Infinite Energy Issue 127

New Energy • New Science New Technology
Volume 22 • Issue 127 • 2016
$5.95 U.S. • $7.95 Canada
Pursuit of Science Disrupted by Lawsuit
G Inventor Sues Investor
G Analysis of the Claims
G LENR Work Still Ongoing

New Energy-Themed Videos Available from the New Energy FoundationNew Energy-Themed Videos Available from the New Energy Foundation
The Secret of Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla: The Genius Who Lit the World
Cold Fusion: Fire from Water
$24 U.S./$28 Canada/$30 Mexico/$34 Other
DVD, 105 min., 1982
Dramatic film about the life of Tesla, as portrayed by
Peter Bozovic.
DVD, 60 min., 2003
Documentary about the life of Tesla.
DVD, 170 min., 2000
Lecture by Dr. Peter Lindemann.
DVD, 68 min., 1999
Documentary featuring cold fusion scientists from around
the world, narrated by James Doohan (from “Star Trek”).
DVD, 110 min., 1997
Documentary featuring devices, processes and theo-
ries of new energy.
DVD, 93 min., 1999
Dramatic film by Keith Johnson, set against the back-
drop of science and politics at a prominent northeast-
ern institute of technology.
New Energy Foundation
P.O. Box 2816 — Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700
Online: www.infinite-energy.com
Prices include shipping/handling.
Clash of the Geniuses: Inventing the Impossible
DVD, 60 min., 2004 (Re-release)
Atlantis Rising’s Doug Kenyon examines new energy
technologies that hold promise for the future, includ-
ing cold fusion, anti-gravity, wireless power, etc.
The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity
Breaking Symmetry
Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point
S. PAL ASIJA, CEO — OUR PAL, LLC
Creation, Protection & Cashing of Intellectual Property
Patent Attorney and Professional Engineer (B.Sc., GradIERE(Lond.) PGD, MBA, PE, CDP, JD, ATM)
7 Woonsocket Avenue, Shelton CT 06484-5536
Phone: 203-924-9538 N Fax: 203-924-9956
Email: PAL@OurPal.com N Website: http://www.OurPal.com
OUR PAL®
LLC
**** One Reality Monograph with CD @ Cost ****
— Free Sample Pages of Manuscript and PowerPoint Slides —
ONE RealityONE Reality K OUR PAL® K There Is But ONE RealityThere Is But ONE Reality K OUR PAL® K ONE RealityONE Reality
OUR PAL®
LLC K A Systems View of the Universe as One RealityA Systems View of the Universe as One Reality K OUR PAL®
LLC
Serving you with Vision, Wisdom, Integrity, Skill & Zeal for over four decades.
Our Pal LLC
www.OurPal.com
Info@1-R.Info
www.1-R.Info
One Reality Research Academy
A Symphony of Sciences & Spirituality
INFO@1-R.INFO WWW.1-R.INFO
PH: 203-924-2055
Harmonizing all knowledge domains from sciences to spirituality,
delineating why and how One Reality is stranger than fiction,
even more bizarre than Wave-Particle Duality, Entanglement Quantum
Physics, Epi-epigenetics, Spooky Action-at-a-Distance, Neuroscience
of Viruses & much more developed over five decades of research by

2 INFINITE ENERGY • ISSUE 127 • MAY/JUNE 2016
Prof. John Dash, 1933-2016,
Cold Fusion Mentor
pp. 29 - 33
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISSUE 127 — MAY/JUNE 2016
ARTICLES
8 Reporting a Lawsuit in LENR Marianne Macy
20 A Patent Lawyer Considers the Rossi/Industrial Heat Lawsuit David French with Marianne Macy
29 John Dash: 1933 - 2016 Christy L. Frazier et al.
34 Update on the Mechanism of Gravity and Titius Bodes’ Law Glen F. Perry
41 “Unusual Suspects” Focuses on Gene Mallove’s Murder Christy L. Frazier
42 The Quark Theory Arnold G. Gulko
46 Time and Space Reversal Problems in the Armenian Theory of Asymmetric Relativity
Robert Nazaryan and Haik Nazaryan
DEPARTMENTS
4 Letters to the Editor
6 Breaking Through Editorial — The Inefficiency of Learning Bill Zebuhr
55 Professional Service Directory
56 Infinite Energy Order Form

MAY/JUNE 2016 • ISSUE 127 • INFINITE ENERGY 3
Volume 22, Issue 127
May/June 2016
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
staff@infinite-energy.com
http://www.infinite-energy.com
Printed in the United States
Copyright © 2016
New Energy Foundation • All rights reserved.
TECHNICAL EDITORS
Dr. George Egely
William H. Zebuhr
MANAGING EDITOR
Christy L. Frazier
COVER DESIGNER
Barbara DelloRusso
ADVISORY BOARD
Rick Broussard (U.S.) • Dr. Dennis Cravens (U.S.)
James Dunn (U.S.) • Dr. Peter Glück (Romania)
James Kazan (U.S.) • Dr. Xing Zhong Li (China)
Dr. Theodore Loder (U.S.) • Scott Newquist (U.S.)
Dr. Thomas Phipps (U.S.) • Michael Ritsema (U.S.)
Dr. Mahadeva Srinivasan (India) • William Zebuhr (U.S.)
Infinite Energy solicits your manuscripts dealing with: experi-
mental results in cold fusion (LENR) and new energy, theoreti-
cal ideas, contemporary and historical opinions on energy and
technology, historical articles, short articles on conventional
energy or alternative energy, and book reviews. Contact Christy
Frazier, Managing Editor (staff@infinite-energy.com).
A Bimonthly Magazine of the New Energy Foundation
INFINITE ENERGY
Invention Patents
Founding Editor: Eugene F. Mallove (1947-2004)
Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla’s Science of Energy
Edited by Thomas Valone
Essays by experts in Tesla technology, selected Tesla
patents, and more.
$20 U.S. / $30 Canada / $35 Mexico / $45 Other
(Prices include shipping/handling.)
2002, Paperback, 338 pp.
New Energy Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 2816 — Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 — Website: www.infinite-energy.com
(MBA, PE, JD—USPTO Reg. #27113 since 1974.)
Price includes postage and handling. Actual size
3” wide. Standard 9V battery required. Produced
by Egely Research Co. Ltd.
Egely Research Notes:
“The Egely Wheel Vitality Meter
can help to objectively measure
your life energy level, develop
your ability to concentrate, con-
trol your relaxation, learn to
direct the energy flowing from
your body, form a healthier and
more successful lifestyle.
“Extensive control experiments
have proven that the rotation of
the wheel during measurements
is not driven by heat convection,
or electromagnetic energy. The
inventor and designer, George
Egely, Ph.D., is a scientist who
was employed for many years by
the Atomic Energy Research
Institute of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences. He is an
expert in the field of energy
transport processes.”
Order from: New Energy Foundation
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
Website: www.infinite-energy.com
New Energy Foundation, Inc. finds the
Egely Wheel Vitality Meter
to be a fascinating demonstration, but of what, we are not yet sure.
Solve the mystery for yourself, if you can.
$150.00 U.S./Canada
$155.00 Mexico
$160.00 Other Foreign
Infinite Energy magazine (ISSN 1081-6372) is published six
times per year by the non-profit New Energy Foundation,
P.O. Box 2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816. Subscription price:
$29.95 U.S., Canada, and Mexico, $49.95 other foreign.
Postmaster: Send address changes to Infinite Energy, P.O. Box
2816, Concord, NH 03302-2816.
Infinite Energy magazine presents science and technology,
generally in the field of new energy. It provides a forum for
debate and discussion of frontier science. Infinite Energy is
open to all rationally stated points of view. The material pre-
sented here reflects the views of the authors, not necessarily
those of Infinite Energy. Infinite Energy assumes no responsi-
bility for individuals who reproduce potentially hazardous
experiments contained in its pages.
Infinite Energy does not independently verify the content,
citation, validity, or paternity of anything published herein
by outside authors. Further, Infinite Energy makes no repre-
sentation as to any of the content of the articles published.
The content of the works published in Infinite Energy are
solely the responsibility of the author(s).

to “prove ether’s place in the Universe and all his [Einstein’s]
efforts were a useless exercise.”
Bruce Arnold
Burnsville, Minnesota
The Mass Gap and Other Proofs
The m(q, l, L) function (Infinite Energy #121) is one that
yields the multiplying factors between the masses of the
charged fermions of any one family. The three following
proofs support this statement.
Proof 1: The Mass Gap
The m(q, l, L) function has all values nonzero positive. (The
lowest theoretical value is 1.) This means that no zero value
as a multiplying factor exists. Therefore, a nonzero positive
difference, or gap, exists between the vacuum state, which is
zero by definition, and the next lowest state which can not
theoretically be lower than 1 by m(q, l, L). The mass gap of
a particular family of charged fermions would then simply
be, as per the usual procedure, the lowest, or base, multiply-
ing factor (between 1 and 30.5 inclusive) divided by itself in
order to yield 1 which is then multiplied to a specific mass
that would yield the mass of the lightest particle of that par-
ticular family. And because this mass gap does exist for m(q,
l, L), this function proves itself viable in yielding the mass
ratios of the charged fermions.
Proof 2: The Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio
The m(q, l, L) function is used to calculate the proton-to-elec-
tron mass ratio by simply replacing the l in m(q, l, L) with L’,
which is the conjugate of L, and calculating m(q, L’, L) for
each of the electron, up quark, and down quark. But instead
of simply summing up the m(q, L’, L) values of the two up
quarks and the one down quark, and then dividing by that
one of the electron, each of the four m(q, L’, L) values must
first be squared. This will result in a proton-to-electron mass
ratio that is different from the empirical one by about +9%.
One reason for this difference is that the accepted (by sci-
ence) mass ratios, which are used in deriving values for L and
L’, are only hypothetical in nature in the case of the up and
down quarks. And a small change in the hypothetical mass
of a quark, which sometimes occurs in science, will result in
a significant change in the accepted mass ratio of the family
to which that quark belongs. Another reason might be the
absence of the conversion factor found in the mathematical
statement relating (q*/q) to (L - L’). This value is close to 1
and is explained in the full but as yet unpublished version of
the article mentioned at the top of this article.
Proof 3: Euler's Number
Euler’s number is expressible to almost seven figures using
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Ether and Relativity
In Issue 125 there are two items I wish to bring to your atten-
tion. Firstly, Ron Bourgoin continues his letters asking “Is
Relativity Theory Sacrosanct?,” pointing out the lack of
experimental evidence for the theory. I must agree with him
that Lorentz’s interpretation of the Michelson-Morley exper-
iment was wrong, namely that the speed of light is an
absolute constant in all cases.
In this same issue, we have an article by Yang Shi-jia, who
is calling for a restoration of the “ether hypothesis” to
resolve issues such as pointed out by Ron Bourgoin. Shi-jia
points to the “algorithm” being at fault. This is the same
point that I wrote to Infinite Energy some time ago.
What A.A. Michelson failed to include in 1881, and again
failed to recognize in 1887, in his calculations was the
“Doppler effect.” Look at Michelson’s algorithm or formula
for figuring the path length within his instrument, his dis-
tance to and fro, labeled d—these are the same. Michelson
was using the wavelength of a moving source of light in his
calculation of d. Where does Michelson account for the
Doppler effect? It is a universal axiom, all moving sources of
electromagnetic radiation exhibit the Doppler effect. In his
1881 experimental runs, Michelson should have seen about
170 wavelengths of change, not just about 1.
Michelson proved in his interferometer that there is a
total entrainment of the ether both in the Earth’s motion
through space but also in its rotation about its axis. The
speed of light in the ether is c and transitions by the Doppler
effect to c when it enters another ether. Michelson had
unknowingly proved Stokes’ theory, and Shi-jia need not
resort to a hypothesis; it is an experimentally proven theory:
there is ether and it is fully entrained to both the Earth’s
motion and its rotation around its axis.
This answers Ron Bourgoin’s point as well: relativity fails

Providing Systems Engineering for Circuit Design and
Operation, Programming and Component Prototyping.
New Energy Power Systems, LLC
P.O. Box 3825
Fairfax, VA 22038-3825

values drawn from m(q, l, L) theory:
e = [q2 (up quark family)] [q2 (down quark family)]
+ 0.002 175 682 592 290 - 1
(The value 1 is also expressible in terms of e as ln(e) or (e)0.)
The probability of the two q values (which are the only solu-
tions for two numbers differing from each other by 1/3), the
constant, and 1, being numbers that are arbitrarily config-
ured is effectively zero when considering the simplicity of
this mathematical statement. This fact makes this proof
effectively infinite in its strength.
Giuseppe Pellizzari
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Contributions to the New Energy Foundation
(Received March - April)
The New Energy Foundation (NEF), a 501(c)(3) charitable corpo-
ration, gratefully acknowledges the following generous contribu-
tions toward its work of (1) publishing a broad spectrum of new
energy science and technology via Infinite Energy, its website and
other media, and (2) awarding grants for meritorious new energy
research projects:
Since 2003, NEF has awarded over $1.3 million in grants to
more than 30 researchers or organizations.
NEF (IRS EIN#42-1551677) is in need of greater financial sup-
port for its two-front program. We thank you for your support.
Rodney Conrad, Jr. • Robert Smith • Robert Thorne
by John O’M. Bockris
Dr. Bockris attacks the current paradigm from all
angles, and reviews well-documented phenomena
which are difficult or impossible to explain with cur-
rent scientific thought. As the title suggests, Bockris
proposes a new paradigm which does not serve sci-
ence as we now know it, but rather encompasses the
known and “unknown” around us to give us a bet-
ter understanding of the true nature of reality.
$32 U.S. / $45 Canada
$48 Mexico / $50 Other Foreign
— NOW BACK IN PRINT —
The New Paradigm: A Confrontation Between
Physics and the Paranormal Phenomena
Paperback, 504 pages
P.O. Box 2816 K Concord, NH 03302-2816
603-485-4700 K www.infinite-energy.com/store/
The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction
An Examination of the Relationship Between Observation and Explanation
— by Dr. Edmund Storms —
“The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear
Reaction...is the first physical science
based description of a potential expla-
nation for cold fusion.”
—Dr. Michael McKubre
$28 U.S.
$42 Canada
$48 Mexico
$50 Other Foreign
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
http://www.infinite-energy.com
Paperback, 2014
351 pages
The Orgone Accumulator Handbook
by James DeMeo
New Energy Foundation • P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
www.infinite-energy.com
$25 U.S. / $35 Canada
$38 Mexico / $40 Other
Prices include shipping.
This book is a well-written, extremely useful
introduction to orgone energy research. It
describes in great detail the construction
techniques for making orgone accumulators.
The book combines history, philosophy,
many practical experiments and references
to original documents.
Paperback, 2010 Edition, 248 pp.
Practical Conversion of Zero-Point Energy
by Thomas Valone
Revised edition offers proof that zero-
point energy exists and proposes the
many avenues for its application to
solve the energy crisis.
$21 U.S. / $32 Canada
P.O. Box 2816 — Concord, NH 03302-2816
603-485-4700 — www.infinite-energy.com
Download Digital Copies of Infinite Energy
http://www.infinite-energy.com/store/index.php?main_page=indexcPath=10

thoughts were a learning exercise and could be obsolete.
A true seeker of knowledge and understanding has to be
able to pass unbiased judgement on new ideas and work
hard to separate fact from fiction. In the real world fiction
that is presented as fact often has facts mixed in or implied
in a way that opens a door for the recipient but leave confu-
sion that may take a long time to sort out. If every idea was
put forth with honest intentions this evaluation would be a
major task, but it is made much worse by vast entrenched
special interests and the ability via mass media and the inter-
net to easily distribute their propaganda as information.
As knowledge and technology advance and become more
complex, the advances tend to be nuances instead of break-
throughs. More work is often involved in following these
advances and often less reward is visualized so a smaller frac-
tion of people pursue them. The internet provides a good
way to get information but it also is part of the problem.
Good and useful information is buried in a vast sea of useless
trivia, ignorance, propaganda and outright misinformation.
As people get older they should be able to evaluate infor-
mation better and get wiser but most don’t. It takes real
effort to gain wisdom. Bad information can subtract knowl-
edge but good information can open new paths that com-
pound the problem and are an example of “the more you
know the more you know you don’t know.” Increasing
amounts of information has to be held in limbo because it
seems interesting and could be valuable but is not verified
sufficiently to be believed and then applied. It is very hard
to commit time and resources to something that is not
believed. Sometimes that is the only way to go forward
because a decision has to be made and if the idea is true it is
a big breakthrough.
In the new energy field there is strong consensus and
belief that more energy can be produced than is available
through chemical reactions alone but belief in any particu-
lar theory or technology is fragmented. This implies more
uncertainty and risk for any given pursuit, which slows
progress but this is typical of early stage development in a
new field. It is exacerbated by the ignorance and resistance
of the general science community, which keeps the pool of
researchers small as well as fragmented. If the resistance is
fueled by large vested interests the problem is much worse
because huge forces can be brought to bear even when a new
technology is known to be commercially viable.
The problems faced by more radical new energy ideas—
The first step in any advancement is learning. Any young
person or animal spends most of its time and effort
learning and to some degree this continues throughout life.
For a young person everything is new and is a struggle to
deal with, in spite of a lot of support, because of lack of con-
text to put any new experience into and lack of the mental
tools to work on it. Knowledge and beliefs are built up over
time and they provide a context and foundation for new
experiences and the thoughts that are a result of the new
experience and prior experiences. The rate of learning
increases as a result of this development and the complexity
of what can be understood grows exponentially early in life.
Later in life the rate of learning will grow more slowly, then
level off and eventually decrease depending very much on
the capability of the person and environment. As the rate of
learning grows the rate of forgetting or willful discarding of
ideas also grows so that a balance is maintained that has the
desired context for new learning that is selected to fit that
context. This defines the mental state of the person and
guides most activities.
In early learning new ideas are taken as facts and experi-
ences are accepted as just what they seem to be. Later people
learn about deception and beliefs that are not true. My moth-
er was trying to tell me about Santa Claus at an early age.
When she got done I walked into the fireplace in our old
farmhouse and looked up and saw a narrow, crooked, stone-
lined passage with a small patch of light at the end and asked,
“How does a big fat man get through a small chimney like
that?” She gave up trying to teach me or my younger siblings
anything about Santa on the spot. We both learned from that
experience. It was my first experience being skeptical about
“conventional wisdom.” That was simple, but as experiences
and ideas get more complex real confusion can develop
about not only the next idea but the whole context encom-
passing existing ideas that are held as facts—or maybe not.
For an intelligent, educated person on a long-term quest,
separating what to believe and act on and what to discard
can be a real challenge. This is a challenge that many in con-
ventional science do not act on or even realize exists. They
learned the paradigm at an early age and the living is easy so
why challenge it. One of the great things about Einstein is
that he never was completely at ease with his ideas and in
old age had serious doubts about even the fundamentals of
the theories. He would have found it easier than his follow-
ers could have to live with the idea that many of his
BREAKING THROUGH EDITORIAL
The Inefficiency of Learning
Bill Zebuhr

such as energy from the aether, antigravity, magnetic motors
and various life force theories—are much more difficult.
Some have been convincingly demonstrated but only once
or a few times. They can be so amazing that they seem like
magic and so are assumed to be a trick or simply not as they
seem. Since the understanding of these things is vague and
controversial with very few practitioners, repeatability and
commercialization is difficult and that is not counting the
huge upset to a large part of human knowledge and com-
mercial enterprise that would occur if they were widely
understood. History shows that radical truths can result in
ostracism, harassment, isolation and even death.
A wise seeker of truth who is trying to understand some of
the fundamentals of the universe soon realizes that the uni-
verse is infinite and the number of things that can be learned
is infinite so the best the seeker can do is scratch the surface
but would like to feel secure that what is understood is actu-
ally the way it is and not just another myth or dose of mis-
information. Understanding the fundamental physical laws
of the universe is an important first step that man has tried
to make throughout recorded history. Some practical rules
have been discovered but the fundamental makeup of mat-
ter and energy and their interaction are not known. It is a
beginning but much of it is wrong and seriously impeding
progress.
Most information comes indirectly, through another per-
son, rather than by direct observation and interaction.
People’s observations are often biased by preconceived ideas
and emotions. This is a serious problem even for some sci-
entific observations by professional observers but is com-
pounded when observations and interpretations of others
have to be used. The more radical the idea, the more skepti-
cal the evaluator has to be, but the skepticism should not be
based on simple belief in common knowledge that could be
wrong throughout history. Ideas have to be accepted for
good reason but also rejected for good reason.
The emotional aspect of man is probably the biggest
impediment to learning. People feel ownership to their
beliefs and giving them up is uncomfortable. It is also work
because a new idea may be difficult to integrate and believe
for a long time and that also leaves an uncomfortable feeling.
Deeply held beliefs, such as a particular religion or patriotism
to a corrupt government, can be so strong that they can be
held for a lifetime in spite of no supporting evidence or jus-
tification for that belief. There is a genuine fear of the para-
digm being upset so alternative ideas are simply shut out
without any serious consideration. Men become sheep and
are easily led by those that can benefit from controlling them
which leads to another major impediment to learning.
That is the barrage of misinformation, put out by govern-
ments and other establishment organizations—such as the
industries of medicine, defense, religion, education and
advertising—that obscures truth and replaces it with propa-
ganda to further their particular cause. Not only does this
waste a lot of time just trying to gather any useful informa-
tion, but often effort is required to act on or defend oneself
from these organizations. The IRS is one of the biggest time
and energy wasters ever created, outside of war, which is one
of the major reasons it collects money under threat of force.
Of course this creates thousands of jobs for lawyers, account-
ants, financial advisors and financial institutions and also
finances the military industrial complex, so it won’t go away
peacefully. This is about as useful to society as digging
trenches and filling them back up and a lot more destructive.
The jobs it creates are really taking people away from other
activities and jobs that could be far more beneficial.
All these inefficiencies are on top of the inefficiency built
into each individual. The mind is only capable of grasping a
very small fraction of available knowledge and doing any-
thing with it. It only accepts certain information and that
can be gathered reluctantly. It may have to be presented
multiple times and effort made to retain it. These limitations
make it possible to function. If every detail was stored in
memory and able to be used, the brain would be so big and
require so much energy that the body could not support it.
It would be an impediment to survival because essential
information would get lost in a virtually infinite sea of use-
less information. But I am sure the most intelligent humans
are far from their own potential and certainly far from what
is possible and what exists in the universe. We have to live
with our own inherent limitations and inefficiencies but we
should not be expending our limited minds devising artifi-
cial impediments to learning which impede real progress on
every front.
K K K
Perpetual Motion:
The History of an Obsession
by Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume
$21 U.S. / $32 Canada
Prices include shipping.
2005, Paperback, 247 pages
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
www.infinite-energy.com
Breakthrough Power: How Quantum-Leap New
Energy Inventions Can Transform Our World
by Jeane Manning and Joel Garbon
$22.00 U.S.
$34.00 Canada
$38.00 Mexico
$40.00 Other
(Prices including shipping.)
Paperback, 2014
272 pages
P.O. Box 2816 — Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 — www.infinite-energy.com

Objective Reporting
The concept of journalistic objectivity haunted me when I
went to college. I sometimes found it difficult to not feel
emotional over topics I covered. For this reason, I secretly
wondered if I should be a journalist.
In 1978, Gloria Emerson and Peter Arnett came to
Hampshire College, my school. Gloria Emerson was the first
woman reporter of the Viet Nam War for the New York Times.
She had just won the National Book Award for Winners and
Losers. Peter Arnett, the Associated Press Pulitzer Prize-win-
ning correspondent, spoke with her to a hall packed with
students. We were riveted in the presence of such greats and
there was nowhere I would rather be. Little did I know I
would leave in a year on the guidance of my Hampshire
advisors, first to study oral history at Columbia University,
then to work on the history of the New York radio station
where my network program director grandfather had trans-
lated Hitler speeches in World War II. I would start working
in journalism at age 22 and never return.
To read Winners and Losers is to come to understand what
war does, during it, and after it. In the pages of her book are
lives that would never be the same, but are not forgotten
because of her reporting in Viet Nam, and her traveling all
over the United States to find them. Gloria Emerson was as
powerful in person as she was on the page. She and Arnett
told us about their work, strongly, with a command of detail
and description and passion. Someone asked her about her
life in New York now, after it all. She said she wrote every
day, and walked in Central Park. One day she saw a boy
throwing a ball. Suddenly she was mentally transported to
Viet Nam, to seeing a boy his age, throwing a grenade. She
couldn’t tell which boy was which.
And then she started to weep.
To say we all froze and you could hear a pin drop was an
understatement. She was elegant with her bob of black hair
and her deep voice but now she cried in front of us with her
shoulders shaking. Peter Arnett reached over and gently pat-
ted her back and she composed herself and they went on.
The question one young student worried over was answered.
You could be a journalist and get emotional. But you must
channel emotions, yours and your subjects, into the hard
work of finding multiple points of view. You had to be as fair
as you could. Gloria Emerson committed suicide in 2004
rather than be left incapacitated by Parkinson’s disease.
LENR and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
LENR, historically cold fusion, is not a topic that has been
devoid of emotion. The attacks that Martin Fleischmann and
Stan Pons endured in the early years of the field have been,
in some fashion, experienced by researchers all over the
world. The stockpile of non-salubrious titles—Too Hot to
Handle, Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century, Bad
Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion—might
provide some indication of that. Electrochemist Michael
McKubre, who headed SRI’s Energy Research Center from
1998 until this year, was saluted by WIRED magazine as
being “one of the 25 most innovative people in the world.”
McKubre was a post-doc at Southampton, where he met
Martin Fleischmann. He was featured on CBS’ “60 Minutes”
as having his LENR life’s work vindicated by government
agency DARPA, who reported there was “no doubt that
anomalous excess heat is produced in these experiments.”
He must indeed be a very, very patient man to explain the
same things over and over again, as he did in a 2012 inter-
view1 upon Fleischmann’s death that, no, Fleischmann and
Pons had not claimed that they’d achieved fusion in a table-
top device. They’d claimed to have observed an anomalous
excess of heat in a palladium electrode loaded with deuteri-
um, heat too great to be explained by chemistry. When
they’d written their original paper, the question mark they’d
put after the word fusion had been removed.
Physicist David Nagel worked on some of the original cold
fusion experiments at the Naval Research Laboratory and
continues working in the field to this day. While he claims
not to be a patient man, Nagel’s report2 on the internation-
al conference in Padua last year was one of many times I’d
seen him reiterate: “In over a quarter-century since the
announcement by Fleischmann and Pons, excess heat has
been observed hundreds of times in very different experi-
ments in laboratories in several countries. The data shows
that it is possible to produce nuclear reactions at ordinary
temperatures.”
LENR researchers have found themselves in the unsought
role of the Sisyphus of science when it comes to public opin-
ion. The breakthroughs and progress made by the initial
researchers stood no chance (in a public relations sense)
against the onslaught of attacks on a nascent science. In
2007 I’d started work on oral history interviews in Salt Lake
City with people who were there at the 1989 start of cold
Reporting a Lawsuit in LENR
Marianne Macy
“It’s a mess, ain’t it, Sherriff?”
“If it ain’t, it’ll do until the mess gets here.”
–Joel and Ethan Coen, “No Country For Old Men”

fusion, when geneticist Mario Capecchi won the Nobel
Prize. A splendid thing, but Salt Lake Tribune columnist
Rebecca Walsh felt it necessary to write this “may finally
overshadow the ‘discovery’” (her punctuation) of
Fleischmann-Pons. Walsh quoted former university research
VP Richard Koehn saying “cold fusion was a ‘body blow’ to
the reputation of the university.” “By the time I graduated,”
she continued, “room temperature atom blending (huh??)
was an embarrassment, tucked away in a nondescript build-
ing in Research Park, an episode better forgotten.”
Apparently there were reporters unembarrassed by the use of
their own idiosyncratic scientific terminology, inaccurate
accounting of what happened to the researchers involved or
the subject in general.
For years, the majority mainstream opinion was that this
was a discredited area that had shown some promise early
and failed. You would be told it was still pursued by some
“believers”—a slighting term not representative of the world
class researchers who advance this work. They are from
major international research companies, universities, gov-
ernment labs, corporations, think tanks. Some were brilliant
entrepreneurs. Their backgrounds and affiliations range from
places like ENEA in Italy, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Osaka, Kobe University and Technova Inc. in Japan, Shell Oil
in Paris, Amaco, General Electric, the Bhabha Atomic
Research Center in India, MIT, SRI, the Naval Research
Laboratory, the Space and Naval Warfare Research Center,
LUCH and Lomonosov Moscow State University in Russia,
Harwell in England, Aix-Marseilles University, University of
Bologna, Xiamen University in China, First Gate Energies
Hawaii…and that’s the very tip of the iceberg. “What I think
is salient and a new trend,” a former higher up in a govern-
ment lab told me, “is the number of people working in LENR
right now who wish to keep what they are doing silent!” It
used to be that LENR researchers were silent due to the pres-
sures of working in this field. Now it is due to NDAs.
CMNS Having Its Moment
2015’s ICCF19, the International Conference on Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science, in Padua, Italy had the largest con-
ference attendance in history, with over 400 people, which
topped 1992’s ICCF3 in Nagoya, Japan. ICCF20, to be held
in Sendai, Japan, will probably have more people.
The years of successful experimental results in the multi-
disciplined areas of LENR have changed things. A touching
aspect of ICCF16 in Chennai, India had been the intelligent
young students who came to the conference and expressed
their wish to do research in this field, but the jobs were not
there. On a last day panel, one of the speakers had said, “At
least having the media leave us alone to work” was the up
side of years of having the mainstream media miss the fact
that cold fusion was an ever more serious story. But that
peace and quiet was about to go. There was just too much
solid experimental evidence piling up everywhere.
Things had also become encouraging in terms of invest-
ment into expanded research outlets and rebooted efforts
into LENR. Physicist Robert Duncan, the research chancellor
at University of Missouri who’d been the expert looking into
LENR for the “60 Minutes” cold fusion investigation,
became interested enough to follow his nose to what became
the multi-million dollar Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear
Renaissance (SKINR) at the University of Missouri. Nuclear
Physicist Graham Hubler, a 40-year veteran of the Naval
Research Laboratory, took the SKINR helm when Duncan
went on to Texas Tech University to start a center bridging
physics and chemistry (Center for Emerging Energy Sciences,
CEES) to search for the origin of the Anomalous Heat Effect.
They would work with ENEA in Italy, where Vittorio
Violante had done key studies in materials science, which
increased the deuterium loading reproducibility in Pd cath-
odes. In 2014, it was Violante who toured Bill Gates through
ENEA and briefed him on cold fusion developments.
When I asked, Rob Duncan could not confirm or deny
that Bill Gates was funding CEES.
Another changing factor was the race for an industrialized
product. Hence an increasing number of favorable—or at
least “we’d better cover this in case we missed something”—
international stories began accumulating. Then, in the last
five years, came the unceasing promotional efforts of a new
meteorite flashing over the LENR landscape in the form of
an Italian inventor by the name of Andrea Rossi.
Enter Rossi
It was impossible to ignore Rossi. Even several years later
when he had not yet produced a demonstration of his tech-
nology that was universally proclaimed to produce excess
heat, he was acknowledged to have attracted attention to the
cold fusion field in proportions it hadn’t seen for years.
Rossi not only didn’t wait for the ICCFs, he didn’t attend
them. He gave demonstrations of his technology, put videos
on the internet, ran his own website, and worked ceaseless-
ly to get what he was doing out there. He knew PR. At one
point when he was just starting to get up a head of steam
and his E-Cat technology had not yet been named, I attend-
ed a meeting with him in the offices of a major public rela-
tions firm in offices above Grand Central Station. The firm
leader was a colleague of a brilliant executive who had guid-
ed media for the company I’d worked with years earlier.
Rossi was looking for financial support at the time and I
thought he could use the introduction. He ended up describ-
ing to the public relations professionals how he had success-
fully hired writers to produce books about him and get them
distributed in all the bookstores, making him “the biggest
environmental hero in Italy” before events had turned his
story in the opposite direction. He described the publishing
costs, decided on the message he wanted to convey, hired
writers, got the books written and designed, even told us
how to get them into the bookstores. My friend who had
arranged the meeting had worked for one of the largest PR
firms in the U.S. and then been the public information direc-
tor of a multimillion dollar corporation. “Rossi has a very
sophisticated sense of this business,” he surmised. “He’s a
really personable, charming, likeable guy.” The firm, upon
instruction, sent a proposal on their services. Rossi sent a
warm but noncommittal reply. If there was one thing
Andrea Rossi didn’t need, it was a public relations firm. He
knew how to do it himself.
I met Rossi in Rome in 2009. My husband Michael
Melich, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate
School, had been involved with cold fusion since the start of
the field, when his father Mitchell Melich (who had been on
the advisory board of the National Cold Fusion Institute in

1989) called and asked him to read technical material.
Through that connection he met Wilford (Wilf) Hansen,
professor of physics at Utah State University and also a mem-
ber of the NCFI advisory panel who took responsibility for
the panel to evaluate data sets provided by Fleischmann and
Pons. His report3 was presented to the panel and subse-
quently presented and published in the ICCF2 (July 1991)
proceedings. Because of the integrity that he brought to that
evaluation, efforts were taken to obtain data sets from Cal
Tech, MIT and Harwell. Harwell co-operated and Hansen
and Melich presented the results4 of their analysis at ICCF3
in Japan. On the basis of this work and other study, Melich
concluded that the claims of Fleischmann and Pons were
worthy of serious consideration.
As time went on, with our different roles, Michael and I
had different constraints. The rules of the United States
Government, which in 2009 Michael Melich had been an
employee of since 1976, are as follows. If an entity—a per-
son, a company, an inventor—comes to the government
with what they claim is proprietary information, federal
statutes define the responsibilities of federal employees who
receive that disclosure. Under the federal statutes, there are
severe penalties for a federal employee to disseminate the
information received. There are rules that govern these dis-
closures and how they are handled.
Rossi was working with a private company that had
requested such discretion. Therefore, in Rome, where I was
covering the cold fusion conference for Infinite Energy maga-
zine, the work day was coming to an end when Michael told
me that we had to meet someone for dinner. “Who?” I asked.
“An inventor,” he said.
“You’ve met with him before?” I asked. “When? Where?”
“I can’t tell you.” With that in-depth background and a
quick introduction outside the hotel to Andrea Rossi—a
slender Italian man, very well dressed—we made our way to
an elegant restaurant where with great care, Rossi ordered
salad, pasta, fish. He was meticulous and explained each
course. He and Michael spoke about what he was working on
and I listened and asked questions. I heard how Mike
became involved in starting to explore what he was doing.
Rossi claimed to be closing in on producing a working LENR
technology. He had American partners who had worked
with the U.S. Navy and were familiar with the continuing
interest of the Navy in energy technology. In late 2007 the
company requested someone with technical interest and
competence to view a demonstration. It took until summer
2009 before the promised demonstration was nearly ready.
The demonstrations were organized at the company’s facili-
ties and several government scientists were invited to
observe four- to five-hour demonstrations of the startup of
the reactor and its operation and its shutdown. It was an
impressive demonstration. Although independent electronic
instrumentation was not available, a rough estimate of how
much energy was produced could be made. What Rossi said
that night was that he was heating his offices in a factory
building where he worked with the heat from his invention.
That certainly got my attention. As soon as we returned to
the U.S., I began to look into his background and realized it
would take a lot of research to properly report on Andrea
Rossi. His history included extraordinary inventions such as
a technology that converted waste products, literally
garbage, into a useable fuel oil. But he had also gone to
prison, a story that either cast him as a hero who’d gotten in
over his head in mixed circumstances or the opposite. He
had explained to us that his interest in cold fusion began in
prison, when he passed the time by reading scientific papers
about it. Whoever Rossi was, it was my husband’s job to be
one of the people to try to figure out if what he had was real.
I could recite the Rossi backstory because I heard it from
him and I heard it reproduced from other channels as he
became known. The man who held the record in Italy for
running more than anyone for 24 hours. He ran. He was
slender and fit and would show up in a track suit for busi-
ness meetings when he wasn’t elegantly dressed in a suit or
tailored pants and pressed shirt.
He worked. That was not a myth. He was a very, very hard
worker. Every new meeting he showed up with endless iter-
ations of things he was working on. Next time you saw him
it would have changed numerous times. The engineers and
technical people were impressed with his ingenuity, creativ-
ity and how quickly he changed things up. He was not for-
mally educated in everything related to LENR but he was a
sponge and knew how to make things. He learned fast. If
someone mentioned a reference in a meeting, by the next
time he’d be using it.
Rossi knew how to learn things. In 2009 he was not fluent
in English. He practiced nonstop, read, kept the tv on and
repeated what he was watching. My husband, I and others
were traveling with Andrea, and he told me the differences
in the English language and Italian, how many fewer com-
binations and words there were—he knew how many. This is
how that language is put together, he illustrated. This is how
you learn it. It was a system and you could take it apart or
put it together.
Rossi was tenacious. You could say obsessed. One day I
was doing something with him starting early in the morn-
ing, and going all day until my husband flew in to the air-
port and came in at 11 PM. Andrea spent the night at our
house so they could talk and work together the next day. In
the course of that day, we had a woman in tow who sug-
gested late morning perhaps he’d like coffee or a bite. No
thanks. A couple of hours later, would Andrea like lunch?
No. She lost it at 3 PM. “I have to eat! I’m going to faint!”
Andrea agreed to stop for a late lunch. Starting at 7 PM when
he had settled in front of his computer in my home I would
periodically ask him if he wanted some food. I had a cornu-
copia prepared for his visit, from fruit and nuts to full meal
choices. No thank you. No thank you. No thank you. Finally
the truth came out. He ate once a day so as to not interrupt
his work. Spending more time with him, I found that was
true. Pack food or else.
There are some people you spend time with them, even a
lot of time, and it doesn’t seem to go deep. Andrea Rossi was
a person you could connect with. He was very bright.
Wanted to talk, non-stop about work with all the people
involved on every level of that front, from technical to engi-
neering to business to science. He was very funny, and fun,
curious. One of the times we were with him and his beauti-
ful wife Magdalena we went to a restaurant where there was
a rock band. “Don’t let him get near the stage!” Magdalena
exclaimed. “He’s a drummer! He’ll drum all night!” Rossi
loved American movies and popular fiction. He conveyed an
incredible sense of mission about his work and the impor-
tance of it, of environmental and energy concerns. And he

was deeply interested in philosophy; it was what his degree
was in. That, I would come to see, was something he
thought about a great deal.
Andrea Rossi had a great gift of making people around
him connect with and care about his mission.
I try not to speak of my husband and I as “we,” although
we were fortunate in that we could often find ourselves
working together, him in science and engineering, me cov-
ering it as a writer. But when I look back, I know that in
2009, Martin Fleischmann was still with us. My husband,
like many of the people in the cold fusion world, was very
close to him. I spent months in Tisbury interviewing Martin.
I think a lot of Martin Fleischmann’s close friends at that
time hoped that if a technological breakthrough was coming
in cold fusion, that it would come before he died in 2012. I
know we did, fiercely. It probably added a bit more impetus
to our work. Maybe a lot more.
Did It Work? An Unsolved Mystery
Michael Melich and I probably spent more time with Andrea
Rossi than most people in the LENR field, certainly in the
U.S. He stayed at our home. We traveled with him. We got
to know his inner circle, wife, even his mother-in-law
(adorable). We were with him in Rome, Washington, Greece,
New York, and many other places. If Andrea Rossi had a
working LENR technology, a lot of people were trying to
help him get it out there.
As a journalist, the huge frustration was that I was repeat-
edly in situations related to Rossi that I could not report on
because discretion was requested. I have notes, videos, pho-
tos, and the full story on our time with him that I can report
in the near future, but now for other reasons, mostly legal
constraints, I can’t.
Michael Melich is on record in two public tutorials saying
that Rossi’s 2009 demonstrations seemed to show that he
was producing about 10 KW for a period of four to five
hours. Absent independent instrumentation, an estimate of
the minimum amount of heat produced could be made
knowing the flow rate of the cooling water, the rise in tem-
perature of the total volume of water and the duration of the
experiment. That number seemed to be ten times greater
than what was being shown on the electrical watt-hour
meter. Using the temperature rise across the reactor and the
flow rate, an estimate of the heat being produced would sug-
gest 10 KW of power was being injected into the cooling
water. Subsequent information about the configuration
called into question the initial power gain of 10, however,
the estimate of 10 KW of excess heat still remained unex-
plained as coming from an electrical input. The ambiguity of
interpretation of this first demonstration by Rossi was to
become a continuing feature of subsequent efforts to quan-
tify what his reactors were producing.
The bottom line is that there was not a conclusive Rossi
test to report that we witnessed.
Expanded Investment
By last year’s ICCF19 in Padua, Italy, word was out that the
serious money was betting on LENR. Silicon Valley investors
had supported Brillouin. Bill Gates was known to have given
money although it was on the quiet. Programs restarted in
India, Russia, Japan and China.
For a year, word had been out about Tom Darden, a
Raleigh, NC-based businessman whose company Cherokee
Investment Partners had invested in Andrea Rossi’s technol-
ogy. Cherokee had business success in Brownfield remedia-
tion, cleaning up toxic waste sites. Darden addressed5 the
ICCF19 conference. It seemed that Andrea Rossi, and other
researchers Industrial Heat would support, had found the
perfect investor. Darden had a good reputation. He was
interested in pollution issues and wanted to develop LENR
technology because of that interest. In the course of the next
two years, Darden and Industrial Heat would offer support to
some of the best researchers in the field. With the exception
of Rossi, Brillouin and Dennis Letts, most would keep it
quiet.
In the time that IH and Rossi started working together,
things moved fast, with Rossi working with Industrial Heat
technical people first in Raleigh, NC, then after a year, mov-
ing his lab to an industrial building in Miami where he con-
tinued by himself. From February 24 until March 20, 2014,
Rossi participated in a test of the E-Cat in Lugano,
Switzerland. SRI’s Michael McKubre’s analysis6 of the report
had mixed reviews. Soon after, McKubre was invited to
Norway to meet with people involved in the test, an experi-
ence he also wrote about.7
In January 2016, Rossi biographer and new energy technol-
ogy journalist Mats Lewan announced a June New Energy
World Symposium in Stockholm, “provided the E-Cat test
‘Clearly Positive.’” The star speaker would be Andrea Rossi.
Others would be Lewan, LENR-CANR’s Jed Rothwell, Nobel
Laureate and long time cold fusion supporter Brian Josephson,
Jean-Francois Geneste, VP of Airbus Group, Harry Frank from
Malardalen University in Sweden, and Bob Greenyer from the
Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP).
Rossi had announced he was doing a one year test of his
1 MW reactor, after which he would receive the rest of the
money his contract with IH stipulated, $89 million. What
happened exactly in that timeframe remains to be seen, but
as the test date completion loomed, the story started getting
confusing. Lewan, a journalist with a hitherto good reputa-
tion for careful work, was under pressure with his proposed
June symposium and the hoped-for one year test results and
report release date starting to waver. In early February Rossi
had announced the test results would be pushed back a
month. Suddenly in the third week of February, Rossi
announced that the test was concluded and it was a success.
But the report was not being released, a situation that con-
tinued as days stretched into weeks. Agitation started on the
bulletin boards and blogs. Mats Lewan on February 18
reported that the test had been a success. If it was a success,
researchers started pressuring in online posts, where was the
report? There was criticism of Industrial Heat for holding up
the release of the report. Shortly thereafter, an IH insider
posted on a bulletin board that they were not the ones hold-
ing up its release.
The Lawsuit
On April 6, Andrea Rossi announced that he was suing
Industrial Heat for $89 million dollars. He released the news,
papers and supporting documents online. The claims in his
lawsuit included theft of intellectual property, patent

infringement and fraud.
An analysis of the case from Patent Lawyer David French
is on page 20 of this issue of Infinite Energy.
Just as emotion was not new to the cold fusion field, legal
battles were not new to the field. There are ongoing legal
battles that date to the 1990s. But this was a different scale.
The situation of an $89 million dollar lawsuit between the
field’s highest profile, highest paid inventor and his envi-
ronmentally-inclined investors wasn’t akin to the adage of
having an elephant in the room. It was like having an ele-
phant with projectile diarrhea who had snorted a kilo of
cocaine after mating with Donald Trump in the room. This
was a worst case scenario, a four star sriracha-saturated shit
storm that could distinctly prove unhelpful to the LENR
world’s public profile at the time of its greatest collective
acceleration.
For myself, the perpetual struggle for objective reporting
was competing with shock. I’d hoped for the success of
Rossi’s technology for so long and been so glad that some-
one like Darden had come along to support it.
I had spoken to Dennis Letts, one researcher IH was sup-
porting who had been public about it, to ask about what he
thought of Industrial Heat. He responded, “I am proud of my
affiliation with IH and its people. In my view, Industrial Heat
is a rare combination of talent, intelligence and integrity.
They are the finest people I have worked with since my
‘deal-making’ career began in 1972. The public charges made
against Industrial Heat and its management are totally
inconsistent with my personal experience over the past 18
months. Profits are important to IH but never at the expense
of integrity.”
I knew a good number of the other researchers IH worked
with and each found them honest, straightforward and sup-
portive on every level to deal with. Mike and I had been
down to North Carolina to their headquarters and spent
time with them. We emerged feeling confident about the
kind of people they were. Could I be wrong about that
impression? I asked myself repeatedly. And then I’d go
through the checklist of the things Darden had talked about
in our interview, of his work and reputation over many
years, of his son working with Brad Pitt building houses for
Hurricane Katrina survivors. Would he be the kind of person
to cheat, steal from and defraud Rossi? It was possible.
Anything was possible. It just didn’t seem likely.
The history of cold fusion in the first year particularly
showed that the affects of people under terrible pressure
were ubiquitous. When the uproar starts that someone is
faking things or someone screwed up, defenses rise.
Accusations fly. Humanity goes out the window. So do cool
heads that might work things out together.
I didn’t know what was going on with Andrea Rossi. The
word “fraud” would be leveled at him. But when Michael
Melich and other competent people examined it, there was
a sufficiently large amount of heat that was unexplained
that was worth further investigation on the first Rossi reac-
tor they saw. It was essential to follow up, and not to dismiss
Rossi’s invention.
LENR is hard. Hard to make it happen all the time. Who
knew what happened?
Brian Scanlan was a software entrepreneur and LENR sup-
porter who had figured into early Rossi chapters that I main-
tained the requested discretion on...until he posted about
them on a LENR bulletin board, which he gave me permis-
sion here to reproduce (below). I still didn’t…and wouldn’t
know what to think of Andrea Rossi until I saw the evidence
on both sides of the case. Scanlan wrote on the forum:
I am not sure how many of us in this group have
met either Rossi, or IH’s Tom Darden. I’ve met both
and came away with very distinct impressions.
In June 2011 I met Rossi in Miami along with his
partners from Leonardo. Mike Melich and
Marianne Macy were also present. Prior to the
meeting I had constructed a consortium commit-
ted to funding $15 mil provided we could estab-
lish mutually agreed-upon test conditions. We
didn’t get far. The meeting lasted about two hours
but from the beginning was fraught with conflict.
I mentioned that Ed Storms would design and run
the calorimetry of our proposed test, which in
hindsight I realize ended the negotiations. A real
scientist and experimentalist such as Ed was too
risky for Rossi. Soon after Rossi threw a tantrum,
set a series of absurd conditions and left the room,
followed by a train of his partners hoping to sooth
the genius’ hurt feelings. Although I wasn’t
amused at the time, I should have been. Rossi is a
character sprung from Hollywood central casting.
I met with Tom Darden only once, in February
2014 in NYC for several hours. Similar to others
on CMNS, over the years I have dealt with a kalei-
doscope of personalities in business. After some
painful lessons along the way I’ve gotten to be a
decent judge of character. I’d judge Tom Darden
a straightshooter. Tom described his motives as
“saving the planet.” CO2 emissions and related
pollution were a deep concern to him. “We have
to do something,” he said. In that context, he
must have approached Rossi with an open mind,
although as a businessman he wasn’t going to
write a check without conditions. Tom Darden
seems a “typical” well-meaning wealthy person
trying to use his resources to solve one of our
planet’s biggest problems.
As we watch this circus, we should imagine our-
selves in Tom Darden’s shoes. Suppose the
agreed-upon test required a 6.0 COP, but deliv-
ered something less than that. Anything greater
than 1.0 would still be exciting from a scientific
point of view, as long as it was real. A real 1.5
COP would allow the launch of a major research
effort. A competent businessman such as Darden
with strong entrepreneurial bona fides could eas-
ily raise $100 mil or more with proven excess
heat. He and his partners have a personal net
worth far in excess of this number, so they need-
n’t go to the outside. Silicon Valley routinely
funds speculative ventures with 100s of millions.
It’s clear to me the IH tests failed entirely. Rossi
had to be present with the device at all times, a

very bad sign. When the E-Cat failed he conjured
up the Hot-Cat, a Very Very bad sign. If the E-Cat
produced even a small excess energy, that was
enough to prove LENR to the world and to gain
funding. Yet, the E-Cat effort was abandoned in
favor of high-temperature work. The calorimetry
design at the Hot-Cat’s high temperatures was
very challenging and certainly caused extensive
delays. It’s the perfect setting for bad intentions.
Delay and obfuscation rule.
As was noted in this group, Rossi sued before the
money from IH was due. Why the rush? Rossi
wanted to strike first to paint himself as a victim
before IH sues him for fraud.
There’s a book that’s worth reading: The Sociopath
Next Door, by Martha Stout. Or take a look at
http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath.
Most of us in this group have trouble with the
basic question, Why would Rossi try to pull such
a brazen fraud? How did he expect to get away
with it? Answer—Some people crave control. For
some, control is much more important than
money. And Rossi has succeeded. He’s hijacked
the LENR agenda, which has derailed countless
sincere and promising research efforts.
Folks, it’s time to move on.
One important fact was that the payment to Rossi was not
from Woodford Investment Management in the UK, or any
other investors IH had raised money from. Tom Darden paid
Rossi $11.5 million. All money before Woodford are “profes-
sional investors,” as defined by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. Rossi was paid his license fee before
Woodford invested. Granted, if Rossi had what he said it
was, it was worth it; the invention would be worth billions.
But…with the jury still out on Rossi’s tests, when that
money changed hands, never in the history of cold fusion
had there been a payment to a single individual near such an
amount. When I asked what he’d witnessed of Rossi’s tech-
nology to make him decide to do that, Darden had replied it
was transmutation data. Not excess heat. He took a leap, and
it was with his own money.
Forty-eight hours after filing his lawsuit, Rossi posted on
his own site an insinuation about Brillouin Energy changing
their experimental methodology to copy his. This was not in
Rossi’s complaint, but it was worrisome. A patent may cover
the use of a recipe. But it did not mean Andrea Rossi, or any-
one, had a monopoly on ingredients. What was next?
LENR Community Reacts
Reaction to the lawsuit exploded on the bulletin boards and
blogosphere, from the stand-with-Rossi exhortations of one
contingent to those who urged to wait for all the facts to
come out, to those who felt the only facts they were waiting
for hadn’t come out, the report of the ERV test.
Jed Rothwell, who runs the LENR-CANR online library,
sent me a video8 when I said I noticed some of the initial
reporting on the case was saying things by purporting not to
say things.
Reporter Mats Lewan was illustrating praeteritio in his
March 18 post. He reported that another reporter had writ-
ten about Industrial Heat’s public relations firm APCO, who
served major corporations and suggested perhaps these
nefarious corporations had “given IH an offer they couldn’t
refuse.” Lewan had exhorted (my emphasis):
I need to underline that you should be careful with
this kind of conspiracy theories. However, it’s inter-
esting to note that there might be significant
interests wanting to delay the introduction of
commercially viable LENR based energy.
Lewan continued:
IH might have been pressed by investors’ expec-
tations, while not being sure of having all the
technology details. IH can even have been
approached by more powerful entities, seeing the
E-Cat as a threat, or wanting to secure the tech-
nology for the U.S., without depending on Rossi.
We don’t know this. And to settle the case might
take years, unfortunately. In any case—the public
statement from IH a few weeks ago now comes
into another perspective, looking more like dam-
age limitation, with support of the well-known PR
agency APCO Worldwide.
Andrea Rossi, too, was not saying anything, as evidenced
by his April 7 posting on his Journal of Nuclear Physics site9
(my emphasis in two locations):
I have to comment the press release of IH, being
a press release and not a forensic act.
They made the Lugano reactor (they also signed
it) they made many replications of which we have
due record and witnesses, they made multiple
patent applications (without my authorization)
with their chief engineer as the co-inventor (he
invented nothing), with detailed description of
the replications, they made replications with the
attendance of Woodford, after which they got 50
or 60 millions of dollars from Woodfords’
investors, they made replications with the atten-
dance of Chinese top level officers, after which
they started thanks to the E-Cat they made an
RD activity in China in a 200 millions concern,
they made replications with an E-Cat completely
made by them under my direction the very day in
which the 1 MW plant has been delivered in
Raleigh, they made replications that we have
recorded. After the replication they made with the
attendance of Woodford in 2013 Mr Tom Darden
said publicly: “this replication has been stellar”
(witnesses available). But this is not the place to dis-
cuss this. We have prepared 18 volumes to explain
exactly and in detail the activity of our “Licensee”
and his acquaintances from 2013 to now. Until
they had to collect money thanks to the E-Cat,

they made replications and have been happy with
the E-Cat; when it turned to have to pay, they dis-
covered that they never made replications, that
the ERV that they had chosen with us was not
good, that the test on the 1 MW plant, thanks to
which they collected enormous amounts of
money from the investors and where I put at risk
my health working 16-18 hours per day was not a
good test ( but for all the year of the test they
NEVER said a single word of complaint, even if
they had constantly their men in the plant, etc.
etc. But the worse has still to come out. The worse
is in the 18 volumes we will present in due time,
in due place. A blog is not the right place to discuss a
litigation. This is only a quick answer to the press
release made by IH.
A week later, Mats Lewan, after a smoking-gun column
that fingered Industrial Heat as the guilty party, wrote that
he’d been accused of biased reporting. He supplied another
scenario with the opposite perspective. A sincere effort to do
balanced reporting.
On April 15, Lewan announced the cancellation of his
New Energy World Symposium.
*********
Andrea Rossi posted some of his personal hardship in the
week that followed the filing of his lawsuit. He spoke of
sleeping in the factory building he’d worked for a year.
“Why would he sleep in the work space, not a hotel, for a
year?” demanded Rossi supporter Peter Gluck on his site.
“For $89 million?” was one response. Others raised ques-
tions about beside protecting what was in the reactor, what
other secrets might be concealed.
To try to garner sympathy on the idea of working hard
when the reward was such a payday was a major miscalcula-
tion in this crowd. Not necessarily about the money. It was
about sacrifice and context. Most of the original people who
had worked in cold fusion had been through too much, seen
too much. The science was interdisciplinary. The cumulative
mass of each others’ work and discovery and progress was
just too closely related. It was why the early publication of
cold fusion papers—by George Miley in Fusion Technology
and new energy advocate Harold Fox in his early newsletter
Fusion Facts which by 1996 had evolved into the Journal of
New Energy, LENR-CANR library, the JSCMNS, and the pro-
ceedings of the ICCFs—were such essential necessities. It was
unlikely to progress without studying where the predeces-
sors had been before.
And there were the personal sacrifices of the peers in a
small community. The crushing losses of: Giuliano
Preparata, prominent particle physics theorist, whose work
on superradiance offered an alternative theoretical explana-
tion for the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect as well as being a
tenacious critic of the “know nothings” from primarily the
physics community who did not look at the experimental
evidence. He died in his 40s. Or Russian physicist Andrei
Lipson, son of modern Russia, who died in 2009 at age 52.
Lipson was a graduate student of B.V. Derjaguin, who Lipson
would say, “came to cold fusion before cold fusion existed”
with his work on fracto-fusion, neutron emission during the
fracture of deuterated solids. An expert of nuclear emissions
during cold fusion effects, Lipson had accepted a position at
the University of Missouri when his sudden death in Russia
occurred. Widely considered to be one of the best scientists
in the field, he had traveled all around the world, stitching
together research effort after research effort. He was about to
settle in one place that would do great work, finally togeth-
er with his beloved wife and daughter. It was a major loss of
someone with the genius and capacity to supply large pieces
of the puzzle. He never doubted that the scattering model of
conventional particle physics could be used to explain his
observation of 2 MeV protons and much higher energy neu-
trons shown repeatedly in his experiments with Roussetski
and Chernov, who continue to publish research. Among
Lipson’s still active research colleagues in LENR is Sergei
Tcvetkov,10 whose interest in deuterium loaded titanium is
continuing in a German private laboratory.
There were more who left too young, too soon. Russian
physicist Yan Kucherov, who as a materials scientist at LUCH
with his team matured a set of experiments with Irina
Savvatimova and Alexander Karabut. Kucherov moved to
the U.S. to work at ENECO and eventually the Naval
Research Laboratory with Graham Hubler. There was many-
body theorist, writer and activist Scott Chubb, whose collab-
orations with his uncle Talbot Chubb produced a literature
suggesting that deuterons and protons could be found in
highly loaded metals in “ion band states,” mathematically
the same as used to describe semiconductor behavior. Talbot
Chubb found Ivan Chernov’s experiments on the response
of hydrogen loaded metals to electron beam or X-ray stimu-
lation highly supportive of the ion-band ideas. SRI’s Mike
McKubre has glass embedded in his side from a lab explo-
sion, but it killed collaborator Andrew Riley.
Yes. Sleeping in one’s workspace for months on end was
difficult. But in cold fusion, many people had done much
more for much less. Tadahiko Mizuno, for example, a nuclear
experimentalist and pioneer in the observation of transmu-
tation, spent a couple of years conducting experiments
under nearly impossible conditions in a cold, damp under-
ground laboratory. Or Melvin Miles, an electrochemist at the
Navy’s China Lake laboratory who made the first reliable
measurement of He in the presence of excess heat produc-
tion, was subjected to a sequence of administrative actions
that reduced him to taking inventory of storeroom supplies.
One of the most famous people to suffer the ignominy
assigned to cold fusion researchers was Julian Schwinger,
who shared the Nobel Prize with Tomonaga and Feynmann
for the development of Quantum Electrodynamics. His lec-
tures, books and papers on quantum field theory are leg-
endary. Schwinger resigned his membership in the American
Physical Society. In a speech11 prepared for delivery at ICCF4
and read by Gene Mallove in 1994, he described how his
Greens Function Analysis approach, used to win him the
Nobel Prize, when applied to the problem of nuclear process-
es in a solid might help solve why neutrons and other
nuclear signatures might be absent in the PdD system.
People collaborated. Efforts like MFMP, whose experimen-
tal work was streamed online.12 In Colorado, Coolescence,
led by engineer, entrepreneur and philanthropist Matt
McConnell with Rick Cantwell and team, have taken seem-
ingly successful experiments from a body of research in cold
fusion and set out to replicate them. Replication has become
the recognized foundation to create effective technology to
support product engineering and as always happens with

very complicated physical systems, will eventually support
the science that will expand existing physical theories and
models to cover the observed “cold fusion” results.
Rossi was a lone gun in a field where the science itself was
interdisciplinary. The more crossover of work and informa-
tion shared, the more things had a chance to grow. There
were still NDAs and competition. No one would say the
researchers were a brotherhood holding hands and singing
“kumbaya.” No one who had ever met three Italian scientists
from different institutions, anyway. But the nature of this
field was such that the people working in it needed to know
about each others’ work, and that fostered connection.
They went to conferences together. There were online
forums like Vortex, CMNS Google Group and LENR-Forum.
There were organizations such as the International Society of
Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS)13 started by
Bill Collis, with an excellent journal14 edited by Jean-Paul
Biberian. The LENR-CANR15 library started by Ed Storms and
Jed Rothwell is the repository of papers in the field. Even
“outsiders” provided useful services, such as the continuous
cataloging by Dieter Britz and the interaction with seeming-
ly related studies on d-d scattering in metals by groups such
as Huke, Czerski and Heide.16
The cold fusion community may be like herding cats, but
it is a community.
LENR Community...and Work, Continues
Would cold fusion survive the Rossi lawsuit? I solicited
responses from as many people as I could reach to ask for an
update on their work. (I am still collecting reports of work,
so send them on.)
Answers came in like a tidal wave. There are people work-
ing all over the world, now with major support, although
more support is needed. This is a sampling, a heartening
sampling, to show the variety and different areas of the work
going on. More will be in evidence in China and Japan this
fall at ICCF20. A commercial breakthrough of technology
will happen, sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, the science
progresses steadily. Whatever happens in the Rossi/Industrial
Heat lawsuit, the best resolution is ongoing work.
You can’t turn back the tide.
— Current LENR Work —
Dennis Letts and Dennis Cravens, longtime LENR
researchers working in laser triggering effects, have collabo-
rated with one of the original cold fusion theorists and
researchers, MIT’s Peter Hagelstein.
Dennis Letts reports:
I have been designing and testing various types of
LENR reactors and materials since the early ‘90s.
These days I am focused primarily on ways to
effectively load a host metal with either deuteri-
um or hydrogen. The work continues to progress
with the support of Industrial Heat and I am
pleased with its direction.
Dennis Cravens writes:
Dual laser experiments have shown that when
two linear polarized lasers are selected so that 1)
their beat frequencies are in the correct phonon
regions, 2) impinge on a nonlinear absorber to
allow mixing, 3) oriented so that their E fields
have non-zero dot product, 4) have a non-zero
component of their Poynting vector into the sur-
face and along an external magnetic field that
heat releasing events can be triggered.
The areas presently of the most concern to me are
1) the functional form of the excess heat produc-
tion in regards to temperature, 2) the role of alloy-
ing or otherwise producing materials to effect
ultimate energy densities, and 3) the role of non-
equilibrium stresses, such as electromigration, in
initiation and control of the heat production.
I am perusing both gas loaded materials at mod-
erate temperatures and electrochemical systems
at boil temperatures.
I feel that the most important thing now is not to
be bogged down in proving existence of the effect
but in the study of materials used to obtain it.
Peter Hagelstein reports:
We have experiments where we are vibrating
pieces of metal hoping to see evidence for up
conversion, ideally hoping to see some collimat-
ed X-ray emission. We continue to be interested
in the Kornilova waterjet experiment. I am hop-
ing to go to Russia this summer and spend time
with Kornilova and the waterjet and augment my
understanding of what’s going on there. We can
work on models; the model we have been inter-
ested in is an applied physics model for the phase
diagram of palladium hydride, which is done,
written up and submitted. Hopefully we will get
PD deuteride and a similar model done for it.
Recently I’ve been working to document the the-
oretical models I have developed for cold fusion.
It involves two pieces, one has to do with the for-
malism for how you couple nuclei to a lattice.
The other has to do with the up conversion down
conversion So during the past month I’ve been
trying to write a discussion of the derivation of
the first part of the problem: how do you make a
useful model for nuclei as composite quantum
particles and put it in the lattice? Can you con-
nect that with the literature in a way such that
you are sure that you are doing it right and you
can connect with other people’s experience? I’ve
had some luck doing that and am working on the
paper. When I give presentations I say there are
two new things we have to do—one is we have to
do the model of the nuclei coupled with a lattice,
the other is we have to do up conversion down
conversion. At this point I can say that including
models for nuclei in the lattice is basically a fair-
ly standard calculation; there is nothing particu-
larly new other than doing it! That is a more pow-

erful and fundamental kind of statement and
basically cuts in half the remaining theoretical
problem. You can reduce the problem to one
that’s been previously solved and that is a signif-
icant accomplishment.
Hopefully in the coming months I’ll do the same
thing for the up conversion down conversion.
Theorist Norman Cook supplied:
I am interested solely in transmutation data (not
heat, or technology or saving the planet), because
isotopic changes are inherently nuclear and—
almost entirely—inexplicable in terms of conven-
tional nuclear theorizing. So, I remain obstinate-
ly optimistic about the future prospects of LENR.
But the need for hard data is suddenly more obvi-
ous to us all. “Talk is cheap”—and I am as guilty
as anyone in that regard!
But I think it needs to be said that we can’t return
to the (equally insane) view that nuclear theory
(ca. 1960) already gave us all the answers. It ain’t
true! The fission of Uranium (1938!) is not under-
stood at a fundamental level (Chapter 8 in my
book, but not discussed in the textbooks); and
the same goes for the nuclear force (Chapter 7),
the nuclear texture (Chapters 5 and 6) and other
nuclear structure questions that were essentially
abandoned in the 1960s with the ascendancy of
(extremely high-energy) quark theorizing (with
all its adjustable “free parameters”). Yeah, don’t
get me started.
I still believe that the LENR community is where
interesting things are happening in nuclear
physics, but we need to walk a fine line between
the hyperconservatism of the know-it-all 1960s
theorists and the baloney of the dreamers.
David Nagel, Research Professor at George Washington
University, is a longstanding leader in the LENR community.
He and Steve Katinsky created the LENRIA industrial associa-
tion. Nagel is one of the most published researchers in LENR.
David Kidwell, Analytical Chemist at Naval Research
Laboratory, has brought critical scrutiny to trace element
analysis of LENR experiments. He is discoverer of an isotope
effect that is still being researched in PdD and PdH.
Yasuhiro Iwamura recently started research activity at
Tohoku University with Jiro Kasagi. His longstanding
research on sandwiches of Pd and Mg permeated with D are
continuing in a new laboratory. He and Kasagi are the
Chairmen of the forthcoming ICCF20.
Yuri Bazhutov, of Moscow Technical University MADI, has
continued as a primary organizer of cold fusion and ball
lightning conferences in Russia as well as experimenting to
identify evidence for his ERZION theory.
Alla Kornilova, of Lomonosov Moscow State University,
and Vladimir Vysotskii, of Kiev Shevchenko University
(Ukraine), continue their collaborations across a wide range
of experiments on unusual radiation signatures in waterjet
experiments as well as their investigations of the potential
for processing radioactive materials with bacteria.
Kiva Labs is an ongoing collaboration between Ed Storms,
an original LANL researcher, and Brian Scanlan, a software
entrepreneur who became interested in cold fusion and
found a mentor in Storms. “To be a genius, you can also
have the qualities of patience, caring and desire that the stu-
dent succeed,” Scanlan says. Most of their work was in gas
loading but they pursued experiments in glow discharge and
replicated some of Storms’ older F-P electrolytic experi-
ments. “Having two labs gave us the challenge of checking
each other. It is not in Ed’s DNA to be ambiguous and
unclear in our work,” says Scanlan. “Once you worry about
your partner, everything becomes coded in those terms.”
They are doing gas loading in Pd and Ni based systems,
ongoing work.
George Miley, Emeritus Nuclear Engineering at University
of Illinois, was a crucial figure in the initial stages of cold
fusion research in his role as the Editor of Fusion Technology,
where much early, peer-reviewed work was published. In
recent years he has investigated material clusters that hold
technology promise for heat production.
Pam Mosier-Boss, Larry Forsley, Stan Szpak and Frank
Gordon are long associated with using co-deposition as the
foundation of experiments in the production of heat and
nuclear signatures. Pam and Larry continue with their exper-
imental work.
Nicolas Chauvin, who started the company LENR Cars,
reported his company had applied for the regular patent in
March 2013 and their filing is now published, however there
is still some way to go before they can have the patent grant-
ed. He says, “Our patent17 is currently being examined by
the USPTO. On the RD side, we are developing a more
advanced reactor now that we expect to start testing in
about a month.”
Francesco Piantelli, of Sienna University (Italy) and
nicHenergy, observed heat in 1989 in a biological experi-
ment involving hydrogen and nickel. From this he and his
collaborators developed a body of published work on the
NiH system and several patents. Today the work is carried on
at his company nicHenergy. The photographs at his web-
site18 show a well-organized and equipped laboratory.
Sveinn Olafsson (University of Iceland) and Leif Holmlid
(University of Gothenburg, Sweden) recently presented a
solid theoretical explanation19 on how LENR can work based
on the Rydberg state of hydrogen/deuterium.
Nicolas Chauvin and the MFMP states that, “Based on our
experiments, it is still unclear for us if the LENR reactions are
based on Rydberg state hydrogen fusion or if they are based
on electron capture combined with neutron capture
(Widom-Larsen). Both theories can explain the results we are
observing in the lab.”
Graham Hubler, Director of SKINR at the University of
Missouri, reports:
Our emphasis at the moment is learning how to
reproducibly load to D/Pd fractions 0.95 (done),
to perform more in situ fundamental measure-
ments to learn the local atomic electromagnetic,
structural (including point defects), and D site spe-
cific environment in heat producing systems.
Techniques we apply include perturbed angular

correlations (PAC, initial run done at CERN),
Mossbauer, neutron scattering, intense ion beam
impingement in vacuum (1023 ions/cm2/s) looking
for RF and/or particle emission, and Parkhamov-
like experiments (5 successful runs up to 1300C,
no heat as yet). These experiments are being set up
or in progress through collaborations world wide.
We believe such measurements will provide crucial
information required in order to establish a mech-
anism for the Fleischmann-Pons Effect.
Anthony Lagatta, founder of TSEM and Sponsor and
Chairman of ICCF19 (2015) in Padua, Italy, enunciated a
developmental style in his opening remarks that said com-
putation and great design lead to understanding and great
products. He has chosen LENR as a focus and in a collabora-
tion with other scientists in Italy focused on development of
understanding of how to trigger cold fusion reactions. His
company has been selling all-up, instrumented, high preci-
sion calorimeters suitable for cold fusion experiments.
Brillouin Energy Corp. is developing low energy nuclear
reaction (LENR) technology, based on the Controlled
Electron Capture Reaction (CECR) hypothesis invented by
its founder and CTO, Robert Godes. Brillouin has “demon-
strated the potential of stable heat production on a con-
trolled test basis with its clean energy technology. It is now
on the path to advancing into a scalable commercial tech-
nology platform that will be integrated into products for
home heating, commercial heating, power production,
desalination and other large market possibilities.” They
report, “The stable heat production that the Company’s
experienced team has demonstrated can only be achieved
with control of the underlying physics, which is what the
technology continues to point to. Brillouin Energy Corp.
expects to have a supportable technology for commercial
application upon completion of its engineering and manu-
facturing platform development currently in process.”
Godes adds they are “really excited” about current work.
Mahadeva Srinivasan, retired from Bhabha Atomic
Research Center in India, reports that a third meeting of the
LENR-India Forum at the National Institute of Advanced
Studies in Bangalore took place on March 19. He wrote:
“Twelve to 14 groups have pledged to work in the field. After
a gap of 20 years I am happy that India is back in the LENR
map of the world. Our focus will be to carry out basic stud-
ies and publish papers. The idea is to help the field be accept-
ed by the mainstream community.” On April 21 Srinivasan
gave a talk at the North Carolina State University Nuclear
Engineering Department in Raleigh.
Fran Tanzella of SRI reports:
The LENR effort at SRI is still adjusting to the
post-Mike McKubre era. We are hoping to expand
into new areas and clients but this has not hap-
pened yet. I’m working on getting our nuclear
measurement capability up to date and hoping to
bring these instruments to bear on new experi-
ments, yet to be designed. We are also consider-
ing making these measurements on other
researcher’s cells and experiments.
Jean-Paul Biberian, retired from the University of
Marseille (France), notes:
At the moment I have started a replication of the
ICARUS 9 experiment that Stan Pons showed at
ICCF6 in Hokkaido in 1996. It is a constantly
boiling experiment that showed a lot of excess
heat. I contacted Stan Pons and he gave me all
the drawings and the contact information for the
people who built the cells 20 years ago. This is a
very interesting calorimeter, because it can oper-
ate at low, medium and high power. I am cur-
rently starting the first experiment with palladi-
um cathode and D2O. It is an experiment that
can take up to several months.
Regarding theories, I think that the one of
Frederic Henry-Couannier20 using general relativ-
ity is very innovative and interesting. It has the
potential of explaining both cold fusion and also
ball lightning, both macro and micro sizes. I
know that this theory is not final yet, but it is an
interesting new vision of the field.
Ed Storms, of Kiva Labs and retired from Los Alamos
National Laboratory, writes:
If someone wants to advance the field and solve
the reproducibility problem, they need to follow
a few rules. These rules are not being followed.
Instead, we are bombarded by a random collec-
tion of ideas and assumptions, guided mainly by
Rossi these days. I suggest it is time for people to
step back and take a fresh look at what is actual-
ly known and what it means. To start the process,
I have written a rather long paper describing the
rules and assumptions required to explain LENR.
This will be made available shortly. Hopefully, by
then the Rossi distraction will have run its course
and a more rational approach can be considered.
I’m in the process of expanding my theory and
using it to create activated Pd. I have been suc-
cessful on three occasions from which some sig-
nificant new understanding has resulted. The
resulting paper is in review at Current Science.
After studying the effect for 27 years and reading
most of the papers, I believe a successful theory
must acknowledge certain requirements. I list
these requirements and apply them to my theory.
No other theory is consistent with these require-
ments. That statement does not make me friends,
but that is not my goal. I’m trying to set the
research on an effective path, which the present
theories have not done.
Bill Collis, founder of the ISCMNS, notes: “Last month in
Avignon I presented a paper entitled ‘Minimal Exotic Neutral
Particle Models,’ in which I derive a reaction scheme from
basic requirements of nuclear physics. It is found that four
elements can sustain chain reactions and remarkably none
of them predict penetrating radiation. All four elements have
been present in excess heat producing experiments.”

Tom Claytor, retired from Los Alamos National
Laboratory, reports:
We are working on firming up the excess heat
measurements from a “Stringham” cell type con-
figuration. This involves the high intensity ultra-
sonic irradiation of various metals in D2O and
H2O in a sensitive Seebeck envelope calorimeter.
Post run, the foils are checked for evidence of
damage due to cavitation and any residual
radioactivity. A system for measuring He4 in D2 is
also under construction and so far has shown a
detection sensitivity of about 0.5 ppm He4 in D2.
Xhing Zhong Li, Emeritus Professor at Tsinghua
University (China), writes:
My current theoretical work is for the existence of
p+Li-6 low energy resonance. It is important to
pay attention to the Lipinski patent, which
demonstrated the existence of both p+Li-6 and
p+Li-7 low energy resonances after seven years
experimental work. Lipinski’s work is independ-
ent of Rossi and IH debate, and based on nuclear
detection only without any calorimetric calcula-
tion. Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear
Renaissance should particularly work on this
patent. Microsoft donated $40 million in 2015
for the Global Innovation Exchange Institute
(GIX), which is a Joint Institute of Tsinghua
University and the University of Washington.
Thomas Passell, of D2Fusion, Inc. and retired from the
Electric Power Research Institute, comments:
I am currently pursuing research using glow dis-
charges in deuterium gas with various elements
and alloys such as titanium, vanadium, cobalt,
zirconium, scandium and separated isotope
boron of mass 10. My paper21 in the Journal of
CMNS volume 15 gives the evidence backing this
hypothesis. Although Li-6 and 7 are troublesome
to work with, when I can get lithium-containing
alloys, they should show depletion of Li-6 rela-
tive to Li-7 since only lithium-6 has a positive Q
for deuteron stripping.
Akito Takahashi, Emeritus Professor at Osaka University
and affiliated with Technova (Japan), notes: “I am seeing
steady progress in nano-metal H-gas AHE works by Japanese
joint team. IP problems block me to disclose.”
Rick Cantwell of Coolescence reports:
We continue to make good progress on under-
standing the mechanisms controlling the loading
and flux of H/D into Pd—both from experimen-
tal work as well as by modeling efforts. We are
applying the fruits of our loading work to run
well loaded cathodes in calorimeters looking for
excess heat—since Padua we have run in over one
hundred Pd and Pd alloy cathodes in calorime-
ters—without seeing any excess heat. We expect
to provide an update at ICCF20.
Olga Dmitriyeva of Coolescence writes:
On the theory side we search for the clear expla-
nation on why our palladium material behaves
the way it does, why and how some cathodes are
different from the others. Years of experimental
work show that even the initial step results—
hydrogen loading in palladium—are quite unpre-
dictable. Some of the cathodes are loading well
and to the high level, and some not. This is truly
a material science problem, which needs to be
addressed before we get to the next step—LENR.
The computational chemistry methods are
extremely useful in scanning different configura-
tions and material surface states. It helps to
explain and predict the outcome of the experi-
mental runs, whenever the chemistry is changing.
Francesco Celani, senior researcher at the National
Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN) in Frascati, Italy and
Vice-President of the International Society of Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS), writes:
Today I was able to get excess heat again with
COP near 2, then reactor failed due to a bad seal-
ing that started to melt. Reactor was much bigger
than previous time thus produced energy was in
range of .1 kW. This time I was able to trigger
excess heat…See the Celani et al. paper22
(“Observation of macroscopic current and ther-
mal anomalies, at high temperature, by hetero-
structures on thin and long Constantan wires
under H2 gas”) from ICCF19 for details on recent
experiments.
Roger Stringham of First Gate Energies writes:
RF interference that periodically plagued acoustic
experiments is now used to tune and stimulate a
piezo disk antenna that produces cavitation bub-
bles. The new development over the last two
years measures the TC data in the 5 seconds of
the off mode of a 35 second duty cycle. This was
very successfully demonstrated in a 2 second
slow-motion video last year. The emphasis is the
search for ash, and the measurement for anom-
alous heat, with an internal resistance calibration
heater in the reactor.
Melvin Miles, retired professor at the University of
LaVerne (California) and formerly with the China Lake
Naval Research Laboratory, reports:
I am presently working on a proposal with Dave
Nagel to reproduce the F-P palladium cube meltdown
result with video recordings to capture any melt
down. If successful, this could convince many scien-
tist about large excess heat effects in the Pd/D system.
In June, I will be working at Coolescence in

Colorado to help in the observation of excess heat
using palladium materials that previously worked in
my experiments.
I am also working on a paper that I hope will great-
ly help in understanding the genius of the F-P Dewar
calorimetry and promote its use for reactions other
than just cold fusion. My lofty goal would be a pub-
lication in Nature or the Journal of Physical Chemistry.
I also hope in the next year to complete a book pre-
senting my Fleischmann letters.
References ———————————————
1. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528797-100-can-cold-fusion-research-survive-pioneers-death/
2. http://infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/NagelICCF19.pdf
3. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MelichMEsomelesson.pdf
4. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MelichMEbacktothef.pdf
5. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf
6. http://infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue118/analysis.html
7. http://infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue119/norway.html
8. http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2015/12/donald_trump_s_preferred_rhetorical_tactic_is_called_praeteritio_is_also.html
9. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
10. http://infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/Tcvetkov.pdf
11. http://infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue1/colfusthe.html
12. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/83-mfmp-intro
13. http://iscmns.org
14. http://iscmns.org/CMNS/CMNS.htm
15. http://lenr-canr.org
16. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HukeAaccelerato.pdf
17. https://www.google.com/patents/US20130263597
18. http://www.nichenergy.com/index.html
19. https://absuploads.aps.org/presentation.cfm?pid=11976
20. http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol18.pdf
21. http://iscmns.org/CMNS/JCMNS-Vol15.pdf
22. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/210-Art-ICCF19-300615G-pdf/
Marianne Macy has been doing oral histories related to cold fusion since 2007. She is writing a book on the start of the
field to the present day.
Nuclear Transmutation:
The Reality of Cold Fusion
by Tadahiko Mizuno
$10.00 U.S.
$18.00 Canada
$25.00 Mexico
$28.00 Other Foreign
P.O. Box 2816 • Concord, NH 03302-2816
Website: www.infinite-energy.com
Phone: 603-485-4700 • Fax: 603-485-4710
P.O. Box 2816 — Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-485-4700 — Website: www.infinite-energy.com
Excess Heat offers a greatly
expanded presentation of the
evidence for low level nuclear
reactions as the source of
excess heat.
$26 U.S. / $44 Canada
(Prices Include Postage)
Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed
by Charles G. Beaudette
2002, 440 pp.

Infinite Energy Issue 127

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Infinite Energy Issue 127

Ähnlich wie Infinite Energy Issue 127 (20)

Mehr von Robert Nazaryan

Mehr von Robert Nazaryan (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Infinite Energy Issue 127