Oilprice.com Interviews Defkalion CEO Xanthoulis

Oilprice.com has just today published an interview with Alex Xanthouilis, CEO of Defkalion Green Technologies. James Burgess asks Xanthoulis about the current status of Defkalion’s business and technologicall plans, and about his overall thoughts on the state of the LENR field.

Some of the key points mentioned by Xanthoulis are:

  • Defkalion plans to have a ‘pre-industrial’ Hyperion unit ready for certification testing in the second quarter of 2014
  • The first Hyperions produced will be for domestic and light industrial settings
  • Defkalion Green Technologies is now a registered Canadian company. They have plans to open a manufacturing facility in Greece, but that may change due to interest in other countries
  • Defkalion defines its energy production process as H.E.N.I. (Heat Energy from Nuclei Interaction), which, says Xanthoulis is “completely different in its method of operation and control mechanisms” from LENR
  • Cost of energy is calculated as being less than 1 cent (US) per kilowatt.
  • A Hyperion unit is expected to retail at around $7,000
  • Guru

    “Cost of energy is calculated as being less than 1 cent (US) per kilowatt”
    Please may somebody tell to Mr. Xanthoulis, tha kiloWatt is not energy.

  • NT

    I like hearing “The first hyperions will be for domestic and light industrial settings”. I am hoping this all rings true in 2014-15. Where can one sign up for a unit or two?

  • NT

    I like hearing “The first hyperions will be for domestic and light industrial settings”. I am hoping this all rings true in 2014-15. Where can one sign up for a unit or two?

  • Owen Geiger

    Domestic units any time soon sounds like wishful thinking due to all the liability and piracy issues that have been discussed here.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Given Rossi’s requirement to prove at an industrial level, I do not see how Defkalion does not have the same limitation.

    This seems a bit too suddenly successful for a company which was undergoing restructuring last month. Restructuring, isn’t that another form of bankruptcy?

    • Who knows what their finances look like, but I agree about the certification issue. They might possibly have an easier ride if they drop any references to a theory of operation and just call it a ‘plasma heater’, but I suspect that no ‘home’ devices will see the light of day for decades, for all the reasons discussed over the years.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Last month their phones were shut down and they moved offices for “Restructuring”.
        This is fact stated and documented. Fortunes can change quickly in either direction, but this remains a fact.

  • Christopher Calder

    If I could invest in a new energy company, it would be Defkalion. Perhaps that is just because their design is the easiest for me to understand. It seems straightforward and doable with no major problems. Essentially, it has no moving parts to wear out. I also have a feeling that the time between recharges will be much longer than anticipated. I think they are just being conservative in their projections right now.

  • If I could invest in a new energy company, it would be Defkalion. Perhaps that is just because their design is the easiest for me to understand. It seems straightforward and doable with no major problems. Essentially, it has no moving parts to wear out. I also have a feeling that the time between recharges will be much longer than anticipated. I think they are just being conservative in their projections right now.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    What a bunch of xr?xzf. Different than LENR…….but he does not know what LENR is! A domestic unit costing 7000 bucks, good luck with that sale. I think they were kicked out of Canada by Canadian SEC.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    What a bunch of xr?xzf. Different than LENR…….but he does not know what LENR is! A domestic unit costing 7000 bucks, good luck with that sale. I think they were kicked out of Canada by Canadian SEC.

  • gp

    7000 USD to buy it plus 1000 a year for maintenance is not what I would call almost free energy. In some places like Australia Northern Territories, solar is almost better priced than this already, imagine 3 years from now.

    • tlp

      But not in many other Northern Territories, where winters are cold and dark.

      • gp

        Point being that a revolutionary technology that is already more expensive than some existing technology, is not that revolutionary…
        Just to clarify I am not talking about lenr in general, just about what Defkalion Ceo said

    • tombuktu

      doesen’t sound cheap, but it depends on what comes out of the unit. If I read the interview right, doestic will be around 5.500$ and industrial around 7000$.
      One refill of my heatingoil-homeunit is between 2000-3000 EURO at least once a year. Additional there is a bill for electricity around 1300 Euros.
      5.500USD is around 4075 EUR – I would buy one immediately, if save and longlasting

    • Fortyniner

      The recharge cost is critical. Even taking the lower estimated recharge cost of $500 per year, this would not be an automatic ‘non-brainer’ for many normal homes. I’ve just done some quick calculations for my own case ($1,200/yr equivalent spend on heating), which indicate a 10 year break-even period before the potential savings of $700 per year kick in. If the recharge cost is $1,000, this becomes a 35 year paypack time to obtain savings of just $200 a year!

  • gp

    7000 USD to buy it plus 1000 a year for maintenance is not what I would call almost free energy. In some places like Australia Northern Territories, solar is almost better priced than this already, imagine 3 years from now.

    • tlp

      But not in many other Northern Territories, where winters are cold and dark.

      • gp

        Point being that a revolutionary technology that is already more expensive than some existing technology, is not that revolutionary…
        Just to clarify I am not talking about lenr in general, just about what Defkalion Ceo said

        • bachcole

          The engineering costs always make every product more expensive at first. There will always be rich people who will want to buy it out of guilt or the novelty factor, or people living in very cold climates.

        • bkrharold

          A more expensive clean green technology, would be much better for our health and our children’s future. The currently low price of electricity does not factor in government $billions of subsidies to oil gas and coal companies, not to mention the cost of the resulting pollution, fouling our air and water supplies. If the oil gas and coal companies were taking reasonable and sufficient precautions to protect the environment, then electricity would cost much more than it does today, even with the massive taxpayer subsidies the industry receives. As drought is becoming widespread due mainly to climate change, our water supply is being destroyed by the phracking industry. This state of affairs is unsustainable.

    • tombuktu

      doesen’t sound cheap, but it depends on what comes out of the unit. If I read the interview right, doestic will be around 5.500$ and industrial around 7000$.
      One refill of my heatingoil-homeunit is between 2000-3000 EURO at least once a year. Additional there is a bill for electricity around 1300 Euros.
      5.500USD is around 4075 EUR – I would buy one immediately, if save and longlasting

    • The recharge cost would be critical. Even taking the lower estimated recharge cost of $500 per year, this would not be an automatic ‘no-brainer’ for many normal homes, given the $5,500 estimated capital cost (but ignoring installation cost, which should be modest if replacing a gas boiler).

      I’ve just done some quick calculations for my own case ($1,200/yr equivalent spend on gas heating – admittedly on the low side as I also use wood burning stoves/range cooker and a solar water heating system), which indicate an 8 year break-even period before the potential savings of $700 per year kick in. If the recharge cost is $1,000, this becomes a 27 year paypack time to obtain savings of just $200 a year! I could do better spending a few quid on draught excluders.

  • Morse

    First seeing than believing

  • Gerard McEk

    The home market will probably be the best market for the Hyperions. The draw-back is the license required, which seems the most problematic at least in the US. What I hear from Rossi is that licensing is the reason for him to move the E-cat to industrial usage. I hope Defkalion will succeed to bring the unit on the market next quarter.

  • Gerard McEk

    The home market will probably be the best market for the Hyperions. The draw-back is the license required, which seems the most problematic at least in the US. What I hear from Rossi is that licensing is the reason for him to move the E-cat to industrial usage. I hope Defkalion will succeed to bring the unit on the market next quarter.

  • tombuktu

    If I remember right, Defkalion once said, that they don’t want to become a manufacturer, but license their technology to interested companys. Now they want to build small industrial(7000$) and domestic units(5500$). This is an interesting change in their strategy.

    Now remember the announcement of CyclonePower from december that Yeong Kim is hired as technical advisor to evaluate the usage of LENR(or HENI) for their turbine. Around december 20th Cyclone let us know, they authorized 900mio additional shares for future aquisitions. The biggest thing they could do with these shares is partnering somehow with Defkalion.
    Anyone who has some additional information about Yeong’s work at Cyclone?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      They didn’t change their strategy so far:

      “Defkalion will License the OEM
      manufacturer to build and distribute the Hyperion in a given country and
      or market, through an authorised dealer network, that will provide
      sales and after sales support.”

  • tombuktu

    If I remember right, Defkalion once said, that they don’t want to become a manufacturer, but license their technology to interested companys. Now they want to build small industrial(7000$) and domestic units(5500$). This is an interesting change in their strategy.

