Request to ECW from Tyler van Houwelingen — Off to South Korea!

I just received this message from Tyler van Houwelingen. Let’s see if we can help him out — I’m sure we join in a hearty congratulations to Tyler!

I was just asked and will be attending ICCF-17 in S. Korea next week to give my presentation, “Is commercial LENR the Real Deal”

Thanks ,Frank for finding/distributing the doc, albeit a few weeks earlier than I had expected :).I need inputs from all here to make sure I have all the facts correct and up to date. Also any tips on South Korea would be helpful.

I created this doc to offer a reference point for the facts and provide value for this discussion. Thanks for the corrections (jami, dfnj, AB, daniel, ville, methusela, etc.) I have incorporated your changes and will continue to update. If you believe I have made a mistake, please let me know what is stated incorrectly and include a source and I will change it. If you want me to add something, let me know what and the source. I want this doc to be as accurate, fact based and credible as possible.

It should be an interesting week in Daejeon and perhaps I will glean some more facts about what is really going on with higher power LENR. (Hopefully I’m not just filling in for Defkalion, I really hope they show up and have something worthwhile to say finally.) I will be speaking there for all of us, well at least most of us anyway, and will certainly share what I find.

For easy reference/sharing, I posted the doc at:



Below is an embedded version of the presentation:

  • Pachu

    Gratz Tyler, my 2 cents for your presentation would be change the 1º slide to show several products (like in slide 16) and not only e-cats because that could start your presentation with a bit of animosity.

    Good luck.

  • hammerskoj

    This is off topic but very “à la page” and new.
    Olga Dmitriyeva is at ICCF-17, too.

    “Test of zero-point energy emission from gases flowing through Casimir cavities”


  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    Slide 4 – there are no demos ongoing at the University of Bologna, Italy, as stated.

    • daniel maris

      Is that right? I seem to recall something from the European Research and Innovation Directorate possibly. It’s not Rossi, necessarily but something to do with LENR.

      • robiD

        Yes, it’s right: no demos ongoing at the University of Bologna and no demos ongoing at Pirelli High School. AB (below, 12:58 pm) is right, Pirelli High School is not involved in the actual phase of tests.

    • AB

      There is also no ongoing demo at Pirelli High School (not as far as I know at least).
      The project started at the Leopoldo Pirelli High School in Rome. After months of R&D, it culminated in this presentation:

      I believe it was primarily for educational purposes. The people behind the project (professionals with relevant technical expertise) thought that it worked so well that it should be continued outside of the school program. They went public, released info on 22passi to get publicity and requested independent testers to come forward.

      I believe it would be more accurate to present this work as a non-profit open-source approach to LENR on behalf of a group of professionals which started it all as a high school project for educational purposes.

  • barty

    NASA and Boeing are working together on an LENR powered aircraft:

    • AlainCo

      LENR is only an option, and they just make computation of when it became possible to make a LENR plane, with limits on weight per kW of LENr reactor, and turbine, and of weight per kW.h of battery…

  • dragonX

    God speed Tyler.
    Please prepare yourself a good list of questions and try to get some critical answers from whoever is there regarding the steps they’ve made towards the commercialization of LENR. We care about the commercial aspect more than about the scientific one at this point in history. MUCH MORE.

  • dragonX

    I don’t know much about Physics (or Chemistry, etc.) but somebody pointed out for me from your presentation these 2 premises that are coming from Gary Vesperman:

    “a neutron is a combination of an electron and a proton with a zero net electrostatic charge”

    “A tiny amount of hydrogen protons are converted into neutrons”

    Knowing that Einstein’s theory is that protons, neutrons and electrons are individual sub-atomic particles, are the 2 premises correct? Are neutrons actually made of protons and electrons like Gary Vesperman says, or they are a distinct sub-atomic particle?

    Finally, who is Gary Vesperman? His blog looks a little strange for my eyes:

    • AlainCo

      neutrons and protons are 3 quark (named Up and Down )glued by gluons, total charge positive (proton) or null (neutron)…
      electron is a kind of negative charged lepton
      neutrino is another lepton, neutral.

      one of the quark can react with an electron, or a neutrino, and there can be transformation into each other (a boson, messenger particle, called W+/W-, make the exchange) …

      what widom larsen assume is
      proton+electron (+energy) -> neutron+neutrino (look like electron capture…)
      in fact the real reaction is with one of the quark, but don’t care.
      don’t forget the neutrino, not much important, but will make some furious.
      see there for idea of the game
      best idea is not to get into QM

  • admin

    Tyler, I am not so sure that either State senator Tarr, or candidate Heckman have mentioned that they have first hand knowledge that LENR is real. I know both are interested and supportive of LENR as a possible energy solution, but I don’t know about their level of first hand knowledge.

