UK Dept. of Energy & Climate Change Comments on LENR

I thought this comment was worthy of its own post. E-Cat World reader Dave Hook posted this today:

I recently contacted The Department of Energy & Climate Change UK with regards to the Governmental line on LENR. I received this reply.

“Thank you for your email dated 26 May, regarding low energy nuclear research. I have been asked to reply.

Officials at DECC are aware that there are a number of reactor designs and technologies proposed for operation around the world however industry has not indicated that they would be looking to deploy them in the UK. Ultimately, it is for industry to decide what type of technology or fuel to use in its future reactor systems and as yet no proposals or arguments to develop cold fusion technology have been put forward.

We understand that both Industry and a majority of the scientific community view the claims of the University of Bologna with some significant scepticism, particularly towards whether a nuclear process is taking place. Guiseppe Levi, who arranged a demonstration of Andrea Rossi’s experiment at Bologna, has concluded that more experiments are needed to ascertain what processes are occurring.

We will continue to maintain a watching brief on this and a number of other technologies but we do not see this as a priority area for research, in the context of constrained budgets.

I hope that this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

DECC Correspondence Unit”

  • Hank Mills

    Basically they are saying…..

    “We are happy with the status quo, and will not lift a finger to find out more about cold fusion or LENR. We will just wait until devices are being sold in the UK and then we will find a way to take credit for everyone else’s work, and pretend that we were pursuing it all along.”

    • vbasic

      Excellent translation. Hilarious, but sadly also true.

      • GreenWin

        Yep. Hank hits the nail on the head.

    • dsm


      They never said that at all !. That is your rationale not theirs. They can’t plan on others dreams or promises. They can *only* plan on what industry gives them or tells them is coming in a proven time cycle.

      Don’t jump on them because your dreams aren’t being fulfilled. Industry won’t invest until they have something to invest in and be sure the investment isn’t into a black hole (no protection for the investment).

      Cheers DSM

      • jacob

        perhaps you should read the whole PDF that greenwin gave us the link to,dsm

      • George N

        And investing in hot fusion isn’t a black hole? If the gov were at least somewhat rational investors in terms of everyday citizens interests, then investing in basic research of LENR over hot fusion is a much more prudent choice because LENR has actually achieved excess energy production, which has been confirmed by peer review! (black light recently confirmed)

        • dsm

          I agree 100% that the billions already thrown at hot fusion are a massive waste. But getting back to this story – are UK Dept. of Energy & Climate Change throwing billions at hot fusion ? – if not then what has your comment go to do with them ?

          You said …
          “If the gov were at least somewhat rational investors in terms of everyday citizens interests, then investing in basic research of LENR over hot fusion is a much more prudent choice.”

          Please explain how that impacts UK Dept. of Energy & Climate Change. Not at all as far as I can see. They merely gave an honest & sensible answer.

          Cheers DSM

          • George N

            I understand your color of money argument, but heaven forbid the UK Dept of Energy & Climate Change would be courageous and stick their neck out and advocate basic research to get to the bottom of the established LENR phenomenon! But I understand, that is a lot to ask from careerist beurocrats who’s number one priority is self service, not public service – because the UK taxpayers exist to fund their non-risky follow the herd “scientific” research! Remember Climate Gate? That was a REAL scientific breakthrough that should have caused this gov entity to change their name at the very least, so that they might be taken seriously someday again

      • GreenWin

        George, some people rely on double standards – it’s okay for government to throw billions at a failed theory of hot fusion with ZERO useful result – heaven forbid a private citizen use his own funds and innovation to create a disruptive energy source.

        These hypocrites whisper against crimes like hot fusion (they may be “in” on the scam) but soon slither back to pathological ad hominem attacks on Rossi.

        • George N

          GreenWin i agree 100%. I’ve been following LENR since 2002, it’s hilarious that LENR is going to dismantle the scientific status quo on a private shoestring budget after 20+ years of outright scientific fraud by our so called scientic “leaders”. The establishment tried to starve P&F’s 1989 breakthrough because they committed the ultimate sin (sad scapegoat) of announcing their historic findings directly to the public.

          • Robinson

            Yes, the “establishment” is in danger of becoming the equivalent of a modern day “church”. Close minded and stifling.

          • George N

            I actually agree with you, minus the cute quotes — the current scientific establishment will soon be going through it’s own Protestant reformation!

    • jacob

      ha ha ha ,the proud leaders of our nation,with their great vision to bring us into a new age

  • daniel maris

    Standard civil service response, but I think hedging their bets a little.

  • At least he did reply although blunt in outlining his position.

    He takes the skeptics as being credible and the academia with positive results as not being credible.

    He also make point that they work with the established energy industry and that they
    have not been approached with initiative

    The potential value to the economy the
    environment and to the general public is
    lost by a denialist rationale.

    He might be less skeptical about the existence
    of cold fusion if he was given the the 1994 Amoco Oil Company report on their cold fusion experiment by Theodore V Lautzenhiser and Daniel W. Phelps of their research department published in New Energy Times.

    • “he” should be “they”

    • GreenWin

      Alan, in case the DECC checks in on this site – here’s a paragraph from the Summary of the Amoco Cold Fusion experiment:

      “A closed cell electrolytic experiment has been conducted using a palladium cathode and platinum anode with accurate (+/-0.001 watt) calorimetric measurements. Results indicate a positive energy output of approximately 50 Kilojoules more than was input to the experiment through electrolysis current and heater current. The heat output was observed both as short term bursts of energy and as long term sustained production.”

      • jacob

        a number of years ago, i was trying to replicate a electric heater and it got over unity ,was trying to replicate peter Davey’s heater,who used a bell and ac power.
        however doing the calometric measurements in the form of BTU’s I could not get my bell to resonate at the right frequency,but by accident discovered another phenominon ,a capacitive heat effect, my experiment included a variostat to control voltage from 0 to130 3 different ampmeters,which volts at 3000 watts plugged into 110 volt,2 copper plates,2 by 2 inches square with nylon spacers ,(pieces of tie wraps)1 wire attached to each plate and submersed in 1 pound of water in a glass ,a thermometer ,actually three thermometers ,power was turned on for 2 minutes ,with a rise in temperature of about 60 deg.fahrenheit,after the power was shut of the water was mixed up well and was 1.4 times more heat,than input electrical BTU’s ,I spend days checking the results and found aluminum plates equally effective,ss plates turn black in seconds and got a dirty coating coating,aluminum stayed the cleanest,some time after i made a stack of aluminum plates to draw the same current as my electric kettle and ran a side by side experiment,my heater versus electric kettle and the results were not surprising the same amount of water was used, the same voltage the same current and my heater was 1.4 times faster to boil the water that the electric kettle,this discovery was accidental and to me remains a mystery
        of why it does work,
        it worked every time without fail.

