George Miley’s LENR Invention Up for Another Vote [Updated: Miley Comments]

A new round of voting is underway on the Future Energy Ultra Light Startups website for energy projects that have the chance of being featured at upcoming events in Boston, New York and Silicon Valley.

One of the projects that is up for being voted on is a LENR Distributed Power Unit being pitched by Dr. George Miley’s (University of Illinois) company LENUCO.

There was a round of voting last month on this site, and the Miley project was able to apparently get enough votes to stay in the running. The web site says about the contestants:

We will identify semi-finalists from among the companies who complete the application form. These semi-finalists will be given the opportunity to create a profile on this crowdvoting site. The two semi-finalists that receive the most votes on the crowdvoting site will receive automatic bids to present at Future Energy.

The complete list of contestants can be seen here. So the goal for Dr. Miley is to be one of the top two sites and at this moment (March 5) his project is well in the lead.

For more details about the LENR unit, and to cast a vote, go to this page. Voting is open for the next ten days.

UPDATE: I had emailed George Miley asking about exactly what this voting was for and received the following comment:

“Frank – thanks for you interest and help. This is to make a presentation in Boston to potential funders. Due to the good showing in DC at ARPA-E, LENICO was automatically placed in this new competition. I will send more details later as I get them.”

  • Tom H

    Voting for Dr Miley’s LENR project seems to have stalled while other Energy Future candidates are on a trajectory to take the lead. I’m surprised there’s not more support to have an LENR discussion at a DOE ARPA-E sponsored event.

  • Tom H

    Several Future Energy competitors appear to be ramping up their voting campaigns…

  • GreenWin

    276 Votes with about a week left. Let’s get it to at least 500!

    • V.p.S.

      What’s really strange, all other proposed projects have no more than one vote. What visibility on the web does this event have at all? Looks like nobody cares about it except for cold fusion community. The last voting results were really different, I wonder why.

      • GreenWin

        Well, it’s all about love V.p.S.

      • V.p.S.

        I know that we are quite a loving community here 🙂
        From the current voting results it doesn’t look like LENUCO is competing with any other projects at all. Sort of automatically qualified thanks to the LENR community 😉

        I just thought that public voting related to any serious event at MIT would run differently. But yes, eventually any step towards LENR visibility and acceptance in the investment field is good, even if it not a big one.

    • duecat

      Now at 301. That 500 number would be sweet.

  • georgehants
    • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

      Good. Anything that takes away drama on LENR is good.

  • georgehants

    Peter, you will be pleased to know you are not the only one to be moderated.
    —–
    George,
    I’ve sent in a brief comment which is awaiting moderation.
    Brian
    ——
    Brian D. Josephson

    • Peter_Roe

      The AI moderator may dislike you, but it hates me!

  • artefact

    Delta Pyro is here to help!

    From MFMP:

    Engaging the young – Delta Pyro… Commander of the New Fire

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/216-engaging-the-young-delta-pyro-commander-of-the-new-fire

  • Tom

    All quiet on the western front….my hope is getting less and less

    Dear Luca Salvarani:
    1- yes, but before having substantial news several months will be necessary
    2- this will depend on the Partner
    3- we are on our way along this path, more difficult than you can think, for thr temperatures and pressures involved, which also complicate things concerning the safety certification.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Peter_Roe

      Actually, this is exactly what might be expected in a real engineering development program. Rossi’s date predictions always underestimate the real difficulties that are invariably encountered in any project of this kind. People will of course interpret such delays in the light of their own expectations or agendas.

      • Jimr

        Peter you are correct about time, however why do we even follow Rossi’s comments if we know they are premature. And they always are. Lets not post them until Rossi or his company release a significant announcement. I for one am more interested in others progress, I suspect NASA, DARPA etc are more advanced than Rossi, however Rossi is the loudest, and just leads us to disappointment.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      I predict a “breakthrough” Spring from Rossi and MFMP

      • Jimr

        Bernie I hope you are correct, we have expected break throughs for over two years. I recall a person in mid 2011 needing to replace his heating system in his home but was going to wait a Couple pf months until Rossi’s ecat was available.

        • Omega Z

          Jimr

          Bernie’s optimistic. I figured in December that it would be June or July before we get any Movement to speak of.

          Now, If Someone would take out Mr. Murphy Law, Things would go much Quicker.
          That Guy is always butting in.

  • Jimr

    Is there anyone who can tell me from looking at the picture, how Miley’s contraption is supposed to operate?

    • Sanjeev

      It looks like a air heater. Air is sucked in and passes over a core, which has nanopowder inside producing heat. Its supposed to generate 3 to 30 KW.
      http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2012/09/21/george-miley-working-3kw-30kw-lenr-designs/

      There are some videos on youtube on his presentation. He is the only person who replicated Patterson’s cell (as far as I know)

      • Jimr

        I assume you are correct, it has to connect to electric to turn the motor/blower, does that qualify it to be a thermo/electric device?

      • Veblin

        This also is to produce some electricity directly with the thermoelectric generator. This electricity is used to operate the device and any excess could be used with a grid tie inverter like used with solar or wind systems. The amount of heated air versus electricity output is not known.

        • Peter_Roe

          I assume that the small yellow rectangles represent both the TEG and external heater elements in a combined configuration. Apart from that the design looks directly comparable with Rossi’s ‘plumbing fittings’ prototype devices.

