New Energy World Symposium will be cancelled

News-blue-text-dateIt is with deep regret that I must announce the cancellation of the New Energy World Symposium scheduled to have taken place in June in Stockholm.

As initially communicated, the Symposium was conditioned by the report from the one-year 1MW test undertaken by Rossi and Industrial Heat, IH. However, with the ongoing lawsuit by Rossi on IH, the report is not expected to be released anytime soon, and therefore the Symposium can not be held as initially planned.

Let me also point out that until there is such an independent report, based on generally satisfactory measurements, I would not consider the E-Cat, on which the 1MW test was based, a confirmed LENR technology.

In this situation, I have discussed holding a repurposed event based on the increased and most interesting activity in the LENR field in general, but I have found that I will not be able to organise this in time.

On the other hand, I hope to be able to propose a new event on LENR based technologies further ahead and will keep you updated.

I would like to thank the highly qualified speakers who were planned to participate at the Symposium, for their enthusiasm and for their willingness to contribute with their valuable experience and competence. Over 270 attendees decided to pre-register for the event, which I believe is an indication of the value that the speakers’ mix of ideas, models and thoughts would have offered.

A great thanks also the the Symposium’s partners, Kairos Future, E-Cat World, Network Society and Lenria.

Any inconvenience to attendees of the Symposium is deeply regretted.

Advertisements

28 comments

  1. Björn — thanks for your suggestion. If the event will be held at a later moment I will consider this.

  2. Mats, I understand that there is a lot of costs involved that I don’t fathom. Anyway, I am a student and would love to be a part of this when it starts. Is it possible that you can take students in for free or with a discount? This is the future and it is so sad that it isn’t recognized properly.

  3. Björn, it’s very easy, Costs in Sweden are fairly high, I’m personally taking the risk, and I needed to be sure to cover the costs also with about 200 attendees, covering venu, lunch, refreshments, travel and hotel expenses for all the speakers and a reasonable speaker’s fee. I couldn’t afford to make a loss of tens of thousand euros. I realised anything could happen from when I maybe confirmed the conference until I would hold it. The 270 pre-registered was some kind of security, but not even that was certain.

  4. I´m very sorry that the symposium is cancelled but for me it wasn´t the doubt of the report, it was the ridiculously high price of the ticket. I have strong beliefs that Rossi have something and I really wish to be apart of this new technology changing the world. If you could provide details on expenses and how you calculated the ticket price, you will regain my trust, but for now I belive you want to benefit as much as you can from this. I´m having hard time believing that the costs of speakers salory, renting a facility etc justifies the high ticket price but please prove me wrong.

  5. Mats,

    Totally understandable. Nevertheless, this story how ever it will unfold will be gold for a follow up book! Im also curious about Hydrofusion and Magnus Holm. Are you in contact with them? To me their acting in midst of the current circumstances is highly relevant.

    nckhawk – academia does not work that way. They are at best interested in their own reputations. However, most of these guys are old and does not have much to loose.

  6. I believe that the Swedish scientist should strongly consider a review of their data and findings from the Lugano E-Cat test. I have a feeling that the news around Rossi is only going to get worse and recommend that the Swedes start thinking about how to minimize the damage to their reputations and institutions.

  7. If the latter were right they must admit to have swindled Woodford.

    Sorry, I realise did not address this. It is based on the assumption that Woodford were not asked to do their own DD, and make their own independent assessment of Rossi. I remember somewhere there is information that in fact they were warned by IH that this was very necessary. IH will not, for example, have told them it could replicate Rossi’s tests. It will say – look – here are the tests reports. It will let them observe tests themselves perhaps.

    The same (in my view) strong scientific misjudgement of those test reports made by IH will likely be made by Woodford unless they choose scientists looking for rigor in the tests and willing to do the detailed work to detect the inconsistencies.

    Even if they choose one such skeptical scientist, like people on this thread, they may discount negatives as bias and think Rossi worth a bet because of long-term promise.

    Also, as has been pointed out, IH were offering a bet on LENR, not just Rossi. Rossi would be seen as a high risk “short-term high reward if real” element within that.

  8. For now Rossi’s statements are more substantiated than IH’s. If the latter were right they must admit to have swindled Woodford.

    Only if you ignore the strong negative evidence from Rossi’s sequence of tests. That would weigh even if what Rossi claimed was not a world-changing extraordinary invention.

    In your world, nobody is independent Mary, not even you! Perhaps we must ask aliens to do that

    Gerard, would you care to address the issue here? Penon has written test reports so incompetent they only make sense if he believes everything Rossi says without checking. That is either incompetence or lack of independence. And surely somone without a nuclear degree from UoB could be used to assess a claimed novel nuclear technology from UoB via Rossi? Nuclear power competence is irrelevant for the testing, which require experimental calorimetry.

    The Swedes as a group have made very bad postive mistakes only possible because of a sequence of departures from normal testing practice documented in their report but not explained. Levi, in early tests, has claimed results that appear impossible from the equipment used (ascoli’s flow rate issue) and is in any case clearly associated with Rossi.

    That is about as bad a set of “independent tests” as you can get, both from the fact that the people are not independent, and from the compromised nature of the tests.

