What to learn from an historical cold fusion conference — ICCF19

Tom Darden Speaking at ICCF19 — Courtesy MFMP.

Tom Darden Speaking at ICCF19 — Courtesy MFMP.

Last 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.

UPDATE: Since a COP (Coefficient of Performance — output energy/input energy) ranging from 20 to 80 has been reported, I can confirm that I have got the same information, although I think it’s wise not to pay too much attention to numbers in this case).

(We also got good insights in the values and views behind Industrial Heat/Cherokee through the speech by CEO Tom Darden at ICCF, which is a must read for anyone wanting to understand his and the company’s background. Even more material is found in this extensive interview with Darden in Infinite Magazine).

Since these results will be presented before the next ICCF, this year’s conference may have been the last before a major breakthrough for cold fusion.

I attended the last days of ICCF-19 and I saw that it was historical also in another way, with a high number of attendees, close to 500, among them many young researchers which is promising since the field has been lacking new talent for many years.

I was struck by the positive attitude and the good energy (!) that characterized the conference. The research that was presented ranged from energy production to topics such as aerodynamic applications, biological transmutation and remedy of nuclear waste through LENR. This should remind us of several things.

First, that LENR covers a whole range of possible applications and also possible openings to new aspects of our knowledge on matter, energy and physics in general, backed by solid experimental work, although this is not yet recognized.

Second, that there’s a vast experience of LENR experimental behavior and suggested theories in this community.

Let us not forget this huge experience. I know that several LENR researchers have found themselves in difficult situations because of the focus on Rossi and the E-Cat. Popular views on the E-Cat have stolen the attention and been an indirect reason for closing down some research programs.

This is sad. Because when results from Rossi’s MW trial will be presented, if not before, we will have a breakthrough for the view on LENR as an existing phenomenon. But we will still lack a solid, accepted theory for explaining it, which is necessary to carry on efficient engineering, also for Industrial Heat, even though Rossi has come a long way through intuition and some possible theoretical concepts.

And to build that theory, all existing experience will be a gold mine. We will also need more experimental data from stable processes, hopefully from the E-Cat and from a series of new replications that are now going on.

Among them are the efforts by MFMP and by the Russian scientist Alexander Parkhomov (it became obvious at ICCF-19 that Russia is very active in LENR research, and Parkhomov’s successful replications of the Lugano experiment are now backed by data on isotopic elemental shifts). Another effort will be made by the experimenters who performed the long term test of the E-Cat in Lugano last year. They have now confirmed that they have built an own reactor and will start attempts in May at replicating the process running in the E-Cat.

A personal take-away from ICCF was also that I got the opportunity to meet several people in this community who I mention in my book, but who I had only been in contact with via phone and email, or not even that.

This was the case with Carl Page (brother to Google founder Larry Page) who has been involved in the field since a long time, and who told me that he is an angel investor in Brillouin Energy, a LENR company which I also learnt more about, talking to its founder and CTO, Robert Godes.

Carl Page is en early investor in cold fusion, but this year it was clear that more investor activities are starting, which is also a good thing if they are as responsible as Page and as IH/Cherokee seem to be. Another approach on investment, ecosystem and support for companies wanting to get ready for LENR applications is LENR Cities.

On ICCF-19, the new Industrial Association for LENR, Lenria.org, was also presented (web site not yet active).

What we should expect next are more results from replication attempts. I’ll keep you posted.



  1. There is a certain group of people who must find fault in whatever the topic – thus exhibiting their “superiority” over everyone else. It is basically an ego trip based on low self-esteem.

    As someone said below, if it turns out to be truly impossible – no big deal, it happens. But if it does turn out to be real and readily reproducible – it is a game, no world, changer and should be pursued to the utmost.

    I am dismayed but not surprised at the criticism of Rossi for keeping part of his process secret. He knows all too well the results of conflict between big corp and the little guy. Already, Boeing and Airbus have filed patents on LENR technology. Something we all know they have a long history. It’s going to be another classic race between corp greed and the people.

  2. “When the long term functioning of Rossi’s Ecats are verified by an actual satisfied customer/manufacturer the “impossible to convince” super skeptics will be silenced by overwhelming evidence from reliable sources.”

    Make that conditional and of course it is true – but it is not an argument as to whether that event will even happen.

    I remember something very similar being said 2 years ago, 4 years ago, …

    Rossi himself has repeatedly said he is not interested in scientific tests because all that matters is selling product. That was before he did the current “independent” tests.