          The device seems unrelated to the Patterson cell technology that Miley has replicated, but he could well have learned something from that research (addition of palladium?) that has allowed him to make the simple nanonickel-hydrogen system work consistently.

    • Tom H

      “Drawing of a GPHS-RTG that is used for the
      Galileo, Ulysses, Cassini-Huygens and New Horizons
      space probes. The goal of the proposed project is development
      of an optimized LENR gas-loading system
      to replace the Pu238 heat source.”

      From: A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL

  • John-64

    Does it work? (“Work” defined as producing more energy than it needs).

    • GreenWin

      This is the purpose of the Ultra Light Future Energy contest:

      “If you are running a high-risk, high-potential startup (or commercializable research project or idea) developing energy related technology, then you should present at Future Energy. For selected startups, this is a great opportunity to get investor feedback, meet new clients and partners, and make connections to get to the next level.”

    • Sanjeev

      Questions like that only lead to a ‘show me the proof debate’, and no one can do that on internet.

      I’m sure, those who will be investing millions on this are going to confirm it in every possible way, so you will know only after you are able to buy one.

  • Barry

    This is one of those cases where the Cold Fusion community can have an active roll in the development of LENR. So far GM has 197 votes which is 196 better than his nearest competitor. This feels more empowering than voting for a president. Last time he said the votes spiked from Ecat World. Good work all.

    • NJT

      “This feels more empowering than voting for a president.” = +10

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Well, I’ve done my part here. Vote count is now 218. Let’s hope we can make a difference!

      • Invy

        I was vote 52… that was yesterday… pretty fast vote increase..

      • R101

        +1 🙂

  • Chuck

    “Invention” would imply that it

    1) Is real and can be demonstrated by anyone
    2) Can be verified beyond reasonable doubt
    3) Can be reproduced at will

    Otherwise, it’s just an “idea” or “unexplained phenomenon”. What’s not clear to me is where Mr. Miley’s device stands with regard to numbers 1-3. If it satisfies all three, then he shouldn’t have to be looking for funding; better mousetraps and all that…

    • AlainCo

      It is a project to develop a technology.
      LENR is real. NiH can produce much energy. Some succeed but it is hard .
      -> typical applied research project.

    • GreenWin

      Chuck, you are misguided. An “invention” of the sort you refer to is defined by patent. Not “anyone” could make a transistor, PVC, or laser, nor reproduce them at will. There are twenty three years of verification of CF / LENR – do some homework.

      In case you missed it this site has been publishing evidence of the concerted effort to prevent LENR from gaining attention in the pubic and private mind. More evidence is on the way. At some point, there will be hearings at the US House and or Senate to try to clean up the mess. Those who stonewall, may go to jail for their part.

      • Chuck

        Invention has nothing to do with patent law–which is a legal limited monopoly. One is perfectly free to invent something and not patent it–if it’s published to make it current art, it’s coloquially known as “poisoning the well” (i.e., once it’s public knowledge, it becomes current art and “obvious”.) You can’t patent table salt, for example

        Anyone with a modicum of skill and determination can make a transistor–see, for example Jeri Ellsworth, who taught herself to manufacture integrated circuits. (As an aside, Shockley, Bardeen and Brittain did not invent the first transistor–only the BJT–the FET was patented in 1926–and the FET is what we use billions of today, not the BJT).

        I’ve followed CF since the 1989 announcement. None of the experiments have been sufficiently reproducible to convince me that the effect is real.

        (I’m currently following the Quantumheat experiment with interest, but so far, nothing solid, even to the experimenters)

        It might exist–but a reactor funding project couched in languge to make it seem as if it’s a done deal scientifically is somewhat disingenuous.

        • GreenWin

          Chuck, unfortunately I doubt anyone cares if you are convinced or not. Bu you will find sympathizers here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

          “If you are running a high-risk, high-potential startup (or commercializable research project or idea) developing energy related technology, then you should present at Future Energy.”

        • AlainCo

          blocking patents is a problem first because it is needed to be funded.
          the second is that people don’t lose their time, to be ridiculed and have no hope to became rich.

          I live in real world not in the fairy tale of benevolent science.
          If Toyota and Mitsubishi continue research it is because they fund the research. EPRI funded a research recently because Toyota funded it. ENEA funded research because Itialian research is badly supervised. If biberian made some research but not muc, it is because he have a job in research, did not lose it, but is not funded for LENR…

          money rule.

  • MK

    Voted.
    seen this?: http://www.kresenn.com/#!lenr
    Comments?

    • AlainCo

      note that Kresenn just recently announce a symbolic price for LENr research (200 UK pound)
      http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1203-Kresenn-Ltd-unveils-plans-to-support-LENR-research&highlight=kresenn

    • Lukedc

      Kresenn roadmap for product launch. Celani cell based??

      The first product that will be using LENR technology will be a container based power module to be used with portable datacenters or in other scenarios in which independent energy production is required.

      The module is currently entering prototype stage and market release will be moved to Q1 2014. Delay was due to fund collection and changes in the project plan due to a breaktrough in research that forced us to rethink the blueprint. Those improvements will generate a much more efficient reactor than the one was originally planned.

  • Kimball

    Voted 🙂 Thanks Frank

    • Miles

      +1. Go LENR.

