Tyler van Houwelingen Apologetics for Rossi

An analysis of Tyler’s “Is Commercial Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) The Real Deal?”

This is listed under investors because that is the purpose of Tyler’s document, to bring investors to Rossi.

The publication by Tyler van Houwelingen called “Is Commercial Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) The Real Deal?” is a perfect example of why it is clear that Andrea Rossi has created a religious following of disciples, bowing and groveling at his feet just waiting for the chance to kiss his metaphorical ring.

We wanted to just ignore Tyler, but Tyler and his manifesto have become a perfect example of why we say – Rossi with his e-Cat religion and his disciples are doing more damage to the whole cold fusion/LENR field than all of the critics combined.

This new act in the Rossi e-Cat Farce came to the attention of the local Rossi online church presided over by a wannabe Rossi high priest Frank Acland, (who, in true Nazi style, burns the writings of anyone who tries to show that Rossi is a scammer and a swindler), when he posted a story about Tyler on his website July 26, 2012.

Tyler needed help getting his publication ready for his presentation at ICCF-17.  If this is an example of Tyler’s daily work, we cannot help but wonder how he stays in business.  The comments below the two articles Frank devoted to Tyler’s publication show how ridiculous the publication was/is in all aspects.  The fact that Frank was impressed with this publication even at a very early stage before hundreds of rewrites, should tell you all you need to know about Frank.

Tyler says he was “asked” or “invited” to give a speech at ICCF-17 by Frank Gordon (Navy?).  Since ICCF is the best show and tell of the cold fusion/LENR community, why was Tyler asked to give a presentation?  And what did Tyler think his presentation would be good for, i.e., who was the intended audience?  And now the best thing that might be happening in the cold fusion/LENR world at this time, the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is tainted with the participation of Tyler.

Since Tyler’s publication and talk at ICCF-17 was asked for, allowed, and is being promoted by the cold fusion/LENR community, it is clear to us this type of thing is one more reason why very few people take cold fusion/LENR seriously today.  It must also be remembered that originally Tyler’s main reason for producing his document and talk was to promote Rossi’s e-Cat religion. (It is now only thinly veiled.)

So much for the preliminaries, now let’s look at the document itself.

Why was Tyler’s document created and who is the intended audience?

  1. “This analysis is targeted at executive level decision and policy makers as well as persons new to the field or those seeking an update on the latest progress.”
  2. “I wrote that, and, like basically for my own sanity.”
  3. Speaking of investors in natural gas and solar, “this is trying to advise them to get out.”

So Tyler wants people to stop investing in any other form of energy but – LENR.

It must also be remembered that Tyler’s main reason for producing his document and talk was to promote Rossi’s e-Cat religion.

Tyler’s original document had two pictures of Rossi’s e-Cat devices on the cover slide.  Later after people showed him that this might turn some people off, he included pictures from other swindlers as well.

Tyler’s initial exposure to LENR was about Andrea Rossi and the e-Cat Farce.
Andrea Rossi and his partners in the e-Cat Farce are the only swindlers claiming to have commercial LENR devices for sale.

No other cold fusion/LENR researchers or companies are claiming to have working commercial devices available now either in the lab or for sale.

When you read Tyler’s document 75% is about Rossi and the e-Cat directly or indirectly.
Describing Rossi’s e-Cat, on page 3 of Tyler’s original July 23 document he said this:

“Modern LENR uses the process of transmuting Nickel nano-powder + Hydrogen into Copper at low temperatures, liberating significant excess energy from the atom in the process with no harmful nuclear byproducts. – Original LENR systems used Palladium + Deuterium (PD+D) and produced excess heat, but were vey unreliable and did not produce significant output power. – Around 1994, 2nd generation LENR systems began using Nickel + Hydrogen (NI+H) for the reaction with more power and stability. First patents for NI+H filed in 1995 (Piantelli). Modern LENR systems, beginning in 2009, use Nickel Nano-powder + Hydrogen along with electromagnetic stimulation.”

So what is Tyler’s strategy to try and convince people NOT to invest in any form of energy creation business other then cold fusion/LENR?

  • Step 1 – try to show LENR is real.
  • Step 2 – try to show that LENR can provide commercial levels of energy.
  • Step 3 – try to show companies are providing commercial devices using LENR.
  • Step 4 – try to show that this type of energy creation is a better investment with a higher rate of return then current energy companies.

To try to convince them to invest in LENR Tyler says he created this document using “facts” not “opinion.”

“I have performed this analysis using a purely fact-based approach using verifiable data and credible sources and highlighting any circumstantial or yet unsubstantiated evidence shown.”

In this analysis we will show just how much of Tyler’s documents is based on “facts” and how much is based on “opinions.”

Remember the definitions of opinion, certain and fact as you read this analysis.

