Defkalion Europe Freezes Work With Business Contacts Over Measurement Issues

There are sometimes when not knowing Italian can be a big disadvantage in this cold fusion story. Yesterday with the help of Google Translate I spent quite a bit of time on trying to figure out what the controversy was surrounding rumors of problems with some Defkalion testing.

There was an interview yesterday (August 3) on the Italion Il Sole 24 Ore station with Luca Gamberale, Chief Technology Officer at Defkalion Europe regarding some testing that had recently been done by unidentified 3rd parties. I thank ECW reader robiD for the following summary of the situation which seems to sum up the situation well:

Yesterday Luca Gamberale (CTO at Defkalion Europe) has released an interview to the science radio program Moebius broadcast on the Italian Radio 24 – Il Sole 24 Ore station. Gamberale said that there are some critical issues in the measurements that has been done until now on the Hyperion reactor. Defkalion Europe, as a client of Defkalion Green Technologies, has made the decision to “freeze” (the exact word used by Gamberale) the relationship with DGT as long as these critical issues won’t be solved.

According to many _rumors_ (actually well grounded and reported on Defkalion Europe asked independent tests on the Hyperion R5 reactor to several testers groups and, further _speculations_ say that some groups have found out a problem in the water flow reading. It’s not clear whether this is a problem in the functioning of the flow meter or something else but, given the particular problem (the flow meter worked correctly during calibrations), other hypothesis can’t be ruled out.

Also a statement by Moebius, the Italian science radio program addresses the issue.

Moebius Saturday to a new chapter on the controversial story about cold fusion (better defined LENR , Low Energy Nuclear Reaction).

On July 22, along with Triwù , web tv innovation, we have organized a streaming from the laboratories of Defkalion Europe in Milan, dedicated to describe how it works in general a cold fusion experiment (although this definition is controversial), streaming during the which is amply clear that the appointment was far from presenting as a demo.

On July 23, Defkalion, at the request of the World Conference on Cold Fusion going to Columbus in Missouri, held a long demo of about 10 hours, at which – it was obvious, being on the Internet – was attended by a very large number of people, almost 30 thousand contacts, among which many technicians. In particular, then, to an audience of 200 physicists gathered in Columbus, came for an hour and a half, many requests for clarification on the apparatus in operation.

This performance has prompted Defkalion the need to investigate aspects of the measurement. interview on Saturday 3 July [ed. August] Moebius will explain the various aspects of that decision .

The streaming video of the July 22 and 23 are available online at .

It’s still unclear to me what the actual problem is, but it seems quite serious for Defkalion HQ, if a joint venture partner is making public a discrepancy like this. I expect that the two parties will be trying to clarify the situation as soon as possible to avoid what could be a public relations problem.

And if any of our Italian friends could help clear things up, I’m sure all of us Italian language-challenged folks would be most grateful!

  • daniel maris

    Wow! The rollercoaster ride continues.

    I am sure a lot of us will be surprised to hear that there is in fact an organisational difference between DGT and Defkalion Europe… I wasn’t aware of that.

    But if we are talking about two separate entities with a common history then there may be some fatal jealousies in play about which we know nothing…in other words we don’t know what DE’s motivation, if any, might be. You would have thought that DE would have satisfied long ago that this was a genuine technology.

    Is DE some sort of licensee?

    • Hope4dbest

      I think that I remember that during the demo, or the day before, somebody said that it was one company with offices in Greece, Vancouver and Milano?

  • Freethinker


    Indeed, if there were some minor discrepancies, they would handle that far away from public scrutiny. The fact that this is a now in the open suggests to me serious problems. It could be about reactor facts, but could easily be something entirely different…

    Let’s hope it work out for them, as they have been riding a very positive wave last couple of weeks. Shame to see all that goodwill go into the drain.

    • JerryVic

      correct this would be worrisome that they would publicly announce this, I would hope that Defcalion would respond right away and clear this matter up.


    What follows is educated guesswork and speculation.

    So let me get this straight. Defkalion Europe seems to be some sort of partner or licensee of DGT’s rather than an organizational subunit (because no suborganization can “freeze” a relationship with its owner).

    DGT apparently provided R5 reactors to Defkalion Europe, which promptly had them tested by independent parties. *Some* of the independent testers found an issue with the water flow measurements. Since the water flowing through the reaction is a primary factor in calculating the energy out in the R5, this is s serious issue.

    Apparently the issue is serious enough that Defkalion Europe feels the need to pressure DGT to get it resolved or they’ll walk.

    Perhaps there is a flaw in the reactor design that leads to correct water flow measurements during calibration but messes with it during the active reaction. What could this be? Back pressure or heat sensitivity? Aren’t flow meters pretty simple things? Wouldn’t a significant discrepancy in the amount of water used (or unused) from the input pool be kind of obvious too?

    None of this makes a lot of sense yet. Hopefully we can get more details.

    * DGT thought they had a reactor with a high COP, but the COP is lower (much lower?… less than 1???) because of a stupid water flow measurement mistake made over and over for years through 5 and now 6 generations of prototypes?

    * Defkalion Europe is using some questions from independent testers to aggressively make DGT eliminate any doubts? I’m perplexed why Defkalion Europe wouldn’t keep such an issue confidential until it was resolved one way or the other. Is this some kind of power play?

    * DGT is scamming licensees with a stupid water flow trick but confidently hands their reactors out for independent testing? Hoping for what exactly?

    What a mess. If DGT and/or Rossi are scammers (which I think is highly unlikely at this point), then they sure do take a lot of unnecessary risks.

    There is no evidence that I can point to, but one of my first thoughts when something like this happens is that Rossi and Defkalion are quite vulnerable to dirty tricks in the “independent testing” realm. All it would take is some reputable group or university to definitively claim no excess heat and they would be set back months, maybe years. Recall when Cold Fusion first emerged in 1989 and was rudely squashed. Some of the events that occurred then included null results from groups that had a clear conflict of interest. Remember how nervous Rossi was about the ELFORSK test report? He knows whether his reactor works or not. What he couldn’t know completely was the motivations of those funding and performing the test.

    Perhaps those performing the tests on behalf of Defkalion Europe had some motivations to muddy the waters. Perhaps Defkalion Europe itself has motivation to slow the rollout of this new technology.

    At times I feel like we are only witness to the more frenetic elements of the LENR story and much calmer, deliberate work is happening mostly in secret by players we aren’t even aware of. Just a feeling.

    • AlainCo

      interesting analysis.
      The sensibility to pretended independent testers, when nobody is independent nor neutral…

      Sure they should not call CERN, MIT, Caltech, Harwell, nature, SciAm, Science, to make or organize a test.

      the problem is that they will have to hire “open-mind” or “lenr-aware” testers, that won’t be accepted by extreme-skeptics.(it happen for elforsk test, with essen accused of open-mindeness)
      They will not be able to hire scientist, who will like in 1989 sabotage the test.

      Only engineers could stay honest, but I’m sure the gang of physicist won’t accept that this lower species be trusted for the job.
      Moreover engineers work typically in commercial companies, or in energy institution, and may not welcome LENR…

      Neutrality is a myth.
      the best way is “flesh in the game”, to let a client do the test himself, and see if he buys. but this client should not be under the influence of people who have no flesh in the game (like it happen with scientific advisors, or subcontractors).

      maybe a mix of public-science (no way for testers to fraud against), hybrid team (a team to control the testers sincerity), and independent testers…

      one way I see is two opposite team (like in trial, with accusation and defense) building two set of measuring box, measuring electric power, heat power…
      the you plug them in cascade.
      If the two box disagree much, there is a problem of competence or sincerity.
      You can the reverse the order of cascade, and see who is failing/frauding…

      because if the reactor builder may fraud, the tester may too. And it is clear that skeptics are not more honest than believers.

      that is a classic cryptography protocol when nobody trust anybody.

