Agreeing with Mary Yugo

I have been scanning the news to the upcoming ICCF-18 conference in Columbia next week I have come across a comment from the well known LENR/E-Cat/cold fusion skeptic Mary Yugo that I am surprised to say I sort of agree with. Now please don’t think I have suddenly turned skeptical myself — I’m as convinced as ever about the potential for LENR as a superior energy source — but I have found a single paragraph written by MY that I think has some merit.

The comment by MY I am referring to is found attached to an article about LENR by Len Rosen at the World Future Society web site (interesting and encouraging that they are featuring LENR)

One interesting aspect to ICCF-18 is that if Rossi *or* Defkalion are telling anything remotely approaching the truth, the whole conference is obsolete. Who cares about vanishingly small arguable amounts of excess heat and abstract theories, when Rossi and Defkalion say they can generate 10 – 50kW in a gadget the size of a desktop computer? The whole conference should be about those two, should it not?

I realize that MY does NOT believe in the claims of Rossi and Defkalion, and the comment above is a facetious one.

Interestingly enough, this year’s ICCF-18 WILL be featuring a Defkalion demo, and it’s possible that if it is convincing, it could overshadow the other presentations made there. I was half hoping that some of the professors who were involved with this year’s E-Cat test might be presenting at the conference, but that’s not happening.

My point here is that for LENR to be anything other than an interesting phenomenon that can be demonstrated in a laboratory it needs to be practical on a commercial level where it can compete with the other energy sources out there.

Of course, the lab work HAS to be done before the commercial applications can be forthcoming, so I am by no means criticizing the work of very able and dedicated cold fusion researchers. I hope their work continues and that they are able to learn as much as possible about this phenomenon. However, it appears to me that the work of Rossi and Focardi has taken LENR to a new level where commercialization is now possible. Defkalion’s work branches out from Rossi’s, and it will be interesting to see what they present next week.

Since the days of Pons and Fleischmann, the cold fusion effect has been elusive and difficult to reliably reproduce. Things seem to have changed now, and I would expect that if researchers and scientists are convinced of the ‘super LENR’ effect, or LENR+ as some people label the E-Cat level of reaction, they would turn their attention to discovering what is going on there.

  • spacegoat

    ” a Defkalion demo, and it’s possible that if it is convincing”

    Just like for Rossi, convincing = independent location, independent measuring instruments, independent and competent testers.
    These normal and reasonable conditions applied to Celani at ICCF-17.

    Without a convincing event, it is prudent to withdraw association of ICCF-18 with DGT.

    • Barry

      Frank, one time you mentioned that the ICCF conferences are interested in the science behind LENR and companies like Rossi’s and Defkalion, etc. are interested in bringing a product to market. It’s a new phenomenon that will add to the nature of nuclear physics and understanding it will most likely bring CF to a high level of efficiently. Researchers will still compete to see who can get to the underpinnings of LENR.

      Maybe I’m just having a hard time agreeing with anything maryyugo says after all she/he has trolled, splitting into a number of internet personalities and constantly tries to traffic people to Krivit’s site. Sometimes I wonder if she isn’t Krivits himself, if not they are thick as thieves. She’s lost all integrity and I’d rather leave her/him out of the conversation entirely.

      • Hi Barry,

        I knew the post would be controversial! Of course I disagree with MY’s overall position and tactics.

      • Paolo

        Yes, I confirm that Mary Yugo is considered one of the many “personalities/channels” – much or less violent – with which Krivit tries to put discredit on Rossi and Defkalion. So, I keep away from “her” posts…

        • Timar

          I don’t think Mary Yugo is Steven Krivit – or John Milstone or any other person than possibly George Hody. Yes, those stubborn skeptics are annoying but there’s really no reason to become paranoid about them.

        • legendre

          And I can “confirm” that you are quite seriously in error. Steven Krivit isn’t the person behind the MY Internet personality.

          Where did you come up with that kind of silliness?

  • AB

    I disagree with Mary Yugo.

    I think his line of thought is a poor heuristic (flawed thinking) along the lines of “if the claim was true, then x would surely have happened, and since it hasn’t, the claim must be false”.

    I’m quite sure that pathoskeptics of Mary Yugo’s calibre would be the first to criticize ICCF-18 about paying too much attention to unproven claims if they decided to discuss Rossi and Defkalion at length.

    ICCF-18 is merely showing healthy skepticism.

    • AB

      In particular the notion that the conference is obsolete if Rossi/Defkalion are for real is complete nonsense. The phenomenon will almost certainly still be poorly understood, while CMNS will instantly become a popular area of research.