    Now remember the announcement of CyclonePower from december that Yeong Kim is hired as technical advisor to evaluate the usage of LENR(or HENI) for their turbine. Around december 20th Cyclone let us know, they authorized 900mio additional shares for future aquisitions. The biggest thing they could do with these shares is partnering somehow with Defkalion.
    Anyone who has some additional information about Yeong’s work at Cyclone?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      They didn’t change their strategy so far:

      “Defkalion will License the OEM
      manufacturer to build and distribute the Hyperion in a given country and
      or market, through an authorised dealer network, that will provide
      sales and after sales support.”

  • RobiD

    Would be better for Xanthoulis to explain why they showed to the world a demonstration with results and claims so hard to believe.
    It’s a long time that I identified the name of an Italian engineer very expert in energy measurement who made the test on the Hyperion on behalf of a company interested in LENR technology. He posts regularly on several blogs and, now and then, between the lines, he tells some detail about the test, and there are bewildering things to know about that test, the attitude of Defkalion’s employees, and the public demo, something to really get angry.
    From what he says it’s pretty clear that the results achieved are wrong, to not use another adjective, but what it’s indeed amazing it’s that they thought to cheat (reading about details it’s hard to find another term) an expert engineer that knows about thermal energy, electric energy, steam and measurement equipments who attends personally to the test and that can verify personally some measurement.

    No, for what it’s worth I don’t believe any longer in Defkalion. To convince me they have to do independent tests, they have to deliver the reactor to a qualified international laboratory and let them testing. For me no more Defkalion location, no more Defkalion employees around the reactor and no more, absolutely no more, Defkalion unverified claims.

    • Passes the time while we wait for Industrial Heat’s next public move though!

      • georgehants

        Morning Peter, I am sure that some people actually think that if they do or do not believe in something (classically) then it somehow has a meaning as to if it actually exists, Ha.
        ——
        ‘Big Bang’ Theory Wrong?
        http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pelletier20130303

        • Fascinating idea – that the ‘next’ universe in a multiverse may be just a few feet away, measured along a dimension that is outside our 3D space.

          The ‘standard model’ is a very tattered flag these days. When cold fusion is fully understood it might lend support to one of the several alternative theories that fits the various ‘anomolous’ observations much better.

    • With time passing their credibility about that demo passes.
      They need a good 3rd party test, like what Rossi did.

      Luca’s question are not answered and this raise big concerns.
      If the anonymous buzz is confirmed, it will be a tragedy for Defkalion’s credibility and for LENR.
      If they cannot deliver, commit frauds, and however still make interview like that… this will damage the whole sector.

      They have to answer on that, QUICKLY.

  • Fortyniner

    Who knows what their finances look like, but I agree about the certification issue. They might possibly have an easier ride if they drop any references to a theory of operation and just call it a ‘plasma heater’, but I suspect that no ‘home’ devices will see the light of day for decades, for all the reasons discussed over the years.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Last month their phones were shut down and they moved offices for “Restructuring”.
      This is fact stated and documented. Fortunes can change quickly in either direction, but this remains a fact.

  • Fortyniner

    Passes the time while we wait for Industrial Heat’s next public move though!

    • georgehants

      Morning Peter, I am sure some people actually think that if they do or do not believe in something (classically) then it
      somehow has a meaning as to if it actually exists, Ha.
      ——
      ‘Big Bang’ Theory Wrong?
      http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pelletier20130303

      • Fortyniner

        Fascinating idea – that the ‘next’ universe in a multiverse may be just a few feet away, if measured along a dimension that is outside our 3D space.

        The ‘standard model’ is a very tattered flag these days. When cold fusion is fully understood it might lend support to one of the several alternative theories that fits the various ‘anomolous’ observations much better.

  • Fortyniner

    We just need an ‘upate’ from Brillouin now to have a full house of claims from the front runners.

  • We just need an ‘upate’ from Brillouin now to have a full house of claims from the front runners.

  • malkom700

    It is now in play for at least six to twelve major competitors, may succeed whichever just by putting the unit into service first.

  • georgehants

    As I complained the other day at the low quality string of comments, (excluding mine on GW of course) just say that the last couple of days on the new strings has brought us back to the usual high quality that reading is (mostly) a joy.
    Also seem to be some new guys well versed in Quantum Theory,
    —–
    Our quantum reality problem
    When the deepest theory we have seems to undermine science itself, some kind of collapse looks inevitable.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/our-quantum-reality-problem/

    • bachcole

      Looking at the theories without regard to comparing them with reality, the theory that talks a lot about uncertainty is going to seem much less useful than the other theory.

  • marcomic

    Xanthoulis should explain before:
    1) what happened of Defkalion Europe
    2) what happened of the request of Luca Gamberale (Defkalion Europe) for better tests than the ones of July 2013.
    As long as he doesn´t clarify these 2 points, he cannot be considered a serious person.
    Sorry

    • Cimpy

      Gamberale left – you will not find Defkalion Europe or Hyperion in Milan. House closed, everybody disappeared.
      You know, Gamberale discovered the truth. Matter is: he was already part of the scam, so he cannot say anything (would you speak against yourself?…)
      What a pity!

      • bachcole

        A bunch of unproven and extremely unlikely assumptions there. The Occam explanation is that other things were going on that you are unaware of.

      • bachcole

        One of those down arrows would be mine. Not for disbelieving Rossi and/or the E-Cat, but for making unfounded assumptions of a derogatory type.

      • Job001

        Equal or more likely is the normal perspective of private non-Government research, i.e. funding starved.

        Thus, they closed up and consolidated excess facilities to reduce cash flow loss. Consistent with statements indicating funding issues.

        Occam’s razor; Use the simplest explaination consistent with data.

        Scam and Fraud statement Explainations;

        “Confirmation Bias”;Attempts by non-believers to maintain simple mental models without change because change is hard work and painful.

        “Marketing”;Evidence of researcher competition for funding, publication, jobs, recognition, is strong. This is consistent with marketing or “Selling One’s Book”.

        “Risk Averse”;Many or most people tend toward “Risk averse” in a dangerous world.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion

        “Lazy/Frustration/Impatient”:Humans are rightfully lazy and don’t wish or are unable to study available research or are indirectly begging for someone else to do the work or wish by name calling to “Hurry up” the desired result – cheaper energy.

        Some or all these simple explanations work together with name calling a result; “Scam/Fraud/Incompetent/Impossible/etc.”.

        These few standard name calling bias explanations are reasonable, fairly reliable science regarding human motivation and thought processes.

  • Job001

    Presuming a misprint and they mean less than 1 cent/KwHr, how can this be correct?
    At 5Kw output 99% of the year we have 5KwHr x 0.99 x 24hr/day x 365 days = 43362 KwHr as heat.
    Cost less than $0.01 x 43362 = $433.62.
    First conclusion, assuming a $400 recharge cost provides us less than 1cent/KwHr heat, they have ignored capital costs.
    Capital costs might run say 7.5% each for depreciation and interest, so for $5,500 home unit this is $825/yr.
    Energy cost with $400 recharge and 15% capital cost ($400 + $825)/43362Kw = $0.028 or 2.8 cents/Kw Hr heat while without capital cost 0.92 cents/KwHr heat.
    You first, I’m not the trusting type.

    • Paul

      Yes, their price seem not realistic for having success in the residential market, due to the dependendance on recharges, which makes the investment too risky for a private. It should be at least the half, with possibility of buying the recharges in advance.

      • Daniel Maris

        I think I must have looked at this before – for me I always end up thinking LENR will come in around 2 cents per KwH. But of course, it should be available pretty much 24/7 unlike solar and wind and will be very flexible.

  • Job001

    Presuming a misprint and they mean less than 1 cent/KwHr, how can this be correct?
    At 5Kw output 99% of the year we have 5KwHr x 0.99 x 24hr/day x 365 days = 43362 KwHr as heat.
    Cost less than $0.01 x 43362 = $433.62.
    First conclusion, assuming a $400 recharge cost provides us less than 1cent/KwHr heat, they have ignored capital costs.
    Capital costs might run say 7.5% each for depreciation and interest, so for $5,500 home unit this is $825/yr.
    Energy cost with $400 recharge and 15% capital cost ($400 + $825)/43362Kw = $0.028 or 2.8 cents/Kw Hr heat while without capital cost 0.92 cents/KwHr heat.
    You first, I’m not the trusting type.

    • Paul

      Yes, their price seem not realistic for having success in the residential market, due to the dependendance on recharges, which makes the investment too risky for a private. It should be at least the half, with possibility of buying the recharges in advance.