        • Jacob, you should probably put your data together with some diagrams and post it on the ‘replication’ sites. Any anomalous heat experiments may enable replications by others in a position to follow the idea up. Even if someone is able to provide an explanation within the existing body of knowledge, that would be useful.

          • jacob

            It is hard to built and sell products at 1.4 over unity specially if it needs certification by the CSA and UL,it is really not of commercial value to proceed with building such a Heater,I can pass on the information to some other sites.
            I was hooking up a injector pump to a well pump a while back and here we have deep well submersible pumps ,where the starting and running capacitors are in a separate electrical box ,and i was checking which the live wires were ,with a voltmeter ,I was looking for 240 volts,and i was getting 338 volts on my volt meter,so my question is does a capacitive effect step up voltage, 240 times 1.4 equals 336,I am wasting my time to experiment with it further ,i don’t like to work with electricity.,to easy to get a shock.

  • dsm

    At last a dose of reality !. No govt will bet its reputation on unproven technology. They can’t afford to plan on promises or dreams just what industry says they can deliver.

    Conversely, no energy company is going to invest in any claims of great new processes unless it knows they work, are scalable, are reliable, & safe and more significantly, they are sure any investment won’t be in vain because the inventor has no patent protection.

    We all want to see a great leap forward from LENR but there is a big difference between learning to crawl, then walk then run then sprint then compete against the worlds best.

    With LENR we are still partly arguing as to if the baby is born yet but many are focusing on the Olympic prospects of this unborn/newborn.

    Reality alert says, lets get started with the crawling !.


    • Robinson

      Good post. It is hard for people to not dream about how much this technology could completely change the world we live in though. When we get more info and more proof i think you may see a quick up-take in interest from certain parties. If the tech works i think the first country to get a head start on this would potentially become a economic super power.

      I remain positive but skeptical. There is one thing that bugs me… If Rossi’s method works and he wants everyone to have cheap affordable energy then he is going about it the wrong way… For me it smacks a bit of him wanting to make millions and millions from this and control the market.

      If his tech works then release all the info to the public and let 100’s more people attempt to perfect it. In the long run he would go down in history and make millions anyway for being the inventor.

  • machenation

    I believe that this technology will be very disruptive.
    The governments are between a rock and a hard place,
    as to which countries and industries will be worst affected. IMHO global warming is the only reason that LENR is not dead.

    • jacob

      the reason LENR is not dead,is because the E-cat is out of the bag,and they can not get it bag in.

      • machenation

        I am late in getting a reply back to you, but I suppose you might see this anyway, the other reply bloggers might also see this. As I am fully aware that the U.S. congress has given the President the absolute police power of arrest without trial, as signed into law last Dec. 2011, disappearing people is possible. Who’s to say what is not possible after 9/11 attacks about the time Fucardi and Rossi were demonstrating their work. At that time the internet had opened the world to eves dropping. I’m sorry but I believe this science will end the world as we all know and understand it. I’ve heard it before but I am not convinced that it is Glow bull warming.

    • George N

      Global warming was/still is a scam in order to empower the UN with a global beurocratic framework to fill the leftist powerbase void that the declining labor unions left. Therefore proponents of global warming would hate to have a free clean energy source that would make their proposed regulatory framework/green jobs funding unneeded!

      • GreenWin

        George – do NOT tell the aliens at NOAA that!

      • Robinson

        I guess all the scientists are in on the hoax and are getting paid off by the UN….

        Oh, and Elvis is alive.

        • George N

          Have you heard of Climate Gate? It is amazing how tenure was originally intended to promote free thinking, but now it is used to filter out the free thinkers in order to advance group think in the most highly refined form…

          • George N

            You can’t stray away too much from previous scientific literature, because then you won’t get published. If you don’t get published, then you won’t get grants. If you don’t get grants, you don’t get tenure — ingenious how they managed to control disruptive breakthroughs!

          • GreenWin

            Not ingenious. Corrupt.

      • George N is correct – the supporters of the idea of man-made global warming, at least those at the top who are behind the scam, will oppose new energy technologies every bit as hard as the nuclear industry, and both sectors have incredibly powerful lobbies that are closely linked.

        I would expect some of the greatest support for a working multi-megawatt reactor to come from the industries whose future is currently threatened by nuclear fission enabling legislation and increasingly expensive fossil fuel supplies, i.e., the coal, oil and gas power generation industries. By retro-fitting reactors to existing plant they would stand to gain massively in many ways, and may become the principal proponents of CF in due course.

  • Edwin

    The most significant point that comes out of the reply by the DECC is that they are aware of the research. This in itself is positive.

  • Steve C.

    It is for governments to lead by example and to encourage innovation and to provide development funding for significant developments such as LENR, not to sit on their hands and say it’s nothing to do with us.

    • GreenWin

      Steve, that WAS the ideal a century or more ago. Sadly, today, government plays toady to knowledge monopolies – that ultimately retard public benefit:

      “Minority views on technical issues are largely absent from the public arena. Increasingly corporate organization of science has led to knowledge monopolies, which, with the unwitting help of uncritical mass media, effect a kind of censorship. Since corporate scientific organizations also control the funding of research, by denying funds for unorthodox work they function as research cartels as well as knowledge monopolies.”

      HENRY H. BAUER, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies, Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences
      Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

      • s

        This theory does not seem to apply to the Ecat. The Ecat has received more media attention, it seems, than all other alternative energy devices combined in the last 18 months. There must be dozens, if not hundreds of websites devoted to the Ecat. Individuals, businesspeople, corporations, Govt. Entities (NASA), and universities appear to have all reached out to Rossi ( in some cases perhaps offering money) in an effort to perform an independent test of the Ecat. So far it seems, there is no public/published record of an independent test being done, although some may have been done in private.