    • AlainCo

      like the two swedish loose scientist criticizin their colleagues who tested E-cat, thos pathosskeptics abuse of most people lack of solid logic.
      they muddy the water, abuse of sophism, flowing from black and white logic, to precaution principle (merchant of doubt), then to B&W… great art of manipulation.

  • Gerrit

    No it is not agreeable. It’s rubbish.

    MY is saying that it is a strange situation that devices are ready for the market while the science is not yet fully understood and that the scientific work of understanding the effect should now stop and instead concentrate on enlarging the effect.

    Can’t you see the trap that MY is setting ?

    Imagine what MY would be saying if the LENR researchers would completely abandon the fundamental work and all jump to the commercial scale up issues.

    It would be like this: “Now that they are only investigating the commercial side, the whole conference is obsolete. Who cares about scaling up when it is still no complete understanding of the principles that make it happen it the first place. They are obviously not following the scientific method, while rushing to commercialize. The whole conference should be about understanding physics, not about commercialization.”

    Would you also agree with that ?

    • AlainCo

      It is normal for a breakthrough in science to be denied by Science Community, while becoming industrial…

      History is rewritten afterward to hide that fact…

      It is said so in the book of JP Biberian (La fusion dans tous ses états), and the story of Wright brothers is an example.

      LENR is proven since long according to the scientific method.
      F&P have been exactly replicated by Miles & Longchampt, and inexactly by a hundreds of other teams, a thousand times…

      all deniers, and even most believers would NOT accept that facts, but even the skeptic Hans Gerisher admitted in 1991 that LENR was proven.

      Jed on vortex said some times that there will be a battle between the old-school LENR scientists (ICCF) and the new LENR+ school … classic.

  • psi

    Good post, because it has stimulated much clarification even in these few comments. Of course the skeptics of the Mary Yugo phenomenon are correct; the logic is specious when used to fortify pseudo-skepticism, but the quotation is also useful because it points to the strange divergence posed by what is at this point in time still best regarded (certainly after Rossi’s independent report and in the larger context of Brillouin, Defkalion etc.) as the rapid commercialization of a process that is still poorly understood from a physics point of view. If Defkalion and Rossi both crash and burn over the next year we will have to revise this view, but for now it still seems to me to be the most credible explanation of known and partly-known events.

    A watershed moment in my own intellectual development was when my cousin, quite a talented science teacher, former commercial winemaker, and generally really thoughtful guy said in frustration about some development (I don’t remember exactly what it was), “first you have to explain the phenomenon.” I said, “no, that’s backwards. First you have to *discover* the phenomenon.” The longer I examine these questions the more obvious it becomes to me that those who demand a complete explanation of new phenomena like this using the very *incomplete* models of past experience are full of it.

    • Roger Bird

      Nicely put. Thinking that explanations come before experience may be very useful while working inside of the box, known phenomena, with known assumptions. It gives one reason to look for phenomena that one might have missed. But explanations before observations is counter productive when looking outside of the box and trying to discover new things. This is exactly what M Y and his/her ilk want. They can’t believe the phenomena if they can’t explain it. This is what makes them skeptopaths rather than merely skeptics.

  • Barry

    Last night a friend told me thermal dynamics came out of the development of the steam engine. There was a lot they did not understand even though they had running steam engines. The laws of thermal dynamics evolved as a result of study after the product. M Y is quite short sighted here and giving his trolling behavior she perhaps is looking for new victims to spew on now that Defkalion is going to prove she was wrong all along.

  • georgehants

    There is only one Truth (speaking generally) it does not matter who speaks it.
    Even main-line scientists may one day talk the Truth about Cold Fusion and many other subjects.

  • John Milstone

    Just wondering…

    Is Mary Yugo allowed to post comments here?

    Or are you still banning anyone who doesn’t agree with you?

    • I’m not banning everyone who doesn’t agree with me, but I’m trying to keep the site clean from persistent hyperskeptics.

      • fortyniner

        ….like ‘John Milstone’.

        • NT


        • Warthog

          And “Mary Yugo”.

          • fortyniner

            There’s a difference?

          • Warthog

            In viewpoint, level of honesty, and tactics……no. I’ve butted heads with some skeptopaths on other (non-LENR, but occasional LENR threads)forums, and it’s like they are all working from the same script.

    • robiD

      I think the problem has never been the skepticism, but those kind of provocative insistence that ever distinguish you, maryyugo(Al Potenza), Andrew Palfreyman etc.
      You all fill pages of endless comments that always say the same things (in your particular case often a lot of falsity).
      On the Washington Post, IIRC, there was more than 50 long comments out of 200 by maryyugo and Andrew Palfreyman, please take a pause, don’t they have a job, a girl, a wife, children, a dog … a life?

