Revolution-Green’s Mark Dansie On Transition Technology & LENR

Interview with Revolution-Green’s Mark Dansie. Mark is recognized as a world-renowned evaluator of energy technologies and is currently helping develop several new energy concepts himself. Over the last seven years, Mark has traveled the world evaluating many new and free technology claims. He specializes in magnetic motor and HHO gas evaluations, but has reviewed many other technologies as well. He has been featured as a speaker at several energy conferences, and his catch cry is “show me the data” as he is a believer in scientific methodology when evaluating claims. More information can be found at

We discuss various topics including “free” energy, stepping-stone technologies such as thorium-power, as well as what Mark expects from Cold Fusion-LENR in both the immediate future and the long-term.

If so desired a downloadable MP3 version can be found here, and on iTunes. Thanks for taking an interest.

Baby With the Bathwater: The Wrongful Rejection of Cold Fusion — Part I

BabyandBathWater2014 is upon us, and progress in the field of Cold Fusion (aka LENR) marches steadily on. Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC), currently operating out of California and working in collaboration with Stanford Research Institute (SRI), recently signed a multi-million dollar deal with an undisclosed South Korean company who intend to manufacture their LENR boiler technologies and outfit obsolete power plants with them.

It has recently been confirmed through an official press release that inventor Andrea Rossi’s American distribution partner is none other than North Carolina-based Cherokee Investment Partnership (CIP). CIP has spawned a business-subsidiary, Industrial Heat LLC (IHC), apparently as a vehicle to further develop and market Rossi’s E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) technology. IHC is also engaged in a prolonged diagnostic of Rossi’s E-Cat, the results of which will be released in an official report later this year. Even more interesting is that CIP-CEO, Thomas Darden, has been in close contact with Chinese government officials who have announced their intentions to establish a “Nickel Reactor New Energy Project”.


Also noteworthy, Defkalion Green Technologies (DGT), with bases of operation in both Vancouver and Greece, are in the process of real-time mass spectrometer measurements of their Hyperion Reactor. While not particularly important at first glance, these tests should yield very important data concerning the nuclear ash that results from reactions in Nickel-Hydrogen systems. With this data in hand, experts in the field will be better equipped to develop a comprehensive, predictive, and engineerable CF-LENR theory. In a recent press release they have also announced that: Several third party independent tests from international organizations, universities and teams are expected to present their results thus verifying our recent technological and scientific breakthroughs. Accordingly we expect the commercialization of our technologies in the 3rd quarter of 2014.”


Maybe these commercial ventures will pan out; maybe they won’t. That is the boom-and-bust nature of business in our society (love it or hate it). But as we approach the fulfillment of a 25-year struggle to validate Cold Fusion, the question remains, why it was ever written off in the first place? If Cold Fusion was such a glaring example of “pathological science” and if it’s self-sacrificing adherents were nothing more than deluded “true believers” (as the Skeptical community often proselytizes), how is it that this “discredited” science is on the precipice of totally altering the landscape of energy, sustainability, and how we believe Science operates?

PonsFleischmanColor1When Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made their first announcement in 1989, beside just claims of nuclear-level excess heat, they also claimed to have detected nuclear products; specifically neutrons. Beyond the ire that side-stepping the peer-review process instilled in many scientists, the claim that their discovery was a room-temperature “fusion” reaction is what really sparked off the skeptical circus.

The problem was that their neutron measurements were found to be in error. Accusations of bad science and outright fraud soon followed; most notably from nuclear physicists like MIT’s Ronald Parker and CERN’s Frank Close. Parker was the first to lob public accusations of fraud. And Close, to this day, still paints the entire incident as a clear-cut case of “fraud”, based on his interpretation of events originally put forward in his 1991 book Too Hot to Handle.

ColdFusionGraphicThe truth, a rather benign one, is that Fleischmann and Pons weren’t attempting to defraud anyone. Firstly, the duo’s preliminary research into heavily loaded palladium spanning from 1984-1989 was A) personally financed, and B) inspired by the work of their scientific forerunners. Interestingly enough, their predecessors (some from as early as the 1920’s) thought they might have witnessed fusion-like reactions occurring in room-temperature, electrolytic hydride systems. As curious scientists first and foremost, the two colleagues could not resist the allure of exploring such a provocative possibility. Fleischmann and Pons had already achieved more than enough prestige in their lifetimes; they had absolutely no reason or motive to risk their reputations and indulge themselves in some self-aggrandizing publicity stunt.

When the duo arrived at their lab one morning to discover that a small cube of palladium had partially vaporized, melted through its electrolytic cell, burned through a blacktop lab-bench, and melted a 4-inch deep hole into their solid concrete floor, they finally started to believe there was something genuine about such far-out claims from the past. Based off this result, they went about trying to detect nuclear products, because they knew of no other reaction that could produce such absurd amounts of excess heat. Skeptics who attacked the “nuclear-reaction” label were not properly considering that such beliefs were motivated by the unusually high levels of excess heat sometimes witnessed.

fleischmann5Because their research had been up to that point secretive, highly unorthodox, and was being conducted on university grounds, for political reasons Fleischmann and Pons could not simply approach a colleague in the nuclear physics department to assist them with measuring neutrons. They would have likely been ridiculed, reprimanded, and/or had their research shut down. However, they did eventually succeed in obtaining a neutron detector from a colleague on campus without arousing much suspicion, and soon after went about conducting measurements.

Because they were not full-blown experts in the area of detecting nuclear products, and because the 89’ press conference was rushed months ahead of what either man was comfortable with, the neutron data was exposed to the light of day prematurely. It was a far way from fraud, but it could be labeled perhaps as “bad science” (as long as one is being non-derogatory, sensitive to context, and/or non-judgmental in regards to their overall process/results). The detection of nuclear products was quickly discredited as artifact, and skeptical detractors hung their argumentative-hats on that point for the remainder of the controversy. Fleischmann and Pons would now be unfairly chastised as operating “outside their area of their expertise” in regards to all their results just because their neutron data turned out to be inaccurate.


Blatantly discounting and/or ignoring the discovery of excess heat was (and continues to be) the major blunder of status-quo skeptics. The fact is Fleischmann and Pons were well within their area of expertise when it came to conducting electrolytic chemistry and calorimetry; which meant they knew how to account for, as well as measure, excess heat. At the time, a number of unfounded criticisms were lobbied against their excess heat results; such as not controlling for all possible experimental artifacts that could account for the abnormal findings. However, unlike their neutron measurements, their measurements of excess heat have never been properly discredited.

For example, electrochemist Nathan Lewis of California Institute of Technology conducted weeks of research on Cold Fusion following the announcement. Ultimately he and his colleagues turned up negative results. However, when electrochemist Dr. Melvin Miles evaluated their procedure over a decade later, he found their lack of results to be a product of procedural error caused by ignorance of particular experimental parameters. This is not terribly surprising because most labs attempting to replicate the Fleischmann-Pons Effect had very little operative information to go on.

NateLewisRegardless, at the time Lewis and others seemed satisfied and emboldened by their alleged null-results and seized the moment to indemnify Cold Fusion further. Lewis even went as far as to publically declare at an 89’ American Physical Society (APS) meeting in Baltimore that the excess heat was an artifact of insufficient cell mixing; an elementary protocol controlled for by most electrochemists. Lewis’ claim was simply untrue; he was basing his unfounded judgments off his own faulty experiments.

Fleischmann and Pons’ cells were properly stirred. There were no identifiable anisotropies that could possibly account for the production of nuclear-level excess heat. This fact was clearly documented in their peer-reviewed article published in Fusion Technology. Also, Fleischmann’s presentation at an American Chemical Society (ACS) meeting soon after clearly proved the integrity of their cell-mixing; a meeting where Nathan Lewis raised no objections to the demonstration he witnessed from Fleischmann.


Another popular criticism (that is still sometimes evoked) has to do with what’s known as recombination. Recombination is the rejoining of negative ions with positive ions (in this case Hydrogen, Deuterium, and Oxygen) to form neutral molecules inside electrolytic cells. When this occurs modest amounts of chemical heat are generated and/or carried away. Perhaps this could explain Fleischmann and Pons’ results? Here is a leading expert in the field describing the process in more detail:

“When the gases created by electrolysis are allowed to leave the cell, they carry with them chemical energy that has to be taken into account. This chemical energy can be calculated using what is called the ‘neutral potential’, if no partial recombination takes place in the cell before the remaining gas leaves. The error comes from not knowing what fraction of the generated gas recombines back to D2O in the cell and what fraction leaves as D2 and O2.