    • I’m not sure about the value of the Mitt Romney ‘endorsement’ (slide 8) either. He clearly had no idea what he was saying – it seems he may have just been repeating almost at random a few ‘keywords’ he had been taught, but had not understood. This doesn’t really add much to the credibility of LENR.

  • kemo sabe

    Tyler seems to be a little unclear on the concept of facts. For example, “the moon is far away” is not a fact unless the context defines “far”. Compared to the grocery store down the street, it is far away, but compared to alpha centauri, it is quite close.

    With that in mind, very little of Tyler’s slide 4 (entitled “Fact 1 proof…”) is actually factual, and much of it is a misrepresentation and deceptive. Some of it is blatantly untrue.

    “1. Long and rapidly growing list of credible people and organizations worldwide affirming LENR is real (at least at lower power) with strong affirmation recently from NASA, National Instruments, US dept of defense, European Directorate-general and multiple universities”

    The list of credible people affirming LENR is real is not long compared to the list of credible scientists and experts who believe the research has no merit, which is everyone else. We know from 1989, that *if* scientists thought there was any truth to LENR, they would drop everything and plunge into the field.

    It is also not growing rapidly, unless you think a few people per year is rapid growth.

    There is no strong affirmation from NASA, NI, US dept of defense, European directorate general, or from any universities.

    NASA’s Bushnell is an advocate, and Zawodny has advocated research, but nothing from NASA as an organization. And NASA has also done research into gravity shields, and Bushnell has supported Moller’s flying cars.

    Some people within NI have advocated research without affirming LENR, but their interest is in selling instruments. The closest thing to affirmation from the American military is a document from the DIA which makes a completely conditional statement that *if* LENR is real, it would be swell. (Even skeptics agree with that.)

    The European Union’s Directorate-general *for Research and Innovation* claims LENR is real and advocates research. But this was written by long-time cold fusion advocate Violante, and importantly contradicts what most advocates are saying these days by claiming deuterium is necessary.

    I have not seen any university giving any affirmation of any kind to LENR. Some people within universities are advocates, but even Duncan at Missouri is cautious when he says his goal is to see what is going on.

    “2. 1700+ peer review articles and tens of thousands of replications of LENR worldwide since initial discover in 1989.”

    Well at least this has the form a factual claim. But even uber-advocate Rothwell only claims 1200 peer-reviewed papers; where do the other 500 come from? Anyway, the vast majority were published within a few years of 1989, and many were negative. Nowadays, they trickle out at a few papers per year, if that. (Compare that to a field born at the same time, much less globally important, but undoubtedly real: there are more than 100,000 papers on high temperature superconductivity.) Moreover, there is peer-reviewed and there is peer-reviewed. LENR is published in second-rate journals, and completely absent in the most prestigious journals like Science and Nature (where it would automatically go if it had a shred of credibility), and in the most relevant journals like the Physical Review, or in any APS journals. Finally, a lot of pathological science gets published. There were 450 papers on polywater before it was found to be bogus, and in much more prestigious journals too.

    As for the tens of thousands of replications, that requires a complete redefinition of the term. According to McKubre, there are no quantitative replications and no inter-lab replications. To most scientists, that means there are no replications.

    “3. LENR demos currently running at MIT as well as University of Missouri, University of Balogna and Pirelli High School (Italy)
    – MIT Demo started on January 31, 2012 and is reported to still be running today with no input energy (after initial startup) and a COP of >10. […]
    – Demo is open to the public, visited by US State Senator Bruce Tarr in April 2011 & others (Barry)”

    There is a demo running at MIT, but I have not seen any claim that there is no input energy, and if there weren’t any, the COP would be infinite. (It is not calculated based on the startup energy.) And “open to the public” is an exaggeration. One commenter made arrangements to see it, and was shown a *closed* tupperware container with wires going in and out. This is not a demo. This is just a meaningless claim. Where is the publication on it? Where is the replication?

    Missouri is planning experiments, some Balogna people are involved in LENR, but I’ve not seen reference to demos at either university. Perhaps Tyler will provide them at the conference.

    And that’s just slide 4; I don’t have the stomach to review the rest of it.

    • 1. and 3. consist largely of opinion rather than fact. I would have to agree that in 2. the claimed number of replications of LENR is doubtful.

      I do not believe that these comments are intended to be either helpful or constructive.

      • Ged

        I agree with your assessment. Such alternate views are needed, but the arrogant tone (e.g. Kemo’s last sentence) is not.

