Norwegian Newspaper Aftenpost Reports on LENR — (UPDATE: Bo Høistad Says Reports of his Team’s Confirming Lugano Report Not True)

Thanks to Mats Lewan for sending a link to this article from the largest Norwegian daily newspaper Aftenposten which reports on the topic of LENR/Cold fusion. (English Google translation of the article here)

It’s a typically very cautious mainstream media article, with all the necessary caveats and warnings from experts regarding how the phenomenon is impossible from the point of view of conventional physics. But it does open the door somewhat to the possibility that some hitherto unknown reaction might be taking place. Some well-known LENR proponents/sympathizers are quoted, including Robert Duncan from Texas Tech University, Michael McKubre from SRI International and Bo Bo Høistad from Uppsala University.

SEE UPDATE BELOW

And it’s from Bo Høistad that we get the most interesting piece of information regarding an upcoming report of another apparently successful E-Cat Replication. From the article:

Bo Høistad, who is co-author of the Swedish reports, saying that the articles have not yet been published in a scientific journal because they have verified the results of a new experiment that is independent of Rossi in Italy. An article with further information regarding this is now under preparation. According Høistad it made three independent, similar experiments after their first report, all of which have produced the wanted excess energy.

This means that the reports that we have been hearing of the Lugano team carrying out a replication seem to be accurate — and now it seems that the replication has been successful. If we can get a detailed report from this team on their reactor build and testing protocol, it could go a long way in helping other replicators — which should help with greater public visibility and acceptance of the reality of the Rossi Effect.

I hope it won’t be too long before we see this report.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: (June 21, 2015) Bo Høistad has issued via email a correction to the newspaper report above:

“If information is given in a Norwegian newspaper that we have confirmed the Lugano result it is unfortunately not true.”


  • Buck

    I think this is a good Father’s Day gift for Rossi and P&F.

    Happy Father’s Day to all.

    • Sanjeev

      Can be Mats Lewan?
      That’s a very positive article for a msm newspaper.

      • Buck

        Sanjeev,

        I’m not inclined to guess that it is Mats Lewan. The following quote IMO points to some else. Who? I don’t know.

        “This source has heavy scientific background in relevant subjects, has even been present and able to inspect the container. The
        reason that he does not want to be named, is that it is considered very
        dangerous for his career to embrace the highly controversial phenomenon
        of cold fusion”

        • Curbina

          Norman Cook, I think he could be.

  • Mike Henderson

    The open science efforts have struggled with replication. Clearly there are undisclosed or overlooked conditions required for reliable ignition. I hope the publication provides a better basis for understanding these pre-requisites and fully supports the ability to replicate.

    • Omega Z

      Mike
      I’m certain that their are undisclosed or not yet understood details, but one of the biggest impediments seems to be a lack of patience. If a necessary component or equipment doesn’t arrive in time, the test should be postponed.

      Usually the argument goes, we’ll run it anyway & see what we learn. This is a waste of time & material$ which tend to delay a good test run. It’s also a good example of a lack of patience. They just can’t contain themselves. You also have teams involved. A little competition goes a long ways. As in, wouldn’t it be great if we did this 1st. These thoughts are always lurking in the shadows. They can make people anxious & impatient even if they may not be aware.

    • Nigel Appleton

      I thin a lot more thought has to be given to the composition of the fuel, and the heating/”ignition” regime. Why is it necessary (or is it) to use such a slow ramp up after the 200 deg C phase?
      What are the necessary conditions for “self-sustenance”, how long does it take a working reactor to get to this point, and why?
      Would fuel from a part-used reactor enhance/speed up a new one if added to new fuel?

  • Gerrit

    great article.

    It clearly paints the picture that the critics don’t want to spend any time with investigating the topic. Those who do investigate see merit in further investigation.

    The Lugano team has successfully replicated the effect 3 times and will publish a report.

    By spring 2016 Industrial Heat will lift the curtains a little more.

    I am waiting for the official start of CEES at TTU.

    It seems the future will be interesting.

  • I hope this is true and that the Lugano team took pains to triple-check and corroborate all measurements. It would be good if this new paper was released soon to wash away the ambiguity of the previous one (specifically some questionable assumptions regarding the effective emissivity of alumina and no corroboration of the temperatures read by the IR camera).

    It would be good also if they made all of their data public at the same time as the paper. We could have hundreds of excellent minds working on analyzing this phenomenon instead of 6.

  • Jouni

    Funny how they delete comments.
    Mine was about sifferkoll.se. Too hot stuff there??

  • Frechette

    It is interesting that this article showed up in a Norwegian paper. The Norwegian Government realizes that the oil fields will eventually be depleted which means the cash flow to the sovereign fund will become drastically reduced. They have decided to use some of the money in the fund to invest in new energy technologies to stay ahead of the curve. LENR may be one such opportunity that has sparked Norwegian interest.

    • GreenWin

      The Norwegian Petroleum Trust is the largest in the world – valued at $900B. It is likely Norway will become an early adopter of LENR as their government is aware of the technology and its impact.

      IMO, the reason for delays (in the entire field) are largely artificial. The press blackout continues as it has since November 9th, 2011 – when Fox News reported a Navy employee from SPAWAR attended Rossi’s successful 1MW demo.

      Those who would like to see the blackout lifted for humanitarian reasons can petition the U.S. Navy or DoD. But keeping LENR below the radar until global investments have moved out of fossil/fission — is a top priority these days.

      • Omega Z

        Actually GW, We have already seen some 2 step shuffle going on.
        Big Oil has sold off long term out reserves at a small loss to entities such as Citi bank, And the circle continues. These entities will take write downs over time offsetting small losses every so often.