  9. Mr. Halem is also an investor in Brillouin thru LENR Invest. He has a conflict of interest and cannot be the judge on the success or failure of Brillouin technology. That publication was a big mistake on his part and the part of Brillouin.

  10. After the recent events a new wave of trolls and paid Apco shills have pop up. By the way, years ago, beside the public tests we officially know, Jed Rothwell reported that other prospective investors tested the Ecat and said to him that it worked. He didn’t make names for Nda but he trusted they were right. So what are we making of the conflicting informations? For now Rossi’s statements are more substantiated than IH’s. If the latter were right they must admit to have swindled Woodford.

  11. Dear Judge Mark S.,
    Please condemn the ones who fraud after you have seen all the evidence and not when you have just an opinion. You cannot have seen most of the evidence yet, as neither of us have. I hope the US judges will be more professional than you are.

  12. Let’s face it, “Mary Yugo”, Thomas Clarke and Jed Rothwell were right. The Ecat does not work. Also, Rossi isn’t just some quirky inventor, this guy is a FRAUD! He is a con man. Mats Lewan’s book should be entirely rewritten to expose this fraud and how it worked so others can learn about it and not fall for it themselves. I am sure other energy scammers will be trying similar given that global warming is such a pressing issue.

  13. And the other one is….

    ‘Michael has 29 years of experience in financial markets as a manager for Salomon Brothers, Nomura Securities, Rocket Partners and Millennium Partners. Previously, Mr. Halem worked at Cape Canaveral where he designed the Space Shuttle Radar Intercept Control Console and the Range Safety Real-Time Telemetry Display System. Mr. Halem earned his BA in Physics from Harvard and his MBA in Finance and Management from Columbia. Mr. Halem is also the author of a 35 page technical paper validating the experiments of one of our target companies.’

  14. As you can see, barely qualified at all. Expert in control systems.

    ‘As scientific deputy to the Dean,[of the Ecole Polytechnique de Lausanne] Dr. Guillemin identifies technology transfer opportunities and support ENAC research laboratories to establish new partnerships with industries. He holds a MSc in Physics and a PhD in Building Physics from EPFL. He worked ten years in the private sector for Adhoco and Neurobat, two cutting-edge technology companies where he acted as Chief Technology Officer.’

  15. In your world, nobody is independent Mary, not even you! Perhaps we must ask aliens to do that, but I guess at the moment they agree to do the test, you would consider them not independent anymore because they are payed by the ‘inventor’. I therefore ask you to pay for an independent and unbiassed test by those who you consider independent.

  16. I know that some people who have given up on Rossi have confidence that Brillouin will be the one to bring high power LENR to commercialization. So, I looked again at their web site and something I found gives me and should give you cause for concern.

    If you look at their “INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL VALIDATION REPORT COMPLETED ON
    BRILLOUIN ENERGY’S LENR HHT™ REACTOR CORE SYSTEMS” you will see that the results are by Michael Halem and “peer reviewed” (LOL) by Dr. Antoine Guillemin.

    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Brillouin-Press-Release-Technical-Validation-Report-12-1-15.pdf

    Independent? I don’t think so! Halem and Guillemin are principals in LENR INVEST and guess what the investment target of that company is? Brillouin of course. Maybe Brillouin’s lawyer is their CEO? Oh, forgive me, that was Rossi’s trick. Brillouin is not much more original.

  17. Mats,
    I am fully aware that my two cents here won’t change the world for much better. Never claimed that.

    But it also remains to be seen whether Parkhomov style e-cat replications are doing much good for the world either.

    However, since you now bring up the topic “doing good for the world”:
    Did you ever ask Rossi about his promise to donate 50% from the sale of the first 1MW plant to the “children cancer research”?

  18. New Guest,
    Impossible to answer in advance. But let me put it like this: The work people are doing, trying to replicate the E-Cat process or similar experiments, is infinitely more important and useful, not only to answer your question but also trying to do good for the world, than your commenting is.

  19. Mats, you wrote:
    “Let me also point out that until there is such an independent report, based on generally satisfactory measurements, I would not consider the E-Cat, on which the 1MW test was based, a confirmed LENR technology.”

    Just curious, at what point would you consider that the e-cat is just a hoax?
    When there is no mainstream acceptance of Rossi’s claim (because of no undisputable independent tests), how much longer does Rossi deserve the benefit of doubts?

  20. ICCF-20 is going to be a very expensive event, Fred. A dual-center meeting in Japan and China is way too costly for most people.

    Sorry to hear that you must cancel Mats – but come the Autumn things might look more encouraging..

  21. I am also sorry it doesn’t go ahead Mats! Nevertheless I will visit Stockholm at the planned days together with my wife. I hope the town will be worth visiting.

  22. Sorry to hear that Mats. Maybe Rossi will still be interested in giving you an interview when he’s ready to make an announcement this summer. I believe he was planning to in June. Although that might have been changed since the lawsuit.

  23. FredZ777, ICCF is a conference with science focus, and I refer to it as such on the first page of the NewSymposium’s website. The aim with the NewSymposium was to discuss consequences of LENR based technologies on industry, finance and society. That is not discussed at ICCF.

  24. Mats, there is no confirmed LENR technology and never has been. Maybe someday there will be but the standard for proof will have to be way higher than anything you have promoted or performed.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s