How To Prove LENR?

There has been quite a lot of interesting news coming out recently regarding what seem to be success in efforts to demonstrate LENR effects from various parties who are sharing results more or less openly. I am hearing about other efforts to demonstrate other systems and replications, and all this has led me to feel quite optimistic about the prospects for LENR.

However, I feel that the bar is still set quite high when it comes to making a case to the wider public that a new and superior energy source is available to mankind. It’s one thing to convince someone who has been paying close attention to the topic in specialized forums and websites that people in the small LENR community frequent — but quite another when it comes to convincing the general public and those who shape the opinions of the public (leaders in media, scientific community, business, politics, education, etc.)

For the purpose of this post, let’s assume that someone has developed a LENR device that is measured to be putting out excess heat at a COP of 2 or higher reliably. And let’s say that ten other people, competent in putting together a such device, following the design of the first were able to get similar results.

Would we now have proof of LENR? I would say yes, but my guess would be in this case, even if a wide percentage of people following the topic were thoroughly convinced that LENR had been demonstrated, there would still be obstacles in getting those considered ‘authorities’ on things like this, to accept that as proof.

There would probably be the demand by the ‘authorities’ that a peer-reviewed journal with a sufficiently high impact factor publish an article validating the LENR effect, before it could be taken seriously.

But how do you get an academic team to take on the task of testing and publication in this top-flight journal when the ‘authorities’ they listen to say that LENR is a waste of time? Would ten apparently successful replication be enough to get academics to take the topic seriously?

If not, is there a way to do an end-run around the ‘authorities’ and take the case directly to the public, or media, via the many channels that are now available?

Or is it a losing battle at this point — and we need to wait for a commercial product to hit the market?

So I’d like to throw the question out to readers here. Assuming we have a working LENR device demonstrated, and ten replications of it — how would you go about the task of trying to demonstrate to the world that this phenomenon is real, and should be taken seriously?

  • peter gluck

    Good question, but I think it is the second or third in order to ask>
    First: What LENR to prove?
    Second: to whom to prove?

    I think that just now we have to focus on the systems with the highest powewr and energy density.
    For PdD the reproducibility problem can annihilate our best and smartest intentions and plans.
    Peter

    • Mats002

      1. High yield systems, low yield systems only lend itself to debates on measure methods and error sources.
      2. Decisionmakers, so money can be put to work asap.

  • peter gluck

    Good question, but I think it is the second or third in order to ask>
    First: What LENR to prove?
    Second: to whom to prove?

    I think that just now we have to focus on the systems with the highest powewr and energy density.
    For PdD the reproducibility problem can annihilate our best and smartest intentions and plans.
    Peter

    • Mats002

      1. High yield systems, low yield systems only lend itself to debates on measure methods and error sources.
      2. Decisionmakers, so money can be put to work asap.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    Positive commercial results (from economic side) and the fast growing number of positive experiments (experimental science from commercial and private labs) will have forcing effects on the LENR recognition by public in media. Nevertheless, the main problem with LENR recognition is still here, and it is a dogma status of modern physics. LENR is not real because LENR cannot be explained by current physics. Mainstream physicists know that they should revise current theories (i.e. rewrite the textbooks) if they would like to accept LENR. But, they don’t know how to do this revision. Current paradigm is complete and there is no space for cosmetic revision. LENR is black swan for current physics.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    Positive commercial results (from economic side) and the fast growing number of positive experiments (experimental science from commercial and private labs) will have forcing effects on the LENR recognition by public in media. Nevertheless, the main problem with LENR recognition is still here, and it is a dogma status of modern physics. LENR is not real because LENR cannot be explained by current physics. Mainstream physicists know that they should revise current theories (i.e. rewrite the textbooks) if they would like to accept LENR. But, they don’t know how to do this revision. Current paradigm is complete and there is no space for cosmetic revision. LENR is black swan for current physics.

  • mwr1176

    People want to see a lenr device doing exactly what they would be using it for. They don’t care about theoretical test results. Show a ecat providing heat for a home for an extended period of time for example. Invite a news team to see this “phenomenon”. I believe the ecat will go viral if people see it working.

    • The problem is: The “news team” consist often not of physicists. So before they release their news they will request advice from know physicists. And then the thing is dead…

      In my oppinion we have to get down to the root of the trouble. To force the science establishment to accept it with the proper scientific method.

      • mwr1176

        That’s true that news organizations don’t want to get egg on their face so they espouse with the prevailing scientific view. However they cannot resist a juicy story like “Italian man heats laboratory for one year using tabletop fusion machine.” The proof is right there for people to see. If we rely on scientists to venerate lenr we won’t have a patent for 20 years.

        • But such stories are placed in the “gossip and tittle-tattle” section.

          We need scientific proof. I’m sure this is the only way.

          • mwr1176

            If it goes viral poiticians will be convinced by public opinion. The people hold the most power. Science is smelling itself at the moment.

    • clovis ray

      hi, matt.
      Dr. rossi has said he would build the home unit, it’s coming next, and A.R is the best bet for it’s fastest way to get to market, that’s the one i’m looking for , at one time he said he would build them for $800.00 with 60.00 bucks to reload,the reactor after a set time, this could be huge, and you would get a reactor that would be dependable, compact, and easy to refuel maybe once a year. then once we get the grid, personalized our national production of energy, it would be safe from attack, then we first need to help the folks that need it the most . and work forward, my god almighty at the many things that can be done, it is almost unlimited, new world coming guys, come on Dr. Rossi, our team is laping the field,i will put my self at your disposal, to help in any i can, and would be so excited if i could precipitate in some way.

  • Gerrit

    build a 1MW plant and run it for a year.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes

  • Gerrit

    build a 1MW plant and run it for a year.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes

    • suhas R

      Build multiple (may be 1000 nos)10kwh working plants and send to Indian/African villages in different states.

      That will creat the History in and at least save billions of dollars that will be buying Chinese junk solar eqpt that stops working in few days to a year or two.

      No body needs to fight the pseudoskeptics then.

      The proof is in eating the pudding and not ……….
      Let us all work for the goal and succeed

      • clovis ray

        Hey, Gerrit, hi.
        i say we let, everybody have a pass, even Mary ugo , accent the positive, there is so, so, many good thing we could be thinking about, besides punishing some idiot, know it all.

  • Gerrit

    Shoot all the pseudoskeptics, maybe ?

  • Gerrit

    Shoot all the pseudoskeptics, maybe ?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Well Gerrit, it looks like they’re doing a good job of shooting themselves. The end run-around the ‘authorities’ seems to be working. Yesterday’s authorities are becoming today’s fools (and vice versa). The meme is slowly spreading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

      I’ve posted this hippie crap before but there is some truth to what he says. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB_lO72qiVQ

      Happy Spring

      • Alan DeAngelis

        The politicians must have seen this Timothy Leary video.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu3AZ1Hjw0c

        • bachcole

          Only people who can solve a quadratic equation should be able to vote.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Will it be Coke or Pepsi?

          • bachcole

            I am obviously one of those people who can’t solve a quadratic equation because I don’t understand the meaning of what you said.

          • Alan DeAngelis
  • I guess when a few smaller journals like current science, let’s say 5 – 10 of these, start to publish peer reviewed replication attempts from different teams replicating each other.
    Then the big journals are put on the spot and have to react.

  • I guess when a few smaller journals like current science, let’s say 5 – 10 of these, start to publish peer reviewed replication attempts from different teams replicating each other.
    Then the big journals are put on the spot and have to react.

    Unfortunately Parkhomov was a few weeks to late. Otherwise he could have issue his report to current science.

  • private1

    Let’s India, China, Russia and other third world countries use LENR on a large scale.
    They don’t have “main stream science knows all” to blah blah about.

    • Steven Irizarry

      you need a cookie

  • Ivan Idso

    It may be pathetic, but if you get a hollywood star to endorse it then a majority of americans would believe it. I am thinking Ellen Degeneres!

    The second thing is that you don’t need to convince the skeptics because they have alterior motives in many cases. You need to educate the people who are unaware that there is no other options but carbon based energy. If you can pry them away from more important things like soccer games and March Madness (basketball), and can show them this is worth getting excited about and forcing change.

    You may detect some frustration on my part with our society!

    • Steven Irizarry

      have a working generator and have a president or famous person(bill gates, elon musk) endorse it. or build the rossi plant(the one that builds devices) and sell the device to individual people in the united states and have it published and endorsed by clients and entrepreneurs

      • LuFong

        There is too much of a tendency for people to view the world as black and white, true or false, good and bad. “Proof of LENR” is a matter of degree and what makes you think that it’s LENR whatever that is?

        There will always be people who won’t accept LENR (aka “Cold Fusion”) and there will always be people who believe in it regardless of the facts. There will be dozens of theories until they are tested and that will take a while. Science has very high standards when it comes to the discovery of a new mechanism, even if it might be as Rossi says explanable with current standard theories.

        That said I think there is a tipping point after which most discussions change from is there LENR, to what is LENR, to how can we use this. Certainly a demonstrable commercial product will go a long way toward this but it won’t be enough. Having a simple device such as what MFMP is trying to produce that any competent scientist/engineer/experimenter can take and experiment with will also go a long way. I think we are only a year or two away from this at most. But then again, maybe not.

        • Zack Iszard

          TL,DR: The Coulomb Barrier and the circular reasoning behind it’s acceptance by mainstream science as unshakable truth is the root of the disconnect between the LENR community and everyone else.

          I’ve been on this board a while. I’ve made the case before that the principle difficulty that mainstream science has with LENR is the perceived incompatibility with the Standard Model. These specific qualms are illustrated succinctly in the most recent patent rejection of Rossi’s IP, an d when read directly the frequent readers here quickly see the circular dogma:

          1. Nuclei cannot fuse at temperatures and pressures much less than that of the sun.
          2. If nuclei could fuse at temperatures and pressures much less than inside a star, then we would have noticed it everywhere in nature by now.
          3. Since we haven’t noticed low energy nuclear reactions in nature besides the fission of unstable heavy isotopes, it must not be possible.

          From a logical standpoint, the dividing line between the believers and the skeptopaths is the truth value of the above logical argument. Reading the above argument with no knowledge of nuclear chemistry but a complete understanding of the rules of logic, it is easy to see that this is a belief, as it is circular and interprets the absence of a positive as the presence of a negative. Logically, this is untenable.

          However, since the physicists and chemists that authored the Standard Model used nuclear weapon design and function as their principle source of evidence, their hubris is easy to understand. Nukes work, very obviously. The hubris is the extension of these high-energy rules to low energy conditions. Dr. McKubre eloquently described this overreach of theory in the overview paper he authored for Current Science’s special report. (let’s keep in mind that the know-it-all hubris of nuclear physicists also caused the Castle Bravo error – the largest single miscalculation in history – by assuming that lithium-7 is not fusion-active)

          • Zack Iszard

            My ultimate point: if an experiment outside the scope of LENR gives reason to question the universal validity of the Coulomb Barrier as a tool for estimating the frequency of nuclear fusion, and it receives peer review, then mainstream science will bring themselves around to take another look at LENR. It would take weeks after the publication of this hypothetical report for the paradigm shift to start at the theory level.

            Barring that, I see no other avenue except commercialization that will bring LENR legitimacy on the broad scale.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            See Brian Josephson’s comment about nuclear and high energy physicists.
            http://coldfusionnow.org/michio-kaku-informed-on-new-developments-in-cold-fusion/

          • Axil Axil

            The coulomb barrier can be reduced by a magnetic field.

            The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect results from a magnetic field that changes the interaction between electrons. In this effect, the coulomb barrier is modified by the generation from the vacuum of two magnetic vortexes that modifies the electrical and magnetic properties of the electron. The coulomb barrier is changed by a magnetic field. These knots of magnetic flux take some of the electron’s innate character onto themselves. The electron and some even number of magnetic vortexes whose creation from the vacuum based on the strength of the magnetic field form a quasiparticle called a composite fermion.

            see

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect

    • Alan DeAngelis
      • Alan DeAngelis

        PS
        E-Cat World is having an effect. We wouldn’t be seeing all those lame MSM reports about hot fusion being just around the corner if it weren’t.

  • Ivan Idso

    It may be pathetic, but if you get a hollywood star to endorse it then a majority of americans would believe it. I am thinking Ellen Degeneres!

    The second thing is that you don’t need to convince the skeptics because they have alterior motives in many cases. You need to educate the people who are unaware that there is no other options but carbon based energy. If you can pry them away from more important things like soccer games and March Madness (basketball), and can show them this is worth getting excited about and forcing change.

    You may detect some frustration on my part with our society!

    • Alan DeAngelis
      • Alan DeAngelis

        PS
        E-Cat World is having an effect. We wouldn’t be seeing all those lame MSM reports about hot fusion being just around the corner if it weren’t.

  • Owen Geiger

    A few more replications by reliable groups like MFMP with all the details published on the Internet will soon set into motion an unstoppable force sort of like a tsunami or snow ball rolling down a mountain. I attribute this to the growing simplicity of the process using off the shelf stock parts like alumina tubes, swagelok fittings and standard nickle powder. For $200 bucks lots of people will want to give this a try. Parkhomov has been hugely influential in this development and therefore deserves a lot of credit. So in the coming months I believe we’re going to see replication after replication with ever greater frequency. Soon someone will be offering kits for sale. And as the momentum really starts to take off I believe Rossi/IH will announce their commercial heater to the world. No one can stop it now. There’s too much publicly available information.

  • Owen Geiger

    A few more replications by reliable groups like MFMP with all the details published on the Internet will soon set into motion an unstoppable force sort of like a tsunami or snow ball rolling down a mountain. I attribute this to the growing simplicity of the process using off the shelf stock parts like alumina tubes, swagelok fittings and standard nickle powder. For $200 bucks lots of people will want to give this a try. Parkhomov has been hugely influential in this development and therefore deserves a lot of credit. So in the coming months I believe we’re going to see replication after replication with ever greater frequency. Soon someone will be offering kits for sale. And as the momentum really starts to take off I believe Rossi/IH will announce their commercial heater to the world. No one can stop it now. There’s too much publicly available information.

  • Mike Henderson

    Heat my garage.

    Seriously.

    If this is real, somebody will sell me (and a few thousand others) a “Parkhomov reactor” for $50 and provide a DIY guide on how to safely mount and power it to heat my cold Minnesota garage using a fraction of the theoretically possible wattage.

    Some crafty people will use theirs to heat their swimming pool. Or heat their entire house. Or to cool it. Or to desalinate water. Or split water to run a fuel cell. Or recharge their Tesla Model S. Or power their cabin off the grid.

