Is a Bulletproof E-Cat Report Possible?

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics a reader told Andrea Rossi that in some ways he was his own worst enemy because he has left open the door where his harshest critics can criticize him. He mentioned specifically that the Levi et. al report left open a question about a hidden source of DC power because of the lack of control over input power. Rossi responded by explaining how the current testers have made modifications based on criticisms of the last report:

“The issue of the lack of control of the direct current arrived into the reactor’s resistances is true, as we have seen, but nobody has thought , when the report has been written, to check this point, that was totally out of the minds of all, when the test protocol has been made. As you surely know ( I can see that you have some source of information) new report is in preparation, for a long run test, and this time the Professors of the Third Independent Party have taken advantage of the experience of the last year test, and have considered all the observations made after the test of 2013 from all the Readers of the report that made comments about it and criticized it. The issue of the measurement of the direct current, for example, has beet taken in strong consideration, as well as many other particulars. Two factors have strongly improved the test made this year: the experience that the Professors made in 2013 and meditated upon for 1 year in the particulars, also studying all the critics they received, and the length of the test, that allowed a deep knowledge of the operation. Another important factor of difference is the fact that the test has been made in a neutral laboratory, not of our property, where the energy source ( PLUG) was not of ours and the Professors made the set up from the plug to the control box.”

It seems then that there have been important modifications made to the test setup in the current regimen, and one would expect the testers will have, as far is reasonably possible, eliminated the possibility for people to make accusations that the E-Cat is receiving some kind of hidden power source.

The last test was done on Rossi’s own premises — this one is apparently in a neutral location — and as Rossi has mentioned above, the testers have been involved in constructing the experimental setup. It all sounds very positive to me, and I am expecting this to be a much improved test compared to the first one.

But my question here is, regardless of how careful the testers are — is it possible to create a really bulletproof test that will silence the critics? I would like to think, yes — but my life experience tells me no. It seems that there is usually a segment of critics in all fields of life who will find one way or another to try to justify their position, and I suspect this will be the case with the E-Cat report.

I think it is great that the ‘professors’, have been taking the objections raised about last year’s test seriously. I think it will lead to a more convincing test — and my hope is that many people will find it convincing enough to start to take the E-Cat more seriously, and that many people will climb off the fence following the publication of this report (assuming it’s positive). But I won’t be surprised if the harshest critics find some other justification to carry on their opposition and raise objections. In the end I don’t think that matters very much — because eventually I expect that working E-Cats will be demonstrated to work well in the real world, but until them, I am not expecting that all the critics will be silenced.

 

  • Andre Blum

    What is more important to me and not mentioned by you, Frank, is that it is clear from Rossi’s wording that he is now in posession of the report. This is not hypothetical. This is factual.
    Rossi said he would get a three week period before publishing to get a chance to react.
    The counter is running…

    • Guest

      I have to ask. Can you clarify the wording that points to the fact that he has the report ? I’m having trouble finding it.

    • deleo77

      Mmm, I don’t see that from his wording. In an earlier post he still mentioned the possibility of the results being negative.

      • Andre Blum

        Hmm…Yes, I see that. I must be wrong then.
        Somehow I found that he wrote less distant from the matter than he usually does.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It was three days. AR, April 4: “The results will be given first to me 3 days before the publication to
      give us the time to organize a defense in case of negative output, then
      they will be published so that everybody interested will have them.”, http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=841&cpage=6#comment-936556

      • Andre Blum

        You are of course right, Pekka.

    • Omega Z

      If I recall, Rossi said they would receive a copy 3 days before the report is published.

      Not weeks.

  • US_Citizen71

    If what the professors have built between the plug and control box is more than just their own wire, think UPS system, then yes a bullet proof test is possible. The test location being truly neutral and having a complete measurement of the power coming from the wall should prevent there being questions with a 180 day plus test. But some will have to blister their fingers on the case before they believe its real.

    • Ophelia Rump

      You have merely to look at the number of wires connected to the on/off switch.

      If there are only two wires on the switch:
      If you turn it off and it still runs, then there is a second power source.
      If you turn it off, and it stays off, then there is no second power source.

  • Gerard McEk

    It is a good thing that the tests are carried out at a place chosen by the testers. That alone should silence most of the critics.
    I hope they have introduced a better way to measure the output energy then just measuring the temperature with an infrared radiation meter. Calculation of the output energy based on only temperature measurement is quite inaccurate and requires considerable additional margins to include the possible faults. If a better output energy measurement is introduced, then also the COP can be determined more accurately.

    • kasom

      of course, the test has been conducted in Sweden.

      They will have measured the output in different ways, I believe.

      SORRY AGAIN, SAD TO SAY:
      BUT I do think as well, that we lost another year without proof of evidence sort of warming a swimming pool or other water reservoire and again we only will be discussing some measurements in lab conditions. Neither IR-Cameras nor Flow Calometry in lab size are save against the arguments of M.Y. and accomplices or secondary identities.

      THAT WILL SMELL AGAIN with respect to the dimension of the ingnition of the new fire, which we all wait for.

      Question: Who can show harvested energy, reuse, feed back and close the loop? I H from there internal tests? I do hope, that Tom Darden is so clever to do an open non scientific proof for the public…….

      With all the weak blubber concerning stirling engines, microturbines, steam engines etc. and NO concrete result or statements concerning the simple productition of electricity from heat with a low, let us say 30% efficiceny A.R. has triggered DOUBT!

      • GreenWin

        It is fortunate that Rossi’s experiments cost the world’s tax payers absolutely nothing. Whereas the “weak blubber concerning” hot fusion has robbed humanity of $250B over the past 60+ years and delivered NADA, ZERO, not ONE Watt of useful energy.

        It’s helpful to maintain perspective.

        • bachcole

          I find it interesting that the dominant paradigm theory is not the one that has produced excess energy, but the one that has massively more money thrown at it than any other area of fusion. Money talks even louder than results.

          • GreenWin

            Indeed. Prejudicial allocation of public funds via agencies like the National Science Foundation and DOE, retards human progress. That prejudice is entirely due to political and business lobbies pulling strings on agency puppets. IMO… of course. 🙂

          • Broncobet

            I posted on here Arpa-e’s offer of $500,000 for a proposal of LENR energy production.In other words it had to be LENR no other method of energy production would get the money.All someone had to do was write a proposal(and have it accepted).Did someone write a proposal? It’s possible some one wrote one and it was accepted and they are constructing apparatus with the grant money now,Although maybe no one bothered to write a proposal.But you can see that the US government is very interested in LENR energy production but if $500,000 is offered and no one takes it that isn’t their fault is it?

        • twowallsaway

          No Tang? No Temperfoam? Any decent movie plots?

          • GreenWin

            Entertainment is easy. Kickin’ cartelass is hard. As for movie plots, recall the great Don Quixote, and his partner Sancho Panza… http://bit.ly/1nUW8M6

            Blockbuster.

  • US_Citizen71

    If what the professors have built between the plug and control box is more than just their own wire, think UPS system, then yes a bullet proof test is possible. The test location being truly neutral and having a complete measurement of the power coming from the wall should prevent there being questions with a 180 day plus test. But some will have to blister their fingers on the case before they believe its real.

    • Ophelia Rump

      The voice of no single doubter will stop the development.
      LENR will reach market, then we will know what it can do.

  • Christopher Calder

    One advantage of using LENR to make hydrogen gas instead of heat is that the testing becomes so easy a grade school student could do it,…fast and cheap. Another advantage of making hydrogen gas instead of heat is that you can stick all of the electronic stimulation devices you wish on the reactor core without worrying about heat damage. With low temperatures there is no meltdown risk as well. To make electricity with hydrogen is very efficient because you can easily produce ultra high temperature steam. You might even get it hot enough to use a gas system where helium, nitrogen, or carbon dioxide gas is used to turn turbines instead of steam. That would also allow for a much smaller cooling tower/device.

    An E-Cat or Defkalion reactor will be accepted as soon as it can produce electricity. Measuring electrical output is easy, and measuring electrical input or natural gas input is not difficult. The problem arises when one measures heat output. That gets tricky.

    • atanguy

      “using LENR to make hydrogen gas instead of heat”
      So far, what has been demonstrated is LENR producing heat.

      Hydrogen is one of the ‘fuel’ to produce LENR and LENR is not used to produce hydrogen…

  • One advantage of using LENR to make hydrogen gas instead of heat is that the testing becomes so easy a grade school student could do it,…fast and cheap. Another advantage of making hydrogen gas instead of heat is that you can stick all of the electronic stimulation devices you wish on the reactor core without worrying about heat damage. With low temperatures there is no meltdown risk as well. To make electricity with hydrogen is very efficient because you can easily produce ultra high temperature steam. You might even get it hot enough to use a gas system where helium, nitrogen, or carbon dioxide gas is used to turn turbines instead of steam. That would also allow for a much smaller cooling tower/device.

    An E-Cat or Defkalion reactor will be accepted as soon as it can produce electricity. Measuring electrical output is easy, and measuring electrical input or natural gas input is not difficult. The problem arises when one measures heat output. That gets tricky.

    • atanguy

      “using LENR to make hydrogen gas instead of heat”
      So far, what has been demonstrated is LENR producing heat.

      Hydrogen is one of the ‘fuel’ to produce LENR and LENR is not used to produce hydrogen…

      • bachcole

        Yes, also, wouldn’t it be nice if unicorns could sing.

  • Fyodor

    I think that too many of us have been hopeful that there will be some sort of “aha” moment when the world believes in LENR.

    I don’t think that even a longer, better test will do it. As someone who was very skeptical before the test, I was still surprised that it was so thoroughly scoffed at and/or ignored. I think that until Rossi (or someone) releases a commercially successful product, it’s going to be a bunch of internet enthusiasts following this stuff.

    • MasterBlaster7

      Is it really important that “the world” does/does not believe right now? I mean, as long as the march to a successful commercial product is properly funded to achieve results in a reasonable time…who cares what the world thinks? Although, once a viable commercial product is on the market…it will be important for the world to believe in order to spur big science into working out the correct theory. But right now, I think things are moving along as “swimmingly” as they can.

      I think its maybe just ego to want the world to acknowledge our “little club”. Let them eat cake.

      • bachcole

        I am with you. The longer that the world does not acknowledge LENR+, the hard they will fall.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Agreed. Belief is worthless unless it turns into action, but only IH (and maybe some other groups) is in the position to act. Without open and reproducible LENR, experimental scientists are powerless. Theoreticians cannot act either because they wait for the experimental results (most find it hopeless to come up with a theory if the only hint is that a black box produces energy by a hitherto unknown process). People, companies and governments could act by buying devices, but only after devices are available.

      • Fyodor

        I think that’s right. “acceptance” is only useful insofar as it brings additional investment/money/etc. Whether one group is winning an internet argument doesn’t really change anything.

        I will be particularly interested (beyond the question of excess heat) whether control and reliability have started moving in the direction necessary for a functional product.

  • bachcole

    Why do I believe in the E-Cat? One unspoken reason is that I TRUST various people like Hanno Essen and Johnny Levi, et. al. Trust is necessary, unless you burn your finger on one, unless you see people buying them at Home Depot. Everyone’s trust level is different. And everyone’s clinging to established “doctrine” is different. Therefore, I guarantee that most people will still not believe it. But many more people will believe than currently. And I think that more movers and shakers will believe it than now, and they will influence others.

    • MasterBlaster7

      I remain on the fence with LENR. Not because the evidence has not been compelling enough. But, because the ramifications of such a device are so profound that they, if true, will shake the foundations of modern society. I mean, come on, a little nickle and hydrogen in a tube producing near free, near unlimited power….come on. A device you can almost cobble together at home depot and radio shack that puts to shame the multi-bilion dollar, multi-national ITER project at an extreme fraction of the cost…I mean, come on (oh and NIF…lets not forget NIF). So, again, the amazing, jaw-dropping implication of this reaction is what keeps me on the fence…it has to. Not to get all religious in this forum…but, I, like doubting Thomas NEED to stick my finger in the wound. I refuse to drink the cool-aid but damned if I haven’t been sipping on it. Give me a successful commercial product…then, and only then, will I get down off the fence.

      So, I guess it would be correct to say that I do not “believe”. It would be correct to say that I “hope”.

      • bachcole

        I love your attitude. You are living proof that a person can be an honest skeptic without being an obnoxious jerk. I suppose if Andrea Rossi came to my front door and asked me for money that I would feel the same way.

        • lurker4

          How much?

          • bachcole

            Any amount. For him to get my money he has to show me the E-Cat.

  • Ophelia Rump

    If you run AC and DC down the same wire and measure for AC, the meter is going to measure the Root Mean square of the signal both AC and DC combined. This would play havoc with the measurements and probably burn out the inverter on the AC Meter. This would not go unnoticed by an expert.

    Anyway the first professor asked that question after the last test said he had not thought of that, then upon consulting the other professor found out that he had excluded the possibility of DC power being present. This question has been satisfied since the last test.

    • Omega Z

      Yep, They gotta use dem bullets up even if they bounce off.

      As to the DC, I think they excluded that possibility due to the other things run from the mains. Computers, IR camera’s Etc..

  • Ophelia Rump

    If you run AC and DC down the same wire and measure for AC, the meter is going to measure the Root Mean square of the signal both AC and DC combined. This would play havoc with the measurements and probably burn out the inverter on the AC Meter. This would not go unnoticed by an expert.

    Anyway the first professor asked that question after the last test said he had not thought of that, then upon consulting the other professor found out that he had excluded the possibility of DC power being present. This question has been satisfied since the last test.

    And to answer the question of this topic. Sure you can make a test bullet proof, but they will still shoot at it. In the end only reasonable minds will prevail. But they will continue to shoot.

    • Omega Z

      Yep, They gotta use dem bullets up even if they bounce off.

      As to the DC, I think they excluded that possibility due to the other things run from the mains. Computers, IR camera’s Etc..

  • bachcole

    I notice that Rossi spelled “indipendent” incorrectly. (:->) I wish that he would get with the program.

    • threedollarscholar

      Scommetto che vuole lui non aveva bisogno di scrivere in inglese!

      • bachcole

        Italiano è una lingua dal suono gradevole, ma l’inglese ha tanti più parole rispetto a qualsiasi altra lingua che deve avere più sfumature di significato. Ma, naturalmente, l’ortografia della lingua inglese è terribile.

  • Fibber McGourlick

    I think the test results must have been positive. Had they been negative the report wouldn’t matter much and there would be no need to keep us hopefuls and boosters waiting anxiously for it. In fact to have kept us waiting this long and then released the report of a failure would have grossly and injudiciously maximized the disappointment for no purpose whatsoever. So I already know what’s coming and I’ve taken all the bets on it I can get from the negative-thinking suckers in my village. I’ve also bought up all the Champaign around here, which I’ll resell at a new price on the great day of celebration. On with the revolution!

    • Omega Z

      Fibber

      I would conclude the test is done.
      The Report is in process.
      Of Question is just how positive the test was.

      My Reasoning:
      Rossi is still posting on JONP.
      If this were an intentional scam, Rossi would already be in North Korea with Kim De Kook. The Only place on Earth he could live without fear of extradition…

      • Ophelia Rump

        I think Iran might be an alternative.

  • GreenWin

    There will be no evidence able to convince the narrow minds of
    pathoskeps. They will cling to their outdated model world until
    their cold dead hands go limp. It is entirely likely the pathos and pundits
    will deny cold fusion even when it is heating their next high fat mochachino.

