Comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan

Yesterday I participated as an observer at the Greek-Canadian company Defkalion’s demo of its LENR based energy device Hyperion in Milan, Italy. The device is just like Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, loaded with small amounts of nickel powder and pressurized with hydrogen, and supposedly produces net thermal energy through a hitherto unknown process that seems to be nuclear (LENR stands for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions).

Defkalion used to be a commercial partner to Rossi until an agreement was cancelled in August 2011 (read more at Ny Teknik here).

The demo was the first public (apart from a short pre-run on Monday) from Defkalion that since 2011 claims to have developed its own core technology.

My general impression is that it’s a process that is similar to what I have seen at Rossi’s demos. If you believe the values presented, it produces thermal power in the order of kilowatts from a very small amount of fuel. Although Defkalion has a somewhat different method to control the reaction, it still seems be a delicate thing to get it to work well without stopping or run away.

I believe we will get some reliable answers on the validity of Defkalion’s and/or Rossi’s technology during this year.

At Defkalion’s demo I was asked to verify calibrations and measurements just before the start of the demo, although I had not been prepared for this. Yet, here are a few more detailed considerations:

– the demo was set up in the lab of Defkalion’s Europe office, and thus under complete control by Defkalion. All instruments and sensors were Defkalion’s.

– as far as I could verify there were no hidden wires or energy sources. I cannot completely exclude it, but my general impression was that of a fairly transparent implementation. I was offered to check anything except inside the reactor, also to cut cables (although I never did this).

– all values were collected with National Instruments’ Lab View.

– input electric power was also measured by me with a Fluke True RMS Clamp Ampere meter (Defkalion’s) and a standard Voltage meter (my own). Electric energy was input through two variacs — one for seven electric resistors connected in parallel inside the reactor, and one for a high voltage generator, feeding sparks through two modified spark plugs. I measured both before and after the variacs.

– output thermal power was calculated through water flow and delta T of the water cooling the reactor ((Tout – Tin)*4,18*water flow in grams/second).

– a control run was performed with argon instead of hydrogen, which showed no excess power. Calibration of the water flow was done and controlled by me during the control run and showed that the real water flow was a few percent greater than what was showed in Lab View.

– an issue was detected as Lab View showed an input electric energy to the high voltage generator of between 200 and 300 watts, whereas I measured an input electric energy to the HV generator of between 1,0 and 1,3 kW. We never found out what this issue depended on.

– in the active run with hydrogen the output thermal power reached about 5,5 kW whereas the total input power was about 2,7 kW, taking into account the higher value of the power fed into the HV generator.

– Defkalion had expected to reach a higher output power but admitted that it was a problem degassing the reactor only an hour after the argon run. The process is supposedly very sensitive to small amounts of other gases than hydrogen.

– no consideration was taken to vaporization enthalpy. Yet the temperature at the output reached over 160 degrees Celsius with and open ended output tube, thus basically at atmospheric pressure. The output was led down into a sink. Initially water was pouring down, but at high temperatures there was no water dropping at all. If all the water was vaporized, the output thermal power would have been above 27 kW.

– the hydrogen canister seemed to be a standard commercial canister containing ordinary hydrogen — no deuterium.

– I could detect no DC voltage or current at any point. The Fluke clamp meter was capable of measuring DC.

UPDATE: I forgot to say that according to CTO John Hadjichristos there are HUGE magnetic fields inside the reactor as a result of the reaction, in the order of 1 Tesla if I remember right, possibly due to extremely strong currents over very short distances. Hadjichristos says the field is shielded by double Faraday cages, probably the reactor body and the external metal cover outside the heat insulation.

UPDATE 2: Since I have been asked if I can exclude that hydrogen was fed into the reactor during the experiment I have to admit that I didn’t check that the valves were closed. Bear with me.

And some statements/claims from Alex Xanthoulis, president of Defkalion:

– Collaboration is on going with six companies for development of particular applications. Several of these companies are among the 10 major companies in the world. Concerned applications are: UAVs, computers, water boilers, electric power generation, green houses, ship propulsion (managed by Defkalion), automobile, water desalinization/purification (non profit organization) and big turbines.

– Agreements for licensing of manufacturing of a consumer product — the Hyperion — is signed with companies in Italy, France, Greece (Defkalion 50%), Canada and South Africa. 1,300 companies in about 78 countries are interested. The license price has previously been EUR 40.5 million.

– Defkalion has no external investors so far. Principal owner is Alex Xanthoulis.


554 thoughts on “Comments on Defkalion reactor demo in Milan

Add yours

  1. Thanks Mats.
    Be careful because in the meantime they will continue to lure unsuspecting victims.
    Like a spider spinning its web, they are trying to circumvent other unwary.

  2. Mats, are you now (after 6 months from demo in Milan) more skeptical about Defkalion or not?
    Did You investigate together people in Milan to get clarification about DGT cheating?

    1. @JCM I am not convinced but I’m still investigating. Until now I haven’t received any conclusive information.

    2. It was more than 6 months ago. In the meantime, DFK is no more in Milan and the Greek are saying they are going to release a new version of the Hyperion…What happened to the previous one, to the Tesla 1.6 field, the sauna and Gamberale?
      Keep on the investigations, but remember that there is a time when you can call for “presumable death” even if you cannot find a corpse….

  3. It’s a scam
    shhhh…do not tell aloud: they are trying to sell R6 to a new chicken Gamberale- like one…

  4. you’re cited everywhere in the web, like here
    You have some responsability in updating this page with the count of months since Gamberale said “we are waiting for DFK better measurements” and with the news that Gamberale and Milan are no more DFK Europe since that time (at present day, february 2014, around 6 or 7 months).

    But the greatest news is that even AlainCoe started wondering if this delay in answering to Gamberale questions on Hyperion measurements might be interpreted as if Hyperion could be a scam…Could it be, Mats?

  5. I decided to read all 550+ comments … partly because of determination and partly due to curiosity. People! Have you gone mad? If the technology exists it will be shown. If not it will vanish. Get on with your lives and let the experts do their job. By the way, who are the experts and what are they saying?

  6. AlainCo
    you claim you are expert, but it seems you are less than me

    Again blah, blah, …
    Perform directly you some measures and tests on Hyperion, looking results with your own eyes and touching with your hands.
    Only after that, you can write something of reliable.
    Currently your hypothesis are not substained by any real proof, like fantasy, usual dream list of “if, would, could …”

    Ah dear Alain, any news about “Entering the Toronto Stock Exchange in October”? October 2013?

  7. @JCM
    hum, what did you bring ? beside talks?

    when Defkalion talk it commits the wole company, it’s own future, it’s credibility.

    beside some doubts, and some good or bad opinion on what is realist or not…

    by teh way, your claim that it is necessarily 2 bar inside the steam part shows you dont think right.

    if as I proposed the steam was condensed by 8 time the input volume, through a classic water tap flow (8l/min are required, a usual tap in my hose produce more than 10), then the condensation would match the vaporisation and the pressure would only be linked to viscosity.
    if the flow is nout enough , condensation will happen on the side of the sewer and the equivalent pipe to estimate viscosity effect will just be longer.

    you claim you are expert, but it seems you are less than me, and you are right, i am not.

    maybe your mistake is not incompetence but motivated reasoning.

    as Roger said, human factor evidence are more reliable, because they are based on the law of interest, money…

    anyway, the way steam is evacuated and condensed is an interesting question, for which we have no reliable answer.

  8. Uhm… DGT is sly and reckless, it could “copy” LENR devices, like prototype designed from others, reaching quickly the market.
    Better to stay on piece:
    Really functioning Hyperion R5 still not on the market within spring 2014?

  9. @ Roger Bird
    We’ll see. If you are wrong, are you going to confess that you goofed? If I am wrong, I promise to do so.

    On this Hyperion tested it’s possible, even if not chivalrous because I already know the truth.
    When you stop waiting for, how decide who win?

    1. I am in no rush. I think that when other companies start making it obvious that their LENR+ is for real, and if DGT does not rush to the marketplace, then you win.

  10. @ Roger Bird

    OK Roger, you are absolutely free to continue believing in what you want.
    I would just alert you that, on the base of my direct test experience, be careful not believe to DGT, they are cheating, not other.

    1. We’ll see. If you are wrong, are you going to confess that you goofed? If I am wrong, I promise to do so.

  11. @ Roger Bird

    You forgot that to decide if something works it depends from physic evidence, not from social phenomena, it has been called “Galilean method”.
    Believe in what you want but remember well: social evidence not substitute any correct physic tests or proof.

    1. Dear JCM, welcome to the Epistomology Hall of Fame. Almost nothing that we know is the result of our own experience. I have to depend upon Wikipedia to know that gravity accelerates objects (not counting friction) according to g = 9.80665 metres (32.1740 ft) per s². I have not done that experiment. I do know that if I eat really hot food that I will lose sleep the next night. I know of my own experience that trampoline mats can tear and cause really severe injuries. The speed of light? Someone told me. I trust those people who told me that the speed of light is 186,000 and change miles per hour. I trust Levi et. al. I trust Dr. Mike McKubre. I trust Robert Godes. I trust Mats Lewan. There are so many that I trust that I am cornered into accepting LENR and LENR+. It seems too good to be true, but I trust all of these people who have no ability to construct a massive air-tight con, and who have no interest in lying if they do not have an air-tight con, but who do have an interest in preserving their reputations, which happen to be on the line over this matter.

      There are liars in this world. They usually don’t get along well with other people and eventually the truth comes out.

  12. @ AlainCo
    If you aren’t able to collect information or more data from them, you should accept that I brought those who were there, not to say that there are no real data.

    @ Roger Bird
    If you didn’t any tests on it, your experience is zero.
    I make tests from more then 40 years, if I was not able to make well my job, I should lose my work from a lot of time.
    You make confusion. We are talking about of a specific case: “cheating of DGT”, and not saying that LENR doesn’t work.

    1. I do not accept authority figures much, especially those who say that I cannot and should not think for myself. Since I am evaluating social evidence and not physical evidence, since I cannot at this time evaluate physical evidence, your experience with testing does not really relate to my, say, trusting Mats Lewan or Levi et. al. Furthermore, Defkalion’s demo was a demo among gentlefolk who trust each other. If you want to continue to distrust Defkalion, be my guest, but don’t expect me to also distrust them or insist that I distrust them.

  13. If I wanted to collect data from them, without their consent, I would call Special Operation.
    For the rest I know that what they say to me is what they would say to anybody.

    I gather, interpret and relay information, I don’t steal it…
    And they sure know we all would love to get more data.
    Asking something never force anybody to give it, unless you use any kind of menace or interest.

    1. Your failure to do any tests on any LENR+ devices does not prove that they do not exist. Your failure to be able to read human beings does not mean that there is an absence of compelling social evidence.

  14. @ AlainCo

    So, in practice, you aren’t able to collect any direct information from them.
    You never did scrutineering on “DGT reactors” to check them, what you say and write on DGT are just your imagination partisan without any practical substantiation.

    Remember, chatter and blah, blah and speculation are just for passtime and to take time when you do not have anything concrete to put on the table.
    I performed with my hands tests and with enough accuracy. It’ a cheat, this is a concrete fact not just a fantasy.

  15. I’m a corporate executive.
    If I ask a corp about something and I’m not a shareholder, a partner, an client, why should they answer ? they have their strategy.

    moreover I know corporate executive can read in my message what I would love. No need to say it. And I’m not alone… I imagine that ICCF18 scientists are more important than me. and commercial partners even more.

    I’m adult. moaning won’t make a corporation move faster than planned.

  16. @ AlainCo
    sorry you wrote:
    anyway we need a new test which address that problem, and they claim it will be in september with DGT EU.
    Defkalion is late… so what ? Others things to do ? more problem than expected to change the protocol ?

    The burden of proof that substantiates these your claims in order to make plausible the excuses you suppose it’s up to you, not to me.
    It’s too easy always to find excuses when your words not correspond to any facts, changing the subject on the controversy of the skeptics.

    Are you able to give evidences of tests DGT performed in September with DGT EU that clearly confirm “Hyperion reactor” claims were correct and heat excess is real?
    No? Why not do you contact Defkalion EU enquiring to them instead of a lot of chatter, as usual?

    1. I notice with you skeptopaths that the evidence for ANYTHING good must necessarily be a perfect picture of success. But the evidence for ANYTHING bad, like fraud, can be as sketchy as the evidence for BigFoot.

  17. One characteristics of hyper-skeptical method is that they translate any lack of knowledge into certainty of fraud.

    What have shown the test is that making a test which convince hard-skeptics is very hard since the logic missed human intelligence when it allows to deny the evidences…

    Defkalion is late… so what ? Others things to do ? more problem than expected to change the protocol ?
    I’m not happy… You say it is fraud…
    So what ?
    The only important point is with customers, partners.
    Anyway I agree they have to clean the doubts if any if they want media or community support…

    Note also that you hypothesis is very hard to swallow if you take the wide picture, of all what have been done, compared to your hypothesis of a fraud, done in public, while there was easy possibility not to do the demo, and no clear demand.

    one secret of conspiracy theories is that they take evidence one by one, refusing to take the consequence of the whole picture if their hypothesis would be real.

    Test your theory on all the history of facts. Anyone honest see that it does not work.
    Meanwhile LENr is validated science since long, and they way they say it works is nothing strange.

    the point of your incredulity is just motivated reasoning not to accept LENr is real, while saying the opposite at the same time.

  18. I don’t believe that Mats was/is part of the scam.
    I believe that he has been cheated due to his inexperience about steam and some peculiar aspects of thermodynamics. They organized the cheat and Mats was the victim.

    Slides and papers of DGT are the old chatter, just fried air.

    EGO OUT Blog continues to support them because Gluck is a just a fan, not able to recognize a scam. They are using him like a circumvention of incapable person.

  19. AlainCo, remember?
    about one month ago you wrote:
    anyway we need a new test which address that problem, and they claim it will be in september with DGT EU.

    I reply to you that were baseless news.

    September is ended. Where are these new test claimed by DGT “it will be in september with DGT EU” in September?

    I believe that what you wrote is just what you dream, not real news.

    It’s better (I strongly suggest you) that you and Blog’s readers start to believe to me when I write something, my news are founded and are those correct.

    1. DGT made a major release last Friday. I have been highly critical, but their data was well presented and noteworthy.

      It should inspire an entire generation if it holds up for long term use.

  20. Any news on Defkalion “new” measurements?

    By the way:
    My general impression is that it’s a process that is similar to what I have seen at Rossi’s demos

    Yes, I agree: same scam.

    Don’t you feel a bit as if you were part of it?

  21. Hi everybody,

    esp. Yannis (John) H.

    since the recently published patent application of STMicrosystems I though about Your claims for the weeks coming.

    Can You give us an update on Your situation, how is the controversay with DGT Europe settled or not, will the public be informed about newer tests, are You still willing to come out on the market for shares in November?

    I know it is hard to share with the community what is happening behind the scene, but be sure, most people here exept of the VUPs (very unimportant people) are a very engaged group that honor Mats Lewan and his work on thid topic…….

  22. Conduction and convection are not competing processes here. For the transfer of hot steam along the tube, convection is important, but motion of a fluid element does noyt change its temperature or vaporise the water! To get hot steam we need convection or radiation transfer. At least until all water is transferred to dry steam, the evaporation requires power from the surrounding volume elements. This must continue throughout the experiment, since new cooling water enters continuously.

    Regarding the subject of scientific method, we require evidence of anomalous release of energy by unknown processes before we accept it as a fact!

    The Elforsk test seems to have good intentions, but they may have been unprepared for the current waveform, which made their power measurements unreliable. However, they tried to compensate for that by comparing to a dummy test. When both tests were made in the same fashion, and power was increased slow enough to establish an equilibrium state, the two gave the same result. This is certainly no indication of any anomalous release of power!

    When the test with the charge continued with a more transient change, (ON/OFF), the result was different, but we don’t know the power scaling since the relation power-temperature departed from the equilibrium P\prop T^4 realation.

  23. Einar wrote:
    A third possibility is that the water flow was lower than earlier measured and at the outflow completely vaporized to dry steam.
    It’s not just a possibility, it was exactly as you wrote.

    Alain wrote:
    Pathoskeptic assume it does not work, so challenge the flow, and since it is hard to challenge because of the bucket try to muddy the water with unproven hypothesis.
    People applying scientific method, simply need evidence before assuming fraud, and see no realistic artifact in the setup.

    You forgot that I’m not a patho-skeptic, I applied exactly the scientific method and the results is that they are cheating.
    Remember even in the LENR field there are cheaters, why it should be an exception.
    Who really cares about the LENR should do everything possible to clean up from cheaters and always achieve maximum clarity and transparency, instead of talking about skepticism or patho-skeptic.

    Please Mats if possible delete my previous similar comment. A Tag is wrong and the comment results unclear.

  24. Right we miss key informations.
    However forget about conduction being more efficient that steam transfer.
    moreover the flat period at 100C show that temperature is the one of the (complex, biphase) fluid.

    we should avoid inventing problems where there are none.

    if the flow is correct, it works. and discussion are only based on missing data.

    if it does not work, the flow is wrong, and not result is meaningful. If the flow is wrong as much as needed it can only be explained by a fraud.

    pathoskeptic assume it does not work, so challenge the flow, and since it is hard to challenge because of the bucket try to muddy the water with unproven hypothesis.

    people applying scientific method, simply need evidence before assuming fraud, and see no realistic artifact in the setup.

    people used in business, weight the chance of fraud, compared to previous stories and to incentives, sanctions expected, winners and losers, risks…

    anyway sine the pathoskepticism is general and there is possibility to muddy the water, the game is over. from my experience it is hopeless.
    if you see what happen to elforsk test, there is no hope.
    see how ENEA/NRL works are treated, how Longchampt result is ignored, … forget that story, it is lost.

    Only big benefit can convince.

  25. According to Mats, the thermocouple was located about 1one meter from the “reactor”, not very far away. Copper is normally regarded as a good heat conductor, but , of course, we don’t know the thickness of the tube wall, so we would need some more to be certain. Far away, I agree that the air coling takes over and axially, the convection is efficient.
    However, initially the water is cold and the heating starts from the tube wall. During the stationar y100C period, the TC is within the wet steam region where vaporization is consuming power. As time goes on, the interface between dry steam and wet steam moves radially inwards and when it is inside of the TC radius, the measured temperature rises, as observed. The vaporization is a power sink, and while that is going on, heat will be moving inwards even if some amount also goes to the air. How it continues depends on what we assume about the various scenarios, since we have limited information, just a single point temperature and a water flow measured at another occasion. Fortunately also mats and JCM have contributed with some observations. I can see three different possibilities:
    1 First I assume that the water flow measurement is correct and that all water becomes vaporized to dry steam. When all water is converted to dry air, certainly you are right and the tube has lower temperature than the steam. This scenario is not very likely, since there is no trace of the 30 kW.
    2 Secondly, I had expected a state where most of the water was still liquid/wet steam and that the dry steam made a negligible contribution to the power flow. In that case, Mats would have seen the wet steam at the exit, but there was very small traces of water, so this also seems unlikely.
    3 A third possibility is that the water flow was lower than earlier measured and at the outflow completely vaporized to dry steam. This agrees with the observations, but have the disadvantage that we know nothing about the output power! There is no evidence of any anomalous effects like LENR. Another disadvantage is that we don’t like cheating!

  26. It seems you misunderstood what I said.
    The tube is between the ambient air (radiating, convection), the coolant above 100C, either liquid or moving quickly at same massic speed.

    it is very far from the reactor, compared to it’s interface with the ambient and the coolant.

    the copper this is at a temperature between 100-150C and 25C… probably near to the liquid.

    ikf the TC was stuck on the pipe it would be colder.

    the only case where it could be hotter is near the reactors, if the copper is between fluid and reactor instead of fluid and ambient… or very few millimeters/centimeters from that position through conduction.

    anyway whatever we can think, we need more details to convince biased opinion of any kind…

    we have to suspend temporarily judgement. of course there are more and less probable scenario, but the most extreme cannot be ruled out without minimal trust in some instruments.

    imagine that with our kind of computation we find that all is ok… do you imagine it would be accepted ?
    it cannot be accepted. it will never.

    anyway this demo is only one data among a long chain… with the rest of the elephant it is easier to guess the probable hypothesis.

  27. AlainCo wrote: “experience with copper tubes is that they are cooled of warmed by the moving fluid inside.”

    True, in the present case, the tube is containing water or steam for cooling. The heat source is outside the tube and the sink is the flowing water/steam. Thus the copper tube is hotter or equal to the water/steam. The 100C period is before the steam has separated the water/wet steam from the wall and introduced a Leidenfrost sheath, decreasing the transport so the tube temperature can rise further.

    JCM seems to know that the probe in fact was inserted inside the tube, and, at least at the probe position the steam was largely dry. It seems we cannot avoid interpreting this as cheating.

    There are also other indications of cheating, like the article form last year , Hadichristos et al “Technical Characteristics & Performance of the Defkalion’s Hyperion pre-industrial product”, where they introduce electrons in Rydberg states,which hardly can exist in a metal lattice environment, since their distance to the nucleus is larger than the lattice atom distance. They also refer to good papers without any coupling to the problem, seems more to be name dropping.

    But this is of course not so closely related to the present measurements, just o question of credibility.

  28. With the information available, I think it is an undeniable conclusion that the output steam flow -and associated energy transfer- did not match the flow meter readings. I try to think like a DGT supporter to find other explanations, but it just does not work.

    I don’t know if they were cheating or there was an experimental error. They could certainly devise a way to falsify the flow measurement which would not have been detected with their experimental setup.

    Nobody has come forward stating that an independent test confirms the results. Nelson’s test did not verify water flow. JCM claims one independent test failed.

    The other fact that gives me a hint about DGT’s intentions is that the day before the demonstration there was a container ready to measure output water flow. So they had the means to clarify the discrepancy. I conclude that they are hiding measurements which do not match the results of their demonstration.

    And frankly, if DGT wants to clear up any doubts, they just need to carry out the test properly. Unfortunately, they have not confirmed the new test in September, have they?

  29. “If the thermocouple is only attached to the tube, it only measured the tube temperature, which is certainly higher than the steam temperature. Copper is a better conductor of heat than steam and the water flow gets its heat from the tube via the steam layer. Remember the Leidenfrost effect, put a drop of water on a hot surface and see how long it can survive without getting vaporised due to the insulation by the steam layer. We cannot even claim that the mass fraction of wet steam is small by just measuring the copper tube temperature!”

    Moving steam is probably better transmitter of heat through convection, than copper through conduction.

    experience with copper tubes is that they are cooled of warmed by the moving fluid inside.

    anyway, it would be logical to put it inside, since it is done to measure fluid temperature.
    moreover since at 1meter the steam transmit heat better than (moreover uninsulated) copper, it would be better …

    moreover the flat period at 100C show that the temperature measured was the one of unpressurized water, not of the reactor.

    it seems that to justify claims of tricks, logic and thermodynamic is a little forgotten. Quite usual.

    This is why that demo was insufficient, because that is too much dark corners to spread doubt, either with real missing data (like the sinkhole/flow), or with incompetence stated with force (like here and else).

    A good demo is as much real evidence, as it is spotlight theater, to shut up improbable doubt, and subtle hypercritic method manipulations.

    If you look an an elephant in your living room with a microscope you can sure find evidence it is paperwall… provided you refuse to admit it is an elephant.

    I gave you the whole view, and sure you keep your eyes on your microscopes.

  30. Einar wrote: ..If the thermocouple is only attached to the tube, it only measured the tube temperature

    Mats wrote: …Whether it was inserted into the tube or only attached onto the tube I cannot tell

    The temperature probe was inserted, through a hole, inside the output pipe where there the steam flowed, therefore the temperature was that of the steam from which at ambient pressure the steam was largely dry.

  31. …a single point measurement of temperature is not enough to determine if the full copper tube cross-section is filled with dry steam
    Even assuming it were true, in this case the residual wet steam can not affect significantly the vaporization enthalpy value.
    Remeber that we are talking about of 30kW that should be available with full dry steam. Vaporization enthalpy is 2.26 MJ/kg, an enormity!
    Even if reducing enthalpy value of 30% (absurd hypothesis) still 20 kW are missing.

    Brian Aherns conclusion:”No conclusions can be drawn other than to confirm DGT’s enormous lack of technical expertise.”
    Is this his opinion, or he has performed directly a practical tests on Hyperion?
    Did he performed any measurement, or was just a visitor?

    Not just “lack of technical expertize“, the correct technical evaluation is that they are cheating.

  32. Most participants seem to assume the temperature uniform in space, but the heat transfer requires a temperature gradient and a single point measurement of temperature is not enough to determine if the full copper tube cross-section is filled with dry steam. What we can say with certainity is that the copper tube is hotter than the dry steam. Brian Ahearn made some important points. We have no knowledge of the position of the thermocouple, so we can’t really know the situation.

    The flat 100 ° C period indicates that the thermocouple position was inside wet steam at that time. When the dry steam layer close to the tube wall increased and passed the thermocouple, the measured temperature increased to come closer to the copper temperature.

    It is possible that no wet steam remained at the outlet, which would indicate a deliberate cheat but I prefer Brian Aherns conclusion:”No conclusions can be drawn other than to confirm DGT’s enormous lack of technical expertise.” !

    1. Einar, one thermocouple was apparently positioned about a meter from the reactor, and supposedly that was the thermocouple used for measuring the steam temperature. Whether it was inserted into the tube or only attached onto the tube I cannot tell.

    2. Mats wrote:
      “Einar, one thermocouple was apparently positioned about a meter from the reactor, and supposedly that was the thermocouple used for measuring the steam temperature. Whether it was inserted into the tube or only attached onto the tube I cannot tell.”

      If the thermocouple is only attached to the tube, it only measured the tube temperature, which is certainly higher than the steam temperature. Copper is a better conductor of heat than steam and the water flow gets its heat from the tube via the steam layer. Remember the Leidenfrost effect, put a drop of water on a hot surface and see how long it can survive without getting vaporised due to the insulation by the steam layer. We cannot even claim that the mass fraction of wet steam is small by just measuring the copper tube temperature!

  33. Mats you wrote:
    If the temperature value is correct I have no reason to believe that the steam was wet. But from experience I think that other people would find ways to argue that the steam quality was not known and that including the enthalpy would be a source of error. I believe this was one reason for Defkalion to stay on the conservative side and exclude it.

    No competent engineer or expert technician could argue that at ambient pressure and temperature of 160 ° C, the produced steam could be still wet, so this “theirs fear” was groundless.

    Instead of, did you not think that the real reason was to keep down the absolute value of declared thermal energy (a COP not too higher), to divert the attention and to avoid checks that testing engineers in this case require to verify where is the great part of thermal energy missing and that, on the contrary, must be present?

    1. JCM, the point is that fierce critics have not always based their critic on competence. I believe Defkalion wanted to avoid that.
      Your hypothesis is also possible I suppose.

  34. Brian Ahern

    The arguments supporting DGT’s demo while leaving latitude for the enthalpy of the steam are delusional. I worked with steam at higher temperatures and pressures and observed the effusion of dry steam at high throughput.

    I conclude that the DGT measurement was in error. The thermocouple was most assuredly not placed in the flow path of the H2O. It was more likely placed on or near the heater rather than in the flow. This need not be intentional on DGT’s part, but as a minimum it is erroneously conducted. No conclusions can be drawn other than to confirm DGT’s enormous lack of technical expertise.