    And they will do it for less than the cost of fossil fuels.

    The power, oil, natgas, and coal companies will tell the mainstream scientists for us.

    • Hmm, I think from a laboratory-reactor which proves the technology to a usable hout-heating system it is a very long way.
      It’s not just the reactor, also the engineering which has to be done so that this is integrating into your home.

      • Eyedoc

        You’ve never met a ‘garage rat’ have you ? Northern winters are loooong, and strange things are imagined and created. The promise of abundant heat would incentivize .:>

    • Ophelia Rump

      Mike Henderson is absolutely correct. When enough people have them, and sit there laughing their asses off when the read some mainstream dismissal of LENR the mainstream will slink away from their position and pretend they spent decades supporting the research.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        “..pretend they spent decades supporting the research.” Only if they can’t get away with renaming it and using their pedigree cards to claim full credit for it. Isn’t that the way they usually roll?

    • Eyedoc

      YEP….they’ll sell in Michigan 🙂

  • Mike Henderson

    Heat my garage.

    Seriously.

    If this is real, somebody will sell me (and a few thousand others) a “Parkhomov reactor” for $50 and provide a DIY guide on how to safely mount and power it to heat my cold Minnesota garage using a fraction of the theoretically possible wattage.

    Some crafty people will use theirs to heat their swimming pool. Or heat their entire house. Or to cool it. Or to desalinate water. Or split water to run a fuel cell. Or recharge their Tesla Model S. Or power their cabin off the grid.

    And they will do it for less than the cost of fossil fuels.

    The power, oil, natgas, and coal companies will tell the mainstream scientists for us.

    • Hmm, I think from a laboratory-reactor which proves the technology to a usable house-heating system it is a very long way.
      It’s not just the reactor who has to work. There are also a lot of controlling and engineering tasks which have to be done so that this unit is properly integrating into your home.

      As I said before: I think the only way is the way MFMP is doing. Build it, and give it well known universities and institutions.

      • Eyedoc

        You’ve never met a ‘garage rat’ have you ? Northern winters are loooong, and strange things are imagined and created. The promise of abundant heat would incentivize .:>

    • Ophelia Rump

      Mike Henderson is absolutely correct. Once enough people have them, and sit there laughing their asses off when they read some mainstream dismissal of LENR the mainstream will slink away from their position and pretend they spent decades supporting the research.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        “..pretend they spent decades supporting the research.” Only if they can’t get away with renaming it and using their pedigree cards to claim full credit for it. Isn’t that the way they usually roll?

    • Eyedoc

      YEP….they’ll sell in Michigan 🙂

  • oceans

    I like the sound of that the “Parkhomov reactor”

  • Steven Irizarry

    have a working generator and have a president or famous person(bill gates, elon musk) endorse it. or build the rossi plant(the one that builds devices) and sell the device to individual people in the united states and have it published and endorsed by clients and entrepreneurs

  • PappyYokum

    What you are talking about is public relations. Assuming someone has a reliable LENR device with a COP of 2+, that is readily shared and reproduced, then create a competition that demonstrates its reliability and practicality. Boy Scouts have a “pinewood derby.” The colleges have solar powered cross country car races, The solar powered car races have been going on for decades and the technology is getting better, but there still is no practical, affordable solar powered automobile on the market. Yet, people see that it is real.
    The ideal competition would involve lots of competitors, and cover a large geographical area. It should incorporate brand loyalty – like to a country, state, city, school – to get people’s attention.
    The goal of the competition should be easy to understand to the layman, and measurable to the naked eye. A test tube with sparks and bubbles hooked to a PC graphics program is not going to do it.

    • Mats002

      I like your Idea, but cooking water might not bring in a large audience. What can be done to catch peoples interest? Heating Kardashians as?

      • LOL! To heat that big thing there is not enough energy available on earth.

      • clovis ray

        Is that what that was, i thought it was a tumor,

  • Bob Matulis

    I think the best way to get acceptance would be to distribute dozens of functioning reactor cores to respected labs and universities. Perhaps crowd funding could be set up for Parkomov so he could have the resources to create several reactors and ship them. I am confident if a place like MIT got a functioning reactor and they verified its COP >2 mainstream media would accept LENR.

    • @bobmatulis:disqus that is exactly what I mean! They can’t deny it anymore if they have a device in front of their eyes and are allowed to disassemble it like they want.

    • wally

      I agree with BOB Matulis and Barty.
      Any “skeptic” of the world agrees with you.
      But what you hope is never happened before, for other devices, so why should we think it will happen this time?
      I hope and I could even help in fund Mr. Parkhomov to travel to Italy and to take his device al GSVIT to be tested, but I don’t hope it will happen, because of secrets, patents, NDA, and so on.

      @Giovanni Perroni Palosco: cumpà,
      Rampado “Nazarbayev believes in perpetual motion”
      are you kidding me? 😀

      Many thanks to the moderators, who try to ensure right of expression to any point of view. Of course, skeptics could not write on pro-LENR forum, and write on their own forums, but it would be boring and useless.

  • Richard

    The Canadian federal government announced yesterday that they would be contributing $50M toward a plan to run 2 power cables 14km under the North Umberland Strait to carry 360 MW power to the province of Prince Edward Island (my home). The total cost of this project is estimated at $140M, and that’s without producing a single watt of power. One can only imagine how much power could be generated here on the Island with that kind of investment once LENR hits its stride.
    It’s frustrating to think that decisions like this are being made all over the globe daily that would not be if more people in power were made aware of this imminent new source of energy and encouraged to take it seriously. The wasted resources are mind numbing. All because the scientific community is afraid to risk reputations.
    We have to get pressure on them to act. But how?

    • @bobmatulis:disqus that is exactly what I mean! They can’t deny it anymore if they have a device in front of their eyes and are allowed to disassemble it like they want.

    • Giovanni Perroni Palosco

      Dear Richard,
      It’s just a matter of test results.
      If I want to mesure excess heat I cant’ be so accurate, because of the limits of calorimetry (say, an uncertainity about +/-10%).
      Therefore, if I want to prove LENR by mean of calorimetry, uncertainity must not affect the magnitude of COP.
      This means that I can accept high uncertainity, only with enormous COP (say, 200, as for the unreplied e-cat of the Rossi Focardi Paper(2010))
      This means: avoid radiative heat transmission (too much T dependent), and use liquid water.
      Now you can reconsider the most of the test results you know.
      Only a few of them can afford even a brief analisys.
      So now I come to your statement:
      “One can only imagine how much power could be generated here on the
      Island with that kind of investment once LENR hits its stride”
      Maybe none, I can imagine, but even something.

      But the most important detail is:

      what does – Rampado: “Nazarbayev believes in perpetual motion” mean?
      It sounds like a lyric by Curt Cobain

    • It is too early to make pressure to governments. You just can try to inform a green party or something else.

      • wally

        I agree with BOB Matulis and Barty.
        Any “skeptic” of the world agrees with you.
        But what you hope is never happened before, for other devices, so why should we think it will happen this time?
        I hope and I could even help in fund Mr. Parkhomov to travel to Italy and to take his device al GSVIT to be tested, but I don’t hope it will happen, because of secrets, patents, NDA, and so on.

        @Giovanni Perroni Palosco: cumpà,
        Rampado “Nazarbayev believes in perpetual motion”
        are you kidding me? 😀

        Many thanks to the moderators, who try to ensure right of expression to any point of view. Of course, skeptics could not write on pro-LENR forum, and write on their own forums, but it would be boring and useless.

        • GreenWin

          Given evidence of Western funders, academia (poodles of funding) and industry opposition to LENR/CF – even a working open source reactor will not convince many. At least not until certain holders of fossil/fission assets have divested. IF open source replications accelerate the divestment/reinvestment schedule too quickly, expect a few sudden, catastrophic results; e.g. reactor failures, meltdowns, explosions, fatalities, etc.

          While cynicism may seem unwarranted, we have seen the lengths to which certain entities will go to discourage technology not compatible with their agendas.

      • Gerard McEk

        Hank, I believe the LENR process is based on a temperature equilibrium, wich is a unstabe situation. Mabe you can enhance this by controlling the heat extraction from the system, rather than controlling the input heat. I have asked Rossi about this, but he was very resolute in his denial that this is possible, strengthening me in the assumption that the EM influence of the heating coil may be needed.
        The other way of thinking is Axil’s who assumes that the heating coil may have some damping influence on the EM radiation caused by the CF reaction. Maybe it is possible to control the reaction by controlling the impedance of the coil circuit.

        • Gerrit

          we could work the social media, like we worked together to get Lenuco crowdvoted.

          we could all get an imgur account, make a nice cold fusion album, and just bomb upvote the thing to the front page. A couple of days later another one of us does it again. Boom front page. We’ll get a lot of believers of holy physics books angry, but more and more will start to look into the topic.

          • Axil Axil

            Storms is correct to a degree. Hydrogen is one of a number of gases and liquids that produce nanoparticles when its temperature and pressure is in the proper range to produce supercritical behavior. This is where the 1D chain of hydrogen atoms come from. These chains are called Rydberg matter. Any other elements dissolved in this hydrogen supercritical liquid is also nucleated into nanoparticles(AKA secret sauce) if a pressure and/or temperature oscillation occurs. The cracks have little to do with the reaction. But cracks do serve the same function that the nickel particles do, they moderate the LENR reaction so that the LENR reaction does not precede too quickly and go bang. The nanoparticles attract each other as a result of dipole surface activity and large highly focused magnetic fields are produced between these particles. These magnetic beams disrupt nuclear material in their paths. The spaces between the aggregates of these nanoparticles are the locations of the Nuclear Active Environments.
            The fractional quantum hall effect has already demonstrated to science that a magnetic field can lower the coulomb barrier of electrons in fractional quantum stages based on the strength of the applied magnetic field. Given a strong enough magnetic field, the coulomb barrier is removed.

  • Richard

    The Canadian federal government announced yesterday that they would be contributing $50M toward a plan to run 2 power cables 14km under the North Umberland Strait to carry 360 MW power to the province of Prince Edward Island (my home). The total cost of this project is estimated at $140M, and that’s without producing a single watt of power. One can only imagine how much power could be generated here on the Island with that kind of investment once LENR hits its stride.
    It’s frustrating to think that decisions like this are being made all over the globe daily that would not be if more people in power were made aware of this imminent new source of energy and encouraged to take it seriously. The wasted resources are mind numbing. All because the scientific community is afraid to risk reputations.
    We have to get pressure on them to act. But how?

    • Giovanni Perroni Palosco

      Dear Richard,
      It’s just a matter of test results.
      If I want to mesure excess heat I cant’ be so accurate, because of the limits of calorimetry (say, an uncertainity about +/-10%).
      Therefore, if I want to prove LENR by mean of calorimetry, uncertainity must not affect the magnitude of COP.
      This means that I can accept high uncertainity, only with enormous COP (say, 200, as for the unreplied e-cat of the Rossi Focardi Paper(2010))
      This means: avoid radiative heat transmission (too much T dependent), and use liquid water.
      Now you can reconsider the most of the test results you know.
      Only a few of them can afford even a brief analisys.
      So now I come to your statement:
      “One can only imagine how much power could be generated here on the
      Island with that kind of investment once LENR hits its stride”
      Maybe none, I can imagine, but even something.

      But the most important detail is:

      what does – Rampado: “Nazarbayev believes in perpetual motion” mean?
      It sounds like a lyric by Curt Cobain

    • It is too early to make pressure to governments. You just can try to inform a green party or something else.

  • Harvey Hamel

    First of all, let me say that I’ve been following your site daily for the past few years and want to express my sincere appreciation and admiration for your tireless devotion to spreading the word on the latest
    things LENR. I can’t begin to imagine the number of hours you spend each day researching, analyzing and communicating the latest events dealing with this exciting technology. Having said that, it is also obvious that there are certainly many others around this planet that have been and continue
    to devote much of their lives to the development of LENR, some for its incredible profit potential and others for its potential to help humanity and the environment.

    To reply to your question regarding “How to prove LENR?”, it appears that, regardless of all the blogs and organizations formed to date and all their efforts and accomplishments, there is a larger need for overall international professional organization to serve as a repository of the extensive work done
    to date, both on the development of the reactors and on the science behind the technology. There are many, many eminent scientists, engineers, scholars and even writers in most of the countries of this world who are working towards the same goals, some in the secrecy of IP protection and some in an open and sharing mode. There is also, no doubt a scattered but growing group of manufacturers, investors and distributors anticipating the rapid growth of the LENR industry. I’m not very familiar with their current structure and scope, but ICCF appears to currently be the closest to any such an organization (if they are interested), but they would need to expand their membership and scope of stewardship to drive LENR into the world of accepted science. Otherwise it would be necessary to form a separate new international group to carry the flag – which is no mean task in itself.

    Even if Rossi’s 1 MW E-Cat goes into production in the next few years, the missing knowledge of what exactly is happening at the sub-atomic level will always be a dark cloud hanging over the technology and may even have some unforeseen dangerous side-effects if not properly addressed. At any rate, as this wonderful and exciting process develops, I am totally optimistic that it will soon become one of mankind’s greatest achievements and there will be many who will go down in history as champions to its development, not the least of which are Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.

    My apologies for this wordy response.

    • clovis ray

      Hi, Harvey.
      It was not to long at all, and glad to see you commenting, and welcome, there have been many that say they have had success, but only one has proven it at least 3 times publicly, so far, there seems to be some, that say they have proven it, and are doing so as we type, but so far no 3 party replication And data spread,

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    Its not a black to white thing, it needs time and getting more people involved in research, eventually a good amount of people and resources are going to generate a commercial market and the discussion of “proved” its going to be a step aside.

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    Its not a black to white thing, it needs time and getting more people involved in research, eventually a good amount of people and resources are going to generate a commercial market and the discussion of “proved” its going to be a step aside.

  • Curbina

    This seems to be moving at freeze frame rate for us that have been aware of this since the get go (1989). The sense of urgency is heightened by the utter need of energy of our world and we think LENR might be a solution for short term and a revolution in mid to long term, the proverbial paradigm shift that most of us expect. But I like to see things from afar to gain perspective and from there it seems that this is going to take several years to become slowly but steadily and widely accepted, as every paradigm shift that has changed the world. It took from 1637 for Huygens experiments of heat engine to the 1802 first practical use steam boat in Glasgow. We should see things develop faster now, but a 10 years timeline does not seems unlikely.

