LENR is Not So Easy, But Worth the Effort

For many years now we have seen various efforts to demonstrate clear LENR reactions in an open setting, and so far this has proven to be a rather elusive goal. The recent attempt by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project to test a reactor of Me356 is another disappointment which leaves many questions unanswered. My takeaway is that it was a valiant but inconclusive attempt from which we can draw some lessons.

1. The desire for secrecy makes things harder. I understand why LENR developers want to remain anonymous given the stakes. I also understand why people find this need for secrecy so frustrating. I think the MFMP does their very best to accommodate developers’ desire for secrecy and confidentiality, but it does make their job much harder. Live Open Science would be much easier if both sides were committed to being open, but one has to deal with the reality of situations.

2. LENR takes significant time and money. The MFMP is a volunteer-run organization with paltry funding when one considers the magnitude of their mission. I think they have done excellent work given the resources available to them, but they are limited in the amount of time they can devote to their projects. The support base for LENR research is still small. I would guess there are a just a few thousand interested observers around the world, and it’s hard to fund an important research institution by donations from such a limited pool of enthusiasts.

3. Things go wrong. We have seen in this latest MFMP venture that things get lost, things break, technical issues need sorting out. It is unrealistic to expect these kinds of pioneering efforts to go off without a hitch, and this illustrates the need for increased time and money. If the MFMP could have stayed on site for another couple of weeks, the end result could have been very different.

4. Perseverance is required — this is true for any worthwhile effort. Even though the new fire that we are seeking to find is difficult to ignite and hard to pin down, I am certain that it is real, of great importance, and worth the effort to try and bring it forward into the world where it can provide so much benefit. And I know I am not alone in that conviction.

So I thank the MFMP and Me356 for their efforts and cooperation, and for being willing to communicate their results with us; I hope that they can continue working together in the near future. I also hope that the work will continue on all fronts, and that we’ll get to a point before too long where the reality of practical LENR will be widely acknowledged and implemented.

  • Bruce__H

    Bang on!

  • AdrianAshfield

    I see the same folk on forums like LENR complaining that me356 should have tested to perfection before having his reactor tested, that also complain Andrea Rossi has nothing because he has been testing the QuarkX for so long.
    me356’s reactor, had it worked, would still need a year of testing before it could be sold commercially.

    • Gerard McEk

      It would have been enough that he first checked if the new reactor worked (e.g. COP>2) and then MFMP invited to do the test independently.
      Now it seems E356 invited MFMP while he was putting the reactor together and had not enough time to prepare the fuel. The new story about a hot-spot seems to point in another direction.

      • AdrianAshfield

        It was likely that me356 figured he would have time to finish and test the reactor in the 2-3 weeks after the appointment was made. As often happens it took longer than he thought.

  • interstellar hobo

    LENR needs pure research and not profiteering at this point. It’s pretty clear nothing is close to market enough to interest many serious angel investors.

    Look at it from the standpoint of hot fusion. There are at least six private companies or groups putting in funded serious attempts at breakeven and then on to a commercial path. The difference is, fusion is a known thing. We live 93 million miles from a fusion reactor. We just haven’t got the knack of how to make it work on our own in a controllable fashion. But we will.

    LENR/Cold Fusion is quite different. It’s an effect that may or may not exist and is not well understood. I think there’s something there worth looking into, but more and more I think far more scientific research should be done into proving the effect before we have rushed off into trying to commercialize it.

    But everyone is looking for some holy grail to save the world, any anyone who gets some positive results, false positive or no, can’t help but seem themselves with the billions of dollars they might earn from it. So rush to announce discoveries (Rossi, me356) but with nothing to show for it.

    In a previous thread someone from MFMP stated they had had positive results testing Celani wires but had stopped the work because it wasnt “capable of commerical heat generation”. That makes no sense. Are they really a research group or are they just trying to find the best nearly-ready commerical lenr inventor to verify and reverse engineer? Celani seems like one of the very few researches that had anything like a verifiable result, along with possibly the researcher at MIT, but they aren’t touting incredible COP.

    Prove the effect, Learn about it. Be sure it’s safe. Then let the world run with it.

    • LilyLover

      Celani shut up after realizing how far ahead Dr. Rossi and Dr. Mills are.

