Monday, April 13, 2015



When the time is right, you just got to do it (Jack Simplot)

At ICCF-19, is the time right? For what? I hope that for positive change.
Anyway, what do we have today till now:


Both E-Catworld and LENR-Forums have organized well the transfer of information from Padua, it was some live stream at the Conference- however I am not good eneough for this audio; and have heard other colleagues also had problems.
What we need from this session first is the transcript of the talks of Tom Darden and Robert Duncan.

Tom Darden's speech (Thanks to Sam Hansson and Frank Acland)

What an honor it is to be here today to address those of you who have done so much to change the way we address our energy needs and our environmental needs, to change science. I’m the founder of Cherokee, and I’ve been asked to tell you we are the body that created Industrial Heat as a funding source for LENR inventors. Unike many of you, I’m not a scientist, I’m an entrepreneur. We share the common bond of innovation . . . Entrepreneurship sees the major task in society as doing something different, rather than doing something better than is already being done. Doing better something that is already being done is like making coal power plants more efficient — you are working to make them unneccessary. Thank God there are some, like many of you, who have the courage to disrupt. In 1921, experts determined that the limits of flight had been reached already. In 1932 it was determined that nuclear fission was unlikely ever to be feasible. And in the 1950’s, when I was born, it was widely believed that pollution was a necessary part of economic development. Paradigm shifts do not come easily, especially in science — it is not a smooth road in the nature of scientific revolutions. Usually they are born out of the crises of our time. If you are on the leading edge of a paradigm shift, you will be attacked by your peers, and you will be attacked by the institutions of the status quo. We feel called to upset two core business paradigms. First, the traditional ethos of environmentalism is that we should strive to be ‘less bad.’ But as America’s leading environmental philosopher puts it in his book Cradle to Cradle, being ‘less bad’ is not being good, it’s still being bad, just a little bit less so. If you are driving a car towards a cliff, it doesn’t help you to slow down — you need to turn around and go in a different direction.
We need solutions that don’t create pollution in the first place, not solutions that only reduce pollution. Second, let’s challenge the assumption of scarcity, at least with respect to energy. Sadly, due to society’s ineffectiveness to date, the world struggles with energy scarcity. What we burn from petroleum or coal, which unlocks only a tiny fraction of the true energy inside, when we do this we release almost all the mass of coal into the air as stack emissions. We scatter this mass around the planet. Carbon and heavy metals can be highly beneficial — they’re not necessarily pollutants — but they are if they’re in the wrong place. C02 in the air is a pollutant; carbon in a tree is not. Heavy metals can be highly beneficial unless they’re in the wrong place like farmlands in China, or in our oceans.
We need an entirely new paradigm. This hopeful vision was the genesis of our work at Industrial Heat. When I entered school, the United States was in the midst of an environmental crisis. Most people have forgotten about this, or perhaps never even new of it, but when I was young periodically industrial rivers in our cities would burst into flame due to pollution, and sometimes in our worst polluted cities, people drove with their headlights on during the day. Our air pollution was as bad as in China in some cities. This was America when I began to think of my place in the world. I was worried when I saw that photo, the first photo of our living planet from space. Many of you will remember that — we had never seen the earth, which is ironic because we live on it. We could see that it was a living planet. I felt compelled to do something about it. Later at university I wrote my master’s thesis on acid rain, air pollution and coal plants. My first job was at the Korean Institute of Science and Technology in Seoul, where I worked on pollution, converting coal which was used for cooking. I saw pollution throughout East Asia. I returned, and went to Yale, to become an environmental lawyer, but in the US, practicing law, some people think it’s somewhat [draining?]. I fell in that category and thankfully I got a job at Bain and Co. working in steel plants, on energy efficiency. In 1984 I converted brick plants from burning fossil fuels into burning biogas which was being dumped into landfills where it turned into methane gas . . .
. . . We were mostly carbon neutral, except for our electricity use, and I obsessed on finding ways that we could make carbon free electricity. I was never successful. In 1985, I discovered soil pollution at on of our brick plant sites, from decades of petroleum use. I found some professors at Virginia Tech University, which is not far away, professors who dealt with soil bacteria, so we began to grow bacteria which would consume pollution in the ground. I funded their business via systems technology and we created Cherokee Environmental to clean up contaminated soil all over the east coast and over the years we’ve cleaned up over 15 million tons of dirt. That would be enough, that if you stacked it all up under a golf course, it would raise the level of that golf course about 400 feet or 130 meters. We bagan to buy contaminated property to clean up. We raised over $2 billion for this, buying and remediating land. We’ve owned 550 properties in the US, Canada and Europe, including a refinery site not too far from here (Trieste).
Some people think Cherokee is a real estate company because it owns a lot of property, but our property work is driven by our pollution focus. I saw that we could affect pollution by working with smart scientists at Virginia Tech. We don’t internally have the capacity for scientific innovation — we’re business people, not scientists — but we realized we could find scientists who had ideas. So we branched out. We kept doing this with other professors at other universities. Between 1985 and the present we’ve invested in over 100 venture or startup companies. These addressed water or air pollution, or grid management; almost none of these were our own ideas, these were others’ ideas. My primary goal is to reduce pollution so for years we’ve been going abroad to transfer technology because that’s where most of the pollution is. I go to China regularly to advise officials and business leaders on methods and processes addressing pollution. They’ve declared 19 percent of their land too contaminated for agricultural use. This is mostly due to air pollution — air pollution dropping contaminants on the land. Obviously this is a huge social issue. I began to do this in the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, and we’ve also explored similar paths in the Middle East, India, and Indonesia, focusing on areas of most population. In order to address the globe’s environmental problems, the solutions must be ubiquitious — they cannot exist only in Europe or the United States.
n the early part of this decade Cherokee had entered a relatively stable part of its history. The next generation of leaders was being prepared to carry our guides and processes forward, and existing projects were operating smoothly. My children were in their 20s and 30s and I was spending time with them and with my wife for the first time in nearly 35 years. I had rebuilt my experimental airplane, and I was installing a parachute in it, looking forward to using it more . . .
One day I received a random call about cold fusion. I didn’t give it much credence because I remembered in detail the disclosure about Fleischmann and Pons years before, and I believed the subject was dead. Then thirty days later I received another related inquiry from a different group, so we began to do some research, and then thirty days later, I received a call from another group. We had invested in 100 startup companies and I had never gotten an inquiry about fusion or about LENR: three in 30 day intervals. We funded two of these groups, and then later, as many of you know, we licensed Andrea Rossi’s technology. Since then we’ve made grants to university groups doing research in this space, and we continue to fund additional teams. We envision an ecosystem of collaboration with great scientists who work together to develop the many systems and technologies society will need to shift away from polluting fossil fuels. Our goal is to bring non-polluting energy to those who need it most, especially in the developing world. We also don’t believe there is one solution, we believe there are many solutions to these problems. To implement this vision, we determined that a business-based approach would be the most effective strategy; we looked at many others.
I know that some of you have felt that business are, and have been adversarial to [??] I understand that. But recall that commerce has long proven to be primary agent of change in every technical endeavor. We engage with large companies and we all need them to achieve ubiquity for your ideas. We want to work in a collaborative way with many more [challenges, charities?], and we want to help others do that. We started Industrial Heat because we thought that LENR technology was worth pursuing, even if we were unsuccessful. We were willing to be wrong, we were willing to invest time and resources to see if this might be an area of useful research in our quest to eliminate pollution. At the time we were not especially optimistic, but the global benefits were compelling.
We’ve had some success, and we’re expanding our work. We’re collaborating with and investing alongside fellow researchers and developers. Scientists compete to be the first, and they count on potent sharing of what has been discovered to advance the process. They want to be able to be able to share their work in an environment where why they do what they do, truly matters . . . they want to know that their work will be funded and their ideas will be merit tested, and advances merited, and they will be rewarded fairly. We’re privileged to be creating that kind of environment at Industrial Heat. We believe we may be at last on the verge of a new paradigm shift — one that will create new opportunity for innovation and entrepreneurship to advance the cause of abundance in the face of scarcity, and the continuing calls to be less bad. When I look around this room, I’m filled with two strong sentiments . . .
You’ve given your lives to your research . . . you’ve made a great difference to the world. Thank you for your years of hard work and progress. Every day I think of you and I am inspired. At the same time, I would like to say how truly sorry I am that society has attacked you for the last three decades. The treatment of Fleischmann and Pons, and the treatment of any of you by mainstream institutions and the media will go down in history as one of the great examples of scientific infanticide . . . this seems to be a dark component of human nature . . . but notwithstanding this longsuffering, you remain faithful to your work. Thank you for your intense focus and contributions in the face of challenges. We [notice] all of your good faith, good will, good intentions and honesty, driven by the better angels of our nature, not appearing to be constrained by the behavior of others. We also need not be constrained by our own minds; ironically the expert who proclaimed that flight had achieved its limits in 1921 was Orville Wright, and the expert who declared that fission was not likely was Einstein . . . your time is come; for instance fear gripping China and India reporting air pollution and water pollution creating an enormous demand for new ideas, less constrained by the past. Second, the increasing reports of success by many of you continue to offset the presumptions of skeptics. But it does not benefit any of us nor does it benefit society, if we achieve success but lose our battles. Let’s encourage each other to put the needs of society and the needs of other first as we contemplate how to achieve victory.
As provocative as it may sound, we’ve reached a tipping point. The potential of your work is so great. The signs of progress are now so significant. This is our simple manifesto: to pass on a world that is better than the one we received. Abundant non-polluting energy, widely available can make the greatest contribution to this goal. That’s a manifesto pledge for us to keep. It’s a promise to you, to those who went before you, to our children, and their children’s children. Thank you

That is. Not a word about Rossi and the 1MW plant. Admirably subtle where he speaks about Orvile Wright and Einstein as non-progressists.

OK, if he does not go home with the first flight, there will be questions about the less idealistic issues.

Still missing: Robert Duncan's speech.


ICCF19 Day 1 (April 13, 2015) — Live Thread:

ICCF19 Classy and Sassy in Padua
Oral Presentations Monday April 13

Cold Fusion-CMNS; present and projected future status

On a Possible Cosmological Explanation for the Anomalous Heat Effect

The Launch of a New Scheme on CMNS at Tohoku University

Investigation of Enhancement and Stimulation of DD-Reaction yields In Crystalline Deuterated Heterostructures

Inquisitive pre-comments:

1) In McKubre's  talk, what will be the balance between the old and the new?

2) What is the strategy and philosophy of Tohoku U's LENR plan? Do they see the difference between the classic and the new (LENR+) approaches?)

3) Hubler's paper is an absolute surprise and seemingly not a good one because or influence on the Cosmos is minimal and we cannot base engineering on what happens at many light-years away.

4) Rusetskiy's paper is surely very interesting scientifically.

Poster Presentation Monday, April 13

01 Tetsuo
An Example of the Nuclear Active Environment of Cold Fusion

02 Sawada
An Example of the nuclear active environment of the Cold Fusion

03 Petrucci
Asymmetric and Anisotropic Neutron Bursts from Sonicated Steel

04 Godes
Brillouin Energy Test Results of CECR Hypothesis

05 Tsyganov
Cold DD Fusion in Conducting Crystals

06 Biberian
Excess Heat Observed with Capacitor having one Palladium Electrode

07 Amoroso
Future of Particle Physics: Unified Field Alternative to 100 TeV, PeV Colliders?

08 Terentyev
Hardening and Embrittlement in Fe-based Alloys for Nuclear Applications understanding gained by atomistics simulations

09 Klimov
High-Energetic Nano-Cluster Plasmoid and its Soft X-radiation

10 Koretskiy
Investigation of Radiation & Excess Heat Effects in Water Solutions During Irradiation by Laser or LEDs Light

11 Ruer
Lifetime of Hot Spots

12 Santoro
Neutron Emission from Sonicated Steel

13 Ridolfi

Products and Thresholds of DST-reactions in Iron

14 El-Boher
Search for low-energy x-ray and particle emissions from an electrochemical cell

15 Pak
Studies of Neutron Emission from Deuterium Abs. C60(Pd)Li electrode

16 Wettin
Unknown matter in Cold Fusion

INquisite pre-comments

1) The Godes paper is of technological interest, let's try to see what are the perspectives, short nd long range of his method. Is it actaully LENR+- that is high power density?

2) There are 3 papers; Tetsuo, Sawada and Ruer that refer to the active sites where the nuclear reactions take place. We have to see in which degree they respect the model of Edmund Storms and what do they say actully>

3) El Boher's paper has to be considered in combination with his other posters- re the fundamental issues of the PdD system.

4) I have taken Tsyganov's paper from thr standard Russian site and hava already offered it to you here:


'The Eureka Factor' author to speak at Montclair State University symposium:


  1. "That is. Not a word about Rossi and the 1MW plant. Admirably subtle where he speaks about Orvile Wright and Einstein as non-progressists."

    That is not what he said about them. Wright and Einstein both wrote truthfully. It was unlikely. They did not say "impossible." They did not oppose innovation and progress. Meanwhile, thanks for posting the Darden speech, it is brilliant, and, in fact, very familiar. If he has had the same training as I have gone through, it would not surprise me at all. That training is rooted in the collective intelligence of humanity, so it does pop up in many places, but he was so consistently "there," that I suspect it.

    I have received a substantial grant for the work of Infusion Institute, so I expect to be travelling over the next year. Spring is breaking out all over, here in the northern hemisphere.

  2. Not a word about Rossi because Rossi is nothing other than a total disappointment.

  3. The Darden talk is a complete disappointment, or perhaps more accurately a zero. It said nothing I did not already know. Yes, he is a businessman, yes he is interested in "green" projects, yes he has invested in Rossi and some other LENR technologies. So what? Is there any progress? Are there any concrete plans? His statement to the conference that "The potential of your work is so great", is something we already know, e.g. LENR has great potential if it can be understood and harvested. That doesn't tell us anything about HIS progress or Rossi's progress or even the progress of the conferees. Why invite someone to speak in obvious generalities? The (mildly) positive statement was the previous one: "we've reached a tipping point". I'm not sure who "we" is but it could mean that his company's work has reached a tipping point, or it could mean that the general field, based on the work of many of the researchers at the conference has reached a tipping point. In either case, such a statement is either simply a general statement that LENR has become of sufficient interest that in the next 5-10 years he thinks that there is likely to be significant progress (I hope so too), or could be based on some "inside" knowledge about various LENR research results of which we are not aware. Either way, so what? In sum, he stonewalled and no information was revealed, other than the pseudo-information of praising the conferees for "your progress". Hopefully, we will learn something more from the other speakers about the actual progress and/or tipping point as the conference proceeds. But the wording and tone of his talk (I tried listening to the video and his tone seemed lifeless and uninspired) was not at all appealing. I might add that the "positive" interpretation of some that he wants to fund (read "own" the technology of) additional researchers is not particularly positive because it suggests that Rossi's technology has drawbacks. One of the posters on ecat world mentioned that the language of LENR is "Manana". Unfortunately, so far this is the case.

    1. Darden gave us the dog bone and the secret sauce. Now there are more experimenters working on LENR than ever before. Darden let the cat out of the bag.

  4. On the martin fleischmann memorial project facebook website ( a click on the picture of Tom Darden leads to a series of "slides" which includes a summary of the "Carbon cycle" in the Sun in which, as it is stated, Carbon is a catalyst whose number neither increases nor decreases. I'm not sure why this is here, since we are talking about LENR and not hot fusion. Could it be because C serves as a catalyst in LENR reactions, which enhances the power output? (note that an energetic proton is needed, but according to Piantelli this occurs in his systems)