    • Curbina, maybe soon we’ll get to the next stage like this “sail-steamer” the “Gallatan” done by another great (shameless) artist.

  • Curbina

    This seems to be moving at freeze frame rate for us that have been aware of this since the get go (1989). The sense of urgency is heightened by the utter need of energy of our world and we think LENR might be a solution for short term and a revolution in mid to long term, the proverbial paradigm shift that most of us expect. But I like to see things from afar to gain perspective and from there it seems that this is going to take several years to become slowly but steadily and widely accepted, as every paradigm shift that has changed the world. It took from 1673 for Huygens experiments of heat engine to the 1802 first practical use steam boat in Glasgow. We should see things develop faster now, but a 10 years timeline does not seems unlikely.

    • Guest

      Curbina, maybe soon we’ll get to the next stage like this “sail-steamer” the “Gallatan” done by another great (shameless) artist.

  • tamal

    Prove it with love <3

  • But such stories are placed in the “gossip and tittle-tattle” section.

    We need scientific proof. I’m sure this is the only way.

  • Stefan

    I think Parkhomov´s method was ingeniously simple. No caloriemeters, no boiling of water, no… just a simple RMS power meter and one (IR) thermometer.
    First heat up the (empty) reactor to 1200 C. Then:
    Measure how much power is needed to keep the naked and empty reactor at 1200 C. Keep on measuring for, let´s say on hour. Then:
    Let the reactor cool down, fill it with the “fuel”, heat it up to 1200 C.
    How much power is needed now, to keep it at 1200 C? (Also this time, do the measurement for an hour or so.) If less power is needed, the difference has to come from the reactor. It is that simple. To be really certain about the result, do the measurements several times, loading / unloading the reactor each time.
    Use the same power supply (preferrably AC power directly from the grid, no transformers, no electronics), the same RMS power meter, the same IR thermometer and the same reactor all the time.
    That´s it. And don´t use your own thermometer and power meter, let some outsiders do the measurements using their own instruments.
    If the empty reactor needs 1000 W to keep it at 1200 C, and the filled reactor only needs 300 W to keep it at 1200 C, then the reactor itself is producing 700 W. It is that simple.
    No need for expensive equipment, just one IR thermometer and an RMS power meter.

    • Obvious

      I am certain that I can build something to do this with no nickel fuel at all. At least a doubling of temperature. It will look just like the last Parkhomov test device.
      Temperature alone is not power. Heating water takes power.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        There is an unambiguous relationship between temperature and output power as long as a number of conditions are fulfilled. If thermal mass, reactor geometry, surface emissivity, and ambient conditions are kept constant, the overall output of the reactor in active mode can be inferred from the input in calibration mode at the same temperature. As always, there will be some pitfalls (for example, relying on a single thermocouple may be risky), but I doubt that an appropriate setup could produce an error that would invalidate a COP of 3.x.

        • Obvious

          When I do it, it won’t be an error. It will be on purpose. The COP will be 1.
          The buried thermocouple is a huge source of potential miscalculations. External heat is a different story.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Agreed with regard to the thermocouple, but one could use additional instruments like a pyrometer or an IR camera. Identical readings – regardless of the question if they are ‘absolutely’ correct – would indicate identical temperatures, and therefore (with the same reactor and equal ambient conditions) identical output power. (In the dummy run, the thermal output would be nearly equal to the electric input.)

          • Obvious

            With proper calibration, most issues will go away, and excess heat/power, if it is there will be obvious as long as it rises above the error range. The internal thermocouple is the Achilles Heel of these experiments. Placing the thermocouple directly in between the heater and an IR reflector and heat sink (Al-Li-Ni) is potentially very misleading if temperature is the only measurement of “power”.
            IE: A pair of IR heater elements in a factory face each other for a process where something passes between them when running. When the material is not in between the heaters, the IR heaters use far less power, since they absorb each others’ output, so the temperature regulator cuts back the input power to maintain the temperature. This isn’t exactly the same, but you should get the general idea. We already know that the alumina is transparent where metals emit and absorb IR. This adds to the problem of internal thermocouples.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Internal thermocouples are irrelevant in this case. They may be useful for diagnostic or protective purposes, but with regard to the released thermal energy it’s only the surface temperature that counts.

          • Obvious

            Where is Parkhomov’s thermocouple? Is is like this (more or less)?
            http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/01/bob-greenyer-reports-on-visit-to-parkhomov-in-moscow/
            That’s not outside.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That would indeed be a minus point.

    • Hhiram

      There are two more steps required.

      First, the empty (uncharged) reactor should be run a second time with the same power input as the charged reactor. We need to know what temperature is reached with 300W input in the empty reactor.

      Second, the charged reactor must be run for an extended period to prove beyond any possible doubt that the excess heat is the result of *nuclear* reactions, not chemical reactions. The difference should be a minimum factor of 10x. This will probably require the reactor to run for many days. Without this important second step, the assumption should be the fuel is simply oxidizing and releasing energy via a normal exothermic chemical reaction.

  • Sanjeev

    There are two groups of people, those who are adventurous, open minded and philanthropic and second – who think they know everything, are terrified of losing their jobs/funding/money/power/authority or belief system.

    We do not need to prove anything to the second kind, they do not want to be convinced, it is a complete waste of time as they are not going to do anything useful even if you deliver a working LENR kit to their doorstep. They will simply throw it away and pick something else to ridicule, so that they can maintain their “superior know it all” delusion. These are academics, politicians, msm, “authorities”, people heavily invested in oil/coal and plain old pathoskeptics found on the internet. I even stopped replying to their articles and comments on how LENR is impossible and how every one of the hundreds of evidences are just errors or frauds. I find it a complete waste of my time.

    The first kind are useful and will add value. These are builders, experimenters, tinkerers, geeks and rebellions. Small independent labs, small industries, entrepreneurs with ideas etc. All you need to do is provide them information and kindle their curiosity, and you will see them run after LENR, to get it at all costs. These people love to prove establishment wrong, they love to be free and think for themselves. These people recognize opportunities from miles away and are not afraid of people or “society”. Selling DIY kits will encourage them even more and we will soon see small scale industries popping up all over the world, producing “LENR toys” or experimental kits. The 3D printing revolution started exactly like that (Reprap?). None of the big corporations, gov, or whoever you think is “important” got involved with 3d printing initially. Now its a big industry.

    I tried emailing some of the “builders” I know from my overunity.com and Steorn days. I got no replies. I tried encouraging a few more to go ahead and replicate, but got no response. Perhaps that’s because I’m a nobody and it needs some famous names to kick start hundreds of replications and experiments. Even before that we need a few independent replications of the E-Cat or Parkhomov’s device. I guess once that happens, it will not take much effort to spread it, as long as you are informing the right kind of people.

    • Gerard McEk

      Well said Snajeev! I agree fully with it. My approach is to attack the dellusioned establishment from the bottom I have managed to have a group of students replicating the Parkhomov reactor. I guide them. I hope many of us will do the same. They are bachelor students running a practical project for their study. Once you have the youth, the ivory towers start to shake and things can be changed. A paradigm change takes a generation. Now is the time to do it.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yes, a Whack-A-Mole game they can’t win.

      • This is even nicer than just replicating it. Let it do students. The next generation of scientists.

        Maybe one or two of them is writing their bachelor or master thesis about that?

        • Gerard McEk

          I really hope they will succeed and I am sure all of you will help me. They will write a thesis about it and I hope it will be published in case of success.

  • Sanjeev

    There are two groups of people, those who are adventurous, open minded and philanthropic and second – who think they know everything, are terrified of losing their jobs/funding/money/power/authority or belief system.

    We do not need to prove anything to the second kind, they do not want to be convinced, it is a complete waste of time as they are not going to do anything useful even if you deliver a working LENR kit to their doorstep. They will simply throw it away and pick something else to ridicule, so that they can maintain their “superior know it all” delusion. These are academics, politicians, msm, “authorities”, people heavily invested in oil/coal and plain old pathoskeptics found on the internet. I even stopped replying to their articles and comments on how LENR is impossible and how every one of the hundreds of evidences are just errors or frauds. I find it a complete waste of my time.

    The first kind are useful and will add value. These are builders, experimenters, tinkerers, geeks and rebellions. Small independent labs, small industries, entrepreneurs with ideas etc. All you need to do is provide them information and kindle their curiosity, and you will see them run after LENR, to get it at all costs. These people love to prove establishment wrong, they love to be free and think for themselves. These people recognize opportunities from miles away and are not afraid of people or “society”. Selling DIY kits will encourage them even more and we will soon see small scale industries popping up all over the world, producing “LENR toys” or experimental kits. The 3D printing revolution started exactly like that (Reprap?). None of the big corporations, gov, or whoever you think is “important” got involved with 3d printing initially. Now its a big industry.

    I tried emailing some of the “builders” I know from my overunity.com and Steorn days. I got no replies. I tried encouraging a few more to go ahead and replicate, but got no response. Perhaps that’s because I’m a nobody and it needs some famous names to kick start hundreds of replications and experiments. Even before that we need a few independent replications of the E-Cat or Parkhomov’s device. I guess once that happens, it will not take much effort to spread it, as long as you are informing the right kind of people.

    • Skip

      I concur but we will each find our own path. Ignore Main Stream Science, they will catch up when it is in their best interest. MFMP is clearly the initial resource for public proof. Whether they will be respected sooner or later, they WILL be respected globally. Sooner if they Kickstart kits.
      Being retired I would welcome working in a LENR lab again, if anyone wants me. But in the meantime, as one of those tinkerers you mention, I will use my limited resources to build something for my own use. Possibly my own design, likely a design of a more capable tinkerer.
      My friends who suspect I’m crazy won’t be surprised to find I have succeeded in accomplishing what I have been talking their ears off for years. No need to push it anymore. As we (eventually successful) tinkerers quietly increase in numbers, there will be an unstoppable ground swell.
      Not withstanding this excellent site (thanx Frank) I would be interested in finding, or starting a Tinkerer’s Warehouse of Knowledge with forums and part sources so all relevant info can be in one public place.

    • Gerard McEk

      Well said Snajeev! I agree fully with it. My approach is to attack the dellusioned establishment from the bottom I have managed to have a group of students replicating the Parkhomov reactor. I guide them. I hope many of us will do the same. They are bachelor students running a practical project for their study. Once you have the youth, the ivory towers start to shake and things can be changed. A paradigm change takes a generation. Now is the time to do it.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yes, a Whack-A-Mole game they can’t win.

      • This is even nicer than just replicating it. Let it do students. The next generation of scientists.

        Maybe one or two of them is writing their bachelor or master thesis about that?

        • Gerard McEk

          I really hope they will succeed and I am sure all of you will help me. They will write a thesis about it and I hope it will be published in case of success.

  • Achi

    Weaponize it. It would be proved real over night. The media would be reporting like crazy, “Nuclear weapons can now be built in your neighbor’s garage!?” And thus would end the era of open experiments on LENR.

    • I guess this is the worst case scenario. Then better no LENR.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Maybe it has been weaponized.

      • wally

        😀
        A weaponized Parkhomov device is only to be used if Kazakhstan declares war to Italy.

      • Andrew Hurley

        My guess is yes it has been.

    • Why do you think hot fusion gets $$$$$.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        In hot fusion, laser fusion (ICF) has basic research value to nuclear weapons (study of behaviour of materials at similar conditions). I don’t know of any obvious military connection of magnetic confinement fusion.

        • Axil Axil

          Magnetic confinement fusion cannot stand on it own feet. It requires lots of tritium to be bread from lithium. What they don’t tell people is that the only configuration that is sustainable is a fusion/fission hybrid. That configuration produces lots of plutonium or U233 using neutrons from fusion. Fusion is energy poor and neutron rich…just perfect for a hybrid. A hybrid is ten times as energy productive than fusion only. Do you expect them to build 10 ITERs instead of one hybrid?

  • Achi

    Weaponize it. It would be proved real over night. The media would be reporting like crazy, “Nuclear weapons can now be built in your neighbor’s garage!?” And thus would end the era of open experiments on LENR.

    • I guess this is the worst case scenario. Then better no LENR.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Maybe it has been weaponized.

      • wally

        😀
        A weaponized Parkhomov device is only to be used if Kazakhstan declares war to Italy.

      • Andrew Hurley

        My guess is yes it has been.

    • Why do you think hot fusion gets $$$$$.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        In hot fusion, laser fusion (ICF) has basic research value to nuclear weapons (study of behaviour of materials at similar conditions). I don’t know of any obvious military connection of magnetic confinement fusion.

        • Axil Axil

          Magnetic confinement fusion cannot stand on it own feet. It requires lots of tritium to be bread from lithium. What they don’t tell people is that the only configuration that is sustainable is a fusion/fission hybrid. That configuration produces lots of plutonium or U233 using neutrons from fusion. Fusion is energy poor and neutron rich…just perfect for a hybrid. A hybrid is ten times as energy productive than fusion only. Do you expect them to build 10 ITERs instead of one hybrid?

          If you want to product tons of plutonium, fusion is how to do it.

          Did you know that any fusion reactor that produces over 10^13 neutrons is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency(AKA the kiss of death).

  • Herb Gillis

    I think we could jump-start commercialization by packaging a “Parkhomov demo kit” of some kind (that we know will work) and offering it for sale openly- – with detailed instructions.

    • Mats002

      Yes, and use the money earned to promote more open science. I expect MFMP to do so, but family first, Bob is about to be father (again). Regards.

  • Herb Gillis

    I think we could jump-start commercialization by packaging a “Parkhomov demo kit” of some kind (that we know will work) and offering it for sale openly- – with detailed instructions.

    • Mats002

      Yes, and use the money earned to promote more open science. I expect MFMP to do so, but family first, Bob is about to be father (again). Regards.

      • Herb Gillis

        And then encourage people to tinker with their kit reactors- – like the first Apple computers.

  • Hank Mills

    Extended self sustain producing at least one kilowatt for one hour at a minimum of 1, 000C with less than one gram of nickel, iron, and LiAlH4.

    Guaranteed to work plans for the above would prove LENR.

    • Gerard McEk

      Hank, I believe the LENR process is based on a temperature equilibrium, wich is a unstabe situation. Mabe you can enhance this by controlling the heat extraction from the system, rather than controlling the input heat. I have asked Rossi about this, but he was very resolute in his denial that this is possible, strengthening me in the assumption that the EM influence of the heating coil may be needed.
      The other way of thinking is Axil’s who assumes that the heating coil may have some damping influence on the EM radiation caused by the CF reaction. Maybe it is possible to control the reaction by controlling the impedance of the coil circuit.