  • georgehants

    Will make a couple of observations —-
    The other day Global Warming arose naturally in the debate and I spent some-time discussing the subject with a scientist who was convinced that it was True, not on Evidence but clearly because he was following others.
    Our discussion led him to be interested in actually Researching some data that was of the highest importance in the debate.
    My point is that these subjects arise from time to time and are very much connected to Cold Fusion in substance or to the criminal failings of science in it’s regard.
    I feel that when this occurs then it should be left to run within the string, others not interested can easily disregard and continue with only those posts that they find relevant.
    This Website has I am sure, been most Powerful in helping the path of Cold Fusion and has the potential to help change History in other areas connected with the betterment of our society’s worldwide.
    If official science Websites were run with the same quality, diligence, openness and honesty as this one then Science could change overnight.
    Brian Josephson who I, under protest, got to comment on the old ECN before it fell into the sewers said to me that it is a complete waste of time to get involved on blogs.
    Only a seriously and fair moderated blog is worthwhile for anything, not to destroy decent, but to maintain a level playing field for all and allow the “REBELS” who create and achieve almost everything in this life the freedom of speech that they need.
    When science can talk openly and honestly about UFO’s in the public domain, then science may have come of age, until then it will remain (I suppose) an incompetent and corrupt organisation capable of adversely affecting millions of lives instead of helping them.

    • Job001

      Science has both rebels and followers, it may be part of the human genetic or have evolved when productivity was so low that primarily tribes and followers survived.

      It’s an exciting time when a very short time ago we had only 1 galaxy with about 3000 stars visible by eye, now 200 billion galaxies of 100 billion stars each or 2E(2+2+9+9)= 2E22 stars.

      A short time ago heat came from fire with a lot of work gathering combustibles while now, given the generally ignored and underreported LENR++ reports, water may bring energy to us!

    • kdk

      Yeah, the sooner the scientists pull their heads out of the sand in regards to objects doing crazy things in our skies — ie being chased by F16’s over D.C., not too long ago and there are plenty of other examples of them being obviously there — the sooner they’ll be able to go on unifying and answering questions in physics that actually matter.

    • georgehants

      Brian is o.k. about me putting up his reply re. my above, I hope the point I am trying to make is clear.
      A man who fully supports open-mindedness in all of science and has done his best to open Cold Fusion to the World tells our Admin and readers that he still believes that it is pointless to try and talk sense when the returning abuse is intolerable.
      We must convince him and the other brilliant people in science that there is a safe Haven for them to put forward their Wonderful thoughts.
      ———
      On 30 Jan 2014, at 16:22, george wrote:
      Please if you have time, reply to my posting as it is just possible that it could make all the difference in creating an enviroment in which, closed subjects, can be discussed with safety
      ———-

      As you quote me saying, there’d be no point.
      B.
      ——
      Brian D. Josephson
      Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
      Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
      Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
      WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
      Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254

      • Fortyniner

        Prof. Josephson is evidently a follower of Euripides:

        “Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
        – from ‘Bacchae’

    • atanguy

      Good George,you have been able to find a scientist who agrees with you. But are you sure that he is from this planet?
      😉

  • georgehants

    Will make a couple of observations —-
    The other day Global Warming arose naturally in the debate and I spent some-time discussing the subject with a scientist who was convinced that it was True, not on Evidence but clearly because he was following others.
    Our discussion led him to be interested in actually Researching some data that was of the highest importance in the debate.
    This scientist has, hopefully gained immeasurably from the exchange.
    My point is that these subjects arise from time to time and are very much connected to Cold Fusion in substance or to the criminal failings of science in it’s regard.
    I feel that when this occurs then it should be left to run within the string, others not interested can easily disregard and continue with only those posts that they find relevant.
    This Website has I am sure, been most Powerful in helping the path of Cold Fusion and has the potential to help change History in other areas connected with the betterment of our society’s worldwide.
    If official science Websites were run with the same quality, diligence, openness and honesty as this one then Science could change overnight.
    Brian Josephson whom I, under protest, got to comment on the old ECN before it fell into the sewers said to me that it is a complete waste of time to get involved on blogs.
    Only a serious and fair moderated blog is worthwhile for anything, not to destroy decent, but to maintain a level playing field for all and allow the “REBELS” who create and achieve almost everything in this life the freedom of speech that they need.
    When science can talk factually, openly and honestly about UFO’s and many other forbidden subjects in the public domain, then science may have come of age, until then it will remain (I suppose) an incompetent and corrupt organisation capable of adversely affecting millions of lives instead of helping them.

    • bachcole

      I ask Frank only that he continue to be intolerant of hatred and put-downs. And I hope that he will continue to gently but NOT firmly guide us toward staying on topic. Other than that, I don’t care if people want to get into UFOs hiring BigFeet to use their stinking feet to alter chemtrails and thereby the climate, or any other topic. I am well skilled at using the delete button. (:->)

    • Job001

      Science has both rebels and followers, it may be part of the human genetic or have evolved when productivity was so low that primarily tribes and followers survived.

      It’s an exciting time when a very short time ago we had only 1 galaxy with about 3000 stars visible by eye, now 200 billion galaxies of 100 billion stars each or 2E(2+2+9+9)= 2E22 stars.

      A short time ago heat came from fire with a lot of work gathering combustibles while now, given the generally ignored and underreported LENR++ reports, water may bring energy to us!

    • kdk

      Yeah, the sooner the scientists pull their heads out of the sand in regards to objects doing crazy things in our skies, the sooner they’ll be able to go on unifying and answering questions in physics that actually matter.

    • georgehants

      Brian is o.k. about me putting up his reply re. my above, I hope the point I am trying to make is clear.
      A man (Nobel Prize winner) who fully supports open-mindedness in all of science and has done his best to open Cold Fusion to the World tells our Admin and readers that he still believes that it is pointless to try and talk sense when the returning abuse is intolerable.
      We must convince him and the other brilliant people in science that there is a safe Haven for them to put forward their Wonderful thoughts.
      ———
      On 30 Jan 2014, at 16:22, george wrote:
      Please if you have time, reply to my posting as it is just possible that it could make all the difference in creating an enviroment in which, closed subjects, can be discussed with safety
      ———-
      As you quote me saying, there’d be no point.
      B.
      ——
      Brian D. Josephson
      Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
      Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
      Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK

      • Prof. Josephson is evidently a follower of Euripides:

        “Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
        – from ‘Bacchae’

    • atanguy

      Good George,you have been able to find a scientist who agrees with you. But are you sure that he is from this planet?
      😉

      • bachcole

        You mean to think for one’s self is so bizarre that only someone from another planet would do it?

        • atanguy

          No bachcole,I found the mixture of science,CF/LENR and global warming with UFO,not too serious.

          • bachcole

            Seriousness is a value I don’t take too seriously. Truth, now that is important. Science: a good method to establish PHYSICAL truth. CF/LENR: true. Anthropogenic Global Warming: controversial, but I would say false. UFO: unproven but interesting.

          • atanguy

            Then I hope you answer this question: Are UFO Anthropogenic or not?
            And also: Are you related to Groucho Marx? – My favorite brother.
            By the way I am an alien – Seriously!

          • bachcole

            Are people making UFOs? That would be what “Anthropogenic” would mean in this context. I do NOT think that UFOs come from distant stars physically. I do think that there is something seriously there and it isn’t normal. I think that abductions are astral or etheric experiences and people don’t realize it, and they explain them in the only way that they can.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Snipit From:
    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013/08/great-greek-article-about-defkalion.html

    “Kim explained to the conference that Hyperion (Defkalion’s reactor) contains a core of metallic nickel foam that is heated from 180 ° C to 849 ° C, with a plasma arch. After that, you observe a sharp increase of the magnetic field within the reactor between 0.6 to 1,6 Tesla.”

    Google result for Nickel, Melting point 2,651°F (1,455°C)

    Either their operational specifications are B.S. or their core works as liquid metal once energized, and then needs replacement for a restart.

    • NCkhawk

      This is from an Aug 2013 article. Doctor Kim has stated that he was working with data provided to him by Defkalion. He has not been allowed to run his own test. This was also before the news got out that Defkalion either in mistakenly or intentionally mucked up their calorimetry for the July ICCF-18 video demo. I still have major doubts in their viability moving forward but wishing them the best nonetheless.

      • It seems they still don’t have answered Luca Gamberale about the problem he have identified, and the buzz is even more challenging.
        If what we hear is confirmed, that no explanation is given, the poor Yeong Kim will feel like me, Luca, Peter, Nelson… fooled! They have to answer QUICKLY! I give them a chance, but even if they really address the question and give a good credible result, their behavior would have been already weird.

