One Mega Watt E-Cat Cold Fusion Device Test Successful!

Defkalion GT Closes Down Its Web Forum

Defkalion Forum Shutting down message here.

Edited,..
We are a private company with our own strategy. We believed in the operation of a forum in our website because LENR should be accessible by all. We aimed to counter many conspiracy theorists. Our goal was to stress that we would handle the commercialization of this technology with social responsibility.

Regarding being a scam: We are self financed. We have not borrowed from banks, individuals or governments. Our business plan ensures that licensees pay only after final verification of our end-product and our deliverables for production. Everything we have done is with our own money at our own risk. We have no responsibility to issue any information to anyone. Having said this, we have no intention to falsify, alter actual facts, or harm any persons. The only high stake losses are those encountered by us, no one else.

Until Defkalion Green Technologies has its product, we shall no longer get involved in the games and blogs of online media. Our next announcement in the coming months will be that of a successful and certified product. We thank those who supported our initiative, apologize to those who enjoyed the exchanges, and commit to all our honest intention to see this project succeed.

Until further notice in the coming months, this forum shall remain inactive.
DGT

Hard to know what they are thinking, the skeptics will have a field day with this development. Many followers were fully expecting test results, and now a total turn around has occurred.

Originally posted by RING0
Shutting down message here.

The only high stake losses are those encountered by us, no one else.

Maybe I'm taking this out of context...but....it says what it says. Maybe it's a translation problem and they left out the word "potential" in front of "losses"? Or maybe it means what it says, either intentionally or a Freudian slip, and they really are taking losses?

I don't know if Blacklight power went to the bank either, but I'm pretty sure their investors are losing their shirts.

Possible first independent University replication of "Rossi Like" reactions.

A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - LENRs - "Cold Fusion"

Found this on VORTEX - Miley obtains 350W from Pd nanoparticle cell at room temp

Direct link to the Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (2012) PDF here

2012 Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space topical meeting. in The Woodlands, TX. 2012 March 21 - 23

Qoute from PDF,

Excess heat generation from our gas-loading LENR power cell (Figure 1) has been verified, confirming nuclear reactions provide output energy.
While there are similarities between ours and the Rossi E-Cat gas loaded kW-MW LENR cells that have attracted international attention, there are important differences in nanoparticle composition and cell construction. Our experiment has established a remarkable proof-of principle power unit at ca. 350W/kg under room temperature when using deuterium (D2) gas (H2 can also be employed) with Pd rich nanoparticles, producing 1479J heat, well above the maximum exothermal ener gy (690J) possible from all conceivable chemical reactions (Figure 2 - look in PDF for this image). Neglecting unlikely chemical reaction contributions, the energy gain is virtually unlimited due to negligible power input with gas loading!

First independent verification of "Rossi like", excess heat a LENR experiment. From what I have seen, this is interesting in that the LENR reaction is triggered through the process of gas loading the cell, Rossi seems to apply a voltage or heating action to initiate a reaction.

It's not much of an experiment - but they are very definitely claiming to confirm Rossi's type of result. Independently!

Ambitious title:

A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801


Nanoparticles, baby

Seems like Rossi's many lies are being exposed!

newenergytimes.com...

We now arrive at the Oct. 28, 2011, demonstration, performed, according to Rossi, to allow an unidentified customer to verify that the 1 MW device worked as claimed. A man identified by Rossi as the customer's representative, Domenico Fioravanti, signed off on the pre-printed form below the line that stated "The results of the test are satisfactory to accept the delivery." The next day, on his blog, Rossi told his fans that the 1 MW Energy Catalyzer was gone, delivered to the customer. As readers who have followed this saga know, that was a lie. But that did not become public knowledge until two months later, on Jan. 12, 2012, when Rossi revealed in his own promotional video that the big blue box hadn't moved.

Originally posted by spoor
Seems like Rossi's many lies are being exposed!

newenergytimes.com...

We now arrive at the Oct. 28, 2011, demonstration, performed, according to Rossi, to allow an unidentified customer to verify that the 1 MW device worked as claimed. A man identified by Rossi as the customer's representative, Domenico Fioravanti, signed off on the pre-printed form below the line that stated "The results of the test are satisfactory to accept the delivery." The next day, on his blog, Rossi told his fans that the 1 MW Energy Catalyzer was gone, delivered to the customer. As readers who have followed this saga know, that was a lie. But that did not become public knowledge until two months later, on Jan. 12, 2012, when Rossi revealed in his own promotional video that the big blue box hadn't moved.

Seems like you keep blowing the same hot air. Give it up this dog won't hunt...

Originally posted by spoor
Seems like Rossi's many lies are being exposed!

newenergytimes.com...

Krivit covers a lot of valid reasons for concern regarding Rossi, but Krivit is also a fraud. A fraud journalist. This, at least, puts his character on par with any of Rossi's documented misdeeds. His consistent attempts to twist and distort the motivations and observations of others is just plain, terrible journalism.

reply to post by yampa


reply to post by hawkiye


the simple bottom line question - where is the blue box today 08th MARCH 2012 ?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

the simple bottom line question - where is the blue box today 08th MARCH 2012 ?

This was talked about several weeks ago, keep up:

Originally posted by yampa
The thing Krivit pointed out about the reactor from the October test not having actually shipped is worrying indeed. I very strongly got the impression that the thing was going out the door quickly and would be doing some real work. Seems that is not the case. Rossi consistently allows his dialogue to fall into half-truths (funding the University of Bologna independent research, particularly) - I don't see why he would have to do this if his system is as robust as he claims.

I think he should publish all details of the function of his reactor - he claims everyone will know how it works 'by the end of the year' anyway. Surely no one could catch up? even if he specified everything with detail. It would stop people placing the burden of proof on him.

