Mats Lewan: Losing all balance

New Energy World Symposium planned for June 18-19, 2018

Lewan’s reporting on LENR has become entirely Rossi promotion. I’m commenting on his misleading statements in this announcement.

As originally planned, the Symposium will address the implications for industry, financial systems, and society, of a radically new energy source called LENR—being abundant, cheap, carbon-free, compact and environmentally clean.

Such implications could be as disruptive as those of digitalization, or even more. For example, with such an energy source, all the fuel for a car’s entire life could be so little that it could theoretically be pre-loaded at the time of the car’s manufacture.

While it has been speculated for almost thirty years that LENR would be cheap and clean, we do not actually know that, because we don’t know what it will take to create a usable device. There is real LENR, almost certainly, but there are also real problems with development, and the basic science behind LENR effects remains unknown. There is no “lab rat” yet, a confirmed and reasonably reliable and readily repeatable test set-up known to release sustained energy adequately to project what Lewan is claiming.

Yes, LENR technology could be disruptive. However, it is extremely unlikely to happen rapidly in the short term, unless there is some unexpected breakthrough. Real projects, not run by a blatantly fraudulent entrepreneur, have, so far, only spotty results.

An initial list of speakers can be found on the front page of the Symposium’s website.

I’ll cover the speakers below.

The decision to re-launch the symposium, that was originally planned to be held 2016, is based on a series of events and developments.

What developments? Mats misrepresents what happened.

One important invention based on LENR technology is the E-Cat, developed by the Italian entrepreneur Andrea Rossi. Starting in 2015, Rossi performed a one-year test of an industrial scale heat plant, producing one megawatt of heat—the average consumption of about 300 Western households.

Mats presents the E-Cat and the heat produces as if factual.

The test was completed on February 17, 2016, and a report by an independent expert confirmed the energy production.

The original Symposium was planned to be based on that report, but the report was not released until well into the lawsuit. Was the “expert” actually independent? Were the test methods adequate? Did the plant actually produce a megawatt? Did the report actually confirm thatt? There is plenty of evidence on these issues, which Lewan ignores.

Unfortunately, a conflict between Andrea Rossi and his U.S. licensee Industrial Heat led to a lawsuit that slowed down further development of the E-Cat technology. This was also why the original plans for the New Energy World Symposium had to be canceled.

Mats glosses over what actually happened. Rossi sued Industrial Heat for $89 million plus triple damages (i.e., a total of $267 million), claiming that IH had defrauded him and never intended to pay what they promised for performance in a “Guaranteed Performance Test.” This account makes it look like Rossi was sued and therefore could not continue development. But the original Symposium was based on the idea of a completed, tested, and fully functional technology with real power having been sold to an independent customer. That did not happen and the idea that it did was all Rossi fraud. Rossi has abandoned the technology that was used in that “test” in Doral, Florida, and is now working on something that does not even pretend to be close to ready for commercialization.

In fact, he could have been selling power from 2012 on, say in Sweden, at least during the winter.

In [July], 2017, a settlement was reached implying that IH had to return the license. During the litigation, IH claimed that neither the report, nor the test was valid, but no conclusive proof for this was ever produced.

It appears that all Lewan knows about the lawsuit is the “claims.” We only need to know a few things to understand what happened. First of all, Rossi filed the suit and claimed he could prove his case. He made false claims in the filing itself, as the evidence developed showed. I could go down this point by point, but Lewan seems to have never been interested in the evidence, which is what is real. “Conclusive proof” commonly exists in the fantasies of fanatic believers and pseudoskeptics. However, some of the evidence in the case rises to that level, on some points. Lewan does not even understand what the points are, much less the balance of the evidence.

There was a huge problem, known in public discussion before it was brought out in the filings. Dissipating a megawatt of power in a warehouse the size of the one in Doral, supposedly the “customer plant,” but actually completely controlled by Rossi, who was, in effect, the customer, is not an easy thing. As the plant was described by Penon, the so-called Expert Responsible for Validation (Rossi claimed, IH denied, and the procedures of the Agreement for that GPT were not followed, clearly), and as Rossi described it publicly, the power simply was either absorbed in the “product” (which turned out to be a few grams of platinum sponge or graphene) or rose out of the roof vents or out the back door. Rossi’s expert confirmed that if there were not more than that, the temperature in the warehouse would have risen to fatal levels. So, very late in the lawsuit, after discovery was almost done, Rossi claimed he had built a massive heat exchanger on the mezzanine, blowing heat out the windows above the front entrance, and that the glass had been removed to allow this.

Nobody saw this heat exchanger, it would have been obvious, and noisy, and would have to have been running 24/7. My opinion is that the jury would have concluded Rossi was lying. My opinion is that IH would have prevailed on most counts of their counterclaim.

But there was a problem. The legal expenses were high. While they did claim that the original $10 million payment was also based on fraudulent representation about the test in Italy (Rossi had apparently lied about it), they were likely estopped from collecting damages for that, so they would only have recovered their expenses from their support of the Doral installation (i.e., the contracted payments to West, Fabiani, and Penon).

They had already spent about $20 million on the Rossi project, and they had nothing to show for it. They did not ask to settle; I was there, the proposal came from a Rossi attorney, a new one (but highly experienced). There was no court order, only a dismissal of all claims on both sides with prejudice.

And Lewan has not considered the implications of that. IH had built the Lugano reactor. They supposedly knew the fuel — unless Rossi lied to them and kept it secret. If anyone knew whether the techology worked or not, they would know. They also knew that, if it worked, it was extremely valuable. Billions of dollars would be a drastic understatement. But, to avoid paying a few million dollars more in legal expenses to keep the license? Even to avoid paying $89 million? (The Rossi claim of fraud on their part was preposterous, and Rossi found no evidence of it, but the contrary, and they had obtained a commitment for $200 million if needed). They would have to be the biggest idiots on the planet.

No, that they walked away when Rossi offered to settle, but wanted the license back, indicates that they believed it was truly worthless.

Lewan is looking for conclusive proof? How about the vast preponderance of evidence here? Mats has not looked at the evidence, but then makes his silly statement about “no conclusive proof.” He could not know that without a detailed examination of all the evidence, so I suspect that he is simply accepting what Rossi said about this.

Which, by this time, is thoroughly foolish. What the lawsuit documents showed, again and again, was that Rossi lied. He either lied to Lewan at that Hydro Fusion test, or he lied to Darden and Vaughn in his email about that test, claiming it was a faked failure (i.e., he deliberately made the test not work so that Hydro Fusion would not insist on their contract because he wanted to work with this billion-dollar company.)

Lewan has hitched his future to a falling star.

Meanwhile, Andrea Rossi continued to develop the third generation of his reactor, the E-Cat QX, which was demoed on November 24, 2017, in Stockholm, Sweden. Andrea Rossi has now signed an agreement with a yet undisclosed industrial partner for funding an industrialization of the heat generator, initially aiming at industrial applications.

Rossi has been claiming agreements with “undisclosed industrial partners” or customers since 2011, but the only actual customer was Industrial Heat. (plus the shell company Rossi created to be the customer for the heat — refusing an opportunity to have a real customer, and that’s clear from Rossi’s email. Lewan is going ahead without actually doing his own research. And he isn’t asking those who know. He appears to be listening only to Rossi.

The E-Cat reaction has also been replicated by others. In March 2017, the Japanese car manufacturer Nissan reported such a replication.

Lewan links to a 19-page document with abstracts. The report in question is here. From that report:

In 2010, A. Rossi reported E-cat, Energy Catalyzer. This equipment can generate heat energy from Ni and H2 reaction and the energy is larger than input one. This experiment was replicated by A Parkhomov but the reaction mechanism has NOT been clarified [1-2]

Naive. It’s worse than that. First of all, the Rossi technology is secret, and Parkhomov was not given the secret, and so it could only be a guess as to replication. NiH effects have been suspected for a long time, but Rossi’s claims were way outside the envelope. Parkhomov’s work was weak, poorly done, and, unfortunately, he actually faked data at one point. He apologized, but he never really explained why he did it. I think he had a reason, and the reason was that he did not want to disclose that he was running the experiment with his computer floating on battery power in order to reduce noise, basically, the setup was punk.

I was quite excited by Parkhomov’s first report. Then I decided to closely examine the data, plotting reactor temperature vs input power. There was no sign of XP. The output power was calculated from evaporation calorimetry and could easily have been flawed, with the methods he was using. And even if he did have power, this certainly wasn’t a “Rossi replication,” which is impossible at this point, since Rossi isn’t disclosing his methods.

Given that, I have no confidence in the Nissan researchers. But what do they actually say?

In this report we will report 2 things. The first one is the experimental results regarding to reproducing Parkhomov’s experiment with some disclosing experimental conditions using Differential Scanning Calorimetry (STA-PT1600, Linseis Inc.). This DSC can measure generated heat within a tolerance of 2%. The second one is our expectation on this reaction for automotive potential.

So Lewan has cited a source for a claim not found there. They did attempt to reproduce “Parkhomov’s experiment,” not the “E-Cat reaction” as Lewan wrote. And they don’t say anything about whether or not they saw excess heat. They say that they will report results, not what those results were.

This is incredibly sloppy for someone who was a careful and professional reporter for years.

This appears to be a conference set up to promote investment in Rossi. I suspect some of the speakers don’t realize that … or don’t know what evidence was developed in Rossi v. Darden. Some may be sailing on like Lewan. Rossi looked interesting in 2011, even though it was also clear then that he was secretive and his demonstrations always had some major flaw. It was almost entirely Rossi Says, and then some appearances and maybe magic tricks. Essen is another embarassment. President of the Swedish Skeptics Society. WTF?

The only names I recognized in the list:

  • Mats Lewan, conference moderator
  • Bob Greenyer

Both have lost most of their credibility over the last year. As to the others:

John Joss, a writer and publisher.

David Orban … no clue that he has any knowledge about LENR, but he would understand “disruptive technologies.” Verture fund. Hey, watch him talk for a minute. I ‘m not impressed. Maybe it’s the weather or something I ate.

Jim Dunn, on several organizational boards, including the board of New Energy Institute, which publishes Infinite Energy, so he’s been around. He wrote a review on Amazon of Lewan’s book.

Thomas Grimshaw, formed LENRGY, LLC  Working with Storms. Perhaps I will meet him at ICCF-21. The most interesting, he has quite a few papers written on LENR and public policy, on, going back to 2006.

John Michell. Rossi’s eCat: Free Energy, Free Money, Free People (2011) ‘Nuff said.

Prof. Stephen Bannister, does he realize what he’s getting himself into?

David Gwynne-Evans

Prof. David H. Bailey

(I’ll finish this up tomorrow)


Joshua P. Schroeder on Cold fusion

This compiles all edits of JPS to the Wikipedia article on cold fusion as of December 10, 2017. Commentary will be added.

I decided to take a look at JPS’ involvement in the history of the cold fusion article. I had never before done this. He was not heavily involved when I was working on the article, and for some of the time since then he was banned from all fringe science articles and then site-banned. His block log is one of the longer ones I have seen. Most editors with a block log like this are toast. He was site banned January 21, 2011. He was unbanned in 2013 per a rather contentious discussion on the Administrator’s Noticeboard.

Researching the Wikipedia history of JPS has been made complicated by evasive measures, which I noted years ago. A list of accounts is on this subpage. SPI investigations, ArbComm cases, and Noticeboard filings appear under the account names at the time. Contributions change to the new name. So if one looks at an old diff, one will find the new account name. That is largely how I found them. Old accounts can be found by finding a signed comment on a Talk page or Noticeboard in the new contributions.

I will analyze all this later. I was surprised to see how much he had edited the Cold fusion article, however, and surprised to see his history of revert warring and defiance of administrators, even attacking at least one in an edit summary. But I have not looked at the situations yet. I will also add his Talk cold fusion edits and possibly some others relating to cold fusion. I worked collaboratively with him as Science Apologist on at least one article and and supported the transwiki of an improved article on optics. He is knowledgeable about physics. He was also openly defiant of Wikipedia policies and consensus process, I can see that from just skimming over the edit summaries, and he was clearly pushing a point of view, selectively.

This goes far back and older edits may not fairly represent his current positions or behavior.

I will cover arguments jps has presented on the subpage, Arguments. I will also cover, there, arguments used by known or suspected sock puppets, such as

“Courtesy blanking” of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive

See also blanked archives listed under :  Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist

(notice that the user link on the master page displays: “This is a previous account of a current user but that the username isn’t here for privacy/harassment issues. Dreadstar 02:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)”). The  log for that page.

The effect is that if the new account engages in old disruptive behavior, finding the old behavior is quite difficult and tedious, and “tedious” usually means, in a wiki, it simply is not done. Before jps was unbanned, a study would properly have been done by a neutral user (or at least a study should have been done and then reviewed and corrected or redacted by a neutral user. This obviously was not done, and in the jps unban discussion, there was extensive ignorance among those voting. (They call it “not-voting,” one of the lies the Wikipedia community tells itself. Some participants in that discussion were attacked because they had a history of dispute with jps, but users with a history of supporting his disruptive behavior were given a pass. This is how the wiki goes south. History is not studied, the community is often actively hostile to it.)

I’d say any other user doing that would be reverted and warned and possibly blocked. jps was heavily enabled to cover his tracks, making researching his behavior difficult. (This shows up in some reports.) If a user had reformed, demonstrating that by an extensive no-problem history, blanking will sometimes be done. When a page is blanked, content will not be displayed or found in searches. However, the page can be read from history. But the decision to do that should be made by a responsible administrator. jps blanked his own investigations. In fact, jps continued much the same behavior. As pointed out in the unban discussion, many of his “enemies” had been blocked themselves. Of course! They didn’t have an administrative faction backing them up! What they were blocked for was often trivial compared to what jps often did. I was not carrying this around in my mind. This is all coming back because I was led to look at it again by the activity of the Anglo Pyramidologist socks. (They are also motivating me to look at other users who they “defend,” even though they were not attacked), and then jps was hostile in response to my attempts to engage him in cooperation in getting “doxxing” removed. Doxxing that his “friend” archived in an attempt to attack me.

Here is what jps’ renamings did: Arbitration Enforcement. Click on links for the named user. “This account is not registered.” Normally, when a user account is renamed, there is a redirect from the old account. Exceptions can be made for harassment; but normal user history research is considered important. jps has repeatedly been protected by Wikipedia admins. I will document this elsewhere. Why is jps “harassed”? I have not harassed him, I have documented his arguments and behavior, with evidence. Someone else might use this to harass him. Harassment is illegal and should be prosecuted. But ordinary skeptics and neutral Wikipedia administrators do not ordinarily attract harassment. jps would be a target because he really did attack others, my impression so far.

See other blanked archives under the master page:





This was fourth report, a pile of IPs with highly suspicious edits, was considered obviously DepartedUser, a sock of Hipocrite, supporting  the revert warring of jps. Hipocrite, in this was acting as a meat puppet. Later, Hipocrite created massive disruption by directly, himself, revert warring on cold fusion. Had I known this, then, I would have absolutely insisted that he be included as involved in my second ArbCom case. Instead, William M. Connoley revert warred to protect Hipocrite. That user also closely collaborated with jps to attack ArbComm sanctions, in a 2009 sequence that led to a site ban for jps. This is for reference for future research on how structural dysfunction allows certain abusers to escape consequences.

So admins were looking at a case of tag-team revert warring, and other highly disruptive edits, using IP to disguise identity, [see “(4th)”] and it was ignored because, after all, it wasn’t jps!  “DepartedUser” did not depart.

The Cold fusion edits of the user now known as ජපස

(when an account is renamed, history then shows the new name, not the name at the time. However, any old signatures will not be changed.)