    I’m also wondering why it is “super-skeptical” to look at Rossi’s own proper independent test and note that it shows an electric heater with no excess energy? Mats even agrees that this device does not work, but seems convinced on other evidence that Rossi’s otehr devices do work.

    If Rossi does has working e-cats than he is a PR genius whose full efforts are devoted successfully to giving the impression that he has nothing working.

  3. Mats, some of these negative comments show why it is an exercise in frustration to try to convince “skeptics” that LENR and/or Rossi, (Or anyone else), has been getting positive results from their experiments. When the long term functioning of Rossi’s Ecats are verified by an actual satisfied customer/manufacturer the “impossible to convince” super skeptics will be silenced by overwhelming evidence from reliable sources. The more dramatic a new scientific discovery is, the more it is resisted, this breakthrough is a classic example of human resistance to large sudden changes in science and technology. We are taught that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is, so the response to such claims is expected and quite predictable. For LENR/Cold Fusion to arrive during the planets time of greatest need does seem to be too good to be true, I have to admit, if I had not been following this story for some years, I would be one of the skeptics. When the LENR breakout does happen, the nay-sayers will quietly crawl away and be forgotten as the worlds attention will be focused upon a new and exciting form of energy production. I am already thinking about what new wonders await us after the scientific principles behind LENR are understood and made clear, all concerns about skeptics trying to stop research into Cold Fusion will rapidly dissipate as we consider a wealth of new avenues of investigation into a new branch of science, a new era of human existence will be initiated.

  4. Mats,

    re elemental composition. We have a sample taken from a non-closed system. When heated at high temp you expect many elements in the fuel to diffuse into or out of the casing. You can see the (small in total quantity) changes are consistent with this mechanism.

  5. Mats,

    I’ll put the other (and correct!) side of this.

    The burden of proof is on the less likely hypothesis: “Rossi has LENR” and “Rossi does not have LENR”.

    You need to weight the 62Ni against everything else, which shows no LENR.

    You then need to note that the 62Ni conversion (100%) is what is predicted by “sample switched for 99% Ni-62 that was bought” and not what is predicted by LENR. In fact every LENR theory would give the same 10X higher than seen enthalpy from this conversion.

    Also, you need a very elaborate (and hence less likely) LENR theory to get this conversion as a side effect of some other energy-producing reaction. That is then even ore inconsistent because the high energy is released in a shorter time, yet the power out shows no such.

    You can maintain your stance only be resolutely not going into any of the technical detail. That consistently supports no LENR from Rossi e-cats (including the tests you saw). So even if you a priori reckon LENR+ is plausible (which most don’t, but leave that) the evidence around Rossi is strongly that his brand of LENR does not work.

  6. Thomas, the point is this: You have a hypothesis meaning that those tests might have shown no result. It’s a hypothesis and it’s a ‘might’. It’s of minor interest. What is more important is that these experiments might have been successful. Given the potential of the technology, that’s far more important, as a reason for keep looking and testing. The data is scarce and we need more data and more experiments. We don’t need reasons to stop looking.
    BTW — how can chemical reactions change elemental composition? Breaking up chemical compounds doesn’t change overall elemental composition. As for the isotopic analysis, we don’t know since no isotopic analysis has been released by Parkhomov.
    Summary: Your hypothesis is not bad, but it doesn’t change much.

  7. Mats,

    A correct analysis of the Lugano experiment shows no excess heat.

    The apparent 62Ni 100% conversion must be doubtful – 10% of it would provide more excess heat than was measured even given very loose (50%) bounds on experimental error in the Lugano test.

    Parkhomov has presented results of two experiments. One showed excess. Another is unclear – we do not have the raw data and the graphs used were clearly post-processed in a surprising way that chnaged the original data.

    Parkhomov’s work shows no isotopic shifts. Elemental shifts, as I’m sure you know, are very common in systems where chemical effects can cause separation of elements. No supporting evidence there.

    So “replication” is not the right word because Parkhomov’s results and the Lugano results do not cohere”

    Lugano: no excess heat, 100% isotopic shift
    Parkhomov, no data on isotopic shift, excess heat.

  8. Me thinks you will have to improve your spelling. With regards to Rossi “Historical” should be spelt “Hysterical”

  9. COP = 20 in the suggested industrial system does not in any way mean that Rossi’s device works.

    How is that?

