Prometeon SRL Provides Update on Activity and Progress

I received the following in response to an inquiry I sent to Prometeon SRL regarding their current activities

Dear Frank,

Thank you for your interest in our work. Here are the answers to your kind questions.

In 2014, after being for two years the E-Cat® licensee in Italy, a challenging research project has started under the scientific guidance of Prof. Christos Stremmenos (former Professor in Chemistry-Physics at the University of Bologna). He started making experiments on the LENR about 25 years ago and he is probably the first academic who came up with the idea of using hydrogen loaded Nickel nano-powders in a “dry reactor”, instead of the Fleischman & Pons electrolytic cell (he published his experience on # 81 of the magazine “La Chimica e l’Industria“ – Italian Chemical Society – April 1999).

Prof. Stremmenos has involved in this research initiative some of his former colleagues/friends from the University of Bologna and they are developing scientific hypothesis and theoretical models about the way a LENR reaction evolves and could be controlled. Their work is based on the electroweak force and on the application of the quantum electrodynamics. The activities of the scientific team have only pure scientific goals.

The scientific team gives us the main inputs for designing and developing the reactors; a key role in this activities is played by Stremmenos’s son, Nicolaos. The objective of Prometeon is the development of LENR based devices suitable for producing thermal and/or electric energy with no risks for people, no environmental impact and at low cost/MWh.

We have already tested the first reactor and the results are very promising. At the very first test we found some new elements in the ashes undoubtedly resulting from transmutation processes; their atomic numbers are in accordance with Storms’s theories [Edmund Storms – THE EXPLANATION OF LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTION – 2014].

The scientific team has developed new advanced and challenging hypothesis about how to activate the LENR, control the reactions and avoid runaway phenomena that could cause the melting of the device and/or of the reacting cell; we are now realizing two new different reactors to check the theoretical assumptions. LENR related phenomena are very complex and the only way to improve our knowledge is the so called “scientific method”.

Our web site will be soon up again and we will publish any news there. We hope to have soon good news for your readers.

We look forward to meeting you soon at the ICCF19.

Best regards.
Guido Parchi & Aldo Proia

  • Chris, Italy

    They had been misbehaving themselves, so Stremmenos spanked their bum bum bums.

  • Freethinker

    🙂 Was actually considering it, but it felt a bit too confronting, especially as I argue that there is room for both.

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

    the only but good reason to think they may soon have very good performance (20 is thin air… can be 10 or 100 or 1000, but much better than others today) is if they have a really valid theory.
    this would be the huge revolution if at last a theory works, and is predictive for the engineers.

    if engineers know what is happening, they can design reliable devices, and exploiting our current knowledge in nanotech, thermodynamic, plasma physics, QM, super conduction, industrial chemistry, optimize the performance of the system near the maximum…

    what looks today as luck, like heat after death, could be at last triggered and controlled at will.

    you don’t need theory to make a working reactor, and E-cat is an example of that.
    but with a good theory (not just math, but something able to predict results from engineering parameters) you can make the best reactor possible at the lowest price and maximum safety/reliability.

  • blanco69

    The same place as the “undoubtly resulting from transmutation processes” quote in the Prometheon statement. Thin air!

  • Omega Z

    It would have little or no effect on how fast this technology spreads.
    Corporations may be able to provide funding, but they have no expertise. It will take years for them to get up to speed.

    Science today is so compartmentalized & specialized that it takes forever to do nothing. Scientists need to diversify their disciplines. Scientists in the 50’s, 60’s would be much better suited for LENR research.

    In the 50’s, basically 4 people designed the B-52 in a weekend in a hotel room. Using slide rules & poster board for drawing. And probably a carton of Lucky’s. Today it takes 10’s of thousands several years to design a plane. And years more to actually build a prototype.

    I believe Rossi’s wider range of disciplines from years of diversified work has had much to do with the point he has reached today. I also have no doubt that others are more skilled in different areas of the E-cat & can improve on it once available to them. But it will take them years. Each is to specialized to do it by themselves.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    A note of caution.

    If pressure is a key factor, then we may have a problem. A test may need to be done using an explosive pressure wave but such a test should be carried out at a very, very, very small scale and at a location some miles from a population.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Axil Axil

      Joe Papp produced an LENR explosion that ripped a 5/8 inch stainless steel cannon barrel apart using a solution of nanoparticles activated with a spark. This test was performed the California desert.