    • Boris Ivanoff

      @ LENR.FTW

      You wrote that Defkalion hands their reactors out for independent testing. To whom have they done that, if you know?

      • LENR.FTW

        I don’t know that to be a fact. It is what is being “reported”/”rumored” — that independent testers found problems with the measurements regarding the R5 reactor, and that this is what has Defkalion Europe upset.

        I was speculating based on that assumption, as I stated at the beginning of my post.

  • JerryVic

    Is it possible that Defkalion Europe, Now has identified how the unit works and THEY themselves will develop a unit separate from Defkalion?
    the drama never stops with LENR.

  • robiD

    Actually it’s not correct. What Gamberale said at minute 27:50

    is that Defkalion Europe treats the relationships with Defkalion Green Technologies and all the companies that want to have agreements in order to use the Hyperion technology. Since Defkalion Europe has found out some points that must to be examined in depth from a technical POV [here Gamberale is talking about the measurements as reported in the beginning of the interview min. 21:50], the first thing they have decided is to freeze, slow down, every relationship with _all_these_companies_ until those points will be made clear.

    Obviously they can’t continue to treat with companies that need a demonstration of the technology as long as they are not sure about the numbers they show during these demonstrations.
    The points they need to make clear is an issue between DGT and Defkalion Europe about the setup and instruments (and maybe technicians that make working the Hyperion during the demonstrations).

    Speculations and rumors about the flow meter are increasing, but they remain only rumors.

    • LENR.FTW

      OK, this makes a bit more sense. Defkalion Europe apparently acts as the license distributor for DGT in Europe. They have been busy demonstrating and publicizing (discreetly) the Hyperion to selected companies.

      Then bam, a test report shows a potential issue with some of the measurements. They are annoyed because now they have to put their sales activities on hold while the issue gets resolved. They can’t sell the licenses with incorrect or bogus information (nice to see a company take an ethical stand in the LENR world!).

      So that explains why they would want the matter resolved as soon as possible.

      It also explains that the freeze is not in their relationship with DGT, it’s in their sales activities.

      Furthermore, it seems less about uncovering a “scam” and more about just a glitch in the business processes surrounding an immature technology.

      • Jim

        Helpful post.

        • psi


      • dsm

        Very good explanation and certainly a fair comment.
        I have seen people get very wound up over misinterpreted translations of comments about LENR & tests. That happened again re the confusion over ‘freeze’ being interpreted as relating to DGT Canada when it was meaning temporarily freezing validation testing by interested businesses seeking to integrate the device in their systems.


        • GreenWin

          Reason. +1

  • Stanny Demesmaker

    Defkalion has a working reactor, this is an established fact. The question (as with Rossi) is how far are they from commercialising ? This is something where we (the watchers of this fascinating story) have no idea of.

    YOu have to understand that Mose is a company who wants to make a profit, and when money is involved things can get messy. And especially when you have testers who are convinced that cold fusion is a scam.

  • robiD
  • Tom59

    Mats Lewan had done flow measurements during the NI demo. What is his comment?

  • Ecco the Dolphin

    With a COP of 10-12+, the amount of heat compared to a standard resistor using the same electrical input power would be so large that it’s unthinkable that one can mistake measuring it. Either this story is a hoax or DGT are involved in fraud (and some very clever sleight of hand performed during reactor testings) and Gamberalle is backpedaling in a way to avoid as much damage as possible while clearly stating that he and Defkalion Europe are not their accomplices.

    • LENR.FTW

      I don’t agree that the only logical conclusions are that the story is a hoax or DGT is involved in fraud.

      It’s a matter of degree. If the measurement issues uncovered during testing potentially introduce, say, a 10% error in the reported COP, due to some sort of oversight or misunderstanding then it’s a minor issue that should be resolved shortly.

      That DGT is subjecting their prototype reactors to any sort of independent testing at all is hugely favorable news for LENR+, if confirmed.

  • arian558

    Defkalion Europe not suspended Relationships with DGT Greece;

    The journalist asked Gamberale about their relationships with many companies that are interested in their technology, and not about the relationship between Defkalion Europe and DGT Greece.

    Gamberale answer; We have detected points to be explored from a technical point of view, and the first thing we decided to do was to freeze, slow down the relationships that are still there, stop everything until we get an idea clear how these points are to be explored from a technical point of view.

    • GreenWin

      Sounds like a prudent business response when an issue arises. They will resolve the issue to all satisfaction BEFORE continuing client/OEM dialog. The use of the word “freeze” is an apparent exaggeration easily misinterpreted in translation.

      It does give skeps a reason to rally. 🙂

      • Stephen

        I think nobody here needs to rally in any direction. If you rally it’s because you (think you!) know the right answer… which is not the case. I just think one should be cautious.

  • Felix Fervens

    Strangely, in a world lacking actual journalists, we web consumers fill pages with idle speculation when a couple of phone calls or emails to the proper parties might yield actual news.

  • PN

    I used to make flowmeters among other instruments for a living.

    Does anyone know the flowmeter type? Delta P with an orifice plate? Turbine? Rotameter?

    • Italo R.

      It seems to be like a turbine (electric pulse out, whose frequence is proportional to the flow).

      • PN

        The flowmeter is a oval gear meter – it measures the volume of the flow quite accurately.

        Unfortunately, a gas volume cannot be distinguised from a liquid volume with this type of meter. So – it is easy to spoof this meter in this application with a mixed phase fluid flow – air mixed with water.

        The flowmeter they used can be validated with a simple rotameter in series with the flow.

  • l

    Funny interview.

    The interviewer to refer to DGT device as a ‘trabiccolo’, a sort of improbable tricky toy.

    The interviewer also stated that they received a number of phone call asking for avoid to publicize tha ‘scam’.

    The interviewer was worry that the DGT device may have some economic sense also.

  • hopeful

    The amount of cooling water to be used in the demo should be fixed and isolated before begin of experiment.
    No connection to the water-mains supply once the demo begins.

    Then we know at the end of the demo how much water really went through the apparatus.

    • fortyniner

      Agreed – that would confirm (or otherwise) the flow rate as determined by metering pumps or flowmeters. Simple solutions are usually best.

      But as others have pointed out, this was intended as a relatively informal demonstration, not a scientific test. Most of the noise has been generated by enemies of cold fusion intent on discrediting it using anything available to them, which unfortunately includes pretending that it was a full-on scientific test.

      However it seems inevitable that having ventured into these waters, DGT will have to repeat the demo with various additional features designed to meet the various objections raised.

      • Roger Bird

        I actually like your use of the words “enemies of cold fusion”. Most of these skeptopaths, perhaps all, are mentally ill, but they are as much the enemies of cold fusion as Adam Lanza is to children. They are different from Adam Lanza with regard to degree, but in their delusional state, they are the same in kind.

        I don’t think that anyone is paying them, but I suppose that that is possible. But if they are being paid, their getting paid is a result of their sick behavior. Their behavior is not the result of getting paid, their getting paid is the result of their behavior. In other words, if they are getting paid, someone searched them out because they were crazy. They would have been trying to destroy LENR anyway; getting paid would have merely been a little incentive for them to stay at the keyboard for more hours than they may have been inclined naturally.