    I say this because they did not have enough heat transfer surface area in the box to exchange that much thermal energy. It is physically impossible. You can only transfer so much heat across small diameter copper tubing.

    Most LENR scientists have only worked with heat transfer at several watts and do not ‘feel’ the challenges of transferring several kilowatts from a compact volume

    1. The whole discussion of the steam at Defkalion seems bizarre. That’s because Defkalion claimed that their generation 2 Hyperions had BUILT IN LIQUID FLOW CALORIMETRY back in 2011. They claimed the same thing in 2012 at ICCF17 and said that they used a thermal oil which worked at 350C. We’re now at generation 5 (or was it 6?) and we’re supposed to believe they’ve gone backwards?

      If they lied about what they had in 2011 and 2012, why would anyone believe that they are not being deliberately evasive and deceptive now? If they had what they claimed, what they showed Mats makes no sense at all!

      Finally, the whole steam thing is pure nonsense. You can’t measure it reliably the way Defkalion did. You also can’t tell much by just looking at it. You MUST sparge (condense) the steam into an insulated water bath and then measure the temperature rise. That’s reliable. Why don’t they do that? Why don’t all observers INSIST on it?

      I agree with whoever said the output thermocouple might have been misplaced or misconfigured except that I think such misplacement would have been deliberate. I can’t believe that anyone can have been making measurements on a simple system as long as Defkalion says they have and that they can be so incompetent as to have accidentally mis-measured the system.

  35. This entire thread has lost its focus.

    Matt, we can only judge the COP by comparing electrical energy input to sensible heat flow output with out recourse to steam energy.

    I understand the flow rate was 0.65liters/minue and the delta T was 75 degrees C. That is all we can use for thermal power output.

    0.65L/min/60 sec/min x 4200joules/l/c x 75 degrees c = 5,250 watts

    What was the input power?

    Forget all steam issues as being irrelevant.

    1. I don’t understand this argument and for several reasons. Defkalion claimed in their ICCF17 paper that they used thermal oil coolant at temps to 350C. They claimed in earlier posts as far back as 2011 that ALL their Hyperions had built in liquid flow calorimetry. The claimed “COP” (output power/input power) of more than 20.

      Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense that they would show Mats a Hyperion that uses water coolant and has no calorimetry and has a small COP.

      And yes, it raises the issue that they lied about what they had which then raises the issue of fraud. Why would one lie if not for fraud?

      I think they need to be asked hard questions about prior claims. And why they do not show the advanced systems they said they had as far back as mid 2011!

      And in any case, steam is not that hard to deal with, Brian. All you have to do is condense it (“sparge it”) into an insulated container filled with coolant, typically water. And then you need to mix the water with a propeller/stirrer and to measure the temperature rise in the water. It’s a bit fussy and it requires calibration but it’s not rocket science! A simple coil of copper tube will sparge the steam at the likely flow rates in Defkalion’s demo.

      Doing this sort of research (or going to one of their experiments) without an expert in heat transfer and fluid flow results in the sort of confusion we see throughout this discussion.

    2. I provided links to screen grabs of Defkalion claims in responses to Brian’s message but they are being held for moderation — probably due to two links in one response.

    3. If they had a better version of the reactor one year ago, it doesn’t mean they are ready to show it in a public demonstration.
      As far as I can understand that new version should have not only a high temperature coolant but a electronic control as well which should make automatic all the operations that at the demo were completely manual.
      It’s reasonable to think they have not solved yet all the details (and maybe more than one detail) that a such solution requires for a public disclosure.

    4. And just to document what I wrote, here is a screen grab of Defkalion’s claims at ICCF17:

      …and here is what they wrote in their forum in mid 2011:

      It seems very strange to me that a year after ICCF17, Defkalion showed Mats a poorly designed and poorly instrumented system which had none of the features they said they had in 2011 and none of the output they said they had a year ago. And nobody asked them about this? Why?

  36. This is a very long thread. There is no need to invoke comments like fraud. The enthalpy of steam simply must be disregarded. Yannis was warned by me that the steam issue was a big problem to be avoided. Therefore, their excess energy can only be related to the sensible heat needed to bring the water flow from 25C to 100C.

    Any over unity claims must be based on that energy content. If it does not work then the system is not over unity. I thought DGT was relying on this limited standard. Am I wrong?

    1. Brian,
      DGT claims are based on energy calculation without phase shift, heating water from about 25C to the measured temperature well above 100C, by several tens of degrees. Given that the outlet tube was open ended there was probably not enough pressure to keep water liquid at that temperature, but that’s the conservative calculation DGT chose to apply.

  37. I agree with AlainCo that the PCE-830 meter works OK for PF between 0.5 and 1, as written in the specifiations, but I was discussing the March third party test, where the fundamental current I1 is phase shifted between 60 and 90 degrees after the voltage, i.e. cos(phi1)<0.5 and the harmonics so strong that I1/I<<1, yieldng PF<<1! The instrument measures V(t) and I(t) separately and multiplies tehm to getthe power. For an ideal intrument this is no problem, but a real instrument has limits. For low PF, a small pahse error in the current can result in a significant error in the resulting real power value.

    Another way of looking at the problem is to note that the narrow current pulse appears close to the time when the voltage changes sign. A small time shift may then even reverse the sign of P!

    Since the control box is regarded as an industrial trade secret, I assume that something simlar has been active also in Rossi's previous experiments. Remember the tests in September 2012, reported by Mats lewan in Ny Teknik, where an expert from SP in Sweden brought his own instrument and measured an input power three times higher than that measured by Rossi! This meant that no anomalous effects could be observed. Tis provides a measure of the size these measurement errors can amount to!

    My comment on the HV generator for Defkalion was meant as an illustration of the problem, since the situation iis similar and there was some confusion regarding the discrepancy between Mats' mesurements and that of the Labview instrument. It also showed what values of PF may apear in such cases. Details of the Defkalion measurements were not given in Mats' resume, so will wait with further comments on that. I do notknow how the temperature was mesured and where, and not how representative it is for the whole mass of water. I am not prepared to beleive that all water is converted to dry steam, I have seen too many sloppy output energy estimates.

  38. There seems to be some confusion (Con-Fusion?) as regards AC power measurements. TomClarke wrote “the real power is at most sqrt(2)*Voltage*Current” (RMS values). I will try to get the basics as follows:
    The product V_RMS*I_RMS measured by Mats yields the apparent power S. For sinusoidal voltage and current the real power is given by P=V_RMS*I_RMS*cos(phi), where phi is teh phase shift between the two and the cosine is, of course always <1! The sqrt(2) is the ratio between peak value and RMS value for a sinusoidal signal and does not belong here.

    When the voltage is sinusoidal and the current contains harmonics, as in the HV-generator measured by Mats, or when a Triac or the industrial trade secret circuit used in the recent tests of E-Cat, only the fundamental frequency of the current I1_RMS contributes to the real power and the real power is given by

    P=V_RMS*I_RMS*PF, where the power factor PF=(I1_RMS/I_RMS)*cos(phi1)

    For teh HVgenerator, the PF seems to be between 0.2 and 0.25, but this makes the real power measurement very uncertain.

    For the HV-generator, the measured apparent and real power values seem to indicate a power factor of 0.2 to o.25, but at that level, te real power may be very uncertain, since

    For teh

    1. My comment was ended in an abrupt way, I continue here:
      In the March E-Cat test, the waveforms were given and give a good illustration of the problem. It is clear that the current is cut in a way giving cos(phi1)<0.5 and the current harmonics are strong, so the power factor is far below the region where the otherwise qualified instrument can give reliable real power! This bad power measurement is then compared to a dummy test with sinusoidal currents and nearly resistive load, where the instrument is expected to be adequate.

      The consequence is that the third party tests do not probide any evidence of anomalous power release and the problem is that the wave form, which is said to be essential for the function compriomises the measurement!

      In Defkalions device, it appears that they use variacs rather than triacs, and may avoid this problem, but I like to see the details before I draw any conclusions on that. Is there a ling where I can find those details?

    2. For Elforsk test, they used a good wideband wattmeter, catching harmonic above 10kHz.
      since they measure the power befor the control box, and since the input voltage is grid power sinusoid, then only the fundamental harmonic of current is transmiting power…

      your concerns are present only if you use RMS ampmeter to estimate power.

      note also that it is not enough to say there is an error, you have to prove also it can explain the huge COP observed. a power factor of 1 misintepreted as 0.5 would not explain a COP of 3 or 6.

      same for Defkalion, where the question of HV power cannot explain the huge COP, especially if you admit that the steam was dry at 160C.
      note that thy hypothesis is supported by the fact that the fluid/steam temperature featured a stable period around 100C, then quickly increasing above 100C.

      Defkalion use a lower bandwidth powermeter, but like for elforsk, since they are pluged on the grid (we know it because Matt triggered the RCD by mistake), only the lower frequency of current transports energy.

      anyway all those tests have a huge problems :
      -while they contain many evidences that rulout frauds and huge mistakes,
      -it demands much effort, intelligence and honesty to interpret the details as evidences.

      for Defkalion:
      The flat period of temperature, the RCD triggering, their willingness to cross-check flow with bucket, the input thermocouple not warmed by steam, they willingness to let matt cut wires, the reactor being untouched between tests, the fact that HV power even measured as apparent power (V*A) is not dominant, … all that rule out fraud.

      fo Rossi :
      – the fact that cabling was rebuild, and could have been rebuild as desired
      – the fact the testers could touch the installation, wires, reactors… and could inspect them
      – the fact that testers could measure DC, power, input waveforms
      – the fact that testers have plugged devices on the same plug, and could have changed the phase used for the e-cat

      all of that rule out fraud plots around electricity measurement…

      when you rule out fraud, can you imagine that the companies are not sure their reactor works well ?

      If you know that the company is convinced it’s reactor is working and can succeed it’s test, is there any realistic possibility it cannot work ? add to that that third party test the reactor independently and also find it work ?

      It is time to stop hurting the flies.

    3. There are no “companies”. Except for a small cadre of self-deluded fools, nobody believes that there exists a cold fusion product, nor has there ever been a cold fusion product. 99.9% of educated and intelligent people think all this is hilarious.

      Go find Rossi’s 1 MW reactor and plug it into a load. LOL. That’s a product — right?

      My God, but you people are gullible.

    4. I should correct the comment on the dummy test, that was also done with the secret waveform, so it is subject to the same problem. It also gave the same values of power and temperature as the “live” test. Consequently, that comparison indicated not effect at all from any unknown nuclear reaction. The difference seems to have arisen when the ON/OFF phase was reached. Anyway, the input power is very uncertain in both cases.

  39. Mats,

    Sorry if you covered this before. But what exactly did you do to short out the system? I mean where were your oscilloscope probes and what got shorted and how, if you know? Point being made, on, that oscilloscopes are high impedance and connecting them should not short anything, pretty much regardless of where you connect them.

    1. It was a really simple and bad mistake. While I intended to connect the probe to the phase and the earth to neutral of the power feeding variac 2, I started doing the contrary — connecting the earth cable from the oscilloscope to the phase, by mistake.
      I don’t think it was a fuse that was blown but an RCD was released.

    2. Thanks. It was being discussed on I copied your response to there and suggested that the poster involved should bring the discussion here if he wants it continued.

  40. Mats, at last some people have noticed that during the test of July 22nd (the day before you were there) there was a tank collecting the output water. So DGT has actually checked the flowmeter readings.

    So, why did they remove this verification during the 23rd? What were the results from the output water measurement?

  41. 1.6T field is at 20 cm distance from reactor is an absurdity.
    They haven’t idea of what would be a so large field.
    It’s just for fools.

  42. Just for laughs, I reviewed some claims made on Defkalion’s forum more than two years ago as well as the claims in their paper they presented at ICCF17. I won’t crosspost it here but you can read it here:

    That’s about ICCF17. Includes links and figures. For the forum stuff, scroll up — from a few posts up to several dozen perhaps– hard to say exactly because people add responses.

    1. Sorry for the duplicate post. I was in a hurry and had not had my second cup of kawphy yet.

    2. Entschuldigung MY aber Sie scheinen den Verkauf flowcalomerty gebunden zu sein, oder sind völlig wahnhaft.

      Admin please Umsetzung eines igore Taste, wenn Sie ca. …

    3. Yes, it would be nice to have an ignore buttom and perhaps some voting buttons so people can be informed about how popular they and their comments are.

    4. Looks like the hairdressers are back, trying to tell us how cold fusion actually works. You apparently get more Watts out when you press the “Like” button on the side of the device.

      Next week: designing a Tokomak using only hair gel and a blow dry.

  43. Mats – thanks for this interesting information, and an interesting discussion.
    I’ve just read the whole thing, and have some comments on the technical matters:
    (1a) Power in. If you have RMS current + RMS voltage each measured separately, and the RMS measurements are accurate, the real power is at most:
    sqrt(2)* Voltage*Current

    In other words your measurement can under-read by sqrt(2). Triac controlled current, if correctly aligned, would give nearly this whole sqrt(2). Standard Triac strategies for reducing power with resistive loads (leading or trailing edge) would give a factor depending on phase angle but worst case around 1.2 (under-reading by 20%). You get this when the power out

    Because of phase issues the power can be over-read arbitrarily. In other words the power to the device could be zero (if anti-phase) and still give the RMS voltage and current you measure. With standard triac strategies you will get over-reading when the power is at a low level relative to its maximum because then the current switches on at low voltages.

    (1b) RMS meters are generally meant for mains measurement and may not be accurate at higher frequencies. So if the current waveform is very spiky, without knowing the details, you cannot say how accurate the RMS current will be.

    Overall: 20% underestimate (quite likely). 400% overestimate as measured (quite likely if power in was turned down a very long way below its maximum). Larger underestimate – possible if waveform is more spiky than meter can handle, less likely.

    (2) Flow-meter issues. The flow-meter will measure both air and water flow, so if there was significant fraction of air or steam passing flow-meter that could lead to an overestimate of flow and hence output power. Because the flow-meter is not below the cooling coils issues to do with air-locks/steam-locks are likely. You would not expect a steam-lock unless the pump was at high temp, since steam would condense. Having said that this would depend on the rate of steam bubbles flowing upstream and uphill into the flow-meter. If this is high then a steam-lock will remain even with condensation. So the experimental design is fundamentally unsafe in this respect. Moving the flow-meter well below the cooling coils to the lowest part of the water circuit would solve the problem.

    (3) Output steam is wrong? there were a number of points made. As follows:

    15l/s is a very high flow-rate of steam. About double what you would get from a 3kW (fast) UK electric kettle when fully boiling. You would not see this coming from the pipe if it was hot enough, but it would condense in the air within a short distance to make large clouds of 100C visible steam. These would give anyone getting in their way a bad burn. The invisible steam would give anyone getting in its way an even worse burn (it would condense on flesh). So if the output tube was ever waved in the air while the experiment were running this should be obvious and very impressive.

    Everyone knows if you leave two kettles boiling on full heat in a room the whole room will become saturated with water vapour quickly, and it will condense on any cold surface. With the output hose going down the drain the issue is how much condensation will happen in the drain and how much water vapour/steam will be ejected from the drain. Unless the tube was actually going into water (when you would hear the bubbles) you’d expect a large amount of the steam not to condense because of the high flow rate relative to the surface area it has to condense on. So you should be seeing clouds of steam rising from the sink. Note, if the sink has no running water then the drain will quickly heat up to 100C from the condensation heat. If it does have running water this will cool the drain.

    This is a matter anyone can test by boiling a kettle with a tube on the output going down a drain. I’d be interested in the results. WARNING – be careful with such an experiment – steam is dangerous stuff.

    If the output was really dry steam up at 160C and 15l/s then waving it around would be dangerous. Get your hand or face anywhere near it and you have major burns. Kettles (obviously) never generate more than 100C steam.

    As for Adiabatic cooling. That depends on the pressure the steam is under inside the tube. There will be pressure because 15l/s is a fast flow-rate in any tube. If Mats could estimate the tube inner diameter we could estimate this from data. But such cooling would generate clouds of steam if it was enough to get temp down below 100C (the heat of condensation would stabilise the steam output temp to 100C, and the condensed water would all be seen as droplets).

    With 10mm inside diameter tubing, 160C water vapour, we get 1 bar pressure / 3m of tubing.

    Suppose we have 1 bar pressure.

    The pressure change is a factor of two. The temperature change is:
    T1/T2 = (P1/P2)^(1-gamma)/gamma where gamma for water vapour is 1.32
    So approximately we have temperature change of 1.18*T so Tout = (273+160)/1.18 = 93C

    So the cooling is significant, in this case enough to bring the temp down to 100C with some condensation then to stabilise temp at 100C. The inputs here, 3m and 10mm inside tube diameter, have a large effect on the pressure inside the tube and hence the temperature drop.

    So I guess estimates of tubing inner diameter and length could be used here for more information.

    believers vs pathoskeptics

    This is my personal view.

    If you bring to this question the prior information that LENR has been proved, or at least is very likely, but you don’t know whether DGT has acheived workable amounts of it, your bar of proof for this demo is the normal one for any similar company claiming a technological breakthrough.

    If you don’t think LENR has been proved, and that all the apparent positives are because of the LENR+ effect optimising experimental error, then the evidence required for this experiment is extraordinary.

    I think believers think the former, Pathoskeptics think the latter.

    Personally, I would be a pathoskeptic, requiring extraordinary evidence which this demo clearly does not give. As for why I don’t see the quantity of positives as proving the LENR case, that is because of the natural evolutionary effect. LENR negative experiments don’t get reported much, and certainly don’t flourish, because everyone is trying to find positive results. So any experimental errors that are possible will be found through an evolutionary experiment in which the “best2 errors get propagated and combined with other good errors.

    LENR+ will never get you out of this. And my belief is that 99% of the positives are from people with an LENR+ standpoint – they are therefore inherently unreliable, not from malice or incompetence, but just because experimental errors are very easy.

    Finally, here is one reason why some people will seem pathoskeptics. Scientists who have looked at the Coulomb barrier, and considered the various hypotheses for mechanisms that circumvent it, can see what other predictions each hypothesis makes, and look for them in the data. For example Kim tested his BEC hypothesis by comparing LENR rates at 80K and 270K. If low temperatures had enhanced rates that would be very significant evidence for a BEC mechanism.The D+D fusion hypothesis made a definite prediction that He4 ash should be correlated with heat out in a known way. If that is ever found it will be evidence for the people doing D+D LENR.

    There are so many possible mechanisms, all are implausible, and they are essentially un-dis-provable. But they can be proved, if they make definite predictions and those are found. And that sort of pattern in data – rather than “random excess heat” or “low-level random transmutation” or “low-level random high energy particles” that will look like something other than experimental error.

    Without a theory making predictions which are coherent the “extraordinary” bar remains.

    That alas, also means that in this situation the possibility of DGT being fraudulent will be rated higher probability than the possibility that they really have LENR, if they only present evidence which can easily be spoofed, as in this test.

    I don’t see it as pathological.

    1. Mats, sorry I don’t recall: did you measure the coolant (water) flow rate by dumping it into a container like you did with Rossi? To check whether the flow meter worked properly? (thanks)

    2. Thanks. It would not be different for the experimental run unless there was a deliberate attempt to cheat. Issues like this are why the tests have to be independent and done in another lab to be reliable. Hadjichristos challenged me personally to test in his lab. I have no idea why. Obviously, the place to test is in a famous national lab like Sandia or ORNL or a famous university which does it as an official function of a major department and in their own labs, not a few professors going off on their own.

    3. That is probably true – though steam issues are tricky and different heating patterns could change things! But on balance having considered it I think I put fraud above flow-meter problems!

    4. MY wrote: “the place to test is in a famous national lab like Sandia or ORNL or a famous university which does it as an official function of a major department and in their own labs…”

      Once again, what business purpose would that serve? As I said repeatedly, most tests are going to be done in secret, for potential customers and partners. The peanut gallery doesn’t get a definitive test, sorry…. except for you Penny. Because shutting you up and/or at least calling your bluff does serve DGT’s business interests…. for now. In the future, if and when products are being shipped and/or partner companies publicly announce their relationships with DGT, you won’t matter much to anyone.

    5. You’re so silly, Fibb. No legitimate company worries about anonymous internet posters. Not unless the internet poster happen to be calling them out effectively and truthfully.

      Defkalion would do best by answering the issues I raised. Why did they not show Mats better technology that they claimed they had two years ago? Why has no progress been made until now? Why do they not get independent tests instead of looking to little old me? Why did they not show Mats the technology and results that they claimed they had at ICCF17, a full year ago? Why did they not present at NI Week?

      You’re so wrong about what would serve their business purpose. What would serve is to be believed. And they’re not being believed except by bizarre posters like you.

      Penny? What’s Penny? Please explain that particular bit of nonsense.

    6. It was a simple demo not a test. the better technology is for customers and partners to see… not the peanut gallery. Calling your bluff was the best thing JH could have done. It shows clearly how you’re not really interested in validating the technology…. only in spreading FUD about it.

    7. Customers and partners, Fibb? It’s been more than two years now. Who are they? Can you name just ONE customer with no direct connection to Defkalion? Just ONE partner which is a major company well known to all. Do you remember that Hadjichristos claims 6 out 10 of the world’s largest companies are talking to Defkalion? NAME ONE PLEASE.

      Then do the same for Rossi.

      All this time and nobody knows them. Do you really it’s possible that they have the greatest invention of the century, that they talk to the biggest companies in the world, that they make kilowatts for months with a high COP (which they didn’t show Mats) and no company or customer has ever seen the light of day?

    8. If no partners or customers step up publicly in the next several months or so…. I will concede that you were right about DGT and Rossi. I suspect that FIAT is one but I can only point to the slight slip up that DGT’s CEO made in that Sterling interview a few months ago.

    9. Patience!

      The first automatic analog cellular phone was made in the 1960′s. Commercial models were introduced in Japan by NTT on December 3, 1979.

      The microwave oven was invented in 1946. The Raytheon Corporation produced the first commercial microwave oven in 1954

      Dean Kamen invented the Slingshot a water purifier.[35] Kamen filed U.S. patent # 7,340,879 on November 13, 2003 for the device which was issued on March 11, 2008. 2013 first product.

      A nanowire battery is a lithium-ion battery invented by a team led by Yi Cui at Stanford University in 2007.Commercialization was originally expected to occur in 2012, but was later deferred to 2015

    10. Oh and Fibb, if you’re so sure, why don’t you respond to the TECHNICAL issues I raise and the HISTORICAL issues about what Defkalion told us two years ago? The stuff they said they did every day and they can’t seem to demonstrate now? That’s not what you call FUD. It’s fact. And what is the Penny reference please. If you know.

    11. For the He4 and heat correlation, there are 2 known results, one by Miles and the other by ENEA.

      If I remember well Miles have done quantitative correlation, and ENEA (Deninno Report 41) have correlated qualitatively if some he4 was produced when some heat was produced…

      You should ask Edmund storms who have done a review in naturwissenschaften and sure know the papers, and the key points.

    12. The paucity of data on He-4 commensurate with heat is so significant that only a fanatic would give it any credence. Twenty four years and two experimental results ?? !!

    13. No ! I am merely saying that there has been very limited success with Pd-D fusion. Nobody has got it to even a meager level of output and Ni-H seems to be a more fruitful direction

    14. Isn’t it interesting how my question demonstrates the power of implication. A literalist would say that hey I was just asking a question. But I am going to say, sorry about that. I misunderstood. (:->)

      And I agree, I think that Pd-D is not the way to go. The results have been meager and the cost of the materials is very high. I would think that a researcher should be able to switch very easily. If we cannot switch from Pd-D to Ni-H, then why would we expect hot-fusionist to appreciate cold-fusion. I am sure that whoever is funding the Pd-D research project would see the wisdom of switching.

    15. Saying that they have been no huge production of heat from PdD is false.
      There have been few undoubtful production of heat, some lasting days, some having destroyed the installation,
      However until recently with ENEA work to identify , the reliability was weak between electrodes, yet some electrodes were working well until they were destroyed (showing it was not measurement artifact but lack of control).

      As I said, you should ask Ed Storms, Mc Kubre for a complete synthesis of the results, and if you are shy, ask Jed rothwell or read his regular synthesis.

      there is a big difference between lack of control of an early technology, and difficulties to measure success. that error is common and have plagued the discussion about LENR for long.

      The good point is that it have pushed the experimentalist to be creative and very strict.

    16. In nearly 25 years nobody has met the challenge of “Boiling a cup of tea”. Perhaps Ni-H is a better venue? If Rossi and DGT are not defrauding us, then the tea challenge will be met.

    17. nobody had boiled a cup of tea with electricity until the 19th century.. anyway the phenomenon was known by the antique greek. I have been better and beter controlled from static electricity to electrochemical cells, then induction, until generators get build and it was installed in houses being cheaper than coal stove.
      That is not a scientific argument.

      anyway the did not make tea boil, but they make few milliliters of electrolyte boil to the point to break calorimeters, or melt metal… having a tea pot that works 5% of the time and explode some time, is not very usefull I agree.
      Lightning or germanium PN junction were not reliably controlled until recently, yet accepted.
      Lack of reliability is not a scientific argument either.

      anyway it is meaningful in real life, since when there is industrial application, people have a tendency to forget about the theories, the opinion of scientists, and focus more on whether it works or not…
      Those arguments are sociological, not scientific.

      When a scientist (layman can use it by ignorance and common sense) use that kind of argument I translate it like :
      “Sorry, I have no desire to accept you experiments, because if breaks my beliefs.
      I will pretend all is false, publish theoretical soup asserted strongly enough to shut up laymen, except if you give evidence that will raise so much interest, that laymen will force me to retract pitifully…”

      this is the story of cold fusion…

    18. Concerning the cup of tea dude: his bit about the cup of tea only comes from someone who wants cold-fusion to fail, given that there have been some successes. For a real scientists who is curious about the world and a real human being who cares about others, a few successes SHOULD have generated a great deal of interest in him about cold-fusion. In fact, I wonder why he did not jump into cold-fusion research, unless of course he is NOT a real scientist and is NOT a real human being who cares about others.

    19. “Roger Bird permalink

      So, you’re saying that Mike McKubre is incompetent and/or a liar?”

      In a recent Youtube video, McKubre spoke favorably about the Papp engine “demo” carried out for him by one of the Rohner brothers. He should have noted that it is clearly impossible to get free energy from noble gases but instead he showed interest in working with the device. He called it interesting.

      In reality, it’s not a bit interesting. It’s an obvious scam. So whatever else McKubre may be, he’s extremely gullible and easily fooled.

    20. I agree with you that Pap engine and alike smell scam, not because of the noble gaz (why not LENR with noble gaz), but because of the strange behavior of papp and followers…

      however as usual you interpret things badly, and you close the judgement before waiting for the evidences.

      McKubre said interesting like spock say Fascinating… it can be translated as “ok, politely I’m very skeptic, and my impression is fake, but who knows”…
      what he ask is simply that this claim be analysed. that is how science should be.

      not the tragic way things were closed for cold fusion because some half-brain mixed free-space and lattice about quantum mechanic, and said it was impossible…

      not supporting papp, I support the idea that if Papp is willing to les scientist test his device, they should do it! even and because it seems impossible.

      that is where real scientist (not the one of today) and you are different…

      Don’t be ashamed, I have been like you for long, I just learn from my errors.

