Another LENR Conference Starts Today

There seem to be an abundance of meetings about LENR going on these days — this is one that is starting today at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg Virginia, USA:

International Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Symposium, ILENRS-12

A glance at the list of attendees shows some familiar names: Rob Duncan, Dennis Bushnell, Michael McKubre, Peter Hagelstein and Jed Rothwell are names that I recognize. The announcement on the front page of the site reads:

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) offer the prospect of clean, inexpensive, limitless, nonfossil renewable energy. The symposium will review LENR’s current theoretical and experimental status, including updating recent results. Expert panel discussions will evaluate the present state of the art and define future directions, including establishment of criteria for creating university-based, state-of-the-art LENR research and development centers.

One would think that with so many international meetings going on these days that information about LENR would eventually start to filter into the public consciousness. We’ve thought that before, of course, but still there seems to be some kind of barrier that keeps attention within a small sphere of interest. It will be interesting to learn of any significant news or information coming out of this conference.

  • JoAnn

    I have looked in ILENRS-12 program, and I have learned that some one presents the “Fusion Battery”, and I want to know more about it. The author seems pretty unknown…can anyone advice me about this?

  • N810
  • un passante
  • Andreiko

    De lenr lawine is begonnen, de wetenschap zal zich moeten herorganiseren, Dr Rossi kan zijn lenr vuur brandende houden, een verlichting voor de mensheid.

    • Dave from NJ

      Ja, die Lawine los! Wir hoffen, dass die großen Ölkonzerne nicht heruntergefahren alles auf. Ich sehe eine Tag, an dem Öltanker durch Dampfmaschinen mit LENR versorgt werden. Ha, ha, ha!

      • jacob

        Jawohl,mein Fuerer

        • Mannstein

          Nein mein Kasekopf.

  • georgehants

    Admin should have set up CCTV at both venues so that we can watch the proceedings.
    I suppose we shall just have to wait for the headline reports from the BBC and CNN tonight.

    Free your mind… and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

  • Italo R.

    “…define future directions, including establishment of criteria for creating university-based, state-of-the-art LENR research and development centers…”

    Yes, but all it is for the future!! Researches and R&D centers…

    Rossi is ALREADY NOW selling his 1MW plants!!

    • ?? If I want to buy an 1 MW plant right now, tell me where for what price.

      • Barry, 1.5 million

        • Really ? They sell a promise that they may perhaps suppy in the future.

          • psi

            If you don’t like the terms, don’t order.

        • Dave from NJ

          Wasn’t there a guy who was going to pay Rossi a million dollars to show real proof. Why doesn’t that guy just put up the $1.5, take delivery, and disect the device.

          If Rossi has sold reactors he should post customer testimonials somewhere. Then the press can then go interview the customers.

          Is this unfair or fair treatment of Rossi?

          • artefact

            Yea, there was a guy but he refuses to sign any NDA and he even does not want to read them like the one from Defkalion were he could go to test the devices.

            • Dave from NJ

              From marketing perspective, they should give one away just for the press coverage on the success.

  • Hank Mills

    It is hilarious if NASA is claiming LENR will not be validated and considered real until 2025. The way the E-Cat technology is advancing, I think the E-Cat technology will be a huge story in the mainstream media by the end of this year. The fact is that Rossi has already proven cold fusion is real, and practical. An output of ten kilowatts at over 600 degrees utilizing only 1.5 grams of nickel powder is huge news.

    • Karl

      Exactly – we should continue to pay more attention to those been in the real front line on CF/LENR rather than NASA which obviously that F&P experiments could be replicated 22 year ago. Good though with this information.

    • There will probably be some attempts to ‘hot fusionize’ cold fusion – to make it seem like a worthy, attainable but distant goal, where funding can be solicited and allocated, management structures and labs can be set up, scientists can carve out life-long, assured careers publishing endless baby-step micro-minutiae and so on. Some corporate CEOs, many politicians and various ‘shadow governments’ would certainly prefer things to have gone that way too.

      If it wasn’t for a certain upstart amateur with his plumbing fittings and blabbermouth blogs, they might even have succeeded. Its probably a bit too late for that sort of thing now. The scientific community – physicists and electro-chemists – had their chance in 1989 but chose to go down another route. TPTB could have had a slow ‘ordered’ introduction of cheap energy, but now they face something else entirely.

      • Bigwilly

        I wouldn’t mind getting a job in that first paragraph. Just sit back and relax


    • Dave from NJ

      At least they will deliver on schedule.