    • Warthog

      Perhaps you don’t remember all the speculations about the Rossi tests with feed from an isolated tank that the “water” wasn’t actually H2O, but some reactant chemical (concentrated H2O2 for instance) that was “really” the source of the measured energy, and not LENR.

      Simply put, no matter WHAT technique is used, the skeptopaths will dredge up objections.

      • fortyniner

        Yes, but at some point the ‘objections’ begin to look desperate and the shills can be seen for what they are.

  • Fibb

    Nefarious gamesmanship is to be expected I suppose….

    Is this some kind of ransom play?

    It’s curious that Rossi went through the same kind of thing with his distributor, hydro fusion, the Northern European Licensee.

    Now all is apparently fine between them.

  • AB

    It’s important to distinguish rumors from what people who are actually involved in this are saying.

    The rumors say that Defkalion has been caught cheating, but the people who caught them are unable to talk about it due to NDAs. I’ve already explained why I find this difficult to believe: if someone had proof of fraud, he would be legally obliged to go public with this information or risk being considered an accomplice in the fraud once it is exposed. Alternatively, said person could play ignorant. Neither of these choices are helped by spreading rumors on the internet. Until a person actually goes public (disclosing his name and explaining the situation) I will consider this merely a malicious false rumor.

    I listened to the Gamberale interview and he had this to say about the matter:

    We ourselves have identified some critical issues in the measure that became evident also during live streaming, that have made us reflect on the opportunity deepen some technical aspects, which until now had not emerged, though they absolutely require further investigation.

    If it was easy to do elementary measures of this type, you would know already how things stand in the field of cold fusion. In fact, this type of research is very difficult because there are many aspects of the measure that can be criticized.

    So they will investigate further. I’m guessing that the tests performed are less than bullet-proof, which has prompted skeptics to make accusations of fraud as if such a thing was evidence for fraud. Of course it’s possible that it is indeed fraud. We shall see.

    • Deleo77

      Whether or not the scientists under NDA’s feel obligated (morally or legally) to disclose that they saw fraud is a bit of a tough question in my opinion. They were under an NDA and they could be worried about being sued for saying anything specific, good or bad. Perhaps they simply chose to walk away and say they aren’t going any further with this, and allow people to read between the lines with their actions.

      A big question for me is, does Luca Gamberale stay associated with the DGT or does he terminate his relationship with them? If he leaves, I think that is a pretty clear indication that something is seriously wrong. In any event, I don’t think DGT can move forward without clearing this up in a very transparent way. Otherwise, both investors and customers will likely choose to keep their distance.

  • atanguy

    Like we have already remarked with Kim in a previous thread,the test of Defkalion did not show the large superheated steam cloud,even the noise, that could be expected at the exit of the reactor. It could be that it is cooled by another water stream but I did not see it mentioned in the test report.

  • khawk

    This is a sad development and one that Defkalion needs to address as soon as possible. Failure to take immediate and concrete steps that allay their partnership concerns will be near confirmation of significant internal problems. It should include some type of public statement as well. As others have noted, this kind of spat should have been internally resolved – things must be boiling(or not) in the wheelhouse.

  • GreenWin

    Likely source of this issue is in the Mats Lewan blog discussion of flow measurement with Brian Ahern. Here is the background:

    Defkalion Test Protocol Document: Flow Meter
    Coolant in use to perform calorimetry will be water. Flow meter will be performed with an Alpha Dynamic (Australia) AM2S pulse (1/4’) logging to NI board every 3 sec.

    Test Procedures:
    Check the accuracy of flow meter with scaling of coolant at 2 different levels (0.2 – 0.8 lt/min)

    Mats Lewan’s observation:

    “No consideration was taken to vaporization enthalpy. Yet the temperature at the output reached over 160 degrees Celsius with and open ended output tube, thus basically at atmospheric pressure. The output was led down into a sink. Initially water was pouring down, but at high temperatures there was no water dropping at all. If all the water was vaporized, the output thermal power would have been above 27 kW.”

    There follows a (ahem) heated dialog between Brian Ahern, Mats and several skeptics re the type, volume and quality of steam flowing down the drain. Ahern who is a MIT physicist with 17 years at U.S. Air Force Rome laboratory and a CF patent holder, questioned Mats analysis of the flow rate. After back and forth, Ahern wrote this:

    “briansahern permalink

    Nice honest answers Mat. The steam coming out instantly cools. In fact, you can put your hand into the flow 18″ downstream and not feel any high temperature.

    I agree that your input power measurement was likely conservative.”

  • Jim

    If you’re a new reader of this thread, I recommend jumping down to
    “LENR.FTW on August 4, 2013 at 1:58 pm”

    • for the lazy

      it seems DG-E simply freeze works with partners/client (not with DGT) following some claimed doubt.
      DG-E estimate it need to be addressed, and they don’t want to go further with their client, until they have solved the doubt…

      no information on mysterious testers, on the problem itself.

      I imagine that this will push DGT to organize a clearer test, for the steam and the water measurement….

      anyway since they played with buckets, and ignored steam enthalpy to prevent wet steam suspicion… the problem was addressed, but skeptics don’t trust a bucket. and are suspicious when you give them a present (steam enthalpy).

      when I say it is psychiatry…

      the predicted result is that the COP should be much bigger…
      Maybe they will reduce it to 3-6 not to call a drone attack by NSA. 😉

      • Allan Shura

        This is the first time really I have heard a company breaking
        relations with a sister company that in essence the same organization so I would think that there is a misread.

        The fact of the matter is the company most likely knows the
        the truth of concept and the status of product development
        and any deficiencies that might matter.

        Skeptics can demand any set of conditions or speculation under
        the sun.

        We hoped they were ready for a manufacturing model of the
        hyperion about a year ago and they seem more ready now. No
        one can argue with a working physical product that is reasonably safe.

        • Daniel Rocha

          DGT-E is not a sister company. It is a subsidiary, owned by DGT from vancouver.

          • Blaze

            False, it is co owned by Mose srl and dgt.

  • Omega Z

    The DGT Demo was just that. A Demo.
    Anyone who bought or invested based on this demo would be a fool.

    That said: Questions of the steam are valid. Vicious attacks are not. The Only way to answer these questions would be to have qualified people with proper equipment to check it first hand.

    Trying to validate it based strictly by a Video is foolish. There’s just to many variables left to guess work by video. Even for a Scientist who works in this field.

    Posts here & elsewhere leads me to believe most expect superheated steam to be very audible as in a whooshing or whistling. Not True. It depends on circumstance. Size of pipe, Volume, & Pressure, Etc…

    Was a time I nearly walked into a pipe venting superheated steam. Due to the environment, there was no trace of transition to visible steam. No detectable sound unless you got right up close.(Inches) The person who halted me placed piece of paper within an Inch of the end & it immediately turned the paper black. A few more seconds would have ignited it.

    They didn’t see this as a problem as regular employees were aware of it. A few minutes talking to the owner that outside contractors may be unaware changed this. The possibility of Million dollar lawsuits are scary. Next day it had a yellow painted pipe cage permanently attached & a warning sign.

    Note that this could remove flesh from the bone within 6 inches of it, but at 2 feet away it was just warm air. No steam, sound or condensation visible. This is why it’s considered extremely dangerous.

    If the DGT demo was ever so slightly above normal pressure, An obvious sound wouldn’t be noticeable & likely not picked up by a video recorder unless placed right next to it. Even then it might not pick it up. Most of these cameras seem to screen out very low volume sounds.

    Another note about DGT. The steam was discounted. Measured only to the 100`C. point. Wet, Dry, doesn’t matter. I’m not even a DGT fan. I just follow some of the events.