  • Obvious

    I am certain that I can build something to do this with no nickel fuel at all. At least a doubling of temperature. It will look just like the last Parkhomov test device.
    Temperature alone is not power. Heating water takes power.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      There is an unambiguous relationship between temperature and output power as long as a number of conditions are fulfilled. If thermal mass, reactor geometry, surface emissivity, and ambient conditions are kept constant, the overall output of the reactor in active mode can be inferred from the input in calibration mode at the same temperature. As always, there will be some pitfalls (for example, relying on a single thermocouple may be risky), but I doubt that an appropriate setup could produce an error that would invalidate a COP of 3.x.

      • Andrea

        Proven LENR effect is not important to open to mainstream media. It is important to chose materials and phisic conditions to obtain bigger COP. Mainstream media and scientists will follow easy…

      • Obvious

        When I do it, it won’t be an error. It will be on purpose. The COP will be 1.
        The buried thermocouple is a huge source of potential miscalculations. External heat is a different story.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Agreed with regard to the thermocouple, but one could use additional instruments like a pyrometer or an IR camera. Identical readings – regardless of the question if they are ‘absolutely’ correct – would indicate identical temperatures, and therefore (with the same reactor and equal ambient conditions) identical output power. (In the dummy run, the thermal output would be nearly equal to the electric input.)

          • Obvious

            With proper calibration, most issues will go away, and excess heat/power, if it is there will be obvious as long as it rises above the error range. The internal thermocouple is the Achilles Heel of these experiments. Placing the thermocouple directly in between the heater and an IR reflector and heat sink (Al-Li-Ni) is potentially very misleading if temperature is the only measurement of “power”.
            IE: A pair of IR heater elements in a factory face each other for a process where something passes between them when running. When the material is not in between the heaters, the IR heaters use far less power, since they absorb each others’ output, so the temperature regulator cuts back the input power to maintain the temperature. This isn’t exactly the same, but you should get the general idea. We already know that the alumina is transparent where metals emit and absorb IR. This adds to the problem of internal thermocouples.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Internal thermocouples are irrelevant in this case. They may be useful for diagnostic or protective purposes, but with regard to the released thermal energy it’s only the surface temperature that counts.

          • Obvious

            Where is Parkhomov’s thermocouple? Is is like this (more or less)?
            http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/01/bob-greenyer-reports-on-visit-to-parkhomov-in-moscow/
            That’s not outside.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That would indeed be a minus point.

      • EEStorFanFibb

        How do we prove LENR…? Just stay on the path we are on I think. I’m not worried about it in the least. Momentum is growing and the sand is shifting at a faster and faster pace.

  • GreenWin

    Given evidence of Western funders, academia (poodles of funding) and industry opposition to LENR/CF – even a working open source reactor will not convince many. At least not until certain holders of fossil/fission assets have divested. IF open source replications accelerate the divestment/reinvestment schedule too quickly, expect a few sudden, catastrophic results; e.g. reactor failures, meltdowns, explosions, fatalities, etc.

    While cynicism may seem unwarranted, we have seen the lengths to which certain entities will go to discourage technology not compatible with their agendas.

  • Herb Gillis

    Any attempts to popularize LENR, especially by using kit reactors or encouraging people to strike out on their own and start experimenting, must be accompanied with a maximum priority on safety. We don’t want LENR to become well known as a result of an accident. That would be the worst possible thing.

  • Thomas Clarke

    Science rightly has a high bar for new experimental results that go contrary to everything expected. But it is not so difficult to meet it.

    In the case of LENR what is needed is just ONE experiment that is repeated, with clear positive results, where each repetition keeps conditions the same and responds to the criticisms by adding additional instrumentation or testing to close loopholes. After one or two repetitions with similar positive results you have something very interesting. If the effect is real it is not difficult to do this. The key is persistence and care to investigate initial possibly erroneous results. You see this in MFMP’s work but it is actually quite rare elsewhere.

    For example, in the case of a Parkhomov reactor, using phase change calorimetry you’d want to be sure there was no wet steam. You’d also need somone other than Parkhomov to validate the test – any one person could be wrong deliberately or intentionally. And you’d need the results to be repeated. A one-off result can be a fluke (read that is some error not necessarily ever discovered).

    So far: we have two claimed positives from Parkhomov each using different calorimetry. The second one lacks details which we await on March 26, without these it is unconvincing.

    We have a negative from P with MFMP watching, a negative from MFMP, a negative from another replication. I’m not sure how many other negatives from P, because I am not sure overall how many tests he has done. The number of negatives does not really matter – except that we need enough positives for them not to be outliers due to random errors.

    Oh – the Rossi tests are not helpful here because they all have major flaws, and all use different experimental methodology.

    We have a claimed positive from Italian Open Science people (who don’t seem very open) which is completely different and totally unconvincing as reported.

    We have rumours of good results from commercial companies in US and Italy adding to the buzz but there is nothing concrete. It is in the interests of companies hoping for something to provide “it is going well” type PR. You would not find such a company saying “we have no definite results yet” unless they had given up, even though the two statements correspond to the same set of data.

    Based on all this no proper scientist would say there is evidence. They might say the claims were interesting and should be properly investigated.

    MFMP will no doubt do this – but it takes time. P could do this, but he would have to be open to doing much more cross-checking and as thus far the only positive his validation of his own work has limited value.

    So people here should be patient. If there is anything real it will be pretty easy to prove it. I have to say that thus far I can understand why those here and others get convinced but none of the evidence has enough detail and repeatability to be plausible given how extraordinary is the result. In fact it would not be trusted even on a less extraordinary result because of the low quality of the writeups.

  • clovis ray

    This will help you, http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/01/07/knowledge-base-thread/ and good luck, and good idea.

  • Zack Iszard

    TL,DR: The Coulomb Barrier and the circular reasoning behind it’s acceptance by mainstream science as unshakable truth is the root of the disconnect between the LENR community and everyone else.

    I’ve been on this board a while. I’ve made the case before that the principle difficulty that mainstream science has with LENR is the perceived incompatibility with the Standard Model. These specific qualms are illustrated succinctly in the most recent patent rejection of Rossi’s IP, an d when read directly the frequent readers here quickly see the circular dogma:

    1. Nuclei cannot fuse at temperatures and pressures much less than that of the sun.
    2. If nuclei could fuse at temperatures and pressures much less than inside a star, then we would have noticed it everywhere in nature by now.
    3. Since we haven’t noticed low energy nuclear reactions in nature besides the fission of unstable heavy isotopes, it must not be possible.

    From a logical standpoint, the dividing line between the believers and the skeptopaths is the truth value of the above logical argument. Reading the above argument with no knowledge of nuclear chemistry but a complete understanding of the rules of logic, it is easy to see that this is a belief, as it is circular and interprets the absence of a positive as the presence of a negative. Logically, this is untenable.

    However, since the physicists and chemists that authored the Standard Model used nuclear weapon design and function as their principle source of evidence, their hubris is easy to understand. Nukes work, very obviously. The hubris is the extension of these high-energy rules to low energy conditions. Dr. McKubre eloquently described this overreach of theory in the overview paper he authored for Current Science’s special report. (let’s keep in mind that the know-it-all hubris of nuclear physicists also caused the Castle Bravo error – the largest single miscalculation in history – by assuming that lithium-7 is not fusion-active)

    • Zack Iszard

      My ultimate point: if an experiment outside the scope of LENR gives reason to question the universal validity of the Coulomb Barrier as a tool for estimating the frequency of nuclear fusion, and it receives peer review, then mainstream science will bring themselves around to take another look at LENR. It would take weeks after the publication of this hypothetical report for the paradigm shift to start at the theory level.

      Barring that, I see no other avenue except commercialization that will bring LENR legitimacy on the broad scale.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      See Brian Josephson’s comment about nuclear and high energy physicists.
      http://coldfusionnow.org/michio-kaku-informed-on-new-developments-in-cold-fusion/

    • Axil Axil

      The coulomb barrier can be reduced by a magnetic field.

      The Fractional Quantum Hall Effect results from a magnetic field that changes the interaction between electrons. In this effect, the coulomb barrier is modified by the generation from the vacuum of at least two magnetic vortexes (some even number) that modifies the electrical and magnetic properties of the electron. The coulomb barrier is changed by a magnetic field. These knots of magnetic flux take some of the electron’s innate character onto themselves. The electron and some even number of magnetic vortexes whose creation from the vacuum based on the strength of the magnetic field form a quasiparticle called a composite fermion.

      see

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect

  • BroKeeper

    Prove COP (Coefficient of Profit). At the end of the plants operation Rossi will present a media public view of the plant, its metrics and the most important: the past year’s energy bill versus the bill of two years previously held by the (grinning Cuban cigar smoking) Customer’s CEO. The news journalist’s will rush to call Duke Energy for verification. After the major news broadcast, the Wall Street Journal will be first to publish it and the stocks will go crazy, depending what sectors it effects.

    It’s nearly always ‘follow the money’ that gets first attention. With over two thirds energy savings proven IH won’t be able to keep up the demand. The rest will follow quickly.

  • Brokeeper

    Prove COP (Coefficient of Profit). At the end of the plants operation Rossi will present a media public view of the plant, its metrics and the most important: the past year’s energy bill versus the bill of two years previously held by the (grinning Cuban cigar smoking) Customer’s CEO. The news journalist’s will rush to call Duke Energy for verification. After the major news broadcast, the Wall Street Journal will be first to publish it and the stocks will go crazy, depending what sectors it effects.

    It’s nearly always ‘follow the money’ that gets first attention. With over two thirds energy savings proven IH won’t be able to keep up the demand. The rest will follow quickly.

    • bachcole

      I agree 101%, but none of this will happen in a vacuum. There will be many other replications, rumors, more replications, announcements, more “sub-standard” tests, etc. etc., before this great event. Both academia and the business community (and their families) are NOT deaf to the evidences that are generally considered appropriate for the other. But the ultimate egg-heads will hold out for Nature and Science while the business community and second level colleges are scrambling to catch up.

  • Andrew

    As more replications happen and are shared more and more business will take notice and want a piece of the pie. Capitalism will prove it just as Rossi has predicted and he is ahead of the curve.

  • Andrew

    As more replications happen and are shared more and more business will take notice and want a piece of the pie. Capitalism will prove it just as Rossi has predicted and he is ahead of the curve.

  • bachcole

    Proof is in the mind/heart of the beholder. The more avenues by which we can push this, the more likely will be general acceptance.

    • rats123

      Disagree. All you need is ONE open and conclusive test. That’s all.

  • Lingo

    Excellent post!
    I think the reasoning goes very well together with the prospekt that MFMP put forward when they were first created.

    10 replications is a good first start
    It would be much helpful for the case if 10 persons / teams are chosen who have already a very strong social network – people such as Ethan Siegel.

    Someone was working on a list all ready of 10 people / groups.

    Maybe we can brainstorm here on E-catworld, people with integrity, whom should be approached.

  • Lingo

    Excellent post!
    I think the reasoning goes very well together with the prospekt that MFMP put forward when they were first created.

    10 replications is a good first start
    It would be much helpful for the case if 10 persons / teams are chosen who have already a very strong social network – people such as Ethan Siegel.

    Someone was working on a list all ready of 10 people / groups.

    Maybe we can brainstorm here on E-catworld, people with integrity, whom should be approached.

  • Andrea

    Proven LENR effect is not important to open to mainstream media. It is important to chose materials and phisic conditions to obtain bigger COP. Mainstream media and scientists will follow easy…

  • How do we prove LENR…? Just stay on the path we are on I think. I’m not worried about it in the least. Momentum is growing and the sand is shifting at a faster and faster pace.

  • Sanjeev

    Great ! All the best and keep us informed.
    You may like to check the KB and LenrConnect links here, there purpose is exactly to bring all LENR knowledge at one place and to connect people interested in LENR.

    • clovis ray

      Hey, Gerrit, hi.
      i say we let, everybody have a pass, even Mary ugo , accent the positive, there is so, so, many good thing we could be thinking about, besides punishing some idiot, know it all.

      • Omega Z

        “I really want to see this community collectively edit a few pages on Wikipedia”
        You will merely get banned from editing.

        Wiki isn’t to bad unless the topic is controversial. In which case they ban editing that doesn’t fit there beliefs.

  • Axil Axil

    The current LENR development scene is becoming an increasingly complex one and difficult to understand. I have written a number of recent posts that attempt to grapple with this Gordian knot even as this complex issue was percolating through the grounds of my subconscious. In this post, I attempt to bring this issue into sharper focus in my minds eye to apply the analysis that it deserves. Here in this post, let us attempt to make sense of these things.

    The fundamental issue is successful product development. Rossi set this stage when he declared in 2011 to prove LENR by bringing a successful LENR based product to the marketplace. Only by doing this would Rossi prove the viability of LENR as an important engineering and scientific topic.

    But conceiving and building a successful commercial product is most difficult. Take Microsoft as an example. That elite industry dominating company has been trying to get into the mobile marketplace with a competitive product to compete with Apple’s IPhone for a decade or more, but has yet to be successful. Even at this juncture, billions of dollars dedicated to new product R&D and acquisitions budget does not guaranteed success. Far from it, this most admired of companies, has endured nothing but well publicized embarrassment, and repeated failures.

    Drawing insight from recent LENR history, let us remember that in order to offload the product development task from his long and encyclopedic list of product development concerns, Rossi farmed product development out to DGT. From the very beginning, DGT had a very confident yet fatally flawed approach to product development because of the nature of LENR at that very early stage. Because they had always fiercely protected their independence and management prerogatives, DGT never deviated from this ill fated commercialization strategy.

    This strategy involved the development of dozens of dissimilar products that were to be based on a prototype that was configured by the engineers as a home heating unit.

    DGT was to license this basic LENR technology and reactor design to ship engine builders, and aircraft and car engine manufactures just to name a few of scores of applications, but where was the LENR product design engineers to come from to develop these very dissimilar products. Only Rossi had any expertise and he was secretive and paranoid. Rossi was not disposed to train the DGT personnel or DGT customer design engineers necessary to do this wide ranging product development.

    In those early times, Rossi’s reactors self destructed far to often to allow the development of any commercially viable product, so Rossi and DGT parted ways. After this breakup, DGT looked to duplicate Rossi’s technology and Rossi looked for a new product development partner.