        If Luca Gamberale questions are not addressed, all they said since the beginning is no better than Rossi says before Elforsk Test. If the buzz is confirmed, this can be an earthquake for LENR.
        I cannot imagine it is what I imagine, and I hope it is something nobody imagine. It is hard to imagine an end where everybody is clean and competent. (not really funny joke)

        • NCkhawk

          I have to agree with you. They keep leaving one unanswered mess after another in an attempt to claim that everything is okay and moving forward. When is it finally going to be put-up or shut-up & go away time?

        • LENR G

          The whole thing is weird to me… “Defkalion Europe” playing gotcha with Defkalion. Why didn’t all that stuff stay in-house?… and Defkalion should have made an effort to be more transparent about any problems. But really…

          I mean let’s say for argument sake that Defkalion screwed up the demo. (Maybe they let enough hydrogen in that the results could have been chemical or maybe they messed up the calorimetry by a lot). Does it really matter? Defkalion seems a bit shell-shocked but they haven’t gone away. If the jig is up on their supposedly parasitic scam off Rossi’s technology somebody forgot to tell them.

          They are claiming multiple 3rd party independent test reports and the R6 reactor by Fall on their web site.

          Either they happen or they don’t. A misunderstanding or a botched demo and a bunch of rumors are close to irrelevant since everyone just evaluates those with their existing biases anyway… as you have eloquently pointed out numerous times. We need trustworthy validations, or ideally a product — or at least a prototype that lots of companies vouch for and start to work with.

          Either they happen or they don’t.

          If Defkalion is for real they must be feeling a lot of pressure with Industrial Heat, Brillouin and the others making headlines. So either they get back in the game or they fade away.

          Defkalion talks a big game but so far objective evidence supporting them is thin (Nelson report and the level of trust given them by Dr. Kim… and a questionable live demo that proved nothing).

          I’m patiently awaiting the independent validation reports, hoping they are high quality. I suspect they’ll come out around the same time as the E-Cat ones… March or April. Just a gut feeling though.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Snipit From:
    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2013/08/great-greek-article-about-defkalion.html

    “Kim explained to the conference that Hyperion (Defkalion’s reactor) contains a core of metallic nickel foam that is heated from 180 ° C to 849 ° C, with a plasma arch. After that, you observe a sharp increase of the magnetic field within the reactor between 0.6 to 1,6 Tesla.”

    Google result for Nickel, Melting point 2,651°F (1,455°C)

    Either their operational specifications are B.S. or their core works as liquid metal once energized, and then needs replacement for a restart.

    • NCkhawk

      This is from an Aug 2013 article. Doctor Kim has stated that he was working with data provided to him by Defkalion. He has not been allowed to run his own test. This was also before the news got out that Defkalion either in mistakenly or intentionally mucked up their calorimetry for the July ICCF-18 video demo. I still have major doubts in their viability moving forward but wishing them the best nonetheless.

      • It seems they still don’t have answered Luca Gamberale about the problem he have identified, and the buzz is even more challenging.
        If what we hear is confirmed, that no explanation is given, the poor Yeong Kim will feel like me, Luca, Peter, Nelson… fooled! They have to answer QUICKLY! I give them a chance, but even if they really address the question and give a good credible result, their behavior would have been already weird.

        If Luca Gamberale questions are not addressed, all they said since the beginning is no better than Rossi says before Elforsk Test. If the buzz is confirmed, this can be an earthquake for LENR.
        I cannot imagine it is what I imagine, and I hope it is something nobody imagine. It is hard to imagine an end where everybody is clean and competent. (not really funny joke)

        • NCkhawk

          I have to agree with you. They keep leaving one unanswered mess after another in an attempt to claim that everything is okay and moving forward. When is it finally going to be put-up or shut-up & go away time?

        • RobiD

          Totally agree.

        • Cimpy

          It took months, but at least you start realizing…By the way: have you understood Gamberaled flight away? There is no more Defkalion Europe in Milan…

          • Veblin

            What is your proof that there is no more Defkalion Europe in Milan?
            Maybe someone should tell CEO Franco Cappiello and CTO Luca Gamberale. They don’t seem to know this.

        • The whole thing is weird to me… “Defkalion Europe” playing gotcha with Defkalion. Why didn’t all that stuff stay in-house?… and Defkalion should have made an effort to be more transparent about any problems. But really…

          I mean let’s say for argument sake that Defkalion screwed up the demo. (Maybe they let enough hydrogen in that the results could have been chemical or maybe they messed up the calorimetry by a lot). Does it really matter? Defkalion seems a bit shell-shocked but they haven’t gone away. If the jig is up on their supposedly parasitic scam off Rossi’s technology somebody forgot to tell them.

          They are claiming multiple 3rd party independent test reports and the R6 reactor by Fall on their web site.

          Either they happen or they don’t. A misunderstanding or a botched demo and a bunch of rumors are close to irrelevant since everyone just evaluates those with their existing biases anyway… as you have eloquently pointed out numerous times. We need trustworthy validations, or ideally a product — or at least a prototype that lots of companies vouch for and start to work with.

          Either they happen or they don’t.

          If Defkalion is for real they must be feeling a lot of pressure with Industrial Heat, Brillouin and the others making headlines. So either they get back in the game or they fade away.

          Defkalion talks a big game but so far objective evidence supporting them is thin (Nelson report and the level of trust given them by Dr. Kim… and a questionable live demo that proved nothing).

          I’m patiently awaiting the independent validation reports, hoping they are high quality. I suspect they’ll come out around the same time as the E-Cat ones… March or April. Just a gut feeling though.

    • bachcole

      Why BS? Their top temperature is 849 C, well below the melting point of Nickel is 1,455 C. What am I missing here?

      • There doesn’t seem to be any contradiction in the figures, as you say. Perhaps OR could elaborate on the BS claim?

        • Job001

          Likely a semantic confusion about “foam” typically foam is liquid, here foam nickel is solid.

  • With time passing their credibility about that demo passes.
    They need a good 3rd party test, like what Rossi did.

    Luca’s question are not answered and this raise big concerns.
    If the anonymous buzz is confirmed, it will be a tragedy for Defkalion’s credibility and for LENR.
    If they cannot deliver, commit frauds, and however still make interview like that… this will damage the whole sector.

    They have to answer on that, QUICKLY.

  • Gordon Docherty

    Dear Frank,

    Defkalion defines its energy production process as H.E.N.I. (Heat Energy from Nuclei Interaction), which, says Xanthoulis is “completely different in its method of operation and control mechanisms” from LENR

    From reading the article,

    “James Burgess: What exactly is the Hyperion and how does it work? How does it differ from other LENR machines in development?

    Alex Xanthoulis: Defkalion’s Heat Energy Source Unit works on the Principal of H.E.N.I. (Heat Energy from Nuclei Interaction). Therefore it is completely different in its method of operation and control mechanisms.”

    I take this to mean that the Hyperion is a type of LENR device, just different from the e-Cat and Brillouin Boiler and, perhaps, BLP’s device – just like Windows, Linux and so on are all different types of computer operating system, doing things differently, yet all ultimately working to the same end…

    • BroKeeper

      Just from my point of view it appears the Hyperion operates on similar principles as the BLP’s SF-CIHT. The difference only I see is a NI carousel fed catalyst verses a constant presence of NI foam catylyst with a larger magnetic flux that needs to be changed occasionally. Except their theories, would anyone care to elaborate further on their differences?
      By the way I think BLP should rename their recent device for it reminds me of other words (sorry, as I digress. :-).

      • Gerard McEk

        I do not believe so. I think the Brillouin approach is more similar. Both use a nickel catalyzer and a plasma to start/control the LENR process. The BLP approach is totally different: Not continuous, a water based medium and according to Randell Mills not nuclear, but chemical, although I have strong doubts with that. I must admit that my strong doubts come from my believe how matter looks like, which is obviously based on the existing theories. Having read different theories lately (Mills’ and Sarg) and the fact that LENR is possible, I believe we need a new atom model.

        • BroKeeper

          Agreed, I guess what I’m trying to understand is whether the plasma sparks are delivering different quantum energy releases with H2O verses hydrogen gas per hydrogen atom? I would think that would determine if it is the same theoredical process chemical vs. nuclear. (a question that may beyond our pay grade) Thanks!

