"Congress is Suddenly Interested in Cold Fusion" (Popular Mechanics)

Thanks to Mats Lewan for posting a link to this new article in Popular Mechanics written by David Hambling titled “Congress is Suddenly Interested in Cold Fusion” (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a20874/us-house-cold-fusion/)

It covers the news we have discussed here recently where the US House Armed Services Committee has directed the US Secretary of Defense to report back to the panel about the “military utility of recent U.S. industrial base[d] LENR advancements”. Hambling suggests some of possible military applications:

“Commercial cold fusion as claimed by Andrea Rossi and others, outlined in our April article, would remove dependence on oil or other fossil fuels, domestic or imported. In military terms, it would enable ships, aircraft, and tanks to continue indefinitely (or at least for months) without refueling, with abundant power for lasers or other directed-energy weapons.”

As much as many of us would hate to see LENR used for destructive purposes, I don’t think there has been any breakthrough technology that has not been adapted for military use. Electricity, automobiles, aeroplanes, telecommunications, nuclear power, computers, robotics, etc. have all found many military uses, and I don’t think that LENR will be any different — and this is evident from this directive from the House panel.

  • FRAN 34

    Nobody said you have to be very intelligent to be a politician.

    • clovis ray

      HI, Fran,
      BUT it is intelligent politicians, that have the best nations, wouldn’t you agree.

  • novel_compound

    I would hate to see LENR used for destructive purposes. However if it helps our armed forces to deter aggression, that is a constructive purpose.

  • Observer

    From Wikipedia:

    “DARPA’s original mission, established in 1958, was to prevent technological surprise like the launch of Sputnik, which signaled that the Soviets had beaten the U.S. into space. The mission statement has evolved over time. Today, DARPA’s mission is still to prevent technological surprise to the US, but also to create technological surprise for our enemies.”

    For many people in the government and out of government, LENR’s ascension will be a Sputnik moment.

    • Billy Jackson

      i am not sure which part of me is winning this argument with myself…

      one just jumped up threw his hands in the air and said “YES!”

      the other

      Face-palmed and slowly slid my head down into my arms and said “F—. Its an incompetent congress.”

      • HS61AF91

        This article sounds like the author is snobbishly dubious of the very existence of LENR, and has the,’Latida!’ backing of ‘scientists’ as support for his aloof stance. Only salivating done is; “WOW!” this could lead to cool weapons. Disingenuous and depressing article. I guess you have to go through several iterations of such prose, before the beautiful truth of LENR drowns such printed references.

  • Gerard McEk

    It is about as Popular Mechanics says: There is the possibility that the secretary asks regular science for a well founded report, which will obviously negative, because LENR is impossible according to their doctrine. If, however the secretary is better informed, he may ask for demo’s at IH, Brillouin, McKubre’s opinion etc. and that will be more positive, or as a third possibility, if the military are already deeply involved in LENR R&D, then he will dismiss LENR and Cold Fusion as nonsense and let them do their work silently and unnoticed.

    • HS61AF91

      Maybe, but I do not care much for PM’s speculations.

  • Hi all

    Stop thinking of tanks and aeroplanes with lasers, you sound like cavalry officers thinking of Gatling gun swords in the 1800s, there is no way tanks and aeroplanes will survive in LENR enabled warfare.

    Future war is swarms of autonomous transonic drones probably around the size of a large kitchen carving knife. Just one such device would have sufficient energy to dispatch a company of tanks or a couple of squadrons of supersonic jets in seconds most likely while they are still rolling on the apron of their base and there will be millions of them.

    Go look at the drone swarm videos then consider an LENR power supply, 4 micro turbines on gimbals replacing the propellers and multi directional lasers and a dozen tasers stuck on that.

    Now imagine what it can do. No more soldiers, no more officers, no more generals, no more heads of state, no more war.

    A navy would probably survive and space warfare might happen but people will no longer be so involved.

    Russia, China, India and Japan are all looking at this as is Iran and maybe even North Korea, though I think China may decide to spay that little snappy dog soon. SO You can be damn sure the USA is up to its eyeballs in LENR development and trying to ensure it has the offensive and defensive capabilities for that kind of war, that is after all the purpose of DARPA.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Todays news .
    Tomorrow’s chip paper.
    If the politicos’ knew or cared and it got them more, grease.
    Then LENR would be in my car to-day.

  • Roland

    In the documentary regarding SPAWAR’s successful program of refinements to the original FP deuterium/palladium ‘cold fusion’ cells, as claimed on film by ‘the’ leading naval electrochemist, (he was one of a team of elite researchers numbering 450 employed at SPAWAR at the time) it is clearly stated that if the apparatus is made according to his precise design and processes the result will lead to 100% replicability of the production of excess heat through non-chemical means as simply and directly measurable by methods he describes.


    The year that SPAWAR conclusively experimentally proved the reality of ‘cold fusion’ was 1992.

    During the course of these experiments they had, by the testimony, on film, of the participants, three occasions when an individual cell went, inexplicably, exponential. The hot mass burned through the plastic container, a substantial lab table and several inches deep into the concrete floor.

    Of course military personnel are to stupid to take note when their leading research scientists, ones that are quite literally and specifically instructed to explore the what is not known, send them a report that something of extraordinary import has occurred. Oh yeah, then DARPA, the DIA and NASA later arrived at the same conclusion in their meta analysis of their own work and their assessment of the totality of research occurring around the world.

    Or we could drop the naiveté and recognize that ‘cold fusion’ very probably went ‘black budget’ some time in the mid 1990’s when the SPAWAR project team was disbanded; I would further posit that this more covert program failed to determine the necessary conditions to precipitate an exponential event in either a controlled or predictable manner and, furthermore, made little progress towards scaling up to devices with useful output or COPs much over 1.

    And that’s, I speculate, where matters sat until the intelligence on Rossi’s first demonstration, and the presence of the highly respected physicist Sergio Focardi, arrived.

    The Navy is currently deploying 100kW close defence lasers on combat vessels; 15 years ago the Airforce successfully tested a 12,000kW laser system that cast a coherent beam, after a very clever mirror system made this possible, through up to 180 miles of atmosphere to bring down ‘thin skins’ of all types and incinerate ‘thick skins’ on the ground at lessor ranges.

    Boeing purpose built an airframe with 400ton lift capacity to house three complete crews, for indefinite mission duration if needed, and massive tanks of binary chemicals to feed the reaction vessels that photonically charged the laser.

    This system is the only 100% effective, as tested under Pentagon supervision, anti-missile/anti-aircraft ever developed. The program was, very, publicly defunded by Congress.

    One unmentioned parameter in the choice of Lockheed to build the 5th generation fighter, rather than Boeing, is that the centre body shaft driven down thrust fan, in the vertical takeoff version, can be pulled and replaced by a shaft driven 18,000HP generator to power the selfsame (Lockheed built) laser system; thereby enabling a single aircraft to tactically dominate a 100,000 sq. mile area, in addition to a very large vertical cone extending well into space. (Once upon a time Lockheed saw this laser weapons system as cause for public pride on their website, as did Boeing)

    Powerful light speed weapons systems will utterly dominate the battle field at every scaling of conflict and the nature of warfare is about to change very radically as AIs easily outstrip humanity’s ability to process and react to information during light speed conflict, after all we’re just barely keeping up now.

    We can either posit that folks at the Pentagon are to stupid, or hidebound, to get what sci-fi (the real ones) writers got their heads around 50 years ago, or that they do have their thinking caps on after all and went ‘black’ around this stuff some time ago.

    In short figuring out the military applications for high power density LENR has already been ‘blue-skied’ to death in certain circles.

    The anthropods don’t do well.

    • I think you are right that there is a black LENR program (but wonder about its effectiveness). It’d be ridiculous if there wasn’t given the early involvement of SPAWAR and other organizations.

      I also think that the government is likely having an influence on how current events are unfolding.

      • Carl Wilson

        “I think you are right that there is a black LENR program (but wonder about its effectiveness)”
        Positing a black operation, because details are unknown, can be used to explain almost anything but, by definition, there is little evidence to to evaluate the various speculations. That said, it would seem the a black operation would be under two contradictory pressures: (1) to further the operation and (2) to keep it black. To the extent that the technical parts of the operation go beyond known engineering, effective progress is greatly impeded by restrictions on communication between innovators.

    • Josh G

      I agree with most of what you wrote, and I’m actually kind of surprised that ‘black budget’ LENR programs are not more of a topic of conversation around here. There really is no question that there is a big black-budget LENR program, especially in light of SPAWAR’s and NASA’s programs.I actually think Frank should make your comment into a post. But there is one thing that I do disagree with. You wrote:

      “I would further posit that this more covert program failed to determine the necessary conditions to precipitate an exponential event in either a controlled or predictable manner and, furthermore, made little progress towards scaling up to devices with useful output or COPs much over 1.”

      I actually think they most likely have developed and scaled up the technology quite successfully, while we are left sitting around in the dark, so to speak. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the Americans are the only ones. Publicly LENR was junk science, but they’ve been pursuing it ‘underground’ ever since, and possibly even before F&P. If Rossi’s invention was a breakthrough, they would have taken him black like they’ve done in the past with other breakthrough technologies. Either they have it already, or they really do think LENR is bunk.

      I always come back to the statements of Ben Rich, former director of Lockheed Skunkworks, way back in the mid-1990s:

      “We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do.”

      “We now have the technology to take ET home. No, it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars. First, you have to understand that we will not get to the stars using chemical propulsion. Second, we have to devise a new propulsion technology. What we have to do is find out where Einstein went wrong.”

      BTW, if you’re curious about the errors in the equations and where Einstein (and others) went wrong, you can read Miles Mathis’s work on General and Special Relativity, among others. You can find some of the relevant links here in my paper on LENR and Mathisian physics where I link to his papers on the (un-)unified field:

      • Jimr

        I agree that there are black projects involving aircraft such as Ben Rich discussed, however I don’t believe the early projects involved LENR at that time. The Aruora projects resulted in the TR-3b type aircraft in the 90’s, I’m sure by now LENR has been introduced to the program.

    • Slad

      Re Navy LENR?

      (translated) “Currently under discussion successor of the Ohio class, still 12 boats to be built, attached to each of 16 Trident missiles…

      …The first boat is expected in 2031, to be the last in 2035 operationally. The Navy justifies the reduced number of missile submarines with the argument that the new units would be in contrast to their predecessors never subjected to a time-consuming dock period for renewal of the nuclear fuel rods.


      * power plant nuclear reactors need refuelling every two years or so

  • I’m curious why no one here is discussing the latest visit of Thomas Darden to the Lugano professors in sweden?

    It seems like Darden was invited by them to find out whether IH is sure about possible positive excess heat of the ecat.

    Maybe they tried a lot of replication attempts (which they announced to do) and failed like most other replicators.

    It also seems like IH employees attached some thermocouples to the Lugano ecat after Rossi left the building after he started up the reactor and flew back to Miami.
    Rossi denied this as long as he was present.
    And the measurements taken by IH seemed to be completely disappointing compared to the IR measurement.

    Very strange, because the Lugano scientists knew this…

    • Lugano seems separate from the court case. Perhaps Industrial Heat is concerned Rossi will use it to bolster the claims of the ERV.

      The assertion that IH attached their own thermocouples during the Lugano test directly contradicts the Professors’ statements in the report that the only instruments were theirs.

      It seems more likely that there was a miscommunication somewhere along the way in this game of telephone and that IH did something somewhere with thermocouples and that IH has information that has shaken the confidence of the Lugano team.

      Personally I don’t attach much weight to statements by Dewey. He identity is not verified to my satisfaction and even if he is who he claims, his posts are contradictory, he seems to have knowledge that would mean he is squarely on the inside and yet posts with abandon like Rossi. This seems unlikely. At best he can be considered a biased observer, at worst a shill or disinformation agent. He alternates between claiming IH thinks Rossi is a fraud and claiming that Rossi has provided insufficient IP transfer. Why would IP transfer matter if the whole thing was a giant mistake?

      I believe Mats that Darden met with some of the Lugano team and presented evidence of a non-working reactor. That is concerning enough.

      However I cannot figure out what kind of systemic error would invalidate 5 years of observations and measurements and hundreds of experiments prototypes and why this systemic error only popped up when an $89 M bill came due.

      • I agree.

        The situation, and especially the timing, is very strange!

        I guess IH got enough info from Rossi to get excess heat.
        But let’s say far below COP of 10.

        This could be the reason why IH doesn’t clearly state “it does not work” (because they know it works), but instead they are talking very unclear and confusing only about “the missing IP” (because they can’t get COP levels Rossi claims to get).

        Maybe Rossi had hope this “incomplete IP” is enough evidence to make IH fully dependent to him. This would have given him alone all the financial and business logistic power IH and their business contacts have.

        • Steve Swatman

          I find it hard to believe that Ih would patent a device with a COP of 11, if nothing was working from start to finish, especially as far back as Lugano… Does that not make their patent fraudulent and their claims to investors fraudulent also, would not such actions be considered illegal by any court.

    • help_lenr

      Looks like you are telling us negative propaganda and lies because you are paid for these activities. No body talks because all the stories which you invented never happened, also the upvotes which you gave yourself are not convincing. If you are right about what you said – bring a _solid_ evidence for all your claims, otherwise your are exposed as somebody who is paid to tell us nonsense. The professors in italy and sweden may not succeed in replications, becayse they don’t know the subltle details of ecat operation.

      • Ehem…no!

        I’m one of the LENR Forum admins, why should I distroy our community?

        I just want to get out as much balanced information as possible.

        We know only the story of each side (IH/Rossi). We have to find out what’s true. And not just swallow what Rossi and IH are saying.

        See my response to LENR G below.

        • Warthog

          The isotope shifts in the Lugano report have never been debunked.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Unfortunately, even if the results of the isotopic analyses had been representative for the entire fuel (which is still unclear), this would not imply that there was a COP > 1. And determining the COP has been the main objective of the test, as far as I understood it.

          • SG

            While one might suggest that the Ni samples were not representative, the Li samples would be representative due to dispersion. And, given that the Ni samples were taken randomly and not by Mr. Rossi, the Ni samples are probably representative as well.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Actually, it does not matter if they were representative or not. What matters is the energy balance of the whole device (i.e. the COP), not simply the balance of possible nuclear reactions. Even if a reaction is exothermic, the energy that is necessary to initiate and to maintain it may be higher than the outcome. You can reach nuclear fusion by relatively simple means, but with a COP << 1. See the Cockroft-Walton experiment or the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor, for example.

          • SG

            Then why are the isotopic shift results of the Lugano test so vociferously disputed as impossible by the “mainstream” physicists to the point that they resort only to an explanation of slight of hand by Mr. Rossi? Why would they not simply provide your explanation?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            You are still missing the point, SG. The point is that there is no unambiguous connection between possible reactions and the COP of a complex device.

          • SG

            Well, maybe I am, but I’m simply responding to your assertions.

          • Warthog

            Bogus argument. There is NO example in science thus far of isotope shifts caused by simply heating a powder mixture in a small sealed tube. COP is irrelevant to the question of “are nuclear reactions involved in THIS apparatus”.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            First, the question was about COP, not about nuclear reactions. Secondly, the Lugano reactor was not simply heated. There was a line that supplied a pulsed stimulus (probably HV). Regarding science, you are also wrong. For instance, there are neutron sources based on a Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor which use HV to accelerate particles. You can easily create isotopic shifts as long as you have plenty of neutrons. But that does not guarantee a COP > 1. And the COP is the decisive variable in this game.

          • Warthog

            No, the question was (and is) “is LENR real”. According to science, applied fields of the type used in the Lugano reactor CANNOT cause isotope shifts,nor can simple heating.

            Having used Cockroft-Walton accelerators, plutonium/beryllium, and Cf-252 neutron sources to do neutron activation analysis, I am “slightly” aware of the availability of means and products of neutron transmutation. But none of those (nor any other known source) of neutrons was available in the Lugano setup.

            And, to quote the typical skeptopath argument against LENR…if there had been enough neutrons to cause isotope shifts OF THE MAGNITUDE OBSERVED, all the observers would be dead of radiation exposure.

            So no….COP is NOT the “decisive variable in this game”. There are quite a few others.

          • Warthog

            So, what other than a nuclear reaction can cause isotope changes of such magnitude?? Whether it is “representative for the entire fuel” is irrelevant. Such isotopic changes in ANY part of the fuel charge are incontrovertible evidence of nuclear activity. Which datum should have every physicist on the planet trying to figure out how and why, especially in light of the Toyota and Mitsubishi work.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Undoubtedly, the MSM results are interesting and should give sufficient reason for further investigations. But I’m afraid that they do not allow conclusions about the COP (see may answer to SG below).

          • Warthog

            I said nothing about COP.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            But I did…

          • Warthog

            Yeah….it’s called “changing the subject”. And I changed it back to the original point of the exchange, which was isotope changes. Not real fond of people who use that sort of debating tactics. As I see you have done with others below.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Barty’s original post was about excess heat, i.e. about the COP. No change of subject at all.

          • cashmemorz

            Re benefits of LENR @ home: “Rossi Fan” replied to me “beats jerking around on rooftops and worrying about tweakers taking your stuff”. This came as a reply when I pointed out that centralized photo voltaics have large negative aspects re security and upkeep. Sure, at the beginning of home based LENR there will likely be issues of several kinds that will have to be resolved before it becomes “streamlined” enough to the satisfaction of the “average” homeowner. The certification about safety and promise to do what it is purported (sic:wikipedia) to do will be the first and main hurdle. Possible excessive taxation seems a probability- to replace taxes on petroleum/gasoline. Slow uptake by the public/consumer consciousness as being true then as being accessible and generally doable as a home based rather than a centralized power source. Cost and convenience comparisons with other alternate power sources(photovoltaics/wind/super batteries/deep earth heat stability). For me LENR is a sexy technology. Maybe because its new and different. This aspect will be cleared up when the technology becomes pervasive enough to become more mundane as photo voltaics have become.

          • Sergiu

            Looks like LENR will become the fuel of choice for WW3… So much potential… of destruction…

          • Omega Z

            Yes but, With the lack of any serious radiation, it will be much easier to clean up and prepare for WW IV.

          • towerofbabel


          • Omega Z


            Fuel taxes in the U.S. is for roadway building & repair. A simple mileage tax will suffice. We need only watch that they don’t abuse this tax for ulterior purposes.

            Other nations fuel taxes are used for a variety of social programs. In my past thinking this seemed an issue, but as this is already in practice, a mileage tax could also apply in a similar manner. Transportation would still become cheaper. The tax loss becomes a non issue and the social programs are preserved.

            I also don’t see an issue with the grid system. However, instead of a highly centralized grid as we have today, they could be localized microgrids located at point of use. City level, neighborhood or whatever. This retains current convience and will in all likelihood, be substantially cheaper then individual residence systems..

            Instead of capacity for peek demand per residence, you have shared peak demand. i.e. Instead of a required 50KW that is seldom needed, you have a 10KW system and peak demand is meet by the grid from those not utilizing full use of the energy available. This is a hugh base cost savings.

            It’s very likely that the monthly or perhaps annual electric bill will be cheaper then an annual system service/recharge from a service technician. As to heating needs, this would be a LENR home heating system that used only about 3 months a year would need serviced every 4 plus years.

          • I don’t believe the theory of the prestidigitator, however there is a big uncertainty.

            we cannot assume that the sample extracted after test, is of the same origin as the one inserted as fuel.

            we don’t know what is inside the tube, and what was extracted was scratched inside.

            It is as if you insert wood log inside a barbecue, and find burned paper when analysing the ashes.

            is wood transformed in burned paper ?

          • LCD

            But this was not in self sustain mode, so at least there is that.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Yes, that leaves at least some headroom. Nonetheless, a new test would be required to verify SSM.

          • Eyedoc

            we care because it is so interestingly bizarre………is JR under duress?? is Ahern ? where is the truth here ?

          • They were not debunked, but are explainable even without nuclear reactions (= no isotopic shift, but for example enrichment of some isotopes by vaporization and cool down on reactor walls etc.)

          • Warthog

            “…but are explainable even without nuclear reactions (= no isotopic shift,
            but for example enrichment and/or depletion of some isotopes by
            vaporization and cool down on reactor walls etc.).

            Uh, no. Not possible. Separating isotopes, especially ones as heavy as nickel, simply “ain’t gonna happen” in such a small space and to the extent of change.

            And there is zero evidence that Rossi had anything to do with the ash, other than removing it from the reactor. And there is zero reason to “mix” the fuel-ash after removal. In fact, that is a very UN-desirable thing to do.

        • kdk

          Lugano being debunked is news to me.

          It isn’t blind if he has a history of having the things he says getting eventually corroborated strongly by evidence. I don’t blindly believe “Rossi says” but put it into the interesting, quite possibly true, category.

          • There is a very detailled report by Thomas Clarke describing in deep detail how and why the Lugano professors made wrong assumptions and therefore used wrong aluminium IR emissivity calibration and configuration to measure temperature (aluminium seems to be very special in this case because emissivity changes heavily with rising temperature). Based on this error all following COP calculations were wrong.

            With more correct emissivity values and with best assumptions a max COP around 1.1 is calculated.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Agreed, except that it should be „alumina“ (Al2O3), not „aluminium”. (And it is spectral emissivity that changes significantly with temperature.)

            In addition to Thomas Clarke’s report there are corresponding calculations by Andrea.S and an Italian group named GSVIT.

            And, more importantly, MFMP have ‘replicated’ the error experimentally. It is shown in this video, starting at about 54:50:


          • timycelyn

            Sorry, but I find Thomas Clarke a superficially well-reasoned skeptopath.

            You might call him the Thinking Man’s Mary Yugo. IMHO his opinions, erudite though they may appear be, carry similar weight…

          • LCD

            I’m confused. I thought that even if we assumed worst case scenario that emissivity was 1, there was still a cop clearly over 1. 1.1 is not clearly over 1.

          • Possible scenarios:
            A – E-Cat is nuclear
            B – E-Cat is not nuclear, does not work, Rossi et al fraud
            C – E-Cat is not nuclear, does not work, measurement errors (e.g., bad calorimetry, testing, etc.)

            Key events, not in chronological order…

            Key Event 1:
            Lugano ash shows unambiguous nuclear events in 2 separate types of tests by two separate independent labs. The results are consistent.
            A – yes
            B – Rossi would have had to swap or contaminate sample while being observed by Lugano team
            C – eliminated as a significant possibility

            Key Events 2:
            Testing and testimonials. Focardi endorses. Celani detects gammas. Fioravanti confirms in 2011. Penon confirms in 2012. Levi team confirms in 2013. Lugano team confirms in 2014, with the device on another continent from Rossi for months. Fabiani waxes poetic.
            A – yes
            B – Almost unimaginable skills at deception over years and a conspiracy that must include Levi and Penon at a minimum. Plus incredible prescience and bravery to expose a fraudulent device to freestyle testing for months.
            C – X. Flaws with all positive tests raised but scenario C already eliminated as overarching scenario by Key Event 1.

            Key Events 3:
            Money. IH pays Rossi $1.5 M and then $10 M more after independent expert validation. Woodford piles on for another $60 M and the Chinese for many millions more. All claim due diligence.
            A – yes
            B – virtually eliminates fraud/conspiracy for the motive of money, though other possible motives remain.
            C – X. The bad measurements just keep on coming, this time with million dollar price tags.

            Key Event 4:
            Rossi sues IH after refusal to pay $89 M. IH claims, supposedly, no excess heat, bad calorimetry.
            A – Rossi sticking to his guns.
            B – IH asserts never having substantiated E-Cat tech despite the Lugano ash analysis in #1. Therefore they are asserting fraud directly.
            C – X. IH asserts COP 50 error! Bad calorimetry or something. But that reduces to scenario B since it means the customer and electric bills would have to be fake/complicit.

            The events that we have witnessed over the past 5 years are only consistent in Scenario A. The Lugano ash is the smoking gun. Either the E-Cat catalyzes nuclear events or Rossi is a fraud. Period, end of story. If he is a fraud, he and his team are not doing it for the money as they could have walked away much earlier for millions and a comfortable life. Measurement mistakes can be used to call into question one test or another, but they cannot be an overarching explanation for the last 5 years, despite the fog emanating from IH inner circle. Either Rossi and team are con men playing out a scenario in which they passed up riches, took unbelievable risks of exposure and only to likely wind up in jail or destroyed OR E-Cats work and the current lawsuit and surrounding events have created a bevy of logical inconsistencies.

          • Publius

            The most likely scenario has been the same for over 25 years: a poorly understood phenomenon which is widely debated and has yet to be made commercial.

          • Chris


          • Fibber McGourlick

            I like your analysis, but we know nothing about any customer other than an unsubstantiated claim. This is a weak spot. How could IH claim no cold fusion after a year of supplying heat to a genuine manufacturer? What did the heat do for him? What was the process? Was the room at the given address empty? Mr. Rossi doesn’t have to tell us who the purchaser of the energy was, just let us know what he can release about the process that required heat. Maybe just tell us the heat was doing supporting a manufacturing process, aside from heating an empty room and collecting data.

          • Customer real, real use for heat and vouches for performance: A

            Customer fake or no real use for heat or says heat was not satisfactory: B.
            The last 2 seem very unlikely to continue on for a year.

            There is no Customer scenario that supports C.

            Evidence to consider: Mats Lewan says investors told him they spoke with a satisfied customer engineer and also that someone visiting the plant briefly saw what looked like real factory activity behind door; photos of something tall behind a partition walling of the plant and an electronic copy of an electric bill from when the plant in operation that shows a total expected if plant were operational and includes a handwritten note of COP of over 20). In Rossi’s legal filing the customer’s parent company was identified as a British entity in which Rossi/Leonardo nor IH held any ownership.

            Lack of communication by the customer or by Rossi about the customer indicates nothing either way as privacy and legal issues justify the anonymity to date.

          • Fibber McGourlick

            Thanks for the clarification. It helps.

          • Carl Wilson

            “Either the E-Cat catalyzes nuclear events or Rossi is a fraud. Period, end of story.” Do you mean inclusive or exclusive “or”? How about E-Cat is unreliable and Rossi “fudges”, convinced he’s about to nail it down.

          • This unlikely (and bizarre) scenario would steal a sliver of probability from B and move it to A. There are equally improbable scenarios that do the opposite.

            Ultimately the number of possible tangents to A, B, and C — as infinite as people’s imaginations — should not draw the focus away from evaluating these three main possibilities. The big picture is that C is toast and B is nearly so.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Why not have Tom Darden publish details about his meeting? If this is so damning, let it out publically!

      One can argue about emissivity and incorrect instruments calling a COP of about 3 into question. However, remember that the test intentionally avoided self-sustain mode. When input power drops to near zero and the device continues to produce copious amounts heat, there is less of an argument about “emissivity”.

      When it comes to IH claiming that the one year test COP of 50 was really 1, they lose all credibility. There is no way that a test could produce such disparate results. IH is clearly trying to spin it.

      • Skeptic

        Well , actually if IH aspired to secure more money from outside investors. It would be not in their best interests to bust mr Rossi too early.

        Mr Rossi’s E-Cat is a recognizable brand name. However after unreasonable demand of 89 million dollars, they simply have no other choice.

        • US_Citizen71

          How is fulfilling a contract they signed an unreasonable demand? My FUD detector just went off the scale!

        • Thomas Kaminski

          So, you are saying that IH knew, but they continued to lie to investors. Seems like a big lawsuit against IH and maybe some prison time.

    • Stephen

      Hi Barty, did you hear any more information about this apart from that one exchange mentioned by Snobben and confirmed by Matts. For me it’s too hard to say something which is not speculation on such vague inputs. Even the words “no production” can mean many things.

      It could be no heat or transmutations, which I think is un likely.

      It could mean no further reports have been produced.

      It could also mean that IH are no longer building and producing the devices. Perhaps the testers wanted one to verify or reinforce the accuracy of their results?

      It could mean many other things too I guess.

      I guess the confusion on all sides could also be due to many reasons, we can only speculate and perhaps what is not said is more meaning full.

      But I understand there are a lot of exchanges on that thread. Did some one add new information?

    • DrD

      What’s this? IR? The calorimetry needed only measure the temperatures of the imput water and output steam and mass flow rates. IR is not the best method to measure ACCURATELY, such moderately low temperatures inside the pipes, were the steam pipes lagged? Steam pipes, usually are. Speculation about this sort of thing is just that, speculation. We need the facts and will have to be patient.

      • Warthog

        “IR is not the best method to measure ACCURATELY, such moderately low temperatures inside the pipe…”

        Then why are IR cameras one of the widest-used tools to measure heat losses in industrial processes in exactly such situations?? “Accuracy” is solely determined by correct calibration, which is why “calibration tags” of known emissivity are used.

        I would trust an IR measurement far sooner than a thermocouple, given all the different failure and error modes that thermocouples are subject to.

        • DrD

          Because they are convenient and easy to use. We’re talking serious science here.
          Having said that, thers no way you could confuse a COP of >50 with 1.

          • Warthog

            And use of optical methods is not “serious science”??

            I beg to differ.

            “IF” a line of sight can be established to the measurement point, optical methods are THE preferred method of measurement.

            Thermcouples are the LEAST desirable method, being subject to a huge number of possible errors.

            Industry is moving away from TC’s to RTD’s for “system internal” temperature measurement exactly because of all those TC failure modes.

            TC’s get used because they and the associated readout devices are CHEAP.

      • LCD

        Hard to hide wires and stuff with ir cameras, easy when you use flow calorimetry.

    • Ophelia Rump

      How well would that trick work to power a factory for a year?

    • Obvious

      “The IR cameras, on the other hand, were focused on circular tabs of adhesive material of certified emissivity (henceforth referred to as “dots”). The relevant readings were compared to those obtained from a thermocouple used to measure ambient temperature, and were found to be consistent with the latter, the differences being < 1°C."
      – page 4 Lugano report.

      One could parse this a few different ways, but it seems that a thermocouple was used to compare with the IR camera at least for the dot measurement, which is limited to a maximum 380C (when the sticker un-sticks). How long this thermocouple remained attached is another problem. There is no photo evidence of any thermocouple other than the one stuck inside the reactor at the fuel inlet.
      (I don't think the IR camera was verifying the ambient temperature read by the thermocouple, although the sentence could be interpreted that way).

      "We also found that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct temperature measurement with the required precision impossible."
      – page 7 Lugano report

  • Frank Acland

    Correct me if I am wrong, Jed says he has been told things by IH, but I don’t think Jed has said that he has seen the report or data from the report.

  • Danny76

    Like it wasn’t obvious from the very beginning.

  • Frank Acland

    Thanks Bob — this is what I think you were referring to:

    “As I said, several times, I have seen some of the technical data from the
    calorimetry. Based on that, I am sure I.H. is correct, and Rossi is wrong.
    I have also seen independent verification of this data from sources outside
    of I.H., so I am sure it is real.”

    • Bob K

      Yes Frank , that’s it.

    • SG

      So is Jed suggesting the the ERV simply read the data incorrectly and then summarized it poorly, by a factor of 50, in the final report?

    • Omega Z

      Well, as I’ve said before Frank, I question average COP>50 because beyond COP=20, it takes very little error to throw the numbers off. At COP=50 with a 2.5% error takes you to COP=20.

      That said, Jed should stick to cataloging papers.

      Jed said->”If the reactor were producing as much heat as he claims, he and the others in the building would be cooked. They would be dead.”

      Jed obviously has no real world experience around any real heat source of significance. His statement is as extreme as people here at ECW who see the original high temp near white hot E-cat. They plan to heat their homes, power their lights, run their car and melt the snow and ice off of their sidewalk and driveways with it. There is in fact far to little heat/energy for that. The image of that E-cat is very deceptive. It is simply hard for people to grasp.

      • “Well, as I’ve said before Frank, I question average COP>50 because
        beyond COP=20, it takes very little error to throw the numbers off. At
        COP=50 with a 2.5% error takes you to COP=20”

        Oh really? Assume the ideal case of the e-Cat maintaining a steady 1000 KW output power. A COP of 50 implies a steady input power of 20KW. A COP of 20 implies a steady input power of 50KW. That’s a RATIO of 2.5 between those – not 2.5%.

        Then there is the question of whether everyone could have been “cooked”. I have no specialist knowledge there but I gather the average US home demands only 1.25KW AVERAGE POWER over the whole year. But for office buildings and small factories, especially those with bad insulation, you might be looking at many times that. Further, if the factory had a heat-demanding process, I’d say 1000KW might readily disappear. It would need to have plenty of ventilation of course and they might also have a heated swimming pool for the staff as well. Mind you, we’re talking Florida and I’m on the other side of the world, so you tell me.

  • artefact
    • Josh G

      This is brilliant work. Thanks for posting. Is this your work?

      • artefact

        No, it is from “thenewfire” who twitter(s) a lot about LENR.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Even if there was no E-Cat, these transmutations would prove the reality of LENR and would deserve their own congressional review. The more examples of LENR there are the easier it will be to make the case for the reality of the E-Cat.

  • kdk

    An about face and a bunch of rubbish coming from Jed. Rossi doesn’t have something that usually works okay and has a history of getting excess heat results and then the next day he gets a lobotomy and thing doesn’t work anymore. Garbage. Anybody who would believe that nonsense would believe Saddam was making nukes with mobile labs in the deserts of Iraq.

  • kdk

    Like it wasn’t obvious from the beginning.:-) Somebody should try to figure out how much these clowns get paid. They’ll wheel out Michael Shermer next and then anybody with any remaining doubts will know it’s real.

  • Alan DeAngelis
    • US_Citizen71

      It is not a request it is a contractual obligation BIG difference.

      • MasterBlaster7


    • Slad

      Your three options are intended to restore some sanity to the discussion?

    • Mats002

      Yes do that now, who pay?

  • Eyedoc

    Sorry to be OT here, but this just stumbled across my paranoia……..the ol’ Military/Gov ‘patent from the past’…….Method for Producing Heavy Electrons US 20110255645 A1 – Assignee – USA As Represented By The Administrator
    Of NASA Publication date: Oct 20, 2011 Priority date: Mar 25, 2010….from Description ” More recently, the energy associated with “low energy nuclear
    reactions” (LENR) has been linked to the production of heavy electrons.”………..So supposedly NASA knew all of this in 2010 ??….. Is this old news that I just haven’t paid attention to ?

    • Rene

      I recall this is Muon catalyzed fusion. Works, but nowhere near breakeven.

      • I guess axil proposes a theory in which the muons are generated more efficient in LENR, leading to breakeven and far beyond.

        • Rene

          Perhaps. I do remember Axil writing about that. This 2010 patent application (not granted as far as I can tell), does describe generating surface plasma polaritons to make heavy electrons. Reading through the claims it is pretty vague. Try to build anything useful from that teaching,

          • Eyedoc

            My concern was if this can be considered ‘prior art’ to undermine patents of Rossi etal

      • tular

        You are quite repetitive with your comments. Ripeti lo stesso commento in ogni post.

  • LCD

    No regular at ecn has a neutral to pessimistic perspective, they are all ultra negative so I’m not sure how that will help. But maybe in small quantities.

  • Frank Acland

    You are assuming it was to the US military. The contract with IH mentions the Italian military.

    • Ethel Mermaid


  • Omega Z

    Actually, the LCOE of wind/solar & batteries does not include the hidden costs. You are in fact just choosing a different poison from fossil energy. The costs are much higher then presented.

    The minerals and rare earths used for these technologies leave behind vast wastelands. Future “SUPER- SUPER FUNDS” cleanup programs if they can be reclaimed at all. The reason so many are oblivious to this fact is that it is all done in far away places in 3rd world countries. Out of sight.

    Lithium batteries- With the most optimal automated system yet to be created, recycled lithium batteries will cost at least double the price of new sourced lithium batteries. Thus the reason battery manufactures being very reluctant to use recycled materials. They become cost prohibitive. This holds true for all these so called clean technologies.

    LENR will have it’s own footprint, but it appears that will be much smaller and managable compared to all other technologies. Recycling should be around 100% and cost competitive with new sourced materials. Possibly even cheaper. Recycling a ton of nickel is a ton of nickel where mining requires 10’s of tons of raw material with interspersed waste material. That’s a lot of processing.

    Once you get beyond the hype, an inconvenient truth about wind and solar is it requires 4 to 6 megawatts to replace 1 megawatt of conventional power plant dependent on where you live. And still it is not dependable.

    A 1 megawatt power plant operates 24/7. Both Wind and Solar of similar capacity produces power only about 25% of the time average, but minimal production can be below that. Thus 4 to 6 times capacity is needed.

    Quite simply, no existing energy technology can compete against LENR. Even when the true LCOE is included.

  • US_Citizen71

    I’ll have whatever he is smokin’ it seems like some powerful stuff!

    • Mats002

      And I’ll have what he drink, good stuff!