    21. “Finally, here is one reason why some people will seem pathoskeptics. Scientists who have looked at the Coulomb barrier, and considered the various hypotheses for mechanisms that circumvent it, can see what other predictions each hypothesis makes, and look for them in the data. For example Kim tested his BEC hypothesis by comparing LENR rates at 80K and 270K. If low temperatures had enhanced rates that would be very significant evidence for a BEC mechanism.The D+D fusion hypothesis made a definite prediction that He4 ash should be correlated with heat out in a known way. If that is ever found it will be evidence for the people doing D+D LENR.”

      He-4 has been correlated with heat, and the experimental value is consistent with d-d fusion. See Storms, “Status of cold fusion (2010),” Naturwissenschaften, October, 2010. This work was first reported in 1991 by Miles and has been confirmed. Measuring helium is difficult, and capturing all the helium is difficult, but the *correlation* is confirmed, there is room to improve the accuracy. Storms reports 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, compared with the deuterium fusion value of 23.8 MeV/He-4. He could be off, but not far. (The 23.8 MeV value holds for any reaction that converts deuterium to helium, not just “d-d fusion.”)

      As to Kim, Kim is suggesting condensates (not necessarily BECs, he told me at ICCF-18), but formation rate is not the only issue. Suffice it to say that the exact environment for generating cold fusion is unknown, it has largely been hit-or-miss; Storms thinks that the Nuclear Active Environment is cracks on the surface of metal hydrides, and those form and move and close at high rates, and controlling this, under conditions that produce the effect, is quite difficult.

      Bottom line: LENR is real, all right. But that does not make Rossi or DGT real demonstrations of it. The difficulty with LENR has always been reliability. Heat/helium is reliable as a ratio, but heat alone is not. What is totally missing with all the demonstrations is a demonstration of reliability.. The Hot Cat demos show, in fact, high variability. They show a product *not* ready for sale, possibly not even close. DGT *looks* better than Rossi, but appearances can be deceiving. DGT is inviting collaboration with scientists under NDA; Kim’s report is a result of that, but this cannot be said, yet, to be a strong result. Still, it’s a move in the right direction, far more likely to succeed than obsessive secrecy.

      From conversations at ICCF-18, I have the sense that we will start to see, over the next year, more independent reporting of work with nickel hydride. The Cat is, at least, peeking out of the bag. I.e., the Hyperion is using commercial nickel foam loaded with nanoparticles; the foam quickly conducts heat away from the material, preventing sintering, while allowing access to the active material by the gas. This is possibly the same approach as was used by Rossi. The foam comes in sheets which can be rolled to make a cylindrical reactor core. The “secret,” then, is in the preparation of the nano nickel; Defkalion also stimulates the reaction, apparently iwth a plasma discharge.

      However, don’t buy any wooden nickel.

  44. I re-examined Defkalion’s demo which Mats attended in the light of their claims from 2011 and 2012 and especially the paper they gave at ICCF17. It makes no sense at all.

    In the ICCF17 paper, they said they used thermal oil at coolant temperatures to 349C! Where was that system in the current demo? The claimed all liquid coolant flow calorimeters (no two phase flow) in mid 2011! Where were those? They were affectionately described as “second generation” and this demo was “fifth generation”. Are they working backwards? They claimed up to 92 Watt hours per “cycle” and ten cycles per hour at a COP of between 8 (minimum) and 22! Where was that blazing (and easily measured) performance this time around.

    Poor Mats got cheated. Defkalion says they could have done vastly better. Unless… well you know.

    I posted some notes and links to Defkalion’s paper, figures and forum quotes. Starting here:

    I re-examined the demo Defkalion gave Lewan in the light of the claims they made at ICCF17. Nothing they did makes sense. They claimed vastly better measuring methods and COP’s at ICCF17 than they are showing a year later. Maybe Hadjichristos will explain that once he gets over his apparent obsession with my identity?

    I wrote it up and provided links to the paper and relevant figures here: Scroll a bit up from there and you may want to ignore the irrelevant posts by Greenwin between mine.

    1. I was at ICCF-18; the video demo was a poor substitute for the personal presence of JH. However, as to COP, Defkalion punted on the calorimetry. They simply assumed water flow, neglecting the massive heat of vaporization of water. I.e, their COP of 2 or 3 was *vastly* understated, if they were vaporizing all the water. It’s possible that the demo outperformed what they expected, that they did not expect to vaporize the water, but to merely get that high flow hot, thus providing true calorimetry. Considering vaporization, apparently complete — 160 degrees C in a low pressure system! –, and assuming that flow rate was correctly measured, they might have a COP over 20. I don’t know, and especially I don’t know the thinking behind what they did, which was not satisfactory. At ICCF-18, lots of attendees were disgruntled at watching a video feed that was silent for a long time before it was working, and that wasn’t much more informative when the sound was enabled. Bad show, frankly. Gross waste of time. Apparently, expertise in public relations is *still* not in the job description. Nevertheless, John is head and shoulders above Rossi as to geniality and the ability to deal with criticism without blowing his fuses.

    2. “John” is just as expert as Rossi at deception, broken promises and schedules, never getting independent tests, and insulting rather than responding to his critics.

      For example, follow the discussion that starts here:

      Then see how Hadjichristos responds to a private email by Angus, a professor of engineering physics, who wants a private reply– Hadjichristos instead posts the email. That’s a real confidence getter.

      I do agree with you he’s better at PR than Rossi. Atilla the Hun would be better too.

  45. “Defkalion has no external investors so far. Principal owner is Alex Xanthoulis.”

    That may be but it’s not for lack of trying. In 2011, the solicited Dick Smith via Jim Dunn to invest a million dollars. He had a few discussions with them and refused.

  46. Hi,
    I have small question to understand the critics mad there

    “OK – so PN in chat solved this. He did the work.
    The flowmeter they use measures both solids and liquids, so will over-read flow massively if the water going through it contains bubbles.
    Obvious. In my defence I would say that I did not really think about it because No-one posted details of the setup.
    It does noy have to be deliberate. just experimental error. They would run the test at a hotter temp because that maximised output – not realising that it was just maximising steam on the output flowmeter.”

    I though the flowmeter was before the reactor, not after ?
    so this critics is absurd ?

    moreover there is degazing pots, pressure stabilizer, filter, before that…
    It should be correct ?

    Can you precise the setup if i’m wrong.

    1. The flowmeter is before the reactor.
      Previously I suggested that since the flowmeter is higher than the bottom of the reactor, if the water in the reactor boils out, the water could drain from the flowmeter.
      Other posters shot it down. First because the flowmeter is pressurized from the water mains, and that should prevent the gas from reaching the reactor. Second, if the water drains from the pipe, the input thermocouple, which is much closer to the reactor, should show an increase in temperature.
      It does not look like the problem.

    2. It is less clear if the flow-meter is on input side, but still an issue.

      The question is whether water vapour can get into the flow-meter. Even if it is on input-side this can happen, because 15l/s is a lot of steam to generate and it will flow uphill from the lowest point of the heating coils.

      The question then is flow rate of water vapour that so flows and whether it will all condense before it gets to teh flow meter. It is not easy to answer that question – but unless it is answered the flowmeter measurements must be unsafe.

      The flow-meter being pressurised is irrelevant. the gas is equally under pressure. In fact the whole system pressur will be determined by the steam output pressure, since the steam moves so fast, which is of order 1 atmosphere using guestimates.

      Of course as MaryYugo thinks DGT is scamming they could rig flow-meter measurements easily enough, and this is irrelevant. But even if not it is a real source of possible error. If it happens the errors are possibly large.

    3. If the input thermocouple shows ~ ambient and there is a long tube between thermocouple and reactor this is less likely, because we expect the water vapur to make a temp gradient in the input tube. However we do not know what is this temp gradient, it might be small if condensation is smaller than flow rate, so it is still an issue.

      i don’t like known unknowns. there are always unknown unknowns as well in experiments. You need to get rid of teh known unknowns 100% first!

  47. Brian Ahern wrote: “In July 2010 I had a major explosion with Ni-H with very small grain size, so I can validate the fact that extreme energy releases are possible and we should be careful moving forward.”

    Did you consider the possibility that this was a chemical reaction between nickel and hydrogen, perhaps also involving some oxygen present? I am going to guess that if the explosion had been nuclear fusion and an appreciable mass were involved, you wouldn’t be alive to write this.

    1. Good question Mary. I performed runs with over 30 samples of Arata-like nickel powders. All of them had an exothermic reaction upon absorption of hydrogen, but the bond energy is very low.

      I would see exothermic behavios where the temperature of the 30 gram powdered ZrO2-Ni composites were as high as 220C.

      My only runaway blew out the RTDs and caused a flame thrower-like display. Failure analysis indicated that the pressure had risen from 100 pai to over 3500psi in a brief period.

      I saw no indication of any nuclear activity and I have no idea what happened. It was the only sample that i ran with very small particle size. I did not recognize that fact at the time.

    2. That certainly suggests a need for more caution than Defkalion employs with their demonstrations. Although they had guests, they seemed to see no need for radiation monitoring and none for shielding their reactor. If they thought it operated by nuclear fusion, that represents cavalier risk taking with other people’s lives.

      I am not an expert on nickel/hydrogen/oxidizers/Raney nickel reactions (far from it) but the poster whose nickname is “Thicket” is. He works regularly with those reactions as a part of industrial processes. If you want to contact him, he reads He also posts on eestor forums but I think his nick is slightly different in those.

  48. All this ink about testing LENR reactors to prove they are not scams is a huge waste of time and energy. Just wait. Soon there will be confirmation that a company is making or saving money using an LENR reactor. If you are a non believer please just disregard all LENR news. If you are a believer DO Not react to the trolls trying to discredit LENR.

    1. Oh, and one more thing, if you are a believer, stop tripping over every little strangeness and delay. When you look at a rug with a microscope, it can look like very wild and gnarly country. But when you walk on it, it is just fine.

    2. Hum, I think that convincing MY & other nay-believers is not useless, but hopeless.
      However there are many rational people, very professional, who simply refuse to imagine LENR is real and who don’t waste energy in hearing us.
      If you make effort, like i did since late 2011, there is no doubt beyond the useless details (performance, reliability, IP protection, stories)… But this need deep digging in the various claims, staying skeptical without throwing the baby with the bathwater…

      this is why i propose a simple blackbox test setup, not to convince me, but to convince people who don’t have 2 minute to lose with scam (as they think).

      the idea is to call skeptical lab, to build simple input-output breaking box, for electrictity and fluid, which measure all in, all out, with easy access to the wires/plumbing…

      then independet people install the setup, chec and recheck all… they ask DGT to plug their black box, including the labview sensors and laptops to the breaking box…

      and once scam theory is ruled out, all is solved. we can advance and discuss whether the COP, when you remove external heating, is so huge .

  49. The ICCF18 paper is available including a diagram of the reactor. Something surprising is the small size of the device.
    The chamber is a cylinder 75mm long and 33mm inside diameter. The walls are 22mm thick.
    Could such a small surface area transfer enough heat to vaporize all the water?

  50. Mats,

    Thanks for continuing to do an excellent job covering this story. Your efforts at educating your readers are much appreciated.

    1. DGT, Rossi, etc. all are simply boilers of a new kind, they show heat or not.

      Why dispute about complex measurement? Because of the lab – thinking all here have as first thought.

      It would be much easier to heat a public pool for some month and compare the energy bills with the months before, or is that to simple for you?

    2. I agree with Mary’s idea of using a large insulated tank of water, with the output water flowing into a long coil of submerged metal tubing so as to condense the steam, with the input water coming from the same tank. Then measure the increase in temperature of the body of water and the elapsed time.

      GoatGuy suggested something similar years ago.

    3. Updated proposals discussed here:

      All serious suggestions are appreciated but big efforts are probably wasted. I don’t think Hadjichristos ever intends for me to go anywhere near his device. No matter what I tell him.

      The whole idea of having a trillion dollar device tested officially by someone you’ve never met except through mutual insults on the internet is beyond absurd. The whole Rossi and Defkalion stories are beyond absurd. If their machines were real, they could not behave as they do unless they were total idiots or completely crazy in which case they probably would not have made the discovery to start with. Yes some inventors are a bit odd but as far as I know, none has ever proposed anything as whacky as what Hadjichristos just did. Of course, he’s not serious. It was supposed to be a joke on me but I think it has backfired on him.

    4. maryyugo, unless you seriously are committed to calling his bluff, then you are a coward and a hypocrite and a few other despicable things I can’t think of right now. Believe it or not, I am actually interested in your report. But I will never get it if you don’t call his bluff, for real, seriously, and stop hemming and hawing and bull5hitting.

  51. reacting to some sceptical in comments, in particular by ‘maryyugo, Defkalion
    is not the only one having found exothermic reactions, earlier ofcourse Rossi, and although he may not be so reliable, his coworker the late prof. Focardi was a respectable scientist.
    and so is prof G. Miley, now also already some 80 yrs or so, but his startup
    company in this field in Illinois may survive:
    they also claim to have found heat generation from their (US patented) Nickel-hydrogen method.
    What i would like to see as definite proof, are some detailed balances not only about heat, but possibly also mass, and the elements nickel , and hydrogen (and possibly resulting copper) because the generated extra heat has to come from somewhere, and the only possible source lies in the known formula E=m*c^2. And when hydrogen is used, most scepticists also think about the calorific value of hydrogen, you obviously also simply can burn it with oxygen and it also will generate heat, but you gain nothing because the hydrogen is expensive and had to be made on beforehand anyway, eg. by electrolythic methods (using energy to split water in hydrogen and oxygen).
    Well a well respected physicist as George Miley knows that of course, so personally I
    wouldnt be surprised if we would see some more innovations in this area coming years

  52. Mary Yugo,

    We do not live in 2011 anymore, this is 2013 and i see a sincere offer from Defkalion’s CTO to you. By the way, i have followed this development as long as you have and i have never noticed that you have recieved this offer before from Hadjichristos. Source please? I did not see Hadjichristos mention anything about any NDA either.

    The fact of the matter is that you cannot possibly know what Hadjichristos will say or do if you accept. It seems the only one playing games now is you.

    You have screamed fraud repeatedly for over 2 years now. Almost every single comment you have made involves seemingly expert statements on test setups and the lack of independent testing. Are you telling me you wont do it now the offer is on the table?? This should be a golden opportunity to actually PROVE your fraud accusations. Now put your money where your mouth is. If not, your “expert” comments and fraud accusations have absolutely zero substance from now on.

    1. I agree. maryyugo, put the ^%$# up or shut the ^%$# up. If someone supplies me with a round trip airline ticket, I will even accompany you. That would make it a balanced test: 1 skeptopath and one believer.

    2. “By the way, i have followed this development as long as you have and i have never noticed that you have recieved this offer before from Hadjichristos.”

      Of course you didn’t see it. Defkalion deleted the forum it appeared on!

      You guys don’t get it. It’s not a real offer. It’s just gaming. Defkalion has no intention of letting me test anything and they never did. Furthermore, it would make absolutely no sense for them to ask to test their machine! None at all! Apparently, neither of you can think your way out of a paper bag. Hey, I have an idea. Let’s you and me play poker someday, OK? For very large stakes.

    3. There is a really good way to test whether Defkalion is bluffing or not. You are some kind of expert on poker and scientific testing. Call their bluff. I freaking dare you. And make sure that you can afford the trip to and from Vancourer BC.

    4. Yes Roger. I am calling their bluff with the help of some intermediaries. The email is already sent to Hadjichristos. I also called out Ransompw on his claim that I have no qualifications. I offered him a $25,000 bet that I did. Care to make a bet too, Roger?

    5. I have no idea what your “qualifications” are, and I don’t think that qualifications matter. I don’t read your posts hardly ever. It does not take much in the way of qualifications to see excess heat, and it doesn’t take much in the way of qualifications to obsessively doubt everyone else’s qualifications and observations.

    6. Agreed. MY, now is the time, in the words of the immortal Fritz Perls, to either Sh** or get off the pot.

    1. Then its about time to put up or shut up.

      Couple of years now trying very hard to convince everyone, on every blog, news article and forums that Defkalion and Rossi is fraudulent. If you are in any way sincere, you should accept this offer immediately.

      However, i see that you already are trying to twist and turn as best as you can:

      Mary Yugos response to Hadjichristos:” If I play your game, you will just say my qualifications are not adequate. Sorry. No dice.”

      How do you know what John will say? That is just the usual Mary Yugo twists. I cant imagine anyone falling for this anymore.

      Accept the offer or shut up.

    2. Don’t be silly, Eric. It’s not a sincere offer! It’s just a game H is playing. Did you know he made me the same offer in mid 2011? Do you think he offered that ONLY to me, back then? Did any tests get done then? Of course not.

      Did you know that around a year or so ago, Defkalion asked Jim Dunn formerly of NASA, to solicit billionaire Dick Smith for an investment of a million dollars? Smith asked for tests to be done and Defkalion said they would but they would require him to sign an NDA. Do you think I want to sign an NDA with Defkalion?

      If the offer is sincere, they should prefer working, as I suggested, directly with Jed Rothwell. It’s up to Rothwell but I think maybe he’d let me make some input into his experimental design. For sure, he did with Rossi in 2011 but then Rossi after first accepting, refused to do the test when he saw the protocol. I wonder why. Perhaps because it would have proven that the ecat doesn’t work?

      Anyway, no. I’m not playing Hadjichristos’ silly game. But on the remote possibility that he’s sincere (ROTFWL) I suggested a better choice for him. Want to be he doesn’t take it? Want to bet he doesn’t properly answer the polite questions I asked him? Keep track of the messages on Peter’s blog and you will see.

    3. I would like to inject some real system experience into the Rossi/DGT dialogue.
      1. Their behavior is antithetical to scientists and engineers
      2. They have had many, many inaccurate statements

      Both of those items have every appearance of fraud, but I think it is simply a lack of understanding on their parts. They have something that works some times, but often fails in a pre-ordained test protocol.

      I was under EPRI contract for 3 years (09-12) and I found repeatable excess energy with Ni-H, but at a level 1,000 times less. To me this means, they found a way to enhance the effect, but have no clue how to advance it or control it.

      In 1994 Thermacore Corp from Landcaster Pennsylvania reported 50 watts of excess thermal energy from Ni-H in an electrolysis experiment. They were extremely capable heat transfer engineers under contract to me at USAF Rome Lab. They could do it every time, but it never would scale up with 3 years of trying. They eventually quit in frustration.

      O knew there was a phenomenon in operation, but it origin was unknown. Fusion was not one of the mechanisms considered at that time. Randall Mills was saying it was a ‘HYDRINO’ action.

      Rossi and DGT are back in the NI-H mystery. In July 2010 I had a major explosion with Ni-H with very small grain size, so I can validate the fact that extreme energy releases are possible and we should be careful moving forward.

      In conclusion, Ni-H is a real and useful alternative, but nobody understands the physics yet. NOBODY

    4. I am not interested in going to Defkalion, because I never work under an NDA. I do not want learn anything that a researcher wishes to keep confidential. I have no objection to secrecy or NDAs, but I do not want to hear any secrets.

      Defkalion has said they have definitive information in reports compiled by experts under NDA’s. They recently told me they do not wish to publish any of this, for the time being, because they feel it is not in their interest. I hope they change their minds.

      I thought the demonstration was pretty good. It was informative and educational. It was impressive. It is very difficult to do a demonstration of this nature. Something always goes wrong. In this case, Mats caused something to go wrong, accidentally short-circuiting the building. I have done similar demonstrations at trade shows and I think they did a fine job. I even knocked out the power at customer site once while demonstrating a machine, which may make Mats feel better. So I say kudos to Defkalion and to Mats!

      However, as good as this was, a demonstration is not a test. You cannot establish credibility with a demo. This can only be done with an independent test. This does not mean “we can’t trust Defkalion.” This is how science works. The same rule applies to everyone. A claim must be independently evaluated.

      A test would be something like what Levi et al. recently did at Rossi’s lab. A group of scientists spends a week at Defkalion. They use their own instruments; they measure different parameters; they use their own video camera to make a long duration recording. They go home, think about it, and come back, improving the test. They take their time and do it thoroughly. It would be best to perform this test at a laboratory outside of Defkalion. The Levi test of Rossi’s device would also be enhanced if it were taken to another lab where Rossi is not present.

    5. Hey Jed, in the unlikely event that our proposals are accepted, you are welcome to go (if the others agree). And if we do the test, there will not be an NDA! I can guarantee you that. I have no desire to look inside their device. I will be very happy to work with input and outputs, electrical and coolant.

      Don’t pack your bags just yet. I think, in American slang, Hadjichritos is just whistling Dixie.

    6. There seems to be confusion here. Hadjichristos told me that he will not allow any test except under an NDA. He told me this just after ICCF18.

    7. There are many valid strategies to nullify any NDA, you just have to know a good lawyer in the country were the event is located. Additionally, an NDA protecting a scam is not valid in Italy.

    8. You wrote: “There are many valid strategies to nullify any NDA.”

      If that comment is directed to me let me say that I would never nullify an NDA. I think Defkalion has every right to enforce an NDA. I have no objection to secrecy. Apparently this is their business strategy. Patterson and many others had similar low-profile approaches. I personally think this is a poor strategy that is likely to fail, but this is their decision and their business.

      I run a library of information about cold fusion. My only purpose in going to Defkalion would be to collect information for this library. I only want information that Defkalion wishes to publish. I never publish information that the author does not want to share with the public. I never publish without permission. I have 2,047 unpublished papers in my file cabinet and scanned to disk that I will not upload because the authors or publishers do not want me to. When an author wants to keep a low profile I always honor his or her wishes.

    9. An NDA has just sense if they provide real reserved information.
      If the magic box is treated as a black box and the experiment is broadcasted in internet, the purpose of the NDA is solely to avoid you to explain the trick (out of the black box), just in case you understand it.
      It has no sense if they are straightforward.

    10. Regarding your comment about a “scam in Italy,” if this is a scam I have no interest in it. I am not an Italian Police Officer. It is not my job to investigate scams. I am not interested in speculating or guessing about other people’s business. I run a library, not a journal. It is not selective. I upload any paper that has been published, including many papers that I think are terrible.

      On the other hand, if the police investigate Defkalion and the courts convict them of a crime, I will report that in the News section, and I will remove any papers about them. But I have no training in law enforcement. I am not a lawyer. I will not speculate or dabble in these fields. I will not publicly accuse corporations of fraud unless I know of compelling evidence or a criminal conviction. That seems like an irresponsible thing to do.

      If Defkalion or Rossi are engaged in fraud this will have no impact on the overall field of cold fusion. It will hurt the victims of the fraud, and I would regret that, but it is not anything I can prevent or investigate. In view of the recent tests by Levi et al., and some unpublished previous tests, I think it is extremely unlikely that Rossi is engaged in fraud. I regard the Levi report as independent verification. I have not seen a similar independent verification of Defkalion’s claims so I cannot judge their credibility. Obviously I cannot endorse their claims either.

    11. “There seems to be confusion here. Hadjichristos told me that he will not allow any test except under an NDA. He told me this just after ICCF18.”

      Hadjichristos will not allow a legitimate and carefully performed test at all. All he will allow is a dog and pony show like Rossi specialized in.

      He never mentioned an NDA in our communications, probably because he never intended to allow me to be involved in a test to begin with.

      “If Defkalion or Rossi are engaged in fraud this will have no impact on the overall field of cold fusion. “

      I strongly disagree. WHEN Defkalion and Rossi are, as is likely to happen, revealed as frauds or just fade out, it will do considerable harm. For one thing, nobody will trust your judgement about the validity of cold fusion claims and tests again. Nor, sadly, that of Edmund Storms, who should have been far more cautious and reserved about his comments regarding Rossi’s claims. He of all people should know better but it seems he doesn’t.

    12. You wrote: “For one thing, nobody will trust your judgement about the validity of cold fusion claims and tests again.”

      I just wrote here: “I have not seen a similar independent verification of Defkalion’s claims so I cannot judge their credibility. Obviously I cannot endorse their claims either.”

      So, what judgement would that be? Why will not one trust me when I have consistently said this, and only this? When I reserve judgement and refuse to condemn or endorse, where would I be wrong? Perhaps you are saying that unless I strongly condemn anyone that you suspect of being a fraud, no one will trust me. You appear to think that everyone in cold fusion is a fraud, or at least a fool, and incapable of measuring 20 W. You do not believe any of the claims. You are saying that the only people who have credibility are those who reject all cold fusion findings. I disagree.

      Also, I doubt that you have found any problems in the report by Levi et al. I realize you think you have, but I disagree. For example, you said that having the machine already turned at the beginning of a test calls into question the results. That is incorrect. It is always possible to measure energy output no matter how long a machine has been running. A plutonium-238 reactor can never be turned off but there is no difficulty measuring heat output from it. As far as I know, there has only been one formal written critique of Levi, by Ericsson and Pomp. This paper is so bad I think it proves the skeptics have no credible arguments. It resembles the critique of Fleischmann written by Morrison, which proved that Morrison did not understand cold fusion and had no business discussing it.

      The Morrison critique is here:

      Click to access Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

    13. maryyugo is just a believer in the denial. Facts don’t matter to true believers.

    14. Jed, trying to argue with maryyugo is EXACTLY like trying to convince an anorexic that she is not too skinny.

      maryyugo, I find Jed much more credibile than you, especially given that fact that when given the chance to check out a Hyperion you did everything that you could to avoid it. I jumped at the opportunity, even though the offer was to you and not me.

    15. Jed and Mary, you are better people that I am. I would sign any damn NDA and, if confirming that usable LENR is real, I would sell my house, my car, my dog and pawn my mom to short oil futures.

  53. For those wondering about the “trouble Defkalion is in” according to some rumors.

    @ ALL
    I apologize to the readers of the blog (at least those true and authentic, not with those who come here to check and create flames) for the incomprehensibility of a small number of comments rimpallati in the last days of VoA (Voice of America) Go Katto, Nobody, MYSTERY and myself.
    I will try to explain in short what I’ve rebuilt.
    Two days ago (Saturday night) I came to know that rumor that a group of unidentified Italian researchers do not know when (presumably before the recent stream of 22 and 23 July) and do not know where, had the opportunity to to test the reactor Defkalyon Hyperion 5: the result would have been merciless in the sense that the reactor greek not only would not work at all, but it would have been exposed a real trick endeavored to believe that the reactor functions. In other words, the unidentified group have discovered a scam.
    I finally understood what the hell they were referring to a series of cryptic comments appeared on the blog in recent days. I fact that this (drab) story has landed on 22 steps through the comments of VoA, appeared for the first time on 25 July (note well, that person in a way that is VoA access the blog with two different Google Account) as you can see on Search over 22 to access all his comments.
    Reasoning. If someone really was aware of details of a scam should immediately rush to the judiciary and to tell everything he knows, having had the opportunity to see with their own eyes and measure with their own tools. And of course showing evidence of everything. Already the evidence. Why the VOICE also says that the unidentified group because ironclad NDA, did not take with him to produce any evidence to the judiciary, made somewhat surreal!
    For my part, beyond these rumors, I do not know anything else.
    And suspecting that this is a great hoax, a gypsy summer, a trappolone organized by some person of much wit and very little soul, who loves to play with his neighbor more than help, I will not in any way be USED, I and this blog, to perpetuate the flame. Therefore this time every comment that goes behind the flame (lit from VoA) will be deleted.
    And for 24 hours I close the comments to the blog, so that everyone can reflect on how far in the future this blog defend against manipulation attempts so manigolde (not to mention awkward).
    Thanks for your attention

    P.S. Obviously it is not true that “someone is working to add 22 Search a fantastic feature that allows … to find out if they wrote / write on this blog google people with different accounts but identical IP will see some good :)”
    I said it yesterday just to try to scare those who had a little ‘guilty conscience … unnecessarily … because people who write in here with a guilty conscience proves to have excellent knowledge and computer tools.

    In other words, someone started the rumor of Defkalion cheating during a test, however Passerini believes it to be a false rumor.


  54. There is a problem with the experimental setup. Fluid measurement is not my field, but the configuration is quite simple. If there are other people with experience, please comment.

    You will notice in the video that the flow meter is positioned at a level just above the top of the table. This has a nasty side effect because the flow meter does not work if there is gas in the pipe.

    During the control run, the reactor coil was filled with water. Since the coil is higher than the flow meter, the flow meter is filled with water and the measurements are accurate.

    But if all the water evaporates from the coil, there is no water pressure in the flow meter pipe. So the water will drain from the flow meter down the long vertical pipe downstream. The flow meter pipe fills with air and the device cannot measure anymore.

    This is the description of the AM2S flow meter -standard issue oval gear positive displacement flow meter.

    Click to access products-flowmeters.pdf

    Very tricky effect. I guess that somebody used to deal with fluid measurement would detect the problem easily, but for most of us it is easy to overlook.

    I will add that the Joule-Thompson effect cannot be at play here because the steam is not under pressure.

    1. Are you telling us that the flow meter was downstream of the reactor? !!!!

      That is absolute madness! It is especially stupid if you are allowing a phase change!

      Please condirm the location.

      This would constitute the worst engineering practice I have heard ever.

    2. The water flows first through the meter, then the reactor. That means that the meter is upstream from the reactor, which is the reasonable setup.
      What I’m saying is that given the height of the meter relative to the reactor, if the water in the reactor boils off the water will drain from the meter.

    3. @ R Hopeful
      the water comes for the urban grid, it has a pressure and push the water (and at a certain point the steam) towards the output that is free to air, so at atmospheric pressure. No way for the steam to return back to the flow meter.

    4. @ Brian, you are right. I assumed that the flow control valve was located before the meter, but it is actually after. So the meter contains water under pressure. There could be gas after the valve.

      I’m quite glad this was my mistake.

    5. If this was the trick then the input water thermocouple would report the temp of hot air (150C or close) right?. It did not, as far I can see over the whole test video. Input temp was almost steady around 23C.

    6. Again the confusion.

      If the meter is upstream and below the coil, it will not empty as it has a pressure head.

      Look at your own statement. If the meter is below the coil it will direct the water flow upwards under pressure.

    7. The point is moot now, but it appears that the meter is higher than the bottom of the coil but lower than the top.

    8. I am sorry for being so strict aboutthis. Clearly the meter should have been below the level of the coil if they were going over 100C.

      However, you did the best you could with existing conditions.

  55. Hej Mats!

    Att kontrollera DGTs sista årsredovisning är ett bra komplement till att granska deras produkt. Vad vet vi om ekonomin och hur öppna och tillgängliga är Kanadensiska bokslut/ deklarationer? Har de kunder så syns det i årsredovisningen. Har någon kollat? Vad inte fler av de mest rabiata skeptikerna förstått är att DGT bedriver ett företag och inte publicerad forskning på ett universitet. Det finns liksom ganska naiva förväntningar på vad Deflaikon kan ställa upp på eftersom de samtidigt måste skydda sin produkt. Finns det kunder så är det färdigsnackat, för ingen professionell kund köper en sån här gris i säcken. Finns det inga kunder så är det riktigt illa och åtgärder bör tas i utifrån det faktumet.

    1. Visst – korrekt att notera att det är ett företag och inte publik forskning. Samma sak gäller Rossi, vilket många påpekat.

      Jag kollade upp DGT när det var baserat i Grekland/Cypern. Svårt att få fram info då.
      Tror inte att de hunnit göra någon årsredovisning i Kanada ännu. I vilket fall är det nu de skulle kunna få kunder. Du ser i blogginlägget ovan var de hävdar att de befinner sig på den punkten. Industriella partner snarare än kunder, plus några licenstagare som rimligen ännu inte betalt. Allt under NDA.
      Tror inte att det finns någon nyttig info där ännu med andra ord.

    2. Mats!

      De kan inte rimligtvis jobba utan att ha ett grund/konsultarvode för sin tjänster som borde återspeglas i bokföringen. Att ta betalt på resultat/ licens är helt logiskt men det är ologiskt att inte samtidigt ta betalt för konsultjänsterna som krävs för att nå dit ?

  56. Hi Mats,
    Are you following 22passi?
    Try to call Melis, should be valuable
    Seems that DGT & friends are in very big troubles.

    1. I look at 22 passi from time to time, couldn’t find info on Defkalion’s trouble though. Will try to contact Melis.

  57. “Nothing personal, I could say that you many people … and not only on LENR. quite classic.”
    Is it just me, or do others have trouble with AlainCo’s “English”?

  58. Mats,
    It would be helpful if you had a feel for steam flow vs input power. One way to get calibrated would be to purchase a couple 1kw or 2kw electric tea kettles and auto radiator hoses to allow combining their steam output. Measure the electrical input and observe the steam output. Compare to what you observed and estimate the multiplication factor needed to get equivalent results. Not a precise measurement but it would provide a “sanity check” – giving you a way to better evaluate what you observed.

    1. John M,
      I did this two years ago, leading the steam down in a bucket with tepid/warm (not cold!) water, just as Andrea Rossi did at his demos, and the visual impression was similar. I tried both an electric kettle and a normal kettle on an electric stove. Not very scientific, but yet I would invite more people to do this.

    2. Mats, considering only the rise in temperature from input to 100C plus the heat of vaporization, I calculate it takes 21.5kw to convert 1/2L per minute of water to steam. This would produce 10 to 20 times the amount of steam you saw during your kettle experiment. This isn’t a subtle difference – it should be obvious to even a casual observer.

      Was the amount of steam produced during the Defcalion experiment you witnessed at least an order of magnitude greater than that from your kettle experiment?

    3. Something is horribly wrong with the coolant question. In order to have no liquid exiting the tube the power input to the water had to exceed 21 kW. This is too high by a wide margin. This suggests that the outflow was diverted somewhere. Please address this huge issue..

    4. Unless there was technology to make tubes invisible there’s no way the flow could have been diverted.

    5. An anonymous post in egooutpeters (responding to maryyugo). This is 20% of the flow during the DGT experiment. I don’t know. To me it looks like a lot of steam, but fairly quiet. It is plausible that all of it goes down the drain.

      a _calibrated_ (with measurement and calculations) 0.1 l/min flow of _superheated_ (perfectly dry) steam that’s about 4-4.5 kW (depending on the temperature and pressure which we don’t know from the video).

    6. Actually it’s not exactly dry as you can see in the comment by the author on Youtube, but the power has been calculated with high precision:

      4116 W

      (because it heats 10 kg of water form 25.2 °C to 31.1°C in 1 minute).
      This is a very useful reference 🙂
      It also teaches how to verify in a very simple manner the power of a steam flow (along with the value of the flow itself in order to verify the flow meter reading).

      Mats: that is for your next time 😉

    7. this video does not provide any useful clues.

      The steam is pressurized. When under water it bubbles up, therefore only a fraction of the energy is used to heat up the water the rest escapes, therefore the calculation is completely wrong and we cannot calculate the flow rate of input water. We do not know the temperature of the steam.

      All I see is some steam and all I hear is a compressor.

  59. As you might have noticed I just turned the comment section around, displaying the latest comments at the top. Hope that this is more convenient.

    1. Re comments displaying latest first:

      It’s horrible, Mats, particularly because the display doesn’t date comments. It’s very difficult, the way it is, to follow the discussion, some is in time order (i.e, direct responses), some reverse (the rest). It only works for people who have been following, not for any new readers.

    2. Abd (and everyone else commenting here) would you suggest that I reverse to displaying oldest comments first)?

    3. I now tried new settings for the comments. Latest comments are still displayed on top, but I cancelled nesting (levels in threads). In this way the latest comment will indeed be displayed on top. On the other hand, it’s not obvious to follow different threads but I believe that this can be handled since the number of persons discussing is not very large and not many threads are active.
      Hope this will help.
      In any case, I hope to have time to publish new posts soon so the threads can start afresh.

  60. Mats I have to ask.

    Did you forget your camera? or was a camera banned?

    It would be great to see a series of stills of the setup. With so many vagaries it is hard to get a grip on exactly what the setup was. The camera work of DGT’s was not specific enough to draw any conclusions.

    1. Yes, I brought a camera. I have a few pictures that I will publish later. Not of the whole set-up but mostly of the reactor before start.
      I’m traveling, actually on vacation, so I haven’t had the opportunity to do this yet, relying on a slow mobile network.

  61. Mats you will notice comments appearing at the end rather than in reply to the comment that are replying to. it breaks the layout. This I believe is caused by deleting comments. its better to remove the text of the comment (with a short explanation) rather than delete the entire comment

    1. Thanks for telling me. I had to block one person for being rude, and cancelled the comments. And I will continue erasing comments with insults and personal attacks.

  62. Someone at provided a link to a video purported to be the amount of water droplets entrained in steam, exhausting from a turbine consuming 10kW. Of course, I have no way to check their numbers but it sure looks a lot different from Defkalion’s much weaker output at the end of the output tube.

    Hindsight is always 20/20 but it seems that Mats might have asked them why they did not sparge (condense) the output stream into an insulated container to measure its energy content by the resulting temperature rise. This is a good way to deal with a mixture of water droplets and steam which seems to be what was there.

    It’s also noteworthy that if most or all the water had been vaporized, as some claim, the output would have been 27 kW. It certainly doesn’t look like 10 kW, much less 30.

    Of course we’ll never know unless the experiment is repeated but correctly done.

    Sort of like with Rossi.

    Which leaves us to ask: it’s been more than two years. And neither of these claimants can provide a properly done independent test. Will they EVER? Why bother with these demos at all? Oh I know… awareness raising. Sure it is. Even Forbes’ description has, last I looked, only about 5000 views, in the entire world. Not much awareness was raised.

    1. the steam was cooled by water, thus becoming water ans denser…
      there is no comparison with that not so hot steam which condensate visually.

      trying to make science with video is …

      anyway you are right, there need to be expert who touch and test the reactor themselves. Nelson did it, but you were not there.

      when will you admit you may be wrong, very probably wrong.

    2. If the steam was cooled (condensed) by water where did it go? Mats specifically said he saw no water leave the pipe (into the sink) so it must have left as superheated dry steam. which required at least 27KW which as mats said wasn’t present.

      If the water did condense inside the exit tube it would have run/dripped into the sink. as water it could bypass the water plug created by the s bend common in every sink. (prevents sewer smell) As steam it could not. thus being forced back into the room

      So did mats see water drip out of the pipe or not?

    3. It was difficult to see clearly down in the sink which was narrow. A couple of drops might have come out without my seeing it.
      But I was also helped by sound; when I turned off the cooling water which was dripping gently, all sound of liquid going down the sink disappeared. The only thing you could hear was the clear sound of gas flowing. Every drop of cooling water, on the other hand, made a noise like liquid in a narrow gas flow, reinforced by the acoustics of the conical sink.

    4. What I didn’t do, unfortunately, was to close the tube going to the sink and open the one that went straight down after the thermocouple, the one we used when we calibrated the water flow. In that way we would have had a clear visible observation of the steam flow. Bear with me.

    5. Mats, there has always been your responsibility to provide useful. information for your audience. There were two issues that would answer all our questions. Please address the next two points as clearly as you can.

      1. Water flow rate and temperature increase

      2. electrical energy input

      Your account of the first item is confusing. The mass flow rate should have been constant. The temperature measurement of 150=160C is totally confusing when you do not report a roaring gas flow.

      We are left with no information about the single most important measure. This makes DGT’s demo complexly ambiguous. Water flow rate and temperature increase is what we need and DGT insisted on keeping the flow rates low to induce a phase change.

      The phase change muddied everything jjust as it did for Rossi’s ‘demos’..

      Can you help to clarify things?

    6. Brian, I’m not sure I understand your questions, but I’ll try to address them.

      1. The water flow was not constant, but the value measured and displayed by NI board/Labview was calibrated during the control run with Argon.
      Regarding the appearance of a steam flow resulting from a water flow of this size, the discussion has been going on since the first demos by Rossi. I have no great experience and no good explanation. What I can say in this case i that water flow was calibrated, the thermocouple was far away from other heat sources, I could see no dripping from the tube (although it was difficult to see down the sink) and I clearly heard that there was no water drops when I turned off the cooling water; instead there was the clear sound of flowing gas down the sink, the acoustics of which amplified the sound. I’m sorry that I didn’t open the tube that went straight down from the thermocouple (the one we used when calibrating the water flow) while closing the flow to the tube that went up and then to the sink. In that way we would have had a much clearer visual observation of the steam flow.
      I also found this comment from a reader interesting:

      “I agree with mjt that the flow rate of dry steam in the test run immediately after evaporation must have been about 15 liters/second. I’m puzzled, however, how non of the commenters who claim to be technically competent and experienced seems to take account of the Joule–Thomson effect (temperature drop due to pressure loss). When Mats said that in his experience steam flow looks a lot less dramatic that you would expect, that observation is indeed explained by that effect. Add the active cooling to that (and don’t forget that the steam temperature was “only” about 160°C) and I have no doubts that it inconspicuously vanished in the sink.”

      2. I think I have discussed the electric energy input extensively. I found no issues with the input power through variac 1 to the 7 heat resistors, measuring both before and after the variac (different voltage, current but same power, no DC detected), but a there was the issue with an apparent input power of more than 1 kW to the HV generator, while NI /Labview showed about 200 watts. As I have discussed this could be due to a phase between voltage and current, if the load was inductive or capacitive — in that case my measurement would be an over-estimate.

    7. Nice honest answers Mat. The steam coming out instantly cools. In fact, you can put your hand into the flow 18″ downstream and not feel any high temperature.

      I agree that you input power measurement was likely conservative.

    8. Thanks Mats. No one has yet commented about the water plug. Perhaps we do things differently in Australia. All sinks contain a water plug. If steam is exiting the pipe into the sink it will not go past the water plug it will simply exit the pipe into the room. No matter what alainco says.

      If the steam was condensed into the sink then it would flow out. But because of your words it would appear the steam was not condensed. If you say it did condense then I’ll be happy with that.

      As is common when one cannot make intelligent comment they make ad hominem comments. But I’ll remind Alainco. You claimed there was no way DGT would go back on their promise to release the results of the 7 testers over 12 months ago. Of course as we know they did not release anything, went quiet and they then closed the forums.

      So while I may enjoy watching the cheer squad wave their pompoms. I don’t go to them to find out about football tactics.

    9. Chris,
      If I understand the term water plug, we also have it in Europe. It’s s-formed, filled with water and intended to block bad smell.
      This was not a standard sink but a conical opening, about 15-20 cm diameter above and maybe 30 cm high, attached to the drain tube. I don’t think there was a water plug.

    10. I concede I was too optimistic.
      They anyway release the Nelson test, without naming Nelson, but enough carelessly for us to find, and for Gibbs to confirm with nelson.
      We don’t know if or not the 7 testers have tested. If they have boss who know that they will be insulted, fired, if they say they have done a test of Cold Fusion, knowing that no evidence will be accepted… of if they just are a little afraid of that,…
      or if they simply are so happy that they want to keep the secret for themselves…
      then it can have asked for NDA to defkalion. (remember that they say 1 month after that the organization of those test were more complicated than what they imagines, because of working with big corps).

      There are difference between errors in guessing the behavior of a corp in a psychiatric hospital called Earth, and ignoring a thousands experiments in dozens of labs, countries, institutions.

      note that I don’t attack ad hominem, but I attack your fallacies and your methodologies.
      and please don’t make a strawman of my positions…

      I have been too optimistic , both about their technical maturities (they admitted endurance problems, they moved to Vancouver), and the capacity or motivation they had to publish results.
      Nelson test leaking make us think that discretion is not of their will.

      of course I’m sure you will interpret all those explanation as evidence of fraud, carefully avoiding some facts (like moving from a weak state Greece to a strong state Canada, letting freedom to Nelson and Matt).
      Wrong is one thing, but wrong on what ?
      If DGT have broken promises, it is in a way which is typical of startup and corps. optimism, dependence to partners , to business environment…
      Using your arguments on most startup would conclude they are all fraud.

      Using your argument on all science claim, would conclude all is pseudo-science (and you will be partially right on many fashion science today).

      Nothing personal, I could say that you many people … and not only on LENR. quite classic.

    11. Alain,

      are you also an expert of steam?
      Have you really working with steam?
      Are you able to evaluate the steam quantity in kg/h looking a sink?

      Reading you don’t seem.

    12. I am able to detect when something is ignored, I know that steam condensate in cold water, and that was ignored by many critics. Not rocket science.

      Sure I don’t master all subtleties of steam (it is improving), but I don’t use my ignorance as excuse to claim fraud.
      why does critics still talk of high pressure while it is clearly improbable given the protocol shown.

      Many claims of “they fraud” should be translated as “maybe I understand it bad, but I see some detail missing to be sure of the result”.

      anyway your demand of modesty is good, it should just be reciprocal.

    13. Alain,

      I’m not a blah, blah that write on Blog, I have direct working experience from many years.

      What Defkalion showed was pure illusion good for who hasn’t enough technical experience.

      To cool and boil down the amount of steam (30-40 kg/h) of which Defkalion boasts the production, using cold water, a lot of water is required and in any case producing large release of steam (similar to a little a sauna) and, very important, a lot of thermal energy (about 30kW) released in the surrounding environment of which didn’t any evidences were detected during demo.

      Defkalion demo was clearly a cheat and (I am really sorry to say) who attended to the public demo wasn’t enough skilled. Who wrote that is happy of this test isn’t optimistic but simply technically unfit.

    14. instead of focussing on stream, you should focus on reading and watching.
      if the steam is condensed in the, it does not occupy more space than in the entry pipe.
      Condensations cause depression, that match pressure caused by vaporisation.
      and since the steam is sent into the sink hole(dunno the translation, see the video), as water, there is no sauna effect in the room… just hot water in the sewer, hot pipes in the room.

      note that one reason they use the sinkhome and condenser is maybe that they encountered the problem you quote…
      first a sauna effect in the room, then destroyed sewer pipes by superheated steam.

      that is the point I was raising.

      of course you can claim all is false, but at least their demo is coherent, and it can be real.

      for it to be unreal, there is much more assumption and some hard to swallow, especially if you use all your brain (the technical and the human sectors) and all evidences (Nelson report, two demo).

    15. instead of focussing on stream, you should focus on reading and watching.
      As said before I’m not a blah, blah man that write on all Blogs, I had direct test experience on field.

      …since the steam is sent into the sink hole(dunno the translation, see the video), as water, there is no sauna effect in the room… just hot water in the sewer, hot pipes in the room.
      These are just words, if you are an engineer try to calculate the quantity of water (mass) to cool 30-40 kg/h of steam and you will discover that Defkalion is a cheat.

      of course you can claim all is false, but at least their demo it’s coherent, and it can be real.
      Yes, it’s coherent with a production of just a couple of kW thermal.

      there is much more assumption and some hard to swallow, especially if you use all your brain (the technical and the human sectors) and all evidences (Nelson report, two demo).
      I’m an engineer that know very well what we are speaking, therefore I can assure that what they claimed is absolutely false.
      Who was present to the demo was cheated due to lack its of experience.

    16. it is just demanding about 8time more cold water than the input water.
      no need of filter, of flow meter, of regulators, so not absurds…

      the volume in one hour (about 300l) is about two classic bathtub, and I imagine that it take less than half an hour hour to fill a bathtub with cold water in most buildings.
      it is a 10l kitchen bucket per two minutes…

      note that the volume of water injected into the reactor is about half a typical cooled/filtered tap fountain in office (my office fontain is about 1l/minute).

      to be checked, but not absurd.

      Note also that all is based on the hypothesis of dry steam, which they did not even count for.

      The question are interesting, but as usual you jump from question to conclusion it is impossible.

      on the other side to defend your theory you have to find a place to store a hundred liter of water between the flowmeter and the reactor, and the hidden taps to divert it to the buckets for the tests… It have to be done in a way that cannot be detected by observers who may touch and look everywhere…

      If there is a fraud, it mean that company is in a fraud scheme, otherwise such an open faked demo would be too risky for a genuine business. Thus it is so since the beginning, thus it was a fraud with Nelson, who have proven to be critic against Rossi’s secrecies, and who should have been fooled while making the test himself…

      conspiracy theory as usual…
      the chain of conspiracy to explain all is false is… ridiculous.
      Anyway I am used with those consensual conspiracy theory… It is written so on wikipedia.

    17. …it is just demanding about 8time more cold water than the input water.
      Alain, your technical evaluations are really ridiculous.

      To subtract the thermal energy (corresponding to about 30kW) from 30kg/h of steam with a quantity of water 8 times more, you will get again steam! (more wet steam)

      Not believe?
      Roughly: P=cv*m*(Th-Tc)

      mass of H2O = 30kg/h * 8 = 240kg in one hour
      cp = 4180 J/(kg °C)
      Tc = 20°C
      Th = 100°C
      max energy to avoid vaporization of water: 80.2MJ

      “Unfortunately” the Pth “produced by the Defkalion reactor” (30kJ/s) corresponds to 108MJ in one hour, therefore the result must be that Th must be largely greater than 100°C, it’s AGAIN STEAM (like a sauna, remember?)

      Note also that all is based on the hypothesis of dry steam, which they did not even count for.
      If they are so largely stupid that not count the steam production (REMEMBER IT NEEDS 30kW to vaporize 30kg/h) this not means that thermal energy must be physically disappeared.
      Again NO TRACE of this energy has been showed, so where are these 30kW?
      On the contrary the evidences are largely less, as max a couple of kW.

      Who attended the demo and also you’re not enough skilled to understand the cheat.

      Conspiracy theory? No, a clear cheat that you won’t recognize.

    18. Energy summary:

      if the water flux into “reactor” was really 0.65l/h (that is 39Kg/h), the thermal power produced would have to be:

      a) water heating = 3.5 kW
      b) vaporization = 25kW
      c) superheat steam about 1kW

      Total power: 29.5kW

      Where are 30 Kw?

    19. I’ve integrated water heating, vaporisation enthalpy, and steam superheating to compute roughly the 8

      I agree that it is not far from boiling, but the mix is liquid…

      vaporization enthalpy is 2257kJ/kg,
      superheating at 150C is about
      and warming from 25 to 100C is about 310kJ/kg
      total heat absorbed is about 2660kJ/kg
      it need to give back 2350kJ/kg to condensate

      cold water at 25C can absorb 310kJ/kg before boiling

      about 7.6kg of cold water mixed with 1 kg of that dry steam will be liquid if well mixed

      of course I agree that there are many details, that specific heat change with temperature and pressure, but that is an order of magnitude…
      maybe is 10 needed… we should test how quickly you kill a bath tub with a big tap.

      note also that to produce that quantity of heat, 30kW (my computation is 28.8kW) as propose JCM, at 240V, it need 125A…
      and 125A need huge wires…

      there is a problem in your scenario, less in mine.

    20. thank a lot, this claerifies a lot for me!

      Dont’t even read the tumb comment of M:Y: any longer

    21. Were “well mixed” steam and water? Did you see an hidden efficient mixer anywhere? Where in your fantasy?

      I agree that it is not far from boiling, but the mix is liquid…
      Again you need to make minimum experience with steam…
      Being sink was open, when the water is close to vaporize you see a lot of steam.
      A simple example, when you put a big pot with water on the fire of your kitchen, you see water boiling not all together! i.e average temperature of 97°C means that anyhow a part of water is ongoing to vaporize and you can see clearly many steam that comes out, before boiling all water.

      note also that to produce that quantity of heat, 30kW (my computation is 28.8kW) as propose JCM, at 240V, it need 125A…
      and 125A need huge wires…

      What do you mean? Boh?
      No high thermal energy was really produced, therefore they didn’t need any large current of 125A. The produced heat was order of magnitude less and, simply, they cheated the people attended to the demo because not skilled!

      there is a problem in your scenario, less in mine.
      The only problem is that you don’t wont to admit that Defkalion demo was a fake and they are cheating.

    22. Please stop trying to escape the facts with hypercritic method.
      First looks at the setup on the video and the water jet used to miw all… it is nealy closed and throwed into the sewer.

      second you simply have no data, not certainty, just a visible desire to claim it is fake…
      it is clear you desperately want to prove it is fake.

      I agree there are some data missing , but sure you have no data to claim it is fraud.

      you sophism is classic, like all fan of conspiracy theory;
      – any thing that you ignore is an evidence of a fraud, a conspiracy
      – everything tha prove that it is not a fraud, is faked is reported by suspiscious people, accomplice…

      that is a classic scheme I know well…

      any thanks to make us more comfortable and for having increased the confidence on the given evidence.

    23. Please stop trying to escape the facts with hypercritic method.
      First looks at the setup on the video and the water jet used to miw all… it is nealy closed and throwed into the sewer.
      second you simply have no data, not certainty, just a visible desire to claim it is fake…
      it is clear you desperately want to prove it is fake.
      I agree there are some data missing , but sure you have no data to claim it is fraud.

      you are an obtuse man.

      Do you have eyes on front of the head to see? Look the demo video at link:

      in particular around min 1.13.37 and/or min 1.13.40

      IT VERY CLEAR that the red FAUCET along the pipe of cold water, need to cool the steam into the sink, WAS CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!
      Therefore no cold water was supplied to cool nothing.
      Look the FAUCET of cold water, IT WAS CLOSED!!!!!!!!!

      you sophism is classic, like all fan of conspiracy theory;
      – any thing that you ignore is an evidence of a fraud, a conspiracy
      – everything tha prove that it is not a fraud, is faked is reported by suspiscious people, accomplice…
      that is a classic scheme I know well…
      any thanks to make us more comfortable and for having increased the confidence on the given evidence.

      Again you are able only to write: blah, blah…

      Are you finally aware now? IT WAS A FALSE.
      They CHEATED you.

      You are simply a crazy and blind man that speak without know of what speaking.

    24. JCM, I don’t know what you saw in the video. I was there. The cold water was poring all the time.

    25. Mats, look with cure the video that I linked.

      In any case how many cold water (mass) were into the sink? Did you measured it?
      Did you measured also the temperature of water into the sink?

      I give you an important information to convince you and Alain that I do not lie, also I was there…

    26. One thing I really regret not having done was opening the valve just after the thermocouple on the outlet side — the valve we used for calibrating the water flow on the control run, leading to the tube pointing towards the floor — while closing the valve on the tube leading to the sink. In that way I would have had a visible experience of the steam flow.
      Did you do that? Or did you think of doing it?

    27. Yes, I asked a lot of times but they, aware that I might discover that was a cheat, have prevented me.

    28. They said that in this case the steam by-pass the long pipe (the long U pipe uppside down) and this would alter the delicate equilibrium of pressure at “reactor” output.
      Excuse technically inconsistent just to avoid any modification to their set-up.

    29. Mats, when I watched inside the sink, the steam (coming out from the pipe) was not even dipped into the cooling water (few water) to allow a condensation (the pipe ended about 1-2 cm before to touch water surface and the little steam came out).

      When you looked into, did you note this or was it different?

    30. I couldn’t see any water surface in the sink — the outlet of the sink seemed completely open.
      The cooling water was pouring slowly just next to the outlet of the steam, as to cool down the steam flow.
      0.7 liters of water per minute would mean about 1,200 liters of dry steam per minute or 20 liters per second. If the steam was effectively cooled by the pouring cold water, and thus partly condensed, I believe that it could possibly be consistent with what I observed in terms of the sound of flowing gas and the amount of gas that could be swallowed by the sink. I didn’t observe any significant steam flow escaping upwards from the sink.

      Actually, I just realized that the sound of gas in the sink, which could be observed, could be due to an depression on the sink’s outlet creating a drawing force on the gas (air/steam) in the sink, effectively pulling out the steam.

    31. Mats you say that couldn’t see any water surface in the sink.
      I saw about 1/2 cm of water just on bottom of that sink but it doesn’t matter because in any case is the confirm of insufficient cooling water.
      The steam pipe ended just into the gray sink, no extending into the sink pipe.

      Returning to your comment, 0.7 liters per minute of water flux incoming into reactor cooling circuit, means that at output should be produced 42 kg per hour of dry steam and to be cooled down using additional cold water, 30 kW must be extracted.

      if you would condensate this quantity of steam need at least 360 kg/h of water perfectly mixed (anyway you will see a residual part of steam in atmosphere).
      360 kg per hour of cold water to cool down means that in the sink you should be present at least 1 liter of cold water (new cold water at temperature of 20°C) each ten seconds and this quantity of water wasn’t present.

      if were produced 42 kg/h of steam mean a volume of 16.5 m3 each hour, that is 4.6 liters each second (at 150°C the steam density is 2.55 kg/m3, pressure about 5 bar).
      Considering a steam temperature less (110°C), at the sink the steam velocity in a pipe 17mm of inner diameter, is about 200 km/h or a pipe 22mm of inner diameter is 125 km/h, in any case you must hear a great hiss.

      These are physic data that confirm to you that the reactor never produce 360 kg/h of steam but much less (orders of magnitude less).

      Anyway Mats if you are in the position to convince them to allow a public test without any constraints (like NDA or unjustified limitations to the test set-up), I will participate willingly with you and will give other solid proofs that they are cheating.

      I bet with you that they will not give you ever this chance.

    32. that is new data.

      if the water flow in the sink was much below the 5 liter per minute (which is a normal tap in lavatory – I have tested one at work at 1l per 10 seconds).
      my hypothesis look wrong as is.

      first point is the power of the reactor. as Defkalion said maybe is it wet steam or water. It does not match the flat period around 100C observed during the heating.

      another is the flowmeter, which induce doubt on the sincerity of the demo.
      Question is how the bucket was fooled.

      the other proposed by Matt is that the sink hole is using venturi effect to swallow steam, but the flow of water should be very high to swallow so much gas (anyway condensing it quickly)…

      a mitigating effect maybe that the heat escape partially through the pipes, warming the room. But it cannot be so much… not more than half of the power, probably less.

      If you don’t trust the flowmeter, and imagine trick to fool the buckets, then there is room for doubt.

      There is still room for reality, though many factors, too rough estimation of cooling water, wet steam (look improbable), cooling in the output pipes, steam swallowed in the pipe by the water flow, steam swallowed by cooling first and then condensing, bad hypothesis whether the sink is open.
      It is a doubtful result now, just asking a tweaking of the flowmeter and the bucket (no easy hypothesis for that, but can imagine).

      the slow cooling water (look like few liter per minute) should be enough to un-superheat the steam toward 100C wet. that should reduce steam volume and thus cause aspiration, but much less than condensation… steam should sent into the sewers.

      There is also rooms for errors on the setup, since it was not inspected with that question in mind… no verification whether steam could go out…

      for another test, there is need to check the stream flow, the cooling water flow at least, and details on the sink-hole setup.

      Peter have proposed to remix some cold water with the steam, and to measure it’s temperature afterward.
      The setup could be simple. A Y split with about 10% of water to the reactor, and 90% toward the mixer (no need to be precise as long as there is no steam after the mixer), and after the reactor, steam is remixed with 90% water.

      So yes, now I agree, it was an insufficient demo to remove doubt.

      maybe Matt, could you ask Defkalion explanation about the details we discuss, what was the “sink hole”, the flow they claim, the explanation, whether it was closed or not…

      the question is whether there can be any demo that remove doubt, whether you don’t trust flowmeter checked with bucket, powermeter checked with hand instruments…

      When nothing is trusted what can be science? where is the limit of what can be trusted?
      Hypercritical method is to move the target as fast as the condition are fulfilled. It works well.

      My opinion as I published it on hot and cold fusion skeptical site, was that the test be interactive with skeptics asking for tests… the doubt raised on Elforsk tests, on Defkalion demo, on earlier E-cat tests with hot water and steam, could have been addressed quickly if the test was still running few days after.

      The protocol proposed by peter, based on splitting and remixing water seems interesting.

      access to any flow, current, voltage, would solve many question. we should see the steam (how?) , hear it

      I really think that to close the controversy the test should be broadcasted, with skeptics sending their hypothesis all the time.
      It should last for days or weeks.

      In fact it is probably what Elforsk or Nelson did more or less alone, but it was not enough public, not enough benefiting from the crowd.

    33. first point is the power of the reactor, as Defkalion said maybe is it wet steam or water
      If 150°C of measured temperature at reactor output was true, the steam was dry, indeed pretty superheated.

      Question is how the bucket was fooled?
      They are skilled illusionists. Flow measurements with the buckets and weighing were a staging to throw smoke in the eyes to convince people of the goodness of their set-up.
      It would be enough simply to take note of the reading of the main flow-meter that is part the grid (the external meter from the company that supply the water and not included in the “their set-up” but ever available), and you would have found that (cunningly) only during the “demo with Hydrogen” the real flow was regolatde/reduced at about between one-fifteenth and one-twentieth, therefore not corresponded what they showed on monitor.

      a mitigating effect maybe that the heat escape partially through the pipes, warming the room. But it cannot be so much… not more than half of the power, probably less.
      A lot less of half power (half power means 15kW), if you observe the video all the windows were closed, just a standard air conditioner 2-3kW at working, Mats and the other 3-4 people (or more) present in the room were not sweaty or signs of overheating.

    34. Mats, you wrote:
      no consideration was taken to vaporization enthalpy. Yet the temperature at the output reached over 160 degrees Celsius with and open ended output tube, thus basically at atmospheric pressure. …
      If all the water was vaporized, the output thermal power would have been above 27 kW.

      Can you explain why they did consider the most large thermal energy due to vaporization enthalpy?
      Do you think that they were/are so unwary?

      I gave you technical elements to understand that they are cheating and explained in detail why.
      Now after our discussion, do you think yet that all you seen were really genuine?

    35. JCM, I’m aware there are many issues. As I noted in the initial post – “if you believe the values presented…”

    36. Sorry Mats, one question in my previous comment was:

      Can you explain why they did consider ignore the most large thermal energy due to vaporization enthalpy?

    37. JCM, because there has been so much discussions on dry/wet steam and corresponding enthalpy. As I understand it they just chose to be conservative.

    38. It seems that it is linked to the huge controversy around the Nov2011 e-cat test when there was huge claim that the steam was not dry, unlike what Rossi and the test team assumed from some instruments, that was not so adapted (hygrometer)…

      Defkalion have followed all controversies, and seems quite sensible. They get also surprised by many similar criticism when proposing their test protocol (static calorimetry). they had to change to flow calorimetry.
      They also were challenged by nelson during his test, while he was insisting in avoiding phase change…

      Sure they know that phase change cause controversies. this time it is them neglecting it which cause controversy.

      I imagine that anything create controversy…
      we need to address any real or imagined controversy as soon as they are raised : real-time debunking. this is the only way to challenge hypercritical method.

    39. Alain, your explanation isn’t applicable, the current situation is quite different from E-Cat test.
      It isn’t a matter of “controversies”, in this case we are speaking of high temperature steam.

      During this Hyperion demo, the declared/measured steam temperature, at reactor cooling circuit output, was around 150-160°C, manipulation of pressure was absent, this means that steam is completely “dry”, indeed overheated, no instrument is required to evaluate the steam quality, therefore the vaporization enthalpy should be taking into account to get thermal energy really produced.

      They didn’t it and are trying to hide behind a small leaf, in the attempt to cheat unskilled people.

    40. Mats, considering that output steam temperature has been measured and the value was in the range 150-160 Celsius degree, what they said about an important residual fraction of “wet” steam still present (able to reduce significantly the vaporization enthalpy), in this case technically, did convince you really?
      At T 150 Celsius and standard pressure condition. do you believe that the quality of steam is so poor that is better to give up vaporization enthalpy at all?

      Honestly it seems to me a very shaky motivation, but if you believe yes, could you explain me with data why?

    41. If the temperature value is correct I have no reason to believe that the steam was wet. But from experience I think that other people would find ways to argue that the steam quality was not known and that including the enthalpy would be a source of error. I believe this was one reason for Defkalion to stay on the conservative side and exclude it.

    42. I agree that the 150C, and most of all the flat period at 100C let few doubt it is dry steam, at atmospheric pressure.

      Today we have 2 credible hypothesis:
      – the “sinkhole” was open, the flow of cooling water was below 5l/minute
      – Defkalion tweaked the flowmeter, with stage magic, fooled the bucket,
      – Defkalion was so sure of their tricks that they allowed an observer to look at all
      – Defkalion fooled Nelson of Nasa who played alone and was always obeyed
      – the were so sure of their tricks that they let him play with the reactor and took the risk to say him all was possible
      – there was no other serious third party test
      – thus there is no partners (any partners will as a 3rd party test)
      – Defkalion EU is fooled also
      – they were so sure of their trick that they fooled Defkalion EU too
      – observers here are so smart that they found the trick that Nelson, DGT EU did not find or consider as questionable
      – since nov 2011 Defkalion have some secret plan to take money from their reputation on internet (since no partners, impossible to go public on TSX ), and did not do it in 2011-2012.

      – the sinkhole is not like we imagine, more or less closed (so no steam in the room, few noise)
      – the flow is not far from 5l/minute like a normal sink tap (no pressure or heat in the sink)
      – it works

      I cannot yet decide between the two possibilities.

      Can you?

      anyway we need a new test which address that problem, and they claim it will be in september with DGT EU.

    43. Alain,
      the sink was completely open at ambient pressure.
      Mats has seen from close and can confirm you that it had not any cover.

      I cannot yet decide between the two possibilities. Can you?
      Oh, yes I can. My answer is quite simple, certainly scenery number 1.
      They planned and organized a cheat.

      They never will perform new tests in September with DGT EU to show that all they claimed was really genuine. You can bet.

      I understand your delusion (a bit also the mine) but I realized that you don’t want (not: you can’t) open your eyes.
      All I told/showed to you and to Mats is the bitter truth.

      If you want to continue to delude yourself and to dream, I can not really stop you.
      When finally you will realize (I can’t say when [Alain, end of September?], because you head is very hard) that they have deceived, I hope you will have at least the intellectual honesty to say clearly to all that they cheat.

    44. Again Alanco you obfuscate. It was not that you were “too optimistic” It was that you believed Defkalion without reservation.

      They lied and you swallowed it. Its that simple!

      As far as I can recall the Nelson report was not one of the 7. But as my memory is weak on that point I won’t push it. But what I will say is that the Nelson report did not follow the testing procedures outlined in Defkalion’s testing procedures pdf. The one that I agreed sounded reasonable.

      So from this we have
      Defkalion lied
      Defkalion released a substandard report by a person who is in my opinion too accepting with NO verification of claims
      You continue in your promotion of Defkalion against what amounts to common sense.

      If you read the other comments you will see the claim of steam is falling apart. even DGT’s own measurements do not allow for dry steam. and the claim that it was COMPLETELY cooled back to water is also fallacious. unless you use a proper condenser you cannot simply mix water and steam and hope it will all condense back to water.

      Mats assumes he mismeasured the input power. It may be Mats measurement is correct or closer than what was on display and what DGT had displayed was the result of manipulation.

      Until the likes of Rossi and DGT allowed third party testing using certified calibrated equipment these demo’s are just shams designed to get the pompom crowd dancing.

      For the rest of us who resolve to use critical thinking even flawed critical thinking it is an embarrassment to see those pompoms fly.

      You obviously dont trust them enough to put your money where your mouth is so why promote them like you do?

    45. I share this view of DGT. Especially since there is no Nelson report. He did not measure anything as it was another steam run that could not be quantified and DGT refused to increase the flow rate to remove the phase change. They insisted on ambiguity.

    46. please read the report, and ask gibbs if Nelson confirm having done the claimed test.

      now since the report is genuine because confirmed, knowing how Nelson have bashed Rossi in a previous test, we have to find an explanation which is not a conspiracy theory.

      note Chris, that I have the symmetrical opinion on your position.

      if DGT have tried to fool Matt they will have done it in a reliable way.
      once again you theories are not credible…

    1. An email reply from Dr. KIm confirms this:

      Me: Dear Dr. Kim, Can you please tell me whether or not you made the field measurement of 1.6 Tesla yourself? If so, how close to the reactor were you, and what instrument did you use?

      Dr. Kim: I did not. Please ask John Hadjichristo of Defkalion who did meassurements.
      Yeong Kim

      Case closed.

    2. And if JH says the canadian standards association did the measuring did the measuring… is the case still closed. Jeeze.

    3. classic nay-believer reasoning:
      – if not sure it is falseo
      – if fraud possible it is fraud
      – if done by someone, it is not independent, thus not sure, thus false, thus a fraud

      of, Defkalion claim they have found about 1 Tesla field… not enough detail, not replicated… we should stay prudent.
      but when NASA say they found water on Mars, do you ask ESA to send a probe to check?

      formally I agree that we have to wait to confirm… I won’t bet against that claim, but artifact and misunderstanding (less now that Yeong Kim confirmed the value) are still possible.
      Red Herring is not so logic, since Defkalion made a seduction dance at ICCF17 and 18, and that kind of announce if manipulation would be an insult to researchers.
      Last hypothesis is measurement artifact… possible.
      Scientifically LENR is linked with super-conduction as both involve collective behavior, and there are suspicion of proton superconduction.

      anyway you only point is to delay the moment when you will have to admit the fact, saying that you were anyway right because there was not enough evidence…

      you behave like an armchair scientist, waiting for retirement before the books change.

      you have no interest in finding the truth before the last moment. that is what allow people to be so crazily desperately skeptics, despite the huge mesh of evidence…

    4. I did, but I express unprecisely, when I mean he confirm, I mean the number. He did not confirm he did the measure, just that it is about a Tesla…
      so it is not 1mT which DGT told him.

      of course you trust nobody, so what ever is said by someone who propose or accept LENR is value less… Only those who deny LENR are credible.

  63. “So you appear to think that there must be victims somewhere? So where are the whistleblowers and or victims hiding? Nobody so far has claimed to be a victim, have they? BTW, Keef are you of the opinion that all the commercializers of LENR are bogus? Does the LENR effect even exist at all as far as your concerned?”

    I don’t know about all the commercializers of LENR. Most have not shown any demos. Defkalion and Rossi appear to specialize in highly defective, incomplete and misleading demos. That suggests scam.

    It takes years, sometimes decades for scams to become evident. Investors don’t complain for a variety of reasons including a fear of precipitating the loss of their investment and also embarrassing themselves. Many are True Believers and they don’t know that they are being cheated. Examples abound. It took years for investors in Dennie Lee and in Carl Tilley to have them arrested but arrested and convicted they were. Steorn has still not been brought to justice. Neither has Blacklight Power nor EEstor despite all sorts of misleading statements and claims for many years for both companies. No products or believable results from either company.

    There are probably victims of both Rossi and Defkalion “out there”. It may be a long time, if ever, if they admit who they are and file suits.

    That’s some of the reasons a lot of high tech scammers think they can get away with it. And many do.

  64. First, I want to thank Mats for doing as good a job as he could under daunting circumstances. Mats avoided the mistakes he made when Rossi convinced him about the eCat back in 2011.

    There is no way that a single person, who didn’t expect to be validating measurements, can properly analyze a demonstration. There were three other observers that were to be there, according to Defkalion. I don’t blindly accept the contention that they failed to show up because they didn’t want to be associated with cold fusion claims. What professional says they will witness a demonstration and then fails to show? I think that it’s more likely that Defkalion was trying to pump things up with observer claims that weren’t true.

    I found the demonstration totally unconvincing and unscientific. The Defkalion claim that they were being conservative by not considering water heat of vaporization reminds me of a magician’s sleight of hand. The magician distracts the audience with meaningless misdirection. No proper scientific demonstration fails to accurately measure all mass/energy inputs and outputs.

    In terms of wet steam, there’s something that I think many don’t know. If you can see steam, then it’s wet. Dry steam cannot be seen. I’ve worked in plants most of my career, and the danger of steam leaks that can’t be seen is very well known.

    To me, it’s blatantly obvious that Defkalion is fraudulent. While it’s remotely possible that they are delusional, I’ve pretty much discarded that option. There’s just been too many obvious lies for me to accept the possibility that they have something real.

    1. I agree. Mats did the best possible job under the circumstances. He was courageous to go there at all. In addition to the risk to his reputation, Defkalion provided no measurement of and no protection against radiation despite their claim that their system makes gammas. If the reaction had destabilized and run away, and it really made substantial gamma radiation, it would have caused severe radiation injury or even killed the observers. There was also no shielding against explosion from thermal runaway and no protection against live hot dry steam if any was being generated. Either the reaction was not as described or that environment was very unsafe.

      Either way, Mats did a fine job with what he had to work with. Any deception was not his fault. Guess whose it was?

  65. Mats, I am wondering why DGT had a public demo. What motivated them to do it? How does it help them? Is it just the urge to show off? Or are there solid business reasons? What is your opinion on that? And if you get a chance to talk to them in the near future, can you ask them about this? Thanks

    1. The most obvious answer is that they want to attrack customers. It is so obvious that we missed it. Defkalion used the peanut gallery and ICCF-18 as an advertising prop. (:->)

    2. “The most obvious answer is that they want to attrack customers.”

      If Rossi and Defkalion are, as I suspect, investor/distributor scams, they have no customers and never will have any. You can’t sell customers products that don’t work at least a little bit as advertised. It’s against the law in most places.

      Instead of customers, these two get their money from people hoping to profit by investing and buying distributorships. If the scheme is a scam, it takes many years for it to be recognizes as such. The perpetrators always have excuses for delays. It’s to avoid revealing secrets to the competition, it’s because they can’t get a patent (nonsense!), it’s because they are developing a new and better version, it’s because the regulators take too long (ridiculous) and so on, See any of those in Rossi’s writings?

      Or you just ignore what you said before. Nothing predictable from Defkalion’s now deleted forum (why did they do that?) has come true.

      So no. The last thing they want is to attract customers. Anyway for a product like a cold fusion reactor that makes almost free heat, there is no need to attract. If there was such a product at any remotely reasonable price, billions could be sold every year. BILLIONS!

    3. You think the whole world of new energy is a scam. There must be 5 or 6 LENR companies, plus 4 or 5 hot fission or hot fusion companies, and additional variations of all the above. I know one that in addition to selling finished products, plans to sell an affordable DIY book so anyone can build their own. Does he sound like a scammer?

  66. How about this?

    The particle accelerators are composed of a metal material (usually powdered Ni) capable of conducting electricity, absorbing hydrogen atoms in the interstitial spaces in the metal lattice forming a metal hydride, and a dielectric material (electric field creator usually in powdered form) capable of being polarized. The nanoparticles accelerators create, enhance and focus localized electric fields and thus accelerate hydrogen ions and electrons. The catalytic nano-powders allow for the formation and storage of Rydberg matter and inverted Rydberg matter in the same reaction chamber where the nanoscale particle accelerators are producing high-energy electrons and protons. Quantum tunneling allows high-energy protons to overcome the Coulomb barrier, which then allows nuclear fusion to take place between the protons and lattice atoms. The Rydberg matter and inverted Rydberg matter formed by local low-level electric fields condense to form condensed Rydberg matter, which when exploded by high intensity electric fields provide additional protons that increase the probability that fusion with lattice atoms takes place with the release of additional energy. It appears that the invention itself depends on the efficacy of the reactions posited above. There appear to be two kinds of processes at work. Each process appears to produce protons, which then produce excess heat by tunneling through the Coulomb barrier, each helping the other to make the tunneling process more efficient in producing heat energy.

  67. Hi Mats,

    As I understand it, your HV power measurements were greater than those reported in Labview. I can think of two possible reasons for this (without resorting to anything ‘suspicious’).

    First is simply to do with power factor – you took an RMS current measurement and an RMS voltage measurement at a subsequent time (correct me if I’m wrong), so there was no information on instantaneous phase (=> power factor). This would result in power overestimation. The discrepancy between the two methods can have any value, depending on power factor.

    The second is slightly more subtle, but can be found in slides 23 and 24 of . This is obviously related to ‘the other fella’, but the argument holds. If the current is pulsed, say by the variacs, then the actual average power will always be lower than the calculated RMS average power. Again, the discrepancy can have any value.

    I’d like to thank you for taking the measurements you did, I found it an informative demonstration, and think you did a great job under the circumstances. It’s a real shame the other observers didn’t show up, the more eyes and questions on this the better.

    1. An everyday example of the effect of power factor are energy saving fluorescent lamps.
      The input circuit of these products has a full wave rectifier bridge followed by an electrolytic capacitor. Input current only flows at the top of the mains voltage.
      An 18W, 230V version is typically rated at 130 mA RMS current. If you multiply voltage and current you get 30 VA, not 18W, so the powerfactor must be 0.6.
      In the Defkalion demo the powerfactor seems to be around 0.2, so the pulse frequency would be well below 50 Hz with bursts of short duration.
      No magic trick or cheating here, sorry for the skeptics.

    2. Henk gives a correct example of a sine wave input into a capacitive filter. The PF will read about 0.6 which is greatly different from the 5 to 1 difference Mats found. This is the same PF given from a switch mode power supply that does not have PF correction. The most likely error cause is the HV load was pulsing on and off at a high frequency, though I can’t be sure what the effect on the meter would be. The best solution is to use a current probe on the scope. Many scopes have true RMS readings so that would be the way to read the value as well. This gives you the voltage, current, power (if a voltage probe is used as well.) and a visual look at the waveforms.

  68. Mats, any updates from Defkalion on who the other observers they invited were, and why they didn’t show?

    This is important for the credibility of this test. If the other observers turn out to not exist, it doesn’t help their story.

  69. Think of skeptopaths like hoarders. You can talk to them until you are blue in the face and they will even agree with you, but trying to throw away some junk would be like trying to get a gold bar out of the hands of a miser. Or, think of them as like people suffering from anorexia nervosa. Again, your face will go blue before they will admit that they are too skinny. They seem perfectly reasonable, but they are crazy. There is no point in reading their comments or responding to them. They are going crazy trying to keep the flood waters back. They MUST maintain their precious paradigm at all costs. They will lie and insult and hurl abuse and hatred in order to maintain their neat little paradigm. The good news is that it doesn’t matter what they say or do, their little world is coming to an end, to be replaced by a better world, but they don’t see that yet.

    1. Please Roger, end this discussion now.
      If you have solved the problem with those you define as skeptopaths by not reading their comments, please also avoid to comment on this. Ok?

  70. The temperature readings are troubling on several levels. I have work with superheated water inside 1/4″ tubing. At 160C the end would be screaming and creating a plume 10 feet long. Since Matt did not describe that, then the temperature was below 101C.

    So the thermal output cannot be learned from that thermocouple, because it is obviously not measuring any true water temperature. This inconsistency eliminates any level of precision and the result could be anything you can imagine as long as the COP numbers were falling.

    1. Brian, I cannot say how long the plume would have been if the steam was let out in the room. Now it was directed down a small sink where it was cooled by pouring cold water from another tube.
      The thermocouple was positioned far away from other heat sources so it would have to be erroneous to show the wrong temperature.
      The water was apparently evaporated and there was no other way for water to disappear. Water flow was calibrated.
      My own experience from steam flow is that it is less violent than you expect.

    2. I spent years with superheated water exiting small pipes. It is outside of your experience. The steam tables are quite clear on this topic as well.

      There had to be a thermocouple error. Nevertheless, I am glad you got some data.

    3. Brian, I respect your greater experience, but I don’t think we had superheated water here. There was reasonably no significant pressure above atmospheric pressure. So I believe it was plain steam that was heated to that temperature.

    4. Mats,
      Did you see how the cool water stream was applied to cool the steam? Was there a radiator of some sort?

    5. Just water flowing slowly from a tap a few centimeters from the steam outlet in the sink.

    6. That poor cooling setup is alarming. If the system was generating 500 grams of steam per minute, it had to go somewhere. And some water dripping through the steam plume would not help much to condense the steam into the sink.
      Thanks a lot for helping Defkalion with the demonstration and for sharing the experience with us.

    7. Mats, the water does not need to be superheated per se. As mentioned above (and from my comment on Twitter), it is a very simple calculation of flow rate for the gas versus tube diameter to determine the speed. People are welcome to check my math, but as a rough estimate, 0.56 liters/minute would be 15 liters/second of dry steam and the tube appears to be about 18mm OD, and based on experience with similar tubing, a 12 mm ID. So cross section of 1,1 cm^2. 15.000 cc/sec divided by 1,1 (13.636), or 0,136 km/s or 490 km/hr (290 mph for us Yanks), A rather strong gust to be so noiseless. Not sure as to the setup, but a slow trickle of water should have a null effect through a plastic hose with limited conductivity. As I said previously, there really seems to be a lot of water, in some form, not accounted for in the outflow.

    8. Your getting crazy in trying to prove your delusion.
      this time the setup was simple, and you say it was too simple.
      would it be more complex, like rossi, and you would say too complex to be honest.

      they do flow because you moaned you needed flow calorimetry, and now you moan on it…

      you lack of honesty , desperately.

      it is ridiculous.

    9. I was under the impression that this blog concerned itself with the significance of the observations, and the possible science behind them.

      I am getting thoroughly tired of these hack, amateur psychology attempts by these True Believers. They contribute absolutely nothing. It is like having to listen to a loud, crying baby. It has no place here.

    10. I agree with mjt that the flow rate of dry steam in the test run immediately after evaportion must have been about 15 liters/second. I’m puzzled, however, how non of the commenters who claim to be technically competent and experienced seems to take account of the Joule–Thomson effect (temperature drop due to pressure loss). When Mats said that in his experience steam flow looks a lot less dramatic that you would expect, that observation is indeed explained by that effect. Add the active cooling to that (and don’t forget that the steam temperature was “only” about 160°C) and I have no doubts that it inconspicuously vanished in the sink.

    11. If we redo the output power calculation based on this information, I reckon the COP comes down to as close to 1.0 as makes no difference. I’d love to know where that output temperature data came from. Since it was processed through LabView, it might have come from program data 🙂

    12. Brian, you are exactly right. If the flow rate and the temperatures were as the data showed, the steam plume would have been roaring. Has anyone stopped to think about how much steam is generated from 0.5 liters of water evaporating in 1 minute? The answer is ~14 liters/second. My guess is the experiment was rigged. Defkalion sent the computer flow rates which were different than the actual flow rate after they started the run with hydrogen. When the temperature increased on the thermacouples, it was because the technician decreased the actual flow rate instead of increasing it.