      • http://www.drboblog.com Doctor Bob

        The shotgun calorimetry is a very burduse and old way of demoing Cold Fusion
        CF Powder + shotgun + gunpowder

        Its not necessarily the best way to show people how to use new technology – albeit easy

      • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

        Joe Papp was a con man and the Papp engine scam remains a fraudulent activity today. Such people certainly do not help the world move towards better energy solutions; they only drain energy from society rather than create it.

        • bachcole

          I don’t much about Joe Papp, but what evidence do you have that he was a con man. Is it just what someone said, or did he get convicted of bank fraud or something.

          • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

            Papp’s submarine caper for one. There are several companies selling his technology to investors and one was barred from selling stock by the feds. No company has delivered a Papp engine to anyone that actually works as advertised.

            • Axil Axil

              Papp used LENR induced accelerated alpha decay of radioactive isotopes to make his electrodes supersensitive and highly positively changed to capture electric current produced in the Papp reaction. These isotopes included radium, thorium, and phosphorous. It is not possible in this day and age to manufacture a commercial product that includes radioactive isotopes.

              Another highly efficient method of current capture would need to be developed to keep the over unity nature of the Papp engine cycle.

              And yet Bill Rohner persists; he uses thorium to this day in his electrodes even through his younger brother died from cancer preparing electrodes for Papp.

              • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

                My last word on this subject is that I do not believe any of it. There is no proof and it makes no sense on any level. The only thing that is obvious is the dishonesty of the man who started this myth. I can blow up anything you wish, and I can do it without using LENR. I can put a battery and motor inside almost anything and make it shake and make a noise, but that does not prove anything. But the battery runs out and so does the Papp engine. If it were real it would be in the marketplace by now in real products that work. Because it has become a techno-urban legend, it will always be talked about, but never see the light of day as a useful product.

                • Axil Axil

                  “If it were real it would be in the marketplace by now in real products that work.”

                  You can’t really mean that. As an ardent supporter of the MSR; developed in the 1960’s and never made it into the marketplace through no fault of its own.

        • Axil Axil

          You has drunk too deeply of the Feynman cool aid, a man convicted in a wrongful death law suite that resulted in the Papp engine demo that Feynman destroyed. Just because Papp was mentally unstable and manipulative should not take away from his many and prolific undeniable accomplishments.

          The evidence that his inventions are real and are beyond any doubt and further are the strongest supporting any other LENR developer are clear for any to see.
          Just that picture of that exploded pipe and the video that documents that demo should be convincing to any fair thinking person.

    • Alain Samoun

      Parkhomov does it in his living room…

  • GreenWin

    With respect to Dr. Stremmenos – early work on dry reactors using Ni + H2/1H was conducted by Blacklight Power and Randell Mills in the early 1990s.

    • Mats002

      R Mills challange my mind and fantasy. With all the progress of him, being the first and also came the longest (I presume your statement is true and that his latest claimes are valid), why not yet proved his technology in an open and convincing way?

      • Paul

        My opinion is that he has not the same skills of Rossi as entrepreneur and experimentalist, he has been much interested in developing his theory and this required much years. But he has made a systematic work and results will arrive, soon or later. Then he could be the winner, because his curriculum and age are a plus in comparison with all his competitors.

        • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

          His theory is fantasy, his tech is probably real and LENR based. He put himself in a double bind i recon, developing a LENR device under a different theory/name he was able to garner investors even during the worst years of the CF pariah era. Now however, he is in the position that LENR becomes more mainstream, and he has to either release commercially (theory won’t matter), or admit that his theory is wrong (loss of investor confidence).

          • Paul

            If you read general reletivity theory, it seems science fiction, but it is not…

            • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

              The guy above says it better than me, most of the so-called evidence for hyrinos comes from astronomic readings, and honestly we still have no idea half the stuff thats up there, dark energy, dark matter etc. however, just because we have known gaps in our knowledge does not mean that hydrinos are real if they ‘kinda’ fit the bill.
              im not saying it is impossible, just highly unlikely.

              I mean Blacklight’s early designs were Ni-H systems…. seriously… does that not sound familiar to anyone?

              • Pekka Janhunen

                One thing about “hydrinos” is that Mills’ hydrinos are supposed to be in the hundreds of eV range, while some other people have speculated with “deep Dirac level” things whose energy range would be in the hundreds of keV range – that is, 1000 times larger, that is, completely different thing.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Agreed, except that I would say “if his tech works, it is probably LENR based”.