    What’s being discussed is only of importance to those who have business/commercial interests. In which case I would be extremely interested in the accuracy of COP, Wet/Dry steam Etc.. It would determine whether my plans were financially viable or a waste of time & investment.

    • dsm

      Very informative post – thanks.

      So many of us don’t have much to do with steam in its various forms. What you have explained is quite an eye opener.

      What is clear is that DGT do (as I am sure they aware) need to have some further evaluations using people with impeccable credentials in heat transfer and steam energy measurement.


    • Jim

      McAndrew’s Hymn – Kipliing

      Lord, Thou hast made this world below the shadow of a dream,
      An’, taught by time, I tak’ it so – exceptin’ always Steam.

      • GreenWin

        Jim, the evening hand of the artist is in great demand these days. Thank you for bringing it forward.

    • daniel maris

      Good post…this is what I feel instinctively: that this is a complex area and people comment too glibly not understanding all the issues…that’s why I remain open in my thinking. Let’s just see how DGT go. I hope they will come good, but we will have to wait and see.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer


  • robiD

    Admin please correct the title of the post because it’s proved that Gamberale was referring to the relationships with the companies interested in making agreements with DGT.

    Anyway the issue is serious even with DGT. To freeze relationship with companies that want the Hyperion technology is an obligation by Defkalion Europe because they noticed a problem, but the huge and real problem is with DGT (Defkalion Greece).
    The reactor, the setup, the instruments, the software and, it seems, even the technicians come form DGT. Nothing has been built or developed in Milan.

    Let’s _suppose_ that the rumors are right and that the independent reports made by tester groups say that the flow meter gives erroneous readings (on the other hand it seems they inspect the flow because the real power output was not comparable with the numbers displayed on the monitor), so Defkalion Europe has to understand if:

    1) it’s a decisive problem form the COP point of view. The correct flow value simply decrease the COP or it even makes the COP <= 1?
    2) why this flow meter should give correct reading during calibrations and runs with argon and erroneous data during the reaction with hydrogen? It's a very odd behavior. Is it a technical issue, e.g. the (odd) 1.6 Tesla magnetic field, the electric noise caused by the electric discharge, or there is something else?
    3) Is it really possible that DGT didn't know the issue after two years of tests?

    Only speculations yes, but answers to these questions might bring to any solution about the relationship between DGT and Defkalion Europe.
    Luca Gamberale is a very serious person and he is putting his face and his reputation in this story, for sure he wants to make clarity and I think he will reveal the issue whatever will be.

    • dsm

      I agree – it should be altered to reflect the correct news.


    • Good point — I’ve changed the title of the post.

    • Hampus

      Wasn’t this also a problem for Rossi in the beginning? That’s why he only used the water from the reactor the heat a different water flow?

      • Ted-X

        Addion of a rotary flowmeter (transparent, the glass-type), in line with the gear displacement flowmeter, would clear the issue in a very simple way.

    • AlainCo

      In fact those question show that the blank run, which was not so needed for me, and the bucket game, were very good ideas.

      It remove many hypothesis of artifact, like tricky flowmeter.

      even if many people don’t understand it, the fact to ignore steam enthalpy is a good one.

      note that to prove LENR is false the skeptics have to claim that the steam was very wet at 140C, that the flowmeter get fooled by bubbles at a level of multiplying it’s apparent measurement by 4, while not heating the input thermocouple…

      it starts to be extraordinary claim.
      we need extraordinary evidences.

  • Sanjeev

    If its an issue of the flow meter giving wrong readings, it can be checked simply by heating the water without powder in the core to the same temperature that produced the steam. (i.e. heating with built in heater wires to produce a ~5KW output)

    If the flow meter measures something else in this case, then we have an issue.

    If you guys have seen EMF or MF interfering with instrument, you must have noted that the reading go random with wild fluctuations. It does not stay put at a constant value when there is outside interference.

    One can only speculate, probably no one wants to contact them and ask for a clarification.

  • PN

    The flowmeter used is a oval gear meter – it is easily fooled with mixed phase flow – air mixed with water.

    The flow volume is correct – but was it mostly air?

    • Sanjeev

      Not if connected on inlet side.
      Although I’m not sure where it was connected during the demo.

      • PN

        Its connected on the inlet – but there are lots of ways to get air in a water flow – deliberately or accidentally. Tap water has dissolved gasses depending on the source.

        • Gerrit

          I can’t believe that dissolved gasses in water would influence the measured volume in the meter to such extent that a negative COP would come out.

          If you put 1 kg of water without any dissolved gasses next to 1 kg of water with a lot of dissolved gasses you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference by looking at the volume, would you ?

    • Gerrit

      If I understand correctly the water flow drives the meter. The meter is passive, ie it is not a pump.

      If the water entering the meter would already contain air bubbles these would falsify the measurement, but this is not the issue we are discussing.

      The hypothesis is that the air is coming from the reactor side and gets trapped in the meter. If air can collect in the meter you would expect that more and more air will collect there until there is only a tiny bit of water passing the meter. But if air can enter the meter, why would it not pass on through the meter into the upstream water ? What is so special about the meter that the air wants to stay there ? The placement ?

      I got to look at the video again.

      • Sanjeev

        If there is no valve after the flowmeter, steam can enter it from reactor side. After all its ~400C there and steam will find all sorts of ways to escape.

        • Gerrit

          If the steam is propagating through “cold” tap water, it cools down and turns back into water, no ?

          If you want to argue that the steam reaches the water flow meter, then the temperature at the thermocouple should show much higher values.

      • Gerrit

        the connection to the water grid is explained third video (from top) at around 20:45 onwards.

        Water from the grid is filtered and a “pressure exhauster that gets out any bubbles or air”. Then it passes the flow meter. From there the water pipe goes down to the floor and comes up again at the table. It seems to a slightly higher level. At the table the water temperature is measured. The reactor is yet another 10 centimeters higher than the table.

        I have a hard time to understand how the air could flow all the way against the current, exiting the reactor and drop down 10 cm, pass the thermocouple, then go down more than 1 meter against the current, to finally reach the flow meter and stay there to mess up the measurements.

        If any air is propagating upstream from the reactor it would get trapped at the thermocouple point first and this would likely cause visible artifacts in the temperature reading of the water. If is was steam that was propagating upstream then the inlet water temperature would show very hot temperatures.

        • Sanjeev

          Yes, thats a good point, the steam flowing upwards will mess up the inlet temperature and would be easily detected.

          Overall, I think its much ado about nothing.

          • Roger Bird

            My one and only comment on this water flow business is….I agree that it is much ado about nothing.

          • Gerrit

            correct. As far as I understood Gamberale has not mentioned the water flow directly, he just mentioned measurement issues.

            Somebody somewhere on a blog mentioned that some group of testers had an issue with the water flow. It might have been a different setup than we saw in the video. Looking at the video it is really hard to see how the flow meter could fill with air. And the control run did not show any irregularities.

  • Chris I

    OK I listened to the .mp3 which contains far more than just the interview with Gamberale (who was in their studio). Even in the pertinent part, most of their talk is general and partly aimed at listeners who might not have been in step with their previous coverage.

    Gamberale clarifies that the “frozen” is meant like “on hold” and that their relationship still stands, it is simply a matter of better evaluating the reliability of quantitative information. Gamberale does not come across as being skeptical of the phenomenon itself, he places the emphasis on the industrial applicability aspect, in the sense that a COP of only e. g. 1.5 however remains of “revolutionary” interest to physics but of no use to industry.