  • NJT

    I voted and sent it to supportive friends as well…

  • georgehants
    • Miles

      Thanks GH. I can’t wait to buy an ecat.

  • georgehants

    From Vortex with thanks
    The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input. This is with about 25 grams of sample (density about 3 gm/ml – metal in C). This is in a heavy metal sphere with gas pressure generated in situ and sealed. The temperature is near room temp when not insulated.
    Higher power densities can be reached by stimulation but at the expense of COP. I am hoping that there will be a trade off of volume/surface area, stimulation and COP,
    heat generation and power extraction.
    Part of the problem is making a simple “variable heat path” so that power extraction and
    working temperature are balanced.
    But I have likely said too much- this is not the proper forum for such things. With luck I will have a poster at ICCF for specifics. (But it will likely be ignored like my high temp metal/gas was at DC)
    http:[email protected]/msg77607.html

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Dennis Cravens site is now up, I sent in my 20 bucks. Seems like things are coming to a head, this could be the LENR Spring.

    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/fusion-powered-car-part-2

  • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

    One effect with media seems to be that things which are too large will not get published. A case in point is the comet 2013 A1 Siding Spring, which has about 1/1000 chance of hitting Mars on October 19, 2014. Astronomers estimate the comet’s size as 50 km and calculate its relative speed with Mars to be 56 km/s (http://spaceobs.org/en/tag/c2013-a1-siding-spring/). These huge numbers imply that if it hits, it will release 1e26 J of impact energy, equivalent to the energy that Mars normally receives from the Sun over 200 years. Put plainly, it means that there is about 0.1% chance that Mars as we know it will no longer exist in 2014 since the planet’s entire surface will melt. If the comet doesn’t hit (which is 99.9% likelihood), all spacecraft orbiting Mars may be affected because the planet will move through the comet’s coma. In the worst case the probes might be killed by the high speed dust particles impacting them. The surface rovers may be more safe, but also they are rather clueless without telemetry service from the orbiters. Protective measures might be possible by orbital phasing, but I haven’t seen that discussed yet.

    This forthcoming astronomical event is still largely ignored by the media. It’s not scepticism as such, since the facts are not under dispute. It’s something else. I think that the thing is just too big to be really considered. It’s easier to turn attention elsewhere.

    I think that somewhat similar psychological behaviour is affecting LENR. The matter is too big to be given some consideration by most people, therefore it gets ignored. Part of LENR scepticism is an excuse for that kind of subconscious behaviour, I think.

    • yamal

      according to jakub cerny the size is between 2.7km and 5.4km. where do the 50km originate from?

    • kemo sabe

      But that didn’t stop cold fusion from covering front pages of all the papers in 1989.

      • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

        Good point. However, at that time (as reported) it wasn’t directly usable for electric energy production because it was in water and needed electric energy. So it was a potential promise rather than an immediate revolution so it leaves room for the recipient’s own imagination. People like sci-fi after all. I’m not sure if this is the reason though. Humans are not so simple…

        • yamal

          isn’t it obvious? c2013-a1 is real. there is apparently no doubt it exists in both, theory and observation. with cold fusion there isn’t even a generally accepted idea among its proponents what it is, let alone how it may be initiated reliably, how it works, what the ingredients may be and what the resulting phenomenon should look like. so whatever the reason for main stream media (not science) is to more or less ignore c2013-a1 – the reason they ignore lenr is that, in their eyes, there is no lenr.

        • kemo sabe

          “However, at that time (as reported) it wasn’t directly usable for electric energy production because it was in water and needed electric energy.”

          There is no question that in 1989, there was far more (not less) confidence that the phenomenon was directly usable than there is today.

          You need a different theory, like maybe earthlings don’t care much about what happens on mars.

      • GreenWin

        kemo, as you may know Steven Jones had excited the science community in 1987 with his Scientific American article “Cold Nuclear Fusion.” Later at Los Alamos, his CF neutron experiments were reproduced and confirmed by Howard O. Menlove and the Los Al team. Still later, Italy’s Gran Sasso and two other labs confirmed neutrons. The Jones v F&P feud was in full rage at the start of 1989 before the March University Utah announce.

        So the stage was well set for Fleischmann, the world’s leading electrochemist and Fellow of the Royal Society to announce fusion on the desktop. Hence the near riot in Salt Lake City. And the feud continued as the science and INDUSTRIAL communities scrambled for position.

        Then May 1989 Thomas H. Maugh II reported in the Los Angeles Times that Menlove’s confirmation at Los Al “…was the first confirmation of cold fusion by a U.S. government laboratory.”

        • kemo sabe

          Jones was a co-author with Menlove on that confirmation, but in 1991 or thereabouts, they used the Kamiokande detector in Japan, and put limits on neutron emission well below the claimed values from 1989. Menlove abandoned the field after that, and Jones published a retraction in 1994.

          In any case, the claimed neutron levels in these experiments are all many orders of magnitude too low to explain a measureable level of heat.

          • GreenWin

            And what about Gran Sasso and the two other Italian labs that confirmed the Los Alamos CF energetic particles? The very same results further confirmed at SPAWAR, FRASCATI, ENEA, MIT, and just recently AGAIN at University Missouri SKINR.

            “Kamiokande” is from a very outdated playbook.

