What to learn from an historical cold fusion conference — ICCF19

This post was originally published on Animpossibleinvention.com.


iccf19-logoLast week, the international conference cold fusion, ICCF-19, was held, and I would argue it was historical, for several reasons.

The first is the ongoing trial by Rossi’s and his US partner Industrial Heat of a commercially implemented 1 MW thermal power plant based on the E-Cat. From credible sources I get confirmation of what Rossi states — that the plant is running very well — which means that we should expect important results presented at the end of the 400 day trial, backed up by a customer who certifies the useful power output and the measured electrical input from the grid. Such results will be difficult to challenge.

Read more on Animpossibleinvention.com.


38 thoughts on “What to learn from an historical cold fusion conference — ICCF19

Add yours

  1. A suggested reading,Thomas Clarke’s paper:


    The analysis here shows that the estimated excess heat in the Report is wrong, and results from an incorrect assumption that alumina is a grey body with temperature-dependent emissivity. In fact alumina has a non-grey-body frequency-dependent spectral emissivity that combines with Plank’s Law to result in a temperature-dependent total emissivity. The infra-red thermography results must thus be adjusted using the relevant band emissivity of alumina, not the temperature-dependent total emissivity.
    We show that when this error is corrected the resulting temperature is 779C, not the claimed 1401C. The total estimated power out from the system matches power in to within possible experimental error and shows a COP of 1.07. Remarkably, the two tests with 755W and 865W input have very similar COP, and this similarity is not very sensitive to changes in parameters such as alumina emissivity. Thus the argument for high differential COP used by the Report as additional evidence falls and the COP is as expected for a system with no excess heat.
    The unusual isotopic shift between the reactor “fuel” and the “ash” remains unexplained. It should however be noted that both insertion and removal of this material from the reactor was handled by the device inventor Rossi and therefore, although the isotopic analysis was conducted independently, this result does not constitute independent evidence.
    It is also interesting to note that the mistake made in the Report would have been immediately detected had the experimental methodology followed normal thermographic practice and controlled temperature measurement through an independent check of surface emissivity. Alternatively a control experiment using a device without fuel and equal power input to that used in the active tests, as is common practice, would test assumptions. Such practice would improve the quality of any future tests.”


  2. “What to learn from an historical cold fusion conference — ICCF19”

    At least one thing, we can learn that it is already history.

  3. @MY Thanks for answering my question, obviously we disagree.
    At my age I feel flattered being called “fresh meat”, but I have been following this story since Jan 2011 and thus have seen all your arguments over and over and over again.
    Your focus is on the man Rossi and his troubled past and conclude he is not credible. Thus his device cannot work, everything he claims must be untrue and all the people that say he has the goodies or publish positive test results are his cronies or shills. I find that a very static and rigid point of view. And it leaves one no other option than keep digging the own pit deeper and deeper.
    A bad man does not necessary make bad things: Richard Wagner was not a nice person and he had a troubled past, but a lot of people think his music is pretty good.

    As an engineer I am inclined to focus more on the device: technology, materials, construction, strengths and weaknesses and of course the claimed measuring results.
    By doing so I saw the e-Cat evolve from a clumsy concept with a seperate H2 bottle to an pre-production type. In the 4 years since 2011 many changes and improvements were made to the design, and are in line with how you develop a product. This is one of the main reasons I think Rossi has what he claims, an imposter would not have followed this road.
    Further there is the ever increasing list of credible people that have seen the device and state that it works. Recently Tom Darden has stepped a little bit in the spotlight. What he said adds more credibility to Rossi.
    I was not impressed by the quality of a some of the tests which temporarely reduced my confidence. But overall there is by now such a large pile of circumstantial evidence that I think the e-Cat is real, and that there is a 1MW plant under test at a customer (probably one of Tom Dardens business friends.)
    Rossi is certainly not a noble night on a white horse, but he is also not the Blackadder you like to paint him.

    So here we are, same set of data, different conclusions. Time will tell who is right. The 1MW customer report is due early next year.

  4. Additional for Henk:

    A *claim* of customer satisfaction is meaningless in Rossi’s case, because you don’t know who the customer is. You also don’t know if their claim of satisfaction is free of conflicts of interests. Sure, if Rossi sold dozens to different, well identified, and available-for-interview industrial customers, their satisfaction would prove it works. But that is not what is happening!