    “The flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years.”
    The New York Times, Oct. 9, 1903

    “We started assembly today.”
    Orville Wright’s Diary, Oct. 9, 1903

    • Ophelia Rump

      Awesome quotes!

    • WantOffTheGrid

      As long as Levi is involved the skeptics will not care what the testing protocol is and find fault.

      • GreenWin

        These are the unfortunates. They cannot help themselves, they were born that way. And who listens to the caterwauling of anonymous skeps?

        • Andreas Moraitis

          The 3rd party test must be watertight enough to convince Industrial Heat and their partners. Everything else should be less important, at least at the moment. A more interesting question is if there is a timeline for further proceeding. Darden and his colleagues are professionals, they know that time can be a critical factor. I wonder if they have already a rocket on the launching pad.

          • BroKeeper

            Although I have grown a kind of loyalty for AR and his E-Cat and the fact its third party E-Cat report results will not stop its production and distribution, I ask, how long and how much will this LENR technology have weight in future energy generation?

            The 25 years of debunking cold fusion has allowed other alternative energy technologies to catch up. Such new competitive energy breakthroughs are occurring at increasing rates like electromagnetic/magnetic power multipliers, cheap LPP fusion reactors, cost/efficiency solar panel improvements, Giga watt solar production plants, tidal wave generation, unlimited over-unity hydrogen production, maybe even quantum vacuum zero-point energy modules, etc.

            Personally I am not too concerned as long as competition brings energy costs significantly lower. Soon enough this will all certainly diminish the disparity between the haves and have-nots soon. If IH/AR wants to have a leading edge on new energy production they better start acting fast and provide it to the world quickly. It’s becoming a brave new world.

          • georgehants

            It is time for much of science to be recognised as the corrupt, incompetent, biased organisation that it is and for every genuine, honest, caring scientist to REBEL and demand that their establishment put it’s house in order.
            Never again to allow a criminal deception as has occurred with Cold Fusion and many other important areas of Research to be tainted by the self-serving wasters that most ordinary scientists follow like blind sheep.
            A scientist should be proud to think for themselves, not have their every thought dictated by a gang of religious self-serving fanatics.

  • GreenWin

    There will be no evidence able to convince the narrow minds of
    pathoskeps. They will cling to their outdated model world until
    their cold dead hands go limp. It is entirely likely the pathos and pundits
    will deny cold fusion even when it is heating their next high fat mochachino.

    “The flying machine which will really fly might be evolved by the combined and continuous efforts of mathematicians and mechanicians in from one million to ten million years.”
    The New York Times, Oct. 9, 1903

    “We started assembly today.”
    Orville Wright’s Diary, Oct. 9, 1903

    • Ophelia Rump

      Awesome quotes!

    • WantOffTheGrid

      As long as Levi is involved the skeptics will not care what the testing protocol is and find fault.

      • GreenWin

        These are the unfortunates. They cannot help themselves, they were born that way. And who listens to the caterwauling of anonymous skeps?

    • LookMoo

      Basically the same situation as when the Wright brothers was flying. The most stubborn professors was on the wrong side 10 years after.

  • Christina

    Oh, just make a lenr product and be done with it. Shish.

    The world’s people living in hot climates and the world’s people living in cold climates and the world’s people needing food and water need it. Make it and stop the argument. Argue, rather, how to best help everyone have adequate food, water, and temperature control in their homes.

    Argue rather about how to provide lenr to everybody even though soldiers who count their age in one digit will probably try to take this energy from the poor in Africa and South America with the guns that probably–I guess–originally come from the U.S.

    Give people the lenr machines and give them the means to defend them and themselves and stop this argument.

  • bfast

    I think that the best thing Rossi could do is get fresh blood for the testing. We keep seeing the same names, Levi, Essen, etc. We need a new, more independant face. That would help.

    What would be even more effective is to open the e-cat up for examination by many. Let skeptics like that Australian fellow bring their favorite scientist or engineer along to poke and prod. That would be effective.

    That said, by far the best test would be a product for sale at Home Depot. I don’t know why that hasn’t happened yet, but I am sure there are reasons. Its the reasons that scare me. Is the thing unstable? Is it way harder to build than all that? What is the hold up?

    • Omega Z

      Even if the the test exceeds our greatest hopes, it will be a while before home products are available. Operational data needs to be collected for risk analysis. This will come from commercial/industrial devices.

      As to familiar faces, I consider this to be a positive point.
      How many tests have been done by different groups of people over the last 3 years.

      Ultimately, Every group has overlooked some small element. Familiar faces have insight to previous shortcomings. This test also has additional experts working with them.

  • Christina

    I think that the way that Rossi answers the question indicates that the test is positive. Why would he speak in such a positive tone about a mistake made a year ago if he didn’t know that the test was positive.

    Okay, leave out the supposition that Rossi is outright lying as we’ve already decided that that’s absurd given the number of people who’ve now seen his work.

    The tone of his answer is that of a person who knows that the problems of the previous test have been solved in this test. Why would he bother if the test was negative and the cold fusion was only fodder for nursery rhymes? Indeed, why, if the test was negative, would he still be in the public eye? He is the scientific adviser to his company simply because it works. There would not be a company if it didn’t.

    Executives like those of Cheyenne and Industrial Heat don’t promote fiction. They work only with reality.

    Have a good day and may God bless you all.

  • Lu

    Whenever a new and interesting experimental result is reported one of the first things that is done is that a rash of experimenters try to reproduce the results based on the experiment described in the paper. This has been the downfall of many interesting results–most recently the claim that an acid bath can turn mature cells turning into stem cells. Fleischmann and Pons results also could not be readily duplicated. Reproducibility by independent sources is an important part of the scientific process.

    This will also limit the acceptance of this report in the scientific community as it should because a) Levi is a close associate of Rossi b) Proprietary elements are being used c) The E-Cat is a black box to the experimenters. There is no way around this. The results will no doubt be very interesting and a great cause for optimism but they will by their very nature not be considered science. A tantalizing demonstration of the E-Cat–Yes. A scientific validation of the E-Cat–No.

    • GreenWin

      Thing is Lu, mainstream “scientific validation” ain’t worth the ink it’s written with. And contemporary scientific method will be shown to be a religion of buffoons. Because one author of a paper has been studying a phenomenon for years somehow constitutes reason to reject the entire paper and all its authors and peers? If this were the case then we must categorically reject any paper authored by an experienced researcher.

      Academia continues to embarrass itself. Like an addict incapable of recognizing its disease. Like CalTech and MIT refusing to amend their ignorant stance on CF. There is no better way to see the incompetence of “higher learning” than to mirror their ignorance of the Wright Brothers.

    • georgehants

      Lu, what would would you suggest is the best way to change science from the incompetent comedy act that in many areas, it is today, into the competent, professional, trustworthy profession that it should be.

    • Donk970

      What you say is true. I can’t tell you how many times I tried unsuccessfully to replicate some experiment or other in my own lab based on a paper. Eventually I’d track down the lab tech who did the original experiment and discover that there were “details” that didn’t make it into the paper.

  • Lu

    Whenever a new and interesting experimental result is reported one of the first things that is done is that a rash of experimenters try to reproduce the results based on the experiment described in the paper. This has been the downfall of many interesting results–most recently the claim that an acid bath can turn mature cells turning into stem cells. Fleischmann and Pons results also could not be readily duplicated. Reproducibility by independent sources is an important part of the scientific process.

    This will also limit the acceptance of this report in the scientific community as it should because a) Levi is a close associate of Rossi b) Proprietary elements are being used c) The E-Cat is a black box to the experimenters. There is no way around this. The results will no doubt be very interesting and a great cause for optimism but they will by their very nature not be considered science. A tantalizing demonstration of the E-Cat–Yes. A scientific validation of the E-Cat–No.

    • GreenWin

      Thing is Lu, mainstream “scientific validation” ain’t worth the ink it’s written with. And contemporary scientific method will be shown to be a religion of buffoons. Because one author of a paper has been studying a phenomenon for years somehow constitutes reason to reject the entire paper and all its authors and peers? If this were the case then we must categorically reject any paper authored by an experienced researcher.

      Academia continues to embarrass itself. Like an addict incapable of recognizing its disease. Like CalTech and MIT refusing to amend their ignorant stance on CF. There is no better way to see the incompetence of “higher learning” than to mirror their ignorance of the Wright Brothers.

    • georgehants

      Lu, what would you suggest is the best way to change science from the incompetent comedy act that in many areas, it is today, into the competent, professional, trustworthy profession that it should be.

    • Donk970

      What you say is true. I can’t tell you how many times I tried unsuccessfully to replicate some experiment or other in my own lab based on a paper. Eventually I’d track down the lab tech who did the original experiment and discover that there were “details” that didn’t make it into the paper.

  • GreenWin

    Indeed. Prejudicial allocation of public funds via agencies like the National Science Foundation and DOE, retards human progress. That prejudice is entirely due to political and business lobbies pulling strings on agency puppets. IMO… of course. 🙂

  • lurker4

    How much?

  • threedollarscholar

    Scommetto che vuole lui non aveva bisogno di scrivere in inglese!

  • GreenWin

    Both Mr/Ms bfast and Christina raise relevant points. An entirely independent test team, and a call to immediate humanitarian action. As to the first, regardless the named test team, those codified to deny, delay and defend the status quo (Old Fire) will attack. If even Sir Isaac Newton,FRS or Richard Feynman were to sign off on the next E-Cat validation – the unhappy, desolate deniers would shriek of “voodoo, black magic, and fraud!!”

    As to humanitarian application – I agree Christina – it has not happened fast enough to alleviate suffering. Had corrupt pundits not killed this science in 1989, those populations might well be living happier, healthier lives. But we must remember this is a battle. And there are many opponents to freeing human beings from fiduciary slavery. That is what centralized control of energy has become.

    I am confident there are wise, creative entities working to introduce this technology in a palatable way. The financial, geo-political, academic and social implications are immense. But they are immense in a positive direction. The captains of this ship IMO are well aware of the treacherous waters they navigate. A single misstep or error in diplomacy could return this great gift to the slag heap of misbegotten knowledge. Meanwhile, stay tuned. The next report is going to be stunning.

    • georgehants

      Well done GreenWin, as usual every major point covered in far better prose than I can achieve.
      If things work out the Human race has a great chance.
      The next ten years are going to be the dangerous ones, I think.
      If we come through those few years with Wisdom, then the next thousand could be Mankind’s golden time.
      Hope and Spiritual optimism are my contributions to a better World.

      • Fortyniner

        When it’s remembered that Hody was so desperate to disparage the first public demos of Rossi’s reactor that he claimed it was full of thermite, without any shred of evidence for this crazy suggestion, then it is obvious that no report can ever be ‘bombproof’ as far as he and other shills are concerned.

        But for normal, rational and reasonably objective people the coming report is likely to prove conclusive. I’m reasonably confident that the news will spread, one way or another, and will be a major crack in the wall of denial maintained by the controlled media, academics and politicians. Further proof (if needed) that people now need to look elsewhere for their information, technological innovation and leadership.

  • GreenWin

    Both Mr/Ms bfast and Christina raise relevant points. An entirely independent test team, and a call to immediate humanitarian action. As to the first, regardless the named test team, those codified to deny, delay and defend the status quo (Old Fire) will attack. If even Sir Isaac Newton,FRS or Richard Feynman were to sign off on the next E-Cat validation – the unhappy, desolate deniers would shriek of “voodoo, black magic, and fraud!!”

    As to humanitarian application – I agree Christina – it has not happened fast enough to alleviate suffering. Had corrupt pundits not killed this science in 1989, those populations might well be living happier, healthier lives. But we must remember this is a battle. And there are many opponents to freeing human beings from fiduciary slavery. That is what centralized control of energy has become.

    I am confident there are wise, creative entities working to introduce this technology in a palatable way. The financial, geo-political, academic and social implications are immense. But they are immense in a positive direction. The captains of this ship IMO are well aware of the treacherous waters they navigate. A single misstep or error in diplomacy could return this great gift to the slag heap of misbegotten knowledge. Meanwhile, stay tuned. The next report is going to be stunning.

    • georgehants

      Well done GreenWin, as usual every major point covered in a far better and lyrical way than I can ever achieve.
      If things work out the Human race has a great chance.
      The next ten years are going to be the dangerous ones, I think.
      If we come through those few years with Wisdom, then the next thousand could be Mankind’s golden time.
      Hope and Spiritual optimism are my contributions to a better World.

      • When it’s remembered that Hody was so desperate to disparage the first public demos of Rossi’s reactor that he claimed it was full of thermite, without any shred of evidence for this crazy suggestion, then it is obvious that no report can ever be ‘bombproof’ as far as he and other shills are concerned.

        But for normal, rational and reasonably objective people the coming report is likely to prove conclusive. I’m quite confident that the news will spread, one way or another, and will be a major crack in the wall of denial maintained by the controlled media, academics and politicians. Further proof (if needed) that people now need to look elsewhere for their information, technological innovation and leadership, respectively.

  • Omega Z

    Fibber

    I would conclude the test is done.
    The Report is in process.
    Of Question is just how positive the test was.

    My Reasoning:
    Rossi is still posting on JONP.
    If this were an intentional scam, Rossi would already be in North Korea with Kim De Kook. The Only place on Earth he could live without fear of extradition…

    • Ophelia Rump

      I think Iran might be an alternative.

  • HHiram

    No single test result will be . That’s not how science like this works. For extraordinary claims, a result must be highly replicable.

    So the only way to convince all skeptics will be for Rossi to send demo E-Cats out to dozens of labs around the world, and for all of those folks to test them independently. Only with the combined replications across many different teams will a consensus emerge.

    • Owen Geiger

      Or just start selling them.

    • georgehants

      HHiram, how is it going to be “highly replicable” if dumb brained main-line science does not attempt to replicate it, but like a gang of incompetents just debunk, deny and abuse those true scientists making the report.

      • Donk970

        When capitalism is the primary motivation for doing anything, you really don’t want others to replicate your results. People like AR will be vindicated when they are making millions selling their products.

        • georgehants

          Donk970, don’t understand your point reference my comment.

      • Hhiram

        Are you serious? How is anyone going to replicate anything without getting their hands on E-Cats or without a patent application that provides complete details of the device?

        • georgehants

          Hhiram, are you seriously suggesting that science needs to be shown how to do Research.
          They have the same reports and information that Mr. Rossi et al have.
          Get off their incompetent arses and do some science.
          So main-line science is waiting for the Rebels to do what they are supposed to be there for . Ha. Ha. Ha.

          • HHiram

            *facepalm*

  • Mike

    Didn’t Mr Rossi earlier claim that he had no idea about the testing, procedures, results etc?

    By the way, I have some experiences with university professors, and laboratory work was not their best skill. Why professors? The could analyse the data and results but I should pick experienced laboratory technicians for the tests.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    The 3rd party test must be watertight enough to convince Industrial Heat and their partners. Everything else should be less important, at least at the moment. A more interesting question is if there is a timeline for further proceeding. Darden and his colleagues are professionals, they know that time can be a critical factor. I wonder if they have already a rocket on the launching pad.

  • blanco69

    I dont believe that this test is designed to convince Tom Darden and IH of the validity of the ecat or even LENR. I believe it’s purpose is to allow Tom and the team to ply their investment wares around town. This would indicate that there is no big partner with enough belief/cash to take ecat to market and also that the development process is a lot further behind than many believe. Rossi will know for certain if ecat works and if IH are as close to Rossi as they say they are then they will know also.

  • blanco69

    I dont believe that this test is designed to convince Tom Darden and IH of the validity of the ecat or even LENR. I believe it’s purpose is to allow Tom and the team to ply their investment wares around town. This would indicate that there is no big partner with enough belief/cash to take ecat to market and also that the development process is a lot further behind than many believe. Rossi will know for certain if ecat works and if IH are as close to Rossi as they say they are then they will know also.

  • Bernie777

    Again, there will be super skeptics until a reactor is purchased and installed by an independent person or company and makes/saves money on the installation, the free market will take care of the rest.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Again, there will be super skeptics until a reactor is purchased and installed by an independent person or company and makes/saves money on the installation, the free market will take care of the rest.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    What I want is a super successful report with a high COP that is bulletproof with no room left for the critics.

    What we may get is a more thorough and conservative report than the last one. The COP may be a little worrying if it isn’t at least10 or higher, because it seems that is what is needed for easy commercialization.

    Can the report be bulletproof? For me, yes. For most of the scientific world probably not, until they can replicate the effect themselves.

    I do hope though that this report will convince enough people to stir up significant interest in CF. We really need that after the Defkalion fiasco.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    What I want is a super successful report with a high COP that is bulletproof with no room left for the critics.

    What we may get is a more thorough and conservative report than the last one. The COP may be a little worrying if it isn’t at least10 or higher, because it seems that is what is needed for easy commercialization.

    Can the report be bulletproof? For me, yes. For most of the scientific world probably not, until they can replicate the effect themselves.

    I do hope though that this report will convince enough people to stir up significant interest in CF. We really need that after the Defkalion fiasco.

    • Christina

      But how to get them to want to replicate? They’ll just say it’s bogus if the COP is higher by 2 or by 10. No, the best way is to bring something out commercially for the big companies that rely on coal now to drive their machinery.

  • georgehants

    A report today from Phys Org on work of David Bohm, another great scientist that was and is abused and debunked by most of today’s pathetic science fraternity.
    ——–
    Breakthrough paper on the Aharonov-Bohm effect published
    http://phys.org/news/2014-05-breakthrough-paper-aharonov-bohm-effect-published.html#nRlv

    • GreenWin

      Wonderful! A seminal instructor in physical/spiritual connections.

  • georgehants

    From Cold Fusion Now
    Borealis LENR Patent – Elektron is the Greek Word for Amber
    The Borealis family of companies could convert popular cold fusion (LENR thermal)
    energy to desired electrical current at 50% to 80% Carnot efficiency
    with their Power Chips. This matches, and may nearly double, known industrial electricity production efficiencies.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/borealis-lenr-patent-elektron-is-the-greek-word-for-amber/

    • Fortyniner

      It does sound very promising, if they can put a device on the table that performs as they are predicting. If the cold sink is flowing water then local CHP would be a ‘natural’.

      • georgehants

        bachcole, thank you for adding your “rant” to mine.
        Lets hope we help to make a difference.

        • stefan

          Aouch, they use PCA. and data mining. This means that the analysis could pick up and correlate on e.g. CO2, but the reason for C02 and temperature rise might have another cause, in total causing the estimated temperature to be more flat that it is. If they can show hokey sticks graphs on raw data then I would be much more impressed. I though that they did a weighted mean of various temperature “sensors”. Agreed that one need to take the curve carefully.

      • GreenWin

        Many years ago, while following the Borealis family, I found an interesting connection to the Battelle Inst., a terrestrial non-terrestrial technology transfer organization. Impressive.

  • georgehants

    From Cold Fusion Now
    Borealis LENR Patent – Elektron is the Greek Word for Amber
    The Borealis family of companies could convert popular cold fusion (LENR thermal)
    energy to desired electrical current at 50% to 80% Carnot efficiency
    with their Power Chips. This matches, and may nearly double, known industrial electricity production efficiencies.
    http://coldfusionnow.org/borealis-lenr-patent-elektron-is-the-greek-word-for-amber/

    • It does sound very promising, if they can put a device on the table that performs as they are predicting. If the cold sink is flowing water then local CHP would be a ‘natural’.

      • GreenWin

        Many years ago, while following the Borealis family, I found an interesting connection to the Battelle Inst., a terrestrial non-terrestrial technology transfer organization. Impressive.

  • fritz194

    A potential result of a bulletproof test could be the judgment that Rossi is distributing black magic;-) – and they don´t write/publish black magic anyway.

    These “pseudosceptic” pack has a religious approach in black/white science vs. pseudoscience judgement – which won´t bring us any further.

    I have no problem with a “sceptic” movement against creationism or similar – but the taken approach is a black/white scheme that breaks down science into religious dogma.

    They even invented a “nobel disease”

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease

    I don´t think that we need this b/w scheme in science and believe that an academic has enough credibility to judge the trustworthiness of his citations and is able to differentiate between proven, peer-reviewed science and an interpretation of a controversial empiric study.

    But science itself has somewhat (partly) established a believe in itself – very similar to papal infallibility – and gets abused as emotional substitute for failed atheists.

    • bachcole

      Interesting. I think that these Nobel Prize winners are merely bored with the same ol’ same ol’ and want to check out something new. I notice the use of the word “crank ideas”. This is very unscientific, more middle school. It seems to me that this is the very essence of the problem that georgehants rants about. The boundaries of what is real and what is not real should be based upon scientific experimentation and not name calling and character assassination. Shame on the scientific community for tolerating this morally deficient garbage.

      • georgehants

        bachcole, thank you for adding your “rant” to mine.
        Lets hope we help to make a difference.

  • georgehants

    HHiram, how is it going to be “highly replicable” if dumb brained science does not attempt to replicate it, but like a gang of incompetents just debunk, deny and abuse those true scientists making the report.

    • Donk970

      When capitalism is the primary motivation for doing anything, you really don’t want others to replicate your results. People like AR will be vindicated when they are making millions selling their products.

      • georgehants

        Donk970, don’t understand your point reference my comment.

  • georgehants

    New Scientist
    Complex fusion reactor takes shape as start date slips
    Nobody said it was going to be easy. After years of delays, work has finally begun on key components of ITER, the ambitious international project to build a revolutionary nuclear fusion reactor.
    ITER remains dogged by its own complexity, however, and its
    director-general says that it may not now fire up until 2023 – three
    years later than the most recent official deadline.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25581-complex-fusion-reactor-takes-shape-as-start-date-slips.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.U3YsPXbOeic

    • bachcole

      What a surprise! I am in a state of shock.

  • georgehants

    New Scientist
    Complex fusion reactor takes shape as start date slips
    Nobody said it was going to be easy. After years of delays, work has finally begun on key components of ITER, the ambitious international project to build a revolutionary nuclear fusion reactor.
    ITER remains dogged by its own complexity, however, and its
    director-general says that it may not now fire up until 2023 – three
    years later than the most recent official deadline.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25581-complex-fusion-reactor-takes-shape-as-start-date-slips.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.U3YsPXbOeic

    • bachcole

      What a surprise! I am in a state of shock.

  • georgehants

    Science
    UK Scientist Accuses Colleagues of Suppressing Dissent in Global Warming Research
    May 16 (RIA Novosti) – A UK climate change researcher said his paper
    questioning the speed of climate change was rejected because of
    intolerance of views seen as “skeptical,” British media reported Friday.
    “The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some
    scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate
    activist,” he told the Times. “It is an indication of how science is
    gradually being influenced by political views.”
    http://en.ria.ru/science/20140516/189873564/UK-Scientist-Accuses-Colleagues-of-Suppressing-Dissent-in-Global.html

    • worse

      http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-gwpf-voices-shock-and-concern-at-the-extent-of-intolerance-within-the-climate-science-community/

      “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

      I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”

      It is a replication of F&P tragedy, of Miles tragedy, of Mallove tragedy…

      Maybe is it standard…

      “Normal Science” as Thomas Kuhn says.

      http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

      they can even be right, but their methods are wrong.

      if you want to see what a kind of Mccartyism, supported by CIA have done

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/the-act-of-killing-indonesia-past-present-1965-genocide

      http://www.etan.org/action/SaySorry/factsheet.htm

      http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/archive/ago-rejects-komnas-ham-report-on-1965-massacres/

      (the 500k dead is under estimated… )

      guess who’s working on that project 😉

      http://1965tribunal.org/international-peoples-tribunal-of-indonesia-1965/

      • stefan

        Possible human caused climate change is something that need to be investigated, by science means, because if we don’t know the science, any counteractions we take might end with making a worse scenario. That’s why, this is such a sad story. Science need to get back to the roots.

        Anyway for you folks hear if you could calm me I would appreciate it, but I frankly piss my pants when I see a curve like this

        http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mean+global+temperature+during+last+1000+years

        I don’t care if it is measurement error, cutting down of wood, cow farts, or running around in cars behind this. We need to know why, and that pretty fast. Not explaining that curve satisfactory and just go on like nothing is insane, that’s a scientific fact as well.

        • georgehants

          stefan, all agreed but it must be taken out of the hands of corrupt incompetent scientists and a new scientific agency established that is honest and open-mindedly able to correctly do the Research and investigation necessary to determine the True position.
          Science with Cold Fusion and many other important subjects has shown itself incapable of doing basic science.

          • winebuff

            So you’ll leave it to the politicians.good idea!!;)

          • georgehants

            Omega Z, please I am sure you can do better, I did not suggest that at all.
            Perhaps you could suggest how we could move on from the incompetence of today.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          The problem is that climate research is a very difficult field. First of all, you cannot test your models in the laboratory, and computer simulations are only a stopgap. Besides, there are a huge number of variables that have to be connected. Therefore, the chances to predict the further development of climate correctly are limited. But I agree that it is necessary to explore the relevant factors and their relationships as far as possible. For the very reason that we cannot be sure we should be prepared for any scenario.

          • georgehants

            Andreas, agreed, therefore science should state clearly, we do not bloody well know but it may be prudent to reduce CO2 and pollution etc.
            It is their arrogant corrupt attitude of making out that they “KNOW” that is crazy.

          • BroKeeper

            What is failed to understand no single new energy source will have a lasting monopoly. The sooner an alternate energy source (not current inefficient ones) surfaces as a leading cost and pollution reducer with consistently improvements on its product will retain the big slice. There will always be new advances within energy generation whether LENR or another black box behind the paradigm curtain.
            More new energy discoveries have been emerging before and since 2011, not just LENR. What makes one think that LENR represents the only physics standard left to overcome? As Rossi already suggested LENR will be one of many complimentary and/or specialized low pollution energy technologies. This said I believe the E-Cat will be the initial leader of coming new energy for at least the near future – but hope no more delays in its commercialization.

        • US_Citizen71

          I have a question for you. Who took the early temperature measurements and with what device since the alcohol thermometer was invented in 1709 and the mercury thermometer in 1714? I answer it for you no one. The numbers used for those plots are educated guesses based on other things. No actual measurements are represented on that graph before the 1800’s.

        • winebuff

          Stefan is the voice of reason the rest just climate trolls. You people are no better than mary yugo when it comes to science.its so disapointing.

          • Anon2012_2014

            IMHO Krivit has some kind of a weird axe to grind. I suspect he is paranoid, perhaps rightly so after someone murdered his mentor. He might be right to be skeptical of Rossi, but the way he does “journalism” makes him not someone that I would trust. Same reason I wouldn’t trust Gary Wright — he’s weird. Why does he hate Rossi so much?

    • Ophelia Rump

      Has it ever been different?
      They must follow the money or perish.
      So the course of science is steered like a ship of fools.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        It’s not only the money. Losing reputation would be the maximum penalty.

        • Omega Z

          maximum penalty, may also include prosecution & incarceration.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes I would say both: a scientist might risk his reputation among peers if his results cause his community to lose research money collectively.

          • georgehants

            Omega Z, then corrupt capitalism needs to be removed so that people can freely enjoy their lives looking for the TRUTH.

      • georgehants

        Hhiram, are you seriously suggesting that science needs to be shown how to do Research.
        They have the same reports and information that Mr. Rossi et al have.
        Get off their incompetent arses and do some science.
        So main-line science is waiting for the Rebels to do what they are supposed to be there for . Ha. Ha. Ha.

      • bachcole

        It is different now only in the sense that there is massively more money coming from a massively more centralized source, the US central government.

        • AB

          You are describing the popular view of the placebo effect, where it is seen as some sort of healing (or harming) effect triggered by the mind.

          > You say “Psychological treatments did not affect the illness”, which is not true.

          Of course it is. Nowhere did the paper claim to have affected the illness. They are saying that patients felt “improvements in their sense of social support” and similar things. You’re making the exact mistake I’ve mentioned: conflating psychological improvements with improvement of the illness itself.

          > The Placebo Effect can affect a persons Heart Rate, Pain level,
          ,immunosupression, Parkinson disease and depression. Brain imaging
          techniques show that placebo can have real, measurable effect on
          physiological changes in the brain.

          A large review of placebo controlled studies failed to find evidence for powerful placebo effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15257721

          Perhaps you want to be more specific on which papers you think prove that the placebo effect can actually cure illness.

        • winebuff

          Another climate science expert!

          • US_Citizen71

            Why is his opinion any less the geologists used in the 97% claim pushed by the Church of AGW. The scientists polled were members of the American Geological Society, not exactly climate experts either.

    • US_Citizen71

      The church of AGW does not allow dissenting opinions. Faith has replaced facts, welcome to the new dark ages.

      • bachcole

        You need a lot of faith to continue with a power-of-suggestion perspective that 17 years of non-warming is saying NO to.

        This year we in Colorado Springs experienced 2 inches of snow on May 11th and some snow on May 12th. That snowfall on May 11th was many times more snow than we have experienced in all of the months of May all put together since I started living here in 1997. We even had a 2 hour delay at school on May 12th, which we have never had in May since I started living here. And never have we had snow on May 12th. You have to believe real hard when you encounter anecdotal evidence like that.

        Occam spins mightily to the idea that the ocean depths are magically absorbing more heat now and that is why we are not continuing to warm up.

        • winebuff

          Do you have proof otherwise??

    • Omega Z

      It’s all about the money/power. Billion$ in research funds.

      It’s also about how the Trillion$ in Energy costs is distributed & to whom. Will this money go to so-called Green or Fossil energy players. And dam the costs & consequences. They don’t care.

      I find it curious that, Here at ECW, we see the haggling going on about measurement accuracy. From a couple degrees to tenths of a degree. Done in Labs, In tightly controlled environments, Even in a vacuum, By some of the leading experts in the field of Calorimetry.

      Yet, We are told with absolute certainty, Within 10ths, Even 100ths of a degree can be measured in a Wide open, Ever Fluxing, Uncontrolled ever changing environment, Even to include time long before any fiscal measurements(Such devices didn’t exist) were ever take.

      As to whistle blowers, I understand their reluctance to throw themselves upon their swords. It’s usually a wasted sacrifice. Careers destroyed for naught.

      Five years ago in the U.S., We were told that not only would whistle blowers be protected, They would be sought out & rewarded. In fact, they are suppressed more then ever. Loss of jobs/careers & in some cases prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for divulging confidential information.

      • georgehants

        Omega Z, it is a very selfish and corrupt World, only by those who care doing there best to fight the corruption will we have the chance to enjoy the benefits of Cold Fusion and many other hidden wonders.

  • georgehants

    Science
    UK Scientist Accuses Colleagues of Suppressing Dissent in Global Warming Research
    May 16 (RIA Novosti) – A UK climate change researcher said his paper
    questioning the speed of climate change was rejected because of
    intolerance of views seen as “skeptical,” British media reported Friday.
    “The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some
    scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate
    activist,” he told the Times. “It is an indication of how science is
    gradually being influenced by political views.”
    http://en.ria.ru/science/20140516/189873564/UK-Scientist-Accuses-Colleagues-of-Suppressing-Dissent-in-Global.html

    • worse

      http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-gwpf-voices-shock-and-concern-at-the-extent-of-intolerance-within-the-climate-science-community/

      “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

      I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”

      It is a replication of F&P tragedy, of Miles tragedy, of Mallove tragedy…

      Maybe is it standard…

      “Normal Science” as Thomas Kuhn says.

      http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html

      they can even be right, but their methods are wrong.

      if you want to see what a kind of Mccartyism, supported by CIA have done

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/the-act-of-killing-indonesia-past-present-1965-genocide

      http://www.etan.org/action/SaySorry/factsheet.htm

      http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/archive/ago-rejects-komnas-ham-report-on-1965-massacres/

      (the 500k dead is under estimated… )

      guess who’s working on that project 😉

      http://1965tribunal.org/international-peoples-tribunal-of-indonesia-1965/

      • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

        Possible human caused climate change is something that need to be investigated, by science means, because if we don’t know the science, any counteractions we take might end with making a worse scenario. That’s why, this is such a sad story. Science need to get back to the roots.

        Anyway for you folks hear if you could calm me I would appreciate it, but I frankly piss my pants when I see a curve like this

        http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mean+global+temperature+during+last+1000+years

        I don’t care if it is measurement error, cutting down of wood, cow farts, or running around in cars behind this. We need to know why, and that pretty fast. Not explaining that curve satisfactory and just go on like nothing is insane, that’s a scientific fact as well.

        • georgehants

          stefan, all agreed but it must be taken out of the hands of corrupt incompetent scientists and a new scientific agency established that is honest and open-mindedly able to correctly do the Research and investigation necessary to determine the True position.
          Science with Cold Fusion and many other important subjects has shown itself incapable of doing basic unbiased Research.

          • winebuff

            So you’ll leave it to the politicians.good idea!!;)

          • georgehants

            Omega Z, please I am sure you can do better, I did not suggest that at all.
            Perhaps you could suggest how we could move on from the incompetence of today.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          The problem is that climate research is a very difficult field. First of all, you cannot test your models in the laboratory, and computer simulations are only a stopgap. Besides, there are a huge number of variables that have to be connected. Therefore, the chances to predict the further development of climate correctly are limited. But I agree that it is necessary to explore the relevant factors and their relationships as far as possible. For the very reason that we cannot be sure we should be prepared for any scenario.

          • georgehants

            Andreas, agreed, therefore science should state clearly, we do not bloody well know, but it may be prudent to reduce CO2 and pollution etc.
            It is their arrogant corrupt attitude of making out that they “KNOW” that is crazy.

          • bachcole

            I couldn’t agree more. I am positive that I am not 110% positive about climate change and AGW like I am about the fact that I am awake and sitting here typing. So it drives me crazy when these scientists have a few datapoints and then they construct this gigantic scenario from it and are not only absolutely positive but declare that you are anti-science when you don’t believe it and try to fire you from your science job because you don’t believe it.

        • US_Citizen71

          I have a question for you. Who took the early temperature measurements and with what device since the alcohol thermometer was invented in 1709 and the mercury thermometer in 1714? I answer it for you no one. The numbers used for those plots are educated guesses based on other things. No actual measurements are represented on that graph before the 1800’s.

          • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

            There seams to be two other sources, ice cores and tree rings. They sort of have collected the data from e.g. tree rings for 1000 years and then built a model that correlate well with known temperatures and then validated with another set of known temperatures to reduce the risk of over estimation and get some quality of the model. The error slowly drift in these data and that can be seen in the two curves. But the point is for 1000 years there is a clear exponential trend in the raw data of tree rings and ice cores that has not been seen in 1000 years, we know that mean temperature with a good chance correlate with these raw data and hence you get the same reaction: holy shit, we need to deal with this!!!

          • US_Citizen71

            Like I said above educated guesses, but no direct measurements. Tree ring data can be influenced by drought and disease both of which are local phenomenon. Ice cores can be influenced by strength and number of storms at the poles as well as by solar output. All of which adds up to the educated guesses not likely being 100% accurate.

          • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

            Actually what you suggest would increase the variability of the device and it is the lack of variability that scares me and emphasize the sharp rice of the calculated temperature. I think that if you read the wikipedia article about this curve, you will get the main critique against the curve. They are using a black box technique, I think they need to put some effort to actually produce a good grey box model, there is simple too many way’s you can fool yourself with a black box model. Then the wikipedia articles states that they produce, from what I understand 10 different black box models and get the same hookey curve, hillarious. The thing is that if you do data-mining and find bogus correlation, then you will find it in 10 other data mining techniques as well. One should do a proper grey box, there is no other way to produce this curve in a scientific way. On the other hand the null hypothesis should be that we by our modern living is affecting nature, the onus is on the skeptics to prove that we are not, but then we should support their work, else we don’t do science.

          • US_Citizen71

            There are other theories being suggested for the cause. Milankovitch’s cycles appear to match up with the ice cores as well. They suggest that we will heat at an increasing rate right up to the point that the next ice age begins. Alternative theories appear to be being suppressed by simple refusal of publication, this is not science but politics.

          • currently some interesting things happen, as many claims of the (not so numerous) serious skeptics are getting accepted by the less outspoken warmist…
            It seems the consensus of non outspoken activists is “lukewarmer”.

            I’ve seen an article on “CLOUD” CERN experiment, that long time after it was presented as a skeptic heresy, it is now proposed as the basic of something serious, to complete with new data on seed particles emitted by vegetals…

            Many non outspoken climatologist start to support a modetrate climate sensitivity about 1.3-1.7, like do the moderate skeptics.

            Importance of land usage on local teperature is also more and more supported.

            to answer to the recent fear on west antartica; some have found an underground volcanic activity growing.

            the IPCC 5th report is in fact admitting many lack of data, that models don’t work, that heat is lost without convincing arguments…

            the only alarmist content is the summary which despite the report, increse confidence and alarm.

            in fact the science of climatology is more and more lukewarm.
            but like you wee when a religion is losing believers, the remaining supporters are more and more vocal and extremists.

            note that for those who say that even if we are not sure we have to avoid the risk, I woudl answer that we can be victim of thousands of dangers, frrom ice-age, natural global warming, climate disruption of any sources, asteroid fall, vegetal disease, global war…

            as Taleb propose we shoul admit, that beside few things we can predict at short term, we have no idea of what extreme will happen, except that it will be bigger than any model we have today, and will concern something we did not anticipate at all…

            best solution is to improve the science , the technology, try many crazy and useless ideas like teraforming Venus, creating sea base, or learning penguin lifestyle, so that when the unthinkable happen, we have the technology to manage it, eventually losing 99% of the population, but not the species.

            Another idea, pushed by Judith Curry (a lukewarmer, said skeptic) is to use “No Regret” solution, that even if we are wrong is good…
            solving pollution, improving wealth and technology, getting knowledge, educating, reducing transportation needs…
            all that is much better than starving the poors, or blocking technology and comfort.

            LENR is among those technologies that finally will be more productive than starving the third world because of Malthusian vision.

          • Obvious

            I sometimes work in the arctic. One area I spent several summers in has a stranded piece of the boreal forest. Spruce, tamarack, and rare pine trees are found there. It is isolated from the present northern edge of the boreal forest by at least a couple hundred kilometres. (Which is to the south). In the intervening areas are remnants of the once continuous forest preserved in permafrost. Clearly the area was once significantly warmer than now, in the not so distant past. In addition, camel remains have been found much further north.

          • winebuff

            Alot better than anything youve come up with.

        • Richard Hill

          Stephan,
          Please dont harm your pants!
          The following will make you feel better.
          http://www.bishop-hill.net/the-hockey-stick-illusion/

          • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

            Aouch, they use PCA. and data mining. This means that the analysis could pick up and correlate on e.g. CO2, but the reason for C02 and temperature rise might have another cause, in total causing the estimated temperature to be more flat that it is. If they can show hokey sticks graphs on raw data then I would be much more impressed. I though that they did a weighted mean of various temperature “sensors”. Agreed that one need to take the curve carefully.

        • winebuff

          Stefan is the voice of reason the rest just climate trolls. You people are no better than mary yugo when it comes to science.its so disapointing.

          • bachcole

            You mean that you are disappointed because we don’t agree with you. Or do you mean that you are disappointed because we look deeper than the hockey stick con and the people who acknowledge that they are cheating and found a hypothesis that fits the data better than AGW.

            Am I a troll because I insist the solar cycles fits the data better than AGW. maryyugo denies, denies, denies. But I am proposing a theory that fits the data exquisitely. I would say that the AGW people are the maryyugos. You are holding onto an old hypothesis which has been taking a terrible beating these past 17 years. I have to follow the data even if it disappoints you. maryyugo is not looking at the data, and neither are you. I have had the AGW data shoved into my face for the past 17 years and even lost a substitute teaching location because some female hysteric didn’t like it when I doubted the AGW theory. At the time, I didn’t realize what a religion it was with those neurotics.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Has it ever been different?
      They must follow the money or perish.
      So the course of science is steered like a ship of fools.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        It’s not only the money. Losing reputation would be the maximum penalty.

        • Omega Z

          maximum penalty, may also include prosecution & incarceration.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes I would say both: a scientist might risk his reputation among peers if his results cause his community to lose research money collectively.

          • georgehants

            Omega Z, then corrupt capitalism needs to be removed so that people can freely enjoy their lives looking for the TRUTH.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            So you want to replace Capitalism with what? Socialism, Communism? What? What would you replace Capitalism with George?

      • bachcole

        It is different now only in the sense that there is massively more money coming from a massively more centralized source, the US central government.

        • winebuff

          Another climate science expert!

          • bachcole

            (1) My comment had nothing to do with climate science. It had to do with how things work. There is more resistance to scientific revolutions if more people have their financial welfare dependent upon the old ideas.

            (2) I do not acknowledge “experts” in science, particularly in fields whose major views are in doubt, like nuclear fusion, climate change, heart disease, health in general. Could there be experts? Certainly, but not in subjects whose fundamentals are seriously in doubt.

          • US_Citizen71

            Why is his opinion any less than the geologists used in the 97% claim pushed by the Church of AGW. The scientists polled were members of the American Geological Society, not exactly climate experts either.

    • US_Citizen71

      The church of AGW does not allow dissenting opinions. Faith has replaced facts, welcome to the new dark ages.

      • bachcole

        You need a lot of faith to continue with a power-of-suggestion perspective that 17 years of non-warming is saying NO to.

        This year we in Colorado Springs experienced 2 inches of snow on May 11th and some snow on May 12th. That snowfall on May 11th was many times more snow than we have experienced in all of the months of May all put together since I started living here in 1997. We even had a 2 hour delay at school on May 12th, which we have never had in May since I started living here. And never have we had snow on May 12th. You have to believe real hard when you encounter anecdotal evidence like that.

        Occam spins mightily to the idea that the ocean depths are magically absorbing more heat now and that is why we are not continuing to warm up.

        • winebuff

          Do you have proof otherwise??

          • bachcole

            Proof of what? You are the one promoting the hypothesis that a rise of man-made CO2 is causing a rise in global climate temperature. So you are the one that has to do the proving. I simply doubt that hypothesis and believe that other causes like solar cycles have a much GREATER impact than human caused CO2.

    • Omega Z

      It’s all about the money/power. Billion$ in research funds.

      It’s also about how the Trillion$ in Energy costs is distributed & to whom. Will this money go to so-called Green or Fossil energy players. And dam the costs & consequences. They don’t care.

      I find it curious that, Here at ECW, we see the haggling going on about measurement accuracy. From a couple degrees to tenths of a degree. Done in Labs, In tightly controlled environments, Even in a vacuum, By some of the leading experts in the field of Calorimetry.

      Yet, We are told with absolute certainty, Within 10ths, Even 100ths of a degree can be measured in a Wide open, Ever Fluxing, Uncontrolled ever changing environment, Even to include time long before any fiscal measurements(Such devices didn’t exist) were ever take.

      As to whistle blowers, I understand their reluctance to throw themselves upon their swords. It’s usually a wasted sacrifice. Careers destroyed for naught.

      Five years ago in the U.S., We were told that not only would whistle blowers be protected, They would be sought out & rewarded. In fact, they are suppressed more then ever. Loss of jobs/careers & in some cases prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for divulging confidential information.

      • georgehants

        Omega Z, it is a very selfish and corrupt World, only by those who care doing there best to fight the corruption will we have the chance to enjoy the benefits of Cold Fusion and many other hidden wonders.

  • bitplayer

    Depends on the audience and the desired evidence of conviction. It’s one thing to get the George Hody’s of the world to admit they were wrong. It’s another thing if the audience is the scientists and engineers in the labs of TPTB that are already working on LENR, and the evidence of conviction is that they announce the results of their research to protect stock prices.

  • Brokeeper

    Although I have grown a kind of loyalty for AR and his E-Cat and the fact its third party E-Cat report results will not stop its production and distribution, I ask, how long and how much will this LENR technology have weight in future energy generation?

    The 25 years of debunking cold fusion has allowed other alternative energy technologies to catch up. Such new competitive energy breakthroughs are occurring at increasing rates like electromagnetic/magnetic power multipliers, cheap LPP fusion reactors, cost/efficiency solar panel improvements, Giga watt solar production plants, tidal wave generation, unlimited over-unity hydrogen production, maybe even quantum vacuum zero-point energy modules, etc.

    Personally I am not too concerned as long as competition brings energy costs significantly lower. Soon enough this will all certainly diminish the disparity between the haves and have-nots. If IH/AR wants to have a leading edge on new energy production they better start acting fast and provide it to the world quickly. It’s becoming a brave new world.

    • georgehants

      It is time for much of science to be recognised as the corrupt, incompetent, biased organisation that it is and for every genuine, honest, caring scientist to REBEL and demand that their establishment put it’s house in order.
      Never again to allow a criminal deception as has occurred with Cold Fusion and many other important areas of Research to be tainted by the self-serving wasters that most ordinary scientists follow like blind sheep.
      A scientist should be proud to think for themselves, not have their every thought dictated by a gang of religious self-serving fanatics.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Yes. We should get rid of anyone educated and replace them with illiterate hobo’s from the local soup kitchens. That should speed up progress Right George.

        Do you think before you speak, or do you only turn off your sanity for typing?

    • bachcole

      I confess that I am emotionally involved with Rossi, Darden, and Vaughn. So I appreciate what you say, except that I don’t agree with it. I tried unsuccessfully to get solar energy installed about 10 years ago, and since then the price of PV panels has plummeted, but the price to me did not move a freaking inch. And the supply of natural gas has gone through the roof, and yet the price to me has not changed significantly. So far, from what I have seen, only Rossi and company demonstrate any real hope of almost free energy. Everything else is “oh-gee-whiz-wow” or failed promises like solar and natural gas.

      • Brokeeper

        Fair points. Perhaps something in between. I feel something will evolve out of these discoveries that will give LENR a run for its money.

    • telecommuter

      But, all the current alternative energy sources cost more than hydro/coal powered.
      Even LENR has no evidence it will be, net, less costly than hydro/coal. We won’t know until there are working, sustainable models.

    • friendlyprogrammer

      25 Years ago Cold Fusion was difficult to replicate, and those who could kept it to themselves. Not even Pons/Fleischmann could get the reaction most of the time.

      Those following CF however realized that there is CF effects that do occur, and this energy will replace most all methods of Energy Production today.

      A race has begun since 2011 however that you seem to have missed. It is not just Andrea Rossi leading the way with this technology, but now over 20 organizations produce LENR with various devices, and with likely unknown advances.

      Based on Calculations in this techs infancy, 1 gram of Nickel will equal 5 barrels of oil in potential Energy. It is very cheap and less than 10% of the current cheapest coal methods of electrifying our world.

      I agree that other energy ventures are close to fruition, but can any of them really compare to this. Why have solar or wind if you can have a small LENR reactor powering everything you own.

      Personally I would like to spend up to 30 years sailing around the world in a LENR powered boat, but will use sails as long as necessary.

      Perhaps you are right that something like BLP (Blacklight Power) might kick in and LENR will be useless, or some other Tesla Variant might work, but Solar and Wind power will never last. They are far too costly.

      • Brokeeper

        What many fail to understand is that no single new energy source will have a lasting monopoly. The sooner an alternate energy source (not current inefficient ones) surfaces as a leading cost and pollution reducer with consistently improvements on its product will retain the big slice. There will always be new advances within energy generation whether LENR or another black box behind the paradigm curtain.
        More new energy discoveries have been emerging before and since 2011, not just LENR. What makes one think that LENR represents the only physics standard left to overcome? As Rossi already suggested LENR will be one of many complimentary and/or specialized low pollution energy technologies. This said I believe the E-Cat will be the initial leader of coming new energy for at least the near future – but hope no more delays in its commercialization for the worlds sake.

        • bachcole

          The numbers convince me that LENR+ will be the sole energy source in the future, but energy converters will be very big indeed, like heat to motion, heat to electricity, etc. Energy conversion will be a big research and development effort all by itself.

  • georgehants

    This is the Placebo Effect that dumb brained science debunks and deny’s
    It could be helping millions to cope better with their illnesses and lives but closed-minded science again as with Cold Fusion condemns people to suffering unnecessarily for well you scientists give me the reasons.
    The Placebo Effect is a tremendously strong affect of the mind over the body (FACT)
    ———
    Cognitive behavioral or relaxation training helps women reduce distress during breast cancer treatment
    University of Miami researchers say confidence in stress management techniques improve after 5-week session
    Coral Gables, Fla. (May 16, 2014) – Can psychological intervention
    help women adapt to the stresses of breast cancer? It appears that a
    brief, five-week psychological intervention can have beneficial effects
    for women who are dealing with the stresses of breast cancer diagnosis
    and surgery. Intervening during this early period after surgery may
    reduce women’s distress and providing cognitive or relaxation skills for
    stress management to help them adapt to treatment.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-05/uom-cbo051614.php

    • AB

      You are misinterpreting the results. Psychological treatment did not affect the illness. It gave patients a more positive outlook on their situation. That’s helpful but not a substitute for actually treating the underlying illness.

      That science denies the existence of the placebo effect is a private fantasy of yours with no relation to reality. It’s actually considered to be an extremely important aspect to take into account. Most simply don’t agree with your personal opinion that it’s a mystical healing effect. The placebo effect in a controlled study is the sum of all effects, excluding the effect of the medication itself. These effects include: patient expectations and hopes, regression towards the mean, bias inherent to research methods, natural recovery, and others. Many of these are subjective, and accordingly the placebo effect affects subjective parameters such as pain, optimism, fatigue, more than objective parameters such as cancer mass, blood cell counts, etc.

      • AB

        Psychology studies in particular are easily misunderstood because the treatment conditions the patient to think more positively about their problems. This can be applied to any sort of problem, but it doesn’t mean it’s actually solving the problem, it’s just helping the patient adapt to the problem.

        • georgehants

          AB, then it is time for dumb science to learn about the Evidence and stop like you giving ridiculous “opinions” as if they mean something.

          • guga

            George, I think these off topic discussions are getting too long. It makes it difficult to find the on topic comments.
            And the placebo effect is not being denied by medical science. Every new therapy has to be tested against either a gold standard or placebo therapy. I told you that before. Even if a placebo helps, of course you would want a drug that helps even more.
            Anyway, I’m pretty sure that no placebo effect in medicine has anything to do with LENR.

          • Obvious

            In my opinion, the placebo effect has been extensively tested by millions for decades, without the knowledge of the participants. The data needs some combing due to lack of the usual implicit controls, but the sheer volume of participants in part makes up for this, as there are groups of nearly every type included in this extremely wide-ranging experiment, as well as extensive numbers of control patients. This intensive, massive study is code-named homeopathy.

          • bachcole

            I have been using the placebo effect, the power of suggestion, or self-suggestion in the form of affirmations, hypnosis, self-hypnosis, and EFT for the past 40 years, and for the past 3 years I have been completely baffled what georgehants means when he says the Placebo Effect. I think that he includes homeopathy as part of the Placebo Effect, but opponents of homeopathy say that, and proponents (including me) think of that as an insult. So I generally don’t discuss the Placebo Effect with georgehants because I can’t figure out what he means.

          • Obvious

            * Before you read this, consider that it may make placebos and possibly homeopathy ineffective by alerting you to that you may be taking placebos. If you are uncertain, DO NOT READ FURTHER.*

            Perhaps it is only in my mind, but a substance reduced by dilution to none of the original molecules is effectively a placebo. That a positive attitude adds considerably to the rate of healing is understood. Placebos only work if the patient thinks they are medicine. If they know it is a placebo, then it doesn’t work. If one takes “medicine” (or a healing substance, if you prefer), most people feel that a positive outcome will be the result. My doctor told me after a car accident that self-employed people with minimal insurance usually heal twice as fast as those with good insurance. So attitude (and perhaps some milking the system, [maybe that’s what she meant]) definitely makes a big difference.
            I also note that the inventor of homeopathy, Hahnemann, did not dilute the cinchona bark-based malaria medicine he made. He discovered that both too much and too little didn’t work as intended in that case.

          • note that in France some doctors tries public Placebo medicien…
            They say it is placebo, they give blue water to calm, red water to improve energy…
            It works on 30% of people, on the fuzy disease that you see in nocebo disease (wave-phobia, sorcery victim, small depression), or stress disease (like chernobyl/fukushima deported): belly problem, insomnia, some self-immune skin disease…

            I’m curious to know if there could be an awareness therapy to fight against nocebo disease…. maybe we could train people, with cognitive-behavioral therapy, to recognize when they fall in nocebo or similar stress, and activate defenses.
            without using fake medicines, ceremonies, or colored water.
            Not sure… our mind is complex.

          • AB

            That made me chuckle. The idea that placebos can cure illness is coincidentally often promoted by the same people who offer treatments that haven’t been shown to be any better than a placebo. Being as good as a placebo however, doesn’t mean much. It can just mean that both are completely ineffective.

          • bachcole

            You materialistic and pharmaceutical bias is showing.

          • Obvious

            I will also add that it has been shown that much “real” medicine is less effective than many people believe, and this also applies to “alternative” treatments. The supposition that it was the “medicine” doing it’s job is a typical confusion of causality for coincidence.
            IE: One is ill, then finally gets ill enough to get some medicine to try and fix the problem. This is typically near the worst part of an illness. If it an illness that is not chronic, this means that one will start to feel better as the illness subsides, regardless if medicine were taken. But if one takes medicine for the illness, the improvement is attributed to the medicine, even if it did very little or even nothing at all. This scenario is typical of most off-the-shelf flu and cold medicines.

      • georgehants

        AB, you clearly have done no Research on the Placebo Effect but like most scientists are trying to fool people with a pointless “expert opinion”
        Please come back when you have the knowledge to discuss with me the Facts of the effect.

  • georgehants

    This is the Placebo Effect that dumb brained science debunks and deny’s
    It could be helping millions to cope better with their illnesses and lives but closed-minded science again as with Cold Fusion condemns people to suffering unnecessarily, for well you scientists give me the reasons.
    The Placebo Effect is a tremendously strong affect of the mind over the body (FACT)
    ———
    Cognitive behavioral or relaxation training helps women reduce distress during breast cancer treatment
    University of Miami researchers say confidence in stress management techniques improve after 5-week session
    Coral Gables, Fla. (May 16, 2014) – Can psychological intervention
    help women adapt to the stresses of breast cancer? It appears that a
    brief, five-week psychological intervention can have beneficial effects
    for women who are dealing with the stresses of breast cancer diagnosis
    and surgery. Intervening during this early period after surgery may
    reduce women’s distress and providing cognitive or relaxation skills for
    stress management to help them adapt to treatment.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-05/uom-cbo051614.php

    • AB

      You are misinterpreting the results. Psychological treatment did not affect the illness. It gave patients a more positive outlook on their situation. That’s helpful but not a substitute for actually treating the underlying illness.

      That science denies the existence of the placebo effect is a private fantasy of yours with no relation to reality. It’s actually considered to be an extremely important aspect to take into account. Most simply don’t agree with your personal opinion that it’s a mystical healing effect. The placebo effect in a controlled study is the sum of all effects, excluding the effect of the medication itself. These effects include: patient expectations and hopes, regression towards the mean, bias inherent to research methods, natural recovery, and others. Many of these are subjective, and accordingly the placebo effect affects subjective parameters such as pain, optimism, fatigue, more than objective parameters such as cancer mass, blood cell counts, etc.

      • AB

        Psychology studies in particular are easily misunderstood because the treatment conditions the patient to think more positively about their problems. This can be applied to any sort of problem, but it doesn’t mean it’s actually solving the problem, it’s just helping the patient adapt to the problem.

        • georgehants

          AB, then it is time for dumb science to learn about the Evidence and stop like you giving ridiculous “opinions” as if they mean something.

          • guga

            George, I think these off topic discussions are getting too long. It makes it difficult to find the on topic comments.
            And the placebo effect is not being denied by medical science. Every new therapy has to be tested against either a gold standard or placebo therapy. I told you that before. Even if a placebo helps, of course you would want a drug that helps even more.
            Anyway, I’m pretty sure that no placebo effect in medicine has anything to do with LENR.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Science is responsible for everything you use to enjoy your day from The chairs you sit on to the keyboards at your fingertips, hating on science is a child’s attitude.

          • Obvious

            In my opinion, the placebo effect has been extensively tested by millions for decades, without the knowledge of the participants. The data needs some combing due to lack of the usual implicit controls, but the sheer volume of participants in part makes up for this, as there are groups of nearly every type included in this extremely wide-ranging experiment, as well as extensive numbers of control patients. This intensive, massive study is code-named homeopathy.

          • bachcole

            I have been using the placebo effect, the power of suggestion, or self-suggestion in the form of affirmations, hypnosis, self-hypnosis, and EFT for the past 40 years, and for the past 3 years I have been completely baffled what georgehants means when he says the Placebo Effect. I think that he includes homeopathy as part of the Placebo Effect, but opponents of homeopathy say that, and proponents (including me) think of that as an insult. So I generally don’t discuss the Placebo Effect with georgehants because I can’t figure out what he means.

          • Obvious

            * Before you read this, consider that it may make placebos and possibly homeopathy ineffective by alerting you to that you may be taking placebos. If you are uncertain, DO NOT READ FURTHER.*

            Perhaps it is only in my mind, but a substance reduced by dilution to none of the original molecules is effectively a placebo. That a positive attitude adds considerably to the rate of healing is understood. Placebos only work if the patient thinks they are medicine. If they know it is a placebo, then it doesn’t work. If one takes “medicine” (or a healing substance, if you prefer), most people feel that a positive outcome will be the result. My doctor told me after a car accident that self-employed people with minimal insurance usually heal twice as fast as those with good insurance. So attitude (and perhaps some milking the system, [maybe that’s what she meant]) definitely makes a big difference.
            I also note that the inventor of homeopathy, Hahnemann, did not dilute the cinchona bark-based malaria medicine he made. He discovered that both too much and too little didn’t work as intended in that case.

          • note that in France some doctors tries public Placebo medicine…
            They say it is placebo, they give blue water to calm, red water to improve energy…
            It works on 30% of people, on the fuzy disease that you see in nocebo disease (wave-phobia, sorcery victim), or stress disease (like chernobyl/fukushima deported): belly problem, insomnia, some self-immune skin disease…

            I’m curious to know if there could be an awareness therapy to fight against nocebo disease…. maybe we could train people, with cognitive-behavioral therapy, to recognize when they fall in nocebo or similar stress, and activate defenses.
            without using fake medicines, ceremonies, or colored water.
            Not sure… our mind is complex.

          • bachcole

            I don’t get where your first sentence comes from. I have often taken
            a homeopathic remedy with a sneer on my face and disbelief in my
            mind/heart and it worked anyway. And I have often expected a remedy to work and it didn’t.

            We are well aware that there is basically zero physical substance left once the dilution goes beyond 12C [ 1 part in 10 to the 24th power ] All homeopaths know Avogadro’s number. There is NO physical substance left.

            My only explanation is that materialism does not disprove homeopathy; homeopathy disproves materialism. As long as you cling to your materialistic belief system, then you will necessarily have to play the skeptopath and declare that I and hundreds of millions of people are stupid. I must be true to my experience and the experience of hundreds of millions of other people and believe that homeopathy is one among many proofs that materialism is not
            true, that there are higher, more refined dimensions to reality than are
            dreamed of in your philosophy. Having had extensive experience with
            these higher dimensions of reality and having read extensively about them, it is very easy for me to believe that the action of homeopathy is real and that you are just being a grinch to insist that I and hundreds of millions of other people are stupid.

          • Obvious

            By my first sentence, I meant I wasn’t trying to intentionally short-circuit someone’s effective placebo treatment. If the medicine, wherever it comes from and whatever it is, works, I have no right or privilege to upset that.

          • AB

            That made me chuckle. The idea that placebos can cure illness is coincidentally often promoted by the same people who offer treatments that haven’t been shown to be any better than a placebo. Being as good as a placebo however, doesn’t mean much. It can just mean that both are completely ineffective.

          • bachcole

            You materialistic and pharmaceutical bias is showing.

          • Obvious

            I will also add that it has been shown that much “real” medicine is less effective than many people believe, and this also applies to “alternative” treatments. The supposition that it was the “medicine” doing it’s job is a typical confusion of causality for coincidence.
            IE: One is ill, then finally gets ill enough to get some medicine to try and fix the problem. This is typically near the worst part of an illness. If it is an illness that is not chronic, this means that one will start to feel better as the illness subsides, regardless if medicine were taken. But if one takes medicine for the illness, the improvement is attributed to the medicine, even if it did very little or even nothing at all. This scenario is typical of most off-the-shelf flu and cold medicines.

          • bachcole

            I never thought of that, Obvious-grinch. But the worst thing about
            so-called medicine (since you are excluding natural remedies) is the
            after-effects. How does the body have the capacity to metabolize the
            after-effects of something that is designed to be unnatural. I doubt that there is a single pharmaceutical drug that does not have negative side effects. We may not have noticed the negative side-effect, but I guarantee that it is there one because the body has not had millions of years to adapt to this strange substance that has never existed since the Big Bang except in the laboratories of some pharmaceutical company.

            I take turmeric/curcumin on a regular basis for inflammation and it works
            like a charm; i.e. it is repeatable, many, many, times. After it has done it’s magic, my body can handle whatever is left because IT IS A NATURAL SUBSTANCE that my body has adapted to over millions of years.

          • Obvious

            We sort of discussed this way back. I posit that it doesn’t matter if a substance is “natural” or not. The body either deals with it or has a problem with it. There are millions of natural compounds that are bad for the human body. The artificial chemical compounds are a rather small in number in comparison to natural chemical diversity. How much we know about natural and artificial chemicals, “good” or “bad” is quite limited. In many cases the artificial substances are somewhat better understood, since there is at least some level of inquiry into the possible negative effects of novel chemical compounds before they are fed to people.
            As for medicine (above), I did mean both man-made and natural substances intended for healing.

          • bachcole

            Your obliviousness to the benefits of natural shows that you don’t think much of the theory of evolution. Yes, some natural chemicals are harmful. But I can’t follow the details of every chemical, natural or unnatural, known to the mind of man. So my best bet is with the natural, although I sometime eat unnatural things, but not often.

            Plus, as usual, you fail to grasp the significance of subtle energy (NOT E = MC^2 physical energy]. Food coming from living sources is going to have a better vibe, even if you can’t relate to that.

          • Obvious

            I do agree that eating natural things is a better idea. For the most part, there is no real benefit to eating artificial things. Plants are usually much more efficient at making things to eat, for one thing. In general, we know what plants and animals are OK to eat, from a long history of at least some peoples and/or animals eating them, for a second point. The flavors of natural things are usually better, but they can be made tastier now that flavor technology is advancing. But flavor is subjective, and doesn’t confer goodness for the body based on that criteria alone. Adding fat to improve the flavor connection to receptors on the tongue makes things tastier, for example, but usually just means extra calories that aren’t needed are ingested.
            I don’t see how the energy of killing and eating a living thing would transfer better energy to me. It might be unhappy energy. Unhappy at being killed and eaten. That is more of a philosophical idea. I suppose one could suggest as long as the alive food item was apologized to, and explained why it was needed, then the negative energy might go away, if you think along those lines. I know some cultures do. I think most people eat first, and ponder these philosophical questions later, if ever, though.

          • bachcole

            It is part of the Weston A. Price movement (and I don’t limit myself to any one “movement”) that food source animals should be treated with the utmost kindness, not just for their sake but also for our sake, for the very reasons that you describe. That “energy” that you discount does transfer to us to some limited extent. Plus the whole issue of kindness towards all beings.

            Most of my animal sourced food is raw milk and eggs, so the killing of animals usually does not enter into my food much, although I won’t turn my nose up at it.

          • Obvious

            FWIW, I have an enormous vegetable garden (seems too big some days), use no pesticides other than BT (a bacteria for killing caterpillars that love my brassicas) and a sulphur-vegetable oil mix on the fruit trees in fall and spring (when dormant), and compost almost everything except meat scraps (due to bears in the area). I plant lots of marigolds to control some insects also.

          • bachcole

            Excellent, but you are still a grinch. (:->)

            Have you thought about getting some chickens.

            Roughly where do you live?

            You are a lucky guy to be able to do that.

      • georgehants

        AB, you clearly have done no Research on the Placebo Effect but like most scientists are trying to fool people with a pointless “expert opinion”
        Please come back when you have the knowledge to discuss with me the Facts of the effect.

        • telecommuter

          George – you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you even care? Are you just a troll?

          • georgehants

            telecommuter, I think you would do better on a science website where comments of your quality are the norm.

          • winebuff

            George, put your head back in the sand.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        @ AB,

        Georgehants is right that you have little understanding of The Placebo effect based on what you are suggesting here.

        You say “Psychological treatments did not affect the illness”, which is not true.

        The Placebo effect, affects the body in a similar manner as hypnosis. The power of suggestion is at work.

        The Placebo Effect can affect a persons Heart Rate, Pain level, ,immunosupression, Parkinson disease and depression. Brain imaging techniques show that placebo can have real, measurable effect on physiological changes in the brain.
        The objective physiological changes have been reported, from changes in
        heart rate and blood pressure to chemical activity in the brain, in
        cases involving pain, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and some symptoms of
        Parkinson’s, but in other cases, like asthma, the effect is purely
        subjective, when the patient reports improvement despite no objective
        change in the underlying condition.

        Plainly put, The Placebo Effect has been tested with Brain Scans and shows real effect. Psychological treatments have and do affect illness.

        I will give a Hypnosis variant that can be used to harm someone. If you approached a healthy co worker and say “Oh My God, why is your face so pale, you almost look green, Do you feel sick?” then this type of conversation can make the co-worker sick. It is like taking a sick day and really getting sick that day because you talked yourself into it.

        @ Georgehants,

        You are also wrong here. You suggest science is ignoring The Placebo Effect which is extremely untrue. Every seasoned Doctor has prescribed sugar pills (Placebos) for someone during their career.

        Not only are Placebos actively used to cure, but they are also a backbone of The Scientific Method in drug Therapy. During Drug Testing the placebo effect MUST BE RULED OUT so every test group is split into at least 3 groups.
        A) First Group gets no drugs.
        B) Second group gets real drug.
        C) Third Group gets a placebo drug.

        Even if a Doctor says “Your headache should be gone by morning” is a verbal placebo, and the patient may have the headache faster than someone whos doctor said, “I have no idea how long your headache will last”. Expectancy is at the root of it.

        I use power of suggestion/NLP in my daily life. If someone says it is cold inside I might respond, “Yes, but the heat is on it is getting warmer by the second” to help them get warm.

        Placebos have been known for centuries and were heavily relied upon in the 1800’s when real medicine was less ample. Doctors today might prescribe a mild medicine instead of a Placebo in some instances, but the concept is still there.

        Placebos should be used by everybody, but it is a medical profession tool by our understandings. I am not sure why you are mad at Scientists again, unless you dislike their superior education. It is puzzling.

        • georgehants

          friendlyprogrammer thank you, Doctors are not usually put into the position of “scientists”, but I will take your point that you think that science and scientists embrace with enthusiasm the powerful effects of the Placebo, those known and to be discovered.
          I can now happily retire from this page and leave you to argue with those scientists who are denying the Placebo Effect.
          Perhaps you may like to answer Mr. telecommuter below who is a highly qualified scientist and others that rush off to get their information from Wiki-rubbish, that is like trying to get honest information about Cold Fusion from there.
          Best

        • AB

          You are describing the popular view of the placebo effect, where it is seen as some sort of healing (or harming) effect triggered by the mind.

          > You say “Psychological treatments did not affect the illness”, which is not true.

          Of course it is. Nowhere did the paper claim to have affected the illness. They are saying that patients felt “improvements in their sense of social support” and similar things. You’re making the exact mistake I’ve mentioned: conflating psychological improvements with improvement of the illness itself.

          > The Placebo Effect can affect a persons Heart Rate, Pain level,
          ,immunosupression, Parkinson disease and depression. Brain imaging
          techniques show that placebo can have real, measurable effect on
          physiological changes in the brain.

          A large review of placebo controlled studies failed to find evidence for powerful placebo effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15257721

          Perhaps you want to be more specific on which papers you think prove that the placebo effect can actually cure illness.

  • georgehants

    I am amazed at how many “scientists” are not reacting to my honest comments on the horrific state of science.
    Where they are so crazy that they seriously talk about lassoing of asteroids when we have ample supplies of all materials on the Earth.
    Where when I ask a scientist what is the maximum mass that can be captured or diverted with today’s technology he refuses to answer.
    Where they send toy trucks to Mars costing billions that keep sending back nothing but pretty pictures.
    When more danger comes from comets who’s insubstantial construction it is impossible to divert .
    Where when I ask how many lives could have been saved or improved with the NASA budget over the last 50 years, I get no reply.
    Cold Fusion is just the tip of the iceberg.

    • BroKeeper

      Yes, far too little revenue received from taxpayers is directed to the needs of the
      people it represents. Isn’t it always better to build a strong foundation before making a tall structure?

    • some scientist are moaning

      We need more scientific mavericks | @guardianletters | Science | The Guardian

      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/18/we-need-more-scientific-mavericks
      Research funding has become prone to bubble formation
      http://www.freeinews.com/science-and-beyond/research-funding-has-become-prone-to-bubble-formation

      How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation: A Conversation with Sydney Brenner | King’s Review – Magazine
      http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/

      How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science | Randy Schekman | Comment is free | The Guardian

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

      » Excessive regulations turning scientists into bureaucrats
      http://www.innovationtoronto.com/2014/05/excessive-regulations-turning-scientists-bureaucrats/
      Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals | Science | The Guardian
      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
      There is no such thing as consensus science
      http://worldtraining.net/ConsensusMeme.htm

      CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST: How Academics Learn to Write Badly
      http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.de/2014/03/how-academics-learn-to-write-badly.html

    • Hope4dbest

      “I am amazed at how many “scientists” are not reacting to my honest comments on the horrific state of science.”

      Scientists have been banned from this Forum, George. Too skeptic.

      • no I don’t think any scientist, real one , ever been ther, or ever looked at LENr paper, or he will be a “believer”.

        the fact as predicted by beanbou on Groupthink

        http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

        is that believers in the consensus avoid dissenting data…

        they use ridicule when in power, and carefully refuse to read dissenting data, or research the badly written coma in the text to find a reason not to read the rest.

        theory also repeat bad arguments, bad epistemology, which despite they violate basic knowledge taught in college (like logic, popper, physics, electricity, history) they believe only for the purpose toi attack LENR.

        they don’t even use their own arguments in normal science because it would be absurd.

        Jed describe the Nobel anti-lenr supporter that way :

        http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

        “Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it. When Robert Park attacked it with inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric, a room packed with hundreds of members of the American Physical Society (APS) applauded and cheered.”

        this describe well how the “consensus” is build by terror and laziness.

        1- community hate an idea (because it mean they have to work to explain it)
        2- some incompetent guys write uninformed book against that hatred idea, based on fraud, selected data, basic science errors, lack of citation
        3-Nobel who read nothing for and even against support the book because they love the conclusion
        4- science journalist, science comics lords, repeat the BS
        5- most scientist support the consensus by trust in collegues and by pleasure to see a hatred idea bashed
        6-dissenters are insulted then demoted, papers deleted, budget are cut, young researcher avoid the domain, even critics are not published.
        7- observers thinks there is a consensus

        • GreenWin

          All these actions along with Morrison, Ballinger, Park, Huizenga, MIT & CalTech and Taubes — have delivered E-Cat technology to China. Remarkable!!

    • winebuff

      Sorry george that science is corupted. Welcome to the real world lets get back on topic please.the technical side of this is far more interesting than you and the others crying foul.

    • Billy Jackson

      George i wouldn’t mind taking a stab at some of your questions to at last give you a different perspective hopefully. while at the same time admitting i am woefully ignorant about many things

      Resources we have on the planet are getting harder to get at. and not just for accessibility but from politics and ownership. we cant just go onto someone’s land because a mineral is there and take it..and most land in the world is either owned by someone or a government entity. so its not so easy to walk up and start drilling.

      there are A LOT of profits to be made from mining asteroids if they can keep the cost finding potential candidates for mining them down. The more stuff we can make in space the less we have to haul out of the atmosphere which requires materials..

      Here is something i wrote in April 27 2012.

      _________________________________
      say they get a small asteroid, one that weighs
      around 100,000 tons (this is very small probably the size of a
      apartment building or a 5 bedroom house a Nimitz class carrier weighs
      100,000 long tons)
      if they get even 1% rare metals out of this
      asteroid that’s 1000 tons of rare metals. ill use gold to calculate
      since its pretty much the rage now but remember you have other rare and
      just as valuable metals (the platinum groups)

      1000 tons x 2000 lbs = 2,000,000 pounds
      2,000,000 pounds x 16 oz’s = 32,000,000 ounces
      32,000,000 ounces x 1500.00 an once of gold = 48,000,000,000.00
      48 billion dollars for mining a 100,000 ton asteroid.
      now imagine if you would if that asteroid had 5-12% rare metals or higher.

      obviously prices would drop but not in the short term, in the short
      term who ever gets there first and is successful will be mega rich
      fairly fast. and dont kid yourself. while they say its for the
      advancement of humanity.. they also have no problem lining their own
      pockets as they go along (as they should since they are paying for it)
      _________________________________

      this is to give you an idea of what type of money we are talking about.. (and gold is a lot higher than 1500.00 an oz)

      as for sending toy trucks to mars. this is a requirement of any advance exploration if we don’t want to send people to die intentionally. sure some of it is pure research those so called pretty pictures. before we can send people we have to know more specifics about temperature, wind conditions, basic survivability. can we tele-operate a construction zone to make the base that people will live in for a few years..all these are very important if we wish to expand beyond our planet we must learn to survive the conditions we find.

      I have no answer to your comet question as that is pure guess work. but i can say that as for an asteroid. no one can give you the specific answers because the variables are to wide to give a standard. how fast is the asteroid moving? how long do we have to move it? how big is it? whats its density? Rotation?… all these have to be answered before “how long will it take” can be.

      as for the NASA budget this is the only question of yours that i find disingenuous. we have 100’s of social programs that take up 100’s of billions of dollars combined. it is not even a single percentage point of the federal budget. and yet as a nation and a people we have benefited from the technologies and discoveries that our space program enabled.

      I can agree with you that our science needs to be improved. but the bigger statement would be that the POLITICS of science has caused more damage than any of the items we discussed above.

  • georgehants

    I am amazed at how many “scientists” are not reacting to my honest comments on the horrific state of science.
    Where they are so crazy that they seriously talk about lassoing of asteroids when we have ample supplies of all materials on the Earth.
    Where when I ask a scientist what is the maximum mass that can be captured or diverted with today’s technology he refuses to answer.
    Where they send toy trucks to Mars costing billions that keep sending back nothing but pretty pictures.
    When more danger comes from comets who’s insubstantial construction it is impossible to divert
    Where when I ask how many lives could have been saved or improved with the NASA budget over the last 50 years, I get no reply.
    Cold Fusion is just the tip of the iceberg.

    • Brokeeper

      Yes, far too little revenue received from taxpayers is directed to the needs of the
      people it represents. It is always better to build a strong foundation before making a tall structure?

    • LilyLover

      Destroyed/fragmented? About 1/4th of the moon. (With approach speed similar to tangential speed of our moon.) Based on ISS being 10 times more capable than the published data. Diverted without significant damage? About millionth of the moon. I did these rough / fairly accurate a few years ago. To capture is a different skillset. Captured almost intact? 1. About a billionth of the moon (Being generous). 2. Based on weight of Hutchinson ball and energy he consumed and 10xISS: About the size of Empire state bldg. 3. Based on Phoenix light and standard eyewitness take-off of UFOs and assuming Roswell reverse engineering being successful – 3month detection time and moon wt & speed -captured like co-moving “tractor beam” bought to complete rest over 3 months – about 200 – 1500 miles diameter. All of my calculations are back of the env kind but no less accurate than the “Scientific Simulations of NASA”.
      Saving lives has never been the funcion of availability of money in the recent history, in any significant way. Many lives could have been improved without NASA’s waste; not NASA. NASA improved lives immensly. Additional saved lives? Almost zero.

      • georgehants

        🙂

    • some scientist are moaning

      We need more scientific mavericks | @guardianletters | Science | The Guardian

      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/18/we-need-more-scientific-mavericks
      Research funding has become prone to bubble formation
      http://www.freeinews.com/science-and-beyond/research-funding-has-become-prone-to-bubble-formation

      How Academia and Publishing are Destroying Scientific Innovation: A Conversation with Sydney Brenner | King’s Review – Magazine
      http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/

      How journals like Nature, Cell and Science are damaging science | Randy Schekman | Comment is free | The Guardian

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

      » Excessive regulations turning scientists into bureaucrats
      http://www.innovationtoronto.com/2014/05/excessive-regulations-turning-scientists-bureaucrats/
      Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals | Science | The Guardian
      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals
      There is no such thing as consensus science
      http://worldtraining.net/ConsensusMeme.htm

      CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST: How Academics Learn to Write Badly
      http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.de/2014/03/how-academics-learn-to-write-badly.html

    • Hope4Dbest

      “I am amazed at how many “scientists” are not reacting to my honest comments on the horrific state of science.”

      Scientists have been banned from this Forum, George. Too skeptic.

      • no I don’t think any scientist, real one , ever been ther, or ever looked at LENr paper, or he will be a “believer”.

        the fact as predicted by beanbou on Groupthink

        http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

        is that believers in the consensus avoid dissenting data…

        they use ridicule when in power, and carefully refuse to read dissenting data, or research the badly written coma in the text to find a reason not to read the rest.

        theory also repeat bad arguments, bad epistemology, which despite they violate basic knowledge taught in college (like logic, popper, physics, electricity, history) they believe only for the purpose toi attack LENR.

        they don’t even use their own arguments in normal science because it would be absurd.

        Jed describe the Nobel anti-lenr supporter that way :

        http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4

        “Taubes’ book was recommended in enthusiastic blurbs by four Nobel laureates and the chairman of the American Association of the Advancement of Science. These people could not have actually read the book, or if they did, their judgment was skewed by animosity. This shows how easy it is to spread false information, and how careless distinguished scientists can be. It takes only a small group of people to poison the well of public opinion. There may be a few other active critics in the mass media, but most attacks originate from these four: Morrison, Park, Huizenga, and Taubes. They are not famous or influential. They succeed because many scientists bear a grudge against cold fusion, and are willing to believe the worst about it. When Robert Park attacked it with inflammatory ad hominem rhetoric, a room packed with hundreds of members of the American Physical Society (APS) applauded and cheered.”

        this describe well how the “consensus” is build by terror and laziness.

        1- community hate an idea (because it mean they have to work to explain it)
        2- some incompetent guys write uninformed book against that hatred idea, based on fraud, selected data, basic science errors, lack of citation
        3-Nobel who read nothing for and even against support the book because they love the conclusion
        4- science journalist, science comics lords, repeat the BS
        5- most scientist support the consensus by trust in collegues and by pleasure to see a hatred idea bashed
        6-dissenters are insulted then demoted, papers deleted, budget are cut, young researcher avoid the domain, even critics are not published.
        7- observers thinks there is a consensus

        • GreenWin

          All these actions along with Morrison, Ballinger, Park, Huizenga, MIT & CalTech and Taubes — have delivered E-Cat technology to China. Remarkable!!

    • winebuff

      Sorry george that science is corupted. Welcome to the real world lets get back on topic please.the technical side of this is far more interesting than you and the others crying foul.

    • Billy Jackson

      George i wouldn’t mind taking a stab at some of your questions to at least give you a different perspective hopefully. while at the same time admitting i am woefully ignorant about many things

      Resources we have on the planet are getting harder to get at. and not just for accessibility but from politics and ownership. we cant just go onto someone’s land because a mineral is there and take it..and most land in the world is either owned by someone or a government entity. so its not so easy to walk up and start drilling.

      there are A LOT of profits to be made from mining asteroids if they can keep the cost finding potential candidates for mining them down. The more stuff we can make in space the less we have to haul out of the atmosphere which requires materials..

      Here is something i wrote in April 27 2012.

      _________________________________
      say they get a small asteroid, one that weighs
      around 100,000 tons (this is very small probably the size of a
      apartment building or a 5 bedroom house a Nimitz class carrier weighs
      100,000 long tons)
      if they get even 1% rare metals out of this
      asteroid that’s 1000 tons of rare metals. ill use gold to calculate
      since its pretty much the rage now but remember you have other rare and
      just as valuable metals (the platinum groups)

      1000 tons x 2000 lbs = 2,000,000 pounds
      2,000,000 pounds x 16 oz’s = 32,000,000 ounces
      32,000,000 ounces x 1500.00 an once of gold = 48,000,000,000.00
      48 billion dollars for mining a 100,000 ton asteroid.
      now imagine if you would if that asteroid had 5-12% rare metals or higher.

      obviously prices would drop but not in the short term, in the short
      term who ever gets there first and is successful will be mega rich
      fairly fast. and dont kid yourself. while they say its for the
      advancement of humanity.. they also have no problem lining their own
      pockets as they go along (as they should since they are paying for it)
      _________________________________

      this is to give you an idea of what type of money we are talking about.. (and gold is a lot higher than 1500.00 an oz)

      as for sending toy trucks to mars. this is a requirement of any advance exploration if we don’t want to send people to die intentionally. sure some of it is pure research those so called pretty pictures. before we can send people we have to know more specifics about temperature, wind conditions, basic survivability. can we tele-operate a construction zone to make the base that people will live in for a few years..all these are very important if we wish to expand beyond our planet we must learn to survive the conditions we find.

      I have no answer to your comet question as that is pure guess work. but i can say that as for an asteroid. no one can give you the specific answers because the variables are to wide to give a standard. how fast is the asteroid moving? how long do we have to move it? how big is it? whats its density? Rotation?… all these have to be answered before “how long will it take” can be.

      as for the NASA budget this is the only question of yours that i find disingenuous. we have 100’s of social programs that take up 100’s of billions of dollars combined. it is not even a single percentage point of the federal budget. and yet as a nation and a people we have benefited from the technologies and discoveries that our space program enabled.

      I can agree with you that our science needs to be improved. but the bigger statement would be that the POLITICS of science has caused more damage than any of the items we discussed above.

  • BroKeeper

    Fair points. Perhaps something in between. I feel something will evolve out of these discoveries that will give LENR a run for its money.

  • georgehants

    🙂

    • US_Citizen71

      Like I said above educated guesses, but no direct measurements. Tree ring data can be influenced by drought and disease both of which are local phenomenon. Ice cores can be influenced by strength and number of storms at the poles as well as by solar output. All of which adds up to the educated guesses not likely being 100% accurate.

      • stefan

        Actually what you suggest would increase the variability of the device and it is the lack of variability that scares me and emphasize the sharp rice of the calculated temperature. I think that if you read the wikipedia article about this curve, you will get the main critique against the curve. They are using a black box technique, I think they need to put some effort to actually produce a good grey box model, there is simple too many way’s you can fool yourself with a black box model. Then the wikipedia articles states that they produce, from what I understand 10 different black box models and get the same hookey curve, hillarious. The thing is that if you do data-mining and find bogus correlation, then you will find it in 10 other data mining techniques as well. One should do a proper grey box, there is no other way to produce this curve in a scientific way. On the other hand the null hypothesis should be that we by our modern living is affecting nature, the onus is on the skeptics to prove that we are not, but then we should support their work, else we don’t do science.

        • US_Citizen71

          There are other theories being suggested for the cause. Milankovitch’s cycles appear to match up with the ice cores as well. They suggest that we will heat at an increasing rate right up to the point that the next ice age begins. Alternative theories appear to be being suppressed by simple refusal of publication, this is not science but politics.

          • currently some interesting things happen, as many claims of the (not so numerous) serious skeptics are getting accepted by the less outspoken warmist…
            It seems the consensus of non outspoken activists is “lukewarmer”.

            I’ve seen an article on “CLOUD” CERN experiment, that long time after it was presented as a skeptic heresy, it is now proposed as the basic of something serious, to complete with new data on seed particles emitted by vegetals…

            Many non outspoken climatologist start to support a modetrate climate sensitivity about 1.3-1.7, like do the moderate skeptics.

            Importance of land usage on local teperature is also more and more supported.

            to answer to the recent fear on west antartica; some have found an underground volcanic activity growing.

            the IPCC 5th report is in fact admitting many lack of data, that models don’t work, that heat is lost without convincing arguments…

            the only alarmist content is the summary which despite the report, increse confidence and alarm.

            in fact the science of climatology is more and more lukewarm.
            but like you wee when a religion is losing believers, the remaining supporters are more and more vocal and extremists.

            note that for those who say that even if we are not sure we have to avoid the risk, I woudl answer that we can be victim of thousands of dangers, frrom ice-age, natural global warming, climate disruption of any sources, asteroid fall, vegetal disease, global war…

            as Taleb propose we shoul admit, that beside few things we can predict at short term, we have no idea of what extreme will happen, except that it will be bigger than any model we have today, and will concern something we did not anticipate at all…

            best solution is to improve the science , the technology, try many crazy and useless ideas like teraforming Venus, creating sea base, or learning penguin lifestyle, so that when the unthinkable happen, we have the technology to manage it, eventually losing 99% of the population, but not the species.

            LENR is among those technologies that finally will be more productive than starving the third world because of Malthusian vision.

      • Obvious

        I sometimes work in the arctic. One area I spent several summers in has a stranded piece of the boreal forest. Spruce, tamarack, and rare pine trees are found there. It is isolated from the present northern edge of the boreal forest by at least a couple hundred kilometres. (Which is to the south). In the intervening areas are remnants of the once continuous forest preserved in permafrost. Clearly the area was once significantly warmer than now, in the not so distant past. In addition, camel remains have been found much further north.

      • winebuff

        Alot better than anything youve come up with.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Is a bulletproof hot fusion report possible?

    • GreenWin

      “60+ years, $250B global tax dollars, and not ONE watt of useful energy. The end. “

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, it wouldn’t hold up to a pea shooter.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Is a bulletproof hot fusion report possible?

    • GreenWin

      “60+ years, $250B global tax dollars, and not ONE watt of useful energy. The end. “

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, it wouldn’t hold up to a pea shooter.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    Einstein could not validate the ecat with success.

    First there are those opposed to Cold Fusion…
    Solar workers, Wind Power workers, Fission Scientists, Oil Companies/workers, Steven Krivit of New Energy Times, and anybody who stands to lose a job over LENR.

    Secondly there are Pathoskeptics. This second group is powered by beliefs attained while ignoring or refusing to be bothered with new evidence.

    Nobody has enough “believability” to announce Cold Fusion as a reality except perhaps Kim Kardashian. At least people would listen to her speak of it as opposed to having it backsplash onto unread patents and science forums.

    • MorganMck

      Check your facts FP, Steven Krivit is not opposed to CF only to Rossi. Krivit is an advocate for CF.

      • Gerard McEk

        I am not so sure. I would not be surprised if Krivit is being paid by the ‘not-believers’ whoever they may be. If Krivit were trustworthy, then he should have tempered his criticism after the first test, but he continued attacking Rossi even more fiercely. To me he lost all credit.

        • I rather suspect he is sincere, and defending his beliefs.
          he is massively biased, defending Widom-Larsen theory, hating Rossi (who behaved badly in from of him , as Mats explain)…
          i suspect that like many deniers and scientists, he fall in love with his opinion.

          If paid, I would say by Larsen… But I think that sincerity better explain all, as usual, like for Parks,taubes,Huizenga,Morrison, Lewis, Hansen, Shanahan, and most scientific community.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            He has many books for sale. These are perhaps why he defends the WLT so much.

            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/books/2011Wiley/2011Wiley.shtml

            His Edited books are numerous, but he mainly slaps together a dozen research papers and comments slightly.

            Since he sells books promoting the WL Theory, then perhaps that is part of his motivation

      • friendlyprogrammer

        I am well aware Steven Krivit was selling a dozen (now out of date) LENR books on his website for $150+ each of which he “co-authored”.

        So not only is his website threatened, but also his income as an “author”.

        Krivit has gone out of his way to dismiss Rossi in some pretty fierce-some attacks. He tells stories about Petroldragon, but never mentions Italy has a mafia that likes to control waste management.

        It also was not mentioned in his attacks that Rossi’s competitors testified on his behalf, and he was acquitted of any wrongdoing in regards to waste storage.

        Krivit is the one Rossi speaks of when he calls people “snake”.

        Krivit and I have exchanged emails in the past, but that does not mean he is a friend to me.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHFHyVkj6nA

        Krivit interviewed Focardi and others when Focardi was alive. There are longer videos than that. I find it hard to believe any sane, rational person could watch the Focardi Videos without believing him. He is not Joe Schmoe. Yet Krivit Interviewed Focardi, Rossi, and more.

        Krivit is the main anti-Rossi cvoice in the crowd. You cannot find an argument against Rossi where the “evidence” does not come from NewEnergyTimesdotcom.

        Krivit has fueled much of the doubt from anyone curious enough to look at the Rossi ecat. A few key search words will find all kinds of quotes negating the ecat from Steven Krivit’s website.

        I personally feel his Vendetta is evil in the sense that he has slowed down progress and interest in this technology.

        But if you want an out of date LENR book look here
        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/about/presentations-publications.shtml
        and you will find many books that are out of date such as…
        http://newenergytimes.com/v2/books/2008-LENR-Sourcebook/LENR-Sourcebook.shtml

        Krivit (Aka “The Snake”) is listed as Co-author on many of these books.

        His livelihood depends on the failure of LENR, but also capitalizes on the popularity of LENR.

        Once LENR arrives his books and Website will be junked as there will be no need for New Energy.

        You should Check your Facts MorganMck, mine are bang on target.

        • Anon2012_2014

          IMHO Krivit has some kind of a weird axe to grind. I suspect he is paranoid, perhaps rightly so after someone murdered his mentor. He might be right to be skeptical of Rossi, but the way he does “journalism” makes him not someone that I would trust. Same reason I wouldn’t trust Gary Wright — he’s weird. Why does he hate Rossi so much?

  • georgehants

    telecommuter, I think you would do better on a science website where comments of your quality are the norm.

    • winebuff

      George, put your head back in the sand.

  • georgehants

    friendlyprogrammer thank you, Doctors are not usually put into the position of “scientists”, but I will take your point that you think that science and scientists embrace with enthusiasm the powerful effects of the Placebo, known and to be discovered.
    I can now happily retire from this page and leave you to argue with those scientists who are denying the Placebo Effect.
    Perhaps you may like to answer Mr. telecommuter below who is a highly qualified scientist.
    Best

  • stefan

    I think that the report will be pretty bulletproof. What might happen is that if Levi is among the testers, the skeptics will focus on him being untrustworthy and somehow control the experiment to show false measurements. I think that the debate will go on for some time, but the consensus among people that matters will be that he could not have influenced the results to show a COP of 5 or whatever.

    • AB

      Even if the report is bullet proof, a single bullet proof report won’t be enough to convince a world that views LENR with considerable skepticism. More tests in other locations by other people would be needed. I hope it will change the discourse on LENR though

      I wonder what happened with the Hydrofusion pilot plant. Now that could be the ice breaker.

      • ecatworld

        Despite all the other information on this page, there is what appears to me to be an authentic fundraising document from Hydrofusion here: http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-hydro-fusion-cashing-in-before-the-collapse/

        • Andrew

          I find it somewhat strange that you’d even link a page from Gary Wright …

        • Ivan

          That is nice one)

      • stefan

        This is an interesting question, maybe there is a blue container out there somewhere in Sweden, that outputs steam and heat up some building. Maybe not. I would bet there is, it can’t be that hard to get some interested party that would bet a head start in the global race that would result if cold fusion get’s out of the box. If you think about it all parties seams to wait for the report to come out, I expect the information dam will brake once the report is out.

      • Daniel Maris

        I think a publicised pilot installation is the only thing that’s going to work – and an installation somewhere that is independent of IH or Rossi e.g. a major electrical company.

        • winebuff

          Nothing will work until you and I can buy one over the counter from a box store.
          that will be the only way. bank on that.

      • Anon2012_2014

        If a patent were to be published that has sufficient detailed instructions to replicate the test in other labs, that would do the trick. Patents are suppose to have sufficient detail so that anyone skilled in the art can built one.

        If it is a magic test on the far side of velvet ropes or a paywall, without letting any and all legitimate scientists into the lab to do a thorough review, it is questionable.