    • Barry

      On page 87 of the NASA/Boeing research paper, they have a “LENR Technologies Roadmap” chart. Listed at the top is “LENR Technical Feasibility Testing” with a time projection of the years 2012 to 2015.

    • jacob

      Hank are you sure i.5 grams are needed for that?

    • GreenWin

      Hank, I think we should look at the NASA/Boeing contract as a CYA document. By claiming they commissioned this study of advanced subsonic aircraft a year ago, NASA has demonstrated they are not completely blindsided by commercial LENR.

      Remember this is a study for aircraft design not to prove LENR. There ARE big hurdles to building a LENR-based propulsion system for commercial airlines. The win for Rossi and LENR proponents is the LENR science is now firmly set in NASA and the aerospace industry.

      It also reinforces the fact that NASA, DOD, academia and aerospace will find it a hard road developing this technology alone. But they’re welcome to try.

    • Ged

      If NASA is really claiming 2025 as being the moment, makes one wonder what NASA is up to (one usually cannot set a specific data for science). Could be that’s the time line for those small space planes they featured in the video and on their website about LENR.

  • Nixter

    I find it very strange indeed, that operational LENR devices may soon appear into the public, before the underlying operating principles involved have been properly explained. If it is real, and it makes heat energy economically, you can count me in, just tell me where the Parade is going, so I can lead the way!

    Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, said science sage, Arthur C. Clarke. But what does that mean, when the “sufficiently advanced technology”, cannot be understood by its own creators? Shall it be considered “Magical”, until it is fully explained? Some Physicists looking at the LENR claims say that at least one miracle is needed to explain the process as theorized by LENR experimenters. How interesting it is, to witness gigantic leaps of technology,…. leaps so large that we have temporarily overstepped our ability to comprehend them.

    • daniel maris

      Are you also surprised cavemen could use fire before they understood the interactive atomic processes of combustion?

      • And “precaution principle”? ;->

        in fact this problem is a key one these days. The theories last 5 decades were so good, so precises, that people forgot what is real life, sciences and technology.

        the “but we don’t know how it work”, is a blatant stupidity for all time of humanity, except last 40 years.

        It is like the frequent sophism :
        “but most of the experiments failed”

        if I can fly, and you no, this does not mean that flying unsure… it mean you are incompetent.

        same for LENR, and the worst is that those beliefs are OBSOLETE.
        first now all experiments are quite repeatable, and there are few theories that respect todays QM.

        • psi

          Yes, well summarized Alain. If 1% of the experiments yield results, the problem should be, “what are we doing wrong that we cannot do it all the time.” Instead, the answer was “the ones with the results musts be idiots and liars.”

      • Nixter

        daniel maris ; Your reply indicates that you completely misunderstood my words.

    • jacob

      Nixter,explain how fire works,people used fire for millions of years,they were not really worried, what nuclear reactions were involved.

      Matter of fact if the heat is high enough everything is consumed it all turns to fuel including concrete and rocks

    • GreenWin

      Nixter, this is a good demonstration of what happens when entrenched status quo refuses to change. By ridiculing F&P/LENR back in 1989 they lost 22 years of R&D. Had any number of positive results been properly explored with adequate funding – we would likely have at least one or two very plausible theories today.

      But old school academia has been caught flat-footed, dumbfounded that there really ARE Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Ducking, hiding, suppressing this research has only made them look ignorant and out of date.

      I suspect a whole new view of atomic physics will be needed to fully explain all the phenomenon seen in LENR. The hint is that no theory involving present “particle” physics can explain what’s happening. However, viewing the effect as an amalgam of wave/standing wave interactions – might.

      To that end the folks at University of Missouri’s incubator program – Energetics Technologies USA – seem to have some good ideas:

  • Dave from NJ

    It’s great to see NASA scientists getting involved. People who work at NASA are generally the smartest in the World.

    • GreenWin

      Honestly Dave, don’t tell that to the thousands of scientists who work at CERN, our national labs, hundreds of corporate and university research labs, China, Japan, Russia…

      • Dave from NJ

        I worked with a mathematician who was an MIT graduate with honors. This guy was the smartest guy I’ve ever met. We used to joke he was an extraterrestrial here to help us. All I am saying is that there are some insanely smart people in the world. NASA has a pretty good reputation.