    In the due course of time, both these now bitter rivals were successful, with Rossi teaming with Industrial Heat (IH) and DGT out on their own with a home grown LENR technology that was both controllable and responsive. IH had a commercial product concept in mind, a concept that they had warm feelings about, and Rossi was perceptive enough to change his reactor design sufficient to eventually meet most requirements of that concept save control as demonstrated by an acceptance test, and the one megawatt industrial LENR power plant was born.

    As IH shaped this product, the IH product concept became highly specialized to satisfy the functional requirements of their very limited American customer base. Being exclusively an industrial steam heat plant, IH reactor approach is ill suited as a generalized solution to any other segment of the energy market.

    Lack of any educated LENR workforce seriously limits LENR commercialization.

    DGT suffered great disadvantage because of an ill fated product plan from their very beginning. They were doomed to eventually fail. There were no legend of trained LENR engineers to build all the LENR products that were needed to satisfy the needs of their varied customer base. Having said that, their R5 reactor did function as a LENR product demonstration tool. DGT was far more forthcoming both publicly and privately in revealing engineering and R&D details than Rossi ever was so there was sufficient data to base a judgment that the LENR R5 reactor in fact worked. Failure of DGT as a business does not mean that their prototype reactor was not functional. That reactor served well the LENR marketing function that it was designed to serve.

    The world energy market is varied and requires an eclectic and vast ensemble of custom solutions. The key question that we as LENR product acceptance strategists must determine is what particular energy product is most likely to introduce LENR in the best light to the world.

    I have made my decision even if it was an unconscious one. As reflected in one of my recent posts, I believe that the self charging lithium ion fuel cell would be most impactful to convince the world that LENR is useful as a power source for transportation including cars, planes, trains, and ships.

    Each LENR company and LENR developer, has made their decision also. Black light power is developing a small scaled electric grid compatible generator. Brillouin is doing the same but on a larger scale. The Nanor of MIT is a designed to be a small electronic device power source.

    The Pd/D or the Ni/H open source community does not have a product plan. This fact is incompatible with Rossi’s wise strategy to produce a wizbang product to introduce LENR to the world. Like DGT, even if an open source reactor works, the open source community must educate lots of young and vigorous people to form a enthusiastic workforce that will make a sucessful product lunch possible and sustainable. Education is MFMP’s big job and so too this web site.

    • Mats002

      +1

  • Hhiram

    LENR must be proven empirically. This requires multiple replications and many different labs around the world.

    Currently the most difficult part of the replication process is creating a properly sealed charged reactor. Parkhomov is the only one besides Rossi to successfully do this (so he claims). Other people (MFMP, etc) have tried and failed.

    Therefore, the way to prove LENR is obvious: Parkhomov should prepare MANY charged reactors, and send them to labs all over the world for independent testing.

    Parkhomov should send three pairs of reactors (charged and uncharged) to at least 10 different labs. These labs can then follow Parkhomov’s operation procedure, and use their own calorimetry method for evaluating excess heat.

    A website should be set up to track the results of these tests. The international media should be alerted to the project.

    If even half of those labs report successful excess heat, LENR will be proven beyond dispute for the entire world. Then the scientific community can get past the skepticism about the empirical reality of LENR, and get to work on really figuring the theory behind what is going on.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually, all that is required here are several more replications. So another 10 or so, and universities etc. will take notice.

    As noted, some already are taking notice. We have all kinds of announcements occurring, and heck there even a LENR course at MIT (not a audited course with credits, but never the less such courses are already creating a whole new generation of students who are now exposed to LENR and thinking about LENR).

    The announcement by Pons and Fleischmann was an absolute bomb shell for the press. The P&F device was front and center for every single major news outlet for several weeks. We all know the story here and issues of failed replications along with self interested parties hurt this cause.

    If the P&F device was EASY to replicate, then history would be different. The debate about the physics is really moot! And there are several theories that fit within the standard model anyway.

    However, the physics community right now will NOT make or break this issue. If replications occur and if they did in P&F’s time, then the physics community DOES NOT MATTER! Only the heat effect matters.

    The physics community will not and cannot make or break this issue now. It will be replications. Every day that passes does make the physics community look worse and worse. But so what!!! You mean we get to throw tomatoes and rotten food at them as they walk by? Big deal!! Feeling good or “smug” about some issue does NOTHING for LENR. That simply peoples ego and pride talking.

    The “door” of resistance to LENR is being kicked VERY hard right now. A few more blows and that door will fall in a spectacular and magic way. When this door falls down, it will fall VERY fast.

    Compared to 5 years ago, things are looking VERY good for LENR.

    As soon as a re-producible device arrives, then really, LENR is a slam dunk.

    What is most remarkable about Parkhomov is “seemly” how easy this replication was. I mean, it would have been MUCH harder to say replicate the first Apple II. In fact it was MUCH harder to replicating a flying airplane.

    We not talking about large funds or large amounts of capital required for these replications. This aspect of LENR makes it even MORE exciting. And this REASON ALONE will allow LENR to spread fast. If each LENR experiment took millions of dollars, then LENR would be VERY slow to catch on, and would be the domain of big government research and large industrial companies.

    So repeated replications of this effect will be the final blow in the interesting “saga” of LENR. And since replication is not expensive, then we have a winner on our hands!

    We have to wait until more replications occur. I don’t see why they will not occur, but if for some strange reason replications don’t occur, then whoever gets a product to “commercial” market will be the final straw that breaks the camel back. However, commercialization is a capital intensive process – replications at this point seem low cost.

    I often stated that a commercial product will be the magic key to acceptance of LENR, but now it seems replication is in fact more important.

    I don’t think much more needs be done in terms of LENR.

    A few more replications and we off to the LENR races. We are close!!!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Axil Axil

      We are interested in LENR’s impact on the world…the more powerful that impark is, the better. If science accepts LENR lock, stock, and barrel, it will be at least 50 years before anything world changing would comes out of that interest. The LASER was patented in 1958, look how long it has taken for that technology to flower. We need an air tight product design to change the world right from the get-go…like the IPhone.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Absolute we are interested in the impact of LENR. The question being asked here is how can (or will) LENR spread?

        And because the technology seems rather easy to re-produce, then this technology will not be like the telephone or airplanes – it has an “inherent” ability to spread much faster. So I don’t see this as similar to LASERs or the phone system (which needed a critical mass before the telephone became really useful). In other words a country with 1 or 2 phones is not a big deal due to the “network” effect created by having many users. The “value” of the phone is only realized with many users. LENR does not fall into this category.

        Even computers to have a “huge effect” required networking (the internet). Prior to the internet, a computer was like a car without roads. LENR does not have this networking effect or requirement. It more like adoption of the refrigerators (occurred very fast).

        My main point here is that debating the acceptance by the physics community WILL NOT unleash and unlock LENR for the masses. It is certainly possible (likely) that when the physics community gets around to grasping how LENR works, then this understanding may well enhance the LENR effect, but then again, it may not.

        The spread and use of electricity really did not need acceptance by the physics community, but the basic means to harness and use electricity is what made the difference. The physics community over time may have helped the spread of electricity, but at the end of the day the physics community really was a side show to adoption of electricity.

        And same goes for LENR – the physics community is a side show right now.

        Replications will be the torch that carries and wins the acceptance of LENR.

        And yes a “ready” made commercial product like how the iPhone changed phones will certainly be a “major” step in acceptance of LENR.

        Replications are thus the winning formula. It is a given that the physics community is dragging their feet, but as noted that’s not going to make or break LENR.

        Replications followed by a commercial ready product will win the day here. It not quite known how close we are to a commercial product, but those “little” reactor boxes Rossi has now seem perfect for home use. I’ll take a nice like six pack reactor from Rossi!

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Mats002

          LENR is _not_ like refridgertors it is like LED and LED+

        • Axil Axil

          It won’t be long before all the world’s ice has melted, and we are all under 100 meters of ocean water. Two LENR reactors are not going to help. LENR must go viral. We need billions of units in every country far and wide. Bill Gates should be buying LENR power plants for needy African bushmen. 50 years is too long. We need LENR and we need it now.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Ice melting? We seen record ice growth of late. And we output in the last 18 years RECORD amounts of CO2 (same as previous 70+ years = that includes the post war industrial boom), and yes for the last 18 years we seen NO GLOBAL warming at all.

            You cannot even show a “simple” math correlation between the outputs of man’s CO2 and that of warming trends. Really, anyone with Google and 10 minutes of their time (and a function intellect) would see global warming for what it is = a scam to tax you.

            The effects of man’s the CO2 driving temperatures are VERY much overblown, and despite record amounts of CO2 in the last 18 years, we not seen any global warming for 18 years.
            We had higher temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period and all it did was enhance our ability to grow more food, and Europe prospered MUCH during this time. And those higher temperatures occurred without industrial CO2.

            Man’s output of CO2 is not a problem nor is it driving temperatures as claimed by the IPCC. The effects are minor.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/09/warming-stays-on-the-great-shelf/

            Really, anyone who buys into the CO2 and the catastrophic warming that will occur as a result of man’s output of CO2 has really missed the boat along the way.

            To quote the IPCC:
            Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:
            “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate
            policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy
            separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
            (co-chair of Working group III IPCC)

            But hey, the UN will take your money and redistribute the world’s wealth as long as fools like you exist and go along with the UN

            I perhaps in some mocking way wish that man’s output of CO2 was driving temperatures in some significant way, as then the push for LENR and more funding would be urgent and justified!

            Unfortunately promoting the CO2 scam to push for LENR funding is dishonest intellectually, and is promoting a lie to achieve needed funding for CO2. This is only acceptable for those who the truth does not matter.

            Regards,

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Axil Axil
          • Albert D. Kallal

            The melting has occurred up and down for 10,000+ years. The issue is this melting due to man’s CO2 output?

            Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/08/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

            The idea here that you going to make an appeal to authorities to support your position that man’s CO2 is a problem or issue is a VERY VERY bad way to do science right now.

            In other words, you make appeals to higher authorities, the SAME GROUP that dropped the ball on LENR!

            As a rule, science by consensus is a VERY bad idea. While the science community in Galileo’s time thought that planets revolved around the earth, such consensus was wrong.

            And today, same goes for LENR. That SAME appeal to those authorities is the WRONG way to go about science. The last 20+ years of climate models by the IPCC are ALL WRONG AND DO NOT reflect observed temperature changes. Anyone taking out a telescope at Galileo’s time would all EASY see the consensus was wrong. Same goes for global warming – just look at their claim’s and models vs observed temperatures. Our CO2 is barely noticeable above the error rate of measuring global temperatures.

            Dwight Eisenhower warned about this situation we see today.

            The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

            Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

            This is exactly the case with LENR and even that of global warming. Governments are pushing hard for new taxes, and any research that supports CO2 as being bad thus wins the day.

            Same goes for LENR. A university will not receive huge funding for LENR that some silly fellow in an apartment can replicate (Parkaomov). Why push cold fusion for $10,000 grant when you get MILLIONS for hot fusion? And LENR means freedom from government – hot fusion does not.

            And even the USA military spews out a endless supply of global warming documents. (because it restrict energy independence in North America, and justifies their need and existence to police the Middle East). With LENR we simply just ignore the Middle East.

            The simple issue is that the major science bodies have become politicized and self serving. EVERYONE here sees and knows that in regards to LENR – the same situation exists with Global warming.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Axil Axil

            Be honest now. Do you work in the oil sands industry?

            Upton Sinclair : “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

          • Albert D. Kallal

            No I don’t work for the oil industry. But then then my response would be YOU be honest and tell me if your income comes from some government that ALSO happens to be pushing a CO2 tax?

            If you saying that based on one’s funding that such people cannot be trusted, then you ARE PROVING my point that such appeals to authorities is a VERY bad thing to do now. So if a scientists is receiving government funding for global warming, are we to ignore that same government who is pushing a carbon tax? If source of funding eliminates one’s credibility, then I suggest you RE-READ the above quote from the IPCC about redistributing the world wealth via climate policy.

            So now you saying that this issue is not about science, but the source of funding. If science is based on source of funding and not science, then you are doing a bang up job of HELPING to make my case here!

            By your logic you are thus proving that the science community cannot be trusted because they change their mind based on their source of funding! (well done!!!).

            The simple issue is that man’s CO2 is NOT driving temperatures as claimed by the IPCC. And that SAME community has not addressed the 18+ year pause. The issue of no global warming for 18 years is being IGNORED by the VERY same community you asking me to trust.

            The fact that this community says our CO2 is driving temperatures at such rates and then IGNORING the 18 year pause is a POLITICAL CORRECT position and not one of good science.

            And NONE (ZERO) of the IPCC models reflect the current warming rates (as I said, zero warming for 18 years now). So they produced models for 20+ years are that ALL WRONG!

            You posting in a PERFECT forum, since EVERYONE HERE KNOWS the science community dropped the ball on LENR, and now you saying funding corrupts those scientists! (and hey, I agree!! – so do MOST here agree that funding and politics has corrupted the progress of LENR).

            And that SAME science community continues to support garbage science like the hockey stick. The response should not be to dig their heals in and support crap science like the hockey stick, or ignore the 18+ year pause. To even MENTION this pause is political suicide right now.

            Until that science community comes clean on above issues, then we simply have the SAME situation in regards to LENR.

            A response from you to accept that the science community is doing the right thing in regards to LENR or global warming is a silly position to take. You not address the pause and these issues, but ONLY making faith based appeals to higher authorities on these matters. (in other words, don’t think for yourself).

            The simple issue is funding and politics are being placed in FRONT of good honest science in regards to LENR, and clearly the same exists for global warming. I suggest some reading of the leaked climate gate emails to see how that community behaved (it is disgusting and morally reprehensible).

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada
            kallal@msn.com

          • Axil Axil

            http://phys.org/news/2015-04-western-canada-percent-glaciers.html

            Eastern Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers by 2100

            Seventy per cent of glacier ice in British Columbia and Alberta could disappear by the end of the 21st century, creating major problems for local ecosystems, power supplies, and water quality, according to a new study by University of British Columbia researchers. The study is published online in Nature Geoscience.

            There are over 17,000 glaciers in B.C. and Alberta and they play an important role in energy production through hydroelectric power. The glaciers also contribute to the water supply and are essential to mining and agriculture. Clarke says while these issues are a concern, increased precipitation due to climate change could help compensate for glacier loss. The greatest impact, he suspects, will be on freshwater ecosystems. During the late summer, glacier melt provides cool, plentiful water to many of the region’s headwaters.

            “These glaciers act as a thermostat for freshwater ecosystems,” said Clarke. “Once the glaciers are gone, the streams will be a lot warmer and this will hugely change fresh water habitat. We could see some unpleasant surprises in terms of salmon productivity.”

            ———————————————————–

            Yes , I know, its a small price to pay for oil, and we all will be dead at that time so why worry.

            http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/55229d4738f05.jpg

        • Omega Z

          It wont spread nearly as fast as you think.
          The E-cat is just a reactor. It has little value by itself.
          Anything you would use it in has yet to be designed & built.
          This all takes time & lots of money.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Actually, all that is required here are several more replications. So another 10 or so, and universities etc. will take notice.

    As noted, some already are taking notice. We have all kinds of announcements occurring, and heck there even a LENR course at MIT (not a audited course with credits, but never the less such courses are already creating a whole new generation of students who are now exposed to LENR and thinking about LENR).

    The announcement by Pons and Fleischmann was an absolute bomb shell for the press. The P&F device was front and center for every single major news outlet for several weeks. We all know the story here and issues of failed replications along with self interested parties hurt this cause.

    If the P&F device was EASY to replicate, then history would be different. The debate about the physics is really moot! And there are several theories that fit within the standard model anyway.

    However, the physics community right now will NOT make or break this issue. If replications occur and if they did in P&F’s time, then the physics community DOES NOT MATTER! Only the heat effect matters.

    The physics community will not and cannot make or break this issue now. It will be replications. Every day that passes does make the physics community look worse and worse. But so what!!! You mean we get to throw tomatoes and rotten food at them as they walk by? Big deal!! Feeling good or “smug” about some issue does NOTHING for LENR. That simply peoples ego and pride talking.

    The “door” of resistance to LENR is being kicked VERY hard right now. A few more blows and that door will fall in a spectacular and magic way. When this door falls down, it will fall VERY fast.

    Compared to 5 years ago, things are looking VERY good for LENR.

    As soon as a re-producible device arrives, then really, LENR is a slam dunk.

    What is most remarkable about Parkhomov is “seemly” how easy this replication was. I mean, it would have been MUCH harder to say replicate the first Apple II. In fact it was MUCH harder to replicating a flying airplane.

    We not talking about large funds or large amounts of capital required for these replications. This aspect of LENR makes it even MORE exciting. And this REASON ALONE will allow LENR to spread fast. If each LENR experiment took millions of dollars, then LENR would be VERY slow to catch on, and would be the domain of big government research and large industrial companies.

    So repeated replications of this effect will be the final blow in the interesting “saga” of LENR. And since replication is not expensive, then we have a winner on our hands!

    We have to wait until more replications occur. I don’t see why they will not occur, but if for some strange reason replications don’t occur, then whoever gets a product to “commercial” market will be the final straw that breaks the camel back. However, commercialization is a capital intensive process – replications at this point seem low cost.

    I often stated that a commercial product will be the magic key to acceptance of LENR, but now it seems replication is in fact more important.

    I don’t think much more needs be done in terms of LENR.

    A few more replications and we off to the LENR races. We are close!!!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Axil Axil

      We are interested in LENR’s impact on the world…the more powerful that impark is, the better. If science accepts LENR lock, stock, and barrel, it will be at least 50 years before anything world changing would comes out of that interest. The LASER was patented in 1958, look how long it has taken for that technology to flower. We need an air tight product design to change the world right from the get-go…like the IPhone.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Absolute we are interested in the impact of LENR. The question being asked here is how can (or will) LENR spread?

        And because the technology seems rather easy to re-produce, then this technology will not be like the telephone or airplanes – it has an “inherent” ability to spread much faster. So I don’t see this as similar to LASERs or the phone system (which needed a critical mass before the telephone became really useful). In other words a country with 1 or 2 phones is not a big deal due to the “network” effect created by having many users. The “value” of the phone is only realized with many users. LENR does not fall into this category.

        Even computers to have a “huge effect” required networking (the internet). Prior to the internet, a computer was like a car without roads. LENR does not have this networking effect or requirement. It more like adoption of the refrigerators (occurred very fast).

        My main point here is that debating the acceptance by the physics community WILL NOT unleash and unlock LENR for the masses. It is certainly possible (likely) that when the physics community gets around to grasping how LENR works, then this understanding may well enhance the LENR effect, but then again, it may not.

        The spread and use of electricity really did not need acceptance by the physics community, but the basic means to harness and use electricity is what made the difference. The physics community over time may have helped the spread of electricity, but at the end of the day the physics community really was a side show to adoption of electricity.

        And same goes for LENR – the physics community is a side show right now.

        Replications will be the torch that carries and wins the acceptance of LENR.

        And yes a “ready” made commercial product like how the iPhone changed phones will certainly be a “major” step in acceptance of LENR.

        Replications are thus the winning formula. It is a given that the physics community is dragging their feet, but as noted that’s not going to make or break LENR.

        Replications followed by a commercial ready product will win the day here. It not quite known how close we are to a commercial product, but those “little” reactor boxes Rossi has now seem perfect for home use. I’ll take a nice like six pack reactor from Rossi!

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Mats002

          LENR is _not_ like refridgertors it is like LED and LED+

        • Axil Axil

          It won’t be long before all the world’s ice has melted, and we are all under 100 meters of ocean water. Two LENR reactors are not going to help. LENR must go viral. We need billions of units in every country far and wide. Bill Gates should be buying LENR power plants for needy African bushmen. 50 years is too long. We need LENR and we need it now.

          • bachcole

            “bushman” is an ethnic group among many ethnic groups is Africa. It is not an adjective to describe the state of nature or other ethnic groups in Africa. (:->) It would be like calling Europeans “germans” or “spaniards”.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Ice melting? We seen record ice growth of late. And we output in the last 18 years RECORD amounts of CO2 (same as previous 70+ years = that includes the post war industrial boom), and yes for the last 18 years we seen NO GLOBAL warming at all.

            You cannot even show a “simple” math correlation between the outputs of man’s CO2 and that of warming trends. Really, anyone with Google and 10 minutes of their time (and a function intellect) would see global warming for what it is = a scam to tax you.

            The effects of man’s the CO2 driving temperatures are VERY much overblown, and despite record amounts of CO2 in the last 18 years, we not seen any global warming for 18 years.
            We had higher temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period and all it did was enhance our ability to grow more food, and Europe prospered MUCH during this time. And those higher temperatures occurred without industrial CO2.

            Man’s output of CO2 is not a problem nor is it driving temperatures as claimed by the IPCC. The effects are minor.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/09/warming-stays-on-the-great-shelf/

            Really, anyone who buys into the CO2 and the catastrophic warming that will occur as a result of man’s output of CO2 has really missed the boat along the way.

            To quote the IPCC:
            Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:
            “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate
            policy…Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy
            separately from the major themes of globalization…One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
            (co-chair of Working group III IPCC)

            But hey, the UN will take your money and redistribute the world’s wealth as long as fools like you exist and go along with the UN

            I perhaps in some mocking way wish that man’s output of CO2 was driving temperatures in some significant way, as then the push for LENR and more funding would be urgent and justified!

            Unfortunately promoting the CO2 scam to push for LENR funding is dishonest intellectually, and is promoting a lie to achieve needed funding for CO2. This is only acceptable for those who the truth does not matter.

            Regards,

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Axil Axil
          • Albert D. Kallal

            The melting has occurred up and down for 10,000+ years. The issue is this melting due to man’s CO2 output?

            Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/08/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

            The idea here that you going to make an appeal to authorities to support your position that man’s CO2 is a problem or issue is a VERY VERY bad way to do science right now.

            In other words, you make appeals to higher authorities, the SAME GROUP that dropped the ball on LENR!

            As a rule, science by consensus is a VERY bad idea. While the science community in Galileo’s time thought that planets revolved around the earth, such consensus was wrong.

            And today, same goes for LENR. That SAME appeal to those authorities is the WRONG way to go about science. The last 20+ years of climate models by the IPCC are ALL WRONG AND DO NOT reflect observed temperature changes. Anyone taking out a telescope at Galileo’s time would all EASY see the consensus was wrong. Same goes for global warming – just look at their claim’s and models vs observed temperatures. Our CO2 is barely noticeable above the error rate of measuring global temperatures.

            Dwight Eisenhower warned about this situation we see today.

            The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

            Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

            This is exactly the case with LENR and even that of global warming. Governments are pushing hard for new taxes, and any research that supports CO2 as being bad thus wins the day.

            Same goes for LENR. A university will not receive huge funding for LENR that some silly fellow in an apartment can replicate (Parkaomov). Why push cold fusion for $10,000 grant when you get MILLIONS for hot fusion? And LENR means freedom from government – hot fusion does not.

            And even the USA military spews out a endless supply of global warming documents. (because it restrict energy independence in North America, and justifies their need and existence to police the Middle East). With LENR we simply just ignore the Middle East.

            The simple issue is that the major science bodies have become politicized and self serving. EVERYONE here sees and knows that in regards to LENR – the same situation exists with Global warming.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Axil Axil

            Be honest now. Do you work in the oil sands industry?

            http://www.hcsgroup.com/experience

            Upton Sinclair : “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

          • Albert D. Kallal

            No I don’t work for the oil industry. But then then my response would be YOU be honest and tell me if your income comes from some government that ALSO happens to be pushing a CO2 tax?

            If you saying that based on one’s funding that such people cannot be trusted, then you ARE PROVING my point that such appeals to authorities is a VERY bad thing to do now. So if a scientists is receiving government funding for global warming, are we to ignore that same government who is pushing a carbon tax? If source of funding eliminates one’s credibility, then I suggest you RE-READ the above quote from the IPCC about redistributing the world wealth via climate policy.

            So now you saying that this issue is not about science, but the source of funding. If science is based on source of funding and not science, then you are doing a bang up job of HELPING to make my case here!

            By your logic you are thus proving that the science community cannot be trusted because they change their mind based on their source of funding! (well done!!!).

            The simple issue is that man’s CO2 is NOT driving temperatures as claimed by the IPCC. And that SAME community has not addressed the 18+ year pause. The issue of no global warming for 18 years is being IGNORED by the VERY same community you asking me to trust.

            The fact that this community says our CO2 is driving temperatures at such rates and then IGNORING the 18 year pause is a POLITICAL CORRECT position and not one of good science.

            And NONE (ZERO) of the IPCC models reflect the current warming rates (as I said, zero warming for 18 years now). So they produced models for 20+ years are that ALL WRONG!

            You posting in a PERFECT forum, since EVERYONE HERE KNOWS the science community dropped the ball on LENR, and now you saying funding corrupts those scientists! (and hey, I agree!! – so do MOST here agree that funding and politics has corrupted the progress of LENR).

            And that SAME science community continues to support garbage science like the hockey stick. The response should not be to dig their heals in and support crap science like the hockey stick, or ignore the 18+ year pause. To even MENTION this pause is political suicide right now.

            Until that science community comes clean on above issues, then we simply have the SAME situation in regards to LENR.

            A response from you to accept that the science community is doing the right thing in regards to LENR or global warming is a silly position to take. You not address the pause and these issues, but ONLY making faith based appeals to higher authorities on these matters. (in other words, don’t think for yourself).

            The simple issue is funding and politics are being placed in FRONT of good honest science in regards to LENR, and clearly the same exists for global warming. I suggest some reading of the leaked climate gate emails to see how that community behaved (it is disgusting and morally reprehensible).

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada
            kallal@msn.com

          • bachcole

            Financial determinism is imperfect.

            A person having x perception can do so without financial incentive from X industry or government funding. A person getting finances from X industry or government spending is very likely going to hold the x perception. For a person to be hired by X industry or government organization, it is almost a certainty that they will hold x perception.

            Is that clear?

          • Axil Axil

            http://phys.org/news/2015-04-western-canada-percent-glaciers.html

            Eastern Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers by 2100

            Seventy per cent of glacier ice in British Columbia and Alberta could disappear by the end of the 21st century, creating major problems for local ecosystems, power supplies, and water quality, according to a new study by University of British Columbia researchers. The study is published online in Nature Geoscience.

            There are over 17,000 glaciers in B.C. and Alberta and they play an important role in energy production through hydroelectric power. The glaciers also contribute to the water supply and are essential to mining and agriculture. Clarke says while these issues are a concern, increased precipitation due to climate change could help compensate for glacier loss. The greatest impact, he suspects, will be on freshwater ecosystems. During the late summer, glacier melt provides cool, plentiful water to many of the region’s headwaters.

            “These glaciers act as a thermostat for freshwater ecosystems,” said Clarke. “Once the glaciers are gone, the streams will be a lot warmer and this will hugely change fresh water habitat. We could see some unpleasant surprises in terms of salmon productivity.”

            ———————————————————–

            Yes , I know, its a small price to pay for oil, and we all will be dead at that time so why worry.

            http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/55229d4738f05.jpg

          • bachcole

            The severity of the effects of global warming has absolutely no bearing on the question of the cause of global warming.

          • bachcole

            I agree 123%, but I guarantee that Axil Axil will find some way that he is right and you are wrong, but this is not a criticism of Axil Axil, who is an otherwise brilliant thinker. AGW has become so politicized that both sides have their very own data points, and neither side listens to the other side.

        • Omega Z

          It wont spread nearly as fast as you think.
          The E-cat is just a reactor. It has little value by itself.
          Anything you would use it in has yet to be designed & built.
          This all takes time & lots of money.

  • LuFong

    http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/welcome-do-nuclear-bombs-exist.html

    And this is almost 70 years after the first bomb. And the safety of nuclear power is still a huge concern.

    I don’t think the question was looking at 70 years down the road.

    O.o

  • Ronzonni

    There are some obvious ways to “prove” LENR to the scientific community. In my opinion, of course.

    First is the demonstration of a high power LENR reactor, for example Rossi’s or Defkalion’s or Miley’s, using a team which is not in any way tied to or restricted by or assisted by the inventor. That is not to say that they can open or steal the device or run it to destruction but it is essential that the inventor nor anyone associated in any way with the inventor, ** ever ** put a hand on the reactor or any of the equipment during any part of the testing.

    The test method itself and all (*ALL!!!!*) associated equipment would have to be provided by the team with NO INPUT from the inventor except for the specifications of the reactor. The inventor would provide only the reactor and its specifications. The test team would do absolutely everything else. This has not happened yet for Rossi, Defkalion or Miley. The test team must be prestigious enough to be convincing. Best would be a group put together under the official sanction of a major university or even better, a government test lab. Tests done under the auspices of a major company such as Tesla, National Instruments, Microsoft, or Google would also work, providing that the independence from the inventor was absolute.