OPINION
i.     1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
ii.     2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
CERTAIN
i.     1. free from doubt or reservation.
ii.     2. established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable.
FACT
i.     1. something that actually exists; reality; truth.
ii.     2. something known to exist or to have happened.
iii.     3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.

Before we do anything else let us look at Tyler’s data {Version 3.9 LENRProof.com} and see if they are really facts or opinions.  [Our analysis will be enclosed like this.]

Page Comments
01 OK
02

“There are 3 facts you must analyze in order to believe that LENR is an immediate and total game changer in energy:”

[First of all Tyler has lost, or he never had the ability of critical thinking. He states that he wants to show why people should invest in LENR now by using facts, so if he is using facts, this paper should only state the facts, with justifications, and the only analysis should be a comparison then, of whether the “facts” support this form of energy as an investment compared to other forms of energy investments.]

[Second, what this paper originally was all about was to try and prove LENR is a fact, and people should invest in the Rossi e-Cat Farce because Rossi supposedly has the only real commercial product, based on LENR.]

[Let us put it another way, if it was a fact it would be at 100% from the start, everything else is just Tyler’s opinion.]

“Fact 1. LENR is a real, proven energy creating reaction?”

[Here again if this does not start out at 100% it is not a fact and should not be here.  And what Tyler presents, falls far short of providing supporting evidence for this being a fact.]

[Tyler tries to do the old bait and switch routine, saying that even if some LENR experiment is proven real than any device based on anything called cold fusion/LENR must then be real also. Sorry, but it doesn’t happen that way in the real world.]

[To follow Tyler’s Facts 1-2-3 to conclusion in any logical way one must have separate paths. Each path must start with one of the scientific theories then the paths must branch off with each type of material and then finally the path must branch off for each type of device or method.  To say a LENR device using wires that produces excess energy confirms excess energy in a LENR device using powder is just pure nonsense.  Until of course one theory is proven that encompasses all of the different materials and processes, which hasn't happened yet.]

“Fact 2. LENR has been scaled and controlled to commercial power generating levels?”

[Here again if this does not start out at 100% it is not a fact and should not be here.  And what Tyler presents, falls far short of providing supporting evidence for this being a fact.]

[To start with Tyler does not say what he means by,  “commercial power generating levels.”  He also uses the phrase LENR+ without definition.  We have small batteries that are commercial devices that put out less than a watt at milliamp levels.  We think a small LENR device that would light a 4 watt light bulb and run for years would be a valid commercial device.  How much free heat or electrical energy must a LENR device produce before it becomes a viable commercial device?  Tyler does not know.  Or if he does he is not letting us in on the secret.]

“Fact 3. Scaled/controlled LENR is far superior to all existing forms of energy generation?”

[Here again if this does not start out at 100% it is not a fact and should not be here.  And what Tyler presents, falls far short of providing supporting evidence for this being a fact.]

[If there were commercial LENR devices tried, certified, and proven it is still possible, and most likely,  that LENR may not be the superior form of energy production in all cases.  Any comments in this section is pure speculation and opinion, because there are no commercial devices yet to compare.]

“Tyler’s Confidence Level”

[It should be clear to anyone reading Tyler’s manifesto that “Tyler's Confidence Level” is meaningless because it is not based on facts, and is just his opinion, which is clearly lacking in critical thinking.]

[Tyler’s confidence level keeps changing all the time, I wonder where it will be after Andrea Rossi is arrested for fraud?]

03 [Starting on page 3 and continuing through page 14, Tyler provides justification for his 100% confidence level in stating that “Fact 1” really is a “fact.” And that “ LENR is a real, proven energy creating reaction?”][Since Fact 1 is clearly the most important part of his paper you would think that if Tyler was going to try to convince people NOT to invest in solar or other forms of energy, (and buy an e-Cat instead?), Tyler would provide a well structured analysis of just what LENR is and how it works.But Tyler does not provide us the definitions, theories, or proof needed, just a jumble of thoughts and pointers to other people’s work, without analysis or explanations.][Tyler states:]

“Fact 1.
Introduction – What Is LENR?
Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) is a 3rd type of nuclear reaction (along with fission and fusion) that was originally discovered in 1989 by Fleischmann & Pons and called “cold fusion.” LENR is similar to, but believed  to be different than cold fusion, although that may remain the common name.”

[How can Tyler state this as a fact when all of the players in the cold fusion/LENR field cannot even agree on what LENR is.  There are some who claim it is not a “nuclear” reaction at all.  What does Tyler mean by “a 3rd type of nuclear reaction”?  Why doesn’t Tyler explain what he means when he says that “LENR is similar to, but believed  to be different than cold fusion.”  First Tyler says cold fusion is different from fusion without explaining how they are different and then he says LENR is different from all of the other three types of nuclear reactions, but he doesn’t tell us how it is different. Are we just to believe this because he says it?]