        People will say we will find out by the end of this year whether or not the Ecat is real based on recent claims. These same individuals might have been saying we were supposed to find out by the end of last year whether or not the Ecat is real. Industry, which often has to work on fixed budgets, does not have the luxury of waiting years to find out something that would ony take an independent test of perhaps 48 hours to prove one way or the other.

        • jacob

          s,don’t be naive,Industry has the bucks ,and Industry decides what we get ,or not get,LENR is proven technology,but not (sick joke) Peer reviewed ,who are losers that serve industry and science,who are more interested in their own advancement,and do not serve us consumers,the will always decide what is best for industry,the reason these Peer’s are a sick joke is,because of conflict of interest ,which has polluted known science to a rotten stench and a vomit laden scientific community a disgrace and dishonor and an abomination in the sight of our God ,the honorable loving Creator of all.

          • jacob

            that’s right and right on target ,have a nice day

        • Don Witcher

          The reason that Rossi and others are not falling into the trap of “independent testing” is because of what happened to Pons and Fleischmann. Who can be trusted to do the “independent testing”. The call for “independent testing” is a favorite theme of the Astroturfer’s who are so rampant on all the ecat blog sites.

          I don;t normally believe in conspiracy theories but the massive use of “Astroturfing” against Rossi is one of the main reasons I think that Corporate America and Big Science are watching him very closely. When a commercial LENR product is finally produced then LENR can no longer be contained by funding starvation as it has been for the last twenty years.

          • Bigwilly

            Dear Sir,

            Wouldnt the “trap of independent testing” verify that a commercial LENR product has been produced?

            Without independent testing what do we have? Puffs of steam, true believers and endless “just wait till October 2011, October 2012 then you’ll see”.

            Even Rossi’s comments seem more level headed and reasonable than many of his ardent proliferators. I especially like the admins, (Frank ??), tone on this blog. He is supportive but not overly incredulous.


          • Don Witcher

            I think the speed at which you jumped on my post proves my point about “Astroturfing”


          • Bigwilly

            Well Don you are correct.

            Add to the list of evils that we have, (big oil, big coal, asphault tycoons, reductionists, big science, round earthers, evil bankers, hot fusion interlopers and “astroturfers”.

            I am paid by “hot fusion interlopers” to pepper blogs with comments.

            In any case, thank you for your comments.


          • GreenWin

            Notice that BW has no answer when we apply the same criterion to hot fusion?? BW may be in on that scam. The one that has stolen $250 billion from innocent taxpayers.


          • Bigwilly

            Please sir, give me some time to comment. I just got to work.

            Hot fusion eh? I’m no fan. It seems like on this blog you are either a ardent supporter or Hot fusion lobbyist. There is no middle ground i guess.


          • dsm2

            Do you believe the Science and the Russian Govt; the Chinese Govt;the Indian Govt; the Japanese Govt; the Iranian Govt; the Israeli Govt, (and others) are either in part or all stepping in line behind US industry to hobble & hold back Rossi ???.

            Why don’t the press in those countries trumpet the claims ? is it possible just a tiny bit, that none of them are convinced yet ?

            Hasn’t it reached your consciousness yet that there is also the very distinct possibility that Rossi is greatly overstating his achievements ?


  • none

    This is rich. It just shows the mind-set of governments. Satisfy the industries. What about the people? If cold fusion would provide a cheaper alternative than the ones provided by the industry today, then who cares about what the industry thinks. On the other hand, we all know that money speaks; and, who has the money? industry

  • Tom

    Never mind if a nuclear process is happening. If Rossi claims a COP of 6 then it’s worth finding out what actually is happening. If they were told more experiments are needed, why are they sitting on their butts?! We can’t rely on politicians to make good scientific decisions. I’m starting to think we can’t rely on them for much at all.

    • You can rely on them to look after their own interests and ignore yours. 100% reliability guaranteed!

  • Pingback: UK Dept. of Energy & Climate Change Comments on LENR | E-Cat News Live Feed()

  • GreenWin

    Interesting that the U.S. DOE, that killed funding for LENR in 2004 – now seem to whistle a slightly different tune.

    “I was a total skeptic in 1989 with P and F. It sounded like total craziness to me. I have switched to a willing to see how things go with the Rossi device and several other similar ideas that are currently out there. I have tried not to get wrapped up in whether it is cold fusion or LENR or even magic if it can be demonstrated to work, I will accept it. Several people I respect say that the Rossi device can lead to real advances in energy in the next 10 years or so and that sounds like really good news for all of us. The proof needs to be in the pudding as they say. Let’s look at the experimental results and the theoretical backup and it can be judged from there.”
    Al Opdenaker III, Fusion Energy Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Energy

    But hey, let’s keep throwing your tax dollars at hot fusion like we have for 61 years now!

  • Bigwilly

    Governments can not be expected to subsidize every idea that would be really really great if commercialized. This is not an issue of government holding anything back by not funding. The issue is that there is no commercial device to fund.

    If I am an underwriter at a bank or business as far as I am concerned no one has shown any proof of a working commercial device. We can not expect entities to fund an operation without due diligence. Perhaps some people disagree and I would entreat them to open there own personal bank accounts and fund Rossi, Defkalion or anyone else who will “revolutionize the world”. I will instead wait until someone undergoes the standard burden of proof before giving my money.


    • GreenWin

      You mean like… hot fusion?? Funny, none of the guv’mnt types want to answer that question. And it’s cost taxpayers $$250 billion for ZERO result.


      • wolfgang gaerber

        The clue with hot fusion is that you need a big and expensive machine to realize that.
        So the investment will fund the local companies supporting that.
        Its not about cheap energy – is all about funding the proper agencies.
        The longer it takes to realize hot fusion the better and stable funding is possible.

      • Bigwilly

        Hot fusion is a loser GreenWin. We agree on that. I think everyone on this blog aggrees to that. Just because it has/in being funded and has not provided any results does not justifying investing in everything that is not proven. And commercial LENR surely is not.

        Its saying because gov’ments funded hot fusion and it was a waiste they should fund my “shoe reactor that works at 601C” bob’s toilet tokamak that will revolutionize the world and all of Jacob’s free energy devices.