  • Gordon Docherty

    Dear Frank,

    Defkalion defines its energy production process as H.E.N.I. (Heat Energy from Nuclei Interaction), which, says Xanthoulis is “completely different in its method of operation and control mechanisms” from LENR

    From reading the article,

    “James Burgess: What exactly is the Hyperion and how does it work? How does it differ from other LENR machines in development?

    Alex Xanthoulis: Defkalion’s Heat Energy Source Unit works on the Principal of H.E.N.I. (Heat Energy from Nuclei Interaction). Therefore it is completely different in its method of operation and control mechanisms.”

    I take this to mean that the Hyperion is a type of LENR device, just different from the e-Cat and Brillouin Boiler and, perhaps, BLP’s device – just like Windows, Linux and so on are all different types of computer operating system, doing things differently, yet all ultimately working to the same end…

    • Brokeeper

      Just from my point of view it appears the Hyperion operates on similar principles as the BLP’s SF-CIHT. The difference only I see is a NI carousel fed catalyst verses a constant presence of NI foam catalyst and different hydorgen molecule state with a larger magnetic flux that needs to be changed occasionally. Except for their theories, would anyone care to elaborate further on their differences?

      • Gerard McEk

        I do not believe so. I think the Brillouin approach is more similar. Both use a nickel catalyzer and a plasma to start/control the LENR process. The BLP approach is totally different: Not continuous, a water based medium and according to Randell Mills not nuclear, but chemical, although I have strong doubts with that. I must admit that my strong doubts come from my believe how matter looks like, which is obviously based on the existing theories. Having read different theories lately (Mills’ and Sarg) and the fact that LENR is possible, I believe we need a new atom model.

        • Brokeeper

          Agreed, I guess what I’m trying to understand is whether the plasma sparks are delivering different quantum energy releases with H2O verses hydrogen gas per hydrogen atom? I would think that would determine if it is the same theoredical process chemical vs. nuclear. (a question that may beyond our pay grade) Thanks!

        • kasom

          rossi says: nuclear is unclear

    • bachcole

      It sounds to me like Defkalion is merely edging toward perhaps believing in Mills’ ideas. The machine hasn’t changed; the ideas have changed. That’s OK with me. I just want it to work. Frankly Frank, ideas different from nuclear wouldn’t hurt, except that Mills’ ideas would be over throwing the physics establishment, and they won’t like that much either, even if it isn’t nuclear.

    • SteveW

      I think they are exaggerating their differences in the anticipation of future patent infringement litigation.

  • bkrharold

    They have to be very careful what they say. Some time ago, when Defkalion were partners with Rossi they made a statement to the effect they had examined Rossis ecat without his knowledge, and discovered his secret. Things went downhill between them very quickly after that, and the partnership quickly dissolved. Now they are calling the effect HENI to differentiate it from the ecat, and hopefully avoid any problems with Rossi about his IP. Personally I would hate to see any problems between these two, as Mike McKubre says, there is plenty of room for everyone in this exciting new field. From what I recall their reactors were supposed to generate 45Kw of heat, which would translate to about 15Kw of electricity, more than enough for most domestic uses. It would be well worth the price, in comparison to an equivalent solar installation which would cost several times as much.

  • Job001

    It seems all of the LENR+ groups and mainstream science research are highly adversarial and tribal about knowledge, dogmatically as if they and only they are “RIGHT” and everyone else is “WRONG”. Dogmatism(high bias) isolates rather than unites.
    Low bias science is a better problem solving model.
    Promote low bias science.

    • not so fair. There is quite much skepticism among LENR community, even if the dogmatic of mainstream interpret any acceptation of possibility as blind belief.
      Rossi have been strongly criticied by some inside the community, and doubted moderately by most.

      Every one have it’s bias, some are dubious against Black light, some against defkalion (more today because they don’t address some question and don’t deliver), some against Rossi (much less now, because he have evidences)…

      I am myself changing my position with time, depending on the facts and evidences, even if it takes few month to acknowledge some changes…

      That is the great differences between the mainstream nay-believers that say it is IMPOSSIBLE and don’even accept it is possible they are wrong and even one device does work…
      compared to LENR supporters who critics only the blac and white position of contradictors, talking of probabilities, credibilities, … admitting they can be optimistic and not sure.

      This is really an unfair critic.

      The maindifference between nay-believers and supporters is that supporters know they live in a grey world… of course some tendency to add pink, but not the black and white world of nay-believers.

      anyway since Industrial Heat announce I feel that some skeptics have changed their attitude to dark grey, and no more black.

      • Job001

        It was unfair to slander F&P and many good researchers. The best science should be objectively evaluated without name calling. So, why does name calling occur? I went to some experts in counseling and human behavior and found this;

        Scam/Fraud/Incompetent/Impossible/etc. statement Explanations;

        “Confirmation Bias”;Attempts by non-believers to maintain simple mental models without change because change is hard work and painful.

        “Marketing”;Evidence of researcher competition for funding, publication, jobs, recognition, is strong. This is consistent with marketing or “Selling One’s Book”.

        “Risk Averse”;Many or most people tend toward “Risk averse” in a dangerous world.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R

        “Lazy/Frustration/Impatient”:Humans are rightfully lazy and don’t wish or are unable to study available research or are indirectly begging for someone else to do the work or wish by name calling to “Hurry up” the desired result – cheaper energy.

        Some or all these simple explanations work together with name calling a result; “Scam/Fraud/Incompetent/Impossible/etc.”.

        These few standard name calling bias explanations are reasonable, fairly reliable science regarding human motivation and thought processes. What I haven’t resolved yet is how to separate valuable science skepticism from these inappropriate unfair biases and name calling.

    • Donk970

      I think a lot if it is that everyone has had to find a way for their process to not be cold fusion so that investors wouldn’t run for the door. Now they all believe their own myths. At the end of the day all these devices will be shown to be based on the same fundamental physics just arrived at by different means.

      • Job001

        Could be, however, evidence exists that different reaction routes exist.

        For instance, element transformation “ash” is evidenced by confirmed Toyoto and Mitsubishi research. BLP shows/posits hydrogen to hydrino energy release yet further reaction by hydrino produced slow neutrons can be producing transformations, evidence not yet consensus accepted. Additionally, Helium”ash” has been detected at far higher then
        Background levels many times and places.

        I like your “they all believe their own myths” comment since all theory has some “mythic” nature as evidenced by the slight modification of Newtonian to Relativity theory. We know Newtonian was a good but slightly mythic theory and suspect Relativity likely is slightly mythic also.

        • LENR G

          If I suspend my hydrino disbelief for a moment I can imagine an interesting scenario where hydrino formation is the key to all of it.

          Speculate with me…

          BLP understands and optimizes hydrino transitions, getting huge energy out and able to engineer something that can run (eventually) on water vapor in the air. Sneers at the fusion stuff — they don’t need it (and don’t see it?).

          Rossi is (unknowingly?) creating hydrinos that then become involved in nuclear reactions. I find this possibility attractive because of muons. Muons are “heavy” electrons — when they enter matter protons can capture them and you get something that looks like a normal atom except where the one electron would be there’s a heavier muon. As a result of being more massive the muon’s orbitsphere (adopting Mills’ terminology for the moment) is much closer to the nucleus than an electron’s. ***Just like a hydrino!*** And muons result in lots of fusion events (known and accepted physics) due to the muon’s charge masking the proton’s charge. So maybe hydrinos can do the same?

          Defkalion with a similar arc discharge a BLP also is creating hydrinos and the resulting fusion events like Rossi. And the other LENR players too. They have been focused on trying to understand the fusion when the hydrino creation was the ballgame. But on the flip side they do get more energy out then BLP.

          But then the tough one is the Toyota/Mitsubishi transmutation. This seems to indicate that the specific metal lattice they use can itself (sans any electrical discharge) cause the conditions for nuclear events. Maybe their specific setup has just the right energy “holes” to facilitate one of the 1/n hydrino transitions… and once those hydrinos are on the loose they go transmuting stuff — and after equilibrium results in the praseodymium.

          The hydrino transition energy levels are “known” — anybody see any relation to the Toyota experimental set up.

          • US_Citizen71

            The same basic ingredients elementally are used by all of them, Occam’s Razor says it is more likely they all have found different methods of tapping into the same phenomenon than they each have discover a different one. Maybe Mills has just unknowingly perfected a practical theory dealing with muon creation and therefore no one is actually breaking the laws of physics, but instead are just playing with muons. Would muon radiation in the infrared or ultraviolet spectra heat the core or even radiate out to heat the steel container in the case of the Hot Cat? Could that explain the thermal xray of the heating coils in Rossi’s destructive test photo?

          • Job001

            Names or models or theories are but a mythic metaphor of reality.

            Could be a similar reality is occurring with different given names. When careful long term studies are done careful substance material balances should provide increasingly accurate results and more likely models. For instance, oxygen is a big atom and does not escape while hydrogen can easily hide or escape. When all of the hydrogen comes from carefully measured water starting ingredients in a closed system, much more is revealed. Then when energy carefully measured is divided by the hydrogen consumed based upon the oxygen produced one knows much more about the reaction path.

            With the basic hydrino creation first steps yielding say 100 times chemical this narrows that part down.

            With nuclear fusion processes transmutation ash yield on the order of millions of times more than chemical, this narrows it down further.

            It is interesting that they all support long term testing as needed for better understanding the path and/or control.

            Names/models/theories are mythic metaphors, long term data and results will win out.

          • LENR G

            Seems that Blacklight is out front in terms of public science.

            We have a very strange situation where Blacklight has a significant volume of peer-reviewed science as well as published validations from universities and companies… and it just sits there.

            Should be blockbuster stuff, no?

            Curious scientists should take up the challenge and try to explain (or explain away) what Blacklight is seeing. Instead it just gets ignored leaving 3rd party observers like us unsure what to believe.

            Any radical theory I suppose has to have overwhelming evidence before it gets the attention it deserves due to early successes. But any long con scam would have to find a way to publish “science” that makes it look legit. So people stay away. Offended theorists (whether they are right or wrong) are awfully effective in guarding the gates of acceptability.

            Quantum mechanics is often called the most successful theory ever in terms of matching experimental predictions. So it’s untouchable. What people overlook is that perhaps Mills’ classical concepts can be a super-set that reduces to QM or an adjunct that succeeds where QM fails.

            I cannot easily dismiss Mills’ theory outright even with the huge successes of QM — it has some experimental support, is able to derive some key values observed in nature from first principles, has a certain elegance to it, and on the face of it may emerge as QM when treated statistically.

          • Job001

            Science has a long list of being wrong about new discoveries – for many human reasons, perhaps including overdeveloped left brains with untrained right brains.

            It is wildly fun that we can have a hoot about it in this age without being burnt at the stake.(i.e. Giordano Bruno Feb 17, 1600 ).
            Here is a long list of famous science mavericks who were vindicated;

            http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
            Crackpots who were right;
            http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/
            Vindicated crazy scientists;
            http://ask.metafilter.com/161663/Examples-of-vindicated-crazy-scientists

          • LENR G

            Thanks… interesting links.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I had posted the same idea, concerning muonic hydrogen, some time ago. Muon-catalyzed fusion is very well understood, so that it shouldn’t be too difficult to adapt the mathematical models. However, as far as I know, in myon-catalyzed fusion mainly deuterium-tritium, and optionally deuterium-deuterium systems are considered. Protium-deuterium should work also, but with a drastically lower reaction rate. I don’t know if there are heavy or superheavy hydrinos (one might call them “deuterinos” or “tritinos”). It would at least be interesting to know what would happen if you fill some heavy water into a Mills reactor.
            I’ve never heard of a reaction between muonic hydrogen and nickel or palladium. Maybe it has never been examined. If the nickel-hydrogen systems should be based on hydrinos and “deuterinos” were possible, then we had to ask ourselves why deuterium does not work in Rossis’s reactors. Quite a lot of stuff for potential research, at least.

          • LENR G

            Muon catalyzed fusion works by drawing nuclei close together (higher mass… smaller radius… less distance between nuclei = higher nuclear reaction rate). Hydrinos should benefit from that same effect, though to a significantly lesser degree… but perhaps there is also something to the “energy hole” assertions where hydrinos donate their energy in quanta to targets that have an energy level “hole” that matches in kinetic collisions. And perhaps nickel is just the right element to extract that energy from the hydrinos to make them even smaller.

            I think of it in terms of a continuum between neutrons, hydrinos and regular hydrogen in its base state. We know that protons can absorb electrons and turn into neutrons under the right conditions. Hydrinos represent an intermediate state. And we know that slow neutrons could go a long way toward explaining all the LENR phenomena. Well what if hydrinos can act as stand-ins for neutrons? As far as other particles are concerned they kind of look like neutrons until you get up close. So create a bunch of hydrinos with sufficient kinetic energy and that’s as good as slower neutrons (maybe, obviously speculating). Speedy hydrinos could be absorbed by nuclei just like they gobble up neutrons.

            So maybe…
            – hydrinos formed by arc discharge or other means
            – hydrinos further drained by nickel micro/nano structures
            – smallest hydrinos react with all other nuclei present, captured like a neutron)
            – pregnant nuclei do whatever they need to do to be stable after hydrino absorption

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I agree completely. However, Mills would never admit that there are nuclear reactions (even if they were just side effects), by obvious reasons.

    • Allan Shura

      Hard to pass a course with a dogmatic instructor and curriculum. Truth is often swallowed even with merit.

    • LENR G

      Somewhere there is a multi-billion dollar underground government research facility pursuing all these variants with clear eyed passion and rigorous science… and the public circus is the result of a few wayward strands that slipped under the door.

      Classified technology transfer to many of the world’s most innovative and successful companies is underway — and the announcement of earth-changing products is imminent.

      I wish.

  • Job001

    It seems all of the LENR+ groups and mainstream science research are highly adversarial and tribal about knowledge, dogmatically as if they and only they are “RIGHT” and everyone else is “WRONG”. Dogmatism(high bias) isolates rather than unites.
    Low bias science is a better problem solving model.
    Promote low bias science.

    • not so fair. There is quite much skepticism among LENR community, even if the dogmatic of mainstream interpret any acceptation of possibility as blind belief.
      Rossi have been strongly criticied by some inside the community, and doubted moderately by most.

      Every one have it’s bias, some are dubious against Black light, some against defkalion (more today because they don’t address some question and don’t deliver), some against Rossi (much less now, because he have evidences)…

      I am myself changing my position with time, depending on the facts and evidences, even if it takes few month to acknowledge some changes…

      That is the great differences between the mainstream nay-believers that say it is IMPOSSIBLE and don’even accept it is possible they are wrong and even one device does work…
      compared to LENR supporters who critics only the blac and white position of contradictors, talking of probabilities, credibilities, … admitting they can be optimistic and not sure.

      This is really an unfair critic.

      The maindifference between nay-believers and supporters is that supporters know they live in a grey world… of course some tendency to add pink, but not the black and white world of nay-believers.

      anyway since Industrial Heat announce I feel that some skeptics have changed their attitude to dark grey, and no more black.

      • Job001

        It was unfair to slander F&P and many good researchers. The best science should be objectively evaluated without name calling. So, why does name calling occur? I went to some experts in counseling and human behavior and found this;

        Scam/Fraud/Incompetent/Impossible/etc. statement Explanations;

        “Confirmation Bias”;Attempts by non-believers to maintain simple mental models without change because change is hard work and painful.

        “Marketing”;Evidence of researcher competition for funding, publication, jobs, recognition, is strong. This is consistent with marketing or “Selling One’s Book”.

        “Risk Averse”;Many or most people tend toward “Risk averse” in a dangerous world.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R

        “Lazy/Frustration/Impatient”:Humans are rightfully lazy and don’t wish or are unable to study available research or are indirectly begging for someone else to do the work or wish by name calling to “Hurry up” the desired result – cheaper energy.

        Some or all these simple explanations work together with name calling a result; “Scam/Fraud/Incompetent/Impossible/etc.”.

        These few standard name calling bias explanations are reasonable, fairly reliable science regarding human motivation and thought processes. What I haven’t resolved yet is how to separate valuable science skepticism from these inappropriate unfair biases and name calling.

    • bachcole

      I resemble that remark, about Mills and BLP. I hold Mills and BLP to EXACTLY the same standard as I do with Rossi, Defkalion, and Brillouin. That standard is either evidence or testimonials of evidence from people I know and trust. People have said good things about BLP’s demonstration. But I didn’t know them from Adam, and even worse, one or more of them were investors. That doesn’t work very well for me. When I am looking at a health food product, I am not impressed by the statements of the guy selling the product, and I know that the product testimonial sections might have had negative testimonials removed.