            • kemo sabe

              The Kamiokande results are old, but they are more recent than Los Alamos results you referred to, by the same experimenters, and led to a retraction, so I thought it was relevant to mention them. They are also of the same vintage (if not newer) than the Gran Sasso experiments. In any case, before Jones published his retraction in 1994, he did more experiments in Provo Canyon, which he claims were even better. Here’s his account:

              “Right away, we found large “bursts” that were in fact spurious. The characteristic of these “bursts” is that the signals all appear in the same quadrant of the 3-Helium detector, while nothing is seen at all in the plastic scintillator. With the help of Howard Menlove, we determined that these large multiplicity “events” are caused by high-voltage breakdown in the standard electronics of this 3He- type detector. The “events” are spurious. The Los Alamos detectors of this type are susceptible to this problem, and generally do not have the segmentation necessary to reveal the spurious nature of the signals. Our previous claims to “neutron bursts from cold fusion” were retracted. Ouch.”

              In the interest of full disclosure, Jones never really gave up: “Meanwhile, it is true that we at BYU are quietly continuing to pursue the possibility of low-level fusion in deuterided materials, although I do not usually advertise this fact. It is all somewhat embarrassing and frustrating.” And in 2003, he made yet another claim in the ICCF 10 conference proceedings. He measured on the order of 6 or 8 counts per hour in several trials, with a background of about 2 counts per hour. This was never published under peer review, and the rates are far below the 1989 claims. Around the same time as this most recent claim, Jones descended into the 9/11 Truth movement, and that appears to have occupied all his attention until his retirement.

              • GreenWin

                Thanks kemo. And, SPAWAR, FRASCATI, ENEA, MIT, and just recently AGAIN at University Missouri SKINR?

            • kemo sabe

              As for the Gran Sasso experiments, the most recent ones I found were also negative.

              The SPAWAR results have been challenged in refereed literature by Kowalski, and in a detailed, albeit self-published, analysis at earth tech.org. Also Krivit, ran a kind of round-robin CR-39 project, which came up empty, although he tried to put a brave face on it.

              The SKINR results *fail* to find evidence for nuclear reactions in the form of well-defined peaks, and “may contradict previously reported results utilizing CR39.” The authors admit that the observed burst in count rate may be “some sort of electronic noise”, and that “many more [runs] must be conducted before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.” Not a ringing endorsement, really.

              You’ll have to be more specific about the other claims.

              • GreenWin

                Kowalski writes “Interesting New SPAWAR Results:” “Production of tritium, at the rate of about 5000 atoms per second, studied by the authors, is a convincing indication that a nuclear process was going on.”

                My results were nearly identical to theirs. But my conclusion was that most of the observed tracks were too large to be due to alpha particles. The SPAWAR team did not agree with that conclusion.”

                Kirvit “project?” Seriously??

                SKINR – you convict yourself a denier kemo, by cherry picking language out of context. That game will not play here. Sure, SKINR said it may be electronic noise… In context SKINR wrote, “However, all electronics associated with these measurements were plugged into a power conditioner and so this seems unlikely.”

                SKINR also wrote: “Further, the data obtained for day three clearly shows a massive jump in counts versus the other spectra obtained at the location of the peak of all spectra shown. The actual peak of this spectrum was 209,775 counts… corresponding to 225 keV.”

                kemo, with your use of context the Earth might also be flat. You have friends here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

                • GreenWin

                  Let’s see, you are wrong on Kawalski, still in love with Kirvit!!, and assume SKINR refers only to SPAWAR CR39 use. Apparently kemo is clairvoyant or telepathic? as “previously reported results” means (to kemo)whatever oblique argument he dreams up next.

              • kemo sabe

                You did not contradict the claim that Kowalski challenged SPAWAR, as did earthtech, and replication is scarce.

                Krivit ran “Project Galileo”. Look it up. Something like half a dozen groups tried SPAWAR type experiments. Krivit desperately tries to salvage something positive in his final report of the project. It turns out that, in spite of SPAWAR’s claims of easy reproducibility, interpretation of the results is not so unambiguous, that the brand of material affects results, that chemical attacks on the material produce artifacts. Some of the participants concluded evidence for nuclear reactions was absent, and Krivit was left with the following pathetic consolation:

                “Everyone who has reported results has found something anomalous, something that they have had difficulty explaining by conventional science, and all of their experiments are giving results, however mystifying they may be.”

                In the best tradition of pathological science, definitive results are just out of reach.

                SKINR – Between “seems unlikely” and a chance in 10^50, I’d put my money on “seems unlikely”. And there is no context required for “many more [runs] must be conducted before any definitive conclusions can be drawn.”

                Indeed, you convict yourself a True Believer much more convincingly by saying the results confirm SPAWAR, when the authors say they “may contradict previously reported results utilizing CR39”.

                As for the flat earth society, it consists of a fringe group whose ideas contradict those of mainstream science. That’s much more like cold fusion believers than skeptics.

                • GreenWin

                  Let’s see, you are wrong on Kawalski, still in love with Kirvit!!, and assume SKINR refers only to SPAWAR CR39 use. Apparently kemo is clairvoyant or telepathic? as “previously reported results” means (to kemo)whatever oblique argument he dreams up next.

                  Deniers of LENR are indeed the Flatearthers of the present era. Buck up kemo, they may discount new memberships!

