<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>QuantumHeat.org</title>
		<description>Discuss QuantumHeat.org</description>
		<link>http://www.quantumheat.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 13:49:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2581</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Andreas Van Rooijen Good - just checking! :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2581</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andreas Van Rooijen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2579</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Robert, I am aware that you (nor the MFMP) do not intend to break it open or reverse engineer it. Nor do I advocate such a thing. I would consider that to be a waste of time. :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andreas Van Rooijen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2579</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2578</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Andreas Van Rooijen We never intended to break it down and in fact can't as the 1MW units are actually sold on a lease basis - a 'buyer' never actually owns them. We would not want to break one down as it may restrict our options for developing our own technology in an open source way. In addition, it may leave us open to litigation which is simply not worth it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2578</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andreas Van Rooijen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2577</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Clovis, 1) I can "reassure" you, taking apart a water boiler is not a criminal offence. ;-) 2) You can't monitor those devices from a distance (this can be simpel avoided by using a Faraday cage) 3) I don't think Rossi has any IP to protect, but paradoxically, he has to hide his "invention" from the world to hide that fact.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andreas Van Rooijen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:23:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2577</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>clovis says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2576</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Al, you obviously don't read about this subject all that much, it 's plain silly to think that Dr. rossi would let people take his ip, if you try and take one apart you would be setting your self up for prison time, each unit will be monitored, he alone controls his ip or device, this team is out to find what is happening with lenr and to develop a data base for others to follow, quit trying to side track this wonderful work, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>clovis</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2576</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2567</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All We hear you loud and clear, review others but do not waste precious resources on them. Focus on our replication goals and powder experiments and further develop our Live Open Science hardware and software toolset for general scientific endeavour. Thanks loads for your time thinking about this. Look out for the proposed Kickstarter introductory pitch document on Friday, we will ask for your critical thinking on that too. Thanks for working with us to get our strategy and messaging right - you guys are awesome!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 01:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2567</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2565</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Roderick Vos You make some valid points, as we are likely to see the operations, the answer to those questions will be evident. We have had regular contact with people at UOM - they have been unable to provide resources to date but they have given advice.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:06:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2565</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2564</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ robert greenyer how about this i also have given up on rossi the only reason i follow any of this is to find some understanding in one of my own projects makeing hho were for some reason my bolts going into my reactor got supper hot and melted the pvc container. no high amperage or any kind of explanation untill i read about hydrogen / metal interactions.i trust what you guys say so why not go and meet with anyone you can look at the things they are doing, mabee get a presentation were you actually see their claims tell us whatever you can, then you will see a different response from the crowd. i think everyone here would believe you]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:51:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2564</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2562</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think it should not be our goal to prove the promises of Rossi and his competitors. If they have anything, it is way below their claims ! Let`s first focus on the base goal and build a Celani replication which is unrefusable ! Don`t waste time and money !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:48:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2562</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Roderick Vos says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2561</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I personally have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the claims of Rossi and Defkalion. Last year Defkalion said to have a marketable product, this turned out to be false. Maybe you can ask them what happened when you meet. Rossi also made bold statements but has not been able to show any reliable evidence to support his claims. Why would it take more than 2 years to produce good evidence for their technology? Wouldn't they benefit a lot e.g. attracting investment if they produce solid evidence? I think the MFMP should not waste any time on these people. It is up to them to prove their claims. Buying a Rossi reactor would be a waste of money and I think you would have to wait 10 years to see it be delivered. Stick with mr. Celani! He seems to be an honest man who understands the scientific method. Btw. have you contacted the university of Missouri? They bought the company Energetics who are probably able to produce excess heat. Maybe they are willing to work with us.