    • Karl

      I’ve went through the slides and to my mind it pretty much sum of what I have learned by following the LENR since Rossi made his presentation. Time will most probably soon tell about right and wrong.

    • Alexvs

      Thanks kemo sabe. Splendid review.

    • Garry

      I am a BIG “believer”/supporter of LENR. I also think your “editing” of the tone of the presentation is appropriate. Pay no mind to your critics on that.

      You should see the comments I make on my students’ papers to Science, Nature, etc. Your comments are spot on. I don’t see what you say as arrogant. But, “I don’t have the stomach to review the rest of it” was unnecessary.

    • daniel maris


      You’re trying to be a bit too clever there I think…if I say the store is 100 miles away is that far or close? Depends if I am travelling at 6000 mph in rocket or hitching a ride on the back of a snail.

      As I see it, Tyler is trying to give a sketch of where we are – not a voluminous cross-referenced tome. I don’t see any problem with his approach.

  • Slides 3 and 19: Statement of fact that LENR transmutes nickel plus hydrogen to copper. This has been stated by A Rossi in connection with the e-cat. However I am not sure that any before/after sampling that actually confirms the hypothesis has been carried out, other than one purported analysis that rather dubiously showed isotopic ratios identical to Earth normal. Perhaps better stated as “It has been suggested that…” or similar.

  • Lu

    This is wonderful Tyler! Good luck with your presentation. We are looking forward to your trip report 🙂


    On Slide 1, the 10KW Home E-Cat is only an artist depiction. According to Rossi it will be 12″x12″x 4″.

    • dragonX

      That’s ok… Nobody knows exactly how a E-Cat really looks anyway 🙂

    • Ged

      Congratulations to him indeed! And perfect for us, as now we’ve got a man on the inside 😀

  • AlainCo

    slide 3, situation is more complex.
    Pd+D systems are now quite reliable, some claim good COP, but still low temperature, low power, low useability…
    Claim of transmutation, are claims, and some like Brillouin interpret them as dysfunctioning of a H+H+H+H fusion (as if you bun the iron in a barbecue)…

  • AlainCo

    slide 4
    “with no input energy (after initial startup) “, even if COP is high, no input energy seems false… (COP bould be infinite)… please check with hagelstein.

    about organization, they don’t support it officially, nor clearly… On old ape from big corp could say that, not firing their executives who talk about LENR is a strong commitment, compared to before… Support came from bottom-level researcher, to hig. the strongest comitment today is NI, but they only “sell the thermometers” (anyway real believers in supporting corps have no interest to communicate, just to work and win by surprise).

  • AlainCo

    page 9.
    slides to add before
    you miss some of the best proofs.
    US Navy Spawar have published peer reviewed papers about replicable, reproducible, PdD electrolysis LENR reactors, and only their work to guess the kind of particles is subject to doubt …
    Celani in his CERN conference, gave a better list of results
    increasing density, COP…

    note that some gas phase reaction are with PdD systems… not NiH only…

  • AlainCo

    slide 13
    1-scaling of power is not so important.
    it is energy density. and if you compate e-cat and hyperion with latest Celani results, it is coherent.
    2-big organization mostly don’t deny anything. NI just acknowledge contact with Rossi (and that mean something, otherwise they would silence).
    3- fund are small, and NASA fund many crazy ideas, and LENR is in that class. I feel that unfair, but it is.
    4- not collaboration, but contacts. the bigest evidence is a NI private community name “LENR”, then the Brussel and Rome conference by Concezzi supporting reality of LENR,
    then NIWeek content
    5- some elements on ansaldo and Siemens, and theire relation with LENR
    7- “fOcardi”

  • robiD

    I also have a doubt about 1700+ _peer_reviewed_ articles (slide 4). It seems too many articles for cold fusion science, but I don’t have any reference (glad to be wrong anyway).
    We all know that the peer review system is the strong arm of the mainstream science used (abused) to get rid of “pathologic sciences”.

  • AlainCo

    slide 14
    1- about brillouin, they claim low temperature results. you should check if the power is the same. they seem confident but late.
    8- do you know if Wysotskii was independent or paid by Defkalion. I have no data. however the photo seems to show a radiation detection protocol (gamma?), and very low radiation (detector was lead shielded, to protect from ambiant radiations, and not the reactor who was judjed not dangerous for operator). see:

  • Barry

    Great work Tyler!

    On page 4 you have “Bruce Tarr visited MIT in April 2011” where it was April 2012. Small detail.

    You wrote, “MIT Demo started on January 31, 2012 and is reported to still be running today with no input energy (after initial startup) and a COP of >10.”