    In addition, you minimize the importance of Rossi’s continual lying about his “customers” and how many “plants” he’s sold. If he lies about those things, he can lie about anything and probably does.

    And don’t forget that Rossi’s prior career consists of mainly two things. First, an environmental disaster in Italy for which he was convicted of a felony and went to prison. Here is extensive documentation by Steve Krivit of Rossi’s criminal past:


    Henk, you think Rossi suddenly went straight? In 2011? Or was it in 2007 when he claimed to be heating a whole building with an ecat?

    Second, a project with the US DOD (CERL branch) in which Rossi told them a high efficiency thermoelectric converter had been manufactured and tested at the University of New Hampshire. DOD spend $9 million (!) on a new lab, fees to Rossi and his friends ($2 million or more) based on this claim. Rossi delivered non working junk instead of thermoelectric converters. Nobody but NOBODY has come forward and said that they EVER saw the high efficiency prototype and no credible test reports have ever been produced officially by the U of NH — at least none which anyone can find and Gary Wright even used the Freedom of Information Act to try.

    Rossi should have been prosecuted for this DOD fraud but DOD chose instead to sweep the embarrassing mess under the rug and they removed their report from their web site. You can still get that shameful document from Krivit’s site:

    Click to access 2004Army-ApplicationOfThermoelectricDevices.pdf

    Again, this has been discussed extensively in the past but since you, Henk, appear to constitute “fresh meat,” I thought it worth the trouble to restate it.

  5. @Henk

    Sorry I overlooked the question. No, customer satisfaction is not the proper way to test a new technology. It takes too long and if a device doesn’t work by the time it’s sold to a customer, it will be a disaster for the promoters. What Rossi says he is doing is as if the Wright Brothers had waited to claim powered flight until a 747 had been constructed and sold to United Airlines! And imagine what will happen to Rossi if his test results are, as he says is possible, “negative”.

    What believers in Rossi, including Mats Lewan, fail to acknowledge is that testing Rossi’s ORIGINAL claim, the steam temperature ecat, is extremely simple *AND* it has never been correctly done. It takes days, not a year. If tested independently of Rossi (something which has NEVER happened), a test with liquid flow calorimetry would provide incontrovertible proof that the ecat worked.

    The sort of test Levi supposedly did with liquid flow calorimetry in February 2011 would be enough to prove without any doubt at all that the ecat worked. But as Krivit first pointed out, the test was badly performed and not documented and therefore unreliable and worthless. In the time since (4 years!) Levi was asked to repeat it by no less a personage than Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Levi never even replied to the requests. To me, that is prima facia evidence that Levi knows the test results would have been negative if he had calibrated the test and kept records. There is no other logical reason for not doing a two or three day test with inexpensive equipment and minimal manpower.

    Compare that keeping a crew of supposed experts for a year inside a container doing God knows what with a supposed megawatt plant which, in reality, is nothing but a collection of ecats, very similar to the ones that Levi supposedly tested and proved worked fine four years ago.

    If what Rossi is doing makes sense to you, you just don’t understand the situation! Also, I tire of repeating the same facts and conclusions for every new believer. Henk, I am afraid you have not been keeping up! Go back and read Rossi’s hilarious Journal of Nuclear Physics, a pompously named silly blog and see how many contradictions and obvious lies you can find.

    Henk, you can continue this old discussion if you wish, with a larger audience, here:


  6. @MY You seem to miss the point. I responded to your remark that there are better testmethods.
    In my experience a test by and at a customer is the best because that is the application where you developed the product for.
    The customer is the ultimate judge of any product, my question to you was if you agree with this and I am still waiting for your response.

    Whether Rossi has been lying in the past is not relevant here because the customer decides, not Rossi.
    Of course you may (and will) claim that any positive customer report on the 1 MW is flawed because Rossi bought the customer and the referee, or are his buddies or are incompetent etc. etc.
    People will draw completely different conclusions based on the same set of data. The human mind works in wondrous ways….

    By the way, I do think that the 1 MW is for real, and yes, most probably the customer has a personal or business connection to Tom Darden, one of Rossi’s “cronies” or” shills”.