  1. (cur | prev) 03:38, 30 October 2017‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (132,985 bytes) (-105)‎ . . (Undid revision 807780097 by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) just because it is a quote doesn’t mean it needs to be included. It’s misleading divorced from context.) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 23:21, 27 October 2017‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (132,985 bytes) (-105)‎ . . (Undid revision 720982924 by Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) hmmm… this looks like WP:ACTIVIST editing to me.) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 16:24, 7 September 2015ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,072 bytes) (-2,057). . (Reverted to revision 678269951 by JzG (talk): Remove Rossi ballyhooing. (TW)) (undo)
  4. (cur | prev) 17:02, 14 February 2015ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,437 bytes) (+11). . (top: there are a number of house-journals that CF-proponents publish with claimed editorial control, but the problem is one of mainstream acceptance.) (undo)
  5. (cur | prev) 21:25, 9 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,519 bytes) (+924). . (Setup of experiments: intro to subsubsections per WP:MOS) (undo)
  6. (cur | prev) 21:06, 9 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,595 bytes) (+315). . (Criticism: summary of the subsequent subsections per WP:MOS) (undo)
  7. (cur | prev) 21:01, 9 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,280 bytes) (+20). . (Publications: reorganize to make this make a bit more sense.) (undo)
  8. (cur | prev) 15:47, 4 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,260 bytes) (+19). . (Incompatibilities with known fusion reactions: wording) (undo)
  9. (cur | prev) 15:45, 4 July 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,241 bytes) (+3). . (Incompatibilities with conventional fusion: there is no such thing as “unconventional” fusion, really. It’s either known or unknown fusion reactions.) (undo)
  10. (cur | prev) 17:27, 24 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,373 bytes) (-426). . (Italy: Removing E-CAT per talk.) (undo)
  11. (cur | prev) 11:30, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,799 bytes) (+35). . (Disambiguated: Department of EnergyUnited States Department of Energy) (undo)
  12. (cur | prev) 02:52, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,764 bytes) (-77). . (Italy: chronologize) (undo)
  13. (cur | prev) 01:46, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,841 bytes) (-3). . (Subsequent research: grammar) (undo)
  14. (cur | prev) 01:44, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (132,844 bytes) (+6). . (United States: acronym) (undo)
  15. (cur | prev) 01:43, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,838 bytes) (+6). . (United States: make right the words) (undo)
  16. (cur | prev) 01:41, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,832 bytes) (-71). . (United States: remove chaff) (undo)
  17. (cur | prev) 01:40, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (132,903 bytes) (-129). . (History: recombine. We shouldn’t talk about the same thing twice if we can help it.) (undo)
  18. (cur | prev) 01:34, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,032 bytes) (-16). . (Subsequent research: wording cleanup) (undo)
  19. (cur | prev) 01:32, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (133,048 bytes) (-1). . (Subsequent research: -sp) (undo)
  20. (cur | prev) 01:31, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,049 bytes) (+1,830). . (Subsequent research: reorganizing to group similar thoughts and ideas.) (undo)
  21. (cur | prev) 01:26, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (131,219 bytes) (-1,929). . (Further reviews and funding issues: Move up….) (undo)
  22. (cur | prev) 01:23, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,148 bytes) (+35). . (Conferences) (undo)
  23. (cur | prev) 00:15, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,113 bytes) (+79). . (Subsequent research: sectioning) (undo)
  24. (cur | prev) 00:04, 20 June 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (133,034 bytes) (+124). . (Subsequent research: reorganize: US, Italy, Japan, India.) (undo)
  25. (cur | prev) 20:02, 26 March 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (134,113 bytes) (-922). . (Further reviews and funding issues: clean up. Lots of stuff gets splattered onto this page, doesn’t it? Keep the sources good, please (Al Gore, not really a good source).) (undo)
  26. (cur | prev) 11:55, 26 March 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (135,035 bytes) (-908). . (DOE ARPA-E Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA): WAAY over weighted. Forbes employs a cold fusion enthusiast who has over-interpreted a single figure in one document. Compare to the nonsense about “NASA endorses cold fusion” 2 yrs ago) (undo)
  27. (cur | prev) 11:51, 26 March 2014ජපස (talk | contribs). . (135,943 bytes) (-1,632). . (removing some unduly weighted commentary per WP:LEDE and one originally researched claim (made on the basis of mention in a SINGLE figure).) (undo)
  28. (cur | prev) 14:28, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,349 bytes) (+1). . (undo)
  29. (cur | prev) 14:27, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,348 bytes) (+53). . (undo)
  30. (cur | prev) 04:34, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,273 bytes) (-28). . (History: unnecessary section) (undo)
  31. (cur | prev) 02:30, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,301 bytes) (+9). . (month is somewhat important.) (undo)
  32. (cur | prev) 02:24, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (98,292 bytes) (+1). . (Ongoing work: fix cite…) (undo)
  33. (cur | prev) 02:22, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,291 bytes) (-200). . (some fixes to the lead…) (undo)
  34. (cur | prev) 02:05, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,491 bytes) (+232). . (Further studies: add a connector sentence and a year.) (undo)
  35. (cur | prev) 01:57, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,259 bytes) (+7). . (Helium, heavy elements, and neutrons: smallify) (undo)
  36. (cur | prev) 01:56, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,252 bytes) (+174). . (Helium, heavy elements, and neutrons: belongs here if anywhere.) (undo)
  37. (cur | prev) 01:55, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (98,078 bytes) (+1,097). . ({{anchor|Fleischmann-Pons experiment}}Fleischmann–Pons experiment: altering…) (undo)
  38. (cur | prev) 01:24, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (96,981 bytes) (0). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: sup on the inside.) (undo)
  39. (cur | prev) 01:23, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (96,981 bytes) (+2). . (Unlikelihood of fusion) (undo)
  40. (cur | prev) 01:22, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,979 bytes) (+182). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: some links that may be helpful.) (undo)
  41. (cur | prev) 01:11, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,797 bytes) (+237). . (Explanations: fix this first paragraph to be more explanatory of the situation.) (undo)
  42. (cur | prev) 00:49, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,560 bytes) (+6). . (Nuclear fusion and subsequent proponent proposals: separate these paragraphs differently….) (undo)
  43. (cur | prev) 00:47, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,554 bytes) (+297). . (Explanations: making this a separate section for ease of navigation.) (undo)
  44. (cur | prev) 00:36, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,257 bytes) (-30). . (Bibliography: he has no article.) (undo)
  45. (cur | prev) 00:27, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,287 bytes) (+22). . (Explanations: tightening this section…) (undo)
  46. (cur | prev) 00:14, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,265 bytes) (+121). . (Explanations: this is a bit more in-tune with the way this subject goes….) (undo)
  47. (cur | prev) 00:00, 28 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,144 bytes) (+94). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: make explicit what’s decaying for the people who aren’t skilled at jargon reading.) (undo)
  48. (cur | prev) 23:59, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,050 bytes) (+11). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: superscript.) (undo)
  49. (cur | prev) 23:58, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,039 bytes) (-54). . (Unlikelihood of fusion: this article needs fixing, but I think this is the right link.) (undo)
  50. (cur | prev) 23:50, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,093 bytes) (+55). . (Conferences: more fixes… attribute an opinion to the person making the opinion.) (undo)
  51. (cur | prev) 23:46, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,038 bytes) (-2). . (Conferences: tightening this section.) (undo)
  52. (cur | prev) 23:36, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,040 bytes) (+2). . (Explanations: not need for “all”.) (undo)
  53. (cur | prev) 23:35, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,038 bytes) (+24). . (Explanations) (undo)
  54. (cur | prev) 23:33, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,014 bytes) (+52). . (Explanations: read for yourself.) (undo)
  55. (cur | prev) 23:31, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,962 bytes) (-11). . (Explanations: overkill) (undo)
  56. (cur | prev) 23:31, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,973 bytes) (-18). . (Comparison with known features of fusion: shorter and sweeter?) (undo)
  57. (cur | prev) 23:30, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,991 bytes) (+5). . (Comparison with conventional fusion: better wording?) (undo)
  58. (cur | prev) 23:29, 27 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,986 bytes) (+17). . (Helium and neutrons: heavy elements too.) (undo)
  59. (cur | prev) 17:37, 25 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,960 bytes) (+1). . (Explanations: as of is misleading… tweaking) (undo)
  60. (cur | prev) 17:34, 25 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,959 bytes) (-4). . (Explanations: this is a better way of summarizing the state.) (undo)
  61. (cur | prev) 17:26, 25 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,963 bytes) (-101). . (Comparison with conventional fusion: no need to sub-sub-sub section.) (undo)
  62. (cur | prev) 20:24, 23 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,850 bytes) (-33). . (Novel physics: removing contentious claim. Newscientist could have easily gotten it wrong.) (undo)
  63. (cur | prev) 20:18, 23 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,883 bytes) (-212). . (adding to the novel physics section (where it more naturally fits). e.c. and just got rid of the last edit which wasn’t adding anything.) (undo)
  64. (cur | prev) 20:15, 23 December 2010Ura Ursa (talk | contribs). . (96,095 bytes) (+131). . (Explanations: request citation for current non-mainstream acceptance–source from ’89 doesn’t come close. Restore current explanations; there was no source that BEC & W-L does not involve fusion) (undo)
  65. (cur | prev) 20:14, 23 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,964 bytes) (+366). . (Undid revision 403920064 by Ura Ursa (talk) misleading edit summary. You didn’t just restore the alphabetical subjects, you reverted. Revert back until an explanation is given.) (undo)
  66. (cur | prev) 05:26, 23 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,071 bytes) (-43). . (Critical responses: removing contention that is unsupported in third-party independent sources.) (undo)
  67. (cur | prev) 17:42, 20 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,114 bytes) (+21). . (Experiments: +results) (undo)
  68. (cur | prev) 17:41, 20 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,093 bytes) (+2). . (Conversion of gamma rays to heat) (undo)
  69. (cur | prev) 17:41, 20 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,091 bytes) (+2). . (Observed branching ratio) (undo)
  70. (cur | prev) 17:40, 20 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,089 bytes) (+2). . (Probability of reaction) (undo)
  71. (cur | prev) 17:39, 20 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs)m . . (96,087 bytes) (-2). . (Calorimetry errors: up level.) (undo)
  72. (cur | prev) 17:38, 20 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (96,089 bytes) (+629). . (fix) (undo)
  73. (cur | prev) 17:27, 20 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,460 bytes) (+54). . (Explanations: fix.) (undo)
  74. (cur | prev) 17:21, 20 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,406 bytes) (+597). . (Experiments: fix problems.) (undo)
  75. (cur | prev) 14:29, 6 December 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (93,855 bytes) (-1). . (Further reviews and funding issues: this belongs at the beginning of this section.) (undo)
  76. (cur | prev) 16:54, 24 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (94,125 bytes) (-23). . (these can be combined.) (undo)
  77. (cur | prev) 16:52, 24 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (94,148 bytes) (+215). . (Reported phenomena: we can lump these together.) (undo)
  78. (cur | prev) 15:18, 23 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (93,933 bytes) (+79). . (another term.) (undo)
  79. (cur | prev) 15:15, 23 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (93,854 bytes) (-1,674). . (Cold Fusion By Pyroelectric Crystal: this is a different kind of “cold fusion”… properly included on the disambiguation page.) (undo)
  80. (cur | prev) 15:09, 23 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,528 bytes) (-228). . (Nuclear transmutations: this section is just weird.) (undo)
  81. (cur | prev) 14:57, 23 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,756 bytes) (+55). . (Helium-4: this is closer to the report and other general critiques.) (undo)
  82. (cur | prev) 14:51, 23 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,701 bytes) (-27). . (Neutron radiation: fix this to avoid ambiguous attribution.) (undo)
  83. (cur | prev) 14:49, 23 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,728 bytes) (-16). . (Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat) (undo)
  84. (cur | prev) 14:49, 23 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,744 bytes) (+11). . (Excess heat: some fixes… now the section encompasses x-rays) (undo)
  85. (cur | prev) 14:46, 23 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (95,733 bytes) (-20). . (Experiments: not subsection worthy.) (undo)
  86. (cur | prev) 20:57, 1 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (93,731 bytes) (-1). . (Reported phenomena: moving to slightly more appropriate location) (undo)
  87. (cur | prev) 20:55, 1 November 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (93,732 bytes) (-12). . (X-rays: this should not be a new section.) (undo)
  88. (cur | prev) 20:26, 31 October 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (92,472 bytes) (-1,344). . (Reverted to revision 393253977 by Headbomb; rv per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. (TW)) (undo)
  89. (cur | prev) 00:35, 17 October 2010ජපස (talk | contribs). . (92,591 bytes) (-1,462). . (Reverted to revision 389974539 by Foobaz; BRD steps: see talk.. (TW)) (undo)
  90. (cur | prev) 21:12, 4 October 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,624 bytes) (-368)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 388705564 by Enric Naval; does not have an editorial policy that is compatible with the goals of external sourcing.. (TW)) (undo)
  91. (cur | prev) 19:57, 30 September 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,491 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (Proposed explanations: retitle to reflect content.) (undo)
  92. (cur | prev) 19:55, 30 September 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,479 bytes) (-28)‎ . . (Conferences: “ousted” seems a bit strong. More like “dismissed” or “ignored”. Not directly relevant anyway.) (undo)
  93. (cur | prev) 19:57, 30 September 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,491 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (Proposed explanations: retitle to reflect content.) (undo)
  94. (cur | prev) 19:55, 30 September 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,479 bytes) (-28)‎ . . (Conferences: “ousted” seems a bit strong. More like “dismissed” or “ignored”. Not directly relevant anyway.) (undo)
  95. (cur | prev) 05:11, 30 September 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (91,285 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Publications and conferences) (undo)
  96. (cur | prev) 05:11, 30 September 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (91,281 bytes) (+67)‎ . . (Publications and conferences: perhaps of relevance? I don’t mean to poison the well, but this litany is a little underwhelming to those in the know.) (undo)
  97. (cur | prev) 05:09, 30 September 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (91,214 bytes) (-209)‎ . . (Further reviews and funding issues: Let Storms publish in a journal for which he is not on the editorial board. Then maybe we’ll take this review as seriously as the independent ones here.) (undo)
  98. (cur | prev) 10:00, 11 September 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,957 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (Undid revision 384131768 by Thenub314 (talk) One sentence does not a book make.) (undo)
  99. (cur | prev) 19:32, 24 August 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,773 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Critical responses: arguably, this should be subsumed above as the chapter was closed in the early 1990s…) (undo)
  100. (cur | prev) 19:27, 24 August 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,771 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Critical responses) (undo)
  101. (cur | prev) 19:24, 24 August 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,771 bytes) (+1,732)‎ . . (reorganize anew.) (undo)
  102. (cur | prev) 19:19, 24 August 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,039 bytes) (-1,838)‎ . . (Further studies: moving elsewhere) (undo)
  103. (cur | prev) 19:15, 24 August 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,877 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (more appropriate location.)(undo)
  104. (cur | prev) 19:12, 24 August 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,846 bytes) (+536)‎ . . (Critical responses: make this more narrative.) (undo)
  105. (cur | prev) 19:07, 24 August 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,310 bytes) (-137)‎ . . (List of supporting researchers: WP:PEACOCK the list is not independently verified.) (undo)
  106. (cur | prev) 19:05, 24 August 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,447 bytes) (-101)‎ . . (Critical responses: over sub-sectioning.) (undo)
  107. (cur | prev) 15:58, 29 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,539 bytes) (-18)‎ . . (Further developments: fix…)(undo)
  108. (cur | prev) 15:55, 29 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,557 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (Further developments: tie in related points.) (undo)
  109. (cur | prev) 15:52, 29 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,516 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (Further developments: as a term) (undo)
  110. (cur | prev) 15:49, 29 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,510 bytes) (-37)‎ . . (Further developments:reincorporate and eliminate a bit of redundancy for better prose flow.) (undo)
  111. (cur | prev) 22:25, 19 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,541 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (Removing backlinks to International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science because “Article deleted.”; using TW) (undo)
  112. (cur | prev) 21:36, 4 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,545 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Further developments) (undo)
  113. (cur | prev) 21:34, 4 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,545 bytes) (+320)‎ . . (Further developments:+citation showing Ikegami is an anti-cold fusion convert.) (undo)
  114. (cur | prev) 01:47, 4 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,226 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Further developments) (undo)
  115. (cur | prev) 01:40, 4 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,227 bytes) (-88)‎ . . (Further developments: fix label sentences.) (undo)
  116. (cur | prev) 01:26, 4 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,315 bytes) (-61)‎ . . (Further developments: fix order again. Go from positive to negative as the cold fusion story went. Parallel prose.) (undo)
  117. (cur | prev) 01:23, 4 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,376 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (Further developments: push Schwinger up and rechronologize.) (undo)
  118. (cur | prev) 01:18, 4 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (89,344 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (Further developments: vt)(undo)
  119. (cur | prev) 01:17, 4 April 2010‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (89,343 bytes) (-336)‎ . . (Further developments: fix NPOV and redundancy problems.) (undo)
  120. (cur | prev) 00:32, 5 March 2009‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (61,169 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (spelling error.) (undo)
  121. (cur | prev) 22:51, 24 December 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (59,325 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (spelling) (undo)
  122. (cur | prev) 22:50, 24 December 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,323 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (Undid revision 259868242 by Pvkeller (talk) — taking into account his comments on talk and Wikipedia’s prohibition of this.) (undo)
  123. (cur | prev) 02:37, 24 December 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,288 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (Removing FPE per WP:NEO.) (undo)
  124. (cur | prev) 14:34, 22 December 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,431 bytes) (+80)‎ . . (fix lead… too much pandering to cold fusion believers.) (undo)
  125. (cur | prev) 14:31, 22 December 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,351 bytes) (-35)‎ . . (there is no “effect”> it was just shitty researchers doing shitty research.) (undo)
  126. (cur | prev) 23:54, 23 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,584 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (Excess heat: not always in major journals.) (undo)
  127. (cur | prev) 23:53, 23 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,565 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (Excess heat: missing close >) (undo)
  128. (cur | prev) 23:51, 23 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,557 bytes) (-647)‎ . . (Excess heat: remove unnecessary list. This is essentially cold fusion’s version of Project Steve: Wikipedia is not the place to soapbox like this.)(undo)
  129. (cur | prev) 23:49, 23 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,204 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (Summary of assertions of cold fusion: make this clearer, it’s proponents asserting this, no one else.) (undo)
  130. (cur | prev) 23:48, 23 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,197 bytes) (-1,682)‎ . . (Summary of evidence for cold fusion: removing some fringe material per NPOV and rewording so that people know the marginal state of this belief.) (undo)
  131. (cur | prev) 04:32, 10 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,008 bytes) (-676)‎ . . (Removing pandering to the minority POV.) (undo)
  132. (cur | prev) 04:21, 8 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,631 bytes) (-332)‎ . . (Recent developments:Michael Brooks is not a [{WP:RS|reliable source]] for such a claim. Sorry.) (undo)
  133. (cur | prev) 04:18, 8 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,963 bytes) (-1,078)‎ . . (Reinstate a summativelead that isn’t overly descriptive of the 2004 report per talk.) (undo)
  134. (cur | prev) 10:26, 7 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,029 bytes) (-580)‎ . . (Resisting POV-pushing.)(undo)
  135. (cur | prev) 08:25, 7 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,995 bytes) (-594)‎ . . (Remove entire paragraph and replace with a single sentence per WP:LEAD and WP:SUMMARY. See talk.) (undo)
  136. (cur | prev) 08:15, 7 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (72,589 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Pcarbonn; This was NOT what we agreed to on talk. Sorry.. (TW)) (undo)
  137. (cur | prev) 21:33, 6 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,560 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (tighten language) (undo)
  138. (cur | prev) 21:32, 6 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,570 bytes) (-22)‎ . . (make this flow better.)(undo)
  139. (cur | prev) 07:54, 6 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (72,705 bytes) (+91)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 249767651 by ScienceApologist; please see talk for why the choice of quotes must be done to avoid WP:WEIGHTviolation.. (TW)) (undo)
  140. (cur | prev) 01:14, 5 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,705 bytes) (0)‎ . . (remove some things from the quote that lack context and tighten the quotation cadence.) (undo)
  141. (cur | prev) 21:41, 4 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,548 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (In most contexts a “two-thirds majority” is considered a supermajority.) (undo)
  142. (cur | prev) 21:17, 4 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,537 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (make this a statement about the majority rather than the minority.) (undo)
  143. (cur | prev) 09:36, 4 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,531 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (removing “somewhat” which is unnecessary quotation. Paraphrasing is easier on the reader.) (undo)
  144. (cur | prev) 09:35, 4 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,542 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (removing cooked up statistics. One third from small number statitics isn’t meaningful.) (undo)
  145. (cur | prev) 15:12, 3 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,302 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (make these sentences a bit less colloquial. Removing idiom.) (undo)
  146. (cur | prev) 15:00, 3 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,281 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (fix more POV… please stop pandering to CF advocates. PLEASE>) (undo)
  147. (cur | prev) 14:58, 3 November 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,288 bytes) (-76)‎ . . (I go away for three days and the POV-pushing returns!) (undo)
  148. (cur | prev) 23:30, 29 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,551 bytes) (-752)‎ . . (Removing some soapboxing grandstanding from the WP:LEAD.) (undo)
  149. (cur | prev) 23:28, 29 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,303 bytes) (+1,273)‎ . . (restoring intro.) (undo)
  150. (cur | prev) 14:55, 29 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,332 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (remove WP:WEASEL.)(undo)
  151. (cur | prev) 22:28, 28 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,672 bytes) (+567)‎ . . (Bibliography: Seife reportnew book to be released on Oct. 30.) (undo)
  152. (cur | prev) 22:14, 28 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,076 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (one citation for the conclusion of scientists.) (undo)
  153. (cur | prev) 20:31, 27 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,612 bytes) (+132)‎ . . (+articleissues) (undo)
  154. (cur | prev) 20:30, 27 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (67,480 bytes) (-3,224)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 247817644 by ScienceApologist; restoring better version per talk.. (TW)) (undo)
  155. (cur | prev) 15:56, 27 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (70,550 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (Added {{npov}} tag to article. using Friendly) (undo)
  156. (cur | prev) 19:05, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (70,449 bytes) (+234)‎ . . (Added {{articleissues}} with parameters cleanup, context, introrewrite, peacock, primarysources and recentism, {{toofewopinions}} and {{totally-disputed}} tags to ar) (undo)
  157. (cur | prev) 18:46, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,480 bytes) (-492)‎ . . (Nuclear transmutations:fix some problems that just listed without explanation…) (undo)
  158. (cur | prev) 18:44, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,972 bytes) (-737)‎ . . (Nuclear products: some fixes of POV-pandering to cold fusion believers.) (undo)
  159. (cur | prev) 18:39, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (68,709 bytes) (-130)‎ . . (Excess heat: Number of experiments is not allowed and is essentially POV-pushing) (undo)
  160. (cur | prev) 18:38, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (68,839 bytes) (-635)‎ . . (Summary of evidence for cold fusion: removing POV-pushing. We discussed this months ago and consensus was no false statistics should be given.) (undo)
  161. (cur | prev) 18:36, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,474 bytes) (-904)‎ . . (Undid revision 247815536 by Pcarbonn (talk) revert because Pcarbonn is lying in his edit summary.) (undo)
  162. (cur | prev) 18:32, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,474 bytes) (-904)‎ . . (Undid revision 247814655 by Pcarbonn (talk) revert per WP:POVPUSH…) (undo)
  163. (cur | prev) 18:31, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,378 bytes) (-189)‎ . . (Insufficient theoretical explanations: doesn’t belong in this section. Include it above, if you want…) (undo)
  164. (cur | prev) 18:28, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (69,663 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (fix punctuation) (undo)
  165. (cur | prev) 18:26, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,664 bytes) (-104)‎ . . (Summarize for the lead and NPOV…) (undo)
  166. (cur | prev) 18:23, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,768 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (Undid revision 247813267 by ScienceApologist (talk)) (undo)
  167. (cur | prev) 18:22, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,661 bytes) (-107)‎ . . (fixing for NPOV) (undo)
  168. (cur | prev) 18:18, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,730 bytes) (-799)‎ . . (Removing undue weightgiven to review articles written by cold fusion proponents.) (undo)
  169. (cur | prev) 18:13, 26 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,529 bytes) (-38)‎ . . (reports have been in peer-reviewed journals and journals that aren’t peer-reviewed too.) (undo)
  170. (cur | prev) 23:12, 18 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,289 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (Undid revision 246144416 by Ronnotel (talk) wait till the COI is resolved, please.) (undo)
  171. (cur | prev) 17:28, 18 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (68,892 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (conflict of interest documented on COIN) (undo)
  172. (cur | prev) 17:07, 18 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (68,884 bytes) (-721)‎ . . (Undid revision 246096153 by Pcarbonn (talk) Pierre has a conflict of interest, so revert.) (undo)
  173. (cur | prev) 12:54, 18 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (68,884 bytes) (-200)‎ . . (removing unbalanced statement.) (undo)
  174. (cur | prev) 12:53, 18 October 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (69,084 bytes) (-521)‎ . . (Undid revision 245891517 by Pcarbonn (talk) POV assertion removed.) (undo)
  175. (cur | prev) 19:08, 23 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,187 bytes) (-99)‎ . . (Removed to talk for discussion…) (undo)
  176. (cur | prev) 18:25, 23 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,206 bytes) (-83)‎ . . (proper attribution) (undo)
  177. (cur | prev) 16:28, 23 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (63,982 bytes) (+145)‎ . . (Undid revision 227434870 by Kevin Baas (talk) This is not a “cold hard fact”: it’s a “cold hard contention” by Storms.) (undo)
  178. (cur | prev) 15:44, 23 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (63,982 bytes) (+145)‎ . . (Further developments (1989-2004): let’s be honest, people.) (undo)
  179. (cur | prev) 15:41, 23 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (63,837 bytes) (+58)‎ . . (Further developments (1989-2004): just checked the source… most of those papers were conference proceedings, non-peer reviewed journals, or in trade journals of cold fusion.) (undo)
  180. (cur | prev) 15:37, 23 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (63,779 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (Nuclear products: throwaway statement thrown away. Are there any cf proponents who do not believe their experiments are reproducible? Please, let’s have actual content.) (undo)
  181. (cur | prev) 15:36, 23 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (63,827 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (Nuclear products: numerous equivocal and not helpful.) (undo)
  182. (cur | prev) 15:36, 23 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (63,836 bytes) (-343)‎ . . (Hubler not a reliable source per WP:REDFLAG since he is a proponent and not a neutral reporting party such as the DOE panel.) (undo)
  183. (cur | prev) 17:16, 19 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,824 bytes) (-264)‎ . . (Nuclear transmutations:Sorry, conference proceedings no good…) (undo)
  184. (cur | prev) 17:14, 19 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,088 bytes) (+34)‎ . . (Summary of evidence for cold fusion: proper attribution is important.) (undo)
  185. (cur | prev) 16:44, 19 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,054 bytes) (-795)‎ . . (numberings removed as points which are not verified by outside sources. See WP:REDFLAG.) (undo)
  186. (cur | prev) 03:58, 5 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,007 bytes) (-766)‎ . . (Undid revision 223662707 by Seicer (talk) all discussed on talk page, until Seicer removed my comment. Bad admin, no doughnut.) (undo)
  187. (cur | prev) 03:46, 5 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,007 bytes) (-766)‎ . . (Undid revision 223308991 by Seicer (talk) rv disruptive edit.) (undo)
  188. (cur | prev) 15:27, 2 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,007 bytes) (-766)‎ . . (Undid revision 223092809 by Pcarbonn (talk) mediation will not work. Must protect mainstream status) (undo)
  189. (cur | prev) 22:54, 1 July 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (64,741 bytes) (-1,032)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 220877417 by Noren; an obviously better version. Pcarbonn’s edit summary misleading: it was not established in talk AT ALL>. (TW)) (undo)
  190. (cur | prev) 17:48, 21 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,616 bytes) (-762)‎ . . (I believe Pierre does not have consensus for reinstating these controversial points.) (undo)
  191. (cur | prev) 03:12, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (64,205 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (Quick-adding category “Electrolysis” (using HotCat)) (undo)
  192. (cur | prev) 03:12, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (64,179 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (Removed category “Physics”; Quick-adding category “Nuclear physics” (using HotCat)) (undo)
  193. (cur | prev) 03:11, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (64,171 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (Quick-adding category “Nuclear fusion” (using HotCat)) (undo)
  194. (cur | prev) 03:10, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (64,143 bytes) (+34)‎ . . (Quick-adding category “Pathological science” (using HotCat)) (undo)
  195. (cur | prev) 03:09, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,109 bytes) (+24)‎ . . (Nuclear transmutations:attribute appropriately.) (undo)
  196. (cur | prev) 03:08, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,085 bytes) (-522)‎ . . (Nuclear transmutations: fix some soapboxing.) (undo)
  197. (cur | prev) 03:04, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (64,607 bytes) (-462)‎ . . (Nuclear products: fix some soapboxing (also removed from the above paragraph!) (undo)
  198. (cur | prev) 03:02, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,069 bytes) (-413)‎ . . (Summary of evidence for cold fusion: fix some soap boxing. Number of experiments, duration of excess heat all irrelevant to the main point of the article.) (undo)
  199. (cur | prev) 02:58, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,482 bytes) (-201)‎ . . (Summary of evidence for cold fusion: the rest of the stuff is irrelevant grandstanding. See WP:SOAP.) (undo)
  200. (cur | prev) 02:55, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,683 bytes) (-145)‎ . . (Summary of evidence for cold fusion: this is mentioned and reference above. Please do not repeat.) (undo)
  201. (cur | prev) 02:54, 20 June 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,828 bytes) (-52)‎ . . (Recent developments: the enumeration is inappropriate since the reports are met with skepticism.) (undo)
  202. (cur | prev) 22:50, 2 January 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,892 bytes) (-568)‎ . . (this, to me, seems a bit more neutral. Also we shouldn’t be citing newsgroup postings.) (undo)
  203. (cur | prev) 22:33, 2 January 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,210 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (some more fixes…) (undo)
  204. (cur | prev) 22:32, 2 January 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,184 bytes) (+38)‎ . . (as to) (undo)
  205. (cur | prev) 22:31, 2 January 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,146 bytes) (-42)‎ . . (some fixes to the lead…)(undo)
  206. (cur | prev) 22:29, 2 January 2008‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,400 bytes) (-5,921)‎ . . (Experimental reports: I don’t see consensus on the talkpage for this section to be written like this. Workshop it if you must…) (undo)
  207. (cur | prev) 15:15, 28 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,010 bytes) (+675)‎ . . (Arguments in the controversy: trying to explain the context.) (undo)
  208. (cur | prev) 15:09, 28 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,335 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (Current understanding of nuclear process: make this more neutral. Some theoreticians on cold fusion simply say it cannot happen.) (undo)
  209. (cur | prev) 08:41, 27 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,168 bytes) (-553)‎ . . (Undid revision 180390497 by Pcarbonn (talk) controversies in the field not specified…) (undo)
  210. (cur | prev) 08:02, 27 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,168 bytes) (-76)‎ . . (no.. it wasn’t to resolve the controversy necessarily.) (undo)
  211. (cur | prev) 00:15, 27 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,946 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (speculative existence instead of scientific…) (undo)
  212. (cur | prev) 00:12, 27 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (26,943 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Continuing efforts: rm space) (undo)
  213. (cur | prev) 00:11, 27 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,944 bytes) (+88)‎ . . (explain how they are non-mainstream…) (undo)
  214. (cur | prev) 00:05, 27 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,856 bytes) (-506)‎ . . (Reproducibility of the result: not relevant since this article appeared in 1990 and it is now 2007.) (undo)
  215. (cur | prev) 23:54, 26 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,207 bytes) (-5,921)‎ . . (Experimental reports: removing to talk. This is just speculation and innuendo without balance…) (undo)
  216. (cur | prev) 23:12, 26 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,124 bytes) (-609)‎ . . (Undid revision 180324810 by Pcarbonn (talk) Wired is not a reliable source for what kind of papers are published) (undo)
  217. (cur | prev) 22:55, 26 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,099 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (linking) (undo)
  218. (cur | prev) 22:54, 26 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,064 bytes) (-510)‎ . . (making NPOV. The wired article seems a bit like pandering and sensationalism.) (undo)
  219. (cur | prev) 21:46, 26 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,436 bytes) (-40)‎ . . (fixing some NPOV problems.) (undo)
  220. (cur | prev) 18:26, 26 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,575 bytes) (-3,816)‎ . . (Continuing efforts:removing as beating a dead horse;;; see talk.) (undo)
  221. (cur | prev) 02:07, 24 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,678 bytes) (+24)‎ . . (what loony toon says it’s a “protoscience”?) (undo)
  222. (cur | prev) 02:06, 24 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,654 bytes) (-145)‎ . . (Books: infinite energy press is a vanity press. Removed. + catg) (undo)
  223. (cur | prev) 17:37, 21 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,314 bytes) (-108)‎ . . (remove LENR-CANR links per concerns on talk) (undo)
  224. (cur | prev) 15:30, 13 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,819 bytes) (-5,759)‎ . . (the overview section seemed to have a lot of POV-problems. Also, Happer’s quote is referenced.) (undo)
  225. (cur | prev) 19:53, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,654 bytes) (-49,932)‎ . . (rv — Wikipedia is notcensored..) (undo)
  226. (cur | prev) 16:47, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,654 bytes) (+63)‎ . . (References: better bibliography) (undo)
  227. (cur | prev) 16:45, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,591 bytes) (-44,567)‎ . . (rv to the featured version per talk. There is no requirement to accept mediation in order for us to have a better version up.) (undo)
  228. (cur | prev) 16:43, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,158 bytes) (-859)‎ . . (Websites: removing unreliable resources..) (undo)
  229. (cur | prev) 16:42, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,017 bytes) (-952)‎ . . (News: removing unreliable sources…) (undo)
  230. (cur | prev) 16:41, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,969 bytes) (-211)‎ . . (Video: removing unreliable sources…) (undo)
  231. (cur | prev) 16:40, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,180 bytes) (-407)‎ . . (Repositories: removed unreliable sources..) (undo)
  232. (cur | prev) 16:40, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,587 bytes) (-358)‎ . . (Journals and publications: not reliable sources) (undo)
  233. (cur | prev) 16:39, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,945 bytes) (-1,971)‎ . . (Reports and reviews: repositories of LENR-CANR, newenergytimes, and infinite energy removed as soapboxing.) (undo)
  234. (cur | prev) 16:38, 10 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,916 bytes) (-670)‎ . . (Other books: removed: they are not reliable sources.) (undo)
  235. (cur | prev) 18:27, 7 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,180 bytes) (-36,533)‎ . . (rv — one thing at a time, Ron.) (undo)
  236. (cur | prev) 19:06, 6 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,237 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (some factual accuracy is also disputed per talk…) (undo)
  237. (cur | prev) 16:03, 6 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,307 bytes) (-570)‎ . . (Undid revision 176156475 by (talk) see talk. These references are not reliable sources…) (undo)
  238. (cur | prev) 14:22, 6 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,307 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (claims of a new energy source… not just attempts….) (undo)
  239. (cur | prev) 14:21, 6 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,316 bytes) (-1,196)‎ . . (the revert was unjustied on talk. Going back, back, back, back….) (undo)
  240. (cur | prev) 02:06, 6 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,276 bytes) (-1,226)‎ . . (let’s keep this version up, shall we?) (undo)
  241. (cur | prev) 21:45, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,276 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (Bibliography: publishing date.) (undo)
  242. (cur | prev) 21:43, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,270 bytes) (-199)‎ . . (See also: removing redundant links…) (undo)
  243. (cur | prev) 21:42, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,469 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Bibliography: italics…)(undo)
  244. (cur | prev) 21:42, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,465 bytes) (-580)‎ . . (Bibliography: do it this way, if you want.) (undo)
  245. (cur | prev) 21:39, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,045 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (a bit more explanation of what is hoped for.) (undo)
  246. (cur | prev) 21:36, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,042 bytes) (+66)‎ . . (better explanation of what this thing is.) (undo)
  247. (cur | prev) 21:35, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,976 bytes) (+65)‎ . . (fix???) (undo)
  248. (cur | prev) 21:32, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,781 bytes) (+205)‎ . . (here’s a reference for this…) (undo)
  249. (cur | prev) 14:43, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,570 bytes) (-78)‎ . . (See also: removing articles already linked above.) (undo)
  250. (cur | prev) 14:19, 5 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,718 bytes) (-713)‎ . . (Undid revision 175874976 by Seicer (talk) rationale is on talkpage. Meatpuppets should not act without discussing on talk.) (undo)
  251. (cur | prev) 20:08, 4 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,589 bytes) (-3,599)‎ . . (Theory: responses by Cold Fusion theorists are all either essentially original research or contradicted by simple tests. See talk.) (undo)
  252. (cur | prev) 19:54, 4 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (76,188 bytes) (-648)‎ . . (revert and some things to include on the talkpage…) (undo)
  253. (cur | prev) 16:18, 4 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (76,135 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (Journals and publications: these aren’t really “journals”) (undo)
  254. (cur | prev) 16:16, 4 December 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (76,149 bytes) (-652)‎ . . (Bibliography: removing references to self-published books. See talk…) (undo)
  255. (cur | prev) 15:23, 28 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,364 bytes) (-517)‎ . . (Bibliography: Pacific Oaks Press not a mainstream publishing outfit. Simply making a presentation at a conference does not make one’s self-published book a reliable source.) (undo)
  256. (cur | prev) 15:22, 28 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,881 bytes) (-309)‎ . . (Repositories: not a reliable website. Removed…) (undo)
  257. (cur | prev) 13:56, 27 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,896 bytes) (-1,554)‎ . . (rv inconsiderate revert. These sources were not agreed by consensus to be reliable and there has been no explanation how they are reliable.)(undo)
  258. (cur | prev) 19:56, 26 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (73,338 bytes) (-859)‎ . . (Websites: Removing non-notable websites. See WP:WEB/) (undo)
  259. (cur | prev) 19:53, 26 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,197 bytes) (-168)‎ . . (Bibliography: Self-published source not asserting notability removed.) (undo)
  260. (cur | prev) 19:53, 26 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,365 bytes) (-235)‎ . . (Bibliography: not a strong enough case made for notability. Please find where this is cited by mainstream third-parties as a reliable sourceand we’ll reinclude it.) (undo)
  261. (cur | prev) 19:52, 26 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,600 bytes) (-139)‎ . . (Bibliography: not asserting notability and self published = removed) (undo)
  262. (cur | prev) 19:51, 26 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,739 bytes) (-168)‎ . . (Bibliography: Self-published source not asserting notability removed.) (undo)
  263. (cur | prev) 19:40, 26 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,768 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (no indication that one is proper and the other isn’t.) (undo)
  264. (cur | prev) 19:23, 26 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,500 bytes) (-139)‎ . . (Bibliography: removing unreliable source) (undo)
  265. (cur | prev) 19:20, 26 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,639 bytes) (-275)‎ . . (Inaccurate and the source used is not reliable for reporting on condensed matter physics.) (undo)
  266. (cur | prev) 17:35, 12 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,480 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (attribution is important…)(undo)
  267. (cur | prev) 17:34, 12 November 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,461 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (mixed success is not NPOV. The results are “mixed” with both positive and negative results (mixed success and mixed failure)) (undo)
  268. (cur | prev) 03:23, 25 March 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,416 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (Bibliography: perfect cat)(undo)
  269. (cur | prev) 00:45, 25 March 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,390 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (subst.) (undo)
  270. (cur | prev) 00:44, 25 March 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,392 bytes) (+409)‎ . . (subst to replace with a proper tagging.) (undo)
  271. (cur | prev) 00:44, 25 March 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,983 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (one good argument deserves another.) (undo)
  272. (cur | prev) 19:30, 24 March 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (71,099 bytes) (+9)‎ . . (POV issues (again)) (undo)
  273. (cur | prev) 03:18, 23 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,348 bytes) (-474)‎ . . (rvt — tsk, tsk, Pcarbonn, the DoE was not charged with determining whether CF was a fringe theory. According to Wikipedia, however, it is definitely under the purview of WP:FRINGE.) (undo)
  274. (cur | prev) 20:37, 22 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,348 bytes) (-474)‎ . . (That the articles were “peer reviewed” is not sufficient criterion for inclusion. See WP:FRINGE) (undo)
  275. (cur | prev) 12:40, 22 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,156 bytes) (-167)‎ . . (removing laundry list of articles. Not a good technique to simply list journals since the content of the article is unevaluated.) (undo)
  276. (cur | prev) 17:38, 21 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,602 bytes) (-644)‎ . . (removing the publications bit since they are obviously opinionated lists and don’t evaluate content of the articles or vet them for criticism.) (undo)
  277. (cur | prev) 17:38, 21 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,602 bytes) (-644)‎ . . (removing the publications bit since they are obviously opinionated lists and don’t evaluate content of the articles or vet them for criticism.) (undo)
  278. (cur | prev) 08:46, 21 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,219 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Reproducibility of the result:more neutral attribution.) (undo)
  279. (cur | prev) 08:44, 21 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,225 bytes) (-1,196)‎ . . (rv POV-pushing. This paragraph only contains information from “one side” — the minority — and presents it as fact.) (undo)
  280. (cur | prev) 16:55, 20 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,509 bytes) (-538)‎ . . (Quote is a basic appeal to authority and doesn’t belong in a neutral article on a subject. Comparisons that scientists want to make of cold fusion to other technologies are not subject indicative.) (undo)
  281. (cur | prev) 10:01, 20 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,509 bytes) (-538)‎ . . (Reproducibility of the result: poor, non-sequitor quotemine.) (undo)
  282. (cur | prev) 15:23, 18 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (65,952 bytes) (-1,198)‎ . . (Moving beyond the initial controversy: removing questionable enumeration reporting to talk.) (undo)
  283. (cur | prev) 20:56, 9 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (66,989 bytes) (-287)‎ . . (tightening. Since the prior panel also recommended research, the caveat was inappropriate. As of 2007 statement is throwaway.) (undo)
  284. (cur | prev) 20:34, 9 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,204 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (only one member.) (undo)
  285. (cur | prev) 20:03, 9 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,221 bytes) (-409)‎ . . (rv — I see no consensus for this on talk) (undo)
  286. (cur | prev) 15:38, 6 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,221 bytes) (-212)‎ . . (I’m not sure about libel here? — see talk.) (undo)
  287. (cur | prev) 19:40, 5 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,221 bytes) (-213)‎ . . (New Energy times is not a reliable source for who is and isn’t working on Cold Fusion. Sorry.) (undo)
  288. (cur | prev) 19:38, 5 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,434 bytes) (-233)‎ . . (not a fair summary.) (undo)
  289. (cur | prev) 19:38, 5 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,667 bytes) (-120)‎ . . (report in peer reviewed journals is a contested appeal to authority.) (undo)
  290. (cur | prev) 22:25, 3 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,058 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (cleaner?) (undo)
  291. (cur | prev) 22:25, 3 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,030 bytes) (-874)‎ . . (removing spoonfed lead.)(undo)
  292. (cur | prev) 22:20, 3 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,904 bytes) (+20)‎ . . (obviously, this is not going anywhere. Totally disputed this per talk.) (undo)
  293. (cur | prev) 19:57, 3 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,621 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (new category) (undo)
  294. (cur | prev) 16:07, 3 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,555 bytes) (+193)‎ . . (this is an earlier panel reference.) (undo)
  295. (cur | prev) 15:55, 3 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,550 bytes) (+179)‎ . . (rv per talk.) (undo)
  296. (cur | prev) 15:32, 3 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,550 bytes) (-321)‎ . . (NPOVing lead.) (undo)
  297. (cur | prev) 15:29, 3 January 2007‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,871 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (no indication that all these “researchers” are actually scientists) (undo)
  298. (cur | prev) 13:47, 4 November 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,046 bytes) (-137)‎ . . (removal of vague and one-sided statement. Replace it with a more balanced one if you like.) (undo)
  299. (cur | prev) 12:48, 30 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,418 bytes) (-216)‎ . . (removing unreferenced commentary.) (undo)
  300. (cur | prev) 14:21, 5 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,809 bytes) (+2,823)‎ . . (please don’t revert, discuss on talk!) (undo)
  301. (cur | prev) 14:17, 5 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,093 bytes) (+3,107)‎ . . (removing pejorative pseudoscience claim. However, much of the rest of the removals don’t seem to be justified.) (undo)
  302. (cur | prev) 00:13, 3 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (33,701 bytes) (-20,694)‎ . . (no need to revert, just include some references!) (undo)
  303. (cur | prev) 09:33, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,671 bytes) (-54)‎ . . (Continuing efforts: The numbers aren’t exactly verifiable here.) (undo)
  304. (cur | prev) 09:19, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,725 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Continuing efforts: linking differently.) (undo)
  305. (cur | prev) 09:18, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,730 bytes) (+859)‎ . . (Continuing efforts: DOE inclusion.) (undo)
  306. (cur | prev) 08:29, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,871 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (notes and references now included!) (undo)
  307. (cur | prev) 08:27, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,845 bytes) (+425)‎ . . (and now cited.) (undo)
  308. (cur | prev) 08:20, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,420 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (adding fact tag) (undo)
  309. (cur | prev) 07:39, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,391 bytes) (-37,461)‎ . . (edits were explained on talk. Since you have no explanation for your edits the onus is on you to begin to talk as per the WP:BRD cycle.) (undo)
  310. (cur | prev) 07:30, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,391 bytes) (-37,461)‎ . . (no, YOU see talk. This article is being rewritten from the bottom up. Explain edits one-by-one on talk.) (undo)
  311. (cur | prev) 06:35, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (23,982 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (wikilink room temp/pressure, include technological as a modifier to practicality.) (undo)
  312. (cur | prev) 06:33, 1 October 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,963 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (adjective is theoretical I think.)(undo)
  313. (cur | prev) 14:56, 30 September 2006‎ ජපස (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,146 bytes) (-36,088)‎ . . (rv to featured version.) (undo)

Lewan was there, where was the Pony?