      We have to ask ourselves a question here: Why, after did Defkalion, after doing such a nice job calibrating the setup and running a control, change where the output hot water/steam was sent? Why couldn’t they let the water and steam continue to flow into the bucket? Maybe the didn’t want us to see it?

      If the public is to believe this is not a scam, the critical measurements of temperature and flow should have redundant measurement devices installed so the observers could double check the computer was giving valid results.

    13. @mjt and @Doubting Thomas, you bring up very good arguments.
      From your experience: is there a possibility that the water evaporating in the pipe could interfere with the flow meter? The meter is very far from the reactor.
      Defkalion should be able to validate their setup internally and verify that the flow is as measured.
      I must say that even with this error, the results indicate a large power excess over the control run, which did not evaporate the water.

  71. A far better control than argon would have been to simply remove the nickel and keep the hydrogen. That’s thermodynamically superior for a control, because it’s more similar.

    1. Hi Andrew,

      The way I see it, is that the argon test is *one of* the control tests that can be done, and is still informative. Seeing as the (alleged) reaction requires both Ni and H, then having Ni+Ar showing no excess output power is one control. Then one could go on to show that H+nothing is another control. If you like, you could use Ni+He if you aren’t concerned about helium detection later, but still one has to admit that Ni+Ar is one of the possible controls to be done.

      Looking at Defkalion’s diagram on page 11 of I would expect the thermal mass or conductivity of the gas in the chamber would make a negligible difference to a control run output power or efficiency. The vast majority of heat transport is from the heaters to the water pipes, which doesn’t depend on the inner gas at all. The power from the spark plugs might depend on the gas, but even then, hardly at all at equilibrium.

      For sure it needs more testing…

    2. br, from my perspective it wasn’t even a test. It was a sophisticated demo with a nod towards certainty. It was Defkalion giving a demo among friends.

  72. Hi Matts,

    on personal communication, Yiannis told me this:


    For the HV power:one had to calculate also its duty cycle (approx 20%).
    There were some mistakes done during this demo (at conditions never before experienced). The most serious was done by the observer Matts Lawen who caused a general electric power fail to tje entire building (fortuantly during the degasing phase) when trying to connect an oscilloscope in a board. Other minnors also (my responsibilty of course), mainly on synchronizing the test protocol with broadcasting and ICCF schedule (which was annoying to my team). I was sleepless for 3 days, with a jet lag traveling from Vancouver and I allmost colapsed one hour before scheduled sutdown. That is why we had to stop 30minutes before schedule not completing the broadcast with absolute cooling down. Some 5 late questions from ICCF I replied just now through email from the hotel.
    I think that we achived something positive today.The public reactions are more positive than expected.

    1. Yes, you might have noticed the black out caused by me if you followed the web cast. Fortunately nothing was damaged. In the end it might have been good as it at some extent showed that ordinary grid power was used.
      The duty cycle of the HV generator shouldn’t have any importance. Consumed power is consumed power. My main hypothesis for now is that the load was capacitive or inductive and that my measurement was an over-estimate since I couldn’t measure phase. The NI board should be capable of this..

    2. Did you actually measure the power being delivered into the core of the device? It would seem to me that just measuring the input power of the device providing the power to the core itself without measuring the actual output power of the device would not be adequate to calculate the power consumed,or fed into, the core. If there is any sort of funny business taking place, measuring that sparkplug wire directly would confirm or deny it pretty quickly.


  73. Mary Yugo and ilk. You are really being a tiresome and petty bunch. I can appreciate a true skeptic, but that you are not. Give us all a break- we all know what you think on the issue as you have posted it like graphitti on every blog available- so much so that Wired.UK.

    1. So let me get this straight – you place yourself on the side of the liars, because you yourself just demonstrated that? Is that about right? If so, I wish you the joy of it

    2. Andrew, you say that they are liars, but you cannot prove it. So, I gotta believe that you are a slanderizer. And you can’t deny that until you can prove that Rossi and Defkalion are liars, and failing to deliver on an enthusiasm powered promise to the peanut gallery does not count. I would be very careful if I were you Andrew and pick your words carefully. If you continue in this direction of trying to force your perspective on to others, and if Mats does not ban you, I will shun you.

      You realize that you are trying to force your perspective on others. I am not doing this. I am saying that this is what I believe, and you can believe anyway that you like. You are telling people that they are stupid or evil if they believe differently from you.

  74. Neither Pons or Fleischmann ever lied deliberately and repeatedly. Such cannot be said for either Defkalion or Rossi. Based on that, my threshold for belief for these two is extremely high. So far, neither of them are even close to exceeding that threshold.

    1. At least long enough to know that there’s nothing to be gained by reading your posts. Admittedly, this was not long. You see, when a person professes a belief, as have you, then there is nothing more to be said of scientific value. I may as well discuss the lack of evidence for The Exodus with a rabbi.

    2. The noise generated by Yugo and Palfreyman is intolerable. I unsubscribed. It’s a shame these weevils have to spam every last conversation with their ignorance and paranoia. I would love to follow Mats but with these people around, it is impossible.

    3. Dear D R, I know what you mean. It just takes a little self-control. When the email opens, keep your eyes focused on the name while the mouse is hovering over the delete key. If it is maryyugo or any of her ilk, simply delete their comments. If everyone does this, and does not respond to their illness, then they will go away, hopefully. If they are furiously commenting here and no one is reading, then they won’t be pestering other people who have not taken the pledge. (:->)

    4. Dear Lunsford,
      I’m sorry to hear this.
      I agree that the discussion often gets out of the subject, but I want to let anyone express his or her opinion as far as possible.
      I still haven’t banned anyone. The only thing I do is canceling comments with personal attacks or plain insults (although I can stand to be insulted myself).
      But please folks, try to stick to the point and don’t repeat the same arguments too much.

    5. Just as long as they are happy to have politicians read their stuff. Personally, I’d put a lid on it were I they. These columns get shared all across this big old world.

    6. You don’t get the comments in the subscription, do you?

      I just scan over MY’s comments. It’s not that hard.. Better that then living in a censored world.

    7. Yes. Sadly “these people” provide facts and rebuttals you can’t counter so you just avoid the discussion. It’s what you always do in other forums and discussions.

    8. yes it is hard to keep up your adulation when someoe comes along and points out inconvenient facts.

      Rather than making dumb statements Please debate the topic. we would love to hear some clear and concise rebuttals.

      Just remember in your rebuttals you cant quote DGT because that is just “DGT says” it must be considered tainted.

      Its the same thing as asking the prisoner. “did you kill the girl” “no I did not” “Oh Ok thanks you can go free. Have a nice day.”

      I am afraid if YOUR level of evidence was the norm in society then we would have a lot more murderers wandering the streets.

    9. Try this noise:
      “A far better control than argon would have been to simply remove the nickel and keep the hydrogen. That’s thermodynamically superior for a control, because it’s more similar.”

  75. ” Mats Lewan said:

    If this is working, it will save millions of lives every year, just by providing clean water to all humans on Earth. If it’s a scam, a few people will loose some money. Choose.”

    One must not minimize the damage that high tech scams do, much less large financial scams like Bernard Madoff who did serious harm to thousands of people and caused innocent people to lose billions of dollars.

    If Rossi and Defkalion are scams, it will be remembered that Rothwell, the main archivist of cold fusion/LENR literature and one of its main supporters, was taken in. Same with Edmund Storms. Same with all the proponents who write on Vortex. The next time these people support a new scheme and perhaps a grant request, they will be laughed out of the room. That’s a serious problem. Cold fusion/LENR does not need more bad publicity!

    In addition, convicted criminals like Rossi make money on scams and leave disasters behind like the environmental one he left in an Italian province. And there is credible evidence (a DOD report) that Rossi took two million dollars of tax payer money for a thermoelectric project on false pretenses. He said he had a working prototype but no reported test of that prototype exists. Rossi said it was tested by the University of New Hampshire but just as with Rossi’s claims his ecat was tested by universities, no reports of such tests can be found. At least not by me and I looked.

    So Rossi has made millions of dollars already in what are best described as false claims. And lending him credibility can damage yours.

  76. “As I have stated before here — if this technology is real it can save millions of lives every just by providing clean water to all humans on Earth. If it instead is a scam I will have to endure being accused of being naive and gullible, accepting to participate as an observer and reporting.
    The choice is easy, as long as it’s not obvious that it is a scam.”

    Well, Mats, I for one am happy you have the energy and determination to attend these dog and pony shows and to report on them to the best of your considerable ability. The more information we get on them, the better, and you provide a lot more information than the claimants would give up if you were not there. Unfortunately for you, the information from the past (wet steam, bad thermocouple placement) suggests that Rossi is a crook. And the lies from the past suggest Defkalion are too.

    While I congratulate you on attending these things and giving accurate reports of them, I have to disagree that somehow you are essential to getting the news out if the claims are real. In fact, Rossi and Defkalion have been told many times by many people how easy it is to prove huge power claims from LENR. They have always refused to do what was recommended. The latest test by Rossi and the current test from Defkalion are no exception.

    If either party arranged for proper independent tests, and these proved that their claims were correct, the millions of lives would be saved a lot quicker than they are being saved now.

    Just for the record, I don’t think you are naive and gullible. I think you are simply overly optimistic and perhaps you have not closely followed the many previous high tech investor scams like Steorn, Sniffex, Mylow, Tilley, etc.

    In fact, there is no better a collection of 100% scams than can be found on Sterling Alan’s pages at Every one of his top schemes is an obvious scam. Maybe, when you have some time, you might want to study his past “discoveries” and check on how they all turned out. Not a SINGLE free energy, magnetic motor, gravity engine, motor-generator set, HHO gasoline booster, or LENR device featured on that web site has EVER been properly tested and shown to work as claimed. Yet many have gotten plenty of money to steal and lots of praise from Alan and his colleagues. THAT should tell you something.

    1. +1. TruScientific :). If I see correlation=1.0 I understand there is a rule of nature behind it. Either human or any other.

      The duscssion here is so full of pity. Why is it? We are witnessing either one of the biggest events in the history or a well done dramatic reaity show. EIther has its value.

  77. Mats,
    From your comments and the high temperature measured, it seems clear that all the water was being converted to steam. At 0.5 liters/min it is a lot of steam and heat accumulating in the room, so most of the steam must be condensed at the drain pipe by the stream of cooling water.
    Can you describe how the cooling water was being applied to the drain stream? Any opinion as to whether the configuration would reasonably dissipate a large fraction of that heat?


  78. Matt Lewan, your update said, “…according to CTO John Hadjichristos there are HUGE magnetic fields inside the reactor…”
    In your opinion, is there any chance this statement may be a subterfuge, a means to throw possible competitors off the track? I mention this, because in the two years that I have been following whatever scraps of information available on the subject, comments by Defkalion or Rossi about magnetic fields are exceedingly vague. I realize this may be in order to protect the secrets of the reactor, but I must confess, it leaves me wondering is magnetic fields are an issue or mere smoke.

    1. Well, somebody clearly misspoke. While it doesn’t prove a scam, it suggests ignorance or carelessness. A 1 Tesla (or anywhere near) field inside a small device like the Hyperion would be extremely easy to demonstrate. And it would be huge nuisance in a measurement lab. For example, it would immediately attract every magnetic object in the room– all the tools, iron-containing objects, everything magnetic. And you can’t shield it. Of course Faraday shields, as mentioned above, don’t do anything at all about magnetic fields. Mu Metal can but not in any quantity compatible with the size of the Hyperion and not for huge fields like Hadjichristos and/or Xanthoulis claimed.

      Big mistakes like that are often obvious “tells” of a scammer. They can’t keep their lies straight. That’s certainly true of Rossi with his 13 sales of megawatt plants but no client has ever admitted buying one and none except the same lame one original example has been seen made or shipped. Same applies to claims of isotopes on the cheap, self destruct devices, million ecat factories, large industrial partners, tests by NI which never took place, tests by universities which never took place, and so on. Honest people with real machines that work have no need for self-aggrandizing lies. But scammer do. It’s well worth remembering that.

  79. Hi Mats,
    I have rather a question than a acomment. Vaporization implies a large change of fluid density, hence of its speed. Have you estimated the steam speed at the exit of the pipe? Have you heard the steam whistling? This is what should happen for steam flowing at high speed…

  80. Dear Mats
    Can You ask defcalion with my Question please?
    At the time from 21:10 till 21:33 the output temp rised from 143°C to 166°C. But inner reactor temp was all the time constant at 355°C-358°C and coolant flow was 0,57 – 0.59 litre/min also constant.
    Is any explanation for this fenomen?
    Thank You fo answer.

  81. Why on earth does anyone – whether they be “believers” or “pathoskeptics” – expect any commercial LENR company to submit their devices to a FULLY independent AND PUBLIC test???? I don’t see that serving any business purpose or goal. If DGT or Leonardo Corp are going to conduct fully independent tests for business reasons – for example, to help sign up established companies as partners – that’s all certainly going to be done PRIVATELY. I think we are lucky to have any seen any demo whatsoever at this point in their development. AT some point DGT and LC are going to have to stop tinkering and start selling and we’ll see what know entities eventually get on the LENR bandwagon and lend their credibility to this story.

    1. @Fibb: so imagine YOU had such a device and it would be stable & reproducably work in that you even give a live demo in the Internet: wouldn’t you arrange for an independent test by a well-renowned 3rd party? Wouldn’t you go to a GE, Siemens, Honeywell et al. and launch a common press release? And if you claim having 40 industrial partners, wouldn’t you be proud to name them? And if you wouldn’t, would not such an industrial partner even be obligated to announce such a deal to its shareholders?
      -sorry, we all here would like to become believers, but the more companies claim being close to commercial release, but don’t come up with official industrial partners, the more probable SCAM it is..

    2. As I said, I think there will be fully independent testing but we won’t know about it. Yes, if it’s real, I do think there will be press releases with the big industrial partners some day. I just think it’s a tad early for that. It’s clear the LENR commercializers we know about haven’t quite finished tinkering with their designs yet. It the industrial partners aren’t named by early 2014 we can all chalk it up to BS and move on. In the scheme of things that’s not much time to wait.

    3. It is chicken and egg for “you” as the person owning the supposed LENR device. You can’t get investors and partners without solid proof of a working device. They will not pay for the validation – you must. So it’s clear which is the chicken and which the egg.

    4. Andrew, just because Rossi and Defkalion have not give us hardcore proof (hard enough to satisfy you) does not mean that they have not given investors hardcore proof. I certainly would not invest my money in something like this unless I had rock solid proof. But, I’m not investing my money. I am only investing my time and enthusiasm, and I seem to have those two in abundance.

    5. How can so many smart people be so dumb. I said the “validation” as you call it would not be PUBLIC. DGT and LC would gain nothing by giving hard core proof to the peanut gallery. This was an awareness raising event. That is all.

    6. And just because Rossi and Defkalion say that they have investors is no reason to believe them unless they provide rock solid proof. Like a name. Got one?

    7. I got a name. Andrea Rossi. He mortgaged his house and more than 6 years of his life to make the E-Cat happen.

    8. “It the industrial partners aren’t named by early 2014 we can all chalk it up to BS and move on. In the scheme of things that’s not much time to wait.”

      Silliness. The same thing has been said of Rossi and he claimed that he in 2007, he was heating a factory with one of his ecats.

      If either Rossi or Defkalion had real high power cold fusion/LENR, the story would not develop like this. It’s insane. Maybe one could be crazy but both? Someone would name their major partners. Someone would do proper testing.

    9. “Fibb said:

      How can so many smart people be so dumb. I said the “validation” as you call it would not be PUBLIC. DGT and LC would gain nothing by giving hard core proof to the peanut gallery. This was an awareness raising event. That is all”.

      That is not the way things have developed. In fact both Rossi and Defkalion have claimed to have done everything the skeptics asked for. The problem is that they lied about that. They didn’t do it. Neither ever claimed to be doing “awareness raising” (whatever the heck that is). Both claim to be doing absolutely definitive tests. Problem is: they’re not.

      When Rossi’s early bad tests using wet steam claimed as dry was called out, he switched to a heat exchanger with what seemed to be deliberately misplaced thermocouples. He never allowed blank (calibration) runs on those. On his latest tests, which he incorrectly claimed were “indipendent”, he included blank runs. However, he left open the possibility that he cheated with the input power because the meter readings looked impossible and three phase power was used when it was not needed. These were not awareness-raising events.

      All of Rossi’s tests were badly and incorrectly done and probably represent attempts at deception. It would have taken less effort to do these correctly.

      Similarly, there was no possible rational reason for Defkalion to use two phase flow (steam and water) in their current experiment. That confuses things and makes accurate calculations of output power essentially impossible because the details of the status of the output stream are not adequately measured. Yet, Defkalion said on their old forum that they had liquid flow calorimeters built into every Hyperion TWO YEARS AGO using high temperature coolants (oils)!

      So you’re asking us to believe they made a special, bad and misleading Hyperion just to screw us up? All this trouble they went to at an international scientific meeting just to do awareness raising with a bad measurement method? What awareness raising does it do? The awareness that Defkalion are incompetent? That they probably lied about what they had two years ago. Very helpful.

      Dream on Fibb.

    10. JH said the purpose of their demo this week was to raise awareness. No way did DGT claim that this demo was to be a definitive test. Quit making shit up.

    11. MY, don’t worry I will. Anybody who thinks these companies, at this stage of product development, would benefit from fully independent and public validation are completely deluded. Meanwhile you can foam at the mouth all over the internet about how it’s all a massive conspiracy. With trillions at stake, I’m surprised you only have 5+ aliases. Pick up your game man.

    12. @Fibb

      You seem unable to respond to the issues I raised. Instead, you seem obsessed with my aliases (I mainly use only two and one of those is used only one place and only because the maryyugo one is banned on that forum).

      I responded to your point. If Defkalion just wanted to “raise awareness” whatever that means, they would simply show the device making some steam. Instead, they provided days of running, controls and calibrations, and an endless stream of data. They certainly seem to be trying to prove SOMETHING. The problem is that, like Rossi, they do it badly, tangentially and evasively.

      No responsible company would deliberately leave open the interpretation that they are scamming investors in such an important area.

    13. sorry but the skeptics her start to smoke the carpet as we say in France…

      You give them simpler measure without steam, the moan that you give them steam enthalpy
      You give them the cos-phi and they moan that apparent power is used…

      they used flow calorimetry and they moan for argon, or ask for thermography, or….

      ok, the instruments and pipes are of Defkalion…
      but for the rest they tried to please you…

      it is visible that the critics are just words used to fool the incompetent lurkers that without understanding anything from the discussion just remind there is a controversy…
      good tactic, not fair, but good.

  82. Mats,

    Doesn’t it come down to trust? If I trusted your intuition, your knowledge, your education and history and YOU claimed that what you experienced was valid and that you yourself felt 99% sure that what was presented to you was thorough, without fallacious intent, compelling and convincing that I would believe you and by my trust in you, believe in the demonstration and the claims of Defkalion?

    As nearly none of us will be privy to or be granted the ability to witness any of these or future demonstrations of LENR, that we must rely upon participants like yourself to stand in as our staid. With this in mind I ask – are you worthy? I’m actually asking the question. Should we trust your opinion if and when you choose to state it?

    This is key. In the minds of Yugo, Milstone, Binns, skeptics of all kinds, at no point up until now have any of the participants in this saga been deserving of trust. While trust in Rossi and Defkalion has somehow been instilled in the likes of Bird, AlainCo, GreenWin, and other believers of various flavors. We all have differing levels of incredulity and skepticism.

    Some of us may state that trust will only come when the e-cat or hyperion is rattling around in our HomeDepot shopping cart, but the truth is, we would trust much sooner than that. If you yourself announced that you felt qualified to judge the results as valid some of us might be turned. If a team of MIT or Stanford professors participated in an actual 3rd party test of any of these devices others might find trust in those results.

    We are all anxious to trust that LENR is for real. ALL of us would welcome LENR. This is why we follow this topic so closely. Unfortunately, so far, for me, this trust has not been deserving. So, what say you? Should I trust your opinion? And oh, by the way, what IS your opinion?

    1. Bird here. I actually trust Mats. It’s just that my incredulity has already been breached, so it is not necessary for me to hear him say “yes”, but I very much welcome it and anything else that he has to say.

    2. Well said, Anony Mole. Personally, I’d like to see a generally available experiment showing significant AHE.

    3. Good question.
      I believe most people are much less rational than they think. Even scientists.
      And I agree that it’s often a question of trust, intuition and belief, although you claim you’re rational.
      As I have stated before here — if this technology is real it can save millions of lives every just by providing clean water to all humans on Earth. If it instead is a scam I will have to endure being accused of being naive and gullible, accepting to participate as an observer and reporting.
      The choice is easy, as long as it’s not obvious that it is a scam.
      My impression, based on my intuition, my knowledge, and my education, tells me that this is not an obvious scam, although it still could be. But given the choice above, that’s enough for me.
      If you should trust me it’s hard for me to say. I think you know that I’m an experienced technology journalist and have a degree in science engineering from the Swedish Royal Institute of technology. And I’m 48 years old. Your choice.

    4. “as long as it’s not obvious that it is a scam”
      These kind of scams (if this is the case) are based exactly on this.
      They will never provide enough evidences to be obviously classified as a scam.
      This is a well known format poisoning research

    5. Yes, but my argument remains. It’s still worth following.
      You cannot turn your back on a technology that may do so much good for the world, only on the grounds that scams normally don’t obviously look like scams. It’s too weak an argument.
      Again — I will readily accept being called naive and gullible if it’s a scam. It’s worth that. I have investigated it enough to take that risk.

    6. Mats, you’ve essentially stated Pascal’s wager with:

      “…I will readily accept being called naive and gullible if it’s a scam. It’s worth that…”

      Ben Admin over at the old espoused essentially the same philosophy. Such a position, for yourself, is a safe one; you’ve covered your bases with such a belief. Briefly, you’ve little to lose if you’re wrong and more to win if you’re right. Others will no doubt argue that such a cautious yet tilted position lends credibility where credibility may not be deserving. Such a position also tends to absolve one of the need to dedicate one’s life to pursue a technology that will save millions of lives in the coming years. The true-believers have no such excuse.

      None-the-less, the wait and see continues unabated. What next I wonder.

    7. Mats thank you for your efforts in keeping the world informed of developments in LENR or Cold Fusion as the case may be. You believe that if this technology proves itself, that it will result in saving millions of lives simply through inexpensive water purification. You believe on that basis alone, it is worth pursuing, no matter the potential for scams and scoundrels getting rich. I submit to you that if this technology is real, the opposite of what you hope for will occur.

      As biological creatures we are subject to the same natural laws of all other creatures. Here is an example of a natural law: All species populate up to and slightly in excess of the available food supply. That is true of all creatures large and small. For instance, since we started organized farming some 10,000 years ago, every year we grow more and more food with the altruistic aim to feed the starving.What decent human being could argue against that worthy effort? And yes, each year we do indeed feed more people. But lo and behold, even though more people are being fed in each succeeding year, there are still ever more people starving then there were in the preceding years.

      It’s simply a function of nature. There is no cure, no fix, and no possibility of it ever changing. It is neither good or bad. It is just the way it is. To improve this yield or that distribution system or decrease the cost of a given commodity such as clean water, which you mentioned, always results in an increase in population. Which results in more starving people. Why? Because we, like all species always populate up to and slightly in excess of the available food supply. Unlike other species, we take a very direct hand in expanding our own food supply. It’s all about the food supply. For instance, a seemingly unrelated activity such as building a more efficient engine is really about increasing the food supply.

      Attempting to fix it by growing more rice or making the water more potable or any of a million other activities, only worsens the problem. What does happen is over time, in our efforts to feed the hungry we end up destroying our environment, We destroy the vitality and diversity of our ecosystem. Putting everything in the service of feeding more humans might be argued to be ultimately a noble cause, frankly I have my doubts, But only, if it would ever actually work. But it will not work. It hasn’t worked one time in the past 10,000 years. So we should stop trying to do it and instead strive to preserve what is left of the natural world.

      That is the only goal worthy of additional effort and innovation because that is the only goal that will ultimately save us. If we pursue that goal, fewer people in succeeding generations will end up dying through deprivation and isn’t that what you alluded to as your justification for pursuing cold fusion in the first place? So no, I don’t think it is worth putting up with scammers indefinitely on the promise of achieving a dubious goal, that if achieved, will only hasten our own downfall. Okay, getting off soapbox.

    8. Itsme,
      What you say is valid for all species in nature that haven’t created technology.
      If man hadn’t technology, we wouldn’t have been able to feed more than a certain number of humans on Earth, much less than we are today. There are estimates but I don’t have access to them now. Let me guess: half a billion.
      So the upper limit of how many humans we can feed is not known. Just as an example, working LENR might pave the way for vertical agriculture in all climate zones on Earth and substantially increase the amount if healthy food that we can produce.
      Have a look at the book ‘Abundance’ by Diamandis and Kotler for example. And still, LENR is not mentioned with one word in that book.

    9. @Itsme,
      What you fail to take into account is the affect of standard of living on population. Ignoring the Rossi/DFG spectacle for now, the promise of NFE – nearly free energy through the likes of LENR would allow the raising of the standard of living for all humanity. Some great content supporting the standard of living concept can be found by watching Hans Rosling on the TED videos:

      or on his site.

      Some entertaining reading can also be had on the site:

  83. Hi Mats, thank you for you job!

    I was wondering, is Defkalion planning any public test in a space which is not under their control?! Like a third party lab? Without that it’s hard to exclude tricks to inject extra power into the reactor.

    As an alternative, I think a blind test would do the job for most observers and allow to reasonably exclude this kind of cheating. This, added to a standard check of the calorimetry set-up – as done during the present test for instance – would be relatively conclusive imo.

    Is Defkalion thinking about set of serial or parallel blind tests? This could be even done in a structure under their control… with an outsider neutral tester who is just able to control a key variable, while – very crucial – Delfaklioin staff has to remain oblivion of the “state” of the variable.

    A simple implementation of the “variable” might be the choice of the gas Ar vs H2… but maybe this can be cheated as the two gases are relatively different and maybe (?) one could deduce which is the gas by looking at the reactor behavior in the initial stages of the run. I was very curious about the isotope test they have made… it’s extremely interesting in itself but it also gives an interesting opportunity for a blind test which is in principle hard to cheat: what about a blind test where the outsider tester chooses if the reactor is loaded with – say – a charge based on 61Ni or 62Ni? A good correlation with the reactor performance would be convincing for most of reasonable observers, I think. Finally, this is standard practice in many disciplines, in medicine, etc…

    BR Stefano

    1. As far as I know Defkalion have no plans for independent tests for now.

  84. I am sorry Mat it seems you really really failed here. Your degree should have given you the insight to see what was really happening.

    Was that the lab of a company that could afford 48 Scientists?
    With the claimed output power where was the heat dissipated? I should have been a sauna in there.

    I have not reviewed all the videos but it was reminiscent of Rossi’s early steam tests using clamp on power meters

    Really its a joke and you should be embarrassed for supporting it.