      I also think the admin does a good job in trying to keep clean the site. Without that the site will be full of useless and endless discussions, hundreds of comments that say nothing (Petroldragon, the TEG, etc.).
      You and the others can go to dirty every other site, why do you insist in coming here to provoke? I see you all have *many* sites where you post answer to other people that say something on other sites, I know you all don’t like to reply without a re-reply which need another reply and so on, but please, you should also realize that you can’t fill every page and every space and, above all, there is a life beyond the web and beyond the E-Cat.

      • Roger Bird

        To tell the truth, I probably would not be here if there weren’t such strict moderation.

      • kasom

        “don’t they have a job, a girl, a wife, children, a dog … a life?”

        exactly what i think, must be real……

      • Ted-X

        Pure logic: they have a job. We need to understand that some people make their money by writing. The have to pay their mortgages and bills. Most of us have to be more compassionate.

    • Zedshort

      Nice thing about the internet is there are so many alternated places one can attend to. I’ve no doubt that there is a site dedicated to the NOT-Ecat.

  • Pedro

    In an earlier thread I already made the remark that the ICCF conferences are mainly about the Pd+D effect and the minimal effect it produces whilst the commercial aims are for the Ni+H effect. So yes, MY is right in the sense that the science (ICCF) is focussing on past LENR instead of the future LENR+. ICCF is about the past and researchers that are stuck in the past and not picking up at all on the new Ni+H developments. It’s like a hobby, not like following the Evidence as GeorgeHants would say (Evidense with the capital E).

  • TPaign

    Great essay by Nassim Nicholas Taleb which sums it up.

    Basically, technology has mostly led pure science, not the other way around. Most pure scientists have difficulty with this, hence their usual demands that “Something must be explained for it to be true or possible.” What is more important is that we understand that all phenomena is explainable, but the explanations just takes time and effort. Empirical evidence is most often “good enough.”

    A good analog to the LENR technologies is D-Wave’s quantum computer. They took their product straight to market, while top computer scientists claimed that what D-Wave was proposing was not possible, or needed further research.

    • Jim Anderson

      Lenr research goes on at least two levels at the same time. Rossi, Dekalion and several other companies are focused on bringing a workable commercial product to market. There is also an effort by other scientists to gain a scientific understanding of Lenr. What ever success Rossi or Defkalion has makes a scientific understanding of Lenr more important not less important. I agree scientific research should focus more on the gas loaded aspect of Lenr. That seems to be where Lenr is more dramatic and therefore should be easier to study.

  • daniel maris

    Yes, good post and until Rossi and Defkalion (to whom you can perhaps add the Finnish patent people – we need to find out more about them as well) – make good on their claims a hard nugget of scepticism remains in me.

    But I hope that we will soon see the final confirmation.

  • Shane D.

    Silly as almost everything MY/Potenza says. Could you imagine any of the great new discoveries in their infancy being given similiar treatment as MY suggests here?

    On the edge of a brand new, little understood breakthrough technology and we immediately cancel all further review, conferences and experiments because a working model is at hand… dumb!

    By the way, I suggest Admin let MY on here, but limit him to 5 posts a day. We deal with him over on ECNs and have a blast doing so, although it could be argued he hasn’t done much for the popularity there.

    His weakness is his myopic hatred of anything LENR which makes him like the punch drunk fighter flailing about every which way except on target.

    Fun really…. in measured doses that is.

    • Ted-X

      I conditionally support limited posting by Maryyugo. The condition is that the readers would be given ability to rate the postings with “rotten tomatoes”, for example ability to post visually two rotten tomatoes per person per day. It will be fun, everybody needs some entertainment. 🙂

  • MarcIrvin

    I am no skeptic. I agree that this post is worth the e-ink. However, my opinion goes deeper than MY’s. The highlight is supposed to be a Defkalion stream. This saddens me to no end. No rational being that has been part of the LENR debate can place any value on streamed proofs of function. The rest of the conference is rehash. If I were Rossi, I would show up at the conference with a single e-cat node, heat the teapot, offer no hands on nor IP stealing opportunities, and basically say take that so called experts and skeptics. He in the end would own the conference, and make it relevant at the same time.

    • PersonFromPorlock

      “No rational being that has been part of the LENR debate can place any value on streamed proofs of function.”

      Oh, come now. Did you miss the streamed proof that dinosaurs are being successfully bred on a island off Central America?

      • Adam Lepczak

        LoL. Good one.

    • Thinks4Self

      How influential the streamed test is will completely depend on who is in the room at the test site and there access to the device. If you have several big name scientists and skeptics there that have free access to take readings and measurements, including ones on demand from those at the conference then the streamed test might have some merit. But if the observers on site can only view it from across the room and are fairly unknown persons or those in the employ of Defkalion then the streamed test will be about as influential as a magic show on prime time TV.

      • Roger Bird

        It will be fun and enthusiasm building for those who already believe, but otherwise, I strongly tend to agree. maryyugo won’t be jumping up and down with tears in his/her eyes. A few people will be pushed over into believer country, but not many, certainly not even any medium-hard core skeptics.

  • Tony McDougall

    I don’t think Andrea Rossi’s opinion of Mary Yugo will be any different to that which he has already expressed in the past:

  • Zedshort

    The conference is not about how much energy can be produced by a device to heat tea water, but an attempt to qualitatively and quantitatively pin down the basic physics of the phenomena. If anyone has a device that can put out prodigious energy at a high COP is will be largely useless to them economically unless it can be controlled as they cannot gain a patent on a basic process of physics. They can patent the design and the control process. I suspect basic research will be needed to gain control of the phenomena and to extrapolate outward to the next design.

  • Mannstein

    Obviously Mary Yugo hasn’t the faintest idea how scientific conferences are organized and run. To start there is a call for papers to be presented at the conference. If a researcher decides not to make public what he is working on he is not included as one of the presenters at the conference. The conference is a forum which gives workers in a specific field the opportunity to publish results of their research and meet colleagues doing similar work. The organizers have no power over Rossi or anyone else spilling the beans of what they are doing.

    Furthermore Mary Yugo’s claim that there is nothing new at the conference is also nonsense. She has obviously not read the abstract of Dr. George H. Miley’s paper:

    “Distributed Power Source Using Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” part of the abstract states…”Incorporating these clusters into the material has resulted in excess heat experiments that reproducibly producing orders of magnitude more heat energy out than energy in. However, as noted earlier, run times are currently limited to hours by the onset of nano-particle agglomeration.”

    Folks doing working on this new frontier of science wouldn’t give Mary Yugo the time of day which is as it should be.

  • Preston

    I still disagree with Mary, yes the Defkalion R5 and the Hot ECAT are both very exciting; but they aren’t the only ones. There is also GeNIE, Michell Swartz’s NANOR, and lots of others doing exciting work.

    Also, The science is so new, there are other applications beyond power such as making rare earth elements, and I’m sure others.

    • Thinks4Self

      There is the patent SPAWAR received. With all the radioactive waste in the world their patent would likely allow for much energy to be created during the destruction of that waste.

  • Roger Bird

    I changed Al Potenza to Al Pretenza. I thought y’all would like that.

  • Joe Shea

    Mary Yugo rarely tells the truth; she’s one of those pathological skeptics who cannot be convinced devices like Defkalion’s, the E-Cat and the hydrino reactor of Randell Mills can ever amount to anything. She will be relegated to the dustbins of history, populated by people who said humanity will never master flight.

  • Sandy

    I disagree with Mary Yugo’s assertion that the International Conference on Cold Fusion “is obsolete”. The scientific examination of cold fusion (a.k.a. LENR) should continue. The manufacture and marketing of devices based on cold fusion does not in itself answer all of the questions that scientists have about cold fusion.

    At the present time, our microscopes do not allow us to see what is happening inside of a nickel nucleus. So our current hypotheses about what is happening will remain “educated guesses” until the resolution of our microscopes improves.

    Scientists should continue investigating LENR. The ICCF is not obsolete.

  • kwhilborn

    No. ICCF 18 is about the known science, theories, and even awareness.

    It is true that if Andrea Rossi or Defkalion are truthful then they may start the revolution themselves, but maybe they have already. Is it not true that the majority of the excitement generated about LENR has been about the Nickel versions of LENR and since Andrea Rossi began publicly demonstrating Nickel versions of LENR.

    Should physicists the world over ignore the entire subject because their thinking might be obsolete.

    Another thing to consider is that Andrea Rossi has been able to replicate and control this experiment. This does not mean he understands it. A caveman building a fire knew all he needed was a lighter and a bunch of rolled up newspapers to get it going, but did not understand the chemical interactions and physics caused by the heat. Maybe the Widom Larsen theory is correct, or maybe it is some new Russellian science that will explain it.

    I think LENR has been confirmed from so any directions even listenning to a sentence from a skeptic is a waste of time.