    Another possibility which would help acceptance would be if a reactor were made self running, maybe by capturing some of the excess heat it produces and returning it or trapping it inside the reactor. If the reactor became unstable and exploded, the explosive yield could be measured to see if it was large enough to have been produced by a nuclear process. Of course, this would be done in a safe place and manner.

    I think that if these criteria were met, acceptance would follow by many important institutions and they would be eager to do more testing and perhaps replication. Why would they not? How could they afford not to?

    As for universal public acceptance, I agree that some sort of product available for sale to any qualified individual or company would do it. I was hoping that would happen with Rossi but for some reason I find difficult to understand, although the megawatt plant has been commercially available for more than three years, only one military and one civilian customer took advantage of the offering.

    To clarify that strange story, I suggest admin might ask Rossi what happened to the military client’s reactor (how it works, how they like it, what can they say about how they tested it, can we hear from the military customer directly and if not why not?). Rossi could also be asked why no other company or military unit has bought a megawatt plant at the internet-offered price of $1 (or maybe $1.5) million. I would have thought dozens or hundreds of companies would have wanted to try it and at one time, Rossi was saying he was ready to ramp up production. So what happened to that, if he will tell us?

    • Frank Acland

      I have asked about the military unit and he says he can’t comment about it.

      • Ronzonni

        OK, then, is it possible to ask Dr. Rossi how many civilian customers bought the megawatt plant in the three years it has been offered for sale on his and officially associated web sites, with four months quoted as delivery time? And how many were delivered and in general terms, without revealing proprietary data, how well do they work? Thanks.

        If Dr. Rossi says none were sold, it would be fair to ask a followup question: why?! If he declines the question, same followup: why? What may induce skepticism in reasonable people is that there is often no apparent reason for not answering at least some part of innocuous questions!

        • Frank Acland

          I’ve asked him this before — when he was making his plants in Italy. He said he had sold two. One to a military customer, and the other to a US customer. He talks about it in this interview:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HwYXL-lmHY

          • bachcole

            If that is the case, then I have to take back everything that I have ever said about stealth development of LENR. If people can see it and they are positive that it is real, then all bets are off. It could have spread anywhere stealthfully.

    • Paul

      No military customer exist, for this reason Rossi does not reply, the military client should only attract the first investors.

    • Omega Z

      There is only one way.
      Build it and sell them as IH/Rossi have started already.

  • Axil Axil

    The US government. Nuclear plants mean uranium enrichment, plutonium and bomb potential.

  • Da Phys

    I admit that I disagree with most posts here: the question is not about replications, excess heat, COP>1, etc., it is about the existence of a nuclear reaction at low temperature. Many replications already exist (too many??), but were not accompanied by a serious isotopic analysis of the ashes, at least not at a level that would prove the existence of a nuclear reaction without any reasonable doubt.
    Recently, the Lugano report was a nice way forward but IMHO the authors focused too much on calorimetry measurements and not enough on the true existence of a nuclear reaction. We cannot blame them because this was not their primary goal.
    We may have a unique opportunity today: Parkhomov seems open to share his results and collaborate with MFSP. A giant step forward would be to carry out an isotopic analysis of the ashes following a long term run as he succeeded now. Two or more replications by two or more independent groups showing an excess heat will not be enough whereas two or more analyses of the ashes by two independent groups that show the same changes of some isotopes would be a definitive proof of a nuclear reaction.

  • Gerrit

    The demand from the naysayers has always been to go and build a power plant and then they’ll listen. This is exactly what is happening now.

    When we’ll have easy replicable setups a small subset of scientists will work with it trying to figure out how and why it is working, that may take years. Some “outsiders” have already started to look at the subject.

    Once significant funding gets dedicated to LENR research, it will mean that the phenomenon is accepted as a reality and it has arrived in mainstream science.

    The general public might think that a paper in Nature of Science will be the turning point, but this is just a symptom of why the whole science system is failing. Who needs Nature or Science when these journals flat out refused to look at the topic for 25 years.

    • Mats002

      You and I – we – are the outsiders?

      • Gerrit

        no, we are the spectators. The outsiders are the physicists who never had anything to do with cold fusion, but are working on it now. For instance Hanno Essen and his collaborators

  • Gerrit

    The demand from the naysayers has always been to go and build a power plant and then they’ll listen. This is exactly what is happening now.

    When we’ll have easy replicable setups a small subset of scientists will work with it trying to figure out how and why it is working, that may take years. Some “outsiders” have already started to look at the subject.

    Once significant funding gets dedicated to LENR research, it will mean that the phenomenon is accepted as a reality and it has arrived in mainstream science.

    The general public might think that a paper in Nature of Science will be the turning point, but this is just a symptom of why the whole science system is failing. Who needs Nature or Science when these journals flat out refused to look at the topic for 25 years.

    • Mats002

      You and I – we – are the outsiders?

      • Gerrit

        no, we are the spectators. The outsiders are the physicists who never had anything to do with cold fusion, but are working on it now. For instance Hanno Essen and his collaborators

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Have a model R/C turbine jet airplane show with LENR powered engines.
    I mentioned this before. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/16/we-are-witness-to-the-birth-of-a-new-industry-albert-d-kallal/
    But now maybe we could have Parkhomov get together with Russian R/C turbine jet airplane builders to retrofit a kerosene R/C jet engine with LENR and be THE FIRST IN FLIGHT with LENR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpRS_OlhrGs

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      These model jet engines are really turbine jet engines. The retrofit might not be that difficult. Put Parhomov’s reactor in the combustion chamber. The concept is simple. You just need to heat the incoming air. Like the jet engine for the 1950s atomic bomber. I linked to this before. See the direct
      cycle engine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCw0s0BJKY

      • Axil Axil

        You can bet that there is a Navy Drone with a hot cat in its belly flying overhead somewhere.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah Axil, it could stay up forever.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Fly them long enough to demonstrate that it
      couldn’t be a convention power source that’s keeping them aloft.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Have a model R/C turbine jet airplane show with LENR powered engines.
    I mentioned this before. http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/16/we-are-witness-to-the-birth-of-a-new-industry-albert-d-kallal/
    But now maybe we could have Parkhomov get together with Russian R/C turbine jet airplane builders to retrofit a kerosene R/C jet engine with LENR and be THE FIRST IN FLIGHT with LENR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpRS_OlhrGs

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      These model jet engines are really turbine jet engines. The retrofit might not be that difficult. Put Parhomov’s reactor in the combustion chamber. The concept is simple. You just need to heat the incoming air. Like the jet engine for the 1950s atomic bomber. I linked to this before. See the direct
      cycle engine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsCw0s0BJKY

      • Axil Axil

        You can bet that there is a Navy Drone with a hot cat in its belly flying overhead somewhere.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Yeah Axil, it could stay up forever.

        • bachcole

          I bet that today, March 21st, 2015, there is not. Of course, now, there is no way that we can prove it one way or the other.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Fly them long enough to demonstrate that it
      couldn’t be a convention power source that’s keeping them aloft.

  • mike

    It’s already been proven and nothing short of half the world using it will convince the critics. The longer they take to admit quantum physics has been overturned, the deeper they bury themselves. I am just fine with that. Let the people who are bringing it to market run with the ball. They aren’t asking for money and they are themselves convinced they will have something to market. When do you think the patent office will approved Rossi’s patent? Only when he is selling them and as we all know, that is too late because of patent rules. Let the others like Parkomov replicate and develop a theory. What theory did the right brothers use? Mathematicians proved they were frauds back then with perfect formulas proving flight was impossible. Just like and electron being closer to the nucleus is impossible. Now the powers that be are 10 times worse now than then. Let’s just watch these tinkerers save the world while established scientists keep throwing stones and letting the world they created burn.

  • Gerrit

    we could work the social media, like we worked together to get Lenuco crowdvoted.

    we could all get an imgur account, make a nice cold fusion album, and just bomb upvote the thing to the front page. A couple of days later another one of us does it again. Boom front page. We’ll get a lot of believers of holy physics books angry, but more and more will start to look into the topic.

  • radvar

    Answer: Scale up to 100 replications, which would attract public VC money, which would be the breakout.

    How? Broken Record:

    Right now, start building a wiki containing a high quality “best current” replication cookbook, backed up by all the experiment procedures, information and results data currently available. And keep it up to date.

    This would greatly increase the rate at which new replications emerge..

    This is totally do-able, in terms of economics, available skill sets and available discretionary time (apparently, from levels of participation here).

    It needs only two things:
    1) Insight into how powerful such a wiki could be, in terms of providing a single source of complete, well-structured information, compared to what is available now.
    2) A deep passion about the need to get LENR into the world’s energy mix

    @Admin, this site has had historic importance already. Such a wiki could increase that impact by orders of magnitude.

    tick, tick tick…

    • Eyedoc

      WIKI won’t happen/allow…….. use this site, that’s why Frank lives !:)

  • rats123

    Very easy to do. Do ONE conclusive test in the presence of capable third party skeptics and that is all that is required.

    By conclusive I mean control run, proper calorimetry etc.

    • Matt Sevrens

      Many would have considered those involved in the Lugano test as “capable third party skeptics”. That is until the Lugano test, at which point they were suddenly fanatical fringe scientists.

    • Sanjeev

      You can not trust those narrow minded skeptics to tell the truth. Even if they see positive evidence there is no guarantee that they will not lie to the public. It is risky to ask a wolf to protect a sheep….
      Its much better that AP gives out the information to all to replicate and see for themselves.

    • bachcole

      Rossi already did that.

  • ecatworld

    Yes, anyone who would like to be an editor for the knowledge base please let me know and I can create an account for you.

    ecatworld@gmail.com

  • Paul

    No military customer exist, for this reason Rossi does not reply, the military client should only attract the first investors.

  • Mytakeis

    My thought would be every time there is an opportunity to comment on the subject of energy, be it oil, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, etc., bring up the ‘fact’ that LENR is going to replace that source of energy. Just say it, over and over, and the authoritative uppiddy-ups out there in academia will start having to deny something that could make them look really stupid.

  • HS61AF91

    My thought would be every time there is an opportunity to comment on the subject of energy, be it oil, coal, wind, solar, nuclear, tidal, etc., bring up the ‘fact’ that LENR is going to replace that source of energy. Just say it, over and over, and the authoritative uppiddy-ups out there in academia will start having to deny something that could make them look really stupid.

    • bachcole

      I have been doing that for a very long time. I don’t get too much support. I will continue doing it whether I get support or not, but a lack of support means that I will continue to complain here about a lack of support. (:->)

  • John

    I’m working already in my idea is to create a drone with a LENR reactor in it, a gps tracking device on board, a website to track it’s position to all social network to track it worldwide and OPEN in a project to make it run the planet on major cities without need of fossil fuel. This will peacefully start the revolution and will be recognized worldwide. As I’m already working on it, I just need a mini Parkhomov Reactor and a sponsored reliable 80 days resistant Drone. The issue I’m working on is how to drive the drone motors,I’m open to ideas.

    • Mats002

      Electricity?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Guys, you need to see the latest Facebook update.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • Mike Henderson

      “When a replacement heater was used, the reactor RESTARTED!! at 11:10 on March 21 and works still.”

      I hope this means that a “Parhomov reactor” could be pre-lit where it is produced and tested briefly. It could then be shut down, cooled, and shipped by UPS. It would no longer contain any LiAlH4. It would be cool and evacuated inside. Perfectly harmless. And anybody could warm it up and measure its COP.

      Replication anywhere.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Exactly, we have to replicate, everything is described now. I have samples of his exact powder and will send them out, hopefully Monday to team members (went to get sample bags from the bead shop across the road, but it was shut).

    • Dods

      Brilliant news Bob. I’m going to have to confess though this was the song that came to my mind soon as I read it.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i–HyjCsX8

      • Bob Greenyer

        Perfect.

    • LuFong

      When the heater failed, was there any heat after death?

      • Bob Greenyer

        A1. I have asked that question.

        A2. Not as far as I know, and as I noted in the spreadsheet, this should not be required. How effective the long term yield is after shutdown(s) would need an extended study.

    • Hi all

      Congratulations to Parhomov on his great work, and perhaps a share of the Nobel prizes to come 😉

      If MFMP can get the tech for joe public replications out then Frank’s Question in this article is answered and MFMP would be looking at a share of the Nobel prizes too.

      Kind Regards walker

      • Omega Z

        There is only one way.
        Build it and sell them as IH/Rossi have started already.

        • Stephen

          Although I like the science I can see that the engineering proof should not be dependant on that and should and will come first. The more I read the more I think the momentum is already there. Maybe once the work by MFMP and Parkhomov and the rest is tuned to the point they have a device that is stable and safe to distribute, someone can develope an engineering kit for distribution to as many university labs as possible. Ideally the kit should allow access to the fuel and ash for offline analysis and perhaps a test rig to monitor and modify parameters. Imagine no one knew about rabbits… putting one on everyones desks would convince them they exist. They may think you are illusionists and magicians but once they take its heart beat they would know it is real. May be timing would be good as well to coordinate with other LENR activities such as Rossi’s endeavour he certainly deserves his moment I think. Timing and coordination may also capture the media attention. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some kind of media frenzy when this is all finally proved to the world… So be prepared for that too.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Guys, you need to see the latest Facebook update.

    https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

    • Mike Henderson

      “When a replacement heater was used, the reactor RESTARTED!! at 11:10 on March 21 and works still.”

      I hope this means that a “Parhomov reactor” could be pre-lit where it is produced and tested briefly. It could then be shut down, cooled, and shipped by UPS. It would no longer contain any LiAlH4. It would be cool and evacuated inside. Perfectly harmless. And anybody could warm it up and measure its COP.

      Replication anywhere.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Exactly, we have to replicate, everything is described now. I have samples of his exact powder and will send them out, hopefully Monday to team members (went to get sample bags from the bead shop across the road, but it was shut).

    • Dods

      Brilliant news Bob. I’m going to have to confess though this was the song that came to my mind soon as I read it.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i–HyjCsX8

      • Bob Greenyer

        Perfect.

    • Hi all

      Congratulations to Parhomov on his great work, and perhaps a share of the Nobel prizes to come 😉

      If MFMP can get the tech for joe public replications out then Frank’s Question in this article is answered and MFMP would be looking at a share of the Nobel prizes too.

      Kind Regards walker

  • f sedei

    To me, Rossi has the best answer to this problem since day one: Build it and they will come!

  • Mats002

    Yes. What answer did you expect?