            The idea of a fractional state of hydrogen atoms is not feasible because it contradicts atomic physics and because such entities, if they would exist in nature as free particles, would have been observed e.g. from their interaction with X-rays.

            The energy levels of a hydrogen-like ions (He+, Li++, Be+++ etc.) are
            given by the Rydberg formula, E=R*Z^2/n^2. Thus, their n=1 ground state
            ionisation energy is identical with a “fractional hydrogen atom” with
            n=1/Z. Maybe reports of “hydrino spectra” are misinterpretations of ordinary
            multiply ionised atoms.

            That said, the idea of some kind of compact hydrogen in LENR potentially has merit. It is not entirely infeasible that a larger number of hydrogen nuclei (for example, ten) might form some kind of compact structure if catalysed somehow by the metal lattice or metal surface. Entities with so large number of particles are hard to model from first principles so their existence cannot be easily ruled out. After formation, such exotic compact hydrogen cluster would soon encounter a nucleus and react with it exothermically without producing hard radiation because so many particles are involved. Maybe their mean free path in metal would be of the order of few microns, if judging from the typical size of craters in SEM images of some Pd-D systems.

            • Paul

              >it contradicts atomic physics
              Not true, it is an extension of atomic physics. This is not a proble: also Special Relativity is an extension of classical physics.

            • Andreas Moraitis

              The cluster theory is one of my favourites. As far as I remember, Santilli observed strange agglomerates of hydrogen atoms such as H5, for example. The electrons that orbit these clusters might take exotic quantum states which enable them to be captured by one of the atoms of the cluster. The resulting neutrons might then be absorbed by other nuclei in a ‘classical’ way.

              • Andreas Moraitis

                Should read: “which enable them to be captured by one of the protons inside the cluster”. Similar mechanisms are imaginable with other elements than hydrogen (lithium, for example).

              • Axil Axil

                Santilli like Papp preprocess his material to product nanoparticles which lie in suspension until a LENR ignition process is activated. The EMF based interactions among these nanoparticles produces the excess energy that is seen. This nanoparticle production is also at the root of the HHO energy amplification. The production of nanoparticle laced gas is first produced in a gas preparation process, then released by ignition.

                Modern explosives use nanoparticles to increase the reaction energy of the explosive process. It is all an application of chemistry that is producing nuclear based energy production.

            • Axil Axil

              Atoms are not the only thing that will make electrons follow a circular path. Vortex’s of electrons can form where the electrons go around in a circle and their angular momentum will be quantized. And this angular momentum can become strong as the energy content of the vortex increases. That means that these energetic electrons can orbit closer to the center of the vortex.

              What Mills sees are these vortexes exploding in a Bosenova producing a ultraviolet flash as reported by DGT. What Mills is seeing is LENR.

              • Andreas Moraitis

                If only electrons are involved, how can there be a nuclear (LENR) reaction?

                • Axil Axil

                  Just like a tornado can concentrate the awesome spinning power of the entire sky and focus it into a pinpoint on the ground, so too can as field of spinning electrons focus their spins into a tight and highly focused beam of spin, a anapole magnetic beam that is so powerful and pure that it can ripe matter to pieces and in its passing that disrupted matter can reassemble into a lower state of energy. This is where the excess energy of the LENR reaction comes from.

                • Pekka Janhunen

                  The turnado is indeed a way to concentrate energy. What could be the analogue of the earth and sky in LENR? Maybe the 2-D metal surface. Maybe hydrogen wants to enter the metal, but can only do so at a particular spot which becomes such vortex. Just speculating.

                • Axil Axil

                  The production of electron vortexes is a characteristic of electrified nanoparticle aggregation. This property is not limited to metal nanoparticles, it is a general property of nanoparticles that can support dipole charge separation. Water is a surprising nanoparticle that is very good at this behavior. The production of nanoparticles are a aspect of chemistry.

                  An irregular surface including cracks will also form electron vortexes. Dust also is a source: cooling plasma is another.

                  The following paper shows an example from experiment that shows how a anapole magnetic beam derived from an electron vortex looks.

                  Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

                  http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf

        • Omega Z

          “because his curriculum and age are a plus in comparison with all his competitors.

          I Disagree. MS-Science considers any & all involved with LENR/CF with the same disdain.

          • Paul

            When you have a working product on the market science cannot ignore you and the curriculum became important, but it is also important for the investors: he had no problem to find them. He could work also in other fields with his background.

      • GreenWin

        Mats002, it would appear that Dr. Mills has proved his technology to those most interested — his investors. Since any investor I have heard from seems satisfied with BLP and their business interests. What is interesting is BLP early Ni+H reactors looked similar to those AR demonstrated back around 2011. BLP’s new SunCell is in prototype and we should see it in operation when the global LENR campaign is further along – this summer?

        ANY curious university or private lab could replicate various BLP experiments published in great detail. BLP has patents encircling the use of a hydrogen transition state Mills calls “hydrino.” Indeed, his theory of below ground state electrons call into question aspects of QM. It may well turn out this is a key structure in finding a theory of physical forces common to sub-atomic particles and galactic matter alike. Mills has written a GUT to this end.

    • Giuliano Bettini

      @GreenWin, interesting. Some link?

      Here S. FOCARDI, R. HABEL and F. PIANTELLI:

      “After some preliminary tests, the final apparatus which will be described below was
      assembled at the end of 1992 at the Physics Department of Siena University.”

      http://h-theory.narod.ru/AnomalousHeatNi-H-NuovoCimento.pdf

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

    with a good theory and modern science, COP20 is reasonable…

    Theory is not required, but it can accelerate the work of the engineers.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Could anybody who owns Storms’ book (unfortunately, I don’t have it) conclude which “new elements” they might have found? I would guess one of them must be helium. Maybe “new elements” was a sloppy formulation and they actually meant “new elements and isotopes”, so deuterium (in case that light hydrogen had been used) and tritium would be other options. I’m not sure if Storms’ theory supports transmutations of heavier elements, such as Ni > Cu etc.

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

      Ed storms in the science of LENR report many varied experimental results…
      some looks like fusion (He4, T) some looks like absorption (isotopic shift) and some like fusion/fission.

      In the explanation of LENR Ed Storms focus more on He4, and tritium output, and on the strange X+4/6/8 isotopic shift observed by Iwamura&al.
      He interpret all as essential: pep,ded,hed,tet,teh,ted,… fusion, and as accidental pXp dXd, ppXpp ddXdd dddXddd … fusions/absorption, sometime followed by fission.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Thanks!

  • Axil Axil

    In order for a LENR product technology to succeed at this very early juncture, it must be failsafe and operationally simple. No LENR technology must be allowed to get out of the LENR box. There is no one who knows anything about LENR to push the industry forward. The LENR reactor must function like a battery; just connect the wires and it works all the time.
    A business plan that depends on people learning about LENR will not work early on. This assumption of industry acceptance and carry though is doomed to failure.

    • GreenWin

      Axil, you seem to have a good imagination. Instead of predicting negative results, why not use a different perspective to see how well LENR R&D is doing? Compare the 65 years and $250B tax dollars thrown at hot fusion, and LENR which is entering commercial use.

      • Axil Axil

        Two wrongs don’t make a right.

      • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

        Hot fusion has actually produced good results, no matter that they have not produced a working reactor yet. I’m kind of sick of people bagging on tokomak projects just because they got all the funding and CF got none.
        yes CF should have gotten 100 billion in research dollars TOO, but magnetic confinement experiments are still a good idea, and these projects have learned a lot about how superheated plasma moves, which has informed various fields such as astrophysics (star interior modelling), and subatomic physics. Also as a byproduct of this work, advances in superconductor technology, superconducting magnets, and new and more efficient and powerful laser technology.
        These advances spill over to other fields which ARE producing useful results, so its not money thrown down the drain.

        Just as flying to the moon had very little face value (a few rocks increased geological understanding), the advances in technology that were driven simply by throwing the money at such a mega project advance rocketry technology, satellite technology, and innumerable other technologies along the way.

        • Freethinker

          I agree with you. There are good reasons to continue hot fusion research on a high level.

          However, it would be advantageous for us all if people in hot fusion would stop badmouthing LENR, and accept it. Further, they must realize that the should try to do more with less. They should have tried so long ago. The huge annual spending on this, integrated over some 60 years, amount to funding that is ridiculous compared to the outcome. I believe it is their faiblesse for huge longterm projects that has painted them into the corner the find themselves today. That, and a general incapability to think outside the box, and also keep an open mind about where their field is going.

          LENR is here. No doubt will it reshape hot fusion research too, as the imperative have been taken away from them. There is a new show in town.