        • AstralProjectee

          HAHAHA, the funny part is that nobody can disprove such a theory. Even though the burden of proof is on me or us to prove it, just the fact that science can’t disprove it makes it funny. At the same time the mathematic probability of there being other extraterrestrial life out there is very very very high. And to assert we are the pinnacle of creation would be presumptuous.

          BTW I don’t believe he was an extraterrestrial. But there might be a less than one percent chance that he was. HAHAHA


          • Dave from NJ

            Independently verified repeatable results is not too much to ask. This is not an opinion contest.

    • jacob

      NASA has a new mandate, and was asked could you please slow down Technology,because we don’t really want to have LENR understood,do we make ourselves clear NASA,we agreed we were going to do Compressed Natural Gas first in 2045, or we have to cut your funding some more,is that clear NASA.
      The FUERER

  • georgehants

    The question is long but the answer is short.

    Andrea Rossi
    July 1st, 2012 at 2:55 PM
    Dear Hergen:
    I hope to turn acoustic energy into heat!
    Warm Regards,

    • Ivan Mohorovicic

      He was joking on the “rumors” word.

  • Roger Bird

    Very impressive!!

    Oh, where is maryyugo and Craig Binns and the other pathoskeptics now? They bet on the wrong horse, not because they were unlucky but because they are socially retarded. The social evidence was obvious to even me with my Aspergers.

    • Dave from NJ

      Any skeptic worth their salt is also skeptical of their own skepticism. If they are good skeptic the idea being “proven wrong” about something would be met with indifference.

      • psi

        Yes – and what might add that the real skeptic does not confine his skepticism to “fringe” phenomena, sociologically speaking. Being a skeptic is not a matter of picking on unpopular ideas to expose their proponents as dunces. It means taking a long hard look at the vested interests and failures of the established and powerful. For instance, I’m pretty skeptical right now about “Hot fusion.”

    • ‘Maryyugo’ appears to make periodic attempts to insert himself into this blog under various IDs but his sneering tone and phraseology are distinctive, and the unoriginal and negative content he posts stands out clearly against the general tenor of discussion here.

  • clovis

    Hi, guys.
    Another LENR Conference ,great and i also think a list of up coming lenr programs is a great idea, but frank is so busy these days, Someone with the right skills should offer to help. this would make for a great addition too e-cat world, ‘man’ things are really begaining to move .

  • Defkalion has issued a June 29press release that says it is an update on their product. It’s available on their site.

    • daniel maris

      I think that’s been discussed in some detail already.

      It was a v. disappointing update indicating that all their earlier statements were overinflated puffed-up stuff. They appear in danger of missing their self-imposed deadlines.

  • GreenWin

    Gentlemen, it seems this is a banner day for LENR, NASA and this band of Merry Optimists. Mentioned earlier NASA has a program Advanced Subsonic Technology AST – well, they got better:

    Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research
    Phase II: N+4 Advanced Concept Development
    Marty K. Bradley and Christopher K. Droney
    Boeing Research Technology, Huntington Beach

    A brief perusal of this doc has 107 LENR occurrences including this one which will interest kemo sabe & Ged:

    “Initial LENR testing and theory have suggested that any radiation or radio-isotopes produced in the LENR reactions are very short lived and can be easily shielded. In addition, some prototypes(9) that may be harnessing the LENR process can be controlled safely within designed operating parameters and the reaction can be shut down in acceptable time frames. This heat generating process should reduce radiological, shielding and hazardous materials barriers to entry of aviation LENR systems.”

    Inspiring news from NASA and Boeing Research. Here’s the link courtesy of Matias Mattson at Cold Fusion Now!

    • georgehants

      Wow it’s moving fast, hope Rossi keeps up to speed, if he is genuine, do not want anybody else beating him to the goal.

      • Jimr

        I would not mind if someone beats Rossi. It is evident that many companies have been working on this for some time, they just have not been as vocal as Rossi. Rossi’s main contribution has been bringing Lenr to our attention. I suspect his progress is not as advanced as others, but if he beats them to a reliable product, fine.

      • edog

        WOW!… good to see!

    • Sanjeev

      Great news indeed. Its just like a tight slap on the face of all patho skeptics.

      The report is by Boeing. Although they mention LENR as only a possibility, it’s still significant that they considered it. Perhaps they know the reality of it. Baby steps for a massive LENR gold rush ahead.

      Its a good day for Rossi also, because both Rossi’s and DGT’s work are cited in the doc. (pg 122).

