Defkalion Europe Freezes Work With Business Contacts Over Measurement Issues

There are sometimes when not knowing Italian can be a big disadvantage in this cold fusion story. Yesterday with the help of Google Translate I spent quite a bit of time on trying to figure out what the controversy was surrounding rumors of problems with some Defkalion testing.

There was an interview yesterday (August 3) on the Italion Il Sole 24 Ore station with Luca Gamberale, Chief Technology Officer at Defkalion Europe regarding some testing that had recently been done by unidentified 3rd parties. I thank ECW reader robiD for the following summary of the situation which seems to sum up the situation well:

Yesterday Luca Gamberale (CTO at Defkalion Europe) has released an interview to the science radio program Moebius broadcast on the Italian Radio 24 – Il Sole 24 Ore station. Gamberale said that there are some critical issues in the measurements that has been done until now on the Hyperion reactor. Defkalion Europe, as a client of Defkalion Green Technologies, has made the decision to “freeze” (the exact word used by Gamberale) the relationship with DGT as long as these critical issues won’t be solved.

According to many _rumors_ (actually well grounded and reported on Defkalion Europe asked independent tests on the Hyperion R5 reactor to several testers groups and, further _speculations_ say that some groups have found out a problem in the water flow reading. It’s not clear whether this is a problem in the functioning of the flow meter or something else but, given the particular problem (the flow meter worked correctly during calibrations), other hypothesis can’t be ruled out.

Also a statement by Moebius, the Italian science radio program addresses the issue.

Moebius Saturday to a new chapter on the controversial story about cold fusion (better defined LENR , Low Energy Nuclear Reaction).

On July 22, along with Triwù , web tv innovation, we have organized a streaming from the laboratories of Defkalion Europe in Milan, dedicated to describe how it works in general a cold fusion experiment (although this definition is controversial), streaming during the which is amply clear that the appointment was far from presenting as a demo.

On July 23, Defkalion, at the request of the World Conference on Cold Fusion going to Columbus in Missouri, held a long demo of about 10 hours, at which – it was obvious, being on the Internet – was attended by a very large number of people, almost 30 thousand contacts, among which many technicians. In particular, then, to an audience of 200 physicists gathered in Columbus, came for an hour and a half, many requests for clarification on the apparatus in operation.

This performance has prompted Defkalion the need to investigate aspects of the measurement. interview on Saturday 3 July [ed. August] Moebius will explain the various aspects of that decision .

The streaming video of the July 22 and 23 are available online at .

It’s still unclear to me what the actual problem is, but it seems quite serious for Defkalion HQ, if a joint venture partner is making public a discrepancy like this. I expect that the two parties will be trying to clarify the situation as soon as possible to avoid what could be a public relations problem.

And if any of our Italian friends could help clear things up, I’m sure all of us Italian language-challenged folks would be most grateful!

  • GoatGuy

    This is so laughable, really.

    It is MID 2013, folks. I’ve been tracking the Rossi/Defkalon thing for what, 4 years? Every year, we’re just a couple of setbacks from commercial devices. Every year, there’s some fiasco and imbroglio regarding the business relations of Rossi & kin. Every year, the “technology” gets reinvented, with newer and shinier features. Yet there is one thing that has yet to be done – in any case, for any test situation or certification.

    This would be bulk-mass calorimetry, from, and back into a closed insulated vessel.

    Look at what you’ve read, heard, or surmise: the controversies flutter around whether the flow-type calorimetry is being done correct; various delightfully well-informed commentators discuss at length the role of steam, and fraction of “wet steam”, and try to turn this gobble-d-gook into a set of adjusted values that correlate to Rossi/Defkalion’s claims. Its ridiculous, however, considering the efficacy of doing calorimetry using “styrofoam picnic chests” of water.

    In a nutshell, the largest styrofoam chests can hold over 100 liters of water. It is TRIVIAL to fill such a chest with 40C water, put the lid on (with a small tropical fish pump to keep it circulating a bit), insert an old-fashioned mercury-filled lab thermometer, and take temperature measures over the next 8 hours. Sure the 40C water’s temperature will drop relative to ambient. The key is … it’ll do so at a rate that is almost exactly linear with the differential in temperature. Plots identically to a straight line on graph paper.