              • kemo sabe

                You don’t need to be clairvoyant to be able to read. The authors depend on their readers to remember what was said in the introduction, so they don’t have to make explicit references every time the CR-39 results are mentioned. They refer in the paper to SPAWAR CR-39 results in which particles within some energy range are claimed. Such particles would produce peaks in the SKINR spectra, which are *not* observed, and so their results would seem to contradict the SPAWAR results.

                • GreenWin

                  Wrong yet again kemo. At no place in the SKINR Introduction do “They refer in the paper to SPAWAR CR-39 results…”

                  They reference three of Pam Boss’ papers with respect to sensor placement and “Neutron production…at a minimum energy of 7.89 MeV due to triple tracks…”

                  The acronym SPAWAR does NOT appear anywhere in their Introduction, or in their References. Indeed, reader comprehension and accuracy is important kemo. You want to brush up on it.

                  Both SKINR and SPAWAR cold fusion experiments find instances of charged particles – however the SKINR results are likely more accurate due to the much improved diamond sensor. Frankly, your popeecircular convoluted thinking no longer warrants response kemo.

              • kemo sabe

                You must speak a different language. In the language I speak, if they reference 3 Pam Boss papers about CR-39 written while she was at SPAWAR, then they most certainly refer in the paper to SPAWAR CR-39 results.

                The SKINR results, whether more accurate or not, do *not* observe 7.89 MeV (or higher) neutrons, and therefore contradict the SPAWAR results, which is what the authors say, and which is the opposite of what you said, which was my point.

  • http://www.quantumheat.org/ Bob Greenyer

    It is a shame that our efforts did not see this researcher get a much needed boost to take his work forward, it is fantastic he is getting a second chance, let’s try and go that extra mile this time and ask a few friends to vote also!

  • artefact

    Every invention has 0 or 1 vote exept for Mileys with 110 votes 🙂

  • http://www.SynergetX-HP.nl SynergetX-HP (.nl)

    “LENR Distributed Power Unit”
    This sounds very similar to what we try to implement.
    Big issue is the safety certification for domestic units!

    • Matt

      As it has been said before in other threads. A safety certification is not necessary. Only the manufacturer has to confirm that his product applies to European safety regulations. Basically you can certify your product yourself.

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        Even if self-certified it have to respect some standards.
        Moreover you need some recognized certification to insure your company.
        Insurance is a domain that can block LENR development, through a campaign of FUD, like can do environmentalists, malthusianists, fueled by the cash of incumbent operators.

        • yamal

          how can you be so sure it would be fud? as an underwriter (or father or neighbor or politician) wouldn’t you want to be sure lenr really is inherently safe before you let people get anywhere near it?

          • Peter_Roe

            Yes, and that is why a good predictive understanding of the phenomenon will be required before any private use of CF reactors is permitted, assuming that all technical problems are overcome. Rossi’s claim that his first industrial e-cat sale has been to the military makes sense, as they would be more able to accept an uncertain level of risk than civilians.

            Unfortunately I suspect that safety concerns (real or fake) may also be a bar to industrial sales including the ‘hot cat’ type, which will leave Rossi and his associates in a ‘Catch 22’ position until safety can be assured on a theoretical basis as well as a practical one.

            • yamal

              could be a long time then. if greenwin would be right about indisputable evidence for neutron emission in lenr experiments (he isn’t, but lets pretend for a second he was), we would probably never see any lenr product outside of a us navy submarine and rossi wouldn’t be in a catch 22 for long. in fact he would have died in 2007 shortly after switching on his first prototype reactor.

              • Peter_Roe

                LENR appears to be a complex phenomenon (possibly more than one) in which hard and soft gamma or neutrons are produced under some conditions, but not all. If the conditions under which hard radiation is produced are avoided by design, the technology is potentially safe enough for routine use.

                One variation developed by GEC Technology appears to have been optimised for neutron production and is offered as a fission starter for low grade fissionable materials.

                (http://globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx)

                The information that this system utilised microwave driver input appeared on early versions of their website, but this has now been removed.

                However the mere fact that gamma or neutrons can be produced by CF reactions may be used to ‘ring fence’ the technology on the basis of faked ‘safety issues’. IMO CF will soon be used by the military and by corporate energy suppliers, but will probably not be released for other potential users for many years.

                • yamal

                  again we seem to be talking about a wide range of phenomena which either hint at an extremely complex set of completely unknown, new laws of physics or (more likely in my opinion) a bunch of random artifacts gathered from an equal number of not very professional experiments.
                  i looked at the gec link you provided and find it astonishing that somebody making claims like that in a form like that and providing evidence like that apparently nevertheless finds people who believe him.

                • Peter_Roe

                  It does seem evident that LENR represents a small part of a new branch of electrochemistry or an entirely new subset of physics – ‘nuclear-chemical’ reactions.

                  Your tendency to dismiss anything, no matter how formally documented, that appears to contradict your world view indicates an exceptionally closed mind. As such it would appear to be futile to provide any further information.

