JUN 06, 2016 AN INTERVIEW WITH LENR THEORIST ANDREA CALAON

MOTTO

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it
is not utterly absurd" (Bertrand Russell),

Suggested by Andrea Calaon

DAILY NOTES

a) Interview with LENR theorist Andrea Calaon

For many months I have found the ideas of the Italian researcher- relatively young as original and interesting. You never know from where will come the fragments of solutions- that combined will help us to understand LENR- Cold Fusion so I have asked Andrea to tell us the relevant things about what is he thinking, doing and planning to do. So we came to this (first!) interview  
My duty as Blogger is to encourage otherness , diversity. originality  and creativity not to enforce consensus as other people do.

1.     Could you please shortly describe your personal history, your education and your ideas?

I was born in northern Italy in 1973, and lived the first 24 years of my life in Arona, a beautiful town on Lake Maggiore. I studied Material Engineering at Politecnico di Milano specializing in Numerical Simulations (1998). I started working in Germany (1999) doing numerical simulations of large reheating furnaces. I did that  for about 2 years during which I had the chance to improve my German and learn a lot not only about technical staff. After that experience I decided I wanted to explore something different and I ended up starting a PhD in Southampton (UK), about an elegant numerical method called Boundary Element Method, which I very much liked. In late 2005 I graduated and then came back to Italy, where, after changing two jobs in a bit more than a year, I finally started my current job at Tenaris, which is a world leading seamless pipe producer. I work as Senior Researcher in the R&D Rolling department performing numerical simulations of of hot rolling processes.

Since I was 10 I have been playing the clarinet, mainly classical. I had only one exam left for graduating at the Conservatory, but I never actually did it because I started living and working abroad. I now enjoy playing with the Orchestra di Fiati della Brianza: http://www.fiatibrianza.it/.

2.     When and how did you come into contact with the LENR world? Do you have any specific anecdote you would like to tell us about?

I remember the hype at the announcement of Fleischmann and Pons in 1989; but it faded in a matter of months, and I, as most of the people, was told that Cold Fusion was not a real thing. At that time I was finishing high school and I did not investigate. That announcement looked to me as one of the many strange things in science.

Only some years after, I think it was 1996, I was attending university at Politecnico di Milano, and I remember prof. Pietro Pedeferri (who unfortunately he died a few years ago) while teaching “Corrosion and Protection of Metallic Materials”, saying that Cold Fusion was not a scam, that the effect was real, that F&P were in good faith and that Cold Fusion would have emerged back sooner or later.

Many years passed while I did not follow the developments of Cold Fusion.

Only after what I would now call “the show” of Andrea Rossi at the university of Bologna in 2011 I started investigating into Cold Fusion. For a few years I slowly and intermittently learned about the many Cold Fusion efforts which had been put in place in the 22 years since the announcement of F&P. Only during my relaxing summer holidays in 2014 I started assembling the first thoughts that led me to the development of my theory.

Actually I think that the term “theory” is a bit too much, and I prefer to warn that I am not a theoretical physicist, not even a physicist. However I’ve always had a passion for physics and a bit for mathematics.

3.     Is your target exclusively theoretical? Or you are opened to work with experimentalists as well?

I do not have a laboratory, nor a garage for small experiments, and in my work I deal mostly with computer and simulation codes. I am used to collaboration with colleagues who do experimental work in labs and at the plants, and in some cases I participate to experimental works at the mills, but my main task is numerical and theoretical.

I have always felt I was on the theoretical side of physics.

I am aware that any theory is as good as its predictions, so I would love to have someone put my predictions to the test.

I would be interested in contributing to an engineering effort of CF only after the fundamental mechanism will have been found. I don’t see very much future in trying to achieve high COPs or high transmutation rates, or whatever, in complex system where you don’t know where energy is produced or where the reactions take place. And you don’t even know how the huge quanta of the nuclei get fractionated into very many small phonon quanta (heat).

If people had a more or less correct clue about these issues, in the past 27 years someone would have already discovered “the secret”. Instead many top scientists grappled with CF only to get a minimal progress, with still large issues on reproducibility.

This suggest to me that the effect is not chemical, which means, it is not directly related to the valence orbitals of atoms. And chemistry is all about valence orbitals. Chemists and Physical Chemists have been investigating Cold Fusion with tools developed for chemical processes, that is the fundamental reason for the lack of a real breakthrough.

4.     Which experimental material did you use for building your theory? Did you consider only PdD systems or  also NiH systems (like those of Rossi and Piantelli)? What about the theory and the experimental results of Randell Mills? I see Andrea Rossi is not included in your comments, is it correct?

I don’t have a preference for a particular CF system. I am convinced that CF takes place in conditions many completely different conditions and systems: in electrolysis, in plasma, in solid state, in liquids … The most important point is how something (probably a particle) can reach the positively charged nuclei. If you don’t have something “touching” the nuclei, they will never react. So what is it that can approach the nuclei so tightly?

Positively charged particles would require energies which are far too high to be present in CF experiments, and their presence would cause the unmistakable signs of hot fusion. Electrons are negatively charged particles, but never fall into the nucleus, instead they are confined into orbitals. Actually there are nuclear processes which are critically influenced by the presence of electron orbitals, like electron capture or internal conversion, but their phenomenology is completely different from that of Cold Fusion. So the only other possibility is a neutral particle. However the only known neutral particle which can cause nuclear reactions is the neutron. And again, if neutrons were the cause of CF, their presence would have been detected long ago and all the well known and dangerous reactions triggered by neutrons would have taken place. But this is not what CF experiments showed.

So Cold Fusion should be impossible.

Instead I think there is another option, but it is not described in the Standard Model: a neutral entity which is not the neutron.

What convinced to me to actually explore something not contemplated by the Standard Model is the following consideration. If, after 27 year of efforts scientists did not come up with a satisfactory theoretical explanation of CF, the phenomenon must require something which is not described by the Standard Model of Physics. So, either CF is not true, or its origin requires to contradict some parts of the Standard Model. For me the contradiction can only be about a single point of the Standard Model, and not a complete rewriting of it, as some seem to ingenuously look for. Already two unusual ingredients would be too much and too unlikely. The Standard Model is mainly a VERY WELL established and verified theory; it however has some minor parts which are still unproven. It must be around those parts that the secret ingredient for CF resides.

Let me shortly comment about Andrea Rossi, who, as I mentioned, was the person who revived my interest in CF in 2011.

For a long time I remained convinced Rossi had something, mainly because of the involvement of Focardi and of the first reactions of Prof. Sven Kullander. But now I’ve gradually changed my mind and, after reconsidering many events, comments, exchanges, … I can say that Rossi has never shown to have something really working, at least to the public.

A the moment I am not following all the legal battle: when a technical dispute becomes legal, any possibly present truth becomes suddenly unreachable.

The Lugano measurement was completely flawed by the wrong emissivity and the lack of calibration with TC at high T.

The demonstration to Krivit and the others could not produce the declared amount of energy. Anyone who has worked with steam knows that 5[KW] of dry steam need care and can not be handled with a floating 10[mm] hose dangling in a bucket. No way. You could cook someone 2 meters away with 5[KW] of steam in a small hose. Plus, for getting 5[KW] of dry steam you need an exchange surface (metal-water) much larger than the reactor of Rossi. In a closed flow system you could exchange that power, but you could not produce with it dry steam.

Randell Mill developed his theory of everything he called The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP). The name already says a lot. I don’t want to enter into the details, but I do not agree with his theory. Physics needs improvements, not a complete rewriting by solitary geniuses.

In some respects the theory of Mills is similar to mine, because it foresees the existence of a stable neutral particle. But the reason for the binding is completely different.

I think that the excess in the Extreme Ultraviolet emissions from his plasmas is real. Mills is one of the few who actually measured an EUV spectrum.

5.     Do you have any model of LENR researcher which inspired you? With whom would you wish to collaborate or better communicate to?

When I started my adventure, I was only curious, more ignorant, and did not know most of the CF researchers. I don’t have preferences linked to the people. What I think CF needs are simple and clear experiments in simple physical systems, like particle experiments, or simple plasma. Solid state or electrochemical systems are generally way too complex for allowing clear results in a controversial field. But the cost of experiments seems to be inversely proportional to the simplicity of the interpretation of their results.

I asked to the Lipinsky if they were willing to perform some experiments, but they told me they are working on their own theory and are fully satisfied with it. In other words I was kindly suggested to bugger off. Fair enough, I can understand their position.

6.     Could you please explain the basic features and the most original aspects of your Theory?

My theory contradicts the Standard Model in only one way, in a part which is not proven. Plus it makes use an uncommon interpretation (not particularly controversial) of the equation of Diac, for what concerns the trembling motion of the electron, which in German is called Zitterbewegung.

The unproven part of the Standard Model which my theory contradicts is the hypothesis that the nuclear force (which keeps nucleons together into nuclei), is not a residual of the strong interaction (which allows nucleons to exist), but is an electromagnetic effect. The proposal comes from the work of Valerio Dallacasa and Norman D. Cook in the 1980s.

With these two ingredients, I get the formation of a huge neutral nucleus I called Hydronion, or Hyd (it is actually a nucleus that hides …). This nucleus is essentially made of a hydrogen nucleus trapped “inside” the Zitterbewegung of the electron. What keeps the two particles bound together is the same mechanism that binds the nucleons inside any nucleus.

The name I gave to my theory explain precisely the central role of the electron: Electron-mediated Nuclear Reactions.

The Hyd forms only in special conditions, because normally the attraction mechanism towards hydrogen nuclei averages to zero. However, when an electron orbital has an energy near to the 85[eV] it could start feeling the “nuclear” attraction towards an incoming hydrogen nucleus. If this happens the electron could end up being extracted from its orbital by the attraction mechanism and spiral towards the proton emitting Extreme Ultraviolet Radiation around the coupling energy (the 85[eV] mentioned before). This is precisely what Randell Mills measured from his plasmas.

The Hyd has the size of the electron Zitterbewegung (the diameter is 386[fm]), so it is huge in nuclear terms. It also has a magnetic moment which is practically identical to that of the electron. Again, a huge value for any nucleus. These two features make the Hyd much more subject to scattering than a neutron. It means that when Hyds are generated, they can get trapped inside condensed matter (in the locations where the gradient of the magnetic field is higher), and accumulate. Phonos can extract the Hyd from their traps thanks to the phonon-electron-spin coupling. If the Hyds reach nuclei they can cause other nuclear reactions, both fusions and fissions. So Cold Fusion happens in two stages: first the Hyd forms, then it can cause further nuclear reactions.

The Hyd should be stable, so it should be responsible for the metachronous effects Mitchell Swartz, Piantelli and others noticed.

The preference for stable nuclei should be due to the fact that the nuclear reactions caused by the Hyd happen with a strong perturbation by the electron, so that the less stable nuclides cannot form.

An energy near to 85[eV] (necessary for the electron orbital to become a NAE) is too high for valence orbitals, and only core orbitals reach it. Actually inner core orbitals of heavy atoms go much higher than that reaching many [keV]. So in the energy scale of atomic orbitals 85[eV] is just above the limit of valence electrons.

By looking at the ionization energies of atoms it is possible to estimate which atoms are the best candidates for becoming a NAE. In fact 85 [eV] is far enough from valence energies that the ionization value should be a good proxy for the actual energy of the same orbital in a chemical structure.

The best atom of the entire periodic table should be Osmium, but Calcium and Palladium follow it closely at less than an [eV] from the coupling. Is this the reason why Iwamura managed to get Cold Fusion effects even with a purely diffusive stimulation, which should reach energies lower than an [eV]?

The NAE orbital of Palladium is its 6^th. So, in order to make it exposed you need to “take away” 5 electrons. Is this the reason why palladium works only with very high hydrogen loadings? So that protons first “grab” the metallic electrons in the lattice and then react with the cores?

There is an atom which has an orbital energy coinciding with the coupling energy, however it is one of the only two unstable nuclei of the periodic table surrounded by stable ones: Promethium. Its most stable nuclide, Pm145, decays 100% by electron capture. Is the electron capture stimulated by the magnetic coupling?

Many are the atoms with orbitals at less than 10[eV] from the coupling. Some are K, Zr and Li, which could be the NAE used by Holmlid, Swartz, and by many electrochemical cells.

Probably having an orbital with the correct energy is not enough, and other factors are also important for a good NAE. Probably the fact that the orbital is more or less shielded by other more external orbitals plays a role, as also the fact that a chemical structure could allow the proton to approach the core more or less closely.

Another important feature of my theory is the possibility to predict a significant difference between hydrogen and deuterium loadings. With deuterium the energy production is higher thanks to the production of some He4, but there can be as well development of tritium, and consequently also of free neutrons. With hydrogen loading instead there are no second stage reactions with other hydrogen nuclei, so there will be no He4, tritium and neutrons. In other words working with hydrogen should be less energy efficient, but somehow safer.

The fact that Ca and K are good candidates for a NAE makes it possible for living cells to produce Hyd. And in fact a number of researchers, even very recently, reported about the capability of cells to transmute elements.

I strongly believe that IF Cold Fusion is real, its unexplained fundamental mechanism should have already caused a series of “significant inconsistencies” in other branches of physics. And actually there are some strange phenomena which could be explained by the existence of the magnetic attraction mechanism between electron and hydrogen nucleus, and by the existence of the Hyd:

-        There are anomalies in the electron-positron angular correlations of internal pair creation in Be8 generated by bombarding Li7 with energetic protons; these anomalies seem to happen at the right energy (for my theory) and be due to the large magnetic moment of the Hyd.

-        The bottle and the beam measurement of the half life of neutrons give two incompatible values. I this due to a narrow non-beta decay channel in which a Hyd is produced?:
n -> p + W -> pe + v̅_e+ hν, where pe is he Hyd.

-        Dark matter: could dark matter be made at least in part of Hyds, which do not decay nor react in the emptiness of space?

-        High Temperature Superconductivity: could the attraction between some external core orbitals and the surrounding nuclei be the necessary ingredient to be added to the Hamiltonian for generating High Temperature Superconductivity? If some core orbitals react strongly to the movements of some surrounding nuclei (phonons) due to the magnetic attraction mechanism, the valence orbitals above them would be forced to react as well. This would be the mechanism that allows electron-phonon coupling even at high temperatures. In other words the magnetic attraction mechanism could allow the application of the BCS theory even at high temperatures. Coincidentally many of the best NAE-atoms are key ingredients in high temperature superconductors: Ca, Ba, Sr, La, S, Se, Bi, Mg, Tl, Cu, … My theory predicts that there is an atom which is even better than Ca, and it is Os. May be this:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151126/ncomms9916/full/ncomms9916.html
is related to the orbital of Osmium which is very near to the coupling?
Unfortunately Os is one of the rarest element on earth.

-        Is the astonishingly old dating (4.375 billion years old) of some australian zeolites actually due to the development of Hyd at some time in their history, which caused an accelerated decay of the uranium they contain? Zirconium ore is a very good candidate for my theory.

7.     How did you theory evolved? Have there been any fundamental evolution steps?

I started assembling my theory from the magnetic attraction mechanism. At the beginning I did not recognize that a neutral nucleus could form, and I was naively speculating about a ternuclear reactions between two electrons and a hydrogen nucleus. Then I gradually realized about the neutral nucleus and the way it explained many of the strange features of CF.

Last year I corrected a silly mistake which had let me to look for the coupling at a completely wrong energy. But then, through an exchange with people in the various Forums, I understood the problem and corrected it. Is at that point that I understood the importance of core orbitals and of the Extreme Ultraviolet emissions.

Last year I participated to ICCF19 in Italy with a poster. I then also submitted an article to the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science which should be published soon.

My everyday work is unrelated to Cold Fusion, so I decided to publish all my thoughts on an open web page, where I keep all the updates in a single presentation in pdf format. The web page is this:

http://lenr-calaon-explanation.weebly.com/

On the various forums I found many people curious about my theory, but really only a few who could suggest improvements or criticize it sensibly. Most people either dismiss it altogether or propose m their own theory or their theory of choice, often quite imaginative and encompassing all branches of physics. In these exchanges I experience the fact that when you know something only superficially, you tend to think you have all the answers the other could not find.

I know that my theory will eventually not be completely correct, but at the moment it looks also not completely out of track. Keeping a balance between enough belief to your own theory, as to carry on with the development, and enough doubt as to not dismiss sensible critics, is an art to be cultivated constantly.

8.     Storms’s NAE vs your NAE. What are the most important differences?

I discussed the concept of the NAE at lengths with Edmund Storms in 2015 through a long exchange of emails. He contacted me in February 2015 through LinkedIn. At first I thought it was a joke by some friends or colleagues; but then, after checking the identity of the LinkedIn member who was contacting me, I realized it was the real Edmund Storms. He was very positive about my effort and wanted to discuss my theory in connection with his own. So we started a long and very interesting (at least for me) exchange in which we made our points and tested the other theory with challenging questions. Edmund has always been very encouraging and respectful with me.

The NAE concept is "chemically minded", in the sense that it suggests that something special may happen by some rare combination around some special locations inside condensed matter. I think however that LENR (or EMNR) can not be based on chemical (valence) orbitals. And in fact my theory suggests the NAE is not chemical. The properties of core orbitals and their "visibility" through the valence orbitals play almost no role in chemistry, physical chemistry or solid state physics. So all the tools developed in centuries are almost completely ineffective in controlling CF, and sometimes even go in the unwanted direction.

The NAE of Edmund Storm is a nanosized crack which hosts a resonating chain of hydrogen nuclei. Although not being the lattice itself the NAE of Edmund is anyway something governed by the valence orbitals. He proposes a so far unobserved mechanism which should transform nuclear energy (which would be released in a d-d nuclear fusion reaction), to the hydrogen chain in the nano-cracks, already when the distances between the nuclei are in the Angstrom range, 4 or 5 orders of magnitudes larger than the distances of initiation of any nuclear reaction.

So in a way Storms needs two “magic ingredients”, first the correct nanosized crack with the formation of the hydrogen chain, and secondly the mysterious mechanism of energy borrowing from the nuclear potential to phono-like resonances.

Despite deriving from a chemical mindset I think the NAE is a useful way of defining what to look for, especially for condensed matter.

9.     What can experimenters learn and do if they accept your Theory? Suppose you have plenty of funding, how would you organize the research strategy?

My theory suggests a series of unconventional points, which contradict many common beliefs about CF:

-        The NAE is not chemical in essence. Instead it is the combination of an exposed External Core Orbital with the right energy, and an incoming hydrogen nucleus (a very small ion if you will).

-        The NAE is generally not inside the metal matrix (if any), instead it is located in the first atomic layers outside the metal lattice;

-        The metal matrix is only a very convenient and dense storage of hydrogen nuclei, and can serve as a means to accelerate them towards a NAE electron orbital,

-        The CF mechanism is not due to a magic concentration of energy in a single point of the lattice, or to a hugely magnified tunneling effect, nor to a high temperature Bose-Einstein condensate.

-        Magnetic monopoles and tachyons are not required ...

I think CF needs simple experiments (with simple outcomes and few influencing factors) showing ONLY, or almost only, the fundamental mechanism. So I would try and partner with particle or plasma groups.

One of the simplest experiments to check my theory would be to accelerate protons at up to a few tens of [eV]  against a ZrO₂ target in vacuum. That should generate a sufficiently intense EUV radiation to become measurable with a good grating (EUV spectrum). Plus Hyds should be generated and fly around causing transmutations and other emissions.

I would accelerate protons also against targets made of other materials, following the list of best atoms I have. So I would try with CaO₂, Ga₂O₃, OsO₂, … and so on.

I would then expose to the Hyd radiation:

●       Nuclear emulsions to see if the strange traces seen by a number of researchers are generated after the protons impinge on ZrO₂.

●       B10 and see if some of the gammas of Iwamura are actually emitted,

●       Li7 and see which kind of particles are emitted.

I would also ask particle physicists for suggestions for capturing Hyd with magnetic traps.

10.  Which opportunities do you think will be best to make your Theory known?

I hope that, despite the facts that my theory:

●       is based on an assumption which contradicts the Standard Model, and

●       is not formulated in formal QM terms,

someone in particle or plasma physics will actually decide to investigate it and put it to the test, may be without declaring it to the whole world.

Another less wishful way to make my theory more popular would be to show a good match between the binding energies of nuclei calculated with the magnetic attraction mechanism and the experimental values. This would make my guess about the possible coupling between the electron and the proton much more credible.

11.  What are your personal predictions about the future of LENR?

I think LENR will not be recognized as a real phenomenon until its fundamental mechanism will be more or less understood. History seems to suggest that engineering will come before the complete understanding, as in the case of the steam engine. It could be, but the lack of success in the last 27 years tells us that in this particular case it is not at all simple to scale up and control a mechanism you do not comprehend. Plus there is the safety issue of the neutral particles. If my theory (and some others as well) is right, LENR liberate penetrating neutral particles able to cause transmutations. This is something which will require tests and accurate measurements of the effects on living beings before any significant amount of energy will be allowed in LENR industrial reactors.

When the mechanism of LERN will be clear I think the industrial applications will be vast, and the energy sector will be impacted strongly (in a few decades). My guess is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are already preparing for the competition of a non-fossile energy source, as Ali Naimi declared already on the 21^st of December 2014: http://oilpro.com/post/9223/mees-interview-saudi-oil-minister-ali-naimi.

The following Editorial on Arab News seems to confirm what I am saying: http://www.arabnews.com/editorial/news/714186

If LERN will hold their promises they will be remembered as one of the fundamental evolution steps of our civilization.

THANK YOU, DEAR ANDREA CALAON!

b) Much ado around the honor of flowmeters

I have started the discussions this morning quite as a genuine pacifist- I am getting old  and much too passive; time to retire but de factoI have retired 17 years ago- just o make a second career 12 years in Web-search and now a third in Blogging:

What I wrote- it is addressed to Jed and his supporters

I will address you an invitation to fair play and to seriousness

defined as discussing about the core of the subject not some irrelevant

peripheric issues.

Jed has stated precisely this:

"Anyone knowledgeable about flowmeters can tell you a dozen ways to make the answer 10 times too large."

I consider this as false, stupid, libelous insulting the instrument and its manufacturers, the science of metrology, chemical engineering and technology and even human nature.

I ask Jed to retract this officially and sincerely, even his hatred of Rossi cannot justify such unjust assertions.

a) when asked to give his list(Jed considers himself knowledgeable i

in flow measurement) he has mentioned only back flow - impossible in an industrial plant and impossible at 3-7 kWatts at Defkalion; Luca Gamberale says it was possible there but it leads to errors it is not a controllable  method- try it with two simple valves and a flowmeter)

b) Jed has told we will find such "ways" described in manuals of flowmeters

and I gave him the advantage to choose such a manual of any flowmeter manufacturer but he has answered only generalities- it is obvious that the manuals speak only about how to avoid errors.

c) Jed is free to insist with his statement, however I will describe the case in an Open Letter to all known and accessible manufacturers asking them what they think. Plus to the highest authority of Metrology in the US.

This problem goes far beyond Rossi or the Rossi-IH conflict- it is about the dignity of more professions; it is not tolerable to insult Technology without taking responsibility for such accusations.

I am waiting for Jed's retraction till tomorrow evening Atlanta time)

I want a crystal clear retraction not some approximate wording.

Thank you,

Peter

Not success at all:; Jed has sent me instruction from a manual regarding how to choose professionally a flowmeter and how to avoid errors in measurement- but his statement was about a completely different subject- say a good flowmeterist knows how to inflate readings - slanderous!

Two nice fragments more

Jed Rothwell

Peter Gluck has been babbling on about how it is impossible to make a mistake with a flow meter. I pointed him to a handy guide to flow meters from Omega, which he then ignored. Anyway, let me point it out here, because it is handy. If you are going to work with flowmeters you should read this carefully. I wish I had read it more carefully years ago.

http://www.omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html

Below are some quotes from it.

My answer:

Jed, it is not polite to lie,

I was not babbling about the impossibility of making errors with a flowmeter I have told exactly that your statement:

""Anyone knowledgeable about flowmeters can tell you a dozen ways to make the answer 10 times too large."

is false and offensive etc. It is not about errors it is about manipulating results- inflating readings.

Please abstain from using dirty rhetorical tricks..  (CENSORED!)

I apologize to readers for the level of these discussions- can you believe it is not my fault. What is worse the discussions are not leading to anything valuable, The reality is that telling that ERV who has chosen the flowmeter is not able to make a correct choice- and telling it now not when the choice had to be made is simply ridiculous
back flow not of the fluid but of time. Jed has declared he is smarter that the ERV and Andrea Rossi (probably combined) when he has in the best case 1/1000 of the knowledge of the matter that the ERV has. 
Obviously in Court will be produced evidence of this and before then, every chatter is just a slanderous talking of issues about which Jed has no precise knowledge.
Can he demonstrate the opposite? 

Andrea Rossi repeats "that after 3 months Darden received a report equal to the final one and visited the plant with his investors showing them the flowmeter as an example of correctness noticing the seals put by the ERV

Same precise thing happened after 6 months and after 9 months. Afters these shows to his investors he collected 150 millions" Not a popular subject in Jed's circles.

DAILY NEWS

1) From a Rossi-killer; they are not frequent publishers
The end of the E-Cat saga – or maybe not

https://pathoskeptic.com/2016/07/05/the-end-of-the-e-cat-saga-or-maybe-not/

2) A discussion
Russian Team Discovers Industrial Method of Elemental Transmutation 
http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-668454-page-3.html

3) COLDFUSIONCONNECTION http://cfconnection.leapforwardlab.com/

4) Rossi: “Centralized Heating” to be First Market Sector for E-Cat
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/06/rossi-centralized-heating-to-be-first-market-sector-for-e-cat/

5) Early E-Cat Test Witnessed By Former DARPA Director Tony Tether (New Energy Times)

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/06/early-e-cat-test-witnessed-by-former-darpa-director-tony-tether-new-energy-times/

LENR IN CONTEXT-1

How water gets its exceptional properties
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160705092019.htm

LENR IN CONTEXT-2

Do aggressive goals drive unethical behavior?

http://research.wpcarey.asu.edu/management-entrepreneurship/do-aggressive-goals-drive-unethical-behavior/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=wpc_email&utm_campaign=Research%20and%20Ideas%20-%20June%202016%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=14895062&spUserID=NDYwODIyMDM4OQS2&spJobID=820355024&spReportId=ODIwMzU1MDI0S0