        • GreenWin

          BW, we agree too that one colossal boondoggle does not justify another. But LENR is not and does not revolve around Rossi and his ecat. There are 22 years of peer-reviewed experiments proving beyond ANY doubt there is a fusion-type effect found in H2-D saturated metal lattices.

          Clearly there is funding for black LENR projects – but the global taxpayer deserves public funding for commercialization.

          Bob’s toiletokamak and BW’s shoe reactor do not have 1400 peer-reviewed papers from the science community to back them. LENR does. It’s not rocket science to know where money should go now, and where it should be removed from.

    • jacob

      so BW.what is your area of expertise

      • Bigwilly

        Hi Jacob,

        I am no expert at anything. I am a Mechanical Engineer by trade and would simply label myself proficient.

        How about yourself?


  • Pingback: UK Dept. of Energy & Climate Change Comments on LENR | ColdFusion, Cold Fusion, Free Energy, Rossi E-cat()

  • BertB

    I think it is strange that the UK government is taking a “hands off” position on an issue that has the potential cause huge and fundamental changes for every UK citizen. But the same thing is happening here in the US. I am normally skeptical about conspiracy theories, but why isn’t any of this appearing in the MSM? Are they all in the pocket of Big Oil and Big Coal? Seems implausible.
    It’s a mystery to me.

    • Andrew Macleod

      It all boils down to validation. When/if Rossi supplies irrefutable proof of his working reactor there will be mass funding avaiable from governments to develop it further. It could also be that the governments know that the best way to save global economic collapse is to help the little guy as there are way more of us then them 99%. Putting more disposable income into our hands would breathe life back into every economy thus keeping the 1% on top because let’s face it if it does collapse the 1% loose the most.

    • I am impressed that the UK agency has taken so much time to carefully and thoroughly answer your questions. It seems to me that they are ready to embrace the technology the moment it is in fact rolled out. Right now, we have no reactors – hydrino or e-cat – to show off and win approval with.

      • jacob

        well Joe ,if industry,as in AR and company ,Defkalion and others bring first a commercial product to market,and when it is found to work very well,then government may
        very well support the industry of LENR.After all commercial windmill ,and commercial solar also are supported by government,but I don’t think government will initially help the Lenr industry,oh something for your book Joe ,hollow earth civilizations use cold fusion,Vikingland,Bodland,New Germany ,read ” Genesis of the new space age” Google it,it will open your eyes to the unseen and unknown and well hidden secrets of our own ancestry and our own history,about ancient Atlantis,from with some of us are the remnants,the war between Atlantis and the Athenians ,which caused Noah’s flood,about underground cities and a network of tunnels which connects the continents ,about lifespan ,why our life expectancy is so short,and what causes it,about other planets and its inhabitants,about their government structure ,about their transportation and vehicles,about their schooling,about prevention of crime ,about the inner man made sun ,amplified from crystals ,about Jesus who was taught in inner earth ,Tibet and India,about missing books in the bible,including genesis 6 and 7,and a book of healing,the books of Bod and 36 missing gospels, about the diet and food,about the history of UFO’s,and much more,a must read book to wake u the inner self.

    • If the current UK government is in anyone’s pocket, it is that of the nuclear industry, in particular, of EDF, the French state-owned nuclear giant. They have already agreed to massive ‘carbon reduction’ targets that are probably only achievable through an extensive new nuclear build, as they dumped the only serious competing technology, tidal power, very early on. Much of the legislation they are now proposing, such as a requirement for ‘carbon capture’ systems on new and existing fossil fuel generators, and ever-increasing taxes on fossil fuels, are potentially extremely damaging to these industries.

      As well as killing tidal power, the government now seems intent on removing subsidies for wind and solar power, except where such subsidies are an unavoidable concomitant of various ‘under the table’ taxpayer payments to the nuclear industry. By classifying ‘clean nuclear’ as a low carbon technology (it isn’t – construction of such huge facilities embeds millions of tons of CO2 in concrete, which will have to be removed and buried at similar environmental cost in the future) the government hopes to be able to provide huge indirect subsidies to the nuclear industry, despite the fact that direct financial support for nuclear is illegal under EU legislation.

      The DECC reply to Dave Hook’s letter (all credit to him for that) at least indicates awareness of the situation at present, but their approach is disappointingly passive, probably due to the current political climate regarding nuclear fission. Clearly they are just leaving things to ‘industry’, presumably meaning the nuclear industry, who will be the principal opponent of any emerging LENR technologies. Only widespread public awareness of a viable alternative, as and when such is available, will be able to head off the nuclear fission juggernaut in the UK.

    • wolfgang gaerber

      Somehow the people believe that we live in a society based on pure altruism and truth.
      This is not the case. We live in a society based on an open and free market.
      As long there is no profit on the way – who cares ?
      Why should an oil company invest in LENR ?
      Why should a coal company invest in LENR ?
      Why should an electric company invest in LENR ?
      Why should the government invest into disruptive technologies ? (OPEC might call that terrorism)
      There is _NO_ single reason why any company in that field should contribute (officially) to LENR.
      Its up to the customers -private and industrial – to support that.
      Disruptive technologies are perceived as risk not – gift.

      There is even nobody who would profit from a validation.
      If the validation(now) is positive – this would give bad press on the science community. They will explain the effects but need more time.
      For Rossi, a positive validation(now) would mean more media attraction as needed to work out his product. As long his product isn´t in the market – he will keep you interested…… but not more.
      So – validation(now) is without profit.
      Just for the curiosity of the “followers” and to attract more people definitely not amused about this technology.

  • Alexvs

    After weeks without visiting the site I have found some promising thread items. E-cat working at 600ºC, Mr. Rossi working hard 24/7, believers, skeptics, snakes, governement idiocies, percentage of fraud convinced rising, site administrator doing his job and so on… This is what makes the site so attractive and amusing. Unfortunately facts are starr and the E-Cat story remains as it was one year ago i.e. a fabulous story.

    Greetings and good luck for everyone.

    • Jimr

      Yes sadly after one and a half years we all set around hoping and just comment on others comments. Because there is nothing else to comment on.