      • Job001

        I like that, the same standard for everyone would be nice.
        Consider standards;
        Science “theory acceptance” gold standard is 6 sigma
        investors who wants to “steal the bacon or IP” may be fine with -1 sigma
        A buyer may be +0.5 to 3 sigma depending how risk averse they are
        Publishing standard for a new observation correlation may range from +1 to 6 sigma
        Soft sciences(human behavior) may be delighted to get 0 to 1 sigma
        Most of the time we use our valuable intuition like yours when short data, money or info.

    • Donk970

      I think a lot if it is that everyone has had to find a way for their process to not be cold fusion so that investors wouldn’t run for the door. Now they all believe their own myths. At the end of the day all these devices will be shown to be based on the same fundamental physics just arrived at by different means.

      • Job001

        Could be, however, evidence exists that different reaction routes exist.

        For instance, element transformation “ash” is evidenced by confirmed Toyoto and Mitsubishi research. BLP shows/posits hydrogen to hydrino energy release yet further reaction by hydrino produced slow neutrons can be producing transformations, evidence not yet consensus accepted. Additionally, Helium”ash” has been detected at far higher then
        Background levels many times and places.

        I like your “they all believe their own myths” comment since all theory has some “mythic” nature as evidenced by the slight modification of Newtonian to Relativity theory. We know Newtonian was a good but slightly mythic theory and suspect Relativity likely is slightly mythic also.

        • bachcole

          But no matter what the reaction is, every theory about the nature of the atom but MAYBE one theory is wrong. Or should I say, one model is the best, and all the rest are wanting. If Rossi and Mills et. al. have the same theory, then good. Their reactions may be different, but the optimal model should one.

        • If I suspend my hydrino disbelief for a moment I can imagine an interesting scenario where hydrino formation is the key to all of it.

          Speculate with me…

          BLP understands and optimizes hydrino transitions, getting huge energy out and able to engineer something that can run (eventually) on water vapor in the air. Sneers at the fusion stuff — they don’t need it (and don’t see it?).

          Rossi is (unknowingly?) creating hydrinos that then become involved in nuclear reactions. I find this possibility attractive because of muons. Muons are “heavy” electrons — when they enter matter protons can capture them and you get something that looks like a normal atom except where the one electron would be there’s a heavier muon. As a result of being more massive the muon’s orbitsphere (adopting Mills’ terminology for the moment) is much closer to the nucleus than an electron’s. ***Just like a hydrino!*** And muons result in lots of fusion events (known and accepted physics) due to the muon’s charge masking the proton’s charge. So maybe hydrinos can do the same?

          Defkalion with a similar arc discharge as BLP also is creating hydrinos and the resulting fusion events like Rossi. And the other LENR players too. They have been focused on trying to understand the fusion when the hydrino creation was the ballgame. But on the flip side they do get more energy out than BLP.

          But then the tough one is the Toyota/Mitsubishi transmutation. This seems to indicate that the specific metal lattice they use can itself (sans any electrical discharge) cause the conditions for nuclear events. Maybe their specific setup has just the right energy “holes” to facilitate one of the 1/n hydrino transitions… and once those hydrinos are on the loose they go transmuting stuff — and after equilibrium results in the praseodymium.

          The hydrino transition energy levels are “known” — anybody see any relation to the Toyota experimental set up?

          • US_Citizen71

            The same basic ingredients elementally are used by all of them, Occam’s Razor says it is more likely they all have found different methods of tapping into the same phenomenon than they each have discover a different one. Maybe Mills has just unknowingly perfected a practical theory dealing with muon creation and therefore no one is actually breaking the laws of physics, but instead are just playing with muons. Would muon radiation in the infrared or ultraviolet spectra heat the core or even radiate out to heat the steel container in the case of the Hot Cat? Could that explain the thermal xray of the heating coils in Rossi’s destructive test photo?

          • bachcole

            After all that we have seen, I wince when I see the phrase “laws of physics”. How about “conventional model”, or something along that line.

          • Robert Ellefson

            I have no idea if Mills is making muons, hydrinos, or pixie dust. If a phenomena is in fact occuring that is not readily explainable with existing models of physical processes, this does not mean that we first need to disprove any existing “laws” before we can accept the observations. What we think of as “laws of physics” are really “models of physical processes that are commonly accepted and validated” An important maxim to keep in mind in this context is that: “All models are wrong. Some models are useful.” When the utility of existing models are insufficient, modification or extension of the existing models is often enough to address unexplained phenomena. The case for abandoning existing models entirely is an extreme measure that may in fact be called for eventually, but I see no reason to first rationalize whatever apparently-anomalous observations we have before us to fit into the limited constraints of our existing models. This tendency to rationalize anomalous observations into accepted “laws of physice” is counterproductive, IMHO. Also, be careful with that razor, Eugene.

          • Job001

            Names or models or theories are but a mythic metaphor of reality.

            Could be a similar reality is occurring with different given names. When careful long term studies are done careful substance material balances should provide increasingly accurate results and more likely models. For instance, oxygen is a big atom and does not escape while hydrogen can easily hide or escape. When all of the hydrogen comes from carefully measured water starting ingredients in a closed system, much more is revealed. Then when energy carefully measured is divided by the hydrogen consumed based upon the oxygen produced one knows much more about the reaction path.

            With the basic hydrino creation first steps yielding say 100 times chemical this narrows that part down.

            With nuclear fusion processes transmutation ash yield on the order of millions of times more than chemical, this narrows it down further.

            It is interesting that they all support long term testing as needed for better understanding the path and/or control.

            Names/models/theories are mythic metaphors, long term data and results will win out.

          • Seems that Blacklight is out front in terms of public science.

            We have a very strange situation where Blacklight has a significant volume of peer-reviewed science as well as published validations from universities and companies… and it just sits there.

            Should be blockbuster stuff, no?

            Curious scientists should take up the challenge and try to explain (or explain away) what Blacklight is seeing. Instead it just gets ignored leaving 3rd party observers like us unsure what to believe.

            Any radical theory I suppose has to have overwhelming evidence before it gets the attention it deserves due to early successes. But any long con scam would have to find a way to publish “science” that makes it look legit. So people stay away. Offended theorists (whether they are right or wrong) are awfully effective in guarding the gates of acceptability.

            Quantum mechanics is often called the most successful theory ever in terms of matching experimental predictions. So it’s untouchable. What people overlook is that perhaps Mills’ classical concepts can be a super-set that reduces to QM or an adjunct that succeeds where QM fails.

            I cannot easily dismiss Mills’ theory outright even with the huge successes of QM — it has some experimental support, is able to derive some key values observed in nature from first principles, has a certain elegance to it, and on the face of it may emerge as QM when treated statistically.

          • Job001

            Science has a long list of being wrong about new discoveries – for many human reasons, perhaps including overdeveloped left brains with untrained right brains.

            It is wildly fun that we can have a hoot about it in this age without being burnt at the stake.(i.e. Giordano Bruno Feb 17, 1600 ).
            Here is a long list of famous science mavericks who were vindicated;

            http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html
            Crackpots who were right;
            http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/
            Vindicated crazy scientists;
            http://ask.metafilter.com/161663/Examples-of-vindicated-crazy-scientists

          • Thanks… interesting links.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I had posted the same idea, concerning muonic hydrogen, some time ago. Muon-catalyzed fusion is very well understood, so that it shouldn’t be too difficult to adapt the mathematical models. However, as far as I know, in myon-catalyzed fusion mainly deuterium-tritium, and optionally deuterium-deuterium systems are considered. Protium-deuterium should work also, but with a drastically lower reaction rate. I don’t know if there are heavy or superheavy hydrinos (one might call them “deuterinos” or “tritinos”). It would at least be interesting to know what would happen if you fill some heavy water into a Mills reactor.
            I’ve never heard of a reaction between muonic hydrogen and nickel or palladium. Maybe it has never been examined. If the nickel-hydrogen systems should be based on hydrinos and “deuterinos” were possible, then we had to ask ourselves why deuterium does not work in Rossis’s reactors. Quite a lot of stuff for potential research, at least.

          • Muon catalyzed fusion works by drawing nuclei close together (higher mass… smaller radius… less distance between nuclei = higher nuclear reaction rate). Hydrinos should benefit from that same effect, though to a significantly lesser degree… but perhaps there is also something to the “energy hole” assertions where hydrinos donate their energy in quanta to targets that have an energy level “hole” that matches in kinetic collisions. And perhaps nickel is just the right element to extract that energy from the hydrinos to make them even smaller.