    1. I did not expect a hardcore scientific test. I expected a demo. And that is what I got, with a dash of testing protocol. I don’t think that Mats failed, unless you include failing to fulfill your expectations, which is really your thing, not his. I appreciate what he did.

      I don’t see how one could expect a hardcore scientific test when it was streaming from God knows how far away. This was a demo for believers and those somewhere on the fence.

    2. That’s exactly the point. But – believers or not – during these 2 years one can expect more or less consistent view on real test design from LENR community. I follow the story not too closely unfortunately, and I do not see even slight agreement even between scientists on almost every detail of the “convincing enough test”. How should plasma power be measured? How should input be measured? How should output be measured? In Ukraine we have a saying “Where you have 2 Ukrainians, you have 3 hetmans” (hetman in Ukrainian is somewhat equal to “emperor” in early Roman sense of the word). LENR community is very similar. It seems that the only practical idea here is “let’s wait, it will become clear sooner or later”.

      On the other hand from demo to demo I see that test design is not even simple – it is simplistic. Someone rightly said here that it can be organized almost in any backyard with quite small cost. This demonstrates first of all the weakness of LENR community itself. IMHO, the weakness is mainly related with hidden agenda of LENR followers (both skeptics and “believers”). It is clear that almost everybody here is afraid of smth and the scientific truth is just one of driving motives. I am really grateful to Mats and people like him for their consistent position of “always do best possible”-style.

      Anyway LENR story is one of the most exciting at the moment. Look forward for continuation.

    3. Roger its good you don’t expect a hardcore test. You wont get one.

      Mats knows the pitfalls and criticisms, he has followed this story for a while and many have followed him.

      The story of LENR is filled with unconvincing demo’s and I am not just talking Rossi and DGT. If the LENR community want to be taken seriously and I believe they do. They need to distance themselves as far away from charlatans and no value “demo’s” as is humanly possible.

      This latest failure is yet another nail in LENR’s coffin not because I don’t believe that there is potential in the science, but because of those who bring it into disrepute. You as a LENR beleiver should also be concerned at the damage this latest event has done.

      Such a sad ‘demo’ is not representative of a company that claims it has sold many millions of dollars in licensing deals.

    4. IncuriousChris, I find your attitude to be extremely offensive. You can’t prove that there won’t be more definitive tests. You just push your disgusting ego into our faces and declare it to be so.

    5. And, Incurious, I won’t be reading your useless posts anymore, so it won’t do you any good to expect a response from me.

    6. I’m proud of investigating this.
      As I just responded to Mary Yugo — if this is real it will save millions of lives each year just by providing clean water to all humans on Earth. If it’s a scam I will be embarrassed for having been naive or gullible. I can handle that. The chance of helping save millions of lives seems slightly more important.

    7. Mats,

      If this turns out to be a scam, you will have been deceived by people much smarter than you or I. There is no shame in that. Like you I believe that the mere possibility of LENR to be true is worth giving it the benefit of the doubt. After all, it’s not only excess (cheap) power that’s at stake, but also transmutations, maybe even direct electric power generation, a new field of physics and from that maybe new understandings and applications yet unthought of. I could lead to a whole new form of civilization on earth.

      At this point, in my personal, view it is very unlikely that it is all a scam. I cannot really understand so many people and organizations reporting on LENR effects and still having it called a fraud. Something big is going on there.

      A quote I read just recently: “Most of all keep an open mind and let the data and scientific method lead us…not dogma.”
      I think you are doing the above. Hats of to you sir!

    8. While that’s true Mats, I am not sure how more incomplete and non-independent tests really help the cause. The best way to get started saving lives, trees and oil, would be for the main line press and main line science to get on board. And that won’t happen until the claimants sell the things for real, or get proper independent tests. And that is not the fault of skeptics!

    9. Chris, ever thought that the hot water/steam was actually leaving the building from the drain? Who told you how much heat was the supposed working reactor dumping into the room?

      I think it is still quite possible this is all fake, but it is not obvious. Your questions, doubts and cuiriosity about the “sauna effect” and the rest are appreciable, interesting and helpful for trying to understand what is going on. Your mocking about being “emabrassed” is not. These arguments demonstrate the Hyperion is fake just as much as the demo demosntrates it is real. I have always thought science and rationality are more about holding doubts and about questioning your own views, rather than about being sure of having the obvious “right” answer.

    10. Mats. People look to you and your articles when deciding what they should do with respect to this technology.

      If it is a scam I would expect you should be a lot more than simply embarrassed. I personally would be mortified that I perhaps convinced people to invest in another Stoern.

      The Roger Birds of this world cannot be saved. But we owe a duty of care to others. If for no other reason than we live and breath the same air.

    11. Sorry Stefano the above was not meant to be posted under you. Oops

      I have considered water exiting the building. From what I read and I haven’t read it all yet the water did not exit the system. that after a period water stopped flowing and Mats thought perhaps the water had turned to dry steam. Hence his 27Kw remark. Perhaps I misread that bit.

      Mats as you were present during the whole thing. I for one would like you to document the exact setup as you saw it. Then either we can tear it to pieces OR have our concerns put to rest!

    12. Dry steam is not dry when it exits a small tube. It undergoes adiabatic cooling and condenses within inches of the exits. They should have seen a huge plume. Huge!

    13. Yes I know. and the room should have been a sauna. no normal sink could be used to remove the steam unless the pipe went around the s bend bypassing the water plug.

      This is stuff Mats cannot claim to be unaware of.

      So Mats where did the heat go?

  85. Thanks Mats for not chickening out like the other observers. Your reporting on the topic of the e-cat/Hyperion has been excellent.

  86. A question from the interested peanut gallery.
    Regarding measuring the electrical input to the device.

    I pay a monthly household electric bill each month. The dollar amount my electric company bills me is based on the the meter reading. I assume the electric company knows what they are doing.

    My question is…Why not use a similar metering device to determine the total electrical input?

    1. Computerized, expensive, and possibly hackable? My electric company meter looks to be quite straight forward in design; a spinning disk mechanically advances a group of numbered gauges. I’m sure it must meet many established industry standards for it to be used for billing purposes.

      Thanks for the reply AlainCo

    2. old powermeter are replaced by computers because old one are too easily hacked by “my sister” (a term in cryptography for moderate competence people). also computers can be easily connected to computer software like labview…

      anyway a,s MY shows, to convince you need simply trusted thrid party instruments, and setup.

      I would propose to run that setup in my former school labs.
      No need of experts, just motivated students who obey the advices of engineers of DGT, and do it publicly… It is 19th century science. calorimetry, electricity.

      given the COP it is not even needed to use a powermeter if the cos-phi is not too low… you simply measure apparent power and it is bigger than the real…

      you don’t even need RMS instruments, since you can measure the peak-to-peak, and assume worst case rectangular AC.

      with a COP of 6+, you can neglect phase, sinus, and even steam… given you get 1.1, it is scientific revolution… and people then could trust your 21th century tools and accept your real COP.

    3. In a scientific display as was claimed A watt meter as used is totally insufficient so is a voltmeter. it needs a calibrated scientific power supply nothing less will suffice. It makes the whole demo implausable. A company that claimed it had 48 Scientists should have all this equipment. what I saw was a small room with very little equipment. Nothing that could be called a lab. Its exactly the sort of room a backyarder like myself would setup. Not the setup of a multimillion dollar corporation.

    4. why need precision power supply… just add some complexity and space for nay-believers to hide.
      It is not rocket science. the variac , power metters are enough for oneself.

      Their lab seems enough to make calorimetry test.
      the photography of their lab on greece look more like a garage innovator lab.
      A friend who work in motor industry told me that this room is like the test bench room for enngine parts.

      more is just to please the skeptics and it is wasted money, because what they ask is a moving target.

  87. “Mats Lewan…

    I’ve come to believe that nothing will be enough. Only when the technology is on the shelf and people take it for granted there will be no more discussions. And then people will believe that there never were any discussions either. Just some talk. In the end, when it works well, it will all seem so natural. Patience. Time will show.”

    I don’t think that is quite correct. Defkalion and Rossi have had more than two years to get a single proper and truly independent test in which they supply only the device to be tested. They have not done so. They have not named any major company or customer they claim to be associated with. Either step could be convincing and they could do it easily if the claims were true.

    Believers blame skeptics for the lack of general public and major press acknowledgement of claims to large power levels from LENR. But the fault is entirely the claimants’. How hard is it to a test properly and with sufficient transparency? How hard is it to get it done independently? How hard is it to do a proper and sufficient and protective patent disclosure? It isn’t hard and yet NONE of these people do it!

    As for patience and time will show, consider Steorn. An obvious magnetic motor scam, they are still going strong after six years of nothing but bad demos of stuff that couldn’t work and obviously never worked. And as recently as two years ago, they received a half million or more Euros of new investment! These schemes can go on a long time before the truth to them is revealed. Unfortunately for the rest of cold fusion work.

    And dowsing rods are still sold world wide as explosive detectors despite hundreds, maybe thousands of deaths caused by them and hundreds of millions of dollars wasted. See that absolutely outrageous story on this blog:

    Unfortunately, many nasty scams go on for long periods. That’s the nature of “belief”.

    1. Actually, it seems to me this whole story always turns very much on the emotive side. I don’t understand very much all this dichotomy of strong believers (of course the effect is real!) vs strong skeptics (of course it’s not true as they had two years to demonstrate it and have not done it).

      Is this necessary? and, most importantly, helpful? Why should we appeal to faith either pro or against these claims or try and deduce who knows what based on the behavior of this and that person/organization…? I understand your reasoning but I am not sure it is really helpful. I don’t have an answer, this is a very weird story… to me it’s both unbelievable that LENRs are real AND that all these people (NASA, Duncan, maybe even all these companies) have all turned mad/fraudolent. So I watch, in silence, sometimes a bit excited, sometimes (more often) a bit bored. If they want money they should prove what they have and they are always welcome to do it, for the rest I think they can do/say whatever they want.

    2. The conclusion of the coolly rational man is that, since they have had years and have not yet got independent validation, they in fact have nothing, and all this is smoke and mirrors to attract investors.

    3. The cooly rational person who has not been following the story closely for 2 years. Yes, that might be true. If a person just showed up here, that might be true.

    4. The cooly rational man won’t draw any clear conclusion in my opinion. You might say this or that is unlikely but you cannot be sure. This whole story is FULL of contradictions: depending on which one you want to look at you can reach as many different conclusions as you like.

      I try to be cooly rational. In fact, I am still waiting and I have no hurry and no stress. I won’t say this is a clear scam as this is not obvious, even if it is certainly possible… or maybe even likely. But it is not sure.

    5. Mary,
      If you don’t make mistakes you most often do nothing at all.
      If there’s any possibility that this is not a scam, it’s worth letting it go on.
      The damage if you stop it, if it’s real and working, is much greater than the damage of a scam that’s going on for years.
      If this is working, it will save millions of lives every year, just by providing clean water to all humans on Earth. If it’s a scam, a few people will loose some money. Choose.

    6. So you appear to think that there must be victims somewhere? So where are the whistleblowers and or victims hiding? Nobody so far has claimed to be a victim, have they? BTW, Keef are you of the opinion that all the commercializers of LENR are bogus? Does the LENR effect even exist at all as far as your concerned?

    7. I am working with high voltage pulses looking for over unity conditions. The noise in the waveform is driving my instruments to give random values. It is possible that DGT is making honest measurements of input power, but that they are erroneous.

      Extraordinary claims require the same level of examination and I am finding the power input in my system is grossly underreported by my digital instruments.

      Honest measurements can still be wrong.

    8. Hi Brian,

      That is a very important observation, and one that I fully agree with.

      However, what about the argon run? After all, the HV power was pretty steady (at whatever value it may have really been) in both the Ar and the H2 runs, but there was a big difference in output.

    9. I absolutely agree. But its highschool level science to account for potential errors. on of the 48 scientists DGT hired (see mats nyteknik column) would surely have pointed out that possibility.

      So for those mistakes to continue over two years indicates nothing less than fraud.

    10. when you don’t understand you say fraud.
      and you can easily misunderstand at will.

      best hypothesis currently is misunderstanding, as usual, typically because you did not hear all, and make technical errors. like did Erikson &Pomp in their paper.

      what is sure is that to convince you, is harder than convince the pope to allow condoms.

    11. I don’t think it is very difficult to hire 48 incompetent people who are happy to have themselves called scientists. All you would need is money.

      Not saying this is waht DGT did, no, no..

    12. @briansahern: If possible, gate your signal conditioning electronics to take measurements during the quiet interval between pulses. I take measurements of permanent magnet fields from Hall sensors that are mounted within pulse driven coils. Taking data in between pulses works fine for my setup. YMMV, depending on time constants in your system.

    13. @Fibb

      Usual True Believer error. It took decades for Madoff’s scam to be discovered and for him to be arrested. While the horrible Sniffex explosive detector scam was unfrocked within 2 years in the US and in four years in the UK and the perpetrators were punished, the sale of the devices still continues in Asia and Africa and the Middle East and without a doubt still maims and kills hundreds if not thousands of people. It also makes millions for the criminals who sell it and the corrupt police and military who buy it.

      Steorn is still alive after six years of scamming magnetic motor believers and investors (more than 20 million Euros misspent). Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto made a lot of money before Lee was indicted. Scams have long lives. There are many other examples.

      Most investors are believers and it is hard to convince them that they have been fooled. And even harder yet for them to admit it and take action. It takes a lot of time and sometimes, the investors never complain.

      I don’t know about Keef but I have seen no convincing evidence that Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, McKubre, Swartz, Nanospire or Miley and his company have anything at all which can be commercialized.

      Does the LENR effect exist? I don’t know. If it does, I sure wish somebody would provide convincing proof of some effect that isn’t in the noise.

    14. no error here. there are no victims in this story. if/when there are some then you’ll have something to back up your nonsense accusations. BTW, I am not completely convinced that DGT and Rossi have what they claim, but on the balance of evidence I think it likely. I am open to being proven wrong on that. I’m content to wait and see what comes next. As I said before, if there are no PRs from established companies/partners extolling the virtues of this apparent gift from the universe…. say by mid 2014…. then I will admit that DGT and Rossi will have some serious explaining to do.

      Meanwhile, they both have to finalize their designs before we can expect too much public validation. Product development is, as a rule, done in stealth. Why these companies do any kind of public demos is a bit of a mystery to me.

      Mats, perhaps you could explore that with them a little bit. What does DGT and Rossi expect to accomplish with their public sharing – while they are still developing their technology? I would really like an answer to that question.

    15. about what you call lack of evidence for LENR, it is a classic fallacy .
      In fact there are huge evidence in science, simply they are not accepted, without good argument, but those bad arguments are accepted easily as good… It is impossible to fight against that lack of honesty. You point the book whic prove it is stupid, and they deny that… what can you do against lack of honesty? Like talking to a desperate attorney.

      You can discuss about the imperfect test of Brillouin, Defkalion, E-cat, but please stop claiming there is no evidence of LENR, or I will call you Gary.

      The usual tactic of nay-believers is to claim they are right, and deduce from that fact that they are right, and thus that people who disagree are wrong… QED.
      If we find critic on their arguments, they claim they are unfounded. and the claim they logic is good… what can you answer to people who cannot admit logic?

      beside that method, you remind us that there are fraudsters thus all LENR companies are fraudster… typical inverse logic.
      also any error in our logic, is used by nay-believers as evidence it is a fraud.

      a lesson of fallacies.

      Even critics need to obey logic, and requires evidence.

      For now the only fraud I’ve been aware in LENR is MIT pretended negative “reference” experiment. and you don’t need to know that, since closing such a story in 6 week is doubtful it itself.

    16. @fibb in the introduction they calim it is to raise awareness on their current technology achievement…
      I interpret is as a dance of seduction to skeptical LENR scientists, because I’ve observed that scientists are reluctant to work with Rossi or Defkalion…

      Another possibility is pure ego. I understand that motive for such a team. Working in stealth mode is painful for the team ego.
      this can also explain Rossi communication.

  88. Mats – In the video we saw you using a small current loop on the end of a scope probe to examine fields close to the reactor casing. Can we assume that you were looking for traces of that massive magnetic field which is claimed by Defkalion? Did you detect any signs of it? What’s your conclusion?

    1. I was trying to detect the signal in the HV cable to the spark plug but I was not successful.

  89. Next time all the necessary pre-calibrated-verified electric cables should be brought by the independent observer. And the power source should be an old model AC generator and transformer also brought by the same person.

    Broad-band radiation measurement is absolutely essential (also for safety).

    Outgoing water temperature should not exeed 65 degrees C at atmosphere pressure only. (is there a shorage of water in Milan or Vancouver?).

    No need to waste time on Argon test etc.

    Water flow pre-calibration should be replaced by a continuous measuring of the flow throughout the experiment.

    1. Dan v – Good observations and suggestions, and one comment from me on the argon “control experiment”. I initially thought this to have been a good idea, until I realised that the simple difference in heat capacity between argon and hydrogen may well be sufficient to explain the “failure” with argon and the “success” with hydrogen.

    2. They can’t outgoing water temperature at 65 degrees C because the reaction wouldn’t work.
      As they explain several times, it needs a specific gradient of temperature inside the reactor (as far as I have seen the front flange should stay to about 190°C and the back flange to about 290°C) and obviously the temperature of the coils where water flows affects the reactor’s body temperature.
      As you can see in the video, they change several time the flow in order to ensure the optimal conditions for the ignition and maintenance of the reaction.

  90. Hi Mats – I would like to address the comment made about a large magnetic field.

    My recollection (from college physics) is that one cannot shield a magnetic field (but can an electric field). If that is true, then I don’t see how the use of two cages shielded the large magnetic field.


    1. He probably used the term Faraday cage out of habit. Magnetic shielding is done with multiple enclosures of high-permeability metals. He stated that this was done (the layers).

    2. The small amounts of high permeability material you could fit into the Defkalion device will hardly begin to shield a one Tesla field. That’s MRI levels. You need a whole separate room to protect an MRI machine. And nothing magnetic or iron-containing is allowed in. This is either a monumentally stupid error or a rank lie on the part of Defkalion. It is typical of scammers to make this sort of “error” in an effort to impress. Rossi does it all the time.

  91. Thank you so much Mats for your job!
    So sad that no one else was there to help you in checking things….
    Typical Italian: many are able to criticize but non one of them have the guts to expose themselves.


    Post Scriptum: I’m Italian.

  92. A long time ago, as an Electronics Engineer, I was deeply involved in the power measurement of motors, especially those used in machine tools.

    The very basic formula for AC power is P=E*I*cos(theta). Of course, E is the voltage, I is the current, and cos theta is the cos of the angle between the zero crossover point of the voltage as compared to the zero crossover point of the current (both measured/observed at the positive going zero crossover) and the angle will be between 0-90 degrees. We all know, however, that cos theta zeroes at 90 degrees, hence resulting in zero power no matter how high the voltage and current. A clamp on ammeter, of course, only measures the current and is a useless measure by itself other than perhaps informing you if you are about to melt the wire or blow a fuse due to overcurrent. Oh yeah, the current in the wire produces a voltage based on the impedance of the wire itself (it is not zero though it may be very small) so the voltage must be measured at the load not at the sources. So far, I haven’t mentioned a little thing called ‘power factor’ that must be accounted for. PF has to do with the distortion of the voltage and current waveforms away from being perfectly sinusoidal. It affects the RMS value of the waveform and results in more or less heating.

    I quit, this is getting too complicated for hack measurement and explanations. Get NI to do the measurements, I bet they know all this stuff and have it built into their devices.

    1. Right, phase between current and voltage could explain the measurement error. Does anyone know if this would be noticed on both sides of the variac or only after the variac, provided that the load of the HV generator is capacitive or inductive?

    2. Mats, they used this instruments to measure power:

      Click to access 579510.pdf

      (it has several certifications)
      it send information to the NI data acquisition (and from here to LabView).
      According to the schematics (page 10)

      it measures power before the variac (where there is phase displacement) but since it is basically a power analyzer (@50Hz it has a frequency sampling of 1600samples/seconds, so it should keep in count harmonics until about 800Hz) it obviously keeps in count Voltage, current and cos-phi (i.e. phase shift).
      I think they measured correctly, the only problem would be if you think to a high frequency component over the main 220V 50Hz voltage of the grid that the instrument doesn’t measure but that would probably cut off by the variacs (food for skeptics).
      About your measure, you would need the voltage and current at the same time, but since the waveform is distorted and impulsive, you can’t easily _calculate_ the power. You could do better on the other line where there were variac and resistors so sinusoidal waveforms with a bit of phase displacement (but you need a 2 channel scope and a shunt resistor to measure current) . IMHO on the HV line you need instead a power analyzer.

    3. Yes, real power must be measured across the resistive portion of the load. Inductive and capacitative components between source and load can make it look as if most if not all the power is imaginary (theta plus/minus 90 deg).

    4. Not quite right. The Fluke True RMS meter should sort this out even if e.g. the resistive load were in series with an L or C. It simply calculates the real component, which gives the real power.

    5. Measuring only the current with the Fluke True rms you cannot know the phase to voltage. You need an instrument with two inputs, U and I simultaneously. Such as the one Levi used.

  93. Pls. tell us a little about the background of your presence at this demonstration; When did you get invited? What info did you get at that time? Did you express any “demands” to participate (I mean, preparation time, etc.)? How long before the run did you arrive, and were you able then (early) to make any checks/measurements? Which other were supposed to participate? Were you the only “external” person present? What happens now? That is, did you get any indications on other upcoming tests?


    1. I was contacted by Defkalion a couple of weeks before the demo, without getting to know any details. When the demo was officially announced I talked again with Defkalion and they invited me to participate as an observer. I was told that others would have the role of verifying.
      I have expressed interest to participate in a demo of Defkalion’s technology since Fall 2011. A couple of times Defkalion has said that it might be possible, but in the end I have not been invited until now, and this was the first time I met these people in person.
      I arrived at about 3 PM, European time and I did then have a brief look at the lab, without measuring anything. Hadjichristos showed me the set-up and the reactor with the closing opened.
      I never registered who was supposed to participate, my intention was to ask this later. There were a few other external people present — the camera team for example, and a friend of Franco Capiello,from Mose srl who is part of the joint venture Defkalion Europe.
      I didn’t get indications on upcoming public tests.

  94. Mats, the COP = 3 you refer to was calculated as (output thermal energy/ sum of heaters and high voltage energy), right?
    Could you rule out that the surplus energy could not have simply come from chemically burning hydrogen into water inside the R5 reactor?

    1. I haven’t done the calculations to check it, and I cannot rule it out for sure.
      But by now I have seen this phenomenon for so long that I probably don’t bother to check every possibility of fraud. It just doesn’t seem probable. However, a skeptic should keep this possibility open. Time will show.

  95. It is interesting that you measured such a different value for power to the HV system. Did you discuss this deeper with them? Got any reasonable reply?

    1. Yes we discussed this but couldn’t find any solution. The only hypothesis was that the power consumption of the HV generator was chopping the input current, being based on switched power, and that the clamp ampere meter could have difficulties measuring this wave form. However, it was a Fluke True RMS instrument which supposedly should handle such wave forms. Unfortunately I was never able to look at the wave form with the oscilloscope.

    2. The real key of all the plasma-like overunit measurement is the great amount of power flowing to the plasma at high frequency. Usually, used equipments are not able to handle this measurements, underestimating transferred power. Power to the HV system is not affected by this problem.
      They need immediately to file a patent, letting others to reproduce the effect without harming their inventor rights. If they don’t do that, I can just classify the case as “scam”.

  96. Mats, you wrote that during the test, when at high reported power, no liquid water was going out of the hose to the drain. Then, how much steam was coming out? You have calculated that full vaporization of the water would have required 27 kW. That’s a lot of power. Even if the steam had condensed on its way to the drain there should have been liquid water coming out of the hose. What do you think about that?

    1. We’ve been through this issue before. I believe it’s easy to be mistaken what dry steam flow looks like. It’s not as dramatic as many believe.
      Put on a kettle on a 5 kW stove and watch the output.
      I calibrated the water flow before. And there was no water. So unless they tricked the flow meter between the runs or had a hidden water output…

    2. Mats that’s just silly. Really a kettle on a 5 KW stove!

      There is a HUGE volume (water volume * 1600) of steam. so was the drain a normal one with a water plug? If it was then NONE of the steam could have exited the room.

      Once again a sauna. The walls would have been dripping with condensation because it wouldn’t stay as superheated steam for very long at all.

  97. Mark Gibbs, the Forbes writer, apparently got fired for blogging about Defkalion:

    I guess we can hardly imagine the amount of riducle Mats has to endure because of his investigative reporting in this area. Yet i’m confident that Mats and even Mark Gibbs who only wrote some rather reserved blog posts, will soon not only be vindicated but highly respected for their courage to cover this story while it was still under a taboo.

    1. Gibbs has your number. He wrote “Before the conspiracy theorists proclaim that it was due to my ongoing interest in LENR be aware that there is no (obvious) evidence for that conclusion and it probably owes more to editorial policy and poor communication than anything overtly conspiratorial.” So knock off the victim gossip, wouldya?

    2. Gibs reported on LENR and he announced the Defkalion demo. The editor didn’t like that and thought he had become too enthusiastic about something he considers to be “junk science” and probably a scam and thus putting Forbes’ reputation at risk. So he canned him. Where’s the conspiration? And why is that probable explanation conflicting with what Gibbs wrote?

    3. timar, I find your explanation to be perfectly reasonable and balanced. Forbes doesn’t want to look like it is enthusiastic about something they worry that other people will consider to be UFO-tin-foil-hat stuff. Let us be grateful that we got as much out of Gibbs-Forbes as we did. I hope Mark Gibbs can get another job.

    4. I had a feeling that Mark’s inviting people to watch a live streaming of an edgy subject was a little too strange for old editor types.

  98. One thing that bugs me about this setting is that the specific heat capacity for steam is less than half that of liquid water, i.e. about 1.996 kJ/(kg*K)

    Shouldn’t this be calculated in the labview software? As a physics litterate person I find it weird to do calculations of liquid water going up to 142 C when (almost) everyone knows it boils at 100 C.

    Even though the steam enthalpy more than makes up for this error, it seems they have side-stepped the prinicple of a conservative meassure, since they originally said they where not taking the steam enthalpy into account.

    1. You have to choose. Either you pretend it’s all still water or you account also for steam enthalpy. You cannot count steam heating from 100 degrees and not counting phase shift.

    2. taking the steam enthalpy into account may cause errors because you have to know exactly whether the steam is dry or wet and the steam quality (if wet). Moreover you should know the pressure of the steam.
      Skeptics will feel comfortable with this topic. It’s better a conservative and easy measure than a complicated one and an endless discussion with skeptics that would put down every valid data.

  99. If to speak about sceptics, well, there are still people here who are claiming that Earth is flat and that it was created some 6-7 th. years ago. Some of them can kill or die to prove they are right. From my perspective yestrd. test was clearly not a test but a demo to attract attention to the technology in most convincing way possible at this stage. Another question is what in fact will be convincing enough? I assume that if the whole set-up will be assembled by third-party people from the parts those people will buy in nearest shop (except for the reactor itself) – it might be convincing enough. ????

    1. For something as potentially game-changing as this, we have to be sure it’s real. To that end, I’d say two, but better three independent laboratories need to test it, and all agree that it works as advertised. And they had all better be testing the same device, or a clone of the same device.