    THIS “certification” is key – for it establishes the backward calculating “fudge factor” to make up for any missing heat when the same tub(s) of water are circulated out of the boxes, to the e-Cat, and back via insulated hoses. Again, one doesn’t need fancy equipment: the same tropical-fish pump can move plenty of water between the styrofoam box and a 5kW or 10kW e-cat. Pump it out, through, and back.

    Measuring the temperature of this covered, insulated bulk of water is critically important – in that from the temperature, and with time, the exact-to-3-decimal-places amount of deposited thermal energy can be calculated. So trivially, that “graph paper and pencil” calculations quite easily suffice. Oh… could use a computer program to do it (called a “spreadsheet”), but that’s just being more practical. Point is … one does NOT need “second by second” measurements of the temperature. Every 5 minutes would be more than enough. Literally, grammar school kids could do it. 2 thermometers, a chest, water and a wall clock.

    YET – it is precisely this test which has NEVER been done. I’ve been soundly lambasted for suggesting that such “primitive” ways of doing calorimetry would be somehow better than the sophisticated “modern” method of differential flow-calorimetry. Well, boys ‘n’ girls, here’s something to remember: “bomb” calorimetry is still used at food testing laboratories across the world to measure food-energy values. Bulk calorimetry may not be very sophisticated, but before the CONVENIENCE of the flow-calorimeter, bulk methods were used to measure to 3 and 4 significant digits of precision, the specific heat capacity of tens of thousands of compounds, materials, alloys, fluids and reagents. It works.

    I personally believe it hasn’t been done not because it is “hard” (which it clearly is not), but rather for 4 mutually supporting reasons:

    1. it looks un-modern; questionably scientific (to those who wish to see fancy digital data acquisition)

    2. it is a 19th century technique. We’re in the 21st century now.

    3. It would uncover the mendacity contained within all the claimed numbers.

    4. It relies on double integration to establish accurate measurement values.

    And there you are. Until mass-calorimetry is done, there is no reason to engage in any of the crap regarding the validity of current measurements. The “simple”, “cheap” and “reliable” needs to be done.


    • every time a new calorimetry is proposed, some skeptic invent crazy hypothesis, without evidence to spread doubt…
      the testers change the protocol and the protocol is again not satisfying.
      defkalion proposed IR isoperibolic,
      she asked for flow calorimetry,
      now Mary is asking for isoperibolic.
      you ask for phase change…

      you are exactly delusioned as you imagine others.
      you cannot accept the facts, you ignore not only the hard evidence, but even the soft evidence around…
      you invent critics that don’t hold…

      you heat storage is preposterous for rossi and DGT, given the test.

      like Pomp&Ericsson you should learn to read, hear, before spreading FUD based on hot air.

      now you ask yet another protocol…
      and sure when it will be realized you will moan about hidden pipes, heat storage…

      no end.

      • GoatGuy

        Wow, AlainCo – what a personal attack. I did not attack ANYONE in what I wrote. How utterly RUDE of you! And… you have the pretension to say I’m spreading F(ear) U(ncertainty) and D(oubt)?

        EACH OF YOUR POINTS IS FALSE … let me cite:

        … some skeptic invent crazy hypothesis, without evidence to spread doubt…

        NO: the use of MASS type calorimetry is not only STANDARD, it is reliable, simple, cheap, and ridiculously easy to use to confirm other more sophisticated (but ultimately squirrely) alternatives.

        … the testers change the protocol and the protocol is again not satisfying.

        NO: The testers have NEVER used mass calorimetry. There was an attempt at recirculating the cooling/calorimetry fluid, but there were no results forthcoming from it.

        … defkalion proposed IR isoperibolic,

        NO: Defkalion has proposed a couple dozen different tests; Infrared is almost useless in this testing regime, except for possibly determining 1 and 1/2 “digits of precision”. Almost, but not quite useless. And, compared to an insulated tub of water … serves no useful purpose EXCEPT adding “more technology” to the system.

        … she asked for flow calorimetry,
        … now Mary is asking for isoperibolic.
        … you ask for phase change…

        NO: I did not, have not, and will not ask for “phase change”. Just recirculate a bunch of water (like 100L to 1000L) from a well insulated vat, through ANY of Rossi’s or Defkalion’s “version 1.x” designs. They supposedly emitted from 1,000 W to 15,000 W over input power. This would be TRIVIAL to measure in the mass-calorimetry sense, and entirely satisfying.

