New Poll: Report or Plant Demo Most Important?

I just put up a new poll regarding what readers think is most important in terms of verifying the validity of the E-Cat — having the independent third party publish a report showing a positive result of their testing, or Industrial Heat having a working E-Cat plant put on display for invited guests.

This is a very simple poll with three four (just added a new one suggested by Manuel Cruz) possible answers. I will be interested to see if there is a consensus. Please feel free to qualify or explain your response below.

The poll can be found on the left side of the screen.

  • Jonnyb

    Either, however if they have a running plant that produces cheap usable energy then this would be enough in my opinion. The report may be necessary to allow the power plants to legally operate? safety etc. etc.

  • Rogers

    In the short-term, the report will have the biggest impact. Long-term though a successful working plant or plants will be key to success. If the science proves solid, but development of reliable plants proves elusive, adoption will be slowed.

  • Fortyniner

    While I once thought it might be the case, I’m no longer sure that IH’s plan is to go for a glitzy media ‘launch’ and product rollout, either connected with publication of the paper or entirely separately. Certainly I am not convinced that their plan for introduction will involve the media or the public, as it seems likely that introduction of CF will be conducted entirely within the corporate energy sector in the initial phases.

    We have seen clues that some fairly major corporate entity may be involved behind the scenes – GE in particular has figured strongly in the speculation, but others such as Siemens could be engaged in some way. If that is the case, then as a major player in the existing industrial heating and powergen markets, such an entity would probably have many subsidiaries that could use the technology, and more importantly, hundreds of clients who already use boilers built by them.

    This means a ready potential market that may well be more than enough to entirely absorb initial production of boiler units, especially if IH offers incentives such as free monitoring and servicing for some period, which they would need to do anyway to gather data. IH may or may not be considering leasing of IP in the longer term, but initially I suspect they will simply assemble and lease actual physical units as a part of a larger testing and feedback phase, and this process would not be enhanced by any great public fanfare.

    Instead I see this process as rolling forward steadily and exponentially within the corporate energy structure, with the media initially ignoring the increasingly obvious elephant in the room, then finally caving in and reporting widely, to the great surprise of many. However I don’t think IH will welcome the attention even at that point, as business logic will mean that the further along the line they can get without attention, the better from their POV. IH’s modus operandi so far seems to have been secretive, cautious and incremental and I can’t see this changing suddenly.

    • Omega Z

      Rossi indicated that Media will be invited.
      Makes me think of the movie “Field of Dreams”.
      If you build it, They will come.

      Begs the Question tho- If their invited, will they show?

      As to a Siemens connection, see the old link I just posted on always open.(pdf file)

      I agree that Initially the roll out will involve pilot plants. The Energy provide is cheap, but the hardware is not. Everyone will want some hard data before they pump tons of money into it. To expensive to be making a misstep.

      As to IH’s roll, I still think once things start to move, they will just license it. At least everything beyond the reactors & even that may be contracted out.

      Beyond Licensing, I would expect their focus to be R&D. It wont take that long for technological competition to catch up & within short order they would become insignificant.

      • Owen Geiger

        Will the media show? See my reply below. They’d almost have to come if all the top 10-15 news outlets were invited to tour the greatest invention in history at one time.

        But Fortyniner may have a good point. IH may roll this out incrementally. All they really need to do is win over investors with billions. They may not want front page news yet.

        • Omega Z

          You assume we have a free press.
          Reality is it’s a limited free press. Most of the Media is Owned/controlled by just a hand full of people all with the same demeanor. Without upper level approval, certain things are off limits.

          When 60 Minutes did the “Cold Fusion is Hot Again”, There was a lot of flack about it & Jobs were threatened & a Management shake up ensued.

          If there marching orders are to ignore it, It’s very likely it will be. Watch the news. It happens on a daily bases.
          IH/Darden aren’t big enough to have the necessary impact to force otherwise. Now if 1 of the Entities involved Like GE or Siemens or another of such stature, Then Maybe, they would be forced to pay attention.