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

          I disagree with you partially, not in that hot fuision is interesting basic science research, but in that it should be funded 100billion$.

          I follow the reaction of Claude Allègre in France, who despite he is supporting all nuclear energy, defending a green future based on great science (écologie d’avenir), but he state that with 1 ITER project we could do 100 not less interesting research projects.

          Cold fusion would need a billion for 10 years.
          It is true that too small budget, too atomized, prevent good research. to create an ecosystem of research, a scientific domain with scientists who are exchanging but doing different things, who can replicate and innovate at the same time, you need a minimal funding, a minimal number of scientists and labs…
          100 scientists with a good labs and students, is a minimum… it allows a dozen of disagreements and academic wars, with few peer reviewed journal that disagree… it a llow a handful of replication for each phenomenons, and even failures.

          however when too much money is given this reduce creativity. if funding is rationalized, centralized, it prevents academic wars, variety, diversity of opinions…

          1bn for emdrive, for lenr, of HTSC, for LENR HTSC, for tokamak, for compact fusion, for z-machine, for laser confinments, for particle physics…

          problem , I agree is that with those problems we need huge machines, and 1bn is not enough even for one…
          look at ITER, LHC…
          but please about last 20 years of innovation, in physics, who did the most for humanity ?
          IBM labs ? CERN accelerators ? CEA labs ? NIF ? Philips ? University of Utah? HP ?

          who improved electronics ? lasers ? LED ? Energy ?…

          Big physics like big French gosplan are dead ends.

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

            just a point, LHC have been great to improve … Grid Computing and Big data. But google/amazon/ebay make it better with cloud.

            Apolo was great to make US go leader in IT.

          • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

            as I said.. of course CF should also be funded, but the people who categorically state that we have received no benefits from hot fusion are wrong.

  • Bernie777

    Good. I hope they are well funded. How are they funded? Interesting they mentioned the work of Storms.

  • http://www.animpossibleinvention.com/ Mats Lewan

    Good news — this is in line with what Stremmenos has told me. They will probably need some time, but it’s good to see another LENR research project with industrial ramification to take off.

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

      If a theory is confirmed, that is the biggest breakthrough of LENR history.

      If triggering and control are reliable, this is the second biggest breakthrough.

      The revenge of the Greek with the Italian. is it Historical ?

      • Axil Axil

        Control is provided by pressure change as reported by Piantelli. A long time ago, DGT discovered that when a arc is discharged in a gas, a pressure wave is formed. This wave produces lots of new nanoparticles that form new dynamic nuclear active sites. This temporarily increases LENR output in a subcritical system.

        Increase temperature as produced by a spark will produce a pressure pulse. Any application of pressure change will generate a period of increased LENR activity. A spark may not be the most efficient way to produce a pressure change in the hydrogen gas. To improve on the spark method of LENR activation, look for an electromagnetic device that produces a pressure charge with high efficiency.

        In LENR R&D characterize how pressure effects LENR power output.

        • Paul

          >DGT discovered that when a arc is discharged in a gas, a pressure wave
          is formed. This wave produces lots of new nanoparticles that form new
          dynamic nuclear active sites…

          Axil, Is there a public document of DGT with this information that you can indicate?

          • Axil Axil

            https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf

            In the presented at ICCF-18 under Proposed Reaction Mechanisms , DGT says that the spark produces magnetic alignment. They also say that Rydberg States (atoms/molecules) are created by the glow discharge trigger (I understand this to be nanoparticles of hydrogen).

            But any element that is dissolved in the supercritical hydrogen gas will nucleate into nanoparticles upon pressure change. This chemical compound is what the secret sauce is all about. In the dog bone those elements are lithium and aluminum.

  • Gerard McEk

    Looks promissing. I hope they can show us their reactor soon, otherwise their words escape in mistery and will soon be forgotten.

    • Paul

      Research is not a show. I do not think that a serious company should do that. Eventually they could show it privately to the interested investors, as Rossi has made many times.

      • Gerard McEk

        I wasn’t aware that Prometion only does research. Besides that, if you want to convince future industrial partners, you should publish your breakthroughs (with some verifiable data) and make them aware.

        • Paul

          If you show or publish something, other will copy. Look at Rossi, he is the first now but for how much time? Rossi did not publish its results to find investors, but for the patent, the certification, the glory, his past…

      • Axil Axil

        But science is a show. The merit of a paper is based on how many times it is referenced. This is were the conflict between science and LENR now lies. Product development is secretive Science hates secrets.

        • Paul

          I meant industrial research, as should be clear from the context.

        • georgehants

          Axil you say “Science hates secrets.” I really do not know how to interpret that with science hiding Cold Fusion and everything from Telepathy to NDE’s etc.
          It hides the Fact that all their Dogmas are full of holes from the Big-bang to comical Darwin Evolution neo or otherwise etc.
          Perhaps you could explain your strange point.

          • Axil Axil

            Science has dogma, and doctrinaire. The high priests of science judge if a concept is doctrinally sound. based on prevailing theories. It tool Einstein 11 years to change the doctrine and Higgs 30 years. It is a deadly slow process. That is why industrial development and competition is faster.

            • georgehants

              Axil, do you think it would be intelligent from what you say, for scientists to demand that establishment science and especially science Education be completely overhauled and all dead-wood thrown on a bonfire?

              • Axil Axil

                Julian Schwinger and Richard P. Feynman both were awarded a noble prize, but who was ultimately successful in science? Schwinger was excommunicated for writing papers on cold fusion. Feynman with a mind that was closed to any new idea was an is now considered a science hero. Science has ideals and science has realities and those realities can be bad. Its all a part of imperfect human nature.

                • georgehants

                  Axil, yes agreed but I am asking do you agree that excusing these things as
                  “imperfect human nature.” is not good enough, with a subject as important as science where millions of lives can be at risk.
                  Do you agree that a cure must be attempted and not just leave a seriously sick patient to suffer such indignities, if only for the sake of those True scientists willing to do correct open-minded competent science?

          • Nigel Appleton

            Good Grief!

  • fritz194

    …The scientific approach is different:
    Proof for new elements -> transmutation -> nuclear -> possibility for nuclear energy gain -> excess heat…

    The other way around:
    Excess heat -> not possible / difficult to measure -> cold fusion -> no deuterium nor gamma -> cannot be -> fraudster -> transmutation – anyway just dog and pony show.

    Reversing the chain of evidence might be a good idea.

    • georgehants

      fritz194, I think you will find the official “scientific approach” is to deny, hide, debunk etc. anything concerning Cold Fusion and many other important scientific subjects outside of the holy priests Dogma

      • fritz194

        I agree.
        But I think claiming/verifying/replicating transmutation as first step or stone of the building – is straight forward. Its about inclusion and exclusion.
        That would be as described a bottom-up verification – with excess energy as last consequence. If the scientific bottom-up conclusion is well made – there has to be excess energy – everything else would be a mystery.
        If those transmutation without gamma and deuterium happens – we know per-se that this will never be fusion in the classical sense.

        • georgehants

          fritz194, so agree, but until our half-witted science establishments wake-up and get over their irrational denials of everything beyond a steam engine, do you agree it will take far longer than it should to gather that information?

          • fritz194

            Well, actually we experience somewhat middle-age or ice-age conservativism in science – somewhat triggered as patho-skeptic reponse on web 2.0. People who engage in science are of the debunk-o-maniac engineering personality – and not interested in science itself. This puts a decent damping and denying of almost anything which is no part of building the next god-machine in place. Yes – it takes far longer than it should – but I think that the critical mass was already achieved – and that the advent of new technologies will be the advent of new science,

            • georgehants

              fritz, look forward to that improvement with Wonderful anticipation. 🙂

  • blanco69

    So Prometheon, at their first attempt, can say the following, “undoubtedly resulting from transmutation processes” Wow! That’s bold! I bet they wish they’d stumbled upon transmutation 2 years ago instead of hoping Rossi was gonna do it. Clearly, Stremmenos, who was convinced Rossi had the thing all wrapped up, now believes he can do better himself. We know that Prometheon have been unhappy with the pace of delivery from Rossi – what I for one didn’t appreciate was that they’ve quckly overtaken Rossi in “undoubtedly” showing us, and the rest world, that transmutation undoubtedly happens in a cold fusion reactor. Maybe it’s a translation thing but I bet they’ve got a COP of +20 as well……

    • Ged

      They are doing good science on building reactors to specifically test aspects of whatever theories they have developed. Sounds like Stremmenos hit on a possible breakthrough that may lift the fog on how to approach LENR reactors. Won’t know till we get details though, but my curiosity is piqued.