  7. @Henk

    Here is what Rossi wrote in 2012:

    “Andrea Rossi
    May 13th, 2012 at 8:03 AM
    Dear Pietro F.:
    I have been authorized to give the following information.
    The 1 MW plant has been delivered and is working in a military concern. It has been made in the USA, after the October test of the prototype made in Italy; such prototype will be delivered, with the modifications which we will complete based on what we learnt from the model at work, to a European Customer in July. I have not been allowed to give this information until now.
    We are working very much and very hard to be as fast as possible. For the domestic E-Cats we have the necessity of the certification made. The industrial plants will get the necessary certification within weeks.
    Warm Regards,

    and in 2013, he replied to questions from “gian” (Giancano maybe?):

    March 13th, 2013 at 6:39 AM
    I’m wondering what news you are able to give of the hot cat from 1 megawatt delivered to a military Institution unknown to us.
    It’s a long time this hot cat is operational.
    We wonder if, after delivery, your customer has remained in touch with you: if requested technical informations, expressed his satisfaction or his complaints.
    After more than 6 months of operation a fuel recharge has already been carried out by your technicians .
    When recharging your technicians have definitely reported information, comments, news.
    Would you to tell us something?
    Would you to tell us what you believes is the degree of satisfaction of your client?
    Warm regards
    Andrea Rossi
    March 13th, 2013 at 8:38 AM
    Dear Gian:
    1- yes, we are in dayly contact with him
    2- yes, the recharge has been made
    3- information is confidential
    4- we are working very well with the Customer: I think he is satisfied.
    Warm Regards,

    Now I ask you: don’t you think Rossi was lying? Do you really think he has a customer other than among his friends and cronies and shills? Why? Because he said so?

  8. @ Thomas Clarke.
    My post was a reaction to MY’s claim that there are many better methods for testing the e-Cat.
    I have an engineering background and have seen many products go from reseach to pre-development and product-development into production and sales.
    In this process a lot of tests are made, but the ultimate proof is at the customer, he decides if the product works satisfactory in his application.
    So if the customer of the 1 MW is happy after the 400 days test you have the best proof there is.

    Of course you can (and already do) argue that the customer will be fooled by Rossi, like he supposedly did to that long and ever growing list of other “naive” people, but that argument holds for any test. If one cannot believe a result he or she will always find something to dismiss it. The human mind works in wondrous ways.

    By the way, one of the main reasons I have over time came to believe that Rossi most probably has what he claims is that he has followed the process I described above, from a clumsy proof of concept in 2011 to a pre-production model in 2014.
    But hey, I am an engineer…..

  9. Sorry for the multiple post.

    Actually Rossi has disclosed enough info for us to guess what is going on. Initially the customer was “not happy” with the hot cat performance. Consistent with the true COP=1. Now we hear that customer is very happy. What has changed? Well we will probably never know, but there is one easy way in such a complex setup to make it look as though a device is supplying power at a high COP, which is to turn down its input power (consistent with Rossi’s comments about achieving high SSM). The plant power (from the plant original power source) will be much higher than the input. Whether COP is high or low depends on a flaky comparison of plant original input and the plant origonal output power because the e-cat input power is much smaller than the original input and original output power. Subtracting two large numbers magnifies errors.

    That is just a guess, and note that it follows the normal pattern. No clear dishonesty – another test which just happens to have errors larger than claimed excess power but superficially sounds impressive.

  10. @Henk

    The recent comments by Rossi about how his 1MW plant will be evaluated are totally opaque, except to make clear that such evaluation will be very complex, combining info from very many sources. The possibility of error in such a complex setup is real, even without intent. With intent…

    It is absolutely true that a device that truly helps people save 95%+ of energy (as is claimed) would be very impressive. The problem is going from the “Rossi customer info” to the conclusion that somone has actually saved 95% of energy.

    The Lugano Report was a superb and (for me) wonderful example of how apparently strong scientific analysis, of a very complex sort, can be flawed. (The radiant power calculation flaws, very subtle, actually bring COP down to about 1 independent of input power flaws, but they also introduce a potential large error so possibly input power is wrong as well, there remains an anomaly in the dataset though not one requiring COP not equal to 1). None of that is obvious from casual or even quite long inspection of the report, but it can be explained in detail so that no-one denies it.

    Mat here, after such explanation, will simply say that it proves nothing. Which is true. All of Rossi’s tests have proved nothing while being amazingly good PR.

    Maryyugo will say here that the tests with known errors larger than the results, and therefore vacuous content, do prove something. Since proving that a device with COP > 3 actually works is pretty easy a succession of “not proofs” is the same as a proof that the thing does not work. And then that Rossi’s behavior overall is also not compatible with having a working device.

    I agree.

    Anyway – what validation this plant does or does not give (if you believe the test honest) is still unknown and history tells us (15 or whatever tests) it will remain shrouded in mystery while being proclaimed by Rossi as wonderful PR.

    The evidence we have of direct Rossi dishonesty, rather than mistake, in these tests is actually very small. It is the substitution/contaimination of claimed ash, once a few years ago, and again in the Lugano test. Rossi obviously does not consider this dishonest since he has retrospectively admitted the first problem. Mats will not believe the second substitution, and it is true that if that ash is not substituted (as all the evidence points) Rossi has a device that either performs unheard of Ni-62 separation or performs extreme isotopic conversion. The scientific implausibility of this, even if you admit an extraordinary LENR hypotheses, has been hashed out before and I know does not move Mats because he does not use Occam’s razor in his judgements.

  11. @MY
    Let’s keep this simple and try to stay focussed:
    My first sentence was: “The only test that really counts is when a product is used by the customer in the actual application.”
    Note that this is a generic statement and not specific to Rossi’s device.
    Do you agree with that?

    1. No.
      “The Customer” is not enough as long as it is secret or he is in bargain with Rossi stuff (that is: he is not looking for energy, but for money from the story). A customer that could be fine should be one not involved, that is one that does not need to be secret or signs nda or let measures only by Rossi and friends,
      By the way, the market is NOT a customer (or two, if you count ghosts)

  12. Another theory is that he might earn a bit more letting believe than showing what is really happening – there are more gullibles than skeptics that would buy your books, and good science books do not have a big market, while books on miracles or ufo or science fiction or even conspiracy and pseudoscience do have.
    Ah, the power of the market… Did you attended the cop >20 to 80? Are you able to endorse it as real or are you able to tell only that someone told you? “In same range” means “Rossi and Darden”?

    marryyugo, of course Rossi does not spend 16 hours a day in a container 😀 he is only saying he is doing so, but if you ring his doorbell, he will tell you “sorry, I had been forced to leave the container because I had to take a piece missing, as I forgot it nearby the swimming pool in my garden. Later I will go to an equivalent of Bloomingdale to take another piece that brake some hours ago, and while I am there I will save some times eating at restaurant, so I will be able to work the whole night . you know: lavolale, lavolale is my way of living….”. And it would be all true, at least as the infinite cop, the thermalizing gamma and the thermoelectrical device scam. Sure, he said!

  13. Oh, I have a theory about why Mats did not insist on proper experiments with Rossi. Rossi would, without a doubt, have thrown him out, not invited him or talked to him any more, and called him a snake or a clown, like he did Krivit when Krivit insisted on asking relevant questions. And Mats must have known that and on the small chance that the claims were real, he elected not to ask any difficult questions. Good for staying in the game but, sorry Mats, terrible journalism!

    Rossi only chooses people to work with who don’t ask critical questions or do the best tests. His great skill is in picking such people. I don’t know how he does it. But when someone becomes in any way critical, they get dumped. This is probably why Rossi dismissed and paid off all (ALL!) his prior world distributors except for Hydrofusion. I wonder what Green in Australia is saying to customers who had been willing to pay a million and a half for a megawatt plant (4 months deliver, remember?). Maybe Mats could contact Green and report on it. Or maybe Gary Wright will do it.

  14. @Henk

    “The only test that really counts is when a product is used by the customer in the actual application. In the 1 MW case the customer uses the product to generate steam, an energy-hungry process. When after the 400 days the customer is happy it means he made his production and saved big time on his electricity bill.”

    Well, Henk, we have some problems. First, who is the customer? Second, what happened to all the other customers from whom Rossi said he had orders? Was he lying about that? If so, why is he not lying now?

    Really? It takes 400 days? Why can’t you do it in ONE day or ONE week, considering this farce has been in motion since 2007? Remember the boiler that heated a whole factory in 2007? Why didn’t the customer buy one? What happened to it?


    “What more proof whould you want?”

    That’s the thing believers don’t understand! If Rossi really had a technology which could accomplish cold fusion/LENR on a desktop, he wouldn’t need any idiotic 400 day test with an unspecified (and probably non-existent) customer! All he would need is a few GOOD tests by truly independent and credible sources like any one of dozens of government labs or major university physics engineering departments –as departments, officially and not by individual previously unknown professors acting on their own outside university control.

    Henk, how do you account for the ever reducing and vanishing power gains and power levels that Rossi reports? Is that your idea of progress?

    Are you not concerned that there never has been a single test in more than three years (coming up on 4 soon) in which Rossi was not intimately involved?

    If Rossi really had what he claims, he would not need to sit in a silly container for months! Any one of a number of much shorter tests could easily prove his claims. It has not happened because Rossi will not allow it. That’s the only reason!

    While I am at it, I am increasingly upset with Mats and the professors. They had every opportunity to hold Rossi’s feet to the fire during the low temperature ecat tests– all they needed were a few correctly performed input power tests and output power blanks and calibrations. Rossi always refused and they agreed to proceed and write reports anyway– even after the scientific community told them of this problem. I would love to hear Mats explain how that happened. I am sure he knows what a blank, a calibration and a proper control run are. He simply did not insist on them!

  15. @MY
    The only test that really counts is when a product is used by the customer in the actual application.
    In the 1 MW case the customer uses the product to generate steam, an energy-hungry process.
    When after the 400 days the customer is happy it means he made his production and saved big time on his electricity bill.
    What more proof whould you want?

    1. “What more proof would you want?”

      Well, to tell the truth, the words of believers who heard a fraudster saying the miracle was working should be enough to everybody to understand that those speeches are a pure report of genuine facts. Like copper, ni62, infinite cop, cop 200, cop 3, 1 million of E Cat factory, 1 MW plant sailed, 1 MW plant as personal house and existence of Santa. All pure facts that only dumbest pathoskeptics could dare to disbelieve – the word of honorable Rossi (& Friends) could not be underestimate as a trivial lie – as said by clever believers, none could be so gullible to believe for so many years if these were only words, thus it must be all true, even if only Rossi & Friends could measure those magical devices and (for example) only died people could confirm stuff like manipulated samples to extract ni62 in times when copper was found. It must be all true as YOU are not so gullible and as people like Kullander could have sworn on it if he only was still alive.

      By the way, Mats, somewhere else you’re reported as an informed one that confirms cop >20 to 80. May you swear on it or can you swear only on the fact that someone told you it was that way? And could believers – which are definitely NOT gullible – understand the difference?

      I do believe you can and, while letting believe stuff without saying clearly it (for example with: “if one could believe those numbers” or with: “a source in the range, probably not the same”) you laugh every day since years.

  16. maryyugo, testing for real is none of Rossi’s business, you know it. Till today, we are still at “says” and “soon on the market”, and within four hundred days we will know we will be asked to look for next four hundred days…Rossi himself remembered there are people asking you to wait for half a century, so why should not people grant him, let’s say, 10 or 20 years? Only because he started telling it was “almost ready” at end of 2009 and “ready next year” in 2010? We all know he is a lier, and it is incredible we do not whant yo trust him knowing that fact

  17. Mats, have you carefully considered the merits of testing this collection of strapped-together ecats? Is this an appropriate way to verify that Rossi’s technology really works? Are there not many vastly better methods?

    1. I’m not sure but I think they started in the beginning of the year or at the end of 2014. Minimum required is supposedly 365 effective days, and if everything goes smoothly, Rossi says the trial could end in December this year, otherwise at the beginning of 2016.

    1. I don’t know if we have the same sources, but the information is in the same range.

    2. “Are your credible sources different from those of Sifferkoll?”

      “I don’t know if we have the same sources, but the information is in the same range.”

      >Sifferkoll : “I know first hand from very reliable sources that they…”

      I too!!

      I know too “directly, first hand, and from a very reliable sources”, that they have seen Santa Claus in his very person. These serious people assure, even swearing on their grandmother grave, that Santa was flying in his slide carried up in the sky by 6 or 7 (they were not able to count precisely) funny creatures that resemble caribous (or reindeers, once again, they cannot be sure). But for sure, they did not mistake Santa very new news about free abundant energy for nothing: electricity from heat is finally arrived, thanks to the man that lives in a container, so next show will be him telling everybody the container lights are in self sustained mode and even the building where it is buried is self-light-sustained by the magic device.
      In any case, it must be surely true: it is a first hand, direct, reliable sources those who told me. Not Rossi himself, of course, but customers of Santa, the voices of innocence itself!!

      😀 😀 😀

      And there is even video to prove this fact! Dozens of videos, if you search carefully throughout the net. Here a couple or three: you must accept the truth, it is clearly science: “directly, first hand, and from a very reliable sources”, thanks to God! And only for good people, of course…




  18. @Mats
    So you expect great things from Rossi when the 400 days have passed?

    I have noticed something interesting. When you are out walking you may see a little speck in the distance, something with the size of an ant. When you get closer and closer it keeps growing and when you arrive at it the object may turn out to be not an ant but an elephant. That is trivial, now to the interesting part.

    With Rossi’s promises it is rather the opposite, at least in the time dimension. He promises that if you wait 400 days you will see an elephant in all its glory. But days are becoming weeks that are becoming months and the closer the elephant comes, strangely, it does not grow. Now what is this? Alice in Wonderland? No, it is perfectly normal, it has happened several times before. When the elephant finally arrives you stoop down only to see that it has six legs instead of four and two antennas instead of a trunk.

    And then you cannot help but asking yourself: “Is this positive or negative?” 🙂

  19. @Bernie,

    Remember that when skeptics always challenge experiments, there are two possibilities:
    (1) skeptics are biassed
    (2) experiments are bad

    Rossi has been told what to do to clean up his experiments many times. He has never done it. Any one of his tests could be redone with more care to answer skeptics.

    The Lugano test, for example, introduced many new problems that were entirely unnecessary.

  20. The Lugano test looked superficially convincing – but had calorimetry so complex as to make it almost impossible to analyse and no control to check analysis.

    You willing to bet this IH “customer” – even if not saying what Rossi wants – is able to know precisely how much power is delivered – or used? I agree a power company would know usage. Rossi’s record of correctly measuring power is has question marks.

    As Maryyugo has said: how can it be there is this 1MW working plants when not a single demo has run properly, in a way that would blow away the patent office objections and allow Rossi to take a patent if not a Nobel Prize.

    A sure sign of vapourware is when people go into large volume production before having proof of concept. That is what Rossi is doing.

    COP of 3 or 10 or 30. All are easy to validate beyond doubt with known calorimetry. In fact Rossi’s original mass flow calorimetry, done properly by external competent people, would do this just fine.

    Why no such validation? It woiuld be greatly to Rossi’s interest to have it.

  21. Another point: why was there not a single working ecat or ANY high power LENR demonstration at ICCF19? How hard is it to packup a single ecat with a PROPER measurement system and send it to the conference for everyone to see?

  22. “The proper way to test the ecat is and has always been to duplicate Levi’s 2/2011 liquid calorimetry experiment with the proper controls, blanks and calibration — something which Rossi and Levi have studiously avoided doing or allowing for four years.”

    No way, man – you will never see a proper test as there is nothing for real to test, only “Rossi says” and “happy friends clapping”. Proper tests (with proper testersù9 are not allowed, there.

  23. PS: such results are neither important nor difficult to challenge. The main challenge is that Rossi was heavily involved. It is absolutely hilarious that Rossi’s bizarre charade with the container and his “team” of strange looking friends is taken seriously by anyone!

    The proper way to test the ecat is and has always been to duplicate Levi’s 2/2011 liquid calorimetry experiment with the proper controls, blanks and calibration — something which Rossi and Levi have studiously avoided doing or allowing for four years.

  24. Mats, that is so naive. Who’s the customer? What happened to the 2011 megawatt plant? Do you really think that the best and most convincing way to prove the ecat works is to make 100 of them, stuff them into a container, and run them for a year. the whole time connected to line power?

    Don’t you realize that the “customer” is probably a crony of Rossi? Just as the mysterious NATO colonel (whatever that is) was in 2011?

    Can you image Edison testing the first electric generators by making 100 of them and sitting with them inside a container for a year? Of course not. Instead, he built a nice well working prototype and used it to light up Manhattan. Let us know when Rossi does something comparable to this:


    Really, the thought of Rossi squatting for a year in a friend’s “factory” inside a container makes me literally roll on the floor with laughter.

  25. I agree, but when you say, “Such results will be difficult to challenge” I am reminded of the super skeptics and/or money interests wanting to thwart LENR development. I hope Rossi has an “ironclad” way of showing money saved by his customer, or the skeptics will just do it again.

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: