Greg from Tennessee - Letter Regarding M4
Dec. 24, 2011

Hey Steven,

Like I had stated earlier, my time is limited because I'm temporarily having to take care of other matters in my professional and personal life. But I'm staying current on the Andrea Rossi story and other developments in the LENR field the best I can.

Two articles that I just keep going back to, because they make more sense to me the more I learn about different personalities, and because they are very revealing to a lay person in this area are: (1) what I call the "Interview That Tells the Whole Story" and (2)  "Cold Fusion Versus LENR: Competing Ideologies."   

One area of your work that continually becomes more fascinating the more I read is your work regarding the investigation of Michael McKubre's M4 experiment. The fact that you uncovered this inconsistency back in 2010 is impressive on its own merit. However, your investigation: including your gradual, progressive revelations and communications of those revelations as to the scope and the possible culpability of his actions; and your detailed documentation of events and responses (sometimes--lack of responses) is extremely impressive.

If any substantial commercial applications ever come out of LENR, I believe history will show you as one of the champions that will have allowed for this technology to succeed. This science cannot move forward until it gets beyond the stifling of the real science in favor of efforts in methodologies that have been disproved just to keep certain individuals relevant in the field.    

Any reasonable-thinking mortal reading the articles in this portal must come to the conclusion that McKubre owes a complete scientific explanation or an apology to the scientific community, his sponsors, and our government for what has transpired since 2000 with the regards to his M4 presentations. In fact it should be mind boggling to anyone who has read this portal, or even just your slide show, that McKubre has been able to keep this issue under the radar considering the specificity and the clarity for which these change in values have been shown in your illustrations.

My thoughts about McKubre's ability to avoid confrontation on this matter has got me thinking about some of the possible reasons why.

1. As you have evidenced in your investigation, many of his colleagues have been unwilling to make statements about your investigation, thus the community is not asking the same questions that you are.

2. You have not been able to communicate your findings to enough of the community, because many may not read your magazine or visit your site as a source for news in the industry.

3. Dishonest science is just simply tolerated in this field of study.

4. Those people who may have the status and the power in the field to demand answers just don't care or care to take the time to demand answers.

5. Because of McKubre's impressive past as an experimentalist in this field, other people are reluctant to take your word over his or are unwilling to look at your slide show with an open mind.

6. Many of the D/Pd cold fusion folks have conspired to deceive either with regard to M4 or in similar testing and don't want to allow this deception to be revealed in fear that it would open more scrutiny for the entire effort.

7. You have not made a good case that McKubre falsified values beginning in 2000, and you as well as those people who believe in your conclusions simply don't know what you don't know.

8. Loyalty within the inner circle of American D/Pd folks is very strong. They know what McKubre has done but they will not demand answers unless they are forced to do so.

One or more of these possibilities and many more may be in play here, but it will certainly be interesting how this thing shakes out. Or maybe it would better to write how it will "shake and bake" as you move forward with your quest for the truth in this matter.

[Part two of letter omitted, pending review]


Greg from Tennessee