    Further to the fact that the highly esteemed Il Sole 24 Ore is giving the topic an unbiased airing, it is also of great importance that Pedrocchi talks about pressures they have received from people critical to their coverage of such a hotly debated topic. He says they have been accused of giving leeway to fraudulent people and defends their work in terms of the most fundamental principles of unbiased and uncensored free press, as well as the fact that they have maintained as neutral a stance as possible and always underlined the highly controversial quality of the subject. In short, he maintains that the public has the right to be informed and be the judge of the matter.

    While this shows the skeptopaths are still at large, his defence is encouraging and I hope his position is less at risk than in the case of Mark Gibbs.

    • Stephen

      I am not surprised to learn about people critical about the coverage that Radio 24 gave to the Hyperion… indeed that looked to me a bold move. Hoever I appreciate their efforts and I think they have been very neutral.

      Rather, I really hope that now DGT is going to 100% clarify this issue, and to do it super-quickly… it is already quite unfortunate (and even quite surprising) that this whole shady issue leaked to the wider public. Regardless this is a scam or not, and given the skeptical mainstream mood… these people can do HUGE damage if they don’t behave appropriately. This will become an even stronger taboo if this whole story does not have an happy ending.

      • Chris I

        To me it doesn’t seem to differ much from the Hydrofusion dispute (regardless of who was right about the measurements).

        One thing, it suggests that these licensees are not merely paying lip service. If they are themselves looking for any possible error, as you would expect a new licensee to do, it puts on a good show. The bad show would be if the licensor turns out to be wrong and this is if someone else points it out; it would tend to be an even worse show actually.

        I don’t find Pedrocchi all that bold. Neither am I surprised by the criticism.

  • Enduser

    Anyone seen this before?

    E-cat Australia is offering 3 month delivery from the USA of 1MW units fro $US1.5m.

    • khawk

      Went to the link but couldn’t find any reference to the offer. The picture is very interesting though – seems like a highly refined fuel cell type of structure. That would be indicative of massive design progress which makes this somewhat hard to believe.

      • kasom

        this in only a 2 years old computer rendering of the theorerical home e-cat

  • Thinks4Self

    This is just FUD from MY and friends. The same complaint was made about Rossi’s setup when he did his demo with water. Excessive back pressure would prevent the meter from turning not make it turn faster a vacuum would be required to that.

    • Omega Z


      Interesting you mention the back pressure.
      Tis something I want to look into if I find the time.
      Personally, I don’t consider this a problem.
      I just don’t understand the mechanism on how it’s prevented. YET.

      If it were a problem, Then Heat Absorption Systems(COOLING) would not work & we know that they do. Also, Existing Power plants accomplish the same thing everyday. Adding water continuously during the process. This is a Red herring from the skeptics to muddy the waters or they aren’t smart enough to know better.

  • Kim

    Why not draw the water input from
    a gravity tank and measure the total
    that was used during the entirety
    of the test procedure instead of using
    city supply pressure pipe????

    Its not rocket science.


    • Bob Greenyer

      I agree entirely and have suggested as much.

    • Dan

      Or better yet do it the really old fashioned way and simply heat a couple of very large containers of water. One as a control with an inert e-cat in it and the other with a live e-cat. If both are drawing the same amount of power you should get very easy to verify data with none of the questions about wether this or that flow rate was measure correctly, or this or that temperature meter was correct etc.

      • Sanjeev

        Perhaps you mean DGT’s e-cat, which is Hyperion. What’s in the name, anyway.

        In other words you suggest bulk calorimetry, which is good too. It has its own issues, like it can also make steam and it escapes, which means there needs to be some air tight cooling system, which in skeptic lingo means hidden batteries.

        They need to heat the core electrically, which will be difficult if its under water.

        It won’t stop skeptics from saying that they messed with thermal conductivity of the control core. For example, they used a different material for control core which conducts less heat and so the result is control remains cold, while active one heats up at same input power. I can’t argue with skeptics here, because that can be done easily. So its necessary to use only one core, unless they cut open the cores and show that its same material in both or there is no insulation in control core.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    All this ink about testing LENR reactors to prove they are not scams is a huge waste of time and energy. Just wait. Soon there will be confirmation that a company is making or saving money using an LENR reactor. How about this: If you are a non believer please just disregard all LENR news. If you are a believer DO Not react to the trolls trying to discredit LENR.

    • Jimr

      What you say is true with the exception of the statment ” SOON there will be confirmation—” . Most of is have been waiting over two and a half years for various confirmations. To think that this company is near ready to ship is unlikely.

      • Omega Z


        2 1/2 years only seems long because of following it.
        It’s actually a short time in the LENR Field.

        Note also that Rossi actually went public prematurely in order to appease an Associate/Friend- “Sergio Focardi” because of his health. As we know, Focardi recently past.

        Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if it took a couple more years to become fully marketable.

        The LENR Technology is more complex then many assume, Else we would have had it long ago. Also Nano research which seems very important to the field success is itself a relatively new field.

        I can only imagine how Tech progresses.
        Accomplish step 1, Move to step 2
        Step 2 doesn’t mesh with step 1.
        Revisit step 1 to complete step 2.
        Go to step 3. Step 3 doesn’t mesh with step 2.
        Revisit step 2, Revisit step 1, Revisit step 2 then complete step 3 Etc, Etc…

        Those following have already seen many changes in the configuration of the E-cat. I wouldn’t be at all surprised that the End product may not even be recognizable to the present configuration.

        As to Rossi going public prematurely, Yep, Seems like a long time to us, But I see 1 big positive to this.

        I Believe it’s had a major impact on expanding the research in the LENR Field. So much so that it will soon hit a tipping point where it can no longer be suppressed or hidden from the masses. NO- I don’t think we’ve reached that point yet. It is still vulnerable to suppression. At least for the foreseeable future. Even if just delayed…

        • Jimr

          I agree. I only mentioned this because of the soon statement. There are many whom feel a marketable devise is just around the corner. I think your 2 yr (2015) time table for a early devise is logical. With commerial units taking hold in 2017-2018 time frame and with luck individual home units in 2020 .

        • Roger Bird

          Most excellent and balanced perspective. Congratulations, Jimr, you win Best of Show.

      • Thinks4Self

        Two and half years is less than what it took from the time of discovery of nano-phosphors making white light when placed on top of blue LEDs to the first production run of white LEDs. Things do not always happen as fast as we would like.

    • Tom59

      Bernie, believers would like to get their hands on the device but can not, up to now. The next best thing is to give comments although knowing it’s mostly nonsense. No matter about the trolls – just flies…

  • Jon soderberg

    Not being a physicist but working with water I may have a simple solution to testing the output. My understanding is its easy to calculate the output when water is heated to below the boiling point(dont have formula). Defkalion measured water flow at different points to calibrate the meter into the SCADA and it was able to calculate total energy output. As the reactor heated up the water got hotter until it started to become steam… instead of letting the water become steam why the hell dont they just increase the flow to keep the cooling water below 100C??? Stop arguing about steam and how to measure its quantity…keep it as water but just increase the flow.

    • Kim


      This is another great Idea.

      I get the feeling that they really
      don’t want to make it easy.


    • Stephen

      I think one potential issue is that a higher flow would cool down the reactor too much… and/or mess up its thermal configuration. This is what I have understood, at least.

      Anyhow… as usual this whole story is SUPER-WEIRD. I have a new idea for those who like conspiracies: eCat and DTG are the result of a deliberate action to discredit research on LENR at international level. I don’t believe in conspieracies – I think most of the times they are not real – so let me tell you this idea of mine sounds quite crazy/stupid 🙂 But the fact I pondered it kind of seriously gives you an idea of how ABSURD this whole story looks to me.