        This isn’t to say they wont lose some money in the end, just that most of it will be lost future revenue to the Governments that own it. Governments will find that their reserve values will be substantially less then projected. The U.S. values it’s Oil reserves in excess of 100 Trillion$. When eventually tapped, they may be lucky to get 20 Trillion$ This will effect the Middle East as well as every other Governments Oil reserve values.

        LENR wont be a flat out transition. It merely adds a new metric to the market. It will happen in spurts of acceleration & deceleration. A roller coaster ride. People aren’t much interested in an Electric car when you have $1 gasoline. When it hits $5 they change their tune. And these prices will seesaw for years. LENR will be of a similar situation. However, ultimately over several decades, It will win out as fossils are limited & eventual wont be able to compete in price.

        • GreenWin

          Thanks for the update Omega. Feed stock petroleum will have value for another century. But it will eventually be outlawed as a transportation fuel. And with progress in biogen, I expect to see synthetics replace the need to drill and pump. Oilfield leases, rigs and refineries will be the first “stranded assets” in the energy transition. Next will be nuke power plants.

          • Omega Z

            Hey GW
            A year or so ago, Duke Energy shelved a planned Nuke plant construction project(In Florida). Was because the price of building it had escalated from 2 Billion$ to 25 Billion$ and the spade to ground wasn’t even to start for another 10 years. Their reasoning. They could “Never” recover the cost let alone a ROI.

            Prior to the E-cat, Big Oil was under a lot of pressure to build several New Major Refineries. B.P.’s CEO at that time said they would slightly expand existing facilities & work on improved efficiencies of existing facilities.
            But under No circumstances were they going to build Massive new operations that cost 10’s of Billion$ each.

            His reasoning was similar to Dukes except it was based on Oil of any significance would be depleted before those massive plants could ever produce ROI. Those plants have an average 40 year life before major renovation or replacement.

            He basically gave a timeline to Oil to expensive to be of use. Exxon Echoed his statement. This is why if you see new refineries being built today, it is done by Governments. Not the private sector. Private sector is only renovating the old.

            So when people say Big Oil would want to stop LENR, I ask why. It could only lead to their long term survival, not end it. What’s not burnt will become feed stock & as you point out & they will probably follow with synthetic feed stocks when it becomes necessary or cheaper then what oil is left in the ground. The real threat is to those involved with ITER projects & it’s future or Al Gore & his Carbon credit investments.

          • Jarea1

            wishful thinking!

  • Omega Z

    IH/Rossi are following a business model. It is the fastest way to bring this to market. Science can play catch up.

    Seriously, Science can study this for decades & never produce a useable product & seldom compile enough information in a single database that is useable for such. It takes a business to do that & requires large sums of money to sort through all the scattered research.

    You can bet that if IH/Rossi bring a product to market, Other Business will jump all over it where in the scientific path, it would take years. As to Sales argument, One working product on the market will be all the sales argument needed.

    My competitor can under sell me. I must have 1 now for tomorrow, I may not exist. What better incentive is there.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Banks buying oil reserves, governments bailing out banks, so whats new. (:

    • Omega Z

      Bernie
      In my post to GW below, I mention Citi bank specifically because I know they bought up lease reserves. They told their investors they got huge deals as the Oil company sold it to them for less then they paid(Below market price). Citi actually made money in resale, but at a much diminished profit. Most of this will be asset write downs & wont cost anyone a whole lot. Only the Governments wont make as much on future lease sales. That’s just the market.

      I do note that the Banks are at their stupid games again. No down payment loans. Yep. Their setting the stage for the next bubble burst & they are still considered to big to fail. Time to break them up into smaller entities. That way they can let some go under. It’s easy to misbehave when the Government(or Taxpayer) covers the risk.

  • Sanjeev

    Yes, the source must be very solid to have motivated them enough to print it.

  • Omega Z

    That’s possible.

    Another consideration is there are rules & restrictions to publishing in a Science Journal. I believe it’s to the effect it can’t be disclosed in any official capacity prior to submission.

  • Axil Axil

    Can you explain what the legal implications are? Some NDA put in place by Industral Heat?

  • Albert D. Kallal

    It does seem some misunderstanding occurred here. Somewhere between saying they are attempting replications was interpreted as confirmation. Either they not confirmed the experiments, or are not in a position to state as such. Either way, a bit unfortunate since the newspaper “did” stick their neck out based on trusting one of their reporters.

    More unfortunate is the paper having to retract at a time when FEW papers are willing to report on this issue. So some egg on their face, and more worse for the reporter that they trusted on this matter.

    Hopefully a report is forthcoming, and Rossi did mention that someone is “close” to publishing some results – I had assumed it was these folks.

    At least the paper attempted to verify the existence of the 1MW plant as any good reporter would do (ie: find collaborating evidence). Of course for most skeptics the existence of the plant is not enough evidence to convince such people.

    I do think we are “close” to busting down the door of resistance to LENR being able to produce commercial grade power.

    I am MUCH hoping that by mid next year we have our hands on a nice PDF brochure that includes the specs on this plant that is available for purchase. I in fact looking forward to that day – the skeptic’s reaction to this event will be most interesting to watch!

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Omega Z

      Most of the misunderstanding was due to Google Translate.

      Google actually does a pretty good job, but a simple punctuation error or misspelled word can have disastrous results.
      It’s amazing how aware we are of this- In hind sight.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Ah yes, the “experts”, the people who came up with this
    thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cb7iqaN91c
    Oh my goodness, what will the experts think the E-Cat?