          Will the Media show? Depends on what the Boss says which may depend on who are the players involved.

          • Owen Geiger

            I agree. That’s why I said to invite a bunch of local, national and international news outlets to come at the same time [underline "at the same time".] It seems like at least several would show up and scoop the story that would make the mainstream/lamestream media look ridiculous. My point is things change. The media can’t ignore LENR forever.

            Also notice in my comment that I’m assuming the customer is a major company, possibly a household brand name. There’s a good chance Darden, etc. knows a qualifying company in the Research Triangle area who needs heat. It would be harder for media to ignore the story if it’s a large, well known company.

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

            sadly the question of free press is different from what you say. if only press was under the control of a few volatile tycoon… we would have very various opinion in newspaper with one tycoon fighting supporting oil, the other defending space-travel and cold fusion, and the third organic farming.

            the problem is that like the scientific comics the media copy each others, care not to dissent with the consensus too much, or at least to dissent respecting the consensual allowance of dissent.

            the problem is not tycoon it is non-criticizable consensus established after media manipulation by very competent mass media manipulators, quasi-religious organisations, much more competent than corps, and without any ethical doubt, because they are The Good?

            they can lie, fraud, be caught defrauding, be wrong, be proven wrong, they will always be the Consensus and the Good, they will be freed from jail, cleaned from accusations, will libel cases wherever they are.
            even most tycoon today follow those religious lords

    • GreenWin

      49er,

      “with the media initially ignoring the increasingly obvious elephant in the room…” Perhaps such reporting should be rewarded with a new honorific – call it the “Dullitzer Prize” for unimaginable ignorance. The Times of London and New York Times strike me as leading candidates.

      And yes, indications of a highly managed introduction to LENR are growing. The recent statement in major peer-reviewed journal Foundations of Physics, acknowledging the work of Pons & Fleischmann:

      ““The growing weight of evidence has been slowly tilting the verdict
      in favor of the [P&F] experiments. Extrapolating this trend, it
      seems likely that scientists in the future at some point may come to
      believe that the nuclear theory circa 1990 was incomplete, and that the
      experiments showing LENR anomalies were and are in large measure correct.”
      Foundations of Physics, February 2014, Volume44(Issue2) Page p.144 to-174

      • Fortyniner

        The faint thrashing sound of propellors being tentatively engaged ‘slow astern’ while the leviathan continues to move forward under its massive momentum…

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Plant demo. A report will be great but we shouldn’t be seeking the seal of approval of those who were totally wrong and set us astray for a quarter of a century.

  • Maxfield Q Norse

    PFM, only PFM will do.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Daniel Maris

    I have always said the market will decide and now Rossi agrees! :)

    So, it has to be the plant demo that will be important. But of course it has to be a plant that is at arm’s length from Rossi and IH. We need the confirmation of someone from outside saying “Yes, this works…it’s cut our energy usage and bill dramatically.”

  • bachcole

    I confess that I was conflicted. I personally will be more thrilled when a positive test comes out, but I don’t think that that is as important for public acceptance as people burning their fingers and making hot tea.

  • Private Citizen

    Highly unlikely visitors will be able to take measurements to satisfy that a demo plant is COP positive. It will take a long time, if ever, before we might believe there is a cost savings. One demo won’t say much. 100 such plants might.

    But a sufficiently comprehensive report, probably one divulging reproducibility directly or indirectly, would suffice. Therefore my vote is for a good report.

    Given that the report will probably hide the secret sauce, still a report will hold slightly more sway in that it will contain measurements and controls.

    • BroKeeper

      But wouldn’t the first month’s electrical bill showing a saving of ~$100,000 on
      continuous bases be convincing enough? What small industry wouldn’t want that?

      • Private Citizen

        For people who would suspect any number of ways to rig the apparatus and/or suspect the customer is in on the fraud, no.

