Posts by Shane D.

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.

Thomas,

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.

http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-…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.

Colwyn,

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.

Thomas,

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!

Thomas,

I don't know who you are addressing, but if me, I was referring to the list of validations on BLPs website:

http://www.blacklightpower.com…ology/validation-reports/

Those were done for the CIHT cells, which I don't believe are being developed anymore. Or maybe they morphed, or evolved into what they have going now? Doesn't make sense that they had all this proof of concept, went to the trouble of commissioning these individuals, and firms to test their cell, yet decided afterwards to strike out in another direction. Still though, that is a pretty impressive list of verifications.

Nothing about a "bomb" in there I can remember though.

wwooten,

You had my attention right up until you said: "I have so many stories that I could tell, but how would you know to believe me."

And then went on to tell a couple of those stories. And yes, I did have some problem believing. Maybe it would be better to stick to CF topics, and leave that other stuff to Stirling over on his PESWiki?

CF/LENR has it tough enough as it is, and when we start throwing in exotic, fanciful conspiracies, it makes it that much tougher for LENR to be accepted.

Thanks for the inside on BLP. Those were the validations I was referring to, but too lazy to look them up. Thx. Pretty comprehensive. When Thomas Clark claims to have "studied" those reports, one has to wonder if he really has looked at all?

Thomas,

Have you looked at BLPs "results"? It has been awhile for me, but as I clearly recall, they have had some impressive, truly independent verifications from a diverse cross-section of the scientific community; academic, commercial and governmental, of their CHIT reactors. Far more extensive in nature, and far better in quantity and quality, than Rossi has had with his Ecat.

How/why, in that case, BLP has yet to have a working commercially capable prototype as Rossi does now, is baffling to me. I have no good explanation.

If you are going to trash BLP, then it seems to me you should first offer your studied opinion of the scientific proof in their defense.

Tyy,

Your talents are wasted here. You should go to ECNs where you will be more in your element. They are always in need of another skep. Trust me on this.

Thomas,

Yes, it is odd, suspicious even, how Rossi has over the years changed the testing methods for his demos of the Ecat. Or why he didn't always use one, lone Ecat, instead of multiples. Strange too how he never offered up an Ecat to the Ferrara/Lugano professors to test, opting instead to loan them the new Hotcat. Then providing them a differently constructed Hotcat for the second test (Lugano).

One could conclude from his behavior that he purposely tried to prevent easy comparisons between tests, or to allow any refinement of testing methodology to mask something.

Nothing new to these charges, as they have been a mainstay of critiques since late 2011. Rightfully so. Not surprisingly, believers look at the many public demos, private DDs, no matter their ever changing nature, as evidence Rossi has confidence in his products. It takes a brave/stupid scammer to expose himself so many times, with so many different people, and entities.

Braver still to turn over his fake product to a team of scientists, as Rossi did at Ferraro/Lugano. Not to say bravado should substitute for good scientific reasoning, or results. That is why I say the Ferrara results were "tantalizing", because they weren't satisfactory scientific proof of anything, as you say, and the professors admitted. As weak an argument as it may be, you skeps haven't effectively proven it wrong...yet.

With Lugano, you, Thomas Clark, have shown it wrongly calculated with the data made available from the report itself. Shameful how the profs didn't honor their publicly made commitment to answer questions, but I still await further information we may not be privy to, that may change your calculations. As you know, the profs, according to Lewan, sent a sample of the alumina for a full analysis...which I assume was for the translucence at high temps? Maybe Mats Lewan could give an update?

Rounded up (hey I'm a believer) your Lugano estimate is a COP1.1. That is overunity. It even could be as high as 1.4 by your measure. Yes, it could be as low as a normal heater, but your analysis does not kill Lugano. Axil speculates that the Hotcat is Rossi's "mouse", which Rossi has always claimed to be a COP1.1. Maybe that is the case...who knows?

MY,

The Ferraro tests Hotcat was a blackbody. As was the one Penon tested about that time. In both, the Hotcat provided and tested was a simple, textbook 1.0 emissivity. For Lugano, things changed, as did the materials, and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] constructed the Hotcat casing using alumina. That is where the controversy started.

I don't recall any real issue involving thermography with TPR1 (Ferraro)?

For the rest, I leave it to others. As I recall, those were your blanket accusations. You always throw in the kitchen sink. Always. I don't remember much support from your colleagues as to those assertions, but I could be wrong.

Thomas,

Since you were wrong about Stremmenos, you must be wrong about Lugano...

Just kidding. Stremmenos started out I think on Defkalions (DGTs) board after he arranged the private demo for Xanthoulis...after which DGT formed. After finding DGT was breaking with Rossi and going it alone, Stremmenos published a scorching letter accusing them of dishonorable activities and resigned.

You may be thinking of Luca Gamberale, of DGT Europe, whom claimed a rigged flow rate after the Hyperions public demo debut at his European lab, and immediately stopped all related DGT related business. Still though, he stayed an LENR believer, as he started, or continued? (Mose), his own LENR consulting business. I believe he is part of the newly formed LENR-Cities.

Since you keep bringing up this soft science meta-data stuff, I would add that it seems significant that Gamberale stayed true to LENR after that setback. Consider also that Proia of Prometeon, whom accepted Rossi's buyout, only to quickly start his own LENR R/D company with Stremmenos and his son. One must wonder why they would keep punishing themselves so, had they not seen something that impressed them?

However promising, this behavior in support of LENR+ doesn't change the fact that Rossi, nor anyone else either (BE could be an exception soon), has yet to show unassailable proof his Ecat/Hotcat works. Yes, the Ferrara results were tantalizing and appear to have weathered the intense scrutiny -with skeps left with a cheese video, or collusion by Levi, as their only viable theories, but it takes more than Ferrara. So too were the Penon findings for the Hotcat, although one could argue it not being independent as it was with the help of Fabiani (Rossi employee).

Keep in mind too, that for the Lugano test, the professors opted not to run the Hotcat in SSM...even though Rossi told them it was available with a simple flip of the switch. Amazing they refused, as had they done so, maybe we could be celebrating now instead of this.

Mr. Vandenberghe,

Thank you. LENR is so unique perhaps that reviewing product development history, looking to the past for direction, will offer no insight as to what will come? In any case, if an LENR+ product enters the market arena (I think one will soon), we, and your organization will simply deal with it. That simple.

That said, I do believe there is some groundwork being laid to prepare the various governments for the possibility of a game changing, yet little understood...with the unfortunate "N" word in the description, technology. No doubt in the hope they are not too shocked when the time comes, thereby preventing a knee-jerk, detrimental bureaucratic reaction. Soften them up so to speak. A good example of this is Brillouin Energy which recently went to Capital Hill to educate the way for LENR+. They also visited Finish state officials last November to do the same. Very smart of them I think.

Making the political connections now...informing the politicians who oversee the regulatory agencies, as to what may occur soon, may pay dividends when this really breaks.

Regards

MY,

Here is a snippet from Jeds post that sums it up well:

This is a radically new technology. It is a far greater
leap, than the Prius for example, and the Prius called for thousands of
tests within Toyota and by dozens of external agencies, for things like
crash testing. You cannot possibly do all that must be done with only group
testing for one year. You need thousands of man years by dozens of groups.
You must meet the demands of 21st century regulations and the public's
demand for assured safety. This is a *nuclear fusion reactor*, for crying
out loud! It is producing fusion energy by unknown methods. Any public
safety official in any country who allowed such a thing without regulatory
clearance would end up in jail or a lunatic asylum. It is unthinkable.

Good day Michael,

https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg105834.html

Here Jed Rothwell makes a good argument that, if the Ecat is performing "ahead of schedule" as Mats Lewan has heard, and I should also add...is real, the main obstacle going forward will be regulatory. That would account for the long duration "400 day test" at Rossi's customers factory. But it could, and is, being argued that 400 days with one reactor will hardly suffice to pass muster with safety/regulatory agencies worldwide -Even China.

Couple of questions: Is LENR-Cities privy to the performance, or veracity of the Ecat, or any other near market LENR products? How will your organization help navigate those looming regulatory obstacles LENR products nearing market entry will most likely encounter?

No-one in their right minds would attempt commercialisation until they had scientific proof of concept.

LOLs. Rossi is just the person for the job then!

Thomas,

If Hydrofusion were merely "middlemen" as you say, then why commission that independent test in the first place? And then, after commissioning this test, why then did they broadcast the negative results?

Ummm... Quite. Stremennos is a much more clearly validated scammer than Rossi. People who want to get rich quick will be attracted to Rossi's stuff, whether Rossi is honest or no. Many of these will be unscrupulous and dishonest. Stremennos has been totally dishonest in his public demonstrations. Making a demo that he knew was spoofed

Maybe you don't know the history of Stremennos, but he is/was a physicist/Greek ambassador, who early on did some basic LENR research. He met Rossi and became convinced of the Ecat, convinced some Greek business patriots to witness a due diligence (they were convinced), who went on to form DGT as a Balkan licensee for the Ecat. DGT did some dirty things, and Stremmenos publicly castigated, and disowned them for their dishonesty. Based on his stance, he seems quite principled to me. His "public demos" you mention are a new one on me. Never seen them, not heard of them.

There is one guy at NIAC (or whatever its now called) Bushnell who is an ardent LENR fan. Engineers can fall for this stuff - look at Laithwaite and anti-gravity. They are outliers. You do not weigh the hundreds of sensible engineers who rightly dismiss Rossi as a flake. Bushnell is not NASA, but has enough influence he can ask a few guys to look into LENR. He was convinced 5 years ago that by known the WL mechanism they could fairly quickly get proof. Clearly he was wrong, there has been a long silence.

Very recently, Dr. DeChiaro said: "Nasa has at least two teams working on LENR, but results are proprietary". Seems to contradict your innuendo that NASAs "long silence", means they are no longer interested...don't you think? As a reminder, NASA replicated FPs "anomalous heat" in 1989 a mere 3 months after the big announcement, only to bury their results after the negative publicity soon to follow. They revisited LENR in 1996, and again in 2008. Always successful by the way. Even borrowed "Patterson's balls" at one time to test. So Bushnell's support of LENR, as an insider privy to that info, perhaps even friends with the NASA scientists involved, seems fully justified.

Colwyn,

We share many viewpoints. All I can say is that I come from ECNs, where there is one regular believer, and maybe 3 other part-timers, as opposed to a huge, hostile contingent of skeps.

Alain,

I can't tell you how many times on ECNs a skep asked me to provide some definitive proof, a published experiment, something readily replicatable, AND transportable to other labs, that would define LENR. Attract the attention of the mainstream physics hierarchy like Joshua Cude, and Thomas Clark. Break the denial as you say. Well here it is?

Or at least it seems so. As I have learned, one never knows though until everyone has their say. Yes, even those darn skeps.

That said, the mention of GEC/JWK brings up old memories. I didn't see it in your referenced links, but they (GEC) were the first to offer an LENR product (Genie reactor) on the market. To the Island of Guam...lonely outpost in the western pacific, of all places. The governor of Guam accepted their bid, and shortly thereafter was impeached. Only partially though for his decision to believe the politically well connected GEC contingent, which claimed an LENR product that would be fueled on expended nuclear waste. No harmful gammas too. Well, politics kicked in, local, conventional energy concerns had their say and that was the end of the first LENR product offered on the market.

CFNs had a good article about that at the time, connecting all the high level GEC/JWK relationships between government agencies (SPAWAR), their scientists (Mosier-Boss), and connected business stalwarts. Quite the web, and seemed at the time a natural for some investigative follow-up, but it ended there. Nothing more.

Always wondered what happened, as did my old friend Peter on ECW, formally of ECNs, but until now heard nothing. Thanks. Looks like they are still around.