      • Bob Greenyer

        That is the plan.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Celani published details of his experiments. Why didn’t the government start researching it? Why didn’t you if it is so obvious

      • interstellar hobo

        I am not a physicist and I don’t have the foolishness or hubris to experiment in a field that I have no professional expertise in. I don’t know whether Celani was successful really or not. I suspect not since he has not been active lately. I am only going off what MFMP stated.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Celani will be presenting his teams advancements at next weeks conference in Italy.

          • Frank Acland

            Will you be at the conference, Bob?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes, I think it will be a significant one.

          • Horus

            Which conference are you referring to?

          • LION
          • Jimr

            Off subject, Rossi responded to a question, on his blog , about his opinion of global warming. It was an excellent answer and what many, many feel that are called anti science,anti American, etc, etc.

          • Chapman

            His answer was a masterpiece.

            It states the full scope of the problem, and addresses it with stunning wisdom. AND, he did so without any trace of mockery, criticism, or scorn towards anyone of different opinion.

            It is precisely these little glimpses into the character of men that shape our assessment of their claims, and gives weight to their testimonies.

            I find comfort in the obvious fact that these were not the words of a mere Huckster, or delusional egomaniac. Great wisdom is seldom displayed by fools or con men.

          • gdaigle

            I agree. He does not dispute that the climate is changing, but does not “think that climate changes are due to human activities”. He follows a fourth path in contrast with those who do not see sufficient evidence that climate change is occurring, those who support action to reverse anthropogenic climate change, and those who do not see human activities as the major cause of climate change.

            He says that “humans can try to do what they can to avoid the situation worsen[ing],” which is an interesting statement that could lead to more fruitful conversations than simply, “You’re wrong.”… “No, you’re wrong.”

          • invient

            That is Rossi’s opinion, and ill take it at the same level I would any non-expert voicing their opinion on a subject.

            Rossi’s fond of the phrase, market veritas. However, for a market to be optimal the prices of goods must reflect their true costs, if externalities were priced in fossil fuels would not be competitive with either modern nuclear or green energy. As it stands, society shoulders the burden of using fossil fuels, which at the very least include negative health effects, and water pollution (deep horizon)

            Even if the climate research is wrong, what happens if we switch to green energy as laid out by stanford’s energy plans? We create a boom in green energy jobs, increase the manufacture of wind and solar technologies, and likely create independent rural and municipality distributed energy production… What if the climate research is right, and the deniers/skeptics/non-anthromorphic people are wrong… well then, we are up s**t creek without a paddle.

            Given the markets inability to price in those externalities, and the share of new power generation being mostly green tech (90% in 2016 for europe, 66% in US)… its only speeding up the process that the market has embarked upon, to follow the stanford plan, and given the wager in the preceding paragraph… It is logical to do so immediately.

          • Chapman

            I stand by my statement:
            “Great wisdom is seldom displayed by fools or con men”.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Updated program for Costigliole d’Asti:

            http://www.iscmns.org/work12/program.htm

        • AdrianAshfield

          “LENR needs pure research and not profiteering at this point.”
          How then are you qualified to judge?

  • interstellar hobo

    in terms of other fusion research, Tri Alpha may be the best funded commerical effort and they far are closer than I thought:
    https://trialphaenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/fliphtml5/2/book.html

  • Fibber McGourlic

    “BERKELEY, CA, March 1, 2017 – Following the successful replication of “over-unity” amounts of thermal energy from its LENR renewable energy technologies, Brillouin Energy Corp. announces the closing of $7,750,000 in its Series B round.”

    My understanding is that the Brillouin reactor was tested and “proven” by the Stanford Research
    Institute. Perhaps MFMP might arrange to also test this device to re-confirm its viability (and LENR). If the results are positive, then the world will certainly take notice and support for LENR would come in on a large scale. Moreover it might force the other chickens to finally emerge from their dark chicken coops and for once really show the world what they’ve got. In any case, if the Brillouin/MFMP results are positive, LENR would finally start to arrive big time on the earth (in a variety of poses, probably).

    Assuming Brillouin is not another chicken in good disguise, why would they refuse an MFMP test?
    As for MFMP, surely those dedicated people would jump at the chance to move LENR forward in a giant leap.