    • jacob

      Thanks Green Win, I guess that is now public information and this disclosure seems to have a lot of unimportant information in it,to bad the don’t mention anti gravity propulsion,which I know they have,that’s why the space shuttle got the boot,and they continue to string people along,with supposed new natural gas propulsion for 2045, how sad,there is much more going on at NASA that is classified,to bad we only get bits and pieces of technology that might as well be proposed 80 years ago. NASA why don’t you bring on full disclosure,even if it is a little at the time please,pretty please.

      • Barry

        Yeah thanks GreenWin, pages 82-87 are purely about LENR.

        • Barry

          This would make a good story Frank.

    • daniel maris

      This is a real coup for NASA! Fantastic news. I hope you’ve been over to independent E cat News to spread the glad tidings. LOL

      Looking forward to reading up on the detail.

    • daniel maris

      Actually, having read the relevant section I see it isn;t based on any independent research, although it clearly accepts LENR as a reality and refers to NASA’s own testing of LENR systems – again confirming the reality of the technology.

      • jacob

        just wondering if NASA researched Natural Gas as a possible heat source for space probes occupied with monkeys trained to do Peer review.

    • Ivan Mohorovicic

      Their timeline on LENR adoption is excruciatingly long. This is the proposed milestone B for year 2025:

      Definitive laboratory test data released and validated showing that the concept works
      System level goals (power/weight, etc.) for LENR and heat engine established using a sensitivity
      A conceptual design of a LENR propulsion aircraft and its systems will be performed
      Heat engine will be designed and analyzed, based on expected LENR temperature differential
      Heat distribution system will be designed and analyzed
      Design and analysis will be performed on other systems to support LENR

      So, they basically don’t expect LENR to be completely proven/validated before year 2025. However, they acknowledge that currently “basic principles of LENR are reported to have been demonstrated” which doesn’t sound like they are very convinced on it.

      • GreenWin

        Ivan, there is a 15 year timeline in the LENR Technologies Roadmap figure 6.3 – specific to the reason for this study – to build a commercial aircraft. That actually seems short to go from proof of concept to finished product. But this timeline has NO bearing on the development of commercial power plants for making steam or electricity.

        This document confirms NASA’s interest in utilizing a new energy source for building subsonic aircraft. That’s just ONE application – it should take 15 years to develop – since subsonic aircraft traditionally use petroleum for fuels. Boeing envisions LENR with gas/electric-assist take off, could make a viable aircraft propulsion system.

      • GreenWin

        The Virtual East West Team (two separate teams from NASA and aerospace) block energy scoring resulted in:

        “As a result of the Virtual West breakout team, the group provided the scores and rankings (with risk included) of each concept to the larger group as depicted in Figure 2.9… As with the Virtual East team, the West team identified that the LENR concept provided the highest payoff.”

    • Dave from NJ

      Checkout page 24! Holy cow!

      • Dave from NJ

        Also, page 82 and 83.

    • The link doesn’t seem to work at the moment, gives “Permission denied”

      • GreenWin

        Pekka, just checked it works fine here. Perhaps your out of US IP address bothers the server??

    • N810

      “LENR technology is potentially game-changing to not just aviation, but the worldwide energy
      mix as well. This technology should be followed to determine feasibility and potential

      Well NASA seems very accepting of LENR.

  • Pete

    Two LENR events at the same time(workshop in Rome tomorrow)? I couldn’t care less about the Rossi/Defkalion noise, but this is really exciting news!

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    A more detailed program of what will be discussed during this conference:

    Presentations actually start tomorrow.

    • georgehants

      Ivan, I thought something was happening, thanks for finding it.

    • artefact


      Maby they tell us now how NASA is involved in LENR
      Dennis Bushnell: LENR and NASA

      Dave Nagel who (most probably) was @ Defkalion:
      Possibilities and Challenges for Commercial LENR Energy Generators

  • georgehants

    From The Scientist.
    Some scientists are beginning to stand up to the corrupt system.

