Reports from Cold Fusion Colloquium in Eindhoven.

Many thanks to ECW readers Fusionrudy and Zeddicus Zul Zorander for their reports of the lecture on cold fusion given by French physicist Jean-Paul Biberain at the Technische Universiteit Eindhoven in the Netherlands on January 21st.

Fusionrudy’s report

Prof. Jean Paul Biberian gave a lecture „Cold Fusion 2013, a review of scientific progress“ at the El. Eng. Dep. of the Technical University Eindhoven in The Netherlands on 21 Jan. 2013. I estimate that ca. 40-50 people attended, among them a member of the Dutch Parliament Ms. A.W. Lucas (VVD). Most people were young men with a sprinkling of some 5 greyheads. I asked the audience if any people of the (Hot) Fusion Dep. were present: no reaction, hence they were not there or they did not dare to show hands.

Biberian made it a rather casual talk with lots of humor and personal anecdotes.

First he gave a short explanation of the basics of hot and cold fusion for the uninitiated. “Approach the atom in its safe by using the key rather than smashing the safe with a bomb”.

Then he described a number of famous experiments from all over the world with experiment photos, diagrams and graphic results,

Thirdly he spoke about highlights of his own 25 year research on CF.

At the end, during the Q&A period he refused to say anything on the commercial efforts (Rossi, Defkalion etc.). “….I like Watts, not kW or MW…”

To me, a regular reader of ECN, this was new info: Transmutations in rather large quantities had been measured early in the last century when chicken produced much more calcium in their eggs than was present in their food. Now I found this ref. on this topic:

I made a video of practically the whole conference but the soundtrack is very faint because Biberian did not use a micro and talked subdued many times. I think it is not worthwhile to upload the video without adequate sound.

Zeddicus Zul Zorander’s Report

Here’s my report on the CF the colloquium at the university of Eindhoven in The Netherlands. Everything IMHO of course.

I found the colloquium quite strange. It was attempting to give an overview of the history and the current state of LENR/CF, but it sort of ended up being a little bit of history, too much sheets attempting to show excess energy and too little background about the current theories or possible future developments. Not much was said about the problems involved getting LENR to market either such as patents and possible problems with upscaling the power.

The professor didn’t seem too knowledgeable about the field as a whole since he didn’t know some of the questions asked and went on way too much about his own experiments in too much detail.
He did however mention one interesting fact: It is possible for a CF reaction to run away and cause an explosion. To his knowledge this happened at least 6 times, possibly more at respected institutions such as Mitsubishi and Toyota, but also by McKubre at SRI. Some have tried to replicate the explosions, but to no success.

So for me not much new and I imagine, for people not knowing much about CF/LENR quite confusing.

The talks in the foyer however where much better as questions were asked about the problems of getting CF research in universities (apparently research money is hard to get and in the case of the university of Eindhoven, the people having a final say in the money are also involved in hot fusion), about CF theories and also some talk about the MFMP project. I met this guy called Joris van der Schot who was the co-organizer of the talk en who was also involved with the MFMP project (he registered for example and knew all the guys at the project) and was planning to start a research company into the CF effects. He will probably be reading this site also.

The general impression seemed that world is poised for a LENR breakthrough, but nobody can say for sure when it happens.

Also it was interesting to note that there were no people from the hot fusion faculty present.

Would like to hear what others who attended the talk thought of it.

Here’s a link to the University’s own news site about the colloquium.
And a link to Andre Blum’s english translation of the article (thanks Andre!)

  • artefact

    Thank you Peter E for that interesting document.

    I repeat it in this new thread so it does not get lost:

    Oktober 12 Bologna Experiment

    Due to the lack of detailed information on the Bologna experiment, it is not possible
    to compare rigorously the present prediction and the experimental results. Nevertheless,
    the observation results of Bologna group seem to be suggestive some coincidences of the
    prediction in Section 12 [29-33].
    1) In Bologna, no 5.5 MeV gamma ray was observed as prediction i). Instead later, the
    0.511 MeV annihilation gamma ray might be detected and correspond to the occurence
    of the reaction Eq.(8).
    2) The observed power output of the Bologna device charging some tens gram Ni and
    ordinary hydrogen gas might be some kW. This is consistent with prediction ii), iii)
    and iv).
    3) The Bologna data on the power output is said to be gained through supplying D2-gas,
    which correspond to prediction iii).
    4) Corresponding to prediction ii), iii), iv) and vi), a very small percent fraction of Ni
    might be transmuted into Cu during a few months continued operation of device. A
    small part of annihilation gamma rays observed might be due to the positron decay
    of 60Cu produced in the 58Ni(3He; p)60Cu reaction.

    Based on this conjecture, the author observed successfully the enormously
    enhanced fusion reactions in the metallic Li liquids under the collaborations with R. Pet-
    tersson in Uppsala and T. Watanabe in Sakura/Tokyo. The above described enhanced
    nuclear reations or transitions are generally expected through the spontaneous chemical
    reactions coupled with the nuclear transitions in the thermodynamically stable liquids.
    The enhanced nuclear transitions

    • vbasic

      Who wrote the details of the Oktober 12 Bologna Experiment? It’s amazing verification. And what is the Nuclear Transition pdf document?

      • artefact

        Hi vbasic (msgbox “Hi vbasic”)

        Peter E wrote that comment in the last thread.

        The document is written by Hidetsugu Ikegami who worked under the collaborations with R. Pettersson in Uppsala and T. Watanabe in Sakura/Tokyo on the experiments with liquid metallic lithium and metallic hydrogen.

        The document is hostet by the Uppsala University…

        • Simon.h
          • Joel C.

            Third fire… interesting.

          • artefact

            interesting comment by Christos Stremmenos on JONP:

            “Christos Stremmenos
            January 23rd, 2013 at 11:20 AM
            Dear Daniel De Caluwé
            sorry for the delayed answer, …..translation problems …!. Thank you for the positive comments in my regards. I can state that I was not the first to use nickel rods. In fact, I was against it, after the observations I made on experiments which I had conducted at the Faculty of Industrial Chemistry in Bologna.
            I began to use nickel powders because I had observed, on the rods or foils, the formation of microscopic craters, within which “half the periodic table”(…!.), could be found (trasmutation!).
            I tried to pass the information I had acquired on to Focardi and Piantelli, who replied that they had also detected the surface phenomena, but that powders (development of a surface) were unfeasible.
            In any case, I continued to make use of nano-powders together with Prof. Paolo Cammarota, then Chair of the Institute of Metallurgy. We did not restrict ourselves to nickel powders, and we obained information at the level of resonant iterations in transition elements and electromagnetic fields (Ramman Spectroscopy); see my post Cold Fusion a Continuing Debate 1999 in the JoNP.
            In those days, besides nickel, we were using everyting — Pd, Ti, Fe, and other transition elements. For sure Andrea Rossi, who worked with Ni powders from 1995, has been the first to make real energy with nickel, in the range of kWh, not of some watts or something alike. And so far nobody has been able to do the same!
            Best regards,
            Christos Stremmenos”


          • clovis

            good one, thanks, very interesting, will have to keep this one.

          • georgehants

            A methodical mind: Alan Turing
            Issue 47 of Cosmos, October 2012
            by Tom Siegfried
            His work helped bring Hitler to his knees, and laid the foundations for our modern, computerised world. But Alan Turing died a victim of prejudice and intolerance.
            “One day ladies will take their computers for walks in the park and tell each other ‘My little computer said such a funny thing this morning!’”
            ~Alan Turing

          • George This vid is worth a watch.


          • georgehants

            Dave, very kind, thank you.
            I put the link up as nobody from the establishment and very few scientists spoke up for Turing as today the establishment and very few scientists have spoken up for Fleischmann and Pons.
            It is all very Sad.

          • Anthony

            I just wanted to say, Turing did eventually get his recognition.


          • georgehants

            Thanks Anthony, one day we may appreciate great scientists in their own lifetimes, such as the many working in the now, esoteric subjects and subjected to as much abuse and denial as any of the Wonderful pioneers of the past.
            Still hoping for that fabled enlightenment to appear and show it’s World changing potential.

          • GreenWin

            It is awesome. That much heat possible on Earth?? Super-Novastic!! We may get off this rock sooner than I thought.

          • I would not be suprised if the Dreamliner battery fires turn out to be a form of a Lenr.

    • Gerrit

      “supernova on earth” sounds much better than “sun in a bottle”

      thanks for reporting, I would have missed it.

      • Invy

        That’s all we need is for the oil companies to use that in their FUD campaign.

        • Peter_Roe

          Stand by.