    • LilyLover

      Remember, MFMP is too small to matter to Dr. Mills. If not personally, definitely to his establishment funders. Even if that were not the case, SRI backing is tantamount to RIIA approval i.e. the technology introduction, proliferation, and control will be guaranteed to not affect the banking industry adversely. That is why they cannot/will-not allow the MFMP testing for being completely opposite in philosophy.

      • Fibber McGourlic

        I believe you’re talking about Mill’s and his Sun Cell. My post is directed to testing Robert Goode’s Device (Brillouin). I believe taking this proposed direction could yield very positive results. Maybe Brillouin wouldn’t have it for some reason, but it doesn’t hurt to try. MFMP has credibility and I believe that a successful test of the Brillouin reactor by them would result in a transformative interest in LENR.

        • radvar

          Brillouin now has fiduciary responsibility to shareholders not to endanger competitive advantage.

          • Fibber McGourlic

            If Brillouin has the working reactor they claim to have, I think they’d welcome confirmation of its efficacy by MFMP. Proof that the Brillouin Boiler works as advertised would then markedly enhance the company’s competitive advantage–and lead to the rapid transformation of the world by LENR.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Our system, as developed for ECCO and demonstrated / improved during AURA testing would show clearly the claims made for the Brillouin boiler.

          • Fibber McGourlic

            If they have what they say they have, they should logically welcome a test by your open science team. If the test were successful, Brilliouin would be celebrated and supported across the world, so why would they refuse an impartial test by MFMP? So why not ask them? (Their response will be interesting to see.)
            Independent financing for such a test would be easy to raise from your many ardent supporters. It would not cost Brilliouin anything. In fact, you wouldn’t want them to contribute any money to it. They need do nothing other than making a reactor available and providing essential information on their product to enable you to set up the test.

          • radvar

            All you have to do it convince Brillouin’s shareholders, who apparently see it differently.

        • LilyLover

          Yep, I got confused momentarily. I was wondering why this $7M on top of $150M made it to the news for Dr. Mills!!
          To me, Brillouin is a dead horse but less so than Celani wires.
          I am glad for Godes, but the investors will not be able to recoup. That makes me happy, too, sometimes!!

      • LION

        ‘Remember, MFMP is too small to matter to Dr. Mills.’

        If that is so, then WHY was BOB asked to pull his Video????????

        • LilyLover

          That was just before raising that ~$150M from DOE/Navy/military/investors etc.
          Purely to disassociate himself from MFMP. Priority of loyalties. That’s how compliance testing works.

  • Esko Lyytinen

    This is not the first time that I mention the importance of the control.
    I do not mean that the importance of the control would not have been considered also by others many times. But I think that many of us do not recognize some important principles of this.
    ( I do not mean that the next is the only relevant thing in this.)

    I try to explain my thinking.
    I compare this with an radio frequency solid state power amplifier, transistor.
    One could have a commercial quality transistor and wants to test if this gives the stated power and stated amplification. If however one does not have the knowledge of how to connect this to the load, the test would most probably be a miss-success, especially if the transistor would be working near the upper limits of it (the material). Either it would not give out the desired power or would get too hot and get broken. And the hot LENR experiments in any case are working near the upper limits of the materials.

    For example the Lugano test has received criticism of why Rossi did not let the “experts” do their own planning of how to measure it, but instead he told how to measure it. I expect that the thing’s dimensions and fuel were adjusted for a free air working with radiative and some convective heat output.
    If it would have been tested with other type coupling (of the output energy), this would have needed especial planning and knowledge of this, or very good luck, or would have resulted into a failure with either the thing working too cold or too hot and melt.

    MAYBE the same principal reason resulted to the failure of this Me356 test. Maybe Me356 really has a working reactor into his own load, but when coupled into another type load, there was a miss-matching that resulted into the failure.

    In principle this kind of thing ought to be standard engineering. What I get to think, is maybe Rossi the only LENR experimenter that actually masters this (among other things in this).

    But I really appreciate the work of MFMP very much and wish them all success !!

    • LION

      Good thinking, helpful comments.