[What Tyler has done is put, what might be called the conclusions of Fact 1, up front in the introduction and states them as facts.  Sorry Tyler, your introduction is just your opinions, it is not based on facts.]

[Most of the introduction has absolutely nothing whatever to do with explaining “What is LENR.”  It is just a bunch of claims about what Tyler thinks a LENR device can do. There is no need for us to repeat each claim again, Tyler repeats himself constantly so we are sure to see these again.]

[It would have been nice though, for a clear and convincing scientific explanation of what LENR actually is and how it works.]

[Out of three sections on this page only the first section has any comments about what LENR might be, the other two sections are claims by Tyler about other aspects he think applies to LENR.]

 04 [Starting on page 4 Tyler decides to break up the remaining pages of Fact 1 into Fact 1a (people and organizations), Fact 1b (papers), and Fact 1c (public demos).]
05 [On pages 5 and 6 Tyler gives us a list of 48 separate people and organizations that he claims is a:]

“Growing list of credible people and organizations worldwide affirming with firsthand knowledge that LENR is real and produces a net energy gain.”

[Now the problem with just producing a list of names only, is that it does not provide the facts Tyler so desperately needs.  Tyler is claiming that all of these people and/or organizations have firsthand knowledge that LENR is real and produces a net energy gain, and they have affirmed those facts. If this is true and he wants to use only facts as he claims, then what he must do is provide the quotes along with each name.  The quotes would be facts, just a list of names is not based on facts.]

[Without the quotes, Tyler’s list is just his opinion.]

[But there is one more step, after we read the quote that Tyler must give, that quote must be an observation of a fact by that person, NOT a quote of an opinion or just talking about someone else.]

[Let us give you a real world example, what Tyler is doing now is something like this:

  • Joe Blow at NASA says LENR is real.

To Tyler that is a fact that LENR is real.  Just so he does not have any reason to stay confused we will give some more examples:

  • Joe Blow at NASA says he has talked to Mary working at LAB X and Mary says she has seen lots of excess heat.

To Tyler that is a fact that LENR is real.But it is not a fact of the reality of LENR, the only fact in that sentence is that Joe Blow talked to Mary.  Everything else in there is just people’s opinions.

0 6 [See for page 5 above]

[For some examples of the lack of fairness and equality of the statement by Tyler on page 7 we give only a few examples from pages 5 and 6.]

1. Eugene F. Mallove who died May 14, 2004, over 8 years ago.
2. Sidney Kimmel, we know of no statement by him that he has firsthand knowledge as claimed.
3. DARPA, please provide a link for their official statement.
4. Bruce Tarr, we know of no statement by him that he has firsthand knowledge as claimed.
5. Brian Josephson, , we know of no statement by him that he has firsthand knowledge as claimed.

Etc., etc.]

07 [This is Tyler’s latest page.]

“List Of Credible People Who Have Directly Tested LENR Within Past 4 Years And Claim It Did Not Produce A Net Energy Gain”

“No credible persons yet identified.”

“Please send me the identity and credentials of anyone who has tested LENR directly within the past 4 years and claims that it did NOT produce a net energy gain.”

[Now this is just plain wrong! On pages 5 and 6 Tyler lists 48 people and organizations starting in 1989.  But here the statements must be only from within the last four years.  Any idea why that is?  We know.  There have been many people and organizations who have tested cold fusion/LENR devices and stated that the results did not produce a net energy gain.]

[Gradually over time as these people and organizations produced negative results their funds dried up.]

[If you want to make a fair comparison allow any statement from 1989 onward for all names on all pages.]

[If you want to make a fair comparison remove any name on pages 5 and 6, that you can’t or won’t provide the actual quote that matches your claims.]

[Another thing that makes the comparison unfair is Tyler says in this new list the people must have “Directly Tested LENR” but in his other list they only needed to have “firsthand knowledge.”  There were many on his first list that never “Directly Tested LENR.”  We guess Tyler is just like his friend Frank Acland, they both want to censure facts that don’t fit their e-Cat religious beliefs.]

[And one last comment, why do readers have to send in the names to him?  There are many who would make his new list who have already published their statements.  Why not use those for a start.  How about Tyler starts reading some of the thousands of papers and articles he wants others to read?  And also read the ones he ignores because they don’t fit his belief system.]

08 [Tyler’s heading]

“European Commission Directorate-General For Research & Innovation Provided Strong Confirmation Of LENR In July 2012”

[You might think that by this misleading heading that the “Directorate-General For Research & Innovation Provided Strong Confirmation of LENR,” but you would be sadly mistaken.

[Before we give the detail of this report just read this from page 4:

“LEGAL NOTICE

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.”

Dr. Johan Veiga Benesch was the author, and was NOT speaking for the European Commission as the disclaimer states, this seems to contradict the heading, you decide.]