  • I think that LENR will only be accepted by the wider science community and therefore the public and industry when a theoretical basis that explains all (not most) of the anomalous heat and transmutation obsevations emerges. I say “theorectical basis” instead of just “theory” because it is not obvious that there is only one new phenomenon in play – that the Pd-D electrolysis approach of F&P is merely a variation of the same effect as the Nickel-Hydgrogen based eCat. These two may prove to be only the first of a whole new set of phenomena to do with quasi-nuclear effects in condensed matter.

    However, the way to progress the theorectical side might still be via experimentation but which is not fixated on only the end results – heat and transmutations. Edmund Storms has suggested the hydroton – a long 1D chain of hydrogen atoms “holding hands” inside a microcrack in the Nickel. Superior microscopy to his may be able to verify this. As with most experiments on the Quantum scale, merely observing any such chain will probably change it or at least prevent it from resonating but that may be OK in that it would at least “put the supsects at the scene of the crime”.

    Storms would prefer to explain LENR using currently accepted Physics but, as many contributors are starting to say, LENR or Condensed Matter Physics may ultimately force all Physics textbooks to be rewritten, perhaps radically so. Most of the current Physics “rock-stars” are so hooked on the LHC “high energy rock concert” or the ITER “hot fusion love fest” that they just don’t want to come down of these wild highs and work on LENR alongside the “boring” Chemists they think they are superior to.

    • Axil Axil

      Storms is correct to a degree. Hydrogen is one of a number of gases and liquids that produce nanoparticles when its temperature and pressure is in the proper range to produce supercritical behavior. This is where the 1D chain of hydrogen atoms come from. These chains are called Rydberg matter. Any other elements dissolved in this hydrogen supercritical liquid is also nucleated into nanoparticles(AKA secret sauce) if a pressure and/or temperature oscillation occurs. The cracks have little to do with the reaction. But cracks do serve the same function that the nickel particles do, they moderate the LENR reaction so that the LENR reaction does not precede too quickly and go bang. The nanoparticles attract each other as a result of dipole surface activity and large highly focused magnetic fields are produced between these particles. These magnetic beams disrupt nuclear material in their paths. The spaces between the aggregates of these nanoparticles are the locations of the Nuclear Active Environments.

      The fractional quantum hall effect has already demonstrated to science that a magnetic field can lower the coulomb barrier of electrons in fractional quantum stages based on the strength of the applied magnetic field. Given a strong enough magnetic field, the coulomb barrier is removed.

      Check out this patent for more detail

      http://www.roxit.ax/FinsktLENRpatent.pdf.

    • Michel Vandenberghe

      G-Day program at LENRG is about theorical basis. LENR at LENRG stands for Low Energy Nanoscale Reactions

    • Omega Z

      That’s backwards. A theory isn’t necessary in order for something to work.
      If that were the case, we’d all still be living in caves.
      Science has become fixated on theory. We need to get back to real science. Experiment, Experiment, Experiment.

      Theory has a good track record of describing how something works after the fact. Not so much on predicting.

      • I think you’ve missed the point here. Cave men knew how to light fires but it wasn’t until fire was proven to be the result of rapid oxidation that rapid progress could begin. We LENR watchers know that there is now plenty of experimental evidence of anomalous heat and transmutation. The Physics “rock stars”, who haven’t updated their LENR knowledge since 1989 still think that there is some kind of experimental error or even fraud. Their eventual sheepish admissions to the contrary will certainly be entertaining.

        However, if we all just keep replicating Rossi or Parkhomov’s work, we’ll be no closer to understanding what is really going on. What’s required is a series of experiments designed to detect hydrotons, plasmons, hydrinos or whatever they may be. Some of the “rock stars” could help a lot here but let’s not count on too many doing so.

        Whoever does the experiments, they will bear no resemblance at all to what Rossi or Parkhomov are doing but, if they succeed and pave the way to the correct theory, it will then be an almost trivial matter for a team of engineers to come up with the ultimate, efficient, safe LENR device.

        Experimentation should help evolve theory and that evolving theory should, in turn, narrow down what needs to be better measured and tested. Eventually the theory will be highly predictive.

        As for your statement that theory best describes something after the fact, tell that to Edmund Halley, who predicted that the Great Comet would reappear 76 years after the last time but died before it did. Also remember that there has just been a solar eclipse. Now let me see: who was it who predicted that the light from the stars close to the sun could be bent around it and the effect could be observed during a solar eclipse?

        • GreenWin

          Phillip raises a reasonable point. However, his cave man example is flawed. Because cave men did not know “oxidation” from “trepidation.” What they did know was throw wood, dried dung, dead grass, plants or coal on a fire — it will burn. No theory required. Just plain and simple trial and error.

          Of course a successful theory is predictive. Prior to theory comes experiment, aka “trial and error.” The theorists are the innocuous class that have failed us in LENR. After all, it was their “theories” that predicted LENR impossible. John Huizenga, Bob Park, PPPL, CalTech and the MIT hot fusion clan are directly responsible for these failures of “theory.”

          • That was my point: cave men knew how to produce fires but they didn’t understand the underlying chemistry so they couldn’t progress beyond that stage and produce oxy-acetylene torches, hydrogen-oxygen burning rockets, etc.

            In the same way, our modern “LENR cave men” will never get beyond the eCat or Parkhomov stages until they understand the underlying Physics and Chemistry and that means that the theory needs to advance. And, yes, that, in turn, means that John Huizenga, Bob Park, PPPL, CalTech and the MIT hot fusion clan will need to be replaced by a younger, much more competent and open minded team of theoretical and experimental researchers that have all the funding and instrumentation that they need and are not trying to work on a shoe-string budget that most LENR research to date has suffered from.

            Theory is necessary but, as I said in part 4 of my http://www.thinktankreport.com series, “rigorous observations and measurements have a “right to exist”, whether they conform to the latest scientific fashion or not” . For more, click on http://www.thinktankreport.com/2012/01/04/the-promise-of-controlled-nuclear-fusion-part-iii/

    • bachcole

      When peasants said that rocks were falling from the sky, were they wrong? When Wegener said that the continents drifted, was he wrong. I don’t give a rat’s rear-end what mainstream Western scientists think since they have already dropped the ball big time. I merely look forward to their Great Embarrassment. Society will be best served NOT with just really cheap heaters, but also with a scientific establishment over thrown and skeptopaths checking into mental hospitals, where they belong.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Will it be Coke or Pepsi?

  • bachcole

    Before we all get too excited, let us step back and realize that we are a LONG way from getting this energy source in your basement. Parkhomov is where Rossi was about 7 years ago.

    • Omega Z

      More like 4 years, but point taken.

  • Omega Z

    More like 4 years, but point taken.

  • Sanjeev

    You can not trust those narrow minded skeptics to tell the truth. Even if they see positive evidence there is no guarantee that they will not lie to the public. It is risky to ask a wolf to protect a sheep….
    Its much better that AP gives out the information to all to replicate and see for themselves.

  • Omega Z

    That’s backwards. A theory isn’t necessary in order for something to work.
    If that were the case, we’d all still be living in caves.
    Science has become fixated on theory. We need to get back to real science. Experiment, Experiment, Experiment.

    Theory has a good track record of describing how something works after the fact. Not so much on predicting.

  • Sanjeev

    You cannot do that as long as it is controlled by the corrupt and dishonest admins there. You can’t even add one word there and keep it for more than a second.

    Best strategy is to build your own wiki and spread the links everywhere. Those who can think will see the value of your wiki. Help build the E-Cat world wiki as much as you can.

  • Jarea1

    Have a contract with a big partner in the state or private that have much money. Let your partner create thousand of ECAT devices and create with him a sale and distribution channel that flood the energy market for households and small bussiness. After the first months selling the wave of good reports and feedbacks in the media will convince everybody.
    Another more academic way would be to send devices to CERN, NASA and more official sites to test and report about that.
    That can be done with the duplication of the Parkhomov devices but Rossi would never do that because of the money and his strategy to earn money by flooding the market at once.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “Parkhomov’s device” was based on what Parhomov learned from the Lugano report (Rossi’s device). Rossi did all the work and took all the risks. Rossi has every right to make a profit.

    • GreenWin

      CERN, NASA and most taxpayer funded “science” organizations have FAILED the human race with respect to alternative energy.

      • Chris Reid

        Take a look army other recent posts, The basic principle of LENR could be understood by a 5 year old child, once the encumbrance of our Scientific Gods have been swept aside. Tesla was right, lord Kelvin wrong – big time – Heavier than air flight possible, Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies only to a closed System !

        We’ve been using 3 phase electricity (good) generated by fossil fuels (very bad) for too long now, now is the time to light the new fire and clean up the environment…… NO THANKS TO THAT TRAITOR J P MORGAN. his ill gotten gains can be put to good use.

        We are in the 21st Century now…… TIME TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER !!!

        The meek shall inherit the Earth. ;))

  • Jarea

    Have a contract with a big partner in the state or private that have much money. Let your partner create thousand of ECAT devices and create with him a sale and distribution channel that flood the energy market for households and small bussiness. After the first months selling the wave of good reports and feedbacks in the media will convince everybody.
    Another more academic way would be to send devices to CERN, NASA and more official sites to test and report about that.
    That can be done with the duplication of the Parkhomov devices but Rossi would never do that because of the money and his strategy to earn money by flooding the market at once.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “Parkhomov’s device” was based on what Parhomov learned from the Lugano report (Rossi’s device). Rossi did all the work and took all the risks. Rossi has every right to make a profit.

    • GreenWin

      CERN, NASA and most taxpayer funded “science” organizations have FAILED the human race with respect to alternative energy.

      • Chris Reid

        Take a look army other recent posts, The basic principle of LENR could be understood by a 5 year old child, once the encumbrance of our Scientific Gods have been swept aside. Tesla was right, lord Kelvin wrong – big time – Heavier than air flight possible, Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies only to a closed System !

        We’ve been using 3 phase electricity (good) generated by fossil fuels (very bad) for too long now, now is the time to light the new fire and clean up the environment…… NO THANKS TO THAT TRAITOR J P MORGAN. his ill gotten gains can be put to good use.

        We are in the 21st Century now…… TIME TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER !!!

        The meek shall inherit the Earth. ;))

  • GreenWin

    Phillip raises a reasonable point. However, his cave man example is flawed. Because cave men did not know “oxidation” from “trepidation.” What they did know was throw wood, dried dung, dead grass, plants or coal on a fire — it will burn. No theory required. Just plain and simple trial and error.

    Of course a successful theory is predictive. Prior to theory comes experiment, aka “trial and error.” The theorists are the innocuous class that have failed us in LENR. After all, it was their “theories” that predicted LENR impossible. John Huizenga, Bob Park, PPPL, CalTech and the MIT hot fusion clan are directly responsible for these failures of “theory.”

  • 123db

    The question should really be, what is the end game?

    Is this about becoming famous, and possibly rich, or is it about helping humanity?

    If it really is the helping humanity bit, the answer is to develop a simple device that works, and is able to create electricity for someone with no skills. Put a price ticket on it, and give it to the world with only the simplest copyright.

    You know the whole world will copy it – just like they did with the petrol engine – why make it a pay day for lawyers?

    • Chris Reid

      The end game is to do what is best for nature, we might be top of the food chain, we have absolutely no right to extract the urine !
      So far we have been nothing but a parasitic cancer, hell bent on war, destruction and greed.
      Where else have you seen behaviour on this gargantuan scale in the ANIMAL KINGDOM !
      The CIRCLE OF LIFE RULES !

      We must act as responsible custodians of the PLANET ! NOT ITS NEMESIS !

      For GOD’S SAKE, The LORD WILL ALWAYS PROVIDE !!!

      • Obvious

        At least half of the species, and almost all lifeforms on this planet would kill and eat you, given the chance. Doubt it at your peril.

  • Donk970

    There is no need to prove anything to the general public. All that is needed is to present sufficient evidence to convince an investor to fund the R&D process to get a product to market. This seems to be happening now and in due coarse the public at large will become aware of LENR because they can buy a LENR heater at Home Depot (for example).

  • Donk970

    There is no need to prove anything to the general public. All that is needed is to present sufficient evidence to convince an investor to fund the R&D process to get a product to market. This seems to be happening now and in due coarse the public at large will become aware of LENR because they can buy a LENR heater at Home Depot (for example).

  • Stephen

    Although I like the science I can see that the engineering proof should not be dependant on that and should and will come first. The more I read the more I think the momentum is already there. Maybe once the work by MFMP and Parkhomov and the rest is tuned to the point they have a device that is stable and safe to distribute, someone can develope an engineering kit for distribution to as many university labs as possible. Ideally the kit should allow access to the fuel and ash for offline analysis and perhaps a test rig to monitor and modify parameters. Imagine no one knew about rabbits… putting one on everyones desks would convince them they exist. They may think you are illusionists and magicians but once they take its heart beat they would know it is real. May be timing would be good as well to coordinate with other LENR activities such as Rossi’s endeavour he certainly deserves his moment I think. Timing and coordination may also capture the media attention. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some kind of media frenzy when this is all finally proved to the world… So be prepared for that too.

  • Obvious

    At least half of the species, and almost all lifeforms on this planet would kill and eat you, given the chance. Doubt it at your peril.

  • kasom

    The first one who closes the loop, run a device for weeks without input, will prove LENR.
    But is there any closed loop demonstration in sight??

    • a good reactor with good control with good turbine…

      Rossi maybe soon.
      Airbus maybe already, but who knows… their patent (dixit Rob Woudenberg) is much richer than what we imagined. and by design it is looped.

  • a good reactor with good control with good turbine…

    Rossi maybe soon.
    Airbus maybe already, but who knows… their patent (dixit Rob Woudenberg) is much richer than what we imagined. and by design it is looped.

  • Asterix

    Too many people seem to be concentrating on heat and calorimetry, but if you’re looking for evidence of nuclear reaction, why not discard the issue of heat (which has all sorts of measurement issues) and concentrate on by-products? In other words, LENR, if real, should certainly be capable of producing fusion/fission products very different from the original feedstock.

    So just feed a reactor with a fuel with a known assay, run it for awhile, and then assay the reaction products. If done in an open and observable way by disinterested parties, there would be no question. The Lugano report doesn’t count because Rossi was in the room. Just that simple.

    After all, isn’t the sign of a conventional fission reaction the isotopic composition of the used fuel? Sure, there are various radiated products (photons and neutrons in particular), but without measuring those and simply assaying the used fuel, you would know that something nuclear has been happening. One doesn’t even have to be present during the actual run.