    • Dr. Mike

      I believe that every scientist/engineer would agree with you on the importance of a proper control for any worthwhile experiment. As far as Lugano goes, I think it was okay for Rossi to say that his reactor put out radiant heat, but the Lugano investigators may have determined how to make an accurate measurement of that radiant heat if Rossi hadn’t told them how to do it. Perhaps, they would have done a proper measurement if they would have brought in an expert to measure the high temperature radiant heat. Also, they would surely have discovered their measurement error if they had run the control up to the expected operating temperature. Me356 already has stated what didn’t work in his reactor. The heat exchanger really shouldn’t have represented a load on the reactor. As long as me356 got to control the water flow into his reactor and all of the electrical input, it should not have mattered where the output steam went. The only thing that may have been affected by hooking up the heat exchanger to the steam output is to slightly raise or lower the pressure in the steam output line. Therefore, it might just be a good idea to put a pressure sensor in the steam output line. The other thing that I suggested is to have the reactor working and outputting steam before hooking it up to the heat exchanger. I believe that your overall concept of the importance of the load on the operation of a LENR reactor is important because the issue of adjusting the reactor to operate in the presence of a variable load has not been addressed.

      • Esko Lyytinen

        Yes, I agree on what you say about the Lugano test. In this my purpose was not to take side, if the originally derived COP was correct or not.
        I am not sure, if my opinion in the next is correct. As to Rossi, he may prefer to tell quite accurately on how to measure, rather than tell the general restrictions, because this could be of help to his competitors. But in any case a dummy reactor (to the high temperature) would have been important.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I think the argument that the coils of the dummy reactor might have been endangered in a full calibration run makes sense if one assumes that in normal operation most of the heat was produced by the reactor core. However, it should not have been difficult to cross-check the temperatures from time to time by a thermocouple or, better, a pyrometer.

          • Dr. Mike

            Possible damage to the coils was Rossi’s claim, Options would have been to have more reactors available or try to run a high temperature control at the end of test after venting the hydrogen reactor.

          • Omega Z

            But the skeptics would claim a difference(materials and density matters) in the reactors and still question the results.

        • Axil Axil

          I now believe that there is multiple LENR reaction types. For example, Rossi has developed a low temperature LENR reaction and has tested it in the yearlong IH test. Me356 has replicated this low temperature reaction and he is now attempting to commercialize this tech.

          Rossi has stumbled on the plasma phase LENR reaction and has built the QuarkX reactor to take advantage of this reaction type. Rossi has come to believe correctly that the plasma type LENR reaction is superior to the low temperature LENR reaction type and has in effect tossed the low temperature technology in the trash as noncompetitive.

          If Me356 thinks he will be competitive with the QuarkX, he will lose his shirt in the marketplace.

          The QuarkX technology is very difficult because it demands very high temperature structural materials. This requires specialized expertise in material science and extensive testing to ensure the robustness of this material under extreme stress over time.

          The development of the plasma phase LENR reaction is more suited to be done using the combined resources of a large R&D corporation. I have my doubts that Rossi can bring the development of the QuarkX off with the limited amount of resources that he can bring to bear on the development of this technology. If Rossi can do this job, it could take him a long time. At a minimum, anticipate continual delays in Rossi’s progress in development and commercialization of the QuarkX.

          By the way, I believe that the SunCell is using the plasma phase LENR reaction. Like Rossi, R. Mills has stumbled on this reaction type and is attempting to bring it to market.

          To top things off, someone will test the plasma type LENR reaction for muon generation, and when the government finds out that muons are being produced in massive amounts, then the government will take over the LENR tech and produce a thorium based large scale centralized gigawatt level fission power station connected to the power grid.

          • cashmemorz

            Are you saying that Mills’ thesis, Grand Unified Theory- Classical Physics, and its claims are in error? That there is no below ground level electron orbit that, in its formation gives up energy to a catalyst? If so, then all its predictions, several of which were confirmed, were simply coincidences. That seems to be far fetched as much as his thesis may seem far fetched.

          • Axil Axil

            I am saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If Mills encounters unexplained plasma based high energy reaction, it is human nature to reform and modify your existing thinking to incorporate that reaction into those existing theories. Mills would naturally resist rejecting all his ideas formed over a lifetime and that are central to the survival of his company whether they are valid or not to impartially include a these new experimental results.