[The report says this about the workshop:

“The objective of this report is to identify possible material priorities for emerging energy technologies. Such solutions would have longer term (up to 2050) commercial prospects.”

In less than 3 hours presentations were made on all of the following subjects:

  1. Artificial photosynthesis
  2. Bamboo for wind power blades
  3. High altitude wind on-ground energy generation
  4. Low energy nuclear reactions
  5. Piezoelectric materials
  6. Salinity gradients & osmotic power
  7. Thermoacoustics
  8. Thermoelectrical materials
  9. Structural power materials
  10. Materials and design

The presenters were from universities, industry, and government agencies, by invitation. Specifically about the section on LENR we read these statements from the October, 2011 workshop:

“The effect takes place only with D in Pd, therefore a search for ashes (mainly He and Tritium) have to be included into the research program as a further task in order to define the effect.”

“The effect takes place with deuterium and not with hydrogen; in this case the assumed mechanism is a nuclear reaction between deuterons into the palladium lattice.”

“The complete reproducibility of the effect and the amplitude of the signals are not yet under control since this target will require the definition of the phenomenon.”

So basically this report says that more research is needed to determine how the D in Pd reaction can be controlled and reproduced, i.e. the only kind they say that can produce any excess heat. The chart in the report show an excess power of only:

“Fig. 3.4.1 -  500 mW excess of power given by a designed material 500mWT”

And before you say anything remember this report was in October 2011 and mentioned these organizations.

“A possible explanation is a modified nuclear decay channel, for the D-D reaction, into the condensed matter. ENEA, SRI and NRL have been involved within review programs in the US and in Italy.”

And one last comment, many people in the LENR field now say this type (D in Pd or D-D) of research should be dropped and the field should move on to other areas of research. There are no quoted studies or documents to back up any statements in this part of the report and the low 500 mW, leaves to many avenues open for other conclusions than LENR.  This report IS NOT verification of any facts to establish that LENR is real.]

09 Tyler says:

“NASA Has Shown Strong, Growing Support For LENR”

[Please remember that Fact 1 is to prove that LENR exists.  Are we to automatically believe that because a government agency supports research in a field that this means the desired conclusions of the research are real?

Not too long ago NASA had a program looking for “outside of the box” exotic ways to travel to other stars and planets outside our solar system.

Confronted by the physical limits of rocketry and space sails, NASA supported the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project from 1996 to 2002.

They received many proposals from crackpots to respected scientists.  But one thing was common in all of the proposals, they did not work today.  Now if NASA decided to put some money into further research into any of these ideas do you think that means that NASA believed that any possible future results were real?

Here are some of the proposals looked at during the “Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project” at NASA.

“Assessing Potential Propulsion Breakthroughs
Marc G. Millis
NASA John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field”

We think this paragraph in the concluding statements could very easily apply to all “outside of the box” research being considered or carried out at NASA:

“Because of the profound implications of success and the fledgling nature of the research, special management methods are recommended to ensure credible progress. Lessons from the NASA Breakthroughs Propulsion Physics Project include: (1) constraining the research tasks to only address immediate unknowns, curious effects or critical issues, (2) putting more emphasis on the reliability of assertions than their implications, and (3) having reviewers judge credibility rather than feasibility.”

Here are some of the topics of research covered during that project:

  1. Hypothetical Inertial and Gravitational Control
  2. Oscillation Thrusters & Gyroscopic Antigravity
  3. Hooper Antigravity Coils
  4. Schlicher Thrusting Antenna
  5. Podkletnov Gravity Shield
  6. Coronal Blowers
  7. Quantum Tunneling as an FTL venue
  8. Woodward's Transient Inertial Oscillations
  9. Abraham-Minkowski Electromagnetic Momentum
  10. Inertia and Gravity Interpreted as Quantum Vacuum Effects
  11. Podkletnov Force Beam

Believe it or not but even these far out ideas NASA says are “candidates for continued research”:

  1. Reaction mass in space
  2. Revisit Mach's Principle
  3. Coupling of Fundamental Forces
  4. Quantum Vacuum Energy Experiments
  5. Faster than Light

If you don’t understand what any of these ideas mean send us an e-mail.

Our point is that just because NASA, or any other government agency or university is doing research on an idea does not necessarily mean that they think it is real or even ultimately feasible, or commercially viable, only that it is INTERESTING and MAY have potential.]

[So let us see if Tyler actually quotes any statements by NASA that LENR is real on this page. We are going to use Tyler’s own criteria for who can speak about whether LENR is real or not, as Tyler said on page 7 they must “have directly tested LENR,” and nope, Tyler did not give one quote by a person at NASA who claimed that they directly tested LENR.  So Tyler’s claim for NASA is not valid as proof that LENR is real, by his own standards.]

10 [Tyler’s next attempt to prove LENR is real in his document is to talk about the Navy and Spawar, let us see how he does with this.  Tyler says:]

“US Navy/Spawar Has Been One Of The Leaders In LENR Research. Spawar Has Validated LENR In Public Statements And Declassified Documents.”