                  However, for any other readers of this exchange, here is a snippet from the GEC site (‘Publications’ page) which is followed by a detailed list of 24 peer-reviewed papers on aspects of CF by the principal researchers behind GEC:

                  “Although it has sometimes been difficult to publish in a controversial field, by conducting careful experiments and reporting the results, Global Energy Corporation collaborators at the U.S. Navy SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific and its predecessors and JWK International have published 24 peer-reviewed papers in seven technical journals and two book chapters. Our publication record documents steady progress in conducting experiments to demonstrate ever-increasing evidence that nuclear reactions can be stimulated using low energies in an electrochemical cell. Our most recent paper uses CR-39 to record and compare the impacts of high-energy particles produced in our pilot GeNiE reactor with neutrons from a known D-T fusion source.”

            • GreenWin

              Peter, we have here two LENR deniers still spouting pedantic skepticism by claiming no researcher or study “worthy.” These claims typically come from people suffering narcissistic personality disorder. They are unfortunates, often in the employ of institutional denial machines.

              • Peter_Roe

                GW – In one case in particular, the style of argument, obvious familiarity with the research, Cudenese verbosity and sheer persistence, do seem quite familiar – especially to anyone who has followed discussions on Vortex.

                In the second instance, the adoption of ‘all lowercase’ is an interesting affectation, but the apparent need to adopt such a camouflage is revealing in itself. When I have a bit of time I will have a look through some old ECN posts to look for style similarities, but I do already have a candidate in mind.

              • Peter_Roe

                It seems that others have made similar speculations:
                http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/365

                Original moletrap exchange here:
                http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3402&page=26

                (Fairly unpleasant reading, like most of what transpires on this cesspit site).

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            safety, precaution is used today as non financial obstacle to competitors.

            Of course safety have to be checked, but ther is no limit to what safety can be used to. nothing is safe. absolutely nothing. So you can always block anything if you are not honest. It is done today.

            • yamal

              have you got any current examples where safety was used as an obstacle to competitors? i don’t mean the odd train-company commercial showing a car crash but the organized, conspiratorial construction of an official but unnecessary safety regulation enforced by a government in order to favor one technology in the market over another.

              • Peter_Roe

                You mean like legislation requiring men with red flags to walk in front of the dangerous new automobile contraptions in the early 20th century, or the similar speed restrictions which killed steam vehicles on UK roads in a slightly later era?

                But why does there need to be a precedent – it is an obvious strategy both for competitors and for governments fearing loss of revenues.

  • georgehants

    georgehants
    March 6th, 2013 at 5:55 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    Do you feel confident that when your third party report is published the World will quickly embrace your technology to help solve many of it’s current Energy problems.
    Many thanks.
    —–
    Andrea Rossi
    March 6th, 2013 at 6:41 AM
    Dear Georgehants:
    I hope the report will be positive, but in any case our industrial production and strategy is totally indipendent from the third Party report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Shane D.

      Question is: how can the report of the hot-cat be negative yet then have no bearing on the industrial development?

      If the report claims no discernable >1COP then the hot-cat can’t be industrialized… right?

      Rossi seems pretty non-chalant about the report now. Early on he sounded stressed about it. Don’t know what to make of that other then he may now have a working prototype that has been on-line for some time and is gaining more confidence with each passing day of its operation.

      • Peter_Roe

        I think your guess that Rossi (or more likely his US partner) has a working hot cat prototype is probably correct. He probably also knows the result of the testing, but even if that is not brilliant, then this would reflect more on the testers than the device they tested if a working prototype is now available.

    • Karl

      To my mind it’s good and also smart by Rossi not to be fully dependent on other sources. In the end if and when he satisfies his customers he will win.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      It is a bit weird though. A device capable of up to 1200 degree C and a supposedly COP of between 11 and 30 should more than easily be tested positive. But apparently Rossi is not sure about it (“I hope the report will be positive, but in any case…”) .I just hope he doesn’t want any media attention on him by not shouting about his expectations of the report, otherwise I can’t really explain why he’s having doubts.

      Oh man, the wait is a very long one for me. I’m getting some weary glimpses my way from my friends and family whenever I’m talking or even hinting about LENR. I could use some firm evidence 🙂

      • Peter_Roe

        My family and friends think I’ve ‘come to my senses’ as I don’t talk about CF any more, even when occasionally provoked in fun. I look forward enormously to the day when I can smile smugly and quietly remind people that I told them about all this a long time ago.

        • NJT

          Yep, same here – waiting fairly quietly now for something viable to jump on and shout about!

        • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

          I sort of dream of that day, you know. I’ll be the resident armchair expert about the New Fire and everybody will gather around listening with rapt attention to every word I say about and how I was the first visionary that recognized the genius of Rossi and all are now in great admiration of my…

          Oh wait…

          I’m dreaming again…

  • georgehants

    There are some great scientists in the World willing to look for the Truth.
    One I think is Brian Josephson, as I believe that he and other open-minded scientists should react more with ordinary people and not be confined by the ossified (Cease developing; be stagnant or rigid.)scientific establishment I have sent him an E-mail inviting his participation in our little E-Cat World.
    ——
    Dear Brian,
    I am still pounding away on the Internet to “change science and the World”.
    You told me a long time ago that you would not post on blogsites as it is not worth the aggravation etc. from closed minds.
    You have put up a couple in response to my requests over the last two years regarding Mr. Rossi etc.
    On the website, Cold Fusion World, run by Frank Acland, moderation is very strong and I am sure he would agree to moderate away any unfair attacks against yourself or your comments if you would occasionally put up your important thoughts on science etc.
    We still await Mr. Rossi, hope is still alive.
    Best regards,
    George.