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Roderick Vos</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:23:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2561</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2560</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Ellefson / Edwin Pell We hear you loud and clear, focus on the open testing and open development of Celani wire and our own powder experiments, only consider testing other technology options if it is at nominal cost. We agree that an open development of an effective technology has great value. We also must consider the value of competition - it is valuable if that competition only serves to bring the technology to everyone faster. It should be added that powder and foam simply cannot be tested and explored in the same precise and controlled flexible way as Celani's wire. Firstly, if we can replicate the V2 results of Celani, the power density of the wire has been calculated to be of the order of Rossi and Defkalions claims. However, a safe, low power experiment in 100s of international labs would allow very rapid testing of the very many ways these type of nano structure based effects can be enhances/optimi sed/triggered. Parameter sweeping by respected institutions with top level equipment will accelerate development enormously. When we have established a network of contributing collaborators for the Celani cells, these participators might also be able to explore a stock powder cell we could supply or provide blueprints of. We are getting there people, we should have a good strategy with you continued consideration here. We need to nail this in the next few days, so keep thinking!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 01:14:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2560</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2559</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ There is a HUGE difference between having viable public-domain LENR design technology available vs. having a small cadre of monopolists selling what secret elements they choose to sell, on their terms. I will not hope for good to come from reverse-enginee ring other's products, as this would be unethical if not illegal. So no, it would not be at all moot to continue open-science experiments in pursuit of a viable, useful reactor design technology base for anybody to freely use as they see fit. Personally, I presume that Rossi, Defkalion, Mills and Brillouin do in fact have LENR reactors working to some degree, but this does not interest me much, given their intentions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:21:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2559</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Al Potenza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2558</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Wouldn't you say that if Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, or Miley claims for thousands of watts, sustained indefinitely and at relatively low cost, are true, that your entire experiment is mostly moot and besides the point? With such energy levels readily available commercially, will additional nickel/hydrogen experiments really be necessary or desirable? At low power levels? As soon as one of them sells a product, it will be dismantled (legally or otherwise) and at least analyzed if not reverse engineered and we will know how it works. self-destruct" devices are no credible deterrent. I think the main reason to perform your work is if you do not think Rossi and Defkalion are telling the truth and Brillouin is not ready for prime time. No? Seems to me, the priority should be to rule them in or out.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Al Potenza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2558</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2557</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Developing an experiment that works and is low cost has great value. Do not get sucked into the Rossi blackhole. It is a waste of time. It is something I will not support. Ed]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2557</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2556</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ If you were invited to test their apparatus at minimal expense, this does not seem an unreasonable activity to pursue while doubts persist about LENR's existence. Purchasing a 1MW reactor from Rossi would be an entirely different situation, though. My "weighted donor vote" amounts to nearly zip, but I hope my public-interest intentions are communicated clearly here. Let's light the New Fire TOGETHER!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2556</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2555</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Ellefson This is an opinion expressed by a number of people and formed part of our expected range of reactions. As is our nature, we decided to be open about our thinking so that we could not loose our supporters as we look to go to a much wider and potentially less friendly audience. We have tried to avoid being partial in what we do, we are trying to settle debates and doubts across the space. In any event, our priority is open scientific development. It is great to hear that you would passionately advocate our open scientific work, thankyou - we need as many as possible to support us in that way. Given that both Brillouin and Defkalion have invited us to their operations, would your objection be so strong to doing Live experiments on their equipment if there was the funds available and the weighted donors voted for it? Essentially it is a test of a black box, in the case of Celani, the black box is the wire. Or would you be only in favour of us using additional funds to extend and accelerate our powder and other primary research? We really value your opinion.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2555</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2554</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Al Potenza Our priority is to establish a reliable experiment that we can ship across the world for further exploration and understanding of the science. That is what the base goal and first stretches are intended for. We recognise that we are unlikely to raise the additional money to be able to put these options to a donor vote - but we have to have an effective strategy to make marketing that might work against us achieving our primary goals, work for us.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2554</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2553</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ This sounds like you envision MFMP as a testing organization, something like a Consumer Reports, but with advocacy available, if warranted. Will there someday be a price for LENR device vendors to publically advertise "MFMP Certified" status? Applying science to investigate product performance is not the same as performing science, which is what I thought the MFMP was intended to do, given the talk of "live open science" and such. I have no interest in asking my social network to donate funds to be used to purchase a Rossi reactor, though I would passionately promote an open MFMP reactor development fundraising effort.