  • mark saker

    Yeah I got a similar response on the 28th May

    Dear Mr Saker

    Thank you for your email of 10 May, seeking DECC’s views on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

    We understand that both Industry and a majority of the scientific community view the claims of the University of Bologna with some significant scepticism, particularly towards whether a nuclear process is taking place. Guiseppe Levi, who arranged a demonstration of Andrea Rossi’s experiment at Bologna, has concluded that more experiments are needed to ascertain what processes are occurring.

    We will continue to maintain a watching brief on this and a number of other technologies but we do not see this as a priority area for research, in the context of constrained budgets.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Yours sincerely,

    John McCulley

    John McCulley | DECC Correspondence Unit | Department of Energy and Climate Change | 3 Whitehall Place, London, SW1A 2AW | http://www.decc.go

    • This is clearly the ‘pro forma’ response they send out to all enquirers. They’ll probably still be sending out the same reply after the Germans or other Europeans have begun installing CF systems. Kudos, Mark, for trying.

  • Omega Z

    I’m an Optimist.

    I believe it’s Highly probable that Rossi’s E-cat works.
    I believe it’s highly probable that within 3 to 5 years some people will begin using Electricity Produced by E-cat Technology. Maybe sooner??

    I also believe that this Electricity will come by way of the conventional Centralized Grid although less Centralized.

    There you go skeptics. Does that make you feel better.

    There’s reason for my thinking.
    One is that Governments don’t like giving up control.
    Another is the short comings of the technology at this time.
    It’s well suited for large scale Centralized distribution. Not so much for individual use.

    Individual peek demand for Electricity requires multiple E-cats, possibly as many as 10 of them for self sustaining ability to be off grid.

    They require an hour to ramp up or down so you either run them 24/7 or put up with major inconvenience. Will most likely require 2 separate generators for stability. Half of the E-cats to each generator. You’ll need some serious heat sinks to dump excess heat. You’ll need some semi serious battery setup along with some serious safety hardware.

    All said, you’ve probably greatly exceeded the cost of what the Utilities can sell you power for.

    Although stats indicate the average household uses 1200 to 1500 Kwh per month, the average home can peek at around 25,000 Kilowatts at a given point & time.

    All this could change in time & the numbers could change depending on certain conditions which is why I’ve indicate up to 10- 10Kwh E-cats. Speaking of which a Utility would only have to figure a 10Kwh capacity per home verses your 100Kwh capacity requirements to be off grid.

    The technology could actually stunt other advances such as products that require less Energy. With cheaper energy & cheaper products people will become wasteful. Demand for more efficient products will plummet. Development is proceed by need & demand. Sadly, It’s the nature of the beast.

    • Also, the whole ‘home insulation’ industry would disappear overnight. However, centralised grid energy has one more enormous ‘advantage’ as far as government is concerned – it can be taxed to the hilt.

      Grid power is metered (much more difficult and probably easily evaded in the case of home generators) and so provides a numerical basis for taxation. Also people are used to paying through the nose for grid power, so slapping on a tax that brings LENR power up to the same level as we have been used to paying (for lovely ‘green’ purposes of course) will be inevitable, and is of course unavoidable.

      This is why the only LENR generators that will be allowed to reach the market will be industrial scale units for grid energy production. Usual caveats apply.

    • Charles

      Omega, peak power can perhaps one day be furnished from your EESU, see EESTOR, versus average power requirements. If you are a real optimist, bet on EESTOR. While you are at it just keep tract of all the other marvelous developments going on out there. I was an Electronics Engineer in my previous life and I am impressed and hopeful.

      • Omega Z

        @ Charles

        Yes their are ways to reduce peek demand. My post was more in general.

        If you plan to build a new home, Build underground & you can easily knock off 70% to 75%. With a few other technologies you may even reduce it by another 10% depending on cost/benefit ratio.

        You could possibly get by with to 10Kw E-cats total.

        There’s a lot of things in development, but it’s the same as the E-cat. Wait & see & hope it makes it to market.

    • Andrew Macleod

      Well written! While the end goal is to be off grid. If every home was using 10kw less power it would reduce strain on the grid and power plants.

  • georgehants

    It must be fair to say governments and the public take their advice from scientists.
    So where does the fault lay.
    If science put forward the current Cold Fusion position publicly to the media, governments would be forced to respond.
    The above E-Mail is giving the advice given to them by science.

  • georgehants

    Science is again moving on, but how long will the old Dogma be defended.

    The Bunsen Burner
    Standard Model of how universe works may be flawed, say scientists
    Recently analyzed data from the BaBar experiment may suggest possible flaws in the Standard Model of particle physics.

  • georgehants

    I love science and I love true scientists, but I do not like the way the administration backed by many non-thinking scientist has turned the subject into a laughing stock.
    Scientists in general in text books, T.V. media, Etc. act as if they know everything and are never wrong.
    Students are taught to follow their betters and Dogma by decree.
    In fact they know almost nothing about the World beyond a few classical discoveries, handed to them on a plate from Wonderful scientists of yesteryear and that is a Wonderful and exciting position to be in. To open-mindedly move on with hunger for knowledge.
    Everything they thought they knew is falling apart around their ears but still they are infallible experts on everything.
    They research nothing beyond a few self-serving subjects.
    The Quantum would still be denied and hidden if the realisation by mathematicians had not shown it’s code breaking potential, now new wonders are being found every day.
    Cold Fusion has put all this into the spotlight and Rossi et al
    secrecy have no bearing on the incompetent and disgraceful way the published results on the subject are being handled.
    Real concerned scientists need to lead this dinosaur of Dogma, out of the darkness and back into the light of true investigation of every anomaly in Nature.

  • georgehants

    A battle for Internet freedom as UN meeting nears
    June 22, 2012 by RICHARD LARDNER
    (AP) — Secret negotiations involving dozens of countries preparing for a United Nations summit on international telecommunications could lead to changes in a global treaty that would diminish the Internet’s role in economic growth and restrict the free flow of information.

    • The internet is more or less the only obstacle in the way of a corporate takeover of the Western world, and the efforts to control it will never stop, no matter how many times they are temporarily defeated. The best hope may be an ‘Internet II’ designed by hackers to be inherently uncontrollable by means of extensive P2P encryption and some form of democratic ‘crowd source’ driven exclusion of known government or corporate web addresses.

  • This link shows the DECC in its true colours, rather than the neutral stance they pretend to assume in their misleading response letter:

    • georgehants

      Great find Peter, If they restrict the Internet (link below) then Truth will take a tremendous step backwards.

      • Indeed, George. The best response seems to to shine the light on these moves as you have done by posting here in this hotbed of subversion!

    • The link to the report, “A Corruption of Governance? How Ministers and Parliament Were Misled (pdf)” seems to be down on the page I linked to. Those interested can download the executive summary or the full report here: If anyone has doubts that the UK government is prepared to resort to any tactics to ensure that new nuclear goes ahead, this report should dispel them.

      • GreenWin

        Thanks Peter. Looks like the nuke industry thieves have had a good go at Parliament. Surprising the Americans and Brits resist the world wide move to end fission plants after Fukushima. Even Merkel gave in to the demands of German people.

        Back in 1989 E.F. Schumacher published “Small is Beautiful”

        “…his deliberate intention is to subvert ‘economic science’ by calling its every assumption into question, right down to its psychological and metaphysical foundations.” — From the introduction by Theodore Roszak.

  • georgehants

    Happy birthday Alan Turing, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.
    Destroyed by the establishment.
    And ignored by the establishment as he was not “one of us” — Thomas Flowers, builder of the first computer.
    Codebreaker – Alan Turing’s life and legacy.

  • spinner99

    Here is a reply I got from DECC in March. I pointed out that they appeared to be confusing hot and “cold” fusion and then got a reply very similar to the one above. Nice to know the government “experts” have their finger on the pulse before they commit our tax money.

    Thank you for your email dated 29 March, regarding Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or Cold Fusion. I have been asked to reply.

    The Government recognises the potential of fusion to make a major contribution to solving the world’s energy supply problems. Low fuel consumption and abundant supplies of the basic raw materials mean that fusion, once working effectively, could be an energy source for many thousands of years. Fusion has the advantages of being environmentally-friendly and safe.

    The JET facility based in the UK has succeeded in producing energy from fusion for very short periods. We now need to undertake fusion experiments on a different scale and longer duration. The next step is the ITER project which is a global scientific collaboration on fusion involving the EU, China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United States.

    The UK strongly supports ITER which is now under construction in France. It could eventually lead to the demonstration of full scale power generation in a prototype power plant in 30-35 years.

    I hope that this is helpful.

    • They obviously have a stock of more or less automatic responses, pretty much as you would expect I suppose. The secretary who dealt with your first enquiry just sent the wrong file.

      It would be interesting to know how much money the various UK governments have tossed into the hot fusion ‘black hole’ one way or another, over the years. It seems to be depressingly easy to ‘influence’ politicians with virtually zero technical knowledge, but with very good instincts for forwarding their own best interests.

      • Apparently the answer is about £20M per year – roughly half the UK energy research budget. It seems ITER may be heading for the rocks though, despite the shrieks of protest from project managers about how they can (one day) save us from ‘global warming’:

  • GreenWin

    Gentlemen, the BBC article on hot fusion ITER Peter linked to is an eye-opener. Originally set to cost $$6B, it has now climbed to more than $$16B. Typical of bait and switch cons – the ring leaders claim one budget to get the politicians to fall – then, when construction begins, they reveal the “new” budget.

    “This is going to be the world’s biggest science experiment,” says Neil Calder, Iter’s head of communications.

    “This is a vast global project to show the scientific feasibility of fusion as a limitless source of energy.

    “On top of this platform we are going to build 130 buildings. The main building will contain the Iter machine itself.

    “It will be huge – the size of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris – and it’ll weigh about the same as a battleship – 36,000 tonnes of metal and instrumentation.”

    All the while the electrochemical cells typical of LENR weigh a couple pounds at most. And the cost is a couple thousand $$ in materials.

    Imagine – if the nations supporting ITER were to take just ONE PERCENT of their budget, $160M and set a team of scientists to work on perfecting LENR. With the specified goal of building a small commercial CHP device.

    “We are pressed for time, the climate situation is worse. I think we should go with a faster line of experiments. ITER should admit its limitations and it will give a limited contribution to fusion, but to get to ignition you need to follow a different road.” MIT Prof Hot Fusion, Bruno Coppi

    Professor Coppi, I’d like to introduce you to a fellow MIT Professor – Peter Hagelstein.

    • georgehants

      GreenWin, not much one can say.
      Now we know why a few million for Cold Fusion is understandably hard to find.

    • Frank

      The BP Deepwater Horizon oil-spill is going to cost around $40b. – And that’s just to block a well and clean-up the mess etc., not for developing a new, sustainable technology.

      In comparison to that, the $16b for ITER is a real bargain. Why shouldn’t all industrialized nations in a joint effort collect just half of the money BP has to spent for the oil spill desaster, and finance a research project which could revolutionize the energy supply?

      Of course, if Rossi’s e-cat would really produce excess heat, the ITER project would immediately become obsolet. – But I don’t bet on that !

      • Ged

        Err, well… Deepwater Horizon’s cost was actually: “Analysts for Swiss Re have estimated that the total insured losses from the accident could reach $3.5 billion. According to UBS, final losses could be $12 billion.” This includes -more than- just the blocking of the well and the clean up of the mess.

        It was never remotely $40 billion.

        I think you’re thinking about the market value BP as a company lost in the backlash for the spill (stocks), which reached upwards of a $60-100 billion loss of value.

        • Frank
          • Ged

            No. That $40 billion includes -all- the “Cleanup, government fines, lawsuits, legal fees and damage claims”, and likely is in the $60-100 billion range as of now. That is -not- the cost of the clean up or the well plugging as you initially stated.

            From the AP news report posted here

            That $40 billion in December of 2010 (it was already climbing above $40 billion then) is broken down as:

            – “The $10.7 billion that BP already has paid to plug its well, clean up the spilled oil and pay damage claims and other costs.” (THIS is the true cost of your “block a well and clean-up the mess etc.”)

            – “A $20 billion fund that BP set up in August for individuals and private businesses that were affected by the spill.”

            – “Fines: The Justice Department is suing BP for violating the Clean Water Act. Fines are based on how much oil was spilled. The government’s estimate of 4.9 million barrels means BP faces between $5.4 billion and $21.1 billion in fines.”

            – “Legal fees: BP has hired lawyers, engineers and geologists to defend the company. These experts could cost as much as $2 billion”

            – “Lawsuits: The toughest costs to estimate are future settlements and judgments from the hundreds of lawsuits filed against BP, including any class actions. Shrimpers, oystermen, charter-boat operators, restaurant workers and real-estate developers are suing BP for lost business. Oil rig workers and cleanup crews are making personal injury claims. And Gulf states and local governments are expected to sue for lost tax revenue and environmental damages. Alabama is seeking an initial $148 million from BP. Analysts at Citigroup say settlements, judgments and punitive damages from these suits will total as much as $6 billion.”

            So again, the UBS estimate of $12 billion for the well fix and cleanup were about right if not a little high. The rest is all people sueing or fining the pants off of BP, and then added on loss from the stock plunge, which was not calculated back in 2010.

            Do more research.

          • Ged

            In fact, read your own source again: “So far, BP has actually paid $11.6bn in total costs since the incident, but still faces ongoing clean-up charges, compensation claims, and probably a multi-billion dollar fine from the US government.”

            With the clean up complete, and the well plugged, the cost wasn’t even $40 billion then, yet. It was only projected to be due to, once more, all the humans in the area and governments ripping money out of BP for their accident. That’s a human versus human thing. One needs to understand what “cost” means in a business sense. And the cost, from the stock plunge as well, devalued the company by $60-100 billion, well above that estimated $40 billion. But -none- of that relates directly to the accident itself, just public backlash.

            If that backlash hadn’t happened, it would simply have cost $11.6-12 billion.

          • Frank

            I wrote … Block a well, clean up the mess etc….
            Although I’m not a native English speaker, I think this means (in particular because of the ‘etc’) more than just the plugging of a borhole and enviromental cleaning.
            However, the intention of the comment is anyway not to give an very accurate number of the damage caused by that accident (nobody could provide a final and accurate number now), but rather to bring this real huge costs in relation to the costs for ITER, and to point out that the expenses of such an oil drilling accident are just for ‘damage limitation’, whereas investment in ITER will also push technology in general.

      • GreenWin

        Frank, you propose to solve one failure with another. The BP spill confirms oil is an environmental disaster. Had you read the BBC story on ITER’s failures you would have learned that:

        “…scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome and that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away.”

        The father of hot fusion Dr. Robert Bussard has written that Tokamk and ITER are a global “fraud” – his word. Frank, it’s time to wake up to the colossal SCAM perpetrated by government and the energy industry. Nukes are a failure – witness Fukushima and the radioactive waste disaster. Oil is a failure – witness countless wars and oil spills. Hot fusion is a failure – witness 61 years $$250 Billion tax dollars and ZERO useful energy.

        Try getting honest Frank. It’s time to make a change.

        • Frank

          I don’t disagree about nuclear fission power plants, and I’m also not happy that we are currently depending on oil as an energy source.

          But I think hot fusion is worth a try!
          The physics for hot fusion is understood. The H-bomb is the first man-made working application of hot fusion. – Surely, the technology for a ‘controlled hot fusion’ for energy supply is still not developed/engineered. Developing the technology for hot fusion still will require huge efforts – but no ‘modification’ of the Laws of nature.
          So why not spend half of the money one oil company can effort for cleaning the mess from one borehole for further research in that field?

        • GreenWin

          Actually, the physics for hot fusion as a peaceful source of energy is a total MYSTERY to the best physicists in the world. They have no idea how to fully contain their plasmas – even with billions $$$ and 60 years of research!!

          Frank, you seem to mean well. I happen to think most scientists do too. But practical life teaches us to cut our losses when failure is imminent. Earth’s three major energy plays (fossil, fission, hot fusion) are long term failures. We need a new approach.

          Sure a lot of guys get egg on their face. Sure they have to eat some humble pie. But hey, don’t you teach your kids to face up to their failures – and move on??

          That’s all that’s missing here. Acceptance – by of the old school that it’s a far more mysterious universe than they figured. Or, admission they’ve dumbed the game down to protect their places of privilege.

          In either case – their party’s over. LENR is real science, it cannot be suppressed, and it blows away any competition.

          Odd thing Frank, LENR might not have made an entry for another century – but for the arrogance, greed and pride of decrepit, old priests.

          • Krawm

            If we don’t violently and civilly strive for better government representation and de-centralization, our entire civilization’s last days will be filled with scams, cancer, debts, suicides, anxiety, and atrocities.

    • daniel maris

      Sounds just like the Olympics scam! LOL

    • Dave From NJ

      Hot fusion is junk science.

      • dragon

        Hot fusion was always a weapons program. It still is. That is why they will keep it no matter the cost.
        LENR is good for military but on the fuel side not weapons side. Not yet. So is on back-burner now.

  • georgehants

    Bob K
    June 22nd, 2012 at 11:34 AM
    Hello Andrea Rossi…….Could you tell us how long the 600C reactor has been running continuously?
    Sincerely , Bob K

    Andrea Rossi
    June 22nd, 2012 at 11:59 AM
    Dear Bob K:
    We are testing the 600 C E-Cat since a couple of months, and we had to resolve problems that emerged. We will continue the tests for at least another month, after wich we will publish a report. In this precise moment I am testing it, and it works, it works.
    Warm regards,

    • Jimr

      It greatly depends on the problem that occurred. Did it cease operating, was there a drop in temp. Still a long way to go in my opinion. If there is a successful test and sale to a known customer that verifies they have received the devise and it is working by the end of the year I will be impressed. I am not counting on a home unit let alone a million units at $150, that will not happen for the better part of a decade even if he is successful by the end of year.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        After they invented Freon in the 1920’s, there was a refrigerator in 75% of kitchens within five years. That was in the 1920’s, without our advanced manufacturing/distribution techniques. The free market can do amazing things, if there is profit/savings motivation.

        • jacob

          that’s right

        • Krawm

          I think you would need to unleash the free market from the oligarchs and their government servants first…. which might require a dictator. IDK. The Koch Brothers might try to have everyone murdered soon.

    • Frank

      Here a comment/prediction someone posted almost one year ago on this blog:

      Al L on August 16, 2011 at 2:04 pm
      Pessimism is the order of the day. How many times have we seen a similar pattern of events unfold for such inventions? First comes the amazing claims by the developer, followed by unstructured demonstrations of the devices, then claims of imminent production and partnerships with larger companies, then… then comes the delays. One after another. Conspiracy stories start surfacing. The device never makes it to market.

      I am but a mere layman, who once had hope that these inventions were more than money-making-schemes for the developers. For those who believe otherwise, let me say this: I predict that in October/2011, one of 2 scenarios will play out: another ‘setback’ will befall the developers, resulting in another delay; or, at best, the test will have non-definitive results that will leave its tenuous status little changed from today.

      Back in June, I predicted that some ‘setback’ would hit this product and no test would take place by August. And here we are today.

      • Ged

        And that person was wrong about October. So far there haven’t been any major delays to anything.

        • dragon

          Actually all that is said by the said person is true. The conclusion we draw from this is that Rossi might be fraud. But we choose to trust the man more out of a desire that he is true, than based on hard evidence from his part.

          I did not loose hope in Rossi. But I always was an optimist, so it’s a belief by choice more than by facts.

          • Ged

            What was said by that person could only be deemed as true if one rejects the reports presented from the witnesses and data of the demonstration. That requires direct reasoning as to why one would throw away such information. As it is, I see no evidence to discount the evidence we have.

        • Frank

          He was right with his prediction for the Oct. test:
          “at best, the test will have non-definitive results that will leave its tenuous status little changed from today.”

          • Ged

            I suppose the test having “non-definitive” results depends on ones trust in the reliability of the reporting of the people there.

            It gave off excess energy, even if just half its rated value.

            There’s nothing suspect there, and the generator that was powering the instruments could never have given as much heat off through all those independent devices due to the second law of thermaldynamics and efficiency losses. In such a parallel system, the best one could have hoped for would be 200 kW of heat, but the plant gave off almost 500 kW.

            So, in short, it seems rather definitive, as long as one believes the reports from the witnesses, and the heat determinations.

          • Frank

            “devinitive results” implies that they are credible and come from credible (independ) source – everything else are just useless claims.

  • Dave From NJ

    Here’s my explanation of LENR in a nutshell:

    The reaction begins with neutrons created inside a metal matrix, pulse waves vibrate the matrix, hydrogen ions combine with neutrons, eventually H4 is created, H4 decays giving off HE as well as a huge amount of heat. With E=mC2, you have E/C2 = m. After the beta decay, even though m is very small, since C2 is so large, a huge amount of E is released as heat when HE is created.

    The guys at Brillouin Energy say their test bed is consistent and completely repeatable. They say it has been independently verified by two separate parties and they are building reactors. They say their pulse generator and software controls the reaction perfectly.

    • jacob

      Dave,one thing you forgot to include is the force of the universe , biomagnetic ether vortexes causing chaos and fusion

      • Dave From NJ

        H4 is all you need.

  • georgehants
    • Dave From NJ

      Conservatives will always defend and protect the status quo. It is human nature to have pure contempt over the people under your authority. The politicians hate us because they fear riots and chaos and just want to live like kings without having to do any work.

      • GreenWin

        Come on Dave From NJ, spending YOUR money is hard work!

  • Dave From NJ

    Every government in the world will pack their tax coffers with huge bundles of money if LENR is real.

    The world is in a downward spiral of deflation.

    The amount of commerce that will be generated by switching over to decentralized LENR power generation will be staggering.

    • jacob

      right on

  • Stephen Taylor

    ICCF-17 Program at a Glance

    Monday morning following the opening ceremony (Sunwon Park) and keynote speaker (Frank Gordon) the first three presenters are: Francesco Piantelli, Defkalion, and Brillouin. That afternoon Mitchell Swartz/Peter Hagelstein and a demo poster session.

    • artefact

      hehe, nearly same time that we posted 🙂

      • Stephen Taylor

        Great minds think alike. 🙂

    • Dave From NJ

      This will be awesome! Think this is going to be the breakthrough conference that finally turns the eyes of the world. I think the i’s will finally be dotted and the t’s will finally be crossed.

  • artefact

    ICCF-17 in Korea

    The program is now in more detail.

    Defkalion 11:30 – 12:00 13th of August
    Brillouin Energy 12:00 – 12:30 13th of August

    • dragon

      Wow … is amazing to see all those names put together in the same place: Hagelstein, George Miley, Michael McKubre, Francesco Celani, Francesco Piantelli, Defkalion, Brillouin Energy.

      They look like heroes, from here, representing us, the little guy.

      If only they would band together and form a Super League of Justice of something like that for Cold Fusion Research. They should be more opened to that kind of cooperation with each other.

      • I’ll join the League of Justice if I can wear a cape and a mask. But no puffy shirts please.

        • Best stay away from tights and external underwear, too.

    • artefact

      oh, piantelli is also there:

      Francesco Piantelli / Bill Colllins
      11:00 – 11:45 13th of August

      I wonder who Bill Collins is.

    • s

      30 minutes seems like a brief time to present earth shattering breakthroughs.

  • GreenWin

    “ECW Apparently Blocked in China | E-Cat World
    3 hours ago – I received an email this week from an E-Cat World reader who from China … sites that are blocked by Chinese web censors for various reasons, …”

    This story came and got pulled. What’s going on??

    • Frank

      I have quite often experienced that web-sites, which are actually (politically) harmless were not accesible from mainland China.
      Most probably the reason why is not accesible is, because very likely the server which host the blog also hosts many other blogs as well. And if China authorities deem one of them to be ‘not appropriate’, then they may block the server IP, and hence all blogs on that server.

      • admin

        Thanks, Frank

        GW, I pulled the story because I believe I received a logical explanation as to what the problem is. A reader from China said that the block was on the IP address, not keywords, and correctly assumed that since this site is offered on a shared hosting platform, that it shares an IP address with another site that is blocked.

        This is what Frank is saying here. I will need to make some changes in order to provide a unique IP for the site — have been looking into this.

        Frank (admin)

        • GreenWin

          Thanks to both Franks. I figured there was an explanation. But it reminds that the CCP and other oppressive governments are afraid their people might learn too much about the world they live in.