[Here again Tyler did not provide any information in his document to justify his claims.  He just pointed to names and external documents.  We are not going to go and read every link Tyler puts in his document.  If he is too lazy to provide the required information, he must be ready for people to ignore his conclusions.]

11 [Now we go to Tyler’s next page called:]

“Other Compelling Support For LENR”

[Here again by Tyler’s own standard on page 7, there are no facts given on this page to support his claims.]

[We think it is time to say what we think Tyler is doing.  Tyler thinks that by just compiling a list of names of people and organizations who say positive things about LENR and/or cold fusion than that constitutes “facts.”

But that is not facts of proof that LENR is real.  Quoting someone saying they think LENR is real, is not a fact that LENR is real, the fact is, that they said it.  We don’t know how to make this any more clear.

Tyler is trying to prove LENR is real by not giving us facts about why LENR is real, but by giving us statements that people say it is real, it may be a “fact” that they said this, but that is all you can say about it.  Statements by themselves are just opinions, not facts.

We will try to make this as simple as possible so maybe Tyler will understand.]

[Let us say we want to prove to you we have a RED soccer ball at home.  How could we do this?  If we said that our friend Alice here knows we have it and we showed you a statement by Alice saying that yes, we have a RED soccer ball at home, what could you say about that?

First of all if you would not believe us than why would you believe her?  You could say that you are not going to believe what anyone says, you want proof, their statements are not proof you could say.

So it all comes down to what you mean by proof.  It is generally accepted and agreed on by almost everyone that proof of a scientific or engineering kind must include more than just someone’s statement.  Their statement is just the starting point to explain WHAT is going to be proven, than in addition to the statement some other type of proof is required that does not depend on believing what someone says.

Back to our example for instance, you could say show me a photograph of your room with the ball in it.  That is just one example, there must be hundreds of ways you could prove you have a RED soccer ball without having to rely on someone’s statement as the only fact for proof.]

[One last try.  We are in the house in a closed room, can’t see outside.  You say to me, it is raining outside.  What is the “fact” in your statement? It doesn’t have any “facts” in it! That the statement was made is a “fact.”  But if it is raining or not is just an opinion.  Only when you open the door and look out the window or go outside can you know “for a fact” if it is raining or not.  It is the same with LENR, just a statement is not enough, (no matter how many you add together), you need actual facts. QED]

[Now back to LENR, any reader of Tyler’s document who is using it to decide if they should NOT invest in solar or natural gas or any other type of energy source, but should invest in LENR, would be a fool to just take the statements of someone that LENR is real without some form of hard proof.  No matter how many statements are given in his document.

Hard proof is something that is sadly lacking in Tyler’s document.  We cannot say it enough, statements by themselves are just opinions, not facts.  The statement may be about a fact, but the statement itself is not the fact.  And that is where Tyler went wrong with his document.  Tyler cannot distinguish between facts and opinions.]

12 [Page 12 is the most ridiculous page of this whole document.  Pointing to a website that is a list of thousands of documents about the general subject of cold fusion/LENR as proof that LENR is real is the only fact we need to know that Tyler is brain washed, and will say anything for his master and guru, Andréa Rossi, no matter how stupid.][Tyler says:]

“Some 1700 Peer Reviewed LENR Articles & Thousands Of Reported Replications Of LENR Worldwide Since The Discovery In 1989”

[First of all only a few of those documents could be quoted as proof that LENR is real.  Remember that someone just saying it is real doesn’t make it so and is not a proof or fact.  Does Tyler really expect anyone to try and wade through all of those documents to try to find even one that can be used as proof?

Tyler just points to the website, not one paper is quoted.  Tyler just thinks that a list on a website is all that is needed for proof LENR is real.  Good luck with that.]

13 [Next we come to the second most ridiculous page of this document.  This is Tyler’s page on public demonstrations.]

“Recent Public Demonstrations of LENR Reactors”

[There is not one of those demonstrations that is positive proof that LENR is real.  There are critical questions about each of them that have never been answered. And to include any demonstration of the con artist and fraudster Rossi just brings this whole document down to a 0% believability level.]

14 [Why Celani’s demonstration is used as proof of LENR is beyond our comprehension, everyone knows that there were too many factors that could have given false readings.  It is true that this is one of the better demonstrations, but it does not go to the level of proof.]

“Professor Celani’s Portable LENR Demo”

15 [So we are at the end of Fact 1.  Tyler gives it a 100% we give it a 0% for “facts” or proof, and 100% for Tyler’s opinions.]

“There Are 3 Facts”

[From here the document just goes downhill.]

16 [The next 10 pages are devoted to trying to prove that LENR has been “scaled” (whatever that means) and is controllable for commercial purposes.]