    • Brian Josephson

      George, an important serious UK newspaper, The Guardian, published my obituary of Martin Fleischmann, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/aug/31/martin-fleischmann. Also Nature published a letter from me pointing out that its own obituary by Philip Ball had recycled various popular untruths, and clarifying the situation. I have not however come across a single person who has been influenced by either of these items.

      • georgehants

        Brian, on these pages although the audience is very small (like all esoteric areas such as Cold Fusion) there are people who read and fairly learn from the Truth without distortion.
        We all are sorely aware that it is difficult to overcome the establishment negative philosophy, that they have had centuries to perfect.
        Pages like this owe a great deal to Admin for being places where Truth can be discussed without fear of the unhealthy drag of over Negativity.
        I am sure many would appreciate your occasional input for us to discuss your ideas, that here will be seen by most as True Science at work.

  • georgehants

    Just for those who think that Cold Fusion is the only area of science where hiding the Facts and debunking is the norm.
    ——
    From Oxford University Press
    The Placebo Effect in Clinical Practice
    Walter A. Brown
    The role that the placebo effect plays in many treatments is clear: it not only plays a complimentary role in most treatments but it can sometimes be the only benefit of treatment. Brain imaging studies over the past decade have shown that placebo-treated patients undergo some of the same changes in brain activity as those treated with pharmacologically active substances. Yet this important component of healing is not yet harnessed in clinical settings
    http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Medicine/PsychiatryPsychology/?view=usa&ci=9780199933853

    • GreenWin

      George, we are seeing increasing refusal in government-controlled science (i.e. mainstream) to face past transgressions and failures. Yet learning and growing through failure is the way many of our greatest contributors to human experience have succeeded.

      While the old school insists on wearing blinders, the rest of the world (billions representing humanity)is slowly hearing the message (from “The Believers”):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M0i2fh8lGI

    • georgehants

      Scientific American
      March 6, 2013
      Placebos Work Better for Nice People [Preview]
      Agreeable personalities produce more of the brain’s natural painkillers
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebos-work-better-for-nice-peopl

      • Peter_Roe

        I’ve occasionally wondered why placebos never seem to work for me.

        • georgehants

          Ha.

        • Invy

          Placebos are suppositories… That’s why it didn’t work for you…

  • georgehants

    Wealth Inequality in America
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

  • AstralProjectee

    I voted.

  • Groupir

    Voted 🙂

  • Karl

    Great to have the opportunity to Vote as I did.

  • rolando

    I voted. Hope he will get the number

  • Curbina

    Thanks for posting this Frank!!

  • robyn wyrick

    Voted. Now must deal with a minor major snow storm. (Minor major, that’s like Sargent Major, or C Minor 7th).

  • GreenWin

    This is a wonderful opportunity to support one of the world’s most accomplished and courageous scientists. I VOTED!

    “All of the editors of the major scientific journals were contacted and were instructed not to publish articles on cold fusion. All editors but one then set up barriers against cold fusion publications. The one editor who did not accept that type of instruction was Professor George Miley…” 1999, Dr. Hal L. Fox, former Director University Utah Laboratory Research Park.

    http://www.oocities.org/marksrealm/project136.html

    • GreenWin

      For those interested in technical details, here’s Dr. Miley’s paper from 2012 ICCF17: Use of D/H Clusters in LENR and Recent Results from Gas Loaded Nanoparticle-Type Clusters

      “The primary result thus far is that the excess energies obtained in all experiments to date are all well above the maximum estimate of what could be attributed to chemical reactions. The external power/energy involved, such as deuterium gas compression and vacuum pumping, is minimal compared to the output, suggesting very large energy gain.”

      http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miley-Use-Of-DH-Clusters-ICCF17-pp.pdf

    • kemo sabe

      But Rothwell lists hundreds of journals that published cold fusion papers. Miley is clearly not the only one.

      • GreenWin

        Dr. Hal Fox strongly suggests Dr. Miley was the ONLY editor early on (circa 1990s) who refused to be cowed by the standing order to NOT publish CF papers. We know that many were rejected without reason (e.g. 2002 DiNinno’s “Report 42.”

        • kemo sabe

          The suggestion is manifestly wrong. P&F original paper, and many others were published in 1989, and in the early 90s in J Electroanal Chem, J Fusion Energy, and other journals.

          • GreenWin

            Essentially all western Journals (except Journal Fusion Tech – edited by Miley) abruptly ended accepting and publishing CF papers in 1990. 1991 is the latest date one finds a mainstream journal CF paper.

            Thereafter scientists were forced to write about something other than CF – e.g. “anomalous effects in deuterated metals.” Or, condensed matter nuclear physics. Or, now LENR.

            So kemo, tell us all. Are you calling Dr. Hal Fox a liar? What evidence to you have that he has lied? Enlighten us please.

            • kemo sabe

              Nice try, covering your behind, but it’s not working.

              Obviously, I don’t know if the major journals were instructed not to publish articles on cold fusion. But it is manifestly untrue that Miley is the only editor to defy the alleged instruction, and “publish articles on cold fusion”.