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2553</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Al Potenza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2552</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ A suggestion: why not look Rossi back in the eye and say you'd like to speak to and, preferably, visit a client, any client not connected directly with Rossi, who has a working megawatt plant or any other LENR product Rossi has made? You may be able to collect fifty thousand dollars for experiments and tests (I hope you do) but I don't think you have the slightest chance of putting together a million dollars from crowd funding for anything claimed by Rossi. The possible exception would be if you could get a wealthy individual interested. Have you considered contacting Dick Smith, the Australian billionaire? Wikipedia:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Al Potenza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2552</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2551</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Off topic I know, but : go check out the latest update on the US V1.3 cells that are getting ready for the Celani V2.0 protocol wih 400+ layer wires. They look stunning! http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/220-additions-to-the-lab]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2551</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2549</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Keep up the debate, this is helping us formulate a strategy that will have a broad support base. We want you guys to be with us, we want all tech providers to engage like many scientists have done during our efforts to date. We must have something that inspires new people to the field as well as satisfying the many outstanding questions of those familiar, whatever their position. In fairness to Brillouin and Defkalion, they have been very positive and not the slightest obstructive about engaging with us and they are very aware of our work and approach. They have been professional in stating that they will not simply let technology out of their doors and for licensees, the due diligence and legalities are onerous and not compatible with our open nature. In both cases they have been clear about their economic approach and really are not that far from Rossi's position. The only real difference is Rossi has looked us in the eye and said we can buy a 1MW unit, subject to lead time, *terms* and actually being able to pay for it! We are sure that many people want real answers and what we are suggesting fully protects their IP, on their terms and will help promote them if their claims prove valid but still leaves us free to work with the wider community to define the test protocols and equipment and timeline for testing. If there is refusal of them to work on their own terms to live publish the validity of their claims through our established channels, then this would raise questions. Likewise, if we raised the money for the purchase of a 1MW Rossi unit and there was resistance to supply - again, this might reflect negatively on that companies claims. Remember - we want to assist proof, development, investment and commercial realisation of this whole field. We are not going to take anyones word for it on the way, if there is something of value, we will promote it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2549</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alain Coetmeur says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2548</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I won't argue endlessly, it is clear that Nelson bashed Rossi, and is very critic. You can be paranoid, but LENR is proven since long, and no magician let his baby alone with an tester, even with tweaked tools. read the report. SRI is serious. only reason to discredit it is that they are not accepting the mainstream illusion like you. like many you sold your difficulties to accept fact by saying that people who disagree with you are not reliable, because they don't agree with your bias... as I said you earlier else where, and as you carefully don't remind, Millis have well explained the optimal strategy which is 100% applied by Brillouin, DGT and Rossi.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alain Coetmeur</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2548</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Al Potenza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2547</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Alain I read all the Defkalion test reports which I could get my hands on. None is independent of Defkalion. And in my opinion, Nelson did not perform a credible test. From the documents I saw, neither the test method nor the results are clearly spelled out and believable. Furthermore, Nelson is a "believer" in Defkalion's claim and does not seem to qualify as a neutral observer. All of his tests were done in Defkalion's labs using their equipment and methods! Any major national laboratory or well known testing organization or major university physics department could test Defkalion or Rossi claims without risking revealing trade secrets or intellectual property. Rossi and Defkalion have had more than two years to get such proper independent testing of their claims to very large and very easily demonstrated excess power. And they have failed to do so. This should raise huge doubts about their claims.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Al Potenza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:02:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2547</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2546</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All, Very interesting discussion. I still would like to see a self sustain mode for the Celani wire. That would be an awesome demonstration. We heard rumors in the past that Celani had tried this but didn't have success. If true, that's very valuable information. Sometimes you learn even more from a failed experiment than you do from a successful one. Is it possible to ask Celani about this? I would love to see the Celani wire created while already formed into the Macor holder with enough wire to allow self sustained reactions. What would it take to get that to happen? @Malachi, Thanks for the update on the cell cool down. That's encouraging to know that it can resume after being at room temp. Perhaps on the next H2 fill, you could do that at room temp???]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:42:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2546</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alain Coetmeur says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2545</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ You should re read the report of nelson, that Nelson authentified to Gibbs... Hyperion was tested by Nelson in relative autonomy and Nelson appreciated that. about SRI test, we should check the report description but it was not like the early Rossi "don't touch my baby" style of test. it seems you should gather more data. there are many on lenr-forum http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?686-Defkalion-GT-announces-test-results]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alain Coetmeur</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:18:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2545</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2544</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Al Potenza You are raising the right points for any third party test. These need the acceptance of the challenge from us and the requisite funds to support the tests. All three contenders have said we cannot walk away with anything, but Rossi has said we can buy (lease) a 1MW plant. We must accept that and the mode of operation suggested above gets around that. We would seek total size of reactor and control electronics. We would then establish the highest possible chemical energy that could be obtained and then have everything in and out monitored by what we supply as you say - with addition of other detections for novel forms of energy transmission.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2544</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2543</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Al Potenza We have been told, in a face to face meeting with Rossi, we cannot have single units - reason, certification. It may be more to do with protecting IP and the fact that on their own - they are not very reliable... but having 100. some units can operate at below par and others over and net is a cop of 6. Hot Cats are likely too sensitive and less developed as a commercial product... so IP and lack of end product restrict options. So there are two options, the purchase/lease of a claimed for sale unit, for a purpose similar to that previously detailed to him and on detailed on our website for many months or an on-line live test of one of his units. I guess, if we say that the option would be on the table for donors to vote on should we reach £1.3m - then we could address the question to get a 1MW unit then - if we exceed our target for the main replications, but do not reach £1.3 million - we could look at what is possible to do with what we raise. Our first goal is raise the £50k. We will need everyone to target their favourite energy blogs/environme ntal/science/ne ws feed papers/online etc to give us a chance of success for even this small amount!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2543</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Al Potenza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2542</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Robert, if you test a reactor in the inventor's facilities, you must not use a single component which they supply other than the reactor. To avoid risk of sleight of hand, you must provide your own power and *all* of your own method and equipment for determining the input and output power and energy. The inventor must provide *only* the reactor, as a black box, with simple terminals for input power, and some simple output connector depending on the expected output. You provide *everything* else. And you must run plenty long enough to rule out stored energy in the device by any known means including molten metal and high power density batteries, chemical reactions and so on. NASA once specified how long that is and basically it was days for the very small ecats, weeks for the "Ottoman" size, and months for a very large "plant" in a container sized box. It's easier to avoid getting fooled if you do the experiment in your own labs.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Al Potenza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:30:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2542</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2541</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Some good arguments, keep them coming - we need to get the strategy right. Our priority is to be able to supply a common experiment that has vey high energy density for others to explore, we feel are getting there with the Celani and if we do - it is uniquely suitable for further scientific study. As you are aware - we are also engaging in powder research and with your analytical help and inspiration, we hope to see the same kind of rapid open development in that area. We have discussed that we will not sign any agreements that restrict our ability to explore technology paths independently and openly, for instance, triggering methods - that is why we suggest offering to test reactors in a claimants own premises. That way, there is no IP risk to them so no need for NDAs etc and it is most likely to minimise our costs. If we can show their technology, that claims to have utility, to be valid then people can stop worrying and yet others can start investing in the space.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2541</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Al Potenza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2540</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Something I fail to understand. If Rossi's megawatt reactor is an assembly of smaller modules and if he can sell the megawatt device, how is it that "certification" prevents him from selling individual modules? That makes no sense. Surely, if he can sell 50 or 100 of something, he can sell *one* of the same thing! Another thing: Rossi claims to have sold at least 13 megawatt "plants" yet nobody has ever reported seeing one other than the same one he showed in October 2011 and always in Rossi's facilities. Finally, don't count on Defkalion (or Brillouin) allowing you hands on access to their devices. There is nothing to suggest that they have ever allowed such access to anyone anywhere unless it was under their direct control in their own lab. And the experiments they reported have not shown substantial credible amounts of excess heat measured by reliable methods. Good luck with this but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Al Potenza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 17:11:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2540</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2539</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It seems to me that working with would-be monopolists in order to promote public belief in LENR is more likely to result in free publicity for their businesses than to promote open scientific research into LENR. Using the Celani wire makes sense, because this is the shortest available route towards the replicated proof demonstration goal, which is laudible. However, once the proof of LENR existence goal has been met, I think it would be far more productive for the MFMP project to evolve into a direct open-science research organization, leveraging the involvement of large research institutions both for their expert contributions and in order to obtain access to their expensive analytic equipment. In my opinion, the goals of this next phase of research should be focused on identifying, understanding and optimizing useful reactor designs, unburdened by IP constraints, that can yield widespread practical benefit as soon as possible.