 If all gas recombines in the cell (which can be [initiated] using an internal catalyst) then no energy needs to be added and the results are accurate as measured. This is called a closed cell and is now used extensively. If all generated gas leaves, the calculated corrections are accurate. This is called an ‘open cell’. [Fleischmann and Pons] used open cells. Nevertheless, they determined the fraction of recombination that occurred in their cell.”

This was expounded upon by another well-respected expert in the field:

“I [agree]…any question of ‘recombination’ (or electrode depolarization) is eliminated absolutely by the use of thermodynamically closed cells (as many did), and the extent to which it occurs is very easily quantified by measuring the amount of make-up water, as [Fleischmann and Pons] did.”

To restate, recombination is an elementary consideration, easily controlled for, that most serious scientists working in this field take into account. In fact, University of Minnesota’s Professor Robert Oriani definitively answered this question as early as 1990. He had achieved positive excess heat results in his experiments, and his peer-reviewed paper published in Fusion Technology clearly demonstrated that questions surrounding experimental artifacts like recombination were most definitely controlled for.

NatureCoverWorth noting is this particular paper’s back story. It had been submitted to Nature magazine prior. It was approved by both of the peer-reviewers Nature themselves selected. Then, inexplicably, the editor vetoed their decision and rejected the paper. Oriani’s results were unimpeachable; politics and bias was clearly at play. This should not be surprising, as most “premier” science journals nowadays are underwritten by huge, status-quo multinationals.

While there is much more to say on the topic overall (which I will save for Part II), this preliminary analysis suggests that widespread claims of excess heat have been wrongfully ignored for over 25-years based on a set of totally fallacious arguments. Thus far, dogma has won out over the scientific method. Simply put, skeptics wrongfully threw out the baby, excess heat, along with the bathwater, the nuclear-reaction hypothesis. Ultimately, what does it really matter if it’s nuclear fusion or not?

Moray B. King: Breakthrough Energy, EVO Clusters, and Paradigm Shifts

Interview with Engineer and New Energy Pioneer Moray B. King. The first portion of the interview features focused discussion on John Wheeler’s model of the quantum vacuum and how topological vortex structures are permitted to self-organize out of a turbulent, orthogonal electromagnetic flux.

During the middle part of the interview Moray further elucidates how this flux might be coherently abstracted into our dimension to do work. He outlines the discoveries of Yull Brown (Brown’s Gas Torch), Ken Shoulders (Plasmatic Exotic Vacuum Objects) and Mark LeClair (Crystalline Water Cluster Jets), and goes on to explain why their experiments demonstrate substantive evidence for Zero Point Energy (ZPE) extraction.

Toward the tail-end of our dialogue Moray ventures into the arena of LENR-Cold Fusion theory. He visualizes a scenario where cracking in the crystalline lattice creates an environment where micron-scale ball lightning (aka self-organized ZPE plasmoid) is being generated and released. Micron-sized ball lightning has been demonstrated to be highly energetic and capable of transmuting elements during laboratory studies in at least three countries. Also worth considering is that amplified ZPE interactions are known to occur within reflective Nano-domains during Cavity-QED experiments. While the ZPE explanation for LENR still remains undefined and speculative in certain important respects, further investigation of ZPE fluctuations in Nano-cavities may provide us with better understanding of what goes on within the Nuclear Active Environment (NAE) to produce the Pons-Fleischmann Excess Heat Effect.

In closing we spend some time focusing on the philosophical side of the Breakthrough Energy Movement and what will be required for a paradigm shift to occur.

Thank you for taking an interest. A more detailed outline can be found @ my blog if so desired.

Michael McKubre: A Comprehensive Dialogue on LENR

Interview with an LENR pioneer who likely needs little introduction: Dr. Michael McKubre. Dr. McKubre is an accomplished electrochemist who has been working in the field of Cold Fusion for over 20 years. He joined Stanford Research Institute in the late 1970s and has served as their Director of Energy Research up till the present day. He has made countless contributions to the field, including important replications in the mid 1990s that demonstrated an important correlation between excess heat and helium production in a variety of experimental setups. He was one of the driving forces in achieving a DOE review of cold fusion in 2004. In 2009 he was interviewed for and prominently featured on the 60-Minutes segment: Cold Fusion is Hot Again, in which the successes of Cold Fusion over the past 20 years were brought into focus.

Early on Dr. McKubre discusses his transition into the field of Cold Fusion having had experience with palladium/deuterium systems in previous work. He presents a clear overview of his experimental efforts spanning from 1989 until 2000. Much of it devoted to verifying A) whether excess heat was a reality, and B) whether there was a statistically significant correlation between excess heat and helium production (as per Miles).

We discuss the work leading up to the 2004 DOE review of Cold Fusion, and the mixed outcomes that resulted from it. He argues that skeptical arguments against LENR have remained rather stagnant, and have not evolved much at all over the years. He applauds skeptic turned promoter Dr. Rob Duncan for his open mind and efforts in promoting the field since 2009. We also discuss the work of Dr. Irving Dardik of the Energetics Group and their use of complex waveforms to increase loading, flux, and reliability.

In regards to which company’s system goes to market first (Rossi, Defkalion, or Brillouine), Dr. McKubre had this to say: “I don’t think first matters…if anyone gets to the market place there will be a position to setup…there’s room for all three of them to succeed and twenty more people to succeed…all of them competing for a very large market…all could succeed beyond their wildest expectations.”

Toward the end of the interview while speculating a bit on theory, McKubre admits that the reaction mechanism still largely remains a black box of sorts; we still are not sure what is going on and will require further experimental data (input/output conditions) before a valid theory can be decided upon. In discussing Ed Storms’ theory of the NAE, McKubre states: “I acknowledge the existence of a NAE…what is going on is a reconfiguration of the lattice…close to the surface…[Ed’s theory] is an interesting one…if it turns out Ed is right, then my hat is off to him…he’s already done more work than anyone in the field…Ed is already a Cold Fusion hero. If it turns out [the NAE mechanism] is true…he will certainly be a candidate for the Nobel Prize…the field deserves a Nobel Prize…if he is right….I will promote him for it.”

In closing Dr. McKubre explains his shifting focus away from pure experimental research and toward helping to commercialize LENR systems.

Frank Znidarsic: LENR, Antigravity, and a “New Age of Wonder”

Interview with Frank Znidarsic: a Registered Professional Electrical Engineer in the state of Pennsylvania. During his many years working in the energy sector, he has personally witnessed the limitations and decline of American Industry. Frank has written numerous peer reviewed and non peer reviewed articles on Cold Fusion, Antigravity, and Foundational Physics and has also been featured in Infinite Energy Magazine. He is also the author of the book ‘Energy, Cold Fusion and Antigravity’.

His Quantum Transition Theory (aka Z-Theory) resolves a variety of quantum enigmas (Planck’s Constant, Quantum Jumping, Energy Level of Photons) utilizing a classical approach. His theory accounts for Cold Fusion/LENR as a byproduct of the amplified magneto component of the Nuclear Strong Force (aka Spin Orbit Force), and also accounts for Antigravity as a byproduct of the amplified magneto component of the Gravitational Force. This amplification occurs when a BEC-Superconductor State is achieved in a system vibrated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters.

By exploring these topics more in depth, Frank believes that mankind can achieve an age of abundance in the not too distant future. Frank’s book can be purchased on Amazon, and more information about Frank can be found at his personal website, on YouTube, as well as at the forums. A breakdown of the interview can be referenced below if so desired:

0min- 5min: Frank’s Professional and Academic Credentials; Issues with Mainstream Energy Solutions; Industrial Profit Culture; Frank’s Interest in Cold Fusion/LENR; Frank’s Interest in Anti-Gravity; Frank’s Personal Visits to NASA Marshall/James Patterson/George Miley

5min- 15min: Quantum Transition Theory; Conservation Laws and Magnetism Ex Nihilo; Magneto Amplification; Magneto Component of Strong Nuclear Force and Gravity; Meissner Effect in Superconductors; Kicking Superconductors into Quantum Transition; Quantum Transition in Patterson Cold Fusion Cells and Podkletnov Gravity Discs; Quantum Transition Velocity and Atoms; Impedance Matched Systems and Quantum Transition; Classical Derivation of Quantum Constants; Classical Physics vs. Quantum Mechanics; Einstein and Hidden Variables; Solving Photon Paradox; Exploring Amplitude vs. Frequency