            On top of that, it is in the commercial interest of Mill’s company to avoid any nuclear based theory that would restrict his ability to patent his experimental results or taint his work with the onus associated with LENR.

            The Proton 21 experiment has shown that a spark interacting with a metal (copper) will produce transmutation. I will guaranty that the silver in the SunCell will show transmutation of silver into other elements. When this transmutation assay is performed on the silver in the SunCell, what will Mills say about his dogma?

            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2008/27img/Proton3.jpg

          • cashmemorz

            Its not dogma when several universities have already had lectures and tests about GUT-CP a la Mills.

          • Bob Greenyer

            There is one researcher that expects, based on his sono-fusion experimental experience, for the silver to skew to one of the two natural isotopes.

            The electrode arrangement in Proton 21 work (Adamenkos) is specifically designed to concentrate electrons in a part of the anode. Is that true of Mills SunCell(tm) ?

            As the SunCell(tm) can run without oxygen (just H not H2O) it is essentially the same other than this specific electrode arrangement.

            Look out for Parkhomov’s imminent Asti paper.

          • Rene

            There is no binary choice on this matter. Models are often imperfect or incomplete. Developing a model offers predictive insight, and that permits further research or engineering advances. Then at some point the model reaches the end of its effectiveness and further research, modifies, refines, negates or yields a new and better model.

          • Gerard McEk

            I have also the same thoughts about this Axil. About COP however, if a ‘simple’ (read cheaper) low temperature Ecat can have a COP that have shown in the 1 year test to exceed 100 (figures show an average of 86) and materials of the QuarkX are so exotic, probably there is place for both. Rossi has mentioned this several times as well. A COP of 80 is already extremely commercial for heating purposes. Conversion to electricity or direct trust (yet?) requires higher temperature versions, as you will agree. Rossi has mentioned to Frank Ackland that the COP of the QuarkX is an “order of magnitude higher”, so are we talking of a 1000? From cost point of view this COP value is a lot less important as the fuel is already cheap.

          • orsobubu

            Axil, could you elaborate a little bit more on “when the government finds out that muons are being produced in massive
            amounts, then the government will take over the LENR tech and produce a
            thorium based large scale centralized gigawatt level fission power
            station”?

          • Axil Axil

            Muons generate a potpourri of nuclear reactions including fusion, fission from muons, and fission from catalyzed neutrons. The trick is to capture those muons so that the energy that they carry can be turned into heat. Currently, most of the energy produced by a LENR reactor is broadcast for miles in all directions with little energy converted to heat. Heavy elements capture muons a million times better than hydrogen, water, or air so surrounding a muon source with a lot of heavy elements will produce lots of nuclear reactions generated from sub atomic particle reactions.

            In LENR, most of the energy produced is not captured by the reactor. That energy escapes as sub atomic particle emissions and atomic fragments. So capturing this energy will increase the COP from LENR reactors by many orders of magnitude.

            We are exposed to muons from space every day and we get along just fine. But as the number of LENR reactors increase, the density of muons broadcast around the countryside will become problematic. Background radiation produced by those excess muons will begin to exceed acceptable limits. This radiation increase will force the government to restrict the prolific use of unshielded LENR reactors. There becomes a point where muon pollution just becomes too much. This is why LENR reactors must be shielded by a large amount of heavy elements.

          • cashmemorz

            http://www.iscmns.org/work12/Abstracts.pdf#page=44

            LEAP: The
            LENRIA Experiment and Analysis Program
            Steven
            B. Katinsky and David J. Nagel
            , LENRIA Corporation Melvin H. Miles and M. Ashraf Imam