    • Torbjörn
    • GreenWin

      It appears that Dr. Petterson was one of the lead scientists on the October 6, 2011 1MW e-cat test:

      Note Dr. Petterson says, “WE will change some part of the equipment… some part of the detectors…”

      • Peter_Roe

        More and more little clues that Rossi is playing a part – that of the lone oddball inventor. He does it very well.

        But the mushrooms need fresh compost…

        (Very well spotted, BTW)

        • GreenWin

          Peter, you have intimated this several times over the last couple years and I agree. Dr. Rossi is a consummate player and there is a wonderfully clever team surrounding him. George referenced Alan Turing, recalling the astonishing achievements of the Enigma team. One hopes for an outcome as good if not better! than that.

          It is however difficult to sustain the game in the absence of reinforcing atmosphere.

  • Preston

    There was an explosion at SRI, but they said it was a conventional hydrogen explosion. They were doing electrolysis and the hydrogen wasn’t properly vented.

    I think Rossi has said that some of his high COP experiments had issues, but what about these other labs? Anyone remember stories about explosions at any of them?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Thank you Fusionrudy and Zeddicus Zul Zorander for the reports. Question, did it seem to you that Biberain was holding back on presenting information, possibly being careful not to reveal his IP?

    • No, I did not get the impression that Biberian was holding back. In contrary he just rambled on in a very casual way, ready to answer any questions except about the commercials where he said he did not know what was going on.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        I agree, that was also my impression.

  • Ash

    Kervran’s experiments in the 1960’s on calcium transmutation in chickens have been shown to be incorrect in the past 50 years. At the time there was an imperfect understanding of the chemical pathways in biology. It’s been demonstrated definitively that the source of temporary excess calcium is the skeleton, not transmutation.

    • Damien

      It’s a shame to hear that.

      I’ve always wondered if there could be a process other than chemical that’s involved when it comes to heating a human body.
      Though if that were the case, a body would be much less susceptible to cold weather.

  • Andreiko

    Very good,thank you.

    • Bento

      Me too.

  • clovis

    hi, you’ll,
    Honestly, i never thought to much of Prof. Jean Paul Biberian .
    Regular blow hard, trying top sell books, and using dr pons to do so. but i guess every little bit of info, that gets put out there helps, get this party started, smile
    just my 2 cents.

  • artefact

    From EgoOut / Peter Gluck:


    • GreenWin

      This apparent mechanical translation is so poor, as to raise immediate red flags. Why not spend an hour and have an EDITOR correct the abominable English?

      • artefact

        Thanks to PESN:

        chavascience “This is an extraordinary site because – we’re an extraordinary company”

        They updated their website and it has a good intro to LENR:

        A Short History of Hydrogen Thermal Anomalies
        Jones Beene and Dr Mark Snoswell

        • GreenWin

          Two more knowledgeable people to help spread the word.

      • Dear Greenwin,

        I am sorry if you have problems with understanding
        my message. Obviously, my English is far from perfect
        but in this case it must be a different problem.
        I have written many essays in English and had a lot
        of readers;this is the first destructive critique
        I have received. However I am grateful, surely you
        want to help me

        Warmest greetings,

        • GreenWin

          Yes. Peter. I would be happy to assist in rephrasing your English so as to make it more accessible to English readers.

          BTW, “destructive” (distructiv) is not the intent of my critique. Simply, it is far more believable if your message is well written. An honest critique (critic) is always constructive in any language. 🙂

          • Thank you, please give me -at
            your address, I will send
            the raw texts to you for rephrasing.
            What can I do for you, in turn?

          • GreenWin

            Peter, I am confused. On reading your posts on various other sites – you have a firm grasp of the English language. Why was this particular post so different??

  • GreenWin

    More intriguing than the Eindhoven conference is this rather astonishing sentence from the Ikegami paper:

    “For the trebly coherent fusion enhancement of about 1:6  10^44 at T=773K and around 15% occupation fraction of ordinary hydrogen atoms / ions at O-sites in the Ni hydride grain crystals, we may expect the power output of the D-D fusion close to 1GW/m3 which is over one million times as dense as the solar interior power density.”


    • What is the best theory to explain D+D fusion and the evidence to suport that theory?
      Also, is there some problems with that theory we have not worked around?

      Can someone explain in a way that a idiot would understand…?