        I’d find it harder to believe that all of the known and somewhat eminent scientists writing the paper were all in on a conspiracy and that their data is intentionally rigged.

        • Maxfield Q Norse

          At some point, after ten, one hundred, one thousand such plants, a reasonable mind will grasp that this is not a conspiracy.
          The rest are of no consequence, creationists waiting for Jesus to ride in on a dinosaur, or aliens who look like giant ants to pour out of the hollow earth.

          • Omega Z

            “Or at worst, quickly leaves to find another story”

            Something to this effect has already taken place. Certain Entities came & inspected(I think it was one of McKubre’s SRI tests) found everything as said, then Left & acted as tho no such visit ever occurred.

            I agree it will be a phased price war. Not all savings will be initially passed on. They’ll want to recover investment costs as best as possible.

            As to IH/Cherokee, Licensing is the best path for all concerned. Them & the customers. Multiple entities competing will speed the roll out.
            IH/Cherokee’s Involvement aside from licensing would be additional R&D which keeps the financial returns coming long after the 1st addition. If Not, Compition in the R&D field will quickly surpass them & they’ll become insignificant.

            • Owen Geiger

              IH could invite the top 10-15 news outlets — local, national and international — to tour the facility at the same time. The customer is probably a well known company, so when a company representative confirms the story of energy savings then the media would have a hard time ignoring it. Any news outlet that doesn’t cover the story will look clueless. IH surely knows this and will plan accordingly. They have a LOT riding on this.

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

              “Something to this effect has already taken place. Certain Entities came & inspected(I think it was one of McKubre’s SRI tests) found everything as said, then Left & acted as tho no such visit ever occurred.”

              Charles Beaudette descrit it clearly in his book

              http://iccf9.global.tsinghua.edu.cn/lenr%20home%20page/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf#page=359

              “When Goodstein learned, inadvertently, about the solid scientific work going on in cold fusion research his response was not unique. Earlier, I mentioned the three experienced electrochemists who visited the McKubre laboratory at SRI, Menlo Park, California, during the years 1990 through 1994.

              They were A. Bard, (University of Texas, Austin, Texas), H. Birnbaum, (University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois), Richard Garwin, (IBM, White Plains, New York), and N. S. Lewis, (Caltech). Each spent several days examining McKubre’s laboratory practice in detail.2 They found no procedural error with the measuring technique or data reduction techniques used to evaluate the operating performance of the cold fusion type cells. They had no contractual obligations either to reveal or to keep the things they learned confidential. Nevertheless, they chose to say nothing to the scientific community.

              Dr. John O’M. Bockris, distinguished professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, ran cold fusion cells during the summer and fall of 1989. He reported excess heat and tritium, but the results were sporadic. At last, he came to a point where he had a cell that ran continuously for three weeks. It was time to call in some of his critical colleagues in the department who knew what he was attempting to do, so they could witness his results. The first one to be invited explained that he was busy moving from one house to another and could not spare the time. The second explained that he was simply too immersed in an examination schedule to break away, and the third just happened to be leaving on a trip shortly, so sorry. This inference of fear was a continuing pattern.

              Dr. Huizenga visited the cold fusion laboratory at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, on February 28, 1997. At this time, he was retired. He was visiting at the invitation of the physics department to speak against the cold fusion heresy that was alive in their department.

              Drs. Robert Bush and Robert Eagleton, full professors in the department of physics, were running light water cells. Bush was Huizenga’s host in the laboratory.

              In Bush’s words, one cell was, “. . . evidencing excess power. And, while the gain (Pout/Pin) was rather modest at that time (about 1.12), the excess power was well outside the possible error bars . . .”3 Huizenga was invited to spend time taking data. Huizenga demurred. Bush invited him to return on another date and do so. Huizenga demurred. Bush then offered him a fellowship to cover the expense of a return visit. Huizenga demurred. He refused all offers to participate in the experimental work in accordance with the manner of Drs. R. W. Wood and Irving Langmuir in the cases of Blondlot and Barnes respectively.

              These illustrations of avoidance of the laboratory are representative of the intellectual climate ten years after the Utah announcement. If the reader feels that I have belabored my theme too long, let me say that, prior to his Italian visit, Goodstein represented the intelligent, knowledgeable, and cosmopolitan American physicist in his ignorance of cold fusion research after 1989, and in the audacity with which he has written and spoken about it without troubling to read up on the subject beforehand. What Goodstein learned was that, except for Petrasso’s well founded criticism of Fleischmann and Pons’s nuclear measurements, Baltimore was bogus. Cold fusion research was not a pathological science. The assault of Koonin and Lewis was mistaken: Fleischmann and Pons were not incompetent and delusional. Indeed, evidence of a new means of generating energy had been found in the flow of anomalous heat power that defied contemporary science.

              the evidences of academic misconduct are amazing

              • GreenWin

                Thanks for these quotes Alainco. Clearly, these scientists are either grossly incompetent, or have been intimidated. Either way, it makes a fine list of people to call before the Committees that will have to explain to the public why CF has been stonewalled. House cleaning is mandatory for a… clean house.

              • bachcole

                Remember that the victors write the history.

                The Juggernaut rolls on.

          • BroKeeper

            MQN, very astute reasoning. However, domestically speaking, too many people have such a petroleum fix it will take awhile for them to be weaned
            off, especially when the oil companies will be forced to reduce its price
            constantly. Although I doubt it will ever get back to 20 cents per gallon, as I remember, the cost of gas production would far exceed that and most would fold.

        • BroKeeper

          “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
          Abraham Lincoln

          Most intelligent people involved would ask what purpose it would serve to go to such extent of deception knowing it would only catch up with them.”

          • Private Citizen

            “Most intelligent people would ask what purpose it would serve to go such
            lengths of deception knowing it would eventually catch up with them.”

            You mean like the skeptics who slandered the scientists involved in the Elforsk test? If capable of questioning the integrity of a team of scientists with clean histories and good reputations offering reams of analytical data, your “intelligent people” probably won’t faint from rubbishing some soulless corporate interest for complicity in a scam.

            Corporations can dissolve or plead ignorance before misdeeds eventually catch up with them.

            I’m still going with preference for test results and scientific integrity over unaudited claims about power bills.

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

              There is a know theory for intelligent people behaving like horrible deniers, doing awful punishable things.

              the groupthink explain it clearly.
              The people locked inside groupthink defend their short term interest, against their long time interest, even worst their own estimated wealth expectation against their real wealth . they defend their dream against reality, mainly because they live in a corrupted system (academic, finance) where seeing the reality will not give them any benefit but will make them victim of the groupthink .
              they manipulate their own knowledge, carefully avoiding data, to keep being sure they are right, with the intimate fear any new information may prove them wrong and ruin their wealth expectation.

              they are desperate, sure to be protected by their gang of deniers, sure to be protected by the consensus.
              in others affairs you can see the same horrific manipulation, that have even been uncovered, but you can see how they succeeded in minimizing them, rationalizing those horrific violation of ethic and scientific method.
              Each time an academic consensus is defended despite evidence, they know they are right.

              they have nothing to compare with small fraudsters of science who tweak papers to get a funding… they tweak tons of papers to get tonw of funding, corrupting tons of academic, thus they are like the big banks :too big to fail..
              like the Ivy league, like Science, Nature, Cell, they are too big to fail.

              Science is not different from financial.

              http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

              • Fortyniner

                Corruption comes in many forms, but in the end it is just about self interest at the expense of everyone else. You have to wonder if the corrupting systems come about through some kind of evolutionary process that can be described by games theory, or whether they are created deliberately by groups of conspiring individuals intent on gaining power through control.

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

                  the groupthink theory of banabou and many denial situation observed are surpizing in that the denialist are the first victims on long term, and seems more to defend appearance than reality.

                  the finding of Benabou is that :
                  The more you SUFFER from the group delusion the more you DEFEND it and harass dissenters. (Mutual assured delusion, and Cassandra curse)

                  the second is that when someone who decide of your destiny and hurts yours hopes, is deluded, you defend his delusion. (Delusion trikcle-down)

                  This is not selfish interest, it is group psychiatry.

  • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

    I voted E-Cat Plant because I think successful commercialization trumps scientific acceptance and a running plant would be a huge step in that direction.

    However I really wanted to answer, “It depends.”

    If the plant is only open to non-scientists and the visits are few and far between or the information provided is not verifiable or triply corroborated, then I think it’s just more we said/they said for awhile.

    Meanwhile if the third party report actually includes airtight proof of massive energy gains and is widely accepted and/or provides the missing pieces to a working LENR theory then I’d have to give the nod to the report.

  • BroKeeper

    Good question Frank. Over sixty years ago I would have said verification by an actual public display of a working industrial model to accelerate its realization would be necessary as
    previous inventions have shown. But with the advent of mass-media broadcast networks and internet’s instant communications in the past decades this is now not the case.

    Once the exhaustive report is published via a scientific journal/magazine and propagated throughout the scientific community the layman’s magazines/news networks will soon catch on ‘fire’.

    The excitement Rossi is projecting lately in the JoNP indicates his understanding a good positive report and vindication is nearing. The public demonstration is the nail in the skeptic’s coffin and the last major obstacle of mass production.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Ah yes, carbon indulgences ( Kenny Boy’s greatest invention).

  • Maxfield Q Norse

    The report is absolutely necessary, however no number of reports will ever be sufficient to over come the intolerance and willful ignorance. The proof is in the working plant, or maybe in the tenth, one hundredth, or the one thousandth working plant.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. A working product requires only a working market.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The validity of a single E-cat (at the level of 5 days operation) was already verified last year. The next steps are to verify a single device’s long-term operation (third party report) and to show that an assemblage of many reactors operates correctly in industrial environment (working plant). It’s about climbing the technical readiness level (TRL) ladders.

    Regarding which can convince which number of people, it’s impossible to say because it will depend on the details. Ultimately it boils down to trust, how many people will trust those people who will make the next announcements and claims. It’s rather clear, anyway, that the two approaches are complementary and in that sense not competing with each other.

  • drjohngalan

    The working plant, showing that it is giving its user a clear commercial advantage, will be the key.

    The pathologically sceptical will always find some tiny detail in a report to criticise, however carefully the report has been written. A tiny detail is all it takes to sow the seeds of uncertainty. There are those who think that cold fusion exists, but that it is a small effect only of interest in the laboratory. There are those who have dismissed it after its comprehensive rubbishing at the start. And there are those, by far the vast majority, who have never heard of cold fusion.

    Headline news of a working plant should convince all but the most entrenched in their views. However, the main stream media have done a first class job of side-lining cold fusion for the last 25 years and it still requires someone in the main stream media worthy of the job title “journalist” to pick up this whole story and run with it. Until that happens, little will change: the most important scientific discovery in a generation will remain at the fringes.

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

      If a report , if good science, if replication, if reproducibility, could have convinced, it would be done.

      only a big tea kettle can convince, as the usual desperate skeptic says, even if they deny the existing of the tiny tea kettle that exist.

      the problem is not to convince skeptic academic, they cannot.

      the problem is not to convince informed businessmen, they are.

      there remains 2 problems :

      1- convince the media so the people who accept lenr are not so terrorized to admit it. That may be the goal of a public powerplant.