            We have planned and are preparing for a multi-laboratory experimental program aimed at reversing the negative scientific and public perceptions about the legitimacy and promise of LENR. As indicated by the title above, the program is called LEAP. We will serve as managers of the effort with responsibilities for funding of the first phase of the program, obtaining funds for the second phase, coordinating and monitoring all program activities, preparation of publications, coordination with journals, and reportage to mass media. Dr. Mel Miles will serve as the expert on electrochemistry, and Dr. Ashraf Imam rounds out the core team as the expert on materials. There has not been broad scientific acceptance of the existence of LENR. This is due to many factors. The LEAP program is designed to reduce the number of variables associated with achieving LENR reproducibility by delivering a turnkey experiment to a group of well-regarded laboratories and experimentalists. Institutionalizing the engineering, construction, programming, testing and materials phases of the experiments is expected to reduce the introduction of unknowns, while permitting participants to focus on operating and vetting the experimental regime, and reporting their results. The multi-lab nature and simultaneity of the experiments and reporting for the LEAP program are designed to improve the environment for debate and analysis of the experimental data and to draw attention to the field. The best outcome of the LEAP program would be to achieve demonstrable proof of the LENR phenomenon that is sufficient to begin to change the perception of the scientific establishment, of ‘very important people,’ and the public. The flow diagram for the LEAP follows. The first phase consists of the preparation and qualification activities. Phase II requires the involvement of maj or international laboratories. Phase III will be comprised of review and publication

  • Observer

    Besides the technical difficulties, it is impossible for an “unbiased observer” to declare LENR produces more energy than it consumes and still be considered an “unbiased observer”.

    • Frank Acland

      Interesting comment, Observer. Why would one be biased if you simply report what you see?

      • Mats002

        Because the brain is connected in series with the eyes and the mouth?

        • LilyLover

          Inertia towards truth holds my brain biased at the zero on the number-line.
          I. e. I am naturally biased towards neutrality and so are the good scientists, all the while our brains, eyes, mouth, feelings and mind staying connected, coherently.

        • cashmemorz

          Here we go. Nit picking. Er, I,(me) think the brain is in parallel not series. Does that make me a critic or a skeptic.
          What I mean is, to a lay person, after seeing the test of me356 device, it looks easy, too easy to criticize. And the more one tries to cover, yes cover, for what me356 did
          or did not do, makes one look like bias towards LENR having something even during the me356 trial. What happened at Lugano, Parkhomov or anyone else with seemingly positive results, in no way influences or somehow marks what happened this past weekend. My 2 cents.

          • Frank Acland

            I am not included in your “we”.

          • Why? Do you know who Observer is? Can you vouch for him/her?

          • Chapman

            Oh My… My “spidey-sense” just pinged!

            Me thinks there may be something IN that comment from Frank, but my intuition tells me his discretion must have some underlying cause, and as such I would not press the inquiry further. But I certainly will be finding myself trying to “read between the lines” of future such exchanges! 🙂

            “The question before this panel is what did Frank know, and <when did he know it!”

          • Chapman

            I do hope you will all forgive me for engaging in what might appear to be a bit of “leg-humping”, but I just wanted to remind us all that this forum only exists as such a safe and enjoyable sandbox due to the administrative efforts of the “moderator-in-chief”.

            During the height of the coverage of the recent ME/MFMP testing, we were “visited” by one Mr. Cannon. I urge all readers to consider the level of PATIENCE required to handle that on the back-side. Some may have allowed the disruption to continue, focused on a commitment to a Free and Open debate, regardless how vulgar the delivery, while others (like myself – being a royal ASS) would have just dumped the fool and blocked him. But the issue was handled deftly, and with great restraint.

            You think LENR is hard? Try moderating an open forum website ABOUT LENR!!! Not ME brother!!! I would happily wear a Cowboys jersey to a Sea-hawks home game, just to revel in the ensuing chaos, but I would never EVER volunteer for Frank’s job! 🙂

            I am not attempting to trigger some public competition with everyone trying to one-up each other with a long chain of posts voicing their love and appreciation! He knows, I am sure, and we would not want to make him blush with such a public display of affection (He’s a Brit after all, and most of them have pasty complexions, and blushing just looks like sunburn), but we all know the e-mail address, and perhaps we might find the time to privately show our thanks and appreciation…

            I’m just sayin’….

      • Observer

        Once you have to start defending your observation, you are a participant in the fight.

    • Absurdity compounded with the wishful thinking of an active, intentional dis-believer? Skeptics such as as Mitchell Swartz went down this path and his extensive tests (always performed with with ‘dummy’ controls) FOUND release of excess heat, and the quantity measred was FAR above ‘noise’ in the apparatus.

      It seems you may be one more person who has not seen his presentation at Peter Hagelstein’s IAP on cold fusion/LENR forum held at MIT.