    All’s Not Fair in Science and Publishing
    False credit for scientific discoveries threatens the success and pace of research.
    By Frederick Southwick | July 1, 2012
    When I was a young faculty member struggling to earn tenure, I was denied authorship on a paper that represented a major scientific advance in my field. It is an injustice that I have since learned is pervasive throughout the scientific community, stemming from a hierarchy based on seniority alone. Failing to credit the junior scientists who make many of our original discoveries not only undermines the importance of this younger class of researchers, but actually threatens scientific progress.
    Cutthroat science
    I had recently taken a position at an Ivy League institution when another junior faculty member showed me a micrograph of a macrophage containing intracellular bacteria. I immediately noticed an electron-dense material near the bacterial cells, which I suspected might be actin filaments of the host cell. I agreed to test this hypothesis, and using a fluorescent actin stain, found that, indeed, many of the bacterial cells had actin filaments on one pole. “Could this bacterium be harnessing the host’s actin to move within cells?” I wondered aloud to my colleague.
    A month later I brought additional data confirming my findings to my collaborator’s office, where I noticed a paper on his desk with the bacterium’s name and actin in the title. He and a senior professor were listed as the authors, but I was not. “Where’s my name?” I asked. He noted that he and this senior professor had decided to perform their own electron microscopy studies, and were submitting their findings to a prestigious journal. “You’re welcome to publish your work separately,” he suggested.

    Despite the fact that he and I had initially discovered the association between this bacterium and actin filaments, because my data was not included in their final manuscript, I was excluded as an author. I was being considered for tenure over the next year, and thought that protesting further might jeopardize my chances. But the loss of credit also had the potential to harm my advancement. In the end, I decided to remain silent, and published my paper 6 months after theirs.
    Read the whole report —

    • georgehants

      Hopefully the Internet will make sure that P&F etc receive all credit for their work, that the establishment will try and hide and distort.

      • Andrew Macleod

        Hoora for that.

      • Roger Bird

        It is not about “the establishment”. It is about selfishness and dishonesty and corruption, traits that “the establishment” does not have a monopoly on.

        • georgehants

          Roger agreed , but as in this case we are dealing with Cold Fusion which of course is exclusively science, even the politicians take their advice on the subject from scientific advisers, who appear to only follow establishment Dogma and their religious dictates, all Evidence being hidden and debunked if it does not follow the excepted closed-minded doctrine, one feels that we must start somewhere to put the unacceptable failures of science right.
          What ideas do you have to remove the Dogma ridden “opinion experts” who are dragging the name of science through the gutter.

          • Dave from NJ

            We don’t need opinions. We need evidence!

            We need two things:

            1. Evidence it actually works.

            2. A well-known publically accepted theoretical model that is common knowledge so the Big-Oil can’t keep it secret from the World.

            • GreenWin

              Dave, we HAVE plenty of evidence on point one.

              Point 2. – it took 23 years AFTER Einstein introduced General Theory for Edwin Hubble to prove the expanding universe.

              I’ll remind you Dave that you spent a lot of time shouting about nuclear explosions from LENR devices.

        • jacob

          Roger the ” Establishment” is organized crimes against humanity,for the selfish,rich , powerful, dishonest,corrupt and they rule and control the world

    • read “betrayers of the truth” by Wade&Broad.
      all is said.

  • georgehants

    Thanks Frank, for 18 months we have been waiting for any little tid-bits of reliable information.
    Now a plethora of happenings, Does this mean Cold Fusion has arrived beyond the few brave Rebels who are willing to put their fingers up to the establishment, and whom seem to have to lead much of science on every occasion.
    When are we going to see the official apologies to P&F etc.

    • GreenWin

      Good question George. The first apology should come from MIT. It can start with a full, independent investigation into the guy who killed Peter Hagelstein’s LENR funding. I am not talking about another wimpy academic investigation like happened with Mallove in 1989 – a full third party investigation directed by the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General.

      • Andrew Macleod

        A charge for crimes against humanity would be appropriate for those who were involved.

        • Adam Lepczak

          I would not advocate executions, but at least few years in Russian “Black Dolphin” prison seems appropriate to those who were blocking this tech.

      • Barry

        Peter Hagelstein graciously answered an email an told me he is overwelmed by all the work he is doing by himself. Sound like he’s been working late hours, seven days a week.

        • GreenWin

          Barry, next e-mail, remind Peter he has MANY admirers and supporters. Some are not just supporters, they are good and influential friends!

      • NJT

        Right on – that fellow is scum and should be treated as such…

  • jacob

    When I hear 5 people from NASA are going to be a the meeting,it is a little over done,they must be taking this very serious,wonder if this whole thing is recorded and each person attending will have to give their personal information to somebody ,so all those attending can be subject to later investigations by
    damage control teams,and being informed that it is a matter of the most urgent new National Security regulations possibly already written up,THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY AT STAKE, for people who will cooperate will receive substantial compensation.

    But hey , now this has always been the case,but I hope I am wrong and times are changing,



    ‘ creating UNIVERSITY based’

    Folks just a big waste of time and money, the research is going to delay things.

    Give that money to those who actually manufacture Cold Fusion devices and offer funding to apprenticeships and on the Job Training and hands on experience,what good has come from Universities developing free energy devices ever????

    Universities should be ashamed of themselves,letting themselves being dictated to by Industry in return for endowment money,I call them bribes from the Mob.

    And a word of caution to those attending, a personal file is most likely going to be started on you,with all personal information added at a later date .

    TO much money is at stake,so project” Damage Control” has already started a while ago

    • Dave from NJ

      With all the budget cuts at NASA, the researchers are fighting for their livelihoods. Every department has had budget cuts and layoffs. The NASA organization is practically irrelevant nowadays. On top of the that, the Chinese space agencies are making huge leaps and bounds.

      Can you imagine if NASA creates an energy technology used in a space craft that could save/restore the US economy and restore NASA back to the glory days again? The esteem and prestige of NASA would be so dramatically advanced it would be breathtaking for members of the organization.

      I think these NASA researchers are desparately fighting for their jobs.

      • georgehants

        Good point Dave, but they should have publicly been on top of Cold Fusion from the beginning not playing catchup.
        23 years is a long time.

      • GreenWin

        George, remember the Subsonic Aerospace study was done by Boeing Research FOR NASA.

        NASA employs about 18,000 people nationwide. MAYBE 45 people have worked on LENR over the years. That’s 0.25% of the NASA workforce studying the one source of energy that will benefit the nation near-term. It is a shame.

        • jacob

          that’s true and I agree

  • Barry

    Very exciting! This is not one person with a promising invention that will save the world. This is a collective of reputable speakers who are becoming more and more of a formidable force. They also have a lot more CF data than they had a short time ago.

    I think this is going to be the year of Cold Fusion Awareness that will break through all of the old forms, barriers and lack of consciousness.

    • The consciousness of the average person will still be orbiting Lady Gaga.

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    There are also 5 people from NASA (Langley and Glenn RCs), including Dennis Bushnell. But no Zawodny.

    • Frank

      Isn’t it notable that Rossi is neither participating on that symposium, nor on ICCF-17 or any other one.

      • jacob

        Good for him

      • Rossi is an industrialist and is more concerned with producing a product. I hope he keeps his nose to the grindstone and his shoulder to the wheel and ignores the demands that are coming from the groundlings.

        • daniel maris

          Yes, if he is truly an Edisonian, then there is no reason he can’t make substantial progress without understanding fully the theoretical basis of his devices.

          He claims that he and Focardi tried thousands of chemical mixes before hitting on the “right” formula. If true, then it shows that approach can be a powerful one. It certainly is similar to Edison’s approach.

      • GreenWin

        It appears he has done just that.

      • Barry

        He is a one man show. I sure hope he pulls through.

      • dfnj

        He should. It would add to his credibility.

  • artefact

    double post but the other post was on an now old article.

    I make the proposal to create a kind of follow up chart where the interesting dates are collected.

    The notable events could (should) soon increase a lot and it will be very helpful.

    Is it possible to have something like a timeline above the polls or a new page linked in the menu?

    • Barry

      Sounds like a great idea.

      • Barry

        ps E-cat readers can propose dates and breakthroughs. There are so many people with CF awarness on this site that can verify and offer an edit to the events. Frank, all you’ld have to do is list them.
        Would be a great contribution to CF. Perhaps there can be guidelines, like nothing too longwinded, maybe a couple of lines.

        • georgehants

          Still a lot of work for Frank.
          The idea is great though.
          Especially if all the scientists who have debunked and insulted cold Fusion are named and quoted.

          • Martin

            What a great idea !

          • Barry

            Their names deserve to go down in history for what they have done, like Professor John R Huizenga, Co-Chairman of the U.S. Department of Energy who wrote the book “Cold Fusion the Scientific Fiasco of the Century”.

  • Ivan Mohorovicic

    22passi blog readers will be amused that Andrea Rampado is attending this event as well.

    • Stephen Taylor

      Ivan, what is Andrea Rampado’s involvement in LENR development?

      • Ivan Mohorovicic

        I don’t know if he’s involved in LENR as we traditionally know (Ni-H, Pd-D, etc) but I’m aware he researches and develops cavitation- and piezonuclear-based products. Also, he often posts on 22passi (with the “MYSTERY” nickname if I remember correctly).

        • Stephen Taylor

          Oh, yes thank you.