This offer came from an earlier offer of $US 1 million, I made 1st to Andrea Rossi of Leonardo Corp for a retest of his eCat LENR reactor, then the offer was extended to the Greek company named Defkalion Green Technologies (Defkalion GT) who claimed to have a similar LENR device to the Rossi eCat (powdered Nickel + H).

Andrea Rossi declined my offer and the susequent offer to Defkalion GT was withdrawn after they insisted that tests witnessed on behalf of myself (Dick Smith) had to be under an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement). I would only entertain paying the reward to either of them, if all communications and tests are openly published for everyone to see. The offer is pointless if there is any hidden communication. The obvious flaw in operating under any sort of NDA is one claiming the other said something which is then disputed.

Rather than come up with a target COP (Coeffient of Power) I would prefer that the scientific organisation that is undertaking the test, work those details out themselves. Both target and minimum COP values can be determined by the certifying organisation.

I am positive that before respected organizations such as NASA or ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) claimed that a practical 1KW LENR unit existed they themselves would ensure that their testing parameters and controls were impeccable. This is because their very credibility depends on their published record of scientific accuracy.

It may be that individual eccentric people working for one of these organizations may make claims from time to time that are not supported by the whole organization, that's ok and healthy, but it's not what I am looking for. The published result must be by the approved organisation itself.

On another section on this site there is a list of organisations and we will be adding to them from time to time. They would normally be organisations equivalent to NASA or ANSTO with internationally-accepted scientific credibility. I would imagine all government organizations similar to NASA and ANSTO in countries with world accepted scientific credibility would also be acceptable.

By practical I mean a unit which can do something worthwhile with the 1 KW output, at an affordable cost, ie similar to the claims of Andrea Rossi and Defkalion Green Technologies.

In regard to LENR I am most inclined to accept the view of Prof Ekstrom which is similar to the views of many other scientists I have spoken to. When asked if there was any evidence that LENR demonstrations were credible Prof Ekstrom. Deputy Head of the Nuclear Physics Division of the Dept of Physics Lund University Sweden stated "No. Some cases are simply deliberate bluff, some are poor experiments and some are small effects consistent with a null effect".

Now I do understand that some people claim that there is proper evidence of milli watt or a little more power output levels from LENRs. If this is so I suggest they send the information to Prof Ekstrom. When he changes his view I will be inclined to change mine!. Of course when someone wins the $1 million we will know for sure.

Dick Smith - Sydney Australia.

Internet Age welcomed the opportunity to set up a web site to host Dick Smith's offer. We may have differing views on the nature of the claims by Rossi and Defkalion, but are well aware of Dick Smith's ability to spot fraud.

Internetage itself believes LENR is real and has done some research into the claims and capabilities of many organisations around the world. We have looked at the Theories of Randell L. Mills (hydrinos), the Widom-Larsen theories, the theories of Prof Christos Stremmenos, the original work of Pons & Fleishmann, and many others.

In 2009 the US Defence Intelligence Agency published a report titled " Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance". That report set in motion a chain of events that accelerated interest in LENR across many US agencies and institutions. This report is important to understanding events that are happening today.
2009 US Defence Intelligence Agency Report

An issue in our current understandings of LENR is the opposition from those, including hot fission/fusion scientists, who claim that CF is impossible based on known science theories.

However, as commented on above, there are theories emerging that attempt to explain the LENR process with the most popular theory-du-jour being that put forward by energy researchers Dr.Allan Widom and Lewis Larsen, who describe low energy nuclear reactions that involve weak interactions, namely neutron formation from electrons and protons/deuterons, followed by local neutron absorption and subsequent beta-decay processes.

It is likely that other theories will come forward but as of today, the Widom-Larsen theory is one recognised as not requiring 'New Science'.
Widom-Larsen Theory Explains Low Energy Nuclear Reactions & Why They Are Safe and Green
Widom-Larsen Theory Simplified

Prof Christos Stremmenos of Greece, has a partial theory published at the website known as Journal of Nuclear Physics (run by Andrea Rossi).
Prof Christos Stremmenos Paper

NASA researcher and scientist Joseph M Zawodny filed a patent application in 2011 for a LENR related process that is based on Widom-Larsen theory. A link is provided to a review of the NASA/Zawodny application.
Review: NASA/Zawodny US patent application

Here is a 1998 paper by S.Focardi, V.Gabbani, V.Montalbano, F.Piantelli and S.Veronesi. Its value is in showing how long ago they were working on excess heat from Ni+H LENR experiments. The paper was published 9 years after the Pons & Fleishmann 'Cold Fusion' furore.
Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems

This link is to a LENR device patent filed by Francesco PIANTELLI
A method and a generator to produce energy from nuclear reactions between hydrogen and a metal

Following on from Piantelli we have the paper by Andrea Rossi and Prof Focardi. Focardi used to work with Piantelli.
A new energy source from nuclear fusion S. Focardi and A. Rossi - March 22 2010
Rossi LENR Patent Application

We have looked for scientific papers from Defkalion GT but thus far have not found anything we could put here.

US Army: RDECOM Power & Energy TFT LENR Workshop 29 June 2010 Auditorium, Army Research Labs (ARL), Adelphi, MD
RDECOM Power & Energy TFT LENR Workshop 29 June 2010
Online directory of slide presentations from the event

NASA Glenn Research Centre Workshop 22 Sept 2011:
Slide Set 1 - Gustave C. Fralick John D. Wrbanek, Susan Y. Wrbanek, Janis Niedra (ASRC)
Slide Set 2 - Dennis M. Bushnell (Chief Scientist NASA)
Slide Set 3 - Michael A. Nelson
Slide Set 4 - Joseph M. Zawodny

LENR-CANR Org

The below link contains an email exchange from 2010 between Prof Piantelli and Steven Krivit in which Piantelli bluntly states that Rossi 'borrowed' his design (from his patent application which had lapsed) and used Piantelli's expertise to advance his (Rossi's) eCat design. Piantelli says how upset he was to learn that his former compatriot and fellow researcher, Prof Focardi, who had accepted a role as advisor to Rossi, was taking Piantelli's advances and ideas to Rossi without letting Piantelli know. Piantelli also states that Rossi's patent application has no new innovations and thus is not patentable because there was prior art from his (Piantelli's) patent even though it had lapsed. This also explains how Defkalion came up with their own LENR reactor in a few months when researchers all over the world still haven't made much progress. Defkalion's reactor now called the hyperion is a replica of the Piantelli patent.

The implications of the Piantelli letter and other evidence suggests that Rossi's progress stalled once Piantelli stopped helping via Prof Focardi. It also suggests that Defkalion are even further behind because they weren't a recipient of Piantelli's expertise the way Rossi had been until Prof Piantelli stopped giving Prof Focardi his expertise.

It appears that Rossi was hoping that by going public he could get the funding he needed to complete a working LENR reactor and that today he still doesn't have one which is why he is so full of bluster and won't allow anyone to fully test his eCat.

Piantelli letter re Rossi eCat and Focardi's betrayal

It should be noted that if, following the announcement, major controversy is created by other respected scientific institutions claiming that the test has not been conducted correctly, the money will be held until this controversy has been resolved. It should be noted that the offer is for a genuine evidence of a working one kilowatt unit that is accepted by the majority of reasonable people in the scientific community.