      • Observer

        I have observed the conventional E-Cat and the Quark-X in operation. I am satisfied that they are both what Andrea Rossi claims them to be. By saying so, my opinion is suspect to all those who are not convinced.

        • Meaningless unless you can provide evidence of your participation. A snapshot only you have on your phone? A redacted email from Rossi inviting you to the lab? Some generalities about your identity that we can confirm with Rossi?

          • Observer

            The only thing I am here to prove is that anyone who provides confirmation to LENR functionality will have their credibility questioned.

            Thank you for proving my point.

          • Why is such an obvious point worth making?

            Of course we’re not going to take anybody’s word for it on the Internet unless their identity is volunteered or they have some kind of track record of being correct.

          • georgehants

            As it seems that Mr.Rossi is still the only person in the World with a working high Cop Cold Fusion, claimed for about seven years, while millions die and suffer from numerous reasons connected to a lack of cheap Energy, the only moral saving hope he has left with, is even at this late stage, to put a clear message on his Website offering all his IP and help to the UN in exchange for say one Billion Pounds, to then be freely given to every Country in the World.
            With out such action he could for some people go down in History along with every other Greed infested parasite as nothing but another selfish capitalist.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      IMO, the most important points are these:

      1 – Suitable instrumentation and measurement method.
      2 – Thorough documentation, to be completed upon request.
      3 – Willingness of researchers to respond to criticism, and to correct themselves if necessary.

      If all these criteria are fulfilled, a pre-existing ‘bias’ will be irrelevant, regardless of the outcome. MFMP’s recent experiment is an example. Compare that to some other attempts that have been reported in the last years.

  • LilyLover

    Even if he is not an active worker, he still has the moral obligation to urge for accelerated progress. If some take his words to the heart, change may happen faster. If he stays silent like a rock, no additional impetus is offered. Every Nobel laureate can be seen as smarter than all his teachers and parents, and yet, without their guidance, inspiration, or harsh words, not a single one of them could have accomplished what they did. All those parents and teachers had the option to say … here … book or TV your choice, you’ll be a grown-up soon, so start making your own choices, it’s not our place to say how high should you go in achievements.
    You may think we are all grown-ups, but, growth does not stop because you are older than 35.
    By his constant urging, GH is forcing people out of their comfort zone and inviting them towards a better future.

    • georgehants

      LilyLover, that is exactly how I feel, thank you, we just need many others trying to push the same rock up the mountain and we could have a caring and sharing World in no time.
      Best

  • Okay, so, it’s been somewhere around six and a half years since Rossi made his first public test. Other forms of energy generation and harvesting have been making progress since then, as well. Just recently, Elon Musk has announced that he is taking pre-orders for his solar roofs and Powerwall batteries to power homes:

    http://mashable.com/2017/05/10/tesla-solar-roof-pre-orders

    If I had the ability to buy a solar roof and Powerwall combination to power my house for the next couple of years, (and maybe even the next couple of decades) then I’d have to admit that a cold fusion machine powering my house for only six months before it needs a recharge doesn’t sound so attractive. Don’t get me wrong, I hope that the cold fusion research continues, even if for no other reason than to learn more about these physics processes involved, but, from an economic standpoint, I’m worried that this whole thing could turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory:

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pyrrhic-victory

  • Jas

    Who are you to say who has the facts and who has the fiction?

    • Martin Lund

      I don’t claim to the the arbiter of truth. However, I’m quite confident that 9.11 conspiracy theories has little to nothing to do with LENR. I understand that this forum attracts many different people, some who are rational healthy skeptics and others who are less skeptical and willing to go down the path of conspiracy theories. I don’t appreciate the latter and I will not indulge in discussions giving any credit to such claims. It will serve the future of LENR better if we stick to the science and don’t get political or muddy the waters with conspiracy theories.

      • Jas

        If Bob had not made his presentation and talked of the ability to use lenr as a weapon then Suhas would not have identified himself to Bob and the coming test would not be happening.

  • Zephir

    IMO LENR isn’t particularly difficult, but the lack of subsidizes, very small research basis and its secretiveness makes progress relatively slow. If the people would get organized and collaborating in similar way, like for example during nuclear weapon development, we would have cold fusion reactor in every kitchen already.

    For example even after two years nobody did attempt to replicate the Me356 arrangement, which speaks for itself.

  • Martin Lund

    While the test setup and data presented by Dr. Schwartz seems quite impressive we are still lacking clear evidence. Meaning, we still don’t have any independent 3rd party testing of the NANOR device available. Also, it is puzzling that there has been no news of the fantastic NANOR technology for a long time. I can only assume that Dr. Schwartz is working hard to make it a product within the walls of Jet Energy. Also, assuming Dr. Schwartz has disclosed all details of the NANOR, where are all the successful replication attempts by other scientists? I would assume MFMP to be all over the NANOR if it or sufficient details were available for replication. I don’t think Dr. Schwartz is a fraud but I need more evidence from other independent sources before I would be willing to say that the NANOR is clear evidence of a working LENR device.

    I’m sorry sir, but we simply seem to have different standards for what we count as evidence.

  • Jimr

    Yes, I noticed that also, it made me wonder if he had assisrance in writing his responce. No matter, I felt it was outstanding.

    • Vinney

      It’s called ‘Grammarly’, it corrects both spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes, and its free.

    • doug marker

      Main issue is he put out those words under his name – that is the real point.

      Cheers D

  • john williamson

    > 1) Please supply transistor patent number from the 1920s..
    Seriously? You don’t have access to the internet? The first reference in Wikipedia’s “History of the Transistor” gives the patent: “US 1745175 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld: “Method and apparatus for controlling electric current” first filed in Canada on 22.10.1925, describing a device similar to a MESFET [presumably MOSFET].

    But I honestly don’t know why you are challenging this fact. It doesn’t strengthen my point.

    The point being that from the first experimental claim of usefulness (amplification for transistors; energy generation for cold fusion), the histories are as different as they could be.

    > 2 – 6) [An account of steady progress in the application of transistors.]

    Again, I did not challenge your claim that progress in semiconductors happened 20 years later. Indeed, progress is still happening 70 years later. Progress in semi-conductors was immediate and rapid. Moore’s law shows that it has been exponential.

    I challenged your claim that the semiconductor situation is similar to the situation for cold fusion for which there has not been any progress at all. After 30 years, experimental claims of excess heat in the refereed literature are *down* by at least an order of magnitude. Whereas transistor applications followed the first experimental claim of amplification within 5 years, and a Nobel prize awarded soon after, no cold fusion applications have been demonstrated in almost 30 years (and the existence of the phenomenon has never been accepted by the mainstream, let alone recognized by a Nobel prize).

    Yes, transistors were famously finicky in the early days, but when one worked, the demonstration of amplification was unequivocal and immediately accepted.

    I see no insight favorable to cold fusion from the history of the transistor.

    > You really don’t seem to know your technical history.
    > PS I’ll be waiting on that “transistor” patent number from the 1920s …

    Evidently better than you, but in any case, the history you provide does your case no favors.

  • Omega Z

    ->”spread the idea of a horseshoe to the market these days”

    ARE YOU KIDDING???

    PETA would be all over you. Expect to spend years in court…

    Simpler times, products and people.

    LENR does not lend itself to DIY’ers. It is a multidisciplinary technology. In order to be a cheap source of energy will require a corporate scale developed production and large sums of investment. This requires IP protection.

  • sam

    From Peter Gluck Ego Out Blog.

    Saturday, May 27, 2017
    Peter’s message
    Peter asked me to convey below personal message, as his eyes are not well enough to allow access to the computer, but he is disciplined and getting better! So, here it goes:

    @ All my readers & dear friends: I love you all and will stay loyal to the ideas I believe in. Please think kindly of me!

    @ Andrea Rossi: Happy Birthday for the 3rd of June and… PLEASE WIN!

    Hugs,
    Peter

    • georgehants

      Good to hear Peter is getting better.

    • doug marker

      SAM, Thanks – I was close to contacting his family to find out how he is doing. Was worried I might not hear good news. This is very reassuring.

      Doug M

  • Zephir

    /* You really don’t seem to know your technical history. versus I’ll be waiting on that “transistor” patent number from the 1920s */

    Aren’t you a Dunning-Krueger effect example? Do you even know, that the cold fusion research is ignored for ninety years already?

  • Zephir

    It’s all just a nonsense, because during LENR no muons are evolved.