    I’m not sure the NANOR is still running at MIT, but is was as of June and it did have input energy (electricity) and was putting out 10 – 14 times more energy (COP of 10 to 14).

    If this helps I would word the sentence – “MIT demo started on January 23, 2012 and was reported to still be running as of June 2012 with a COP of 10 to 14.”

    A demo was open (it was part of the MIT class on CF) but again I’m not sure it is still open for visits. Hopefully Peter Hagelstein will comment on this.

    Good luck! Knock’m dead.

  • AlainCo

    slide 17
    LENR and Weak Interaction is only suspected by some, and fighted by others. Alternative explanation induce either new physics, some screening in condensed matter… big battle. see:

  • Filip47

    Well, Frank… sit back and relax, you’ve got yourself a team! 🙂


    • AlainCo

      YES, coffee. Kopi Luak ada ?

      • Filip47

        Well, I’m gonna pour myself a cup, you’re welcome to join me 🙂

        • Filip47

          But I think we are getting too much of topic here, beware the ‘Modernator’ :):):)

  • AlainCo

    slide 19
    nickel is not the most abundant metal on earth, but in the 5 more element on earth… maybe less in the surface crust. much enough.
    my computations
    say that 10% of annual production today, is enough for world energy produced at 33% efficiency, without any recycling… much less in real situation.

    3- transmutation in copper is only one of the claim.some like Brillouin claim that if well tuned the reactor soul not transmute nickel, but just fusion H+H+H+H in He4 + 2e+ +2v
    so even better if true

    4- defkalion gave an estimated price too, more expensive, but more powerful… 5000eur/45kW… but things might have changed.

    • Miles

      @AlainCo, as for Slide 19, point 3, Nickel production, is almost a unlimited resource. The amount of global nickel being produced in 1 year, we would only consume on 1% of that nickel for the e-cat.

      C’mon Rossi.

  • AlainCo

    slide 24
    as said before
    “a neutron is a proton and an electron” is false…
    the true is: in good condition a neutron can be generated from a proton and an electron. NB: not so easy, it need energy, much… that is the purpose of WL and some other theory to explain how.

  • AlainCo

    Note to tyler, sorry to send so much remarks,
    just want to help… note that sometime I emit remarks simply because I have no data on a claim, so if you have, GOOD (and sent the proofs to us, it is interesting).

    I am interest in latest results of Brillouin. I remind of few concrete results yet. You show photography of recent phase 2 reactor, and that seems GREAT.

  • artefact

    Page 5 the name Professor Michael Melch
    should be Professor Michael Melich (missing i)

  • dragonX

    Dear Tyler, try to get on video the whole ICCF-17 conference proceedings, if possible. Then upload on YouTube for further study from us and others.

    We can always discovers something interesting in what the scientists say or don’t want to say at ICCF-17. Something tells me that THIS ICCF will be different then the ones before. I want to see the other guys faces when Defkalion speaks.

  • artefact

    The front page looks very good. But I would add a picture of the Hyperion.

    • Filip47

      Maybe no picture, it must look very neutral.
      Inside pictures can be added.
      But that’s just an opinion.

      • artefact

        I thought it gives the impression that the commerzialisation is limited to just one person/company.
        But.. just an opinion. It looks good.

      • Ged

        I think about 90% of the text should be removed, and things streamlined down to about 6 points per page at most (and more figures if possible). All the information should be kept for the speaking part of the presentation; walls of text are no good for presentable powerpoint slides.

        • Jim Johnson

          I agree with Ged. Please consider moving the “wall of text” slides to an appendix, and replacing them each with slides that:
          – Summarize the key points (and per Ged, with #’s)
          – Reference a few key examples
          – Point to the appropriate appendix
          Scientists and engineers may be more tolerant than business people of too-busy PowerPoint slides, but they have their limits too. You’ve done a tremendous amount of work that is a real service to the community. The next step is to get as much of this information as possible into the ICCF-17 attendees’ minds, and that result can be improved with simplification and highly consistent formatting.

      • Filip47

        Yeah, it looks great!

  • Torbjörn

    Rossi said in this video (februari 2012) that the 1 MW plant (tested oktober 2011) woud be shipped to USA in two weeks.

    • PersonFromPorlock

      Rossi says many things.

  • artefact

    page 25: the text is “LENR SCALING CERN PRESENTATION JANUARY 2012”.
    The data is out of a presentation of Celani so you should mention him in the text. (he will be there!)

  • Pachu

    I bet Tyler is stunned rigth now 😀

    • artefact

      because he is now mentioned on an italian blog? :)

    • It happened to me, so I understand…
      anyway after that, the show will be cool !

