MFMP Publishes Statement from US Naval Research Laboratory Source on LENR

Thanks to Bob Greenyer for sharing that the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has received a statement from an unnamed source at the Naval Research Labs regarding LENR research. The statement has been posted in full on the MFMPs Facebook Page here:

Here is an excerpt:

“The heat is real and not an instrumental artefact, (such as a calorimetry error), or due to stored energy.

“However, we struggled for years to determine if the heat is due to LENR or a very specific instrumental artefact – a short to ground in a certain wire with a certain resistance for the short.”

“This specific artefact could explain all the data (except for Eve). To cause this short spontaneously is possible if the wire was in a certain place and vibration causes the wire to touch, un-touch, re-touch, etc. The resistance must be a certain amount only or the effect observed would be different. Any other wire, we would have had diagnostics present to detect that kind of artefact. Did it occur? Who knows. We have no evidence for or against (and we tried in every way the data will allow). We have not seen excess heat, unambiguously, since this series and have stopped doing LENR work.”

So this source is saying that although they measured was unambiguous excess heat, there was a chance that a certain kind of short could have produced the effect, although they never found that short. And in the case of Eve (which Louis DeChiaro stated was the successful replication of Pons and Fleischmann effect, another kind of short would be required — and they have evidence that it did not.

This source obviously doesn’t want to be definitive about LENR replication, but is suggesting strongly that it happened. Now that the Naval Research Labs have stopped doing LENR research it will not be possible to re-analyze their experiments — but Dr. DeChiaro’s analysis published here yesterday does give a number of pointers that could be helpful for further research.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Robert is right, the statement in this post is merely appropriate scientific caution given the implications, it should be viewed in the context of the link that Robert Ellefson has given.

  • Gerard McEk

    This article sounds to me as if there is considerable friction between NAVSEA and DeChiaro. Maybe DeChiaro was allowed to publish the presentation, but not the additional interview (which was the most interesting). It would be nice if DeChiaro would take the opportunity to discuss issues on this forum. Was it Dubrinco’s article that opened his eyes?

  • Omega Z


  • Private Citizen

    Possible short circuit explanation reads like using “swamp gas” to explain away credible UFO sightings in Project Grudge.

    • GreenWin
      • Private Citizen

        Normally referred to as the “Michigan Swamp Gas Case of 1966,” this
        wave of sightings would be much more than just sighting reports. It
        would be a landmark case in the history of Ufology. For a period of 6-7
        days, UFOs were observed by witnesses, and confirmed by radar flying at
        incredible speeds, making unbelievable maneuvers, and at times hovering.
        This case would show the Air Force’s attitude toward average American
        citizens, and expose a poor attempt at a cover-up.

        UFOs Dive, Climb, & Hover:

        Regarding the many reports made over Michigan during this time period, Washtenaw County deputies Bushroe and Foster stated:

        is the strangest thing that [we] have ever witnessed. We would have not
        believed this story if we hadn’t seen it with our own eyes. These
        objects could move at fantastic speeds, and make very sharp turns, dive
        and climb, and hover with great maneuverability.

        We have no idea what these objects were, or where they could have come from.”

        Four Objects in Straight Line:

        Objects in Straight Line: One of the most amazing sightings was
        observed by law enforcement. On a midnight shift, Deputy Bushroe
        observed four UFOs, flying in a line formation for about an hour. He
        stated to the press:

        “It would swing back and forth like a pendulum, then shoot upward at tremendous speed, hover and then come down just as fast.”

        police and Livingston County sheriffs confirmed the sighting, saying
        they saw the same objects engaging in the same maneuvers.

        Two Top-Shaped Objects Seen:

        March 17, in Milan, Sgt. Nuel Schneider and Deputy David Fitzpatrick
        observed several top-shaped UFOs engaged in incredible aerial

        The objects would then hover, fall, and then rise
        again, seemingly defying gravity. Their lights would dim and brighten,
        relative to the speed of their moves. NICAP, which did extensive
        investigation into the Michigan flap, reported that often several UFOs
        would operate, or “play ” together.

        Object with Quilted Surface:

        Not all of the Michigan sightings were of objects flying through
        the air. On March 20, in Dexter, Frank Mannor, his family, and dozens of
        other witnesses saw a “domed, oval-shaped object with a ‘quilted’
        surface actually land in a nearby swamp. The object had lights in the
        center, and on each end. Two deputies, Fitzpatrick and McFadden arrived
        on the scene, and initiated a search to find the object with Manor.

        Multi-Colored Lights:

        along with his son, followed the UFO into the bog, but as they grew
        nearer to it, it slowly rose up, moved right above their heads, and
        quickly disappeared into the night sky. Mannor made this report about
        the search:

        “While in the woods area, a brilliant light was
        observed from the far edge of the woods, and upon [our] approaching, the
        light dimmed in brilliance… the brilliant light [then] again
        appeared, and then disappeared. A continued search of the area was
        conducted, through swamp and high grass, with negative results.”

        Object Buzzes Police Car:

        officers were witness to the UFO over the swamp, and they were shocked
        at the maneuverability of the UFO. One UFO had moved directly over where
        their flashlights were aimed, then lifted and departed at high speed in
        a westerly direction. As more officers were moving toward the scene of
        the landing, Officer Robert Hartwell of the Dexter division saw a UFO
        buzz his car.

        “Swamp Gas” Explanation:

        There were
        numerous sightings during the Michigan wave of 1966. The case itself is
        very memorable for another important event that occurred. Project Blue
        Book sent Dr. J. Allen Hynek
        to investigate the sighting reports. At first, Hynek agreed that there
        was something going on in the Michigan skies. But after consulting with
        the Blue Book headquarters, he changed his mind, and said that the
        sightings were nothing more than “swamp gas.”

        Hynek Changes Mind:

        would later change his attitude about UFOs, and ultimately, become one
        of the foremost and well-known UFO proponents ever. He would be credited
        with coining the phrase, “close encounters of the third kind,” and was a
        consultant on the movie by the same name. He also had a cameo role in
        the film. Before his death, he created the CUFOS web site, which is
        still maintained today.


        There were over 100 witnesses to the Michigan “swamp gas” UFOs

  • GreenWin

    If we had to equip a research center to investigate LENR phenomena (by another name) – it could be Section 6390 at NRL’s Materials Science and Technology Division. But for sure (wink) they’re not doing LENR research:

    “We investigate the physics of clean and adsorbed surfaces of
    semiconductors and metals. Reduced dimensionality plays an important
    role at surfaces, profoundly influencing electronic and magnetic
    properties. We also study the interfaces between materials, which are at
    the heart of technologically important phenomena such as grain-boundary
    formation, band-offset engineering, and spin injection.”

  • bkrharold

    It is just as well this will soon be out of their unreliable hands, when Rossi releases the positive results in a few months

  • AdrianAshfield

    The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) is the largest of the United States Navy’s five “systems commands,”
    The United States Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) is the corporate research laboratory for the United States Navy. They report to the Office of Naval Research (ONR). ONR reports to the U.S. Secretary of the Navy. I have no inside political knowledge of their operations, but clearly they have been open to new science like the Polywell.

    DOE (Dept of Energy) is the governmental department whose mission is to “advance energy technology and promote related innovation in the United States.”
    I have had direct involvement with them on several occasions and conclude they are a terminal case of Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy. For example, Larry Penberthy (father of all electric glass melting) & I made a proposal to clean up the radwaste at Hanford saving a hundred billion dollars that would have completed the job by now. They look like completing it in 2070. DOE were not interested in considering it. I wrote about it in a paper published in Glass Industry in 2000.

    I have been trying to get a letter delivered to Secretary Moniz since 7/7/2015 without success. The point made was that DOE should at least review LENR in light of the current developments, because if real, they were wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on alternative energy and CO2 reduction.

    The group-think physicists there have been adamantly against cold fusion since Pons & Fleischmann, helping to commit infanticide of that field and making it difficult to obtain patents.

    They are the “experts” who decision makers turn to for advice and the gate keepers preventing the knowledge from reaching them in other ways.

  • Navsea is != NRL?

    Or is it the same, and Navsea is just an alias?
    Could it be that Navsea is just a smaller sub institution of NRL, and NRL moved LENR research to Navsea because they don’t saw high priority?

    And now Navsea has lot of new experience of which NRL don’t know anything?

    • AdrianAshfield

      See my reply to Rob S about half way down in the comments

      • So this means? Navsea is more important than NRL?

        • Ged

          Higher authority and more divisions under NAVSEA’s jurisdiction, yes.

  • Omega Z

    stopped working on LENR, Now they are using it.

    • Ged

      Indeed, passed it on to the engineers. Or passed it on to a more dedicated agency for this type of work.

