he rest in peace?

    Anyways, this just highlights so much of what I have seen regarding LENR in my brief 5 year exposure. Yet another well qualified, brave, CF pioneer executing a textbook experiment with clear overunity/transformation results, only to have a lazy skep (Morrison), in his case a reputable high level scientist, beholden to the anti-LENR mainstream narrative, dismiss it with a wave of the hand. His colleagues tacitly endorse by their silence. Shameful really.

    Point is that being an LENR skeptic is easy, as Oystla shows here. So simple as settling down for the evenings cocktail in your study, doing a cursory 30 minute perusal of whatever report is in question, laughing as you decide how outrageous your response to come, and tee off in no particular direction. Not even make sense at times. Just let loose.

    Conjure up magical electrical tricks, slight of hand fuel switcharoos, black ops helicopters...OK that is unfair, not above background readings, within margin of error. Authors are stupid, sloppy, and by the way... their hairdo sucks, or whatever. Therefore the conclusions must be wrong. So prove me wrong! Such fun.

    Does it get any easier than that? So who is to hold these skeptical reviewers to account? Well, it seems no one.


    Thomas said: I await the good quality work with positive results. Perhaps you know some? I can't think of any"

    If anyone knows what you seek, they will be right here on this website. I've seen Abd point out some good stuff. Alain posted a big list some months ago.

    As for me knowing?...LOLs, Anything with a positive result looks like "quality work" to me. Anyways, you are the scientist...not me. Although after following this for 5 years I'm starting to feel like one. ;)


    Joshua wrote, without a doubt, the most insighful post on LENR and why, according to him, it is pseudoscience, over on our other website (Alain doesn't like that site linked to). After reading Dr. Storms comments, I thought of it immediately and went searching so I could copy it here, but gave up.

    If you get bored, maybe you could find it? I remember you being impressed with it too.

    With so many here involved in the science, I thought it might make for an interesting read.

    That's fine Thomas, I see you are just curious and mean no ill will to your colleagues in pursuit of their beliefs. Understandably though...and I can't fault you, you do dislike those doing sloppy work...concluding LENR/LENT/AHE where you, in your reading of their results, see only artefacts, or nothing at all. Rightfully, it is their job to convince their peers of what they claim. If they can't, and their peers are being honest (unlike those Storms describes here), then they just have to try harder.

    Honestly, I think LENR needs people like you to ensure it's researchers maintain a high quality of performance. Even those in the thick of the field such as McKubre, have complained of the few doing shoddy work. That seems to be changing rapidly however, as I referenced in my post the emergence of numerous quality research initiatives, staffed with the finest of equipment, and higher tier scientists.

    With so much in play now, I am confident that soon, real soon hopefully, you will have some experiments that meet your high standards, while proving LENR once and for all.


    I think you are over complicating this. Getting so caught up in the science minutiae of scientific discovery, you miss the forest for the trees. Does it really matter that: "cause the effect" is an interpretation, not an observation as you dwell on? Or that there is no theory by which to construct an experiment around (although Storms/NASA/SPAWAR/Brillouin did, or are doing that now)? If LENR doesn't progress as the textbook says it should, does that invalidate the results being found in labs around the world?

    While you pontificate yourself into believing LENR is simply a pseudoscience perpetuated by mass denial and misreading of observed facts...each and every one of which is within margin of error as you conclude, and self-deluding lower tier scientists, yours and Joshua Cudes colleague's...those in the labs doing all the work, seem convinced enough to carry on. In just the past few years, we have seen the opening of SKINR, LENR research departments at Texas Tech University here in the states, and Tohoku University in Japan. The Ni Energy Research Park in China, and governmental funding commitments to LENR study/research in Japan, Russia, and maybe in India. There is much more I could add to that list by the way.

    So one question Thomas; would you like for all to cease their research right now, shut down their institutes, discontinue funding, simply because you and Popeye think they are all wrong? That what they are seeing is scientifically in error, deluding themselves, seeing what they want to see because they have "invested" in believing, so therefore a waste of time and money?

    If you ask me, I think we should all be encouraging, not discouraging this renewed focus on the science...if it is indeed a science (you guys could be right). Get to the bottom of it once and for all.…dation-Report-12-1-15.pdf

    The two Senior Partners of LENR-Invest, Halem and Guillemin, are the same two whom carried out this recent validation report for Brillouins HHT (Hydrogen Hot Tube). On Lenr-Invest's website they claim to have already invested in Brillouin, so I would think the linked report served as L-Is due diligence before committing. Questionable as to whether what they did constitutes a true DD, but it seems to have convinced Halem and Guillemin that BE's technology met their investment standards.

    Many "believers" have asked where they could invest, and looks as if this could be in response to that. Sort of like a Mutual Fund concept focused on LENR emerging companies with a minimum $60,000 buy-in.

    Tyler van Houwelingen is the Senior Manager. He is connected with MFMP. His name has popped up a number of times over the past 4 years as an LENR fan. I would think Michel knows quite a bit more? All these entities LENR-Cities/LENR-Invest/MFMP seem to be communicating/coordinating with each other.

    Looks like the beginnings of the "Big LENR" era. :)


    Italy is not like any other when it comes to tax (non) compliance. Very unique for a European country. Corrupt actually. The only business people brought up on tax charges there, seems to be those that didn't know, or pay off, the right politicians. Rossi, as I read him, is almost naive in that world, and paid the price.

    Remember, Rossi entered the "waste disposal industry" there in his early days with his Petroldragon. Who runs/controls that industry in Italy? You won't have to look too hard to find the answer.

    And later he was convicted of tax evasion. Think about it.


    OK then, some were also about the "bomb" stuff. Sorry. Nonetheless, I can't make heads nor tails of them. Unlike Rossi, they are very secretive.

    Another interesting factoid; BLP originally had, before CIHT, a reactor looking like a carbon copy of Rossi's early, raw form, Ecat. When I mentioned that a while back on another forum, Joshua Cude took me to task because the CIHT was so very different altogether. Not even close. How could it change he said, from a basic reactor looking device, to a fuel cell look alike? I have to admit, he had a good point as he often does. That was a pretty radical transformation, especially when supposedly the concept, and physics, are basically the same between the two.

    Now we have the BOMB as you have named it, and that seems nothing like, nor looks anything like, it's predecessors. Really odd I agree. The whole BLP thing.

    Good points Alain. When I first started with this story I dug into Rossi's past also to find out myself, and came to the same conclusions as you. Argued with the skeps about it too, just like you do now...including with MY back in the time. The next day the skeps acted as if I never said a thing, and Rossi was still a "convicted con".

    Otherwise, nice try, but MY and the others don't care about those facts. For their arguments against, they need Rossi to be a conman in his prior history, and by golly he will be!