    • ecatworld

      I may be wrong, but I’ve heard from a couple of different sources that Levi is not involved in this round of testing.

      • This is a VERY GOOD possibility, that will annoy the skeptics, especially ascoli65 for whom Levi is a Defkalion clone.

        I’m curious to find what they will invent to manipulate the masses of no-brained believers in Wikipravda Truth. No DC, no Levi, no HF, no IRCam but flow…
        thirsd-party socket and instruments…

        maybe they will moan on the flowmeter…

        • Daniel Maris

          I think IR cams are a good supplementary form of evidence, and in particular are good for detecting fraud.

          • Gerard McEk

            I would not use IR, but instead use some thermocouples of a different make and different instruments to read them. If the temperature is low enough then I would use PT100/1000, clearly all calibrated. I hope they use calometry.

          • Daniel Maris

            Wasn’t there loads of criticism directed at Rossi on his use of caliometry?

            It seems to me it’s one of those things you always criticise and query and is itself open to abuse. I’m not saying don’t use it, just that it also is subject to doubts.

            All you can do is rule out as many objections as possible and IR technology helps you do that in my view by showing which bits are hot and which are not, and by how much.

            Ultimately generating electrical power is a much better method of checking but as far as I know, that hasn’t been done yet.

          • Gerard McEk

            What Rossi was quite a primitive way of calorimetry. If you accurately want to measure heat energy than calorimetry is the way to do it. The best way to prove over-unity is a stand alone device producing heat, electricity or any other form of energy.
            IR measurement depends on emission and absorption factors of surfaces you measure and these factors are not easily to determine. Direct measurement is better. Energy calc’s based on temperatures alone like they did in the first test, is also difficult because it depends on surrounding air temperature and moisture, reflecting surfaces around etc. To account for that you need to include large inaccuracy margins.

          • bachcole

            I want them to use every heat measurement method known to the mind of man.

        • Andrew

          If they are doing flow calorimetry the only thing I could see being a problem is altitude. If when the math is done and it’s not normalized to sea level or no adjustments were made for altitude then people could call it sloppy and throw doubt on the report like “what other sloppy errors were made?”, maybe even the purity of the water might come into question? I have confidence in the team to make sure they have crossed all their Ts and dotted their lower case j’s.

    • Anon2012_2014

      I don’t think Levi is particularly untrustworthy. He is more like sloppy — he does not close the loop on his test protocol design so that his results are without question. I’d rather see newer blood running the test, and without any conflict of interest on the result.

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    I think that the report will be pretty bulletproof. What might happen is that if Levi is among the testers, the skeptics will focus on him being untrustworthy and somehow control the experiment to show false measurements. I think that the debate will go on for some time, but the consensus among people that matters will be that he could not have influenced the results to show a COP of 5 or whatever.

    • AB

      Even if the report is bullet proof, a single bullet proof report won’t be enough to convince a world that views LENR with considerable skepticism. More tests in other locations by other people would be needed. I hope it will change the discourse on LENR though

      I wonder what happened with the Hydrofusion pilot plant. Now that could be the ice breaker.

      • Frank Acland

        Despite all the other information on this page, there is what appears to me to be an authentic fundraising document from Hydrofusion here: http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-hydro-fusion-cashing-in-before-the-collapse/

        • Andrew

          I find it somewhat strange that you’d even link a page from Gary Wright …

        • Ivan

          That is nice one)

      • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

        This is an interesting question, maybe there is a blue container out there somewhere in Sweden, that outputs steam and heat up some building. Maybe not. I would bet there is, it can’t be that hard to get some interested party that would bet a head start in the global race that would result if cold fusion get’s out of the box. If you think about it all parties seams to wait for the report to come out, I expect the information dam will brake once the report is out.

      • Anon2012_2014

        If a patent were to be published that has sufficient detailed instructions to replicate the test in other labs, that would do the trick. Patents are suppose to have sufficient detail so that anyone skilled in the art can built one.

        If it is a magic test on the far side of velvet ropes or a paywall, without letting any and all legitimate scientists into the lab to do a thorough review, it is questionable.

    • Frank Acland

      I may be wrong, but I’ve heard from a couple of different sources that Levi is not involved in this round of testing.

      • This is a VERY GOOD possibility, that will annoy the skeptics, especially ascoli65 for whom Levi is a Defkalion clone.

        I’m curious to find what they will invent to manipulate the masses of no-brained believers in Wikipravda Truth. No DC, no Levi, no HF, no IRCam but flow…
        thirsd-party socket and instruments…

        maybe they will moan on the flowmeter…

        • Andrew

          If they are doing flow calorimetry the only thing I could see being a problem is altitude. If when the math is done and it’s not normalized to sea level or no adjustments were made for altitude then people could call it sloppy and throw doubt on the report like “what other sloppy errors were made?”, maybe even the purity of the water might come into question? I have confidence in the team to make sure they have crossed all their Ts and dotted their lower case j’s.

    • Anon2012_2014

      I don’t think Levi is particularly untrustworthy. He is more like sloppy — he does not close the loop on his test protocol design so that his results are without question. I’d rather see newer blood running the test, and without any conflict of interest on the result.

  • Omega Z

    I don’t think it matters if it’s bullet proof from Our Perspective.
    What Matters is what the potential Investors Think.
    They will “NOT” take Advice or Opinions from the mary yogo’s of the world. Those people are of little consequence.

    They will look at who sponsored this Test. They will look at the Credentials of those who were selected to do the test.
    They will look at the Credibility of how the test was done.
    And then judge the Test Data Accordingly.

    • bachcole

      I can’t help but think that investor types will also be looking at what we say here. We are all over the E-Cat and LENR+ 24/7, 365 days a year, looking at it every which way. There are a lot of smart people here, and we have demonstrated repeatedly that we are not true believers. I also see a lot of “Guess” up-clicks.

      If I were an investor, I would be very interested in what is said here. Of course, burning one’s finger and looking at the credibility of those who did the testing would probably be foremost in my mind.

      Perhaps this is merely a conceit on my part.

      • atanguy

        Hey bachcole! How much you charge per hour?
        😉

        • bachcole

          It is all free. (:->)

    • Anon2012_2014

      If potential investors cannot send their own people instead of having people like Levi et al do the test under conditions that are insufficient for confirmation, the investment will be limited. I believe that Industrial Heat sent their own people.

      Potential investors read Mary Yugo/Al Potenza and everything else here and on other blogs and need their own confirmation.

      A good test by the Industrial Heat team with good results will drive investors to confirm and invest what ever is needed to bring Rossi’s device to commercial success. I wish Rossi and Industrial Heat luck, but I remain skeptical without proof. I am waiting like everyone else for the June time frame report.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am not so sure. I would not be surprised if Krivit is being paid by the ‘not-believers’ whoever they may be. If Krivit were trustworthy, then he should have tempered his criticism after the first test, but he continued attacking Rossi even more fiercely. To me he lost all credit.

    • I rather suspect he is sincere, and defending his beliefs.
      he is massively biased, defending Widom-Larsen theory, hating Rossi (who behaved badly in from of him , as Mats explain)…
      i suspect that like many deniers and scientists, he fall in love with his opinion.

      If paid, I would say by Larsen… But I think that sincerity better explain all, as usual, like for Parks,taubes,Huizenga,Morrison, Lewis, Hansen, Shanahan, and most scientific community.

  • Chris Marshalk

    Crowd funding give us Safe Fusion power by 2020?
    http://www.gizmag.com/nuclear-fusion-power-2020-crowdfunding/32058/

    • GreenWin

      Ideas like this should be funded, at least to a feasibility stage. Another reason why Senator Feinstein should halt the escalating (now $3.5B) cost of ITER (3-5 years behind schedule, 300% over budget.) Question, what materials tolerate 1.6B degree temps??

      • bachcole

        “Question, what materials tolerate 1.6B degree temps??” This is why I declare “Lie!!!” whenever hot-fusion proponents say that hot-fusion is clean. The walls of containment vessel will very quickly become massively radioactive.

        • Ivy Matt

          There are many different nuclear fusion reactions. The one that is the most easily achievable is the deuterium+tritium (D-T) reaction, which produces 14.1 MeV neutrons. The particular reaction this group is aiming for is the proton+boron-11 (p-B11) reaction, which produces no neutrons in the main reaction, and only a small amount (>0.2% of total energy) of low-energy neutrons in side reactions. Assuming the experiment and the subsequent engineering work out all right, neutron activation of the vacuum chamber will not be an issue.

      • atanguy

        “now $3.5B,300% over budget”
        It’s not a lost for everyone,do not worry…

      • Ivy Matt

        No materials tolerate 1.6 billion, or even 1.8 billion degree temperatures. Fortunately that’s just the temperature within a few cubic microns of volume within the vacuum chamber, rather than the average temperature within the chamber as a whole. Of course, heat is still an issue. The electrodes will be subject to temperatures in the thousands of degrees, and would need to be cooled in a continuously operating device.

        • Boerre

          This process is using deuterium boron which is an aneutronic process without the high energy neutrons that makes materials in the reaction chamber radio active. The temperature is confined within the plasma pinch region and only lasts a few nano seconds. In terms of macroscopical heat energy the effect is in fact not that large.

  • Freethinker

    Nothing is wrong with that.

    To the contrary, it would be wise of the testers to employ flow calorimetry, thermocouplers AND IR cam at the same time.

    With that said, if they can generate hot steam and push that through a turbine that generates substantially more electrical power than is going in, then the calorimetry discussion will be a secondary one.

    Naturally they (pathoskeps) will bend over backwards to find any fault in the heat and power measurements, I’m sure. Maybe the testers have a microwave emitter in the ceiling heating water in some section with a plastic pipe? Maybe they have obfuscated the ground wire in the mains connector somehow, pumping some kW of energy in some sly manner 😉 In this respect, there is nothing new under the Sun.

    Not to say, that we should not remain critical, as well…

    At any rate, we will soon know… The report cannot be far now …

    • good point.
      the previous report for Elforsk already used such a double test with a calibration by thermocouple and IRcam.

      as far as I know it was done on a blank, as calibration.
      Using TC to control IR cam on active reactor would be nice, but I’m afraid skeptics will say it is sending energy…

      this is why I propose since long an open experiment where skeptics moan and ask for cross checking, and the testers make yet another cross check for their hypothesis.

      the problem is that it is demanding much time, and give the risk of some IP leaks…
      Note that latest E-cat test if confirmed , during 6 month, show a good trust on the testers, and about e-cat.

  • GreenWin

    Ideas like this should be funded, at least to a feasibility stage. Another reason why Senator Feinstein should halt the escalating (now $3.5B) cost of ITER (3-5 years behind schedule, 300% over budget.) Question, what materials tolerate 1.6B degree temps??

    • atanguy

      “now $3.5B,300% over budget”
      It’s not a lost for everyone,do not worry…

    • Ivy Matt

      No materials tolerate 1.6 billion, or even 1.8 billion degree temperatures. Fortunately that’s just the temperature within a few cubic microns of volume within the vacuum chamber, rather than the average temperature within the chamber as a whole. Of course, heat is still an issue. The electrodes will be subject to temperatures in the thousands of degrees, and would need to be cooled in a continuously operating device.

      • Boerre

        This process is using deuterium boron which is an aneutronic process without the high energy neutrons that makes materials in the reaction chamber radio active. The temperature is confined within the plasma pinch region and only lasts a few nano seconds. In terms of macroscopical heat energy the effect is in fact not that large.

  • Allan Shura

    Rossi ran an e-cat over a year to heat his shop. The claim would be irrefutable in a similar setting for public display. It would likely have resulted in a cavalcade of orders for the 1 MW had this been done.

    • bachcole

      There are many reasons why it might make perfect sense that Rossi did not do this. Do I have to list them all?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I see no reason to question this story, but nobody knows how the COP of this early E-Cat has been determined. A device with a connection to the mains that heats a room is no surprise, so far. See p. 238-39 of Lewan’s book.

  • Allan Shura

    Rossi ran an e-cat over a year to heat his shop. The claim would be irrefutable in a similar setting for public display. It would likely have resulted in a cavalcade of orders for the 1 MW had this been done.

    • bachcole

      There are many reasons why it might make perfect sense that Rossi did not do this. Do I have to list them all?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I see no reason to question this story, but nobody knows how the COP of this early E-Cat has been determined. A device with a connection to the mains that heats a room is no surprise, so far. See p. 238-39 of Lewan’s book.

  • geewhiz

    no. the report will simply set the stage for yet another report in yet another year.

  • Obvious

    We sort of discussed this way back. I posit that it doesn’t matter if a substance is “natural” or not. The body either deals with it or has a problem with it. There are millions of natural compounds that are bad for the human body. The artificial ones are a rather small in number in comparison to natural chemical diversity. How much we know about natural and artificial chemicals, “good” or “bad” is quite limited. In many cases the artificial substances are somewhat better understood, since there is at least some level of inquiry into the possible negative effects of novel chemical compounds before they are fed to people.
    As for medicine (above), I did mean both man-made and natural substances intended for healing.

  • Obvious

    By my first sentence, I meant I wasn’t trying to intentionally short-circuit someone’s effective placebo treatment. If the medicine, from wherever it comes from, works, I have no right or privilege to upset that.

  • Obvious

    I do agree that eating natural things is a better idea. For the most part, there is no real benefit to eating artificial things. Plants are usually much more efficient at making things to eat, for one thing. In general, we know what plants and animals are OK to eat, from a long history of at least some peoples and/or animals eating them, for a second point. The flavors of natural things are usually better, but they can be made tastier now that flavor technology is advancing. But flavor is subjective, and doesn’t confer goodness for the body based on that criteria alone. Adding fat to improve flavor the connection to receptors on the tongue makes things tastier, for example, but usually just means extra calories that aren’t needed are ingested.
    I don’t see how the energy of killing and eating a living thing would transfer better energy to me. It might be unhappy energy. Unhappy at being killed and eaten. That is more of a philosophical idea. I suppose one could suggest as long as the alive food item was apologized to, and explained why it was needed, then the negative energy might go away, if you think along those lines. I know some cultures do. I think most people eat first, and ponder these philosophical questions later, if ever, though.

    • bachcole

      It is part of the Weston A. Price movement (and I don’t limit myself to any one “movement”) that food source animals should be treated with the utmost kindness, not just for their sake but also for our sake, for the very reasons that you describe. That “energy” that you discount does transfer to us to some limited extent. Plus the whole issue of kindness towards all beings.

      Most of my animal sourced food is raw milk and eggs, so the killing of animals usually does not enter into my food much, although I won’t turn my nose up at it.

      • Obvious

        FWIW, I have an enormous vegetable garden (seems too big some days), use no pesticides other than BT (a bacteria for killing caterpillars that love my brassicas) and a sulphur-vegetable oil mix on the fruit trees in fall and spring (when dormant), and compost almost everything except meat scraps (due to bears in the area). I plant lots of marigolds to control some insects also.

        • bachcole

          Excellent, but you are still a grinch. (:->)

          Have you thought about getting some chickens.

          Roughly where do you live?

          You are a lucky guy to be able to do that.

  • Dave

    All Rossi has to do is let two or more reputable universities test an E-Cat using their own mains power and instruments with proper calorimetry and then publish the reports. If both reports have a positive result and pass peer review then the E-Cat works. It’s that simple.

    • Ivan

      People here will not understand this, unfortunately. I’m checking this website once in 2 months to see if “the report” is out but it is still being “prepared”. I, honestly, can’t find any reason why this information is closed if the device is working.