16min- 23min: Feynman on Quantum Physics; Gravito-Magnetic Component and Momentum; Mutability of Gravito-Magnetism and Spin Orbit Force via Quantum Jump Stimulation; Impedance Match between Transverse Electromagnetic Wave and Longitudinal Mechanical/Sound Wave in Atoms during Transition; Range Increase of Magnetic Forces; Vibratory Transition in Bose-Einstein Condensates; Evidence for BEC /Superconductor Condition in Palladium Cathode/Proton Conductors; Why No Radiation Emissions During LENR/Cold Fusion; Amplification of Spin Orbit Force Allows for Clean Nucleon Cluster Energy Exchange

23min- 31min: Visit with Hal Puthoff; Nano-Particles and Quantum Transition in LENR Systems; Nano-Particles in Rossi and Defkalion Generators; Difficulty of Controlling Runaway Reactions; Speculative Mechanics of Superluminal Space Travel; Non-Conservation of Inertial Mass; Distinguishing Further Between Electromagnetism and Gravito-Magnetism; Conservation and Momentum; BEC Vibration Equivalent of Soft Iron Amplification

31min- 42min: Cosmo-Genesis and Ex Nihilo; Creating Something from Nothing; Rossi vs. Defkalion vs. Brillouine; Rossi’s Secret Catalyst; Irreproducibility of Patterson Cell; Mutability of Static Forces vs. Dynamic/Movement Forces; Engineering Perspective;  Dr. George Miley and LENR Transmutation Phenomena; Collaboration with Sidney Kimmel Group; Provisional Patent for Controlling LENR Reactions; Energy Cold Fusion and Antigravity Book; A New Age of Wonder for Humanity; Double Edged Sword of Controlling the Natural Forces

Edmund Storms: At peak efficiency “no other source of power will be necessary”

John Maguire, a writer for J.C.M., interviews Dr. Edmund Storms, author of The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion.

Storms discusses his early career at Los Alamos National Lab, and how in 1989, his team there got positive results, confirming the nuclear nature of the phenomenon. A brief primer on the early successes moves into a discussion on struggle to understand the science behind this reaction, and on efforts to commercialize this technology despite the lack of a definitive theory.

Storms talks about why this technology is so important to develop, and examines how the lack of a definitive, agreed upon theory slows the commercialization from this discovery.

“We have succeeded over the last twenty-four years in proving the effect is real, that the claims are not based upon incompetence, fraud, or error, they are based upon a true behavior of nature,” says Storms.

“Now the challenge is to make this happen at commercial levels, make it reproducible, because presently it is difficult to reproduce – not impossible – but difficult; it takes great skill, and it has to be produced at a rate with high enough power to be useful as a commercial application, and that aspect of it is presently underway by several companies.”

“Once the phenomenon is understood, and can be manipulated at will, then engineering will be applied to make it totally and most efficient. We haven’t reached that stage yet.”

“The efforts underway to make commercial power using nickel and light-hydrogen by Rossi and Defkalion are trying to improve the engineering, to improve the efficiency, but even they haven’t come close to the efficiency that will be possible.”

“Once this [reaction] is understood, the efficiency will be 100%.”

“In other words, these devices will make energy simply by sitting there. You’ll have to apply hydrogen, and you turn them off by taking the hydrogen away, you turn them on by putting more hydrogen in; no other source of power will be necessary.”

“We’ll have a source of power that will stay hot for years and years, or until you turn it off by pumping out the hydrogen.”

Asked why so many still ignore or belittle the science, given the huge benefits of clean, dense, power, Storms says this environment will continue because “This phenomenon will be immensely disruptive.”

“It’s a conflict of self-interest. Those people who are naturally threatened by it, will fight it. It’s a very large threat, and it’s a very large fight.”

Listen to the interview Dr. Edmund Storms: Cold Fusion, Nuclear Active Environments, and New Energy on Foks0904 Channel.

John Maguire also contributes essays on alternative energies to Blue Science.