      First of all, either the eCat or the Hyperion are both real, or they are both fake. What are the chances of two independent scams? Zero? One scammer inspiring a truely working machine? Zero squared. One true invention pushing an ex-collaborator to organize a scam? Two scams only make kind of sense if they agreed from the very beginning to play out this plot. So we are left with either two real reactors designed by people who are incredibly unable to demonstrate beyond any doubt that they have something that works (it is unbelievable, it is), or with two scams… but then, what is the sense of it?!?! It makes no sense I think.

      • Stephen

        PS I think it’s a dumb idea… I myself can’t believe it. It’s just to give a sense of how strange this whole story looks to me.

        • blaze

          Yeah, maybe. It’s an original theory, I’ll give it that.

      • kasom

        and if the reactor needs temperatures above the boiling point of water, WTH are heat exchangers existing for?

      • Boris Ivanoff

        Well, I also thought speeding up the water flow would cool down the reactor too much. But then I remembered that they had reactors that used high temperature thermal oils. They mentioned it in their ICCF17 paper. Maybe Frank could ask them why they didn’t use those for the demo, the next time he gets a chance. That same paper also said the COP’s were from 6 to 20 or some such, if I remember it right.

      • AlainCo

        the reasoning seems good.
        The popint is tha Rossi have well organized his test with Elforsk team. The claim of doubt are linked to som tester missing a stupid and easy detail, and mostly to incompetence of critics (like Ericsson&pomp muddying the water on IR can, and ignoring calibration conformed wuth thermocouple).
        So Rossi is validated.

        you should not mistake some evidence which is not accepted by a camp, and bad evidence.
        Until Elforsk test, Rossi’s evidence were not definitive (yet with some digging you could rule out all protocol of fraud, presented, but not all questions I agree).
        Elforsk is good enough, since the only weakness is DC measurement, but since Rossi let the testers play with the machine, DC presence could habe been detected easily.

        for Defkalion the situation is weaker yet.
        They have allowed Nelso to test the reactor, and according to him the condition were good, with enough freedom to be confident in the result… problem is to trust Nelson opinion. the report is in itself not more worth than the opinion of Nelson.
        The demo was quite open too, weakening hypothesis of magicians game, but as discussed here there are still dark zone.
        Their protocol was rich and free enough to ruleout many artifact or fraud claimed, but only the one expressed today.

        as it seems to appear here, the flowmeter artifact is impossible , given the plumbing details, and the thermocouple.
        But ok, it was not enough independent to satisfy the mot paranoids…

    • Tom59

      Maybe there’ is an optimal operation temperature and 100 C cools the charge down too much

      • Sanjeev

        Its been said many times that they have to have steam because otherwise it gets too cold. But there are ways to keep the core hot while we get only water. For example, insulate the core a bit, so that less heat is transferred to water.

        They have not done that so far, there can be other reasons for that. Anyhow, steam is just fine, if you assume its water, it makes no difference actually.(Except making the COP smaller, but who cares when you have a lot of COP)

        • Stephen

          Exactly… steam is not a problem, if the rest of the data is correct the COP must be vastly underestimated.

        • Jon soderberg

          but when it turns to steam you cant verify quantities by checking the volume in the capture container with the metered flow…

          • Sanjeev

            Your point is valid. Like I said, there must be some reasons for not designing a water only setup. They relied on flow meter, which was verified by collecting the water in buckets before start. They could have condensed the steam, but its a messy affair.

            Like other commentators have said, another way is to use a tank of water instead of tap supply. The difference in initial and final volume gives the amount of water that flowed. They have not done that also. They trust their flowmeter very much, it seems.

          • kasom

            Yes. possibly one alternative. But I think it’s easier to have fixed amount of water in a storage tank, heat it up to a fixed Temp and stop, next do the same with resistors heating only.

            The different amounts of “power in” in watts give the COP with Your pocket calculator only.

            No need for NI-Equipment or MY watching or other BS.

            And if the reactor needs temperatures above the boiling point of water, WTH are heat exchangers existing for?

      • This is just an engineering problem. A few skilled engineers would fix this issue.

  • Omega Z

    As to some of the latest posts here at ECW about the steam & whether to keep the temp below 100`C- ETC..

    Mat said they discounted the steam thus this would lead to a higher COP then stated.

    Whats really being questioned here-

    Reading Mat’s blog, The questioning of the steam is actually questioning the water Flow Rate. If the flow was lower then stated, less heat would be required to heat a smaller quantity of water, thus the COP would be less then what it appears.

    Mat calibrated the water Flow Rate at the beginning of the test. To my knowledge, Mat didn’t do any follow up water flow calibration.

    NOTE: The only person qualified who is questioning Mat that I’m aware of is Brian Ahern.
    M.Y & others have jumped in muddying the water. That’s their M.O.

    Brian said to Mat that he did a good job of measuring the Input Power. Little there to question. Why he didn’t just state the Obvious of- Mat, Why didn’t you recheck the water flow Calibration, I don’t know.

    It would be a valid question even if it’s “unlikely” the Flow rate somehow changed. It necessary to eliminate possibilities of error.

    In the End- This was just a Demo. Not a Test.
    It Did prove 1 thing for many of us who follow along.
    DGT does have a Physical Product that actually functions. LOL.

    All we have seen in the past is pictures & poorly detailed schematics.
    Now we know-IT DOES EXIST.

    We can wait for validation as to it’s COP>1

    • Kim

      why don’t they put the entire supply
      of input water into a graduated glass
      tank so that they can look and see the rate and quantity going into the system ect…?

      and then there would be no doubt. sheesh..


    • Italo R.

      I think that the best and simple way to make these tests without errors is the following:

      1) – Put double sensors near those already existing (termocouple for temperatures and simple flowmeter like a glass rotameter to measure the water flow in input).

      2) – A flow regulator to the pipe of water, made using a Proportional + Integral regulator, plus a regulation automatic valve (not manual like that used in Milan). In this way the flow is surely constant and known. The flow must be enough high to avoid the boiling of water, and in this way there isn’t any problem with the steam.

      During the test it is necessary to read the values of the double instruments and write them in a table. At the end it will be easy compare those read by the electronics and those read by eyes on manual instruments. Those value must be almost near.

      • AlainCo

        Seems a good idea.

        I have proposed a similar protocol to protect the company against a defrauding tester who would sabotage the test, as much as against a defrauding company.

        my idea is not even to have manual instruments, but independent “labview” instruments wired/piped in chain, so that if one instruments get wrong, the other can moan…

        of course some manual testing is good…

    • dsm

      This comment was spot on

      “NOTE: The only person qualified who is questioning Mat that I’m aware of is Brian Ahern. M.Y & others have jumped in muddying the water. That’s their M.O.”

      MY by doing this drags a lot of other wild-eyed posters with him who repeat his half truths and twisted meanings. He really does behave like a ‘pack’ leader and revels in the chase. A wolf pack.


      • Owen

        More like a few yapping chihuahuas barking at their own shadows. They’re becoming increasingly irrelevant as the truth unfolds.

        • GreenWin

          Well said Owen.

  • Sanjeev

    The only thing that was not checked was the software that plots the graph and shows the readings on the screen. I wonder why hasn’t any of our learned skeptics mentioned it so far. Perhaps they all are old fashioned and trust anything a computer says. So I’m throwing this in the wild, lets see if someone pounces on it.

    One can easily write some code to show fake readings. Show some normal readings in the control run and once the active run starts, click a button somewhere to show the high COP readings and pretty graphs. One can always escape detection by declaring the laptop and software as “Commercial IP”.