      2- find a way for corporations in entrenched business to enter into the revolution and vitrify their business in exchange on another new one. this is the role of ecosystem ideas, like LENR-Cities and it’s market sand box http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/49-Interview-with-Michel-Vandenberghe-of-LENR-Cities-moving-forward-Towards-a-Europ/

      the independent test should be a good idea, but seeing the reaction I feel it is hopeless to convince academic. few scientists will be convinced and immediately rejected by the groupthink mindguards. others will stay silent to save their career, and most will believe in rumors as usual carefully not checking because they know intimately that if they check, they will be convinced and will have to endure either ridicule or painful cognitive dissonance to save their career. that retroaction is just the mutual assured delusion that Benabou describe. http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%202012_07_02%20BW.pdf

      we should help media to consider the domain, that is the only useful question.

      academic are long time desperate hopeless deniers. they can only be convinced by government budget.

      business guys are uninformed by media or convinced and fearful of media coverage.

      government follow academic, but can follow media or business if forced.

      media follow academic consensus=groupthink, or business money.

      put that into equations and it seems that media is the key, but all is locked.

      • Maxfield Q Norse

        When the media become interested in this subject. This website will be a gold mine for farming concepts and an understanding of the potential impact. I would dare say this website is the only comprehensive resource at this time, and will be fundamental for years to come.

  • Sanjeev

    I voted for equally important, although I always said in my comments here that a working device in plain sight is more important, especially one that is working for a profit making customer. I guess the report will have more impact on intelligentsia and the demo plant will affect general public and policy makers (aka politicians in bed with corporations).

    If you see from an outsiders perspective, the report, as is, will raise doubts whether ECat is practical or just a lab toy and the working plant will raise doubts if its only a trick or there is some scientific evidence behind it. So…..I’d like to see both coming together, it will drop like a bomb on a sleeping world.

  • Buck

    Frank, you ask tough questions.

    I think each provides legitimacy from at least two different needed perspectives for this revolutionary technology. Very simply, one is academic and the other is real world pragmatism.

    If I am in Darden’s position then I will be making presentations at board meetings which will trigger Go/No Go investments on the order of $100’s of millions and building up to $10’s of Billions upon achieved milestones. With this in mind, I prefer both. Each will act as an indepedent means for verifying and presumably supporting the validity of the other.

    The respected academics are organized in two independent teams of 6 and 7 whose work ends, and presumably just begins, with the successful publishing of the report in an accredited main stream journal. The breadth of their expertise indicates that the E-Cat has been scientifically evaluated against a very broad base of knowledge for which each academic is held in good to excellent regard. To prove this, the report will in turn convey a very broad based assessment of the technology and very clearly describe the means and methods of the testing. This is a task that has benefited by some members prior experience with this technology.

    Importantly, these independent academics recognize that the more positive the report the greater and more pervasive the impact will be upon the global energy industry, both production and consumption. They are cognizant of the consequences F&P lived through. Arguably, they have more to lose than they have to gain.

    However, their published report is fundamentally academic in nature and is not explicitly evaluated with a practical mindset. This is where the tour of a functioning LERN device at a for-profit business fleshes out the overall assessment.

    The tour at a valid independent business will immediately open the door to seeing the pragmatic costs and benefits for installing a LENR device in one particular design and one particular industry. Presumably, actual costs and cost savings will be presented as well as the story of the challenges of implementing, using, and maintaining the LENR technology. The participants will be able to perceive the “happiness” of the plant manager with this new technology and how it has benefited the profitability of the business.

    Presuming a successful tour, then all will agree that this revolutionary technology passed a layer of industrial sized Pilot Plant testing.

    So gentlemen, are you willing to invest in the LENR future?

    • Omega Z

      Your 1st paragraph says it all.
      Both Equally Important.
      One enhances the other.

      • Buck

        OZ,

        Tom Darden and IH are a smart group that likely recognize a faster adoption rate enhances their strategic advantage. I think having both supports their game plan.

        Regrettably, because of the complexity of the situation and my inadequate skills, I was unable to distill my argument down to 7 words. :-)

        • Omega Z

          7 words is easy when the previous post has already laid the groundwork. :-)

  • Manuel Cruz

    I think the most important one is whichever comes first!

    • ecatworld

      I like that answer, Manuel — I will add it as a possible response!

    • Maxfield Q Norse

      That is a good answer.