“Evidence: LENR Has Been Scaled And Controlled To Commercial Power Generating Levels (?)”

[Fact 2 is the most confusing part of this document, because Tyler said he only wanted to use “facts” not opinions, remember? But on page 16 Tyler starts using words like – “may,” “circumstantial,” and “or will be achieved in the near term.”

Now how can what someone is going to do in the future be a “fact” today?

Here again Tyler talks about LENR+ and “commercial power levels” without saying exactly what that means.  A funny way to write a document for investment purposes.

Tyler says: “There is growing circumstantial evidence”

We don’t know about you but we would never make investment decisions on “growing circumstantial evidence,” good luck with that kind of investment advice Tyler.  It is a good thing you are not applying for a broker’s or investment banker’s job.

If we were giving investment advice we sure would never include known liars, scam artists, and swindlers in the portfolio. As long as Tyler includes people like Rossi and Defkalion as people with commercial products, he will never be taken seriously by anyone who matters.]

17 [Tyler has a chart on page 17 trying to show:]

“LENR Experiments Since 1989 Show Temperature, Net Power Gain And Power Density Have Continued To Scale”

[At the bottom of the page Tyler says this:]

“Note: claims from Rossi and Defkalion which have yet to be fully validated by open, credible 3rd parties.”

[We would like to respectfully say that not one experiment in that table has been “fully validated by open, credible 3rd parties.”  And none of those people have working commercial LENR devices, and this page should be removed because it is not factual.]

18 [Another meaningless chart about what “may” happen in the future, and should not be in a document using “facts” for investment purposes.]

“Sustained Power Output Has Been Scaling And KW LENR May Be Imminent In The Near Term”

19 [Not much to say here just a list of competing theories.]

“The Leading Theories Explaining LENR Fit Within The Standard Model”

  1. Bose-Einstein Condensation (aka ELTB Method)
  2. Widom-Larsen Theory
  3. Hagelstein Theory
  4. Bazhutov-Vereshkov Theory
  5. Chubb (Scott) Theory
  6. Chubb (Talbot) Theory
  7. Fisher Theory
  8. Gareev Theory
  9. Hora-Miley Theory
  10. Grand Unification Theory
  11. Kim-Zubarev Theory
  12. Kirkinskii-Novikov Theory
20 [Another page that removes any doubt that this document is by anyone but a true Rossi disciple, bowing at Rossi’s metaphorical feet, kissing Rossi’s metaphorical ring. Yes, we are still in Fact 2, with Tyler trying to prove “LENR has been scaled and controlled to commercial power generating levels?”  Though by now it must be clear that Tyler has lost or never had the ability to see reality – only some form of it in some parallel universe of his own imagination.][Tyler says:]

“There Are Over A Dozen Companies That Have Been Formed Recently To Commercialize Higher Power LENR; There Are Credible People Associated With Most/All Of These Firms”

[First, why does Tyler say “most/all” is he that confused about the information in his own paper?  Since Tyler is that confused, how can he expect anyone else to be able to make an investment decision based on such ridiculous information?

Second, why does Tyler think making a list of companies who have stated they might be selling LENR devices in the future be facts for proof that “LENR has been scaled and controlled”?  It seems that Tyler is still lacking in the fundamental understanding of the difference between a fact and an opinion.]

[Since this is the heart of Tyler’s investment paper, designed to be for forward thinking investors, who are without the ability to think for themselves, we thought we should look at this page very closely.]

[We looked in vain for more pages in this most critical part of Tyler’s paper.  We looked for a list of “Credible People” associated with each company, with an analysis of their bio and CV, but it is not here.  We looked for all of the things you would normally look for to decide if you should invest in a company, but it is not here.]

[Here are just some of the basic things any investor should be looking for in a company, all of which are sadly lacking from this document that is supposed to be giving financial advice to potential investors.

For those brain dead followers of Tyler let us make this as clear as possible – even if you wanted to invest in LENR how would you make the choice between Tyler’s 12 companies?  And why didn’t Tyler list all of the LENR companies who have claimed to be selling some type of LENR device in the future?

When evaluating a company to see if it is a good investment you should look at three things in detail, the people, the company and the product/s.

1) The people, CV and bios.

2) The company, its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

3) The product, does it have IP? Has it been verified by more than one true independent 3rd party? Does it have certification if needed?

Let us see if Tyler provides any real “facts” we can use for an evaluation, or is this just more of Tyler’s opinions?]

“1. Leonardo Corp – Andrea Rossi, Miami, FL/Bologna, Italy.”

[With the first sentence the lies continue. There are two Leonardo Corporations, neither of which is in Italy.  One is in New Hampshire and the other is in Florida.  The two Leonardo Corp. are not related in any way, except that Andrea Rossi owns both.  The New Hampshire corporation does not own any of the rights to the e-Cat. Rossi has another company he uses when in Italy. When in the USA Rossi tries to use the New Hampshire corporation as much as possible when signing contracts, etc. even though it has no rights to the e-Cat.