    Although I think its highly unlikely that they used a cracked software but it just shows the importance of an independent test.

    • Chris I

      This is obvious and I’ve mentioned it somewhere in discussing the fact that it was a demo, no more than a demo. The Elforsk team was certainly much more able to kick the tyres of the h-cat, that’s why they called it a 3rd party test and not a demo.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer


    The first automatic analog cellular phone was made in the 1960’s. Commercial models were introduced in Japan by NTT on December 3, 1979.

    The microwave oven was invented in 1946. The Raytheon Corporation produced the first commercial microwave oven in 1954

    Dean Kamen invented the Slingshot a water purifier.[35] Kamen filed U.S. patent # 7,340,879 on November 13, 2003 for the device which was issued on March 11, 2008. 2013 first procuct.

    A nanowire battery is a lithium-ion battery invented by a team led by Yi Cui at Stanford University in 2007.Commercialization was originally expected to occur in 2012, but was later deferred to 2015

    • Kim

      Why do I get the feeling we can have
      all the free energy devices in the world
      as soon as they move the decimal point
      of the world population about 5 decimal points to the left.



      • Roger Bird

        I don’t understand. That would make the world’s population 70,000. Do you mean that we could all burn wood?

        • Barry

          Your other left.

      • Ted-X

        Kim, you must be a prophet 🙂
        You just confirmed the Apocalypse, the Bible, The Koran, and the Holly Writ of Mormons, plus relations of those who had the near death experiences (NDE-people also provided the warnings, it is documented in psychological journals). So, we should start collecting food for two years (really, not so stupid idea). Isn’t it a pure logic? Maybe just one decimal place? Five decimal places = back to stone age. Still scary, even with one decimal place.

        • Roger Bird

          I would be delighted with one decimal place, just so long as it was not forced upon anyone but rather the result of intelligent and informed decision.

          • telecommuter

            Right. And how would that ever happen?

          • Roger Bird

            I have very little idea. But I do know that the best form of birth control is education.

  • Preston

    The scary thing about this is just a few days ago we heard a rumor that one of the testers had uncovered something that seems like outright fraud, and now there is this hold.

    If the rumor was true, then the issue is a lot more serious then a minor measurement error with the flow meter. To completely knock the COP all the way to < 1.0 I don't know but maybe there is a hidden bypass that routes cold water around the outlet heat sensor, or something major like that.

    Hopefully, we will hear more information soon, all of this is just speculation.

    • freethinker

      You are quite the voice of moderation, are you not 🙂

      Rumors are seldom what they appear to be, and the play by the group of investors in Defkalion Europe could easily be power playing.

      Maybe you should keep your negative rethoric to a minumum as you most likely know nothing – like the rest of us – about what really has transpired and what is unfolding.

      But if I am mistaken, please give me credible references to information qualifying language like “scary”, “outright fraud”, ” lot more serious then a minor measurement error”, ” hidden bypass” etc.

      Please monger fear elsewhere.

      • Preston

        The rumor about testing problems and potential fraud was posted by AB in the Reasonable Doubt thread, and discussed thoroughly then. See, AB on July 29, 2013 at 5:30 pm in the reasonable doubt thread.

        This announcement might fit with that rumor and like I said, if it’s related to that rumor then it’s pretty scary for Defkalion. But I’m still hopeful and still a believer in LENR and hope this gets resolved quickly.

  • Lukedc

    This is all a storm in a teacup. I’ll repost what I said two months ago.
    By the end of this year a Defkalion commercial R&D partner will announce a product based on Hyperion tech.

    • Fibb

      Lukedc, is that a WAG (wild ass guess) or are you some guy with real info? Thanks.

    • AlainCo

      DGT have told in an interview that the first partner to deliver a product won’t do it before mid 2014…
      Hope your optimism will win. My professional bet is 5 years after discovery , so late 2016. my hope is very soon.

      I agree that it is a storm in a teacup, but that is the game in that story… many storms and slow motion.

      I just hope that this storm will trigger some good testing, that would stop the general delusion against LENR industry.

      • Allan Shura is reporting Charles (Chuck) Pierce’s “Regen” Self-Looped Motor-Generator System.

        If true it is more than competitive with the first generation e-cat on price and is available and tested by the European Space Agency.

        • Zedshort

          What? Another magical-magnetic-motor thingy?

          • Hope4dbest

            The Regen is not a magnetic motor but a motor coupled with a generator, with extra energy left.

          • Kim

            I am aware of this machine.

            It is about magnets. That is what motors and generators use.

            It has a fly wheel and this wheel
            can store a tremendous amount of
            energy. If the system is close to 100
            percent the flywheel can run for days
            producing the extra energy they are

            They need to strobe the fly wheel to see rather
            its loosing,gaining or is static this is the crux
            of its energy.


        • This is why I hate the “involvement” of PESN in the LENR story.
          PESN is totaly crap and informs about the biggest and stupidest fakes, hoax’ and frauds in the free-energy area.

          And the LENR Image gets damaged by such sites, because the normal reader will connect the frauds with LENR, and sort LENR into the same category -> frauds and bullsh*t.

  • GoatGuy

    This is so laughable, really.

    It is MID 2013, folks. I’ve been tracking the Rossi/Defkalon thing for what, 4 years? Every year, we’re just a couple of setbacks from commercial devices. Every year, there’s some fiasco and imbroglio regarding the business relations of Rossi & kin. Every year, the “technology” gets reinvented, with newer and shinier features. Yet there is one thing that has yet to be done – in any case, for any test situation or certification.

    This would be bulk-mass calorimetry, from, and back into a closed insulated vessel.

    Look at what you’ve read, heard, or surmise: the controversies flutter around whether the flow-type calorimetry is being done correct; various delightfully well-informed commentators discuss at length the role of steam, and fraction of “wet steam”, and try to turn this gobble-d-gook into a set of adjusted values that correlate to Rossi/Defkalion’s claims. Its ridiculous, however, considering the efficacy of doing calorimetry using “styrofoam picnic chests” of water.

    In a nutshell, the largest styrofoam chests can hold over 100 liters of water. It is TRIVIAL to fill such a chest with 40C water, put the lid on (with a small tropical fish pump to keep it circulating a bit), insert an old-fashioned mercury-filled lab thermometer, and take temperature measures over the next 8 hours. Sure the 40C water’s temperature will drop relative to ambient. The key is … it’ll do so at a rate that is almost exactly linear with the differential in temperature. Plots identically to a straight line on graph paper.

    THIS “certification” is key – for it establishes the backward calculating “fudge factor” to make up for any missing heat when the same tub(s) of water are circulated out of the boxes, to the e-Cat, and back via insulated hoses. Again, one doesn’t need fancy equipment: the same tropical-fish pump can move plenty of water between the styrofoam box and a 5kW or 10kW e-cat. Pump it out, through, and back.

    Measuring the temperature of this covered, insulated bulk of water is critically important – in that from the temperature, and with time, the exact-to-3-decimal-places amount of deposited thermal energy can be calculated. So trivially, that “graph paper and pencil” calculations quite easily suffice. Oh… could use a computer program to do it (called a “spreadsheet”), but that’s just being more practical. Point is … one does NOT need “second by second” measurements of the temperature. Every 5 minutes would be more than enough. Literally, grammar school kids could do it. 2 thermometers, a chest, water and a wall clock.