      That sounds like a contradiction to “Low Energy” (LENR).
      (in the same way lenr sounds like a contradiction to cold FUSION)

      I thought it was a transmutation with some release of excess heat due to E=mc2, or is the LENR/LANR/AEH/COLD FUSION field containing several Anomalies?

      Oooh I feel so confused now…

    • Invy

      50 cubic meter reactor could produce enough power for world consumption… That is impressive.

    • Peter_Roe

      Unfortunately there would be no current way to extract power at anything more than a few percent of that rate (perhaps 20MW/m3). The technical limitations would be comparable to hot fusion, where even if it were possible to sustain a fusion reaction there is no technology available to recover energy from it. Even so, a reactor employing a ‘toned down’ version would seem to knock the ‘hot cat’ off its pedestal (unless of course, hot cat already uses a version of this suggested pathway).

      • GreenWin

        This appears to be the case Peter. Ikegami worked closely with Dr. Roland Petterson, Professor of Chemistry at U Uppsala. Ikegami refers to the October Bologna tests (presumably the ecat 1MW demo)and how their theory predicted kW energy from the H+Ni combination…

        See my youtube link posted below (January 23, 2013 at 8:15 pm) for comments indicating that Dr. Petterson was running some of the Oct 6 e-cat experiment and it likely tested the chemonuclear theory. Which suggests, Rossi’s e-cat has not only surpassed hot fusion potential – it has the potential to go supernova.

        That’s a whole lot of light/energy. As for a way to use such enormous heat – excellent new job sector for former ITER, NIF etc. scientists.

        • artefact

          Edmund Storms posted on Vortex:

          “This paper and many others like it describe how HOT fusion is enhanced when it occurs in a chemical lattice. This study has no relationship to cold fusion because the same nuclear products are not formed. While the lattice enhances the hot fusion rate, it does so only at very low energy where the rate is already very small. Here are some other studies. ”

          He goes on in another post:

          “Mark, the studies are done by bombarding a solid or liquid Li with D+ having several keV of energy. This is equal to many thousands of degrees and this kinetic energy fuels the hot fusion reaction.
          The temperature of the chemical environment changes the availability of electrons, which help hide the Coulomb barrier in a solid. The theory of this is gradually being worked out, but it has no relationship to cold fusion. Cold fusion does not require the initial keV and produces He not neutrons. ”

          Could it be what Mark le Clair is doing?

          • GreenWin

            I think Ed’s first response is not specific to Ikegami. The second comment is closer, but I suspect that Petterson and Kullander rely on Gibbs energy to leverage transitions in the atomic H atoms. Neither Mills, W-L or BEC can explain all the nuclear products seen in LENR experiments.

            Unless the reaction is viewed as multiple waveform interactions, where fractional H (Rydberg Mills) transitions produce varied nuclear products, e.g. alpha, He3, He4, slow neutrons, soft x-ray, occasional gamma. Particle energies viewed as intersecting standing waves of varied amplitude and frequencies (i.e. resonances) could explain the vast inconsistency of nuclear products observed in LENR experiments.

    • georgehants

      January 24, 2013 / Ruby Carat
      I stumbled across a publication Transmutation of metal at low energy by a confined plasma in water by D.Cirillo, A.Dattilo, and V.Iorio. It was a revelation.

      • GreenWin

        Regardless of official acceptance of LENR, there is an under-groundswell of interest from young, curious minds. That, combined with the allure of billion unit sales globally, will force this new energy source into the wide public eye.

    • GreenWin

      From the Bologna Oct 6th, test as referred to in the Ikegami paper on chemonuclear reactions. Especially germane is the observation by Matts Lewan that the e-cat ran for 3+ hours with zero input energy:

      • PeterRoe

        Funny how these inconvenient little details get ‘lost’ in the skeptic’s narrative.

        • Hugo

          They don’t get lost. They’re simply not trusted to be real. If you assume that Rossi is lying and manipulating data, nothing about any of the e-cat demos holds up.

          • LCD

            Hugo I’m right there with you but doesn’t that also mean we don’t trust Focardi and Levi?

          • Hugo

            Depends on how you define ‘trust’, I guess. I wouldn’t trust either of them if it means they can’t possibly be fooled. They are humans with hopes and dreams and no x-ray vision and no mind reading abilities, same as you or I.

        • AB

          The term is confirmation bias.