        … you are exactly delusioned as you imagine others.

        NO: If anything, I may well be among the few that have their EYES OPEN. True believers like yourself are the majority, but the majority may well be hoodwinked.

        … you cannot accept the facts, you ignore not only the hard evidence, but even the soft evidence around…

        NO: I most CERTAINLY can accept “the facts”. I have a very exquisite sense of “something’s wrong” though – from years behind the bench (chemistry, physics), and more years analyzing others work. Stop making baseless assertions of what I KNOW, and limit yourself to the ideas presented, not making trollish comments about others capabilities.

        … you heat storage is preposterous for rossi and DGT, given the test.

        NO: It is anything but “preposterous”. What IS PREPOSTEROUS is that you’re defending their hiding behind an ever-changing metrology setup; that the one – the single, and ONLY – method that would CONFIRM their fancy metrology results WITHOUT ADDING REMARKABLE COST … has never been done. Don’t be a fool, AlainCo.

        … like Pomp&Ericsson you should learn to read, hear, before spreading FUD based on hot air.

        NO: “you should learn to read” – well, buddy, that is one hell of a stupid thing to say. I’m more read on this stuff than 99% of the Rah-Rah fanboys and fangirls that infest these blogs. Sure: I have strong beliefs about the conservation of energy, and the possibility that results have been mis-interpreted … but this seems not to faze you in the slightest.

        Well, AlainCo … we’ve “crossed our swords” over at Next Big Future, and we’re crossing them here. Stand down from your personal attacks, and PROVIDE SOME IDEAS.


    • H. Skip Robinson

      First Rossi’s E-cat and Defkalion’s Hyperion are different. This is about Defkalion and I’m told they have been using outside help to do both testing and create testing protocols, understanding that it is not as easy as you attempt to assert. So, you’re not even commenting on the right group and equipment. Additionally your constant use of logical fallacies throughout your post, highly discredits anything you may say. Learn what they are and than learn to stop using them. You are also attempting to draw conclusions from assumptions that could be erroneous which is another logical fallacy. Stop trying to discredit people, many whom have been working on this for years, without knowing enough facts. Oh I forgot you’re the all knowing.

      • GoatGuy

        Oh, please: YOU don’t know the first thing about calorimetry. I do – it was one of the things I chose to study in detail at the University of California WAY back. The metrology has changed (in mostly high-cost, faddish ways), but the basic ideas remain as constant as ever. There hasn’t been a NEW idea in thermodynamic metrology in … well … maybe 100 years. New equipment, but no new ideas, no new math. Why? — NO NEED: it is a well worked out specialization within both chemistry and physics —

        SECONDLY, don’t give lip about “Defkalion and E-cat being different”. Sure… from a company perspective, they’re different. But Defkalion is a derivative of Rossi’s primary inventions. They were partners once.

        THIRDLY, I’ve used NO LOGIC FALLACIES in my post. You have – by stating so. Get over yourself, old onion. As to lecturing me to “stop using them” – I highly recommend that you NOT take on critiquing the commenter, and start commenting on the subject matter. Sorry to be so bold, but you’re puking in public.

        I’ve drawn no particular conclusions that anyone else ON A BLOG might not also conclude, my good fellow. You don’t like my conclusions, you don’t care for the logic that leads to them, but they’re fair, and quite unprejudiced by my hope for a real breakthrough.

        GOT THAT? I do -sincerely- hope for a breakthrough. But so far, it has been not just elusive, but been shrouded in nearly circus-act quality theatre to remain vexingly imprecise.

        FINALLY – and this may do nothing more than make you think you’ve “won” – but here’s the gig, boat anchor: I’m not in the least to discredit anyone, INCLUDING YOU. I merely think that it is very, very, very suspect that the one (cheap, simple, old, reliable, accurate and easy) test that could have been done, has not been done.

        Care to answer that last sentence? Go ahead! Try to. I can’t, and that is what vexes me about all the rah-rah-rah of the Rossi/Defkalion circus.


        • H. Skip Robinson

          See that wasn’t so hard was it. But why all the BS to just ask, what you consider an important question(s). If you give me an intelligent question(s), I will try to have them answered for you. From what I understand Defkalion’s unit is different enough from the E-cat to give them an advantage at this point in time and I know for a fact that Kim Yeong of Purdue, who is educated in both nuclear energy and sensing has done favorable testing at Defkalion.

  • Lukedc

    This is all a storm in a teacup. I’ll repost what I said two months ago.
    By the end of this year a Defkalion commercial R&D partner will announce a product based on Hyperion tech.

    • Fibb

      Lukedc, is that a WAG (wild ass guess) or are you some guy with real info? Thanks.

    • AlainCo

      DGT have told in an interview that the first partner to deliver a product won’t do it before mid 2014…
      Hope your optimism will win. My professional bet is 5 years after discovery , so late 2016. my hope is very soon.

      I agree that it is a storm in a teacup, but that is the game in that story… many storms and slow motion.

      I just hope that this storm will trigger some good testing, that would stop the general delusion against LENR industry.

      • Allan Shura is reporting Charles (Chuck) Pierce’s “Regen” Self-Looped Motor-Generator System.

        If true it is more than competitive with the first generation e-cat on price and is available and tested by the European Space Agency.

        • Zedshort

          What? Another magical-magnetic-motor thingy?

          • Hope4dbest

            The Regen is not a magnetic motor but a motor coupled with a generator, with extra energy left.

            • Kim

              I am aware of this machine.

              It is about magnets. That is what motors and generators use.

              It has a fly wheel and this wheel
              can store a tremendous amount of
              energy. If the system is close to 100
              percent the flywheel can run for days
              producing the extra energy they are

              They need to strobe the fly wheel to see rather
              its loosing,gaining or is static this is the crux
              of its energy.


        • This is why I hate the “involvement” of PESN in the LENR story.
          PESN is totaly crap and informs about the biggest and stupidest fakes, hoax’ and frauds in the free-energy area.

          And the LENR Image gets damaged by such sites, because the normal reader will connect the frauds with LENR, and sort LENR into the same category -> frauds and bullsh*t.

  • Preston

    The scary thing about this is just a few days ago we heard a rumor that one of the testers had uncovered something that seems like outright fraud, and now there is this hold.

    If the rumor was true, then the issue is a lot more serious then a minor measurement error with the flow meter. To completely knock the COP all the way to < 1.0 I don't know but maybe there is a hidden bypass that routes cold water around the outlet heat sensor, or something major like that.

    Hopefully, we will hear more information soon, all of this is just speculation.

    • freethinker

      You are quite the voice of moderation, are you not 🙂

      Rumors are seldom what they appear to be, and the play by the group of investors in Defkalion Europe could easily be power playing.

      Maybe you should keep your negative rethoric to a minumum as you most likely know nothing – like the rest of us – about what really has transpired and what is unfolding.

      But if I am mistaken, please give me credible references to information qualifying language like “scary”, “outright fraud”, ” lot more serious then a minor measurement error”, ” hidden bypass” etc.

      Please monger fear elsewhere.

      • Preston

        The rumor about testing problems and potential fraud was posted by AB in the Reasonable Doubt thread, and discussed thoroughly then. See, AB on July 29, 2013 at 5:30 pm in the reasonable doubt thread.

        This announcement might fit with that rumor and like I said, if it’s related to that rumor then it’s pretty scary for Defkalion. But I’m still hopeful and still a believer in LENR and hope this gets resolved quickly.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer


    The first automatic analog cellular phone was made in the 1960’s. Commercial models were introduced in Japan by NTT on December 3, 1979.

    The microwave oven was invented in 1946. The Raytheon Corporation produced the first commercial microwave oven in 1954

    Dean Kamen invented the Slingshot a water purifier.[35] Kamen filed U.S. patent # 7,340,879 on November 13, 2003 for the device which was issued on March 11, 2008. 2013 first procuct.

    A nanowire battery is a lithium-ion battery invented by a team led by Yi Cui at Stanford University in 2007.Commercialization was originally expected to occur in 2012, but was later deferred to 2015

    • Kim

      Why do I get the feeling we can have
      all the free energy devices in the world
      as soon as they move the decimal point
      of the world population about 5 decimal points to the left.



      • Roger Bird

        I don’t understand. That would make the world’s population 70,000. Do you mean that we could all burn wood?

        • Barry

          Your other left.

      • Ted-X

        Kim, you must be a prophet 🙂
        You just confirmed the Apocalypse, the Bible, The Koran, and the Holly Writ of Mormons, plus relations of those who had the near death experiences (NDE-people also provided the warnings, it is documented in psychological journals). So, we should start collecting food for two years (really, not so stupid idea). Isn’t it a pure logic? Maybe just one decimal place? Five decimal places = back to stone age. Still scary, even with one decimal place.

        • Roger Bird

          I would be delighted with one decimal place, just so long as it was not forced upon anyone but rather the result of intelligent and informed decision.

          • telecommuter

            Right. And how would that ever happen?

            • Roger Bird

              I have very little idea. But I do know that the best form of birth control is education.

  • Sanjeev

    The only thing that was not checked was the software that plots the graph and shows the readings on the screen. I wonder why hasn’t any of our learned skeptics mentioned it so far. Perhaps they all are old fashioned and trust anything a computer says. So I’m throwing this in the wild, lets see if someone pounces on it.

    One can easily write some code to show fake readings. Show some normal readings in the control run and once the active run starts, click a button somewhere to show the high COP readings and pretty graphs. One can always escape detection by declaring the laptop and software as “Commercial IP”.

    Although I think its highly unlikely that they used a cracked software but it just shows the importance of an independent test.

    • Chris I

      This is obvious and I’ve mentioned it somewhere in discussing the fact that it was a demo, no more than a demo. The Elforsk team was certainly much more able to kick the tyres of the h-cat, that’s why they called it a 3rd party test and not a demo.

  • Omega Z

    As to some of the latest posts here at ECW about the steam & whether to keep the temp below 100`C- ETC..

    Mat said they discounted the steam thus this would lead to a higher COP then stated.

    Whats really being questioned here-

    Reading Mat’s blog, The questioning of the steam is actually questioning the water Flow Rate. If the flow was lower then stated, less heat would be required to heat a smaller quantity of water, thus the COP would be less then what it appears.

    Mat calibrated the water Flow Rate at the beginning of the test. To my knowledge, Mat didn’t do any follow up water flow calibration.

    NOTE: The only person qualified who is questioning Mat that I’m aware of is Brian Ahern.
    M.Y & others have jumped in muddying the water. That’s their M.O.

    Brian said to Mat that he did a good job of measuring the Input Power. Little there to question. Why he didn’t just state the Obvious of- Mat, Why didn’t you recheck the water flow Calibration, I don’t know.

    It would be a valid question even if it’s “unlikely” the Flow rate somehow changed. It necessary to eliminate possibilities of error.

    In the End- This was just a Demo. Not a Test.
    It Did prove 1 thing for many of us who follow along.
    DGT does have a Physical Product that actually functions. LOL.

    All we have seen in the past is pictures & poorly detailed schematics.
    Now we know-IT DOES EXIST.

    We can wait for validation as to it’s COP>1

    • Kim

      why don’t they put the entire supply
      of input water into a graduated glass
      tank so that they can look and see the rate and quantity going into the system ect…?

      and then there would be no doubt. sheesh..


    • Italo R.

      I think that the best and simple way to make these tests without errors is the following:

      1) – Put double sensors near those already existing (termocouple for temperatures and simple flowmeter like a glass rotameter to measure the water flow in input).

      2) – A flow regulator to the pipe of water, made using a Proportional + Integral regulator, plus a regulation automatic valve (not manual like that used in Milan). In this way the flow is surely constant and known. The flow must be enough high to avoid the boiling of water, and in this way there isn’t any problem with the steam.

      During the test it is necessary to read the values of the double instruments and write them in a table. At the end it will be easy compare those read by the electronics and those read by eyes on manual instruments. Those value must be almost near.

      • AlainCo

        Seems a good idea.

        I have proposed a similar protocol to protect the company against a defrauding tester who would sabotage the test, as much as against a defrauding company.

        my idea is not even to have manual instruments, but independent “labview” instruments wired/piped in chain, so that if one instruments get wrong, the other can moan…

        of course some manual testing is good…

    • dsm

      This comment was spot on

      “NOTE: The only person qualified who is questioning Mat that I’m aware of is Brian Ahern. M.Y & others have jumped in muddying the water. That’s their M.O.”

      MY by doing this drags a lot of other wild-eyed posters with him who repeat his half truths and twisted meanings. He really does behave like a ‘pack’ leader and revels in the chase. A wolf pack.


      • Owen

        More like a few yapping chihuahuas barking at their own shadows. They’re becoming increasingly irrelevant as the truth unfolds.

        • GreenWin

          Well said Owen.