Posts by Shane D.

Thomas,

In the fall of Oct 2014, shortly after Elforsk released the Lugano results, Prof. Pomp of Uppsalla Univ and three of his colleagues wrote a blistering critique of the report. Rossi flipped out on JONP and responded specifically to the various allegations. Here is one that pertains to the fuel ash (Rossi uses CAPS when excited):

Pomp: The result of this time showed that the nickel contained in both the “fuel” and “ash” had the natural distribution of isotopes of nickel, that is, no isotope change of nickel which could be observed. It then alleged reaction product of copper occurred additionally in separate flakes of “ashes”, not mixed in nickel flakes which should have been the case if nuclear transformations occurred. Therefore, one can suspect that Rossi did not hesitate to provide the testing with researchers manipulated the material. Without a rigorous and documented inspection, one can not draw any conclusions regarding Ecatens function based on the fuel analyzes presented.

Rossi: AS THESE SCIENTISTS CORRECTLY SAY, I SUPPLIED THOSE SAMPLES, IN 2011 (TO PROF. SVEN KULLANDER), AND I GAVE A SAMPLE FROM WHICH THE COMPONENTS, THAT AT THOSE TIMES WERE NOT DISCLOSABLE, HAD BEEN EXTRACTED, BECAUSE NOT YET PATENTED. I CLEARLY WARNED PROF. KULLANDER OF THAT. SO WE ALL KNEW THAT THOSE ANALYSIS COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS COMPLETE, BUT JUST AS A FIRST APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. THE COPPER FOUND WAS PROBABLY AN IMPURITY AND I MADE CLEAR THIS SUSPECT OF MINE . IN THAT CASE THE SAMPLE HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM A REACTOR BY A THIRD PARTY AND I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY TO SAY, AS I DID WHEN I DELIVERED IT, THAT I HAD TAKEN OFF FROM IT THE PARTS THAT I WANTED NOT TO DISCLOSE.

If you go to the Rossi Blog Reader, starting in Oct 2014, you can see this exchange, along with others where Rossi gives his arguments against the various points the critics make. Many of the same you make here.

I think it important to remember that BLP is not just Mills anymore. From their website:

Currently, the Company has twenty employees and fourteen consultants. The majority of employees are scientists and engineers, including six Ph.D.s.

Not that BLP is alone in this regard, as many of the present, and past, LENR pioneers were part of a team. In most cases they were part of large organizations with layers of overseers above them... whether that be governmental, university, or private institutions. It is not like these guys are loners working in their garages as Thomas and Joshua would have us believe. Attack one, and you really are attacking many others.

I have wondered for some time about DGT (Defkalion). It bothered me that Peter Gluck and Axil seemed to ignore their (DGTs) very public disgrace, as they were accused, and the evidence seemed to support, their rigging the water inflow on their DGT Europe "coming out" test.

There were no reasonable excuses put forth by any party afterwards in their defense, regarding those accusations against. Shortly thereafter, DGT quietly disbanded. Yet, it was if, to some, they were still around developing their 8th generation Hyperion.

At ICCF19 this past spring in Padua this was said about them (DGT):

"Chongen Huang and four others from Xiamen University reported on two approaches to replicating the experiments and results published about two years ago by Defkalion Green Technologies. Both Defkalion and the Chinese group used gas discharge systems containing nickel and hydrogen. Two set-ups were described in the ICCF19 poster. A spark plug cell, similar to what Defkalion used, gave no excess heat for a range of pressures and temperatures. However, a high voltage cell produced 20 W of excess heat with a H2 pressure of 0.2 MPa. That represented 14% of the input power. When D2 was used instead of H2, “heat after death” was observed. The performance of these experiments was not reproducible"

Thomas,

Did I claim "anything extraordinary"? The only way I will notice something like that is when my electric bill drops by half, or when ALL scientists/engineers tell me that something extraordinary just happened.

But I will say that from a laypersons perspective, they make some pretty strong claims. While at the same time reaching out for help in understanding what they KNOW they are seeing, but don't know quite how to take it any further. Help they need to commercialize, yet want to be able to commercialize their reactor without sharing the profits, or accolades. Two desires at odds with each other if you ask me. A very familiar conundrum stunting the fields progression.

Anybody notice NicHenergy's (Piantelli's company) new website? Or at least it looks new to me.

http://www.nichenergy.com/index.html

The old one was almost a blank page. Unchanged for years which gave skeps another ready excuse to dismiss Piantelli.

Lots of goodies on there now. Especially the "results" page. Lots to chew on for you engineer/replicator types.

John,

Maybe this comment from the same Fabiani interview could shed a little more light:

"A reactor is composed of a core, an excitation system, and a system for heat exchange. I look after the excitation system and the system for heat exchange, and also the physical realization of the core"

Contrarian,

Good point about the term "overunity". I always felt uncomfortable with it, but started using it after skeps took me to task for using "COP".

I'll start calling it "free energy". That should make everyone happy.

Why of course Mary, I simply love being fooled. A hobby of mine. LOLs.

Looks as if I have lots of company too: http://www.blacklightpower.com…ology/validation-reports/
And we are not just talking Rowan University. I just can't make myself write off those validations so easily as you. Nor dismiss, and insult as is your way, anyone, or any institution that does a validation report merely due their involvement on something so controversial as LENR or Hydrinos, or whatever.

The reports are what they are. Can't make them go away with a wave of the magic wand. Until someone refutes them, they stand. I think that is how science is supposed to work.

Ecco,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2QUR5MmJFTGJSRlE/view?nbsp&pref=2&pli=1

That is Bob Higgins Russian-English translation of the one successful Parkomov replication.

Quote from Contrarian

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 Contrarian

Quote from Shane D.: “Contrarian,

Like Rossi, as long as the investors, insiders, employees seem to be happy...I'm happy. <img src="http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/smile.png" alt=":)" />

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

Contrarian,

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

Contrarian,

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?

Slad,

That may make MYs head explode!

Yes, I'm starting to like this site.

Pierre,

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.

Pierre,

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?

Well then, MY probably has a bet for you! Unless you two are on the same team that is?

Pierre,

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?

Quote from oystla

Link: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetra.pdf

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.