For a complete analysis of the fraud involved in the two different Leonardo Corporations and Rossi’s Italian company, please read these well documented articles:

“More Legal Fraud in Rossi Farce”

http://shutdownrossi.com/law-legal-issues/more-legal-fraud-in-rossi-farce/

“Rossi & Florida Law”

http://shutdownrossi.com/law-legal-issues/rossi-florida-law/

The complete “Roger Green & Robert K. E-mails”

http://shutdownrossi.com/rossis-partners-investors/e-cat-australia-roger-green/roger-green-robert-k-e-mails/

“Contract with Andrea Rossi”

http://shutdownrossi.com/rossis-partners-investors/e-cat-australia-roger-green/contract-with-andrea-rossi/

“For License Holders Only”

http://shutdownrossi.com/rossis-partners-investors/for-license-holders-only/

Another good source of information on the Andrea Rossi scam and fraud is this website:

“Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer Investigation Index”

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Andrea-Rossi-Energy-Catalyzer-Investigation-Index.shtml

All of these well documented articles listed above are an eye opener into the inner workings of the fraud and scam called the e-Cat by Andrea Rossi.  A must read for anyone searching for the truth.]

“Leonardo Corp appears to be the leader in the nascent market of higher power LENR.”

[We wish Tyler had explained just what he meant by “appears to be the leader.”  Is Rossi the leader because he has sold more working LENR devices than anyone else? That cannot be true because Rossi has NEVER sold a working as claimed, LENR device to anyone anywhere ever.  Is Rossi the leader because he has the largest factory, more valid patents, best team, etc.?  This also cannot be the case because Rossi has no factory, no valid patents (the EPO patent application was rejected), and no employees, only hired guns.]

“The company has made many revolutionary claims, however, most of these claims have not yet been fully validated by 3rd parties.”

[More lies – Never once has even ONE scientific or engineering claim of Andrea Rossi been fully validated by a true independent 3rd party, not one.]

“1MW industrial “E-CAT” claimed available now for industrial purchase with COP of 6, 10KW home “E-CAT”, available projected 2013.”

[More lies – it is well documented in hundreds of articles as well as by Rossi himself that no one can buy a 1MW e-Cat.  Don’t believe us, please provide 3rd party documentation for even ONE sale of any e-Cat working as claimed.  Rossi does not even have a working 1MW e-Cat he can demonstrate, let alone sell.]

“Claims temps stable to 1200C with the new Hot E-Cat, which he claims produced 3268kWh over 218hrs with COP > 10 and an energy density >163 MWh/kg.”

[Pure junk – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?]

“Rossi claims to have 63 employees and that he worked with Siemens and previously National Instruments on the control system.”

[Pure junk – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

More lies – National Instruments has stated that they DID NOT provide any design work for Rossi, they only showed Rossi the capabilities of their testing software and equipment, the same support they would show any POTENTIAL customer.  NI said Rossi was never a customer.  Rossi still claims to have a good working relationship with NI, and many of his supposed “dealers” (scam and fraud partners) are still claiming in their documentation that the controls for the 1MW plant is designed and provided by NI.  Something NI has fully denied. Did you ask yourself why Rossi did not present one of his famous e-Cats at the 2012 NI week, where they specifically had LENR highlighted? ]

“Rossi claims he delivered his first low temp 1MW E-CAT to a military entity in Feb 2012 and has sent a 10kW home E-CAT to UL labs for approval.”

[Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

We personally have researched all of the required by law information relating to military purchases and Rossi has never sold a working as claimed e-cat to the US military.  Many have claimed it was the US military who was the purchaser, including one of Rossi’s partners and dealers.

We also have personally contacted UL and they told us no person or company has applied for certification for a cold fusion/LENR device or product.]

“In September 2012, Rossi received a Safety Inspection Certificate for his 1MW E-CAT from SGS, a prominent European testing agency.”

[Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

We were told by the person who signed the SGS certificate that it was being used by Rossi in violation of law.  He also said it could not be used for commercial products.]

“Rossi claims independent, 3rd party test data from at least one leading university will be released in fall 2012. www.ecat.com”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“2. Brillouin Energy – Robert Godes, Berkely, California.”

“Brillouin is also a leader with kW claimed today with their “Brillouin Boiler” LENR reactor, targetted available 2013.”

“Brillouin is working closely with SRI (McKubre).”

“In June 2012 received $2m seed money;”

“in Sept 2012, Brillouin received a patent for their technology In China.”

“In Sept 2012, it was reported that Brillouin secured a “second stage” $20M conditional investment from Sunrise Securities of New York, NY (sunrisecorp.com); the condition being the successful retrofit an existing fossil fuel plant (5-10MW). www.brillouinenergy.com”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“3. Defkalion Green Technologies – Greece/Canada.”