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2539</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Erik says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2538</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Alex, I still think the Celani wire is the best thing that has happened. It is a black box, but you can give it away for scrutinizing, thus protecting the IP of the investors/whate vers at the same time as replication can take place without the control or consent of the IP holder.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Erik</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2538</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2537</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Getting the Ecat for testing is a really good idea. A Pxs of 1MW compared to 10W of Celani can make a lot of difference. Only catch is the money. But if its only for validation then you don't need the whole plant, perhaps one module will be enough, which will make the cost 1/50 (I guess there are 50 modules in 1MW). Or if you can ask Rossi to give a used one or even smaller one, he may agree for even a lower price or for free may be (with a ton of agreements and NDAs) I sincerely request you to try for it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2537</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2535</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@RonB Thank you very much for your encouragement and offer of physical support. We are meeting with both Brillouin and Defkalion in the next two weeks assuming all goes to plan. We will be presenting an offer to them that respects their IP totally and would only enhance their prospects of selling licences if they have what they have. We do not care if it is not huge COP for months - we just want to facilitate fact gathering end help end the debate on multiple fronts. When people are armed with real verifiable data then they can make decisions. Live data based on schematic and protocol design enable good scientific method to flourish. We believe that the New Fire, just like the old fire, will come in many guises. There needs to be competition in research and implementations and we are set up to encourage that whilst remaining impartial.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2535</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2534</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Bob, I really like the way the team here is open and honest about plans. I know you all there are putting in some long days/nights. Sometimes it can become discouraging, but don't be, you're all doing a very noble thing. I'm only a short drive to the DGT headquarters, when/if the time comes, I would volunteer to help with any involvement we might have with them.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:48:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2534</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2533</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlexRa Thank you for your good thinking. This is the kind of discussions we have been having internally for some time. What we know is that interest and donations collapse when there are major "announcements" from other players in the field, even when there is nothing of substance shown. There could be an active campaign to deny success to our fundraising that is far worse than the hijacked announcements we normally experience. What we want is a social fundraising strategy that is resilient to attacks, deliberate or circumstantial, of this kind. We are not aiming to promote a particular technology - just help the tech be developed and then promote it. If publicity from a third party is very effective it may prevent us from fulfilling our primary goal, that of our multiple independent replications. That would benefit no one. If we take the approach above and people make bold claims, they would not be a bad thing for the fundraising, but a good thing. I appreciate what you are saying about what could be done with resources of that kind and this along with developing the Live Open Science hardware and software toolset for general scientific exploration regardless of LENR is something we would really like to do. Maybe we should put it to a vote of the people that pledge to the social funding and the donors on this site weighted to amount. That way it can be democratic. We state that our goal might be to test this, or buy/lease that, give cost estimate and let the givers direct the action. How does that sound?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:41:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2533</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlexRa says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2532</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(continued) Just think of the advanced lab equipment you could buy and experiments you could do for the same £1.3m the "eCat in the box" would cost you (and no doubt it would come with all kinds of NDAs and usage restrictions). Even replicating Celani's cell is actually testing a blackbox, since you don't have the know-how to reproduce the "magic" wire. So far you haven't even shown clearly the excess heat, and there is a chance that your new and more accurate experimental setup will not confirm Celani's results. It may be a good idea instead of making several identical replications, set different kinds of experiments as the extended goals (Ni nanoparticles that you seem to be doing already, Pd-D electrolitic cells, electric discharge, short pulses through wire a'la Brillouin, transmutations in the electric arc with tungsten electrode or what not).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlexRa</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:05:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2532</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlexRa says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2531</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Rossi is a highly controversial figure and so far all we have is his statements on the JONP site. If the 3-rd party report so much talked about will finally be published and turn out to be as detailed and credible as Rossi seem to imply, and if he will be able to demonstrate a commercial 1MW eCat in operation as he promises, that's likely to accelerate the LENR revolution tremendously regardless of MFMP involvement. On the other hand, if things just keep not happening and Rossi keeps explaining away the delays, then it would be bad for the LENR field in general and very bad for any group basing its plans on Rossi's success. Either way, I believe it might be wiser to concentrate on creating open and reproducible experiments, and diversify them as much as possible, rather than testing other peoples' black boxes. (to be continued)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlexRa</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:04:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2531</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