      I cannot imagine even the most hard-baked sceptic being dissatisfied with that. I would certainly buy in at that point.

    2. I’ve come to believe that nothing will be enough. Only when the technology is on the shelf and people take it for granted there will be no more discussions. And then people will believe that there never were any discussions either. Just some talk. In the end, when it works well, it will all seem so natural. Patience. Time will show.

    3. Well, let say, recently Rossi’s thing was apparently tested by independent professionals. Did it bring the ultimate answer? Clearly not. I think those who are following the LENR story, should come with a cohesive vision and even testing protocol that should be convincing. I can imagine lives of those LENR engineers – it has to be tough with all that challenges and obstacles. Why not to help them in designing the “Open-Crowdfunded-Ultimate Testing Protocol”? 🙂 I agree to contribute not less than 20$ for such a test.

    4. Do not think for a moment that what ordinary educated people mean by an “independent test” bears any relationship to the circus of the Levi fiasco. Ericsson & Pomp made that abundantly clear in their excellent critique – which was 90% scientific, and not political, as the TBs would have us believe.

    5. That’s a stalemate. To have convincing independent study authors should open up their know-how (and in the game with such a stake it equals to just publishing it on a web-site of United Nations) or independent researchers will never be satisfied with less than this. For me the question is rather why at all we are presented with “public test”?

      As for the “ordinary educated people” as ultimate test designers – so far whatever educated people were not able to come up with convincing test design. If one is not able to do smth, (s)he calls for a best friend support, I guess. Let it not be “ordinary educated people”, let it be “best friends of most proactive sceptics”.

    6. Their “excellent critique” actually was a completely insubstantial and pathetic effort to unscrupulously malign the testers’ reputation and to throw every piece of dirt at them that they managed to cram into that paper. I can well understand Prof. Höistad’s comment that he feels “ashamed of having colleagues at the University of Uppsala that don’t refrain from personal attacks of such a low level”.

    7. I admit that Ericson & Pomp could raise the fact that the Elforsk test was not fully independent (yet much, because free access to the site without someone able to prevent finding hidden voltage , cables, pipes).

      however it is clear that the rest is pure … horse manure… and the fact that in a pretended scientific critic they start with calling for doubt on independence (instead of an ending comment as it should) show that first they don’t behave like scientist but as conspiracy theorist, and second that all the rest is much weaker.

      all they say about thermography is a shame for pretended scientists. really a shame.
      They did not even tried to ruleout some positive hypothesis, like the presence of instruments on the same socket… They did not even try to challenge their own hypothesis, which could have reinforced them if their were good… because they know they won’t survive deeper analysis.
      They behaved like dishonest attorney general, not like honest police.

      This article, even raising some points, is a shame.
      If you re-read the histor of cold fusion, you see many of that kind of shameful public discourse, so violent that nobody dared to critic.

    8. Andrew, I haven’t seen your name anywhere in the LENR sites before. There are these people that we call skeptopaths or pathoskeptics, and three independent labs would still not be enough. Only when what Mats just said, when it is common place the home improvement store will some people believe it.

  100. Thank you very much Mats, you presence really enhanced the value of that demonstration for the general public. Even most skeptics in the chatroom seemed to agree that you did a good job and applied scrutiny. Maybe it was that they took you by surprise with that task, but at first you gave the impression of not feeling very comportable – distinctly not like someone in cahoots with them. No skeptic even came up with such a suggestion.

    Of course there are many ways things could theoretically be manipulated in such an environment, including the measurement instruments. If you consider the totality of of the evididence for LENR and the amount of effort invested, however, such assumptions appear rather absurd.

    Of course the diehard skeptics don’t ever realize the totality of the evidence. They are always busy arguing why that tree-shaped object we are currently looking at may be no real tree at all – yet they don’t realize that they do so while standing in the midst of a forest.

  101. It would be very interesting the verification of an increasing level of the gamma radiations during the H2 test in comparison to the Argon test.

    1. Radiation was not measured at this test. I got the impression that they want to measure radiation further ahead, but that it’s a complicated issue since the levels supposedly are low and the gammas are furthermore shielded by the reactor walls. Measurements on Rossi’s reactor have all showed that there’s no radiation above background outside the reactor.

    2. It would be very interesting the verification of an increasing level of the gamma radiations during the H2 test in comparison to the Argon test.

    3. If you claim a nuclear reaction, it is criminally negligent to not measure radiation. If there were sufficient neutrons or gammas, that could seriously injure or kill the participants.

    4. ” Roger Bird permalink

      OMG, we are officially infected. I may stop coming here.”

      Well Roger, since you have, as far as I know, NEVER made a SINGLE technical, factual, or theoretical contribution of any worth ANYWHERE, I suspect you won’t be missed a whole lot.

  102. Mats, thanks for your great work. Today if we can trust in the results it’s only for your presence and your determination.
    Sad, very sad to hear that the other validators didn’t show up likely because they don’t want to be involved in this field. Maurizio Melis on Monday’s demo said that this field for the science is a taboo, and it seems not only for researchers and scientists.

  103. Dear Mats,
    Participated in the show, but for such serious professionals that show no
    presented the full capabilities of this urządzenia.Aby introduce its features and
    present them to the public may have filled in the information given on the following
    data: how much energy gets device (A), the inlet water temperature (° C) outlet water temperature (° C), the amount of water flowing through the cooling system (liters / second), then you can calculate the capacity and COP of the device. If Defkalion will present these data to obtain the reliability of the device and you will see the meaning of the whole work. I will be very grateful
    if I see such data.

    1. Dear Zdzislaw, I believe Defkalion will post all data from Labview. I haven’t checked yet where and when.

    2. I would also love to get that data. They didn’t display water flow as a time trace, but they better have logged it and post it, everything is useless without that. I have written a water-cooled reactor simulation, just waiting for some data to chew on.

    1. Very interesting.
      Did they say if it is static field, or oscillating field, coherent across the reactor, or local and incoherent in the powder ?
      LENR seems related to superconduction, so not so surprising…
      Is there hope for direct electric conversion ? Hope of magnetic field generation application?

    2. I wonder if Mr. Hadjichristos is aware that “double Faraday shields” do not protect against a 1 Tesla magnetic field. That theoretically requires mu metal. And it won’t probably work on a one Tesla field unless it is a huge, impossible amount of it. Maybe you could ask him about it, Mats.

      Defkalion, over the last two years, has made a lot of unlikely or impossible claims and when asked about those, they simply censored or deleted the questions. That and all their previous lies are hardly confidence builders.

      Hadjichristos has had many opportunities to set the record straight about previous claims and he and the other Defkalion folks never seem to do so. Why is that?

    3. Most faraday cages as far as I am aware are made from conductive materials like copper etc. not high permeability materials like mu-metal ore even iron. They are designed to shield EM fields not static magnetic fields in the order of 1 Tesla.

      You don’t need to believe me.

      Two Faraday cages don’t improve it much if at all. Perhaps Mr Hadjichristos has just made a laymans mistake?

    4. Yannis reported fields are impossibly high. They would suck a screwdriver out of your hand.

      They are most likely a false value do to the noise spectrum. Magnetometer probes are very sensitive to EMI.

    5. mri’s are between 0.5 and 3 Tesla’s this is an image of what can happen if an MRI is turned on at the wrong time

      Perhaps John H was mistaken? I mean he is a BA (business analyst) with self proclaimed VAST skills and a researcher he cant be expected to understand all this stuff.

      (see linkedin)

    1. Fibb, you were dealing too much with personal attacks that have nothing to do with the subject here. Please stick to what’s discussed in the post.

  104. Thanks Mats for sharing with us this experience and for your valuable and professional help and report.
    Please try the next time not to blow up again the building’s main power trying to connect an oscilloscope to a power board. Pathological sceptics do not deserve such risks.
    John Hadjichristos

    1. Thanks John. On the other hand — blowing the power supply to the whole building when short circuited indicates that it was ordinary grid power and not any rigged power supply, so in the end maybe that was a fortunate mistake 😉

    2. I imagine that it was the “differential disjunctor” which triggered so quickly. It rule out an isolated AC/DC line. This line was connected to the main ground somewhere (normally neutral at the grid transformer)… Their body talk is even more informative, since they were not behaving as if they were afraid someone find a rabbit in the roof.

    3. It would be nice if Mr. Hadjichristos would ever hang around a forum to follow up on polite and relevant questions but he never does. He must be extremely busy dealing with those more than a thousand companies which are in the process of or have paid $40 million for his product. Maybe they are impressed by the high temperature liquid calorimetry which Mr. Hadjichristos was too shy to show yesterday although Defkalion claimed on their now-deleted forum, was available two years ago. Maybe it’s that huge magnetic field that Defkalion failed to measure or demonstrate that brings in the investments. We won’t know unless Mr. H answers our questions and so far, he shows no inclinations to deal with them anywhere though somehow he manages to post here, on e-catworld. com which is heavily censored and excludes all skeptics and also on Peter Glucks’ blog.

      Any other place where he can be properly questioned and Mr. Hadjichristos is strictly hit and run. Why is that?

  105. Good news for France ! we have a crazy entrepreneur who paid a licence!

    for the remaining skeptics a test in a neutral lab would finish the job…no hiddent pipes or wire, not tweaked instruments, could be invoked as excuse.

    I imagine this test was just a beginning. is it?

    1. I resume, the CEO of a company, beside few similar, who claim to have implemented a technology based on science which is validated since 25 year, just make a classic test.
      He claim he have partners and licensees…

      on the other side some pretended skeptics who believe that a thousands of experiments are frauded, They believe that in dozens of countries, dozens of institutions and companies, are tweaking data on a dozen of various protocols. That intern added tritium in lab experiments, and that the editor of MIT did lie when claiming that mainstream replication team was defrauding his paper. That 3 CEO are lying, that SRI lab, Swedish electric company research consortium, that a NASA skeptics, are accomplice, that all companies are running a very long scam, not running in Uganda to enjoy the climate…

      who should I trust ?

      you extraordinary claims, deserve extraordinary evidence, and you have none.

      It is time to be rational, and trust the people who are on the credible side.

    2. Nothing personal, you are just an ant in an ant colony. I cannot do personal attack, and when I’m furious it is about the situation, human nature, organization…
      I admit I am sometime sharp because I treat all similar claims as one animal. i see the noosphere as a network with wide pseudo-actors, like lattice QM use pseudo-particles.
      The more I gather data, the more I’m horrified, and this make me bleeding.

      about the French licensee claim, I admit that I don’t trust more Xanthoulis than I trusted Steve Jobs or Bill gates . As Nassim Nicholas taleb says, you can trust them more since, unlike many academics, they have flesh in the game. They can dress the reality with fashion clothes, but they cannot dress a rabbit into a horse, unlike academics. Because they ride the horse.

      MIT physicist can be wrong, provided they are wrong with the mass, without financial losses. They even have to be wrong. They cannot be right against the mass, because they will be toasted, lose ability to publish, to get a Nobel, to be funded…
      Entrepreneur, garage inventor, can disagree with the masses, but they cannot disagree with the nature. Without nature agreement they have no tenure to protect, no Nobel hope to keep.

      “Fat Tony” told me that.
      sorry for that philosophy drift.

    3. Again you’ve immediately veered off-topic.

      You’ve made the claim about “a French entrepreneur who has bought a license”. Who claimed this? Who is this entrepreneur? How can anyone check the veracity of your claim?

      Once again, I don’t believe a word of it. You are simply “pumping” LENR like you always do, and here Defkalion in particular. This is politics, not any kind of truth.

    4. And finally AlainCo falls silent, having tried and failed to do a PR job devoid of any substance. This indicates that anything he says is most likely not to be trusted. Beware.

    5. I’m experienced in talking to wall. I try not to repeat. when talking to a wall you don’t care of the wall, who will never understand your point, even repeating. Wall don’t move. I talk to the people around, and they don’t need repeat, just precision and correction, and mostly to be protected from disinformation and errors.

      I agree that about french licensee we only have the words of a CEO. a CEO of a company with a technology, a team, some capital; some existing or expected clients and partners, so when he lies it have consequence in the future. I expect just some exaggeration, optimism. Blatant lies are dangerous.

      Anyway not the main point, I’m just happy that a French company dare to buy a license.
      The real points is a confirmation of what nelson have wrote (and many indirect behavioral evidences before).

    6. Still the source of the rumour is not identified. Still the name of the French company is not identified. That’s your 4th post with zero answers (but many words).

      You have nothing except empty words. Why do you bother posting rumours you cannot substantiate? That’s what washer-women do. They gossip. They are gullible to gossip.

      It looks like someone gamed you, old sport. They thought you’d be an easy mark. That’s because they know that you “trust” them.

      When will the faithful ever learn?

  106. It was a delight to be able to watch this live. I am pleasantly suprised of how much we got to see. I think you did a good job Mats. And congratulations on getting called to these things.

  107. Mats,

    Could you speak to the waveform applied to the heaters? What did you see on the instruments you brought with you?

    Also, did you independently verify the output temperature, which is crucial in calculating the output power?

    1. Let’s not split hairs between investors and distributors. The claim is that they have over a thousand distributors, each of which paid $40 million. Or did I miss something?

    2. OK, I misspoke above. They claim 6 companies, “several of which” are among the ten largest in the world. That’s still quite a claim. I don’t suppose they’d name just ONE of those ten largest that we could check with? Of course not. I wonder why. I think I know why. Because it’s just another lie.

    3. Penny, distributors pay 40 million for a license. the 6 major companies partnering with DGT don’t pay that. pay attention. btw, miss you on….. NOT!

    4. Hi Fibb,

      So you think I’m Penny? ROTFWL!!! Guess what? I am not Penny or Pennies. She is Penny Gruber, her real name. I don’t know where she went. I am not her keeper. I’ve never written to that I remember. If so, it was at most one or very few posts and I don’t even recall them. So much for your psychic ability! LOL.

    5. No, I don’t know the wave forms. However, the power fed to the variacs seemed drawn from the wall outlet and be ordinary grid power. BTW, when I short circuited the power outlet by mistake, the whole building went down (fortunately nothing was damaged!!), probably by a RCD, residual current device. Had the power been rigged I don’t think that would have happened.
      The only issue was the power to the HV generator, which might have had an ugly wave form due to the power consumption pattern of the HV generator, but I don’t know that — I was never able to get the oscilloscope measure something sensible.
      I verified the output temperature only by feeling it with my hands (feeling the water up to 70 degrees, then feeling the tube), but judging from that it seemed correct.

    6. Thanks – informative replies. But I’m not sure I could tell 80 degC from 160 degC by hand. And such a difference would account for a factor of 2.5 in the COP (wrt. an input temperature of 25 degC).

    7. Andrew, 80 C [as in Celsius, 176 degrees F ] would be very hot. You could only flash your hand through that and it would still hurt. 160 C [320 degrees F] and a person would be rushed to the hospital.

  108. Thank you, Mats. I think that you did a good job. And I think that your gut feelings have merit. You didn’t exactly have much else to go on, given that you didn’t know that they were going to call on you. And you said that you weren’t sure. Heck, all of this time I thought that Jed Rothwell was a good person; golly, what a fool I was.

    1. Why do you think you have been a fool thinking that Jed Rethwell is a good person??

    2. Because he attacked Mats viciously. Just like Newton, perhaps brilliant, but vindictive and socially retarded, perhaps.

    3. Where did he do that, Roger? I saw Jed only (rightfully) attack Mary Yugo’s unsubstatiated skepticism here.

    4. I guess you didn’t get here in time, or somehow missed it. I was shocked to tell you the truth. I didn’t think that it was fair and I don’t think that it is a good idea for pro-LENR people to be attacking each other.

    5. Roger, what’s your beef with Jed? Maybe you should reread his post.

    6. Roger, my interpretation of Jed’s post was that he was criticizing Yugo, not Mats.

    7. I trust your judgment, Iggy, even if Iggy isn’t your real name. I have been waiting for a blast back from Jed. I don’t see how I could have read that so wrong. I am sorry if I have hurt an innocent person. Next time I will re-read such posts very carefully. Sorry.

  109. Oh and thanks for going, checking things out and reporting. BTW what happened to the other observers?

  110. Let’s get one thing straight Mats was challenged to tear the lab apart to uncover any scam on Defkalion’s part. That challenge in and of itself points to Defkalion being on the level.

    1. I think the second day of testing was not quite as smooth as the first and would seem to indicate three things.

      1st: There really is significant excess heat in this reaction, of a level beyond that possible from a chemical reaction. Had the demo been a scam, I don’t believe those problems would have occurred on 7-23-2013.

      2nd: They really don’t have sufficient control over the output to convince the early “industrial partners to complete there investments in the technology. That may be why they deleted at least some of the information from the web. It was no longer true. The initial tests had the licensees ready to try and start production but the reality is that it is not really ready for production. See part 3 below.

      3rd: That they have materials issues. Material characteristics of the powder are critical in the operation of the device. This is because from what I have been able to observe, they are not fully driving the underlying physics as I understand it. You can look at my white paper on the subject at website under the our technology drop down menu. The team that will finish the conversion from phenomenon to an actual technology must span all the disciplines covered in the paper. A 26 minute power point over view with audio track is also available at the bottom of the overview page, also under the out technology drop down menu. Tom Claytor, working at LANL was able to design a test based on first principals after watching that PPS several times. That test transmuted Deuterium to Tritium. A thorough understanding of the physics explains how and why that happens, but it proves that you can generate a nuclear reaction on demand in a metal hydride system.

  111. Some content analysis of MY’s comments. “Difficult circumstances.” “Rigged.” “Completely unsubstantiated.” “Without the slightest evidence.” “Doubt him.” “Check their stories.” “Investor scam.” “Distributor scam.” “Thoughts of scam.”

    It’s astounding how somebody can pack that amount of loaded content into a few sentences. It takes a great deal of practice and MY certainly has a lot of practice. At least MY is consistent, ridiculously so in my opinion.

    1. I think Mary Yogo and friends needs to get off the sofa and attend one of these demos themselves so they can see and test their theories and proove to the world how brilliant they are. Otherwise they are just blowing their own hot air. Genius! Everyone is brilliant, so long as they don’t put themselves out there to be scrutinized by their peers.
      And bravo to Mats on a job well done!

    2. Some time ago, I emailed back and forth with Jed Rothwell and we worked out a reasonable protocol for a proper test of Rossi’s device. I was willing to go there but if Jed went, it probably wouldn’t have been necessary. Anyway, Jed did the communicating with Rossi and Rossi categorically refused to run the tests.

      Going to watch a confusing and fast moving show like Mats had to put up with is an exercise in futility and frustration as I am sure he can tell you.

      What is needed is enough time to take everything apart and ask a lot of questions. There is no evidence that either Rossi or Defkalion will do that. Nor that they will get a single truly independent test which is what is really needed.

      So no, I won’t attend one of these shows. It would be a waste of time and money.

    3. Years ago, Rossi did refuse to allow adequate testing. He told me I would not be allowed to perform tests. I agree with Yugo that those rules it would be a waste of time to visit him. That is why I turned down the offer.

      However, the recent tests by Levi et al. were entirely satisfactory in my opinion. Each of the three tests was an improvement on the previous one. There may be some slight doubts left about the input power, but I expect these doubts will be resolved in the next set of tests.

      No skeptic has found an error in the recent tests. The arixv paper by Ericsson & Pomp was nonsense. Evidently that is the best argument the skeptics can come up with. It resembles Morrison’s arguments against Fleischmann, which had no scientific merit:

      Click to access Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf

      Shanahan’s argument against Levi et al. is even stranger. They reported that the thermocouple tracked the IR camera to within 3 deg C. He said he would not accept that assertion until they show the entire data set; i.e., every single value recorded by the IR camera and every single value reported by the thermocouple. This demand makes no sense. Levi already told you what the latter looks like, in a single sentence: add 3 to every value in the first data set. You don’t need any more information than that. There IS NO MORE information than that in the dataset.

      Shanahan is playing games and looking for an excuse to ignore the data.

      Mary Yugo came up with an equally absurd reason to reject the data: the machine was already turned on when the second test began. So what? A plutonium thermoelectric reactor is “turned on” the moment it is assembled and it stays on for decades. That does not prevent a person from measuring the energy output over some duration. You can measure the thermal output from any device whether it is turned on or not at the beginning of your test. It is not possible for this much chemical energy to be stored in the eCat, and even if that was a concern, having the machine turned on when the test begins means it is already losing fuel.

    4. It wasn’t entirely non-sense Jed but their conclusions were. In fact they showed that outside of outright fraud, the results indicated something strange was happening. So depending on how you answer the question of Fraud it was either very supportive of the Levi et al paper or more wierd proof for teh skeptics that Fraud was commited.

    1. No, but I didn’t investigate that very much. I think many people are afraid of being connected with this story.

    2. Do we know the name of the other validators? If so, someone should ask them. If not, ask Defkalion?

      No offense to Mats, but it seems convenient that the only validator was a journalist, not a scientist. Likewise, the demo was conveniently remote from ICCF where there were dozens of scientists who could have closely inspected the setup.

      The Defkalion business story is likewise very hard to swallow.

    3. Mark Gibbs was reporting for Forbes. Was. You are right. Thanks that you work for a supportive enterprise. Keep up the good work!


  112. Sadly, I have to agree with MY. Those business claims were very disappointing given their track record and Rossi’s track record. Unless he can back them up with 3rd party verification, they sound like something that is a very very big red flag.

    Perhaps he’s just an amateur at all this though.

    1. Right and that’s before you even get to the absurdity of a huge magnetic field as claimed by Defkalion. And then they shield it with a Faraday cage? No, folks. That can’t work. You can shield moderate fields with “mu metal” (see Wikipedia). Faraday shields are for RF energy. Apparently Defkalion’s geniuses don’t know the difference.

      And doesn’t Defkalion know how to measure and demonstrate a large magnetic field? Is that rocket science to them?

    2. Your not shielding the magnetic field einstein your shielding the EMF that emanates from a rapidly changing set of currents (at RF rates which make RF EMF) which can also produce strong magnetic fields near the event.
      As a reference the magnetic field intensity at the surface of a neodymium magnet is 1.25 T.

      Get a grip and stop spreading stupidities.

    3. “Get a grip and stop spreading stupidities.”

      Get a grip yourself. They are Defkalion’s stupidities. I’m only quoting them. THEY said they use a Faraday shield to shield against the magnetic field. And THEY said the 1.6T field is at 20 cm. distance. How is the field from your small neo magnet at 20 cm?

  113. Hi Mats,

    First of all, congratulations for going and trying your best to figure out what was going on under difficult circumstances. I am still not convinced that Defkalion is honest but for the moment, I don’t have any idea what they rigged.

    Xanthoulis’s claims are interesting but completely unsubstantiated. Perhaps if he named just ONE company or person who had paid $41 million or ONE major company, everyone would recognize that would admit having done definitive tests of the technology, he might be more credible.

    Considering he’s been saying that sort of stuff for two years now without the slightest evidence that it is true, I would tend to doubt him. Maybe you can ask him to identify one customer and one distributor so you can check their stories.

    I’ve been saying this is probably an investor scam. If there are no investors (and all we have for that is Xanthoulis’s word) then it’s probably a distributor scam. I do know for a fact that Jim Dunn solicited Dick Smith to be an investor for a million dollars about 2 years ago. He declined.

    A truly independent and well done test would go far to dissipate those thoughts of scam. Unfortunately, this demo wasn’t one.

    Thanks for going.


    1. “I am still not convinced that Defkalion is honest but for the moment, I don’t have any idea what they rigged.”

      So your opinion is unsupported by any evidence. Why, then, does it matter? Why should anyone care whether you are convinced or not when you “don’t have any idea” whether there is a problem?

      Why do you take the trouble to inform the world that you have an opinion — or a feeling, I should say — when you yourself agree this feeling is based on nothing? I suppose this is a 21st century habit people have gotten into, blogging about their emotions, as if anyone cares.

    2. This Mary Yugo last week claimed the conference at the University of Missouri wasn’t worth attending because nothing new would be presented. Based on her statement she didn’t she most likely never even read the abstracts of the conference papers

    3. “So your opinion is unsupported by any evidence.”

      That is so wrong, as Jed well knows. There are TONS of evidence that Defkalion is a bunch of serial, repetitive, rank liars.

      All you have to do is to see the claims on their old forum, claims which date back to 2011. Oh, you can’t see those? Well, that’s because these obvious prevaricators deleted the forum!

      So what did they lie about? They lied that they were building factories, they lied that they gave Hyperions to the Greek government to test, they never revealed any of the giant and famous companies that tested their systems and found them working well, they never revealed any of the more than a thousand major companies that bought their $40 million licenses. Do they look like a $40 billion establishment? Of course not. It’s all lies.

      Now they probably found some way to game Lab View or either input power or output power measurements. It looks pretty clever but then they had two years to work it out.

      Once a liar, most likely always a liar.

      The True Believers say the skeptics won’t believe the Hyperion is real until they can buy one at Home Depot. NOT TRUE. What is needed to suggest that it’s real is ONE CLEAN TEST. This could have been it if they had not used steam. They did not need to use steam. Not if they were not LYING. They said they had dozens of working reactors with liquid flow calorimetry using high temperature coolants. They said it in mid 2011! Of course they deleted that claim. Many of us remember it. Don’t you, Jed?

      And as skeptics ALWAYS say, a decent test done by a truly independent and trustworthy organization would also prove that the device is real and works as claimed. In almost three years now, that has not happened from Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, Nanospire, or Miley. Jed knows that. His issue should be with the claimants to do independent tests, not with the skeptics who ask for them.

      Further evaluation of the current test would require laborious watching of the videos over and over again. Unless Defkalion publish the actual data. And then that would have to be gone over. I don’t think it’s worth doing for me but I hope someone will.

      Mats did the best he could under difficult circumstances. I have no criticism of him for these tests though I wish he had been tougher with Rossi in the past.

    4. Look, you said “I don’t have any idea what they rigged.” Okay, so if you don’t have any idea, why mention it? I don’t have any idea how to cook lobster almondine. Should I go to a cooking forum and post messages saying this? Is it of any interest to anyone that I am completely ignorant about this subject? If you have some verifiable reason to suspect they rigged the test, then you should say what it is.

      Your gut feeling and your long list of rumors do not constitute reasons. Your state of mind does not count as evidence. This is a science and technology forum, not the National Enquirer or Tatler magazine. You have to list some sort of physical evidence such as something about the instruments or configuration that are suspicious.

  114. Pity you didn’t take along an electrical engineer.
    There was ample opportunity for them to do what they do best CHEAT, LIE and STEAL.
    Did you study science at school Matt? or were you off doing BASKET WEAVING?
    Put me down for a license…..I think I’ve got some spare change down the back of the couch.

    1. I studied science engineering at the Royal Swedish Institute of Technology (KTH).

    2. Keef, I am so sorry that you have found this forum. Mats was too busy participating to see what a obnoxious person you are. I will encourage him to ban you so that the rest of us can focus on LENR+ and you can go back to Sunday School in order to learn how to treat people.

    3. Being rude is one thing. Focusing on a wonderfull fairy tale is an other. Wonder which one belongs to sunday school.

    4. Roger Bird doing what he does best: ask for censorship. Why don’t you ban yourself, Torquemada?

    5. Hatred and put-downs… as defined by Roger Bird.This is not a religious war, Roger. Tolerance is respecting what you don’t like.

Leave a Comment. Latest comments are displayed on top. Comments are not threaded.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: