Tom Darden on LENR: Interview in Fortune Magazine

Thanks to Bachcole for sharing this, and racking up the LENR points!

There’s an interview in Fortune Magazine with Cherokee Investment Partners CEO Tom Darden, about his involvement in the funding of LENR technologies.


Here’s the link:

Here’s an excerpt:

Q: So you’re optimistic?

A: Yes, In fact, Rossi was awarded an important U.S. patent recently, which is part of what we licensed, covering the use of nickel, platinum or palladium powders, as well as other components, in his heat-producing device. This is one of very few LENR-related patents to date.

But let me make one thing very clear. We don’t know for sure yet whether it will be commercially feasible. We’ve invested more than $10 million so far in Rossi’s and other LENAR technology and we’ll spend substantially more than that before we know for certain because we want to crush all the tests. (Recently, we have been joined by Woodford Investment Management in the U.K., which has made a much larger investment into our international LENR activities—so we are well funded.)

Much of what Tom Darden says is not terribly new, but there’s one point that I am curious about where Darden talks about a Russian researcher working in Switzerland that has replicated the E-Cat. We have heard about a number of Russian replicators working in Russia, but this is the first I have heard about on in Switzerland.

  • Freethinker

    Hmm… breaking bonds …. sounds more like fission than fusion to me …. 😉

    • Daniel Maris

      A significant move I would say! It’s very encouraging on one view – that Darden feels able to speak publicly about his commitment (putting a good part of his reputation on the line) but on another view it is somewhat discouraging he still talks about LENR as something that has yet to be proved definitively.

      • Mats002

        For a minimum what are still to be proven should be reliability which has big impact on TCO (total cost of operation) and then it is still quite unknown how the market and policy makers will recieve this new energy. The business plan is still to be proven. That is what I think Mr Darden says, I doubt he doubt on the LENR+ Rossi Effect.

        • Daniel Maris

          I agreed TCO will be a crucial consideration (one that people here often neglect).

          However, this is what Darden actually said :

          “Cold fusion has such a checkered past and is so filled with hypesters
          and people with a gold rush, get-rich-quick mentality. We need to be
          calm, prudent and not exaggerate. I don’t want to say that cold fusion
          is real until we can absolutely prove it in ten different ways and then
          persuade our worst critics to join our camp.”

          That can only mean he does not wish yet to say it definitely is real.

      • Private Citizen

        Hard to believe Darden would invest $10 million without an ironclad demo, crosschecked by trusted experts.

        While i have problems with his slow-rolling this badly needed, earth-changing technology for the sake of some kind of future profit other than the $billions he and his shareholders would receive immediately in investment capital after a truly open demonstration regimen right now, he couldn’t be foolish enough to invest $10million without such a demonstration for himself.

        • I think the Lugano report and the testing IH did in Italy before shipping a container to North Carolina was perhaps demo enough done by trusted experts, besides maybe Darden is not your typical CEO. Perhaps he really does care for the environment and sees the incredible impact a CF device would have across the globe. With 2.2 billion at hand could be the game-changing chance of a lifetime.

    • Sanjeev

      Fusion is about making bonds. It seems he is mostly concerned with the money part not the science part of it, else he would not have made such big mistake, confusing fusion and fission.

      • Freethinker

        True. But it is nice to see signs of life from them, even if he seem to miss that specific point.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is good that he is willing to talk like this – let’s hope its is based on more than good faith.

      Still want to see those statistically significant isotopic shifts myself.

  • ss dd

    Frank you misunderstood the following: “A Russian scientist, for example claims to have replicated Rossi’s work in Switzerland and got excess heat.”

    I’m pretty sure he is saying that Parkhomov claims to have replicated the work that Rossi did in Switzerland AKA the Lugano experiment. “In Switzerland” applies to Rossi and not to the Russian scientist.

    • yes, probably.

    • ecatworld

      Yes, I could be reading that wrong.

  • ss dd

    What I get from this article is that Darden is backing Rossi, has invested millions in him, and is confident in the technology. Nothing new for “believers” in terms of information, but this is a bit more clear than that old initial press release from IH.

    Somehow Darden has also decided that this was a right time to talk about this investment of his, he might be looking to network with partners/clients/investors etc.

  • Sanjeev

    I don’t want to say that cold fusion is real until we can absolutely prove it in ten different ways and then persuade our worst critics to join our camp.
    Looks like he is not so sure even though he personally saw it working and his team built one.

    • ss dd

      He is just very cautious after what happened in 1989.

      • Sanjeev

        Or most probably to please the mainstream editors of Fortune. They did not censor it totally probably because of this one line.

    • Warthog

      Having a working device will NOT placate the skeptics. That will require peer reviewed replication. And even then, some will not be convinced. Heck, the steam engine had been around a LONG time before the science of thermodynamics was advanced enough to explain its performance on a scientific basis.

  • HS61AF91

    Smile, smile, smile!

  • HS61AF91

    more smiles

  • Gerard McEk

    It is good that this appears in a well read magazine like Fortune! I had forgotten about this British investment group. If Darden has invested 10M, how much has this Woodford invested? Like Rossi, Darden is still quite careful in his words and wants to see more proof of the Ecat in a real application. I would really like to know their contract and ‘Letter of understanding’.

  • LuFong

    Tom Darden is very guarded in endorsing Rossi’s work. Very surprising to me given that they have 7 months of hardcore data on hand. It should be abundantly obvious that the technology works and works well even if it breaks down before the year is up.

    • ecatworld

      He was being rather careful there, I believe. He didn’t say he didn’t know whether it worked or not: “We don’t know for sure yet whether it will be commercially feasible.” Which is basically the same positive or negative line that Rossi has been repeating.

      • LuFong

        I read what he said but I still think he’s being overly careful. It’s probably because they are very well funded right now.

    • Gerard McEk

      What is now being done with the 1MW plant is testing the economical viability of the ‘Rossi effect’, not proving LENR works. The economical viability can only be tested in a real practical test during a substatial period. Tom Darden has probably forced AR to do this test in his contract with AR. The millions invested may need to be payed back if this commercial test would fail. That could be a reason that AR is so extremely dedicated to prove that the plant works.

      • LuFong

        I used the terms “technically works” and “works well.” To me this refers to it’s commercialization. This is what Rossi has been saying now for years. Don’t you think that after 7 months at 1MW with 3 different monitors of the data, that they have good assurances that the technology is commercially feasible? The Wright brothers started selling rights to their design after flying for less than 1 hour at a time.

    • radvar

      $ perception.
      What if tech breaks next month, perception is pushed negative, competitors race ahead?
      Darden has duty to both investors and future.

  • GreenWin

    These articles are NOT the work of competent writers or journalists – but by sub-standard flacks for consensus science. Witness the clueless “Senior Editor at Large’s” failure to flag the LENAR gaff.

    Denials that LENR is not a form of cold fusion is tantamount to a child smeared in chocolate whining, “NO, I didn’t eat the cookies!”

    • ss dd

      Maybe it’s pirate cold fusion, AKA LEN Arrrr

      • GreenWin

        That would require a …ghhhh. But ok.

    • blanco69

      Or maybe he’s just hedging by inferring that the process might soon be referred to as Low Energy Nuclear Assisted Reactions.

  • Private Citizen

    Robert Dorr: “it was found that people attempting to replicate the experiment were not going through a proper loading procedure”

    Have been looking for a link to someone who corrected the simple mistake of improper loading and now demonstrates significant on-demand excess heat using a P&F cell. Please provide if you have one, as you imply. You’d think that simple experiment would appear at every modern CF conference, wouldn’t you? You would think MFMP’s very first demo would have been of a P&F cell with this simple fix, to honor their namesake.

  • BroKeeper

    Roger, this article (typo or not) is a huge media post from a very major business magazine. As you have mentioned earlier, I would be surprised if any of the top 500 companies will not have heard of LENR, Tom Darden or Andrea Rossi after this week.

    This, with the earlier patent release, should have the unsuspecting skeptic residence below the Denial Dam scurrying for higher ground as the water of truth begins to pour out of its newly formed cracks. Unfortunately some of the ‘earth-is-flat’ cousins may soon be gasping for air.
    Also we may see a corresponding dip in the oil prices this week (we can only hope).
    Great post!

    • deleo77

      Fortune is definitely a big magazine in the U.S. It is not Time Magazine, but it is very widely read for business. The reason I don’t think we see the story going even more widespread is that the technology is mostly referred to as LENR these days and not cold fusion. Imagine a big bold headline that said “Investor Believes he has a Cold Fusion Reactor and is Betting Millions on It”. That would be an attention grabbing headline. But everyone is so nervous to utter something like that, so these LENR stories fly under the radar.

      I think the Iceland group’s announcement earlier this week, plus this article may get more members of the media talking. We may get to a Time article, or a 60 Minutes story. I think the announcement from Iceland this week is potentially a huge deal, but we will have to see where that goes. But that is as close to a single Pons and Fleischman type of announcement that I have seen in a while.

    • Omega Z

      BroKeeper, The Skeptics will just pour it on all the more. It’s standard M.O.

      • BroKeeper

        For many that is so sadly true, but they will find themselves more and more isolated ending up like their flat-earth cousins.

        • Omega Z

          “when nickle dries up”

          Silly skeps.
          I already thought of that. Went to the bank & got me 20 rolls of nickels. I’m set for 2 lifetimes. 🙂

  • ecatworld

    Tom Darden seems to prefer consensus with the scientific community, rather than confrontation or challenge.

    He says won’t say definitively that cold fusion is real until the biggest skeptics are convinced.

    I don’t think we’ll see him publicly give an unqualified endorsement of Rossi’s work, even if he is privately convinced, until the evidence is incontrovertible.

    • Fibber McGourlick

      For over six months Rossi’s 1 MW reactor has smoothly and constantly produced a large amount of Cold Fusion energy at a commercial plant not connected with Rossi’s prior work. Isn’t that pretty incontrovertible? Wouldn’t Darden know if it’s true or not?
      Why would he hesitate to speak of it or even mention it if it’s true?

      • ecatworld

        I think because he knows he would get a lot of pushback if he could not back up a bold statement with solid evidence, and at this point, at least, he’s not wanting to create controversy.

        I think the most solid evidence regarding the test currently in progress is going to come not from Rossi, or from the customer, but from the referee, who is apparently an experienced, qualified entity, known for impartiality. We won’t hear anything from the referee until the test is over.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Actually, there is concern in Darden’s statement. For what
          reason he would state that issues exist in terms of commercialization is rather concerning.

          While I always thought Rossi used the “for better or
          worse” type of slang when stating that issues could exist, this suggest SOMETHING MORE is at hand here.

          In other words, both Rossi and Darden are careful to
          state that some issue(s) could exist that prevent success here.

          I can really only think of a few things. Perhaps the COP
          is much lower?

          The other issue is the cost of the fuel and their secret
          ingredient. Perhaps the fuel is so expensive or rare that again commercialization at a given size plant is not possible nor viable. Or they are using a fuel that is too expensive (due to pre-processing) or the fuel has some toxic issue.

          In other words:

          * the plant works well (a true statement)

          * The plant saves the customer large amounts of
          energy (again a true statement)

          * The plant is reliable and runs well (a true

          However, the above does not mean the plant is commercially
          viable! If the cost of building the plant or running of the plant or creating
          of the fuel is too high, then we don’t have a commercially “viable” product, do we?

          Note that the customer is not paying for the fuel nor are
          they paying for the plant. They are ONLY paying for the energy saved.

          So while the plant is resulting in GREAT energy savings
          for the customer, it costs IH/Rossi MORE than the savings the customer receives from that plant (or nearly the same).

          Few other reasons exist that would prompt Darden to make
          statements that issues of commercialization exist.

          If Darden was concerned about going against mainstream,
          he has ALREADY jumped ship. So you are investing in LENR, it obviously works, but issues of commercialization exist is really no different the saying LENR is real and we are working to commercialize LENR. That is ALREADY jumping out of mainstream physics community.

          So the plant may well be saving the customer huge amounts
          of energy, but only due to IH/Rossi footing the cost of the plant.

          In other words, the e-cat plant works well, but COST is
          too high!

          And above issue would NOT affect the customer referee and
          those gathering data on energy savings. The fact that the company has a real and legitimate person tracking the REAL AND TRUE energy savings they see does NOT by default mean the plant is commercially viable. So the customer is saving large amounts of energy does not by default mean the plant is commercially viable.

          These “cautious” statements suggest or hint that some issue remains here that the public is NOT aware of.

          I freely admit we may be reading too much into these statements but the reverse is also possible.

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Omega Z

            Albert, consider until the “Referee” says it’s so, everything else is just opinions.
            And yes, there are possible issues, but to date, Rossi hasn’t confirmed any & he’s still in the container. It must appear positive.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Actually, my WHOLE point is that if the referee says things
            are great does NOT mean by default the plant is commercially viable.
            Several here stated that we must wait until the customer’s referee (this is not Rossi’s or IH, but that of the customer) says things are great and this saves us (the customer) huge amounts of money is NOT sufficient!

            So good news from the referee DOES NOT mean the plant is commercially viable!

            Remember, the customer did not purchase the plant. The customer
            did not pay for the plant. The customer does not own the plant. They are ONLY paying based on the energy savings. As I stated the referee and the customer may WELL state they are saving huge amounts of money. However from IH/Rossi’s point of view, the cost of the plant still may be too high to make money!

            This is no different then if I supply you a diesel
            generator for free but I pay for the fuel and the cost of the generator. Of
            COURSE this setup will save you huge amounts on your energy bills, but from my point of view it not worth the cost of running that system!

            IH/Rossi are paying to run + maintain + supply the energy
            plant. The customer has ZERO idea what these costs are and they don’t care.

            So I am exactly pointing out that the customers referee
            tallying up the energy saves can say this is fantastic, but from IH/Rossi’s
            point of view the costs don’t make sense and THUS ARE NOT commercial viable.

            What I am doing here is pointing out YOUR false logic of assuming
            a good result by the referee means a good result for IH/Rossi. (it does not!).

            Like I said from a logical reasoning point of view, I
            cannot see any other reason for Rossi and Darden to make statements that failure of the project is still a possibility. In fact Daren went further and stated they not reached the point in which this system is commercially viable.

            Rossi is happy with the plant and the energy it produces. He has stated as such.

            The fact that the plant works and is saving the customer
            money while IH/Rossi are losing money (or cannot make money) means the plant works, but it not commercially viable at this point in time.

            I hard pressed to read Darden’s statement in any other reasonable
            context. I suspect and believe that some issue exists, and until that issue is resolved, then commercialization will remain elusive.
            I ALSO think that Rossi and IH think whatever issue remains can and will be resolved and thus they press forward based on this assumption. However such statements of caution suggest that some issue(s) have not been resolved at this point in time!

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Omega Z

            I agree, From Darden & Rossi position, that it works doesn’t necessarily mean it’s commercially viable. There are many variables to consider that wont be complete until he test is complete.

            Even free energy isn’t free if the cost of the system can never pay back the initial investment cost. Or Reactors need constant replacing or recharging. From Rossi’s answer to a comment, he only has 250kW at the mains & needs 1mW of heat so he starts at COP=4. But he needs a COP>4 to be commercially viable. So I agree, many things need to be taken in consideration. It is why I don’t complain about the 1 year test period. It is needed to rule out all issues. Even if those issues merely need additional engineering.

          • Publius

            I think it’s fair to say that this is a rather complicated phenomena and it would be perfectly logical that said phenomena is rather complicated to produce, control, test, etc., so commercialization is not automatic.

        • Omega Z

          And the Referee says you have to abide by the (F9) until I say otherwise.

          • ecatworld

            Or maybe you get shown a red card.

          • Omega Z

            ohhff- I’ve had a Utility put a red tag on my furnace once in a home I’d just purchased. He told me I couldn’t fire it up until a certified technician signed off on it.

            I ripped it off & handed it back to him and said, All Done.
            At one time I had many certifications. I am an ardent believer that once one has paid enough “fees” for weekend update classes & seminars, certifications should bestowed for life. Unfortunately, the consensus was…

      • Daniel Maris

        To incite sceptical comments from potential competitors? Who knows? If he had any serious doubts about Rossi’s technology, it’s difficult to see why he would conduct this interview.

      • bachcole

        It is all about credibility. I lose credibility with most people when I rave on about the E-Cat and LENR. I do it anyway so that I can rub their noses in their disbelief later on. But if Darden came off like I do, people would simply pigeon hole him in the whack-job category and that would be the end of his credibility.

      • Zack Iszard

        He does say specifically that they want to “crush all the tests”. It follows that the reason for this is not to convince his self, but to convince the first wave of early adopters. If they are going to appeal to the industrial market for industrial-scale heat generation as a first move, incontrovertible evidence of commercially viable game-changing operation is the utmost priority. While rolling out the industrial-sized 1MW replicates, design work for consumer units will take R&D priority.

        Honestly, the biggest separation between IH and the rest of the LENR hopefuls is that IH is approaching this entirely with a strategy to back the intent to OWN the market, and not just play a part in it. This is the paradigm that creates the early Ford brand, or Microsoft, and guarantees a lasting positive legacy. Everyone else seems less aggressive.

    • BroKeeper

      I believe he is preparing the media into a gradual acceptance of something they
      had deceptively deemed impossible by the previous scientific community consensus.

    • Omega Z

      You can’t blame Darden.
      Cherokee 2 Billion$ trust portfolio could be terminated. People pressured to disinvest. It’s a common theme for those who go against the consensus. Funding easily dries up. They can crush nations. Cherokee isn’t nothing.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Fortune wasn’t capable of recognizing the significance of the discovery Fleischmann and Pons made in 1989 (and still isn’t).

    • there was still no money to make…
      now there is money to make, and government and industrialists.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        It’s the “…their experiment was eventually debunked” line I was thinking about. This seems to be the face saving spin that the science establishment that joked about it for a quarter of a century is trying to push.

  • GreenWin

    Legitimate criticism here is aimed not at Darden, LENR or Rossi. It is aimed at the poor excuse for journalism that informs all but Tom Whipple’s writing on the subject. The quality of “journalism” in these articles is that of a high school newsletter – or weekly penny-saver freebee (where Whipple writes with alacrity.)

    One marvels at how author Brian Dumaine writes about Leadership or Circular Economy with competence; yet when it comes to cold fusion forgets to do a modicum of research; or even proof read his copy. How can this be? How can Mr. Dumaine refuse to inquire about the dozen labs and manufacturers (Toyota, Mitsubishi, Airbus, SRI, STMicro, ENEA, NASA LaRC, etc) publicly confirming cold fusion/LENR?? Is he incapable of following up on ICCF-19, where Mr. Darden made a keynote address this past Spring?

    The reason is rather transparent. The disruptive news of LENR is being “managed.” It has little to do with Darden or technology – and everything to do with markets. Which is an area Mr. Dumaine appears to have some knowledge of. The reason for critique is this “management program” condescends and ridicules the legitimate, good work of real journalism. In short, it makes fools of the profession. And as the profession of journalism and a free press is integral to a democracy – condescends and ridicules democracy itself.

    At some point, the phalanx of LENR handlers will need to come clean. Let go their paranoid grip on truth and allow their higher powers to do a better job. The end game is clear. Only hypocrisy and fear of rigorous honesty intervenes.

    • Daniel Maris

      I agree that most journalists who venture into this field seem to do absolutely no journalistic work. For instance, they might phone a few business contacts in Raleigh and ask “what the hell’s going on with this LENR business” or they might speak off the record to scientists who have tested Rossi’s technology.

      But they hardly ever do.

      • some have done that work, they are enthusiastic. and silenced.

        • Omega Z


          60 minutes caught all kinds of crap for doing cold fusion is hot again. They even threatened peoples jobs over it.

          • GreenWin

            In the U.S.A., this is a betrayal of Constitutional democracy. Someone must answer for this.

          • Omega Z

            On Occasion, 60 minutes does some great projects.
            Are you aware that many years ago, 60 Minutes did an entire hour on the Philadelphia Experiment.
            They received all kinds of threats at the last minute from the Government to cancel the segment. They even threatened to pull their FCC broadcasting License.

            60 Minutes reported these strong arm tactics at the end of the show.
            Also, that the person who was to provide the paper trail evidence didn’t show for the recording. He was found in his car in his driveway with a shot to the temple. A metal attache cuff on his wrist. the briefcase was gone.
            Of the 3 living survivors of the experiment at that time. One wouldn’t talk & the other 2 still in the service were deployed in restricted areas that couldn’t be visited.

            They always have a Q&A segment the following week of the previous show. On this segment, it was absent. Never mentioned again. I have tried to find that episode on the Net. That episode for that week is not to be found tho all others are.

            Anyway, I occasionally think it would be Great if 60 Minutes could break the news of LENR when it goes mainstream.

    • Gerard McEk

      I have lost my thrust in objective and critical journalism since 2011, when it became more apparent that Cold Fusion is real. I would have expected the journalists jumping on this incredible phenomenon and write about it in a critical way, but nothing happend. I am not sure that it is due to the journalists or due to influencial people or organizations with another agenda, or just because Cold Fusion was made a ‘pseudo science’.

      • Warthog

        It took you that long? I reached that stage around 1990 after watching the treatment of Pons and Fleischmann (and Bockris and many others of that era of research in LENR).

    • it is currently a consensus among (more and more) informed journalist

      – that LENR is a great news

      – that they won’t be the first to break the iron curtain

      many finance journal have informed journalists.

      I know 1 governement and one nuke industrialist working with LENR startup, yet all the news I hear recently on both are “as usual”.

      as Tom darden says in teh article, the media , the academic, will never excuse of their delusion

      at least they waited for Apollo to write those excuse

      • Chris the 2nd

        AP was at Rossis first announcement. No story. Not even ridiculing?

        • The “not even ridiculing” is the key symptom.
          Sylvie Coyaud is deluded, finance journal are not, they save their butt.

          • Lux Terrea

            With the inclusion of platinum I can’t help but be concerned about
            A.) The ability of the common man to be whipping up these devices in his garage…ever….
            B.) The low cost of the energy to the consumer via the grid.
            Any thoughts?

          • GreenWin

            A) Stick to Ni+H
            B) The grid is a dinosaur.

    • GreenWin

      I should add this critique does NOT include our stalwart editor Frank Acland or Mats Lewan or the editors of honest online cold fusion sites (you know who they are.) Thanks to AlainCo for a link to the New York Times’ embarrassing reversal on Robert H. Goddard, below.

  • Bob

    Well, I have been posting lately that I really would like to hear from Darden, and here it is!
    While it was not quite the big thumbs up for Rossi that I had hoped, it certainly was more positive than negative. A good sign! I do not even have a problem with him being overly cautious in his statements.
    One thing that I do find astounding. I have not read the entire article, but above it states that $10 million has been spent on Rossi AND OTHERS!. I wonder who the others are? Also, if the majority was spent on Rossi, it must have been a fair amount purchasing the rights. I have not seen anything yet that would cost millions in the Rossi scenario. The 1mw plant is a far cry from millions in cost. It will be very interesting when this story is more public to see to whom and how the $10 million was divided.
    I do note that he states that it is not known for sure if the technology is commercially viable. He does NOT say that they do NOT know for sure if Cold Fusion /LENR is real. This makes sense in that six plus months of operating the plant will surely have shown without a doubt if the unit is over unity, thus of nuclear origin. Of course, I guess it could be so marginally over unity that it could put the commercial viability in doubt as well as the nuclear origin.
    Two other points I take away from the comments.
    1) We will not see any real public information for quite some time. It appears that there will be several more tests to “crush the uncertainty” of the technology. This will indicate that we will not know much for quite some time in my opinion.
    2) That Rossi is still in charge and IH / Darden is only a licensee and source of funding.
    #1 does not cause me too much concern, #2 concerns me. I hope that Rossi will have the good sense to let Darden control the business end of things.
    To me however, the very fact that Darden has spoken publicly and that he has stated that he is still very much involved, has tipped my “scales of optimism” significantly back to the positive side concerning Rossi. For several weeks I was becoming very concerned. As I said I would, I gladly now eat my words expressing doubt about Darden’s level of involvement. 🙂

    I hope it continues going forward.

    • Brent Buckner

      Rossi has stated that IH will market the e-cat in the U.S. and China. I expect that IH/Darden has those rights wrapped up very well. That should be more than enough to spur a global revolution, whatever Rossi/Leonardo manage to do in other territories.

      I don’t assume that the IH payment to Rossi/Leonardo for rights is limited to $10 million. IH may be out-of-pocket $10 million on any number of LENR investments to date, but with some other payments due to Rossi/Leonardo at the end of a 1-year test (if successful) and/or some on-going licensing fee on sales.

      • Omega Z

        Patents. Can you say- “Royalties”

      • Agaricus

        It seems that Woodford Investment Management may be hoping to acquire the UK market with their large investment, and perhaps some other European ‘territories’ (France?) not already taken by Leonardo or other players.

        With Cameron/Osborne attempting to kill the ‘renewables’ industry and replace it with fracking and dinosaur nuclear programs that are already dying on their feet, the UK will be a particularly lucrative market for energy in the near future.

    • ss dd

      Remember Rossi claims that they have 65 patents pending, this probably cost quite a bit of money.

    • Omega Z

      Just consider that Darden/Industrial heat is a Venture Capitol entity.
      They have bought into Leonardo corp. Industrial heat is independent. Leonardo is inclusive of all investors including Industrial heat.

      As to the “Rossi AND OTHERS!.”
      Darden stated very early on that he had provided funding to 2 other LENR ventures just prior to Rossi.

      And -“We don’t know for sure yet whether it will be commercially feasible”
      That is standing by Rossi’s (F9)

      Until all the Data is in, It is only proper to stick with the program.
      There is also the possibility that issues could arise that makes it impractical for commercial viability. Although I doubt Rossi would be spending all his time in the container if the results by this time weren’t promising.

      Definitions of impractical would be having to replace the reactors every few weeks. Impractical would be having to change the fuel charge every few weeks. As according to Rossi, they are still using the same reactors & as of yet, not needed to refuel them.

      I also imagine overall COP will need to be considered along with what it will cost to manufacture & sell them verses a conventional boiler. How long for a payback or ROI.

      As to the COP. Rossi started right out of the gate at COP=4. He has 250kW at the mains & needs to produce 1mW of heat. That’s about breakeven with N-gas. It’s viable if you have access to electricity & not N-gas. He needs a higher COP to go head to head with natural gas. There has to be a payback on investment to have an advantage.

  • hempenearth

    They thought that about me well before I started raving about the E-Cat and LENR!

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Concerning Switzerland, I think he’s referring to “Rossi’s work in Switzerland”, that is, the experiment which took place in Lugano. So he’s referring to Parkhomov.

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    This is very precise description of 99.9999 % of scientists !

    Q: What changed your mind?

    A: Scientists get locked into paradigms until the paradigm shifts. Then everyone happily shifts to the new truth and no one apologizes for being so stupid before. Low temperature fusion could be consistent with existing theories, we just don’t know how. It’s like when physicists say that according to the laws of aerodynamics bumblebees can’t fly but they do.

  • This is not an interview you do if you goofed. This is the kind of interview you do if you want to start to generate interest and begin the hard work of changing the set-in-stone perception of cold fusion as woo and Rossi in particular as a charlatan.

    = 1MW plant on track. Commercialization to begin in earnest in 2016.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    “To create fusion energy you have to break the bonds in atoms..” is strictly speaking incorrect, of course. Also, it is not true (as Jed pointed out in the comments section) that F&P would have been “debunked”.

    • Sanjeev

      As discussed below, he seems to know not very much about the technical aspects of the tech he invested in. Most probably his concern is pollution and scarcity of energy, not how things work.
      He should have simply said, he had no idea of how it works. Honestly, even those who see it working everyday have little idea. It can be a new form of nuclear interactions, not fusion or fission.

    • LCD

      We’ll the classical fusion chain involves some bond breaking but yes the spirit of that is essentially true you are right.

      So is he Not a p&f fan?

  • Private Citizen

    You please do that search and provide a link to support your claim that the P&F reactor can be replicated with a simple change in loading protocol.

  • MasterBlaster7

    OMG I love this statement…”Scientists get locked into paradigms until the paradigm shifts. Then
    everyone happily shifts to the new truth and no one apologizes for being
    so stupid before.”

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    This quote from Darden, “I don’t want to say that
    cold fusion is real until we can absolutely prove it in ten different ways and
    then persuade our worst critics to join our camp.” Coupled with the fact
    he gave the interview, is very positive and answers a lot questions including
    the yearlong test.

  • Omega Z

    He knows the Rossi effect is real..

    “We don’t know for sure yet whether it will be commercially feasible.”
    True, the 1 year test isn’t complete & the referee hasn’t signed off yet.
    To say otherwise would just be his unconfirmed opinion….

    .He has to wait until it’s official.

    • Agaricus

      Read: ‘Don’t frighten the horses…’ – or give too much warning to the opposition, political and commercial. Of course it is commercially feasible – large amounts are spent to achieve 3 or 4 percent energy economies in industry, let alone 70% plus. It’s just a question of strategy now, which will in turn dictate the engineering.

  • radvar

    “Woodford Investment Management in the U.K., which has made a much larger investment into our international LENR activities”

  • deleo77

    There is an interesting thought analysis that you can put behind this latest Darden interview. Someone who is a skeptic may say that in this interview Darden is cautious, guarded, he seems to be hedging. Darden still refuses to say that LENR is definitively real and that Rossi has shown it to be so.

    But lets go to the other extreme. After all, Darden has had much closer contact with the e-cat than any of us. He has spent months with it. He has seen it in operation, he has authorized millions of dollars to be spent on R&D on it, he has set up a company around it, and he has brought in outside investors to help finance it. Darden is a reputable guy, well educated, and he has a $2 billion fund that he runs. Fraud and deception would hurt him greatly. Even if he were able to prove that he was deceived and was the victim of someone else’s wrong-doing, he would still be held accountable. He has a lot to lose.

    So knowing what he knows now, Darden appears to be comfortable with talking about the e-cat to Fortune Magazine with a big photo of himself in the article. So just ask the questions below:

    1. If the e-cat produced no excess heat and seemed like a dud, would Darden hold off from talking to Fortune for now until he could get a better sense of it? Probably

    2. If Darden felt that Rossi was fudging the numbers and being deceitful, and that the Swedish test was poorly handled, would he say “a group of Swedish scientists tested the technology, and they got good results”? Probably not.

    3. If Darden thought that the e-cat simply didn’t work after all of these months of testing at the customer factory and that he had never seen working LENR in action, would he say “Recently, we have been joined by Woodford Investment Management in the U.K., which has made a much larger investment into our international LENR activities—so we are well funded”? Probably not.

    4. If the test going on now with the e-cat after all of these months was looking bad or even highly questionable would Darden have answered the question in this interview in the following way:

    Q: So you’re optimistic?

    A: Yes

    How can anyone claim to know more than Darden when it comes to the state of the e-cat? And I mean anyone on either side of this, skeptic or believer? Darden is a Yale Law Grad who runs a multi-billion investment firm and knows due diligence like the back of his hand. He has put millions into clean tech investments, and has top flight scientific advisors. He has a fiduciary duty to his investors. Darden has spent a lot of time with the e-cat and Rossi up-close. He has seen it in operation. The skeptics line is the Swedes were fooled, and so was Darden. But time always sets the truth straight.

    And one final line in the interview from the very cautious Tom Darden that only emphasizes everything above:

    “We need to be calm, prudent and not exaggerate”.

    • Omega Z

      You overlook something else.
      Darden has his own people working with Rossi.
      One of which is named as co-Inventor on a patent.
      There is also a physicist involved even tho we can’t be certain whom that is. And these people have full access even when Rossi is not there.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    All in all, it is a good article. It just needs a minor correction. It should read:
    In 1989, chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons debunked mainstream physics.

  • Private Citizen

    It was you who demanded (using “please,” just as i did, that i do your searching and verification for you). Rather than link to a replication of a robust P&F cell with substantial heat output (by simply rectifying the loading problem with the publicly specified P&F reactor, as one might expect to be commonplace by now), you linked me to an article showing mW levels of heat accumulated over long time spans, using lasers: Not even a LENR thimble full of tea heated a single degree’s worth of excess heat, but rather a trivial value easily swamped by experimental error.

  • Omega Z

    Your right bachcole. It’s not illegal.
    But it is a betrayal of trust as the media is supposed to be morally obligated to to keep the public informed of what the Government is up to.
    They haven’t been doing their Job for a long time now.
    Their now just part of the Government Puppetry system.

  • Private Citizen

    Once again, don’t you think it odd that the simple hand-held reactor designed by P&F isn’t the first, most common demonstration presented at CF conferences, of course with your simple loading fix applied? It was indeed you who asserted that P&F was replicable if the simple loading error were corrected.

    When someone call you out on uttering unsupported BS, you haven’t reason or fact to support yourself, so in a fit of bruised ego you call others trolls. It is in fact a troll who spews unsupported nonsense and has too much ego to admit him/herself wrong.

  • Private Citizen

    The responsible thing to do would be to admit you were wrong, there is no openly demonstrated easy correction to the F&P cell by simply fixing the trivial loading problem as you assert. None. Even though it would be so common as to be demonstrated at every LENR conference. Instead you resort to name calling. Find yourself another forum, where faith trumps reason.