      • Omega Z

        In all seriousness, I have inadvertently come across official ABC agency articles over time that state at the end, This research has reached a point where you will not likely see any further publications. The research will go dark.

        I have bookmarked many of these in order to check back at a later date out of curiosity of the subject matter. When I go back to the link- Error —The links no longer work. No Bing or Google finds anything. When they say dark, they mean everything including the original publication.

        This can make you look really foolish when you’ve shared this with others and they can’t go to the link..

    • BroKeeper

      Now employed within the new Gerald R. Ford carrier class . 😉

    • Alan DeAngelis

      “We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity…”
      Ben Rich, former Head of Lockheed Skunk Works
      January 1995

  • Omega Z

    “However, we struggled for years to determine if the heat is due to LENR or a very specific instrumental artifact – a short to ground in a certain wire with a certain resistance for the short.”

    When your working in milliwatts, Caution is necessary. However, this would have nothing to do with Rossi’s technology & the pilot plant.

    With 250kWh at the mains & an output of 1mWh of steam, No such imaginably small shorting of a ground could account for the difference.

    • bkrharold

      The statement “However, we struggled for years…..”, does not pass the smell test. A well equipped laboratory with trained professional scientists should not take that long to confirm or exclude the presence of a short. It sounds like everyone involved has been told to sit down and shut up. It was a foolish dream to imagine that our government agencies will ever do anything to help the American people.

      • Omega Z

        They probably have a mortgage & kids in college, Thus, The scenario they try to avoid-

        We’ve excluded the shorting issue. It is excess heat.
        Now if you’ll pardon me, I’ve been asked to clean out my desk.
        It appears I’m taking an unscheduled early retirement. 🙁

        • Frechette

          “It appears I’m taking an unscheduled early retirement. :-(” —- to spend quality time with my family. Famous last words.

    • LCD

      Yeah agreed the short doesn’t quite make sense unless you’re dealing with tiny amounts of excess beat.

  • Jimr

    I think Dechairo spoke out of turn without Navsea,s permission and this is why they are responding in this manner. I would have thought a supervisor would had previewed this responce before it was published,it just makes them sound stupid.

    • Agaricus

      I think this release means that we can wave bye-bye to the promised further report from DeChiaro, in particular to any further information about the theoretical model for determining potential LENR activity of metal alloys.

      • Jimr


      • Ged

        “That’s classified.”

        • GreenWin

          See link above to NRL Section 6390… I guess we’ll have to rely on Japan, Russia, Sweden, China and India for this detail.

      • GreenWin

        Peter, you may find my comment and link from July 28th interesting:

        “This seminar is led by two venerable LENR researchers Hagelstein and Louis DeChiaro. Dr. DeChiaro’s resume is interesting:

        “Louis F. DeChiaro PhD (Physics) joined the US Navy as a civilian Physicist in September, 2006 and since 2009 been performing investigations in LENR physics and supporting the EMC efforts of Branch Q51 at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA. During the period 2010-2012 he was on special assignment at the Naval Research Labs, Washington, D.C. in their experimental LENR group.”

        Dr. DeChiaro is a spectrum specialist who has authored papers identifying RF spikes coincident with excess heat in D/Pd experiments.
        Slide 19 indicates RF spikes (~80dBm) coincident with anomalous heat pulses.

        But the latest paper from ENEA suggests the RF may not be coincident but a catalyst. Applying external resonance e.g. RF, magnetic, or acoustic energy to E-Cat Ni/H fuel may cause the lattice to “ring.” Once ringing, vibrating at some resonant peak or harmonic, the nuclear activity begins. If accomplished by sound (e.g. piezoelectric element) – tuning the frequency could dampen or accelerate the reaction. This may be why Dr. Rossi posed with a stethescope – A.R’s listening for the “music” of LENR. 🙂 “

        • Agaricus

          Unfortunately, ‘Who pays the piper…’ As DeChiaro’s work on establishing a model for identifying potentially LENR-active alloys was sponsored by the military, and particularly if they have decided to ‘go dark’, then I must stand by my suggestion that he may not be as free to publish further details as his comments suggest.

          On the work you refer to, despite his comments on the ‘Edisonian’ approach, he actually seems to apply what could be called an ‘analytical Edisonian’ methodology to his LENR studies. Data first, then analyse. In particular, his attempts to find a solid causal relationship between RF stimulation and LENR surges gets my vote, as I suggested that RF/EM might be employed in Rossi’s benchtop prototypes way back in 2011:

          Ecatnews – Peter Roe December 1, 2011 at 2:18 pm

          I think “vibrational energy” probably refers to magnetostriction – rapid distortions of the otherwise regular lattice the nickel atoms tend to form. This is induced by magnetic fields which in this case could be created in several ways: oscillating external field, RF induction from an antenna, or eddy currents resulting from modulated current flow through the nickel.

          The idea is that as a the lattice opens up at a particular location due to magnetostriction, a hydrogen nucleus (proton) may by chance move into the interstitial space. Then, as the magnetic field collapses or reverses, the interstitial space closes up, crushing the proton into closer proximity than would normally be possible with a nearby nickel nucleus. What happens at that point is well beyond my pay grade!

          A crude picture from early days, but I would still hold with the idea that magnetostriction may play a crucual part in transferring RF/EM energy at ‘driver’ frequency into the metal matrix of the LENR environment, and DeChiaro seems to be one of the few researchers looking at this potential factor..

    • Warthog

      Nope…..look at the footer on his slides. You don’t put that there unless approval was sought AND GOTTEN.

  • Bob Greenyer


    • Jarea

      You mean that this problem with the shortcut in the measurement (reported by your source) is related to the disclamer F9?
      I have always thought that the disclaimer was about durability and reliability of the reactors. I think that LENR giving excess heat is already a fact.
      Could you develop your last comment a little more? XD

      • Teemu Soilamo

        I’m pretty sure it’s a quip at the oxymoronic nature of some of the statements. Don’t read too deep into it.

        • Bob Greenyer

          You are enlightened.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I cannot speak for a third parties research.

        I cannot speak for a third party analysis of another third parties research

        I for sure cannot speak for a third parties (B) comments on a third parties (A) analysis of third parties (B) data.

        What I can say is that in the MFMP/Alan Goldwater GS3 run, we saw anomalies that have not fully been explained away by us yet, but considering it was based on thermometry, confidence is rightly low. Alexander Parkhomov’s group looked at the live recorded data that was publicly issued and came to more definitive conclusions following analysis of that data in the context of their own experience – we cannot say their interpretation is right or corroborate what caveats they may or may not have given in the verbal presentation.

        A valid big signal is required for long time and/or statistically significant transmutations – the former was not seemingly present in the NRL tests, perhaps the latter was and this is what the report is referring to by “other interesting…” but we do not know the meaning of this tantalising comment.

        If Lugano report is valid then both conditions are met – but it is a very different experiment/apparatus to those Pd D at NRL, as is the 1MW reactor – and, even then Rossi likes to invoke “Results may be positive or negative (F9)” – in addition, Rossi has publicly distanced himself from the 62Ni result in his recent interview.

        • Ged

          Sounds like NRL was using calorimetry and had no problems with it according to this statement. Such a crazy world.

          Though, what is F9? As far as I find, it is Internet shorthand for “fine”, leaving me quite bewildered in its use, heh!

          • Bob Greenyer

            F9 is short for Rossi saying “Results may be positive or negative”

            • Ged

              That young man and his lingo slinging link a rufian!

        • Omega Z

          On JONP, Rossi has “distanced himself” as the sample analyzed was so small. He also indicated they had analyzed additional portions of the Lugano ash, but wont comment on it until the 1 year test is complete. Probably they want to compare it with the ash of the test plant for a more definitive answer.

  • Jarea

    This statement is ridiculous. How is possible you don’t know if you have excess heat after years!. LENR gives you a lot of excess. It is an easy measurement if you have such time. You can discard chemical and you can really measure what comes IN and what comes OUT in form of heat. That is an insult to every engineer and chemical scientist.
    The only explanation it comes to my mind is politic so they want to reduce the hype by creating some misinformation and unclear statement. They cannot negate it because they would appear as a liar afterwards but they cant create FUD. I think they plan to keep the slow roadmap they have agreed under the table for releasing the technology. That is sad. You can still be honest and keep the roadmap.

    • US_Citizen71

      It likely means the project went black. Superior to intrepid researcher wanting to find the cause of the anomalous heat, ” This is not something you need to worry about. Why don’t you take an inventory of the lab.”

  • Job001

    Agree it will someday make a great movie!

    For any who are confused, It’s DOD budget preparation time. The DOD budget process usually starts in January while the preparation starts a few months beforehand. Happens every year.

    All alternatives get slandered, misread, obfuscated, or denigrated by sychopant shills, doing FUD as SOP(Standard Operating Procedure).


    No need to be excessively concerned;
    it’s the fun politics of funding and lying, not science!

  • pg

    I’ll be damned if no one makes a movie out of this!

  • Teemu Soilamo

    “This specific artefact could explain all the data (except for Eve)” <– oh, so just disregard Eve, then? How convenient. What is this nonsense, anyway? And why did they STOP researching lenr when they obviously found an anomaly? Don't none of this make any sense.

    • Warthog

      It’s called “politics”. Those in control of the money spigot within the US Federal Goverment are largely physicists….due to the huge influx of such over the long, long (and continuing) effort to develop and maintain nuclear weapons. BUT, these are incompetent physicists who can only “make it” as science bureaucrats rather than than practicing scientists. So, the anti-LENR types pull the money plug despite scientific success. This has gone on since P&F in 1989. Got an enthusiastic LENR researcher……make sure that he can’t get grant money.

      • Teemu Soilamo

        But this statement doesn’t come from the Federal Government, it comes from an inside source at the Naval Research Lab. Yet it reads like a PR fluff piece. I just don’t get why it was written in the first place.

        • Chris the 2nd

          It’s Mirage Men type bullshit meant to confuse.

        • Warthog

          If it is from “an inside source at the NRL” it DOES come from the Federal Government. It was written because that individual wished to comment on OFFICIAL work at NAVSEA by DeChiarro. The comment itself implies strongly that the person making the comment is connected to DeChiarro’s team “NRL source on their position, re their data, cited in the recent Louis F. DeChiaro, Ph.D (NAVSEA) report”

          I see zero grounds for suspicion here. Quite a few people working on the Rossi tests have commented separately. Same deal.

      • Sanjeev

        A real incompetent science bureaucrat would not only declare the LENR as success asking for more funds, but also keep it going for years every time asking for more and more funds, without ever letting it turn into a useful device.

        When there is a working prototype, its easy to get the funding, and if you want to keep the $$ coming, just do incremental tiny improvisations and spend your life happily. Just give me 50 years more and I will make a power plant out of it, that’s a good excuse.

    • Omega Z


      “And why did they STOP researching lenr”
      Sometimes, the Government invokes a policy that if the private sector is making progress & possibly headed for market, they will take a hands off approach. On other occasions, they do the opposite. Don’t try an understand what criteria they use to make this choice. Government decisions have no ryhme nor reason to them.

  • Jonnyb

    A wire that somehow goes even lower in Resistance than it’s nominal resistance, is that what they are saying? sounds like the only excuse they could come up with, is this just a load of rubbish?

  • Gerrit

    Strange. If you suspect a certain wire makes a short, you redesign the setup in such way that you can exclude this wire to make a short.

    For me the key message is there is no LENR research ongoing at NRL.

    • Ged

      Easy enough to pass it on to a new national lab and agency, particularly if engineering experiments outside of the scope of NRL start (let alone other military branches may not want just the Navy hoarding things). Plausible deniability.

    • Obvious

      The “short” to ground that can explain all results but “Eve” suggests a specific linearity to the anomalous result, (almost certainly a linear relationship to electrical input/heat). The posited linear relationship for Eve is therefore different, and probably not tested enough to thoroughly establish. That’s what I read into the strange disclaimer.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    I sense organisational panic on one hand, and personal willingness to set facts straight on the other hand. Pre-Rossi, the organisation’s first priority was probably to avoid a false positive. Post-Rossi, it became important for them to find rationalisations for how the Italian succeeded and they didn’t. While Rossi’s priority was always to make LENR work. Both got what they wanted: Rossi made the E-cat and the Navy successfully avoided the false positive.

  • SG

    This statement is so poorly written and nonsensical that it is almost laughable. A bunch of incoherent babble and misdirection about a little short but with the most recent significant result “(except for Eve)” demoted to parenthesis. This is so obviously smoke and mirrors that I’m surprised they even released such a statement.

    • Teemu Soilamo

      Yeah, what’s the whole point of releasing this statement? Sour grapes?

      • bkrharold

        Perhaps it was written under protest, and worded clumsily on purpose.

    • LCD

      It would make sense if eve happened áfter the series of events with the short.

  • Lou Pagnucco

    The remark –
    “However, we struggled for years to determine if the heat is due to LENR or a very specific instrumental artefact – a short to ground in a certain wire with a certain resistance for the short.”
    – seems very strange. Does it take “years” to find a short? even an intermittent one?

    • Sanjeev

      You are right. IMO, a short can be found in minutes by simply measuring the resistance. Can be done with a cheap multimeter.

      • Ged

        I agree. It is a lame sounding excuse. Can’t see how simple instrumentation wouldn’t detect it (just measure total power draw!). The bigger the excess, the bigger the shorting effect would have to be; there’s no way to miss it if it’s a short.

        Hm. So strange. Doing everything they can to try to pretend it’s nothing, even if their excuse doesn’t work on “Eve”. Dunno what to make of such talk.

        • Sanjeev

          I guess someone wants to please the pathoskeptics and deniers.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          The only reason I can think of is that during those years no laboratory work was going on by management decision so they could only look at old data. Why laboratory work would have been stopped for years, one can only speculate about. Maybe someone raised the concern of radiation and the lab they were working in was not rated for radiological work. If at the same time the management resisted moving the activity to another department (or if no LENR-friendly radiation rated lab was found in the organisation), maybe that resulted in a stalemate situation. Deep speculation.

          • Ged

            By the way, great to hear from you again, Pekka!

            • Pekka Janhunen

              Thanks, Ged; you as well. I find myself writing here more rarely nowadays, I guess because most things have already been said. By the way, this week there is European astrobiology meeting, I’m not attending but coauthoring a poster “Evaporative Early Earth environments conducive to promote prebiotic synthesis and polymerisation”. Not my main research, but some touch with biology anyway.

      • Omega Z

        Sanjeev, I’ll have you know that it took me 2 days to find a short in a wiring harness in an old car.
        They’s a lot of wires. And due to Murphy’s law, it happen to be the last wire to be checked.

        Had to be careful how I worded that. Kind of like, found it in the last place I looked. Duh, You quit looking once you find it. At least I do… 🙂

        • Sanjeev

          OZ, they need people like you there for LENR research, who can find shorts quickly, I guess, a position of expert short finder is needed asap 🙂

          They got excess heat all the time, still they spent years trying to find the “short” that caused it, instead of going ahead and using that heat. Finally they quit. I mean WTH ?

          • Omega Z

            Sanjeev, I have 1 standing condition when working with electrical.
            I work alone & nobody can be within 1000 yards of the premises.

            I have learned the hard way. You can turn a breaker off. Put red tape across it with a sign in 4″ letters stating do not reset breaker. Block the path to the mains & Somebody will still come along & turn the power back on. 🙁

            I once consider hiring an armed guard with permission to stop people with extreme prejudice. My Insurance agent advised against it. 🙁

  • Owen Geiger

    Gotta read between the lines with these gov dudes — “and have stopped doing LENR work [publicly].”

    And please send me one of those magic heaters that produce months of free MW heat from an electrical short without raising the cost of the electric bill.

    • SG

      Or possibly “and have stopped doing LENR work [for a few days or weeks so that we can claim that we have stopped in good conscience, but we’ll ramp things up again soon]”

      The Space and Naval Warfare Command also publicly claimed they had called it quits in 2012 after publishing successful experimental results, but then we learn that other commands carried on. My impression is that multiple persons within the larger Navy umbrella have a deep interest in continuing LENR research. Let’s hope that is the case and that they will be courageous enough to release information to the public if it has even the most remote chance of uplifting humanity in any way.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      That he reached out through unofficial channels like he did indicates to me that their work was genuinely stopped and they have nothing to lose by coming out.

  • William D. Fleming

    It was said yesterday by Bob Greenyer that NRL is not NAVSEA and has no control over what they release. Yet they both speak of “eve”. Confusing.

    • Manuel Cruz

      Probably he means that their explanation does not work on that “Eve” reactor whose existence was disclosed days ago, as the design would rule it out.

      • Ged

        Maybe “Eve” was supposed to remain classified.

  • LCD

    What is he saying then that Dechario is full of it?

    • Ged

      On the contrary, he’s corroborating DeChario. But… trying to downplay it at the same time? It’s sounding like the standard “no such agency” obfuscation. Classified stuff maybe?

      • MasterBlaster7

        The thing about the internet is…once it is out there, it is out there.

        Maybe DeChario leaked this ‘classified’ information so that the civilian replicators would follow up on it. Quick, who do we know that sells Rhodium?