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.

  • 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.

  • Gerrit

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

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yes

  • Gerrit

    Shoot all the pseudoskeptics, maybe ?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 🙂

  • oceans

    I like the sound of that the “Parkhomov reactor”

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • clovis ray

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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
            [email protected]

          • 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.

  • 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

  • Axil Axil

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

  • 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.

  • 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 !:)

  • 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.

    [email protected]

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Mats002

    Yes. What answer did you expect?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Will it be Coke or Pepsi?

  • 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. ;))

  • 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.”

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.