Lewan has blogged a report on the Rossi DPS (Dog and Pony Show).

Reflections on the Nov 24 E-Cat QX demo in Stockholm

Mats has become Mr. Sunshine for Rossi. His report on the Settlement Agreement bought and reported without challenge Rossi’s preposterous claims, and it appears that he has never read the strong evidence that Rossi lied, lied, and lied again, evidence presented in Rossi v. Darden as sworn testimony, Rossi’s own emails, etc.

So what do we have here?

Rossi … asked me if I would take the role as the presenter at the event. I accepted on the condition that I would not be responsible for overseeing the measurements (which were instead overseen by Eng. William S. Hurley, with a background working in nuclear plants and at refineries).

Rossi loves experts with a nuclear background, which will commonly give them practically no preparation to assess a LENR device, but it’s impressive to the clueless. See [JONP May 13, 2015] Mr. Hurley apparently falls into reporting Rossi Says as fact without attribution, I’ll come to that.

Although I would not oversee the measurements, I wanted to make sure that the test procedure was designed in a way that would give a minimum of relevant information.

He succeeded, it was a minimum or even less! As to input power, at least. In fact, there are indications from the test that the QX is producing no significant excess heat.

(I think he meant to write “at least a minimum,” but “minimum” in a context like this implies “as little as possible.” He needs an editor.)

From my point of view, already from the start, it was clear that the demo would not be a transparent scientific experiment with all details provided, but precisely a demonstration by an inventor who decided what kind of details to disclose. However, to make it meaningful, a minimum of values and measurements had to be shown.

Mats compares the demo to an extreme, a “transparent scientific experiment.” Given a reasonable need for secrecy, under some interpretations of the IP situation, that wouldn’t happen at this point, Mats is correct on that. However, by holding up that extreme for comparison, Mats justifies and allows what is not even an interesting commercial demonstration, an indication of significant XP, but only a DPS where XP appears if one squints and ignores available evidence. Mats is making the best of a bad show. Why does he do this?

On one hand, I may think that it’s unfortunate that Rossi chooses to avoid some important measurements, fearing that they would reveal too much information to competitors. On the other hand, I may understand him, provided that he moves along quickly to get a product to market, which seems to be his intention at this point.

Rossi could have arranged for measurement of the input power, easily, without any revelation of legitimate secrets.

Rossi could have been selling power, not to mention actual devices, years ago. Rossi has claimed to be moving to market for six years, but only one sale is known, to IH, in 2012, delivered in 2013, which returned the sold plant (and the technology, which, if real, would be worth billions, easily) to him as worthless in 2017. Rossi is looking for customers for heating power, he claims. If his technology has been as claimed, he could readily have had totally convincing demonstrations in place, delivering real heat, as measured and paid for by the customers, but instead chose to try to fake such a sale in Doral, Florida, essentially to himself, with measurements as arranged and reported by … Rossi.

Lewan here reports Rossi’s motives as if fact. He’s telling an old story that made some sense five years ago, perhaps, but that stopped making sense once Rossi sued Industrial Heat and the facts came out.

Lewan presents a pdf with an outline of Gullstrom’s theory.  This is like many LENR theory papers: attempting to answer a general question, regarding LENR, how could it be happening? There have been hundreds of such efforts. None have been experimentally verified through prediction and confirmation. Such “success” as exists has been post-hoc. I.e., theories have been crafted to “explain” results. This, however, is not the scientific purpose of theory, which is to predict. There is no clue in the Gullstrom theory that it is actually connected with experimental results in any falsifiable  way.

Page 6 of the pdf:

Main theory in 3 steps
Short on other theories
Comparision theory to experiment

In “Experiment” he has, p. 34:


Energy production without strong radiation.
Isotopic shifts
Positive ion current through air

He does not title his references, I am doing that here, and I am correcting links:

7. The Lugano Report
8. K. A. Alabin, S. N. Andreev, A. G. Parkhomov. Results of Analyses of the
Isotopic and Elemental Composition of Nickel- Hydrogen Fuel Reactors. The link provided to a googledrive copy is dead. There are similar papers here and here.
9. Nucleon polarizability and long range strong force from σI=2 meson exchange potential, Carl-Oscar Gullström, Andrea Rossi, arXiv.

There is a vast array of experimental reports on LENR. The lack of high-energy gamma radiation is widely reported, but it is crucial in such reports that significant excess heat be present. The Lugano report showed no radiation, and showed isotopic shifts, and a later analysis at Upsalla showed the same shifts, but in both cases, the sample was provided by Rossi, not independently taken.

With the Lugano report, the measurement of heat was badly flawed; there was no real control experiment, and the Lugano reactor was made by Industrial Heat, which later found major calorimetry errors in the Rossi approach (used at Lugano), and when these errors were corrected, that design did not work.

Parkhomov considered his own work “replication” of Rossi, but he was only following up on a vague idea that nickel powder plus LiAlH4 would generate excess heat. His first reported experiment was badly flawed, and the full evidence, (what was available) showed no significant excess heat. He went on, but his claims of XP have never been confirmed, in spite of extensive efforts. And the heat he reported became miniscule, compared with Rossi claims.

And then Gullstrom cites his own paper, co-authored with Rossi, which includes an “experimental report” which was similar to the DPS, making the same blunders or omissions (or fraudulent representations). And all this has been widely criticized, which critiques Gullstrom ignores.

None of this is actually connected with the theory. The theory is general and vague.  The only new claim here is:

Positive ion current

New experimental observation: Li/H ratio in plasma is related to
output energy.
Output power is created when negative ions changes to positive ion
kinetic energy in a current.
Neutral plasma→ number and speed of positive and negative ions
that enters the plasma are the same.
COP: Kinetic energy of positive ions/kinetic energy of negative ions.
Non relativistic kinetic energy:

Σ(m+v2/2) / Σ(mv2/2)
♦ Neutral plasma gives: Σ(v+2/2) = Σ(v2/)

This seems to be nonsense. First of all, he has the kinetic energy of the positive current as the sum of the kinetic energy of the positive ions, which will be the sum of, for each ion, mass times velocity squared divided by two. But he appears to divide this by the kinetic energy of the negative ions. The positive ions would be protons, plus vaporized metals. The negative ions would be electrons, for the most part. much lighter. The velocities will depend on the voltages, if we are talking about net current. The voltage is not reported.

Then with a neutral plasma (forget about non-neutral plasmas, the charge balance under experimental conditions is almost exactly equal), he eliminates the mass factor. Sum of velocities is meaningless. The relationship he gives is insane … unless I am drastically missing something!

♦ COP is related to m+/m i.e. in the range mLi/me= 14000 to mH/me= 2000.

So he is “relating” COP to the ratio of the mass of the positive ions to the mass of the electron. Of course, this would have no relationship to most LENR, because “plasma” LENR is almost an oxymoron. This relationship certainly does not follow from the “experimental evidence.” But then the kicker:

Measured COP in the doral test are in the range of thousands.
Li/H ratio are reduced with the COP.

This is rank speculation on Gullstrom’s part. The “Doral test” was extensively examined in Rossi v. Darden. The test itself was fraudulently set up. Rossi refused to allow access to the test to IH engineering, even though they owned the reactor and had an agreement allowing them to visit at any time. And had the COP actually been as high as is claimed here, the building would have been uninhabitable, if there were no heat exchanger, which would have been working hard, noisy, and quite visible, but nobody saw it. Rossi originally explained the heat dissipation with explanations that didn’t work, so, eventually, faced with legal realities, he invented the heat exchanger story, and I’m quite sure a jury would have so concluded, and Rossi might have been prosecuted for perjury.

He avoided that by agreeing to settle with a walk-away, giving up what he had claimed (three times $89 million). This is legal evidence, not exactly scientific, but it’s relevant when one wants to rely on results that were almost certainly fraudulent. Mats has avoided actually studying the case documents, it appears. Like many on Planet Rossi, he sets aside all that human legal bullshit and wants to see the measurements. Except he doesn’t get the measurements needed. At all.

Before a detailed theoretical analysis is worth the effort, there must be reliable experimental evidence of an effect. That evidence does exist for other LENR effects, not the so-called “Rossi Effect.” The exact conditions of the Rossi Effect, if it exists at all, are secret. Supposedly they were fully disclosed to Industrial Heat, but IH found those disclosures useless, in spite of years of effort, supposedly fully assisted by Rossi.

COP was not measured in the DPS. The estimate that was used in the Gullstrom-Rossi paper is radically incorrect. Indications are that actual COP in the DPS may have been close to 1. I.e.., no excess heat. The reason is that there was obviously significant input power not measured, it would be the stimulation power that would strike the plasma. That this was significant is indicated by the needed control box cooling. There is, then, no support for Gullstrom’s theory in the DPS. To my mind, given the massively flawed basis, it’s not worth the effort of further study.

Back to Lewan:

However, if I were an investor considering to invest in this technology, I would require further private tests being made with accurate measurements made by third-party experts, specifically regarding the electrical input power, making such tests in a way that these experts would consider to be relevant. (See also UPDATE 3 on electrical power measurement below).

Lewan is disclaiming responsibility. He seems to be completely unaware of the actual and documented history of Rossi and Industrial Heat. Rossi simply refuses, and has long refused, to allow such independent examination. He’s walked away from major possible investments when this was attempted. He claimed in his previous Lewan interview that he completely trusted Industrial Heat. But he didn’t. It became obvious.

I would place stronger requirements on such testing by investors. The history at this point is enough that an investor is probably quite foolish to waste money on obtaining that expertise, the probability of Rossi Reality is that low. I would suggest to any investor that they first thoroughly investigate the history of Rossi claims and his relationships with investors who attempted to support him. Lewan really should study the Hydro Fusion test that he documented in his book, there are Rossi v. Darden documents that give a very different picture than what Rossi told Lewan and Hydro Fusion.

Rossi Lies.

And “experts” have managed to make huge errors, working with Rossi.

The claims of the E-Cat QX are:

He means “for,” not “of,” since reactors do not make claims.

– volume ≈ 1 cm3
– thermal output 10-30 W
– negligible input control power
– internal temperature > 2,600° C
– no radiation above background

– at the demo, a cluster of three reactors was tested.

This is all Rossi Says. Some of it may be true. It’s likely there was no radiation above background, for example. In any case, Lewan is correct. These are “claims.”

“Control power” is not defined. Plasma stimulation is an aspect of control power, and was not measured, and was obviously not “negligible.” The current that was actually measured was probably a sense current, not “control.”

If a voltage sufficient to strike a plasma was applied (easily it could be 200 V or more), the ionization in the plasma will reduce resistance (though not generally to the effectively zero resistance Rossi claims) and high current will flow at least momentarily. If there is device inductance, that current — and heating — may continue even after the high voltage is removed. (If the power supply is not properly protected, this could burn it out.)

The test procedure contained two parts—thermal output power and electrical input power from the control system—essentially a black box with an unknown design, connected to the grid.

Always, before, total input power was measured. It was certainly measured in Doral! — but also in all other Rossi demonstrations. (And sometimes it was measured incorrectly, Lewan knows that.) Here, Rossi not only doesn’t measure total input power, which easily could have been done without revealing secrets (unless the secret is, of course, a deliberate attempt to create fraudulent impressions), but he also does not measure the output power of the control box, being fed to the QX. This is, then, completely hopeless.

Measuring the thermal output power was fairly straightforward: Water was pumped from a vessel with cold water, flowing into a heat exchanger around the E-Cat QX reactor, being heated without boiling, and then flowing into a vessel where the total amount of water was weighed using a digital scale.

So far, this appears to be reasonable. I have no reason to doubt the heating numbers. The issue is not that. By the way, this simple calorimetry wasn’t done before. Many had called for it. So, finally, Rossi uses sensible calorimetry — and then removes other information necessary to understand what’s going on.

A second method for determining the output power was planned—measuring the radiated light spectrum from the reactor, using Wien’s Displacement Law to determine the temperature inside the reactor from the wavelength with the maximum intensity in the spectrum, and then, Stefan-Boltzmann Law for calculating the radiated power from the temperature.

These two results would be compared to each other at the demo, but unfortunately, the second method didn’t work well under the conditions at the demo, with too much light disturbing the measurement.

Rossi Says. In fact, the method is badly flawed, even if it had worked. Lewan does not mention the theoretical problems, or, at least, the arguments made. The Gullstrom-Rossi paper has been criticized on this basis.

The method for measuring electrical input power was more problematic. The total consumption of the control system could not be used, since the system, according to Rossi, was using active cooling to reduce overheating inside, due to a complex electrical design.

Understatement. Even if “active cooling” was used — a fan in the control box — total consumption could have been measured, it would have supplied an upper limit. It was not shown, likely because that upper limit was well above the measured power output. All that was necessary to avoid the problem, to reduce the measured input power to that actually input to the reactor — which would then heat the reactor — would be to actually measure input voltages, including RMS AC voltage with adequate tools. If that data were sensitive, this could have been done with a competent expert, under NDA. But Rossi does not do that. Ever.

The “complex electrical design” was obviously to operate in two phases: a stable phase, with low power input to the reactor, and a stimulation phase, requiring high voltage and power. The supposed low input power was during the stable phase, the stimulation phase was ignored and not measured. There are oscilloscope displays indicating, clearly, that AC power was involved, not just the measured DC power.

[Update 4]: One hypothesis for the overheating issue is that the reactor produces an electrical feedback that will be dissipated inside the control system and has to be cooled [end update]

There is no end to the bullshit that can be invented to “explain” Rossi nonsense. It would be trivial to design a system so that power produced in the device would be dissipated in the device (i.e., in components within the calorimetric envelope). Any inductor, when a magnetic field is set up, will generate back-EMF as the field collapses, which, to avoid burning out other components, will be dissipated in a snubber circuit.

This problem actually indicates possible high inductance, which would not be expected solely from the plasma device. However, to imagine a “real problem” with a “real device” that, say, creates a current from some weird physics inside, this could be handled quite the same. Voltage is voltage and current is current and they don’t care how they were generated.

Otherwise the high power supply dissipation is from what it takes to create those fast, high-energy pulses that strike the plasma — and, a nifty side-effect — heat the device, while appearing to be negligible, because they only happen periodically.

At this point of R&D of the system, the total energy consumption of the system is therefore at the same order of magnitude as the released amount of energy from the reactor, and it, therefore, makes no sense to measure the consumption of the control system. Obviously, this must be solved, making a control system which is optimised, in order to achieve a commercially viable product.

Right. So 6 years after Rossi announced he had a 1 MW reactor for sale, and after he has announced that he’s not going to make more of those plants, but is focusing solely on the QX, which he has been developing for about two years, he is not even close. That power supply problem, if real, could easily have been resolved. And it was not actually necessary to solve it at this point! Measuring the input to the power supply would not have revealed secrets (except the Big Secret: Rossi has Zilch!), so this was not a reason to not measure it. Sure, it would not have been conclusive, but it would have been a fuller disclosure, eliminating unnecessary speculation. Rossi wants unnecessary speculation, it confuses, and Rossi wants confusion.

And then actual device input power could have been measured in ways that would not compromise possible commercial secrets. After all, he is claiming that it is “negligible.” (Negligible control power probably means negligible control, by the way, a problem in the opposite direction. But I can imagine a way that control power might be very low. It’s not really relevant now.)

Instead, the aim was to measure the power consumption of the reactor itself. Using Joule’s law (P=UI), electrical power is calculated multiplying voltage across some device with the current flowing through the device. However, Rossi didn’t want to measure the voltage across the reactor, claiming that it would reveal sensible information.

“The aim.” Whose aim? This is one way to measure input power. It is not the only way. In any case, this was was not used, because “Rossi didn’t want to.” A measurement observed by an expert, using sound methods — which could be documented — need not reveal sensitive information. But this would require Rossi to trust someone also trusted by others. That is apparently an empty set. I doubt he would trust Lewan. There are also ways that would only show average power. Any electronics engineer could suggest them. Quite simply, this is not a difficult problem.

He would measure the current by putting a 1-ohm resistance in series with the reactor and measuring the voltage across the resistance with an oscilloscope, then calculate the current from Ohm’s law (U=RI), dividing the voltage by the resistance (being 1 ohm). Accepting to use an oscilloscope was good since this would expose the waveform, and also because strange waveforms and high frequencies would make measurements with an ordinary voltmeter not reliable.

This is simply an ordinary current measurement. The oscilloscope is good, if the oscilloscope displays are clearly shown. A digital storage scope would properly be used, with high bandwidth. Lewan is aware that an “ordinary voltmeter” is inadequate. Especially when they are only measuring DC!

But, as mentioned, knowing the current is not enough. Rossi’s claim was that when operating, the reactor had a plasma inside with a resistance similar to that of an ordinary conductor—close to zero. Electrically this means that the reactor would use a negligible amount of power, but it was just an assumption and I wanted to make it credible through other measurements.

This claim is itself quite remarkable. Plasmas exhibit negative resistance, i.e., resistance decreases with current (because the ionization increases so there are more charge carriers), but it does not go to “zero.” Consider an ordinary flourescent light tube. It’s a plasma device. Normal operating voltage is not enough to get it “started.” One it is started, with a high-voltage pulse, then it conducts. A normal tube is, say, 40W. At 120VAC, this would be about 1/3 A RMS. So the resistance is about 360 ohms. This is far from zero! But a very hot, dense plasma might indeed conduct very well, but how much energy does it take to create that? The measurement methods completely neglect that plasma creation energy.

The basic idea Rossi is promoting is that he creates a hot, dense plasma, and that it then self-heats from an internal reaction. That heating is not enough to maintain the necessary temperature, so it cools, until he stimulates it again. This takes an active control system that may sense the condition of the reactor. And that makes what Lewan suggests quite foolish!

My suggestion, which Rossi accepted, was to eliminate the reactor after the active run, replacing it first with a conductor, then with a resistance of about 800 ohms as a dummy, to see how the control system behaved. The conductor should provide a similar measurement value as with the reactor if the reactor behaved as a conductor. Using the 800-ohm resistance, on the other hand, should show whether the control system would possibly maintain the measured current, expected to be around 0.25A, with a higher resistance in the circuit. At 0.25A, a resistance of 800 ohms would consume about 50W, which would be dissipated as heat, and this could then explain the produced heat in the reactor without any reaction, just from electric heating.

The problem is that this is not a decent set of controls. The control system is designed to trigger a plasma device, which will have, before being triggered, very high resistance. Much higher than 800 ohms, I would expect. Lewan does not mention it, but the voltage he expected across the 800 ohm resistor would be 200 V. Dangerous. Lewan is looking for DC power. That’s not what is to be suspected.

By the way, an ordinary pocket neon AC tester can show voltages over 100 V. I would expect that one of those would light up if placed across the reactor, at least during triggering. Some of these are designed to approximately measure voltage.

Lewan is not considering the possibility of an active control system that will sense reactor current. His test would provide very little useful information. So the behavior he will see is not the behavior of the system under test.

[UPDATE 3]: I now think I understand why Rossi wouldn’t let us measure the voltage across the reactor. Rossi has described the E-Cat QX as two nickel electrodes with some distance between them, with the fuel inside, and that when the reactor is in operation, a plasma is formed between the electrodes.

Right. That is the description. What we don’t know is if there are other components inside the reactor, most notably, as a first-pass suspicion, an inductor and possibly some capacitance.

Most observers have concluded that a high voltage pulse of maybe 1kV is required to form the plasma.

Maybe less. At least, I’d think, 200 V.

Once the plasma is formed the resistance should decrease to almost zero and the control voltage immediately has to be reduced to a low value.

Yes. Or else very high current will flow and something may burn out. This is ordinary plasma electronics. “Almost zero” is vague. But it could be low. Rossi wants the plasma to get very hot. So the trigger pulse will be longer than necessary to simply strike the plasma. However, there may also be local energy storage, in an inductor and/or capacitor. A high current for a short time can be stored as energy, then this can be more slowly released.

Normally, and as claimed by Rossi, the plasma would have a resistance as that of a conductor,

Calling this “normal” is misleading. He would mean “when very hot.”

and the voltage across the reactor will then be much lower than the voltage across the 1-ohm resistor (measured to about 0.3V—see below). Measuring the voltage across the reactor will, therefore, be difficult:

Nonsense. It might take some sophistication. What Lewan is claiming here, is remarkable. This would be difficult to measure because of the high voltage!

The high voltage pulse risks destroying normal voltmeters and measuring the voltage with an oscilloscope will be challenging since you first have to capture the high voltage pulse at probably 1 kilovolt and then immediately after you would need to measure a voltage of maybe millivolts. [end update]

Lewan is befogged. We don’t really care about the “millivolts” though they could be measured. What we really care about is the power input with the high voltage pulse. The only function of that low voltage and the current in the “non-trigger” phase is to provide information back to the control unit about plasma state. When the input energy has been radiated — in this test, conducted away in the coolant — the plasma will cool and resistance will increase, and then the control box will generate another trigger. The power input during that cooling phase is negligible, as claimed.

But the power input during the triggers is not negligible, it is substantial, and, my conclusion, this is how the device heats the water.

That high voltage power could easily be measured with an oscilloscope, and with digital records using a digital storage oscilloscope. (Dual-channel, it could be set up to measure current and voltage simultaneously.) They are now cheap. (I don’t know about that Textronix scope. It could probably do this, though.)

At the demo, 1,000 grams of water was heated 20 degrees Celsius in one hour, meaning that the total energy released was 1,000 x 20 x 4.18 = 83,600J and the thermal power 83,600/3600 ≈ 23W.

The voltage across the 1-ohm resistor was about 0.3V (pulsed DC voltage at about 100kHz frequency), thus the current 0.3A. The power consumed by the resistor was then about 0.09W and if the reactor behaved as a conductor its power consumption would be much less.

I continue to be amazed that Planet Rossi calls “pulsed voltage” “DC.” What does 0.3 V mean? He gives a pulse frequency of 100 kHz. Is 0.3 V an average voltage or peak? Same with the current. And Lewan knows better, from his past criticism of Rossi, than to calculate power by multiplying voltage and current with other than actual DC. What is the duty cycle? What are the phase relationships?

Basically, this is an estimate of power consumption only in the non-trigger phase, ignoring the major power input to the reactor, enough power to heat it to very hot plasma temperatures and possibly to also create some continued heating for a short time.

Using a conductor as a dummy, the voltage across the 1-ohm resistance was about 0.4V, thus similar as with the reactor in the circuit. With the 800-ohm resistance, the voltage across the 1-ohm resistance was about 0.02V and the current thus about 0.02A. The power consumption of the 800-ohm resistance was then 0.02 x 0.02 x 800 ≈ 0.3W, thus much lower than the thermal power released by the reactor.

The power supply was operating in the non-trigger mode. The plasma at 800 ohms is still conductive. What happens as the resistance is increased? What I’d think of is putting a neon tester across the reactor and pulling the 800 ohms. I’d expect the tester to flash, showing high voltage. Unless, of course, someone changed the reactor programming (and there might be a switch to prevent unwanted triggers, which could, after all, knock someone touching this thing on their ass. Hopefully, that’s all.).

These dummy measurements can be interpreted in a series of ways, giving a COP (output power/input power) ranging from about 40 to tens of thousands. Unfortunately, no precise answer can be given regarding the COP with this method, but even counting the lowest estimate, it’s very high, indicating a power source that produces useful thermal power with a very small input power for controlling the system.

Lewan has not considered interpretations that are even likely, not merely possible. His “lowest estimate” completely neglects the elephant in this living room, the high voltage trigger power, which he knows he did not measure. Lewan’s interpretations here can mislead the ignorant. Not good.

At the demo, as seen in the video recording, Rossi was adjusting something inside the control system just before making the dummy measurements. Obviously, someone could wonder if he was changing the system in order to obtain a desired measured value.

His own answer was that he was opening an air intake after two hours of operation since the active cooling was not operating when the system was turned off.

It is always possible that an implausible explanation is true. But Rossi commonly does things like this, that will raise suspicions. Why was that air intake ever closed? Lewan takes implausible answers from Rossi and reports them. He never questions the implausibility.

My own interpretation here of what happened does not require any changes to the control box, so, under this hypothesis, Rossi messing around was just creating more smoke. Rossi agreed to the 800 ohm dummy because he knew it would show what it showed. The trigger resistance might be far higher than that. (But I have not worked out possibilities with an inductor. That circuit might be complex; we would not need to know the internals to measure reactor input power.)

There are many possibilities, and to know what actually happened requires more information than I have. But the need for control box active cooling is a strong indication of high power being delivered to the QX.

[Update 2]: Someone also saw Rossi touch a second switch close to the main switch used for turning on and off the system. Rossi explained that there were actually two main switches—one for the main circuit and one for the active cooling system—and that there were also other controls that he couldn’t explain in detail. [end update].

Clearly this comes down to a question of trust, and personally, discussing this detail with Rossi for some time, I have come to the conclusion that his explanation is reasonable and trustworthy.