    • Roger Bird

      If the skeptic is willing and eager to learn, then it is not a waste of time. If the skeptic is not willing and eager to learn, it is a waste of time.

  • Bob Greenyer

    One would do well to remember that without many of the people attending that conference and those that have attended it before, like Piantelli and Martin Fleischmann, and other primary researchers like Focardi, there would have been no incentive for Rossi or DGT to even consider working in the field.

    Early fission reactors usurped later better designs and indeed thorium reactor tech because it was felt on high that the job was done. Look how that turned out.

    If everyone thought the first mobile phones where all that was necessary – we’d still be carrying around brick phones.

    Additionally, not every power requirement is for something in the multi KW range. indeed, most devices are not in the KW range but could still benefit from embedded energy source.

    Given the enormity of the significance of the potential, it behoves all of us to support those that are willing to deeply investigate its basis and yet others that seek to free implementations from the curse of restrictive licensing. Until the man in the street can affordably buy something that profoundly changes their energy costs and flexibility, the discussion is moot.

    A think, even in attempting to play tricks, MY is still being disingenuous.

  • John De Herrera

    “Who cares about vanishingly small arguable amounts of excess heat and abstract theories…”
    The more probing, testing and theorizing that goes on, the sooner we will understand what is going on inside the metal matrix. Then we can optimize the heat output. jdh

    • Charles Richer

      Thanks John,

      Keep steering toward sane remarks. The building blocks will eventually be understood. Only thing, unlike a brick in the wall, the affects of building up may destabilize the reactor.
      How do you suggest the vanishingly small should be tested?

  • Stephen

    Oh, these people who are always ready to state what is obviously useless and stupid to do… whether that is studying the so-called cold fusion, or running a conference, etc… they are SO boring.

    Of course if AR/D – by some nice miracle – have something that really works they should receive the highest attention by anybody and should definitely set new research priorities, and of course basic research would still make sense as much as ever, since these phenomena are not understood. While you can design some products even without knowing any theory, of course you can design much better products once you know it.

    My understanding is that M.Y. here simply wanted to claim the ICCF18 conference is useless and should not happen… so anything must be for him a potential justification to support that thesis. Well, if “jump to conclusions fitting pre-conceived ideas” is an indication of pathological-science, logic suggests that M.Y. behavior is an indication of pathological skepticism.

  • Chris I

    LOL Mary Yugo might as well have said that, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was no point in whole new branches of physics growing up. Not just nuclear but even subnuclear and HEP physics.

    Who should care about such cock-and-bull things as the neutrino and the Higgs boson when those guys had already razed a pair of cities with one bomb for each?

    • Chris I

      Errrrrr, could anybody tell this ancient paleolithic caveman how to call a masculine specimen of an ornithospecies these days?

      I avoided using the word bird cuz ya never know about that either…

  • Craigy

    To be honest I thought along similar lines to George, err Mary Yugo. I think that the ICCF18 seems to be stuck in a Pons and Fleischmann obsession. Perhaps thats being a bit cruel, but if anything else comes along to make other ICCF contributors lifes work a waste of time it will hardly be welcomed. I also note that the National Instruments conference is strangely silent on defkalion demos this year. Again, Its ok for NI to sell their wares to budding cold fusion researchers looking for a couple of watts gain here or there , but if hundreds of watts are present at a NI conference or the ICCF , it sort of steals the thunder from both. Rendering the ICCF as an out of touch dinosaur and the NI as a cold fusion organization. Something that it clearly is not. That is not what it wants to draw attention too. It wants to sell datalogging kit, not promote cold fusion.

    If we cast our mind back to Austin last year when there was a working cold fusion demo by Celani, no one took any notice..Of the 3000 engineers on site celani was lucky to see 30 talk to him or have any interest.

    Sadly , we have seen demos and live streaming events before , the last one was the Steorn Waterways demo where they hoped that they would get the right audience to further their technology. I do not see these events are really necessary, all they do is generate emails, that the target company has a hard time processing for nutters and therefore go nowhere while consuming large amounts of resources. The real target audience does not watch streaming videos, but these events keep skeptics by their keyboards with gallons of coffee….so i suppose they serve some purpose.

  • Brad Arnold

    With successful commercialization, the LENR game practically starts over. Such a large amount of money will go into LENR R&D that ICCF will look like a grade school meeting in the gym. I don’t mean to belittle the proud and respected scientist at the ICCF conference, but there is nothing that can stand up to or compare to the amount of time, effort, and money that will be devoted when the herd wakes up to the potential.