“Claimed “Hyperion” LENR reactor claimed to be available 2013 10kW- 1MW+, COP 6-18.”

“Defkalion is a former partner of Rossi. www.defkalion-energy.com”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“4. Metalenergy/nicHenergy – Dr. Piantelli, Italy, claimed 10-100W today, 2013 kW (licensing only) www.nichenergy.com/”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“5. Jet Energy – Schwartz – Massachusetts, USA, mW range ‘NANOR”, 10+ COP www.world.std.com/~mica/jet.html”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“6. Energetics Technologies, Ltd – Israel/Univ. Missouri, Energetics LENR research has been rolled into the Sidney Kimmel Institute for Nuclear Renaissance, mw range LENR, focus on research. www.energeticstech.com”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“7. Lenuco – George Miley, Illinois, claimed 100-300W today, commercial 3kW (home) 30kW (industrial) targeted for 2013/14.”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“8. Lattice Energy, LLC – Widom/Larson, Illinois. www.lattice-energy.blogspot.com”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“9. Nucat Energy, LLC – LENR Consulting. www.nucat-energy.com”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“10. Kresenn Ltd. – Celani advisor, Italy, 2012 for the development and comm. of LENR applications. www.kresenn.com”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“11. LENR-CARS – Applications of LENR energy to transportation vertical market. www.lenr-cars.com”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

“12. And to a lesser extent: Blacklight Power, New Jersey, claimed 3mW, potentially similar to LENR, recent 3rd party successful tests www.blacklightpower.com (test results)”

[Having to analysis each of these statements that are continuing to use opinions instead of facts is really getting boring.

Pure junk and more lies – please provide true independent 3rd party proof of any of these claims you are putting into this document or remove them because this document is supposed to be based on your so called  “facts” remember?

Please remove all forward looking statements because they are not facts, just opinions of what someone might do or say.]

21 Claimed Higher Power LENR Reactors
22 Growing Amount Of Circumstantial Evidence For KW Power Scaling & Control, However, Not Yet Validated By 3rd Party (1 Of 3)
23 Growing Amount Of Circumstantial Evidence For KW Power Scaling & Control, However, Not Yet Validated By 3rd Party (2 of 3)
24 Growing Amount Of Circumstantial Evidence For KW Power Scaling & Control, However, Not Yet Validated By 3rd Party (3 of 3)
25 National Instruments Is The Leading Large Company Working Publicly On LENR; Siemens May Be Active As Well
26 [Look, Tyler, we don’t have the time to do your job for you. If you want to provide a valid investment document relating to LENR, please just read our analysis so far, apply it to your complete document, pages 1-43, then when you are done get back to us and we might look at it again, even the complete paper, but if you want a detailed line by line analysis of your next document you will have to pay for it – $100,000, a small price to pay for all of the money investors will send you and your scamming partners.]

“There Are 3 Facts You Must Analyze In Order To Believe That LENR Is An Immediate And Total Game Changer In Energy:”

[Tyler’s confidence factor for Fact 2:]

33% by end 2013

66% by end 2015

95% by end 2017

(Optimistic within 6-36 mos.)

[This says all that needs to be said, so much for “facts.”]

27 Evidence: Scaled/Controlled LENR Is Far Superior To All Existing Forms Of Energy Generation (?)
28 There Are 3 Facts You Must Analyze In Order To Believe That LENR Is An Immediate And Total Game Changer In Energy:
29 Conclusion: Commercial LENR, When It Arrives, Will Change Everything
30 LENRProof.com Analysis by Tyler van Houwelingen
31 Leading LENR Theories – Draft – Analysis by Tyler van Houwelingen
32 Leading LENR Theory #1:
33 Leading LENR Theory #2:
34 Backup Info Analysis by Tyler van Houwelingen
35 Supporting Links
36 LENR Scaling
37 LENR Scaling
38 LENR Scaling
39 More Pictures Of The Leonardo Corp. E-Cat
40 Skepticism Of LENR Is Understandable, Given That There Have Been Many Very Well Executed, Convincing Energy “Scams”
41 1989 Cold Fusion Press Coverage & Subsequent Efforts To Discredit The Fleischmann & Pons Discovery
42 Some 250 Years Ago
43 My Bio

Because Tyler changes his document that is the subject of this report as often as he changes his underwear, we are providing a copy of the document frozen in space and time.

It was gleaned from his website http://www.lenrproof.com/

We see Tyler has changed his website after we wrote this article to version 3.91 Updated: November 14, 2012.  We are not going to read his latest version.

You can download the PDF Version 3.9 used for this article here:   Version 3.9

That’s all for now folks!

Joy & Peace
Gary Wright
November 14, 2012

˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃˂˃

 

 

 

Comments are closed.