That’s it. This is Lewan’s position. He trusts Rossi, who has shown a capacity for generating “explanations” that satisfy his targets enough that they don’t check further when they could.

Rossi appears, then, as a classic con artist, who is able to generate confidence, i.e., a “confidence man.” Contrary to common opinion, genuine con artists fool even quite smart people. They know how to manipulate impressions, “conclusions,” which are not necessarily rational, but emotional.

The explanation for touching the power supply might be entirely true, and Lewan correct in trusting that explanation, but this all distracted him from the elephant: that overworked control box! And then the trigger power. How could one ignore that? A Rossi Force Field?

Here below is the test report by William S. Hurley, as I received it from Rossi:

This part of this report is straightforward, and probably accurate.

Energy produced:  20 x 1.14 = 22.8 Wh/h

But I notice one thing: “Wh/h.” That is a Rossi trope. It is not that it is wrong, but I have never seen an American engineer use that language. Rossi always uses it. An American engineer not writing under Rossi domination would have written “average power: 22.8 W.” Or “energy produced: 22.8 Wh” (since the period was an hour). As written, it’s incorrect. Wh/h is a measure of power, not energy. It is a rate.

But this part of the report is bullshit, for all the reasons explained above:

Measurement of the energy consumed ( during the hour for 30′ no energy has been supplied to the E-Cat) :
V: 0.3
OHM: 1
A: 0.3
Wh/h 0.09/2= 0.045
Ratio between Energy Produced and energy consumed: 22.8/0.045 = 506.66

So this calculation uses the 50% (30 min out of 60) duty cycle stated (which was not shown in the test, as far as I have seen). Without that adjustment, a factor of two, the “input power” would be 90 mW. Again, “energy consumed” is incorrect. What is stated is average power, not energy. This shows lack of caution on the part of Hurley, if Hurley actually wrote that report.

But this totally neglects the trigger power, as if it didn’t exist. One could supply any waveform desired at 90 mW without a lot of additional power being necessary. Hurely presumably witnessed the triggers, they generated visible light. Does he think that was done at 0.3 V? On what planet?

(Planet Rossi, obviously.)

The energy “consumed” was not measured! How many times is it necessary to repeat this?

However, with a power supply with about 60W of active cooling, according to the Lewan slide, that the power supply was producing all the measured output power is plausible.

To sum up the demo, there were several details that were discussed, from the problematic electrical measurement to observations of Rossi touching something inside the control system just before an additional measurement was being made (see below). [Update 1]: It was also noted that the temperature of the incoming water was measured before the pump and that the pump could possibly add heat. However, the temperature did not raise at the beginning of the demo when only the pump was operating and not the reactor. Rossi also gave the pump to me after the demo so that I could dismantle it (will do that), together with a wooden block where a 1-ohm resistance was mounted, which he also advised me to cut through (will do that too). [End update].

The  touching and the pump issue were probably red herrings. But, yes, what where they thinking, measuring the temperature before the pump instead of after? One of the tricks of magicians is to allow full inspection of whatever is not a part of the actual trick. A skilled magician will sometimes deliberately create suspicion, then refute it.

In the end, I found that there were reasonable explanations for everything that occurred, and the result indicated a clear thermal output with a very small electrical input from the control system.

Lewan was aware of the problems, but then fooled himself with his useless dummy. Just a moment’s thought, it would take, to realize that there is energy going into the reactor, at high voltage, occasionally, and then this would make it very clear that the real input power wasn’t measured.


Ladies and Gentlemen, the QUA[R]CK-X!


Demonstration thread started November 15Start reading here, Alan posted before the DPS (Dog and Pony Show) started.



3 hours. As I write this, I have not yet viewed more than a little of it. I will be compiling links to specific times in this video, and will appreciate assistance with that. Above, by the headline and by “DPS”, I reveal my ready conclusion. I will be providing a basis for that, but, meanwhile, fact is fact and we need be careful not to confuse fact with conclusion.

Test methods

From this page:

Here are the slides that Mats Lewan used in the first segement of the E-Cat QX demonstration of November 24, 2017 in which he gave an introduction to the E-Cat QX and explained how the presentation was to proceed.

Unless he hedged this in the actual presentation (and I will edit this if I find that he did), Mats is responsible for this content.

Slide 1:


Third generation of the patented E-Cat technology:
A heat source built on a low energy nuclear reaction (LENR)
with a fuel based primarily on nickel, aluminum, hydrogen and
lithium, with no radiation and with no radioactive waste.

The fuel is “Rossi Says” [* is used below] “No radiation” is possibly controversial: many tests, however, have looked for radiation and found little or none.

Claims E-Cat QX:

I have numbered the claims, and brief comments:

1. volume ≈ 1 cm3 [plausible]
2. thermal output 10-30 W [plausible as dissipation in device]
3. negligible input control power [* not plausible]
4. internal temperature > 2,600° C [* unlikely]
5. no radiation above background [plausible]

Today: Cluster of 3 E-Cat QX

Slide 2: (diagram, shows water circulation)

Water reservoir -> K-probe  -> QX -> K-probe -> Water tank on scale

(This looks simple and solid. While a magician or fraud, given control of conditions, can create fake anything, if there is fraud here, it is probably not in this part of the test.)

Slide 3: (calculations)

Thermal output
W = mwater* Cp* ∆T
Cp water = 4.18 J/(g·K)
Pav = W/t

W is, misleadingly but harmlessly, in a common confusion in Rossi presentations, not wattage but energy, in watt-seconds or Joules. Average power, in watts, is then is the energy divided by the measurement interval.

Slide 4:

Thermal output

(diagram, QX light -> spectrometer)

Wien’s displacement law:
λmax = b/T or T = b/λmax
where b ≈ 2900 μm·K
Stefan–Boltzmann law:
P = AεσT4
A = area
ε = emissivity
σ ≈ 5.67 × 10−8 W/(m2⋅K4)

This is BS. The QX is allegedly a plasma device, and light from a plasma does not follow the laws for black-body radiation. Light can appear to be intense but the energy will be in narrow bands, characteristic of the plasma gas. This approach simply does not work. However, it is not actually a significant part of the test. A very small spot can be very hot, that does not show high overall power if the very hot region is small, with low mass, and, as well, if it is transient.

(Mats in the video claims that the device is “similar to a black body,” but no evidence is provided for that claim.)

Slide 5: (schematic diagram)

Electric input. [explanation at video 11:28)

Shown is AC line power (unmeasured) feeding a Direct Current source (the symbol for DC is used), incorporating a fan, “active cooling ca. 60 W”. Then the DC output is connected to a 1 ohm sense resistor, and there is a voltmeter across it. Then the other side of the resistor is connected to one terminal of the QX. There are two labels, overprinted, “0 Ω” and “800 Ω.” This refers to two conditions, the zero resistance is to test conditions, allegedly, and the 800 ohms is a Lewan “test” which shows essentially nothing. The other side of the QX returns to the power supply.

I = U/R
P = UI
P = RI2
800 * 0.252 ≈ 50 W

This is utter nonsense. There is no reported measurement of the “power input” to the QX. This is the same preposterousness as was in the Gullstrom paper, widely criticized. What is “U”? Unstated. Perhaps it is in the videos. By the formula it is a voltage, the voltage used to determine the current through the 1 ohm sense resistor. If I is then that current, “P” would be the power dissipated in the sense resistor. The figure of 800 is used, but this is not under test conditions, the QX has been replaced by the 800 ohm resistor. So there is, from the power supply, 50W of power delivered to an 800 ohm resistor, apparently. This means what? It means about 200 V, that’s what!

Mats says in the video that the white box is the power source. Then he says it is a black box. Well, Mats? Which is it, white or black? He describes it as producing “direct current, which is pulsed.” That is quite different from “direct current,” depending on details. Mats says that the 1 ohm resistor is not necessary for the function of the generator. Yet, in operation, the resistance of the QX is described as zero. These descriptions have driven many who know a little electronics crazy. Yes, the 1 ohm resistor is a sense resistor, used only to measure current, but if the QX resistance is actually zero, nothing would limit current other than the supply max, and there would be no control.

The QX is a plasma device. Such devices have high resistance until a plasma is struck. It appears from the video that a plasma is repeatedly struck. At that point the voltage to the QX must be high. There will then be a short period when input power to the QX is high, until the resistance drops and input power with it. Zero resistance is quite unlikely. There is no evidence shown in the video of zero resistance, but the largest missing is any actual measure of input power.

At 13:22, Lewan explains the Rossi insanity that the heat of the reactor is conducted through the cables to the power supply, causing destruction of components. Later, on ECW, Lewan reports that Rossi is “no longer” giving this explanation. But why did he believe it in the first place?

This is said to explain the cooling fan for the power supply.

I later said, during the presentation, that Rossi no longer claims the heating problem is due to heat through the wires, but an internal heating problem in the control box. Fulvio Fabiani, who has built the original design of the control system, confirmed this, and said that it would need investments to and resources to build a control system that eliminates this problem. I agree that this seems strange. However, high voltage, high frequency, and high velocity might be challenging, combined.

The power supply is creating an output with substantial high voltage and frequency, but nothing shown as input to the reactor is high voltage or frequency. There is no consideration in the input power discussion of anything other than direct current, at low voltages.

It is obvious: there is high-frequency power being generated, and there is indirect evidence in the demo that this is roughly enough to explain the reported output power. I was discussing this today with David French, and he said that a test with forbidden measurements of a factor that might be crucial is not a test. He’s obviously correct.

If Rossi were a reliable reporter, we might decide to trust his reports. But there is voluminous evidence in Rossi v. Darden that he is not reliable. For as long as I have been following Rossi (since early 2011), he has put on one demonstration after another where some critical factor was hidden. With some of his early E-Cat demos, it was claimed that the cooling water was all vaporized, that the output was “dry steam,” but a humidity meter was used to verify this, and humidity meters cannot measure steam dryness. The physicists observing these tests had no steam experience and were easily fooled. In the Krivit video, Rossi clearly knows that there is condensed or overflow water in the output hose, because he walks it to the drain before pulling the hose out to show Krivit the steam flow, which was completely inadequate for the claimed evaporation rate. And that little demonstration concealed that water was slowly overflowing, and overflow was never checked. (Overflow is a different and larger concern than steam quality; steam quality itself was a red herring.)

In discussions on LENR Forum, THHuxleynew wrote:

Alan Smith wrote:

[…] The 800 ohm resistor was used as part of the calibration demonstration. Since the Q-X has virtually zero resistance there is not much point in measuring the voltage drop across it, so in order do show that (for example) an 800 ohm resistive heater was NOT present inside the Q-X capsule, the Q-X was taken out of circuit and a low-wattage 800 ohm resistor was put in its place. The voltage drop was measured again over the 1 ohm resistor to show there was a significant difference. This also was used to prove that the PSU was a constant voltage device, not a constant current device.

Anyone with substantial electronics experience would know how crazy-wrong this is. You don’t know that a device has “virtually zero resistance” unless you measure the voltage drop across it at a known current. The resistance of quite good conductors can be measured this way.

In any case, one would measure the voltage across the QX to verify that it is low (or “zero” as claimed, which is very unlikely for a plasma device.) Who there has experience with plasma devices? I played with neon tubes when I was young, great fun. Yes, they show “negative resistance,” i.e., the more current that flows through them, the lower the resistance, but zero? This is a major discovery all of its own, if true. It almost certainly is not. But the resistance of the QX might well be very low, because it is not the resistance of a plasma device, but of an inductor.

The test does not show what Alan claims for it. An ordinary 800 ohm resistive heater was not a reasonable possibility. With no measurement of voltage, this is all meaningless. The power supply is said to be “adaptive,” so conditions for the QX test and the 800 ohm resistor could be different. There was no description of what was actually done. The power measured with 800 ohms, from calculations was 50 W, which would certainly not be a “low wattage” resistor. But then there is more:

That is a weirdly indirect way of showing the QX has a low impedance. Also it is likely wrong! What was the 800 ohm resistor cal current? You also can’t prove CV from a single measurement.

only Rossi would give such indirect and dubious evidence… Why not measure the PSU voltage directly?

Sekrit, that’s why!

THHuxleynew wrote:

Also, these voltage measurements, are they DC or AC? And is the supply DC or AC? Without all these questions answered the word prove that Alan uses is way off beam… Impedance is not a single value independent of frequency. Nor is the QX likely linear.

Indeed. Alan’s response?

Alan Smith wrote:

The QX is stated to have near zero resistance. Which tends to suggest it has near zero impedance. Though after 5 beers I am not looking for an argument about that. Have at it.

After 5 beers, it gets worse.

THHuxleynew wrote:

[…] Suppose it has low resistance when in plasma state but high resistance when off. Driven by AC it would have varying impedance, and maybe absorb much power during these HV spikes some believe exist.

Or, take an inductor in parallel with a resistor. Low impedance at DC, high resistance at AC.

Perhaps I need to drink some more wine to even things up…

He’d have to drink a lot to approach Alan’s dizziness….

Oldguy points to the obvious: [To Alan]

Was the 800 ohm resister inductive or non inductive?

I am still having trouble with the claim that the claim that the device has “virtually zero resistance”.

Was it measured while running? How was that measured for the system as demonstrated?

Sure seem like there IS a “point in measuring the voltage drop across it”. A major point. It is possible to have a device with a low DC resistance but high inductive impedance. If there was any pulses or AC present, it could make a very big difference. -(example: a wire coil around some Ni) If It is to demonstrate the reality of excess then the voltage needs to be measured across with what ever waveform it is running with.

One would think. But Rossi certainly does not think like this. Unless he does. Unless he figured out  a way to make it appear, to those who don’t look or think carefully, that he is putting on low power, when he is putting in much more, there in plain sight and actually obvious and even necessary.

Alan Smith wrote: (about Oldguy’s “device”)

Tell me about this device? A choke perhaps? I think you will struggle to find me a good example.

Weird, indeed, probably the beers talking. He said the word: “choke.” That’s an example.

Oldguy also wrote:

No, again, you can have near zero DC resistance but have a large inductive impedance to high frequency (or spikes). The narrower the pulses the greater the “effective resistance” for an inductive device. […]

A simple wire coil with a nickel or cobalt core would do it. For example, a 10 mH inductor, would appear to have near zero resistance (depending on gauge) but about 4 ohms at 60 Hz and 7.5 ohms at 120 Hz and then about 160 ohms at 2500 Hz. Very fast pulses (single wave of a very high freq in effect) would make the effective R very high and with power going as V^2 you could transfer a significant power. A flyback transformer, cap and a read vibrator could easily be put in the housing of most DC supplies to add high V pulses.

Bottom line – the DC and AC across the device must [be] measured while running or you know nothing about possible power consumption.

Yes. The DPS pretends otherwise, and Mats Lewan, while he is aware of the massive deficiencies, goes along with it. It does not appear that Rossi invited anyone likely to question his claims. Mats seems to be on some kind of edge. Yet, in the end, he’s been had.


All these (dubious even at DC) indirect measurements are no good if the PSU is AC, or has HV AC spikes.

Rossi, remember, has a proven (by Mats, of all people) history of mismeasuring things with meters to show positive COP from devices that are actually electric heaters.

Adrian Ashfield wrote:

Alan Smith wrote:

Tell me about this device? A choke perhaps? I think you will struggle to find me a good example.

The pathoskeptics are just looking for a way to back up their previous firmly held opinions. I doubt you can win against hem short of units for sale.

Even if the setup were perfect they would say the readings were false, or there’s hidden battery, etc, etc. The current and voltage appears to be low enough that would be very difficult claim measurement error would wipe away a COP of 300.

Ashfield has shown again and again that he is utterly clueless. There are certainly pseudoskeptics who will not accept even good evidence, but they are matched by pseudoscientists (i.e., “believers”) who assume what they want without evidence. Here, Ashfield has nothing to contribute to the conversation, but still bloviates about what he has no understanding of.

Genuine skeptics (people like THHuxleynew) are very important for the future of LENR, because they can form the bridge. Genuine skeptics are willing to look at evidence and not dismiss it out-of-hand.

As to Ashfield’s claim, input power was not measured, and easily could be enough for a COP of 1. I.e., no excess power. Mats Lewan even points this out:

‘I think the demonstration today went well, with some limits that depends on what Rossi will accept to measure publicly. The problematic part is that the voltage over the reactor could not be measured, which would be necessary to calculate the electric power consumed by the reactor. In the calculations made by Rossi and Eng. William S. Hurley, who oversaw the measurements, the power consumed by the 1-ohm resistor was used as input power instead, assuming that the plasma inside the reactor has a resistance close to that of a conductor, thus consuming a negligible amount of power since the voltage across the reactor would be very low.

(“could not be measured” because Rossi would not allow it. Then it is claimed that it was “very low,” but the evidence for this is entirely missing. They don’t even try. The power dissipated in the 1 ohm sense resistor would be irrelevant, having almost no relationship to the QX input power. That only shows DC current, not power input, even at DC, and no attempt was made to measure RMS power, and there was very substantial RMS power, it’s obvious.)

[…] it seems strange that the power supply, even if it is a complex design, is such that it needs significant active cooling, resulting in a total system that has a COP of about 1 or less at this point.

That power supply needs cooling because it is generating high voltage pulses to strike the plasma, and with no measurement of these (and it seems that the pulsing was frequent), there is no clue as to input power, but it easily could be enough to explain the “output” power.

William S. Hurley III

Sam provided a list of comments on JONP from Hurley.  It came from LENR Forum, Bill H.  (There appear to be many more comments from Hurley there.) There is speculation about Hurley on LENR Forum, with people doing a search, finding a William Hurley, and then saying that this is the DPS engineer. No. There is more than one Hurley, that much I had. I suspect the DPS Hurley lives in Huntington Beach, California, but I haven’t yet seen any strong evidence. However, his alleged company name, somewhere (I think in Lewan information), was spelled Endeavor. From the JONP comments, it is Andeavor. $6 billion in assets. Web site.

Bruce H wrote:

Alan Smith wrote:

He is Willam Hurley, an engineer who works in the oil business. That’s what he told me. At the beginning of the demo he was introduced as an an ‘overseeing expert’. But he was pretty low key for that role. nodding now and then was most of it.

Thanks. I think he probably has the background he claims. My interest is in his role in the proceedings. One thing that has puzzled me is that a summary of COP calculations was sent to Mats Lewan and then posted on ECW over his name (…comments-from-mats-lewan/), and yet this report is written in Rossi-ese complete with “Wh/h” notation and slightly ungrammatical English.

He strikes me as a pawn who was under the impression that he had an important role in the proceedings, but in reality did not.

I pointed out the Wh/h trope yesterday. There is a history behind this. I once pointed to Rossi’s usage of Wh/h for power as a “trope.” That did not  mean “error.” It is simply relatively rare, i.e., idiosyncratic. I’ve researched it fairly deeply, it may be more common in Europe, and I think Jed said some Japanese use it. I have never seen an American engineer or scientist use this.

In my training, we always reduced units. Working with units like that is an important part of learning science and engineering.

Wh is watt-hour, i.e., 1 watt for one hour. The SI unit is joules/second, but the definition of a joule is one watt-second, i.e., one watt for one second. So an alternate unit for energy is watt-second, and watt-hour is common. The unit for power is simply “watt.”

I explained all this maybe a year ago. Rossi commented on it, claiming it was completely wrong, and his treatment showed that he thinks of “watt-hour” as a unit of energy, and that then power is the obvious rate, watt-hours/hour. He claimed the “hour” cannot be cancelled, and for further discussion, he referred to an well-known book author. I researched this issue in that author’s work, and found that he confirmed that the “hour” would cancel out. I.e., Rossi’s source contradicted Rossi. Rossi never, however, admits error.

It was not the use of wh/h that was wrong, that would be a pedantic objection. Rather it was his claim that “watt” or “kilowatt” was wrong.

(By the way, Rossi called the Plant the “1 MW E-cat.” Not the “1 MWh/h E-cat.”)

The point was not that Wh/h was incorrect, but that this was a red flag that this was not written by an American engineer, unless he was copying Rossi.

There is another clear sign: the company name spelling “Endeavor” is in that text, linked by Bruce H, taken from ECW. Hurley would not make that mistake. Period. Rossi would, easily. Rossi wrote that report. Hurley may have approved it, but even there, I’d expect the Endeavor error would have stood out for him and he’d have corrected it.

Alan Smith wrote:

Bruce_H wrote: “Wh/h”

Don’t start this again or we will have MY banging on about it. Wh/h is power supply engineer shorthand for the sustained load a system can handle. It is however not a recognised SI or Imperial unit of measurement.

Alan doesn’t want accurate information expressed because MY will jump on it? His comment may be misleading, or may be accurate for Great Britain, where he lives. However, “Wh/h” is not how a power supply engineer would express the load a system can handle. They would either state that it can handle X Watts for time T. Or they would state that the system can deliver so many Wh, but they would want to state peak load. Another way to say this is that a supply can sustain a load of so many watts (time not specified, and time is not specified in Wh/h, it’s an average). “Sustained” in this case is about what the supply will do without burning out. It’s a rating.

Bruce_H wrote:

I agree completely. I only use it as an indicator that that it was not Mr Hurley who wrote the report that appears over his name.

This is the DPS Hurley.

Tesoro Senior Project Engineer, Tesoro Petroleum Corp.

(Tesoro became Andeavor, August 1, 2017.)

This is also Hurley, engineer for a radio license with an address given for Tesoro in Huntington Beach., 2101 E PACIFIC COAST HWY, LOS ANGELES, WILMINGTON, CA. Mr. Hurley has a boat.

If it were important, we could contact Mr. Hurley. It’s not. We know what data he worked with, and if he made a mistake, as we think, it is no skin off our teeth. He should know, however, that he is hitching his reputation to a known fraud and con artist.

I finally found his Linked-In profile. It’s listed under Bill Hurley. (there are many of these.) Behold:


Mr. Hurley has a decent background. However, he has a conflict of interest. Considering the above, he would want, at this point, to encourage Rossi to deal with him. He gains no benefit by being skeptical in his analysis, as long as he is honest with his employer, and he would know, if he’s researched Rossi history, that any sign of significant skepticism, he’d be history in the Rossi story.

If Andeavor actually buys a reactor — or power — from Rossi, this would become very, very interesting. Otherwise, this is SOP for Rossi.

Doing the Shanahan Shake

Gangnam style.

Shanahan is posting fairly regularly on LENR Forum, sometimes on relevant topics, often where his comments are completely irrelevant to the declared topic. I invited Shanahan, years ago, to participate and support the development of educational resources that would fully explore his ideas. He always declined. When I pointed out a major error in his Letter to JEM, his last published piece, as a courtesy before publishing it, he responded with an insult: “you will do anything to support your belief.”

Pot, kettle, black.

Shanahan is important to the progress of LENR. I will show below why. Continue reading “Doing the Shanahan Shake”

Storms 2017 video transcript

video on YouTube

Questions regarding this video are welcome as comments on this page.


( from YouTube CC, edited by Abd ul-Rahman Lomax)

I have not created capitalization, generally, as not sufficiently useful to be worth the effort. I have generally followed Dr. Storms’ exact words, which differ from the captions. Correction of errors is requested.

Ruby Carat:

0:01 ● cold fusion. atomic power from water. no radioactive materials. no radioactive waste and no CO2. ColdFusion is power for the people. where no communities can be denied access to fuel with 10 million times the energy density of fossil fuels.
0:30 ● it could provide energy for the whole planet for billions of years researchers are trying to make a technology while still [not] understanding the science and almost three decades of experimental research produced a variety of startling effects.
0:48 ● in 1989 Drs. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced the discovery of an anomalous fusion-sized excess heat energy generated by palladium and deuterium cells. from these types of cells tritium was found but always in amounts millions of times less than hot fusion and without the commensurate neutrons .

1:11 ● the production of helium was correlated with the excess heat using palladium and deuterium while nickel and light hydrogen produced weak
gamma photons.
1:30 ● today, low energy nuclear reactions or LENRs experiments have produced softened x-rays, coherent laser-like photons and exhibited superconductivity, and two types of transmutations of elements have been achieved in multiple LENR environments, including biological systems.
1:53 ● how can such a wide variety of effects result when hydrogen interacts with solid materials? theorists struggled to find an answer.
2:07 ● Nobel laureate Julian Schwinger remarked, “The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of hot fusion,” for conventional nuclear theory does not explain these laboratory observations.
2:23 ● no recipe to both initiate and scale the effect exists. laboratory successes are won by trial and error, but a new idea is transforming understanding.
2:40 ● Dr. Edmund Storms is a nuclear chemist who has conducted many surveys of the field and [has] written two books from the signs and theories of LENR.
2:49 ● his experiments have shown that temperature is the single most important factor [in] regulating LENR excess heat and that high loading is not necessary to maintain a reaction in palladium deuterium systems.
3:00 ● he has put together the first physical science-based description of LENR utilizing the tiny nano spaces in materials as the nuclear active environment where hydrogen assembles to form a unique structure able to initiate nuclear fusion through resonance by a new and yet unknown atomic mechanism.

Dr. Storms:

3:22 ● we’ve spent 24 years proving to the ourselves first and then to the world that this is real. it’s a physically real phenomenon. now the problem is we have to convince ourselves and the world how and why it works. nothing about this violates conventional theory, it adds to it. this is a new undiscovered phenomenon.
4:02 ● It occurs in hot fusion very rapidly, the energy comes out in one big burst that is, let’s say, they’re deuterium, they come together momentarily and then they blow apart immediately in different combinations of neutrons and protons, carrying the energy with them, and the energy comes off instantaneously as energetic particles.
4:28 ● in cold fusion they come together very very slowly and the energy goes off as photons, gradually, as they get closer and closer together.
4:40 ● that’s the distinguishing characteristic and that’s what makes cold fusion truly unique as a nuclear reaction. that slow interaction is not the kind of interaction people have experienced in the past nor have much understanding of,  theoretically
4:57 ● the more ways in which Nature has to do something the easier it is to occur and the more often in nature. this occurs in nature very very seldom, and it’s very very difficult to duplicate and so therefore it must be something fairly rare and therefore very unique and therefore I’ve said that it really only has one way of doing this and unless you have precisely that arrangement, that Nuclear Active Environment, it’s not going to happen.
5:29 ● LENR requires the significant change in the material to occur, and getting that change in the material has been the real big problem to make this effect reproducible.
5:40 ● right now we’re creating that environment by accident, we threw a bunch of stuff together, a few places at random happen to have the right combination of materials and relationships to work.
5:52 ● so most of the samples … maybe less than 1% are active.
5:57 ● the effect has not occurred throughout the sample. It only occurs in special very rare,  randomly created regions in the sample. I call this a nuclear active environment.
6:07 ● presumably the more of the sites are present the more energy we will be able to make.

Figure 8. Histogram of power production vs. the number of reported values. A probability function, shown as the dashed line, is used to fit the data to bins at 10 W intervals. (Storms, 2016)

6:14 ● [pointing to Figure 8] these samples [on the left] would have had only a few of these active sites and these samples [on the right] would have had a large number of that. this assembles as a  probability distribution showing that the probability of having a large number of sites were very low and the probability of having a few sites were very high and, of course, zero having a very high probability that’s why it’s been very difficult to reproduce.
6:42 ● I assume that something changes within the material and I call that change the creation of the nuclear active environment. it has to be something that is universally present in all the experiments that work, no matter what method is used, no matter what material is used,  or whether it’s light hydrogen or heavy hydrogen.
7:02 ● now, what are the characteristics of the nuclear active environment? we know a few of them. we know that you have to have deuterium or hydrogen in that environment. we know that the higher the concentration in that environment, the faster the reaction goes. we know that something in that environment is capable of hiding the Coulomb barrier of hydrogen or deuterium. we know that something in that environment also is able to communicate the energy to the lattice rather than have it go off as energetic particles, so we know, just from the way at which it behaves, certain overall characteristics, but we don’t know the details yet, but when I say, okay, let’s talk about the nuclear active environment, I’m saying, let’s talk about where those details are located in the material.
7:54 ● we want to look where we expect that material to be located. I expect it to be located on the surface. the challenge is to figure out what about the surface is universally related to a sample that makes excess energy.
8:10 ● all except for the last few microns of the surface is totally dead. so all you need is a few microns of palladium on something else and I put a few microns on platinum, it works just well as a solid piece.
8:29 ● but after examining hundreds of these photomicrographs by other people or by myself, the only thing I would see was common to all experimental methods and experimental conditions were cracks.
8:42 ●  in hot fusion, you overcome the Coulomb barrier by brute force, using high-energy, and in cold fusion you overcome it by lowering the Coulomb barrier using electric charge.
8:58 ●  you have to have a condition in which the electric charge is suitably large, and cracks have the potential to produce that kind of condition.
9:07 ● that seems crazy because for a long time people felt that cracks were bad. they allow the deuterium to leak out of the palladium.
9:17 ● we see that happen because if you put some of this material that has the cracks in it in a liquid, you can see the bubbles of hydrogen coming out of those cracks. so they were ignored or people were trying to avoid them.
9:34 ● what I propose is that the crack has to have a particular size, and when it has that size, it allows the nuclei of deuterons or protons to come into that and set up a series of, say,  proton-electron-proton-electron, with the electrons between each of the nuclei, thus hiding or reducing the Coulomb barrier
10:02 ● the size of the crack is something that ought to be determined. it has to be small enough that they would not allow the hydrogen molecule to penetrate because we know the hydrogen molecule does not produce a nuclear reaction. they have to be big enough that a single nucleus of hydrogen can go in there and be retained and not interact with it chemically.
10:28 ● so I’m guessing something less than 10 nanometers. cracks always start small. cracks always start at the size that would be nuclear active, but only for a short time.
10:48 ● holes themselves are not active. they only give you the indication that that stress reorganized the surface.
11:02 ● what I’m saying is that stress also produced the nanocracks in the walls these holes, and that’s where you have the look to find the genie of cold fusion.

Ruby Carat:

11:14 ● the nuclear active environment is proposed to be a nano-sized gap that hosts a unique form of hydrogen. while large spaces in cracks allow hydrogen to escape the material, tiny nano sized gaps are small enough to retain [a] single nuclei of hydrogen in a covalent chain called a hydroton. subjected to the high concentration of negative charge in the walls, the electrons shared by the hydrogen nuclei are forced into a more compact state with an average smaller distance between nuclei. but what happens to create a nuclear reaction?

Dr. Storms

11:55 ●  whatever it is has the ability to initiate a number of different kinds of reactions. one makes helium, heat, and makes tritium, another transmutation, so there’s a variety of things that can happen in that environment.
12:12 ● all LENR behavior using istotopes of hydrogen can be explained by a single basic mechanism  operating in a single nuclear active environment. That would be a lot to expect.

12:21 ● for something so unusual for this to have a variety of ways in which it can happen… by sheer probability — chance — there’s a crack formed and it has to have the right size, and then because of diffusion they [hydrogen nuclei] start building up a concentration in the crack.
12:39 ● hydrogen once it gets into this gap forms a covalent chain, which I call a hydroton, which releases Gibbs energy and that stabilizes the gap.
12:50 ● the hydrogen can form a chemical compound that has lower energy than any hydrogen anywhere else in the material so the hydrogen migrates there, forms this compound, and because that compound is more stable than any other it cannot decompose without that
energy being reapplied to the hydrogen, in order to get it out of there. because that is occurring in the chemical lattice it follows all the rules of a chemical reaction.
13:22 ● that narrow crack would have a very high concentration of negative charge on both walls which would force the hydrogen into a structure that I believe would help hide the Coulomb barrier and would help the resonance process take place.
13:44 ● once that builds up to a sufficient number something triggers it. that can just be the normal temperature vibrations because everything at the atomic level is vibrating, but because it has a linear structure it can start to vibrate such that these two come together, these apart,  these come together and so forth. so these things start to vibrate in line.
14:09 ● and when they do, because you have charges moving, you have the prospect of photons being generated.
14:19 ● these two come together they find themselves too close, they have too much energy, too much mass for the distance because they’re all the way to having formed a fusion product. now the system knows that if it collapses, if it comes  closer together it will gain energy because the end product is a nuclear product that has less mass than the sum total so it knows that that’s the direction to go
14:51 ● so it just keeps giving off photons. finally enough are given off and it’s time to get a little closer, and they give off a little bigger photon. each time it gives up a photon it collapses a little more, a little more, a little more, meanwhile vibrating, photons are streaming out, finally the last photon, goes off and it becomes a deuteron, because the electron that was between them gets sucked into a final product.
15:18 ● there’s hardly any mass-energy left over at that point so this becomes stable, or if not, gives off a very weak gamma.
15:28 ● now the deuteron, if there happens to be another proton or another deuteron in there, it can start the process all over again. if another deuteron happens to be there, then it can make helium, or if a proton happens to be there it will make tritium. The deuterium has a choice, it can diffuse out, in which case it will be replaced by a proton, more likely, because that’s what’s in the general environment, or it can stay there and another proton comes in and that, starts to fuse, and it makes tritium instead.
16:03 ● it is symmetrical, it isn’t just when they’re bounced in this direction they give off a photon, when they bounce in [the other] direction they give off a photon also.  these things are bouncing in a symmetrical way.
16:12 ● each time they go this direction, they lose mass and then they come back together and lose mass. at some point they’ve lost enough that these two guys don’t bounce and stick together and then these two guys over here stick together and so the question is, where during that process do they recognize that they have too much mass and have to get rid of [it]? when you do it by hot fusion that’s done very very quickly and overwhelms this process
16:37 ● I’m proposing that this is the unique feature of cold fusion. this is where cold  fusion differs from hot fusion.
16:46 ●  cold fusion is slow, it’s methodical. because it occurs over a period of time, the energy has time to get out in small quanta.
16:59 ● that electron has to have very special properties and that’s the only thing that is novel. this is total consistent normal physics except for that electron and its characteristics.
17:11 ● something new has happened, has been discovered and is required to make cold fusion work. the crack is not destroyed. the crack is a manufacturing tool it’s just simply there and atoms go in, fuse, end products diffuse  out, maybe, or they stay there, more stuff fuses. It’s an assembly line of the fusion process. that crack becomes attractive. and it’s also attractive because it’s very difficult to produce and it’s outside of the thermodynamic characteristics of a material. in other words, cracks can occur in any material regardless of its thermodynamic properties.

Ruby Carat

18:00 ● nano spaces allow a different form of atomic interaction to occur where hydrogen nuclei and electrons can form a chain called a hydroton.
18:12 ● pulsing in resonance periodically smaller distances coax nuclei into a slow fusion process where smaller bits of mass convert to energy through coherent photon emission. an electron is absorbed to make the final product. all the isotopes of hydrogen are proposed to behave the same way. any other element in the gap resonates to transmutation.

Dr. Storms

18:40 ● that’s why cold fusion was essentially rejected by people who were educated and had experience with hot fusion, which plays by entirely different rules. cold fusion plays by rules that we don’t presently understand and those rules involve slow interaction and a slow release of energy. I also say that cold fusion has to follow all the laws of nature as we presently know and love them.
19:09 ● they cannot violate any law of nature, chemical or physical. the only problem is if there’s something missing in those laws, so it isn’t that they’re conflicting with anything. it’s just that we don’t have all the pieces yet. that’s the the big, what I call the big discovery, that a chemical compound of hydrogen created under very special circumstances can then fuse.

Ruby Carat

19:37 ● nanogaps and hydrotons are able to explain the broad variety of evidence in LENR experiments by reasoning that follows the data and begins with tritium production.

Dr. Storms

20:00 ● tritium provides the key to understanding this process and tritium also provides the way which the process can be verified. tritium is made in cold fusion cells. but the tritium cannot be made by the hot fusion reaction because we’re not seeing any neutrons, so it has to be made by some other process.
20:22 ● well, there are a limited number of ways in which you can make tritium. when you examine all those, you discover that the only thing that really makes any sense is this reaction here: the deuteron fuses with a proton, captures the electron, makes tritium, which then decays by its normal behavior, with a half-life of 12.3 years, to helium-3 and an electron.
20:43 ● all of the hydrogen isotopes happen to behave the same way because that’s the only way you can get tritium. then it’s also the only way you can get helium. the electron also has to be sucked in. the deuteron does this with the electron, that makes hydrogen-4 which decays very very rapidly so we don’t see that accumulate, to make helium-4 and, of course, the electron as part of the decay.
21:12 ● hydrogen-4 does not decay normally into helium-4 and, but it has to, for the cold fusion thing to work, because if this is an exception, if the electron doesn’t get sucked in, then my whole model starts to fall apart because where the heck does that electron go? it has to be there in order to hide the Coulomb barrier. it sits there in the other two reactions, so why isn’t it there in the helium? so right there, normal nuclear expectations break down,
21:46 ● hydroton is a whole new world that now cold fusion and Pons and Fleischmann have revealed exists. it was totally invisible until they came along and said, hey wait a minute, here’s something that can only work if the rules change, and so better start looking at new rules, and the hydroton is, in fact, the structure that makes those rules operate.
22:13 ● I’m taking these various ideas — many of them are not original to me, what is original is the putting together so that they have a logical relationship, and then, on the basis of that relationship, they can predict precisely what’s going to happen…. there’s no wiggle room in this theory. I mean I’m not like most theoreticians, “okay if that doesn’t work I can adjust some of the parameters here and make it work.” no, it is either right or wrong. it’s easy, simple as that, I even go down in flames or I’m right, and the result is that suddenly I can make sense of cold fusion, and suddenly now I know how to make it reproducible, and once it works I know how to engineer it.  so you know what? problem is I haven’t yet proven that.

Ruby Carat

23:07 ● beginning with experimental facts and following a logical process of reasoning has produced both questions that challenge the standard model of nuclear physics and provided testable predictions that will confirm or deny the nanogap hydroton hypothesis.

Dr. Storms

23:26 ● I predict that the hydroton is metallic hydrogen. this is that mythical material that people have been looking for by squeezing higher than at very high pressure. that is precisely what is formed in this gap. the gap makes that possible.
23:41 ● the reason why metallic hydrogen is been very difficult to detect is because once it forms, it fuses. that allows us to harvest the mathematical understanding of metallic hydrogen, which is already in the literature, to explain this material, and also will lead to another kind of measurement.
24:02 ● cold fusion represents a whole new way of looking at nuclear interaction, the rules of which will have other implications, that will have other applications and will allow us to do things that we can’t even suspect to be done now, including the deactivation of radioactive material we have generated by virtue of the other energy sources.

Ruby Carat

Figure 13. Relative rates of formation for deuterium, helium, and tritium as a function of d/(p+d) in the NAE. The figure approximates ideal behavior when the concentration of NAE and temperature are constant. Unknown influences are expected to slightly modify the relationship. The concentration of p is 100% in the metal on the left side of the figure and d has a concentration of 100% on the right side. (Storms, 2016.)

24:33 ● only experimental results will validate the hypotheses of the nanogap hydroton model. new data supports the hydroton prediction that the amount of tritium is related to the deuterium to protium ratio  in the fuel, to confirm the nuclear active environment as the nanogap, creating the right size nanospace that hosts the reaction, with 100% reliability, is crucial. determining if light hydrogen systems are producing tritium is an important next step.
25:08 ● laboratory evidence that identifies emitted photons as coming from a particular reaction would be defining for the hydrogen model.
25:23 ● cold fusion technology will be a radically different type of power creating a paradigm shift in global operations. a mere one cubic kilometer of ocean water contains fusion energy equal to all the world’s oil reserves and the nano-sized source of power holds the promise of a defining next step in our human evolution.
25:48 ● what we have to do is find a way of encouraging a material to create that structure in the presence of hydrogen. doesn’t do any good to try to create it in the absence of hydrogen because in the absence of hydrogen the crack will just simply continue to grow and if you put hydrogen in later its to big, it’s no longer nuclear active, so you have to have the hydrogen present simultaneously with the formation of the crack structure, and that’s the secret of the process
26:22 ● you have to have these two things happen simultaneously well it’s like opening a window and you open a little bit and you see a little bit of what’s outside, and it looks really interesting, you open a little bit more and then all of a sudden you realize wow there’s a whole new world out there. and so this theory has opened that world into a way of looking at cold fusion that hasn’t really been explored in completion. my guess is that once we understand how it works we will find some other metal or some alloy or maybe an alloy of palladium and nickel and some combination of deuterium and hydrogen that will be even better than what we presently have. we are nowhere near the ideal at this point.


Edmund Storms video from
2011 Kiva Labs, Santa Fe, New Mexico
2012 Natural Philosophy Alliance Talk.
2012 Albuquerque, New Mexico interview
2013 University of Missouri ICCF-18 Talk
2013, University of Missouri, ICCF-18 Interview
2017 Cold Fusion Now! HQ Eureka, CA

ICCF18 Camera and Video, Eli Elliott
Title Animation, Augustus Clark, Mike Harris
Hydroton Animation, Jasen Chambers
Music, Esa Ruoho a.k.a. Lackluster
Special Thanks, Edmund Storms, John Francisco, LENRIA, Christy Frazier, and Lee Roland Carter
Filmed, Edited, and Narrated, Ruby Carat

Dr. Storms

27:38 ● my theory tries to address the big reactions, the ones that are producing heat. those are the ones that are going like gangbusters. now, at lower levels there’s all kinds of little things that are going on, really weird
things. there are the things that, you know, a hundred graduate students will work on for twenty years to really master and understand, and they’ll give the details of this mechanism going on, and they’ll generate the Nobel Prizes that everybody will be really happy about, understanding this physics better.
28:12 ● my theory tries to address what’s happening at the highest rating level, and at that level it’s fairly straightforward.


subpage of



Modelling of the Calorimeters

The temperature-time variations of the calorimeters have been shown to be determined by the differential equation [1]

In equation [1] the term allows for the change of the water equivalent with time;
the term β was introduced to allow for a more rapid decrease than would be given by electrolysis
alone (exposure of the solid components of the cell contents, D2O vapour carried off in the gas
stream). As expected, the effects of β on Qf and K0R can be neglected if the cells are operated below 60°C. Furthermore, significant changes in the enthalpy contents of the calorimeters are normally only observed following the refilling of the cells with D2O (to make up for losses due to electrolysis and evaporation) so that it is usually sufficient to use the approximation [2]

The term allows for the decrease of the radiant surface area with time but, as we have already noted, this term may be neglected for calorimeters silvered in the top portion
(however, this term is significant for measurements made in unsilvered Dewars (1); see also (7)). Similarly, the effects of conductive heat transfer are small. We have therefore set Φ = 0 and have made a small increase in the radiative heat transfer coefficient k0R to k’R to allow for this
assumption. We have shown (see Appendix 2 of (1)) that this leads to a small underestimate of Qf (t); at the same time the random errors of the estimations are decreased because the number of parameters to be determined is reduced by one.

We have also throughout used the temperature of the water bath as the reference value and
arrive at the simpler equation which we have used extensively in our work:



CP,O2,g Heat capacity of O2, JK-1mol-1.
CP,D2,g Heat capacity of D2, JK-1 mol-1.
CP,D2O,l Heat capacity of liquid D2O, JK-1mol-1.
CP,D2O,g Heat capacity of D2O vapour, JK-1mol-1.
Ecell Measured cell potential, V
Ecell,t=0 Measured cell potential at the time when the initial values of the parameters are evaluated, V
Ethermoneutral bath Potential equivalent of the enthalpy of reaction for the dissociation of heavy water at the bath temperature, V
F Faraday constant, 96484.56 C mol-1.
H Heaviside unity function.
I Cell current, A.
k0R Heat transfer coefficient due to radiation at a chosen time origin, WK-4
(k’REffective heat transfer coefficient due to radiation, WK-4 Symbol for liquid phase.
L Enthalpy of evaporation, JK1mol-1.
M0 Heavy water equivalent of the calorimeter at a chosen time origin, mols.
P Partial pressure, Pa; product species. P* Atmospheric pressure
P* Rate of generation of excess enthalpy, W.
Qf(t) Time dependent rate of generation of excess enthalpy, W.
T Time, s.
Ν Symbol for vapour phase.
Q Rate of heat dissipation of calibration heater, W.
Δθ Difference in cell and bath temperature, K.
Θ Absolute temperature, K.
θbath Bath temperature, K.
Λ Slope of the change in the heat transfer coefficient with time.
Φ Proportionality constant relating conductive heat transfer to the radiative heat transfer term.


1. Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Mark W. Anderson, Liang Jun Li and Marvin
Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem., 287 (1990) 293. [copy]

2. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, Fusion Technology, 17 (1990) 669. [Britz Pons1990]

3. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. (28-31 March, 1990). [unavailable]

4. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in T . Bressani, E. Del Guidice and G.
Preparata (Eds), The Science of Cold Fusion: Proceedings of the II Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, (29 June-4 July 1991), Vol. 33 of the Conference Proceedings, The Italian Physical Society, Bologna, (1992) 349, ISBN 887794-045-X. [unavailable]

5. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem., 332 (1992) 33. [Britz Flei1992]

6. W. Hansen, Report to the Utah State Fusion Energy Council on the Analysis of Selected Pons-Fleischmann Calorimetric Data, in T. Bressani, E. Del Guidice and G. Preparata (Eds), The Science of Cold Fusion: Proceedings of the II Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, (29 June-4 July 1991), Vol. 33 of the Conference Proceedings, The Italian Physical Society, Bologna, (1992) 491, ISBN 887794-045-X. [link]

7. D. E. Williams, D. J. S. Findlay, D. W. Craston, M. R. Sene, M. Bailey, S. Croft, B.W. Hooten, C.P. Jones, A.R.J. Kucernak, J.A. Mason and R.I. Taylor, Nature, 342 (1989) 375. [Britz Will1989]

8. To be published.

9. R.H. Wilson, J.W. Bray, P.G. Kosky, H.B. Vakil and F.G. Will, J. Electroanal. Chem., 332 (1992) 1. [Britz Wils1992]

Fleischmann and Pons reply

Draft, this document has not been fully formatted and hyperlinked.

This is a subpage of Morrison Fleischmann debate

This copy is taken from a document showing the Morrison comment and the Fleischmann reply. That itself may have been taken from sci.physics.fusion, posted August 17, 1993 by Mitchell Swartz. The reply was published eventually as “Reply to the critique by Morrison entitled: “Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil,” M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, Physics Letters A 187, 18 April 1994 276-280. [Britz Flei1994b]

Received 28 June 1993, revised manuscript received 18 February 1994, accepted for publication 21 February 1994. Communicated by J P Vigier.


We reply here to the critique by Douglas Morrison [1] of our paper [2] which was recently
published in this Journal. Apart from his general classification of our experiments into stages 1-
5, we find that the comments made [1] are either irrelevant or inaccurate or both.

In the article “Comments on Claims of Excess Enthalpy by Fleishmann and Pons using simple
cells made to Boil” Douglas Morrison presents a critique [1] of the paper “Calorimetry of the Pd-
D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity” which has recently been published
in this Journal [2]. In the introduction to his critique, Douglas Morrison has divided the timescale
of the experiments we reported into 5 stages. In this reply, we will divide our comments
into the same 5 parts. However, we note at the outset that Douglas Morrison has restricted his
critique to those aspects of our own paper which are relevant to the generation of high levels of
the specific excess enthalpy in Pd-cathodes polarized in D2O solutions i.e. to stages 3-5. By
omitting stages 1 and 2, Douglas Morrison has ignored one of the most important aspects of our
paper and this, in turn, leads him to make several erroneous statements. We therefore start our
reply by drawing attention to these omissions in Douglas Morrison’s critique.

Stages 1 and 2

In the initial stage of these experiments the electrodes (0.2mm diameter x
12.5mm length Pd-cathodes) were first polarised at 0.2A, the current being raised to 0.5A in
stage 2 of the experiments.

We note at the outset that Douglas Morrison has not drawn attention to the all important “blank
experiments” illustrated in Figs 4 and 6 or our paper by the example of a Pt cathode polarised in
the identical 0.1M LiOD electrolyte. By ignoring this part of the paper he has failed to
understand that one can obtain a precise calibration of the cells (relative standard deviation
0.17%) in a simple way using what we have termed the “lower bound heat transfer coefficient,
(kR’)11”, based on the assumption that there is zero excess enthalpy generation in such “blank
cells”. We have shown that the accuracy of this value is within 1 sigma of the precision of the
true value of the heat transfer coefficient, (kR’)2, obtained by a simple independent calibration
using a resistive Joule heater. Further methods of analysis [3] (beyond the scope of the particular
paper [2]) show that the precision of (kR’)11 is also close to the accuracy of this heat transfer
coefficient (see our discussion of stage 3).

We draw attention to the fact that the time-dependence of (kR’)11, (the simplest possible way of
characterising the cells) when applied to measurements for Pd-cathodes polarised in D2O
solutions, gives direct evidence for the generation of excess enthalpy in these systems. It is quite
unnecessary to use complicated methods of data analysis to demonstrate this fact in a semiquantitative

Stage 3 Calculations

Douglas Morrison starts by asserting: “Firstly, a complicated non-linear
regression analysis is employed to allow a claim of excess enthalpy to be made”. He has failed
to observe that we manifestly have not used this technique in this paper [2], the aim of which has
been to show that the simplest methods of data analysis are quite sufficient to demonstrate the
excess enthalpy generation. The only point at which we made reference to the use of non-linear
regression fitting (a technique which we used in our early work [4]) was in the section dealing
with the accuracy of the lower bound heat transfer coefficient, (kR’)11, determined for “blank
experiments” using Pt-cathodes polarised in D2O solutions. At that point we stated that the
accuracy of the determination of the coefficient (kR’)2 (relative standard deviation ~1.4% for the
example illustrated [2]), can be improved so as to be better than the precision of (kR’)11 by using
non-linear regression fitting; we have designated the values of (kR’) determined by non-linear
regression fitting by (kR’)5. The values of (kR’)5 obtained show that the precision of the lower
bound heat transfer coefficient (kR’)11 for “blank experiments” can indeed be taken as a measure
of the accuracy of (kR’). For the particular example illustrated the relative standard deviation was
~ 0.17% of the mean. It follows that the calibration of the cells using such simple means can be
expected to give calorimetric data having an accuracy set by this relative standard deviation in
the subsequent application of these cells.

We note here that we introduced the particular method of non-linear regression fitting (of the
numerical integral of the differential equation representing the model of the calorimeter to the
experimental data) for three reasons: firstly, because we believe that it is the most accurate single
method (experience in the field of chemical kinetics teaches us that this is the case); secondly,
because it avoids introducing any personal bias in the data treatment; thirdly, because it leads to
direct estimates of the standard deviations of all the derived values from the diagonal elements of
the error matrix. However, our experience in the intervening years has shown us that the use of
this method is a case of “overkill”: it is perfectly sufficient to use simpler methods such as multilinear
regression fitting if one aims for high accuracy. This is a topic which we will discuss
elsewhere [3]. For the present, we point out again that the purpose of our recent paper [2] was to
illustrate that the simplest possible techniques can be used to illustrate the generation of excess
enthalpy. It was for this reason that we chose the title: “Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from
simplicity via complications to simplicity”.
Douglas Morrison ignores such considerations because his purpose evidently is to introduce a
critique of our work which has been published by the group at General Electric [5]. We will
show below that this critique is totally irrelevant to the recent paper published in this Journal [2].
However, as Douglas Morrison has raised the question of the critique published by General
Electric, we would like to point out once again that we have no dispute regarding the particular
method of data analysis favoured by that group [5]: their analysis is in fact based on the heat
transfer coefficient (kR’)2. If there was an area of dispute, then this was due solely to the fact that
Wilson et al introduced a subtraction of an energy term which had already been allowed for in
our own data analysis, i.e. they made a “double subtraction error”. By doing this they derived
heat transfer coefficients which showed that the cells were operating endothermically, i.e. as
refrigerators! Needless to say, such a situation contravenes the Second Law of Thermodynamics
as the entropy changes have already been taken into account by using the thermoneutral potential
of the cells.
We will leave others to judge whether our reply [6] to the critique by the group at General
Electric [5] did or did not “address the main questions posed by Wilson et al.” (in the words of
Douglas Morrison). However, as we have noted above the critique produced byWilson et al [5]
is in any event irrelevant to the evaluations presented in our paper in this journal [2]: we have
used the self-same method advocated by that group to derive the values of the excess enthalpy
given in our paper. We therefore come to a most important question: “given that Douglas
Morrison accepts the methods advocated by the group at General Electric and, given that we
have used the same methods in the recent publication [2] should he not have accepted the
validity of the derived values?”

Stage 4 Calculation

Douglas Morrison first of all raises the question whether parts of the cell contents may have been expelled as droplets during the later stages of intense heating. This is readily answered by titrating the residual cell contents: based on our earlier work about 95% of the residual lithium deuteroxide is recovered; some is undoubtedly lost in the reaction of this “aggressive” species with the glass components to form residues which cannot be titrated.

Furthermore, we have found that the total amounts of D2O added to the cells (in some cases over
periods of several months) correspond precisely to the amounts predicted to be evolved by (a)
evaporation of D2O at the instantaneous atmospheric pressures and (b) by electrolysis of D2O to
form D2 and O2 at the appropriate currents; this balance can be maintained even at temperatures
in excess of 90 degrees C [7]

We note here that other research groups (eg [5]) have reported that some Li can be detected
outside the cell using atomic absorption spectroscopy. This analytic technique is so sensitive
that it will undoubtedly detect the expulsion of small quantities of electrolyte in the vapour
stream. We also draw attention to the fact that D2O bought from many suppliers contains
surfactants. These are added to facilitate the filling of NMR sample tubes and are difficult
(probably impossible) to remove by normal methods of purification. There will undoubtedly be
excessive foaming (and expulsion of foam from the cells) if D2O from such sources is used. We
recommend the routine screening of the sources of D2O and of the cell contents using NMR
techniques. The primary reason for such routine screening is to check on the H2O content of the

Secondly, Douglas Morrison raises the question of the influence of A.C. components of the
current, an issue which has been referred to before and which we have previously answered [4].
It appears that Douglas Morrison does not appreciate the primary physics of power dissipation
from a constant current source controlled by negative feedback. Our methodology is exactly the
same as that which we have described previously [4]; it should be noted in addition that we have
always taken special steps to prevent oscillations in the galvanostats. As the cell voltages are
measured using fast sample-and-hold systems, the product (Ecell – Ethermoneutral, bath)I will give the mean enthalpy input to the cells: the A.C. component is therefore determined by the ripple
content of the current which is 0.04%.

In his third point on this section, Douglas Morrison appears to be re-establishing the transition
from nucleate to film boiling based on his experience of the use of bubble chambers. This
transition is a well-understood phenomenon in the field of heat transfer engineering. A careful
reading of our paper [2] will show that we have addressed this question and that we have pointed
out that the transition from nucleate to film boiling can be extended to 1-10kW cm-2 in the
presence of electrolytic gas evolution.

Fourthly and for good measure, Douglas Morrison once again introduces the question of the
effect of a putative catalytic recombination of oxygen and deuterium (notwithstanding the fact
that this has repeatedly been shown to be absent). We refer to this question in the next section;
here we note that the maximum conceivable total rate of heat generation (~ 5mW for the
electrode dimensions used) will be reduced because intense D2 evolution and D2O evaporation
degasses the oxygen from the solution in the vicinity of the cathode; furthermore, D2 cannot be
oxidised at the oxide coated Pt-anode. We note furthermore that the maximum localised effect
will be observed when the density of the putative “hot spots” will be 1/delta2 where delta is the
thickness of the boundary layer. This gives us a maximum localised rate of heating of ~ 6nW.
The effects of such localised hot spots will be negligible because the flow of heat in the metal
(and the solution) is governed by Laplace’s Equation (here Fourier’s Law). The spherical
symmetry of the field ensures that the temperature perturbations are eliminated (compare the
elimination of the electrical contact resistance of two plates touching at a small number of

We believe that the onus is on Douglas Morrison to devise models which would have to be
taken seriously and which are capable of being subjected to quantitative analysis. Statements of
the kind which he has made belong to the category of “arm waving”.

Stage 5 Effects

In this section we are given a good illustration of Douglas Morrison’s selective
and biased reporting. His description of this stage of the experiments starts with an incomplete
quotation of a single sentence in our paper. The full sentence reads:

“We also draw attention to some further important features: provided satisfactory electrode
materials are used, the reproducibility of the experiments is high; following the boiling to
dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at a high temperature
for prolonged periods of time (fig 11); furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the
base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300 degrees C”.

Douglas Morrison translates this to: “Following boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of
the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time;
furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local
temperature must exceed 300 degrees C”.

Readers will observe that the most important part of the sentence, which we have underlined, is
omitted; we have italicised the words “satisfactory electrode materials” because that is the nub of
the problem. In common with the experience of other research groups, we have had numerous
experiments in which we have observed zero excess enthalpy generation. The major cause
appears to be the cracking of the electrodes, a phenomenon which we will discuss elsewhere.
With respect to his own quotation Douglas Morrison goes on to say: “No explanation is given
and fig 10 is marked ‘cell remains hot, excess heat unknown'”. The reason why we refrained
from speculation about the phenomena at this stage of the work is precisely because explanations
are just that: speculations. Much further work is required before the effects referred to can be
explained in a quantitative fashion. Douglas Morrison has no such inhibitions, we believe
mainly because in the lengthy section Stage 5 Effects he wishes to disinter “the cigarette lighter
effect”. This phenomenon (the combustion of hydrogen stored in palladium when this is exposed
to the atmosphere) was first proposed by Kreysa et al [8] to explain one of our early
observations: the vapourisation of a large quantity of D2O (~ 500ml) by a 1cm cube palladium
cathode followed by the melting of the cathode and parts of the cell components and destruction
of a section of the fume cupboard housing the experiment [9]. Douglas Morrison (in common
with other critics of “Cold Fusion”) is much attached to such “Chemical Explanations” of the
“Cold Fusion” phenomena. As this particular explanation has been raised by Douglas Morrison,
we examine it here.

In the first place we note that the explanation of Kreysa et al [8] could not possibly have
applied to the experiment in question: the vapourisation of the D2O alone would have required
~1.1MJ of energy whereas the combustion of all the D in the palladium would at most have
produced ~ 650J (assuming that the D/Pd ratio had reached ~1 in the cathode), a discrepancy of a
factor of ~ 1700. In the second place, the timescale of the explanation is impossible: the
diffusional relaxation time is ~ 29 days whereas the phenomenon took at most ~ 6 hours (we
have based this diffusional relaxation time on the value of the diffusion coefficient in the alphaphase;
the processes of phase transformation coupled to diffusion are much slower in the fully
formed Pd-D system with a corresponding increase of the diffusional relaxation time for the
removal of D from the lattice). Thirdly, Kreysa et al [8] confused the notion of power (Watts)
with that of energy (Joules) which is again an error which has been promulgated by critics
seeking “Chemical Explanations” of “Cold Fusion”. Thus Douglas Morrison reiterates the notion
of heat flow, no doubt in order to seek an explanation of the high levels of excess enthalpy
during Stage 4 of the experiments. We observe that at a heat flow of 144.5W (corresponding to
the rate of excess enthalpy generation in the experiment discussed in our paper [2] the total
combustion of all the D in the cathode would be completed in ~ 4.5s, not the 600s of the duration
of this stage. Needless to say, the D in the lattice could not reach the surface in that time (the
diffusional relaxation time is ~ 105s) while the rate of diffusion of oxygen through the boundary
layer could lead at most to a rate of generation of excess enthalpy of ~ 5mW.

Douglas Morrison next asserts that no evidence has been presented in the paper about stages
three or four using H2O in place of D2O. As has already been pointed out above he has failed to
comment on the extensive discussion in our paper of a “blank experiment”. Admittedly, the
evidence was restricted to stages 1 and 2 of his own classification but a reference to an
independent review of our own work [10] will show him and interested readers that such cells
stay in thermal balance to at least 90 degrees C (we note that Douglas Morrison was present at
the Second Annual Conference on Cold Fusion). We find statements of the kind made by
Douglas Morrison distasteful. Have scientists now abandoned the notion of verifying their facts
before rushing into print?

In the last paragraph of this section Douglas Morrison finally “boxes himself into a corner”:
having set up an unlikely and unworkable scenario he finds that this cannot explain Stage 5 of
the experiment. In the normal course of events this should have led him to: (i) enquire of us
whether the particular experiment is typical of such cells; (ii) to revise his own scenario. Instead,
he implies that our experiment is incorrect, a view which he apparently shares with Tom Droege
[11]. However, an experimental observation is just that: an experimental observation. The fact
that cells containing palladium and palladium alloy cathodes polarised in D2O solutions stay at
high temperatures after they have been driven to such extremes of excess enthalpy generation
does not present us with any difficulties. It is certainly possible to choose conditions which also
lead to “boiling to dryness” in “blank cells” but such cells cool down immediately after such
“boiling to dryness”. If there are any difficulties in our observations, then these are surely in the
province of those seeking explanations in terms of “Chemical Effects” for “Cold Fusion”. It is
certainly true that the heat transfer coefficient for cells filled with gas (N2) stay close to those for
cells filled with 0.1M Li0D (this is not surprising because the main thermal impedance is across
the vacuum gap of the Dewar-type cells). The “dry cell” must therefore have generated ~120kJ
during the period at which it remained at high temperature (or ~ 3MJcm-3 or 26MJ(mol Pd)-1).
We refrained from discussing this stage of the experiments because the cells and procedures we
have used are not well suited for making quantitative measurements in this region. Inevitably,
therefore, interpretations are speculative. There is no doubt, however, that Stage 5 is probably
the most interesting part of the experiments in that it points towards new systems which merit
investigation. Suffice it to say that energies in the range observed are not within the realm of any
chemical explanations.
We do, however, feel that it is justified to conclude with a further comment at this point in
time. Afficionados of the field of “Hot Fusion” will realise that there is a large release of excess
energy during Stage 5 at zero energy input. The system is therefore operating under conditions
which are described as “Ignition” in “Hot Fusion”. It appears to us therefore that these types of
systems not only “merit investigation” (as we have stated in the last paragraph) but, more
correctly, “merit frantic investigation”.

Douglas Morrison’s Section “Conclusions” and some General Comments

In his section entitled “Conclusions”, Douglas Morrison shows yet again that he does not
understand the nature of our experimental techniques, procedures and methods of data evaluation
(or, perhaps, that he chooses to misunderstand these?). Furthermore, he fails to appreciate that
some of his own recommendations regarding the experiment design would effectively preclude
the observation of high levels of excess enthalpy. We illustrate these shortcomings with a
number of examples:

(i) Douglas Morrison asserts that accurate calorimetry requires the use of three thermal
impedances in series and that we do not follow this practice. In point of fact we do have three
impedances in series: from the room housing the experiments to a heat sink (with two
independent controllers to thermostat the room itself); from the thermostat tanks to the room
(and, for good measure, from the thermostat tanks to further thermostatically controlled sinks);
finally, from the cells to the thermostat tanks. In this way, we are able to maintain 64
experiments at reasonable cost at any one time (typically two separate five-factor experiments).

(ii) It is naturally essential to measure the heat flow at one of these thermal impedances and we
follow the normal convention of doing this at the innermost surface (we could hardly do
otherwise with our particular experiment design!). In our calorimeters, this thermal impedance is
the vacuum gap of the Dewar vessels which ensures high stability of the heat transfer
coefficients. The silvering of the top section of the Dewars (see Fig 2 of our paper [2] further
ensures that the heat transfer coefficients are virtually independent of the level of electrolyte in
the cells.

(iii) Douglas Morrison suggests that we should use isothermal calorimetry and that, in some
magical fashion, isothermal calorimeters do not require calibration. We do not understand: how
he can entertain such a notion? All calorimeters require calibration and this is normally done by
using an electrical resistive heater (following the practice introduced by Joule himself). Needless
to say, we use the same method. We observe that in many types of calorimeter, the nature of the
correction terms are “hidden” by the method of calibration. Of course, we could follow the selfsame
practice but we choose to allow for some of these terms explicitly. For example, we allow
for the enthalpy of evaporation of the D2O. We do this because we are interested in the operation
of the systems under extreme conditions (including “boiling”) where solvent evaporation
becomes the dominant form of heat transfer (it would not be sensible to include the dominant
term into a correction).

(iv) There is, however, one important aspect which is related to (iii) i.e. the need to calibrate the
calorimeters. If one chooses to measure the lower bound of the heat transfer coefficient (as we
have done in part of the paper published recently in this journal [2]) then there is no need to carry
out any calibrations nor to make corrections. It is then quite sufficient to investigate the time
dependence of this lower bound heat transfer coefficient in order to show that there is a
generation of excess enthalpy for the Pd-D2O system whereas there is no such generation for
appropriate blanks (e.g. Pt-D2O or Pd-H2O). Alternatively, one can use the maximum value of
the lower bound heat transfer coefficient to give lower bound values of the rates of excess
enthalpy generation.

It appears to us that Douglas Morrison has failed to understand this point as he continuously
asserts that our demonstrations of excess enthalpy generation are dependent on calibrations and

(v) Further with regard to (iii) it appears to us that Douglas Morrison believes that a “null
method” (as used in isothermal calorimeters) is inherently more accurate than say the
isoperibolic calorimetry which we favour. While it is certainly believed that “null” methods in
the Physical Sciences can be made to be more accurate than direct measurements (e.g. when a
voltage difference is detected as in bridge circuits: however, note that even here the advent of
“ramp” methods makes this assumption questionable) this advantage disappears when it is
necessary to transduce the primary signal. In that case the accuracy of all the methods is
determined by the measurement accuracy (here of the temperature) quite irrespective of which
particular technique is used.

In point of fact and with particular reference to the supposed advantages of isothermal versus
isoperibolic calorimetry, we note that in the former the large thermal mass of the calorimeter
appears across the input of the feedback regulator. The broadband noise performance of the
system is therefore poor; attempts to improve the performance by integrating over long times
drive the electronics into 1/f noise and, needless to say, the frequency response of the system is
degraded. (see also (vii) below)

(vi) with regard to implementing measurements with isothermal calorimeters, Douglas
Morrrison recommends the use of internal catalytic recombiners (so that the enthalpy input to the
system is just Ecell.I rather than (Ecell – Ethermoneutral, bath).I as in our “open” calorimeters. We find it interesting that Douglas Morrison will now countenance the introduction of intense local “hot
spots” on the recombiners (what is more in the gas phase!) whereas in the earlier parts of his
critique he objects to the possible creation of microscopic “hot spots” on the electrode surfaces
in contact with the solution.

We consider this criticism from Douglas Morrison to be invalid and inapplicable. In the first
place it is inapplicable because the term Ethermoneutral,bath.I (which we require in our analysis) is
known with high precision (it is determined by the enthalpy of formation of D2O from D2 and
1/2 O2). In the second place it is inapplicable because the term itself is ~ 0.77 Watt whereas we
are measuring a total enthalpy output of ~ 170 Watts in the last stages of the experiment.
(vii) We observe here that if we had followed the advice to use isothermal calorimetry for the
main part of our work, then we would have been unable to take advantage of the “positive
feedback” to drive the system into regions of high excess enthalpy generation (perhaps, stated
more exactly, we would not have found that there is such positive feedback). The fact that there
is such feedback was pointed out by Michael McKubre at the Third Annual Conference of Cold
Fusion and strongly endorsed by one of us (M.F.). As this issue had then been raised in public,
we have felt free to comment on this point in our papers (although we have previously drawn
attention to this fact in private discussions). We note that Douglas Morrison was present at the
Third Annual Conference on Cold Fusion.

(viii) While it is certainly true that the calorimetric methods need to be evolved, we do not
believe that an emphasis on isothermal calorimetry will be useful. For example, we can identify
three major requirements at the present time:

a) the design of calorimeters which allow charging of the electrodes at low thermal inputs and
temperatures below 50 degrees C followed by operation at high thermal outputs and
temperatures above 100 degrees C
b) the design of calorimeters which allow the exploration of Stage 5 of the experiments
c) the design of calorimeters having a wide frequency response in order to explore the transfer
functions of the systems.

We note that c) will in itself lead to calorimeters having an accuracy which could hardly be
rivalled by other methods.

(ix) Douglas Morrison’s critique implies that we have never used calorimetric techniques other
than that described in our recent paper [2]. Needless to say, this assertion is incorrect. It is true,
however, that we have never found a technique which is more satisfactory than the isoperibolic
method which we have described. It is also true that this is the only method which we have found
so far which can be implemented within our resources for the number of experiments which we
consider to be necessary. In our approach we have chosen to achieve accuracy by using
software; others may prefer to use hardware. The question as to which is the wiser choice is
difficult to answer: it is a dilemma which has to be faced frequently in modern experimental
science. We observe also that Douglas Morrison regards complicated instrumentation (three
feedback regulators working in series) as being “simple” whereas he regards data analysis as
being complicated.

Douglas Morrrison also asserts that we have never used more than one thermistor in our
experimentation and he raises this issue in connection with measurements on cells driven to
boiling. Needless to say, this assertion is also incorrect. However, further to this remark is it
necessary for us to point out that one does not need any temperature measurement in order to
determine the rate of boiling of a liquid?

(x) Douglas Morrison evidently has difficulties with our application of non-linear regression
methods to fit the integrals of the differential equations to the experimental data. Indeed he has
such an idee fixe regarding this point that he maintains that we used this method in our recent
paper [2]; we did not do so (see also ‘stage 3 calculations’ above). However, we note that we find
his attitude to the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm hard to understand. It is one of the most
powerful, easily implemented “canned software” methods for problems of this kind. A classic
text for applications of this algorithm [12] has been praised by most prominent physics journals
and magazines.

(xi) Douglas Morrison’s account contains numerous misleading comments and descriptions. For
example, he refers to our calorimeters as “small transparent test tubes”. It is hard for us to
understand why he chooses to make such misleading statements. In this particular case he could
equally well have said “glass Dewar vessels silvered in their top portion” (which is accurate)
rather than “small transparent test tubes” (which is not). Alternatively, if he did not wish to
provide an accurate description, he could simply have referred readers to Fig 2 of our paper [2].
This type of misrepresentation is a non-trivial matter. We have never used calorimeters made of
test-tubes since we do not believe that such devices can be made to function satisfactorily.

(xii) As a further example of Douglas Morrison’s inaccurate reporting, we quote his last
paragraph in full:

“It is interesting to note that the Fleischmann and Pons paper compares their claimed power
production with that from nuclear reactions in a nuclear reactor and this is in line with their
ROOM TEMPERATURE FOR THE FIRST TIME: breakthrough process has potential to provide
inexhaustible source of energy”.

It may be noted that the present paper does not mention “Cold Fusion” nor indeed consider a possible nuclear source for the excess heat claimed.

Douglas Morrison’s reference (9) reads: “Press release, University of Utah, 23 March 1989.” With regard to this paragraph we note that:

a) our claim that the phenomena cannot be explained by chemical or conventional physical
processes is based on the energy produced in the various stages and not the power output
b) the dramatic claim he refers to was made by the Press Office of the University of Utah and
not by us
c) we did not coin the term “Cold Fusion” and have avoided using this term except in those
instances where we refer to other research workers who have described the system in this way.
Indeed, if readers refer to our paper presented to the Third International Conference on Cold
Fusion [13] (which contains further information about some of the experiments described in [2]),
they will find that we have not used the term there. Indeed, we remain as convinced as ever that
the excess energy produced cannot be explained in terms of the conventional reaction paths of
“Hot Fusion”
d) it has been widely stated that the editor of this journal “did not allow us to use the term Cold
Fusion”. This is not true: he did not forbid us from using this term as we never did use it (see
also [13]).

(xiii) in his section “Conclusions”, Douglas Morrison makes the following summary of his
opinion of our paper:

The experiment and some of the calculations have been described as “simple”. This is incorrect
– the process involving chaotic motion, is complex and may appear simple by incorrectly
ignoring important factors. It would have been better to describe the experiments as “poor”
rather than “simple”.

We urge the readers of this journal to consult the original text [2] and to read Douglas
Morrison’s critique [1] in the context of the present reply. They may well then come to the
conclusion that our approach did after all merit the description “simple” but that the epithet
“poor” should be attached to Douglas Morrision’s critique.

Our own conclusions

We welcome the fact that Douglas Morrison has decided to publish his criticisms of our work
in the conventional scientific literature rather than relying on the electronic mail, comments to
the press and popular talks; we urge his many correspondees to follow his example. Following
this traditional pattern of publication will ensure that their comments are properly recorded for
future use and that the rights of scientific referees will not be abrogated. Furthermore, it is our
view that a return to this traditional pattern of communication will in due course eliminate the
illogical and hysterical remarks which have been so evident in the messages on the electronic
bulletins and in the scientific tabloid press. If this proves to be the case, we may yet be able to
return to a reasoned discussion of new research. Indeed, critics may decide that the proper
course of inquiry is to address a personal letter to authors of papers in the first place to seek
clarification of inadequately explained sections of publications.

Apart from the general description of stages 1-5, we find that the comments made by Douglas
Morrison are either irrelevant or inaccurate or both.


[1] Douglas Morrison, Phys. Lett. A.
[2] M.Fleischmann andd S. Pons, Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) 1
[3] to be published
[4] M.Fleischmann, S.Pons, M.W.Anderson, L.J. Li, and M.Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem.
287 (1990) 293.
[5] R.H. Wilson, J.W. Bray, P.G. Kosky, H.B. Vakil, and F.G Will, J. Electroanal. Chem.
332 (1992) 1
[6] M.Fleischmann and S.Pons, J.Electroanal. Chem. 332 (1992) 33
[7] S. Pons and M.Fleischmann in: Final Report to the Utah State Energy Advisory Council,
June 1991.
[8] G. Kreysa, G. Marx, and W.Plieth, J. Electroanal. Chem. 268 (1989)659
[9] M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261 (1989)301
[10] W.Hansen, Report to the Utah State Fusion Energy Council on the Analysis of Selected
Pons-Fleischmann Calorimetric Data, in: “The Science of Cold Fusion”: Proc. Second
Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, 29 June-4 July 1991, eds T. Bressani, E. del
Guidice and G. Preparata, Vol 33 of the Conference Proceedings of the Italian Physical
Society (Bologna, 1992) p491; ISBN-887794–045-X
[11] T. Droege: private communication to Douglas Morrison.
[12] W.H. Press, B.P. Flannery, S.A. Teukolsky, and W.T. Vetterling, “Numerical Recipes”,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
[13] M.Fleischmann and S. Pons “Frontiers of Cold Fusion” ed. H. Ikegami, Universal
Academy Press Inc., Tokyo, 1993, p47; ISBN 4-946-443-12-6


Subpage of  Calorimetry of the PD-D2O System: from Simplicity via Complications to Simplicity.

The purpose of this subpage is to study the section named below. Comments here should be aimed toward study and learning as to what is in the Original paper. This is not a place to argue “right” and “wrong,” but to seek agreement, where possible, or to delineate unresolved issues. General comments may be made on the Open discussion subpage.

General Features of our Calorimetry

Our approach to the measurement of excess enthalpy generation in Pd and Pd-alloy
cathodes polarised in D2O solutions has been described in detail elsewhere (see especially (1-5); see also (6)). The form of the calorimeter which we currently use is illustrated in Fig 1. The following features are of particular importance:

(i) at low to intermediate temperatures (say 20-50°C) heat transfer from the cell is dominated by
radiation across the vacuum gap of the lower, unsilvered, portion of the Dewar vessel to the
surrounding water bath (at a cell current of 0.5A and atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, the cooling due to evaporation of D2O reaches 10% of that due to radiation at typically 95-98°C for Dewar cells of the design shown in Fig 1).

(ii) the values of the heat transfer coefficients determined in a variety of ways (see below) both with and without the calibrating resistance heater (see Fig 2 for an example of the temperature-time and cell potential-time transients) are close to those given by the product of the Stefan-Boltzmann coefficient and the radiant surface areas of the cells.

(iii) the variations of the heat transfer coefficients with time (due to the progressive fall of the level of the electrolyte) may be neglected at the first level of approximation (heat balances to within 99%) as long as the liquid level remains in the upper, silvered portions of the calorimeters.

(iv) the room temperature is controlled and set equal to that of the water baths which contain
secondary cooling circuits; this allows precise operation of the calorimeters at low to intermediate
temperatures (thermal balances can be made to within 99.9% if this is required).

(v) heat transfer from the cells becomes dominated by evaporation of D2O as the cells are driven to the boiling point.

(vi) the current efficiencies for the electrolysis of D2O (or H2O) are close to 100%.


Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the single compartment open vacuum Dewar calorimeter cells used in this work.

Figure 2. Segment of a temperature-time/cell potential-time response (with 0.250 W heat calibration pulses) for a cell containing a 12.5 × 1.5mm platinum electrode polarised in 0.IM LiOD at 0.250A.

References (for this section)

1. Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Mark W. Anderson, Liang Jun Li and Marvin
Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem., 287 (1990) 293. [copy]

2. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, Fusion Technology, 17 (1990) 669. [Britz Pons1990]

3. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. (28-31 March, 1990). [unavailable]

4. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in T . Bressani, E. Del Guidice and G.
Preparata (Eds), The Science of Cold Fusion: Proceedings of the II Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, (29 June-4 July 1991), Vol. 33 of the Conference Proceedings, The Italian Physical Society, Bologna, (1992) 349, ISBN 887794-045-X. [unavailable]

5. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem., 332 (1992) 33. [Britz Flei1992]

6. W. Hansen, Report to the Utah State Fusion Energy Council on the Analysis of Selected Pons-Fleischmann Calorimetric Data, in T. Bressani, E. Del Guidice and G. Preparata (Eds), The Science of Cold Fusion: Proceedings of the II Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, (29 June-4 July 1991), Vol. 33 of the Conference Proceedings, The Italian Physical Society, Bologna, (1992) 491, ISBN 887794-045-X. [link]




We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system
which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1 kWcm-3) at
temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution. This has led to a
particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring
the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video recordings.

Our use of this simple method as well as our investigations of the results of other research
groups prompts us to present also other simple methods of data analysis which we have used in the preliminary evaluations of these systems.


These analyses are subject to revision. The goal is consensus. Comment on the analysis below.


The purpose of the paper is laid out here, to present “one aspect” of “recent research,” a “particularly simple method” of measuring excess power (“rate of excess enthalpy production”), measuring the time necessary to boil to dryness. Not stated in the abstract: while methods are proposed to estimate the enthalpy itself, this would be a comparative method, which would then assess how boil-off times differ between platinum or light water controls, and functioning or non-functioning palladium heavy-water experiments.

The paper also covers “other simple methods,” used in “preliminary evaluations.”

While the abstract mentions a high power density figure (> 1 kWcm-3), that claim is not the stated purpose of the paper, which is about methods.


This is a subpage of Morrison Fleischmann debate to allow detailed study of the paper copied here, from

page anchors added per lenr-canr copy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Section anchors:
ABSTRACT [analysis]
General Features of our Calorimetry [analysis]
Modelling of the Calorimeters [analysis]
Methods of Data Evaluation: the Precision and Accuracy of the Heat Transfer Coefficients [analysis]
Applications of Measurements of the Lower Bound Heat Transfer Coefficients to the Investigation of the Pd – D2Ο System [analysis]
A Further Simple Method of Investigating the Thermal Balances for the Cells Operating in the Region of the Boiling Point

(after each section, as well as above, there is a link to an analysis subpage — once they have been created)


The Third International Conference on Cold Fusion. 1992. Nagoya, Japan: Universal Academy
Press, Inc., Tokyo: p. 47.

Calorimetry of the PD-D2O System: from Simplicity via Complications to Simplicity.

Martin FLEISCHMANN, Dept. of Chemistry, Univ. of Southampton, Southampton, U.K.
Stanley PONS, IMRA Europe, Sophia Antipolis, 06560 Valbonne, FRANCE


We present here one aspect of our recent research on the calorimetry of the Pd/D2O system
which has been concerned with high rates of specific excess enthalpy generation (> 1kWcm-3) at
temperatures close to (or at) the boiling point of the electrolyte solution. This has led to a
particularly simple method of deriving the rate of excess enthalpy production based on measuring
the times required to boil the cells to dryness, this process being followed by using time-lapse video recordings.

Our use of this simple method as well as our investigations of the results of other research
groups prompts us to present also other simple methods of data analysis which we have used in the preliminary evaluations of these systems.


General Features of our Calorimetry

Our approach to the measurement of excess enthalpy generation in Pd and Pd-alloy
cathodes polarised in D2O solutions has been described in detail elsewhere (see especially (1-5); see also (6)). The form of the calorimeter which we currently use is illustrated in Fig 1. The following features are of particular importance:

(i) at low to intermediate temperatures (say 20-50°C) heat transfer from the cell is dominated by
radiation across the vacuum gap of the lower, unsilvered, portion of the Dewar vessel to the
surrounding water bath (at a cell current of 0.5A and atmospheric pressure of 1 bar, the cooling due to evaporation of D2O reaches 10% of that due to radiation at typically 95-98°C for Dewar cells of the design shown in Fig 1).

(ii) the values of the heat transfer coefficients determined in a variety of ways (see below) both with and without the calibrating resistance heater (see Fig 2 for an example of the temperature-time and cell potential-time transients) are close to those given by the product of the Stefan-Boltzmann coefficient and the radiant surface areas of the cells.

(iii) the variations of the heat transfer coefficients with time (due to the progressive fall of the level of the electrolyte) may be neglected at the first level of approximation (heat balances to within 99%) as long as the liquid level remains in the upper, silvered portions of the calorimeters.

(iv) the room temperature is controlled and set equal to that of the water baths which contain
secondary cooling circuits; this allows precise operation of the calorimeters at low to intermediate
temperatures (thermal balances can be made to within 99.9% if this is required).

(v) heat transfer from the cells becomes dominated by evaporation of D2O as the cells are driven to the boiling point.

(vi) the current efficiencies for the electrolysis of D2O (or H2O) are close to 100%.


Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the single compartment open vacuum Dewar calorimeter cells used in this work.

Figure 2. Segment of a temperature-time/cell potential-time response (with 0.250 W heat calibration pulses) for a cell containing a 12.5 × 1.5mm platinum electrode polarised in 0.IM LiOD at 0.250A.



Modelling of the Calorimeters

The temperature-time variations of the calorimeters have been shown to be determined by the differential equation [1]

In equation [1] the term allows for the change of the water equivalent with time;
the term β was introduced to allow for a more rapid decrease than would be given by electrolysis
alone (exposure of the solid components of the cell contents, D2O vapour carried off in the gas
stream). As expected, the effects of β on Qf and K0R can be neglected if the cells are operated below 60°C. Furthermore, significant changes in the enthalpy contents of the calorimeters are normally only observed following the refilling of the cells with D2O (to make up for losses due to electrolysis and evaporation) so that it is usually sufficient to use the approximation [2]

The term allows for the decrease of the radiant surface area with time but, as we have already noted, this term may be neglected for calorimeters silvered in the top portion
(however, this term is significant for measurements made in unsilvered Dewars (1); see also (7)). Similarly, the effects of conductive heat transfer are small. We have therefore set Φ = 0 and have made a small increase in the radiative heat transfer coefficient k0R to k’R to allow for this
assumption. We have shown (see Appendix 2 of (1)) that this leads to a small underestimate of Qf (t); at the same time the random errors of the estimations are decreased because the number of parameters to be determined is reduced by one.

We have also throughout used the temperature of the water bath as the reference value and
arrive at the simpler equation which we have used extensively in our work:



Methods of Data Evaluation: the Precision and Accuracy of the
Heat Transfer Coefficients

A very useful first guide to the behaviour of the systems can be obtained by deriving a
lower bound of the heat transfer coefficients (designated by (k’R)6 and/or (k’R)11 in our working manuals and reports) which is based on the assumption that there is zero excess enthalpy generation within the calorimeters:


The reason why (k’R)11 is a lower bound is because the inclusion of any process leading to the generation of heat within the cells (specifically the heat of absorption of D (or H) within the lattice or the generation of excess enthalpy within the electrodes) would increase the derived value of this heat transfer coefficient: (k’R)11 will be equal to the true value of the coefficient only if there is no such source of excess enthalpy in the cells as would be expected to hold, for example, for the polarisation of Pt in D2O solutions, Fig 2. The simplest procedure is to evaluate these coefficients at a set of fixed times following the addition of D2O to make up for losses due to electrolysis and/or evaporation. Convenient positions are just before the times, t1, at which the calibrating heating pulses are applied to the resistive heaters, Fig 3. For the particular experiment illustrated in Fig 2, the mean value of (k’R)11 for 19 such measurements is 0.7280 × 10-9WK-4 with a standard deviation σ(k’R)11 = 0.0013WK-4 or 0.17% of the mean.


Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the methodology used for the calculations.

It is evident therefore that even such simple procedures can give precise values of the heat transfer coefficients but, needless to say, it is also necessary to investigate their accuracy. We have always done this at the next level of complication by applying heater pulses lying in the time range t1 < t < t2 and by making a thermal balance just before the termination of this pulse at t = t2. This time is chosen so that

t2 -t1 ≥ 6τ   [5]

where τ is the thermal relaxation time


The scheme of the calculation is illustrated in Fig 3: we determine the temperatures and cell potentials at t2 as well as the interpolated values (Δθ1, t2) and [Ecell(Δθ1, t2) ] which would apply
at these times in the absence of the heater calibration pulse. We derive the heat transfer coefficient which we have designated as (k’R)2 using
The mean value of (k’R)2 for the set of 19 measurements is 0.7264WK-4 with a standard deviation  σ(k’R)2 = 0.0099WK-4  or 1.4% of the mean.


The comparison of the means and standard deviations of (k’R)2 and (k’R)11 leads to several important conclusions:

(i) in the first place, we note that the mean of (k’R)11 is accurate as well as precise for such blank
experiments: the mean of (k’R)11 is within 0.2σ of the independently calibrated mean values of (k’R)2 ; indeed, the mean of (k’R)11 is also within ~ 1σ of the mean of (k’R)2 so that the differences between (k’R)and (k’R)11 are probably not significant.

(ii) as expected, the precision of (k’R)2 is lower than that of (k’R)11. This is due mainly to the fact
that (k’R)2 (and other similar values) are derived by dividing by the differences between two
comparably large quantities (θbath + Δθ2)4 – (θbath + Δθ1), equation (7). The difference (θbath + Δθ)4 – (θbath)4 used in deriving (k’R)11, equation [4], is known at a higher level of precision.

(iii) the lowering of the precision of (k’R)2 as compared to that of (k’R)11 can be avoided by fitting the integrals of equation [1] (for successive cycles following the refilling of the cells) directly to the experimental data (in view of the inhomogeneity and non-linearity of this differential equation, this integration has to be carried out numerically (1) although it is also possible to apply approximate algebraic solutions at high levels of precision (8)). Since the fitting procedures use all the information contained in each single measurement cycle, the precision of the estimates of the heat transfer coefficients, designated as (k’R)5 , can exceed that of the coefficients (k’R)11. We have carried out these fitting procedures by using non-linear regression techniques (1-5) which have the advantage that they give direct estimates of σ(k’R)5 (as well as of the standard deviations of the other parameters to be fitted) for each measurement cycle rather than requiring the use of repeated cycles as in the estimates of σ(k’R)11 or σ(k’R)2. While this is not of particular importance for the estimation of k’R for the cell types illustrated in Fig 1 (since the effects of the irreproducibility of refilling the cells is small in view of the silvering of the upper portions of the Dewars) it is of much greater importance for the measurements carried out with the earlier designs (1) which were not silvered in this part; needless to say, it is important for estimating the variability of Qf for measurements with all cell designs.

Estimates of k’have also been made by applying low pass filtering techniques (such as the Kalman filter (6) and (8)); these methods have some special advantages as compared to the application of non-linear regression analysis and these advantages will be discussed elsewhere.(8) The values of the heat transfer coefficients derived are closely similar to those of (k’R)5.

Low pass filtering and non-linear regression are two of the most detailed (and complicated) methods which we have applied in our investigation. Such methods have the special advantage that they avoid the well-known pitfalls of making point-by-point evaluations based on the direct application of the differential equation modelling the system. These methods can be applied equally to make estimates of the lower bound heat transfer coefficient, (k’R)11. However, in this case the complexity of such calculations is not justified because the precision and accuracy of (k’R)11 evaluated point-by-point is already very high for blank experiments, see (i) and (ii) above. Instead, the objective of our preliminary investigations has been to determine what information can be derived for the Pd – H2O and Pd – D2O systems using (k’R)11 evaluated point-by-point and bearing in mind the precision and accuracy for blank experiments using Pt cathodes. As we seek to illustrate this pattern of investigation, we will not discuss the methods outlined in this subsection (iii) further in this paper.

(iv) we do, however, draw attention once again to the fact that in applying the heat transfer


coefficients calibrated with the heater pulse ΔQH(t – t1) – ΔQH(t – t2) we have frequently used the coefficient defined by and determined at t = t2 to make thermal balances at the point just before the application of the
calibrating heater pulse, Fig 3. The differences between the application of (k’R)2 and (k’R)4 are
negligible for blank experiments which has not been understood by some authors e.g.,(9). However, for the Pd – D2O and Pd alloy – D2O systems, the corresponding rate of excess enthalpy generation, (Qf)2, is significantly larger than is (Qf)4 for fully charged electrodes. As we have always chosen to underestimate Qf, we have preferred to use (Qf)4 rather than (Qf)2.

The fact that (Qf)2 > (Qf)4 as well as other features of the experiments, shows that there is an element of “positive feedback” between the increase of temperature and the rate of generation of excess enthalpy. This topic will be discussed elsewhere (8); we note here that the existence of this feedback has been a major factor in the choice of our calorimetric method and especially in the choice of our experimental protocols. As will be shown below, these provide systems which can generate excess enthalpy at rates above 1kWcm-3.

Applications of Measurements of the Lower Bound Heat Transfer Coefficients to the Investigation of the Pd – D2Ο System

In our investigations of the Pd – D2O and Pd alloy – D2O systems we have found that a
great deal of highly diagnostic qualitative and semi-quantitative information can be rapidly obtained by examining the time-dependence of the lower bound heat transfer coefficient, (k’R)11. The qualitative information is especially useful in this regard as it provides the answer to the key question: “is there generation of excess enthalpy within (or at the surface) of Pd cathodes polarised in D2O solutions?”

We examine first of all the time-dependence of (k’R)11 in the initial time region for the
blank experiment of a Pt cathode polarised in D2O solution which has been illustrated by Fig 2. Fig 4 shows that (k’R)11 rapidly approaches the true steady state value 0.728 × 10-9WK-4 which applies to this particular cell. We conclude that there is no source of excess enthalpy for this system and note that this measurement in itself excludes the possibility of significant re-oxidation of D2 at the anode or re-reduction of O2 at the cathode.

Figure 4. Plot of the heat transfer coefficient for the first day of electrolysis of the experiment described in Fig 2.


We examine next the behaviour of a Pd cathode in H2O, Fig 5. The lower bound heat transfer coefficient again approaches the true value 0.747WK-4 for the particular cell used with
increasing time but there is now a marked decrease of (k’R)11 from this value at short times. As we
have noted above, such decreases show the presence of a source of excess enthalpy in the system which evidently decreases in accord with the diffusional relaxation time of Η+ in the Pd cathode: this source can be attributed to the heat of absorption of H+ within the lattice. We also note that the measurement of (k’R)11 in the initial stages is especially sensitive to the presence of such sources of excess enthalpy because (θbath + Δθ)4 – θbath  0 as t → 0, equation [4]. Furthermore, in the absence of any such source of excess enthalpy the terms [Ecell – Ethermoneutral,bath]I and CP,D2O,lM0(dΔθ/dt) will balance. The exclusion of the unknown enthalpy source must therefore give a decrease of (k’R)11 from the true value of the heat transfer coefficient. We see that this decrease is so marked for the Pd – H2O that (k’R)11 is initially negative! The measurements of (k’R)11 are highly sensitive to the exact conditions in the cell in this region of time, so that minor deviations from the true value (as for the Pt – D2O system, Fig 4) are not significant.

We observe also that measurements of (k’R)11 in the initial stages of the experiments provide an immediate answer to the vexed question: “do the electrodes charge with D+ (or H+)?” It is a common experience of research groups working in this field that some samples of Pd do not give cathodes which charge with D+ (or, at least, which do not charge satisfactorily). A library of
plots of (k’R)11 versus time is a useful tool in predicting the outcome of any given experiment!

We examine next the results for one Pd cathode polarised in D2O solution out of a set of four whose behaviour we will discuss further in the next section. Fig 6B gives the overall temperature-time and cell potential-time data for the second electrode of the set. The overall objective of this part of our investigations has been to determine the conditions required to produce high rates of excess enthalpy generation at the boiling point of the D2O solutions. Our protocol for
the experiment is based on the hypothesis that the further addition of D+ to cathodes already highly loaded with deuterium will be endothermic. We therefore charge the electrodes at low to intermediate current densities and at temperatures below 50°C for prolonged periods of time; following this, the current densities are increased and the temperature is allowed to rise. The D+ is then retained in the cathodes and we take advantage of the “positive feedback” between the temperature and the rate of excess enthalpy generation to drive the cells to the boiling point, Fig 6.

Figure 5. Plot of the heat transfer coefficient for the first day of electrolysis in a “blank” cellcontaining a 12.5 × 2mm palladium electrode polarised in O.1M LiOH at 0.250mA.


(Figure 6A)



(Figure 6D)

Figure 6. Temperature-time and potential-time profiles for four 12.5 × 2mm palladium electrodes polarised in heavy water (0.1M LiOD). Electrolysis was started at the same time for all cells. The input enthalpies and the excess enthalpy outputs at selected times are indicated on the diagrams. The current in the first cell was 0.500A. The initial current in each of the other 3 cells was 0.200A, which was increased to 0.500A at the beginning of days 3, 6, and 9, respectively.


We examine next the behaviour of the lower bound heat transfer coefficient as a function
of time in three regions, Figs 7A-C. For the first day of operation, Fig 7A, (k’R)11 is initially
markedly negative in view of the heat of dissolution of D+ in the lattice. As for the case of dissolution of H+ in Pd, this phenomenon decays with the diffusional relaxation time so that
(k’R)11 increases towards the true value for this cell, 0.892 × 10-9WK-4. However, (k’R)11 never
reaches this final value because a second exothermic process develops namely, the generation of
excess enthalpy in the lattice. In view of this, (k’R)11 again decreases and we observe a maximum:
these maxima may be strongly or weakly developed depending on the experimental conditions such as the diameter of the electrodes, the current density, the true heat transfer coefficients, the level of excess enthalpy generation etc.

We take note of an extremely important observation: although (k’R)11 never reaches the true value of the heat transfer coefficient, the maximum values of this lower bound coefficient are the minimum values of k’R which must be used in evaluating the thermal balances for the cells. This maximum value is quite independent of other methods of calibration and, clearly, the use of


this value will show that there is excess enthalpy generation both at short and at long times. These estimates in Qf (which we denote by (Qf)11 are the lower bounds of the excess enthalpy. The conclusion that there is excess enthalpy generation for Pd cathodes polarised in D2O is inescapable and is independent of any method of calibration which may be adopted so as to put the study on a quantitative basis. It is worth noting that a similar observation about the significance of our data was made in the independent review which was presented at the 2nd Annual Conference on Cold Fusion. (6)

(Figure 7A, 7B)



(Figure 7C)

Figure 7. Plots of the lower bound heat transfer coefficient as a function of time for three different periods of the experiment described in Fig. 6B: (A) the first day of electrolysis, (B) during a period including the last part of the calibration cycle, and (C) the last day of electrolysis.

We comment next on the results for part of the second day of operation, Fig 7B. In the
region of the first heater calibration pulse (see Fig 6), (k’R)11 has decreased from the value shown
in Fig 7A. This is due to the operation of the term ΔQ which is not taken into account in
calculating (k’R)11, see equation [4]. As we traverse the region of the termination of the pulse ΔQ,
t=t2, (k’R)11 shows the expected increase. Fig 7B also illustrates that the use of the maximum value of (k’R)11, Fig 7A, gives a clear indication of the excess enthalpy term ΔQ, here imposed by the resistive heater. We will comment elsewhere on the time dependencies of (k’R)11 and of Q in the regions close to t = t1 and t = t2. (8)

The last day of operation is characterised by a rapid rise of temperature up to the boiling point of the electrolyte leading to a short period of intense evaporation/boiling Fig 8. The evidence for the time dependence of the cell contents during the last stages of operation is discussed in the next section. Fig 7C shows the values of (k’R)11 calculated using two assumed atmospheric pressures, 0.953 and 0.97 bars. The first value has been chosen to give a smooth evaporation of the cell contents (M0 = 5.0 D2O) i.e., no boiling during the period up to the point when the cell becomes dry, 50,735 s. However, this particular mode of operation would have required the cell to have been half-full at a time 2.3 hrs before dryness. Furthermore, the ambient pressure at that time was 0.966 bars. We believe therefore that such a mode of operation must be excluded. For the second value of the pressure, 0.97 bars, the cell would have become half empty 11 minutes before dryness, as observed from the video recordings (see the next section) and this in turn requires a period of intense boiling during the last 11 minutes. It can be seen that the heat transfer coefficient (k’R)11 decreases gradually for the assumed condition P = 0.953 bars whereas it stays more nearly constant for P = 0.97 up to the time at which the cell is half-full, followed by a very rapid fall to marked negative values. These marked negative values naturally are an expression of the high rates of enthalpy generation required to explain the rapid boiling during the last 11 minutes of operation. The true behaviour must be close to that calculated for this value of the ambient pressure.


Figure 8. Expansion of the temperature-time portion of Fig 6B during the final period of rapid boiling and evaporation.

Figs 9A and B give the rates of the specific excess enthalpy generation for the first and last day corresponding to the heat transfer coefficients, Figs 7A and C. On the first day the specific rate due to the heat of dissolution of D+ in the lattice falls rapidly in line with the decreasing rate of diffusion into the lattice coupled with the progressive saturation of the electrode. This is followed by a progressive build up of the long-time rate of excess enthalpy generation. The rates of the specific excess enthalpy generation for the last day of operation are given for the two assumed atmospheric pressures P*=0.953 and 0.97 bars in Fig 9B. These rates are initially insensitive to the choice of the value of P*. However, with increasing time, (Qf) for the first condition increases reaching ~300 watts cm-3 in the final stages. As we have noted above, this particular pattern of operation is not consistent with the ambient atmospheric pressure. The true behaviour must be close to that for P*=0.97 bars for which (Qf) remains relatively constant at ~ 20W cm-3 for the bulk of the experiment followed by a rapid rise to ~ 4kW cm-3 as the cell boils dry.

A Further Simple Method of Investigating the Thermal Balances for the Cells Operating in the Region of the Boiling Point

It will be apparent that for cells operating close to the boiling point, the derived values of
Qf and of (k’R)11 become sensitive to the values of the atmospheric pressure (broadly for θcell >
97.5°C e.g., see Fig 9B.) It is therefore necessary to develop independent means of monitoring the progressive evaporation/boiling of the D2O. The simplest procedure is to make time-lapse video recordings of the operation of the cells which can be synchronised with the temperature-time and cell potential-time data. Figs 6A-D give the records of the operation of four such cells which are illustrated by four stills taken from the video recordings, Fig 10A-D. Of these, Fig 10A illustrates the initial stages of operation as the electrodes are being charged; Fig 10B shows the first cell being driven to boiling, the remaining cells being still at low to intermediate temperatures; Fig 10C shows the last cell being driven to boiling, the first three having boiled dry; finally, 10D shows all cells boiled dry.

As it is possible to repeatedly reverse and run forward the video recordings at any stage of operation, it also becomes possible to make reasonably accurate estimates of the cell contents. We have chosen to time the evaporation/boiling of the last half of the D2O in cells of this type and this allows us to make particularly simple thermal balances for the operation in the region of the
boiling point. The enthalpy input is estimated from the cell potential-time record, the radiative
output is accurately known (temperature measurements become unnecessary!) and the major enthalpy output is due to evaporation of the D2O. We illustrate this with the behaviour of the cell, Fig 6D, Fig 10D.


Figure 9. Plots of the specific excess enthalpy generation for (A) the first and (B) the last day of
the experiment described in Fig 6B and using the heat transfer coefficients given in Figs 7A and


Enthalpy Input
By electrolysis = (Ecell – 1.54) × Cell Current ~ 22,500J

Enthalpy Output
To Ambient ≈ k´R [(374.5°)4 – (293.15°)4] × 600s = 6,700J
In Vapour ≈ (2.5 Moles × 41KJ/Mole) = 102,500J

Enthalpy Balance
Excess Enthalpy ≈ 86,700J

Rate of Enthalpy Input
By Electrolysis, 22,500J/600s = 37.5W

Rate of Enthalpy Output
To Ambient, 6,600J/600s = 11W
In Vapour, 102,500J/600s ≈ 171W

Balance of Enthalpy Rates
Excess Rate ≈ 144.5W
Excess Specific Rate ≈ 144.5W/0.0392cm3 ≈ 3,700Wcm-3



Figure 10. Stills of video recordings of the cells described in Fig 6 taken at increasing times. (A) Initial charging of the electrodes. (B) The first cell during the final period of boiling dry with the other cells at lower temperatures. (C) The last cell during the final boiling period, the other cells having boiled dry. (D) All the cells having boiled dry.

Part of a similar boil-off video can bee seen here:
[editor’s note: August 12, 2017, this video is not available. The Phys Lett A publication had one image only, unintelligible, no video ref. However, these videos exist, courtesy of Steve Krivit:
Pons-Fleischmann Four-Cell Boil-Off (Pons Presentation) (Japanese overdub?)
Pons-Fleischmann Four-Cell Boil-Off (Pons Presentation) (no sound)


We note that excess rate of energy production is about four times that of the enthalpy input even for this highly inefficient system; the specific excess rates are broadly speaking in line with those achieved in fast breeder reactors. We also draw attention to some further important features: provided satisfactory electrode materials are used, the reproducibility of the experiments is high; following the boiling to dryness and the open-circuiting of the cells, the cells nevertheless remain at high temperature for prolonged periods of time, Fig 8; furthermore the Kel-F supports of the electrodes at the base of the cells melt so that the local temperature must exceed 300ºC.

We conclude once again with some words of warning. A major cause of the rise in cell voltage is undoubtedly the gas volume between the cathode and anode as the temperature approaches the boiling point (i.e., heavy steam). The further development of this work therefore calls for the use of pressurised systems to reduce this gas volume as well as to further raise the operating temperature. Apart from the intrinsic difficulties of operating such systems it is also not at all clear whether the high levels of enthalpy generation achieved in the cells in Figs 10 are in any sense a limit or whether they would not continue to increase with more prolonged operation. At a specific excess rate of enthalpy production of 2kW cm-3, the electrodes in the cells of Fig 10
are already at the limit at which there would be a switch from nucleate to film boiling if the current flow were interrupted (we have shown in separate experiments that heat transfer rates in the range 1-10kW cm-2 can be achieved provided current flow is maintained i.e., this current flow extends the nucleate boiling regime). The possible consequences of a switch to film boiling are not clear at this stage. We have therefore chosen to work with “open” systems and to allow the cells to boil to dryness before interrupting the current.



CP,O2,g Heat capacity of O2, JK-1mol-1.
CP,D2,g Heat capacity of D2, JK-1 mol-1.
CP,D2O,l Heat capacity of liquid D2O, JK-1mol-1.
CP,D2O,g Heat capacity of D2O vapour, JK-1mol-1.
Ecell Measured cell potential, V
Ecell,t=0 Measured cell potential at the time when the initial values of the parameters are evaluated, V
Ethermoneutral bath Potential equivalent of the enthalpy of reaction for the dissociation of heavy water at the bath temperature, V
F Faraday constant, 96484.56 C mol-1.
H Heaviside unity function.
I Cell current, A.
k0R Heat transfer coefficient due to radiation at a chosen time origin, WK-4
(k’REffective heat transfer coefficient due to radiation, WK-4 Symbol for liquid phase.
L Enthalpy of evaporation, JK1mol-1.
M0 Heavy water equivalent of the calorimeter at a chosen time origin, mols.
P Partial pressure, Pa; product species. P* Atmospheric pressure
P* Rate of generation of excess enthalpy, W.
Qf(t) Time dependent rate of generation of excess enthalpy, W.
T Time, s.
Ν Symbol for vapour phase.
Q Rate of heat dissipation of calibration heater, W.
Δθ Difference in cell and bath temperature, K.
Θ Absolute temperature, K.
θbath Bath temperature, K.
Λ Slope of the change in the heat transfer coefficient with time.
Φ Proportionality constant relating conductive heat transfer to the radiative heat transfer term.



1. Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Mark W. Anderson, Liang Jun Li and Marvin
Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem., 287 (1990) 293. [copy]

2. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, Fusion Technology, 17 (1990) 669. [Britz Pons1990]

3. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, Proceedings of the First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A. (28-31 March, 1990). [unavailable]

4. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in T . Bressani, E. Del Guidice and G.
Preparata (Eds), The Science of Cold Fusion: Proceedings of the II Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, (29 June-4 July 1991), Vol. 33 of the Conference Proceedings, The Italian Physical Society, Bologna, (1992) 349, ISBN 887794-045-X. [unavailable]

5. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem., 332 (1992) 33. [Britz Flei1992]

6. W. Hansen, Report to the Utah State Fusion Energy Council on the Analysis of Selected Pons-Fleischmann Calorimetric Data, in T. Bressani, E. Del Guidice and G. Preparata (Eds), The Science of Cold Fusion: Proceedings of the II Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Como, Italy, (29 June-4 July 1991), Vol. 33 of the Conference Proceedings, The Italian Physical Society, Bologna, (1992) 491, ISBN 887794-045-X. [link]

7. D. E. Williams, D. J. S. Findlay, D. W. Craston, M. R. Sene, M. Bailey, S. Croft, B.W. Hooten, C.P. Jones, A.R.J. Kucernak, J.A. Mason and R.I. Taylor, Nature, 342 (1989) 375. [Britz Will1989]

8. To be published.

9. R.H. Wilson, J.W. Bray, P.G. Kosky, H.B. Vakil and F.G. Will, J. Electroanal. Chem., 332 (1992) 1. [Britz Wils1992]

We dedicate this paper to the memory of our friend, Mr. Minoru Toyoda.

Review tools

Links to anchors in this document:

Page numbers, referring to lenr-canr source: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Equations  e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8

Figures f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6 f7 f8 f9 f10

Notes n1 n2 n3 n4 n5 n6 n7 n8 n9

Section anchors (capitalization matters), anchor word in bold:
ABSTRACT [analysis]
General Features of our Calorimetry
Modelling of the Calorimeters
Methods of Data Evaluation: the Precision and Accuracy of the Heat Transfer Coefficients
Applications of Measurements of the Lower Bound Heat Transfer Coefficients to the Investigation of the Pd – D2Ο System
A Further Simple Method of Investigating the Thermal Balances for the Cells Operating in the Region of the Boiling Point

Sections also become subpages using the same anchor word. As these are created, they will be noted in the Contents metasection above, and after the section with a smalltext link.

Morrison Fleischmann debate

This is a study of the debate between Douglas Morrison and Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. This debate first took place on the internet, but was then published. It was also covered with copies of drafts from both sides, shown on

Phase 1 of the study
Participation is strongly invited.
Britz summaries of the papers

Phase 1 of the study

In this phase, the goal is to thoroughly understand, as far as possible, the expression and intentions of the authors. In the first phase, whether an author is “right” or “wrong” is irrelevant, and if something appears incorrect, a default operating assumption is that the expression was defective or incomplete or has not been understood. In later analysis, this restriction may be removed, and possible error considered.

The original paper being critiqued was M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, “Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity,” Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129. I have a scan of the original published paper (and Steve Krivit hosts a copy), but I have used here use the more-available version, first presented as a conference paper at ICCF-3 in 1992. There is a later version, presented at ICCF-4 in 1993.

Morrison, D. R. O. (1994). “Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil.” Phys. Lett. A, 185:498–502. I have a scan, but, again, will use the copy.

The original authors then replied with Fleischmann, M.; Pons, S. (1994). “Reply to the critique by Morrison entitled ‘Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by FLeischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil'”. Phys. Lett. A, 187:276–280. Again, I have a scan of the as-published reply, but will use what is included in the copy for convenience.

If there are any significant differences in the versions, I assume they will be found and noted. Meanwhile, this is an opportunity to see what critiques were levelled by Morrison in 1994, and how Pons and Flesichmann replied. Many of the same issues continue to be raised.

Subpages here.

Original paper.

Morrison critique.

Original authors respond.

Review Committee (new members welcome. This is consensus process and, even after the Committee issues reports, additional good-faith review will remain open here, hopefully, or elsewhere.)


To participate in this study, comment on the Review Committee page, using a real email address (which will remain confidential) and then begin reviewing the Original paper. (The email address will be used in negotiating consensus, later. Participants will be consulted about process.) Again, the goal at his point is to become familiar with the original paper, what is actually in it (and what is not in it).

Comment here constitutes permission for CFC administration to email you directly (your email address remains private information, not used except for administrative purposes.)

Fleischmann papers are famous for being difficult to understand. Having now edited the complete paper, I’m not ready to claim I understand it all, but it is not as difficult as I’d have expected. The math takes becoming familiar with the symbols, but it is not particularly complex.

Subpages are being created for each section in the article.

If anyone has difficulty understanding something, comment on the relevant subpage and we can look at it. Specify the page number. (I have placed page anchors as well as section anchors in the Original, and equation and figure anchors as well, so you can link directly. There are surely errors in this editing, so corrections are highly welcome.)

Take notes, and you may share them as a comment on that subpage. Please keep a focus in each comment, if possible, on a single section in the paper. I may then reorganize these in subpages that study each section. Comments on the paper itself, at this point, are not for debate or argument, but only for seeking understanding.

(If a subpage has not yet been created for a section, show the subsection title in questions or comment, and these will be moved to the relevant subpage. At this point, please do not “debate.” The goal is understanding, and understanding arises from the comprehension of multiple points of view.)

Overall comment on this process is appropriate on this page.

As Phase 1 completes on the Original, we will move to the Morrison critique, and then, in turn, to the Pons and Fleischmann reply, again with the goal being understanding of the positions and ideas expressed.

In Phase 2 we will begin to evaluate all this, to see if we can find consensus on significance, for example.

Source for Morrison, and related discussions in sci.physics.fusion

Comments on Fleischmann and Pons paper.

— (should be the same as the copy on, or maybe the later copy (see below) is what we have.

Response to comments on my cold fusion status report.

— Morrison comment in 2000 on another Morrison paper, status of cold fusion, correcting errors and replying. This contains many historical references. Much discussion ensued. Morrison appears to be convinced that excess heat measurements are all error, from unexpected recombination, and he also clearly considers failure to find neutrons to be negative against fusion, i.e., he is assuming that if there is fusion, it is standard d-d fusion (which few are claiming any more, and which was effectively ruled out by Fleischmann from the beginning — far too few neutrons, and the neutron report they made was error. Basically, no neutrons is a characteristic of FP cold fusion. This was long after Miles and after Miles was recognized by Huizenga as such a remarkable finding. The discussion shows the general toxicity and hostility. (Not so Morrison himself, who is polite.)

You asked where is the “Overwhelming evidence” against cold fusion? For 
this see the paper “Review of Cold Fusion” which I presented at the ICCF-3 
conference in Nagoya – strangely enough it seems not to have been published 
in the proceedings despite being an invited paper – will send a copy if   

“Strangely enough,” indeed.

The 2000 paper is on New Energy Times. 

Krivit has collected many issues of the Morrison newsletters on cold fusion.

This is a Morrison review of the Nagoya conference (ICCF-3). Back to sci.physics.fusion:

Fleischmann’s original response to Morrison’s lies

— Post in 2000 by Jed Rothwell and discussion.

Morrison’s Comments Criticized

— Post by Swartz in 1993 (cosigned by Mallove) with Fleischmann reply to Morrison’s critique. Attacks the intentions of Morrison, but this was the original posting of the Fleischmann reply.

I am sure there is more there of interest. We can see how toxic, largely ad-hominem, polarized debate led to little useful conclusions, merely the hardened positions that continue to be expressed.

Hagelstein on the inclusion of skeptics at ICCF 10.

9. Absence of skeptics

Researchers in cold fusion have not had very good luck interacting with skeptics over the years. This has been true of the ICCF conference series. Douglas Morrison attended many of the ICCF conferences before he passed away. While he did provide some input as a skeptic, many found his questions and comments to be uninteresting (the answers usually had been discussed previously, or else concerned points that seemed more political than scientific). It is not clear how many in the field saw the reviews of the conferences that he distributed widely. For example, at ICCF3 the SRI team discussed observations of excess heat from electrochemical cells in a flow calorimeter, where the associated experimental errors were quite small and well-studied. The results were very impressive, and answered basic questions about the magnitude of the effect, signal to noise, dynamics, reproducibility, and dependence on loading and current density. Morrison’s discussion in his review left out nearly all technical details of the presentation, but did broadcast his nearly universal view that the results were not convincing. What the physics community learned of research in the cold fusion field in general came through Morrison’s filter.

Skeptics have often said that negative papers are not allowed at the conference. At ICCF10, some effort was made to encourage skeptics to attend. Gene Mallove posted more than 100 conference posters around MIT several months prior to the conference (some of which remain posted two years later), in the hope that people from MIT would come to the conference and see what was happening. No MIT students or faculty attended, outside of those presenting at the conference. The cold fusion demonstrations presented at MIT were likewise ignored by the MIT community.

To encourage skeptics to attend, invitations were issued to Robert Park, Peter Zimmermann, Frank Close, Steve Koonin, John Holzrichter, and others. All declined, or else did not respond. In the case of Peter Zimmermann, financial issues initially prevented his acceptance, following which full support (travel, lodging, and registration) was offered. Unfortunately his schedule then did not permit his participation. Henceforth, let it be known that it was the policy at ICCF10 to actively encourage the participation of skeptics, and that many such skeptics chose not to participate.

My analysis: the damage had been done. The efforts to include skeptics were too little, too late. The comment that Hagelstein makes about Morrison’s participation is diagnostic: instead of harnessing Morrison’s critique, it is essentially dismissed. Whatever issues Morrison kept bringing up, ordinary skeptics would have the same issues. Peter’s comment is “in-universe,” not seeing the overall context. Skeptics with strongly-developed rejection views would, in general, not consider attending the conference a worthwhile investment of time. That could be remedied, easily. My super-sekrit plan: if conditions are ripe, to invite Gary Taubes to ICCF-21. Shhh! Don’t tell anyone!

(The time is not quite yet ripe, but might be before ICCF-21.)

Short of that, how about an ICCF panel to address skeptical issues and to suggest possible experimental testing of anything not already adequately tested? (And who decides what is adequate? Skeptics, of course! Who else? And for this we need some skeptics! This kind of process takes facilitation, it doesn’t happen by itself, when polarization has set in.)