    YET – it is precisely this test which has NEVER been done. I’ve been soundly lambasted for suggesting that such “primitive” ways of doing calorimetry would be somehow better than the sophisticated “modern” method of differential flow-calorimetry. Well, boys ‘n’ girls, here’s something to remember: “bomb” calorimetry is still used at food testing laboratories across the world to measure food-energy values. Bulk calorimetry may not be very sophisticated, but before the CONVENIENCE of the flow-calorimeter, bulk methods were used to measure to 3 and 4 significant digits of precision, the specific heat capacity of tens of thousands of compounds, materials, alloys, fluids and reagents. It works.

    I personally believe it hasn’t been done not because it is “hard” (which it clearly is not), but rather for 4 mutually supporting reasons:

    1. it looks un-modern; questionably scientific (to those who wish to see fancy digital data acquisition)

    2. it is a 19th century technique. We’re in the 21st century now.

    3. It would uncover the mendacity contained within all the claimed numbers.

    4. It relies on double integration to establish accurate measurement values.

    And there you are. Until mass-calorimetry is done, there is no reason to engage in any of the crap regarding the validity of current measurements. The “simple”, “cheap” and “reliable” needs to be done.


    • every time a new calorimetry is proposed, some skeptic invent crazy hypothesis, without evidence to spread doubt…
      the testers change the protocol and the protocol is again not satisfying.
      defkalion proposed IR isoperibolic,
      she asked for flow calorimetry,
      now Mary is asking for isoperibolic.
      you ask for phase change…

      you are exactly delusioned as you imagine others.
      you cannot accept the facts, you ignore not only the hard evidence, but even the soft evidence around…
      you invent critics that don’t hold…

      you heat storage is preposterous for rossi and DGT, given the test.

      like Pomp&Ericsson you should learn to read, hear, before spreading FUD based on hot air.

      now you ask yet another protocol…
      and sure when it will be realized you will moan about hidden pipes, heat storage…

      no end.

      • GoatGuy

        Wow, AlainCo – what a personal attack. I did not attack ANYONE in what I wrote. How utterly RUDE of you! And… you have the pretension to say I’m spreading F(ear) U(ncertainty) and D(oubt)?

        EACH OF YOUR POINTS IS FALSE … let me cite:

        … some skeptic invent crazy hypothesis, without evidence to spread doubt…

        NO: the use of MASS type calorimetry is not only STANDARD, it is reliable, simple, cheap, and ridiculously easy to use to confirm other more sophisticated (but ultimately squirrely) alternatives.

        … the testers change the protocol and the protocol is again not satisfying.

        NO: The testers have NEVER used mass calorimetry. There was an attempt at recirculating the cooling/calorimetry fluid, but there were no results forthcoming from it.

        … defkalion proposed IR isoperibolic,

        NO: Defkalion has proposed a couple dozen different tests; Infrared is almost useless in this testing regime, except for possibly determining 1 and 1/2 “digits of precision”. Almost, but not quite useless. And, compared to an insulated tub of water … serves no useful purpose EXCEPT adding “more technology” to the system.

        … she asked for flow calorimetry,
        … now Mary is asking for isoperibolic.
        … you ask for phase change…

        NO: I did not, have not, and will not ask for “phase change”. Just recirculate a bunch of water (like 100L to 1000L) from a well insulated vat, through ANY of Rossi’s or Defkalion’s “version 1.x” designs. They supposedly emitted from 1,000 W to 15,000 W over input power. This would be TRIVIAL to measure in the mass-calorimetry sense, and entirely satisfying.

        … you are exactly delusioned as you imagine others.

        NO: If anything, I may well be among the few that have their EYES OPEN. True believers like yourself are the majority, but the majority may well be hoodwinked.

        … you cannot accept the facts, you ignore not only the hard evidence, but even the soft evidence around…

        NO: I most CERTAINLY can accept “the facts”. I have a very exquisite sense of “something’s wrong” though – from years behind the bench (chemistry, physics), and more years analyzing others work. Stop making baseless assertions of what I KNOW, and limit yourself to the ideas presented, not making trollish comments about others capabilities.

        … you heat storage is preposterous for rossi and DGT, given the test.

        NO: It is anything but “preposterous”. What IS PREPOSTEROUS is that you’re defending their hiding behind an ever-changing metrology setup; that the one – the single, and ONLY – method that would CONFIRM their fancy metrology results WITHOUT ADDING REMARKABLE COST … has never been done. Don’t be a fool, AlainCo.

        … like Pomp&Ericsson you should learn to read, hear, before spreading FUD based on hot air.

        NO: “you should learn to read” – well, buddy, that is one hell of a stupid thing to say. I’m more read on this stuff than 99% of the Rah-Rah fanboys and fangirls that infest these blogs. Sure: I have strong beliefs about the conservation of energy, and the possibility that results have been mis-interpreted … but this seems not to faze you in the slightest.

        Well, AlainCo … we’ve “crossed our swords” over at Next Big Future, and we’re crossing them here. Stand down from your personal attacks, and PROVIDE SOME IDEAS.


    • H. Skip Robinson

      First Rossi’s E-cat and Defkalion’s Hyperion are different. This is about Defkalion and I’m told they have been using outside help to do both testing and create testing protocols, understanding that it is not as easy as you attempt to assert. So, you’re not even commenting on the right group and equipment. Additionally your constant use of logical fallacies throughout your post, highly discredits anything you may say. Learn what they are and than learn to stop using them. You are also attempting to draw conclusions from assumptions that could be erroneous which is another logical fallacy. Stop trying to discredit people, many whom have been working on this for years, without knowing enough facts. Oh I forgot you’re the all knowing.

      • GoatGuy

        Oh, please: YOU don’t know the first thing about calorimetry. I do – it was one of the things I chose to study in detail at the University of California WAY back. The metrology has changed (in mostly high-cost, faddish ways), but the basic ideas remain as constant as ever. There hasn’t been a NEW idea in thermodynamic metrology in … well … maybe 100 years. New equipment, but no new ideas, no new math. Why? — NO NEED: it is a well worked out specialization within both chemistry and physics —

        SECONDLY, don’t give lip about “Defkalion and E-cat being different”. Sure… from a company perspective, they’re different. But Defkalion is a derivative of Rossi’s primary inventions. They were partners once.

        THIRDLY, I’ve used NO LOGIC FALLACIES in my post. You have – by stating so. Get over yourself, old onion. As to lecturing me to “stop using them” – I highly recommend that you NOT take on critiquing the commenter, and start commenting on the subject matter. Sorry to be so bold, but you’re puking in public.

        I’ve drawn no particular conclusions that anyone else ON A BLOG might not also conclude, my good fellow. You don’t like my conclusions, you don’t care for the logic that leads to them, but they’re fair, and quite unprejudiced by my hope for a real breakthrough.

        GOT THAT? I do -sincerely- hope for a breakthrough. But so far, it has been not just elusive, but been shrouded in nearly circus-act quality theatre to remain vexingly imprecise.

        FINALLY – and this may do nothing more than make you think you’ve “won” – but here’s the gig, boat anchor: I’m not in the least to discredit anyone, INCLUDING YOU. I merely think that it is very, very, very suspect that the one (cheap, simple, old, reliable, accurate and easy) test that could have been done, has not been done.

        Care to answer that last sentence? Go ahead! Try to. I can’t, and that is what vexes me about all the rah-rah-rah of the Rossi/Defkalion circus.


        • H. Skip Robinson

          See that wasn’t so hard was it. But why all the BS to just ask, what you consider an important question(s). If you give me an intelligent question(s), I will try to have them answered for you. From what I understand Defkalion’s unit is different enough from the E-cat to give them an advantage at this point in time and I know for a fact that Kim Yeong of Purdue, who is educated in both nuclear energy and sensing has done favorable testing at Defkalion.