          Even though none of them will admit it, the skeptics follow this logic

          1) Cold fusion is not real.
          2) Anything the supports the existence of cold fusion cannot be trusted because cold fusion is not real.
          3) Anyone that claims cold fudion is real is untrustworthy, incompetent, delusional or a fraud because cold fusion is not real.

          • PeterRoe

            And to complete the circle:

            4) As no evidence supporting cold fusion can be trusted, and all those who support CF are untrustworthy, delusional or fraudulent, it follows that
            1) …

          • Hugo

            I doubt it. Most skeptics I know actually do think that Cold Fusion may very well be real but don’t necessarily believe Rossi has mastered it or even tried. That is not contradictory. If Rossi is running an investor scam, he would have naturally chosen something more believable and more controversial than perpetual motion. I personally don’t think Cold Fusion has been proven but that isn’t the reason for me to think Rossi is scamming.

          • AlainCo

            It is a very common reasoning, that is filling the news…
            some organization X claims Y proved by Z.
            some organization A respond not Y but B proved by C.
            X say that C is working with A, so is not credible…A response that Z is a militant of X claiming to be independent, but he is incompetent and biased…

            those who decide the truth is only the newspaper.
            typically in real life people reject the idea that Z is a militant, and support that C is corrupted.

            in cold fusion it is the opposite, people believe in C not in Z…

            and nobody read the data. because the bias of C or of Z is so clear in the report, and the lack of evidence for B or Y report are visible…

            put real name in XYZ ABC and you can have news articles.

          • HeS


        • kemo sabe

          How is that an inconvenient detail? Propane water heaters one tenth the weight can do the same thing, When the ecat can do something chemical heaters can’t, *that* will be inconvenient for skeptics.

          • GreenWin

            Yeah, and invisible fishing line make those magnetic motors spin!

        • GreenWin

          Ikegami, Roland Petterson, Sven Kullander, and work done at Uppsala University and at Sakaguchi E.H VOC Co., indicate enhanced D-D reactions in liquid Li – “a third fire.” Implication by appearance is similar enhancement may occur in solid crystalline metals such as Ni – though at far lower scale. Chemonuclear activity is now a plausible LENR component.

          The claim that so many respected scientists are “lying and manipulating data” is further evidence of t-rollish desperation. Physician, heal thyself?

  • Miles

    I just received news from Roger Green, CEO of E-Cat Australia Website…

    The Domestic e-Cat will hopefully appear Late 2013 and not Mid- 2013 as stated on the above webpage.

    I am holding off Buying Solar Panels for Another year. I can ONLY hope that something is available by end of 2013. I’d rather spend $2.5k on e-Cat then $2.5k on Solar Panels !! We will see…!!

    Also the below Youtube clip goes for 2:07s But the MOST IMPORTANT information is mentioned at 1 Minute & 7 Seconds

    The Times Are Changing & Sirius the movie will hopefully turn heads – maybe a new energy source.

  • artefact

    From Peter Gluck’s blog:


    This is a new negative writing, unfortunately continuing what I wrote about Prof Stremmenos’s anti-Europatent diatribe, now the maestro himself, Andrea Rossi tries to annihilate the Piantelli Patent
    The story is too simple this time, to not say primitive, so I want to tell you first a life lesson story from my most personal experience.
    You will decide if it has to do with the new turn of the story or not at all..

  • georgehants

    It seems that thanks are due to some parts of Science.
    We already know that many animals show Empathy to others but science is just beginning to learn that lesson.
    Perhaps some Empathy for the people suffering from the effects of the delay in Cold Fusion research may come next.
    Experts Tell NIH to Retire Most Research Chimps, But Not All
    by Alicia Graef
    Read more:

  • artefact

    Thx to DSM who posted on ECN.

    For anyone who wanted to know what was in the new Piantelli patent filed in early 2012, it was published at end of last year (2012) …;jsessionid=ABF05125C1ACAFD575FE2285160A1FD1.wapp1?docId=WO2012147045&recNum=1&maxRec=1&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=FP%3A%28piantelli%29&tab=PCTDescription

    • Rene Vega

      The body of a patent is nice stuff but it is the claims that matter. And the claims are interesting, notably claims 3-5, 11 which indicate the use of boron, some transition metal, some radioisotopes, or iron. It was smart to separate the catalyst into individual claims because if any of them do not survive defense the patent still holds. It also forces Rossi, if he chooses to defend his work as prior art to this patent, to disclose his catalyst, assuming his catalysts is mentioned in one of these claims.