(This is not a suggestion that experimentalists must anticipate or address every possible criticism. When they can do so, it’s valuable, and the scientific method suggests seeking to prove one’s own conclusions wrong, but that is about interpretation, and  science is also exploration, and in exploration, one reports what one sees and does not necessarily nail down every possible detail.)

Britz on the papers:

author = {M. Fleischmann and S. Pons},
title = {Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity},
journal = {Phys. Lett. A},
volume = {176},
year = {1993},
pages = {118–129},
keywords = {Experimental, electrolysis, Pd, calorimetry, res+},
submitted = {12/1992},
published = {05/1993},
annote = {Without providing much experimental detail, this paper focusses on a series of cells that were brought to the boil and in fact boiled to dryness at the end, in a short time (600 s). The analysis of the calorimetric data is once again described briefly, and the determination of radiative heat transfer coefficient demonstrated to be reliable by its evolution with time. This complicated model yields a fairly steady excess heat, at a Pd cathode of 0.4 cm diameter and 1.25 cm length, of about 20 W/cm$^3$ or around 60\% input power (not stated), in an electrolyte of 0.6 M LiSO4 at pH 10. When the cells boil, the boiling off rate yields a simply calculated excess heat of up to 3.7 kW/cm$^3$. The current flow was allowed to continue after the cell boiled dry, and the electrode continued to give off heat for hours afterwards.}

author = {D.~R.~O. Morrison},
title = {Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons
using simple cells made to boil},
journal = {Phys. Lett. A},
volume = {185},
year = {1994},
pages = {498–502},
keywords = {Polemic},
submitted = {06/1993},
published = {02/1994},
annote = {This polemic, communicated by Vigier (an editor of the journal), as was the original paper under discussion (Fleischmann et al, ibid 176 (1993) 118), takes that paper experimental stage for stage and points out its weaknesses. Some of the salient points are that above 60C, the heat transfer
calibration is uncertain, that at boiling some electrolyte salt as well as unvapourised liquid must escape the cell and (upon D2O topping up) cell conductivity will decrease; current fluctuations are neglected and so is the Leydenfrost effect; recombination; and the cigarette lighter effect, i.e. rapid recombination of Pd-absorbed deuterium with oxygen.}

author = {M. Fleischmann and S. Pons},
title = {Reply to the critique by Morrison entitled
‘Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by FLeischmann
and Pons using simple cells made to boil’},
journal = {Phys. Lett. A},
volume = {187},
year = {1994},
pages = {276–280},
keywords = {Polemic},
submitted = {06/1993},
published = {04/1994},
annote = {Point-by-point rebuttal. F\&P did not use the complicated differential equation method as claimed by Morrison; the critique by Wilson et al does not apply to F\&P’s work; very little electrolyte leaves the cell in liquid form; current- and cell voltage fluctuations are absent or unimportant; the problem of the transition from nucleate to film boiling was addressed; recombination (cigarette lighter effect) is negligible.}

If it blew up, it must be LENR!

I’m writing this because I like the headline. It does bring up some more, ah, fundamental issues.

THHuxleynew wrote:

kirkshanahan wrote:

The results of doing this is to come up with an excess heat signal that is a) large and b) occurring when no current is flowing, meaning you essentially have an infinite instantaneous COP. The problem is that this comes out of applying the same calibration equation used for ‘normal’ operations. The steady state is so radically different in a ‘boiled-dry’ cell that everyone should know you can’t do that. But not the CFers…it shows excess heat…it must be real…and is certainly must be nuclear!

“The CFers.” Classic Shanahan. Classic ad-hominem, straw-man argument, one of the reasons he gets no traction with those who would need to understand and respect his arguments, if he has a real basis and actually cares about supporting science.

Below, I go into details. Continue reading “If it blew up, it must be LENR!”

Lewan Rossi interview of May, 2016

This recent Lewan interview and comments on it led me to look back at an older one:

Rossi makes offer on Swedish factory building – plus more updates

Last week, Andrea Rossi made a visit to Sweden, and apart from meeting with the team of professors in Uppsala, with me and other persons, he made a trip from Stockholm to the south of Sweden to have look at a 10,000 square meter factory building for sale. The day after, assisted by his Northern Europe partner and licensee Hydrofusion, Rossi made an offer on the building in the order of USD 3 to 5 million. Negotiations are now ongoing.

This was before the IH Answer in Rossi v. Darden revealed that Rossi claimed to IH, in 2012, that he had created a fake test for Hydro Fusion to get out of his agreement with them. One wonders how Hydro Fusion reacted when they found out, assuming they did. Be that as it may, it seems clear that Lewan reports what Rossi tells him as fact, without verification. To be sure, perhaps he did verify, but … it seems unlikely. Then Lewan does not follow up. What happened to this deal? When an actual offer is made, normally there is a deposit put up. Or was this a real offer, or just an idea?

There are many “updates” reported in this interview. What else was there and how does it all look now, with far more having become public?

Even buying a factory building is no proof that production will start. Critics, accusing Rossi for being a fraudster, will assume that it could be a way to attract investors, but I honestly wouldn’t expect a fraudster to make use of such expensive schemes. Especially not since it would be quite fine just getting away with 11.5M without further trouble.

This is a classic argument on Planet Rossi. “I wouldn’t expect.” “Fraudster” is not well defined. Lewan’s expectation is an ungrounded fantasy. If a fraudster is someone who induces people to do what he wants by misleading them, there is plenty of evidence that Rossi has done that (including that Hydro Fusion affair, regarding which Lewan has direct knowledge of).

IH obviously didn’t expect Rossi to sue them, he’d have to be crazy. Yes. He would. However, maybe he gained something, he is now claiming that his goal from the beginning was to get the License back, though that does not match his actual behavior. However, once we accept the idea that someone might be literally insane, it is not necessary that anything make sense. What can be seen here is that Lewan is creating conclusions out of nothing.

I would take this as a strong indication that the modular Quark X, supposedly big as a pen, producing heat, light and direct electricity at variable proportions at a total power of about 100W, based on the E-Cat LENR technology with hydrogen, lithium, aluminium and nickel in the fuel, is real. Rossi, however, said that there’s still R&D to be done to get the Quark X ready for production. He also said that the ‘X’ had no other meaning than being a substitute for a final name.

And some other mystery ingredient, apparently, the most closely-guarded secret. Quark-X is now allegedly a 20 watt device, and direct electricity isn’t being claimed any more, if I’m correct. This is 14 months later. Sure, Rossi had an excuse, but … why does everything depend on Rossi alone? Doesn’t he have partners? Ah, well, questions, questions. What’s here.

After my meeting with Rossi (first time for me since September 2012), I have a few other updates.

Claiming that everything he said could be proven with documents (or that he otherwise would be lying),

Rossi lies, that’s not in question. That doesn’t show that any given statement is a lie, but what do we know about what is claimed here?

Rossi told me regarding the one-year 1MW test that:

All the instruments for measurements were installed, under observation of IH and Rossi, by the ERV (Expert Responsible for Validation) Fabio Penon, who had been communicating also with Darden, receiving technical suggestions from him on this matter. All communications with the ERV were made with both Darden and Rossi in copy.

Later email communications between Penon and Rossi (but before this interview) were not cc’d to Darden and were destroyed by Rossi, apparently. Rossi apparently removed monitoring equipment installed by IH, but what he has said here may be more or less correct. Rossi was, in fact, in full control of the “test.” IH never agreed that this was the Guaranteed Performance Test, and it was clear that Rossi knew that the opportunity for the GPT had expired, though IH was willing to negotiate for further payments.

The flow meter was mounted according to all standard requirements, for example at the lowest point in the system.

As soon as the “test” was completed, Rossi removed the pipes so this claim could not be verified.

The MW plant was placed on blocks, 33 cm above the ground, to make sure that leaking water or any hidden connections would become visible.

That would be the Plant. However, the full system was mostly hidden in the “customer area,” and there are various ways that what happened in that area could seriously affect measurements.

The two IH representatives present at the test were Barry West and Fulvio Fabiani (who worked for Rossi from January 2012 until August 2013, when the MW plant was delivered to IH in North Carolina, after which he was paid by IH as an expert who would make the technology transition from Rossi to IH easier). West and Fabiani reported to JT Vaughn every day on the phone.

I’m not sure about “every day.” However, calling them “representatives” is a bit deceptive. Both were tasked with assisting Rossi. Fabiani was an old friend of Rossi’s wife, apparently, and when things broke down between IH and Rossi, Fabiani, he claimed, felt trapped in the middle. In the end, he did not turn over the raw data that did, in fact, belong to IH, thus possibly protecting Rossi. We know that he destroyed that data, by his admission, and he destroyed his emails.

Rossi always pointed to the “two men” IH had in Doral. They were utterly ineffective at monitoring what was going on, because West, in particular, was not allowed to challenge Rossi on anything. Fabiani apparently threatened to harm West if he did anything to harm the “test,” though it’s not clear that he was serious. Fabiani was definitely a Rossi man, not IH.

Three interim reports, about every three months, with basically the same results as in the final report, were provided by the ERV during the test.

They were. Glossed over is the fact that Penon only visited the test maybe once every three months, and depended entirely, as far as we know, on Rossi for data. Many of these details, though, remain unclear because of the destruction of data and emails.

During summer 2015, IH offered Rossi to back out from the test and cancel it, with a significant sum of money as compensation. Rossi’s counter offer was to give back the already paid 11.5M and cancel the license agreement, but IH didn’t accept.

If this actually happened, it is odd that IH would later accept the settlement, turning the License over for no compensation at all.

At this point, making this claim, Rossi was suing IH — and other defendants — for a lot of money. Later, Rossi says, now, in the new interview, that his whole purpose was to get the licence back. IH had put about $20 million into the affair, so $11.5 million would be short. But how about $10 million plus some residual rights? Not requiring all the things that Rossi didn’t want, only providing a conditional payment to IH if Rossi hit the market with real product?

This alleged offer, now, looks like much better than IH actually got. Because this would likely have been used as a basis for improving the IH settlement, I doubt that it ever happened like it’s being said here. Rossi does that, reframes events according to his own narrative and the impression he desires to create.

The unidentified customer (‘JM Products’) using the thermal energy from the MW plant, had its equipment at the official address—7861, 46th Street, Doral, Fl. The total surface of the premises was 1,000 square meters, of which the MW plant used 400 and the customer 600.

We now know that there was no customer other than Rossi wearing different hats, when he even bothered to change hats. This story, like all the others told before the truth came out, strongly implies an independent customer, not Rossi himself. His story changed once he was under penalty of perjury, with massive evidence that he’d been lying. Some of his testimony, still, pushed that legal edge.

The equipment of the customer measured 20 x 3 x 3 meters, and the process was running 24/7.
The thermal energy was transfered to the customer with heat exchangers and the heat that was not consumed was vented out as hot air through the roof.

The “heat exchanger” mentioned here, with the function described, would not be the heat exchanger Rossi later claimed. This report directly contradicts the later story. The heat was, in the later story, blown out the front windows of the mezzanine, not through the roof.

The “equipment” was a collection of tubes in which other, smaller tubes were placed, to be heated. As this was actually operated, with only small amounts of “product” being involved — maybe a few grams! — this did not require anything remotely close to a megawatt. Rossi was here maintaining the fiction of a “customer” which was only Rossi, with full control by Rossi.

The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant.

This was Rossi controlling the ERV report. An engineering evaluation would aim for accuracy, and if some margin is to be added to be “conservative,” this would be applied later, not just to one measure, or mathematically to all, based on estimated error. Rossi’s insistence caused the performance data to be, possibly, partially hidden. By the way, the metering pumps had a maximum operating temperature of 50˚C, another example of the equipment operating outside the rated range.

The ERV accepted. (This was conservative, decreasing the calculated thermal power. The main part of the calculated thermal power, however, derives from the water being evaporated when boiling).
He also insisted that an arbitrary chosen 10 percent should be subtracted in the power calculation, with no other reason than to be conservative. The ERV accepted.

To be sure, at this point, IH was following a policy of not confronting or criticizing anything that Rossi did.

IH never had access to the customer’s area. At the end of the test, an expert hired by IH, insisted that it was important to know where the water came from and where it was used. The ERV explained that this had no importance.

Demonstrating that the ERV was, to use the technical term, a blithering idiot. Sure, if everything works perfectly, it should be possible to measure generated power with the “customer loop” being hidden.

However, there are possible error and fraud modes that would operate in the “customer area.”

Supposedly, the “customer,” JMP, was to independently measure the delivered power. Instead, Johnson, the President of JMP — and Rossi’s lawyer and President of Leonardo Corporation — was given draft reports by Rossi to send to IH for delivered power. Rossi later claimed, when it became apparent that his earlier descriptions were inadequate, that he had built a heat exchanger — an additional one — to dissipate the megawatt. The operating conditions of that heat exchanger, i.e., air flow rate and air temperature rise, would have been an additional measure of power, it would have been of high interest. But if it existed, it was hidden. Why?

Rossi’s description of what was said by the “expert” may not be accurate. This is the set of questions.

Nothing there about what Rossi says. We don’t know that, at this point, Rossi had seen those questions. We may suspect that Penon gave the document to Rossi, but the emails were destroyed, and Penon was unavailable to be served, apparently hiding in the Dominican Republic to avoid being sued.

In fact, Penon blew off the expert’s questions, refusing to answer them. This is not how an independent expert would behave. Questions were asked verbally, and the expert (Murray) wasn’t satisfied and put the questions in writing. No answers.

The average flow of water was 36 cubic meters per day.

Data collection from a test like this would properly be as measured (actual flow meter readings), not some “average.” This is all part of what was weird about the Penon report. That’s covered in many other places.

At the end of the test, the ERV dismounted all the instruments by himself, in the presence of Rossi and IH, packed them and brought everything to DHL for transportation to the instrument manufacturers who would recalibrate the instruments and certify that they were not manipulated.

This is the kind of claim that sounds reasonable until it is examined closely. When a lawyer saw this claim (not an IH lawyer), he immediately said “spoliation.” That is, evidence was removed. To be sure, no evidence appeared in the case about the results of those recalibrations.

“Manipulation” — or error — need not be of the instrument itself, but how the instrument is installed or how it is read.

One of the mysteries of the Penon report is the rock-solid 0.0 bar pressure reported. Assuming that Penon actually meant “0.0 barg,” this is astonishing, given supposedly superheated output. With superheated output, it is very difficult to maintain temperature control (unlike saturated steam, that will be rock-solid at a given pressure.) Murray raised certain issues with Penon, but there are more. In any case, imagine that the pressure gauge was screwed into a blind hole. No pressure. Nothing wrong with the gauge. Then just a little steam could raise the pressure enough to explain the temperature readings; setting up such a system to operate at 0.0 bar, precisely, would be extremely difficult, and why would one go to the trouble?

After the test, IH wanted to remove the MW plant from the premises in Florida, but Rossi would not accept until the remaining $89M were paid according to the license agreement.

The Plant clearly belonged to IH, which, by the Term Sheet, had the right to remove it. Rossi’s action was not legally sustainable, under normal conditions.

Rossi’s and IH’s attorneys then agreed that both parties should lock the plant with their own padlocks (as opposed to the claim by Dewey Weaver—a person apparently connected to IH, but yet not clear in what way—that ‘IH decided to padlock the 1MW container after observing and documenting many disappointing actions and facts’).

Dewey was an investor in IH, involved from the beginning of the affair, and a contractor to them as well. His statement is not contradicted by what is said about attorneys on both sides. (Both can be true.) This is Lewan arguing with Weaver, but, of course, Lewan disallowed comment on this post.

It’s obvious why IH would want to padlock the container, it would be to prevent spoliation. It seems they did not contemplate that Rossi would remove all the piping. There is a story that Johnson asked IH about starting up the plant again (possibly an attempt to support the “customer” story), IH indicated that could be done, and then Johnson withdrew the request. After all, the piping had been removed (and, as well, if the later story is true, the heat exchanger as well. Both were necessary for operation of a megawatt plant!)

Rossi claimed that the Term Sheet prevented IH from having access to the “customer area,” which wasn’t true. That provision was in a draft, but was removed before that agreement was signed. Nevertheless, IH did not attempt to enter the “customer area.”

I should also add that I have been in contact with people with insight into the MW report, that hopefully will get public this summer as part of the lawsuit, and they told me that based on the contents, the only way for IH to claim a COP about 1 (that no heat was produced—COP, Coefficient of Performance, is Output Energy/Input Energy) would be to accuse Penon of having produced a fake report in collaboration with Rossi. Nothing in the report itself seems to give any opportunity for large mistakes, invalidating the claim of a high COP (as opposed to claims by people having talked about the report with persons connected to IH).

Jed Rothwell somehow obtained a copy of a preliminary report. Lewan is here reporting a complex judgment with no attribution covering the expertise of those judging, this was vague rumor. If the data in the report is taken as accurate — which appears unlikely from internal evidence — sure. High COP. Lewan is completely unspecific. Rothwell claims he got the preliminary data from someone who got it from Rossi. When the Murray questions to Penon came out, Rothwell said that he had nothing more to add (Rothwell had seen spreadsheet data, but Murray describes it.)

The Penon report was filed in the court documents. There is also data from Fabiani. It all looks odd, but I’m not going into more detail here.

As for hints on the ERV Penon being incompetent, based partly on the HotCat report from August 2012, I would like to point out:

Fabio Penon has a degree in Nuclear Engineering, from Bologna University, with rating 100 of 100 and honors.

Goes to show. (Nuclear engineering does not necessarily prepare one for low-temperature steam power measurement and possible artifacts.)

He worked for several years in the nuclear industry with thermo mechanics.
When the nuclear industry was put on hold in Italy, he turned to work as expert on product certification, collaborating with entities such as Bureau Veritas, Vertiquality and Det Norske Veritas.

The HotCat report from August 2012, signed by Penon, containing a few notable errors, was not written by Penon. Penon assisted at a test on August 7, 2012, repeating an experiment made on July 16, 2012. The report was written on the July test, and Penon was only confirming that similar results were obtained on the August test. Penon told me this in an interview in September, 2012. You could of course accuse Penon of not having studied the original report sufficiently before signing it, but the errors were not a result of Penon’s work.

Sure. That signature, however, demonstrates a level of professional incompetence. He signed a report without verifying it. I’d be happier if he simply made some mistakes! Here, Mats is finding excuses, and that’s what one does if one is attempting to create or support some picture, some overall impression.

Penon’s behavior as shown by the lawsuit wasn’t … inspiring.

Two further remarks regarding earlier E-Cat tests:

[not copied]

I have contacted several experts to get a third party evaluation of the Lugano test report and the contesting papers by Thomas Clarke and Bob Higgins. Until I receive these evaluations I only note that the original result is contested, but that no conclusive result is agreed upon. The isotopic shifts remain unexplained, unless you assume fraud.

That is probably necessary, though the real point is that the samples were not obtain neutrally.

Mats never came up with the third party evaluations. That could have been an actual service.

There is more, confirming that Clarke and Higgens were correct, at least in round outlines. IH made the Lugano reactors, and claims that they were never able to confirm the Lugano results, in spite of extensive efforts. (It is possible that they had some original results later considered artifact, and the report of an accidental control experiment, mentioned in the recent interview, may have been a Lugano-type reactor with similar optical calorimetry. That kind of work must be fully calibrated (i.e., with control experiments at full input power, the basic and most obvious Lugano error.)

As to the isotopic shifts, Rossi, during this visit that Lewan is reporting on, provided another sample of ash to Bo Hoistad. This showed the same isotopic shifts. It was apparently from the Doral plant, though that’s not clear. The “same isotopic shifts” could indicate that this was from the same sample. If it was actually from Doral, Doral had operated for a year, whereas Lugano only operated for a month. One would expect more dramatic shifts from a year of operation, if this is an effect from whatever reaction is generating power.


Now, all this makes me conclude that the E-Cat is most probably valid and that the 1MW test was indeed successful.

It appears that the phase of the Moon led Lewan to conclude this. There was a major investor who devoted $20 million and years of effort to confirm Rossi technology. The investor failed to do so, and walked away with a complete loss. In the face of that, the vagueness Lewan asserts pales to insignificance.

What remains to be explained is why IH in that case didn’t pay Rossi the final $89M and continued to partner with him to develop and market such a disruptive, world changing technology.

Indeed. Something is wrong with this picture. To discover it, Lewan would need to set aside his own complex emotional reactions, and actually become familiar with fact.

After looking at it for some time, I tend to be skeptic about the conspiracy hypothesis, involving large financial and political interests being threatened by such a technology, even though I find it remarkable that IH has involved APCO Worldwide and Jones Day.

Sifferkoll really goes off the deep end.

APCO and Jones Day are not at all mysterious if one looks at who these people are. Darden is a professional investment manager, handling billions of dollars in investments. It’s surprising that they would hire professionals? Why?

I then ask myself if it’s really possible that it all comes down to money. That IH/Cherokee, as has been suggested, has a track record of putting up companies based on emerging technologies or remediation projects, collecting public and private funding (or also this link), making the funds disappear and then closing down the companies with reasonable explanations for unsuccessful development of the technology or of the project.

That is a cherry=picked story of what Cherokee does, often asserted by Sifferkoll and repeated among Rossi supporters as if it were established fact.

Cherokee takes on risky projects, setting up LLCs for each project. They put about $25 million of Cherokee funds in them. Each project is independent. Each project then solicits its own investors, generally from “qualified investors,” people who can take on major risk — and also people who may need tax deductions, another factor.

Money does not “disappear.” Rather, a few projects fail. When they fail, which isn’t often, — i.e., most projects make money, quite a lot — a project may be shut down. In some cases, liabilities may exceed assets, though that is not common, and then a project might go through bankruptcy. Like any corporation. Some of these projects obtain loans and governmental funding. As with any such loan or grant to a corporation (or individual!), there can be losses. All this has been exaggerated in the lists of alleged Cherokee misbehaviors. I’ve looked at each one I’ve come across, reading the sources, documenting fact. It’s classic mudslinging.

If Cherokee were ripping off investors, there would be investors complaining. If officers were absconding with funds, there would be prosecutions (and one of the stories does involve such a prosecution. An LLC hired someone who apparently wasn’t trustworthy. It happens. None of this has anything to do with Industrial Heat. Industrial Heat investors are not complaining about Darden. This was all FUD to support a Rossi narrative of these people being crooks, but the case documents simply don’t show that.

But Mats hasn’t read the case documents, he’d rather just see what is written on blogs and make knee-jerk judgments.

Admittedly, this could be a defendable strategy in some cases where results could be obtained. Still, if the E-Cat is really working as claimed, why wouldn’t they then take the chance to build it into a prospering money machine? Taking care of the magic hen that lays golden eggs instead of roasting it after having collected the first egg, as some would put it. I cannot figure it out.

The difficulty is arising because assumptions are being made that are contradictory. IH never collected any eggs, not even the first! Rossi claimed “unjust enrichment,” but they never sold Rossi technology. He claims that they “collected $50 million” based on the technology, but that was empty claim (sometimes supported on Planet Rossi by misquoting what Woodford wrote when they learned about the problems.) Woodford did not invest in Rossi technology, but in the general IH LENR activity, this is completely clear.

IH shows, at this point, a dead loss, IHHI still has funds, apparently, but much of the asset value carried may be the Rossi License, which will be completely written off.

In Mercato veritas. Will anyone else invest after seeing what happened to IH?

Clearly, such an endeavour would require investing a lot of money and work, spending large parts, if not all of the funding IH collected while boasting about the successful MW test, and also taking a market risk that it might not play out as expected.

Mats is telling the Rossi story, regurgitated. IH did not “collect funding while boasting about the successful MW test.” They didn’t boast about the MW test. They occasionally expressed some optimism, mixed with some concerns, but major new investment didn’t exist until Woodford invested, and that was committed before the alleged 1 MW test began. Woodford did visit, and Rossi said this and that about it, and some believe Rossi, including, apparently, Mats. There was no new major fundraising after the original $20 million stock offering in 2013, as far as I’ve been able to find.

But wouldn’t it be worth it? Becoming remembered for introducing a technology that could change and literally save the planet, from the climate crisis and from fossil fuel pollution? Rather than being forever remembered as those who only saw the money, and didn’t want to get involved in the technology project? I just cannot understand.

There are many internal IH communications, communications with investors, and the like, in the case documents. They obviously did not “see only the money.” Rossi made that up, and Rossi seems to have believed that they only cared about money (hence he imagined that they’d be happy that he chose them over Hydro Fusion, even though that affair reeked).

These people had concluded that LENR was probably real, and that it was possible Rossi had real devices, and they poured money and hope into that for years, tolerating Rossi’s “difficult behavior,” because if they didn’t, they knew what Rossi would do, and then then would not be nearly as certain as they did, later, come to be.

It’s actually not difficult to understand, if Mats would just take off the blinders and start looking at what he already knows, if he lets go of his attachments.

He doesn’t need to take it from me. He could see all of this for himself.

But, with this interview, he cut himself off from learning what was actually going on:


Finally—I will continue having the comments on this blog closed. The main reason is that few new facts have been presented, whereas unmanageable amounts of opinions have been posted.

That’s a characteristic of community discussions in general. However, Mats had no imagination. The problem on his blog was a linear comment model with no hierarchy. It created completely unmanageable discussions. Further, Lewan didn’t have time for this (and had no patience for those who did). What he could have done was to engage someone to manage the site for him. To develop useful crowd-sourced information requires structure and study and work. To let him know when there was something worth looking at.

What Lewan did isolated him from people who actually understood the case, perhaps only a few of those commenting. Lewan loosely followed E-Cat World, but not LENR Forum (far more neutral, with some regular participants being good writers and scientifically knowledgeable, still a huge mess).

If one doesn’t have the time to follow full discussions with all the trolls and nut cases, and if the topic is important, one needs help. Choose that help well!

I would like to apologise if I have hinted at Thomas Clarke’s having an agenda with his impressive number of comments. I want to assume that Clarke is perfectly honest in the significant work he has laid down on analysing the Lugano report and on commenting what, according to him, is probable or not. But I would also like to note that producing for some periods up to 34 posts per day hints at a position which I’m not sure if it should be called balanced. This, combined with obvious spin from a few people, apparently having an agenda in criticising some individuals, adds to my decision to keep the comments closed.

Thus suppressing genuine discussion of what is posted on the blog. This idea that there is something wrong with “34 posts per day” is a common one among shallow thinkers. That isn’t the Clarke norm, but that was a very hot discussion in a very hot time. I would have invited Clarke to write posts, not merely to comment, because his engagement in the routine cycles of insults common on blogs would be a waste. I would suggest to Clarke that he leave defending himself to others. That’s an old internet principle: don’t defend yourself, defend each other.

Mats doesn’t know enough about the case and case record to have informed opinions, he is entirely dependent on what Rossi tells him and what he’s seen on E-Cat world. He claims “there is no proof,” but he has not actually examined the evidence, it’s all vague. He only reports what Rossi Says, plus some shallow and uninformed conclusions of his own.

To do more would be too much work, my guess.

However, please share the post if you think t’s relevant, and feel free to email me if you have facts that you think I should be aware of.

I have posted a comment on his new interview post, still awaiting moderation approval, and, since he requested this, I’ll email him a link to this page.

Mats Lewan interview

This is a study of a post on Mats Lewan’s blog (linked under the date below), copied for purpose of analysis and critique. It included some good photos of Dr. Rossi, eliminated here because they are not necessary for this purpose. My comments are indented and italicized.

Corrections of errors and comment on arguments is welcome. Comment here is generally open; incivility in comment may result in comments being hidden or moved to an organizing page at the sole discretion of CFC administration (until a more open process is practical and available). If a comment is hidden, the content may be requested by the author. We do not generally delete content, at least not in the short-term.

Here’s The Settlement—Getting The License Back Was Rossi’s Top Priority

July 18, 2017 Uncategorized

Mats has not categorized his pages. It’s not an active blog, so it doesn’t matter.

In the settlement between Rossi and his US licensee IH, Rossi got the license back together with all E-Cat equipment and materials, while none of the parties will have to pay damages to the other.

Yes, if this is the settlement as agreed, and if there are not other agreements. IH is, in signing this, totally relinquishing all claims to Rossi’s IP. A fly in the ointment would be Ampenergo. AEG was a party to the IH/Rossi agreement, and modifications of that agreement without Ampenergo signature are not valid, and this new agreement modifies (basically revokes) that original agreement. Ampenergo is mentioned; Ampenergo rights (and responsibilities, if any) are not altered by this settlement agreement.

It was Ampenergo’s refusal to sign the Second Amendment that created a major legal problem for Rossi in claiming the $89 million payment was due. The provisions allowing this in the original agreement had, in fact, expired, so the Rossi claim depended on estoppel, the idea that IH had behaved as if bound by the Guaranteed Performance Test provisions; but Rossi was unable to find any clear evidence for this, in spite of extensive effort. The evidence that was found only showed that in a few internal communications, IH referred to a test in process according to an agreement, but the reference was vague and could have referred to the Term Sheet agreement and Penon’s involvement.

Getting the license back was his top prio