      • GreenWin

        Tyler, please see Sandy’s comment and link below (Sandy on August 2, 2012 at 5:27 pm ) re James Patterson and his patented Patterson Power cell. This is NOT A SCAM as you have listed in your supporting info page! Jim Patterson is a pioneer in nickel catalysts and electrochemical cells. Attempts have been made to suppress his work (his US patent disappeared from the IBM patent database) but most LENR researchers acknowledge his work especially George Miley who based his own research on Patterson’s discoveries.

        Very good job in your presentation. Remember, brevity is key to comprehension.

        • Barry

          Hey GreenWin,
          From what I know, Patterson produced some very effective nano particles but when he tried to make more the result was quite different. He also made some very high claims about his COP that seemed a little off the charts. Unfortunately his partner/grandson died, I think in his thirtys, which seemed to take a lot of wind out of JP’s sails (rightly so). It’s good to know George Miley has picked up Pattersons torch but it is to bad a lot of secrets died with J Patterson.

    • dragonX

      It was bound to happen. We are a small community after all 🙂

  • Frank

    Don’t forget Julian Seymour Schwinger as a supporter of LENR

  • Anders

    This is simply brilliant! Fantastic job.
    However i think the first impression was not a neutral analysis because of the pictures in the first slide. I suggest something more neutral. And watch out for several different misspellings of joseph zawodny’s name.

  • Renzo

    New interview with Aldo Proia, he says he’s already in talks with some industrial clients.

    • georgehants

      Good link Renzo, worth a new topic page.

  • georgehants

    venerdì 3 agosto 2012
    Yesterday, August 2nd, in the evening, news came in that GreenStyle the weekend of 8 and 9 September 2012 will be held the long awaited Congress where Andrea Rossi will participate publicly.
    Technopark Zurich Where the Congress? In Zurich, at the auditorium of the Technopark. Andrea Rossi U.S. 2012 There are the licensees of the European revolutionary device that will relate to the end and there will be a panel discussion with the Italian inventor. To organize the congress are just the licensees of Germany and Switzerland. Andrea Rossi reports that will come with a flight from the United States in time for his first speech on Saturday 8 September and will restart as soon as the round table Sunday, September 9. The association attend the congress in Zurich and coworkers report to the European situation and sales organization for assistance. The meeting with the Italian coworkers (but not only) will be held September 27, 2012 in Alexandria. The Energy Revolution has begun! And it is a cheap energy and clean and very important fact .. with network communication .. not be stopped! Vivì Bertin IF President and coworke

  • Pachu

    Page 16, i think the rigth name is Hydrotron, (missing r in slide).

    I would put pressure to others LENR scintist rigth there and put a slide saying that definitive 3rd party with mainstream scientist and peer reviewed test publication in a big science magazine is the next step to shock the world.

    1 definitively reproducible test for everyone who wants to try it.

  • This is my first crowd-sourced presentation but the concept seems to work surprisingly well… This is great feedback, thank you all.

    I just uploaded the latest version. I do plan on creating a 2nd, shorter version for the conference, stripping down text and increasing font, etc. once I have all the facts and message in order. Please, keep the feedback coming, I want the facts to be very solid. People tend to jump on any error, no matter how minor, as a reason to discredit the whole presentation and message.

    My goal at the conference is to gain as much as I can about Fact #2 (e.g. DGT, Brillouin, and maybe a bit on Rossi, etc) as well as the theories behind LENR. Should be a fun meeting many of the people we have been talking about and I will share what find out.

    Does anyone know yet what the power output of the Hydrotron reactor is, the one from that recent video by Ugo?


    • georgehants

      Go Tyler, Go.
      Best wishes to you.

    • artefact

      the first version hat a claimed COP of 3 – 4 I think. But it was not very good to measure because the reaction could only last 15 minutes. The new version could last much longer but tests are ongoing.

  • Barry

    Very concise, thank you Tyler. Page 4, There is no longer an open demo at MIT. The NANOR is no longer there.

    Wish I was going to Korea, sounds like the chance of a lifetime. Of all the CF conferences this one seems the most pivotal and jam-packed. History in the making! Hope someone takes videos. Take care, Barry

  • artefact

    Slide 4:
    Athanor … by 22passi -> Daniel Passerini is only reporting as far as I know. Ing. Ugo Abundo is the developer

  • artefact

    page 3:
    were vey unreliable -> very (missing r)

  • artefact

    Page 3:
    “use Ni Nano powder” -> Rossi states he uses micro powder (3 – 8 um)
    Maby write “use Ni micro- and nano-powder”

  • artefact

    Page 18 3:
    “for past year or so” does not sound good to me. Maby just “during the last year”