    Original input power = 3MW.
    Output Power = 3.2 MW
    E-CAT input power = 10kW (very low as expected for the “very sustained SSM mode now claimed)

    Measured COP = 20.

    BUT – error on output power measurement (suppose) = +/-10%

    In that case COP can be anything between 50 and -10 including the (most likely) +1.case 🙂

    The history of Rossi’s tests – including remarkably the Lugano test, is of superficially impressive results that turn out to show nothing, all without any obvious deliberate deception.

    I’d expect the same from this. Impressive.

  10. Matt,

    Thanks for your observation, as the 1MW plant is in commercial operation, as ST Microelectronics and Airbus LENR reactor patents are pursued, and as advanced LENR technologies loom with the likes of Seldon Technologies or Liviu Popa Simil, this year proves to be like no other. Future historians will spend lifetimes researching and documenting everything leading up the the commercialization of ‘cold fusion’ energy, including the role of bloggers and other internet phenomenon.

    Nothing but positive interest, not one negative comment at the members only Linked In group The American Nuclear Society (U238 industry), when I posted the following article last week. The information presented gained me a top contributor spot for ten days straight.

    Robbie… this is the new nuclear… please read the patents being developed. Of course, these are much more advanced than any seen before.

    American Nuclear Society Linked In article…

    “Airbus Nuclear Reactor Patent and the Supportive Boeing Patent for a Nuclear Energy Turbine”

    posted by Gregory Goble Dispatcher at Big Dog City Wide


    The Airbus Defence and Space nuclear reactor patent number DE102013110249A1, which was filed in 2013, promises a new era in nuclear energy. The supportive Boeing patent for a nuclear energy powered turbine is also of great interest to the nuclear energy industry.

    “Apparatus and method for power generation” http://www.scribd.com/doc/259591568/Airbus-LENR-Patent-Google-Translation


    To provide an environmentally friendly, suitable for the transport sector Wärmeen- energy source that the invention provides a power generation Apparatus (10) for generating heat energy by an exothermic reaction in the form of a LENR by tongue tion of a metal grating-assisted hydrogen process, including: a reaction vessel (14) with a reactive LENR ma- material (45) corresponds to the implementation of the exothermic reaction cool reaction chamber (16), a field-generating means (18) for generating a Field in the reaction chamber (16) for activating and / or Maintaining said exothermic reaction…

    “Rotational annular airscrew with integrated acoustic arrester” CA 2824290 A1

    Publication number CA2824290 A1
    Publication type Application
    Application number CA 2824290
    Publication date May 12, 2014
    Filing date Aug 16, 2013
    Priority date Nov 12, 2012
    Also published as EP2730501A2
    Inventors Matthew D. Moore, Kelly L. Boren
    Applicant The Boeing Company, Matthew D. Moore, Kelly L. Boren


    A propulsion system and methods are presented. A substantially tubular structure comprises a central axis through a longitudinal geometric center, and a first fan rotates around the central axis, and comprises a first fan hub and first fan blades.

    The fan hub is rotationally coupled to the substantially tubular structure, and the first fan blades are coupled to the first fan hub and increase in chord length with increasing distance from the first fan hub. A second fan is rotationally coupled to the substantially tubular structure and rotates around the central axis and contra-rotates relative to the first fan. Second fan blades are coupled to the second fan hub, and a nacelle circumscribing the first fan and the second fan is coupled to and rotates with the first fan.

  11. Mats Lewan, I have plenty of understanding; I have personally been through the patent and copyright process myself on several occasions. They do not require a history of lies and fraud. Sure a recognised and enforceable patent issued in a country of standing can take some time and money. In this case there are so many red flags flying and, the history of the machine along with the so called inventor seem to be in complete harmony. Seems this particular one to be just another case of history repeating itself.

  12. Robbie, I’ve heard this question many times. Unfortunately it shows a lack of understanding for what it means taking innovation to market, particularly disruptive innovation. We cover these things daily at Ny Teknik. It always takes a lot of time getting to market, and this is no exception.

  13. Seems a regurgitation of similar releasers over the past 4 years except this one did not have the robotic factories nor the 1MW machine that has been sold and operating or the machine that has been heating Rossi’s Italian workshop for years. If you have a functioning machine and there are no problems why is in not on the market. Just the same old same old with the same results.

Leave a Reply

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