              Check Storms’ literature review in NW in 2010. In it, he refers to dozens of western journal articles on cold fusion throughout the 90s, including the more frequently referred to papers by McKubre 1994 (J. Electroanal. Chem), P & F 1993 (Phys. Lett. A), and Miles 1994 (J Electroanal Chem). And if they’re not “on cold fusion”, what are they doing in a literature review entitled “Status of Cold Fusion”? Or are you calling Dr. Edmund Storms a liar?

              Or consider Rothwell’s or Britz’s tallies of “cold fusion” papers. They certainly consider a great many papers not in Miley’s journal to be “on cold fusion”. And I can provide a list of quotations from all the main players in the field that show that they consider LENR synonymous with “cold fusion” as a descriptive term. If all those papers are not on cold fusion, then the frequent claim of 1200 journal papers on cold fusion should be regarded as a lie. Is that what you think?

              You try to salvage your claim and Dr. Hal Fox’s honor by suggesting if “cold fusion” isn’t in the title, it’s not a cold fusion paper, but that’s just playing games. The first sentence in the 1993 Miles paper, for example, talks about “cold fusion” in so many words. But even those that don’t mention it explicitly except in reference to “cold fusion” conferences etc, are still about cold fusion. P & F themselves regretted the name when it was clear the reaction was not defined, so it’s not surprising people preferred FP effect or some such to avoid committing to a particular reaction.

              I don’t understand why you think we should believe a claim that is contrary to obvious facts just because Dr Hal Fox makes it. Is he incapable of misrepresenting the truth because he has a PhD? I suspect the Miley claim is not the only misrepresentation in that letter you refer to.

            • yamal

              are you serious? you quote outrageous and unsubstantiated claims and if somebody disagrees with them you accuse that somebody of calling the person you quoted a liar and challenge them to provide evidence? lol. that sort of argumentation doesn’t fly in any society still around today, greenwin – possibly not even in north korea.

              • georgehants

                Yamil, I do not like to reply to your posts.
                Your reply holds nothing but circular innuendo and accusations with nothing to back them up.
                Asking for Evidence is a fair point of discussion unless somebody is just giving “opinion”
                Your posts are simply unpleasant “opinion” with no substance.
                Try not to be so continually insulting and post something containing Evidence of Facts.

            • kemo sabe

              Storms’ literature review in NW in 2010 refers to dozens of western journal articles on cold fusion throughout the 90s. And if they’re not “on cold fusion”, what are they doing in a literature review entitled “Status of Cold Fusion”? Or are you calling Dr. Edmund Storms a liar?

              And if all you’re saying is that there was suppression of the semantic term “cold fusion”, but not the related content, then what’s the objection? P & F themselves regretted the label, and so they participated in this suppression.

            • GreenWin

              Cognitive dissonance: “Dr. Hal Fox strongly suggests Dr. Miley was the ONLY editor early on (circa 1990s) who refused to be cowed by the standing order to NOT publish CF (this means COLD FUSION) papers.”

              The denial inherent in kemo and yammal, comes about by attempting to defend the defenseless actions of mainstream science with respect to cold fusion. Most familiar with CF history know full well the reason scientists changed the nomenclature to anything BUT cold fusion. That was the only way to get a paper published. Witness the Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia-inspired “Report 41” (DeNinno, et al, 2002) confirming ENEA’s finding of He4. The paper was offered to 41 “scientific” journals – each and every one refused.

              The increasing hysteria we find in kemo-yammal suggests the noose tightening around the necks of those who led the CF denial charge. And while this form of argumentation may seem guttural, it is appropriately fighting fire with fire.

            • kemo sabe

              Using all caps doesn’t change anything. A paper does not have to use the term to be a cold fusion paper. And some papers (Miles and Gozzi, e.g.) did use the term in journals other than Miley’s, so he is manifestly not the only one.

              Since the actual alleged nuclear reaction was not (and stilll is not) known, careful scientific writers will avoid terms that suggest a particular reaction. That’s why P&F objected to the term “cold fusion”

              Anyway, if all you’re saying is that there was suppression of the semantic term “cold fusion”, but not the related content, then what’s the objection? Since P & F themselves objected to the label, they participated in this suppression too.

              The fact that some papers (like Report 41) were rejected does not contradict the fact that many were published, and the many publications prove St. Hal Fox was wrong.

              Note that, the failure of Report 41 to get published is just as consistent with it being a lousy paper as it is with some sort of suppression. The paper showed a helium yield 10 times too high for the claimed heat. The authors admitted the calorimetry was probably to blame. Any reviewer worth his salt would send it back asking why they want to publish a paper partly on calorimetry in which the authors suggest the calorimetry is so bad that it’s probably off by a factor of 10.

              Also, the speculation about DD -> He-4 plus heat was very poorly justified. The idea that an excited He-4 can give its energy (24 MeV) to d-electrons is unprecedented (and fusion in Pd has been observed), and in any case, the electrons should be detectable, since many reactions at least will happen near the surface. I think a reviewer might have suggested not to speculate on a possible reaction at all, or collaborate with a theorist and calculate reaction rates.

              • GreenWin

                Pure and utter hogwash. Your last two paras are speculative tripe. You are clearly a typical pathoskep,of the MaryHodypopee species, and therefore undeserving of further dialog.

                • kemo sabe

                  Of course, we’re both speculating on the reasons the paper was rejected. But poor quality seems pretty reasonable considering how many papers on cold fusion around that time *did* get published.