            I think of it in terms of a continuum between neutrons, hydrinos and regular hydrogen in its base state. We know that protons can absorb electrons and turn into neutrons under the right conditions. Hydrinos represent an intermediate state. And we know that slow neutrons could go a long way toward explaining all the LENR phenomena. Well what if hydrinos can act as stand-ins for neutrons? As far as other particles are concerned they kind of look like neutrons until you get up close. So create a bunch of hydrinos with sufficient kinetic energy and that’s as good as slower neutrons (maybe, obviously speculating). Speedy hydrinos could be absorbed by nuclei just like they gobble up neutrons.

            So maybe…
            – hydrinos formed by arc discharge or other means
            – hydrinos further drained by nickel micro/nano structures
            – smallest hydrinos react with all other nuclei present, captured like a neutron)
            – pregnant nuclei do whatever they need to do to be stable after hydrino absorption

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I agree completely. However, Mills would never admit that there are nuclear reactions (even if they were just side effects), by obvious reasons.

    • Allan Shura

      Hard to pass a course with a dogmatic instructor and curriculum. Truth is often swallowed even with merit.

    • Somewhere there is a multi-billion dollar underground government research facility pursuing all these variants with clear eyed passion and rigorous science… and the public circus is the result of a few wayward strands that slipped under the door.

      Classified technology transfer to many of the world’s most innovative and successful companies is underway — and the announcement of earth-changing products is imminent.

      I wish.

  • Christopher Calder

    This is all in the Wright Brothers stage of development. The costs Defkalion quotes won’t fly or last. My prediction is an eventual cost of $2,500 US per home unit (manufactured in Asia), and a need to replace the nickel powder every two years at a cost of $200 through a user replicable module.

    Look at the cost and quality increases in LCD televisions. Five years ago a 52″ LCD TV cost about $1,800. Today you can get a 60″ LED-LCD TV for $750 delivered to your home that weighs 30% less and uses one fifth the amount of electricity. In a few months you will be about to buy a 55 or 60 inch 4k ultra high definition TV for just a few dollars more than the cost of standard 1080p televisions. LENR will change the world, but it will take time.

    • Donk970

      It’s in the Wright Brothers stage in more ways than one. At about this stage for the Write Brothers all the “knowledgeable” people where very vocal in their opinions that it was all BS and couldn’t possibly work. Of course today we think nothing of getting on a jet plane to fly across the country or halfway around the world. In a hundred years nobody will think twice about the LENR device in the basement producing heat and electricity for their home.

  • This is all in the Wright Brothers stage of development. The costs Defkalion quotes won’t fly or last. My prediction is an eventual cost of $2,500 US per home unit (manufactured in Asia), and a need to replace the nickel powder every two years at a cost of $200 through a user replicable module.

    Look at the cost and quality increases in LCD televisions. Five years ago a 52″ LCD TV cost about $1,800. Today you can get a 60″ LED-LCD TV for $750 delivered to your home that weighs 30% less and uses one fifth the amount of electricity. In a few months you will be about to buy a 55 or 60 inch 4k ultra high definition TV for just a few dollars more than the cost of standard 1080p televisions. LENR will change the world, but it will take time.

    • Donk970

      It’s in the Wright Brothers stage in more ways than one. At about this stage for the Write Brothers all the “knowledgeable” people where very vocal in their opinions that it was all BS and couldn’t possibly work. Of course today we think nothing of getting on a jet plane to fly across the country or halfway around the world. In a hundred years nobody will think twice about the LENR device in the basement producing heat and electricity for their home.

  • Job001

    Equal or more likely is the normal perspective of private non-Government research, i.e. funding starved.

    Thus, they closed up and consolidated excess facilities to reduce cash flow loss. Consistent with statements indicating funding issues.

    Occam’s razor; Use the simplest explaination consistent with data.

    Scam and Fraud statement Explainations;

    “Confirmation Bias”;Attempts by non-believers to maintain simple mental models without change because change is hard work and painful.

    “Marketing”;Evidence of researcher competition for funding, publication, jobs, recognition, is strong. This is consistent with marketing or “Selling One’s Book”.

    “Risk Averse”;Many or most people tend toward “Risk averse” in a dangerous world.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_aversion

    “Lazy/Frustration/Impatient”:Humans are rightfully lazy and don’t wish or are unable to study available research or are indirectly begging for someone else to do the work or wish by name calling to “Hurry up” the desired result – cheaper energy.

    Some or all these simple explanations work together with name calling a result; “Scam/Fraud/Incompetent/Impossible/etc.”.

    These few standard name calling bias explanations are reasonable, fairly reliable science regarding human motivation and thought processes.

  • Veblin

    What is your proof that there is no more Defkalion Europe in Milan?
    Maybe someone should tell CEO Franco Cappiello and CTO Luca Gamberale. They don’t seem to know this.

  • Job001

    I like that, the same standard for everyone would be nice.
    Consider standards;
    Science “theory acceptance” gold standard is 6 sigma
    investors who wants to “steal the bacon or IP” may be fine with -1 sigma
    A buyer may be +0.5 to 3 sigma depending how risk averse they are
    Publishing standard for a new observation correlation may range from +1 to 6 sigma
    Soft sciences(human behavior) may be delighted to get 0 to 1 sigma
    Most of the time we use our valuable intuition like yours when short data, money or info.

  • LENR G

    I found the interview to be kind of worthless. Clearly there are a lot of interesting things happening with Defkalion (good or bad) and we got info on none of it.

    The cost info was interesting I guess but is subject to a lot of assumptions.

    • the cost is just old data from 2011.

      Defkalion have an elephant in the living room with Defkalion Europe questions.
      It need to be addressed.

      The only real new data is prediction of delivery of pre-industrial prototype for Q2, to be submitted for certification.

      The most important missing data is about the “discrepancies” that Luca Gamberale have signaled, and the non-response since 6 month. They talk of test using no water… with the doubt induced by their behavior, 3rd party test with 3rd party controlling the test protocol (Like Levi&al Elforsk test) are required.

      what are they doing?

  • I found the interview to be kind of worthless. Clearly there are a lot of interesting things happening with Defkalion (good or bad) and we got info on none of it.

    The cost info was interesting I guess but is subject to a lot of assumptions.

    • the cost is just old data from 2011.

      Defkalion have an elephant in the living room with Defkalion Europe questions.
      It need to be addressed.

      The only real new data is prediction of delivery of pre-industrial prototype for Q2, to be submitted for certification.

      The most important missing data is about the “discrepancies” that Luca Gamberale have signaled, and the non-response since 6 month. They talk of test using no water… with the doubt induced by their behavior, 3rd party test with 3rd party controlling the test protocol (Like Levi&al Elforsk test) are required.

      what are they doing?

  • Fortyniner

    There doesn’t seem to be any contradiction in the figures, as you say. Perhaps OR could elaborate on the BS claim?

    • Job001

      Likely a semantic confusion about “foam” typically foam is liquid, here foam nickel is solid.

  • SiriusMan

    It is indeed frustrating to read an interview like this. I think most people out there do not care whether the Hyperion costs $7,000 or $70,000…they just want some proof that the thing works!!!

    I suggest they rent a vendors booth at the next large scientific conference (APS, ACS) and run a Hyperion reactor for all to see. How about a public demo of a 1.6 Tesla magnetic field? I’m sure that will turn a few heads! In that case, they do not even need to prove definitively that it generates excess power, or is stable etc…the 1.6 Tesla is incredible in itself and would be proof they have something ground-breaking.

    I think most people here want to see Defkalion succeed but they have made so many extreme, but unproven, claims in the past that it is very difficult not to be skeptical.

  • SiriusMan

    It is indeed frustrating to read an interview like this. I think most people out there do not care whether the Hyperion costs $7,000 or $70,000…they just want some proof that the thing works!!!

    I suggest they rent a vendors booth at the next large scientific conference (APS, ACS) and run a Hyperion reactor for all to see. How about a public demo of a 1.6 Tesla magnetic field? I’m sure that will turn a few heads! In that case, they do not even need to prove definitively that it generates excess power, or is stable etc…the 1.6 Tesla is incredible in itself and would be proof they have something ground-breaking.

    I think most people here want to see Defkalion succeed but they have made so many extreme, but unproven, claims in the past that it is very difficult not to be skeptical.

  • atanguy

    No bachcole,I found the mixture of science,CF/LENR and global warming with UFO,not too serious.

  • atanguy

    Then I hope you answer this question: Are UFO Anthropogenic or not?
    By the way I am an alien – Seriously!