So, further reason to believe Rossi can't pull off what he claims.

I know you like simple, bottom line thinking, unfortunately, that kind of thinking is not going to help you answer for yourself what the real, complex question should be, like "how viable are nanoparticle nickel/hydrogen heat engines?".

Originally posted by yampa
It's not much of an experiment - but they are very definitely claiming to confirm Rossi's type of result. Independently!

Ambitious title:

A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801


Nanoparticles, baby

edit on 2-3-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)

I read the PDF abstract. It doesn't have very much of anything useful. It shows temperature increases from one 5 minute run. Well, so what? It also doesn't discuss the work done (and hence energy inserted) by the loading of the deuterium or any evidence of nuclear reactions. It is just claim and exaggeration.

Cold Fusion Demonstration During MIT Short Course

Issue 102
March/April 2012
Infinite Energy Magazine - Christy L. Frazier

Like its 2003 (ICCF10) predecessor demonstration at MIT, this NANOR-inspired device also showed excess heat, which was monitored three ways by class members. Swartz reported, “The group watched as the cold fusion demonstration performed like the Energizer Bunny, producing excess energy which appeared on the meters and computer graph in front of them, from the production of de novo helium-4 from deuterons.” These results were analyzed by the class the next day. One of the confirmatory measurements from the first day of the open demonstration of CF/LANR at MIT during the course is in Figure 1.

Swartz explained the curves: “Shown in Figure 1 are the incremental increase in temperature normalized to be input electrical power, for both the ohmic control and the NANOR, and the input electrical power to each. The graph shows first the response of the ohmic control, and then the response of the NANOR. It can be seen that despite lower input electrical power to the NANOR, the incremental temperature differential observed in the core was higher than expected, as compared to the ohmic control.

The graph heralds the great efficiency and the excess power gain of the cold fusion/LANR NANOR device.”

Science moves slowly, the proof we would like to see quickly will come at a time and place determined by scientific protocols and established procedures, not a forced timeline designed to appease our desire for superficial information to be delivered quickly like fast food.

reply to post by muzzleflash

about time we all agreed to say,,enough is enough of being ripped off by the big companies,,,

Originally posted by mbkennel
I read the PDF abstract. It doesn't have very much of anything useful. It shows temperature increases from one 5 minute run. Well, so what? It also doesn't discuss the work done (and hence energy inserted) by the loading of the deuterium or any evidence of nuclear reactions. It is just claim and exaggeration.

How do you know if it's exaggeration or not? It's not an exaggeration if they are telling the truth and they have done their calculations correctly. As you say, it's not really possible to tell here. Certainly we have a group of people associated with an American university claiming to be "producing 1479J heat, well above the maximum exothermal energy (690J) possible from all conceivable chemical reactions". And they're claiming to be doing this using nanoparticles. Seems pretty relevant to me.

I also admire the character of the people involved in this experiment, at least they are daring to do interesting speculative science. Apparently all you think about this kind of science is 'so what?'.

reply to post by yampa


Exactly, a 5 minute test proves nothing, there may be an error (much like the FTL neutrinos) that is the cause of the increase. A much longer test is needed to garner anything more from me than a so what.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by yampa

 

Exactly, a 5 minute test proves nothing, there may be an error (much like the FTL neutrinos) that is the cause of the increase. A much longer test is needed to garner anything more from me than a so what.

The graph is intended to show the effects of gas loading *snip*. It shows how pressure is being used to trigger the reaction (instead of resistors and RF like Rossi is supposedly using).

The statement about energy levels is that they are "producing 1479J heat, well above the maximum exothermal energy (690J) possible from all conceivable chemical reactions" at no point do they state that the graph proves this. No proof of efficient energy generation is offered, and I never said differently.

What is interesting is the mechanism used and the fact that Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley are both mainstream academic researchers (and apparently hard-nosed material scientists) from an American University.

Why read these things if you can't even follow the basic trajectory of the conversation?

reply to post by yampa


The fact is that the graph doesn't show anything about the reactions going on at all and it specifically does NOT tell us that he reactions are producing the extra heat - it also does not tell us that gas loading is causing anything.

It just says that extra heat is coming out over and above that expected from a particular reaction.

We don't actually know what is going on inside the container at all!

It is not sufficient to show a "magic box" that produces more heat than is explained by any given reaction - you also have to demonstrate that there is nothing else in there generating that heat, and that the reaction you claim is going on is actually the only thing going on.

It was probably a good idea to keep the identities of the "customer" and the engineering team secret. Disclosing them ahead of time would have put all those people at risk unnecessarily, don't you think?

Seriously, do you have no concept of security and taking proper security precautions?

Tschusterbauer

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by yampa

 

The fact is that the graph doesn't show anything about the reactions going on at all and it specifically does NOT tell us that he reactions are producing the extra heat - it also does not tell us that gas loading is causing anything.

*snip*Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

It is not sufficient to show a "magic box" that produces more heat than is explained by any given reaction - you also have to demonstrate that there is nothing else in there generating that heat, and that the reaction you claim is going on is actually the only thing going on.

Are you suggesting that these researchers might be lying about the contents of their reactor? Or have you also failed to observe their reactor's constituents as well as being baffled by their mechanism? Or are you just trolling again?

There are two things in this reactor, palladium nanoparticles and deuterium gas. Neither of those things are exotic or hidden. The fact you refuse to even type the word 'nanoparticle' in your response makes me think you are either shill, troll or mentally domesticated.

Uhh.... Let's keep the commentary on the Topic , Folks.

You are free to attack theories, explanations, posts, etc. but not fellow members.

So please dispense with the personal sniping.

thanks





*do not respond to this post in thread*